C.J.Wang wrote:The way I am taught, it's not about feinting. It's about the interplay of Yin and Yang.
You initiate an attack (Yang) on the opponent. If he fails to block or tries to block but has weaker structure than yours, you simply issue power and blast through him because you are Yang and he is Yin.
If he blocks with superior structure and/or can neutralize/counter your initial effort, the Yang part that touches the opponent should immediately shift to Yin and becomes passive, receiving, and neutralizing. And as that Yang part shifts to Yin, another part that was Yin becomes Yang -- active, attacking, and aggressive -- to attack the opponent.
It can go on and on and on..........until one side is down.
dragontigerpalm wrote:everything wrote:dragontigerpalm wrote:Well said. This is very similar to my understanding of I Liq Chuan where there is also no feinting.
I thought this is what all IMA say. There is no obvious beginning and end of issuing force. I don't know what that means as far as feints. If someone perceives your bridging move as a feint and it trips them up, is it a feint if you had no feinting intention?
If a strike is perceived as a feint then it is not a feint - where's the deception. If your bridge is not effectively dealt with by your opponent then it lands as a successful strike. As I see it, when you feint with your left for example you are essentially committing to your follow up strike with your right. That decision makes you less responsive to your opponent's reaction so that if your opponent blocks/evades the left as he moves to his right(your left) your committed follow up right is a non-issue and you have a gap in your attentiveness to your opponent.
D_Glenn wrote:I think it's supposed to be more like 'The hidden hand becomes the real strike while the obvious hand becomes the fake strike.' Most Chinese martial arts hit with the 'hidden hand' and have different strategies to achieve it like always hit 3 times, close-in fighting, drawing out the opponent etc. The basis for it comes from observing the devastating effects from an unseen sucker-punch opposed to the effect the same strike has when it's seen. It's all about the yi (somatic) and weiqi (autonomic) responses of the body when defending against a strike.
DeusTrismegistus wrote:Definitely not the responses I expected.
Personally I see feinting as a valuable tactic that really goes beyond any style. Sun Tzu said "make a clamor in the east, and attack from the west." To me that is the essence of feinting. For a style to say "we don't feint in this style" seems to me to be throwing away a perfectly valid tactic.C.J.Wang wrote:The way I am taught, it's not about feinting. It's about the interplay of Yin and Yang.
You initiate an attack (Yang) on the opponent. If he fails to block or tries to block but has weaker structure than yours, you simply issue power and blast through him because you are Yang and he is Yin.
If he blocks with superior structure and/or can neutralize/counter your initial effort, the Yang part that touches the opponent should immediately shift to Yin and becomes passive, receiving, and neutralizing. And as that Yang part shifts to Yin, another part that was Yin becomes Yang -- active, attacking, and aggressive -- to attack the opponent.
It can go on and on and on..........until one side is down.
If all attacks start as real attacks then they can go from real to fake, but not from fake to real. To go from fake to real the strike must start as fake, which I interpreted as a feint but it seems other people interpret that as empty? maybe.
Your yin and yang explanation is a very good way of looking at how the interplay between two should work within IMA, however unless you are saying that yin is fake and yang is real then I am not sure I see how it really connects to the saying.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests