Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Peng Jin?
Options
-
20-08-2015 12:10am#1
Comments
-
Peng is one of the 8 powers, part of the 13 tactics. the old name for TCC is Shi San Shi (13 tactics)
It means upward force.
This stuff is simply jargon used within the system as useful ways to communicate ideas to students / training partners.
In the early 80's the Chen village entered the fray again after long being shut down by the communist regime. They had lost alot.
Anyway... they came up with Peng being the be all end all jin (jin simply means educated force as it contains the character for li strength and the character for silk, but as books were once written on silk it means educated force in the correct direction)
They also made up (no harm in that how were any of the excercises invented?) sets of "reeling silk" tui shou exercises where their idea of Peng is developed and its uses trained.
However..... the older masters there, just like the WU and Yang lineage use the term Cai Lang (gathering the wave) which more accurately captures the essence of what they are doing with peng and reeling silk. So this idea of an outward expansion receiving force and using the core / dantian to rotate and transform - (recover / counter) whats being received.
There are many ways of doing this, not just with upward or even outward - expansive force, but this is way beyond the understanding of all but a few genuine masters worldwide, and certainly none without martial experience which is an absolute necessity in understanding and developing such skill.
There are traditional tuishou and sanshou methods of training such skill but in general they are lost. the only TCC school in this country that still teaches Cai Lang is my own as far as I know. Most now only have dalu and four directions tuishou etc. Its like relying solely on a skipping rope to become a proficient boxer.
Anyway, here's an article by my own Sifu highlighting what its about...
http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/new_wave.php
Of course its all simply academic without the nei gung training that programmes the bodies responses. That's what is meant by internal... basics like triple tip unity / three forwards, seven star coordination, rotation meaning everything rotates together, hence chin na becomes second nature. chi refers to the flow of yin yang, and we have the classics state "yin and yang aiding each other" so breath with movement, right and left, lower and upper, internal structure and external environment, opponents action and our counter... le bla bla habitual.... (another translation of nei gung would be inner potential, I like that one, it more aptly sums up what its really about)
put that into cai lang or the peng / reeling silk idea and you have a mental and physical structure to meet opposition and not oppose it but exploit it. The trick is to counter or recover or attack but without offering leverage / advantage to the opponent. "I borrow but give nothing to borrow" "I alone know them, they do not know me" etc. the nei gung programmes the body to move with such martial efficiency and security allowing greater access to unorthodox escapes and attacks which become one action....
Mentally / Spiritually you "negate the self to follow the opponent", its a tough thing to do, counter intuitive even? it takes alot of testing it out and micro epiphanies to gain the confidence to rely on ... well the yin side of our natures I guess, particularly in combat where every fiber in out being is screaming to impose our self on the situation. It takes a lot of experience to overcome that default urge, we gradually erode it away, from pure retard strength to elegance. Sh1t I'm starting to sound all new age! well... it cant be achieved without the crucible of combat, all else is dreaming, even if it is standing meditation or thinking real real hard about it all.
0 -
Niall Keane wrote: »Peng is one of the 8 powers, part of the 13 tactics. the old name for TCC is Shi San Shi (13 tactics)
It means upward force.
This stuff is simply jargon used within the system as useful ways to communicate ideas to students / training partners.
In the early 80's the Chen village entered the fray again after long being shut down by the communist regime. They had lost alot.
Anyway... they came up with Peng being the be all end all jin (jin simply means educated force as it contains the character for li strength and the character for silk, but as books were once written on silk it means educated force in the correct direction)
They also made up (no harm in that how were any of the excercises invented?) sets of "reeling silk" tui shou exercises where their idea of Peng is developed and its uses trained.
However..... the older masters there, just like the WU and Yang lineage use the term Cai Lang (gathering the wave) which more accurately captures the essence of what they are doing with peng and reeling silk. So this idea of an outward expansion receiving force and using the core / dantian to rotate and transform - (recover / counter) whats being received.
There are many ways of doing this, not just with upward or even outward - expansive force, but this is way beyond the understanding of all but a few genuine masters worldwide, and certainly none without martial experience which is an absolute necessity in understanding and developing such skill.
There are traditional tuishou and sanshou methods of training such skill but in general they are lost. the only TCC school in this country that still teaches Cai Lang is my own as far as I know. Most now only have dalu and four directions tuishou etc. Its like relying solely on a skipping rope to become a proficient boxer.
Anyway, here's an article by my own Sifu highlighting what its about...
http://www.taichiunion.com/magazine/new_wave.php
Of course its all simply academic without the nei gung training that programmes the bodies responses. That's what is meant by internal... basics like triple tip unity / three forwards, seven star coordination, rotation meaning everything rotates together, hence chin na becomes second nature. chi refers to the flow of yin yang, and we have the classics state "yin and yang aiding each other" so breath with movement, right and left, lower and upper, internal structure and external environment, opponents action and our counter... le bla bla habitual.... (another translation of nei gung would be inner potential, I like that one, it more aptly sums up what its really about)
put that into cai lang or the peng / reeling silk idea and you have a mental and physical structure to meet opposition and not oppose it but exploit it. The trick is to counter or recover or attack but without offering leverage / advantage to the opponent. "I borrow but give nothing to borrow" "I alone know them, they do not know me" etc. the nei gung programmes the body to move with such martial efficiency and security allowing greater access to unorthodox escapes and attacks which become one action....
Mentally / Spiritually you "negate the self to follow the opponent", its a tough thing to do, counter intuitive even? it takes alot of testing it out and micro epiphanies to gain the confidence to rely on ... well the yin side of our natures I guess, particularly in combat where every fiber in out being is screaming to impose our self on the situation. It takes a lot of experience to overcome that default urge, we gradually erode it away, from pure retard strength to elegance. Sh1t I'm starting to sound all new age! well... it cant be achieved without the crucible of combat, all else is dreaming, even if it is standing meditation or thinking real real hard about it all.
Thanks for the response Niall. I will read it properly and come back to you to dig a little deeper.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think I probably haven explained what I mean very well. If we are talking about describing movement, talking in terms of muscle contraction is ineffective. We really need to be talking about type of movement at the joint effected by the muscle.
Sometimes this can be a simple matter, eg contraction of the biceps results in flexion of the elbow joint.
However, most movements we would want to describe are vastly more complicated than this, involving multiple joints and agonists, stabilisers, co-contractors etc.
Even if we use just a single joint (altough in reality we know it is a combination of a number of stabilising joints) movement, the shoulder. If we want to raise our arm from our side to the front (along the frontal plane) we talk in terms of flexion of the shoulder joint, rather than contraction of the anterior deltoid, serratus anterior and upper (clavicular) portions of the pec.
This is without going into, for example, stabilisation of the a acromioclavicular joint to prevent internal rotation at the same time
All of the above is much more easily communicated by raising your arm in the manner you require, while saying to your student 'raise your arm like this'.
The above is a simple isolation movement, which almost never exist in normal everyday human movement, and are even less common in a complex sporting environment.
So to say to a student that we should be contracting the traps / lats for movement at the shoulder (which would be more accurately described, but less easily understood, as elevation and depression of the scapulothoracic joint) is probably less beneficial than simply demonstrating how you want the to move, accompanied by a simple description ,' lift your shoulders to your ears like this'.
This is just my take on it of course, but I think I didn't communicate it very well in other posts ( and perhaps not even in this one ) 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I think I probably haven explained what I mean very well. If we are talking about describing movement, talking in terms of muscle contraction is ineffective. We really need to be talking about type of movement at the joint effected by the muscle.
Sometimes this can be a simple matter, eg contraction of the biceps results in flexion of the elbow joint.
However, most movements we would want to describe are vastly more complicated than this, involving multiple joints and agonists, stabilisers, co-contractors etc.
Even if we use just a single joint (altough in reality we know it is a combination of a number of stabilising joints) movement, the shoulder. If we want to raise our arm from our side to the front (along the frontal plane) we talk in terms of flexion of the shoulder joint, rather than contraction of the anterior deltoid, serratus anterior and upper (clavicular) portions of the pec.
This is without going into, for example, stabilisation of the a acromioclavicular joint to prevent internal rotation at the same time
All of the above is much more easily communicated by raising your arm in the manner you require, while saying to your student 'raise your arm like this'.
The above is a simple isolation movement, which almost never exist in normal everyday human movement, and are even less common in a complex sporting environment.
So to say to a student that we should be contracting the traps / lats for movement at the shoulder (which would be more accurately described, but less easily understood, as elevation and depression of the scapulothoracic joint) is probably less beneficial than simply demonstrating how you want the to move, accompanied by a simple description ,' lift your shoulders to your ears like this'.
This is just my take on it of course, but I think I didn't communicate it very well in other posts ( and perhaps not even in this one )
Hi Cletus,
I think you have expressed yourself very clearly and now we are getting to the root of what is is we disagree upon. Rather than a complete difference in mindset, I feel we disagree on one point. If we were face to face it would take five minutes as opposed to a week over the internet. :-)
Like you, when I initially teach a technique, I start by explaining it.
Like you, I then demonstrate it.
Like you, I then let students get a feel for it by training with me or each other.
But teaching is not just about initially demonstrating/explaining a technique. It is "observing & correcting" the student as they practise the movement.
A key part of Wing Tsun is creating and maintaining a bio-mechanically effective neutral spine. To do that (in common with Pilates, Yoga and maybe Tai Chi) the distance between the shoulder and ear should be maximised. When I initially teach a movement, I will tell the student to keep their shoulders low. However when I observe them, despite initially telling them to keep their shoulders low, they sometimes still involuntary raise their shoulders. So using plain English does not work all the time.
So then I get more specific and tell them that the muscle that is involuntary scrunching/hunching up their shoulders towards their ears is the Trapezius (Traps) muscle and the way to relax the Traps is to contract the Latissimus dorsi muscle (Lats). I also contract my own Lats and invite them to touch my Lats where they can feel the change in tension.
And this is where we get to the root of our difference.
I think you feel that in order to teach a movement using sports terminology, you feel obliged to list all the muscles used for stability and movement.
Instead I feel that in order to teach the movement, as well as demonstrating, explaining in plain English and practising, we can also use terminology from sports science but only need to list the Prime Movers (The primary muscles used for movement).0 -
-
-
-
I don't think that I was questioning the effectiveness of what you are teaching Niall, frankly anybody who has been on this forum for any length of time knows your views on effectiveness in combat.
Having said that, it is a normal response to question something that you don't understand, especially in an area of interest to you, and particularly if the thing you are questioning seems incomprehensible, and frankly your previous long posts on this thread are incomprehensible, at least to me
*Edit * just realised I used frankly twice in one post 0 -
I don't think that I was questioning the effectiveness of what you are teaching Niall, frankly anybody who has been on this forum for any length of time knows your views on effectiveness in combat.
Having said that, it is a normal response to question something that you don't understand, especially in an area of interest to you, and particularly if the thing you are questioning seems incomprehensible, and frankly your previous long posts on this thread are incomprehensible, at least to me
*Edit * just realised I used frankly twice in one post
Agreed, but my point was more that it's clearly overthinking something that doesn't need overthinking - analysing certain muscle controls & reactions that you can't even control or discern between. I don't even know what he's talking about to be honest. And what's the end game here? Is any of this pseudoscience even applicable? I just can't help thinking that all this time spent on nonsense would be better spent on practical technique that works.
The proof is always in the pudding - I don't know this guy - does he fight? Does he win? Do his techniques, for all the waffle involved, actually work when applied?0 -
I don't think that I was questioning the effectiveness of what you are teaching Niall, frankly anybody who has been on this forum for any length of time knows your views on effectiveness in combat.
Having said that, it is a normal response to question something that you don't understand, especially in an area of interest to you, and particularly if the thing you are questioning seems incomprehensible, and frankly your previous long posts on this thread are incomprehensible, at least to me
*Edit * just realised I used frankly twice in one post
So my point is well made then ;-)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement