I remember - years ago - going to a Mike Sigman seminar on Peng Jing (WHAT is the 'correct' spelling???) - Peng is an aspect of Tai Chi - but it is one that again - you could devote a lifetime to study... That's what I LOVE about the martial arts - there is sooooooooooooooo much that is interesting, sooooooooooooo much that is worthwhile and also soooooooooo much that is just FUN to do. I go to a karate lesson on most Monday nights - happened to arrive early last night, so got out some kick pads and made a 'hill' to practice forward rolling breakfalls over - why - cause it was FUN. All the best. Robert.
re : grasp swallows tail (cross posting rob!) ok.. perhaps that is a little too minimalist, even for my tastes.. hmm.. if I can get away with the minimum necessary, I probably will. :Angel: ..but it has to be better than the Montague route surely..
oooh that does sound like fun. Most people groan when my zks teacher gets the mats out in tcc classes. not me; ha, ha
In pinyin it is "peng jin" or "peng jing." The second character, 勁 has two acceptable pronunciations. It's not as confusing in Chinese because the tones are different, but when writing in English I alway use "jin" to distinguish it from another "jing" frequently used in CMA/qigong, that is, 精 , meaning "essences."
The goal, I suppose depends on what one wants out of their practice, but basically you should be striving to cultivate and store as much energy/chi as you can. First is the physical part (body development and integration), and then is the mind/intent part (simply stated). Once that begins to happen, what you do, and what you do with that is entirely up to you. Of course forms aren't the only way to do that, but that is the scope of our discussion, so we can stick with that for the time being. All the classics and senior teachers always say if you're not doing the form correctly and with the right intent you will never achieve this goal. So, with that said, if the form is non-martial in nature and isn't performed the traditional Yang family way, what would lead one to believe that they can reach this goal by practicing it? Another thought.... I've never heard or read about some advanced teacher who ONLY practiced the 24 form and also had powerful and advanced skillz. have you? I'm not saying the 24 form is useless, I started with it too. But, imho, the 24 form is like using training wheels for a bicycle. Useful in some ways to get you comfortable with balance, some footwork, and you might even say technique, but the government forms were not designed to get you to the higher level of energy and chi development (matter of fact the government discouraged it). The movements are not traditionally authentic - too soft, too flowery, too much, etc. imo. There are valid reasons why the forms were created a certain way, and practiced a certain specific way depending on school and style, but the 24 form was thrown together rather quickly as far as I know (I think Chen Wei Ming had something to do with it), and couldn't possibly equate to the traditional forms that the the Yangs created and practiced. On another note, those forms are part and parcel with Chinese politics, meaning non-martial. They believe authentic martial arts are for brutes and such, and if that is true, then why would they sponsor forms that WERE martial. They wouldn't. Just my opinion. On another note, 12 years with the 24 form? I mean no disrespect, but you should probably push yourself a little bit harder. I know it takes time to really understand a form, but I would think one would be extremely good at it by now. Since you are a TCC teacher, I have to ask, aren't you even interested in the more traditional aspects of TCC?
Hello, OK, Here we will have to agree to differ - I can go with physical development - Tai Chi as exercise and I can go with Mental development - Tai Chi for relaxation and concentration. But there is (to me) nowhere further, since I see no proof of esoterics - You can't cultivate/store chi as chi is a feeling / bio-mechanical process not an energy. No, but I'm not claiming to be an 'advanced teacher' of Tai Chi Been there, had a go, not impressed - Long Yang form is no better IMNSHO than the 24 or even the 8 move form that I do - for either physical or mental development - and since I didn't do the long form as a martial form - I can't comment on that aspect. I have also dabbled over the years with various instructors/styles/forms of Tai Chi and again not seen anything that currently would have me come back for more. That doesn't mean that I haven't met some excellent martial artists who practice Tai Chi - I have - just that for me I haven't seen the benefit in following their specific path. I'll give you an example... Pushing hands. Pushing hands teaches a whole raft of skills that are combat suitable but I find that they fail my personal first combat test. My test is - does the exercise / drill concentrate on you and your opponent being face to face? If it does, it's NOT - for me - an acceptable drill. For the same reason I rarely engage in Karate sparring anymore... Consentual violence and the practice of consentual drills is not what I'm into. Now, does this mean that my Tai Chi is not as good as it could be if I did 'proper Tai Chi'? - YES. Do I care ? - No. I'm very happy with the Tai Chi that I practise currently though I expect it will (like all aspects of my martial arts) change and develop as the years go by. An interesting seminar that I went to on Saturday given by Simon Watson on the 24 - about eight instructors (some I know to be excellent martial artists - at least a couple of professional instructors there and one I know of who is an instructor in Kung Fu and currently studying Escrima to obtain instructors credentials) - and twenty+ experienced practitioners - most of whom do other stuff and long forms and whatever - However there was NEW stuff about the 24 that we all learnt. Now some of the aspects presented may not be of interest to all - as Simon said "You take away what you want" - but the point is that there was and is DEPTH to the 24. If you think about it, I suggest that ANY Tai Chi form has the same depth as any other form simply because Tai Chi actually isn't about the FORM anyway it's about a set of underlying principles. All the best. Robert.
Hello, Actually I lied - over Christmas I did the 88 in Malaysia and enjoyed that and a few weeks ago up in Scotland did the Wudang Square form and that was fun too - I would do more of both if it were not for the fact that I train or teach martial arts about 5+ times a week at the moment and haven't got additional free time. All the best. Robert.
I'm sorry sir, but I just have to disagree with you on just about every single point you made. You definitely see things from another view which I am not privy to and I am just fine and dandy with that!! Instead of going back and forth with you endlessly, I'll just leave it like that. Either way, the sun will not stop shining on our pretty little heads
Hi 'tccstudent' and All, Agreed - and - Damn - we will probably both get kicked out of MAP for TOS violation - I mean we don't agree with each other's way of doing Tai Chi but we are not screaming and kicking and calling each other names.... (Obviously we are impostors and not real martial artists at all). Wishing you all the best with your Tai Chi. Yours. Robert.
Hi Brido, Server ate 1st reply... 88 in Malaysia KL Hilton - instructor who teaches there once a week - met quite by chance - did 24 and a couple of run throughs of the 88. Scotland - Arran Lamlash - Glen Williams - Very nice man and kind instrructor. All the best. Robert.
Quality of practice is what is important isn't it? You can practice for an hour and do 2 long forms, or 6 CMC forms or more 24 forms. They all offer ample opportunities for studying the principles involved. If anything, looking at fewer postures can enable you to look at particular principle to a greater depth. I attended a Wolfe Lowenthal seminar a few years back and in the two hour form session we never got past ward off right (2nd posture of the form). It was great. My legs were killing me by the end though.
Hey VR, just can't leave this alone.. I am surely obsessed! I agree about having the whole foot on the ground. I think though we should bear in mind the 'bubbling spring'. I would argue that the focus in dancing is not from the upper body (at higher levels..) not from the feet either.. but from the midsection. The ruler! legs and feet are sung for transference through the ground not into it-this for tcc function is too static, but 'rooting' trains to create this pathway. . I agree you shouldn't be too connected to the ground. Some forms raise the heel on delivery, and some forms have 'follow stepping'. For good tcc you want to be moving 'through' the ground not into it. you are moving from & through your midsection kwa whilst keeping the six harmonies alligned. from the centre through the 'trunks and roots' not from them. Sameways the 'ruler' moves the upper body through the back and not arms or hands 'moving'. rooting in itself will do nothing for you if pushed with the right trajectory, likewise when issuing you don't issue into the ground, but into/through your opponent. more regards 'tippy toes ' here:http://www.emptyflower.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=Xing;action=display;num=1141080824 'tippy toes' from post 5 - interesting form & discussion on that page Regards. Buddy - I just noticed you were the thread starter.. well, hello there .
In TCC and a lot of things we want sung, which has connotations of looseness and relaxation as well as sinking. In dancing, you want to be loose and relaxed, but you are floating. You can be just as agile in both, but one looks different from the other. Thinking about the torso, in tcc we want to sink the chest, relax the belly, pull up the spine, drop the tailbone, etc. This is not the case in dancing where the chest is raised, the tailbone is not dropped. There are purely artistic qualities that are desired in dancing. In tcc we don't want to be expressive in this way. We want to be true to principle, regardless of how pretty it looks.
I think the only real difference between any martial arts form and a dance is the design and intent. The primary concern of a dance is that it be pretty to look at. The primary concern of a martial arts form is that it instill fighting concepts and train the body. Being pretty is a side benefit of doing a martial arts form well, but it's not the goal. That being said, I think Taiji masters would make good dancers. I find that the more I practice qigong the more "light" my movements feel. What's more, it increases overall body-awareness, mobility, flexibility and coordination--all elements beneficial to dance. Taiji may emphasize being "rooted," but you also have to be agile. The goal of Taiji is not to turn yourself into a mountain that can't be pushed over, but rather a very sturdy but highly mobile fighter.
agreed., sinking, but not sunk - but we'll come to that. Always floating ? - I think you are right that there is 'floating' in dance - no doubt. Maybe boxing too - under taiji auspices. One of things I had to get out of the habit of was the 'bouncing' around as my teacher put it. I'm gonna have to look this up. To see what the classics say regards this. As I remember it it is neither to float or be sunk.. like an anchor for example.. To me there is a continnuum of motion through & from the midsection. this part both connect and seperates the upper and lower body. it seperates for agile moving/repositioning and connects - also through/with movement for contact (issuing or receiving). well ok - maybe this is one way of looking at it.. ok my take on it: not floating not rooted but a cycle of connection through the ground.. training principles - that provide the vehicle. I don't know that 'sinking the chest is appropriate. hollow the chest I think it is.. is this hollow inside the chest maybe ? so - not puffed out - or sunk. open and sung I think I might describe it.. the breath is starting in the lower diaphram and coming up into the chest (hollow). it opens and relaxes the chest, it doesn't sink it. A tcc guy shouldn't end up looking like he's hunched over (empty chest/full belly). I have come across this - I don't think it is correct to focus so much on the belly.. Not in disagreement here, principle for most things will vary. Sure the idea of tcc is not to look pretty or to be 'dancing'. My main point of contention is the idea that tcc rooting is strictly 'heavy' in connotation. The idea of heavily saturated dense power is in and coming out through the body. What I am trying to get at is this should be held primarily in the midsection expressed out from there through the internal structure and through the body - through the ground- through movement - not into or from what is commonly considered our 'root' - ie. the ground connection with/at the feet. sinking is just a one aspect of a process of moving. when you sink does not mean your are sunk. you are just transitioning through a kind of 'cycle'. Nothing much more, nothing much less. sinking is just a phase in the cycle of movement - not an end point. regards
Try this for size! "In my interpretation, if you have contact with someone and you do not let his force enter you, you yield. So far so good. But what I commonly see are people retreating, i.e., physically moving back or around. This is in my humble opinion only correct on a beginners level. Not even sure about that. Back to the original of "getting free form force": I was taught to see this as a result of Song San Tong Kong, i.e., Relaxation, Dispersion, Connection/Penetration and Emptying Maybe I can shed some light on Song San: Song is one of the most common Tai Chi terms everyone is talking about. Relaxation. While it is crucial it does not make sense without San, dispersion. Relaxation is just that, relaxing. If you have relaxation on it's own you have the wet noodle effect. Not only must you relax, but you have to (mentally) disperse (San) any incoming force, only that allows you to truly relax, and true dispersion only happens by true relaxation. They are interrelated. Anyway, the effect is that you can yield without (moving at the point of contact) at all. And you don't feel any additional pressure building up there as well. You just relax and disperse the other's force, all but 4 ounces. I mean this literally, you can see the other one pushing hard, but the other's force does not reach you, only his yi and energy. This decoupling is difficult and the effect feels odd at first. BUT it allows you to make use of those 4 ounces, his incoming energy and his yi. Once you free yourself from almost all his force while still accepting his energy and yi, things become very interesting. On a higher level the 4 ounces will be reduced to (almost) nothing." So you don't see it, and unless you feel and experience you don't believe it and you diss it.
