the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Bao wrote:

In both Yang and Chen styles the principle one part of the body moves, the whole body moves, applies all the time, not just on contact.

In solo practice, that should be the ideal. When dealing with an opponent, if your structure is connected, he can feel your structure. If your whole body moves together, he can connect through your whole structure.

That depends on your skill level. The first time I pushed hands with CXW I couldn't believe it - when I went to push on him there was nothing there. I think there is something in the classics along the line of - I know my opponent, but he doesn't know me.

Bao wrote:

In both Yang and Chen styles the principle one part of the body moves, the whole body moves, applies all the time, not just on contact.

IME you need to know how to disconnect and when it's better to move parts independently from the rest of the body.

In the Yang family classics they say taijiquan is superior to external arts because external arts have gaps; whereas taiji is continuous. If you disconnect that is a gap. That is an opportunity for your opponent to get you. We obviously disagree on the fundamentals of taijiquan.

Robert wrote: The first time I pushed hands with CXW I couldn't believe it - when I went to push on him there was nothing there. I think there is something in the classics along the line of - I know my opponent, but he doesn't know me.

In the Yang family classics they say taijiquan is superior to external arts because external arts have gaps; whereas taiji is continuous. If you disconnect that is a gap. That is an opportunity for your opponent to get you. We obviously disagree on the fundamentals of taijiquan.

Back in the '90's, Mike Sigman was stating that Peng is "ground path". CXW, whom Mr. Sigman was heavily promoting at the time, stated unequivocally that Peng is not the same thing as "ground path". When someone did a "ground path", CXW would correct them and tell them not to do that because one could "know" them and feel and exploit their stance ("root") and center.

I suggest that there is a difference between having a continuous, obvious "path" to one's root, one with no gaps or discontinuities, and the being "not there" that you described CXW doing. Hong taught, explicitly, not to move all of the body "together", that is, all of the parts move simultaneously in a coordinated way, but not "together". He called the error of moving "together", tossing. (Forms in his style are practiced the same way as applications.) A "ground path" is one example of everything moving "together" - all parts moving in the same direction at the same time.

The Village method does forms one way and applications another. Solo forms are taught so that the body moves "together", but effective application requires the parts be coordinated but not together, not everything moving in the same direction at the same time. In my experience, the Village teaching does not explicitly teach that distinction with the later being left to the student to figure out, or not.

robert wrote:In the Yang family classics they say taijiquan is superior to external arts because external arts have gaps; whereas taiji is continuous

That is one important part of the formula and generally correct.

If you disconnect that is a gap. That is an opportunity for your opponent to get you.

Depends on your overall following skill and timing.

We obviously disagree on the fundamentals of taijiquan.

.

Maybe on application. Obviously the skills should be developed, but no need to follow rules blindly. Everything has a reason and fundamentals should be explored in practical practice.

charles wrote:
Back in the '90's, Mike Sigman was stating that Peng is "ground path". CXW, whom Mr. Sigman was heavily promoting at the time, stated unequivocally that Peng is not the same thing as "ground path". When someone did a "ground path", CXW would correct them and tell them not to do that because one could "know" them and feel and exploit their stance ("root") and center.

I suggest that there is a difference between having a continuous, obvious "path" to one's root, one with no gaps or discontinuities, and the being "not there" that you described CXW doing. Hong taught, explicitly, not to move all of the body "together", that is, all of the parts move simultaneously in a coordinated way, but not "together". He called the error of moving "together", tossing. (Forms in his style are practiced the same way as applications.) A "ground path" is one example of everything moving "together" - all parts moving in the same direction at the same time.

The Village method does forms one way and applications another. Solo forms are taught so that the body moves "together", but effective application requires the parts be coordinated but not together, not everything moving in the same direction at the same time. In my experience, the Village teaching does not explicitly teach that distinction with the later being left to the student to figure out, or not.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

charles wrote:Back in the '90's, Mike Sigman was stating that Peng is "ground path". CXW, whom Mr. Sigman was heavily promoting at the time, stated unequivocally that Peng is not the same thing as "ground path". When someone did a "ground path", CXW would correct them and tell them not to do that because one could "know" them and feel and exploit their stance ("root") and center.

I agree that ground path and peng jin are not the same. I've done a number of workshops with Mike and when our paths cross we get to together and I find his ideas helpful. The workshops I went to Mike showed foot in the door exercises that serve as sign posts. If a person moves externally and is shown how do a ground path they do it externally. It takes a lot of work to internalize the movement. I don't know who the person was that you are talking about or what they did or what their skill level was. If a person is non athletic, hasn't worked out, and goes to a gym, if they are shown how to lift weights, they will not be dead lifting 300 lbs the next week For the most I have verified much of what I understood from Mike's workshops working with CXW and his family although I didn't take it as dogma, but as a basic idea in which to understand what is explained in terms of qi theory and neijin.

charles wrote:I suggest that there is a difference between having a continuous, obvious "path" to one's root, one with no gaps or discontinuities, and the being "not there" that you described CXW doing. Hong taught, explicitly, not to move all of the body "together", that is, all of the parts move simultaneously in a coordinated way, but not "together". He called the error of moving "together", tossing. (Forms in his style are practiced the same way as applications.) A "ground path" is one example of everything moving "together" - all parts moving in the same direction at the same time.

The point I was making is that CXW's jin was not obvious. That depends on skill level. That's what the member rating is on this forum if I'm not mistaken - ming, ann, and hua jin, obvious, hidden, and mysterious jin.

charles wrote:The Village method does forms one way and applications another. Solo forms are taught so that the body moves "together", but effective application requires the parts be coordinated but not together, not everything moving in the same direction at the same time. In my experience, the Village teaching does not explicitly teach that distinction with the later being left to the student to figure out, or not.

You said together means in the same direction. In lan zhi yi the right hand rises and left hand lowers and circle in opposite directions - you call that everything moving in the same direction at the same time?
I've done applications with CXW, CXX, CB, and CZQ and, except for hidden applications, they are done following the movement techniques used in laojia yilu.

One of the 8 powers of Tai Chi Chuan is "split" which is splitting energy in 2 directions, which doesn't involve "all parts of the body moving in the same direction". This was never a requirement of anything. Fake news 1.

Fake news 2 is that 'ground path = peng jin'.

Mike defines peng jin as "jin in an upwards direction". You can't have jin without ground so they are related, but ground is needed for any jin in Tai Chi.

I don't' know what was going on in 90s (sounds wild), but today we have the internet and you can just ask people what they think instead of going by what you thought they meant 30 years ago.

robert wrote:In the Yang family classics they say taijiquan is superior to external arts because external arts have gaps; whereas taiji is continuous. If you disconnect that is a gap. That is an opportunity for your opponent to get you..

the yang taijiquan form with its continious flow pecific (should)foster an mental awareness that is not easily broken(that is not easily gapped ) a mind that not fly around and think - this is a block and a counter punch, this is a parry and a throw, this is a kick a.s and a b..ch-slap - thats the gaps of the external, and exercises designed like that well focused mind that taijiquan do ..........but also in taiji it seemingly can be easy to get stuck in the external and to just see a myrriad of techniques in the forms instead of the true meaning of it

Trick wrote:

robert wrote:In the Yang family classics they say taijiquan is superior to external arts because external arts have gaps; whereas taiji is continuous. If you disconnect that is a gap. That is an opportunity for your opponent to get you..

the yang taijiquan form with its continious flow pecific (should)foster an mental awareness that is not easily broken(that is not easily gapped ) a mind that not fly around and think - this is a block and a counter punch, this is a parry and a throw, this is a kick a.s and a b..ch-slap - thats the gaps of the external, and exercises designed like that does not foster the well focused mind that taijiquan do ..........but also in taiji it seemingly can be easy to get stuck in the external and to just see a myrriad of techniques in the forms instead of the true meaning of it

i my self has focused on to much external lately, so not very focused here

Split absolute use of whole body as one unit

robert wrote: In lan zhi yi the right hand rises and left hand lowers and circle in opposite directions - you call that everything moving in the same direction at the same time?

And, before that, the weight shifts to the right, the waist turns to the right, the whole body moving to the right. (That is what Hong called "tossing".) Opening of the torso separates the arms, one to the right, one to the left, before one arm settles shun, the other ni. Watch Chen Yu perform the movement. It is different. Watch Hong perform the movement. It is different. You might find it interesting to explore what is different and why. The Village teaches a specific method, as I stated. There are other methods used by non-Village practitioners.

One can argue that Villagers define what is "right" in Chen style Taijiquan: what they do is right by definition. I don't have a problem with that, but there are other variations out there.

I've done applications with CXW, CXX, CB, and CZQ and, except for hidden applications, they are done following the movement techniques used in laojia yilu.

Which is the first half of what I stated. The important part of what I stated was the second half.

Graham,

Clearly you have no intention of having a rational discussion on the subject. I'll save us all what usually follows in such interactions and end my contribution here.

Well, the topic of this post isn't what you guys are talking about. So, I think you are hijacking the post and my questions aren't being answered.

You are right. My apologies for contributing to the hijacking.

I don’t know anything about what you are asking.

The whole 3rd page has nothing to do with the original post.

wayne hansen wrote:Split absolute use of whole body as one unit

all "postures" use all directionally whole body unity