You need to operate your back muscle in more delicate way.
Bao wrote:This is why I feel a bit puzzled by some Chen Tai Chi schools, they overemphasis the Dantian while having very little or no method to really activate the back. Actually, by putting all of their emphasis mainly on the dantian, they use a simplified and crude type of body mechanics. Which makes it weird to see Yang and other tai chi stylists trying to copying Chen style's focus on the Dantian, falling in the same trap.
Appledog wrote:Well doesn't this imply Chen's method doesn't produce the "tai chi result"? That can't be what you mean.
I could also say activating the back is wrong-- that rather, you should activate the zhong qi channels and the back will go along for the ride -- that the qi sticking to the back is instead a beginner's postural correction akin to keeping the head suspended as if from above.
Tai chi sure is weird tho. The more I do it the more i am convinced that actually, tai chi uses strength. I think the reason why people believe it doesn't use strength is because you are not using it the way you use normal strength, from your intention. So you don't even know what you are doing. I suspect that people started trying to explain it and that's what ruined it
Bao wrote:
98% of Tai Chi is simplified and shallow regardless style.
Chen is not better or more martial than any other style. How much Tai Chi it is depends on how well you understand Tai Chi principles.
It's the same for all styles, though different practitioners from different styles make different mistakes..
windwalker wrote:Bao wrote:
98% of Tai Chi is simplified and shallow regardless style.
Chen is not better or more martial than any other style. How much Tai Chi it is depends on how well you understand Tai Chi principles.
It's the same for all styles, though different practitioners from different styles make different mistakes..
Always find statement's like these interesting..
You practice taiji, what percentage is it in,,,the 98% or the 2%.
With out seeing any of it, how would one judge it,
Appledog wrote:
Just look at it. For example, when did song become fang song?
A great deal has been hidden from the casual performer.
Bao is right, 98% of tai chi as it is done today is basically useless.
windwalker wrote:Appledog wrote:
Just look at it. For example, when did song become fang song?
A great deal has been hidden from the casual performer.
Bao is right, 98% of tai chi as it is done today is basically useless.
said by those never posting any of their own work....
words of the 2%
always interesting
Appledog wrote:windwalker wrote:Appledog wrote:
Just look at it. For example, when did song become fang song?
A great deal has been hidden from the casual performer.
Bao is right, 98% of tai chi as it is done today is basically useless.
said by those never posting any of their own work....
words of the 2%
always interesting
That isn't very fair to Bao, I am sure he has posted some of his own work in the past.
RobP3 wrote:Everyone uses "strength" it's a total fantasy to believe otherwise. Yang family training includes iron staff, metal ball, dynamic push hands, etc. It's how strength is developed and applied that is the issue. Unless you are a person able to move others with the "power of your mind" as a beam of force, of course.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests