# BS and the internal arts.



## oaktree

For decades there have been usually two camps to internal arts the ones who do it more for a dance and health and the ones who train it as a martial arts with the added benefit of health. There seems to be a third camp and that is the ones who attempt to train it as a martial art but train in it with a false pretense of what fighting is and about. This to me is very dangerous because it is better to either know how to fight or not know how to fight then think you know how to fight but really don't know how to fight.

Evaluating our training method *is our training a realistic approach both physical and mental.* If you are talking about pillows and couches and pushing lightly I can tell you never have been in a fight.
If you talk about using Fa jin to be able to escape a mount position on the ground you never been in a ground fight. *I am all for traditional practice and training in the art for what it is, but if it can't be applied realistically it should not be claimed that it can be. Training exercises that do not get a student ready to deal with a realistic encounter should not be taught as a method to deal with a realistic encounter.*

If someone wants to do push hands as a slow moving exercise great thousands of old ladies do the same and not one of them think they can fight like that. If you are a serious martial artist looking to actually be able to apply that in a street encounter then yes highly criticize doing slow movement and light force because it is not going to work on the 200lb guy trying to bash your brains in. Evalutate your art, criticize it, critique it, get pass the BS of it and get back to training it as something you can depend on to save your life. 

*In essences to the point don't BS yourself and others in realistic approaches to martial arts it can be dangerous*


----------



## Xue Sheng

Only comment, and I shall make no more.... 

All CMA styles are made up of Kicking and punching, Shuaijiao and qinna. It has been my experience that much of this is overlooked, especially the qinna bits, for expedience so other things get applied that make it something other than what it started out to be.


----------



## Zeny

This seems to be directed at me, so let me say my piece.

I have not been in a real fight, and i have not sparred with an attacker who is out to hurt me. I know my limits.

However i am trained by a traditional chinese martial arts teacher who have competed in chinese lei tai tournaments in his younger days and won many of them. He keeps us from growing overconfident with ourselves and reminds us what real violent fighting is like.

In the other thread i talked about push hands, i haven't discussed other important aspects of training yet.

Push hands is not fighting. To train for actual fighting, one needs to go beyond push hands. One important element is conditioning.

I have been taught that in the chinese martial world there are three famous 'zhang'. These are not taught or disclosed lightly but since i am incapable of keeping a secret they are as follows:

1) tie sa zan (iron palm) - when this is trained, the muscles in the hand become as hard as iron (or so i've heard), but may cause discomfort when one gets old as the hardened muscles are not conducive to blood circulation

2) hong sa zan (red palm) - when this is trained, the palm will become red in colour when activated due to chi and increased blood circulation being directed to the palm

3) mien sa zan (cotton palm) - when this is trained, the palm remains soft and supple like a baby's and this palm can be used in traditional chinese massage to cure problems with muscles and injuries caused by the iron palm

Serious taijiquan martial artists are advised to practise the cotton palm to supplement their taijiquan training. I have practised it a little but since i have no interest in violent sparring or fighting i don't seriously train in it. Usually chinese martial artists would choose one of the three to practise in. For eg. my local wing chun friend trains in the iron palm.


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> *In essences to the point don't BS yourself and others in realistic approaches to martial arts it can be dangerous*


I see your point. While some of the internal methods are counterintuitve, how would those methods fare against someone large, fast, and aggressive? How *have* they fared, not just in theory, but in practice?

I recommend this book as a cross-art examination of the use of subtle force against larger, stronger opponents:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585679445?


----------



## hoshin1600

oaktree said:


> Training exercises that do not get a student ready to deal with a realistic encounter should not be taught as a method to deal with a realistic encounter.


so in essence you just cut away 90% of all martial arts curriculum.  most martial arts is an exercise in "fear management" not "threat management"  from what i see most people want to walk around bragging about their black belt and pretend to themselves that they are badass.  
this may be blasphemy on this sight but most martial arts is BS.  its  not about the art but the person.  you either *can *or you *cant. *just because you train in a martial art doesnt make you a fighter. say whatever you want, train in any way you want, think whatever you want. it doesnt matter.  the delusion is yours and yours alone and in most cases you will die of old age never knowing the reality anyway.


----------



## oaktree

Zeny said:


> This seems to be directed at me, so let me say my piece.


Not all of it is about you. I have spoken to many people who practice different internal arts online and in person.
Some even teachers and even a pervious teacher of mine. The problem is when you speak to a person about fighting and never been in an actual fight.


Zeny said:


> I have not been in a real fight, and i have not sparred with an attacker who is out to hurt me. I know my limits.


I have sparred and I have had actually had people try to kill me and having someone try to kill you and spar with you and do light push hands all completely different. 


Zeny said:


> Push hands is not fighting. To train for actual fighting, one needs to go beyond push hands. One important element is conditioning.


You are correct it is not fighting in the sense that both people are trying to kill each other. However Push hands can be a challange:




This was consider a challange. If you do push hands with someone their intent may not be light and friendly and it may be a challange in the giuse of using push hands. 


Zeny said:


> I have been taught that in the chinese martial world there are three famous 'zhang'. These are not taught or disclosed lightly but since i am incapable of keeping a secret they are as follows:


I don't think they are really secret maybe the training methods may be but it is common knowledge. Here is something to consider in doing push hands. I train in escrima as well and see similarities between push hands and escrima however escrima push hands as a more practicle and realistic approach.


----------



## oaktree

mograph said:


> I see your point. While some of the internal methods are counterintuitve, how would those methods fare against someone large, fast, and aggressive? How *have* they fared, not just in theory, but in practice?
> 
> I recommend this book as a cross-art examination of the use of subtle force against larger, stronger opponents:The Book of Martial Power: Steven J. Pearlman: 9781585679447: Amazon.com: Books


Let's look at a big guy who also knows how to use a weapon. 




I am smaller then him, what do I have that can be the equalizer if I don't have a weapon or can't find a weapon. If he is faster no point in running away. 
I can't go toe to toe with him so 








Or I may try to throw or choke because I know my punches,kicks are most likely are not going to do anything unless I can get a good kick to the knee or balls or a punch on the button. At least my examples have a better chance of survival 
Can Internal arts work against larger opponents yes of course but you need to train against larger opponents.

I gave the example of in Daito ryu where I had to put a joint lock on a man who weight like 300 lbs! there is no way muscles or my body is going to be able to move him back so I have to displace his balance and have correct timing to do so.
To be honest if I have to fight someone bigger then me I am using a weapon.


----------



## oaktree

hoshin1600 said:


> so in essence you just cut away 90% of all martial arts curriculum.  most martial arts is an exercise in "fear management" not "threat management"  from what i see most people want to walk around bragging about their black belt and pretend to themselves that they are badass.
> this may be blasphemy on this sight but most martial arts is BS.  its  not about the art but the person.  you either *can *or you *cant. *just because you train in a martial art doesnt make you a fighter. say whatever you want, train in any way you want, think whatever you want. it doesnt matter.  the delusion is yours and yours alone and in most cases you will die of old age never knowing the reality anyway.


I perfer to use MY Experience with violence to practice martial arts that may let me get home to take care of my family.
Let me put this out there something that has happen to me.
I was in the park practicing my forms and 3 guys came up to me saying they want to fight me. I explained to them I really don't know how to fight very well and they would easily win if we had a boxing type of match. They insisted so I said to them, How do you know I am  not going to treat this as a life or death fight? How do you know I don't have a hidden knife in my sleeves of my shirt and behind my back and prepared to stab you as soon as you try to punch me, I said you want to fight I want to go home and take care of my kids. What I am saying is yes you don't need to do martial arts to be a fighter that is something within true some of the toughest guys I know are just tough guys which is fine but as soon as we get into martial arts and talking about  what works and what is BS then we need to make sure that we are not fooling ourselves and others in it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The problem with being big is that you have to carry the weight. I weigh 200 pounds and that's 200 pounds I have to carry


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> I was in the park practicing my forms and 3 guys came up to me saying they want to fight me. I explained to them I really don't know how to fight very well and they would easily win if we had a boxing type of match. They insisted so I said to them, How do you know I am  not going to treat this as a life or death fight? How do you know I don't have a hidden knife in my sleeves of my shirt and behind my back and prepared to stab you as soon as you try to punch me, I said you want to fight I want to go home and take care of my kids.


So what happened? How did they react?


----------



## oaktree

They said oh well.... we didn't know, I said exactly you don't know your opponent so never assume he is unarmed or is going to fight fair. I don't mean to come off on this thread as a bad *** I am no where near that I'm a family guy now but I'll say I've been in the environment enough to know what is bs and not bs, the internal arts have some good stuff for realistic fighting and if people get into internals arts for say health relaxation I can totally support that hell that is why I got into it initially, but I don't want to set the internal arts in the fighting context with unrealistic applications and expectations. Same as a compliance training partner May build a false sense of realism.


----------



## oaktree

JowGaWolf said:


> The problem with being big is that you have to carry the weight. I weigh 200 pounds and that's 200 pounds I have to carry


Well some guys at 200 can move that faster then me at 165. Some guys know how to use that weight to their advantage.


