[QUOTE=Empty_Cup;1192018]Great post. I can tell you understood the heart of the analogy. Never thought of these as aspects of the same style or even the same technique. Cool.
I have no experience with Wu or Sun style TJQ, did you say you practiced both?[/QUOTE]
Just Wu style, started in 1988. The teachers I studied from were so overwhelmingly competent that there was no point in and no time to try anything else. I’ve spent the years since studying the basics, the nuts and bolts of what they were showing as much as possible. In 2002 after my last visit to Hong Kong the family decided I should teach.
[QUOTE=Bacon;1192063]Yeah the principles are great as a very very very very very very basic explanation but the sprawl is a very basic takedown defense which can be explained technical terms. This part of the body does this at this time. Your principles may be great, and may help to a point, but those who train technically will always have an edge. If you’re having trouble with counting a jab do you want to be told that you have to be more spherical, let the chi flow better, or step in and off line more and raise your shoulder. That is the point I’m making.
And I do Kung fu… But it’s not the only are I train or have trained. You’ll have to do a little better than falling back on tradition. As basic metaphors they’re okay but beyond day 1 explanations to a new student these aren’t great. Considering most folks here probably have martial arts experience technical explanations on power generation, redirection, counting, footwork, etc are going to be far more useful that “oooh we’re like this type of ball.”[/QUOTE]no one is going to say those things at those times, unless they are relevant .
its not like you just walkaround like a retard or a fortune cookie and just ramble unrelated nonsense.:rolleyes:
I agree with the fact that traditionalist need to get with the times and use technical terms. if thats what you are truely saying.
[QUOTE=Empty_Cup;1191298]So there is a great analogy my sifu mentioned and I’ve been reflecting on recently. The analogy goes like this:
Compare the internal styles to rubber balls.
Taijiquan - is like attacking a ball off-center. Attacks are deflected and the ball compresses, the ball uses some of its own force to knock the attack away.
Bagua - is like a rotating ball. Attacks are neutralized and the spinning action is simultaneously defensive and offensive.
Xingyi - is like a “thrusting” ball. It moves straight forward, and bounces the opponent directly.
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
1 Water is a better analogy for tai chi.
2 Ba gua, your spine is like a reel or axis, your hands and legs circling around it
black dragon circling a pillar is better analogy.
3 Xing yi is spear. your hands are spears, your waist is the horse carriage, your legs are horses.
