IMA Takes Balls

[Empty_Cup]

So there is a great analogy my sifu mentioned and I've been reflecting on recently. The analogy goes like this:

Compare the internal styles to rubber balls.

Taijiquan - is like attacking a ball off-center. Attacks are deflected and the ball compresses, the ball uses some of its own force to knock the attack away.

Bagua - is like a rotating ball. Attacks are neutralized and the spinning action is simultaneously defensive and offensive.

Xingyi - is like a "thrusting" ball. It moves straight forward, and bounces the opponent directly.

Thoughts?

[GeneChing]

You saw my March+April 2012 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=1027) cover story, yes?

Putting Balls into Tai Chi (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=1031)

Okay, this is slightly off topic to the question you posed, and I did take a little heat from the TJQ community for the title, but sometimes, you just can't resist going there. I apologize for the thread-jack. Carry on.

[taai gihk yahn]

So there is a great analogy my sifu mentioned and I've been reflecting on recently. The analogy goes like this:

Compare the internal styles to rubber balls.

Taijiquan - is like attacking a ball off-center. Attacks are deflected and the ball compresses, the ball uses some of its own force to knock the attack away.

Bagua - is like a rotating ball. Attacks are neutralized and the spinning action is simultaneously defensive and offensive.

Xingyi - is like a "thrusting" ball. It moves straight forward, and bounces the opponent directly.

Thoughts?

I don't know if it's a similar analogy, but B P Chan used to say that "bagua moves around the center, xingyi goes to the center and taiji is the center"; does that help? no idea...

[scholar]

So there is a great analogy my sifu mentioned and I've been reflecting on recently. The analogy goes like this:

Compare the internal styles to rubber balls.

Taijiquan - is like attacking a ball off-center. Attacks are deflected and the ball compresses, the ball uses some of its own force to knock the attack away.

Bagua - is like a rotating ball. Attacks are neutralized and the spinning action is simultaneously defensive and offensive.

Xingyi - is like a "thrusting" ball. It moves straight forward, and bounces the opponent directly.

Thoughts?

IME taijiquan should teach you to do all three. Wu Jianquan style does at least. He was great pals with Sun Lutang, though.

[Empty_Cup]

IME taijiquan should teach you to do all three. Wu Jianquan style does at least. He was great pals with Sun Lutang, though.

Can you say a bit more on that?

[bawang]

you need to cut off your balls from your mind, because it is not the proper mindset of a chinese martial artist, regardless of internal or external.


your sifu got that analogy from jet li movie the tai chi master, where he went insane and got inspiration from a soccer ball.

[scholar]

The three descriptors you've used are ways I could use to describe defensive, defensive/offensive and offensive aspects of Wu style training.

The first one involves taking some or all of the opponent's weight onto your foundation to lure him in to the point that where he expects the focus of his attack to manifest, he is instead flying past where he expected you to be and you are not hit. If you help him along past that focus with a foot sweep or a strike, he can easily be swept to the ground, but that involves adding an offensive technique to the originally purely defensive huà jìn 化勁 "neutralizing or transforming power." For the defensive to work, though, you have to meet the attack with internal stillness, which is to say without tensing up and telegraphing what you're about to do. You've got to be able to fool the other guy into thinking he's got you until it is too late for him to change. This is said to be the specialty of Wú Quányòu 吳全佑 (1834–1902) the first Wú family teacher, and subsequently all of his descendants, but I'm pretty sure it is (or was) universal to martial taijiquan.

The second description is something we work in the pushing hands quite a bit. "Left side full, right side empty" and vice versa or "upper half full, lower half empty" and vice versa if the attack is directly on the centerline. You get a punch coming in to your right side, you move that back at the same speed as the attack and at the same time the other side moves forward, for example. This shares features with your first example above, in that the target he expects to hit isn't there, but you hit him with your "full" side exactly when (or a split second before) he expects to hit you on your "empty."

The last one is purely offensive. In Hong Kong, Wú style is known as the "long arm" style. Because of the 45 degree forward lean in the bow stance, the reach goes quite a way out there, and many different aspects of àn 按, striking with the hand, zhǒu 肘, elbow or kào 靠, shoulder, are trained. This is for when you want to attack someone even if they aren't directly attacking you. Say, one day you see a pervert abducting a screaming kid into his windowless van...

So, we train these consistently. I don't know if other styles do the second two or not, I'd imagine so, but I'm not sure since besides Wú style I've only ever studied Yáng style for a few years almost 30 years ago, and that wasn't in any depth. I can say that to learn these skills involves a lot of getting hit and hitting the ground, over and over and over. Until you know how to do it, you don't know how to do it, and you'll have to endure being kicked around real good by senior students for years if you want to learn it for real. How else could you? If you want to neutralize a real punch, you have to work with a real punch. This is where most (but not all) taijiquan schools nowadays fall down. Even in my school where this stuff is emphasized, most people don't want to invest in the tedious work or face the embarrassment of being smacked around. Only a select few who have caught the bug and see the value of the old school curriculum that existed before hippies were ever even heard of dig into it.

Sūn Lùtáng 孫祿堂 (1860-1933) was the founding teacher of Sūn style taijiquan. Before he learned taijiquan he was already a long time practitioner of xingyiquan and baguazhang. From 1914 until 1928 he taught at the Beijing Physical Education Research Institute (Běijīng tǐyù yánjiù shè 北京體育研究社) with Wú Jiànquán 吳鑑泉 (1870-1942), Yáng Shǎohóu 楊少侯 (1862-1930) and Yáng Chéngfǔ 楊澄甫 (1883-1936). In the 14 year period Wú Jiànquán was working with Sūn on a daily basis I'm sure that a lot of technique was exchanged between them.

[YouKnowWho]

the ball uses some of its own force to knock the attack away.

When your opponent

- punches at your head, or
- sweeps at your ankle,

whether your body is a "ball" or not, it won't make any difference. Those so called "internal guys" just don't want to talk about "head punch" and "ankle sweep". Why?

[bawang]

as long as tai chi people try to apply peng lu ji an to combat, it will always be useless.

basics of taijiquan is the five elements, like changquan and hongquan.

[Bacon]

When your opponent

- punches at your head, or
- sweeps at your ankle,

whether your body is a "ball" or not, it won't make any difference. Those so called "internal guys" just don't want to talk about "head punch" and "ankle sweep". Why?

Exactly. This is why there's really no "internal" or "external" styles. You don't just learn the mystical ball metaphor. You learn principles and from there attacks and counters. Try flowing like a ball around a well set up wrestling shoot... You will do something like a ball. You'll be slammed into the floor :D

No ball, just sprawl :cool:

[Empty_Cup]

The three descriptors you've used are ways I could use to describe defensive, defensive/offensive and offensive aspects of Wu style training.

The first one involves taking some or all of the opponent's weight onto your foundation to lure him in to the point that where he expects the focus of his attack to manifest, he is instead flying past where he expected you to be and you are not hit. If you help him along past that focus with a foot sweep or a strike, he can easily be swept to the ground, but that involves adding an offensive technique to the originally purely defensive huà jìn 化勁 "neutralizing or transforming power." For the defensive to work, though, you have to meet the attack with internal stillness, which is to say without tensing up and telegraphing what you're about to do. You've got to be able to fool the other guy into thinking he's got you until it is too late for him to change. This is said to be the specialty of Wú Quányòu 吳全佑 (1834–1902) the first Wú family teacher, and subsequently all of his descendants, but I'm pretty sure it is (or was) universal to martial taijiquan.

The second description is something we work in the pushing hands quite a bit. "Left side full, right side empty" and vice versa or "upper half full, lower half empty" and vice versa if the attack is directly on the centerline. You get a punch coming in to your right side, you move that back at the same speed as the attack and at the same time the other side moves forward, for example. This shares features with your first example above, in that the target he expects to hit isn't there, but you hit him with your "full" side exactly when (or a split second before) he expects to hit you on your "empty."

The last one is purely offensive. In Hong Kong, Wú style is known as the "long arm" style. Because of the 45 degree forward lean in the bow stance, the reach goes quite a way out there, and many different aspects of àn 按, striking with the hand, zhǒu 肘, elbow or kào 靠, shoulder, are trained. This is for when you want to attack someone even if they aren't directly attacking you. Say, one day you see a pervert abducting a screaming kid into his windowless van...

So, we train these consistently. I don't know if other styles do the second two or not, I'd imagine so, but I'm not sure since besides Wú style I've only ever studied Yáng style for a few years almost 30 years ago, and that wasn't in any depth. I can say that to learn these skills involves a lot of getting hit and hitting the ground, over and over and over. Until you know how to do it, you don't know how to do it, and you'll have to endure being kicked around real good by senior students for years if you want to learn it for real. How else could you? If you want to neutralize a real punch, you have to work with a real punch. This is where most (but not all) taijiquan schools nowadays fall down. Even in my school where this stuff is emphasized, most people don't want to invest in the tedious work or face the embarrassment of being smacked around. Only a select few who have caught the bug and see the value of the old school curriculum that existed before hippies were ever even heard of dig into it.

Sūn Lùtáng 孫祿堂 (1860-1933) was the founding teacher of Sūn style taijiquan. Before he learned taijiquan he was already a long time practitioner of xingyiquan and baguazhang. From 1914 until 1928 he taught at the Beijing Physical Education Research Institute (Běijīng tǐyù yánjiù shè 北京體育研究社) with Wú Jiànquán 吳鑑泉 (1870-1942), Yáng Shǎohóu 楊少侯 (1862-1930) and Yáng Chéngfǔ 楊澄甫 (1883-1936). In the 14 year period Wú Jiànquán was working with Sūn on a daily basis I'm sure that a lot of technique was exchanged between them.

Great post. I can tell you understood the heart of the analogy. Never thought of these as aspects of the same style or even the same technique. Cool.

I have no experience with Wu or Sun style TJQ, did you say you practiced both?

[tattooedmonk]

Exactly. This is why there's really no "internal" or "external" styles. You don't just learn the mystical ball metaphor. You learn principles and from there attacks and counters. Try flowing like a ball around a well set up wrestling shoot... You will do something like a ball. You'll be slammed into the floor :D

No ball, just sprawl :cool:Obviously you don't understand them or the meaning or idea behind them. These are just the methods that were used a hundred + years ago. It's just part of the tradition. so what. Just get your jollies coming here and making fun over others for the way do things? This is a Kung fu forum, hello!?!?

if you don't understand the spherical , peng, etc. principles that are present and being applied during the sprawl, then you are just ignorant and stupid.

[Bacon]

if you don't understand the spherical , peng, etc. principles that are present and being applied during the sprawl, then you are just ignorant and stupid.

Yeah the principles are great as a very very very very very very basic explanation but the sprawl is a very basic takedown defense which can be explained technical terms. This part of the body does this at this time. Your principles may be great, and may help to a point, but those who train technically will always have an edge. If you're having trouble with counting a jab do you want to be told that you have to be more spherical, let the chi flow better, or step in and off line more and raise your shoulder. That is the point I'm making.



Obviously you don't understand them or the meaning or idea behind them. These are just the methods that were used a hundred + years ago. It's just part of the tradition. so what. Just get your jollies coming here and making fun over others for the way do things? This is a Kung fu forum, hello!?!?
And I do Kung fu... But it's not the only are I train or have trained. You'll have to do a little better than falling back on tradition. As basic metaphors they're okay but beyond day 1 explanations to a new student these aren't great. Considering most folks here probably have martial arts experience technical explanations on power generation, redirection, counting, footwork, etc are going to be far more useful that "oooh we're like this type of ball."

[bawang]

lol @ shaolin do guy lecturing about tradition

[Sima Rong]

your sifu got that analogy from jet li movie the tai chi master, where he went insane and got inspiration from a soccer ball.

LOL! Classic!

But yes..

Wouldn't it be much more useful to just focus on training one art exclusively without thinking about a theory to encompass whole styles which contain lots of variation?

[YouKnowWho]

Wouldn't it be much more useful to just focus on training one art exclusively without thinking about a theory to encompass whole styles which contain lots of variation?

You don't even need to think about any "style" when you develop certain skill. Are there any difference between Taiji foot sweep, XingYi foot sweep, or Bagua foot sweep? I don't think so. When you apply a certain move such as foot sweep, it's much more useful to focus on:

- When should you apply it?
- Which angle to cut in?
- How to use your hand moves to cover your footwork?
- How to apply your leg force?
- How to maintain balance during your move?
- How to set it up when your opponent is moving?
- ...

The day that you have mastered your "foot sweep", the day that the word "style" will no longer have any meaning to you. Does the "foot sweep" have anything to do with cotton ball, steel ball, or wire balll? I also don't think so.

[YouKnowWho]

To talk about:

- Taiji is a cotton ball,
- XingYi is a steel ball,
- Bagua is a wire ball,

is the same as to talk about

- WC is a spring,
- CLF is a swing ball,
- Hong Quan is a hammer,
- longfist is a rifle,
- Praying mantis is a machine gun,
- Baji is a grenade,
- White ape is a whip,
- ...

Besides it make you feel that you are very knowledgeable, it just won't help your combat skill in any way. TCMA should not be just a talking subject on the dinner table. It should be combat skill when facing opponent.

The 1st Zimen system principle is 殘(cruel, no mercy, ...). No matter how deep that you may understand this principle, it's still just abstract thinking which is far from real combat.

[scholar]

Great post. I can tell you understood the heart of the analogy. Never thought of these as aspects of the same style or even the same technique. Cool.

I have no experience with Wu or Sun style TJQ, did you say you practiced both?


Just Wu style, started in 1988. The teachers I studied from were so overwhelmingly competent that there was no point in and no time to try anything else. I've spent the years since studying the basics, the nuts and bolts of what they were showing as much as possible. In 2002 after my last visit to Hong Kong the family decided I should teach.

[tattooedmonk]

Yeah the principles are great as a very very very very very very basic explanation but the sprawl is a very basic takedown defense which can be explained technical terms. This part of the body does this at this time. Your principles may be great, and may help to a point, but those who train technically will always have an edge. If you're having trouble with counting a jab do you want to be told that you have to be more spherical, let the chi flow better, or step in and off line more and raise your shoulder. That is the point I'm making.

And I do Kung fu... But it's not the only are I train or have trained. You'll have to do a little better than falling back on tradition. As basic metaphors they're okay but beyond day 1 explanations to a new student these aren't great. Considering most folks here probably have martial arts experience technical explanations on power generation, redirection, counting, footwork, etc are going to be far more useful that "oooh we're like this type of ball."no one is going to say those things at those times, unless they are relevant .

its not like you just walkaround like a retard or a fortune cookie and just ramble unrelated nonsense.:rolleyes:

I agree with the fact that traditionalist need to get with the times and use technical terms. if thats what you are truely saying.

[SPJ]

So there is a great analogy my sifu mentioned and I've been reflecting on recently. The analogy goes like this:

Compare the internal styles to rubber balls.

Taijiquan - is like attacking a ball off-center. Attacks are deflected and the ball compresses, the ball uses some of its own force to knock the attack away.

Bagua - is like a rotating ball. Attacks are neutralized and the spinning action is simultaneously defensive and offensive.

Xingyi - is like a "thrusting" ball. It moves straight forward, and bounces the opponent directly.

Thoughts?

1 Water is a better analogy for tai chi.

2 Ba gua, your spine is like a reel or axis, your hands and legs circling around it

black dragon circling a pillar is better analogy.

3 Xing yi is spear. your hands are spears, your waist is the horse carriage, your legs are horses.

What is the hang up with balls any way.

no balls.

just water, pillar and spear.

do not see balls

---

:cool: