the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

origami_itto wrote:

marvin8 wrote:

origami_itto wrote:I'm talking about a particular concept. Freedom of movement while applying constant pressure. If we want to abstract it out into contactless scenarios sure why but but I think wrapping our head around the contact based application of the principle is task enough for the immediate discussion.

That's what I thought you were talking about. I believe push/pull is a better description than constant pressure. There are times when you press, other times when you lead the opponent into emptiness..

Pushing and pulling are different things what I'm talking about is getting to a place where you can pull or push more effectively without indicating you are doing that.
There's a wrestling drill where you go from a clinch to a takedown by loosening up and flowing around your opponents arms to get to their body.
It works because you're still giving the same pressure,or even pulling back a little. While moving in.
Constant pressure doesn't mean a lot of pressure. Just consistent pressure.

Consider this idea along with the stories of the thread test.

These may be closer to your description. A push can be a strike. The push/pull principle is found in striking too.

At 3:11, “Step, jam and push/pull at the same time.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi5Kg5tpDS87T=3M11S

marvin8 wrote:Christian pushes, sticks, follows and finishes with arm drag in the direction of opponent's resistance:



... Christian (he) pushes his opponent while remaining relaxed. The second time, he feints a push. This lures the opponent to bend over and push both hands forward, a common response. Borrowing the opponent's forward momentum, Christian simply pulls opponent down and goes behind him.

Okay but I am not referring to pushing or pulling. I'm talking about neutral contact. Establishing an amount of pressure and then not changing that pressure. Pushing and pulling are changing the amount and/or direction of pressure you are applying.

If they move forward, you move forward, if they move backward, you move backward. The thread test is an example of this, following the other's movement so closely there isn't enough pressure to snap it, or so little it sags.

So that aspect, at least, is not pushing or pulling, it is following. It is a different thing.

The thing I'm talking about primarily is internal to your body. Keeping free movement while under or providing constant (not changing direction or intensity relative to the load). Being able to move in space without affecting the load at all.

origami_itto wrote:

everything wrote:

origami_itto wrote:Energy

or maybe intent

Intent is just a type of energy

do we read the bull's intent or energy? i guess it's both, but slightly different.

never done bullfighting, but i'd say it's the same in all sports. probably more on intent. if i defend, i try to read the attacker's intent (and keep free movement, to your point). if i attack, i try to "set the defense", get you to wrongly plant your foot or move yourself to the wrong spot, by disguising my intent. look L, go R. i'm not good enough with 'energy' to add it to that.

origami_itto wrote:Okay but I am not referring to pushing or pulling. I'm talking about neutral contact. Establishing an amount of pressure and then not changing that pressure. Pushing and pulling are changing the amount and/or direction of pressure you are applying.

If they move forward, you move forward, if they move backward, you move backward. The thread test is an example of this, following the other's movement so closely there isn't enough pressure to snap it, or so little it sags.

So that aspect, at least, is not pushing or pulling, it is following. It is a different thing.

The thing I'm talking about primarily is internal to your body. Keeping free movement while under or providing constant (not changing direction or intensity relative to the load). Being able to move in space without affecting the load at all.

Is ZMQ, in my first reply, an example of what you are trying to explain? There is constant pressure at ZMQ's arm. As ZMQ moves his forearm back, he shifts his body forward. Then, he changes to press.

Sort of, but I think he demonstrated it better in his stealing step. In push hands, his partner would retreat and he would take a half step forward, when the partner tried to move forward he got launched. You can see it easily in the common YouTube video.

The first two here
https://youtu.be/fSYPOhSgiis

I remember a few decades back my teacher was leaving to live on his farm
A well known teacher came around for a final push
My teacher had always gone easy on him but this time he threw him all over the place
When it was over he asked how come he could do it on that day
My teacher said nothing had changed he just filled up each gap
The teacher asked what technique did you use
My teacher said to me
With all his training he still thinks it’s still about technique
CMC is not about technique he’s all about feeling a gap and filling it up

wayne hansen wrote:CMC is not about technique he’s all about feeling a gap and filling it up

In my experience, that's true of every martial art. Obviously, the methods used to get there vary drastically.

origami_itto wrote:Okay but I am not referring to pushing or pulling. I'm talking about neutral contact. Establishing an amount of pressure and then not changing that pressure. Pushing and pulling are changing the amount and/or direction of pressure you are applying.

No. The concept of push/pull is "neutral contact," not using force against force. It can be used with or without contact. If they push, you pull. If they pull, you push.

origami_itto wrote:If they move forward, you move forward, if they move backward, you move backward. The thread test is an example of this, following the other's movement so closely there isn't enough pressure to snap it, or so little it sags.

No. The string may snap: "If they move backward, you move backward." The string will sag: "If they move forward, you move forward."

The string will not snap: "If they move backward, you move forward." The string will stay taut: If they move forward, you move backward.

origami_itto wrote:So that aspect, at least, is not pushing or pulling, it is following. It is a different thing.

It is push/pull. Push hands is not only following. It includes adhere (nian) to their push (e.g., roll back), then follow (sui) them out with a push.

Okay you can have your semantics if it makes you feel good. I don't agree to the way you use the terms but that's fine.

didnt read all the stuff. less text less brain more train. anyway. maybe this is something you are talking about.

Part 1:
at 4:08


if this is interesting you may watch the whole package

Part 2:

origami_itto wrote:Okay you can have your semantics if it makes you feel good. I don't agree to the way you use the terms but that's fine.

It's not about semantics. It's about understanding the mechanics or physics of the thread test, "neutral contact," push hands and your topic "constant pressure, free movement."

marvin8 wrote:

origami_itto wrote:Okay you can have your semantics if it makes you feel good. I don't agree to the way you use the terms but that's fine.

It's not about semantics. It's about understanding the mechanics or physics of the thread test, "neutral contact," push hands and your topic "constant pressure, free movement."

I'm not going to redefine terms to assist your intentio my al misunderstanding. Pushing and pulling are different things and I don't want to argue about that so, cheers.

origami_itto wrote:

marvin8 wrote:

origami_itto wrote:Okay you can have your semantics if it makes you feel good. I don't agree to the way you use the terms but that's fine.

It's not about semantics. It's about understanding the mechanics or physics of the thread test, "neutral contact," push hands and your topic "constant pressure, free movement."

I'm not going to redefine terms to assist your intentio my al misunderstanding. Pushing and pulling are different things and I don't want to argue about that so, cheers.

Again not semantics, physics. You are not understanding your own "constant pressure." Your statement, "If they move forward, you move forward, if they move backward, you move backward" is not constant pressure. It's the opposite.

To maintain "constant pressure:" If they move forward (push), you move backward (pull), if they move backward (pull), you move forward (push). It's the physics of "constant pressure."

You're absolutely right, thank you for correcting me.