the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Steve James wrote:

But "a straight punch" only refers to the alignment of arm and fist. It doesn't reveal anything about the body behind it.

Depends on who's doing the explaining.

Bao wrote:

Steve James wrote:

But "a straight punch" only refers to the alignment of arm and fist. It doesn't reveal anything about the body behind it.

Depends on who's doing the explaining.

If a XY practitioner and a western boxer would describe it differently, then do you believe that there would be different?

Dan Djurdjevic on January 26, 2011 wrote:The biggest difference in xingyi punching is that the punch lands with the leading foot - not the back. While this seems like a small matter, the context in which xingyi places the punch is almost always opposite in karate. This means it takes the karateka quite some "unlearning" to understand how to effect the xingyi beng quan (the punch that is one of the 5 elements of xingyi). . . .

Karateka will overwhelmingly time their punch so that it coincides with the back foot slide-up, where xingyi requires you to land your technique with the lunge of the front foot and no later.

Karateka are specifically taught to practise their basic stepping and punching in a way that is opposite to xingyi. In karate basics you step first, then punch.

In xingyi there is a backward-weighted stance, usually called the san ti posture or zhan bu (battle stance). This is similar to the Japanese kokutsu dachi, but with the hips turned forward (yet another thing to which karateka find difficulty adjusting). . . .

As I've noted, you have to step and punch at precisely the same time. This type of stepping is used in xingyi partly because you have a backward-weighted stance, which requires you to harness as much of the forward momentum as possible in delivering your punch (you can't rely on your weight shifting to your front leg).

In xingyi stepping you still use staged activation, but the emphasis is much more on harnessing the forward momentum of your body than on sequentially activating the hip, then the shoulder then the arm etc. In other words, staged activation is assumed, with the emphasis shifting to flow (as I discuss in my article "The importance of flow").

The assumption of staged activation is just one reason why I regard the internal arts as more "advanced"; they take as a given body mechanics that take years to develop, focusing instead on other, subtler and more sophisticated mechanics built on the foundation of what has been assumed. The xingyi concept of flow would be a prime example of this: I personally don't think it is applicable in combat unless you understand the principles of staged activation used in the basic karate-type step/punch (at least, I don't think it is readily applicable). However it is true to say that the xingyi approach goes beyond the karate technique in harnessing the whole of your forward momentum. Ideally one should learn both, progressing from the step, then punch, and adding the internal arts "flow" when the time is right (see my discussion on "sequential relativism" in my article "The importance of flow").


An excellent example of xingyi stepping/striking

I make these observations about stepping because I'm fairly sure that many martial arts practitioners - karate, xingyi or otherwise - have given very little thought to how they time their steps and strikes. Consider the following example of beng quan and you'll see what I mean:

An example of how not to do xingyi stepping

Xing Yi — Beng chuan: foot and hand arrive at the same time

dspyrido wrote:[





I even struggle with many hsing-i practitioners. The only ones that I have found that are relevant have been the ones that felt like they could demolish me with one or two hits. Unfortunately there are not a lot of them but the ones who I did find did not use boxing mechanics.

marvin8 wrote:The topic of this thread is Bengquan and straight punch, which I replied to. If you want to discuss one inch punch, you might start another thread.

As I mentioned, boxing has short range punches. When in grappling range, other moves may be more effective other than striking, which is off the thread topic.

. Beng done at a close distance is the embodiment of An Jing. It is why it is hidden. There is no separation of one inch punch from beng (or any of the 5 elements). It is short power done right which is what makes it hidden.

MaartenSFS wrote:
This is a pretty good demonstration of the five fists. His linking movements can be messy at times and some of his punches don't extend far enough (something that I tend to be guilty of at times as well), but his strikes are crisp and with good power. Definitely one of the better examples. Not all Xingyiquan looks identical to this, however, and many variations exist - not to mention Xinyiliuhequan. I believe that you are making some broad generalisations due to a lack of experience with many different masters of Xingyiquan and the other arts mentioned, which also have many variations.

TAICHINOTEBOOK on OCTOBER 19, 2018 wrote:The next thing I’d look at is the footwork. in Bengquan you step as you punch. You don’t land your feet, then punch, or punch without stepping. The step is an integral part of the movement. It’s part of the opening and closing of the body and part of the technique. In Xingyi your feet should always be moving.

marvin8 wrote:Excerpts from "Xingyi stepping vs. karate stepping," http://www.wayofleastresistance.net/201 ... pping.html:

Dan Djurdjevic on January 26, 2011 wrote:
An excellent example of xingyi stepping/striking

I make these observations about stepping because I'm fairly sure that many martial arts practitioners - karate, xingyi or otherwise - have given very little thought to how they time their steps and strikes. Consider the following example of beng quan and you'll see what I mean:

An example of how not to do xingyi stepping

D_Glenn wrote:Well, as the premise of the original article states, if we suspend the idea of using the spine / Bolangjin, which makes up for 99 percent of the difference between xingyi and boxing power, and only look at the other aspects. Stepping doesn’t matter because you could do beng while standing in place. My teacher taught me that all 5 should be done while standing in 5 different heights. Bengquan is done using the lowest stance of the five. Bengquan should be linked to your sacrum and slightly above it as it’s going out, so it’s also striking low. These combined will ideally hit a lower target on the opponent to hit the center door (rupture their bladder), side door will try to split the pelvic bones. But just hitting below the opponent’s Center of gravity is what gives beng its name. Since boxing doesn’t allow hitting below the belt, it’s hard to find the comparative power. Bengquan is more ‘straight’ power, instead of rotational power lke Heng. So really, the only thing to compare, is about establishing a strong line of force/connection between your hand and your sacrum, at the moment of contact, which is relatively close to your body, hence hitting a target that’s lower on the opponent’s body. And I think to find a comparison to that power you will need to look at the mechanics of how some boxers execute an upper cut.

D_Glenn wrote:I think if you look at that video and think of it as bringing both hips square to the opponent, so that the sacrum is centered and the elbow and forearm sort of aligned with it. In my style of Baguazhang we call the Bengquan power ‘Ting Li’ (upright power), which is the ability to align the path to point/ connect back to the base of the spine (sacrum) and have an upright strength in the whole spinal column so that it’s solid. I guess you could say that Boxing is only primarily using a Ting Li (an uppercut is only ting li) type of power, but in the Chinese systems, it’s only one of 5 or 6 ways to power an attack.