wayne hansen wrote:Not worried about internal/external
I have yet to see anything in SJ That I wasn’t taught in tai chi
The main thing SJ has is repiticion and competition
johnwang wrote:The major difference between Taiji and SC is most Taiji just use 1 contact point. SC uses multiple contact points.
origami_itto wrote:johnwang wrote:The major difference between Taiji and SC is most Taiji just use 1 contact point. SC uses multiple contact points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwobwMS1sl0
I think in practical free form application you're going to see a lot more two point contact. A third if needed for a throw.
Even in freestyle push hands you're looking at two points of contact.
I think using one point effectively is a matter of level differential. If you're just so much more beyond somebody that you can use just a single point, great, but you have options to fall back on.
marvin8 wrote:]
When training self-defense, it's impractical to believe a trained fighter will stand that close and just let you grab their wrists (freeze).
origami_itto wrote:marvin8 wrote:]
When training self-defense, it's impractical to believe a trained fighter will stand that close and just let you grab their wrists (freeze).
Where did I suggest anything of the sort? In fact if you refer to another thread I specifically advise AGAINST grabbing wrists.
EDIT: Oh you're talking about Sifu Wang's video.
I think the freeze is valid to demonstrate the geometry of a throw, for example, but yeah it's not how it would actually be setting up and pulling that off.
origami_itto wrote:Yes I agree these sequences that require the opponent checking out completely to work seem a bit sketchy.
I like application study of the sort that looks at the offensive and defensive potential in every inch of a series of movement (a "posture", a "form", a "transition *BARF")
so the first part of the movement is an attack, we first assume it is successful and see what it does to their body
next we have them neutralize the attack, see where that leaves us both, and the next inch of the series of movement is explored
you work your way through the entire form like that and you can learn an awful lot about how bodies and Taijiquan work
then the next phase would be something like one-steps. You make one movement, say a straight punch to the chest, of course, not at power, just putting your fist there. Your opponent makes one movement to counter/block/attack/etc, you make one movement, they make one movement.
The connection between combat and chess becomes glaringly obvious when you study it like this.
marvin8 wrote:origami_itto wrote:marvin8 wrote:]
When training self-defense, it's impractical to believe a trained fighter will stand that close and just let you grab their wrists (freeze).
Where did I suggest anything of the sort? In fact if you refer to another thread I specifically advise AGAINST grabbing wrists.
EDIT: Oh you're talking about Sifu Wang's video.
I think the freeze is valid to demonstrate the geometry of a throw, for example, but yeah it's not how it would actually be setting up and pulling that off.
Exactly. Tai chi classics, "If the opponent does not move, I do not move. If the opponent moves, I am already there." "Position before submission." Zhang Yun, "One common mistake for many people is that they try to use fa jin too directly...."
I was just adding to your prior post about sequences.origami_itto wrote:Yes I agree these sequences that require the opponent checking out completely to work seem a bit sketchy.
I like application study of the sort that looks at the offensive and defensive potential in every inch of a series of movement (a "posture", a "form", a "transition *BARF")
so the first part of the movement is an attack, we first assume it is successful and see what it does to their body
next we have them neutralize the attack, see where that leaves us both, and the next inch of the series of movement is explored
you work your way through the entire form like that and you can learn an awful lot about how bodies and Taijiquan work
then the next phase would be something like one-steps. You make one movement, say a straight punch to the chest, of course, not at power, just putting your fist there. Your opponent makes one movement to counter/block/attack/etc, you make one movement, they make one movement.
The connection between combat and chess becomes glaringly obvious when you study it like this.
Also, an opponent can be lured by/react to a reach, a step, a threat, etc.
marvin8 wrote:Exactly. Tai chi classics, "If the opponent does not move, I do not move. If the opponent moves, I am already there." "Position before submission." Zhang Yun, "One common mistake for many people is that they try to use fa jin too directly...."
origami_itto wrote:marvin8 wrote:Exactly. Tai chi classics, "If the opponent does not move, I do not move. If the opponent moves, I am already there." "Position before submission." Zhang Yun, "One common mistake for many people is that they try to use fa jin too directly...."
In a self defense context, the game is completely different. Winning is surviving with as little damage as possible. You want to minimize contact and struggle. Best case scenario they change their mind and walk off. You don't want to appear to be an aggressor in the eyes of bystanders, cameras, or the law, or even your opponent if you can help it.
So facing an enemy in self defense, you don't need to attack, you don't want to attack. Focus purely on reading their intention and countering. When they move to attack you, they will expose something, exploit that. If they don't move to attack you, great, you won. Get on about your business. But if they do attack, because you spend hours every day maximizing the efficiency of your movement and focus you can read their intention at any number of points from impulse to action and respond intelligently to it.
This simple adjustment in outlook and focus can save a massive amount of energy and drastically increase your combat efficacy IMHO. If nothing else it helps reduce the number of variables you have to work with.
You may have heard that gongfu styles can also be divided into "closed" and "open" systems, as well as "narrow" and "wide" systems.
A "narrow" system is one that specifies a particular response for a particular attack. So for every possible attack, there is a specific response. And because there are a great many possible attacks, there are also a great may specifc techniques to counter them. With "narrow" systems, you have A LOT of techniques -- like the proverbial 108 hand techniques, for instance.
A "wide" system has much fewer techniques, but looks to the changes possible for each of them. So for instance, you might only have 5 or 6 basic punches... but many "changes" associated with those punches. See also Baqua, with it's emphasis on changes.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests