johnwang wrote:Old saying said, "If you just miss 1 cm, the end result will be 1,000 miles apart (your move won't work)".
johnwang wrote:I think we are talking about the same Chinese saying. Someone once said, "A step is a kick and a kick is a step". The fact is if you step then you are training your step. If you kick then you are training your kick. You can't have both benefits at the same time. Thinking about a "spin back kick" is just a "spin back fist" by using your leg, and if you can execute you "spin back fist" then you automatically can execute your "spin back kick" will not be a realistic assumption.
This is why I hate abstraction. It gives me an unrealistic illusion that makes me to believe that I can do something that I really can't. For example, if I believe that I can do 亮掌(Liang Zhang) then I can throw a dart and kill my opponent with accuracy will be unrealistic.
Bhassler wrote:Much of what is trained in martial arts is an abstraction of something else. As an example, when a shuai-jiao guy is swinging stone locks, tossing them in the air and catching them then swinging down between his legs and up again, the movement he's doing is not an actual throw, but it resembles a throw-- it is representative of any throw that would use grabbing, pulling down from high to low, or swinging from low to high. Something more concrete (and less abstract) would be a boxer shadow boxing in front of a mirror. In this case, he is actually bobbing, weaving and using all of his punches as he would in a match, he just lacks the contact and dynamic necessity for change that he would have with a live partner. A higher level of abstraction (meaning more abstract, not smarter/better, or anything else) would be something like a taiji form, where a particular movement might have three or four different applications, all of which are based upon the particular path of force generated from the ground through the body in that particular movement-- the path used for each particular application may not be exactly the same, but the general pattern is the same. An even greater level of abstraction might be found doing something like skipping through the woods, where a person could make a convincing argument that skipping (or even walking) contains elements of all primitive movements (flexion/extention, sidebending, rotation) and spirals within the body, and in that light with conscious attention could develop skills relevant to fighting. Going even further, simply imagining a movement can have effect on the nervous system, so depending upon the quality of the imagination, one could use mental repetitons, meditation, etc. to improve fighting ability.
So, the question is, what level of abstraction are people comfortable with and confident in relative to their own training? Or in other words, how far from the actual thing can a particular element of your training be and still help you improve? Note that the question is not whether or not one can become a fighter without actually fighting-- it's more a question around the breadth and scope of training and different people's understanding of the learning process as a whole.
johnwang wrote:Old saying said, "If you just miss 1 cm, the end result will be 1,000 miles apart (your move won't work)". When you step in, you have to land your foot on the right spot at the right time. If your landing spot is just a bit too far away from your opponent, your striking or throwing move won't work. So you have to constantly estimate the distance between you and your opponent. You then decide whether to enter at that moment or wait for the next opportunaty. After you have put this kind of consideration in your mind, the abstraction will have very little meaning to you.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 114 guests