Bao wrote:origami_itto wrote:Maybe you just don't understand what you're seeing there?
Why would he need to change position? At the level he is operating that becomes irrelevant.
Regardless if you use qi, yi, or subtle or evident strength, you still need to affect your opponents balance and/or structure in some way. Which means you need to place yourself in such a way so you can add your pressure/movement/energy through the right direction and angle. So I understand exactly what I see here, Huang does not even try to catch his student's balance or structure. And he tries to use external force against the woman, there's absolutely nothing "internal" in that clip.
Which clip? I didn't see anything with Huang failing, but may have missed it. Relink?
There's a saying that "as soon as one touches the opponent's clothing, they can be thrown in any of 18 ways" It's not about repositioning or adding pressure through direction and angle in that way. Free circle.
You make contact, assume ownership. You don't need to fight for position.
What is the purpose and end result of all this neigong?
IME, we all do it for different reasons. Purpose? Neigong will increase your internal awareness and body awareness, it will teach you important things about yourself and it will help you to understand your natural strength. Results? IDK... Well, this winter I have never closed my coat even once. When I go out I only wear a thin sweater beneath, never a hat or gloves, and I never feel cold. From a long time perspective, I can say that all of my Tai Chi friends who started their practice in their early teens, all look very young for their age, and also look very healthy.
But for martial arts purposes of Tai Chi, neigong will be worthless if you don't even have a basic foundation.
What basic foundation though?
And my point is just that it's not taekwondo. We work to create space in the body for movement to occur that is not (easily) externally visible.
It requires a structure but it's not about structure. You're talking about it in terms of judo, but it's more like a gun.
In essential terms. I maintain my zhong ding. When we make contact, I'm connected all the way down, I have all the position I need. On contact I can read which direction is empty and guide them into it. As they try to change to move or hide the empty angle I also adjust and whoever breaks first looses.
It may just be one of those hand to hand things, because I only really get it because it's been done to me, and can only really touch the tiniest piece of it in practice, but I have gotten to the point where I can start to throw somebody around a little when they grab my arm.
The leg demo here makes perfect sense to me, and it's a dramatization.
It's a demo, you want it to go well to illustrate the point, so you do the thing and have the student spice it up a little, right? You CAN do the thing, but if you are working with the same students over years they SHOULD be able to neutralize the things you're demonstrating, right? They SHOULD be getting better. So your students have to choose to not neutralize the jin in order to demonstrate it for the other students.
I run into this sometimes with people who give an instruction and when it approaches even close to correct they respond dramatically.
In both cases I believe the intent is to communicate an idea that the rest of the training should expound upon. In that sense, it's useful. I really have gotten a lot out of these two little clips of the leg trick and the hook.
Teachers often seem to, when they do understand, have trouble explaining the principle in a way that students can understand. Maybe the teacher doesn't understand it, maybe it just works for them because they do the exercises. Maybe they just lack the vocabulary or the talent to translate the experience into words. Maybe they don't want to give away what is precious to them that would be useless to a beginner.
Some teachers earnestly want to communicate the truth but are hampered. Others have some idea, maybe better, maybe not, but choose to communicate in a way that keeps students dependent upon them. I don't want to mull it over too much.
I believe that Adam has enough understanding and command of language and ability to frame his perspective that he could explain things in a much more useful way. But also, his material does lead to the skills he demonstrates, most people just won't be able to make the connections to get there. So would it even be advisable or useful for him to explain more deeply? How do you explain impressionism to the colorblind?
When you read in things that are not even close to what I wrote, no wonder you don't understand. 
