Utility and application of the cross-alignment principle?

[bailewen]

As Buddy pointed out, double-weightedness happens when you don't have intent in the yin side of the move, i.e. the less obvious hand or leg. Where the weight is depends on where you want it or need it. I even do GST on one leg. You mention ward off. That's an upward and outward movement as I do it. Which foot is weighted makes no difference.

See i don't get it. Why is it a metter of which foot is weighted. I mean do you do ward off backwards man!?

define "backwards".

But are you describing the forward arm in ward off as both weighted and subsantial? I mention that because i don't apply weightedness to the upper torso - just a small matter of gravity and what really supports weight - so it is kwa and down .. for me.

I'm not sure I find making such a distinction between weightedness and substantiality usefull. Maybe it's because I learned in Chinese and in a gongfu context, there's really only one paradigm. We talk about empty and full but not really about weightedness other than indirectly when speaking of "double weightedness". But the terms "empty" and "full" really do cover everything. The weighted leg is full and the unweighted one is empty....unless they are not which would mean that you are not "clearly differentiating between full and empty".

If left leg is where the weight is that is Yin - substantial(fixed) - this makes the right arm yin also, substantial. Other cross side of the body is Yang - insubstantial.(free)

I think you got your terms backwards. Fullness is traditionally considered a yang state and emptiness, yin.

[Dmitri]

I did not know that I did not know how to do it...

And this is from someone with a lot of experience in IMA and who does some of these things professionally. I wish some others would (have enough humility to) consider that possibility.

George,
Bodywork has put up many clips of himself over the years.

Well, sarcasm in this particular case is uncalled for, because he has touched hands with many people (complete strangers) over the years, and that, at least in my book, counts infinitely more than putting up a million clips of oneself.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Some said that having the substantial (weighted) leg and the substantial (hitting) hand on the same side is "double-weightedness"!?
According to the "cross-alignment principle": "When the left upper part of the body is substantial the left lower part is insubstantial and similary when the right upper part of the body is substantial the right lower part is insubstantial."
Is said that when we don't apply this principle we can easily (with an experienced opponent) loose balance in a fight.

Any opinion about the utility and application of the cross-alignment principle?

So this whole thread sounds to me like people need to get out more

I don't think the initial post clearly showed what exactly the cross body principle is.

Substantial for the lower body so far has been confused. Some seem to view it (as I do) to be the leg that the weight is on, while others think it is the leg that provides the driving force. For upper body I think all would agree that the substantial hand and side is the one that is striking or making impact.

So on brush knee you have two possibilities.



Either the forward leg is "substantial" and the rear, striking hand is "substantial" which would make the rear driving leg "insubstantial" and the blocking hand "insubstantial".

Or the Back driving leg is "substantial" which would mean the blocking hand must be "substantial" according to the "cross-alignment principle". This makes the striking hand insubstantial, which doesn't make sense. Or we must say that the rear driving leg is substantial, AND the striking hand are substantial which then means that the "cross-alignment principle" is violated.

Then is you look at brush knee as a process starting from the beginning you step out with the left leg and before and during the step the right leg is substantial because it has all the weight, then you shift forward making the left leg substantial and the right leg insubstantial. Then the upper body must be left side substantial initially, before and during the step, and become insubstantial while the right hand starts insubstantial and becomes substantial.

That sounds good to me.

But what about movements like push the mountain?



Or teh double strike to the temple? Called Carry tiger over mountain in this next image.



In those two movements both hands are used to strike simultaneously. So if you have your right foot forward and substantial then your left hand should be substantial, and your right hand insubstantial, but you are striking with both so I guess both legs would have to substantial then, or would it be insubstantial?



This is why I think talking about principles like this is nearly a waste of time. There are always contradictions and things that don't make sense.

I do think I have an inkling of what Bodywork is talking about separating the waist and the hips. In shuai jiao a lot of movements require the upper body to turn opposite of the lower body. This winds you up and as near as I can tell can only be done with power when the hips move one way and the waist the other.

On another hand my right cross was always my strongest punch, then I learned GM Chang's dragon form. I haven't ever seen a video of it online or anything or I would link it. The first strike is a left hand palm strike while in a left bow stance. I strike harder with this palm strike than any other hand strike I know. This position does not follow the "cross-alignment prinicple".

This is why I think most of us, myself included, need to SPAR MORE, TALK LESS.

Someone needs to invent an internet VR thing where we can spare in virtual reality over the internet. That would rock.

[C.J.Wang]

I am not trying to defend or put down anyone, but cross alignment and the seperation of waist from hip are two VERY important principles in the Bagua I have been taught. They contribute greatly to the evasiveness and speed that the style is known for.

[Bao]

DeusTris. . .: Very good post!

I am not trying to defend or put down anyone, but cross alignment and the seperation of waist from hip are two VERY important principles in the Bagua I have been taught. They contribute greatly to the evasiveness and speed that the style is known for.

The question, I believe, is not about what it is good or bad. If you focus on too few aspects of shen fa, or have a limited shen fa, you will limit yourself. There are so many different ways to move, generate power, evade an attack etc. You need to have a very flexible attitude towards shen fa if you are going to understand the range of possibilities. Look at XingYi. Here there are five ways to practice the basic san ti principle and 12 different ways to treat the same, and put flavor into, this principle! There is a whole range of methods. It is a very flexible approach, but the integrity of the main principle is kept alive at every moment and all of the time! This is indeed a very flexible look, not only on shen fa, but on one single principle.

If you treat aspects, or principles, of shen fa as they were rules then at least try to remember that: the most important about rules is to know how and when to break them.

[bailewen]

Either the forward leg is "substantial" and the rear, striking hand is "substantial" which would make the rear driving leg "insubstantial" and the blocking hand "insubstantial".

Or the Back driving leg is "substantial" which would mean the blocking hand must be "substantial" according to the "cross-alignment principle". This makes the striking hand insubstantial, which doesn't make sense. [/quote]

It may not make sense but still be true. Take a look at the single palm change examination that starts around 2:00 in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZdtM5p6ZkA

But what about movements like push the mountain?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... emo_13.JPG

Good question! How can you perform this movement without being double weighted? In what way can you "clearly differentiate between full and empty" and how can you avoid the double weightedness that is implied by a post like that?

Or teh double strike to the temple? Called Carry tiger over mountain in this next image.

Another excellent question. Was it rhetorical or were you hoping for an answer?


http://members.shaw.ca/alanjstewart/Tai ... 24form.gif

This is why I think talking about principles like this is nearly a waste of time. There are always contradictions and things that don't make sense.

It's only a waste of time if it does not inform an actual practice. If the talk feeds your practice then it is invaluable. As Shifu told me once, if you only train and never analyze you will make a great soldier but if you train AND analyze, only then can you become a general. True martial arts take place in the brain. Instead of "wu-shu" (武术) we are talking about "zhan-shu" (战术), the arts of war. We are talking about Sun Tzu and about the 36 strategies, maybe even a little Buddhist thought may "infect" our training. Thought without action is meaningless but action without thought is downright dangerous.

[Buddy]

But how about the nameless faceless noobs having the common courtesy to introduce themselves before spewing forth an anonymous opinion? Rude and classless, whichever side you're on.

[David Boxen]

George,
Bodywork has put up many clips of himself over the years.

Well, sarcasm in this particular case is uncalled for, because he has touched hands with many people (complete strangers) over the years, and that, at least in my book, counts infinitely more than putting up a million clips of oneself.

I was not being sarcastic, just was thinking of the wrong person (somatai).

[Dmitri]

Ah, makes sense. Derek did put up a lot of clips... Dan doesn't have any AFAIK, so I thought you were being ... Oh well, it's a non-issue obviously.

[kreese]

Omar, what's the old man saying during that last part of the clip you mention?

[bailewen]

2:00 take a look at this single palm change.
2:02 This hand goes over here. For the single palm change...
2:05 This hand [his right hand] just comes along this way.
2:07 When this hand [his underneath arm] moves ...
2:09 ...actually the force is placed over here ! [indicates his left hand, the one pushing on empty space. And sends the guy out asking, "Understand?"

His full hand is the one pushing on empty space. The hand underneath, the one receiving the force becomes empty yet he seems to push the guy out with the empty hand. It's an example of pushing someone out with the empty side.

2:14 if I put the energy here....[indicates the arm that is being pressed down]
2:18 then I just end up sending myself out. See?
2:22 This jin has to come from here! [emphasises his left hand, the one pointing at empty space.]
2:28 so you see this single palm change, the hand that comes out from under the elbow, it's doesn't come out in [i]this/i] way. Understand? [student: yeah yeah yeah....]

[Bodywork]

Makes perfect sense to me. In 2:18 he shows what would happen if he received the force all on one side, (his right) his arm and leg go up. Then his intent goes from his right leg up and around to his left hand (it happens very fast watch the cloth of his pants, and his intent is throughout and supported on his full hand as he wraps his intent around his body and aims it and tosses with the empty right.
I am interested as well in his explanation of movement in 0:30 where his right absorbs and lowers and his left rises. Matched opposites around his spine.
The elbow changes that follow are more apparent and understandable for most. In 1:25 His "sending" of the energy from his dropped right arm through to his grabbed left is interesting too. 94...wow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZdtM5p6ZkA

[taiwandeutscher]

If left leg is where the weight is that is Yin - substantial(fixed) - this makes the right arm yin also, substantial. Other cross side of the body is Yang - insubstantial.(free)

I think you got your terms backwards. Fullness is traditionally considered a yang state and emptiness, yin.

Nop, that's not what I learn here in Taiwan:

Yin, passiv, weighted
Yang, active, no weight, for the legs

In arms, I was told:
Yin, empty, passiv, faking
Yang, full, active, solid.

Another cross correlation?
But as said, after a certain amount of training, these theories have to be skipped again. You need ground force in any arm, upper body move, whereever it is coming from. The conncetion is important, not the origin.

[Bodywork]

If left leg is where the weight is that is Yin - substantial(fixed) - this makes the right arm yin also, substantial. Other cross side of the body is Yang - insubstantial.(free)

I think you got your terms backwards. Fullness is traditionally considered a yang state and emptiness, yin.

Nop, that's not what I learn here in Taiwan:
Yin, passiv, weighted
Yang, active, no weight, for the legs
In arms, I was told:
Yin, empty, passiv, faking
Yang, full, active, solid.
Another cross correlation?
But as said, after a certain amount of training, these theories have to be skipped again. You need ground force in any arm, upper body move, whereever it is coming from. The conncetion is important, not the origin.

How would you -not- have ground force as you call it in any arm or body part? Its always there. Insubstantial and leading / absorbing use it.
The "passive" as you call it- is not shut -off. Empty doesn't imply that it. Were you to have someone grab your arms, one can be empty or allowing them to fall in a hole and leading maybe up or down, while other is full. I think of it as being supported in opposites at all times, and clearly displayed in our fine old gent in the video.
And they're not theories to be discarded -as in strict structure that no longer need be adhered to. Rather these things are powerful ways to fight with the body that are iniversal-screw forms and arts. You just move and hit, absorb, turn, drop, rise hit some more resist a throw through change or throw-its all supported.

[kreese]

Thanks a lot, Omar. That's pretty much what I thought he was getting at, but it is so damn subtle and my Chinese is still pre-school, not too mention his accent. What an adorable old man, though.

This is a concept I have been working with just this past month, actually. It started in my taiji form and I am grafting it to my xingyi. My current understanding is that the intent can only really be focused in one place, so in terms of the 2 hands, one is full and expanding and the other is truly empty and as relaxed as if almost forgotten. But the empty arm has the support of the entire body because it yields to the larger structure 'behind' it. So for now, when I do my Chen form the empty hand is subservient to the body's general motion. When I want to send my hand out, I have to empty it first, then let the body start moving in that direction while the other hand gets the focus. Once the body has started moving I can then let the intention and power flow through the back and out of the empty arm. It works for cross-body type moves, single ship type moves, even moves where the hands do the same thing, in which case they both empty and the lower body becomes full and the upper empties in preparation for the power/intent to flow out. As for attack and defense, the soft, empty hand is in stealth mode. It is so soft that it doesn't really trigger any alarms. The full hand will draw the opponent's attention, however, and when it becomes empty it can be like a trap-door. But I haven't really worked it out in tui shou yet so at this point this is all just theory and experimental. It's not really complicated, really. But the skill is in being able to truly empty out a part of the body, to where it is almost not even a part of my body, at the speed of thought.

Does any of this fall in line with what you've been taught or what you've figured out?