Neutralization (Hua Jin)

Discussion in 'Internal Martial Arts' started by IMAS, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Well my understanding is that 'deflecting' isn't really what we are about. That's more a technique of your external styles. In Taiji we 'neutralise', we 'go along with', but we don't 'divert' or 'deflect' any more than we 'block'.
     
  2. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Gents, I’m getting a bit confused reading this thread.

    The below would help me understand this intellectual side of this debate:

    Is deflection = neutralising?

    If so, would maintaining your structure against the opponent force be “using force” or “not using force”?

    Is “using force” defined as “generating force and putting it in contact with the opponent”?

    Other than not being there, is it possible to ever not use force? Are we not always using some force to even stand up right, sit, breathe?
     
  3. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Well, you're talking about yielding which is evasion at contact. This is not the same as deflecting. However I would include both as part of the broader "neutralizing" in TCC.

    I would find it odd that an art with a classic saying along the lines of " 4oz moves a thousand lbs" has no use for deflecting.

    However this is not to say that yielding and deflecting won't both be used depending on what's needed or even combined. By combining the methods of deflecting and yielding you can really use the minimum of force. However if you can purely yield or evade then that is even better. But not always will this be possible, this is the practical side of deflecting, because it won't always be possible to completely evade every force whether from contact or from non contact.

    For clarity: Yield/ Yielding is the word I use to describe evading force from/with contact. From non contact I would simply say evade/evasion.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2013
  4. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Hi Johnno,

    Regarding the external/internal thing, I wouldn’t buy in to that too much, its mostly redundant in my experience. I've posted this before, have a look, might be something interesting for you:

    http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1074709065&postcount=76

    With regards to the “'deflecting' isn't really what we are about” and “we 'go along with', but we don't 'divert' or 'deflect' any more than we 'block”', here is a hypothetical:

    Your opponent throws a strike to your face, your arms, forearms specifically are in the way of your face, the strike comes in, you angle your forearm at 45 degrees to the incoming force, the opponents strike gets deflected to the side and creates an opening for you to use the same arm that just deflected to strike the opponents unguarded face where his deflected strike left an opening.

    If we are too rigid and always adhere to the 'go along with' idea, or sticking to the opponent, that means that that same arm of yours that did the deflection, would be following the opponents strike away from you in to which ever direction. But what is the point of this? Sure, you may be able to do something else with it, or perhaps your opponent will counter it, etc, etc, anything may happen, though certainly the event has been prolonged when it could have been ended and this prolonged encounter does not work in your favor.
     
  5. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    I think Cloudz makes an important point here, though perhaps indirectly.

    One should always be responding to the conditions as they arise within that moment, this is where sensitivity and awareness give you an advantage. If your movement is constrained by a limitation or belief in how you should or should not move, are you really following the ideas of formlessness, letting go, etc etc.. I’d say the opposite, if you constrain and limit your movement, you limit your potential and move away from the formless ideal of Tai Chi.

    Likewise, if you adhere strictly to only certain ways of moving/fighting, you will certainly miss openings and opportunities. This surely cannot be a positive thing. There is a framework, there are methods, but sticking to a certain method at the expense of efficiency seem ludicrous and will cause stagnation. I guess this is also the difference in making your art alive and it being dead. Taking in to account the importance of the idea of “change” in Tai Chi, to not change would IMO be heresy.
     
  6. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    My understanding is that it is part of it, yes.

    I think I know where Johnno is coming from. When I did Wu style (one particular branch), the emphasis was much more on yielding rather than deflecting. With another Wu branch it was much closer to some Yang style that I have encountered where it's much more a deflection due to the emphasis on maintaining a certain level of Peng or structure in the arm.

    To yield against say a push on the arm aimed at your torso you can't maintain that '"peng" and
    turn from the waist:that would be deflecting. you have to let the arm fold in, allow the force into you and yield the body too.

    The only time you need to apply some deflecting force is to protect your centre/ centre line if you can't move it out of the way yourself. This can be quite minimal in a push hands drill.

    I would say yes to the second question. It's about how you use force against the other guys force. To maintain structure you should be able to ground and absorb the others force into you.

    Whilst you may be using internal force dynamics to maintain structure and other things, you're not issuing it into or against another force.

    So, maintaining your structure, (for me) is not really using force as we have meant it so far in this discussion.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2013
  7. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Cheers Cloudz!

    I half remember you showing me some drill from the Wu stuff that fits the above description i.e. "you have to let the arm fold in, allow the force into you and yield the body too".

    Cool, that’s pretty much how I was thinking about it.
     
  8. Dan Bian

    Dan Bian Neither Dan, nor Brian

    From your observation.
    Have you tried?

    It's not just the horizontal turn of the waist, but the shift of the weight to the rear. That is movement in two directions; sideways and aft-wards. You can also add a rising or descending intention to the motion as well.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    Sorry, I was a bit dim there. To talk about deflecting and then to say we don't try deflect doesn't make a right lot of sense! :eek:

    The idea I was trying to explore was that we aren't trying to 'divert' or 'redirect' the opponents force, but rather to neutralise it, which being deflected can be a manifestation of (although I don't think it's the only one.) When I was typing, I think I was thinking of 'deflect' in the sense of actively 'diverting', rather than in the sense of something deflecting off you, which is a more accurate use of the word and which I think is more in keeping with the principles of Taiji, as I understand them.

    Apologies for confusion caused.
     
  10. Dan Bian

    Dan Bian Neither Dan, nor Brian

    The way I think about it is,

    Rather than trying to force the opponents attack off-course, you bring it in, and allow it to sling-shot off because of your own movement, which is with the opponent, rather than against.
    As if, you are a spinning ball, and the opponent is a stone thrown at you - when it connects, your own spin causes it to ricochet off, without having to force it.
     
  11. YouKnowWho

    YouKnowWho Valued Member

    To neutralise an incoming "push", for

    - 1 contact point, it may work for upper arm or shoulder (you can twist your waist). It won't work for neck, chin, face, or forehead (to twist your waist won't be able to help you).
    - 2 contact points, it may work for pushing on right shoulder and pulling on right leg (your can twist your waist to your right). It won't work for pushing on right shoulder and pulling on left leg (you can't turn your waist).
    - 3 contact points, it also won't work for pulling on right arm, pushing on left shoulder, and pulling on left leg (you can't turn your waist).

    Since it's very unlikely that your opponent will only "push" your upper arm or shoulder, this make "to neutralise an incoming push" almost has no combat value at all. If we talk about "punch" or "kick", it's very difficult to neutralize a face punch of head kick if not impossible.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2013
  12. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Yeah, that good indirect point from Mr. Wang above.

    Range is something that should be taken in to account. My understanding, though I would say this is style specific (even within Tai Chi), is that you want to go past striking range but not enter a wrestling range. This way you can make contact with the opponents arms as a result of him needing to defend himself, if he does not provide his arms then you have nothing stopping your strikes. If he does defend with his arms you use them to unbalance, control and create an opening (providing you have the sensitivity, structure and know the structural functionality and related angles). I guess the term is bridging.

    Though, I have seen Tai Chi styles which seem to focus a lot more on the wrestling range, most notable in my experience, from some exponents of Hun Yuan Tai Chi.

    Whatever the style, I think it’s important to know which range you are working towards and learn how to get there and stay there. Though ideally you want to have something for all ranges, and I think most styles do give some consideration to all ranges (bar groundwork), but that is a lot of studying and partner work for one lifetime. I guess unless you have much free time to develop competency in all ranges, for normal busy folk it’s more a matter of specializing or generalizing .
     
  13. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    I'm not much more than a beginner in internal martial arts, but I like to give my input on this concept of range.

    I don't believe it is anything more than theory that you can control the range other than close-in grappling (where you can grab a hold or pin someone). Any further range you can only control in any of the following situations:

    - if you run away and run faster than the opponents (or opponent is unable to pursue)
    - if there is physical barrier the prevents movement in a direction (such as a barrier between you and the opponents)
    - if you have a weapon or something that keeps the opponents from closing on you

    All other situations for controlling distance are just theory, IMHO. You can believe you can keep distance with your martial skills, but that all goes down the drain when surprised or multiple attackers come in from different directions. The more common scenario, IMHO, is that the reason people get this false sense of controlling distance is because you and your opponent have an agreement not to change distance (such as a formal agreement/rules of engagement, or an unsaid agreement out of caution or respect).

    I believe real hand-to-hand combat is like an accordion... you close (clash together), then separate, then close again, then separate, then close, etc. Until someone is unable to separate or close.

    I would also like to contribute on the deflection and neutralization, but I will do that later in another post.
     
  14. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    I wouldn't say theory, more like an ideal. I don't think this is style specific though i. e. Internal/External, style vs style, etc.

    In terms of being able to maintain or attain, it's a matter of skill and strength. If someone is more skilled or stronger and you don't know what your doing, then surely you won't be able to control many variables. Conversely, if your more skilled or stronger, then you may control some variables, including range. Though, you should at least know what range you are most efficient in and attempt to keep the fight there and likewise try to avoid the range you are not effective in. However, it's always better to have something for any range, but that's not always feasible.

    Also, I think in general that accordion type encounters you refer to are generally a manifestation of fighting to establish dominance i. e. male dominance displays, like deer rutting, serves much the same purpose in society.

    If you put a skilled fighter in front of a layman, then it usually looks very different. You can see this particularly with boxers in street fights, a few vids on YouTube on this. The boxers range is there and maintained, while the opponents look like they keep trying to come in with haymakers and generally fall all over the place, then sometimes they are just completely overwhelmed and can't do much more other than take hits. I'd post some vids showing this, but am on my mobile and it's too much of a pain, but if you Google 'boxer street fight' I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
     
  15. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Boxers are not controlling the range with boxing punches. Boxers use back peddle, circle/pivot, and side stepping to "run away" from an opponent and counter attack. This is running away method.
     
  16. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    I don't think anyone said that, but I would add that it's a combination of many factors, not just footwork. Regardless, footwork is certainly a big part of any fighters skill set, or at least it should be. Though I wouldnt look at it as a separate entity, it's part and parcel in any legit system which has standup.
     
  17. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    I may have misunderstood. I thought someone was saying they could stay out of grappling range without moving away. What is to stop a level change and double leg takedown?

    If it is a frame that stops it, you are already in grappling range. They can attack your limbs.
     
  18. inthespirit

    inthespirit ignant

    Sorry Rebel, I'm a bit lost. Are you asking how to stop a level change and double leg takedown using Tai Chi?
     
  19. YouKnowWho

    YouKnowWho Valued Member

    If we consider our spine as the "door axis" and arms and shoulders as "door frame". When our opponent pushes on our shoulder or arm, our shoulder and arm can rotate along our spine, the door axis. If our opponent push toward our spine, since the door axis can't be rotated, the neutralise won't work in that situation. This is why the best angle to attack is when your leading foot, and both of your opponent's feet are all in a straight line. When our opponents try to attack from that angle but we try not to let that happen, it will turn into a footwork game.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2013
  20. IMAS

    IMAS Banned Banned

    Thank you Master Wang, it is a good practice to grab the upper arms of the opponent to push or pull to avoid retaliation by striking before moving on to other techniques. It is commonly taught in taijiquan to do horizontal, vertical, frontal and diagonal circular motions with the torso to generate hand movements to break the grabbing and retaliate. In facts, the forearms are free to move but not within striking distance unless the upper arm or arms are free.
     

Share This Page