dropping the elbow

[Doc Stier]

Four hands are required to learn good kungfu. A good solo practice can certainly contribute much to the quality of effective practical applications in partner training, but is insufficient alone. Good skills, in my experience, are not the product of intellectual analysis via the exercise of a superior intellect.

Enhanced feeling awareness and response is far more valuable than any amount of conscious thought applied to the process.

During the first several years of my martial arts training (1961-1966), I suffered multiple rib fractures on several different occasions by leaving my ribs exposed to attack. It was not fun!

When I finally learned to keep my elbows down, or at least relaxed and bottom heavy in any posture, I never suffered a cracked rib ever again. The School of Hard Knocks was an excellent teacher and motivator.

[wayne hansen]

The way to train good elbow position is inherent in pushing hands
There are exercises that make it instinctive
It is one of the main shortcomings I see in how a lot of people do Huangs 5 exercises these days
I wonder if it is intensional and the reason the students are so vu era le to their teachers

[LaoDan]

Good skills, in my experience, are not the product of intellectual analysis

Since that is your experience, then it is true for you, but I have found that MY skills can improve with intellectual understanding. Grandmaster Sam Chin (ILiqChuan) feels that understanding the underlying philosophy and concepts for his martial art is very important for his students’ progress. I would agree, and I apply intellectual understanding to my practice of Taijiquan.

@Windwalker linked to this video in a previous post on this thread:


Starting @ 5:21 of this video is an “interesting” demonstration that I would like to comment on. It covers the following subtitles:
Look at this
There is no distance in the shape, there is a distance in my heart
Distance in your heart, understand? Look at it
After this touch, it’s finished open
No more power?
This YANG is moving first, when head move
Can you blocking it?
Head….Do you know?
Here this is something you can’t think of, here
The head move, foot back first
The teacher say
Talk about the word “ASSIST”
Forward, Backward…MIND, EXPECT, STABLE
After his hand blocking at me no point
So you are not using your hand to push
You take your heart to push
(~6:06)

He states “here this is something you can’t think of, here” but, if one has an intellectual understanding, then I am certain that one can think of things (rather than attributing it to something extraordinary or unimaginable…). If one can intellectually understand it, then one has a chance to respond affirmatively to his question “can you blocking it?” and one may have the possibility of understanding, and practicing, ways to do so. If one cannot understand what is happening then, no, one would probably not be able to understand how to counter the demonstrated technique (barring being shown something by someone who has greater intellectual understanding, or by accidentally coming up with an effective response…).

The above is a demonstration of a technique that I have encountered several times. Teachers sometimes use it to convince practitioners that Taijiquan uses something other than muscles, or force, to unbalance (or send away) their partner. Sometimes the explanation is about “intent” or “qi” or “wave” or fluid dynamics, or…; but is it? Can there be a simple bio-mechanical explanation for the results seen in this demonstration? Can the simple bio-mechanical explanation help one to understand how one could appropriately respond to the demonstrated technique in order to counter it?

Since I am not proficient in Chinese, my interpretation (based on the subtitles, and what I can see for myself, and from feeling demonstrations like this performed on me by other teachers, and by doing this technique myself) of what is being demonstrated may differ from those who understand Chinese (or for those with different experiences with this technique). I would welcome comments and corrections from other practitioners.

First, I agree that when the partner pushes the teacher’s arms backwards behind the shoulders, this posture is no longer structurally sound for PUSHING those arms forward = “No more power” [the “no point” or the “it’s finished open” situation] unless the demonstrator is significantly stronger than their partner. I would agree that there is no longer any “distance in the shape” and that this posture would be considered to be disadvantageous or “collapsed” (normally I would move to prevent this compromised posture from occurring, but it does happen sometimes, especially in fixed step push-hands against an aggressive and strong partner).

So, he does not PUSH his arms forward, but instead he pushes the mass of his his torso forward (what he is calling the “heart” or “head”?) by pushing backward against the ground with his foot (“the head move, foot back first”). By pushing the mass of his torso forward, he PULLS his arms along with the movement of his torso. By using his mass to PULL his arms forward, he does not use the muscles of the shoulder to move his arms forward, since the position of his arms compromises the joint angle of the shoulder beyond its ability to generate strong power.

The PULLED arms transmits the force from the advancing body mass into the partner’s arms. Since the partner is pushing against the teacher’s arms, this transmits the force of the teacher’s advancing body mass, through the teacher’s PULLED arms, through the partner’s arms, and into the partner’s body mass, moving the partner backwards. Since the partner’s hands (which are receiving and transmitting the force from the teacher) are about hip high, the received force is transmitted upwards into the partner’s shoulders. If the energy of the partner is not sinking down the front of their torso, then the upward force transmitted from the teacher will likely destabilize the partner by lifting him sufficiently out of his “root” (the connection between his feet and the ground) such that he cannot “resist” the incoming force and the partner will be pushed away.

Once the partner’s body mass is moving backwards, the pressure that the partner used to push the teacher’s arms backwards lessens to a point where the teacher can follow through with his arms coming forward and adding a push with his arms to add momentum to the partner’s retreating body. From my perspective, there is nothing mysterious and nothing that cannot be explained (using bio-mechanical information) happening here.

If one understands what is going on, then there may be many things that one can do in response to the demonstrated technique. For example, one can practice “sinking one’s qi to the dantien” in order to maintain the sinking quality through the front of the torso and help to keep the body stable (and “rooted”). One can practice not applying equal pressure with the two hands so that the force used to push the teacher’s arms backwards is simultaneously applying torque into the teacher. This torque would make it more difficult for the teacher to direct the force, from his advancing body mass, directly into the partner’s center, allowing the partner the chance to deflect the teacher’s advancing force (possibly throwing the teacher). One could know that the student issuing a head-butt or a chest-bump or a shin-bite to the teacher would possibly stop him from advancing his body mass. The partner could direct force upwards through the teacher’s arms (rather than horizontally behind the teacher), so that the force is directed upwards into the teacher’s shoulders, which may also restrict the teacher’s ability to produce force from the ground to move his torso forward, thus weakening the teacher’s advancing power. If the partner simply keeps moving and changing, rather than freezing after getting the teacher’s arms behind him, this would also make it more difficult for the teacher to perform the demonstrated technique.

Perhaps you can practice other responses (the above examples are not exhaustive, and many may depend on the specifics of the interaction). The above simply gives several examples in order to illustrate that intellectual understanding may be used to improve one’s practice and one’s skill.

[everything]

Oof

[Doc Stier]

Good skills, in my experience, are not the product of intellectual analysis

Since that is your experience, then it is true for you, but I have found that MY skills can improve with intellectual understanding. Grandmaster Sam Chin (ILiqChuan) feels that understanding the underlying philosophy and concepts for his martial art is very important for his students’ progress. I would agree, and I apply intellectual understanding to my practice of Taijiquan.

Nothing wrong with your teacher's perspective and good for you, but understanding the "underlying philosophy and concepts" of any martial art intellectually, and understanding how to apply such knowledge in your physical movement are two different skills, which very few people apparently ever realize as one harmonized, unified entity. Of course, ymmv.

[everything]

"get out of your own head" is very useful in sports. taijiquan is much more difficult than rec sports imo/ime.

the overly-intellectualization is fun since we have nothing else to discuss, but it seems like (imho/ime), it's most fun when something doesn't quite make sense. after certain experiences with "internal" (whatever you want to call it), no amount of intellectualization seems to help, and making up your own theories based on not-quite-there-yet experiences seem harmful. "hang fire" is maybe the most difficult thing there is.