GrahamB wrote:however, the issue is what "4oz defeats a 1,000 pounds" means.
DiaitaDoc wrote:As with many people, I initially learned (incorrectly) that “double weighting” had to do with our own stance/footwork. Took me a while to realize that “double weighting” is actually “double pressure”* in TaiJi.Xu ZhiYi wrote:Taiji Boxing emphasizes softness over hardness not only because of the principle that softness can overcome hardness, but mainly to keep practitioners from committing the error of “double pressure”. Some people think that “double pressure” means that both legs are supporting the weight at the same time, and so they avoid performing any horse-riding stances. This is so incorrect that it will make practitioners neurotic.
I will leave it up you whether you want to perform the horse-riding stances in the boxing set, since the concept of double pressure instead has to do with pushing hands.
( https://brennantranslation.wordpress.co ... -xu-zhiyi/ )
Yao FuChun & Jiang RongQiao wrote:
When someone has been training for a number of years, practicing until he is otherwise very skillful, and yet is not able to carry out neutralizations, sending out his hands only to end up under his opponent’s control, he has still not understood the error of “double pressure”. If you wish to avoid the error of double pressure, you have to understand the passive and active aspects. Passive and active means emptiness and fullness, as well as indirect and direct. When I encounter an opponent, if I feel a situation of double pressure, I then sink away one side so there is both emptiness (passive) and fullness (active). When he empties, I fill. When his pressure becomes heavy, mine lightens. When sticking, it is easy to yield. By yielding, you are able to stick. Indirect techniques can become direct, and direct techniques can immediately be changed to become indirect. Indirect, direct, empty, full, none of these come from myself, they are all changes I make according to the opponent’s actions. Able to stick and yield, knowing both passive and active, you will then be able to deal with opponents effortlessly, and it can be said that you are identifying energies.
( https://brennantranslation.wordpress.co ... -rongqiao/ )
Long ZiXiang wrote:
The use of force in a nutshell: “If you drop one side, you can move. If you have equal pressure on both sides, you will be stuck.” By extension, if two people are equally using force, they will be resisting against each other and the stronger one will win. Therefore equal pressure on both sides means getting stuck. But if two people are using force against each other and one suddenly loosens, then the one who is exerting strength will be neutralized by the one who relaxes. Therefore letting go on one side means being free to move.
( https://brennantranslation.wordpress.co ... g-zixiang/ )
Using this principle is, imo, what allows us to lead opponents into vulnerable positions and apply the 4 oz. rule.
If a 1000lb tower is on the cusp of falling over, then it doesn’t take much to send it toppling.
So the 4 oz. Moving 1000lbs is the endgame, once the 1000lbs have been guided to the limit of stability.
*Interestingly, the older TaiJi texts use “double pressure”, but the XingYi texts of the same era & later explain “double weighting” as being very much related to the stance. So I suspect that, being classified as an internal art, XingYi’s terminology & concepts bled into TaiJi… perhaps through Sun Lu Tang?
People seem to be against leverage as a term that applies to TaiJi. I think I’m beginning to see why…
… leverage is about more than simple balance beams, rigid levers and fulcrums.
"leverage" doesn't really cover what we do in Tai chi. Hydraulics is certainly better...
But, most simply don't think tcc is limited to leverage, which is always about force. Is making someone miss because you moved an illustration of '4 oz v 1000' lbs? Was 4ozs used? Was it tcc if 10 ozs or 10 lbs were used?
But, most simply don't think tcc is limited to leverage, which is always about force.
Is making someone miss because you moved an illustration of '4 oz v 1000' lbs?
Was 4ozs used? Was it tcc if 10 ozs or 10 lbs were used?
DiaitaDoc wrote:yes I see TaiJi as primarily a throwing art
wayne hansen wrote:Leverage is not wrong it is just low level
Easy to show hard to write
windwalker wrote:But, most simply don't think tcc is limited to leverage, which is always about force. Is making someone miss because you moved an illustration of '4 oz v 1000' lbs? Was 4ozs used? Was it tcc if 10 ozs or 10 lbs were used?
But, most simply don't think tcc is limited to leverage, which is always about force.
Is making someone miss because you moved an illustration of '4 oz v 1000' lbs?
Was 4ozs used? Was it tcc if 10 ozs or 10 lbs were used?
Some thoughts to questions asked...
Not meant as definitive, only illustrative of differences .
We use it as a base level for developing an "awareness" of what is actually thought to be affected..
Does not involve any thing the aforementioned posts presented.
All the demos, used to show this tend to be questioned, "cc for subtitles"
better stick with writing
4 oz a metaphor for being very light..in touch.
Starting from that point progressively becoming lighter and lighter.
we use 3 levels, skin, hair, and air....
Referenced in some post "double weight" with the attending questions of what it means...
depending on practice..
in our practice its the central idea of change between body and mind
the understanding that while taiji is said to be spherical in nature, the body is not,,,the mind can be...
if it is trained to be so....first in body, then in mind, from the mind to the body.
Steve James wrote:In the US, this is something ranchers use to lead bulls.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests