Wu Yu Hsiang's Four Character Secret Transmission

[origami_itto]

If there's anyone hung up on semantics, bruh, it's you here.

Wtf is the "corner of the body" there are no corners in the body. Show me this corner. Show me what it has to do with those techniques, please, by all means. I yearn to be corrected.

[Trick]

corner of the eye ;）

[everything]

it makes me think of those FMA angles of attack and footwork charts

[origami_itto]

it makes me think of those FMA angles of attack and footwork charts

The angles like that I usually see associated with blade systems, FMA and like Fiore de Battaglia.

The footwork aspect is generally covered in Yang style as part of the five elements.

Neither has much to do with the four corners in Yang.

I mean, it's in black and white in the 40 chapters and that matches precisely with the received drills within closely associated lineages.

But people don't know how it works so they make stuff up.

[GrahamB]

It's all theoretical overlay that is only useful for post analysis of conflict, in an intellectual way. My 2 cents anyway.

As the great Travis sang in 2001, the circle only has one side... side....side...

"… We all live under the same sky
We all will live, we all will die
There is no wrong, there is no right
The circle only has one side
Side
Side"

[everything]

Yup def all theory.and nobody agrees on what taijiquan even is so there’s that.

But I kinda like the blade theory since well it just makes sense the blade can hurt you in different ways from more or less 9 angles.

[origami_itto]

It's all theoretical overlay that is only useful for post analysis of conflict, in an intellectual way. My 2 cents anyway.

Sure, it's theoretical and more useful in post conflict contemplation or training.

But the training is designed around the theory. If you aren't cognizant of the proper application of the theory then you aren't even doing the training. You're doing something else and wondering why this shit doesn't work, oh well guess I'll tack another hard style on to make up the difference.

[Doc Stier]

Many martial arts, including the IMA Three Sisters, advocate the use of both forward and backward steps towards the corners of the initial line of engagement at first contact. Most then turn and/or step toward the center of the new line of engagement. This is often done without any additional footwork following the second step

Most styles of Pa-Kua Chuan/8 Trigram Boxing are an exception, preferring instead to continue stepping towards the opponent's side and rear, without pausing or stopping after evading the original attack. The key to success in practical applications is mastery of the stances and footwork via daily training.

[wayne hansen]

There is little difference between the theory of good internal Chinese martial arts and FMA
Theory comes before combat
In combat it should be totally forgotten
After combat it should be forgotten because no two situations should ever be the same
The corners are what is used when any of the 4 cardinal points are neutralised
They are used to reboot the attack
To get you back on the straight and narrow
Yield only to return
Ta Lu is all about that San Shou even more
Combat is free and Instinctive
A result of thousand of hours of repeated basics
As Mike says
Everyone has a plan until hit

[everything]

these angles are used in all sports as well. in tennis or futbol i want you to step one way, and attack your "bad angle" the other way.

look L go R

...... sure theory and practice are the same ... only in theory .... but it's still fun to talk about

[Steve James]

One theory I was taught is not to go straight forward or straight back. The basic fma stepping pattern is male and female Ʌ and V.

[everything]

i like their theory, at least what i can see superficially. almost more a description of what happens than some kind of world-philosophy overlay (of elements, trigrams, whatnot).

it applies to an extent to futbol or basketball or football or other sports. nobody lets you just go score in a straightforward vertical line.

bagua has the "circle" walking, but the actual steps are probably more similar to those diagrams

[GrahamB]

It's all theoretical overlay that is only useful for post analysis of conflict, in an intellectual way. My 2 cents anyway.

Sure, it's theoretical and more useful in post conflict contemplation or training.

But the training is designed around the theory. If you aren't cognizant of the proper application of the theory then you aren't even doing the training. You're doing something else and wondering why this shit doesn't work, oh well guess I'll tack another hard style on to make up the difference.

Heh, well speak for yourself. That sounds quite depressing.

The only theory you need to know to do the art is the theory of taiji - yin and yang. But of course, there are many layers to it, but equally, it's quite simple at the same time. It has to be. Things have to be simple to work in real time against an opponent. Anytime somebody has to get a white board out to explain what they're doing, I think they've lost it

I met up with a local Tai Chi teacher this week who has extracted himself from his local group after years of finally coming to the conclusion, they didn't really have anything. I showed him how to do yin and yang in the body and when you contact an opponent. I think he's back on track now. This is the way.

[origami_itto]

Heh, well speak for yourself. That sounds quite depressing.

My experience is Yang style taijiquan has everything I need and then some as I found it.

[BruceP]

I agree with Bao that the "corners" gives an advantage. Maybe that's another reason they're taught after the "squares."

That they're taught after the 4 Directions is ass-backwards and leaves no wondering as to why so few know how to train and test their tjq in full-contact formats - or how to train others. Push-hands is a falsifier that validates that ass-backwards idea.

The 4 Corners contain/represent tjq's basic fighting method. They are not supplementary to the 4 Directions, but stand-alone methods of developing and understanding peng in a raw, fighty form. There was a guy on EF who used to drone on about how tai chi needs to be trained as a recovery method before it can be understood as a fighting art.

Anyway, for some reason people think the classics offer some sort of instructive guide that pertains to their personal practice. It isn't, and it doesn't. Unless they've trained with the authors of those classics, or learned from the direct disciples of those masters, they're chasing shadows, and probably just making it up as they go along - cobbling this and that with whatever fits their misguided notions. The 10 Points, Torso Methods, etc, are there for a reason, for everybody to take tjq and make it their own.