An intersection of the straight and curved..

[cloudz]

Look what i just dug up on Amazon
a bunch of incredible authors
may just need to buy this book.. sounds really cool

any one read it ?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bagua-Xingyi-I ... 1893765334

edit: it's an anthology of articles; there's a look inside, they sound good to me.

[Steve James]

I don't have the book, but I think you're asking about the straight and curved in tcc. I'd say spirals are examples of circular movement. So, the question is what we're describing as "straight." But, then what can one do without making a circular movement? For ex, a straight punch still needs a turn of the waist. Circular movement can be translated into apparently linear force. I guess the saying is 'turning the circle into the square.' A spiral is a special type of curve where one point moves away from its origin, but the next points but won't eventually return it to the same origin. A drill turns to go straight, using a spiral.

[cloudz]

it's from the title of the book Steve.
I did mention it on another thread, but here I just wanted to post about the cool book I found lol ..

but no worries this is RSF after all - it's great if you'd like to talk about that particular topic

is turning of the waist a circular motion; not an intentional one anyway. it's more an anatomical thing. the waist isn't a circle per se and whilst the rotation happens 'round' a central axis - to characterise it as a circular motion that therefore leads to a spiral is stretching things a little too much.
At least where a straight punch is concerned anyway...

we might fall into the trap of thinking every straight punch in boxing has a spiral quality (of force) by virtue of theoretical thinking.
I just don't think that's true..
not that I'm against theory or anything, but there are some things we need to discern.

you're not going to train or really use spiral force doing straight punches; that's the point I was trying to make in the other thread.
there's a place for linearity and a place for being circular, both training and usage. Not to mention training and using spiral force..
that's my basic opinion anyway. sometimes i think theory gets over emphasised in favour of practicalities.
sometimes... just a smidge.

[Steve James]

I read the blurb for the book. My first thought about the title was the old story about how bagua and xingyi were taught together -and that xingyi represented the straight and bagua the circular combined. That was too legendary. So, I thought about mentioned the saying about the feet tread the five steps and the hand using the eight gates (suggesting that tcc unites both in the 13 shi. But, that was a bit too theoretical.

Since neither of us has read the book, I brought up the issue of spirals mentioned in another thread. Anyway, I'd argue that straight and curved are as integrated as yin and yang. Afa a straight punch, it's straight only compared to a round punch. I would argue that the waist turn isn't necessary (as in wing chun), but turning the waist incorporates more power, and driving the legs forward adds more. Imo, tcc using whole body power requires combining circles.

But, isn't it typical in tcc (and most tcma) to rotate the fist. If it rotates up or down when extended and rotated back when retracted, it's making a circular movement while traveling in an apparently straight line, no?

[cloudz]

yea look;

I think you can think about the force and or you can think about the technique
maybe nothing is absolute (yin in yang and yang in yin as you point to).. academically..

but in terms of technique I would say the punch in parry and punch is straight - for all intents and purposes. the way we use "straight" in normal martial arts or boxing discussion.

the fist stays vertical and doesn't turn in parry and punch.

there are however a bunch of other punches in the tai chi form where the fists do turn and are thrown on a much more circular and curved path.

so i come back to my point; not everything has to be seen as circular or spirally.

further to that

Ji is a big deal.... it's a straight line triangulated force. not a technique but a force.
so there's that. at least in Yang and Wu style - as i have learned it.

[wayne hansen]

This is Tang Shou Tao and Hung I Hsiangs son
From my interactions with him I think this book is a tribute to his dad and his life in martial arts
I haven’t read it but I don’t think it’s a technical book but the straight and circle refers to his fathers life
He is one of my favorite practicioners
Plenty of him on here https://www.facebook.com/shenlunghsu

[cloudz]

nice page

a proper school, you can't argue with the quality of people that came from it.
not like some of these other muppets that shame TCIMA left right and centre these days.

He's the guy on the cover right

[wayne hansen]

Yes he is
I value TST and still teach it to certain students
The stuff he is doing now which he calls Hong family fist is something that I really like

[origami_itto]

we might fall into the trap of thinking every straight punch in boxing has a spiral quality (of force) by virtue of theoretical thinking.
I just don't think that's true..
not that I'm against theory or anything, but there are some things we need to discern.

Definitely agreed. you don't NEED to turn your waist to punch. Most jabs are like that.
There's just a lot more power there if you do. Don't always need it though so there are options.

[Steve James]

Well, there are four, maybe five, types of jab. There won't be much "waist" turn, but western boxing jabs move the shoulder forward. Jabs are like a fencer's lunge, and one shoulder is always forward. Of course, it's often not as committed because crosses or hooks usually follow.

Anyway, let's argue some more. When I think of a boxer's jab, I compare it to the left hand in the Single Whip. Some people do it "straight" and some make an arc. (It's tcc, don't freak out. We know different schools ...). I was reading through the Yang 40 chapters and there was a section on the four corners. I'd argue that Single Whip is a corner, and that the corners address the problem of bridging. Peng, lu, an, ji are considered the square. Hmmm?

[wayne hansen]

It may go to the corner but that is different to being delivered from the corner
It is AN push but a single hand version like in WU
SW is the most repeated posture in the 108
You enter it and leave it in a different manner each time
All good boxers engage the waist in their jabs though it may not be obvious

[marvin8]

It may go to the corner but that is different to being delivered from the corner
It is AN push but a single hand version like in WU
SW is the most repeated posture in the 108
You enter it and leave it in a different manner each time
All good boxers engage the waist in their jabs though it may not be obvious

Yes. Mizner performs SW, which is close to the lead cross jab I posted here. The lead cross jab is more powerful than Mizner's. Because, there's more body torque.

One of Mizner's better videos—no woo woo, just practical. At 2:54,

Then we have the third part. Why does it go and we move away? So the same thing, I strike. Now when I strike and transfer my weight, I'm already out, I'm evading, I'm slipping. So come. See? I'm out of the fight as I strike. This is unique to Tai Chi. We can generate power, throw a bomb in one direction, while we're stepping in the other direction. Retreating backwards, throwing bombs forward. Moving left, throwing bombs right. It confuses the hell out of your training partner or your opponent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvq6z3teJmM&t=2m54s

[Dmitri]

Just as a side note...

If you watch carefully, he does very different things (mechanically) in the form vs the "application" he's demonstrating for that move. It's the same "posture", but very different mechanics, i.e. when you practice that part of the form, you're not practicing that particular application. (Yes, I know there are more than one "application options" within any single move, but this one he's working off of a static posture, not the move(ment) as shown as being part of the form.)

Nice movement, otherwise.

[Steve James]

It may go to the corner but that is different to being delivered from the corner

The hand may be doing An, but the body is doing Kao -um, the way some schools do it, the chest ends up facing 45 degrees (like a jab)..

[origami_itto]

Well, there are four, maybe five, types of jab. There won't be much "waist" turn, but western boxing jabs move the shoulder forward. Jabs are like a fencer's lunge, and one shoulder is always forward. Of course, it's often not as committed because crosses or hooks usually follow.

Anyway, let's argue some more. When I think of a boxer's jab, I compare it to the left hand in the Single Whip. Some people do it "straight" and some make an arc. (It's tcc, don't freak out. We know different schools ...). I was reading through the Yang 40 chapters and there was a section on the four corners. I'd argue that Single Whip is a corner, and that the corners address the problem of bridging. Peng, lu, an, ji are considered the square. Hmmm?

The square and corners as I understand them are a reference to the bagua in the pre-heaven configuration and the way the 8 techniques are arranged. peng, lu, ji, an are the sides at north south, east and west. These are the square techniques, to be preferred.

When we have deficiencies in those primary techniques, the corners are there to fall back on, namely tsai, lieh, zhou, kao, on the bagua in the northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest positions.

That's not even getting into the post-heaven arrangement and the nine palaces.