Avoiding double-heaviness

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:23 am

Jaspalfie wrote:If you want to talk about secrecy and being open, I think I've been very generous.


Indeed you have. And, I appreciate it.

I've pretty much let the cat out of the bag on what double-weightedness is to me in my understanding which has taken some time to get to.


Indeed you have.

Beyond weight distribution, many practitioners of Taijiquan have no specific, explicit method for "distinguishing Yin from Yang, empty from full". Without that, double-weighted has no concrete meaning, no specifics of what one is doing incorrectly. It's difficult to have a discussion about double-weighted in the absence of that. If you start with a discussion of how one distinguishes Yin/Yang, empty/full, insubstantial/substantial, you'll quickly discover that, in practical terms, it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people (i.e. many different interpretations and many different practical implementations).

Everyone believes his or her interpretation and implementation is the correct one, else they wouldn't continue to hold it. (Kind of like religion, or any other form of investment in an ideology or belief system.) Everyone practicing Taijiquan has learned from a true master - just ask them. If they didn't, why would they continue to study with that teacher or practice what that teacher teaches? That relatively few practitioners have high-level skills suggests otherwise.

Different people practice "Taijiquan" for different reasons with different goals. "Taijiquan" is now, largely, whatever anyone wants it to be and for whatever purpose one wants it to achieve. Not surprisingly, in the absence of one unified, specific focus or goal, there are many interpretations of what is "right", with "right" being a different target for different people. For many practitioners, distinguishing Yin/Yang, empty/full, etc. isn't all that relevant to their goals or daily practice. Ditto for being double-weighted. For those with a specific focus, those things are imperative to their goals for their practice and if not taught from near day-one, prevents that practitioner from achieving that goal. However, for many, that isn't true. Metaphorically, you're talking about oranges while many others are talking about apples.


Do the readers here really deserve it? Its not been an easy journey with years of practice to just give it out on a plate? I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. Time to go back to lurking methinks.


You'll have to decide for yourself whether or not your time is well, or fulfillingly, spent in discussing you experiences with others. It isn't about being "right", it's about sharing, via discussion, different peoples' experiences. Some seem to forget that and try to "win" a discussion to be "right". Not everyone who reads this discussion forum posts: some might appreciate what you contribute but never comment on it.

Given that you are relatively new here, I'm just curious, what is your Taijiquan background?
Last edited by charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:25 am, edited 4 times in total.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:43 am

BruceP wrote:A three legged stool never wobbles

Hi Bruce. This is a concept that I used to ponder a long time ago. The problem with it is that a human being only has two legs and not three. But your example would suggest all sided support. that's a great thing to have, but I don't really see how it fits in with double weighted?
willie

 

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:57 am

Appledog wrote:This is what I meant when I said we don't need people's opinions. You say you're 100% certain but how are you so certain? What you say reads opposite from how Tai Chi training is usually described.


And, what skill level do most of the people describing Tai Chi have?

"There are many different interpretations of Taiji theory and we don't even know if we are on the same page." We have to get away from this kind of thinking, it's at the heart of what is poisoning the community.


While that might be what is "poisoning the community", it isn't the reason that so few practitioners have much beyond beginner level knowledge and skills.


Tai Chi is all one family, with some branches being more secretive or selective I should say in who they teach what. The old "one village's secret is the next villages's jibengong" idea. But it (tai chi) is all the same.


Sounds nice, but isn't true, at least not in our time.

There are corruptions, yes, that has arisen out of people trying to capitalize on Tai Chi's success by reforming their own martial art into Tai Chi.


Sure, there are people who have done that, but the biggest "corruption" is poor and/or incomplete teaching: most people teaching Taijiquan now have little practical knowledge and skill. Some who do aren't willing to teach it to others.


For example here's something sure to piss people off; anyone who mentions the concept of connecting to the ground or ground path or store and release along a ground path in tai chi is practicing a corrupted system.


It's an interpretation, a specific training approach. It can be a viable starting point. It is one that I was taught as an introduction to the physical mechanics involved in Taijiquan. It is not one that I use now, but it was helpful to me at that time and place. There is now much more information available than there was then - 20+ years ago.


