free push hands and bounciness

A collection of links to internal martial arts videos. Serious martial arts videos ONLY. Joke videos go to Off the Topic.

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby wayne hansen on Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:22 pm

You can neutralise with any part of the body in isolation
This is a form of folding
The number of parts you use and by what degree differs with the circumstances
Don't put power into the form let it naturally arise from the form
wayne hansen
Wuji
 
Posts: 2843
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby windwalker on Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:50 pm

oragami_itto wrote:
Taijikid wrote:There is one very important concept illustrated at the beginning of this clip missed by most people practicing Taiji:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ttVm3Gig1E

Notice the red ball shape object he used to show the local neutralization. That is the small ball bearings sitting on top of the "Peng" big Ball of the rest of the body. My teacher used to say, Fa (neutralization) is local, Fa jin is Global.


That is the exact opposite of what he says in the clip, though. That you can't neutralize using just the arm, it has to be a rotation of the entire body, starting at 0:55


There are things he does that he doesn't mention that allows him to do what he does talk about.

He's talks about the body as a spherical shape and how to use it as total shape ie a sphere. Peng jin allows him to do so.
The question might be what does he do to create the peng jin.

Any part of the body can be thought of as a sphere and used in the same way at the contact point creating what some might call called destructive or constructive interference, depending on what one wants to do. Others might use the term yin/yang point.
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby C.J.W. on Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:51 pm

Haven't had time to read through all the comments. But one interesting memory I have about PH and bounciness is that years ago I had a Taiji teacher tell me that, in PH demos, he'd actually put the more senior students on the receiving end of junior students' fajin for more dramatic "bounce-back" effects. The reason behind it is that, according to him, people with better full-body connectivity and sensitivity to incoming jin are easier to bounce than those who are less experienced and untrained.
Last edited by C.J.W. on Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C.J.W.
Wuji
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:02 am

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby windwalker on Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:38 pm

C.J.W. wrote:Haven't had time to read through all the comments. But one interesting memory I have about PH and bounciness is that years ago I had a Taiji teacher tell me that, in PH demos, he'd actually put the more senior students on the receiving end of junior students' fajin for more dramatic "bounce-back" effects. The reason behind it is that, according to him, people with better full-body connectivity and sensitivity to incoming jin are easier to bounce than those who are less experienced and untrained.


Another way of looking at it and was addressed. If you have 2 balloons and one is moved into the other the direction, timing and reaction can all be predicted.
If one was only partially filled ie no peng jin or partial, the shape would not be spherical the teacher would have to either compensate, or as with no peng jin, would have to let the other barrow some of the teachers and then react with that.

Using your verbiage, the teacher would have to use their intent to connect through the other person making them unified, sensitivity in this case has very little do with it from the students POV they will react but can not understand why, it does from the teachers POV causing the reaction. Those with a partial understanding or are unaware of their own peng jin, its not a sure thing as to how they will react meaning they could react in such a way to injure them selves.

This is why its bad to let some one feel the ground through ones structure and why it would be bad to use what is called a ground path, that some advocate.
what is being demoed the bouncing is the product of peng jin....not compression of the structure.


others may find different as in all things.
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 am

C.J.W. wrote: The reason behind it is that, according to him, people with better full-body connectivity and sensitivity to incoming jin are easier to bounce than those who are less experienced and untrained.


That doesn't seem odd to anyone, that the more training one has the easier it is to manipulate them? That tells me that people are either drinking the Kool-Aid or are training, uhm, "different" things.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby oragami_itto on Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:44 am

I believe the idea is that without a good strong connected and relaxed foundation, the same sort of forces would cause them to crumple. of course, it's also possible for someone to respond more intelligently to the forces, but that's all a matter of relative levels.
"This principle is very obvious and requires no further elaboration."
-Yang Cheng Fu
User avatar
oragami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:58 am

windwalker wrote: If you have 2 balloons and one is moved into the other[,] the direction, timing and reaction can all be predicted.


I guess that one could "adequately" describe the interaction of novice Taiji students as colliding, rigid, inelastic objects. I'd hope that after even a short amount of training, that model would no longer hold. That seemed to be the case demonstrated when the teacher pushed on the women in the OP video, and she wasn't a rigid object to bounce away.

This is why its bad to let some one feel the ground through ones structure and why it would be bad to use what is called a ground path, that some advocate.


I didn't follow your reasoning of why one shouldn't use a "ground path". CXW, for example, was very clear about why not. I'd like to understand your reasoning, though.


what is being demoed the bouncing is the product of peng jin....not compression of the structure.


From my perspective, what was being demonstrated is one guy pushing and the other responding by maintaining a rigid structure, like a statue. My understanding is that learning not to do that is one of the primary purposes of push hands practice. "Two Yangs don't make a right."

Taijiquan is about change. Change in response to what an opponent/partner is doing. If one person applies a force to the other and the other can't respond but to become rigid and "bounce" out, it is a failure of the other to adequately change/respond. Call it whatever you want, Peng-on-peng, or whatever, but it's an error, not a testimony to the other's skill. I understand that it is a demonstration, but when asked about the demonstration, it should not be described to onlookers/students as a desired response to which they should aspire, but as an intentional failure to respond appropriately for the purposes of the demonstration. "Don't do what he's doing."
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby marvin8 on Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:21 am

charles wrote:
marvin8 wrote:These demonstrations of peng jin seem more useful:

Spreadswings
Published on Mar 31, 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa9V5qEzDvE




No.



What he is demonstrating is largely a combination of the principle "length" and use of his body weight. Neither of those have anything to do with "Peng Jin" or "internal". What he is doing can be taught to - and replicated by - a novice in under 1/2 an hour.

He seems to show get opponent double weighted, than expand/push, which doesn't necessarily take internal skill. Can you explain the difference in using internal skill and its effect on the opponent?

Thanks for responding. As I put seems in my original post, meaning correct me if I'm wrong. :)
Last edited by marvin8 on Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:54 am

marvin8 wrote:He seems to show get opponent double weighted...


In simple language "double-weighted" just means that the opponent was unable to change in response to what was done to him. There are a variety of ways in which one can become unable to change. Those ways can be "internal" or "external" or some combination in-between.


...than expand/push, which doesn't necessarily take internal skill.


Mostly, he is stepping into his opponent, making his stance longer that his opponent's in the relevant direction, "crowding" him (to gain superior mechanical advantage) and then pushing. There is nothing "special" about doing that. It is an important basic technique/principle and it can be taught to nearly anyone in just a few minutes. To counter it, the opponent needs only step back, or move his back foot to lengthen his stance. "Peng Jin", per se, has little to do with it: timing matters. One could argue that to match the incoming step, one needs "listening" skills. One could argue that listening skills are based on Peng Jin, Peng Jin based on fang song.


Can you explain the difference in using internal skill and its effect on the opponent?


The object is to do something that prevents the opponent from adequately responding or neutralizing your action. One approach is to unbalance the opponent. Another is to strike with great force. Another is to apply a joint lock, eliminating mobility and the ability to change/respond/neutralize. And so on. Each of these can be accomplished using "internal" or "external" skills. Skills are a continuum from one extreme of "external" to the other extreme of "internal" with lots of middle ground.

The few that I've met that I consider to be very skilled "internalists", the sensation is that as soon as you touch them, you can not maintain your balance. This is one example that I like (he likes a lot of qinna):



Note that there is no hoping or stomping.

People seem to lose sight of the fact that push hands training is intended to produce specific practical, applicable skills. If one wants to progress, one needs to stay focused on practical, useful, real-world skills. Giving fancy names and explanations to "idiosyncratic" responses that do little to further one's development is to become side-tracked on the focus of "other things".
Last edited by charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 7 times in total.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby windwalker on Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:31 pm

People seem to lose sight of the fact that push hands training is intended to produce specific practical, applicable skills. If one wants to progress, one needs to stay focused on practical, useful, real-world skills. Giving fancy names and explanations to "idiosyncratic" responses that do little to further one's development is to become side-tracked on the focus of "other things".


The question is what kind of practical skills. The whole clip answered many of the questions and comments here. I would suggest listening to it with an unbiased mind. Ph IME does not, should not be used to teach "combative or fighting skill sets" It does and can be used to allow one to understand and feel taiji skill sets or other skill sets related...Which the teacher also noted and demoed.

I guess that one could "adequately" describe the interaction of novice Taiji students as colliding, rigid, inelastic objects. I'd hope that after even a short amount of training, that model would no longer hold. That seemed to be the case demonstrated when the teacher pushed on the women in the OP video, and she wasn't a rigid object to bounce away.


Your premise is wrong as to why they bounce, how and what is being bounced. Lets start with pung jin. a question might be does everyone posses it regardless of training or not? If one defines pung jin as "expanding force" this means the force required to maintain a shape at sea level 14.27 psi I believe is equal to the inner force required to maintain the shape.. Go higher up or lower down as into space or deep in ocean the pressure change ie the force changes.

whats the difference between one said to have pung and one not is in this demo....The one having pung all points are connected in such a way as to from a sphere. In the one not while still possessing pung they are not connected in the same way. This is called collapsing. The interaction is between the pung and not the structure, hence one can be bounced, while the other not connected was not bounced there are couple different ways of causing them to connect themselves in such a way that they can be. The teacher in this case attempted to use the others structure to do it through. Its not really needed...in fact for those I work with I tell them to remain as soft as unconnected as possible they still react are bounce out...



I didn't follow your reasoning of why one shouldn't use a "ground path". CXW, for example, was very clear about why not. I'd like to understand your reasoning, though.


It means that someone is interacting with or through another's frame. If you can feel theirs they can also feel yours while still not being able to do much about it. This works until one meets some of equal or higher skill level Think of a string, say a violin string. on can pluck the string and hear the vibrations as sound ie "waves" if one were to be able to make or form destructive waves it would cancel out the sound. In practical terms this mean interacting with the pung jin and not the structor


From my perspective, what was being demonstrated is one guy pushing and the other responding by maintaining a rigid structure, like a statue. My understanding is that learning not to do that is one of the primary purposes of push hands practice. "Two Yangs don't make a right."


try it, try pushing a statue and and bouncing a ball. Different people use ph in different ways. I use to illustrate and make distinctions between forces.

Taijiquan is about change. Change in response to what an opponent/partner is doing. If one person applies a force to the other and the other can't respond but to become rigid and "bounce" out, it is a failure of the other to adequately change/respond. Call it whatever you want, Peng-on-peng, or whatever, but it's an error, not a testimony to the other's skill. I understand that it is a demonstration, but when asked about the demonstration, it should not be described to onlookers/students as a desired response to which they should aspire, but as an intentional failure to respond appropriately for the purposes of the demonstration. "Don't do what he's doing."


Which is also what he noted and said. Although as noted I would not say rigid, its a a matter of being connected and interacting in such a way to being constructive or destructive. ie being able to change at the contact points yin/yang point. Or in the verbiage I use "zero" point. Which is why in reading the post I don't quite get what some seem to be saying. He mentioned the why and how the student was being bounced out, and explained that his skill got better the reactions would be different.
Yes it is about change, but changes caused by what. He is not bouncing them out, they are bouncing themselves out in response to what they feel.
Last edited by windwalker on Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:49 pm

windwalker wrote: It does and can be used to allow one to understand and feel taiji skill sets or other skill sets related...


Agreed.

Your premise is wrong as to why they bounce, how and what is being bounced.


I'm the one who stated that I don't know why they bounce. My response was to your stated explanation regarding two colliding balloons.

If one defines pung jin as "expanding force" this means the force required to maintain a shape at sea level 14.27 psi I believe is equal to the inner force required to maintain the shape.. Go higher up or lower down as into space or deep in ocean the pressure change ie the force changes.


I'm not following the relevancy of this reasoning to the practice of Taijiquan at standard temperature and pressure.


If you can feel theirs they can also feel yours...


That's pretty much what I've been taught.


Which is also what he noted and said. Although as noted I would not say rigid, its a a matter of being connected and interacting in such a way to being constructive or destructive. ie being able to change at the contact points yin/yang point. Or in the verbiage I use "zero" point. Which is why in reading the post I don't quite get what some seem to be saying. He mentioned the why and how the student was being bounced out, and explained that his skill got better the reactions would be different.


Not to put words in your mouth, but if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the bouncing away is a developmental stage between being collapsed and being able to yield. In that intermediary stage, one has developed Peng Jin, but isn't able to manipulate it so that it becomes, as you've described it, superposition and one is bounced away by it.

He is not bouncing them out, they are bouncing themselves out in response to what they feel.


And, from my perspective, that is exactly what they want to learn not to do.

I've watched the video, again, again at 1/2 speed, trying to keep in mind your explanation of the interaction and statements. I find it is very difficult to hear much of what he is saying, as well as the questions he is asked by students. As much as I try to understand it, I really can't see why anyone would want to bounce themselves/be bounced out like that. It seems to me to be a variation on the Yang style practice of being repeatedly pushed against a wall: despite explanations provided, I don't really understand the value in that practice either. I chalk it up to a "Taiji-ism", an idiosyncrasy of some practitioners, a practice that make sense to those practicing it but not so much to outsiders.
Last edited by charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby windwalker on Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:14 pm

charles wrote:
Not to put words in your mouth, but if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the bouncing away is a developmental stage between being collapsed and being able to yield. In that intermediary stage, one has developed Peng Jin, but isn't able to manipulate it so that it becomes, as you've described it, superposition and one is bounced away by it.

He is not bouncing them out, they are bouncing themselves out in response to what they feel.


And, from my perspective, that is exactly what they want to learn not to do.


I would say its not learned as much as its part of a process of development.
There are other aspects that enter into it, a little beyond the scope of this thread reflecting different approaches
used by family styles which are labeled as taiji.

If by "developed" you mean they become aware of it, I would agree.

If you mean developed as in its not something they already have but are not aware of
I would not agree with that. From my POV all have peng jin they may not be able to use or express it...

To recap...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3OI0sx4NyQ

Chu and I do a little free push hands. Chu has pretty good pengjin now but hasn't yet got a great root, so I manage to displace him fairly easily and spectacularly.

One of the girls wants to experience this but of course collapses rather than bounces. I explain why this is so and why pengjin is useful.


Which is what the clip showed....and he did...and why I thought that it might be a good demo to watch.

He uses basic physics to describe the how and what he is doing. The questions arise as to whats happening in the demo....
which he addresses

some of the dialogue


4:53 constant expansion force
"what happens if the person doesn't jump. If I treat him as rubber ball and attack his center because his whole mass becomes
comperessed. " His reaction is a result to this.."


Again I thought the demo was pretty clear and answered the questions well in that setting.
Kind of surprised at the reactions here. :P

which talk for some its about what he's thinking, emotional state ect :-\
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:29 pm

windwalker wrote:He uses basic physics to describe the how and what he is doing. The questions arise as to whats happening in the demo....
which he addresses


The issue that I have - not just with this video, but with many videos - is that one can provide whatever explanation one wants to an observed phenomena. Just because there is an explanation doesn't mean that the explanation is valid or necessarily relevant. In many cases, the explanations seem to be fanciful, elaborate and, in some cases, even mystical in nature.

Sometimes one can liken the behaviour of one thing to another thing. Often, this is done to introduce a concept or visualization as an aid to understanding. However, comparing one thing to another for that purpose should not be confused with the one thing actually being the other. As a simple example, Taiji people like to talk about the body being a sphere. The body is not a sphere - if you doubt that statement, look in a mirror. That the use and behaviour of the body can in some ways be likened to the behaviour of a sphere, in some circumstances, provides a familiar conceptual image of how the body can be used. But, conceptualizing the human body as a sphere doesn't make it a sphere. The concept that a sphere has a rotational centre and that an eccentric force that is applied to the surface of the sphere will cause the sphere to rotate about its centre provides a useful training visualization. But, that visualization doesn't turn us into spheres.

Similarly, when one compares the behaviour of two rigid (i.e. incompressible) bodies colliding to the interaction of two humans doing push hands, the rigid-body "model" provides some insight if not taken too literally. When a force is applied to the human body, the human body really doesn't behave like an incompressible, unchanging shape/body. There is utility in the concept up to a point, beyond which it becomes wishful thinking and a hinderance.


"what happens if the person doesn't jump. If I treat him as rubber ball and attack his center because his whole mass becomes
comperessed. " His reaction is a result to this.."


What is the characteristic of a rubber ball to which he is being treated? A rubber ball is, largely, depending on the ball, incompressible/rigid. If I hit one incompressible ball with another incompressible ball, the momentum of the first is transferred to the second and the second bounces/rolls away. Humans aren't rubber balls.

If one applies a force to ("attacks") the dead-centre of a rubber ball, the ball will slide: it will not roll. (It will roll only if the force is applied eccentrically.)

If one applied a force to an incompressible rubber ball, none of the "mass becomes compressed". If the ball is somewhat compressible, but not so compressible as to distort to no longer be approximately spherical, the ball will compress mostly locally: the whole mass does not become compressed.

So, while these are physics-type explanations of the behaviour of the interactions between the two humans in the demonstration, those receiving the explanation are left trying to figure out which parts of the analogies apply: which specific aspects of being like a rubber ball apply, since the human body is not a rubber ball and not all of the characteristics of a rubber ball apply to the interaction of the two humans.


Again I thought the demo was pretty clear and answered the questions well in that setting.
Kind of surprised at the reactions here. :P


For me, anyway, aside from it being difficult to hear some of the explanation, I'm left trying to figure out which characteristics of the physics-type analogies apply.

When someone says, "Be like water", what do they mean? Human bodies do not behave like water: they can't. So, what specific characteristics (behaviours) of water are we to be like? It sounds great to "be like water", but what is actually meant by it isn't entirely obvious.

So when someone says, the bouncing is a result of both having Peng, and that is like the behaviour of two rubber balls colliding, what is it about the two balls colliding, specifically, that having Peng is like? We can get fancier and more complex with physics metaphors and liken the interaction to two waves: when the two waves are in phase they combine (constructive interference), when out of phase they negate (destructive interference), but that implies that Peng is like a wave. Probably it isn't.

Sometimes scientific analogies and metaphors can be helpful. Other times, particularly if taken too literally, they lose whatever practical value they had.


Anyway, I've rambled more than enough.

Thanks for posting the video and being willing to discuss what is happening in it.
Last edited by charles on Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby windwalker on Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:53 am

ya I'm kinda done with the thread although a couple of points jump out at me,
your post is illustrative but its been mentioned a couple of times. Thought I would attempt to address how I view it...

As far as the sound and accent for me its quite clear maybe due to me spending most a of my life with others who use english as a second language. Maybe my hearing fills in the gaps that others can not or do not hear. I just don't relate to those talking about sound, accent and hearing...it seems quite clear to me
and to others native "Taiwanese" that I work with.

I tend not to look at things in a literal sense. For example it was obvious to me that the ball would have to be hollow or of some type of meatral that would store or could store energy and release it, after all he mentions peng as an expanding force which I agree with,and use this concept with those I work with who are familiar with this terminology in their native language.

I also work with people who have phd level physics understanding who are very quick to either question or point out some thing I might say or mention that does not hold true. Of those I've met engineers and such their minds seem to be able to entertain what some might call thought experiments, in this case one can test and observe directly what is illustrated or not.

Of people I've met engineering types they may not see it at first, but once they interact with me its quite clear...I guess they need to feel it before their minds will accept the physics going on behind it.



charles wrote:
What is the characteristic of a rubber ball to which he is being treated? A rubber ball is, largely, depending on the ball, incompressible/rigid. If I hit one incompressible ball with another incompressible ball, the momentum of the first is transferred to the second and the second bounces/rolls away. Humans aren't rubber balls.

