tai chi chuan and rising position

[RobP2]

Hi George

All good points - especially about approximation

cheers

Rob

[GrahamB]

Yes, I agree - well said George. I was trying to make the same point, but failing miserably. You seem to have encapsulated it nicely!

[bailewen]

This from the guy who made a big hoo ha about the pulling and pushing taiji teacher that was sparring with a rank beginner who couln't do fuck all...

eh...what clip are you referencing here? I honestly have absolutely no idea what this comment of yours is referring to.

Almost paradoxical to what you are saying, the most commited and aggresive attacks are the easiest to deal with using tai chi principles - or for any MA come to that.. i want a dumb commited atack, thank you. Much easier to look good.

As well trained fighters and martial artists won't lose it and over commit/ unbalance if they can help it. So who are we training to deal with, drunk, jumped up bums and chumps..

Brilliant.

Sure. Although, I really don't equate "committed" with "dumb". In fact, when I was teaching a little bit last year, a "dumb" push vs. a "live" push is one of the comparisons I would make constantly with students to get across the idea of ting and other jins. You can make a tentative, tiny push that is every bit as "dumb" as a big one and on the other side, you can make a fierce, committed attack that is not dumb at all. There's no reason that a strong aggressive push has to be unbalanced or overcommited.

[cloudz]

eh...what clip are you referencing here? I honestly have absolutely no idea what this comment of yours is referring to.

It got posted here. An older Chinese dude teaching taichi/ san shou. Clips were from Mainland. He was sparring with a young guy in red and kept attaching to his gaurd and pulling or pushing him away. It looked impressive and a bunch of folks were a bit over the top over it, particularly yourself.

You even commented on it on youtube. As did i straight after you..

maybe that will ring a bell.

Sure. Although, I really don't equate "committed" with "dumb". In fact, when I was teaching a little bit last year, a "dumb" push vs. a "live" push is one of the comparisons I would make constantly with students to get across the idea of ting and other jins. You can make a tentative, tiny push that is every bit as "dumb" as a big one and on the other side, you can make a fierce, committed attack that is not dumb at all. There's no reason that a strong aggressive push has to be unbalanced or overcommited.

And as you subsequently saw Graham was attempting to solicit this. We can't always choose perfect training partners - sometimes we may even have to forge them for ourselves and teach them. And that's what I saw.

You know what you were doing is quite funny - you were having a go at a co operative training drill for not being realistic enough. Well I have to laugh at you for it. That will never will be 'real' buddy - that's why people like Graham have the good sense to spar regularly. Think about it. You are crticizing a pre arranged attack and a pre arranged response for not being realistic as in commited enough. Well to me that can only ever be good movie fu at best. Yes sure, you do want a certain amount of commitment - but the irony is hard to shake off.

When you and your teacher/class ever get round to sparring you'll throw away this need for technique drills/ training to look like a saturday nigh outside your local pub. And save that for the sparring drill where the point is to really do something, not feed technique for practice and drilling. Sure you can and should increase force and resistence when feeding drilling tech. But why all the fuss over this single clip because it isn't showing you that, I just found it a bit ott and unecessary.

That was obviously never the reason the clip was put out there in the first instant - to show the ultimate level of force Graham could use this move to defend against. Did you think that it was?

[D_Glenn]

D-Glenn:

The moves Chen Yu does at the beginning of the posted clips are taught as peng and fa-jing drills by my teacher, but I would not consider them "apps" of the first move.

I'm not saying that the very first app in the clip is not also an example of peng and fajin but if you watch the whole clip the first minute or so is showing the opening move then applications of the next move and so on as it continues in order onto the next clip showing applications out of the form in sequence.

Here watch again:

Clip 1:


Clip 2:

.

[bailewen]

maybe that will ring a bell.

Oh yeah. Now I know what you're referring to. Hardly hard core real fighting sure. It was student/teacher but....the student was most definitely doing his damndest. I still like that clip very much. And, in contrast to Graham's clip, the techniques he teaches have been tested in competitive Sanda and I saw none of the deferential careful stilted thing that Graham's student was giving him. This is not Graham's fault. It just makes me wonder what the clip was supposed to contribute other than "me too!"

And as you subsequently saw Graham was attempting to solicit this. We can't always choose perfect training partners - sometimes we may even have to forge them for ourselves and teach them. And that's what I saw.

Yes. That's true. But the clip was offered as a response to Bruce's clip. If all he had to show was the same thing Bruce showed complete with the exact same flaws....what's the point?

You know what you were doing is quite funny - you were having a go at a co operative training drill for not being realistic enough.

You're ignoring the context. Graham had just posted how Bruce's clip lacked those very same elements. As a standalone clip, I have no complaints. It's only in the context of the thread that I thought it was silly.

Think about it. You are crticizing a pre arranged attack and a pre arranged response for not being realistic as in commited enough. Well to me that can only ever be good movie fu at best. Yes sure, you do want a certain amount of commitment - but the irony is hard to shake off.

If the attack and response is pre-arranged then you should definately be able to make it commited enough. When I used to drill the Hung Gar 2 man sets, we might go slowly for practice but sooner or later you gotta rock it! In fact, that is the whole point of pre-arranged patterns. They allow you to go full force with maximum aggression. In a more free-form type of drill you need to hold back a lot more to prevent injuries but if we have already agreed which attack you are throwing and which defense I am using....it's pretty darn safe.

But why all the fuss over this single clip because it isn't showing you that, I just found it a bit ott and unecessary.

This is why:

Good work Bruce! I like it.

Things I noticed:

1. This is the same attack from the opponent we think about from this movement too in our style. They could also be following in with a head-butt after the initial grab, so it works for that also.

