Archive through May 11, 2003

Tim's Discussion Board: Tai Ji Quan : 2 styles of Yang Taijiquan: Archive through May 11, 2003
   By Tim on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 02:48 pm: Edit Post

Thanks.


   By Robert on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit Post

Okay,

I have to say it...

Look at the video of the sword form.

Those two guys have the most god-awful posture I've ever seen! They've actually tucked so far their backs have turned into "C's". And look how far thier knees go over their ankles.

This is bio-mechanical insanity!


   By Kenneth Sohl on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 09:46 pm: Edit Post

Tim, is that true?


   By Dragonprawn on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 09:34 pm: Edit Post

Robert,

Couldn't load the sword video, but as for the other images they show some of the best rounded postures I've seen. I didn't catch the knee over ankle thing.

Tucking so far that your back turns into a "C" is a very good thing if you ask me.

Don't knock it til you try it!


   By Shane on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 12:37 am: Edit Post

it's a very good thing if you want to have a hump, added pressure on your heart and lungs while seriously impeding your ablitity to move easily.

I've never tried boinking a duck- but I'll knock it Because it's stupid. And can't be good for you or the duck.


   By Mark Hatfield (Unregistered Guest) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:47 am: Edit Post

I've read another teacher talk about the 'C' back, but says it can be done correctly and be barely noticible.


   By Robert on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit Post

Shane,

It took me about a minute to recover from reading your post. That's some good Friday humor.

Oh, you left out the fact that "C" posture will jack up your knees because it disengages the hamstring and gluteal muscles and throughs all the juice into the quads as they try to stablize the balance.

Actually, that "C" posture may be perfect for the duck-wise activity you mentioned in your post.


   By Dragonprawn on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 04:59 pm: Edit Post

Shane, Robert, & Anyone else for that matter,

I am a Tai Chi practioner, but I am also a scientist.

Even the most basic understanding of the scientific method should tell you that someone who employs such a posture is in a much better position to say if it works or causes harm.

How can anyone who has never tried it criticize it? What do you guys base your assumptions on?

By the way, I move like the wind, & while I do have killer quads my hamstring are very strong as well.

And please, for the love of all that is scientific, spare me any talk of duck thumping, exploding chickens, & agitated pit bulls in your replies.


   By anon. (Unregistered Guest) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:00 pm: Edit Post

I haven't seen the video on the AYMTA site, and my school is not affiliated with their "official" michuan organization, so I don't really care about how the students on that video are doing sword. But as for Master Wang, I have seen his book, and noticed his posture is very funny. Master Wang suffered from malnutrition as a child, has very bowed legs, so today his body does some odd things. Add to that a pretty severe car crash a few years ago. He really messed up his legs, and it made me extrememly sad to here my teacher tell us how after a bit of recovery, he was excited because he could now do a minute of zhan zhuang. Master Wang was strong as an ox in his young days, and pictures of him when he was younger show this. From everything I've heard, he was a total badass. The AYMTA is run by his translator and her cronies, who are basically qi-hugging cream puffs. They've criticized my teacher, a disciple student of Wang's, for teaching people freefighting ("teaching them to be violent"), and are destroying Master Wang's legacy. Sorry that I'm kind of ranting here, but I hate it that the one organization that represents michuan is such bullshit. Carry on.


   By anon. (Unregistered Guest) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 05:01 pm: Edit Post

Where is jian video on the AYMTA website?


   By Dragonprawn on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 07:19 pm: Edit Post

anon,

The sword video is in the resources section, but I still can't get it to work.

What about you & your teacher. How rounded do you keep your backs?


   By Kenneth Sohl on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit Post

I doubt there is an "ideal" measurement for the properly rounded back. It would probably depend on the size of a particular practitioner's chest. If he is naturally big-chested, the more pressure his chest will put on his internal organs underneath as he rounds his back. The practitioners with the most curve to their backs seem to be naturally slender people. It seems a common belief among chinese MAs that too much pressure on the internal organs from overemphasizing such a posture results in a drastically reduced life-span.


   By Robert on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit Post

D.P.,

As for science A) I have tried it myself... And it has exacerbated knee problems.

B) I haven't spent my life studying kinesthesiology (the real science) so I've researched the subject with those who have..

I've talked with numerous physical therapist and Chiro's and Osteo's all who work with olympic athletes and or pro-sports guys like Jason Sehorn, Paul Cariya etc. These guys are paid to improve human performance.

The osteo said, and I quote, "who the F#$! told you to stand like that?" Then went on to explain the importance and function of the natural curves in the back and how the C introduced unnatural curves... restricted movement, shut down kinematic chains necessary for muscles to fire etc. The P.T.s have explained how that posture (as explained above) disengages the most powerful muscles in your core..

And here is more science.. spar against someone who holds that posture. They are a breeze to knock over.

Dragon, for you to talk about science, and then use merely experiencial evidence for the complex functioning of the human system: muscles, bones, neurology, etc. is about as far as you can get from the scientific method.

Of course, if in the next few years, pro atheletes, gymnast, boxers, and football players all start tucking their pelvis under and creating a "C" curve in their backs while running and jumping and hiting and fighting, I will humbly eat my post if you print it on paper...


   By Chris Seaby (Unregistered Guest) on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit Post

The comparison of the mechanics of pro athletes with 'traditional' CIMA isn't necessarily a valid or clear one. The way forces are generated are very different (as generalisation of course).

For example Pro athletes operate at a mechanical disadvantage (speed lever), CIMA at a mechanical advantage (power lever). Pro athletes have many breaks of symmetry (alignment) like gait for example, again conducive for speed. Traditional CIMA have very few breaks of symmetry (try to maintain alignment and gait)which gives more stability.

CIMA may be unique, like kanagaroos bounding gait, very mechanically efficient, store release, store release..... wonder what we use for a tail?

Oh yeah, not a tucker, but do roll hips inward, which may a bit like look like tucking, but feels very different.






   By anon. (Unregistered Guest) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 01:24 pm: Edit Post

There's a big difference between relaxing the lower back, and forcibly tucking it in.


   By Dragonprawn on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 06:58 pm: Edit Post

anon,

Although I have posted on this ad nauseum I will say that tucking in is like deep breathing. You can tell someone to do it but they can't right away. It takes training. So if "forcibly" tucking in is the training required for relaxed tucking in so be it.

Chris,

Thanks.

Robert,

Jason Sehorn - bad example to use him. He is always injured. Like you he probably does things incorrectly. MAs who train with my teacher tuck like hell & never hurt the knees. It is just a matter of doing things correctly (toes in, knees out, tucked in in a horse stance would be one example).

My boss has a "bad back". he loaned me a copy of the back excercise video his doctor gave him. it involved a great deal of tucking in.

Why do non rounded practitioners get so upset at rounding & tucking. I personally couldn't care less if you stay upright & straight-backed. It doesn't bother me to the extent that my tucking bothers you guys. Is it because deep down you know you should be doing it too? What gives?

Look, not tucking is easy. If it is less beneficial at least you have saved some effort. But why on earth would we tuck if it were of no benefit (or as you claim harmful)? It obviously takes a great deal of training to do it correctly. It would be rediculous to go through what we do if it served no purpose or harmed us now wouldn't it?

One final thought. The Tai Chi Classics say to round the upper back & tuck in. I abide by the classics. IMHO if you do not then you are doing something other than TCC. If it works for you fine. Me, I like the real deal. It is not just something I am hoping for. My roundness has gotten me pretty far to date.


   By Chris Seaby (Unregistered Guest) on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 11:21 pm: Edit Post

The open kinetic chain of movements seen in most sport is often of a ballistic nature (and that studied in most textbooks too); a series/chain of movements where each succeeding movement applies it force just after the previous link in the chain has applied it maximum force so that the object (fist, foot, ball, racquet, stick...) continues to acclerate to target or whatever. I think Tim calls this sectional power.

CIMA as i understand it does not use this type of method, in fact it is the opposite. Uses connected, elastic, rebound, whole body movement emphasising the role of the synergists and fixators (eccentric and isometric contractions). Yes alot of muscles that act as prime movers in 'normal' movements are disengaged and play play more of a support role. It is the applied force (from ground in this case) that travels a long distance (like in a car jack) not the load or lever arms.

CIMA is to my way of thinking a very specialised form of movement that doesn't transfer well to alot of other activities, can't accelerate ('throw') a ball very far using such principles, but can thrust a spear very well. Thats why i use mostly traditional methods (specialised) because i'm not interested in generalising my training to other things. Also why i believe that certain masters emphasise the importance of understanding jings or energy first, then fighting.



   By Stephen James (Unregistered Guest) on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 12:37 pm: Edit Post

Hi DragonPrawn,

well, fwiw, I think we should distinguish between the "C" back and "tuck." As far as the back (lumbar and above) is concerned, the C back is not uncommon in combative sports. You might have some "stand up" boxers, but that's more like a style than a necessity. Most boxers, like wrestlers, bend over at the waist while keeping the head up. Nobody needs to take my word for that, however, just watch the Olympics. Look at the "crouch" use by sprinters, etc., or even watch animals fight.

OK, I think there's some validity to the "CIMA are not like other sports" argument. But, I don't think that's an argument for or against the C back. Look at it like this, what's the alternative? Let's for the sake of argument call it the "I" back. I'd say that tcc is right in the middle: i.e., no static position for the back, but flexibility, and the necessity of changing from "C"onserving energy/power to "I"ssuing it. I.e., for certain things the back needs to straighten and return to curvature. No curve, no ability to straighten; No straight, no ability to curve. Of course, the obvious metaphor is that of a "bow" and releasing an "arrow."

"Tucking" is another issue. If we're talking about reducing the curve in the lumbar area, that's probably a good thing for the back. The questions arise when it comes to tucking the sacrum under. That's a tough one. A pelvic tilt seems better suited for a form, but it's not so well suited for real life movement. I.e., usage --imho-- should be somewhere between doing a form and walking. Styles that are more upright an active, in their forms, probably won't emphasize the sacral tuck as much as styles that maintain a lower posture.

Yeah, the different forms utilize different types of "power" (rotational, linear momentum, spiral, etc.), and each type benefits most from a particular body shape. I think tcc uses (well, can use) all of them. Some styles in one or the other: there's good and bad in both, imho.

Regards,
Steve James


   By Tim on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 01:48 pm: Edit Post

Dragonprawn,
I'd like to point out that nowhere in the Classics of Taijiquan is it written that practitioners should "round the upper back and tuck in."

I'm assuming you are referring to "han xiung ba bei."

"Han" means to hold something without force (in this case the chest) and "ba" means "to lift upward," (in this case the upper back). Lifting is the opposite of "rounding" or slumping.

The classics say that the "wei lu" (coccyx) should be "zhong zheng." "Zhong zheng" means to be "centered." Being centered referrs to a position between extremes (in this case, neither thrusting the hips back nor pulling the hips in with force).


   By Bob #2 on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 04:36 pm: Edit Post

DragonPrawn,

Giggle.
Giggle.
Giggle.

I guess you've been doing something "other than" TCC all along.

Bob #2