Trick wrote:D_Glenn wrote:Putting a spin on the ball so that it curves in the air after it’s hit.
I mean - wasn’t there English words for such in table tennis until recently , is that what you mean. Table tennis was invented by an Englishman.
I just thought your table tennis analogy curved strangely
Steve James wrote:It's not a semantic argument. We're talking about "na," and what it refers to in cma, specifically in tcc.
Grab gives the impression of brute force; seize, secure, or control doesn't. I agree that 'na' isn't simply a grab.
The reason I brought up the different languages is that Anglo-Saxon terms are considered vulgar next to their French or Latin derived equivalents. We think that peeing and shitting are more crass (low level) than urinating and defecating. You say tomato; Mario says pomidoro. Let's call the whole thing off.
However, there's cai, and it's sometimes translated as "pluck." That's also an example of na, and it's one of the 13 thingies.
Striking someone in the throat is technically a Na
D_Glenn wrote:Steve James wrote:It's not a semantic argument. We're talking about "na," and what it refers to in cma, specifically in tcc.
Grab gives the impression of brute force; seize, secure, or control doesn't. I agree that 'na' isn't simply a grab.
The reason I brought up the different languages is that Anglo-Saxon terms are considered vulgar next to their French or Latin derived equivalents. We think that peeing and shitting are more crass (low level) than urinating and defecating. You say tomato; Mario says pomidoro. Let's call the whole thing off.
However, there's cai, and it's sometimes translated as "pluck." That's also an example of na, and it's one of the 13 thingies.
Technically ‘qin’ is a seize or lock. ‘Na’ is anything that results in serious harm. Following through with a joint lock and destroying and maiming a joint makes the ‘qin’ a ‘na’. Striking someone in the throat is technically a Na. Pressure points are a Na. Kicking out someone’s knee or following through with a shin bite or ankle hook and breaking something is a Na.
'd argue against cai being na for a number of reasons
Steve James wrote:'d argue against cai being na for a number of reasons
Fair enough; what are some. But, which of the things you mentioned (shuai, na, ti, da) should cai be considered?
origami_itto wrote:Steve James wrote:'d argue against cai being na for a number of reasons
Fair enough; what are some. But, which of the things you mentioned (shuai, na, ti, da) should cai be considered?
I guess broadly I would say it's shuai, pluck as I understand or employ it pulls someone up out of their stance or down into a hole, either way it's an unbalancing, a way of compensating for a failed lu to set up another attack.
I've never really thought about the 8 energies in that respect, it isn't really part of Taijiquan per se, but more CMA as a whole. Interesting, though, may look more deeply into that when I have some time for it.
windwalker wrote:
Interesting
our meaning of the word pluck.
woo-woo alert: viewer discretion advised.
Steve James wrote:Qinna techniques include:
-divide the muscle/tendon
-misplace the bone
-seal the breath
-seal the vein, artery, acupressure point
This is common to all cma.
Trick wrote:D_Glenn wrote:My question is how come nowadays you have all these thousands of people around the world who practice Taiji for an hour a day, for a handful of years, self proclaiming themselves as master Taiji fighters. Then you have the handful of Taiji masters of old, who practiced Taiji for 8 hours a day, for 10-30 years, but somehow they’re not considered competent Taiji fighters?
It doesn’t add up.
.
In todays rapid society an hour is at least comparable with 16 h of the old world…and also 1 hour training + 10 h intellectual taiji musings + a couple of h of video watching = supreme mastery
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: Appledog and 10 guests