the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Nice sneaky little knockdown

classic chinese wrestling move. caught it a few times, not the easiest to get, but nice.

Does that move really follow the double strike in your form? Can you possibly show it in a 'proper' CPL form clip. Don't really recall seeing it in a TCC form before and it's not in the CPL version I do. From there I transition straight into a squating type movement which I know as "duck sits down" where one leg crosses behind the other and the hands from the double strike you show circle down and back round to cross in front of you.
cheers.

gonna talk amongst myself then.
I can see why people want to or like to relate techniques to form movements. sometimes you can change or adapt things but keep the core mechanic other times it is too different and becomes something else. It's commonplace in tcc to view all sorts of techniques being linked to this or that bit of form; some convincing some not so convincing.

having done my fair share of this kind of exploration i think there's a better more fundamental way to view and conceptualise technique within the TCC framework. I see many TCC people getting stuck in this kind of box around them that mostly bounds people to their form movements give or take. What I have found though is with a good working knowledge of techniques and the 8 methods you can cover so much more, leaving the form as a kind of set of primary templates and examples.

To put this classic chinese wrestling example under that lense; we see that the main parts are a pulling (tsai) on one side and a use of the shoulder that turns and applies force from the other side and these two combine with the blocking off of the leg which uses a downward application of force. 3 points of contact each using one of the 8 methods of using force. One pulls one bumps and one pushes downward; this is tsai, kao and an combining. That's the core and further; The footwork can be a step back or step behind and there is also rotations present in the technique that need to be well executed.

This I feel is a much better lense or comparative view or conceptualization than trying to mine bits and pieces from forms and or trying to find a place for something that was never really there. 'As is' I don't believe this move exists in Yang, Wu or CPL form, all of which i've practiced. In parts, in principal in methodology - yes.

Imo, it uses the concept of a knee pick --which isn't dependent on system/style. It doesn't need to be equated to a specific tcc form, but that doesn't mean that a specific form couldn't be used for it. There can be many possible ways to apply the technique, but they depend on biomechanics and opportunity.

cloudz wrote:gonna talk amongst myself then.
I can see why people want to or like to relate techniques to form movements. sometimes you can change or adapt things but keep the core mechanic other times it is too different and becomes something else. It's commonplace in tcc to view all sorts of techniques being linked to this or that bit of form; some convincing some not so convincing.

having done my fair share of this kind of exploration i think there's a better more fundamental way to view and conceptualise technique within the TCC framework. I see many TCC people getting stuck in this kind of box around them that mostly bounds people to their form movements give or take. What I have found though is with a good working knowledge of techniques and the 8 methods you can cover so much more, leaving the form as a kind of set of primary templates and examples.

To put this classic chinese wrestling example under that lense; we see that the main parts are a pulling (tsai) on one side and a use of the shoulder that turns and applies force from the other side and these two combine with the blocking off of the leg which uses a downward application of force. 3 points of contact each using one of the 8 methods of using force. One pulls one bumps and one pushes downward; this is tsai, kao and an combining. That's the core and further; The footwork can be a step back or step behind and there is also rotations present in the technique that need to be well executed.

This I feel is a much better lense or comparative view or conceptualization than trying to mine bits and pieces from forms and or trying to find a place for something that was never really there. 'As is' I don't believe this move exists in Yang, Wu or CPL form, all of which i've practiced. In parts, in principal in methodology - yes.

To an extent I definitely agree with you. I believe it is an error to think that this-movement-equals-this-technique for several reasons. The goal of formlessness transcending technique being first, the deeper meaning of the form beyond a catalogue of martial arts techniques being another.

To an extent I disagree, mapping sensible martial arts techniques onto the movements of the form can serve as a means of teaching the principles behind the techniques to students without a prior depth of fighting knowledge. That makes it possible for the student to spot opportunities to apply the principles underpinning the technique. I always refer to applications as application ideas for this reason. If the application idea is constructed on solid taiji principles using the 8 gates and 5 steps, then it's a good application idea. If it's just some made up external garbage then you might as well not bother.

Secondly application ideas if properly constructed can serve as a mnemonic to discipline the form. remembering, for example, that the hands are imagined to be on the wrist and shoulder and the waist turn is applying leverage to control the torso vs stressing the elbow joint (or both) can inform the character of intention and both external and internal movement.

But they have to be approached as ideas and examples, not The One True Technique, to approach that ideal of transcendent formlessness.

oragami itto wrote:To an extent I disagree, mapping sensible martial arts techniques onto the movements of the form can serve as a means of teaching the principles behind the techniques to students without a prior depth of fighting knowledge.

I really don't have a problem with that at all, it's something I'm happy to do - and do so. I just think the bounderies get too blurry at times and people take things a little too far than is necessary in that direction. Sometimes looking to the form for the 'answers', when they could do better (IMO) looking at the 8 methods alternatively or a pick and mix type mentality to the form components, bringing out new combination of movements etc. Different words coming from the alphabet soup if you like..

chock full of cautionary tales this week eh.

Steve James wrote:Imo, it uses the concept of a knee pick --which isn't dependent on system/style. It doesn't need to be equated to a specific tcc form, but that doesn't mean that a specific form couldn't be used for it. There can be many possible ways to apply the technique, but they depend on biomechanics and opportunity.

if by "pick" you mean some kind of picking up or pulling/ plucking then it's not that. that's usually how "pick" get's used eg. ankle pick.
this is a blocking off or jamming type thing at the knee - you hold it in place effectively. that's why it's good to put a little down pressure - in my experience.

Bagua Snake.








S

cloudz wrote:

oragami itto wrote:To an extent I disagree, mapping sensible martial arts techniques onto the movements of the form can serve as a means of teaching the principles behind the techniques to students without a prior depth of fighting knowledge.

I really don't have a problem with that at all, it's something I'm happy to do - and do so. I just think the bounderies get too blurry at times and people take things a little too far than is necessary in that direction. Sometimes looking to the form for the 'answers', when they could do better (IMO) looking at the 8 methods alternatively or a pick and mix type mentality to the form components, bringing out new combination of movements etc. Different words coming from the alphabet soup if you like..

chock full of cautionary tales this week eh.

Exactly, when I said principles behind the techniques, what I'm referring to is the 8 methods and 5 steps. A good application in my opinion should showcase the practical use of them in a realistic context.

Straight out of the form
Cloud hands
I wouldn't use it from the inside but it works well from the outside

wayne hansen wrote:Straight out of the form
Cloud hands
I wouldn't use it from the inside but it works well from the outside

If I had to pick a single movement to teach someone that would be it

cloudz wrote:Does that move really follow the double strike in your form?

Hi Cloudz. The movement that I show in the video follows "Shoot the tiger with bow". It is near the end of the form.
Regards

An example of it on youtube would be nice - if it's out there.
But thanks for your answer, I'm not sure it exists in Chen Pan Lings textbook - if we are to use a reference point we must both agree is a recognised standard for this form of TCC. However I will / should check as I may just be missing it or being thick..

Do you have a copy of that BTW ?

Bottom line, this is not really an orthodox and or traditional TCC move in my opinion but rather a traditional Chinese Wrestling move. I think it's great to be exploring Chinese wrestling as far as possible - it's something I went through and did myself. But "the truth" matters to some extent I think.. If you found something in your form to match up or were taught it by someone in relation to what you describe - then ok, it is what it is. But I would need further convincing personally that this stacks up.. Not that you have to convince anyone of course - just carry on enjoying the practice as you clearly do. I don't get though why you would demonstrate it the way you did in the clip, right after the double strike to the head if that's not even where it appears in the choreography. Sorry to be the caster of scepticism, I don't really mean to be, but I find it hard to ignore.

But regardless, more power to you. What you're doing is good practice in my book and that's the main thing!