tai chi postures
Sandy Breon
a) Lift hands vs. Play Guitar
b) Diagonal Flying vs. Part Wild Horses Mane
c) White Crane Spreads Wings vs. Step Back and Ride the Tiger
Thanks,
Sandy
BillMahoney68
ordosclan
You forgot "repulse monkey". These are the most poorly transmitted
postures.
You can pretty much judge someones skill by how they do these.
I dont go into too many details because of the crumbsnatchers out
there. But to answer a) the basic purpose of "lift hands" is to
"awaken the qi". In fact this qigong move predates taiji, so the
legitimizing root lies in the stimulation of ascending and decending
qi. In the taijiqigong this move is #1 and is called "awaken the qi".
Only the wu family do this posture right. This is because the middle
finger touches Pericardium 6 after the turn to the side. However, the
wu style (manchu) is also way fucked up in the sequence because people
look at the picture of wuchien and think your supposed to reverse the
other side. That picture you see of the angel change from left to
right was only there to show detail. There is a sequence of moves
that occur before the first single whip which involve subtle finger
positioning upon acupressure points. The wu style is best for people
with heart disease. Try and find someone smart enough to know why.
I would change b) to b) slant flying and repulse monkey. I could
write an essay on this. And might someday. Until then...
c) white crane spreads wings. Lots of problems here. Again the wu
style only does this right but its kind of hidden too.
Again someones veracity pretty much boils down to understanding of the
subtleys of the postures. Like how the prenatal palms are hidden in
the bagua palm changes. But the difference here is if you knew it was
wrong, why would you be teaching/doing it the wrong way?
Interpretation of function leads to degredation of structure. If a
posture can be rooted to a canonical reference, pre-natal or
post-natal posture, then thats the ultimate authority on the subject.
Period.
Its just no one has ever notated things that way. No one has a vested
interesting in detailing why they and their teacher were clueless as
to function, structure, ect, only on how to go through the motions.
Eric Putkonen
top of my head.
~ Eric Putkonen
"Sandy Breon" <ssb...@asl4roisdfkc.com> wrote in message news:<Q6ydnZH61Yw...@telcove.net>...
Eric Putkonen
For the martial applications to be different, the actual moves are
subtlely different.
Diagonal Flying vs Parting Wild Horse's Mane - when done at tai chi
speed - looks virtually the same (at least in my form). It is the
same sort of movement. But I was taught (if I remember this right)
that the first is a strike and the second is a throw. The application
is different, and so the energy and intent are also different. Done
at full speed (martial) it may more easily look a little different
from each other.
~ Eric Putkonen
misc...@excite.com (Eric Putkonen) wrote in message news:<e3ddfe21.04042...@posting.google.com>...
Chas
>..... The application
> is different, and so the energy and intent are also different. Done
> at full speed (martial) it may more easily look a little different
> from each other.
One of the things that people lose sight of is that you derive applications
from right movement, not derive right movement from an intended application.
The technique follows right movement, not precedes it.
It's similar in what I do- the choreographies are to explore the scope of
movement through it's useful combative range. The same movements can be used
for a broad range of technical applications- all depends on how they
intersect with the opponent. You don't plan applications, they flow out of
body position and angle of incidence to the opponent. The same 'looking'
posture could be used in a dozen different ways, in terms of how it impacts
the opponent.
Chas
dilvie
I agree with everything you've posted... except the first bit:
> One of the things that people lose sight of is that you derive
applications
> from right movement, not derive right movement from an intended
application.
> The technique follows right movement, not precedes it.
In my understanding, they give birth to each other. Mind and Qi are the
king. Muscle and bone are the court. Therefore, right movement is
derived from intent, but it is also true that the technique follows
right movement.
Chas wrote:
> It's similar in what I do- the choreographies are to explore the scope of
> movement through it's useful combative range. The same movements can be used
> for a broad range of technical applications- all depends on how they
> intersect with the opponent. You don't plan applications, they flow out of
> body position and angle of incidence to the opponent. The same 'looking'
> posture could be used in a dozen different ways, in terms of how it impacts
> the opponent.
--
~
<http://www.dilvie.com/>
Eric Putkonen
But I am afraid we might be arguing semantics.
"Chas" <chasclem...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<dI6dnZUb-s-...@comcast.com>...
Chas
> > One of the things that people lose sight of is that you derive
> applications
> > from right movement, not derive right movement from an intended
> application.
> > The technique follows right movement, not precedes it.
> In my understanding, they give birth to each other. Mind and Qi are the
> king. Muscle and bone are the court. Therefore, right movement is
> derived from intent, but it is also true that the technique follows
> right movement.
You're a step down the line- I'm talking about what generates the
choreography, and how one learns to apply that choreography in preference to
another.
There is a limited range of powerful, supported skeletal movement, and you
must stay within those parameters, or hurt yourself in a 'loaded' situation.
One's solo form explores that range of movement, in a powerful and supported
structure- the applications are/were derived from that (body of movement) in
context- that's why a 'strike' can also be a 'throw', and use exactly the
same skeletal posture to do it.
Chas
LIBERATOR
> >..... The application
> > is different, and so the energy and intent are also different. Done
> > at full speed (martial) it may more easily look a little different
> > from each other.
>
> One of the things that people lose sight of is that you derive applications
> from right movement, not derive right movement from an intended application.
> The technique follows right movement, not precedes it.
Chas why don't you give us some pictures of you doing it so we know
that you're not a lying con artist.
> It's similar in what I do- the choreographies are to explore the scope of
> movement through it's useful combative range. The same movements can be used
> for a broad range of technical applications- all depends on how they
> intersect with the opponent.
Can you show us any valid appication of you applying any of it Chas? I
suspect you're trying to pull a con here as with all other things
you've tried to lie about.
> You don't plan applications, they flow out of
> body position and angle of incidence to the opponent. The same 'looking'
> posture could be used in a dozen different ways, in terms of how it impacts
> the opponent.
Why don't you give us some of your valid application of it, videos,
pictures, on a website perhaps. I do believe that you've never done
it, don't know how to do it, and you're again in "con mode" to trick
people. But prove me wrong witchy puppet.
> Chas