is this facts?

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
, , , , , , , , ,
1

Some one said,

my concern is that YiQuanOne seems to think that standing stake and the bizarre flailing shown in Yi Quan training videos is a more effective way of developing the ability to hit somebody than, you know, trying to hit someone.

Keep in mind, I’m not a MMA nutrider, hell the counter-example I posted came from Xingyi!

I’m just a rational person who expects fighting arts, outside the bounds of fiction, to be rational.

it the above a fact and rational?

how many here knows how to generate power the Yiquan or ancient TCMA internal way?

how many here knows the power generation of Xing Yi ?

2

you may use a flour bag or beans bag

you practice your pi on the bag that placed on a strong table

you may practice beng against a hanging punching bag

you may practice zuan by sliding against a cushion pole, it is a spiralling or drilling forward and upward

you may practice pao against a hanging punching bag

you may practice heng against a hanging punching bag

–

my point is that

you hit plenty

you hit a lot

–

xing yi or not

–

3

when you do your hitting bag stuff

remember that you start with san ti shi

and you end with san ti shi

every single time

standing stake in posture especially san ti posture

it is necessary, so that you do not lose your defensive posture before and after you move or hit

–

4

standing stake in posture is also necessary

to generate power correctly

to transfer power correctly

to express power correctly

on and on.

5

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1111938]how many here knows the power generation of Xing Yi ?[/QUOTE]

When you use Pi Chuan to hit your opponent’s head, if he is down, you know XingYi power generation. If he is still standing, you don’t know XingYi power generation.

6

SPJ,

yup, as the Xing Yi saying,

training to strike without training standing stake, similar to eating without knowing to storing the food. training three PI chuan strike is not as good as a standing stake.

Standing stake is the root of Xing Yi for those who is a real Xing Yi follower.

as for the Yiquan power generation or the ancient/internal type of Chinese power generation, anyone after goes that way will never return to the general/external way of how people deliver strike. the technology is just heaven and earth different.

So, Xing Yi or Yiquan there is no different in the root----- standing stake/post to train the Nei San He, Wai San he. then the Yiguan get one more steps to train the six directional force, Hun Yuan Li…

White Crane of Fujian also have these stuffs which is much superior then just hitting as everyone knows. As it is said, training the strike not training the kung, at old age one got nothing. most doesnt know the Kung part and thinking doing some application, some hitting, some sparing.. is everything. and using that part trying to disapprove the Kung part which is a totally screw up due to one has no basic on the art.

7

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1111938]
how many here knows how to generate power the Yiquan or ancient TCMA internal way?
[/QUOTE]

“Someone” here.

Just a couple of points:

  1. Yiquan is less than a century old, hardly ancient.
  2. Ancient =/= better.

Furthermore this is just a rehash of the locked dead-horse down the list a ways. We aren’t going to get beyond my statement:

Yiquan provides no evidence of combat efficacy, or even whole-body integration in technique. This is unsurprising since Yiquan’s primary form of training is standing around doing nothing.

And your counter-statement:

You don’t have the real Xingyi because you don’t think standing stake has use.

And frankly I’m not interested in either fossils of a centuries old mysticism in fight training nor am I interested in what a sorry hack like Wang Xiangzhai had to say about martial arts because I remain highly dubious of his skill due to his rejection of everything worthwhile about his parent art.

I suspect that part of the problem is that although Guo Yunshen appears to have been a good fighter he doesn’t appear to have been a good teacher. He seems to have deliberately contrived to avoid teaching any fighting for as long as possible.

This is an error.

Frankly, considering Guo’s reputation for skill at Beng Quan it is clear he understood the value of fight fundamentals. His failure to transmit this value to his most famous students makes me rather sad.

Cue frothing rage that I took a stab at your great-great-great-great-grandmaster now.

8

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1112018]SPJ,

yup, as the Xing Yi saying,

training to strike without training standing stake, similar to eating without knowing to storing the food. training three PI chuan strike is not as good as a standing stake.

Standing stake is the root of Xing Yi for those who is a real Xing Yi follower.

as for the Yiquan power generation or the ancient/internal type of Chinese power generation, anyone after goes that way will never return to the general/external way of how people deliver strike. the technology is just heaven and earth different.

So, Xing Yi or Yiquan there is no different in the root----- standing stake/post to train the Nei San He, Wai San he. then the Yiguan get one more steps to train the six directional force, Hun Yuan Li…

White Crane of Fujian also have these stuffs which is much superior then just hitting as everyone knows. As it is said, training the strike not training the kung, at old age one got nothing. most doesnt know the Kung part and thinking doing some application, some hitting, some sparing.. is everything. and using that part trying to disapprove the Kung part which is a totally screw up due to one has no basic on the art.[/QUOTE]

Can you video yourself hitting a punch bag the ‘yiquan’ way please? Oh - and put it up. I think all of this would be a lot clearer with a physical demo.

9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa2MwT8QZGQ ? This seems to be similar ‘light contact’ that makes real people fly away, but on a bag strangely looks like it wouldn’t shoo away a fly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suc2cwD6eyw

Why the bag no fly away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssPNULj79Ag&feature=related

10

You didn’t see all the internal organ damage those bags suffered. :rolleyes:

Look, what bothers me about this whole thing is the disingenuousness of the situation.

I get threads started complaining that I said “prove this technique has merit.”

There is a long tradition in China of testing, of changing, of evolving. Hell, I guess I won’t get through to you unless I bring out the ancient mysticism. Well fine.

Gan Bao, Anecdotes about Spirits and Immortals Published circa 330 AD (how’s that for ancient?)

Vol. 12, Ch. 300 “One should act in accordance with the changes” the thesis of this chapter is that all things change over time. It couches this thesis in claims of 1000 year old birds transforming into oysters and men becoming tigers.

Nice and mystical.

And this ancient and fundamental scholar says “stuff changes.”

So how does clinging to an outmoded fight methodology help you? You are not acting in accordance with the changes.

11

Hendrik used to have a vid posted of him standing, in his kitchen I think!

He is the typical 95# weakling trying to instruct everyone else on how to fight!

12

pi beng zuan pao heng

exist in all styles

the interesting part is that they all start and end with san ti shi.

remember shoulder dropped and elbow down and close to ribside.

the 5 elements are interchangeable and all via san ti shi.

do not like qi quan punching bag videos posted

elbow not down, shoulder not dropped

shoulder kao is the whole body movement and not just lean forward your shoulder

shoulder and hip in harmony or move together as a unit

–

mind boxing or not.

–

13

In my humble opinion, dont mean to put down.

all speculation without doing any homework.
that is the common issue when one is keep thinking with one’s mind set without real practicing what it is.

[QUOTE=SimonM;1112029]“Someone” here.

Just a couple of points:

  1. Yiquan is less than a century old, hardly ancient.
  2. Ancient =/= better.

Furthermore this is just a rehash of the locked dead-horse down the list a ways. We aren’t going to get beyond my statement:

Yiquan provides no evidence of combat efficacy, or even whole-body integration in technique. This is unsurprising since Yiquan’s primary form of training is standing around doing nothing.

And your counter-statement:

You don’t have the real Xingyi because you don’t think standing stake has use.

And frankly I’m not interested in either fossils of a centuries old mysticism in fight training nor am I interested in what a sorry hack like Wang Xiangzhai had to say about martial arts because I remain highly dubious of his skill due to his rejection of everything worthwhile about his parent art.

I suspect that part of the problem is that although Guo Yunshen appears to have been a good fighter he doesn’t appear to have been a good teacher. He seems to have deliberately contrived to avoid teaching any fighting for as long as possible.

This is an error.

Frankly, considering Guo’s reputation for skill at Beng Quan it is clear he understood the value of fight fundamentals. His failure to transmit this value to his most famous students makes me rather sad.

Cue frothing rage that I took a stab at your great-great-great-great-grandmaster now.[/QUOTE]

14

So-called humble opinions rarely are.

As for the level of home-work you believe I completed to form my opinion, I honestly don’t give a fiddle.

All you’ve done, in two threads, is claim “special” knowledge which you claim I don’t posses. Well, put up or shut up. Demonstrate in some manner how the un-coordinated flailing that Yiquan players show has the strong body integration you CLAIM standing stake produces.

Produce ONE VID of ANY Yiquan player sparring against an equal opponent (IE: Not an instructor doing a seminar demo on one of his students) and using viable technique.

I’m not asking for proof of [SIZE=“7”]INTERNAL POWER!!![/SIZE] [SIZE=“1”]tm[/SIZE]

I just want to see viable technique.

What I see:

  • Standing stake meditation.
  • Forms that involve wildly flailing the arms with no associated movement past the shoulders - in other words a [I]lack[/I] of the whole-body integration one would [I]expect[/I] from an "internal" fighting style.
  • A guard that places both elbows consistently level with the defender's chin, leaving the lower body effectively undefended.
  • Elbows stuck WAY out, which any grappler or sword player will tell you is just about the WORST thing to do defensively.
  • Pushing and shoving disguised as throwing (it is not).
  • Cheap, easy to replicate, tricks performed on compliant students used as demonstration of internal power.
  • Protestations that anybody who disagrees "just doesn't know." Which, I'm sorry, don't cut it this time.
  • Ancient = better Orientalism.

You aren’t dealing with MMA nut-riders here. The people you are debating are interested in CMA, in Chinese culture, philosophy and religion. If you look at my book shelf you’ll find the Dedaojing, the Analects, the Zhuangzi, the Sunzi, several ch’an texs from China and Vietnam, a copy of the Qran (but, of course, the Islamic influence on Chinese thought isn’t likely something you will want to admit to), the Anecdotes About Spirits and Immortals, Sanguo Yanyi, etc.

I am not ignorant of the Asian mystical tradition or it’s religious and philosophical origins boyo, regardless of what you want to think.

I’m also a rational sceptic and prefer to be shown some sort of proof of efficacy. Any proof. I’m not being particularly picky. But I haven’t gotten proof from you, just attitude and dispersions about my level of erudition. And that got my back up.

So, you know what, put up or shut up.

I am not asking for a vid of YOU. I’m not asking for YOU to cart your ass over to Toronto to show me in person. I’m asking for some sort of demonstration that you have the first clue what fighting, power generation, spatial sensitivity or the history of CMA are about.

So far you have failed. Honestly, at this point, I don’t expect anything more from you. I expect you to continue just protesting that I don’t know my sh!t.

Well, you started a thread b!tching about me after the old one got locked. So now you have my attention. Can you do any better than vague rips on my education? Do you have anything? Or do you just want to cry that I was mean to you on the interwebz?

15

I don’t think you can explain anything to these guys.

They need to go out and experence some one throwing them around using no effort, then you can talk to them.

If you guys never experence it, it is hard to believe it excists.

I think this internal core is the heart of all orginal MA’s, but has been lost over the
years by people passing on incomplete systems, unless the poor incomplete MA systems of dance are exposed, MA is heading out the door and becoming an old
ritual dance that has lost its value.

Just to become a shadow of its past.

There probably have been people that visit this forum from time to time to express the internal value and meet up with you meat heads all whining that they are high, show me the video,…so they just laugh and think OK fine, your loss.
Is there anybody out their that has stayed around on this forum and has developed an internal core from standing ?, and not by hitting a sand bag or bean bag or rock or hitting anything.

16

Again, Yiquan in a nutshell:

  • Standing stake meditation.
  • Forms that involve wildly flailing the arms with no associated movement past the shoulders - in other words a [I]lack[/I] of the whole-body integration one would [I]expect[/I] from an "internal" fighting style.
  • A guard that places both elbows consistently level with the defender's chin, leaving the lower body effectively undefended.
  • Elbows stuck WAY out, which any grappler or sword player will tell you is just about the WORST thing to do defensively.
  • Pushing and shoving disguised as throwing (it is not).
  • Cheap, easy to replicate, tricks performed on compliant students used as demonstration of internal power.
  • Protestations that anybody who disagrees "just doesn't know." Which, I'm sorry, don't cut it this time.
  • Ancient = better Orientalism.
17

[QUOTE=SimonM;1112171]So-called humble opinions rarely are.

As for the level of home-work you believe I completed to form my opinion, I honestly don’t give a fiddle.
[/QUOTE]

Humble because there are many who has the Kung fu such as SPJ and I dont know it all.

reading you post, you sure can do all the good talk and great reasoning.
you also seem to love to reason and speculate whatever you like , be it you know or you dont.

however, you dont have the Kung fu in this case on Xing Yi and Yiquan, so what to discuss?

So, since this is a Kungfu Forum, you know where you stand.

18

Right, I don’t have the kung fu because you say so.
:rolleyes:

You got nothing.
You have no response to my questions. You have no response to my critique. STFU.

19

[QUOTE=YiQuanOne;1112191]I don’t think you can explain anything to these guys.

They need to go out and experence some one throwing them around using no effort, then you can talk to them.

If you guys never experence it, it is hard to believe it excists.[/QUOTE]

Why do you presume we haven’t? I have been thrown around, long enough to figure out the biomechanics and to make it so I cannot be thrown around any longer, unless I allow it!

Therefore I MUST have Anti-Qi!:D:p;)

Kind of like Anti-Matter, ONLY BETTER!:cool:

20

[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1112208]why do you presume we haven’t? I have been thrown around, long enough to figure out the biomechanics and to make it so I cannot be thrown around any longer, unless I allow it!
[/QUOTE]

Well because we haven’t spent 10 years standing perfectly still BEFORE we started getting thrown around. Therefore we don’t have The Real Kung Fu[SIZE=“1”]tm[/SIZE].

Funny thing is that my critique of Yiquan was largely based around the premise that what is SEEN violates the principles of “internal” martial art, unless “internal” is taken to mean “magical.”

Same with your statements.

Neither Yiquianone nor Hendrick are willing to address this critique.