Proficient practitioners of Taijiquan should be manipulating speed and forces between rest and maximum extension of muscles to produce the kind of experiences in seeking motion in rest and seeking rest in motion. So, it is quite the opposite to your water mill example. Most basic level practitioners would just move slowly following certain routines, the production of power is not expected. When they try to generate power they normally contract their muscle concentrically or using brute forces to generate power then the water mill example will apply.
I must not be understanding quite what you are saying. To me a water mill is a quintessential example of in seeking motion in rest and seeking rest in motion. First exploring hard style and progressing to harmony where all the gears are in constant motion at rest (flowing with the current).
The uniqueness of Wing Chun is springy hand, and concentric contraction of muscle will not produce springiness or recoil or muscle elasticity. May be this is why beginners have difficulties in unitizing sticking hand techniques in fighting.
Classical theories can help practitioners to verify their practice. The biomechanics of motion and quietness can identify the problems of brute force and double heavies, etc.
These threads discussing ICMA, Chi, Internal mechanics - yada yada - seem to pop up on this forum, fairly regularly, largely based on zero experience and even less understanding; so its about time for some more of this [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtx4ZJ1cwI0"]Frank Zappa - Cosmik Debris - YouTube[/ame]
No, it's not unique to Wing Chun. Both have their place in different techniques in many different martial arts systems but you've gone through: posting study about cardiovascular activity during the two types of contraction which is completely irrelevant to martial arts in training or application wrongly stating that wing chun punching is based on eccentric contraction ignoring the above and wrongly stating that wing chun is unique in using springiness from the arms Are you just hoping that if you lob enough manure at the wall some of it won't slide off?
This sentence makes me think of something I have noticed. I have been really amazed how many TCC practitioners seem to feel a need to make their art unique and different than other martial arts. Like they need that to validate their practices over other arts as special. Not just here, but all over the Internet I run across this mentality. Yet, when called to say what is solely TCC (or other "Internal arts") they can't provide something solely unique and never done in other arts. Early focus in training methods as Hannibal mentions. But TCC isn't some superior magical thing that has secrets other martial arts don't. And I question the motives of people who seem to have a need to make it something it isn't.
I think any art will work Efficiently if the practitioner reaches the level of internal application, not to say that inefficient application does not work, that is why people spend so much time training physical conditioning, because speed and strength is easier to develop in the short term of training., some styles emphasise this more than others, so in training certain training benefits quick returns over longer term benefits.
I would say that is a stretch :evil: Ah shucks! [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L9HCpAnjsQ"]shucks[/ame] :bang: Do not worry if you do not know how a wind mill uses different sized gears.
I think its 'superior magical secret' is probably the simplicity of it. Simplicity and nature are clearly central Tai ji concepts and probably the most appealing to many folks. "TCC" is older than most martial arts and so it has attached to it far more philosophical material than other arts. Some people will perceive this material as baggage, others as priceless ancient wisdom unavailable from many other pursuits in life. Personally I see the philosophies of Tai Chi Chuan at once both simple and infinitely variable and thus appealing and worth future study (a particular love of mine is Taoist poetry), but in total honesty I've never taken a class in that art in my whole life, so there is likely an entire dimension I haven't explored. Presumably my Hung gar training gave me a glimpse into Taoist arts in some fashion (according to legend and class notes). Based on what I've read online and in books, I'm fairly certain a "TCC" training experience would not meet my loftier, philosophical goals. Maybe for me it makes more sense to study and admire from afar and not muddy the image, but even then, in the Tai ji universe there is never-ending change. Maybe I should take a TCC class and move to the next level
Someone said that Taiji has 3 levels, the - physical level, - mental level, and - spiritual level. After more than 60 years of Taiji training (I learned Taiji when I was 7), I'm still in my "physical level". :cry: A friend of mine told me that when she trains Taiji, her soul can be separated away from her body, floats in the air, and looks down on her physical body. I wish I could do that too. Unfortunately, my Taiji training is still at "fist meets face" level.
I can see the tongue planted in your cheek across the Net. Would you really be waxing philosophic, brother, if you were truly still at the mere physical level? You are more likely just attempting to be humble and witty at the same time not so easy even for the best Taoists Maybe we can both agree Taiji is a way of dealing with anything, and if the principles are properly understood, fighting as well.