Thanks for your understanding. I will post ASAP.
I am, again, swamped here at work.
Haven't even have time to do a 13 posture form the last few days while I was here. At home, I've had lots of time to practice. I just got a cable modem hookup, after fifteen years of dial up, and haven't even seen my computer since then. There's allways one person or another in my chair, doing what I would like to be.
But hey! At least my practice time is improving!
Yes, I have much improved my understanding of YCF style now that I am closer to the proper frame. It's not just a mindset, believe me. It is an honest to goodness physical reality that must be adhered to.
I can now switch back and forth between these "frames" and that really helps to keep my two styles of TCC seperate.
One weird thing, I have a visitor coming in this weekend. A disciple of the Wu family is coming for a visit. I will be "small frame"ing this weekend. I have been promised insight into some of the more "advanced" concepts of solid and empty, and push hands in general.
So I have that to look forward to.
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 04-15-2003).]
Single weightedness?
Audi et al;
I will say up front that I am typing this as I can, in between doing real work. Therefor I cannot say it will make perfect sense. I may get off track from time to time and go off on a weird tangent. If I do this, please bear with me. I will do my best to address any lingering questions in future posts.
That said, onward:
Scenario 1:
I have no problem with this scenario. Seems reasonable to me. Both Attacker A and Defender B are not practicing TCC. They are both double weighted and neither is doing anything remotely related to TCC in any way I’m familiar with.
Scenario 2:
Well, other than I don’t know that Defender B really needs to be all that stiff, I have to agree with this one as well.
OK, one more thing pops into my head on retrospect (one good thing about having days to hack out a response!). Why wouldn’t Defender B step back?
Just a rhetorical question. Again, neither is doing TCC.
Scenario 3a:
This is the Readers Digest Condensed version of how I trained. It makes sense to me, up to a point. The “rooting” you speak of is valid, the swinging gate is there. I like this one…. More later.
Scenario 3b:
No “speed” is required to shift the weight. Only the incoming force. Imagine being equally weighted between your legs, be light and agile in mind and body. You sense (either feel or see) incoming force and your body flows with it. You do not “shift” your weight, you allow it to be shifted USING the incoming force. Speed is not a requirement as your opponent is supplying the energy and therefor the speed of movement. This does take time, practice, sensitivity and a great deal of training to learn, but I have done this, know many who can, wish I still could with the old skill. I’m working on it.
The “leaning” you speak of:
I don’t need to speculate this is part of the approach I learned from the Wu family. I will not assume to speak for the Wu family, I can only tell you that this is how they trained me. That lean would be inherent in the motion.
Scenario 3 a&b:
The follow through would be:
Defender B maintains ward off energy through his center into both hands and his right arm has completed the circle, made contact with Attacker A’s left side and is now pushing Attacker A in the exact same manner and with exactly the force used by Attacker A.
OH! I see you’ve covered that in…
Scenario 4:
We don’t seem to have a whole lot of differences here. I have to agree. Only thing I can say is:
The way I trained this, Defender B would divide empty and full between right and left as well as upper and lower. This would allow him a full range of motion to step with his left leg if necessary, in order to respond to any further incoming attacks from either Attacker A or any of his buddies who may be hiding in the shadows. By stepping or even just being capable of stepping immediately (and this is the response I mentioned in my earlier post that I felt you passed on) as well as accepting and redirecting, Defender B allows himself many, many more options. He may not need to step at all, but he’s ready right now with no more shifting around to do so if he desires to or needs to. Maybe separating upper body full and empty and redirecting Attacker A’s energy back into himself defeated his enemy, but maybe it didn’t. What the Wu family trained me to do was to assume it did not and make the logical next move to keep in contact with Attacker A to sense what he’s going to do next. By being in contact with him Defender b can sense his next move, if he loses contact then he cannot. To maintain the principal of contact (sticking, adhering) with his opponent Defender B had better be light and agile and ready to move right now.
If Defender B redirected with the proper force it sounds like Attacker A would have moved away from him in a hurried fashion. To maintain contact with his opponent Defender B needs to step, right now. If he’s still equally weighted then he is now double weighted, because he is unable to freely move in any direction so he can respond (this is the definition we’ve been using, right?). If he does not separate right and left then in order to move he must NOW shift his weight into one leg or the other and then take a step. If he has to do that much work to step he has surely lost contact with Attacker A because he can’t respond quickly enough to follow him.
Am I wrong? Does anyone, anywhere disagree with this?
By the definition we’ve been using, Defender B just made himself double weighted. If he didn’t separate left and right in order to make his next move he cannot respond so he is stuck where he is. He is not separated between full and empty in his legs, he cannot immediately step to make his next response, he is double weighted.
Kind of a circular way to get there, I admit, but I just asked the exact same question I started the thread out with.
How do you not keep a 100/0 separation between your legs and still not be double weighted?
Sure, in one, static, easy to follow and critique move anyone can be “single weighted”, for lack of a better term. Yes, I know “Single weighted” isn’t widely accepted as a desirable term, but I have yet to see the accepted term for the opposite of double weighted, so I have to use it by force. However the Wu family trained me to think long term and maintain single weightedness through every and all axis, not just upper and lower, right and left, side to side but in the “leaning” directions as well. They taught me to always have a response, no matter what the “direction” was and to prepare myself both physically and mentally to have a direction to respond to.
THAT is how I learned to define “double weighted”. Having no “out”, no direction to go. They taught me to step if I had to, to lean if I had to, to move only my tantien if I had to, to turn 180 degrees on only the tiniest portion of one heel if I had to. In short, to leave myself free to move in any possible direction whenever I had to.
Also, they taught us never to assume the fight is over simply because an opponent has been offset once. Rather to assume that they are now angrier then ever and will come back at me with all they have. To maintain my contact, to stick, to adhere, to follow and to constantly sense what my opponents next move will be.
This is how I see “single weighted” as working because this is how I was trained to see it.
OK. I have read and reread this post. I think I have the gist of what I wanted to say in response in to Audi’s post.
I will post this post and see how it looks in the real world of Yangfamilytaichi.com. You know how that goes, I’m sure. You THINK you’ve worked out the bugs, you post it and WHOA! How’d THAT get in there?
I will say up front that I am typing this as I can, in between doing real work. Therefor I cannot say it will make perfect sense. I may get off track from time to time and go off on a weird tangent. If I do this, please bear with me. I will do my best to address any lingering questions in future posts.
That said, onward:
Scenario 1:
I have no problem with this scenario. Seems reasonable to me. Both Attacker A and Defender B are not practicing TCC. They are both double weighted and neither is doing anything remotely related to TCC in any way I’m familiar with.
Scenario 2:
Well, other than I don’t know that Defender B really needs to be all that stiff, I have to agree with this one as well.
OK, one more thing pops into my head on retrospect (one good thing about having days to hack out a response!). Why wouldn’t Defender B step back?
Just a rhetorical question. Again, neither is doing TCC.
Scenario 3a:
This is the Readers Digest Condensed version of how I trained. It makes sense to me, up to a point. The “rooting” you speak of is valid, the swinging gate is there. I like this one…. More later.
Scenario 3b:
No “speed” is required to shift the weight. Only the incoming force. Imagine being equally weighted between your legs, be light and agile in mind and body. You sense (either feel or see) incoming force and your body flows with it. You do not “shift” your weight, you allow it to be shifted USING the incoming force. Speed is not a requirement as your opponent is supplying the energy and therefor the speed of movement. This does take time, practice, sensitivity and a great deal of training to learn, but I have done this, know many who can, wish I still could with the old skill. I’m working on it.
The “leaning” you speak of:
I don’t need to speculate this is part of the approach I learned from the Wu family. I will not assume to speak for the Wu family, I can only tell you that this is how they trained me. That lean would be inherent in the motion.
Scenario 3 a&b:
The follow through would be:
Defender B maintains ward off energy through his center into both hands and his right arm has completed the circle, made contact with Attacker A’s left side and is now pushing Attacker A in the exact same manner and with exactly the force used by Attacker A.
OH! I see you’ve covered that in…
Scenario 4:
We don’t seem to have a whole lot of differences here. I have to agree. Only thing I can say is:
The way I trained this, Defender B would divide empty and full between right and left as well as upper and lower. This would allow him a full range of motion to step with his left leg if necessary, in order to respond to any further incoming attacks from either Attacker A or any of his buddies who may be hiding in the shadows. By stepping or even just being capable of stepping immediately (and this is the response I mentioned in my earlier post that I felt you passed on) as well as accepting and redirecting, Defender B allows himself many, many more options. He may not need to step at all, but he’s ready right now with no more shifting around to do so if he desires to or needs to. Maybe separating upper body full and empty and redirecting Attacker A’s energy back into himself defeated his enemy, but maybe it didn’t. What the Wu family trained me to do was to assume it did not and make the logical next move to keep in contact with Attacker A to sense what he’s going to do next. By being in contact with him Defender b can sense his next move, if he loses contact then he cannot. To maintain the principal of contact (sticking, adhering) with his opponent Defender B had better be light and agile and ready to move right now.