2. To me it looks like you never really get his balance - this is really important for this movement, otherwise they could follow up with a strike. This could be because:

a) he's not really committing to the attack - it doesn't work (in the sense of getting their balance) unless the attack is committed. It'll work as a simple block without getting their balance, but I'm not a big fan of that. Maybe ask him to "really go for it"?

b) you move back a bit too much when he attacks - I find this technique works best if you play the waiting game - let them come to you, then bounce them. What we tend to do is just let one leg go back initially while leaving the weight forward, rather than step back, that moves your head back just enough so you don't get head butted as they fall in front of you, but keeps you close to them to do the technique at the right range.

3. In our form we bend our legs as the hands come down - and put a bit of your own body weight into it, which should result in them folding in front of you, that's the second half of this technique (what goes up must come down!) (when you do your pull down at 0.39 you don't bend your knees, instead you bob forward slightly to get body weight into it - maybe try doing it by staying upright and dropping the weight using the legs?

4. If you raise your hands shoulder width apart, like most Tai Chi forms I've seen, then this technique doesn't work exactly like the form because your own arms hit the underside of their arms and that gets in the way of pushing them down afterwards. In our form we raise the arms up and bring the arms to the centre at the same time to bounce the opponent (peng), then separate them (split) and lower them (pull down/shock), that way you get the initial bounce, then split, then splat! If your arms raise shoulder width in the form then you might want to think about changing the form here, because that doesn't work,(well ok, 'doesn't work' is a bit strong. Maybe better to say 'modified more for health and less for martial...' )

I'll try to do a video on Monday to illustrate the above points. . .

I am only evaluating his clip on the criteria he himself posted.

Again, context is everything.

[GrahamB]

George,

I think it's all to do with how Omar and Shooter are interpreting the words "he's not really committing to the attack". To them that means he has to attack like people do on da streetz, i.e. by swearing, shouting and trying to fuck me up. End of. No other interpretation is acceptable!!!!!!!!

I actually meant it as "he's not putting his weight into it". i.e. if he shoves you and you don't do anything then it should move you back, which is what I thought was lacking in Bruce's clip and I was trying my best to show in my clip.

For some reason when I keep explaining this to them they won't have it. It's really petty, but it's ok, let them be right if they want to be. Like Rob says, it will make them feel good about themselves for a bit, so it's just spreading the positivity around

[Dmitri]

Hey Graham, "myshitisfake.com" domain is available. Just thought you might like to know.

[GrahamB]

Hey Graham, "myshitisfake.com" domain is available. Just thought you might like to know.

LOL I should do something with that....

[Taijikid]

Ah!!!!

I would like to see demos of: Push, Taiji rising counter, and......counters to the Taiji rising...

[BruceP]

However, knowing you...

However, you don't

Showing apps doesn't have to be homo-erotic blood and guts on a hotplate. Talk about projecting. wow

You obviously missed this the first time:

I remember watching a clip of CXW where he got shoved by some guy totally out of the blue without warning. I learned more from CXW in that split-second than I've learned from watching hundreds of tai chi demo clips. I didn't know much about CXW at the time, but I knew he was at the top end of tai chi skill after seeing him get ambushed. That was as real as it needs to be for me.

Demonstrating apps - 'classical' or otherwise - is pretty simple. None of that "I need you to push me" stuff.

I never saw any of the guys I learned from demonstrate apps that way. They'd just say, "Attack me", and to show them deference is/was a sign of disrespect.

[Dmitri]

When I (rarely as it may be ) hand a baseball bat (it's plastic so as to avoid serious damage but to seriously "burn" and likely bruise if contact is made) to someone to attack, I usually tell them to "hit me like I just killed your cat, or assaulted your family, etc. -- i.e. you basically want to beat the crap out of me, crush every bone in my body".

Also I often let them hit me a couple times with good force without doing anything at all in response, just so they can get comfortable and not be afraid to hurt me with that thing.

I found that a little bit of "role playing" that way helps a lot...

[BruceP]

Thank you for the critique Omar. Perhaps you and Shooter could educate me further with some clips?

Oh but I have.

I've shown several clips in the past where I demonstrated the ideas I used to talk about - in the ring, against guys who were trying to smash me. Come to think of it, 'rising position' was applied at least twice in one of those clips.

I even showed a clip of me doing single-whip in my form back-to-back with a practical application against one of my opps.

I've shown more practical application of tai chi against fully committed attackers - trained fighters - than all but one other member on this forum.

[GrahamB]

Yes, Shooter, you are the greatest. No need to keep reminding me. But darn it all, my time machine is in the garage getting fixed... what a pain... Shooter would you be a gent old pal and post at least something in the current time zone we all live in... i.e. now.. so you can show me how it should be done? Oh yeah, right. Ain't going to happen, is it...

[BruceP]

Graham, my experiences of sharing my hard-earned understanding of tjq with you personally in the past has always been like giving pearls to a pig. The info was wasted on you and apparently, so were the clips I used to post because I've not seen much - if any - evolution in your training between then and now. I know the ideas I've talked about over the years have had an influence on your thinking, though...but only in your speak.

Given your general attitude toward me presently, sharing anything with you would be more of the same. Your request doesn't seem genuine or in the kind of spirit that would have me go out of my way to record any of my training. So even if I was still actively training tjq - which I'm not...

The bottom line for me has always been credibility, practical understanding and functional capability. I've shown my work and it satisfies the criteria I hold for that bottom line. There are lots of guys here who also meet that criteria, so no, I'm not the best. Never said I was, but you keep pretending that I have. Where are you situated on that bottom line? (another rhetorical question, btw)