Well I may have found it easier to leave if no one had spat at me as I left. "Dang jin" means what exactly, and how does it relate to muscular activity? Do you mean rounding the dang? Where would I find this "propping up force" with regard to the legs in the Taiji classics? I'm aware of "propping up" the head, but can't remember anything about the legs - I'm not saying it isn't there, only that I might need to read what it says. Please remember that Yang Zhendou is a 4th generation Yang incidentally, so if the idea is from him, I'd ideally prefer an earlier source. Regarding: No, well maybe not, but with so many conflicting views it is important to remember in light of sweeping comments such as "Dang jin is fundimental to CMA especially tai chi." that there certainly isn't anything which could be considered consensual enough to make such a statement. I personally think the Wus are wrong to lean, many Zheng Manqing people would agree with me, as would many Chen stylists. I personally think that people use a lot of postures and techniques that as I understand it contravene the double heavy and double light rule. There's certainly nothing even approaching a consensus on what that principle means. There are also radically differing views on what reeling silk is and how important it is. I'm with Bruce Lee - Chinese martial arts are "a classical mess." We can say what we consider to be wrong using the methodologies we were taught. We can pressure test the many theories and approaches to find what works best, assuming we are open minded enough to do so. But we cannot say anything absolute about the rules of Chinese martial arts. We can be aware though that a human arm cannot bend itself or get closer to the body without contracting the biceps. And we can make statements about how gravity, inertia, and momentum act on the human body, with a degree of confidence.
Hmm, let me see now, my favorite tai chi fighting technique……I think its got to be rollover and take strike to stomach, it’s the best technique to neutralize your opponents fist!
JK, Just curious here, I was always taught that double heavy is 2 things: 1) obviously evenly spreading your body weight equally between the feet 2) keeping the mind and the weight in one foot or leg. Where as double light is: 1) the same idea with the mind 2) not having any root Just wondering what the misconceptions are with these concepts as this is all I have ever known.
Hi TQ, I'm still pretty ill at the moment, and I've just had some bad news, so I'm going to have to try to deal with this quickly, rather than going off to various books and searching both computers for the 6 or so definitions I've collected... Here are a couple: 1) Even weight distribution. Neither leg can move instantly if both are supporting your body weight, however 50 / 50 weight distribution is not avoided entirely in all styles. In fact, Chen Pan Ling defined 50 / 50 weight as an example of zhong ding. 2) Never have a yang right arm with a yang right leg, use cross lateral substantiality instead. Yang can't just mean active though, otherwise you couldn't ever do a warding off action (like single ward off) so it is fine for backhand strikes but not forehand strikes. The easiest way I explain it is that if your weight is going on to your left leg, you should also be turning left. If your weight is travelling on to your right leg, you should also be turning right. This is natural movement and there are no exceptions. If you can't do it for some reason, move your feet to make sure you can. It isn't double heavy if your left shoulder is being advanced with a torso turn as you take your weight on to your right leg. This definition also corresponds with you pan and zou gu. http://www.plumpub.com/info/Articles/art_zoryafivesteps.htm Regards, Joanna
who was spitting?? strange comment!!! i will find the excellent article by Master He Jinghan regarding this subject. He explains 'Dang Jin' in detail and uses examples from chen tai chi, yang tai chi and other internal style ... comparative images of great masters like Chen Fake. Its an excellent example. i have contacted Master He to see if i can get hold of it to post here. Put very simply, personally i think, Without 'Dang' you do not have sufficient or efficient structure in the lower body to enable you to perform or use Tai chi chuan for combat. we have been over this ... Chen Man ching himself leant in combat, chen chiao Wang leans in combat ... and you are combat orientated! So are you also saying that the yangs, the chens and Master Zheng .. .were also wrong. i agree completely. Which is why i think some of your comments saying people are WRONG or INCORRECT grate with people (for the record not with me ... i am happy to just train). WOW ... you are obsessed with the bicep issue. I have tried to show you that this application is the SMALLEST singular part of the puzzle. That it really doesnt mean a whole bunch within the scope of combative application of Ji. The punch methods i showed in my diagrams are not reliant on bicep strength ... i can make 50 more application diagrams for you if its needed to highlight that the bicep or isolation of the bicep is not of great importance to the application of ji. i could post one of your videos and highlight all the pushes and shoves you do as using muscular strength from isolated muscle contraction ... but it would just be petty. Asside from creating the diagrams ... if we meet we can share ideas it is that simple really ... i have my doubts as do you. no spitting here! lets move on .... i will find the article for you, i hope you will give it some honest attension. happy training Chris
Thanks Chris As you say, we've been over that. By my understanding, people should try not to lean as much as possible. It is about aiming for an ideal. If you deliberately lean you lean a lot more than when you're trying not to. Trying not to lean helps you discipline yourself to utilise better ways of generating power. And I didn't agree that Zheng was leaning in the picture you posted.
hi J, I think where we differ is in the idea that leaning to align with movement is not the ideal way of aligning. not leaning!!! you sure! Is Prof Zheng contriviening the classics here .. or have we got the classics wrong? cheers Chris
Ha - you didn't post all those pix. Yes, he's contravening the classics. Yes, he's wrong. We can't know how hard he was trying not to lean though.