If Defender B redirected with the proper force it sounds like Attacker A would have moved away from him in a hurried fashion. To maintain contact with his opponent Defender B needs to step, right now. If he’s still equally weighted then he is now double weighted, because he is unable to freely move in any direction so he can respond (this is the definition we’ve been using, right?). If he does not separate right and left then in order to move he must NOW shift his weight into one leg or the other and then take a step. If he has to do that much work to step he has surely lost contact with Attacker A because he can’t respond quickly enough to follow him.
Am I wrong? Does anyone, anywhere disagree with this?
By the definition we’ve been using, Defender B just made himself double weighted. If he didn’t separate left and right in order to make his next move he cannot respond so he is stuck where he is. He is not separated between full and empty in his legs, he cannot immediately step to make his next response, he is double weighted.
Kind of a circular way to get there, I admit, but I just asked the exact same question I started the thread out with.
How do you not keep a 100/0 separation between your legs and still not be double weighted?
Sure, in one, static, easy to follow and critique move anyone can be “single weighted”, for lack of a better term. Yes, I know “Single weighted” isn’t widely accepted as a desirable term, but I have yet to see the accepted term for the opposite of double weighted, so I have to use it by force. However the Wu family trained me to think long term and maintain single weightedness through every and all axis, not just upper and lower, right and left, side to side but in the “leaning” directions as well. They taught me to always have a response, no matter what the “direction” was and to prepare myself both physically and mentally to have a direction to respond to.
THAT is how I learned to define “double weighted”. Having no “out”, no direction to go. They taught me to step if I had to, to lean if I had to, to move only my tantien if I had to, to turn 180 degrees on only the tiniest portion of one heel if I had to. In short, to leave myself free to move in any possible direction whenever I had to.
Also, they taught us never to assume the fight is over simply because an opponent has been offset once. Rather to assume that they are now angrier then ever and will come back at me with all they have. To maintain my contact, to stick, to adhere, to follow and to constantly sense what my opponents next move will be.
This is how I see “single weighted” as working because this is how I was trained to see it.
OK. I have read and reread this post. I think I have the gist of what I wanted to say in response in to Audi’s post.
I will post this post and see how it looks in the real world of Yangfamilytaichi.com. You know how that goes, I’m sure. You THINK you’ve worked out the bugs, you post it and WHOA! How’d THAT get in there?
I did some push hands over the weekend with my Wu disciple friend. They were pleasantly surprised that I am nowhere near as stiff as I made out.
Of course, having just spent the last two or three weeks working on loosening up and doing some push hands with my son probably helped.
We covered one armed basic, two armed basic and Da Lou (wish I was sure how that is spelled). For some reason, I remembered Da Lou easier than chain step or nine palace step. Go figure.
I got some more "advanced" training in seperating full and empty along all axis and a bit of practical advice on applying these theories.
Can't say I learned miles beyond where I've been before, but I can say it was different than some of what I had learned before.
I can also say that at my low level of knowledge of large frame TCC, I could not really correlate between what I learned this weekend and YCF style push hands. As the more "advanced" methods I learned require a clean 100/0 weight split, I don't know yet how to apply these to a lesser split.
The Wu disciple just did not get the 70/30 splits, was just as mystified as I've been and was as bad at getting themselves into "large frame" stances as I used to be. We played with it quite a bit and found some very good applications for this kind of weight distribution, but again only if you're using the "large frame" to do them.
Since they didn't have any experience with large frame and I have very little, we didn't go into it too much beyond that.
I was glad to verify that what I had learned was not incorrect for Wu style or "small frame" TCC. It does not corrolate exactly to large frame, or YCF style, because while they are very much the same at the core, the "fighting frame", or your entire frame of reference for a better way to say it, is entirely different.
Large frame is using large circles, a higher stance, bigger steps and a different basic approach than the small frame I have learned in the past.
It seems to come down to circles, and how big you make them. Small frame seems to equate to small circles of movement, large frame to larger circles of movement.
I don't understand it exactly but as I've found out on my own lately, these can be very fundamental differences.
When I go "small frame" and set up my body that way, then using the small frame methods I learned in Wu style work very, very well. When going "large frame" then I need to use the YCF style movements and methods I am learning here.
They were very excited to learn this as well, as it seemed to answer some questions they had on their mind about Yang style vs. Wu style.
So....
I guess I've been trying to compare apples to oranges. You just can't do some of the stuff I learned in Wu style using the "large frame" of YCF style. And the opposite is true, the upright, centered, larger frame methods just don't distill down to the smaller frame methods very well, at least as we both understand them.
You need to keep these two styles very much seperated in order to do one or the other correctly.
So.........
I guess what I'm trying to say is...
Different styles, different methods, different theories, different approach.......
Keep 'em that way!
I will now go into my YCF studies with a much easier mind.
Funny how my mind works. I was seeing some fundamental contradictions with what I knew in the past, and that kept me from fully enjoying my time with YCF style.
This visit really helped me re-adjust my thinking, and I am much more focused and clearer in my mind.
Much less "monkey mind" on my part.
Since I have verified that I'm not a total washout in my memory of Wu style, and have cleared my mind of it's stubborn about large frame TCC, I should be able to move forward much easier with YCF training.
I thank you all for your help and all you have done to help me reach this point.
I realize I have been a major pain in the arse over the last year or so, and sincerely mean it when I say I am greatful to all of you for your words of wisdom and helpful suggestions.
I am now more dedicated than ever to learning this wonderful style of TCC and hope to move forward at a much more accellerated rate with the applications and thoery of YCF style.
I now realize that I need to get myself back into a "empty" mode and let YCF style fill me up. What I know of Wu style, I know and am comfortable with. What I know of YCF style is very, very little and I need to learn.
I am hoping that when next I meet my Wu style friends and acquaintances, I will have a much better grap of large circle TCC and it's practical applications to continue working on the contrasts between the two.
They seemed very interested in exploring the differences, and similarities, between the styles.
I hope I can learn well enough to do that.
Of course, having just spent the last two or three weeks working on loosening up and doing some push hands with my son probably helped.
We covered one armed basic, two armed basic and Da Lou (wish I was sure how that is spelled). For some reason, I remembered Da Lou easier than chain step or nine palace step. Go figure.
I got some more "advanced" training in seperating full and empty along all axis and a bit of practical advice on applying these theories.
Can't say I learned miles beyond where I've been before, but I can say it was different than some of what I had learned before.
I can also say that at my low level of knowledge of large frame TCC, I could not really correlate between what I learned this weekend and YCF style push hands. As the more "advanced" methods I learned require a clean 100/0 weight split, I don't know yet how to apply these to a lesser split.
The Wu disciple just did not get the 70/30 splits, was just as mystified as I've been and was as bad at getting themselves into "large frame" stances as I used to be. We played with it quite a bit and found some very good applications for this kind of weight distribution, but again only if you're using the "large frame" to do them.
Since they didn't have any experience with large frame and I have very little, we didn't go into it too much beyond that.
I was glad to verify that what I had learned was not incorrect for Wu style or "small frame" TCC. It does not corrolate exactly to large frame, or YCF style, because while they are very much the same at the core, the "fighting frame", or your entire frame of reference for a better way to say it, is entirely different.
Large frame is using large circles, a higher stance, bigger steps and a different basic approach than the small frame I have learned in the past.
It seems to come down to circles, and how big you make them. Small frame seems to equate to small circles of movement, large frame to larger circles of movement.
I don't understand it exactly but as I've found out on my own lately, these can be very fundamental differences.
When I go "small frame" and set up my body that way, then using the small frame methods I learned in Wu style work very, very well. When going "large frame" then I need to use the YCF style movements and methods I am learning here.
They were very excited to learn this as well, as it seemed to answer some questions they had on their mind about Yang style vs. Wu style.
So....
I guess I've been trying to compare apples to oranges. You just can't do some of the stuff I learned in Wu style using the "large frame" of YCF style. And the opposite is true, the upright, centered, larger frame methods just don't distill down to the smaller frame methods very well, at least as we both understand them.
You need to keep these two styles very much seperated in order to do one or the other correctly.
So.........
I guess what I'm trying to say is...
Different styles, different methods, different theories, different approach.......
Keep 'em that way!
I will now go into my YCF studies with a much easier mind.
Funny how my mind works. I was seeing some fundamental contradictions with what I knew in the past, and that kept me from fully enjoying my time with YCF style.
This visit really helped me re-adjust my thinking, and I am much more focused and clearer in my mind.
Much less "monkey mind" on my part.
Since I have verified that I'm not a total washout in my memory of Wu style, and have cleared my mind of it's stubborn about large frame TCC, I should be able to move forward much easier with YCF training.
I thank you all for your help and all you have done to help me reach this point.
I realize I have been a major pain in the arse over the last year or so, and sincerely mean it when I say I am greatful to all of you for your words of wisdom and helpful suggestions.
I am now more dedicated than ever to learning this wonderful style of TCC and hope to move forward at a much more accellerated rate with the applications and thoery of YCF style.
I now realize that I need to get myself back into a "empty" mode and let YCF style fill me up. What I know of Wu style, I know and am comfortable with. What I know of YCF style is very, very little and I need to learn.
I am hoping that when next I meet my Wu style friends and acquaintances, I will have a much better grap of large circle TCC and it's practical applications to continue working on the contrasts between the two.
They seemed very interested in exploring the differences, and similarities, between the styles.
I hope I can learn well enough to do that.
Hi Wushuer:
I would like to post a few follow-up thoughts to this thread in no particular order. I am sure that much of what I say (to the extent it may be correct) does not come as news to you or to many others.
First, my understanding of the Yangs’ teaching method is as follows: First they expose you to theory and then they teach standard movements within which to explore and study the theory. Once the theory is understood and internalized, one is no longer restricted by the standard movements and can explore other movements that deepen and adapt the theory as circumstances require.
Even after theory is internalized, one never abandons the quest to refine the standard movements. Also, as one explores more advanced movement, one always tries to work towards the ideal described by theory. When theory and practicality clash, I think that practicality must always win out. However, jumping to justify a movement on the basis of practicality is always dangerous, because one’s understanding of deep principle is usually incomplete.
Also, many of the theories are often stated in simple ways that should not be taken too literally into more advanced practices. For instance, the injunction to “keep the elbows or shoulders down” does not find the same physical expression in push hands as it does in the form, because other principles influence the precise outcome in a given situation. The form seems to be aimed at a “neutral” situation that rarely occurs in practice.
I say all this to clarify that when I attempt to describe what I understand of Yang Style principles, I need to make clear if I am talking about statements of theory, standard movements, or free-style approaches. These are, of course, interrelated; but as I understand it, there are subtle and important differences.
Another difficulty about talking about “Taijiquan” is that I understand this term to be ambiguous in Chinese and that this ambiguity is somewhat reflected in any discussion in English. I think that the term “Taijiquan” can refer (1) to the entire martial/health art in all its aspects, (2) to only the barehand aspects of the art, or (3) to the principal barehand form, as opposed to push hands or sparring.
To help understand the reason for the ambiguity, one can note that the terms “Taijidao” and “Taijijian” can refer to the saber and sword forms, respectively, in opposition to the term “Taijiquan.” The “quan” in “Taijiquan” literally means “fist,” but can also refer to a fighting method that includes “boxing” with fists as a major component. (Note that Baguazhang uses palm techniques, rather than fist techniques, and so incorporates the Chinese term for palm (“zhang”) into its name, rather than “quan.”) The “dao” in “Taijidao” means “knife” or “saber.” The “jian” in “Taijijian” means “(straight) sword.” Thus, when someone says that a given teacher’s Taijiquan is this or that way, the reference may be somewhat ambiguous, depending on context.
Most of what I have attempted to describe refers to the principles revealed through form practice. How many of these principles must be retained unaltered in other circumstances is often not clear to me. There are many practices I have seen good Yang Stylists perform in certain push hands situations that I believe would be condemned during performance of the form. For instance, I understand that the shoulders must be kept level during the traditional Yang Style form, yet I believe that spiraling the axis of the shoulders is quite acceptable and even necessary in certain situations during free-style push hands. In other words, keeping the shoulders down is a training principal for form that finds a slightly different expression in push hands training.
Wushuer, you seem to have settled on an interesting and reasonable hypothesis for justifying the differences between NAWS and traditional Yang Style. I am inclined to agree with your conclusions. I have to say, however, that there is quite a large variation within the greater Yang Style community on these issues. For instance, there are many that prescribe 100/0 weight shifts in Empty-Solid Stances, but 60/40 in Bow stances. In other words, I am not sure this is merely an issue of Yang vs. Wu, or even of large frame/circle vs. small frame/circle.
In describing the difference between how NAWS distinguishes full and empty and how I think traditional Yang Style does, I am not sure that I note a difference in stepping method per se. What I note is mostly a seeming difference in timing preferences.
While both styles go through the same differences in weight percentages in the legs in order to perform a step, NAWS seems to see the relevant cycle of receiving or issuing power as starting and beginning with all the weight in one leg, whereas this is about the only combination of weighting that seems to be rare in traditional Yang Style postures. The only apparent occurrence of this type of cycle in Yang Style forms that I can recall is the sequence between the two Golden Roosters in the barehand form. Even here, I would think that the neutralization occurs between particular portions of the two instances of “single weighting” and that the “heart” of the Fajing would occur as one straightens the standing leg while already “single weighted.”
Another preference that NAWS seems to have is to terminate a Fajing on a “single-weighted” bent leg. The only instance of this in the Yangs forms that I can think of is in the Da Lü. I believe that the very last attack and defense in the “standard” sequence (the “Lightning Attack” to the face) occurs when both practitioners go from 70/30 bow stances to “single weighted” empty stances. Since I am not sure about how the Yangs do the Da Lü, I would appreciate confirmation of this from anyone who knows.
If I am correct, this posture from the Da Lü may serve to illustrate what I tried to explain earlier in my post, which is that slightly different “design constraints” seem to operate at different levels of the Yangs’ training curriculum.
I should also say that I have often seen this type of stepping in other practitioners during free-style moving-step push hands. This step occurs when long Jin needs to be applied after one has ended a previous movement in a bow stance. In order to issue force immediately without taking time for a full step, you shift the weight forward to power the strike and bring the back foot up next to the front step. You do not, however, shift any weight to the moving foot and just let it touch lightly on the floor with the ball of the foot or the toes. All I can say is that this type of weighting clearly does not seem required in most instances and does not seem to underlie how the Yangs distinguish full and empty.
In the Yang Style weapons forms, it is not uncommon to finish a move while standing on one leg with the supporting knee more or less straight and extended (but not locked). In the barehand form, this is done during the kicks and in Golder Rooster Stands on One Leg. I conclude from this that Yang Style does not think it important to maximize the potential for medium- or long-distance mobility at the instant that power is delivered. Clearly, standing on a single straight leg is not the most mobile stance to assume if one is preparing for sudden unpredictable movement.
I think the theory is that one never does such a move (or any real Fajing) unless one has already trapped the opponent’s energy and the opponent cannot evade one’s strike without compromising his or her position. I think that this is true even of the kicks. Each position seems to be justified on its own merits of the moment or with reference to a current intent, and not with reference to future possibilities. Even so, you maintain a stable posture and link it to your subsequent movements. You do not allow your intent to stop.
When you feel the need to chase the opponent, such as in Deflect Downward, Parry, and Punch, you do not assume a Bow Posture during the transitional steps. Instead, you take a transitional step that I do not know a name for. This type of stepping also occurs in several places in the Saber form when forward steps are linked together in what appear to be attack sequences.
During moving step push hands, yet a different expression of principle seems to operate. I am not sure how the Yangs perform it, but the mechanics of the movements I learned require stepping patterns that I do not think occur during the forms. I learned moving step push hands as a string of modified Bow Steps that never conclude with the back knee extended. Instead, the stances end with the weight shifted 100% (forward or backward) as the “trailing” leg is lifted free of the ground. The logic of this appears to be that the training sequence is meant to be an endless loop and that assuming a fully extended bow stance would imply successfully striking the opponent and ending the cycle.
When the weather turned warm recently in my area, I returned to doing form on my deck. Because of flower petals and dust left over from the winter snows, the surface was extremely slick. To test the surface and just for perverse fun, I performed two complete spins in a row on one leg (720 degrees) with little effort, as if I were ice skating. Whenever I do form in such an environment, where slipping and pulling a muscle is a real possibility, I feel I must alter what I do slightly. One foot has to remain “under” my center of gravity, while the other “moves” and advances the posture to the next phase. I do not think much of this would be readily visible to an observer, but I would think that this type of feeling is closer in spirit to what NAWS seems to teach. It may even be required for basic Yang Style, but I have not been taught this explicitly.
In rereading my post on the scenarios, I realize that I may have given an incorrect impression in two respects. First, as you know, a fundamental principle of Yang Style (and of others) is that you must follow or go along with the other’s force. One reason for this (but not the only one) is to borrow some of this force. While arts like classical Aikido stress using little or none of one’s own force, I do not think the theory is quite the same in Yang Style.
In other words, one is required to follow the other person’s force and use some of it, but how much you use of your own force depends on circumstance, intent, and level of skill. You try to work with the other person’s energy as much as possible, but you are not completely forbidden from using any of your own, as long as it fits within the same flow or pattern of force.
If I had constructed the scenarios with both people in Bow Stances and with slightly different arm positions, I would have had to add another requirement to the movement of Defender B. This is something I had trouble with at the seminar and which I still do not do correctly. As you know, when you push, you must use your entire body. Turning the waist is not necessarily sufficient. Put differently, you should not fail to fully shift your weight with the push and “straighten” the back leg. This means that you will be adding the full force of your body mass behind your push and are not limited to the amount of energy that Attacker A has put into his initial attack.
I constructed my initial scenario with horse stances and a forward application of energy to avoid having to complicate my initial description. I also did this to isolate how someone might feel what distinguishing full and empty can mean. With a slightly different use of energy, such as what occurs in Cloud Hands, one would again have to shift weight and straighten (but not lock) one of the knees. The reason for the difference would be that the energy of Cloud Hands is applied to one side, rather than forward.
Perhaps, in my scenario, I should have prescribed a vertical shift of weight while straightening both knees at the instant of the counter-push. This would conform to the body mechanics that are maintained in the Beginning Posture of the form (at least in the way that the Yangs perform it). On the other hand, Cross Hands is performed with the same stance and is done with both knees bent.
Enough for now.
Take care,
Audi
I would like to post a few follow-up thoughts to this thread in no particular order. I am sure that much of what I say (to the extent it may be correct) does not come as news to you or to many others.
First, my understanding of the Yangs’ teaching method is as follows: First they expose you to theory and then they teach standard movements within which to explore and study the theory. Once the theory is understood and internalized, one is no longer restricted by the standard movements and can explore other movements that deepen and adapt the theory as circumstances require.
Even after theory is internalized, one never abandons the quest to refine the standard movements. Also, as one explores more advanced movement, one always tries to work towards the ideal described by theory. When theory and practicality clash, I think that practicality must always win out. However, jumping to justify a movement on the basis of practicality is always dangerous, because one’s understanding of deep principle is usually incomplete.
Also, many of the theories are often stated in simple ways that should not be taken too literally into more advanced practices. For instance, the injunction to “keep the elbows or shoulders down” does not find the same physical expression in push hands as it does in the form, because other principles influence the precise outcome in a given situation. The form seems to be aimed at a “neutral” situation that rarely occurs in practice.
I say all this to clarify that when I attempt to describe what I understand of Yang Style principles, I need to make clear if I am talking about statements of theory, standard movements, or free-style approaches. These are, of course, interrelated; but as I understand it, there are subtle and important differences.
Another difficulty about talking about “Taijiquan” is that I understand this term to be ambiguous in Chinese and that this ambiguity is somewhat reflected in any discussion in English. I think that the term “Taijiquan” can refer (1) to the entire martial/health art in all its aspects, (2) to only the barehand aspects of the art, or (3) to the principal barehand form, as opposed to push hands or sparring.
To help understand the reason for the ambiguity, one can note that the terms “Taijidao” and “Taijijian” can refer to the saber and sword forms, respectively, in opposition to the term “Taijiquan.” The “quan” in “Taijiquan” literally means “fist,” but can also refer to a fighting method that includes “boxing” with fists as a major component. (Note that Baguazhang uses palm techniques, rather than fist techniques, and so incorporates the Chinese term for palm (“zhang”) into its name, rather than “quan.”) The “dao” in “Taijidao” means “knife” or “saber.” The “jian” in “Taijijian” means “(straight) sword.” Thus, when someone says that a given teacher’s Taijiquan is this or that way, the reference may be somewhat ambiguous, depending on context.
Most of what I have attempted to describe refers to the principles revealed through form practice. How many of these principles must be retained unaltered in other circumstances is often not clear to me. There are many practices I have seen good Yang Stylists perform in certain push hands situations that I believe would be condemned during performance of the form. For instance, I understand that the shoulders must be kept level during the traditional Yang Style form, yet I believe that spiraling the axis of the shoulders is quite acceptable and even necessary in certain situations during free-style push hands. In other words, keeping the shoulders down is a training principal for form that finds a slightly different expression in push hands training.
Wushuer, you seem to have settled on an interesting and reasonable hypothesis for justifying the differences between NAWS and traditional Yang Style. I am inclined to agree with your conclusions. I have to say, however, that there is quite a large variation within the greater Yang Style community on these issues. For instance, there are many that prescribe 100/0 weight shifts in Empty-Solid Stances, but 60/40 in Bow stances. In other words, I am not sure this is merely an issue of Yang vs. Wu, or even of large frame/circle vs. small frame/circle.
In describing the difference between how NAWS distinguishes full and empty and how I think traditional Yang Style does, I am not sure that I note a difference in stepping method per se. What I note is mostly a seeming difference in timing preferences.
While both styles go through the same differences in weight percentages in the legs in order to perform a step, NAWS seems to see the relevant cycle of receiving or issuing power as starting and beginning with all the weight in one leg, whereas this is about the only combination of weighting that seems to be rare in traditional Yang Style postures. The only apparent occurrence of this type of cycle in Yang Style forms that I can recall is the sequence between the two Golden Roosters in the barehand form. Even here, I would think that the neutralization occurs between particular portions of the two instances of “single weighting” and that the “heart” of the Fajing would occur as one straightens the standing leg while already “single weighted.”
Another preference that NAWS seems to have is to terminate a Fajing on a “single-weighted” bent leg. The only instance of this in the Yangs forms that I can think of is in the Da Lü. I believe that the very last attack and defense in the “standard” sequence (the “Lightning Attack” to the face) occurs when both practitioners go from 70/30 bow stances to “single weighted” empty stances. Since I am not sure about how the Yangs do the Da Lü, I would appreciate confirmation of this from anyone who knows.
If I am correct, this posture from the Da Lü may serve to illustrate what I tried to explain earlier in my post, which is that slightly different “design constraints” seem to operate at different levels of the Yangs’ training curriculum.
I should also say that I have often seen this type of stepping in other practitioners during free-style moving-step push hands. This step occurs when long Jin needs to be applied after one has ended a previous movement in a bow stance. In order to issue force immediately without taking time for a full step, you shift the weight forward to power the strike and bring the back foot up next to the front step. You do not, however, shift any weight to the moving foot and just let it touch lightly on the floor with the ball of the foot or the toes. All I can say is that this type of weighting clearly does not seem required in most instances and does not seem to underlie how the Yangs distinguish full and empty.
In the Yang Style weapons forms, it is not uncommon to finish a move while standing on one leg with the supporting knee more or less straight and extended (but not locked). In the barehand form, this is done during the kicks and in Golder Rooster Stands on One Leg. I conclude from this that Yang Style does not think it important to maximize the potential for medium- or long-distance mobility at the instant that power is delivered. Clearly, standing on a single straight leg is not the most mobile stance to assume if one is preparing for sudden unpredictable movement.
I think the theory is that one never does such a move (or any real Fajing) unless one has already trapped the opponent’s energy and the opponent cannot evade one’s strike without compromising his or her position. I think that this is true even of the kicks. Each position seems to be justified on its own merits of the moment or with reference to a current intent, and not with reference to future possibilities. Even so, you maintain a stable posture and link it to your subsequent movements. You do not allow your intent to stop.
When you feel the need to chase the opponent, such as in Deflect Downward, Parry, and Punch, you do not assume a Bow Posture during the transitional steps. Instead, you take a transitional step that I do not know a name for. This type of stepping also occurs in several places in the Saber form when forward steps are linked together in what appear to be attack sequences.
During moving step push hands, yet a different expression of principle seems to operate. I am not sure how the Yangs perform it, but the mechanics of the movements I learned require stepping patterns that I do not think occur during the forms. I learned moving step push hands as a string of modified Bow Steps that never conclude with the back knee extended. Instead, the stances end with the weight shifted 100% (forward or backward) as the “trailing” leg is lifted free of the ground. The logic of this appears to be that the training sequence is meant to be an endless loop and that assuming a fully extended bow stance would imply successfully striking the opponent and ending the cycle.
When the weather turned warm recently in my area, I returned to doing form on my deck. Because of flower petals and dust left over from the winter snows, the surface was extremely slick. To test the surface and just for perverse fun, I performed two complete spins in a row on one leg (720 degrees) with little effort, as if I were ice skating. Whenever I do form in such an environment, where slipping and pulling a muscle is a real possibility, I feel I must alter what I do slightly. One foot has to remain “under” my center of gravity, while the other “moves” and advances the posture to the next phase. I do not think much of this would be readily visible to an observer, but I would think that this type of feeling is closer in spirit to what NAWS seems to teach. It may even be required for basic Yang Style, but I have not been taught this explicitly.
In rereading my post on the scenarios, I realize that I may have given an incorrect impression in two respects. First, as you know, a fundamental principle of Yang Style (and of others) is that you must follow or go along with the other’s force. One reason for this (but not the only one) is to borrow some of this force. While arts like classical Aikido stress using little or none of one’s own force, I do not think the theory is quite the same in Yang Style.
In other words, one is required to follow the other person’s force and use some of it, but how much you use of your own force depends on circumstance, intent, and level of skill. You try to work with the other person’s energy as much as possible, but you are not completely forbidden from using any of your own, as long as it fits within the same flow or pattern of force.
If I had constructed the scenarios with both people in Bow Stances and with slightly different arm positions, I would have had to add another requirement to the movement of Defender B. This is something I had trouble with at the seminar and which I still do not do correctly. As you know, when you push, you must use your entire body. Turning the waist is not necessarily sufficient. Put differently, you should not fail to fully shift your weight with the push and “straighten” the back leg. This means that you will be adding the full force of your body mass behind your push and are not limited to the amount of energy that Attacker A has put into his initial attack.
I constructed my initial scenario with horse stances and a forward application of energy to avoid having to complicate my initial description. I also did this to isolate how someone might feel what distinguishing full and empty can mean. With a slightly different use of energy, such as what occurs in Cloud Hands, one would again have to shift weight and straighten (but not lock) one of the knees. The reason for the difference would be that the energy of Cloud Hands is applied to one side, rather than forward.
Perhaps, in my scenario, I should have prescribed a vertical shift of weight while straightening both knees at the instant of the counter-push. This would conform to the body mechanics that are maintained in the Beginning Posture of the form (at least in the way that the Yangs perform it). On the other hand, Cross Hands is performed with the same stance and is done with both knees bent.
Enough for now.
Take care,
Audi
Hi Audi,
fwiw, there are those deep within the Wu lineage who would say that Wu style and Yang style are the same; that YCF and WCC taught together, and that the only reason for the name differences occurred when their students began teaching. There are, ime, as many variations among "Yang" styles as there are differences between it and "Wu" style.
