The idea that the entire body is "insubstantial" and then, after having sufficient time to react, then becomes "substantial" is a misunderstanding of basic Taijiquan principles and their practical application
windwalker wrote:The idea that the entire body is "insubstantial" and then, after having sufficient time to react, then becomes "substantial" is a misunderstanding of basic Taijiquan principles and their practical application
good summation
Bao wrote:He complicates something very simple and easy to do. Intellectual less, feel more. You learn by doing, not by thinking.
charles wrote:You might as well start at the beginning from the 1990's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKgfvsu0XT0
There is also the old Internal Strength Magazine, also from the '90's: http://ismag.iay.org.uk/peng-index.htm
I'm not going to discuss the material much, but the similarities should be obvious between Meraz and this material. The primary difference, aside from some of the verbiage, is Mr. Sigman is about immediacy of "path" upon contact - as Mr. Sinclair discusses in the video of his that you posted - and constant maintenance of that path during all contact, versus Meraz's "on-again, off-again" "timing".
oragami_itto wrote: I thought you had something in particular in mind.
It may just be my poor understanding, but what Meraz is talking about is not the same thing that Mike's talking about. That should be obvious when you start talking about what he's getting wrong. It's a different theory with a couple similar points.
You seem to be a little confused about what he's presenting though. At this stage of his videos I am identifying three distinct qualities. The low resistance path, the level of effective action, and the sinking/rising.
The path is always there, simlar to what Sigman mentions, and the level of effective action should likewise be as low as you can get it at all times. The sinking and rising, the part he's saying is "on-again, off-again", is the jin, for lack of a better word. The motion in the stillness.
He was certified to teach by Wee Kee Jin, student of Huang Sheng Shyan, and what I'm seeing in what he's presenting is another perspective on some of the same things Adam Mizner teaches in his online course, which he claims is the Huang Sheng Shyan refined form and method. The rising and sinking that makes things happen is developed explicitly in Huang's five exercises as Adam teaches it, and should be present in every movement of the refined form.
It may be that your skills are superior to Meraz's, or Adam's, or even Wee Kee Jin's.
I looked on your channel but could not find any partner work. Have you ever considered demonstrating your superior understanding with another live body, resisting or compliant, even? I'm sure it would make your point clearer.
Charles wrote:He is, I thought, very clear that he is not maintaining a path "always". Instead, he explicitly states that there are two positions, one with weight on the rear leg and one "centered" - 55% on the back leg, 45% on the front leg, he states - where one can connect, relax the tissues, and push back. The timing, he clearly states, is relaxing the tissues in concert with those two positions.
Bao wrote:I do enjoy Meraz videos and talk. In general I do enjoy talking, analysing and breaking down things into small details. Here there are just so many things I don't agree with. Some of the confusion comes from mixing terminologies, mixing different ways of expressing things. As Charles says, some of it seems to come from Mike. It's not the same theory, but it's the same terminology. When Meraz speak about pathways and ground path, it seems like he use the same terms but interpret them from a Huang/Tam perspective. They don't really match. Mike use words as qi and jin pathways to describe real measurable things that happen in the physical body while the Huang take on Qi is the mystical, fuzzy, half indescribable energy, something that can mean one thing today and another tomorrow depending on the mood of the teacher. What I get from the vids in the OP is that Meraz is trying to keep one foot in one pot and the other fot in the other pot. The two different ways of viewing things done in Tai Chi Chuan that just don't match.
Charles wrote:He is, I thought, very clear that he is not maintaining a path "always". Instead, he explicitly states that there are two positions, one with weight on the rear leg and one "centered" - 55% on the back leg, 45% on the front leg, he states - where one can connect, relax the tissues, and push back. The timing, he clearly states, is relaxing the tissues in concert with those two positions.
What he is saying are actually two different things that contradict each other. He says that the body must "settle". He also say that he would call what he does "movement within movement" rather than "stillness within movement". What he says is quite confusing IMO. At least it should be confusing for students. How do you create that movement? Sink down physically? He speak about "sitting down" in a position. But it's clearly not stillness because he said it's not.
He says:
"timing in certain positions."
"when you are in between them you have no power"
"You are moving towards one root or towards the two roots all of the time"
Instead of a body state, a developed shenfa (body method), or a developing a "tai chi animal" he speaks about something technical done on the surface. He clearly states, without expressing it in words, that what he means is creating the same condition again and again in a very conscious, technical manner.
So how to you get the body to settle? By rising and lower yourself? What he doesn't realise is that it's stillness and relaxing that creates sinking and opening if joints and tissues. The vertical movement (or rather feeling) of internal sinking comes from stillness, not from moving. What he speak about is about relaxing, releasing. But he makes it sound like it's about physical movement.
What I read on a page is: "Meraz Ahmed DO has been studying Taiji for over 10 years, and received his teachers certificate from Wee Kee Jin in 2007." The page is probably a couple of years old, but maybe Meraz has studied Tai Chi Chuan for about 15 years or so. Not a long time at all which explains a lot. He seem to be a serious practitioner, he expresses himself quite well and has some decent skills. It will be interesting to see where he is in another 15 years. He seems to do good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests