24 or the 48 Tai Chi Forms

[Thomas C. McCauley]

Boy oh Boy, What a Defensive Attitude Most of You Have!

Goodby, and thanks - its been fun!

Thomas

[T]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Ashmore:
<B>In no way am I saying Dim Mak is simplistic or that those who practice it are simple minded nor am I disparaging Dim Mak in any way, all I'm saying is that the concept, all by itself, is really quite a simple one.
The basic idea is to know the location of pressure points, then hit them. That's it, end of class.
You can of course, as with all things, complicate the hell out of it and do more or less "advanced" versions. But up front all you need to know is where the pressure point is, you hit it and it has an effect.
And it doesn't take a whole lot of time to figure out how hard to hit someone to make simple expressions of Dim Mak effective, nor does it take eleven years of training in secret with monks or Masters to learn some Dim Mak points.
I can't go into details the locations of the points or how much pressure to apply to each point necessary to get someone to turn blue and climb up walls. I have never studied the concept that deeply. I have, however, studied the idea that hitting certain points on a persons body will cause more damage than hitting others.
Kick a male in his nads, he will expell all of his air and crumple in pain. This is down and dirty "accupoint striking", Dim Mak at its least elegant but arguably most effective.
There was no advanced, complicated, in depth, secretive, years long training required to be good at that, was there?
I stand by my original statement. The idea behind Dim Mak is simple.
I will append it by allowing that you could, if you so chose to do so, make a lifetime study out of knowing where each and every pressure point is on the human body, male and female, and just exactly how much pressure to apply to each to get the maximum and minimum results for each one.
But there certainly is no reason to do that in order to know and be effective at Dim Mak.

Bob</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as point of clarification

Kicking someone in the nads although effective is not exactly what I am talking about. But so be it, think of it as you will.

If you are using Dian Xue in a martial application effectively you are at a higher level

And also for the record I am not saying anything about secrets of the Yang family. And I do not agree that Yang Chengfu ever ruined anything, however he did changed it. I cannot say he riuned it becuae I do not know the forms that came before. I

Mainly what I originally said was that Erle was claiming the style of Luchan via Jianhou and that as far as I know is not possible by Erle's definition since Jianhuo also changed the form of Luchan. Actually we all have a link to Luchan via the Yang style that we do just the same as Erle.

And additionally, this is not to Bob by the way since he said nothing about this

If anyone believe that any CMA family be it Yang, Chen, Wu, Sun, Hao, Tung, Zhaobao or Yip (I know Yip is not Taiji) for that matter will show everybody everything just because they are a student I feel you are not correct. They do reserve some things for family and inside students it is just a fact of Chinese martial arts, which Yang style is one of them.

[César]

Hi!

I just want to say that I think there is Dim Mak in Traditional Yang Style, or at least that's what I have been taught. Two years ago I went to a seminar with my teacher's teacher, Mr. Sergio Arione. He is Montreal's center director (www.taichimontreal.com). He told us that in the movement fan through the back, you could strike in certain point of the armpit with one of your fingers (when he demonstrated on me, I felt a lot of pain). Obviously he learned this from someone. And this someone is Master Yang Jun. So my point is: perhaps there is more dimmak in the form, but we just don't know where is it, and so, we can't make statements like "There is no dimmak in Traditional Yang Style Taijiquan" when we don't know for sure.

Also, I read something that Thomas may find interesting. This is from Yang Jwing Ming's book "Tai Chi Secrets of the Yang Style" Chapter 2-Nine key Secrets of Taijiquan, by Yang Banhou. pp10:"...Fan Back (Shang tong bei)is used to lock the opponent's wrist and elbow and raise it upward to expose the opponent's armpit for further attack...Stand high to search out the horse (gao tan ma)uses one hand to intercept and raise incoming attack while the other hand is used to poke the armpit area (i.e.,Jiquan, H-1).When jiquan cavity is attacked, a heart attack can be initiated..."
I hope this helps

César

[Bob Ashmore]

T,
"A higher level"...? I'm sort of confused by that statement. As long as something you do is effective, that's about as high of a level as you need to reach.
N'est pas?
If by kicking said opponent in said location I take away his will to fight, then I've accomplished all I really need to accomplish.
What "higher level" would be required? That I know exactly how much pressure to kick him with to make him pee himself precisely at 3:15 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2011 seems sort of redundant.
But I concede that there can be more to it, if one desires.
There are whole volumes written about Dim Mak points, their locations, effects and such.
So would you say that learning Chin Na is part of Dim Mak?
Because the first thing it would seem important to learn is the ability to control an opponents movements to open a desired area for a strike. Once the point is open and ready for the strike, striking it wouldn't seem to require a PHD in Dim Mak knowledge.
One skill leads to execution of another.

I believe that Dim Mak, Chin Na and quite a few other skills are inherint in the Yang Cheng Fu forms.
They are "hidden" quite well, though. All you have to do is look at them with your eyes and mind open to see them, so they'll be missed every time.

Bob

[Bob Ashmore]

Oh, and...
Of course some skills are only taught to family and inside students.
Some skills require in depth, hands on, one on one training over long periods of time to acquire.
Who else are you going to teach them to?
You can hardly teach a beginner student, attending a class of twenty or so people in a general session, to perform Chin Na effectively.
First off, he doesn't have the basic skill set required.
Second, you would have to ignore the rest of the students to teach him those skills.
Or use them as practice dummies...
Such things can best be taught mono et mono, that setting usually only occurs with family and long time, trusted, dedicated, serious students.

Does anyone know any other way to do it?
Has anyone ever learned Dim Mak, Chin Na or any other skill in an open class, full of students who range in abilities from newbie to Master?
I sincerely doubt it. These thigns are for more advanced students or family because that is the only way they will be effectively learned.

Do you think a black smith teaching guys who are learning to make horse shoes as a ferrier also should teach the student ferriers how to temper steel and make swords?
Those skills are reserved for the students who are going on to become full fledged smiths themselves, not the ferriers whose interest is more in horses and learning to make horse shoes is part of what they will do for that.
Same thing.
Your average student isn't there to learn these "more advanced", per say, skills. He or she is looking to learn how to move better, balance better, be more healthy and maybe play at little at the martial side for fun.
If you try to throw Dim Mak at them, they will have either no use for it, or no interest in it, or both.

Bob

[Thomas C. McCauley]

hello Bob,

Just read some of your writings - Sounds like you have had maybe two or three lessions, and thats about all! If I was your teacher, I would be So Embarrassed for You!

[T]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Ashmore:
<B>T,
"A higher level"...? I'm sort of confused by that statement. As long as something you do is effective, that's about as high of a level as you need to reach.
N'est pas?
If by kicking said opponent in said location I take away his will to fight, then I've accomplished all I really need to accomplish.
What "higher level" would be required? That I know exactly how much pressure to kick him with to make him pee himself precisely at 3:15 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2011 seems sort of redundant.
But I concede that there can be more to it, if one desires.
There are whole volumes written about Dim Mak points, their locations, effects and such.
So would you say that learning Chin Na is part of Dim Mak?
Because the first thing it would seem important to learn is the ability to control an opponents movements to open a desired area for a strike. Once the point is open and ready for the strike, striking it wouldn't seem to require a PHD in Dim Mak knowledge.
One skill leads to execution of another.

I believe that Dim Mak, Chin Na and quite a few other skills are inherint in the Yang Cheng Fu forms.
They are "hidden" quite well, though. All you have to do is look at them with your eyes and mind open to see them, so they'll be missed every time.

Bob

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Effective yes, but not necessarily dian xue. A kick to the groin is not dian xue anymore than a kick to the groin is Yang style taiji

I will end with this anything called dim mak in my opinion is mostly legendary. Jet Li's movie Kiss of the Dragon, although a good movie is not reality. If you are talking Dian Xue or I believe in Cantonese it is Dim Yuet then you are basing this in reality.

And please stop trying to convince me that there is dian xue and qinna in Yang style, I already know there is. You are arguing that point to the wrong person.

Beyond that I will respectfully drop out of this discussion since I believe you are convinced beyond any doubt you know what you are talking about and anything I say to the contrary will only lead to further discussion escalating to argument.

If you think pressure points are easy then go for it and I wish you luck.




[This message has been edited by T (edited 02-27-2007).]