Biomechanics of Motion and Quietness

Discussion in 'Internal Martial Arts' started by runcai, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Mod note: General reminder to please be mindful to not start sniping at each other. Thanks!
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  2. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Respectfully brother you seem like you're trying to sound like that turtle Oogway from Kung fu Panda. You will know what it means to be the Dragon Warrior when you read the scroll and so on. Anybody can say that sort of thing. Let's not pretend any of us has exclusivity on any secrets. Let's be honest where we're coming from and what experts say and so forth we're referring to. Is that fair enough? That really brings it back to realistic survey of the arts. So far we've got a number of great contributions to this thread from supporters and skeptics. That's a good thing to record, but not so much the 'I alone know the way' posts, et cetera.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  3. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    And what do you think is so simple about it specifically? I don't find TCC any more simple than my "external style." How exactly is it simple? And how is that simplicity different than an external style?

    What sources - both book and online - are you basing this off of?

    What do you base the idea that "simplicity and nature are clearly central TCC concepts" on?

    What is nature anyways in regards to practicing TCC? I mean is nature breathing? All martial arts have breathing. Is it animal moves? Lots of TCMA's have animal moves........

    No offense, but it just sounds like more esoteric vagueness. When it gets down to details, no one is able to really say something that is "special" and unique to IMA's like TCC.

    The only thing said that holds any water is what Hannibal says about a different focus in the beginning with training methodologies. In the beginning being a key part of that, because as one advances, even that comes closer together in my experience.

    I will say this about posts by multiple people on here. I think there is only so much you can learn about an art by reading about it and not practicing it. As an example - you can read all you want about certain things, but you won't really understand until you actually practice it. You can read about learning a musical instrument, but can you really understand playing it without picking one up and actually learning it? How about swimming? Can you learn to swim by only reading about it? Or do you actually have to get in the water to truly understand what swimming is?

    I mean no offense by this Iron Fist. :)

    It is just you sound like one of those people espousing esoteric concepts, but whenever I ask for details, those concepts really haven't panned out. Maybe your explanation of nature and simplicity will be different. I am open to that, but frankly not expecting it to.

    Like when I and others ask what is different in an internal art, and people say all sorts of things that just don't hold up under closer examination.

    TCC is a wonderful martial art. But many MA's are. I find the need for some practitioners to make it to be something special and more than other arts a kind of snobbery that fuels ego. It is just another version of "my art is better than your art."


     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  4. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    This is an illustration (attached at the bottom) of how I understand yin yang theory in relation to the muscles of the body. basic theory:
    I copy pasted most of this bit and made some minimal changes, hence the quotation marks. It is taken from I Liq Chuan system someone else posted some of the theory online.

    This is a good basis of understanding yin yang theory in yourself and others body movements and how they interact. But believe me when I say this is just the beginning. Based on this basic model there are better and worse ways of interacting. These can be shown and practiced in partner drills, the theory can be articulated in solo movements that form a basis for broader movement. The basis being "absorb" and "project" for example. O don't really see it taught in many other systems this way. But you know what would be the point in going any further right; because "it's all the same" anyway.. :p
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  5. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    That doesn't make any sense to me.

    Muscles only do one thing: contract. If you really had your mind set on fudging the human muscular system into the yin yang model, I would have thought it would make more sense to start with the different types of fibres.
     
  6. embra

    embra Valued Member

    There are different interpretations of Yin&Yang and the contractive/expansive muscle cycle - and indeed these can be referenced in TaiJiQuan classic texts, though the western interpretations of the pinyin as applied martially are fairly subjective. This means that without substantial experience and immersion, discussion is generally meaningless on a forum like this. Even then, a lot depends on what you have been taught, by whom and in what context and frame of reference i.e. it is all specific to what you have learned, absorbed and developed.

    What Cloudz does point out correctly, is that this is just the begining. In the system that I train in - and Cloudz does as well I think, there is a lot of emphasis on Neigong - 'internal strength'/'meritous work' dependent on pinyin translation, where development of the nervous and sensory system under physical duress is developed into movement, posture, weight change and stillness.

    There are martial applications built using Neigong. Neigong then penetrates into PH, armed and unarmed applications. In turn this develops into analysis of the exchange of Forces, Bagua theory, even I-Ching change theory. This is the Practical TaiJiQuan/Wudang TaiJiQuan that I train in, but others may have totally different and/or orthogonal perfectly valid experience to share.

    Discussions about breath etc, are scratching the very top and no more, usually the bio-pixie toothpaste plasma of the fairies that live under the mushrooms at the bottom of the garden.
     
  7. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Is this because it is arbitrary attribution of nebulous concepts?
     
  8. embra

    embra Valued Member

    The basic 4 forces of Peng (up), Lu(sideways), Ji(straight forward) and An(down); can be developed relatively easily from 4 directions Pushing Hands, which is common to a lot of TaiJiQuan teaching. Developing these further with greater movement and application and 'Gong' (Neigong minus the 'Nei') is much more subjective, and seems to be have been passed down only through oral and instructional tradition, rather than explicitly writing in manuals etc - then it does start to become quite nebulous.

    The next basic 4 forces Zhai/Tsai(up rooting, pulling down), Liah(spiralling/splitting), Zhou(shoulder barge/disrupt/stroke), Jhou(forearm barge/stroke/control) are a bit more involved, but go into the same thrust of developing Pushing Hands and applications skills, using 'Gong'.

    In time Neigong gets into Forms i.e. you study how to transition moves with greater use of nerve impulse control.

    Serious Neigong development (not me - I do not have the time and motivation to do this every day for 30-60 minutes) allows you the possibility to absorb and deflect hard physical blows.

    However, I have some context. When I go to some Baguazhang classes, I have sufficient contextual development that I can make a passing and credible effort because of this, but I cannot develop their systems completely - I do not go enough and they are too difficult to find in my many travels.

    Context is everything.

    Apologies for any bad pinyin translations.
     
  9. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Sure they only "contract" as defined by that model and term based on the contextual level it is applied. But this isn't that model. I don't think it's fudging, as it makes sense in terms of that model and what it describes. You can actually experience it and feel it working as described. You would admit that your body does more than simply contract right?

    Pulling and pushing is maybe the easiest way to understand it. As an example, so you take my arm and pull me. It's the muscles on the inside the soft part that are most utilized or best utilized. That is not to say that all the muscles do no "contract".
    Now when you push rather than pull, it's the Yang side or Yang muscles that we want to feel/ "best utilize" as they are for projecting or expanding the body outward - this is not to say that the muscles themselves do not "contract".

    It's a different model, to understand what we are doing. Trying to apply the terminology of another model is not how you try to understand it - and it's use-fullness.

    What was written talked about flexion and extension of muscles; not contraction. I don't know how other models understand those terms to be honest with you (flexion/extension). I can understand them through the terms and exercises of "absorb" and "project". You can in turn look from the outside and see the body expand and contracts. From the inside or muscle basis on what they actually physically do on their own - it's "contract" - but what is that causing to happen - that's what this is articulating to you.

    There is always individual parts and interaction within the whole, but it's trying to describe what the body does as a whole and how to understand it that way. Rather than on an individual muscle basis. Saying all your muscles simply "contract" is not the level that helps us move the way we seek to move the body..

    What do they cause the body to do - think of it that way. When your body expands/ projects/ pushes outward or contracts/absorbs/pulls inward. This is the differentiation of the role muscles play in effecting whole body movement we want to articulate and describe with that model.

    Does that make a bit more sense ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  10. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Kind of...

    Flexion and extension are functions of joints, not muscles (though obviously muscles are involved).

    I just don't get the advantage of learning an abstract system of archaic terms over learning what the body is actually doing. What are the end results that show this to be a superior way of visualising biomechanics, over actual, evidence-based biomechanics?

    I can get it if you're just into the mystique or whatever, but I don't get the practical benefits.
     
  11. embra

    embra Valued Member

    You have to get emerged into it, to gain some context.

    In Bristol, for Wudang TJQ, you can go to Martin Egan, a big Motorhead Lemmy lookalike type of geezer, somewhere up Horfield.
     
  12. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Thanks for the instructor tip (I'm not in Bristol at the moment, but maybe I'll try and find him next year).

    However, with the greatest of respect, that in no way answers my question.

    I accept that I have no idea of the terminology involved in CIMA, but surely the advantages of CIMA over other systems and ways of exercising and fighting should be easy to summarise in concise layman's terms?
     
  13. embra

    embra Valued Member

    Not sure that CIMA is any better than any other system(s), just more based on traditional Taoism (and all the mystical mumbo-jumbo that that entails.)

    Too some depth I only know Wudang PTCC, but I can see some parallels in Baguazhang that I try to train in, when possible. Without understanding force analysis and Neigong development, this would be very difficult.

    Initially - the 1st 2 years or so, I could make no sense of this system at all, other than evasion took me out of trouble. I was and still am moving a lot, so I did not enjoy constant tuition. It took me quite some patience and perseverance to develop anything.
     
  14. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    You wouldn't get the practical benefits from this.

    What you said about the joints, to me is a good illustration of some of the issues here. It's not simply a function of the joint. The joint and muscles all connect and work as a whole with other stuff besides.

    The model you jumped to apply reduces and segregates everything to understand how things work in that way. A joint doesn't extend or flex anything by itself, so excuse me if it's redundant to what interests me and how to practically move well.

    Extension or flexion just as well and properly describe what an arm or leg does. The central joint of those body parts is a big part of that. But what about the torso that hasn't joints per se but a whole spine thingy. The way we talk about the flexion and extension of an arm applies to the torso as well in this model for example. A model has to fit it's use, and this is not for academic purposes.

    No one gives you a modern up to date anatomy course to get you moving the way they want you to in any martial art, so I don't see your point either. And it's been that way for long enough for me to know that it's not as important as you want to make out.
     
  15. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    I'll try and give one practical example of this seeing as I brought it up. But understand that it is basic and an example. Lets' call the lines down the sides of your torso 'neutral lines'. If you bring up your arms and keep them on this neutral line from there you are in a position where you can about equally apply push and pull to good effect. As you come inside those lines pulling becomes more natural and easier to do to good effect. As you move your arms apart outside those lines - projecting, extending becomes better/ more natural to how your body works - in our model..).

    All this applies in reverse too. So if I am the one you are going to push and pull, if my arms are outside those lines and you want to pull me there is a direction to pull the arms that is much easier/more effective than the other. that direction in this particular example is towards the outside. So my arms are outside the lines, you pull towards you but not towards the inside/ or straight line as many might but further to the outside. Try it. Compare and contrast how resisting the different ways it can be done feels. This way is harder to resist.

    This is a form of understanding principle before technique. Usually techniques are taught, then slowly people start to grasp some of the principles. The approach we are touching on is to look to work from the direction of principles towards techniques. Or dare I say, internal to external..
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  16. embra

    embra Valued Member

    In general, folk are a bit to keen to bypass technique to get to principle, which can lead to some strange perceptions IMHO.

    The more you know the basic techniques, the easier it is to adapt them to explore and express principles.
     
  17. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    The biology model is only as reductionist as you want it to be, or your understanding allows. The difference is, the technical jargon of biology and medicine is universally applicable across disciplines. The esoteric jargon of CIMA has commonalities across similar disciplines, but does not seem to even be universally applicable in similar fields, hence the amount of argument about nomenclature and terminology that pervades the internet.

    I think you are imagining me to believe that technical jargon is more important than I actually do. My whole point is not getting why CIMA practitioners feel the need to shroud their practice in esoteric jargon. I reckon a lot of those ancient, wise Chinese dudes would probably be smacking their foreheads at people nowadays not using the best and most accurate models to describe their practice. I believe the Chinese were kinda into science?

    PS. The spine is a series of joints. And yes, flexion and extension does describe what limbs do, but they couldn't do that without joints, so your argument is eating its tail...
     
  18. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Yes, I understand perfectly what you are describing.

    Weirdly, I know no Chinese, nor have I studied an "internal" art!

    Are you saying that all "internal" means, in the context of MA, is learning principles before you apply them?
     
  19. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Aren't fundamentals supposed to be applications of principles? Fundamentals being technique broken down to the basic levels. I would interpret your quoted post above as "people skip fundamentals" or alternatively "people don't understand the connection between fundamentals and principles, so they learn bad habits."

    I think the problem is that technique is taken out of context. Technique is applied in training in a specific context. This context revolves around specific situations and principles, but when needed in the real world, it is the experience and combination of many principles that is needed.

    Training = specific principles
    Real world = combination of all principles

    It is in the combination of principles that is the most difficult as contradictions arise that must be explored and understood, so there are no longer any conflicts.
     
  20. embra

    embra Valued Member

    This kind of thing comes out in Weapons a lot - where folk only think about their blade and not the opponent's trailing blade (secondary threat) once application has dispensed with the primary threat.

    It becomes difficult in ICMA because the applications are complex, not standard, and folk learn different material, even within the same system.

    In summary technique is neither trivial or irrelevant to principle. Principle is what comes out of a serious amount of blood, sweat, the odd tear, some pain here and there.

    What I see is folk are selective about the principles that they wish to use, and neglect the technique. In TQJ, this mandates a lot being focussed on Pushing Hands and the subsequently most relevant principles, but this misses out a lot IMHO.
     

Share This Page