Lu was the first posture that I ever saw an application for. Capture a right punch and break the elbow with the turn of the waist! Ouch! Also a throw too. What I like is that it puts the other guy off balance so you can do pretty much what you like. What I like is that the app's give you an idea that you then can explore and try to adapt to whatever situation. As for punching in the face? Me and a mate did just that to each other while sitting drinking beer in the Solid. Bouncers gave us a funny look so we stopped. It was good to know what one felt like should it ever happen again and I get a bit confused!
Imo, the classics are more steps and guides, rather than hard fast rules. For example: Don't lean, I think this is said to beginners in order to develop their root and learn to feel their dynamic center. Also this helps develop proper body alignment and the sensations of double weighted etc. Though, after a period of time, I think this "rule" must be dropped or bent, because we can all pretty much say (and have seen from the masters) that it is not terribly effective in combat. So they may adopt this classic instead: "Neither overextend nor underextend. The crooked should be made straight." by wangzongyue, even though it appears that Zheng is leaning in the pics his spine and back leg are very straight making his body like a dynamic wedge. When progressing forward I have seen this become a devastating combat technique. There is another classic implying that both a straight spine and leaning should BOTH be incorporated (imo): "In standing, the body should be erect and relaxed, able to respond immediately to an attack from any direction." by Wuyuxiang Grandmaster Jou Tsung Hwa relates this classic saying to becoming a dynamic Tai Chi sphere. So for me, the classics are road signs that guide you in the right direction, but not meant to be followed word for word in every situation.
Or, in the words of Adam Hsu, they are the Bible of all Kung Fu which all Chinese martial artists should obey. This says pretty clearly to me that you should remain perfectly upright and not committed in any one direction. If you are leaning in any direction, you are committed to it and would find responding to attacks from the opposite side pretty difficult.
JK, I agree with you, however, I never mentioned leaning before the attack. Even the pics show leaning during applications, or (the 3rd or 4th pic) seems to show as though he is pursuing an attack. I look at that quote to be similar to a resting ball, the ball has a center, it is not moving. However, once struck the ball absorbs and immediately rebounds, there is a response to the strike in the exact spot it took place. This is what Grandmaster Jou Tsung Hwa (imo) meant when he was talking about making the body like a "Tai Chi Sphere" where you have a central axis and maintain it, but respond to any attack similar to a ball.
Yes but staying upright while committing to an attack doesn't make sense, nor it is the best use of your body. No one implies that you walk about leaning like some Michael Jackson video.
And what about holding the head as if suspended from above? People don't like the classics, but they can't pretend they don't tell you to stay vertical. Even this is from Yang Chengfu Being "zhong zheng" - centrally upright - makes perfect sense to me and to my kickboxing teacher buddy. Just see how low you can sink while inclining as little as possible and keep trying to improve it. Fold your kua / hip joints as much as you bend your knees and you should be able to get pretty low without folding. When you get really low, there may be a subtle incline, but seek to eradicate it. Keep making adjustments to bring your weight back so that it falls through the centre of your foot arches - that helps too. Well, thats what I do, you are free to do what you like, but no one can pretend that it doesn't say to stay upright in the classics. Taoquan seems to think not leaning is for beginners - on the contrary - it is something to strive for forever. The reason the "Masters" lean is because they are not "Masters" - they are only human like you or me and they are not perfect. If they are idolised, people think "well look there's the great ...xyz... caught on camera - he's leaning. Despite everything he taught and despite the classics it must be OK to lean. Not leaning must mean something else. That's good because I can't stop leaning." It is a conclusion of convenience. I lean occasionally too, but I always try not to and if a student ever pointed it out, I'd say "well I shouldn't have - if my body ever contravenes the rules then my body is wrong. I must work harder. Do what I say, not as I do, because my movements are not always perfect."
Again too puritanical for me. If an opening presented its but required a lean, lean I would. Mostly I would remain in posture and in training atleast try to do so but in execution I must be prepared to do the unthinkable for victory. The Bear.
I think the idea of vertical spine is applicable depending on the scenario. The important bit is that the spine stays in alignment and connects the lower body and upper body together. If one is aiming to absorb or issue a larger force one should lean as this would safeguard the integrity of the spine and absorb or issue force more effectively. If one wishes to have the option of moving out of the way and/or rolling back the incoming force, then one should stay more vertical as this allows more manoeuvrability, i.e. ability to twist around a central axis. To try and rigidly stick to an idea and neglect the ability to change is a weakness, that which does not change is not alive. Edit: The bit on Dynamic Structire in this article gives some ideas as to why one may want to lean, IMO: http://www.yiquan.org.uk/art-pom1.html
hi Joanna, here is the article on Mabu and 'dang' http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/hejinghan-bagua/article?mid=156&prev=158&next=63&l=f&fid=5 enjoy! Cheers Chris