If one applies a force to ("attacks") the dead-centre of a rubber ball, the ball will slide: it will not roll. (It will roll only if the force is applied eccentrically.)

If one applied a force to an incompressible rubber ball, none of the "mass becomes compressed". If the ball is somewhat compressible, but not so compressible as to distort to no longer be approximately spherical, the ball will compress mostly locally: the whole mass does not become compressed.

So, while these are physics-type explanations of the behaviour of the interactions between the two humans in the demonstration, those receiving the explanation are left trying to figure out which parts of the analogies apply: which specific aspects of being like a rubber ball apply, since the human body is not a rubber ball and not all of the characteristics of a rubber ball apply to the interaction of the two humans.

lets look at another way...first what is a bounce. "When all three balls are dropped from the same height, the rubber ball will bounce the highest because it has the greatest elasticity. When the rubber ball hits the ground it gets compressed, or squished, and because it is very elastic, it quickly returns to its original shape.

elastic, and returns to its original shape...are characteristics that a body when force is applied depending on type of force will exhibit

"When it hits the floor it has no potential energy, but lots of kinetic energy. Another interesting thing happens when the ball hits the floor. Remember that the ball bounces back up to a height lower than it started, so after one bounce it has less potential energy than it started with.

Which if the body is connected and treated as a sphere ie a ball it can have the same aspects and react in the same way. The body is constantly seeking equilibrium affect it, and it will try to return to it,



Again I thought the demo was pretty clear and answered the questions well in that setting.
Kind of surprised at the reactions here. :P


For me, anyway, aside from it being difficult to hear some of the explanation, I'm left trying to figure out which characteristics of the physics-type analogies apply.

When someone says, "Be like water", what do they mean? Human bodies do not behave like water: they can't. So, what specific characteristics (behaviours) of water are we to be like? It sounds great to "be like water", but what is actually meant by it isn't entirely obvious.

So when someone says, the bouncing is a result of both having Peng, and that is like the behaviour of two rubber balls colliding, what is it about the two balls colliding, specifically, that having Peng is like? We can get fancier and more complex with physics metaphors and liken the interaction to two waves: when the two waves are in phase they combine (constructive interference), when out of phase they negate (destructive interference), but that implies that Peng is like a wave. Probably it isn't.

Sometimes scientific analogies and metaphors can be helpful. Other times, particularly if taken too literally, they lose whatever practical value they had.

Only when the mind reading them is to much locked in its own thought.

"but that implies that Peng is like a wave. Probably it isn't. " According to ? which is why I had asked about peng jin, how its formed and what it is. What makes the whole body become connected....what defines a spherical body, how does one make ones body spherical how can every point be spherical on the body. What is being collapsed mean ect.


Anyway, I've rambled more than enough.

Thanks for posting the video and being willing to discuss what is happening in it.


Likewise.. Actually I thought you would get it more then some others as you've mentioned using physics to describe things happening ie "modeling " them
As you've mentioned I too have moved away from using words like qi, yi, and some others to describe interactions. I find it makes the interactions less clear
I do use things like "parallel axis theorem" and other theorems that best help to illustrate what those I interact with feel and react to...

to be like water? I though everyone knew what that meant. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMwBwFj5nQ
Last edited by windwalker on Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: free push hands and bounciness

Postby marvin8 on Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:46 am

windwalker wrote:to be like water? I though everyone knew what that meant. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMwBwFj5nQ

But @ :43, Bruce also said, "When the opponent expands, I contract; and when he contracts, I expand. And when there is an opportunity, "I" do not hit, "it" hits all by itself," which is contrary to the OP video. ;)

chrisssjkd
Published on Oct 8, 2008

Segments of the monk scene from 'Enter The Dragon' originally deleted from the film. This is Bruce Lee's real voice which was dubbed over by John Little in the re-release.Several dialogues are missing and sorry about the ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyl71WihT-A&t=0m43s
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Video Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests