Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

Hi Louis,
Does your book specifically identify the gentleman with the glasses as Wu Baoxiang? I've seen him in other photos as well, and he was very highly ranked in the Wu family system apparently. I've been meaning to find out his name for a while. I will have an opportunity in a couple of weeks to inquire about it, but I'm curious to know what your book says!
Thanks,
P.

Greetings Polaris,

There is no specific identification of the men in the push hands photos, but I’m fairly certain it’s Wu Jianquan and Wu Baoxiang. The book does have separate portrait photos of both men in the front pages, with their names. The man in the push hands photos appears to be the same as the Wu Baoxiang in the portrait photo and in the form photos. I’m using the Mandarin pronunciation of Baoxiang’s name, but he’s more likely known by the Cantonese pronunciation, which I can’t guess. The book also mentions Xu Zhiyi as one of the author’s teachers. Xu Zhiyi was a figure of some standing, and also close to Wu Jianquan, I gather.

I hope you’ll let me know what you find out.

Take care,
Louis

Hi Polaris and Louis:

I know nothing about the man you are discussing; but I might hazard an educated guess at the Cantonese pronunciation of his name. Without seeing the characters, I cannot be sure, and might not be sure even then; however, "Wu Baoxiang" would likely be something like "Ng Pow-Hong," "Ng Pow-Heung," or "Ng Bow-Hong."

I am particularly uncertain about what the equivalent of "Bau" would be without knowing what character is used. There is also a question of how this word would customarily be transliterated in a place like Hong Kong, which is even more outside of my competence.

Take care,
Audi

Audi and Polaris,

Here are links to the zhongwen.com entries for Wu Baoxiang’s characters, plus sublinks to a Cantonese database. The zhongwen.com characters are gifs, but to read the characters in the Cantonese database you need to set your browser to read Big 5 encoding. --Louis

wu / ng:
http://www.zhongwen.com/d/167/x100.htm

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/can ... ery=%a7%64

bao / bou:
http://www.zhongwen.com/d/196/x95.htm

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/can ... ery=%c4%5f

xiang / coeng:
http://www.zhongwen.com/d/178/x187.htm

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/can ... ery=%b2%bb

Louis, Audi,
Thanks, that is helpful. Wu Baoxiang with those characters isn't listed as a disciple of Wu Chien-ch'uan, but I'm pretty sure that the person in the photos is, and a senior disciple at that. So either the list I have is incomplete (always a possibility!) or it is someone else. I'll try to find out.
Regards,
P.

This is in reply to the original question about single weightedness 90%,10%. On a more abstract or philosophical note I was thinking perhaps the whole idea was based in the theory of the yin-yang symbol. The symbol REPRESENTS a 90%-10% relationship within the yin, and a 90%-10% relationship within the yang. 100% is extreme. I believe tai chi to be based in the acheivement of balance. There IS also the existance of the 50-50% relationship present in the yin- yang symbol when you compare the yin and yang parts themselves.50-50, 90-10.
JUST A THOUGHT,
PS
THANKS

Psalchemist,
I have heard that idea before, though it bears repeating.
The way the idea was explained to me of 100/0 splits is that the Yin within Yang is covered in this way by the "intent" in the non-weighted leg. The little dots in the Yin/Yang symbol represent the idea of Yin within Yang (Yang within Yin) relationship, or the "intent" of it (remember, this is in Wu style as I learned it).
"Intent" was defined as the idea only, no real Yang need be present within Yin, only the intent for Yang to be there. That the two are wholly seperate and represent entirely different ideas that can be mixed and do exist together, but should be kept as seperate as possible.
But that is a philosophy not represented in YCF style TCC as we have discussed.
I have been having fun experimenting with different weight distributions and height of form frames for the last couple of weeks.
I have found that practicing Wu style in Large Frame almost necessitates at least a 90/10 weight distribution and is actually easier at 70/30. The reverse is true for performing YCF style TCC in Small Frame.
You have to adjust your body in a lot of different ways to make the change and that includes how you distribute your weight between your legs.
I have much more success performing YCF style in Small Frame with small circles, because I'm more familiar with that style. However I am getting better at Large Frame with Large Circles as I practice more.
To do Middle Frame, I have been adopting the 90/10 stance and that makes things much simpler in that frame, at least for me.
I may not be getting this entirely correct, in fact I'm quite sure I'm not, but I'm learning a lot about TCC in the process and also having quite a bit of fun.
I have mentioned this elsewhere on this board, but it bears repeating here.
Sifa Wu Tai Sin has introduced what he calls a "larger circle" broadsword form to his students at one of his Academies. They do not change the 100/0 split or their body frame for this, they are only increasing the size of the circles for the sword movements. My disciple sources at this Wu's TCC Academy tell me that this is quite a bit of fun, and call the motions "swoopy", which is exactly the word we all used to describe the YCF forms we would see at demonstrations.
Just a side bar, not really relevant.
Also not really relevant but fun to mention, since we got into this discussion here and I have gone back to my disciple acquaintances in the Wu family for information, there has been a upsurge in interest and practice of the Wu family Large Circle forms at my old Academy.
I found that interesting, figured I'd mention it here for laughs and giggles.
I got into quite a long discussion over the weekend with one Wu disciple about the contrasts between Large and Small Frame and Large and Small circles. They were under the opinion that the one does not necessarily have to mean the other. I found that idea fascinating. I have not had time yet to play around with using Large circles in small frame (holiday weekend, swimming pool problems, it's always something), but that seems to be what the Wu family is doing.
I'm going to make a trip to my old home town within the next couple of months. I'm looking forward to a demonstration of this new sword form and the Wu family 54 form demonstration form as well. I may even take a stab at the opening postures of the sword form (sorry, that was unintentional, funny though) to see what it's like, though I haven't done much more than warm ups and the Nine Cuts with a broadsword in quite some time. Guess I'd better knock the rust of my trusty broadsword and see if I can't run through the regular form before I do that.

Greetings PS,

I think you’re touching on the heart of the issue. Yin-yang theory traditionally has to do with processes in progress, not some frozen instant. From the ongoing discussions here about “weightedness,” it is clear to me that we’ve got to break loose from static interpretations. Let me just state a few observations and opinions.

· As long as a foot, or a part of a foot, is in contact with the ground, it is bearing some weight. I think this is just a fact of physics. What percentage of weight it bears is difficult to determine and will vary according to subject and situation. Expressions of percentages of weight in these situations tend to be subjective.
· The guidelines sometimes given for weight distribution in the forms are guidelines for *ending postures*, which themselves are only a part of what constitutes form training. What are we doing when we gradually shift the weight from one posture to the other? Is that not form training as well?
· After one “completes” a posture, say the first Left Brush Knee Twist Step—however one may interpret the weight distribution in that particular ending posture—when one lifts the right rear foot off of the ground to transition into Hands Play Pipa one is for a time 100% weighted on the grounded foot. This is true whenever one foot is airborne, stepping, or performing any of the raised leg postures. I would add that these are the only cases in which there is 100% weighting in one foot.
· The technical taiji term, “double-weighting” (shuangzhong or shuangchong) is often taken to have something to do with weight distribution. I think there is good reason to believe this is a mistaken interpretation. In fact, “double-weighting” is probably a misleading translation. Just as in English “weight” can have figurative meanings (to “give weight to an idea”; to “weigh in on” an issue), the “weight” term in Chinese is often used figuratively for “emphasize” “value,” “importance,” “place stress on,” etc. So ultimately, with regard to the traditional concept of ‘double-weighting,’ the emphasis of one’s interpretation of will carry a lot of weight in one’s practice. (Sorry, couldn’t be helped.)
· So far as I can determine, there is no Chinese equivalent for a term “single-weighting” in the classical taiji literature I’ve had access to. Evidently some teachers use this term to good effect, but I’m unclear on exactly what it would mean. Logically, if “double-weighting” does not refer to distributing weight over two feet, then “single-weighting” would not refer to placing weight over one foot.
Take care,
Louis

