the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

charles wrote:I've been taught "an" is a downward action, as in "push down". Peng is upward/outward, an is downward, ji is forward, lu is backward/inward. It's all "Peng". After that, call it whatever you like.

What is more disappointing to me is that few agree on what Peng Jin is. With sufficient variation in meaning, the term no longer has any common meaning: it means whatever one wants it to mean.

There are some differences of interpretation of the 8 jins. Some people says "an" is a downward movement, some people regard it as forward and upward, yet others says it's just "push".

Peng is not the same as pengjin. Peng is using peng as a movement, pengjin is the quality or energy that could be said should always be prevalent.

The problem is that a character or concept in Chinese can mean different things. But I don't care what people call different things. I see what different practitioners do, how they do what they do, and if I can, I want to feel what they do. How someone verbalise what he or she does is not important. IMO, people are too concerned with words.

LaoDan wrote: it is not clear to me how they describe a punch to the face in terms of the 8 TJQ energies.

A straight punch, as a lead is traditionally viewed as "ji" or press. "Ji" just means a force straight out from the middle of the body, or a force that is aligned straight from the center line.

I've been taught "an" is a downward action, as in "push down". Peng is upward/outward, an is downward, ji is forward, lu is backward/inward.

"An" is not straight "down"; it's forward and down (like water). (But. "push down" works just fine). "Peng" (and I'm only talking about the Yang 13 things) is upward and forward. The name YCF used was "Ward off slantingly upward." But, forward can always mean outward, and I agree (fwiw) that what one calls a particular movement is irrelevant. "Tsai" is "pull down" (or "pluck"), but it's not An, and not just because it "Tsai" is usually downward and inward. However, "forward" (i.e., "advance" (the ji that's not Ji (Press, Squeeze) can be added to An or Tsai. Both can be done to the rear (or while advancing to the rear).

My point is that there are too many variables to make it necessary to define a punch to the face as either An, Peng, etc. For ex., Fair Lady Works Shuttles contains movements that could be punches. But, in the form, palms are used. If they were fists --and why not?-- does that mean that FLWS is An or Peng? Sure, it's perfectly possible to give it a name, but what's the point? I don't think calling it all Peng is useful, let along necessary. And, imo, it'd be inaccurate unless one begins by defining Peng as everything anyway.

Is Hit Tiger at Right/Left a punch to the face? What about the punches downward? Some young practitioner might want to go through the form and define all the movements according to the 13 things. But, then an opponent might do a double leg takedown

The 8 techniques are just ways to practice the forces that are inherent in every move
Ward off is to listen
Roll back to neutralise
Press to follow
Push to attack
The lesser 4 energies are just their variations when you are disrupted from the direct path
As they are in GST so are they in single whip and all places combat appears

I think the important aspect to the eight and five is that it helps develop a framework for considering things. None of them has an objective concrete meaning.

Considering the very nature of orally transmitted knowledge is the telephone game, it's not surprising there is some drift and variance in the traditions as understood. It's definitely interesting to see the difference in perspective and conceptualization.

I think the issue here is trying to describe something tangible using the intangible. We seem to get hung up as soon as attempts are made to describe a jab, cross, or throw using tcc terms and theory. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying that there's always a lack of agreement. Actually, it's the decades old argument that "we do it another way in my school/style/etc." Now, I think it can be important to consider how to punch someone in the face. It's just not important to call it an application of ... whatever. What if someone uses one hand to pull the opponent's head into a punch with the other hand? How about using the elbow, instead?

There are many things that could be considered a strike to the face.

If one excepts that the power of one's body is limited to the tracks, the paths, on which your limbs extent and withdraw, then it all becomes quite simple. These tracks can curve but they must remain linear and connected. When I contact my opponent they take the train either one way or the other, driven along by my action of extension and retraction.

rojcewiczj wrote: When I contact my opponent they take the train either one way or the other, driven along by my action of extension and retraction.

The human body is also capable of rotation and translation. Where do they fit into your equation?

These tracks can curve but they must remain linear

In mathematics, a curve can be straight (linear) or not (non-linear). A linear curve, by definition, is a straight line.

In colloquial language, a curve (non-linear) line is the opposite to a straight line (linear), so that a curve can't be linear.

My extension and retraction is always in a straight line. I can curve that line through rotation and move that line over a distance through translation. Rotation and translation, without lost of extension and retraction on a specific track, is the challenge which requires so much training in order to progress.

That must make turning door handles a real pain in the ass