Best,
Steve James
fwiw, there are those deep within the Wu lineage who would say that Wu style and Yang style are the same; that YCF and WCC taught together, and that the only reason for the name differences occurred when their students began teaching. There are, ime, as many variations among "Yang" styles as there are differences between it and "Wu" style.
Best,
Steve James
I hate it when I lose a post I have typed out laboriously for an hour.
I got up for a cup of coffee and when I came back one of my cow-irkers (Dilbertism) had logged off my workstation, without bothering to see if there was anything open on my desktop.
Ugh.
Anyway....
I'll get back to my points along those lines at a later date. For now...
I have posted this elsewhere, but since this is where I made this grandiose, and it turns out incorrect, statement, I will clear it up here as well.
There ARE places in the Wu style 108 posture hand form where you step back to your toe, not your heel.
There are two distinct places in the form that I know of now that this happens.
They are, form #34, Right Foot Kick (seperate), and #36, Left Foot Kick (seperate) respectively.
I must apologize to everyone here for my mis-information and can only say in my defense: I didn't know.
I, along with a great many of the students at the Wu family Academy I attended, were taught these moves incorrectly by an instructor at the Academy. In fact, the disciple who agreed with me that you don't step back to your toe has also been doing this wrong and she learned that series from teh same instructor I did.
My brother, a Wu disciple as well, has sent me an e-mail to straighten me out on this. He spoke to the other disciple, they got to talking about the toe steps from Yang Repulse Monkey and my brother pointed out that they are very similar to the steps after the Foot Kicks.
When he found out we had both been in the group that learned this incorrectly, without ever having it noticed and corrected later one, he contacted me immediately to put a stop to my transmitting bad information.
Still not really believing it.....
I pulled out my Eddie Wu tape and listened to the narration (which I rarely do, for many reasons but the biggest one is the guy who does the narration can't speak english very well and it gets tedious listening to him) and actually watched his feet very closely.
It's REALLY subtle, but it is there. You step back to the toe and roll back onto your foot, much like in the Da Lu move I described earlier. It's not as big of a toe step, in fact you can barely tell it's there.
But there it is. Even the narrator says "You step back to your flattened toes, then roll back onto your foot until it's planted solidly".
I have been operating under incorrect advice for nearly fifteen years now. I mistakenly passed this along to everyone here and will now eat all the crow you can serve on my mistake.
Once again, I aplogize.
This has opened up entirely new avenues of internal energy movement for me from these Wu forms.
At least it was easy for me to learn the correct version of these kicks! I learned how to do that from Yang style.
Form refinement, apparently, has become a big issue in my former school!
Just goes to show you, one mis-informed instructor can mess up a whole lotta people.
When I think of all the times I did the Wu forms in front of people who should have caught that!
When I think of how many students I passed this on to!
OY!
Not to mention being grade B wrong about something I truly believed.
The theory is still valid, that if you step back to your heel, which you do MOST times in Wu forms, your waist stays at the same, even, level. But the step to the toe is done for all the same reasons in Wu style as Yang.
Or so I'm told, now.
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.
Now, fire away. Go ahead, I can take it.
I got up for a cup of coffee and when I came back one of my cow-irkers (Dilbertism) had logged off my workstation, without bothering to see if there was anything open on my desktop.
Ugh.
Anyway....
I'll get back to my points along those lines at a later date. For now...
I have posted this elsewhere, but since this is where I made this grandiose, and it turns out incorrect, statement, I will clear it up here as well.
There ARE places in the Wu style 108 posture hand form where you step back to your toe, not your heel.
There are two distinct places in the form that I know of now that this happens.
They are, form #34, Right Foot Kick (seperate), and #36, Left Foot Kick (seperate) respectively.
I must apologize to everyone here for my mis-information and can only say in my defense: I didn't know.
I, along with a great many of the students at the Wu family Academy I attended, were taught these moves incorrectly by an instructor at the Academy. In fact, the disciple who agreed with me that you don't step back to your toe has also been doing this wrong and she learned that series from teh same instructor I did.
My brother, a Wu disciple as well, has sent me an e-mail to straighten me out on this. He spoke to the other disciple, they got to talking about the toe steps from Yang Repulse Monkey and my brother pointed out that they are very similar to the steps after the Foot Kicks.
When he found out we had both been in the group that learned this incorrectly, without ever having it noticed and corrected later one, he contacted me immediately to put a stop to my transmitting bad information.
Still not really believing it.....
I pulled out my Eddie Wu tape and listened to the narration (which I rarely do, for many reasons but the biggest one is the guy who does the narration can't speak english very well and it gets tedious listening to him) and actually watched his feet very closely.
It's REALLY subtle, but it is there. You step back to the toe and roll back onto your foot, much like in the Da Lu move I described earlier. It's not as big of a toe step, in fact you can barely tell it's there.
But there it is. Even the narrator says "You step back to your flattened toes, then roll back onto your foot until it's planted solidly".
I have been operating under incorrect advice for nearly fifteen years now. I mistakenly passed this along to everyone here and will now eat all the crow you can serve on my mistake.
Once again, I aplogize.
This has opened up entirely new avenues of internal energy movement for me from these Wu forms.
At least it was easy for me to learn the correct version of these kicks! I learned how to do that from Yang style.
Form refinement, apparently, has become a big issue in my former school!
Just goes to show you, one mis-informed instructor can mess up a whole lotta people.
When I think of all the times I did the Wu forms in front of people who should have caught that!
When I think of how many students I passed this on to!
OY!
Not to mention being grade B wrong about something I truly believed.
The theory is still valid, that if you step back to your heel, which you do MOST times in Wu forms, your waist stays at the same, even, level. But the step to the toe is done for all the same reasons in Wu style as Yang.
Or so I'm told, now.
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.
Now, fire away. Go ahead, I can take it.
Now, back to the "differences" issue.
I'll make this a lot shorter than my first, long winded and now lost, posting on this subject.
There are many differences and similarities between these two styles I've studied and we've been contrasting here. I also have another style I could compare these to as well. I haven't talked about it much, because it was long enough ago that I don't recall that form clearly enough to talk about it with any authority.
As I've mentioned it was a Yang style that is very different from YCF style in a lot of ways. In order to show that I understand the differences of theory that can exist in even the same family style, I'll do my best to contrast a bit with the other styles I have studied.
I learned what can only be one of the so called "old" or "original" Yang forms. It was not YCF style, I can tell you that for certain. It was VERY similar, but there are more than enough differences for me to be sure that it was not YCF style.
I know it wasn't YCF style because the 100/0 split was there, there was no "step to center than step out", there was no "give back some weight to shift your foot", none of that.
It was very much like the Wu style I learned, only not as small "circled" as I recall it. It really makes me wonder if what I learned wasn't some aspect of Yang Shoa Hoa's "middle frame" of TCC, but that is only speculation on my part and from unclear hindsight.
I dunno.
I honestly don't remember it well enough to say what it was. No lineage of the style was ever mentioned to me or my brother (the Wu disciple) and we took the classes together. My wife doesn't remember any reference to a style name and she took it with us as well.
The only thing I know for sure is that it was a 108 posture form, with the above mentioned similarities to Wu style.
I do recall that there were some postures that were practiced in the 70/30 split, as well. Single Whip was done 70/30, I clearly remember that. It was one of a few postures that made that distinction, though I don't recall the form well enough to remember any of the others. The 100/0 split was emphasized and the other postures were "exceptions to this rule" as the instructor used to say.
I remember my instructor (we all remember his name, but I will not post it on this open board, if anyone is interested I can tell you OFF the board, just let me know)telling us several times that it was Yang style, that's all we remember him ever saying about it.
When we started at the Academy our instructors there had us demo the form we had learned for them. They concurred that it was Yang style, though none of them had enough experience with Yang style to say more than that about it.
I can tell you that the speed in this form was varied, from fast to slow, and that the explosive force (fa-jing) moves, some small jumps and even one high kick, were still in it.
Other than that, the only posture I remember as being distinctly different from what I'm learning now is "Turn Body, Chop With Fist". It was a much larger move, it went 180 degrees on the "Turn Body" part of it and the "Chop With Fist" was a much larger, more circular swinging motion with your right arm that came in a big circle from your left hip up and over and made a graceful arc down and to your right across the bridge of your opponents nose, with your left palm following to your center line while your right fist went all the way down almost to straight before curving back around for the next move, which I seem to recall was Step Up Parry and Punch which was very similar to the move in YCF style.
I'm probably not describing it for you very well. I only remember it because it was my all time favorite move in the whole form. It was so graceful, so well timed, so whole body involved. It was the first TCC form I learned internally. I remember thinking how AWESOME that move was and I practiced it over and over and over until I got it right.
This was a very martial style. Our instructor was, surprisingly, a New Age Hippy of the first order who just seemed to love the martial aspects of the form despite of all that. He was this quiet little hippy guy that you could tell really had the martial aspect of TCC down pat and truly loved what he did.
He taught the movements first, then the applications just as soon as the class got the movement right. He insisted that was the only way to really remember a form, to practice the martial aspect just as soon as you understood the motion.
As those of us who went to the Wu's Academy from his classes can attest, he really did know his applications. We were able to pick up Wu style applications very quickly after learning his style.
All that is to say;
I have now studied three different, wildly opposing forms of TCC. I am very familiar with the idea of differences between the family styles and I can tell you that I am very familiar with differences in the same family style.
YCF style has it's own rules, it's own theories, it's own ways to apply all this stuff that comes together to make TCC.
Wu style is the same way. Let's not forget, there's also Wu (Hao) style, Chen style, Sun style, Guangping, Tsung style and others too numerous to mention.
If you go to one Wu's Academy, you'll get training in one fashion. If you go to another, you'll get different training. Same style, different people teaching it with their own agenda's and ideas of what is right and wrong.
Same is true between YCF Centers. I can't imagine that if I went to the school here in my town, then went up to Troy, MI, that I would get the same exact instruction. Same style, but different instructors with different ideas.
If I were to go down to Hollywood, FL and visit the Chen family school there, I would get an entirely different style. If I went to the Chen school in L.A., CA, after that I would get yet another type of instruction.
Right here in my hometown, there is a YCF Center, there is also a guy who teaches Tsung style. His Tsung style is very good, I've observed a class. They are both TCC, but with different teachers, different ways of doing things.
None of these are better than the others. They are all TCC, just different aspects of it.
One of my favorite sayings is:
There is only one TCC, there are an infinite variety of ways to get there.
I hope I have never given the impression that I felt Wu style was superior. I have striven for the opposite, in fact.
I have questions, that's all. I know one way of doing most of these things, now I am learning another, one equally as good, just different. The questions I have stem from knowing another way of doing similar things and how the two compare. They are not designed to try to point out the flaws of either, they are designed to help me learn the best of both.
I'll make this a lot shorter than my first, long winded and now lost, posting on this subject.
There are many differences and similarities between these two styles I've studied and we've been contrasting here. I also have another style I could compare these to as well. I haven't talked about it much, because it was long enough ago that I don't recall that form clearly enough to talk about it with any authority.
As I've mentioned it was a Yang style that is very different from YCF style in a lot of ways. In order to show that I understand the differences of theory that can exist in even the same family style, I'll do my best to contrast a bit with the other styles I have studied.
I learned what can only be one of the so called "old" or "original" Yang forms. It was not YCF style, I can tell you that for certain. It was VERY similar, but there are more than enough differences for me to be sure that it was not YCF style.
I know it wasn't YCF style because the 100/0 split was there, there was no "step to center than step out", there was no "give back some weight to shift your foot", none of that.
It was very much like the Wu style I learned, only not as small "circled" as I recall it. It really makes me wonder if what I learned wasn't some aspect of Yang Shoa Hoa's "middle frame" of TCC, but that is only speculation on my part and from unclear hindsight.
I dunno.
I honestly don't remember it well enough to say what it was. No lineage of the style was ever mentioned to me or my brother (the Wu disciple) and we took the classes together. My wife doesn't remember any reference to a style name and she took it with us as well.
The only thing I know for sure is that it was a 108 posture form, with the above mentioned similarities to Wu style.
I do recall that there were some postures that were practiced in the 70/30 split, as well. Single Whip was done 70/30, I clearly remember that. It was one of a few postures that made that distinction, though I don't recall the form well enough to remember any of the others. The 100/0 split was emphasized and the other postures were "exceptions to this rule" as the instructor used to say.
I remember my instructor (we all remember his name, but I will not post it on this open board, if anyone is interested I can tell you OFF the board, just let me know)telling us several times that it was Yang style, that's all we remember him ever saying about it.
When we started at the Academy our instructors there had us demo the form we had learned for them. They concurred that it was Yang style, though none of them had enough experience with Yang style to say more than that about it.
I can tell you that the speed in this form was varied, from fast to slow, and that the explosive force (fa-jing) moves, some small jumps and even one high kick, were still in it.
Other than that, the only posture I remember as being distinctly different from what I'm learning now is "Turn Body, Chop With Fist". It was a much larger move, it went 180 degrees on the "Turn Body" part of it and the "Chop With Fist" was a much larger, more circular swinging motion with your right arm that came in a big circle from your left hip up and over and made a graceful arc down and to your right across the bridge of your opponents nose, with your left palm following to your center line while your right fist went all the way down almost to straight before curving back around for the next move, which I seem to recall was Step Up Parry and Punch which was very similar to the move in YCF style.
I'm probably not describing it for you very well. I only remember it because it was my all time favorite move in the whole form. It was so graceful, so well timed, so whole body involved. It was the first TCC form I learned internally. I remember thinking how AWESOME that move was and I practiced it over and over and over until I got it right.
This was a very martial style. Our instructor was, surprisingly, a New Age Hippy of the first order who just seemed to love the martial aspects of the form despite of all that. He was this quiet little hippy guy that you could tell really had the martial aspect of TCC down pat and truly loved what he did.
He taught the movements first, then the applications just as soon as the class got the movement right. He insisted that was the only way to really remember a form, to practice the martial aspect just as soon as you understood the motion.
As those of us who went to the Wu's Academy from his classes can attest, he really did know his applications. We were able to pick up Wu style applications very quickly after learning his style.
All that is to say;
I have now studied three different, wildly opposing forms of TCC. I am very familiar with the idea of differences between the family styles and I can tell you that I am very familiar with differences in the same family style.
YCF style has it's own rules, it's own theories, it's own ways to apply all this stuff that comes together to make TCC.
Wu style is the same way. Let's not forget, there's also Wu (Hao) style, Chen style, Sun style, Guangping, Tsung style and others too numerous to mention.
If you go to one Wu's Academy, you'll get training in one fashion. If you go to another, you'll get different training. Same style, different people teaching it with their own agenda's and ideas of what is right and wrong.
Same is true between YCF Centers. I can't imagine that if I went to the school here in my town, then went up to Troy, MI, that I would get the same exact instruction. Same style, but different instructors with different ideas.
If I were to go down to Hollywood, FL and visit the Chen family school there, I would get an entirely different style. If I went to the Chen school in L.A., CA, after that I would get yet another type of instruction.
Right here in my hometown, there is a YCF Center, there is also a guy who teaches Tsung style. His Tsung style is very good, I've observed a class. They are both TCC, but with different teachers, different ways of doing things.
None of these are better than the others. They are all TCC, just different aspects of it.
One of my favorite sayings is:
There is only one TCC, there are an infinite variety of ways to get there.
I hope I have never given the impression that I felt Wu style was superior. I have striven for the opposite, in fact.
I have questions, that's all. I know one way of doing most of these things, now I am learning another, one equally as good, just different. The questions I have stem from knowing another way of doing similar things and how the two compare. They are not designed to try to point out the flaws of either, they are designed to help me learn the best of both.
Audi,
I have another opinion concerning something you mentioned. The "Sinking" of the elbows and dropping of the shoulders.
The shoulders. We may use those circles you mentioned. Nowhere in TCC literature that I know of says you can't raise your arm above your head. This of course demands that you raise your shoulder to whatever degree that is required. However this is an external thing. Internally it (shoulder ) should remain "lowered". If it is not you create "blockage". It is easier for me to explain when talking about the elbows.
Elbows. To "sink" the elbows is an external and internal thing also. The sunken elbow (again a matter of degrees by the intent) creates an arm shape that is found in nearly every individual form. This is a shape of great power and strength.
If one straightens one's arm in a push ( I have to admit that I do not closely approach "naturally straight" in my personal practice) or ward off, a palm stike, anything, you have removed any number of responses that you can make if your action is countered. If that elbow is not "lower" than wrist, I can lock you up so fast you won't know what is happening. If it is "sunk"---up, down, to the side etc., (depending on the direction of the energy) one can fold, escape and counter. Now even with the arm "naturally straight" the elbow is still "sunk". Another viewpoint on this is that in some instances "sunk" can also just mean "not locked".
If one is doing a ward off---improperly--the elbow out to the side the palm facing directly towards you--even if the shape of the arm is correct it is weaker and you are vulnerable to a lock (elbow being raised up and over". You will have a hard time getting out of that whether you are able to fold it or not. I could go through the set, form by form and with examples.
Sunken elbows also help protect the armpits.
I take this very literally concerning sinking/dropping the elbow and shoulders. I have far too often see what happens when this is ignored in push hands or in more "realistic" training. It is possible that we are viewing this differently or that I am not understanding your intent.
Wushuer,
YZD's brother Yang Zhenji, does the same set but does not bring his foot in as a centering step--among other differences. I believe this to be a matter of individual taste, not a "standard". I think that in some places, correct me if I am wrong here (Jerry etc), that Yang Jun in some forms just steps out where his grandfather does not. Just thought I'd mention it.
I would be interested in the name and location (if he is still teaching) of the instructor you mentioned. I am always interested in seeing "different" ways. Feel free to e mail me.
Make it good!
Michael
I have another opinion concerning something you mentioned. The "Sinking" of the elbows and dropping of the shoulders.
The shoulders. We may use those circles you mentioned. Nowhere in TCC literature that I know of says you can't raise your arm above your head. This of course demands that you raise your shoulder to whatever degree that is required. However this is an external thing. Internally it (shoulder ) should remain "lowered". If it is not you create "blockage". It is easier for me to explain when talking about the elbows.
Elbows. To "sink" the elbows is an external and internal thing also. The sunken elbow (again a matter of degrees by the intent) creates an arm shape that is found in nearly every individual form. This is a shape of great power and strength.
If one straightens one's arm in a push ( I have to admit that I do not closely approach "naturally straight" in my personal practice) or ward off, a palm stike, anything, you have removed any number of responses that you can make if your action is countered. If that elbow is not "lower" than wrist, I can lock you up so fast you won't know what is happening. If it is "sunk"---up, down, to the side etc., (depending on the direction of the energy) one can fold, escape and counter. Now even with the arm "naturally straight" the elbow is still "sunk". Another viewpoint on this is that in some instances "sunk" can also just mean "not locked".
If one is doing a ward off---improperly--the elbow out to the side the palm facing directly towards you--even if the shape of the arm is correct it is weaker and you are vulnerable to a lock (elbow being raised up and over". You will have a hard time getting out of that whether you are able to fold it or not. I could go through the set, form by form and with examples.
Sunken elbows also help protect the armpits.
I take this very literally concerning sinking/dropping the elbow and shoulders. I have far too often see what happens when this is ignored in push hands or in more "realistic" training. It is possible that we are viewing this differently or that I am not understanding your intent.
Wushuer,
YZD's brother Yang Zhenji, does the same set but does not bring his foot in as a centering step--among other differences. I believe this to be a matter of individual taste, not a "standard". I think that in some places, correct me if I am wrong here (Jerry etc), that Yang Jun in some forms just steps out where his grandfather does not. Just thought I'd mention it.
I would be interested in the name and location (if he is still teaching) of the instructor you mentioned. I am always interested in seeing "different" ways. Feel free to e mail me.
Make it good!
Michael
Michael,
The "sunk elbows" issue is one I had the hardest time learning when I started. Still keep them "up" sometimes without knowing why. I have learned this lesson, numerous times, in push hands and freestyle, but for some reason I still raise 'em up from time to time.
One of these days I'll get a good jab in the ribs, THEN I'll learn.
Protecting your ribs is something I certainly like to do. So much so that I have a hard time feeling comfortable with YCF style Cloud Hands.
Wu style Wave Hands Like Cloud completely covers the ribs throughout the move, to the point of actually placing your arm right down across your whole side throughout the move. YCF style almost seems to put them out there screaming, "Look at me! Hit me! Hit me right HERE!".
That's just a personal observation, and one that my instructor has shown me how to avoid so I know it's not true. But to a former student of Wu Kwong Yu it sure as heck seems that way!
I sent you an e-mail with all I know about that instructor with the unknown style. If you know anything about this guy, let me know.
The "sunk elbows" issue is one I had the hardest time learning when I started. Still keep them "up" sometimes without knowing why. I have learned this lesson, numerous times, in push hands and freestyle, but for some reason I still raise 'em up from time to time.
One of these days I'll get a good jab in the ribs, THEN I'll learn.
Protecting your ribs is something I certainly like to do. So much so that I have a hard time feeling comfortable with YCF style Cloud Hands.
Wu style Wave Hands Like Cloud completely covers the ribs throughout the move, to the point of actually placing your arm right down across your whole side throughout the move. YCF style almost seems to put them out there screaming, "Look at me! Hit me! Hit me right HERE!".
That's just a personal observation, and one that my instructor has shown me how to avoid so I know it's not true. But to a former student of Wu Kwong Yu it sure as heck seems that way!
I sent you an e-mail with all I know about that instructor with the unknown style. If you know anything about this guy, let me know.
Oh, and while I have not seen Yang Zhenji's form I have read quite a bit about him. For some reason the way he talks about TCC makes sense to me and I have learned a lot reading about him and any quotes I have been able to find are true gems for my mind.
I would truly enjoy learning from him. It was from reading interviews with Yang Zhenji that I first really grasped the idea of keeping Yi in the movement and not only in the tantien.
It was this quote from YZJ that first lead me to understand how to properly sink the chi to my tantien without necessarily holding the Yi there:
"Sink the chest and the chi falls to the tan tien on its own. Keep the intent in the proper place in each movement. Don't over stress one of the essences (principles). Don't force the chi. It will move on its own."
After finally grasping this concept I have made great leaps in both of my styles forms practice, as my mind intent (Yi) is now in the form and not my waist.
Another quote of YZJ that sticks in my head very clearly and really helped me to solidify something I knew, but for some reason never really practiced very well:
"In push hands you move forward and back with the legs and move the waist, not the kwa (hip region). As soon as you sit down and move the kwa, you are wrong."
I used to move my hips a lot more during push hands than I do now. This simple statement has improved my push hands skill immensly.
Not to mention that I don't have anywhere near as much discomfort in my knees as I used to sometimes experience after push hands practice. Now that I keep my knees firmly in one position and turn around my waist instead of my hips, I keep my knees from swaying from side to side. I also noticed immediately that I was able to turn my waist a LOT farther and with less effort in this fashion. When I think of all those years I pushed hands over turning my hips! How many more times would I have been able to offset if I'd only practiced this more?
Yes, the Wu family empashized this as well, but for some reason I did not perform this as well as I should, probably still do not. All the efforts of past instructors never seemed to purge me of this bad habit. Reading YZJ's theories seemed to solidify that concept in my brain more than anything else ever did.
His very straightforward manner in the matters of the principals of YCF style have helped me tremendously in understanding this form.
I hope to find out more about him. I know he has a book, Yang Chengfu Shi Taijiquan, but I don't know if it's been translated. Does anyone know of an english translation of this book?
Louis? Any idea?
I sincerely hope so, because the few of his words of wisdom I have found have done much to help me along my road to learning and practicing TCC.
I would truly enjoy learning from him. It was from reading interviews with Yang Zhenji that I first really grasped the idea of keeping Yi in the movement and not only in the tantien.
It was this quote from YZJ that first lead me to understand how to properly sink the chi to my tantien without necessarily holding the Yi there:
"Sink the chest and the chi falls to the tan tien on its own. Keep the intent in the proper place in each movement. Don't over stress one of the essences (principles). Don't force the chi. It will move on its own."
After finally grasping this concept I have made great leaps in both of my styles forms practice, as my mind intent (Yi) is now in the form and not my waist.
Another quote of YZJ that sticks in my head very clearly and really helped me to solidify something I knew, but for some reason never really practiced very well:
"In push hands you move forward and back with the legs and move the waist, not the kwa (hip region). As soon as you sit down and move the kwa, you are wrong."
I used to move my hips a lot more during push hands than I do now. This simple statement has improved my push hands skill immensly.
Not to mention that I don't have anywhere near as much discomfort in my knees as I used to sometimes experience after push hands practice. Now that I keep my knees firmly in one position and turn around my waist instead of my hips, I keep my knees from swaying from side to side. I also noticed immediately that I was able to turn my waist a LOT farther and with less effort in this fashion. When I think of all those years I pushed hands over turning my hips! How many more times would I have been able to offset if I'd only practiced this more?
Yes, the Wu family empashized this as well, but for some reason I did not perform this as well as I should, probably still do not. All the efforts of past instructors never seemed to purge me of this bad habit. Reading YZJ's theories seemed to solidify that concept in my brain more than anything else ever did.
His very straightforward manner in the matters of the principals of YCF style have helped me tremendously in understanding this form.
I hope to find out more about him. I know he has a book, Yang Chengfu Shi Taijiquan, but I don't know if it's been translated. Does anyone know of an english translation of this book?
Louis? Any idea?
I sincerely hope so, because the few of his words of wisdom I have found have done much to help me along my road to learning and practicing TCC.
I did a google search on Yang Zhenji, since the idea of finding out more about him really appealled to me. I hit quite a few sites, including a different TCC forum that Louis had one posting under regarding YZJ. That was informative.
I kept going, and found a site, chinataijiquan.com, that has some good info about many different family styles of TCC.
The link I followed took me to a page marked:
"III The Body", as in section 3, the body.
I have found the "next" link at the bottom and can go to sections IV and V of this essay, but have as yet found no way to get back to I and II.
I will find it, it has to be there. I have found the home page and followed every link I could find from there, but still have not found the proper path to I and II.
Anyway...
The reason I'm so eager to get back to them is that these are all subtitled "Yang Zhenji" and they seem to be an essay from Yang Zhenji on these aspects of YCF style TCC.
Don't know if these are from his book, or where they came from because I can't find the way to get to I and II yet.
Anyway, again, in section V, Footwork, Yang Zhenji, there is this quote which bears directly on our discussion here:
The front-empty and rear-solid footing: There is difference of the left and the right empty footing in this type of footwork. The left one is made as the right foot is solidly stepped on the ground while the left foot is lifted and placed a half step forward to the left with the planter slightly touching the ground, such as in the form of "White Crane Spreads Its Wings"; or with the heel slightly touching the ground as in the form of "Fist under Elbow". If the body weight is shifted from the right leg to the left, it is the right empty footing. In Yang style Taijiquan, this type of footwork, no matter the left or the right one, the front leg is not totally empty in the practice, i.e. it bears a certain portion of body weight. The solid leg bears more weight while the empty leg bears much less, but the portion is not really fixed as that of 30% for the empty leg and 70% for the solid. Rather, it all depends on the height of the stance and whether the free end of the sacrum is kept straight and the body movement is natural and proper. There is another type of footwork being front-empty and rear-solid, of which the rear foot is solid on the ground and the front foot is weightless but the planter is also fully on the ground, e.g. the one in the form of "Sep Back and Repulse the Monkey".
There is so much more on this page, including this:
Mr. Yang Chengfu said in his book "Talk on Practicing Taijiquan": "The legs should be different, one is solid and the other empty. When to move up or move down, it seems like the walk of a cat. When the body weight is shifted to the left, the left leg becomes solid so the right leg is empty, vice versa. The so-called emptiness doesn't mean there is nothing, but means that one movement is continuous, there could be a space for the changes of advancing or retreating. The so-called solidness imply indeed the meaning of being solid, but it doesn't mean an extraordinarily-waged force, neither a fierce force." He also said in his book "Ten Key Points of Taijiquan": "It is the primary importance of Taijiquan to differentiate the emptiness from the solidness. If the differentiation could be well mastered, all the movements could be done nimbly and deftly, without much strain and effort; if it fails to master this kind of differentiation, the movement will be heavy and sluggish, and even worse the stance is unstable, so the opponent would easily take the advantage to launch an attack."
Just thought you all might be interested. I know I was.
I'm going to leave off comment on these passages until I get my way back to the beginning and find out what they're from. I will go there tonight if I have to throw my kids outside and lock the door to get to my computer!
I'm not kidding.
Wish I had time now, but work calls me.
I must be off!
I kept going, and found a site, chinataijiquan.com, that has some good info about many different family styles of TCC.
The link I followed took me to a page marked:
"III The Body", as in section 3, the body.
I have found the "next" link at the bottom and can go to sections IV and V of this essay, but have as yet found no way to get back to I and II.
I will find it, it has to be there. I have found the home page and followed every link I could find from there, but still have not found the proper path to I and II.
Anyway...
The reason I'm so eager to get back to them is that these are all subtitled "Yang Zhenji" and they seem to be an essay from Yang Zhenji on these aspects of YCF style TCC.
Don't know if these are from his book, or where they came from because I can't find the way to get to I and II yet.
Anyway, again, in section V, Footwork, Yang Zhenji, there is this quote which bears directly on our discussion here:
The front-empty and rear-solid footing: There is difference of the left and the right empty footing in this type of footwork. The left one is made as the right foot is solidly stepped on the ground while the left foot is lifted and placed a half step forward to the left with the planter slightly touching the ground, such as in the form of "White Crane Spreads Its Wings"; or with the heel slightly touching the ground as in the form of "Fist under Elbow". If the body weight is shifted from the right leg to the left, it is the right empty footing. In Yang style Taijiquan, this type of footwork, no matter the left or the right one, the front leg is not totally empty in the practice, i.e. it bears a certain portion of body weight. The solid leg bears more weight while the empty leg bears much less, but the portion is not really fixed as that of 30% for the empty leg and 70% for the solid. Rather, it all depends on the height of the stance and whether the free end of the sacrum is kept straight and the body movement is natural and proper. There is another type of footwork being front-empty and rear-solid, of which the rear foot is solid on the ground and the front foot is weightless but the planter is also fully on the ground, e.g. the one in the form of "Sep Back and Repulse the Monkey".
There is so much more on this page, including this:
Mr. Yang Chengfu said in his book "Talk on Practicing Taijiquan": "The legs should be different, one is solid and the other empty. When to move up or move down, it seems like the walk of a cat. When the body weight is shifted to the left, the left leg becomes solid so the right leg is empty, vice versa. The so-called emptiness doesn't mean there is nothing, but means that one movement is continuous, there could be a space for the changes of advancing or retreating. The so-called solidness imply indeed the meaning of being solid, but it doesn't mean an extraordinarily-waged force, neither a fierce force." He also said in his book "Ten Key Points of Taijiquan": "It is the primary importance of Taijiquan to differentiate the emptiness from the solidness. If the differentiation could be well mastered, all the movements could be done nimbly and deftly, without much strain and effort; if it fails to master this kind of differentiation, the movement will be heavy and sluggish, and even worse the stance is unstable, so the opponent would easily take the advantage to launch an attack."
Just thought you all might be interested. I know I was.
I'm going to leave off comment on these passages until I get my way back to the beginning and find out what they're from. I will go there tonight if I have to throw my kids outside and lock the door to get to my computer!
I'm not kidding.
Wish I had time now, but work calls me.
I must be off!
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Wushuer,
As of now, I know of no complete English translation of Yang Zhenji’s book, which is indeed a gem. I’ve translated some pieces from it, some of which you can find on this forum by doing a whole-forum search on “zhenji.”
You’re right about Yang Zhenji’s injunction regarding the hips not moving, but the wording you have quoted can be a bit misleading, I think. Within certain movements, the kua moves—it would have to as you shift the weight—but there is not much turning in the kua; the turning is articulated through the waist. Yang Zhenji is very careful in his teaching with regard to the waist’s role, and he sometimes prescribes this relative immobility of the lower frame (xia pan) to emphasize both a more stable foundation, and the importance of the waist turns. Certainly moving the hips in a manner that would cause lateral movement of the knees would be something to avoid.
Take care,
Louis
P.S., I was just preparing to post this when I saw your newer message about the Yang Zhenji material you found at chinataijiquan.com. I recently found that too; the material is from YZJ’s book. I find the English a bit awkward, but it’s good to see it, nonetheless.
--L
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 05-08-2003).]
As of now, I know of no complete English translation of Yang Zhenji’s book, which is indeed a gem. I’ve translated some pieces from it, some of which you can find on this forum by doing a whole-forum search on “zhenji.”
You’re right about Yang Zhenji’s injunction regarding the hips not moving, but the wording you have quoted can be a bit misleading, I think. Within certain movements, the kua moves—it would have to as you shift the weight—but there is not much turning in the kua; the turning is articulated through the waist. Yang Zhenji is very careful in his teaching with regard to the waist’s role, and he sometimes prescribes this relative immobility of the lower frame (xia pan) to emphasize both a more stable foundation, and the importance of the waist turns. Certainly moving the hips in a manner that would cause lateral movement of the knees would be something to avoid.
Take care,
Louis
P.S., I was just preparing to post this when I saw your newer message about the Yang Zhenji material you found at chinataijiquan.com. I recently found that too; the material is from YZJ’s book. I find the English a bit awkward, but it’s good to see it, nonetheless.
--L
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 05-08-2003).]
Louis,
I still could not find my way to those first 2 pages. I am missing something, somewhere. It can't be that hard, yet I'm not able to find the proper path.
I didn't really get that much time to look, I forgot an appointment I had made last evening and so had only a few minutes. I'll keep plugging away.
Glad to hear that it's really YZJ's quotes, however.
Thank you for the information on the kua movement. I have found it impossible to totally isolate the movement in my kua, and I wasn't really sure if zero movement was the optimal or just to try for minimal movement. My YCF instructor has made it clear, just as you did, that some kua movement is OK, even inevitable, up until the knee moves as well. I appreciate your corroboration.
This type of knee movement isn't as possible in Wu style, due to the emphasys on total weight seperation between the legs. Try it sometime, you have a very difficult time moving that knee in an unacceptable manor when in this stance. The weird side effect of this is that while the knees and ankles remain solidly planted, there is greater kua movement through your forms in this frame.
Purely a personal observation, but it does help explain why there isn't a great emphasys placed on this principal in the Wu style I studied. I would have to imagine that the wieght distribution keeping your legs in line as it does nearly renders the point moot in that style.
But I digress.
I will be surfing a bit this afternoon, while there I'm going to follow the rest of the YZJ links I got off google and see what else I can find. Also will be looking for the Zhenji posts on this board.
Thank you, Louis, for your help.
If you ever hear of a fully translated copy of Master YZJ's book, I would appreciate hearing about it.
I still could not find my way to those first 2 pages. I am missing something, somewhere. It can't be that hard, yet I'm not able to find the proper path.
I didn't really get that much time to look, I forgot an appointment I had made last evening and so had only a few minutes. I'll keep plugging away.
Glad to hear that it's really YZJ's quotes, however.
Thank you for the information on the kua movement. I have found it impossible to totally isolate the movement in my kua, and I wasn't really sure if zero movement was the optimal or just to try for minimal movement. My YCF instructor has made it clear, just as you did, that some kua movement is OK, even inevitable, up until the knee moves as well. I appreciate your corroboration.
This type of knee movement isn't as possible in Wu style, due to the emphasys on total weight seperation between the legs. Try it sometime, you have a very difficult time moving that knee in an unacceptable manor when in this stance. The weird side effect of this is that while the knees and ankles remain solidly planted, there is greater kua movement through your forms in this frame.
Purely a personal observation, but it does help explain why there isn't a great emphasys placed on this principal in the Wu style I studied. I would have to imagine that the wieght distribution keeping your legs in line as it does nearly renders the point moot in that style.
But I digress.
I will be surfing a bit this afternoon, while there I'm going to follow the rest of the YZJ links I got off google and see what else I can find. Also will be looking for the Zhenji posts on this board.
Thank you, Louis, for your help.
If you ever hear of a fully translated copy of Master YZJ's book, I would appreciate hearing about it.