• Archive through December 07, 2002 December 07 - 05:18 pm [20]

Bob,
”You seem to miss my point”.

You are correct in this, but not from lack of effort. So we start out on the right foot, this is not an attack. I am trying to understand what you are saying.

”Why would you put me in a lock? Are you one of the "bad guys"? No. Hence you would not put me in a lock in a real situation.” DP

I fail to see what being a “bad guy “ has to do with it. Some of the higher percentage techniques that are easily applied work from just outside the striking range and are easily adapted as simple takedowns or throws when an opponent is reaching to grab or strike you. These techniques can buy time to facilitate an escape while maintaining a greater distance.


“ The "bad guys" do not use locks”. DP

Do they have a rulebook so you know this for sure? It seems that you are assuming no martial artist could be a bad guy. Sadly we do not live in such an ideal world. I myself trained a student that turned bad. I dismissed him from my school of course but he only had to move on to a teacher that didn’t care who they taught (which by the way he did, same guy ended up in prison for assault) as long as they got paid. He had issues. My point is you don’t know that these types of techniques won’t be used on you by anyone good or bad.

Locks do just that - lock. Thank you, I was unaware of this. (Kidding, still not attacking)

“They (when I first read this I thought they was referring to the locks because of the previous line but later realized you were referring to those “bad guys”) do not wish to lock, their goal is to hit and run. Cops use locks, but since I am not a "bad guy" either they will not be using them on me”. DP

Since cops use locks to subdue and restrain someone and they are the good guy’s (depending on your perspective) it seems logical that locks are for good guys to subdue or restrain bad guys. How’s this? Your at a family reunion and uncle Charlie is getting drunk and belligerent. He becomes ugly and violent, I say it would be better to subdue and restrain him than strike him but Bob #2 may feel it apropos to shove a spiked nub up his rump. You were talking utility earlier, nice to have something in your utility belt you can whip out when needed ( like Chin Na or See Bob #2 for location of spiked nub dealer near you).

Last this was taken from your last post.

“……..although there are some good books on "Tai Chi Chin Na" there really is no "Tai Chi Chin Na". (as though you are the final authority and that settles that) Chin na is chin na” ( one more real strong argument). You are wrong here and this is still not an attack. Chin Na is not a specific art it is an aspect of many arts. You cannot make such statements and expect that no one will take exception to them. Chen style Tai Ji is full of Chin Na techniques and principles of application. I do not know this experientially but from a reliable source. By your statement you insult all those who went before you all the way to the founder of the system and set yourself up as the final authority. Just because you choose not to do Chin Na or you don’t think it of value does not mean that those that have written on “Tai Chi Chin Na” are wrong. My god man, if you are going to take such a stance and go against historical fact then try and come up with more powerful and convincing arguments than “a lock does just that or Chin Na is Chin Na”. OK maybe my last comment was sarcastic but still not attacking your teacher or your training only disagreeing with what you said.

Regards
Bob Shores

Bob,
Again you have misunderstood. You say you disagree with me, & then you say the same thing (basically) that I said. For example, when I say chin na is chin na, what I mean is that it is an aspect of many arts. I think that would be clear to most people.

You may think that my points are not clear, but to tell you the truth I'm often not sure what you are getting at. This is not, I repeat, not an attack.

If you do not practice TCC I can safely say that I am more of an authority on it than you are. Nothing personal. As such an authority I speak for all TCC practitioners in saying that we do not train our Supreme Ultimate Fists with drunk Uncle Charlie in mind.

And that settles that!

P.S. Please stop quoting me so much (even if i am an authority).

Maybe at the supreme ultimate level all bad guys are just a drunk uncle Charlie at heart.

I'll drink to that!

In a sense it comes down to risk assessment & health related issues.

If something is unlikely to pose a risk to me I am not going to spend too much time & money training for it. I may train hard at something I'm unlikely to use in self defense if it's good for my heath though.

Chin na practice is not the best aspect of TCC for your health. you could argue it's the worst in fact. for example, look at how many people wind up with joint injuries that need to heal.

I'd just like to interject that I was at the show in West Hollywood last night at the Kibiz room, and, believe it or not, Bob #2 can really pull chicks.

roberto numeros dos and chicks...now i know you guys are making it all up as you go along

stc

Hi All,

I am new to this board but I couldn't resist jumping into the Chin Na discussion. Chin Na is one of my favorite topics.

In my experience applying a lock cold - without a set up - almost never works. People will stiffen, resist and often jam the lock. Getting a reaction by striking first helps a lot - especially open hand blocks (you can split and grag their fingers) - alternately you can try applying a lock - then pulling a reversal once your partner starts to resist the first lock - but you have to be able flow, stick and change your locks quickly.