I would say the last thing we need now is people passing around interpretations about what beginners should be doing.


Why? Because the current interpretations are so effective at producing highly skilled practitioners that there is no room for improvement in approach?

Honestly, telling beginners to worry about moving energy is a terrible thing to do.


"Energy" is an abstract concept. I prefer not to teach things in that context. However, teaching people to do concrete actions and motions that involve intent and "energy", is pretty easy to do and should, in my opinion, be taught from pretty early on. Things as simple as extending to the tips of the fingers, so that "energy" - I prefer "stretch" or "extension" - can be felt there.

Same thing with double weight, it's just a concept they can't understand.


Double-weighted is a very simple, basic concept. If a teacher can't present that in a way that a beginner can understand, one needs a better teacher. I can teach a simple, rudimentary demonstration of it in about two minutes. It's about the ability to change.


This isn't an opinion. People will get hurt if you train them this way.


What harm comes to people who train this way?
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:15 am

charles wrote:
Double-weighted is a very simple, basic concept. If a teacher can't present that in a way that a beginner can understand, one needs a better teacher. I can teach a simple, rudimentary demonstration of it in about two minutes. It's about the ability to change.


Although very simple and convenient, Yes and No...
That's beginner level.
Last edited by willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
willie

 

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:21 am

willie wrote:That's beginner level.


That's what I said it was: "a simple, rudimentary demonstration".

I encourage you to add substantively to the discussion. Tell us what you think it is and how one can train it, both at a beginner level and at higher levels.
Last edited by charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:24 am

charles wrote:
willie wrote:That's beginner level.


That's what I said it was: "a simple, rudimentary demonstration".

I encourage you to add substantively to the discussion. Tell us what you think it is and how one can train it, both at a beginner level and at higher levels.


Really? After the constant abuse I've received on this site? No...
willie

 

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:38 am

willie wrote:Really? After the constant abuse I've received on this site? No...


I'm sorry that you feel you been abused. In my opinion, I think most here have been relatively tolerant of you.

That doesn't leave much opportunity to have meaningful interaction/discussion with you if your contribution to discussion is mostly to tell people they are wrong.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby shawnsegler on Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:15 am

Itto, I reported this post as personal attacks.


That's fucking hilarious!

S
I prefer
You behind the wheel
And me the passenger
User avatar
shawnsegler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6527
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: The center of things.

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:37 am

charles wrote:
willie wrote:Really? After the constant abuse I've received on this site? No...


I'm sorry that you feel you been abused. In my opinion, I think most here have been relatively tolerant of you.

That doesn't leave much opportunity to have meaningful interaction/discussion with you if your contribution to discussion is mostly to tell people they are wrong.

I rest my case. If I had answered the question Charles with the correct answer which would come directly from my teacher who is saying the same thing as his teacher the answer would be badgered and thrown around at some ridiculous b******* because people don't understand that level yet.
So there is no solution. Could you imagine my teacher coming on here? Being badgered like that? Or worse yet Wang himself? I don't think so
willie

 

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:23 pm

willie wrote:I rest my case. If I had answered the question Charles with the correct answer which would come directly from my teacher who is saying the same thing as his teacher the answer would be badgered and thrown around at some ridiculous b******* because people don't understand that level yet.


Maybe, but my response is the same as to Jaspalfi, it's about sharing via discussion, not about proving who is "correct" and who is not. If you believe yours/your teacher's/his teacher's is the "correct" interpretation but others don't accept it as such, you've done your part of sharing/discussing. Others don't have to accept it or agree with it - or even understand it - to have a meaningful conversation, one in which there is an exchange of ideas and information.


So there is no solution.


Sure there is. One doesn't have to be "right". Others don't have to agree with you - or me.

Could you imagine my teacher coming on here? Being badgered like that? Or worse yet Wang himself? I don't think so


Here's the thing. WHJ is a well-known practitioner and, generally, people know of his skill level - he has publicly taught and people have publicly fairly widely experienced his skill level. He has earned the respect of those who know of him for the long, hard work that he has put in in developing the skills that he has.

