the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

This comes up all the time from people who have not learned an entire system of tai chi
Between the slow form,walking 4 hands,Ta lu,solo San shou forms,pole ,spear,knife and sword .
You can also add a fast set if your school has it there is no footwork that does not exist.
Just take all the pushing sets of Wu style,9 palace stepping ,7 star stepping.
People who have not sought out an entire art then say it is lacking you can do this with any system.
Sidestepping,spins,dodges,follow stepping it's all there.
8 trigrams and 5 elements are not an overlay from hsing I and ba kua they all exist inside yin/yang
People who don't know about 5 elements take it as it is written .ie advance means to step forward ,retreat to step back.
It is like wing chungs centre line theory combined with the 3 gates,heaven man earth.
It is instruction on how we absorb pressure in a standing position before we move.
When I first met my teacher I would run away every time I got pressed in combat
He pointed to where I was standing and said
If you can't defend this bit of ground here what makes you think you can defend any other spot
So he taught me how to absorb pressure on the spot and when to leave that spot and return
If you don't understand something don't say it doesn't exist seek further instruction
Be quick those who have it are disappearing daily and charletons are taking their place

The idea that footwork is some how lacking in taiji is obviously a troll

Check out the apparatus in the background of this video between 10:43 - 11:00 filmed at a taiji school in Chen village.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAOjcZkoiwI&feature=youtu.be

robert wrote:The idea that footwork is some how lacking in taiji is obviously a troll

"Lacking" is a relative term. By comparing to WC, Taiji may have more footwork. By comparing to XingYi, or long fist, Taiji's footwork is not enough.

Tcc has enough footwork in the form to satisfy the needs of sparring or fighting. The point is to not get hit. For that, one has to move... forward, backward, left, right, up, down, or some combination. I agree that an even better term than footwork is positioning. Anyway, some tcc styles practice specific stepping patterns, some even similar to the FMA male female patterns. But many tickets schools don't. The stepping in Fair Lady is specific enough, but using it is what counts.

wayne hansen wrote:
He pointed to where I was standing and said
If you can't defend this bit of ground here what makes you think you can defend any other spot
So he taught me how to absorb pressure on the spot and when to leave that spot and return

But this strength is also the exact problem with this approach. When we look at the baguazhang (or boxing) clips, there are so clearly multiple layers of defense happening so there is much less likely chance you are "stuck". It doesn't assume you "Defend the spot", then move and "defend another spot". It's all happening at once. Their entire solo form ("walking the circle") embeds all of this different approach. This has nothing to do with whether someone "learned the complete system"; it has to do with a strategic difference. Unless you are really, really, unbelievably good at the skill level to "Defend the spot" as some people are in fixed step push hands, taijiquan just doesn't really have the same level of footwork --- unless we claim it's all in hidden "complete" training, which no one ever claims --- then why don't they show their great footwork. They don't. They show great fixed step stuff (which is great for other reasons - the primary reasons why taiji is great: enough skill at this "defend the spot" and who needs fancy footwork). It isn't that hard. It's in boxing clips, baguazhang clips, mma clips, basketball clips, football/soccer/rugby clips. It's in the MJ clip.

FWIW in Chen style it's easy to find examples of various moving step push hands.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9rC-HCtGko


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5IcDZQCMls

I recently did some workshops with Chen Ziqiang; one was on push hands. We did single hand PHs, single hand with stepping, and learned a chinna.

sure but that is not the same amount of deliberate practice of footwork as in, say, baguahang or boxing. Every MA and sport has footwork. Not every one looks at it and deliberately practices it in the same detailed way. But the magic of taijiquan is from other attributes. "Defending the spot" is where this magic happens. Footwork is not the emphasis there, almost by definition. Even these videos essentially illustrate this point. It's like Wayne said. If you're dominant in that spot through sensitivity, peng, etc. why do you even need footwork. You can fight in a phone booth or in one tiny spot. First contact and the other person is flying. In theory.

everything wrote:

wayne hansen wrote:
He pointed to where I was standing and said
If you can't defend this bit of ground here what makes you think you can defend any other spot
So he taught me how to absorb pressure on the spot and when to leave that spot and return

But this strength is also the exact problem with this approach. When we look at the baguazhang (or boxing) clips, thnere are so clearly multiple layers of defense happening so there is much less likely chance you are "stuck". It doesn't assume you "Defend the spot", then move and "defend another spot". It's all happening at once. Their entire solo form ("walking the circle") embeds all of this different approach. This has nothing to do with whether someone "learned the complete system"; it has to do with a strategic difference. Unless you are really, really, unbelievably good at the skill level to "Defend the spot" as some people are in fixed step push hands, taijiquan just doesn't really have the same level of footwork --- unless we claim it's all in hidden "complete" training, which no one ever claims --- then why don't they show their great footwork. They don't. They show great fixed step stuff (which is great for other reasons - the primary reasons why taiji is great: enough skill at this "defend the spot" and who needs fancy footwork). It isn't that hard. It's in boxing clips, baguazhang clips, mma clips, basketball clips, football/soccer/rugby clips. It's in the MJ clip.

When I talk about holding the spot I don't mean what most people call fixed step pushing.
We don't plant the feet and bend over backwards to a rediculous degree.
If you get to the point of compromising your balance you step and readjust
Pushing and full contact sparing are two sides of the same coin
Walking the circle is an approach from a whole other set of strategies it is not tai chi
You mention boxing but as soon as you go up on your toes it is no longer tai chi
Nothing wrong with that as long as you realise you have left tai chi

robert wrote:FWIW in Chen style it's easy to find examples of various moving step push hands.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9rC-HCtGko


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5IcDZQCMls

I recently did some workshops with Chen Ziqiang; one was on push hands. We did single hand PHs, single hand with stepping, and learned a chinna.

These are not good examples of footwork because the point at which they move is not from a point of control
This is obvious in the first one where they walk the ba kua circle
They just both agree to do see do when they stop walking neither neutralisases the other to return to pushing
When my teacher would throw me back I didn't just return to the exercise
I had to earn my way back into the exercise by neutralising him on my way in
If not he would just keep throwing me back out

To me, the footwork means whether you can move in this fast when you opponent back up. You either have this training, or you don't.

That's "advance" all right

oragami_itto wrote:That's "advance" all right

Some side way footwork can be like this.

johnwang wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:That's "advance" all right

Some side way footwork can be like this.

So that, under my classification, would be "Provoke/gaze right/fire" , trying to get the opponent to respond offensively or defensively. The opponent responded with Center, calmly waiting for the real attack. The direction of the movement or the physical action (which is like walking forwards while turned to the opponent) is a secondary consideration.

oragami_itto wrote:The opponent responded with Center, calmly waiting for the real attack.

This is why you don't want your opponent to be able to "respond with center, calmly waiting for the real attack".

johnwang wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:The opponent responded with Center, calmly waiting for the real attack.

This is why you don't want your opponent to be able to "respond with center, calmly waiting for the real attack".

Ideally there the opponent would counter by following the initial intention of the pull, join with the inertia of the moving body, and add some force vector to encourage a deficient posture.

So under my classification the desired response would be counter/look left/water. Video didn't really show any conclusion from the position