A lock with a short fa jing (short, sharp and powerful)is pretty devastating to the joint - and most locks can be taken to the ground in such a way as to significantly increase the chance of fall itself hurting your opponent - particularly when you use following energy to the ground. Some locks will allow you to throw so that the head hits the ground with considerable force. Not something any of us should comtemplate.

Distracting people's perception of what you are doing is also useful. A fast hard slap or a feint to the face, can cause them to empty the resistance from joint you want to work - here, the element of suprise is very important.

I agree that the best locks often emerge from nowhere and assuming you know basic Chin Na you will suprise both yourself and your partner with a spontaneous and effective lock.

I have also studied Aikido (after some years of TCC)and I had no problem resolving Aikido wrist and elbow locks the moment I moved into TCC mode. However, I had to be very careful - I didn't advertise my previous TCC training and my partners wouldn't know why their locks were suddenly and inexplicably not working - it led to both frustration and the suspicion that I was pulling their chains. This, in turn, could easly lead to getting one of my joints cranked once I moved back to normal aikido training mode (ie. cooperative and predictable).

My TCC lock resolves worked on pretty much everyone in the dojo regardless of rank. If you wondering why I didn't tell people what I was doing it was because we were expected to "empty the cup" to receive the aikido training - and that was my philosophy too. I was just a little curious about whether Aikido really worked against TCC.

TCC also works quite well against Aikido throws because of its emphasis on rooting, balance and the slight reserve we always keep when attacking - the Aikido attack tends to be huge and over-commited in order to facilitate the training.

None of this is to denigrate Aikido - I love Aikido - and respect it as much as I respect TCC.

I've read pretty much all the available books on Chin Na including a number of book's on Aikido and Tim's is the best once I've read.

I would be interested what Tim's thought's are on integrating Chin Na techniques.

Hi All,

I am new to this board but I couldn't resist jumping into the Chin Na discussion. Chin Na is one of my favorite topics.

In my experience applying a lock cold - without a set up - almost never works. People will stiffen, resist and often jam the lock. Getting a reaction by striking first helps a lot - especially open hand blocks (you can split and grag their fingers) - alternately you can try applying a lock - then pulling a reversal once your partner starts to resist the first lock - but you have to be able flow, stick and change your locks quickly.

A lock with a short fa jing (short, sharp and powerful)is pretty devastating to the joint - and most locks can be taken to the ground in such a way as to significantly increase the chance of fall itself hurting your opponent - particularly when you use following energy to the ground. Some locks will allow you to throw so that the head hits the ground with considerable force. Not something any of us should comtemplate.

Distracting people's perception of what you are doing is also useful. A fast hard slap or a feint to the face, can cause them to empty the resistance from joint you want to work - here, the element of suprise is very important.

I agree that the best locks often emerge from nowhere and assuming you know basic Chin Na you will suprise both yourself and your partner with a spontaneous and effective lock.

I have also studied Aikido (after some years of TCC)and I had no problem resolving Aikido wrist and elbow locks the moment I moved into TCC mode. However, I had to be very careful - I didn't advertise my previous TCC training and my partners wouldn't know why their locks were suddenly and inexplicably not working - it led to both frustration and the suspicion that I was pulling their chains. This, in turn, could easly lead to getting one of my joints cranked once I moved back to normal aikido training mode (ie. cooperative and predictable).

My TCC lock resolves worked on pretty much everyone in the dojo regardless of rank. If you wondering why I didn't tell people what I was doing it was because we were expected to "empty the cup" to receive the aikido training - and that was my philosophy too. I was just a little curious about whether Aikido really worked against TCC.

TCC also works quite well against Aikido throws because of its emphasis on rooting, balance and the slight reserve we always keep when attacking - the Aikido attack tends to be huge and over-commited in order to facilitate the training.

None of this is to denigrate Aikido - I love Aikido - and respect it as much as I respect TCC.

I've read pretty much all the available books on Chin Na including a number of book's on Aikido and Tim's is the best once I've read.

I would be interested what Tim's thought's are on integrating Chin Na techniques.

Hello Duncan,
Good post.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "integrating Chin Na techniques." Do you mean integrating Chin Na techniques with other types of techniques (striking and throwing)?

Hi Tim,

Yes, can you use Chin Na techniques when facing a striker. It is easier out of push hands and grappling but tough against punching and kicks. When faced with a striker from Karate or one of the more strking oriented styles I tend to end up playing their game(to my disadvantage). The problem seems to be in bridging the gap so that I can use my push hand and Chin Na techniques. How do you close the gap without getting seriously tagged on the way in. Or is getting tagged just part of the program for going inside? I almost feel like I have to come on gang-busters a la Hsing I just to make the connection and actually get my hands on a striker.

Do you have any practices for training bridging?

Cheers,

Duncan

Duncan,
Yes, we have a good number of techniques for entering. But our philosophy is not to necessarily try and "force" any one range.

Strategically, we prefer to fight in close to the opponent, from a superior angle and put him on the ground as quickly as possible. Striking, throwing and locking are done with the same movements, the resultant "technique" comes out of the interaction at the time. We train movement first, and the principles of superior postioning, and the techniques are more like the fruit of the principles (although this is often taught in a "technical" format).

You can do any type of technique at any range (for example, you can throw from so-called "long range" just like you can strike in a clinch or on the ground). Fighers naturally specialize in certain skill sets, but I think it important to be well rounded enough so that you can move in any situation. Then, very often you can make your opponent fight your fight.

In my experience, standing chin na techniques work best when they come out of the flow of the exchange (like you said in your first post), the opportunity is a kind of "gift" from your opponent.

Tim,

Good advice. We'll work on the superior positioning - getting off the striking lines and working angles etc. By throwing from a long range do you mean blending with and/or catching kicks? And would you be giving away any trade secrets if you described one of two or your entering practices?

Dragonprawn,

Yeah, I wondered how people train to escape a hold/lock if you fail to avoid it in the first place. But since the topic about joing-destruction came up, why not?

Thanks again for all answers from everyone. It's inspiring to read opinions from different people.

Cheers

Duncan,
You can throw from long distance if you catch kicks, and also with sweeping techniques.

Here is the most basic (and immediately useful) entering drill we do (and we do this one often, especially with the beginners). Variations of this drill are also popular in BJJ and MMA training.

Have student X put on gloves (I'd recommend at least 12 oz. boxing gloves). Student Y wears headgear if X is striking full power, or forego the headgear if the strikes are to be less than full power (although safety is the main concern, it is important Y feels pain when struck, the feedback keeps the drill "real" ). X strikes Y any way he wants, with sufficient force. Y can defend against the blows, but is not allowed to strike back. Y must close the distance between himself and X, control X and take X down. This continues for a predetermined length of time (a three minute round is good).

The drill can be modified as students' skill level increases (X can add kicks, or the fight continues on the ground, with X continuing to strike while trying to get back up as Y tries to control/submit X without striking...).

After a short period of practice, student will learn the proper methods of closing with a non-cooperative, striking opponent and the all important skill of correct timing. Once Y succeeds in making contact or clinching with X, X must still continue trying to hit Y and avoid being taken down. This will train Y to move to superior (safe) angles and the proper methods of control as the throw is set up.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for that practice suggestion - we will give it a try tonight - initally with light contact and move to heavier contact as we get the feel.

Cheers,

Duncan

Duncan,
Let us know how it goes.

Duncan,
Thank you for your input. You are my new best friend. I'm sorry I misspelled Aikido.

What you said about striking first brings to mind a story recently related to me.

A gentleman stopped by our school in NYC & introduced himself as head of the Chinese Medicine Society in Italy (or something like that). He was American though.

Anyway, he said that Yang Jwing-Ming (I think that's how you spell his name) from Boston? was invited to give a Chin Na demonstration there in Italy. At one point they brought out a big Italian Hercules-type & invited Dr. Yang to lock his arm up as he held it stiff.

He said that Dr. Yang pointed out that this violated yin/yang theory since the guy wasn't moving, but that he would take the challenge nonetheless.

Dr. Yang then proceded to kick or sweep his leg somehow & when the big guy moved he locked up his arm no problem. He basically said that the guy couldn't think about the two things that were happening to him at once so he was able to Chin Na him.

But I have to ask why dealing with strikers is a problem for you as a TCC practitioner?

For What It's Worth,

Yang Jwing-Ming wrote a book titled "Shaolin Chin Na: the Seizing Art of Kung-Fu" (ISBN 0-86568-012-4, Unique Publications, Inc., 1982) -- was $9.95 (US-FRNs).

Tim,

Unfortunately we didn't have the gloves at last night's practice session so we did super light contact on the entry practice.

I think we definitely need the gloves for this - (aside from Y feeling the pain of getting hit )it was impossible to use any real power without gloves (ie,. penetration) to give the (grappler- Y) much to work with - consequently x would tend to snap out short and fast shots that were difficult for Y to follow and control. On top of that we all seem to track, turret and centreline focus in a way that makes it really hard to find a superior position or angle. We have a tendancy to circle (a la Ba Gua) - then burst in a tangle of arms, with a lot of grabbing and jamming. It was a bit more muscular that we are philsophically predisposed to from our TCC and Ba Gua backgrounds.

I'm thinking that we definitely need the gloves to set up the right conditions for this practice. We don't do any full contact sparring - and in light, or no contact sparring, the last three or four inches in a punch or kick are pulled - there is speed but not much power - but it seems to me that those three or four inches are critical - since they not only change the distance between two bodies - they also change the commitment of energy by the striker, and his center of his balance. It has always suprised me how hard it is to actually hit somebody who is even moderately, quick, aware and light on their feet. And even more suprising - how unbalanced you can get when you are trying hit a moving opponent with full power.

We'll make sure to bring the gloves next time.

Dragonpawn,

To answer your question concerning my difficulty working with strikers. Most of the poeple in my practice group have spent time training in either TCC or Ba Gua and Hsing I. Because of this our practice has been quite formal - ie push hands, two man forms, cooperative applications practice etc. We have spent zero time doing Karate/Tae Kwon Do style sparring practice. So the experience isn't there.

Moreover all of us have trained with traditional old country Chinese Sifu's - and none of them have encouraged free style fighting practice. They generally seemed to have considered it counter productive to developing an internal fighting style.

I am still trying to figure this out. The problem I am trying solve is how to deal with striking styles in a TCC way - ie non-oppositional movement, unbalancing, better positioning (as Tim mentioned), small circle speed, low muscularity and internally generally fa jing power.

Because of years of push hands and Chin Na practice I have developed reasonable close contact skills - sensing, unbalancing, standing grappling - and short range striking - but have trouble with the wide-circle players who tend not to let you get close.

That's why I am interesting in hearing more about Tim's entry and bridging practices.

Duncan,

You sound like a dedicated internal MA who has studied with some good people. So am I. But your reply shows once & again just how much room there is for variation among & within the internal arts.

If I'm understanding you clearly, you feel as though push hands practice has done less to prepare you for strikers than it has for, say grapplers. You also refer to preparing you (or failing to prepare you) for the "striking arts".

Now I do not believe that your perspective is necessarily incorrect. Your emphasis & that of your teachers is simply different than that of mine & my teacher. No doubt we could both show each other a few things.

My teacher is primarily a striker. Hence I think of TCC as a striking art first. Of course we emphasize yielding first, then striking. So, to me, although TCC & Tae Kwon Do are like night & day to me, I don't first think of one as a striking art & the other not (internal vs. external or long-range vs. short-range would be more like it).

Along with this my push hands training primarily stresses dealing with strikes. Stick, follow, counter-strike, etc. I know that our particular brand of fixed-stance push hands is particularly martial, but always adheres to TCC principles. I'm willing to bet there are more variations between peoples push hands styles than there are between their forms.

Even some of the terms you use are different (turret, centreline focus). This is the type of thing that is good to discuss on a posting site like this, instead of just the usual one-upsmanship. Unfortunately most of what we do takes too long or is impossible to explain in writing & must be shown.

Hopefully some day some of us can workshop or seminar together.

Dragonprawn,

Thanks for the comments. You don't happen to study with William C. C. Chen do you? I understand that he has brought some western boxing techniques into the traditional TCC training. I noticed that you train in NYC.

Duncan,

No I don't. But I have met him & know people who study with him. He is of course very well known in these parts. NYC is full of choices & that includes some top notch instructors, so I guess you can say we are fortunate in that regard.

I have read some very good articles recently that discuss the similarities & differences between western boxing & TCC, but I don't have the references as I post this.

It is good to know escapes as familiarization and it is true that "bad guys" do no use locks-they have guns. So escape and evasion (not being there when they point their weapons) with a clear thinking process for avoiding where those fellas congregate.

When people strike, they extend themselves so there is opportunity to deflect/throw/sweep. Grabbing, for me would be a mistake as it would disobey one of the main principles of taijiquan/tui shou.

Hi Nats,

I know where you are coming from in terms of the grabbing prohibition - especially in the Push Hands context.

Grabbing and hanging on in an unconcious way invites a reversal - providing a kind of handle into your centre.

However, there are number of applications where seizing is necessary in order to secure the hand, to sweep, split, shock (ie Pluck) and/or some other form of joint rending.

Duncan & nats,
You two do not disagree, & I myself think that you are both right. It is just another one of those great TCC contadictions (you know, soft yet hard, & all that).

Sometimes my teacher says to just grab briefly with thumb & pinky only, but I think it depends on the situation.

Getting back to contradictions. I have come to the conclusion that truly understanding TCC requires the capacity for post-formal thought. We can't reason our way out of all problems. Sometimes we must embrace ambigiuty. This is actually a big part of Taoism of course.

Even yang Cheng Fu said "to strike is incorrect, not to strike is incorrect" & " to stick is not correct, not sticking is also not correct" (or something like that). I am actually going to begin an interview article with my teacher soon for publication & I have been thinking of making TCC contradictions the theme.

On a side note I just posted for the first time on another TCC site. The people on there were very knowledgeable & informative. Their posts, though infrequent tended to be lengthy. It was kind of overwhelming to be honest. Plus they didn't even have a Bob #2. So I came right back here to post something on more familiar ground (I said ground, not ground fighting).

Maybe it's just the holidays.
Merry Christmas to all!