Louis,
Some of what you say makes good YCF theory, but not NAWS theory.
I have spent a great deal of time looking up any reference to single-weighted. Haven't found any beyond what I posted earlier and that was obscure enough to be unhelpful, as is, I have to add, most TCC theory.
"Double weighted" is there, obviously, and I have heard "single-weighted" as a term often enough in my old school to know how THEY define it, however I have to concede that "single-weighted" as a technical, classical TCC term is of suspect origin at best.
I have allready admitted freely and continue to do so that the term as I consider it and first phrased my topic around is only used by some teachers and schools internally and is not generic to TCC through all schools.
We've certainly been having quite a spirited discussion about it though. Haven't we?
To clarify my earlier statement a bit further,
You state that:
"The guidelines sometimes given for weight distribution in the forms are guidelines for *ending postures*, which themselves are only a part of what constitutes form training."
In NAWS as I know it you are sometimes, actually frequently, 100/0 during the execution of a form as well.
Take Grasp the Birds Tail for example. In this NAWS form you go back and forth between your legs quite a few times. So DURING this form you are both 100/0 and all the weight transfer points in between several times.
In White Crane Spreads Wings, you begin at 100/0 left, transition right, stop there and perform a hip movement that makes a wrist attack, then you transition left but only to 50/50 or even weight distribution between both halves. So the beginning and end points of this, and several other, moves have different weight ratios.
So the weight distribution is in constant flux, sometimes all on one, sometimes all on the other, sometimes on both, throughout the NAWS forms.

I will concede that "weight" is present if your foot is touching the ground, ableit in a negligible amount. Has to be "weight" there by definition.
The difference is this and this is also one of the proofs of proper form posture in NAWS:
Can you have that foot be kicked out from under you and still maintain proper alignment and posture?
Or to rephrase that question:
Are you sufficiently not double weighted so that your body is only being held up by one leg or the other with no "help" from it's mate?
Or, another way:
Are you holding yourself up, even partially, with your insubstantial leg?
If so, according the way I was trained At Wu's TCC Academy, then you are double-weighted in that posture.
This is how I was trained, this is how I taught.
I recognize this is not YCF style theory. It was my original ignorance of differing and even conflicting theory between branches of TCC that led me to ask this question.
I'm ever so glad I did. As I have learned more theory off this one question than I have from any other single source I've ever found.
Having a ball doing so, I might add.


[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 05-27-2003).]

Greetings W,

Addressing your requirements:

RE: Can you have that foot be kicked out from under you and still maintain proper alignment and posture?

I think the ability to maintain alignment and posture in this instance would have more to do with how adeptly one can shift one’s weight internally than with how much weight is or is not being borne by the leg being swept. Take my example above of how one initiates the transition from Left Brush Knee Twist Step. In the ending posture, one is in a left bow stance, with the left leg “full,” and the right leg “empty.” The instant one lifts the right rear leg off of the ground, the body begins a whole array of micro-adjustments in order to re-equilibrate itself. The muscles in the “full” leg, the empty leg, the arms, and torso are all engaged in these micro movements seeking equilibrium. For those of us who have been doing these kinds of movements for years, the micro-adjustments have become second nature, but that doesn’t mean they have to escape our notice.

RE: Or to rephrase that question:
Are you sufficiently not double weighted so that your body is only being held up by one leg or the other with no "help" from it's mate?

What does “double weighted” mean here?

RE: Or, another way:
Are you holding yourself up, even partially, with your insubstantial leg?

If it’s touching the ground, even slightly, yes, it’s structurally engaged in holding the body up.

It might be useful to think of equilibrium itself as a process, rather than as a “state.” The best illustration for this I can think of is walking. Walking requires that equilibrium be maintained while alternating one's upright posture over one leg and then the other. One has to disequilibrate in order to walk—a kind of controlled falling—and then again equilibrate. Walking equilibrium itself, then, is dependent upon its polar antagonist, disequilibrium. Equilibrium for moving bodies (and even standing, for humans, is moving) is necessarily a process, not a state.

RE: If so, according the way I was trained At Wu's TCC Academy, then you are double-weighted in that posture.

And the question remains, is that what being double-weighted means?

Take care,
Louis

Hi all:

Louis, thanks for the characters and links to the Cantonese. For what it’s worth, given what you have provided over the hyperlinks, I think that Wu Baoxiang would be Ng Pou-Ts’eung. The “Ng” would be pronounced like a syllabic equivalent of the corresponding English [ng] sound or, for some speakers, like a syllabic “m”. The “p” would have the Wade-Giles value of . The “ou” is like Mandarin. The “Ts” would be pronounced like Mandarin “ch” for most speakers.

Wushuer, despite numerous beatings, we seem unable to kill this horse. This may be both delightful and frustrating at the same time. At the risk of repeating my previous posts, let me try to build on Louis’s most recent one, since I think I share his viewpoint.

If you concede that the postures in NAWS have transitions that include having weight on both legs (e.g., White Crane Spreads Wings, according to your post), does this mean that you are constantly moving through moments when you are double weighted as you shift weight from one leg to the other? If not, how can weighting itself be determinative of this state?

As I understand Yang Style theory, it is never permissible to be double weighted for even a single instant, let alone every time one transfers weight from one leg to the other. Does NAWS judge whether one is double weighted at only certain points during postures? Why are you not double weighted during the Opening Posture, Single Whip, or during Cross Hands (assuming all these postures exist in the NAWS form), since all these postures have 50/50 weight distributions in Wu Style (according to my memory)?

I have the same confusion about the sweep test you describe. If you are talking about being nimble enough internally to avoid falling, then I see no real difference from Yang Style. If you are talking about being able to retain balance with no further shifting of the weight, how can this be accomplished during transitional moments when equal weight is in both legs? How do you do this at the end point of Single Whip or during the Opening Posture? It would seem that the test would have to be restricted to those moments in the postures when weight is only supposed to be distributed 100/0 between the legs. Here again, if this is the case, I see no real difference between NAWS theory and Yang Style theory.

I do see from your description how NAWS seems to place a premium on 100/0 moments during postures and that traditional Yang Style does not, but this still seems to me to be a separate issue from “Separating Full and Empty.”

Since this thread began, I have thought of one situation in ordinary life that duplicates the feeling of “separating full and empty” that I believe I train by doing Yang Zhenduo’s form. That situation is when I stand in a moving subway car without using my hands or arms to hold on to anything. When I do this, I have the sensation that the bumps and jerks of the subway car force me constantly to pass weight back and forth between my legs, to keep my “qi” sunk, and to keep my “Ming Men” (“lumbar region”) open and flexible. It never feels as if my legs are doing the same thing at the same time or that power is not flowing from one leg to the other. At the same time, my legs are absolutely interdependent and cannot operate on separate “wavelengths.” I have no sense that standing on one leg would increase my mobility or that “gripping” the ground with both feet simultaneously would give the slightest advantage. Full and empty change instantly from one to the other, and the weight percentages in my feet (other than 100/0 or 0/100) are really immaterial to the feeling.

There are moments during the Yang Style forms when the physics of a posture make this feeling quite tenuous, but for me, two things still save the theory. First, being in contact with an opponent, will change the external physics of a posture. Looking at the form as a solo activity can thus be misleading. Second, the intent can be used to smooth over small discontinuities, for instance, when one lengthens a bow stance during the Saber From slightly beyond what one is capable of doing at a slow pace. Physically, one goes through a small instant of being “double weighted” when the body is floating in the air between the feet and one is momentarily no longer in full control of the body weight. Mentally, one tries to connect the “before” and “after” in a seamless fashion that attempts to cover up the instant of vulnerability. As one’s ability improves, the intent becomes more and more important and the “physics” of the posture become less and less. In this way, one can stand even on one leg and change it back and forth between full and empty depending on how one uses one’s intent with respect to the leg.

In summary, I think I can go back to something Michael said, which is that one is double weighted when one can no longer respond to the opponent. If you can distinguish full and empty, you can direct the flow of Jin that is applied to you and make it dissipate harmlessly. If you cannot and are thus stuck, you will not be able to handle even a small amount of Jin. For Yang Style, “Distinguishing full and empty” is thus a question of intent and ability, not one of weight distribution.

Take care,
Audi

Hi Michael,

Earlier in this thread you had the following comments:

<<I have another opinion concerning something you mentioned. The "Sinking" of the elbows and dropping of the shoulders.

* * *.

<<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.>>

Michael, I wanted to respond to your comment. I do not think our views are far apart on the matter of shoulders and elbows, but I think I may have explained myself badly. I was trying to make at least three points that I will try to explain differently.

First, as I understand it, the principle of “Sinking the shoulders and drooping the elbows” really addresses more the flow of energy than merely external limb positions. You seem to agree with this by distinguishing between “external” and “internal.” From this viewpoint, I can think of no place in the form where the principle of “sinking” and “drooping” is compromised. However, I can think of no physical description of the limbs that can account for all of the arm positions that the form calls for. I think this is one of the things that drives beginners crazy.

As you hint in your post, many interpret “drooping the elbows” to mean that the elbows must remain lower than the shoulders in height; however, many postures in the form call for lifting the elbows higher than the shoulders. In your post, you seem to agree with this by linking your description to the intent and the path of the Jin.

Since the principle is about energy, rather than limb positions. It will manifest itself differently in different situations. In the Push Posture of the form, the arm will tend toward straight and the elbows will droop in a position that is pretty much in line (judged from left to right, rather than from up to down) with the wrists and shoulders. The fingers will not be pointed to the left or right, but inclined straight ahead and upward. In contrast, during the “push” portion of the horizontal, single hand pushing exercise, the arm will be curved and the elbow will be quite “higher” than the Push Posture in the form. It will also be outside of the line drawn between the wrists and shoulders. The fingers will be quite inclined toward the midline of the body.

The principle in both situations is the same, but the manifestation is different because of the difference in how Push Energy flows from the previous positions. In both positions, a slight inward rotation of the arm or failure to have the intent of extending the joint will result in a violation of the principle.

Even when one raises the hand above the head in White Crane Spreads Wings, Fair Lady Works the Shuttles, Chop with Fist, etc., I would argue that the proper hand and elbow height is not really the issue when discussing this principle. Without changing the height of the hand and elbow, but by using slight rotations, these postures can be improperly executed with the shoulder and elbow “up” or properly executed with the shoulder and elbow “down.” This is fairly easy to show in person, but not so easy to describe. I, myself, have a heck of time with my right shoulder, but much less trouble with my left one.

I got hung up on this train of thought, because it has occurred to me more than once that beginners in Taijiquan (and aren’t we all at one level or another) tend to shy away from the fact that much of Taijiquan deals with manifestations of movement energy, rather than physical postures.

Energy is not visible, whereas limb positions are. We prefer the seemingly concrete to the seemingly abstract. Statements of principle get “simplified” to the point where they are no longer accurate. “Being suspended from above” becomes interpreted as “keeping the spine straight.” “Drooping the elbows” is interpreted as “keeping them relatively low to the ground.” “Sinking” is interpreted as “bending the knees more and more.” “Loosening the waist” becomes the same as having a “wiggly” waist. And “coordinating upper and lower” becomes merely an exercise in “simulating simultaneity” throughout the limbs.

Michael, I share your view that little or nothing in the form is symbolic or merely to be viewed as a non-martial exercise; however, I wanted to make clear that I do not think that the form is meant to lay out optimum physical positions so much as to show the principles that determine the optimum movement of energy. In short, just because the Push Posture requires a particular elbow position, I do not believe this position would necessarily apply to a different application of Push Energy. In my view, the form lays out most of Taijiquan’s movement principles, but does not lay out most of the possible movements or postures.

Take care,
Audi

Greetings,

The term "Double weighted" as I understand it, is only tangentially related to weight distribution. One can have all of one's weight on one leg, but still be double weighted. Conversely, one may be 50-50 in weight distribution, as in Horse Stance, yet be completely single weighted in the body. The term "single weighted" refers to using just the voluntary muscles needed to accomplish a movement or set of movements. Most people (as an ineffective reaction to a lifetime of stress) seemingly lock up their entire bodies in tension when they move. This is what TCC teaches against.

For example, consider the mechanics of the bicep and the tricep muscles when a person punches. The tricep, activating the motion, has to shorten. The bicep should correspondingly lengthen to allow the motion. If the bicep has even a slight amount of latent tension due to incomplete relaxation (stress damage), then the tricep cannot extend the arm as well as it would otherwise. In T'ai Chi theory, Yin and Yang are not separated, instead you have Yang and Yang, not Yin and Yang. Double weighted. This can apply to weight distribution in the feet as well, it can be a symptom of double weighting, but such weight distribution or the lack of it doesn't define double weightedness as such.

Extreme separation of weighting in forms and push hands is primarily for training the legs 100%. At my school, you are expected to eventually support not just your own weight comfortably through a full range of motion on one leg, but someone else's weight as well! The leg with the body's weight is the Yang leg, the leg without the body's weight is the Yin leg. If a person is indeed relaxed, then the weight of the Yin leg itself will rest on the Yin leg in a full extension. If you try to hold that leg's weight up completely off of the floor in one of those positions, then you will not be able to completely relax the muscles of the Yin leg.

TCC is very good at removing (in ten years or so) this excess tension from the body. The student, however, has to figure it out for themselves. They have to work and work and work some more at removing the resistances. The teacher can only give examples, the rest is up to the student. The best teachers in the world can do nothing with a student who won't, for whatever reason, go through the process handed down by our teachers from the former masters.

Regards,
P.

Hi Audi,

You say:

"For Yang Style, “Distinguishing full and empty” is thus a question of intent and ability, not one of weight distribution."


From YCF's 10 Essentials

4. Separate empty and full

In the art of Tai Chi Chuan, separating full and empty is the number one rule.

If the whole body sits on the right leg, then the right leg is deemed 'full' and the left leg 'empty'. If the whole body sits on the left leg, then the left leg is deemed 'full' and the right leg 'empty'. Only after you are able to distinguish full and empty will turning movements be light, nimble and almost without effort; if you can't distinguish them then your steps will be heavy and sluggish, you won't be able to stand stably, and it will be easy for an opponent to control you."

The issue here is all about weight distribution.

The distinction of "Empty and full" is relevant to more issues than only weight distribution but weight is one of those issues, and weight is what is being talked about by YCF regardless of whatever else may be empty/full with respect to legs or the rest of the body.

Wang Tsung Yueh talks about sinking to one side so as to turn quickly-Stand like a balanced scale, turn like a wheel.

He talks about distinguishing yin and yang of which full and empty is an instance.

The intent has to do with which leg you want to shift all the weight to so as to turn your torso on the then fixed femur.

Ability has to do with actually doing the shifting and the turning. This is difficult to learn. People become unbalanced all by themselves without external force directed towards them.

Both are about shifting weight between the legs so as to turn the torso.

All the weight of the body has to be supported by one leg so as to turn the torso through its ENTIRE available range of motion.

Single weighting is the contrary to double weighting.

The weight of the body,unless one is standing on one's head,will either be distributed between 2 legs or will all be supported by one leg.

So, if double weighting is to be avoided what is the remaining alternative weighting?

One repeated source of confusion is to take the classics as talking about doing the movements in the form.

The weight shifts that the classics are talking about are lateral weight shifts when
the feet are close together, not about forward and back weight shifts in a bow stance nor about lateral shifts in wide horse riding stances.

The wider your step the move obvious where your center of gravity lies-in the space between your feet, somewhere close to your navel.

The bow stance and horse riding stance limit hip turning to only a few degrees.


In a bow step you can't move your weight laterally directly you can only shift forwards and back, in a horse riding stance you can only shift laterally but not forward and back.

So when the classics talk about standing like a scale they are talking about a different stance than bow stance or horse riding stances.

Nor will the ultimate stance be one where all weight is on one leg while the other is off the ground. This is a single weighted stance, but it runs foul of other prohibitions.

It's pretty obvious where your weight is when on one leg.

So, the step/stance that is sought is one that allows single weighting as well as hiding where the weight is, as well as allowing very quick shifts so as to allow for "suddenly appearing; suddenly hidden".

Weighting is a very important issue.

It's not even close to being exhausted.

Ron

Louis,
"What is double weighted?"
I like Audi's definition for simplicity. If you can't repsond, you're double weighted. I must apologize for my repeated use of this term as applied in my old school on this board. I hope you can all forgive me for this lapse, I used this term in this fashion for a long time and I have a hard time remembering it means different things to different people.
In my last post I again used it to mean "less than 100/0 distribution of weight between your legs during form training".
Amend my post mentally, please, to read that way where I stated "double weighted".

Audi,
During NAWS WCSW's, Single Whip and Cross Hands you are weighted as in the beginning postures of TCC, Preperatory Position is also 50/50 weight distributed in every form I've performed or seen.
You ask if this makes one "double weighted", I answer yes. At this moment you are double weighted in your legs. Your legs are each holding half of your body weight, the only split of substantial and insubstantial is between upper and lower. In the definition of "less than 100/0 weight distributed" this is double weighted. In the sense of "can you respond?" the answer is, obvioulsy, no you are not double weighted as you most certainly can make appropriate responses in this fashion.
So, yes and no. Depends on which definition you use for the term.

So much to do, so little time.
I'll be back when I can to continue.