Taiji vs BJJ tackle.

[DavidCC]

While sprawling is an effective counter to a shoot, my problem is that a sprawl is not following TC principles. I was attempting to come up with something that did follow the principles.

As for pushing with both hands, I was implying that the BJJ guy would attack with both hands on either side of your body, thus making sure he got your center for the take down. If you manage to push one of his hands to the side with his other hand, he is then forced to fight the TC way and "feel for the opponents center" which I was betting he wouldn't be able to do.

I always thought the "sprawl" defense was a cop out and admitting that all non-grappling styles were ineffective against grappling. I still don't believe that CMA are defensless against grappling, but it does show it at least requires knowing what you are going against to defend against it.

The way I was taught, a good sprawl does not meet force with force, it blends with the attack, riding on top of it... using your balance to destroy the attacker's... I don't do Tai Chi but I don't see how this is a "cop out".

 

[7starmantis]

Yeah, I agree, a correctly executed "spawl" is in accordance with the principels of tai chi as I understand them. The only place it could get sticky is if your sprawling too far and allowing yoruself to be taken off balance or "center".

7sm

 

[arnisador]

A sprawl certainly has the center of mass way out of line, supported by the opponent's force--is that in accord with Tai Chi principles? I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure...

 

[Solidman82]

a BJJ Tackle or takedown is everything you described an internal stylist to do. The move their centerline with force and uproot the balance of another. A TCQ practioner should be trained for just that kind of combat.

 

[eyebeams]

A sprawl certainly has the center of mass way out of line, supported by the opponent's force--is that in accord with Tai Chi principles? I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure...

I'd say Cloud Hands would be good for that (half sprawl and an over/under hold), but only if you train for strongly supporting with pun. Lots of schools have notoriously weak pun because pun looks like force against force and quickly gets dropped for the hippies. I certainly don't expect an average TJQ guy to know how to resist a single or double leg.

 

[7starmantis]

A sprawl certainly has the center of mass way out of line, supported by the opponent's force--is that in accord with Tai Chi principles? I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure...

I think its common for "center of mass" to be mistaken for "center of balance" in tai chi. I think what you just explained is actually quite in accordance with true tai chi principles. At least combat oriented tai chi.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Center of mass and center of balance mean the same thing in science--what's the distinction here?

I know very little about Tai Chi so I'm sure you're right--I just don't get the distinction.

 

[7starmantis]

Center of mass and center of balance mean the same thing in science--what's the distinction here?

I know very little about Tai Chi so I'm sure you're right--I just don't get the distinction.

Well, the "center of mass" is basically the point in the body where the whole mass is concentrated. However that is not neccessarily the center of balance. In tai chi and other styles that focus on "center" the practitioner learns not only to feel and move opponents center but also feel and move their own center. For instance, if someone puts their open palm on your lower chest, they can manipulate your center, feeling where its at and quite easily use it to move you. A person who studies these types of techniques and principles usually learns how to feel when the opponent "catches their center" and can manipulate it themselves before the pushing begins.

The distinction is more of a visual one. What appears to be the center of mass could very well not be the point at which you can "catch their balance" and move them with it. In humjan biology the "Center of Mass" is generally considered to be located at sacral promontory, anterior to S2, at 55% of body height. However, the body is segmented and many "COM" or "COG" points are defined. With the body being mobile and with a practitioners skill in turning and moving their own center of balance, finding the COG (COM) doesn't neccessarily allow you to "uproot" or move the person's balance.

That make any sense at all? It almost sounds like a semantical arguement, but its not. Basically I'm saying that what looks like the center of mass may not be the point at which the persons balance is held.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Ah, yes, I get it! I think I make the same distinction but using much different language. Yes, where it's easy to tip/move them isn't necessarily where their theoretical center of mass is located.

 

[7starmantis]

Yeah, we are on the same page

 

[Shogun]

So basically, your center of Mass is your physical center (core), and cannot be moved from such, while you can manipulate where your center of balance is. Hai.