Bhassler wrote:My criteria are:
-It has to be based on feeling, so it doesn't require special training to engage in the process.
-It has to be easy.
Chris McKinley wrote:Bhassler,
I can't tell you how happy I was to read this thread. You're starting down a road I hope you continue on for many years, and I hope others join you. I love your very empirical and pragmatic criteria. RE: your process, the only bone I would have to pick is with how you're defining integration. I may simply have misread you, but what you're describing seems to be an integration into the form practice rather than an integration into the functional fighting skill. I know you're aware they aren't the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive either. You are correct in that associated multi-sensory practice will vastly accelerate the rate at which the skill becomes ingrained. That part is excellent.
My concern is with one of your criteria, namely in how you are defining the process as being "viable". You define it partly as being workable for those without access to regular training partners. IME, contextualizing combat skills is characterized almost exclusively by partner work, and you simply cannot realistically or appreciably contextualize those skills without it.
IOW, yes, a skill can be contextualized far more quickly than any traditional IMA doctrine might allow. However, that won't happen to any significant degree without the partner work, at least IME.
johnwang wrote:Bhassler wrote:My criteria are:
-It has to be based on feeling, so it doesn't require special training to engage in the process.
-It has to be easy.
- If you don't go through special training, you will never be able to develop those abilities that you don't have when you was born. For example, head lock, leg twist, leg lift, foot sweep, ... all require "special training".
- If you alwasy want to feel comfortable then you will not be able to advance your training into higher level. It will be comfortable to stand in Santi stance. It will not be comfortable to stand in single leg balance stance. If you only care about comfortable, your balance will never be improved.
I have a set of training that I force myself to do daily no matter I like it or not. When I train my "front cut", I want to touch my hand on the ground and lift my leg straight in the air. I can train this very "comfortable" by only bending my body 45 degree, and I don't need to go into this extream posture in application, but this kind of training can gurantee that I always have the balance, flexibility, speed, ... that I need even when I step into my old age.
The words "comfort" and "training" just don't go together IMO.
Bhassler wrote:-Compare it to what you were already doing. A recent example on RSF was Brady commenting on the changes he noticed when he allowed his heel to raise instead of keeping it down.
Chris McKinley wrote:done in isolation.
Chris McKinley wrote:Brady,
RE: "My only question for you is why does this have to be based (initially) on concrete function?". To some degree, you've answered your own question with the wrestling example you gave. That skill only became recognizeable as combatively useful much later down the line. The key word in Brian's criterion is "initially". This is because he's wanting to explore methods which yield combat functional results right away, therefore the concrete function must be immediately evident.
Speaking only for myself and not for Brian, but that doesn't mean that you can't do both. You could simultaneously begin practicing certain skills that may take longer to manifest. The point is, you don't do that at the expense of skills that have immediate value. You do it concurrently.
Bhassler wrote:That's a great question, and my answer is that the functionality constraint only applies to this particular process. For me, I'm very specifically trying to add fighting function to my taiji-- I don't need to learn to move better, I need to improve the context of this particular practice. So that's why it's the way it is in this instance.
In the big picture, I probably devote up to 50% of my training time to pure exploration, and the underlying awareness is something that's present in the background 100% of the time. So in that respect I think exploration and awareness are far more important than form, conditioning, or any other single element of practice.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests