cloudz wrote:Nice post Charles.
Yeah, nice edit
cloudz wrote:Nice post Charles.
BruceP wrote:charles wrote:willie wrote:All those theories are just a replacement for the fact that they do not and cannot make real Tai Chi work because they do not have the proper instructions.
Funny, that's largely what Brucep stated
Actually, willie and I couldn't be more opposite in our thinking on that.
The unhewn log already knows how to cast an arrow.
Theory compounds difficulty and pretty much forces the seeker to mistake the technique for the goal.
The only section of stave that is worth a bow is the one that already knows how to move like a bow - all the rest of it is unnecessary for practicality, and unrealistic for application. TJQ is simple and direct when it has no applications or techniques, and when it appeals to the section of someone's being which allows them the creative latitude to explore their personal tjq without thinking too much about it.
TJQ is accessible to anyone in quite short order, and with only a basic repertiore of insight and repeatable method, because most people have it already.
You can't really teach anyone anything - you can only bring out what's already there.
cloudz wrote:Nice post Charles.
Here's a million dollar question for you.
On which side do you fall on the question of the Primary moving part; dantien or kua
Dantien as per the Chen village folks etc. or kua as described by Chen Zhonghua/ practical method.
BruceP wrote:cloudz wrote:Nice post Charles.
Yeah, nice edit
charles wrote:
Here's my $.02 answer.
You've misunderstood the Practical Method. They are both dan tian centric, but taught in different ways, emphasizing different things at different times.
cloudz wrote:willie wrote:Sorry Charles it's not my job to humor you. The truth is I don't even care to prove anything to you or anyone else. maybe you should ask yourself one question. Then come up with a conclusion for yourself. Here's the question. If the majority of all the applications require Dantian rotation at its highest levels. Then how could you expect the applications to actually perform at the highest levels? If the practitioner doesn't understand anything about Dantian rotation or the transmission necessary to bring the Dantian rotation out to the limbs. how many of these Masters that you speak of can actually perform the applications in combat? the simple truth from the thousands of practitioners that I have seen is that most only acquire Peng, root and a couple theories. Most of them believe that taiji is only to yield. This is not true. All those theories are just a replacement for the fact that they do not and cannot make real Tai Chi work because they do not have the proper instructions.
Obviously there are levels to all things..
But if you have connection present, move 'from the centre' use circularity and rotation in and around limbs and joints.. Use 'whole body integration' you're pretty much doing it.
let's face it Willy. I don't think if you asked these requirements of any tai chi style or line you would actually come up empty handed. It's just a matter of degree or what is stressed, what is marketed.. etc.
regards
cloudz wrote:if that's the case i would have to question the lengthy article written that was pretty clear (or so it seemed) that the rotation of the kua, as defined by the article, was the first and foremost 'place of' movement. Do you not agree?
cloudz wrote:Oh, and who do you think has the best cake, if you could just pick one?
cheers!
charles wrote:cloudz wrote:Oh, and who do you think has the best cake, if you could just pick one?
cheers!
You may as well ask who has the best religion. Sorry, I'm not going there.
charles wrote:cloudz wrote:if that's the case i would have to question the lengthy article written that was pretty clear (or so it seemed) that the rotation of the kua, as defined by the article, was the first and foremost 'place of' movement. Do you not agree?
If the article is accessible on-line, please post a link to it. I'd be glad to read it. Until I've read it, I can't really comment on it. However, if he clearly states that the kua is the foremost place of movement, it would seem that's what he means, in which case, I'm wrong. Simple as that.
robert wrote:Hi Charles, I think these are the articles.
Also here's clip of CXW discussing power generation and he talks about it in terms of the crotch, waist, and chest.
charles wrote:cloudz wrote:Oh, and who do you think has the best cake, if you could just pick one?
cheers!
You may as well ask who has the best religion. Sorry, I'm not going there.
charles wrote:willie wrote: it's a level of integration which is necessary to power the drilling or boring requirements of Tai Chi
I wanted to let Willie respond to your question before saying anything. Here's what I was taught.
A basic principle of Taijiquan is whole-body motion, often stated as "When one part moves, all parts move". (In Chen style, some say, "When the dan tian moves all parts move".) To illustrate that principle, people have compared the use of the body in Taijiquan to mechanical devices that demonstrate similar behaviour. One such device is a gear train.
....
The concept is simple enough; achieving it is less so. In Chen style, silk reeling is, if well taught, the explicit method for doing so: one part rotating (twisting) causes the next to rotate.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests