Any other teachers like He Jinghan?

[GrahamB]

I (try to) do Single Whip like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27rYDlB_BSQ



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKac1VP6Lro&t=31s



I'll give D an Oscar for looking hurt at the end of that, but give him the benefit of the doubt because it's a hard floor

I was pondering the statement "Tai Chi is a system for transferring force through the body" today - I think you can do that solo, but it's a lot easier with a partner to do it on.

[johnwang]

I (try to) do Single Whip like this:

It's very clear that when you use "Shuang Lu - double pulling" at 0.32, your left palm is facing in, your right palm is facing out.

When people do it with both palms face down (or with both palms face out), I just don't understand how he can pull his opponent's arm that way. Worse than that, sometime their tiger mouths are not even open (no pulling intention).

In CMA, those non-functional move is called "死手 (Si Shou) - meaningless move". IMO, to see if one's training is "deep" or not, you just pay attention on whether he does any meaningless move or not.

[Trip]

When people do it with both palms face down, or with both palms face out, I just don't understand how he can pull his opponent's arm.

In CMA, those non-functional move is called "死手 (Si Shou) - meaningless move". IMO, to see if one's training is "deep" or not, you just pay attention on whether he does any meaningless move or not.

Just because you don't understand
how to use this Yang Style Transition Movement
with "with both palms face out'
Does not make it a "meaningless move".

It might just be that you have not been trained how to use it

To those who have been trained how to do it
That transition can be done multiple ways.

Ways that include the application your Teacher Passed to you
and the way (Both Palms Down)
that you seem to have not been trained in

In fact, that Transition application you suggest
(left palm is facing in, your right palm is facing out)
happens in Traditional Yang Family Style
in the Transition to Fist Under Elbow

[johnwang]

Just because you don't understand
how to use this Yang Style Transition Movement
with "with both palms face out'
Does not make it a "meaningless move".

Could you give 1 application that your both palms face down, or both palms face out? A video will even be better. In your application, do you open your tiger mouth of your both hands?

[Trip]

Could you give 1 application that your both palms face down, or both palms face out? A video will even be better. In your application, do you open your tiger mouth of your both hands?

Duh!
Of course I could!

Because it's a standard Yang Style Transition
I could give you several videos with Application
of both the Tung's &
the Yang's

You are a very experienced Teacher
A Teacher that I Respect
I like your Hand on approach
I like what you teach

But, after reading you posts all these years
I seriously doubt that Proof would matter to you

I have found that When you make absolute statements like this
"Proof" rarely changes your mind

It seems that when you don't like something
You don't like it

Even after video corroborated proof is posted,
You might go quiet for a bit, but...
you come back and make
the same claims weeks later

or, just say "you don't believe in it"
or, "you're allergic to it"...
something or other

I can suggest where you learn the application

Dong Traditional Yang Style or Fast Form
Or, the application taught by Yang Family Tradition Taijiquan

[Trip]

In your application, do you open your tiger mouth of your both hands?

For the most part, yes.
of course that varies depending on the situation

As the saying goes:
"The Tiger's Mouth
is Always Hungry"

[wayne hansen]

Trip I was going to say something similar but I thought what is the point
Why would anyone want to do SW the way it is shown above

[GrahamB]

That's a lot of talk instead of just coming up with an answer to John's simple question.

This is the same as when you ask Aikido people what they mean by "ki"

"Well, if you have to ask! It means you don't know! How could you not know something so basic! bla bla"

When in reality, they have no idea what Ki is, but they've given 40 years to this thing and their not going to admit they don't know anything at this stage.

[Trip]

That's a lot of talk instead of just coming up with an answer to John's simple question...

When in reality, they have no idea what Ki is, but they've given 40 years to this thing and their not going to admit they don't know anything at this stage.

Well, Graham,
I guess you sussed me out.
I made it all up

No one,
Not even the Yang's and Tung's
have taught it, let alone meaningfully
apply the Yang Style Transition
with both palms down or out

I fully admit
It's just physically impossible
to apply the Transition
with both palms down or out!

And, there is no video
My bad

[origami_itto]

That's a lot of talk instead of just coming up with an answer to John's simple question.

This is the same as when you ask Aikido people what they mean by "ki"

"Well, if you have to ask! It means you don't know! How could you not know something so basic! bla bla"

When in reality, they have no idea what Ki is, but they've given 40 years to this thing and their not going to admit they don't know anything at this stage.

I would say that his premise is flawed here.

Taijiquan style techniques tend to work off of sticking and adhering, not so much grabbing and yanking. So looking at the palms down you're looking at something working against their incoming resistance, keeping them at arm's length outside your guard as you deflect them past in one idea, or getting inside and outside their guard to apply pressure laterally. The mechanics of that movement do not suggest to me a pull, that's done elsewhere.

Somebody, was it Appledog? Just posted that single whip application video where it shows that lateral throw type idea, the waist turn there is just softening up the stance for the follow.

You could compare it to Liang De Hua's demonstrated application for Embrace Tiger to Return it To the Mountain from a forward facing position as well.

The large frame form is mainly body training, the applications are just there to focus your energy. What you want to be looking at in that part of single whip, in my opinion, is the unification of the arms and feet through the waist. What is that good for? What is a pushup good for?

The actual "fighting use" of the postures is not "The Application" demonstrated. The practical use is formless, shapes that approximate it and hypothetical justifications for it are intermediate steps towards approaching it.

Getting caught up on points like this is missing the river for the leaf floating past.

"Hands? We have hands all over our body, but it has nothing to do with hands." - Yang Cheng Fu
“A hand is not a hand—every part of the body is a hand, but hands have nothing to do with it." - Cheng Man Ching
"All the body is a hand" - Tang Shunzhi

We even have hands in THEIR body sometime

[GrahamB]

That makes sense - the first movement of the form is palms down, so if your single whip is like a horizontal version of the same idea, that makes sense.

[origami_itto]

If research is to be believed, and I think we've had the discussion here before, that first move wasn't originally part of the form. It is omitted in The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan by Yang Cheng Fu and is not present in earlier published descriptions of the form either.

I think at some point around YCF's time it was added in and codified as an enhancement. In The Essence and Applications he says "It is all right here" referring to the Wuji stance at the beginning (Feet starting shoulder width!) so I believe the intention in "Beginning Taijiquan" was/is to encapsulate the fundamental atomic essence of the shen fa.

The opening and closing in "Beginning Taijiquan" IS everything in the system. All else is basically derived from that movement. The Peng and An essentially.

So, yeah, the palms down turning is like an An, or it can be like Lieh, or even Cai, sure, why not. The movement is the blade, the energy is the cut. The form teaches us where to find the energy in our body and movements and how to make it stronger, working with someone else teaches us these aspects of using it to work with their energy and intellect.

Taijiquan can't beat men of iron, brass, or wood, not because they are hard, but because they are dead.

[Steve James]

In YCF's Illustrated book, there's a move called "figures in eight" that is part of SW. In it one hand (rt) turns up during the turn to the left while the other remains in the same position from An. I have the book somewhere, but don't have the time to look right now. Maybe someone else has seen it.

Afa John's argument, though, it depends on the intention or idea of the application. If one doesn't learn or see the application, and can't imagine it, then it doesn't exist for them. There can be lots of reasons for turning the hand over or for not doing so. If the practitioner can imagine an opponent while doing a form, then the application should be clear. If it's not, then the question is academic.

[wayne hansen]

SW is another version of GST but instead of push and pull energy it uses whipping energy
If you were in front of me I could show you numerous applications
One for every corner
SW is like a 3 point turn in driving
To see one application is shortsighted
There are no applications in tai chi but it is applications that teach you there are none and numerous
Those who don’t know tai chi should not try to lead others
Even worse is put up examples of others who don’t know what the do

[everything]

somewhat agree with john's observations (very hard not to b/c he always shows a very clear example), somewhat agree with the "formless" getting the "body method" (regardless of disagreements on what that is). not sure those points are really in contradiction with each other at all. we want a certain kind of strength, and we want certain applications that can be specific. even if the art is supposed to be "formless", most people already know some very specific applications. but we can split the difference and use categories like tim cartmell uses like "these are all arc throws", "these are all twisting throws", "these are all circle throws", so specific throws like osoto gari or tai otoshi are much more similar than different. i'd rather know principles than overly exact specifics even just in judo randori. more "formless" is "more deep" to me than "more specific". or maybe it's being able to "go deep" on each aspect. idk.

looking at another thread the "twisting" for "energy" seems related to the "one hand up, one down" for a very specific application. at least, that's how it should be right