Your teacher is unknown to anyone here - we don't even know his name. No one here, as far as I know, other than you, has ever seen him move or felt what he can do. He is a total unknown but for what little you have told us about him - he teaches/practices a hybrid of the Chen style Taijiquan of CZL/WHJ and other art (mantis?). He has earned no respect here because no one knows anything about him. I'd like to think that those here would extend the same polite courtesy as they would to any new, unknown contributor to this discussion forum. If his first posts here were that everyone here is wrong and doesn't know anything, and he refused to offer much in the way of reasoning for those statements, chances are he'd get a fairly chilly response from those here - much as you have. He hasn't earned the credibility here to do that and have people accept what he says.

You aren't WHJ. You aren't your teacher, about whom we know next to nothing. Few - none? - of the people here - those discussing things with you here - have first-hand experience of your skill level. Sure, you've described your fights and interactions with other Taiji people, you've posted a few videos, but none here - as far as I know - have experienced your skill level. You haven't taught publicly, few here have any first-hand experience of your skills. We assume that you can fight, but that doesn't prove anything about your level in Taijiquan: lots of people are good fighters, many of whom don't practice Taijiquan. However, based upon your assessment of your unknown-here teacher, and his affiliation with WHJ, you are demanding a level of acknowledgement that you haven't earned here. You have yet to demonstrate a superior knowledge or level of superior skill to people here. When you continually state that most people here are wrong, and offer no insight into why they are wrong or how they might correct those errors, and continually insist that you have The Real Deal and no one else here does, there is no real basis for people here to substantiate that. Hence, here, you are just another guy on an internet discussion forum with an opinion who has studied with someone who studied with someone famous. You are not unique in doing that.

In short, it's about credibility. Just saying that one spent a lot of money to learn the secrets that no one else knows - while showing no concrete evidence of that to people in the conversation - doesn't create credibility. Without that credibility, it comes across as unsubstantiated arrogance. When WHJ, for example, says someone is wrong, it has credibility that he has earned through teaching people, coaching people and many people feeling first-hand his skills. It is an important distinction.

Where it becomes interesting is when, for example, two different, equally qualified people from different lineages disagree. Both have high-level skills - not necessarily the same skills, but high-level at what they respectively do - but disagree on things such as how and what to train and how to explain what they are doing. Is one of the "right" and the other "wrong"? How does one reconcile that? How does one chose whom to believe?

There are others here who have studied, within their respective lineages, just as close to the source as you have. What they have learned might not agree with what you have learned. That doesn't necessarily make then wrong. Having a discussion with such people can be insightful about not only what they do and learned, but about what you learned.
Last edited by charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:36 pm

charles wrote:
willie wrote:I rest my case. If I had answered the question Charles with the correct answer which would come directly from my teacher who is saying the same thing as his teacher the answer would be badgered and thrown around at some ridiculous b******* because people don't understand that level yet.


Maybe, but my response is the same as to Jaspalfi, it's about sharing via discussion, not about proving who is "correct" and who is not. If you believe yours/your teacher's/his teacher's is the "correct" interpretation but others don't accept it as such, you've done your part of sharing/discussing. Others don't have to accept it or agree with it - or even understand it - to have a meaningful conversation, one in which there is an exchange of ideas and information.


So there is no solution.


Sure there is. One doesn't have to be "right". Others don't have to agree with you - or me.

Could you imagine my teacher coming on here? Being badgered like that? Or worse yet Wang himself? I don't think so


Here's the thing. WHJ is a well-known practitioner and, generally, people know of his skill level - he has publicly taught and people have publicly fairly widely experienced his skill level. He has earned the respect of those who know of him for the long, hard work that he has put in in developing the skills that he has.

Your teacher is unknown to anyone here - we don't even know his name. No one here, as far as I know, other than you, has ever seen him move or felt what he can do. He is a total unknown but for what little you have told us about him - he teaches/practices a hybrid of the Chen style Taijiquan of CZL/WHJ and other art (mantis?). He has earned no respect here because no one knows anything about him. I'd like to think that those here would extend the same polite courtesy as they would to any new, unknown contributor to this discussion forum.