----------



## tshadowchaser

oaktree said:


> For decades there have been usually two camps to internal arts the ones who do it more for a dance and health and the ones who train it as a martial arts with the added benefit of health. There seems to be a third camp and that is the ones who attempt to train it as a martial art but train in it with a false pretense of what fighting is and about. This to me is very dangerous because it is better to either know how to fight or not know how to fight then think you know how to fight but really don't know how to fight."
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> To me knowing how to fight no matter your choice of art is better than not knowing how to fight or thinking you know how but in reality not having a clue.
> What I find to be of more value is the mental aspect of "I will survive no matter what happens and I will do whatever is nessicary to survive."
> Fighting bigger people or smaller that mental attitue must be there.
> 
> Doing excercises like push hands has its benifits and perhaps should be done at different speeds and maybe intensity at times. No one in the street is likely to say "lets push hands" but you may be able to apply the principles of push haands once you touch your opponet.
> 
> As for knife work that really is a different monster but knowing how to keep contact and stay in flow dose have some simularities to push hands at times.
> 
> ( sorry folks my spell check dose not seem to be working)


----------



## oaktree

I agree the mental attitude definitely needs to be there and on another note we see the false sense of security or accomplishment if we manage to push someone down or apply a joint lock on a non resistance opponent. 
I love internal arts I love Taijiquan and aikido and all these arts but as practitioners of these arts we should examine them in a realistic view IF we want to use them in that context.


----------



## hoshin1600

Oaktree ,
i want to clarify my post. i did not intend my post to be a counter to yours, for the most part i agree with you.  i did use the term "_you_" but i meant it as a collective you, as in most people. it was in no way intended as you and you alone nor was it directed at you.


----------



## oaktree

hoshin1600 said:


> Oaktree ,
> i want to clarify my post. i did not intend my post to be a counter to yours, for the most part i agree with you.  i did use the term "_you_" but i meant it as a collective you, as in most people. it was in no way intended as you and you alone nor was it directed at you.


I think counters to post and critical thinking is crucial in martial arts so even though I can be guilty of my own passionate blindness that may be heated at times my videos of myself on YouTube actually show me to be rather awkward and introvert.


----------



## Zeny

Oaktree, why did people try to kill you? What happened?


----------



## Zeny

Just watched the chen xiao wang vs liao bai video.

When i push hands with friends who practise external styles, the lightning quick push is the only thing they know how to do. Good if i want to try out something different, but pretty much useless if i want to practise the subtle elements of push hands. Anyway i digress, this thread is about fighting.


----------



## oaktree

Zeny said:


> Oaktree, why did people try to kill you? What happened?


People on drugs, People try to rob me, people bored, people in gangs its just how I grew up in.


Zeny said:


> i digress, this thread is about fighting.


Ya this thread is more about the fighting and the reality of it. However on other threads concerning neijia we can talk all about Daojiao and Fojiao and Neidan practices. 我是一个和尚


----------



## Buka

Thank God BS is limited to Internal Arts. Geesh, had me worried there for a bit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> Training exercises that do not get a student ready to deal with a realistic encounter should not be taught as a method to deal with a realistic encounter.


You want to get better result from your training. For example, you can spend your valuable training time to train the following 2 areas.

1. 顺式 (borrow force, yield) - Your opponent pushes on your chest, you yield, redirect, and ...
2. 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating) - Your opponent tries to push you, you push his shoulder, or elbow, shake him, and destroy his force from generating in the early stage.

Which training will give you more value?

IMO, 2 > 1.

It's better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen, you then try to deal with it.

Taiji people like to train 顺式 (borrow force, yield). I like to train 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating). This is why I always end with serious argument with Taiji people.


----------



## ChenAn

Not sure what this thread is about. I like this story that comes from Hong Junsheng about his teacher Chen Fake:

_"At one of the first government sponsored traditional martial art competitions in Beijing, in 1952, Chen Fake was invited to attend, as one of the judges.

The famed Wu Tunan (also known as the Northern Star of Taijiquan) was in charge. A discussion came up, with regards to categorization of styles,leading to a great deal of controversy as to where Chen Style Taijiquan belonged. Some suggested that it belonged to the External Division. At the time, the slow and gentle nature of Yang style Taijiquan was considered the standard of Taijiquan. What Chen Fake practiced certainly did not fall fall into this category.

Others countered that it is, after all, called Chen Style Taijiquan, so it should be included as part of the Internal Division. Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin. Someone turned to Chen Fake, Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?

Chen Fake answered, If the revered master Wu thinks it is external, then it is external! We did not have this distinction at home.

Hong Junsheng, a disciple of Chen Fake, was understandably upset about this treatment of Chen Style. He began his Taiji studies with Wu style, and later switched to Chen Style. For him, Chen and Wu were both authentic Taijiquan styles, and both were internal.

He begged his teacher for an explanation. *Master Chen’s answer had nothing to do with either Chen or Wu styles: My ancestors invented it. My great grandfather practiced it . My father practiced it. I practice it now. We do not call it Taiji. We do not have a name for it. You can call it anything you want, I will still practice it the same way I was taught. I don’t care what they put in the name!"
*_
So my philosophy is similar. I practice taiji because I can, and because I choose to do so. If someone think it's BS than it's BS, I don't really care. Taiji gives me health benefits and martial skills. I'm interested to develop my gongfu.  I have nothing to prove to myself; therefore, I don't need to test anything. I have already tested whatever I wanted in my youth. I know exactly what I want and I'm doing it. If life force me I shell exert my gong on offender, but I neither seek it nor desire.


----------



## Zeny

What kung fu wang said above is interesting. Personally i train equally in 3 areas:

1) neutralise (hua) or receive (jie) the opponent's force, basically lead the force to emptiness, and counterattack if desired

2) prevent the opponent from generating force, this is usually done through superior positioning and without use of force rather than actually applying force to shake the opponent, an unbalanced opponent or an opponent whose structure or arms are in awkward positions cannot generate any meaningful force

3) seize advantage of weaknesses and openings created by opponent's structure and movement without use of force


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. 顺式 (borrow force, yield) - Your opponent pushes on your chest, you yield, redirect, and .


If a person on my chest I want to turn to break the balance Baguazhang people we use the force given from the push to pivot to generate the force to turn is one possible way Baguazhang people deal with force. In my opinion, I do not want to be on the line of attack dealing with force especially if the force is coming from say the size of a linebacker.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating) - Your opponent tries to push you, you push his shoulder, or elbow, shake him, and destroy his force from generating in the early stage.


I guess it depends on what stage the encounter is in, then yes maybe jam him from the push or you can try to throw or joint lock or strike.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen, you then try to deal with it.



I agree.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> Taiji people like to train 顺式 (borrow force, yield). I like to train 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating). This is why I always end with serious argument with Taiji people.


For me it depends on what is going on. For example if I was to late to prevent the force for generating for what ever reason then I might have to borrow force but I would not yield so much to redirect, I would be moving off that center line of attack and going in at angles or behind. My first fighting art was Western boxing here is a video of Taijiquan and Western Boxing that is more aligned with my ideas notice that he doesn't use any light touching or any BS but an actual workable training exercise.


----------



## oaktree

ChenAn said:


> So my philosophy is similar. I practice taiji because I can, and because I choose to do so. If someone think it's BS than it's BS, I don't really care. Taiji gives me health benefits and martial skills. I'm interested to develop my gongfu. I have nothing to prove to myself; therefore, I don't need to test anything. I have already tested whatever I wanted in my youth. I know exactly what I want and I'm doing it. If life force me I shell exert my gong on offender, but I neither seek it nor desire.



Great I think you should train in what you want and like from the art I do the same in my Japanese sword class, However if my sword class started talking about this could be used in a real fight with a line backer with no sword I may be questioning the realism of it. Granted my sword art could teach me foot work that may help but I need something else to deal with it.

The arguement could be made that well the sword art isn't made to deal with the line backer, that is true and in that regard I would not critique it or try to change it to deal with the line backer unless I found changing principles on my own would help me deal with the line backer and then testing my hypothesis or if someone claims the principles already there can deal with the line backer but are not realistic or logical comparing the variable to my experience or similar realistic fighting.

What this thread is about is BS. It is about examing the internal arts fairly and criticism and critique for those who want to train it as a means to protect yourself in a real encounter.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ChenAn said:


> Not sure what this thread is about. I like this story that comes from Hong Junsheng about his teacher Chen Fake:
> 
> _"At one of the first government sponsored traditional martial art competitions in Beijing, in 1952, Chen Fake was invited to attend, as one of the judges.
> 
> The famed Wu Tunan (also known as the Northern Star of Taijiquan) was in charge. A discussion came up, with regards to categorization of styles,leading to a great deal of controversy as to where Chen Style Taijiquan belonged. Some suggested that it belonged to the External Division. At the time, the slow and gentle nature of Yang style Taijiquan was considered the standard of Taijiquan. What Chen Fake practiced certainly did not fall fall into this category.
> 
> Others countered that it is, after all, called Chen Style Taijiquan, so it should be included as part of the Internal Division. Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin. Someone turned to Chen Fake, Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?
> 
> Chen Fake answered, If the revered master Wu thinks it is external, then it is external! We did not have this distinction at home.
> 
> Hong Junsheng, a disciple of Chen Fake, was understandably upset about this treatment of Chen Style. He began his Taiji studies with Wu style, and later switched to Chen Style. For him, Chen and Wu were both authentic Taijiquan styles, and both were internal.
> 
> He begged his teacher for an explanation. *Master Chen’s answer had nothing to do with either Chen or Wu styles: My ancestors invented it. My great grandfather practiced it . My father practiced it. I practice it now. We do not call it Taiji. We do not have a name for it. You can call it anything you want, I will still practice it the same way I was taught. I don’t care what they put in the name!"
> *_
> So my philosophy is similar. I practice taiji because I can, and because I choose to do so. If someone think it's BS than it's BS, I don't really care. Taiji gives me health benefits and martial skills. I'm interested to develop my gongfu.  I have nothing to prove to myself; therefore, I don't need to test anything. I have already tested whatever I wanted in my youth. I know exactly what I want and I'm doing it. If life force me I shell exert my gong on offender, but I neither seek it nor desire.



Damn, you took my quote....and expanded it 

I have always like that story.

Another old quote I like is "Internal goes to external and external goes to internal"

Basically, if trained right we all end up in the same place. 

It just seems that everyone today is either in a rush to to the biggest bad *** on the planet or to be the most enlightened being around and real training of the "internal stuff" gets lost in the mix

Another thing, it is very possible that the whole Internal vs external thing has more to do with a political statement against the Qing than it has to do with marital arts themselves. See "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan by Stanley Henning"


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You want to get better result from your training. For example, you can spend your valuable training time to train the following 2 areas.
> 
> 1. 顺式 (borrow force, yield) - Your opponent pushes on your chest, you yield, redirect, and ...
> 2. 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating) - Your opponent tries to push you, you push his shoulder, or elbow, shake him, and destroy his force from generating in the early stage.
> 
> Which training will give you more value?
> 
> IMO, 2 > 1.
> 
> It's better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen, you then try to deal with it.
> 
> Taiji people like to train 顺式 (borrow force, yield). I like to train 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating). This is why I always end with serious argument with Taiji people.


You need both. Ideally, we'd like to shut down an opponent before he can get a solid attack going. Realistically, that's not always going to be possible.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oaktree said:


> My first fighting art was Western boxing here is a video of Taijiquan and Western Boxing that is more aligned with my ideas notice that he doesn't use any light touching or any BS but an actual workable training exercise.



My only problem with that video is the way his boxer friend leaves his punches extended and stands there statically while he demonstrates his counter. A competent boxer knows that the sort of counter he's demonstrating is a possibility and so will retract the jab immediately to cover against the counterattack. (Not to mention adjusting his footwork to adapt to the new angle of the opponent.) Perhaps he was doing that just to demonstrate the concept more clearly, but it could be misleading for students who don't understand boxing.

I do appreciate his acknowledgment that high level boxers use fa jin.  I've seen too many martial artists who seem to think that boxing punches are all about brute strength.


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> Another old quote I like is "Internal goes to external and external goes to internal"
> Basically, if trained right we all end up in the same place.



A friend of mine described the path as a mountain, where on one side, the slope is gentle until halfway up, then the slope becomes steeper, up to the summit. The other side of the mountain begins steep, but becomes gentle halfway up. According to him, the former is a metaphor for the concepts of the "external" arts, latter for the concepts of the "internal" arts. To put it another way, the visible forms are easier to grasp (though physically demanding), while the internal work is harder to grasp (though Zhan Zhuang can be physically demanding). One learns soft and slow, then learns to punch. The other learns to punch, then learns soft and slow. I wouldn't argue too much about it, though. In the end, we serve each other tea at the top.



Xue Sheng said:


> It just seems that everyone today is either in a rush to to the biggest bad *** on the planet or to be the most enlightened being around and real training of the "internal stuff" gets lost in the mix.



Either way, it's ego (... in the sense of protecting self-esteem, for all you martial Freudians out there).

Kenneth Cohen, in his book _The Way of Qigong_, described the process of gaining skill in qigong. At the end of the process (and I use the term "end" loosely), the practitioner sees himself as _nothing special_. Of course, if he goes around _telling_ people that he's "nothing special," he still has a way to go yet.



Xue Sheng said:


> Another thing, it is very possible that the whole Internal vs external thing has more to do with a political statement against the Qing than it has to do with marital arts themselves. See "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan by Stanley Henning"


Interesting link -- thanks for that. It's good not to get too attached to words, or to _identify_ with our constructs, eh?


----------



## oaktree

Tony Dismukes said:


> My only problem with that video is the way his boxer friend leaves his punches extended and stands there statically while he demonstrates his counter. A competent boxer knows that the sort of counter he's demonstrating is a possibility and so will retract the jab immediately to cover against the counterattack. (Not to mention adjusting his footwork to adapt to the new angle of the opponent.) Perhaps he was doing that just to demonstrate the concept more clearly, but it could be misleading for students who don't understand boxing.
> 
> I do appreciate his acknowledgment that high level boxers use fa jin.  I've seen too many martial artists who seem to think that boxing punches are all about brute strength.


I agree. I do think he was showing the angle of entering to the boxer's punch and that is why when I move off at an angle I tend to angle my head and lower my head a little just in case he does retract and aim for my head, I do like that in the video he gives something plausible against a more then likely encounter. When I was taught boxing it was all about flowing each punch thrown sets up another punch so if I over shot a hook my other hand is ready to throw a straight.


----------



## oaktree

mograph said:


> mountain, where on one side, the slope is gentle until halfway up, then the slope becomes steeper, up to the summit.


I like my neijia like I like my woman more slope then steeps


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> What this thread is about is BS. It is about examining the internal arts fairly and criticism and critique for those who want to train it as a means to protect yourself in a real encounter.


Yes.

We need to be vigilant: the poetic style of the old instruction texts was likely a mnemonic device, but also likely a means of protecting the art from those who wanted to learn it quickly and sloppily. In other words, a student might only understand the metaphor after having done the experiential work.

To quote _English translations of those texts_, in an internet forum, is a lousy way to communicate the useful aspects of the practice, because it comes across as BS. Or arrogant: those translations, at best, only have meaning to those who have already come to understand the concept. For those who haven't gotten there yet, it only serves to remind them of their inadequacy and p*ss them off.

But in the studio, yes, there are teachers who either tell us that this technique will protect you, but I also think that many teachers don't tell us that those techniques will protect us, and we _extrapolate to think that the technique will protect us! _Because that's what we _want_ to believe. We fill in the gaps, in other words. 

So we need to ask the teacher: how could we use this in a real self-defense situation? But we're afraid to ask, lest we appear rude, and unless we've been in a fight, we can't tell if the teacher's answer is adequate. 

Bottom line for me: the internal arts are not BS, but it's very easy to _pretend_ to teach them, or to _believe_ that we are teaching them when we are not: therein lies the BS.

... in my opinion.


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> Yes.
> 
> We need to be vigilant: the poetic style of the old instruction texts was likely a mnemonic device, but also likely a means of protecting the art from those who wanted to learn it quickly and sloppily. In other words, a student might only understand the metaphor after having done the experiential work.



Exactly, and also understanding the culture from which that metaphor comes from, which can make it difficult. Some of these posture names make it clear to a native Chinese person, but to the rest of the world it can be rather confusing.



mograph said:


> To quote _English translations of those texts_, in an internet forum, is a lousy way to communicate the useful aspects of the practice, because it comes across as BS. Or arrogant: those translations, at best, only have meaning to those who have already come to understand the concept. For those who haven't gotten there yet, it only serves to remind them of their inadequacy and p*ss them off.



PHFFT...well all I have to say to that is duìniútánqín...which translates as "Playing a lute to a cow 

Truth is, without knowing the entire story behind that Chinese idiom..... it really does not have the effect it is supposed to have..... my sister-in-law used that on me to describe our conversation once, when I was having diner with her, at a pizza hut (believe it or not) in Beijing.  



mograph said:


> But in the studio, yes, there are teachers who either tell us that this technique will protect you, but I also think that many teachers don't tell us that those techniques will protect us, and we _extrapolate to think that the technique will protect us! _Because that's what we _want_ to believe. We fill in the gaps, in other words.



Here is the thing about many of these older Chinese sifu types, mine included, and many in the west do not want to hear or believe this. They know better than you as to what you are ready to learn and they are not beyond telling you they know nothing about what you are asking eventually find that they know exactly everything as to what  you previously asked...happened to me more than once over the years...they now feel you can understand, so they show you. Which of course lead to the question "I asked you about this before and you said you didn't know" Which leads to the answer "you did, I do not remember"



mograph said:


> So we need to ask the teacher: how could we use this in a real self-defense situation? But we're afraid to ask, lest we appear rude, and unless we've been in a fight, we can't tell if the teacher's answer is adequate.



What I said above applies here.

We, especially us in the west (but it is in China today too) always want things now, we want it fast, we want to be dangerous immediately...... we rarely want to put in the time to get there however



mograph said:


> Bottom line for me: the internal arts are not BS, but it's very easy to _pretend_ to teach them, or to _believe_ that we are teaching them when we are not: therein lies the BS.
> 
> ... in my opinion.



Agreed


----------



## oaktree

mograph said:


> But in the studio, yes, there are teachers who either tell us that this technique will protect you, but I also think that many teachers don't tell us that those techniques will protect us, and we _extrapolate to think that the technique will protect us! _Because that's what we _want_ to believe. We fill in the gaps, in other words.


Well I have been there in which I have asked teachers how would this work in realistic applications and sometimes yes I get a BS answer that I know the teacher truly believes he would do. When someone teaches me a technique I evaluate it and rationalize it, try to find flaws in it, try to look for counters in it. If the technique looks plausible, then I will train in the technique and have my opponent make sure it doesn't work, if the technique is working on a resistant opponent it is more then likely a technique I will keep and train with. 


mograph said:


> So we need to ask the teacher: how could we use this in a real self-defense situation? But we're afraid to ask, lest we appear rude, and unless we've been in a fight, we can't tell if the teacher's answer is adequate.


We should question methods that to us appear flawed, maybe we are missing something. When we go to school and we do not understand something we raise our hand ask the teacher to explain. If my math teacher is saying 1+1=3 then yes they need to explain why or else I doubt they really have ever done math. If someone thinks I am rude for that well then I am rude.


mograph said:


> Bottom line for me: the internal arts are not BS, but it's very easy to _pretend_ to teach them, or to _believe_ that we are teaching them when we are not: therein lies the BS.


I don't think the Internal arts are BS I think people who are saying certain things would work in a fight using internal arts without using any type of logic or experience in fighting in the street are BS and any methods that are in relation to said BS should be questioned, examined for vaildation.


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> Here is the thing about many of these older Chinese sifu types, mine included, and many in the west do not want to hear or believe this. They know better than you as to what you are ready to learn and they are not beyond telling you they know nothing about what you are asking eventually find that they know exactly everything as to what  you previously asked...





Xue Sheng said:


> We, especially us in the west (but it is in China today too) always want things now, we want it fast, we want to be dangerous immediately...... we rarely want to put in the time to get there however



Yep. I should have said that ... sometimes the teacher does know, but won't tell us. That was my old Sifu -- he waited until we reached a threshold to tell us the next thing. But then again, his English was pretty bad. 
... but sometimes the teacher _doesn_'t know, and abuses their position by _acting_ like a sifu who knows, but holds back. They get all mysterious and metaphorical, like The Sphinx in _Mystery Men_.

It can be hard to tell the difference, but I suppose that this is why reputation is so important with old-school teachers.


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> We, especially us in the west (but it is in China today too) always want things now, we want it fast, we want to be dangerous immediately...... we rarely want to put in the time to get there however


I don't know if everyone wants to be dangerous immediately however I do want to know how to defend myself. As soon as I stepped on the mat in Escrima I learned how not to block a knife attack, First lesson in BJJ I learned how to escape out of someone's guard and a rear naked choke. First lesson in Baguazhang I learned how to get behind someone, First lesson in Aikijujujutsu I learned how to break someone's balance. When I teach Taijiquan I will show the form but I will let that person at least leave knowing some sort of self defense otherwise might as well teach them dancing. Maybe my method of approaching neijia is wrong untraditional but I want my students to survive and they are not going to do that with fluffy paddy cake.
I agree you should put time into the arts but putting time in the arts to train unrealistic for a fight is BS


----------



## Xue Sheng

oaktree said:


> I don't know if everyone wants to be dangerous immediately however I do want to know how to defend myself. As soon as I stepped on the mat in Escrima I learned how not to block a knife attack, First lesson in BJJ I learned how to escape out of someone's guard and a rear naked choke. First lesson in Baguazhang I learned how to get behind someone, First lesson in Aikijujujutsu I learned how to break someone's balance. When I teach Taijiquan I will show the form but I will let that person at least leave knowing some sort of self defense otherwise might as well teach them dancing. Maybe my method of approaching neijia is wrong untraditional but I want my students to survive and they are not going to do that with fluffy paddy cake.
> I agree you should put time into the arts but putting time in the arts to train unrealistic for a fight is BS



Do what you feel you should, I would like people to know how to defend themselves as well, but I prefer a more traditional approach in Nejia  (and even Waijia) and it is not fluffy paddy cake. Basics and structure before SD. First thing I learned in Bagua was how to move, applications came after I knew more about moving and a palm change or two. Xingyiquan, I learned Wuji then Santi Shi and then Zhan Zhuang and then started the five elements and there were no applications prior to learning piquan. Wing Chun I had to learn Siu Nim Tao before getting into Chi Sau or SD. Jujutsu I had to learn how to roll and fall before any applications. As for Aikido, the fist thing people should learn, IMHO, is how to fall, roll and move. Can't talk for Aikijutsu.

Learn it another way is fine, but be careful that you are not teaching something other than what it is

My old school, old geezer, Dinosaur approach is not popular today... sorry....I'm old and set in my ways and I see a lot of what is out there as effective, but something other than what they profess to be teaching and I am sorry, but I put the majority of the 20th generation Chen family in that category.  I have never look at any marital art I have ever trained as a quick fix to anything. Student shows up the first day for a taiji class, they do not need SD, they need basics and structure IMO so that when they get to SD they are doing Taiji SD not karate or some other MA SD. But like I said, I'm a MA dinosaur and you can add to that I have been taught by many old school dinosaurs so that is, I guess, why I think, and feel like I do.


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> ... but sometimes the teacher _doesn_'t know, and abuses their position by _acting_ like a sifu who knows, but holds back. They get all mysterious and metaphorical, like The Sphinx in _Mystery Men_.
> 
> It can be hard to tell the difference, but I suppose that this is why reputation is so important with old-school teachers.



Yes, yes it can.

The first time I taught taijiquan (over 20 years ago), it was for my first sifu and after a few months I began to realize that I could not answer all my students questions. Shortly after that I realized my first sifu could not answer them either. So I quit teaching and started training with my second sifu.


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> Do what you feel you should, I would like people to know how to defend themselves as well, but I prefer a more traditional approach in Nejia (and even Waijia) and it is not fluffy paddy cake. Basics and structure before SD


My video on youtube shows pretty much how I would teach.Here is fundamentals here is form and often I would get why do I have to do this form, how does this apply to fighting, so when I show them more fighting concepts they understand the form better. To a student first learning Bagua toe in toe out they think this is kinda of stupid then I show them how it can trip how it can enter into someone's space then they think oh I get it cool.


Xue Sheng said:


> As for Aikido, the fist thing people should learn, IMHO, is how to fall, roll and move. Can't talk for Aikijutsu.


Lets see if I remember my first Aikido class I think it was some break falls and I think a wrist grab escape. 
Aikijujutsu was Ippon dori first move. But usually break fall practice is done at start of class maybe spend some time on it then actual technique. It varies by teacher. Sword first learn how to hold a sword and basic cuts but then right into the practice. Yes you need fundamentals no question about that but students should leave knowing something applicable then faced with a knife and they do a horse stance and say come back tomorrow when I finish lesson # 2


Xue Sheng said:


> I have never look at any marital art I have ever trained as a quick fix to anything. Student shows up the first day for a taiji class, they do not need SD, they need basics and structure IMO so that when they get to SD they are doing Taiji SD not karate or some other MA SD. But like I said, I'm a MA dinosaur and you can add to that I have been taught by many old school dinosaurs so that is, I guess, why I think, and feel like I do.


So you are more of the ball in the cup and I am PS4
I am somewhat radical in things I would hate for one of my students to get his butt kicked and think hmm I should have showed him how to block a punch.But we both agree that BS should not be taught. And most likely when I am going to wear my depend diapers I will recant what my younger self says now that you should train health more so you don't have to wear depend diapers so fast


----------



## Xue Sheng

fluffy paddy cake and now depends diapers...alrighty then


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> if I was to late to prevent the force for generating for what ever reason then I might have to borrow force but I would not yield so much to redirect, I would be moving off that center line of attack and going in at angles or behind.


Agree with you 100% there. 

I just came back from the 2016 Houston Kung Fu tournament last night. In the morning, I helped judging form. In the afternoon, I helped judging Taiji push hand, There were only 2 kind of Taiji PH there. The

1. fix step - if you lift up one foot, you lose.
2. forward backward steps only - if you move 1 foot side way, you lose. 

Both rule set won't allow to "use your stealing step footwork to move yourself to be out of your opponent's attacking path and lead him into the emptiness at the same time". In Chinese wrestling, you want to let your opponent to occupy your space. You want to occupy your opponent's original space. In order to do so, the footwork is a must. This kind of Taiji PH rule just prevent your training to develop the proper footwork. 

The Bagua system has plenty footwork, The XingYi system is also call 行拳 (walking fist) that emphasis on "even if you don't find opportunity to attack. You keep moving. When you move, soon or later, you will find opportunity to attack". IMO, The Taiji "yield" principle is contradict to the general MA "move yourself out of the way" principle.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> You need both. Ideally, we'd like to shut down an opponent before he can get a solid attack going. Realistically, that's not always going to be possible.


Agree that we will need both. But if you have time to train

1. yield a chest push,
2. yield a neck/head push (dodge),

I prefer to spend my training time in 2. The reason is simple. Your opponent may only punch on your head or push on your neck. He may never push on your chest. In other words, the ability to be able to deal with a "chest push" will have very little combat value.

There are so many MA skills that can be developed. But our life time is too short. We just can't have time to develop everything.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> What this thread is about is BS. It is about examing the internal arts fairly and criticism and critique for those who want to train it as a means to protect yourself in a real encounter.


Someone made the following statement in another forum. I think he asked a "honest question" that deserve a "honest answer".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you guys in taiji chuan safely enter into close range on an opponent whose strategy is to maintain punching distance using his footwork as defense while throwing uncommitted probing jabs mixed with faints as set up to lure you into initiating a counter attack so that he can unload a a bomb with his rear hand?


----------



## mograph

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you guys in taiji chuan safely enter into close range on an opponent whose strategy is to maintain punching distance using his footwork as defense while throwing uncommitted probing jabs mixed with faints as set up to lure you into initiating a counter attack so that he can unload a a bomb with his rear hand?


I could be wrong, but ... if he is jabbing with one hand while holding another back, it's clear that he intends to unload a bomb with that back hand (duh). So, entering the range of the back hand would not be a percentage move.

We would probably keep slapping the front hand until the opponent was pissed-off enough to make a mistake and commit to an action that we can deal with. Unlike ring fighters, taiji guys are under no pressure to mix it up or score points, so we can afford to wait until the opponent makes a mistake. 

Anybody else?


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> I could be wrong, but ... if he is jabbing with one hand while holding another back, it's clear that he intends to unload a bomb with that back hand (duh). So, entering the range of the back hand would not be a percentage move.
> 
> We would probably keep slapping the front hand until the opponent was pissed-off enough to make a mistake and commit to an action that we can deal with. Unlike ring fighters, taiji guys are under no pressure to mix it up or score points, so we can afford to wait until the opponent makes a mistake.
> 
> Anybody else?



I think I said somewhere, applying taiji properly takes patience


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone made the following statement in another forum. I think he asked a "honest question" that deserve a "honest answer".
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How do you guys in taiji chuan safely enter into close range on an opponent whose strategy is to maintain punching distance using his footwork as defense while throwing uncommitted probing jabs mixed with faints as set up to lure you into initiating a counter attack so that he can unload a a bomb with his rear hand?


Fake a punch to the front and shoot in to the legs with a double leg take down. I know it's not a Taijiquan answer but it's more grounded in reality with a higher chance of success.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> Fake a punch to the front and shoot in to the legs with a double leg take down. I know it's not a Taijiquan answer but it's more grounded in reality with a higher chance of success.


If my opponent uses his left jab, I will move toward his left side (my right side). This way, since his right arm is jammed by his own left arm, he won't have chance to use his right cross. In order to do so, I have to keep moving in circle around my opponent. I also don't think this "moving around" is a Taiji answer. Even this solution, to me, it's still too "conservative". I'm waiting something to happen and I'm not "preventing" something from happening.


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If my opponent uses his left jab, I will move toward his left side (my right side). This way, since his right arm is jammed by his own left arm, he won't have chance to use his right cross. In order to do so, I have to keep moving in circle around my opponent.
> 
> I also don't think this "moving around" is a Taiji answer.


My teacher when doing any thing be it push hands or applications in any style Baguazhang, Xingyiquan, Taijiquan he would a lot of times go to control the head and neck over most types of control and applications. By the way David Lin is about 45 minutes from me I've interested in practicing with him.


----------



## mograph

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If my opponent uses his left jab, I will move toward his left side (my right side). This way, since his right arm is jammed by his own left arm, he won't have chance to use his right cross. In order to do so, I have to keep moving in circle around my opponent.


If the jabs are _uncommitted_, he's probably able to retract them in time to counter your move. Your jamming move would only work with a _committed_ jab, right?

That's what I meant earlier: we have to wait for him to commit and give us something to work with.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> I also don't think this "moving around" is a Taiji answer.


KFW, did you _really_ think that taijiquan guys never move their feet or move around to a person's side?

Watch the guy on the left.


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> If the jabs are _uncommitted_, he's probably able to retract them in time to counter your move. Your jamming move would only work with a _committed_ jab, right?
> 
> That's what I meant earlier: we have to wait for him to commit and give us something to work with.
> KFW, did you _really_ think that taijiquan guys never move their feet or move around to a person's side?
> 
> Watch the guy on the left.



I missed that taiji guys don't move bit.

Heck we train 3 step and 4 corner stepping with various types of push hands to train movement. We also do following drills. Sheesh, what does he think we just stand there, that our feet are nailed to the floor...... we move when necessary and quite well too.


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> I missed that taiji guys don't move bit.
> 
> Heck we train 3 step and 4 corner stepping with various types of push hands to train movement. We also do following drills. Sheesh, what does he think we just stand there, that our feet are nailed to the floor...... we move when necessary and quite well too.


Some may think that because we wait to be given something to work with, that we do all our work while standing in one spot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mograph said:


> Some may think that because we *wait* to be given something to work with, that we do all our work while standing in one spot.


Here is the difference - wait vs. initiate vs. prevent.

You can

1. wait something to happen.
2. try to make something to happen.
3. try to prevent something from happening.

IMO, 3 > 2 > 1



Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you guys in taiji chuan safely enter into close range on an opponent whose strategy is to maintain punching distance using his footwork as defense while throwing uncommitted probing jabs mixed with faints as set up to lure you into initiating a counter attack so that he can unload a a bomb with his rear hand?


By using "破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating)", I will

- sweep his leading foot ankle,
- kick/step on his leading leg knee joint,
- low roundhouse kick his leading leg,

and don't give him any chance to put weight on his leading leg. If my opponent can't put weight on his leading leg, he can't punch me. That's the best solution.

Why do you even allow your opponent to have any chance to punch you? IMO, that's much more "aggressive" solution.

Here is an example to use "foot sweep" on your opponent whenever he throw a jab at you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> control the head and neck over most types of control and applications.


According to the human body structure, if you can bend your opponent's

- spine, or
- knee joint

"side way", you have taken all his defense and counter away. In order to bend your opponent's spine, you start to bend his neck first. His bending neck will then bend his spine.


----------



## mograph

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using "破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating)", I will
> 
> - sweep his leading foot ankle,
> - kick/step on his leading leg knee joint,
> - low roundhouse kick his leading leg,


KFW, taijiquan assumes that the opponent can respond effectively to our attacks. 
Your attacks assume he won't. 

By the way, in your video, black shirt is fighting very badly. His weight is back, and his front leg is out ahead of his punch, inviting you to sweep it. In other words, the part of his body closest to you is not a weapon, but a target. Bad.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mograph said:


> KFW, taijiquan assumes that the opponent can respond effectively to our attacks. Your attacks assume he won't.


When I try to sweep my opponent, I don't care whether I can sweep him down or not. My opponent can

- bend his leg at his knee and let my sweeping leg to pass under his leg.
- turn his shin bone toward me to resist my sweep.

As long as he has to respond to my foot sweep, I have already interrupted his attack - jab and cross combo.
After my sweep, as long as I can jam my opponent's leading arm, I'll have a safe entry.








mograph said:


> By the way, in your video, black shirt is *fighting* very badly. *His weight is back*, and his front leg is out ahead of his punch, inviting you to sweep it. In other words, the part of his body closest to you is not a weapon, but a target. Bad.


It was training. It was not fighting. If he put too much weight on his leading leg, he would be swept down. In order to continue for training, he only wanted to put partial weight on his leading leg. that made his jab not be able to reach far and not effective.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is the difference - wait vs. initiate vs. prevent.
> 
> You can
> 
> 1. wait something to happen.
> 2. try to make something to happen.
> 3. try to prevent something from happening.
> 
> IMO, 3 > 2 > 1



Well mathematically speaking 3 > 2 > 1. But in the things you posted, I am glad you said "IMO", because that is all it is an opinion.

So I'm in a Chinese take out place, a guy is being a jerk to everyone and yelling about foreigners in his country. He turns and sees me, and gets in my face.... so if I do 3 and pop him, or take him down I get arrested for assault. If I go for 2, then again I get arrested for assault. If I go for 1.... he leaves, no one gets hurt..... in that case 1 > 2 > 3 IMO.

And for the record in the flavor of Yang taiji that I train, that comes form Tung Ying Chieh...we also work with #2. And there are multiple ways to do #3 that do not include sweeping someones feet out from under them..... and many of those fall under De-escalation.


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> so if I do 3 and pop him, or take him down I get arrested for assault. If I go for 2, then again I get arrested for assault. If I go for 1.... he leaves, no one gets hurt..... in that case 1 > 2 > 3 IMO.


When Someone gets in my face the first thing I do put my hands up and say I don't want to fight which shows witness that I was not the one starting anything the second thing I do is move either back or to the side as a way to leave and say excuse me sir I am leaving. This gives him and witness that you have no desire to fight and are trying to leave the area.
if he follows me then I either take him down or hit him if he gets close to me again. You can use reasonable force on someone if you are being threaten and the person is blocking your way to escape. Resonable could be easily this




The person intiated the fight by going to you, you clearly said you do not want to fight and tried to walk away he followed meaning he is trying to fight you. I would not use a closed fist or a hit to the face. But a control technique is reasonable.
Some things on the law however areas are based on location
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
The definition of *false imprisonment* is the unlawful restraint of someone that affects the person’s freedom of movement. Usually this involves confining a person within fixed boundries like an office or room. Both the threat of being physically confined and actually being physically confined can be considered false imprisonment if the customer is not free to leave.


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> I could be wrong, but ... if he is jabbing with one hand while holding another back, it's clear that he intends to unload a bomb with that back hand (duh). So, entering the range of the back hand would not be a percentage move.
> 
> We would probably keep slapping the front hand until the opponent was pissed-off enough to make a mistake and commit to an action that we can deal with. Unlike ring fighters, taiji guys are under no pressure to mix it up or score points, so we can afford to wait until the opponent makes a mistake.
> 
> Anybody else?


For me, I'm more than happy to attack the attackers incoming punch. I don't need to close the distance in order to damage the attacker. Banged up arms work just as good as a banged up face.  Most people don't condition their forearms so my impacts will feel like someone is striking their arm with a steel bar.  I see people work their butts off to get within range to attack the head or body which is ironic since the attacker is more than willing to give his arm.


----------



## mograph

JowGaWolf said:


> For me, I'm more than happy to attack the attackers incoming punch. ... I see people work their butts off to get within range to attack the head or body which is ironic since the attacker is more than willing to give his arm.


Very true. A fist is a body part, and it feels pain.

... and from the taijiquan perspective, an offered arm can not only be banged up, it can be grabbed, held, maneuvered, followed, and so on.

(As for the original question, my answer was based on the assumption that the tentative jabs would not allow much contact deeper than the opponent's fist. But yes, if we can get to their forearm, so much the better.)


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> If the jabs are _uncommitted_, he's probably able to retract them in time to counter your move. Your jamming move would only work with a _committed_ jab, right?


I practice to deal with fake jabs.  The training is to recognize a jab before it's thrown and to follow through with the jam and attack even if the jab is uncommitted.  The reason why the committed jam works against a fake jab is because a fake jab is both committed and uncommitted.

Fake jabs are committed in the initial motion of a jab, but are uncommitted to hitting me.  I will be ok so long as I jam that initial movement of the jab.  If a person fakes a jab with me they are most likely to have that arm pinned to their chest and my free hand punching them in the face right about the same time. Even if the person drops for the shoot, I will still be able to handle it because the hand that is pinning the arm creates a bridge which allows me to sense the intent/motion of the drop.

I love committed attacks for the simple reason that people are more focus on the impact than pulling their hand back quickly. This usually causes over extension when the attack doesn't land on something solid.  It's like going to sit in a chair, only to have someone to pull the chair away from you.


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> KFW, did you _really_ think that taijiquan guys never move their feet or move around to a person's side?


I agree. The Taiji Quan forms pretty much highlight foot movement. 
Here's a 2 man fighting set




I tend to think of Wing Chun as having more restricted foot work in comparison to other martial arts.


----------



## mograph

JowGaWolf said:


> I tend to think of Wing Chun as having more restricted foot work in comparison to other martial arts.


Oops.


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> By the way, in your video, black shirt is fighting very badly. His weight is back, and his front leg is out ahead of his punch, inviting you to sweep it. In other words, the part of his body closest to you is not a weapon, but a target. Bad.


 The guy in the black shirt is doing the right thing for the training. The guy in the shorts is the one with the bad structure and sweep technique.  Not everyone is good at a sweep and more goes into a sweep than just kicking the leg.


----------



## JowGaWolf

mograph said:


> Oops.


lol.. stop.  I wasn't saying it as a bad thing just a noting the differences.   The WC guys here are sensitive. lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mograph said:


> KFW, did you _really_ think that taijiquan guys never move their feet or move around to a person's side?


I'm talking about "circle running". You move around your opponent in a circle and he is the center of that circle.







Here is an example. Within 14 seconds, both guys made 2 complete 360 degree circle rotation.


----------



## JowGaWolf

S


Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm talking about "circle running". You move around your opponent in a circle and he is the center of that circle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example. Within 14 seconds, both guys made 2 complete 360 degree circle rotation.


Sounds more like something out of Bagua than Tai Chi.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Sounds more like something out of Bagua than Tai Chi.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have to keep moving in circle around my opponent. I also don't think this "moving around" is a Taiji answer.



I had described the "circle running - keep moving in circle around my opponent" but I used the term "moving around" instead. I didn't know this can upset so many Taiji guys.



JowGaWolf said:


> The WC guys here are sensitive. lol


The Taiji guys here are also "sensitive".


----------



## Xue Sheng

Not sensitive, just felt the need to correct a misconception...


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> Not sensitive, just felt the need to correct a misconception...


I think I'll take up the lute.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had described the "circle running - keep moving in circle around my opponent" but I used the term "moving around" instead. I didn't know this can upset so many Taiji guys.
> 
> 
> The Taiji guys here are also "sensitive".


Nice. lol.


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> I think I'll take up the lute.



I already play the didgeridoo...does that count


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> I already play the didgeridoo...does that count


How well does it play with the cow demographic?


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> How well does it play with the cow demographic?



Yeah...you have a point there.... your right....dang.... need to take up the lute....but not jstu any lute...the Chinese lute..aka the Pipa


----------



## Tony Dismukes

mograph said:


> How well does it play with the cow demographic?


Pretty well, I'd say.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tony Dismukes said:


> Pretty well, I'd say.



Yeah, try that without the water between him and the cows, then we'll see how well it works


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah, try that without the water between him and the cows, then we'll see how well it works


----------



## Xue Sheng

Yup, and it pretty much appears to live up to the Chinese idiom duìniútánqín...so, I guess my Didge and me are good to go


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tony Dismukes said:


>


----------



## Zeny

Are you guys seriously talking about musical instruments and cows in a thread called BS and the internal arts?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Zeny said:


> Are you guys seriously talking about musical instruments and cows in a thread called BS and the internal arts?



Well, I don't know if "seriously" is the right word...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Zeny said:


> Are you guys seriously talking about musical instruments and cows in a thread called BS and the internal arts?


Well, think about what the initials "BS" stand for. That didgeridoo player probably had to be careful to avoid stepping in any.


----------



## mograph

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, think about what the initials "BS" stand for. That didgeridoo player probably had to be careful to avoid stepping in any.


See? Tony's on-topic!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, think about what the initials "BS" stand for. That didgeridoo player probably had to be careful to avoid stepping in any.





mograph said:


> See? Tony's on-topic!



It's goes deeper. Practitioners of internal arts are often concerned with cultivating their chi. Cultivation of chi is often done through breathing exercises. What's the most difficult aspect of playing the didgeridoo? Mastering the breathing!

See - it all ties together!


----------



## oaktree

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's goes deeper. Practitioners of internal arts are often concerned with cultivating their chi. Cultivation of chi is often done through breathing exercises. What's the most difficult aspect of playing the didgeridoo? Mastering the breathing!
> 
> See - it all ties together!


Neigong is more about breathing yes, waigong is using a more external approach.
The circular breathing is consider the basis for embryonic breathing or for Kenny g the essences of playing the brown note.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

What do you think about the following "internal" training?

- Both you and your opponent stand in 45 degree angles with right leg forward. Your chest face NW while your opponent's chest faces SE.
- You put your right palm on your opponent's belly.
- Your opponent puts his right palm on your belly.
- Your opponent pushes his palm on your belly and tries to move you toward east.
- You try not to be moved by your opponent, you try to transfer his pushing force into your push and move him toward west instead.

Do you think this training is

- useful?
- not quite useful?
- BS?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Never seen that in internal training in Xingyi, Bagua or Taijiquan, therefore I cannot comment based on your description


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you think about the following "internal" training?
> 
> - Both you and your opponent stand in 45 degree angles with right leg forward. Your chest face NW while your opponent's chest faces SE.
> - You put your right palm on your opponent's belly.
> - Your opponent puts his right palm on your belly.
> - Your opponent pushes his palm on your belly and tries to move you toward east.
> - You try not to be moved by your opponent, you try to transfer his pushing force into your push and move him toward west instead.
> 
> Do you think this training is
> 
> - useful?
> - not quite useful?
> - BS?


Well I am going to see if I can get the correct picture I think I am facing I guess left and my opponent is facing right so I am taking it as my left leg is my lead leg? And my opponent is a mirror image with right leg as his lead? I am taking it the off balance is towards my right or back and right side?
The way Baguazhang handles a push or pull off balance is with turning and using the force to generate the turn. The harder the push the more energy given to turn. 
In Taijiquan at least my understanding the harder the push the more relaxed I become until I off balance you or redirect your force. I don't mean to say these are set rules.


----------



## oaktree

A little bit more on my thoughts about force.
I use the extreme example of say the size of a line backer who can generate force at speed so he has power, I don't want to absorb that force, because any miscalculation and I am run over.
What I want to do is get off that line of force and at the right timing attack the point where he is weakest could be a simple trip as he places his foot down, or a hooking of the leg. I am curious to hear how other people would handle a line backer rushing in at them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> my left leg is my lead leg? And my opponent is a mirror image with right leg as his lead?


Both you and your opponent have right leg forward and push belly by right palm. Whoever's foot moves first will lose.


----------



## oaktree

I find this to be an awkward position. 
Can you attach a picture.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> I find this to be an awkward position.
> Can you attach a picture.


I don't train this and I don't have any picture and clip for this. I saw people who trained this move last weekend in 2016 Houston Kung Fu tournament (I was a Taiji push hand judge in that tournament).

I think the idea is to be able to transfer your opponent's pushing force back to himself. Does this kind of training have any MA value?

From a

- wrestler point of view, you want to take advantage on your opponent's push and add into your pull. You don't want to transfer force back to him.
- striker point of view, your opponent wants to punch you and he won't push you.

Assume you have spend many years to develop this skill (transfer your opponent's force back to him), when and where in MA will you apply it?


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think the idea is to be able to transfer your opponent's pushing force back to himself. Does this kind of training have any MA value?


I'm guessing by pushing his force back into you try to unbalance him, if that is the case as I am being pushed I would rotate my body and pull him so my opponent is off balance. Yes there is martial applications in it, but again with a line backer at full force your timing has to be perfect and in my opinion there is to much chance of error and better means to deal with the force.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> wrestler point of view, you want to take advantage on your opponent's push and add into your pull


Yes the technique can be turned into a pull as soon as he gives your energy back, you can turn as he pushes, you can push or pull right when he is about to push to off balance him too.


----------



## Zeny

KFW,

From overall martial arts perspective, that method of training may be useful. Your body accepts force from an external source, and you learn to re-channel that force back into the opponent. After over a hundred hours of such training, you may begin to be able to use it at will in an instant and your opponent may be taken by surprise.

However, from a taijiquan perspective, that method is completely useless. For me lightness and non-resistance is the overall objective. My partner has recently described my hand as feeling as light as a piece of paper. This is the result of many hours of relaxation exercises, non-use of force and non-resistance. As such the method of training you described would cause me to regress.


----------



## oaktree

Zeny said:


> KFW,
> 
> From overall martial arts perspective, that method of training may be useful. Your body accepts force from an external source, and you learn to re-channel that force back into the opponent. After over a hundred hours of such training, you may begin to be able to use it at will in an instant and your opponent may be taken by surprise.
> 
> However, from a taijiquan perspective, that method is completely useless. For me lightness and non-resistance is the overall objective. My partner has recently described my hand as feeling as light as a piece of paper. This is the result of many hours of relaxation exercises, non-use of force and non-resistance. As such the method of training you described would cause me to regress.


How do you handle a line backer coming at you with full speed and force.


----------



## Zeny

I step to the side...


----------



## Blindside

oaktree said:


> How do you handle a line backer coming at you with full speed and force.



Get behind my guard.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oaktree said:


> How do you handle a line backer coming at you with full speed and force.



Stay behind your defensive linemen, drop back, and pass.

A full speed charge is easy enough to dodge, in most situations. Or you can throw a nice solid kick out there and let them add their power to yours. That ought to hurt a bit...

There's lots of options, obviously.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> How do you handle a line backer coming at you with full speed and force.


If I feel

- I am stronger than my opponent, I'll charge in at the same time. My opponent's forward movement can save me 1/2 of my forward movement.
- my opponent is strong than me, I'll use "stealing step", move myself out of his attacking path, give him all the space that he will need, add my force on him, and lead him into the emptiness (kiss the dirt). I want to be where he was, and I want him to be where I was.


----------



## oaktree

I'm glad that most are in agreement that the straight force given by the line backer that to absorb and redirect standing stationary is not practical.


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> I'm glad that most are in agreement that the straight force given by the line backer that to absorb and redirect standing stationary is not practical.


Yes. Bones can be broken. Our body has our limits.


----------



## Buka

oaktree said:


> How do you handle a line backer coming at you with full speed and force.



In football I was a running back/receiver. If I was already moving fast, he's going to miss. They usually did. If I hadn't got up a good head of steam yet, I'm watching his feet. I'm going to hip fake in the opposite direction of where his front step is landing just as we're meeting each other, then go the other way as he adjusts. (right when he has that, "Oh, crap moment) If I had blockers, I'm following them until I see daylight or they're going too slow.

If the question applies to fighting, it depends. It's relatively easy to make big, strong, running guys miss. I also might just tackle him, dive into his legs, I don't care how fast he's going. I have found that fast aggressive people do not do well when you attack them in a straight line, they're not used to it and it messes them up. Especially if once you get there you know how to fight. Football players only know how to fight other football players, drunks and innocents. I'm no innocent. But I do love football and fighting.

And, yes, it's force meeting force, but not really. It would be if I was crashing my upper body into his upper body, but I want his legs. And I want to meet them with great force. Sidestepping is easier, though. But then you have to go chase him.


----------



## Xue Sheng

One of my security jobs I had a pro-wrestler charge at me like a bull. Luckily he put his head down and ran forward at me. I side stepped and he just fell down..... at least the police, that were there, said that is what happened . also since they were there, I did not even have to get into the who  restraint bits, they handled that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> to absorb and redirect standing stationary is not practical.


This is why I believe any MA skill that you train along with your footwork will give you more benefit than just to train "without moving your feet".


----------



## oaktree

The question I posted was more in the lines of taking force directly from a push from a line backer as in standing there attempting to be pushed and not moving off the line of attack. However, I am glad that most people find the idea of meeting force that is extreme that you could not absorb it dead on and redirect. And even if you could that doing so has a higher chance of failure


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I believe any MA skill that you train along with your footwork will give you more benefit than just to train "without moving your feet".


Which is why I am more of a Baguazhang guy then a Taijiquan player because there is more practicality in it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

oaktree said:


> Which is why I am more of a Baguazhang guy then ...


Shuai Chiao also likes to "move out of the attacking path". You take over your opponent's original spot. You also let your opponent to fall down at your original spot.

In the following clip, the "stealing step" was used in all 3 moves. Also the position change (I take over your space, you take over my space) are shown in all 3 moves.


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> One of my security jobs I had a pro-wrestler charge at me like a bull. Luckily he put his head down and ran forward at me. I side stepped and he just fell down..... at least the police, that were there, said that is what happened . also since they were there, I did not even have to get into the who  restraint bits, they handled that.


So let me ask this question, do you feel if he rushed you and say you couldn't side step do you think absorbing it head on and then redirecting it would be practical. 
We see a lot of tuishou done stationary to teach absorption and redirecting of force which I think teaches a degree of unrealistic applications case in point vs a line backer type of guy who would have the force and speed to generate power, as internal artist, to have say a fragile eldery lady absorb it seems reckless in my opinion.
It is why in the first palm application when I teach Baguazhang, is to get off the line of attack similar to how a bull fighter fights a bull. The more I think about Taijiquan and applications I find some of its views, training, and principles to be unrealistic approaches to engagement of an opponent.
I can agree with the principles step right step left and lu I just disagree with standing stationary trying to do ward off or peng as a line backer rushes in to hit you think you are going to fa jin him back.


----------



## oaktree

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Shuai Chiao also likes to "move out of the attacking path". You take over your opponent's original spot. You also let your opponent to fall down at your original spot.
> 
> In the following clip, the "stealing step" was used in all 3 moves. Also the position change (I take over your space, you take over my space) are shown in all 3 moves.


Which is why the Baguazhang I do has it's roots in that system over say yin style which is more for striking. In the escrima I do we step at angle steps. When I box I don't box straight line  I always throw my punches be it straight or hooks always from an angle.
It makes boxing me more difficult because my foot work allows me to enter the range from 45 degrees while the opponent goes into a straight line. It's geometry. Or ok algebra line and intercept.


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> We see a lot of tuishou done stationary to teach absorption and redirecting of force which I think teaches a degree of unrealistic applications case in point vs a line backer type of guy who would have the force and speed to generate power, as internal artist, to have say a fragile eldery lady absorb it seems reckless in my opinion.


In that case, taijiquan is being taught badly, or interpreted badly by his students who think that peng & bouncing is the only way to approach an interaction.



oaktree said:


> It is why in the first palm application when I teach Baguazhang, is to get off the line of attack similar to how a bull fighter fights a bull. The more I think about Taijiquan and applications I find some of its views, training, and principles to be unrealistic approaches to engagement of an opponent.
> I can agree with the principles step right step left and lu I just disagree with standing stationary trying to do ward off or peng as a line backer rushes in to hit you think you are going to fa jin him back.


As I wrote, if that is what is being taught, that's wrong. Keep in mind that a lot of Tai Chi types think it's a magical art, and that its particular point of view is all that should be taught. No, peng and bouncy stuff should be taught _in addition to _common sense stuff like "move out of the way."

To put it another way: some people think that in order to "do tai chi" somebody has to only do bouncy-pengy tai chi stuff. Not me: even if he does ten other things that are common to multiple arts, if he does _any_ bouncy-pengy stuff, he's doing Tai Chi (as well as the other stuff). I think that Tai Chi's perspective can _enhance, not replace_ other martial practices. Maybe that's just me ...

Again, check out my go-to clip of Ian Sinclair for tai chi interactions. You'll see that he moves around quite a bit:


----------



## oaktree

mograph said:


> In that case, taijiquan is being taught badly, or interpreted badly by his students who think that peng & bouncing is the only way to approach an interaction.
> 
> As I wrote, if that is what is being taught, that's wrong. Keep in mind that a lot of Tai Chi types think it's a magical art, and that its particular point of view is all that should be taught. No, peng and bouncy stuff should be taught _in addition to _common sense stuff like "move out of the way."
> 
> To put it another way: some people think that in order to "do tai chi" somebody has to only do bouncy-pengy tai chi stuff. Not me: even if he does ten other things that are common to multiple arts, if he does _any_ bouncy-pengy stuff, he's doing Tai Chi (as well as the other stuff). I think that Tai Chi's perspective can _enhance, not replace_ other martial practices. Maybe that's just me ...
> 
> Again, check out my go-to clip of Ian Sinclair for tai chi interactions:


Hehe figures he is a Chen stylist
I agree with what you said and that is exactly what I mean people are taught to take the force and use peng to push him back in a ward off position which is bs against a line backer.now with someone of equal weight then yes perhaps it will work, against someone lighter more then likely. I am not criticizing Taijiquan as an art I am criticizing some of the way it is taught and some of the principles of it that may not apply to certain opponents which maybe I should have articulated myself better.


----------



## Zeny

I am not particularly impressed with the ian sinclair clip.

1) if he has attained good skill in taijiquan, he should do the demo in 'free pushing' style with the partner giving him real (but non-violent) pushes

2) his posture shows a lot of defects

3) his movements are too big, he should be able to use smaller, more subtle movements

4) lots of external arm and leg applications, very little 'internal' methods, taiji done properly will not look 'logical' but will look 'magical' to an untrained person. For 'magical' example look at Adam Mizner clips which show movements that look 'magical' due to the internal methods being applied. Taichi at its highest levels (100pc sung and where the opponent will only feel complete emptiness) will look completely bewildering.


----------



## Zeny

This is what i mean by a proper taijiquan demo. This video was stated to be taken in 2007. My class visited him last year and it was immediately apparent that his skill is of an extremely high level. Last i heard he has seven taijiquan schools, one in Malaysia and six in China.


----------



## oaktree

"if he has attained good skill in taijiquan, he shoulddo the demo in 'free pushing' style with the partner giving him real (but non-violent) pushes."
*I can't comment on the demo if he should have used a more free push, in demos the idea is to show possible applications and for the one receiving to make the other guy look good. I personally May have gone this route as the guy isn't my student so if we went all out who knows what may occur. *


Zeny said:


> his posture shows a lot of defects


*His form was recognized enough to know it's Chen style. As far as it being defective well I have seen worse. Liam cough cough video cough cough.


Zeny said:



			his movements are too big, he should be able to use smaller, more subtle movements
		
Click to expand...

Maybe God I suck at using quote function martial talk really has changed....in Chen style we tend to go large then smaller so I don't know what context he was using it.


Zeny said:



			lots of external arm and leg applications, very little 'internal' methods, taiji done properly will not look 'logical' but will look 'magical' to an untrained person
		
Click to expand...

Oh you want the throwing that looks like b.s. wet noodles. Well he didn't have a couch.

*


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> *Maybe God I suck at using quote function martial talk really *


 We gotta use square brackets around each QUOTE instance, but the _second_ one needs a forward slash between the square bracket and the Q. Yeah, the function isn't very forgiving. 

Hey, you fixed it! Excellent!


----------



## oaktree

Zeny said:


> This is what i mean by a proper taijiquan demo. This video was stated to be taken in 2007. My class visited him last year and it was immediately apparent that his skill is of an extremely high level. Last i heard he has seven taijiquan schools, one in Malaysia and six in China.


Maybe he does have high skill or compliance students. We can at least measure the other video...ever see my video I'm terrible at making videos also my wife made me do it


----------



## oaktree

mograph said:


> We gotta use square brackets around each QUOTE instance, but the _second_ one needs a forward slash between the square bracket and the Q. Yeah, the function isn't very forgiving.


I'm a Baguazhang guy I like roundness because I'm cool not square
I remember the old days of martial talk so much easier for the learning disabled martial artist as myself to use


----------



## Xue Sheng

oaktree said:


> So let me ask this question, do you feel if he rushed you and say you couldn't side step do you think absorbing it head on and then redirecting it would be practical.
> We see a lot of tuishou done stationary to teach absorption and redirecting of force which I think teaches a degree of unrealistic applications case in point vs a line backer type of guy who would have the force and speed to generate power, as internal artist, to have say a fragile eldery lady absorb it seems reckless in my opinion.
> It is why in the first palm application when I teach Baguazhang, is to get off the line of attack similar to how a bull fighter fights a bull. The more I think about Taijiquan and applications I find some of its views, training, and principles to be unrealistic approaches to engagement of an opponent.
> I can agree with the principles step right step left and lu I just disagree with standing stationary trying to do ward off or peng as a line backer rushes in to hit you think you are going to fa jin him back.



Taiji would redirect in that case, not absorb. I redirected and kind of..... mistakenly on purpose, left my foot there. Teaching absorption of the force of a 250lbs muscle bound bull is not a real good idea. Some one teaching that to an elderly woman is either a bad teacher or caught up in the mythology and hype


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> I redirected and kind of..... mistakenly on purpose, left my foot there.


Mud step application?


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> Taiji would redirect in that case, not absorb. I redirected and kind of..... mistakenly on purpose, left my foot there. Teaching absorption of the force of a 250lbs muscle bound bull is not a real good idea. Some one teaching that to an elderly woman is either a bad teacher or caught up in the mythology and hype


Thank you for clearing that up and that is precisely the point I was making that there are people who truly believe and teach this.
And hence why there is bs in internal arts that hopefully this thread can clean up some of those mythical and hype.


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> ... hopefully this thread can clean up some of those mythical and hype.


... but there will always be resistance. (shrug)


----------



## Xue Sheng

Absorb, under the right circumstances, works.... but not so much against charging bulls


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Zeny said:


> Taichi at its highest levels (100pc sung and where the opponent will only feel complete emptiness) will look completely bewildering.


When I was 11, my brother in law taught me how to train the "lighting skill". I dug a hole on the ground. The hole was so small that I could only bend my knee just a little bit. Everyday, I put myself in that hole and tried to jump out of that hole. I then made the hole deeper and deeper along my training. I was told that if the hole was on my chest level, and if I could still jump out, I should have no problem to jump on top of building roof (15 feet?). After 6 months of training, one day I asked my brother in law to show me if he could jump on top of the building roof. He couldn't do it. I lose faith and I soon gave up that training.

Even today, I still believe in "Seeing is believing". Something may work in theory, but in reality, it's very difficult to achieve. If someone said, "Somebody can do ...". I usually won't believe it until I can see it with my own eyes.


----------



## Zeny

KFW, I have seen and felt it. I am speaking from experience, not imagination. That single experience (and i have had a few over the years) will completely change the way you look at taijiquan.

I did not touch hands with the tenom dude in the earlier video but from the things he said and from the way he looked up close and demonstrated certain things, i believe he has also achieved it.


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> Absorb, under the right circumstances, works.... but not so much against charging bulls


I want to add I have done absorb and off balance with my teacher who is 100 lb over me


----------



## Xue Sheng

oaktree said:


> I want to add I have done absorb and off balance with my teacher who is 100 lb over me



I have done that with my teacher as well, but he is likely over 100 pounds lighter than me, about 6 inches shorter that I am and 20 years older....and he has no problem absorbing, what force I throw his way, redirecting what I do and making me fall down.


----------



## mograph

The (charging bull) running back also has velocity. 
Momentum is mass times velocity, which is hard to absorb without causing injury, right?


----------



## Xue Sheng

mograph said:


> The (charging bull) running back also has velocity.
> Momentum is mass times velocity, which is hard to absorb without causing injury, right?



Yup, and in my case, the guy having his head down and not looking where he was going helped too. As did not being shall we say... sober....for lack of a better term


----------



## oaktree

Speaking of pushing I was teaching today and had the guys push me. I first just stood normally let him push me I mean push me back offering no resistance  So they push me back far, good I say so we established that. So we talked about the observations:
1.The person getting close that's a problem
2.raising his hands second problem
3.As soon as the light touch and the force is about to be applied start the turn and the qinna of the arms and the pull and down he goes.
We discussed this if the opponent is bigger putting his hands and pushing back the moment we feel his touch we start to disbalance. But I want them to know to identify the three problems and how getting to close is the first issue. The issue with Tue push and this is about the sucker punch is the push back and then the sucker punch so we discuss that when we are being pushed back that as we turn the body to deal with that sucker punch set up


----------



## Zeny

Interesting article on fajin. Real taijiquan fajin will not look 'logical' but will look 'magical'.

Yang Family Fajin by Adam Mizner - Discover Taiji

Look at how soft the masters are in the videos linked in the article.

Many people never acquired any jin so they have no jin to release. As such their fajin and push hands look like what is shown in the video below:


----------

