the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

marvin8 wrote:Again:

marvin8 wrote:You have this common theme of arguing my explanations on the straight punch (based on the posted studies and videos) or reading into my statement (implying that I am making statements that I am not) without quoting the specific statements.

dspyrido wrote:

marvin8 wrote: Per wikipedia, chin na refers to "joint locks."

If wikipedia is the extent of where you get your foundations from then I understand your posts.

It's not. It's one of many sources that state chin na or qin na (Chinese: 擒拿) includes joint locking.

What is your understanding of the definition of chin na, if it does not include joint locking?

dspyrido wrote:The thing about xy's range is that it is most effective at close range . . . most sports fights with striking are not conducted at this range.

If the extent of your sports fights does not include close range techniques, you might look for another teacher:

marvin8 wrote:MMA fighters (e.g., boxers, muay thai, sanda, sambo, etc.) fight at close range, too. They use close range tactics and techniques (e.g., clinch, thai plum, underhooks, collar ties, elbow control, wrist control, grabbing, pulling, elbows, knees, punches, trips, etc.).

While you lot have been arguing over definitions of china na I've been writing part 2 of this article:

https://taichinotebook.wordpress.com/20 ... -bow-draw/

marvin8 wrote:What is your understanding of the definition of chin na, if it does not include joint locking?

Do you like mangling peoples words? No one said it does not include joint locking but if that's your view on it then it's like saying boxing is about punching because that's what wikipedia says. (BTW it's not - there's a lot more to boxing... and chinna)

GrahamB wrote:While you lot have been arguing over definitions of china na I've been writing part 2 of this article:

https://wordpress.com/post/taichinotebo ... s.com/6379

No luck on the link.

Graham, your illustration is wrong. You have the bow backwards.

The back bow, when doing Han Xiong Ba Bei/ at the end of a fajin, should actually be like the shape of the bow when the string is not on. A kind of ‘C’ shape. Fajin is actually like cutting the bow string, not just releasing it.




.

dspyrido wrote:

marvin8 wrote:What is your understanding of the definition of chin na, if it does not include joint locking?

Do you like mangling peoples words? No one said it does not include joint locking but if that's your view on it then it's like saying boxing is about punching because that's what wikipedia says. (BTW it's not - there's a lot more to boxing... and chinna)

GrahamB wrote:While you lot have been arguing over definitions of china na I've been writing part 2 of this article:

https://wordpress.com/post/taichinotebo ... s.com/6379

No luck on the link.

Try the OP Link

D_Glenn wrote:Graham, your illustration is wrong. You have the bow backwards.

The back bow, when doing Han Xiong Ba Bei/ at the end of a fajin, should actually be like the shape of the bow when the string is not on. A kind of ‘C’ shape. Fajin is actually like cutting the bow string, not just releasing it.




.

Hehe, yes, Grahams illustration remind me of a drawing I saw of an sail ship in full sail with flags flagging toward the back

dspyrido wrote:
https://wordpress.com/post/taichinotebo ... s.com/6379

No luck on the link.[/quote]

Sorry, it's this one:

https://taichinotebook.wordpress.com/20 ... -bow-draw/

D_Glenn wrote:Graham, your illustration is wrong. You have the bow backwards.


.

Nope - it's fine the way it is. I'd suggest reading the words, not just looking at the pictures. I discuss this.

I probably should do a clearer picture though or more explanation - I'm only showing one bow on the whole body to give the general idea. In reality there are 5 individual ones.

e.g. the spine is one bow: as the bowstring of the main bow is pulled toward the bow, the tips of the bow are pulled inward. The bottom tip would be the coccyx. The top is the head.



Spine in a neutral position before the string is pulled back towards the bow.


Edit: That's the analogy I'm using in my blog post. I'm sure there are others and you could look at it a different way.

I should have clarified, this one is incorrect/backwards:



This one is correct:




.

Oh bugger. I've got that the bottom one the wrong way around. I'm not having a good day

Your incorrect is my correct. Blog post fixed.

So you’re saying that from the neutral position of the spine, you have to first draw the string, then release the string to fajin?

I’m saying that in the neutral/ normal position of the spine, the bow is already drawn, release the string and the spine springs into the fired position (han xiong ba bei) for a split second, then springs back to the neutral position. There’s no need to wind up.

When overlayed over the body, the front of the stomach would be on the left, backside on the right-


.

Yes (but let's not call this "fa jing" since that involves other factors).

The release of the string is a return to a neutral position for the bow/spine.

Pulling the string towards the bow would make the two ends of the bow pull down - resulting in a slight bending of the bow/ spine - this is the storing of energy.

CXW showing this clearly:

https://vimeo.com/228706928

Beng Quan uses ‘Bolangjin’ (wave crashing into the shoreline), after the arrow has fired, and the bow is springing back into shape, you could make use of this springing back power, which is called ‘Fanlangjin’ (wave receding from the shoreline) to make the grab/ qinna more effective. The pulling back effect of ‘Fanlangjin’ can also be employed when striking outward, but the feeling is different, it’s considered a crafty/ tricky (qiao) skill.
Here you can see his right hand is using Bolangjin, and when it retracts and the left hand strikes out it’s a Fanlangjin:



Slide to around 10:30 for the fajin demo: https://youtu.be/GGo00JaGmjc



.