You aren't WHJ. You aren't your teacher, about whom we know next to nothing. Few - none? - of the people here - those discussing things with you here - have first-hand experience of your skill level. Sure, you've described your fights and interactions with other Taiji people, you've posted a few videos, but none here - as far as I know - have experienced your skill level. You haven't taught publicly, few here have any first-hand experience of your skills. However, based upon your assessment of your unknown-here teacher, and his affiliation with WHJ, you are demanding a level of acknowledgement that you haven't earned here. You have yet to demonstrate a superior knowledge or level of superior skill to people here. When you continually state that most people here are wrong, and offer no insight into why they are wrong or how they might correct those errors, and continually insist that you have The Real Deal and no one else here does, there is no real basis for people here to substantiate that. Hence, here, you are just another guy on an internet discussion forum with an opinion who has studied with someone who studied with someone famous. You are not unique in doing that.

In short, it's about credibility. Just saying that one spent a lot of money to learn the secrets that no one else knows - while showing no concrete evidence of that to people in the conversation - doesn't create credibility. Without that credibility, it comes across as unsubstantiated arrogance. When WHJ, for example, says someone is wrong, it has credibility that he has earned through teaching people, coaching people and many people feeling first-hand his skills. It is an important distinction.

Where it becomes interesting is when, for example, two different, equally qualified people from different lineages disagree. Both have high-level skills - not necessarily the same skills, but high-level at what they respectively do - but disagree on things such as how and what to train and how to explain what they are doing. Is one of the "right" and the other "wrong"? How does one reconcile that? How does one chose whom to believe?

Haha wrong again Charles. My teacher is not an unknown. He taught seminars amongst the highest level chi chi Masters anywhere. Again you assume things. He is incredible. Tom the administrator came to meet him and me. Although I don't think that my teacher wants his name all over public forums. That is his choice to privacy. All's I can tell you is he is very proud of my skill level and has introduced me to Wang as his own. Everything else that you have wrote here is irrelevant.
Last edited by willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
willie

 

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby charles on Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:46 pm

willie wrote:Haha wrong again Charles. My teacher is not an unknown. He taught seminars amongst the highest level chi chi Masters anywhere. Again you assume things. He is incredible. Tom the administrator came to meet him and me.


I stand corrected. Thanks for the additional information.

Although I don't think that my teacher wants his name all over public forums. That is his choice to privacy.


Absolutely it is and I respect his choice of privacy.


All's I can tell you is he is very proud of my skill level and has introduced me to Wang as his own.


That's a nice accomplishment, one to be proud of.


Everything else that you have wrote here is irrelevant.


Sorry you feel that way.

Anyway, I've said what I have to say. Thank you.
charles
Wuji
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby willie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:06 pm

charles wrote:
willie wrote:Haha wrong again Charles. My teacher is not an unknown. He taught seminars amongst the highest level chi chi Masters anywhere. Again you assume things. He is incredible. Tom the administrator came to meet him and me.


I stand corrected. Thanks for the additional information.

Although I don't think that my teacher wants his name all over public forums. That is his choice to privacy.


Absolutely it is and I respect his choice of privacy.


All's I can tell you is he is very proud of my skill level and has introduced me to Wang as his own.


That's a nice accomplishment, one to be proud of.


Everything else that you have wrote here is irrelevant.


Sorry you feel that way.

Anyway, I've said what I have to say. Thank you.


O.K. Thanks
Charles, I posted in OTT in order to avoid all these endless arguments.
Honestly, I feel that I was badgered in every way since I came here and I just don't want to discuss Martial arts at all.

I have other hobbies that don't include all the B.S.
willie

 

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby oragami_itto on Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:55 am

Well now that's settled, can we talk about double weightedness again?
I'm with Charles in that the most succinct understanding is whether or not one can change, body shape, force vector, balance point, "ground path" etc. Double weightedness is the opposite of agility
"This principle is very obvious and requires no further elaboration."
-Yang Cheng Fu
User avatar
oragami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Avoiding double-heaviness

Postby oragami_itto on Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:41 am

What do you say changes, then?
"This principle is very obvious and requires no further elaboration."
-Yang Cheng Fu
User avatar
oragami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Austin, TX

PreviousNext

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest