the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

jaime_g wrote:

That's week 3 from the course. So, $50 a month gets you, basically, one video like that each week. He's currently got 126 weeks of material.

jaime_g wrote:https://youtu.be/mPV1MfVyMEE

Thanks for that. I followed along with the video.

I thought that the presentation was good and it was well taught. I like that he stated clearly that it is fang song gong, not Taijiquan, and, hence, some of the mechanics are different than Taijiquan. I also liked that he attempted to show how the exercise "transfers" to abilities in Taijiquan, showing a relationship between the exercise and its application. I liked that he introduced the kua/hip and spiralling into the weight-bearing leg, though he did not identify it as such.

There were some things I didn't like or didn't agree with. First, I'm not sure that the exercise, itself, is a particularly good first introduction to fang song. For example, I found that the forearms/hands can't reach the final position without either going fast enough to have the momentum of swinging to that position, or using localized tension/motion to get them there. That can/does reinforce the use of localized tensions to put body parts in specific choreography, the antithesis of what one wants to have happen for this sort of exercise. Whenever I see teachers demonstrating/teaching and including as part of the description things about what the qi is doing, the dan tian, etc. I'm reminded of this Larson cartoon:



In other words, most beginners have no idea what qi is or the dan tian. Without some basis, it's just sounds (words) with no practical meaning.

I'm well aware that there are variations in opinions/interpretations in the body mechanics of Taijiquan. Some styles of Taijiquan prohibit twisting of the torso, and as Mr. Mizner cautioned against. The Yang and Chen style I've been exposed to both involve twisting of all parts of the body, including the torso. (chan si jin is, after all, just a fancy expression for "twist" and "un-twist".)

Obviously, it isn't fair to form an opinion of the entire curriculum based on a single exercise taken out of context. Those are just some observations on that one isolated exercise.

It's a pity the original order and method of these exercises are no longer taugh
No one seems to know why Huang changed them
The way they are taught today is the way I try to get my students to avoid

wayne hansen wrote:It's a pity the original order and method of these exercises are no longer taught.

Out of interest, what was the original order (and method)?

Here's an old clip of Adam running through the five exercises (no explanation/teaching, just him demonstrating). They seem simple... totally not simple to do properly

Wayne,

Can you tell us more abut Huang, the set of exercises and the way in which they were originally taught them vs. how they are taught now? Also, what is it about the modern approach do you specifically try to get your students to avoid? Just curious.

I will but first let's see if anyone can work out the logical sequence

There's a couple things he does differently than I've seen. The progression of stances in his ZZ, for example, is whacky compared to how I originally learned it.

I think the philosophy is putting the harder stuff first so you have more time to work on it, kind of like the way we teach sword, then staff, then spear.

All these differences in opinions makes me want to vomit.
I'm totally sick of it.
Now watch this, listen to the commentary.

So, who's right, which is the right path?
Think of how much money and time is wasted, Then when it's time to find out that everything you
have worked so hard on, all the wasted years, all the theories, and every damn thing else crumbles to the hands of what is correct.

Now what?

willie wrote:All these differences in opinions makes me want to vomit.

So, who's right, which is the right path?

如人飲水，冷暖自知

only by ones self, can one know.

That's why it helps to know why you're training, what you're training, and what you're training for. Keep what works, reject what doesn't.

It's not rocket surgery.

oragami_itto wrote:That's why it helps to know why you're training, what you're training, and what you're training for. Keep what works, reject what doesn't.

It's not rocket surgery.

Nope, not good enough.

willie wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:That's why it helps to know why you're training, what you're training, and what you're training for. Keep what works, reject what doesn't.

It's not rocket surgery.

Nope, not good enough.

No. Wrong.

charles wrote:. Whenever I see teachers demonstrating/teaching and including as part of the description things about what the qi is doing, the dan tian, etc. I'm reminded of this Larson cartoon:

.

Yeah, he says "sink the qi". I wonder if a three week student have any "qi" to sink... How would they know how to do or what it should feel like?

However, if I were a 3 week, a 3 month or even a 3 year student, I think I would be very excited about this course. It seems like good material. I am not sure how well beginners could make use of the stuff. But I am sure that this is exactly what many people would love to learn and that the same people would have a very hard time finding it elsewhere.

Bao wrote:I wonder if a three week student have any "qi" to sink... How would they know how to do or what it should feel like?

From my experience on the course, and I would say I was a Taiji beginner, the instruction has always been to "follow the method" if you want to sink the Qi. When you release, things start to sink. Mostly, at least at my level, this seems to be about being mindful and following the process, not really focussing on Qi itself.

A quote that cropped up, which I think sums it up well, was: Use the Yi to lead the Song, to create the sinking that sinks the Qi.... don’t focus on Qi itself.

Oh my god.