Greetings,
Hi Steve,
Neither, when you are sitting and turning left or right you are turning with upper torso, with the Thoracic spine.
I took your "hips or waist" as repetition instead of hips as lower part of yao and waist as upper part of yao to be chosen between.
Hi Louis,
It wouldn't be the first non-issue that I've belaboured.
When I wrote:
"The confusion is due to that the UPPER TORSO rotation can be seen as RELATIVE to the HIPS and lumbar area, especially if the hips are not moved."
I was recognizing that he was using a "temporal-locative" perspective.
Trouble is that when this relative movement is taking place it is happening in the flesh.
Its got everything to do with articulations.
Try and achieve this 'temporal-locative' change of relative position without moving the body.
Something can move in the flesh and also be relative to a positional overlay.
When one object or one part of an object moves, it moves relative to an indeterminate number of possible reference points.
Ie. when the upper torso turns on the thoracic spine it also moves relative to the moon but that is a non-issue.
Pivot is a "metaphor" for a location in space and time?
Thank god, metaphor is an application of a name or descriptive phrase to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
Although,this would be ok if the hips/waist were a metaphor for a location in space and time, as well as the upper body being such a metaphor also.
Then 3 metaphors would be moving relative to each other and no issue would arise re what happens when two parts of the body move relative to each other in real time space with real muscles.
No, the center of gravity is not a physical "thing".
It is an attribute of a physical thing. It is a point through which all of the weight of a body having mass is held to act relative to another body having mass.
It is not a convenient fiction as Daniel has led you to believe.
It is a precise location in a physical body that can be determined by suspending the object from a number of points.
It is one of the forces in our universe and acts in combination with a host of other forces acting on bodies.
Centers of gravity become relevant when one object moves relative to its own base, or as you say changes shape. Or I would say the relative locations of its parts change relative to each other.
It also becomes relevant when two objects are in contact so that the principle of the lever applies.
Assign the force of gravity and the points at which it acts to 'convenient fiction' status at grave peril.
The location of the center of gravity of any object can be precisely determined.
The relation of the center of gravity to a fulcrum or pivot point is such that when the two coincide there is equilibrium. When they don't there is displacement.
The center of gravity is not itself a fixed pivot point around which an object spins.
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quicklearn.asp?loc=ql&t opic_id=5&quicklearn_id=8&subject_id=2&ebt=140&ebn=&ebs=&ebl=&elc=13
What if that slight turn did depart from classical principles. Would you abandon the turn or the principle?
There is more than one interpretation of the principles and some of them might exclude the turn not as a major contravention but as as an addition that is a stylistic addition without important practical use.
As it stands it allows upper torso turning independent of the lower torso, regardless of whether the lower turned before it.
The point being that the lower is not moving.
What happened to when one part moves all parts move, when one stops all stop?
Do we now have when one part stops other parts can move. Or when one part stops other parts can move as long as the other parts moved before.
As to the natural spirals, when the stuff seeps out between the spinal discs, it is also the gentlest of explosions which in caressing the sciatic nerves will give an seemingly extraordinary amount of sensation.
YZJ specifically proscribes movement that will incur that tension, so as to avoid it.
Why would he want to avoid it? What is the tension an indicator of so as to require a prohibition.
You ask,
"By the way, where is your “pivot” while you are in the process of shifting your weight from one leg to the other? Or do you just wait until you’ve arrived where all of your weight is over one leg before you engage your pivot?"
My pivot for lateral weight shifts is the hip joint. I relax my knee a little, let the weight all sink to one side. My other foot now while still on the ground has not abandoned its position but is no longer supporting the weight of the body.
Some people may still have that empty foot support its own weight, sort of like a brace, but its no longer supporting the weight of the rest of the body.
This allows the appearance that it is still weighted. Keeps the other guy from knowing where the weight is. Keeps him from knowing which leg the center of gravity is closest to.
And, of course, I wait till all weight has arrived on that leg before I pivot my hip/torso laterally on that leg's hip joint.
Doesn't everybody? Do you move your leg when walking before all the weight is transfered?
Take care,
Ron
Hi Wushuer,
The angle of the feet depends on where you want to go. The external/internal rotation of the leg determines the arc of lateral torso rotation and its direction.
Small frame/large frame can be confusing since it can take into account not only the space of the stance/step, but the amount of lateral rotation of the torso as well as the amount of vertical arc of the arms.
And then you can have combinations of this.
Eg. Slant flying needs only slight upper movements but may need a moderately large step to get one leg behind an opponent.
You can blind a person in any stance without torso rotation with just a flick of your wrist.
But this is with respect to applications.
When applied to describe the way the forms are done small frame applies to the Wu Hao form. YCF form is large predominantly, but a skilled practicioner can sneak in some small frame applications in eg. Lady works at shuttles.
The Wu chian form once was the same as the YCF. When the leaning was exaggerated it became the largest of the large frame forms.
Your teachers may have shrunk the way the postures are performed.
It is important to keep forms and applications distinct. Forms, in my opinion, are stylized, standardized, choreographed routines. They are good memory devices and vehicles for giving demonstrations. As well as being challenging to learn and fun to do. But, in essence, they usually are IMITATIONS of real application.
They even allow the inclusion of little symbolic gestures, little bits of flowery fists.
EG. modern wushu with its grand acrobatic skills and incredible speed so as to keep the audience spellbound has no martial application as such. Except to run into someone at high speed, but then a good T'ai chi person should know how to respond to all that momentum.
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-17-2003).]
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-17-2003).]
Single weightedness?
by RonKreshmar » Sat May 17, 2003 5:08 am
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by Wushuer » Sun May 18, 2003 1:47 am
Ron,
Wu Chien Chuan learned both the large and the small frames styles from the Yangs. He learned Large Frame TCC from Yang Ban Hou, he learned Small Frame from Yang Lu Chan.
The style he preferred was the Small Frame and that was the style he and his family have promoted for five, now going on six, generations.
The Wu family do have a Large Frame form, and I have just heard of a "Larger Circle" saber form that Wu Tai Sin has introduced in one of the Wu family Academies, but they pride themselves on being Small Frame in their traditional form and only teach these large frame forms to very advanced students.
Wu Chien Chuan learned both the large and the small frames styles from the Yangs. He learned Large Frame TCC from Yang Ban Hou, he learned Small Frame from Yang Lu Chan.
The style he preferred was the Small Frame and that was the style he and his family have promoted for five, now going on six, generations.
The Wu family do have a Large Frame form, and I have just heard of a "Larger Circle" saber form that Wu Tai Sin has introduced in one of the Wu family Academies, but they pride themselves on being Small Frame in their traditional form and only teach these large frame forms to very advanced students.
- Wushuer
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 7:01 am
by RonKreshmar » Sun May 18, 2003 3:00 am
Hi Wushuer,
Like I said the large vs small depends on how you define them.
Have a look at:
http://www.glink.net.hk/~taichi/wujg_p.html
Very close to YCF's postures. His was a large frame as far as I know.
Ron
Like I said the large vs small depends on how you define them.
Have a look at:
http://www.glink.net.hk/~taichi/wujg_p.html
Very close to YCF's postures. His was a large frame as far as I know.
Ron
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by RonKreshmar » Sun May 18, 2003 3:00 am
Hi Wushuer,
Like I said the large vs small depends on how you define them.
Have a look at:
http://www.glink.net.hk/~taichi/wujg_p.html
Very close to YCF's postures. His was a large frame as far as I know.
Ron
Like I said the large vs small depends on how you define them.
Have a look at:
http://www.glink.net.hk/~taichi/wujg_p.html
Very close to YCF's postures. His was a large frame as far as I know.
Ron
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by tai1chi » Sun May 18, 2003 3:04 am
Hi Ron,
this clarifies a lot:
"Neither, when you are sitting and turning left or right you are turning with upper torso, with the Thoracic spine."
Then, do you think this method of turning is inherently damaging over the short or long-term?
Best,
Steve James
this clarifies a lot:
"Neither, when you are sitting and turning left or right you are turning with upper torso, with the Thoracic spine."
Then, do you think this method of turning is inherently damaging over the short or long-term?
Best,
Steve James
- tai1chi
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: NY
by RonKreshmar » Sun May 18, 2003 3:39 am
Hi Steve,
Yes it can be damaging.
I take it to be a case of leading with the UPPER TORSO.
In single whip its not big deal. In roll back it is becoming a bigger deal.
But I have seen it in the turning kicks, and one of the worst is wave hands.
Some people twist their torso as far as they can while holding their ball with hips to the front. Worse some twist after transfering weight.
A long time ago, and maybe still, one common exercise was to hold the arms out to the sides and turn your body. This was meant to exercise the waist. Often it was done ballistically.
Another was arms to side, bend body forward and touch opposite toe. All to build up lower back muscles.
My take on feet, legs, waist, fingers and the way I practice is:
The foot placement determines the direction where the leg will post.
The foot having been placed, all weight is sunk to that side, turning the leg into a post.
Now the whole trunk turns at the hip joint, with the other leg moving based on where you want the foot to go either to finish the movement and/or to start the next movement.
My arms turn in vertical circles, as if turning a wheel, as my torso turns to get me to where I want to use my hands.
This sort of moving takes time to learn.
Wu Yu Hsing has one way of doing it.
Jou describes in in his book, p.168, but even he mixes both hip turn and upper body turn.
As it stands the "feet,legs, waist, fingers" sequence does not make clear what part to use for what.
If it turns out that whatever you do, including moving from the upper torso involves the waist since every body has one this results in a specific way of moving.
Sometimes to and fro as in bow steps is seen as satisfying the waist requirement while the upper torso is also twisting.
If I were to teach, I would explain that to move from the torso was always to move from the hips and NEVER to move the UPPER TORSO by itself. Always let it simply sit on the hips and ride along with the hips movements.
Re your question about sitting.
I once was attacked from behind while sitting at a desk on a swivel chair.
The attacker tried to choke me.
I twisted forcefully sideways and escaped.
The neck was only a bit sore but I really hurt my lower back. This kind of stuff should be obvious, but it isn't.
Even in the medical community there are only a few specialists who have taken the time to study what happens when the body moves.
Often what a person says he is doing is not what is happening.
Ron
Yes it can be damaging.
I take it to be a case of leading with the UPPER TORSO.
In single whip its not big deal. In roll back it is becoming a bigger deal.
But I have seen it in the turning kicks, and one of the worst is wave hands.
Some people twist their torso as far as they can while holding their ball with hips to the front. Worse some twist after transfering weight.
A long time ago, and maybe still, one common exercise was to hold the arms out to the sides and turn your body. This was meant to exercise the waist. Often it was done ballistically.
Another was arms to side, bend body forward and touch opposite toe. All to build up lower back muscles.
My take on feet, legs, waist, fingers and the way I practice is:
The foot placement determines the direction where the leg will post.
The foot having been placed, all weight is sunk to that side, turning the leg into a post.
Now the whole trunk turns at the hip joint, with the other leg moving based on where you want the foot to go either to finish the movement and/or to start the next movement.
My arms turn in vertical circles, as if turning a wheel, as my torso turns to get me to where I want to use my hands.
This sort of moving takes time to learn.
Wu Yu Hsing has one way of doing it.
Jou describes in in his book, p.168, but even he mixes both hip turn and upper body turn.
As it stands the "feet,legs, waist, fingers" sequence does not make clear what part to use for what.
If it turns out that whatever you do, including moving from the upper torso involves the waist since every body has one this results in a specific way of moving.
Sometimes to and fro as in bow steps is seen as satisfying the waist requirement while the upper torso is also twisting.
If I were to teach, I would explain that to move from the torso was always to move from the hips and NEVER to move the UPPER TORSO by itself. Always let it simply sit on the hips and ride along with the hips movements.
Re your question about sitting.
I once was attacked from behind while sitting at a desk on a swivel chair.
The attacker tried to choke me.
I twisted forcefully sideways and escaped.
The neck was only a bit sore but I really hurt my lower back. This kind of stuff should be obvious, but it isn't.
Even in the medical community there are only a few specialists who have taken the time to study what happens when the body moves.
Often what a person says he is doing is not what is happening.
Ron
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by tai1chi » Sun May 18, 2003 5:50 am
Hi Ron,
It's easier to address these clarified points. You wrote:
"Yes it can be damaging."
Ok, I'd agree that there's a possibility of injury. However, every joint has a "normal," healthy range of movement. It is certainly possible to do this movement without exceeding that rom, and consequently without injury. IOW, it is just as possible to do the movement "correctly."
"I take it to be a case of leading with the UPPER TORSO."
Understood, but not everyone means the same thing that you do by "upper torso." Ime, the emphasis is on not using the shoulders. So, lower torso, for me at least, would mean using the "waist" (i.e., the segment between the upper torso and the hips) to make that movement.
[snip]
"Re your question about sitting.
I once was attacked from behind while sitting at a desk on a swivel chair.
The attacker tried to choke me.
I twisted forcefully sideways and escaped.
The neck was only a bit sore but I really hurt my lower back. This kind of stuff should be obvious, but it isn't."
[SJ] The evidence you adduced for injury earlier had much to say about the negative effects of whipping the neck. Particularly, it was concerned with a violent "yes, no" shaking. That was interesting because it was something mechanically impossible to accomplish with the lower back. This relates directly to the seated twist example. The twist can extend to the upper cervical spine and *can* cause damage through overextension. However, I think that overextension is *precisely* what is trained *out* of this, as a tcc practice. I.e., though some schools might have swinging waist exercises, few I've seen utilize that in their form or push/hands.
[RK]
"Even in the medical community there are only a few specialists who have taken the time to study what happens when the body moves."
Well, I disagree. But, anyway, as an anecdote. Last month I served jury duty. The case was one of cervical and lumbar neck injury, from an automobile accident. The plaintiff complained that she had pain and that she had lost enough ROM in those areas that she could not function normally. As you might expect, there were experts brought in to explain what "normal" was for these areas. We also saw MRIs (T1 and T2s), etc.
Experts for the plaintiffs claimed that she had lost 50% of her side to side (i.e., "yes/no") ROM. The neck was normally expected to be able to turn almost 180 degrees --without injury, or *pain*-- Of course this was not supposed to be done violently.
To make a long story short, she didn't get her million dollars. Well, it just so happened that I had developed a stiff neck. It was "a pain in the neck." I couldn't look to the side without turning my entire body. Oh, yeah, one problem that the jury had with the plaintiff was that she would constantly turn her head to look at us. Well, everybody there who had (or had had) a stiff neck knew that she shouldn't be able to do that. She should have turned her whole body --because she was injured and doing it normally --within the accepted medical limits-- would have been painful.
So, in general, I think you haven't made the argument that these movements are *inherently* harmful, only that they are possibly so. And, if what you say about medical interest in this is lacking, you haven't presented more than apocryphal evidence about the damage accrued from specific tcc movements. For example, you give two examples where you have injured your back. That might be your personal pathology, since it has happened more than once. I appreciate the fact that "it could happen to anyone", but the fact is that it hasn't happened to more people.
Maybe it's true that this is an unacknowledged problem among tcc practitioners. I don't think it can possibly one style over another, as there is too much --necessary--biomechanical overlap. I do think that it is helpful, for health reasons, to emphasize that violent, overextended twisting of the spine --in any region-- should be avoided. I think most of us would agree with that, and perhaps this is expressly true for Yang style practitioners.
[RK]
"Often what a person says he is doing is not what is happening."
[SJ]
Yes, I agree. As Louis suggest, though, the guys who wrote the classics, etc., did not have the advantage of MRIs and western science. It's possible that they are not mutually translatable. I guess the key is to find a common language.
Best,
Steve James
It's easier to address these clarified points. You wrote:
"Yes it can be damaging."
Ok, I'd agree that there's a possibility of injury. However, every joint has a "normal," healthy range of movement. It is certainly possible to do this movement without exceeding that rom, and consequently without injury. IOW, it is just as possible to do the movement "correctly."
"I take it to be a case of leading with the UPPER TORSO."
Understood, but not everyone means the same thing that you do by "upper torso." Ime, the emphasis is on not using the shoulders. So, lower torso, for me at least, would mean using the "waist" (i.e., the segment between the upper torso and the hips) to make that movement.
[snip]
"Re your question about sitting.
I once was attacked from behind while sitting at a desk on a swivel chair.
The attacker tried to choke me.
I twisted forcefully sideways and escaped.
The neck was only a bit sore but I really hurt my lower back. This kind of stuff should be obvious, but it isn't."
[SJ] The evidence you adduced for injury earlier had much to say about the negative effects of whipping the neck. Particularly, it was concerned with a violent "yes, no" shaking. That was interesting because it was something mechanically impossible to accomplish with the lower back. This relates directly to the seated twist example. The twist can extend to the upper cervical spine and *can* cause damage through overextension. However, I think that overextension is *precisely* what is trained *out* of this, as a tcc practice. I.e., though some schools might have swinging waist exercises, few I've seen utilize that in their form or push/hands.
[RK]
"Even in the medical community there are only a few specialists who have taken the time to study what happens when the body moves."
Well, I disagree. But, anyway, as an anecdote. Last month I served jury duty. The case was one of cervical and lumbar neck injury, from an automobile accident. The plaintiff complained that she had pain and that she had lost enough ROM in those areas that she could not function normally. As you might expect, there were experts brought in to explain what "normal" was for these areas. We also saw MRIs (T1 and T2s), etc.
Experts for the plaintiffs claimed that she had lost 50% of her side to side (i.e., "yes/no") ROM. The neck was normally expected to be able to turn almost 180 degrees --without injury, or *pain*-- Of course this was not supposed to be done violently.
To make a long story short, she didn't get her million dollars. Well, it just so happened that I had developed a stiff neck. It was "a pain in the neck." I couldn't look to the side without turning my entire body. Oh, yeah, one problem that the jury had with the plaintiff was that she would constantly turn her head to look at us. Well, everybody there who had (or had had) a stiff neck knew that she shouldn't be able to do that. She should have turned her whole body --because she was injured and doing it normally --within the accepted medical limits-- would have been painful.
So, in general, I think you haven't made the argument that these movements are *inherently* harmful, only that they are possibly so. And, if what you say about medical interest in this is lacking, you haven't presented more than apocryphal evidence about the damage accrued from specific tcc movements. For example, you give two examples where you have injured your back. That might be your personal pathology, since it has happened more than once. I appreciate the fact that "it could happen to anyone", but the fact is that it hasn't happened to more people.
Maybe it's true that this is an unacknowledged problem among tcc practitioners. I don't think it can possibly one style over another, as there is too much --necessary--biomechanical overlap. I do think that it is helpful, for health reasons, to emphasize that violent, overextended twisting of the spine --in any region-- should be avoided. I think most of us would agree with that, and perhaps this is expressly true for Yang style practitioners.
[RK]
"Often what a person says he is doing is not what is happening."
[SJ]
Yes, I agree. As Louis suggest, though, the guys who wrote the classics, etc., did not have the advantage of MRIs and western science. It's possible that they are not mutually translatable. I guess the key is to find a common language.
Best,
Steve James
- tai1chi
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: NY
by Louis Swaim » Sun May 18, 2003 5:24 pm
Greetings Ron,
You wrote, ‘Pivot is a "metaphor" for a location in space and time?’
Yes indeed. You seem incredulous, but consider these Oxford English Dictionary entries for the word pivot:
1. a. A short shaft or pin, usually of metal and pointed, forming the fulcrum and centre on which something turns or oscillates; as the pin of a hinge, the end of an axle or spindle, or the arbor on which the hands of a timepiece turn; a pintle, gudgeon.
3. transf. and fig. a. That on which anything turns; a cardinal or central point.
Definition 1 is of a physical object; definition 3 is a figurative entailment of definition 1. The axis of the earth’s rotation, or any rotating body, is not a shaft or a pin, but is a concept expressive of physical relationships.
I was trying to distinguish this figurative sense from that of an invariable physical object—in this case, a particular anatomical structure. The physicality of the relationship is, as you suggest, without question. The pivot, metaphorical as it is, has relevance.
Somewhere earlier in this thread, I quoted some interesting thoughts by Xiang Kairen regarding the necessity of knowing the location of what he termed the ‘central pivot’ in taiji practice. I’m not sure he would have agreed that one should wait until your weight has arrived over one leg before the pivot becomes relevant.
Take care,
Louis
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 05-18-2003).]
You wrote, ‘Pivot is a "metaphor" for a location in space and time?’
Yes indeed. You seem incredulous, but consider these Oxford English Dictionary entries for the word pivot:
1. a. A short shaft or pin, usually of metal and pointed, forming the fulcrum and centre on which something turns or oscillates; as the pin of a hinge, the end of an axle or spindle, or the arbor on which the hands of a timepiece turn; a pintle, gudgeon.
3. transf. and fig. a. That on which anything turns; a cardinal or central point.
Definition 1 is of a physical object; definition 3 is a figurative entailment of definition 1. The axis of the earth’s rotation, or any rotating body, is not a shaft or a pin, but is a concept expressive of physical relationships.
I was trying to distinguish this figurative sense from that of an invariable physical object—in this case, a particular anatomical structure. The physicality of the relationship is, as you suggest, without question. The pivot, metaphorical as it is, has relevance.
Somewhere earlier in this thread, I quoted some interesting thoughts by Xiang Kairen regarding the necessity of knowing the location of what he termed the ‘central pivot’ in taiji practice. I’m not sure he would have agreed that one should wait until your weight has arrived over one leg before the pivot becomes relevant.
Take care,
Louis
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 05-18-2003).]
- Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
by Louis Swaim » Sun May 18, 2003 7:44 pm
Ron,
By the way, thank you for posting the link to the Wu Jianquan photos. Even though it's different than what I do, I've always loved those photos. One can appreciate the logic of his forms. For example, the lean appears to be a way of keeping the torso aligned with the hips. If you look closely, however, some postures do clearly show some upper torso rotation, with the shoulders offset from the orientation from the hips (ex., #s 38, 42, and 56).
Take care,
Louis
By the way, thank you for posting the link to the Wu Jianquan photos. Even though it's different than what I do, I've always loved those photos. One can appreciate the logic of his forms. For example, the lean appears to be a way of keeping the torso aligned with the hips. If you look closely, however, some postures do clearly show some upper torso rotation, with the shoulders offset from the orientation from the hips (ex., #s 38, 42, and 56).
Take care,
Louis
- Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
by RonKreshmar » Mon May 19, 2003 12:54 am
Hi Steve,
Yes, ROM determines the normal, correct range, AS WELL AS the limit beyond which not to go if one wants to avoid the consequences of such excess.
You wrote,
“Ime, the emphasis is on not using the shoulders. So, lower torso, for me at least, would mean using the "waist" (i.e., the segment between the upper torso and the hips) to make that movement. “
Yes, upper torso includes the shoulders, and waist could mean the segment between the shoulders and the hips.
But, the shoulders are the top part of the upper torso, with the lower part of the upper torso being the lowest thoracic vertebra.
If you wish to include the area between the shoulders and the bottom of the upper torso as the “waist”, ie. the whole chest, then indeed the turning would take place in the ‘waist’ as defined by you.
Since now a part of the upper torso better defined by the throracic spine, is included in your "waist".
But most people would not take the waist to be all the area below the shoulders.
To avoid such confusion I suggested at the outset that using anatomical referents for what is doing what where might be helpful.
Anatomy has a well defined set of meanings and reference points so as to communicate clearly when clarity is important.
You are misreading the evidence that I offered in the link.
The link deals with all of the spine, cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.
It gives an example for the neck, it didn’’t give examples for the thorax or lumbar spine, just what happens if.
I gave some examples in my last post. Side to side rotation exercises that are potentially very damaging to the lumbar spine but were done in the belief that they build up back muscles.
You are also confusing over-extension with over-rotation.
Perhaps you are not using “extension’’ in its anatomical meaning but just in one of its ordinary meanings of ‘going beyond’.
More, my example was to show not that neck damage is possible through throracic rotation when the hips are fixed.
But precisely that there is little neck damage (because the neck has a 180 degree ROM in the lateral plane), while there was damage to the lumbar spine from turning the upper torso while the bottom torso was immobile.
In that trial you may also have ignored evidence and replaced it with your take on things.
The woman claimed 50 % loss of mobility. The normal range for cervical lateral movement is 180 degrees and this is only one plane of movement each with their ranges of movement.
She looks at the jury without turning her body. She turns her neck 90 degrees, doesn’t she?
Did you ever see her turn her head in the opposite direction without moving her body?
Have you never had a neck injury which affected one side only?
I guess I should be relieved that there is no million dollars at stake in this discussion.
To repeat, I never made the argument that these movements are inherently harmful.
If in the normal range of movement they are fine, outside it they are not with some very serious consequences for that area.
Not all areas have the same consequences when their range of movement is exceeded. The spine is a very sensitive area with limited range of movement.
The turning of the torso that I wish to encourage is from the hips using the leg/pelvis joint and its 90 degree range of movement for lateral body rotation. I want to limit use of independent upper torso rotation.
More hips, less shoulders will now be a favorite saying of mine.
Yes, the key is to find a common language to describe body movement. Such a language exists. One has to take the time to learn it.
Best,
Ron
Yes, ROM determines the normal, correct range, AS WELL AS the limit beyond which not to go if one wants to avoid the consequences of such excess.
You wrote,
“Ime, the emphasis is on not using the shoulders. So, lower torso, for me at least, would mean using the "waist" (i.e., the segment between the upper torso and the hips) to make that movement. “
Yes, upper torso includes the shoulders, and waist could mean the segment between the shoulders and the hips.
But, the shoulders are the top part of the upper torso, with the lower part of the upper torso being the lowest thoracic vertebra.
If you wish to include the area between the shoulders and the bottom of the upper torso as the “waist”, ie. the whole chest, then indeed the turning would take place in the ‘waist’ as defined by you.
Since now a part of the upper torso better defined by the throracic spine, is included in your "waist".
But most people would not take the waist to be all the area below the shoulders.
To avoid such confusion I suggested at the outset that using anatomical referents for what is doing what where might be helpful.
Anatomy has a well defined set of meanings and reference points so as to communicate clearly when clarity is important.
You are misreading the evidence that I offered in the link.
The link deals with all of the spine, cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.
It gives an example for the neck, it didn’’t give examples for the thorax or lumbar spine, just what happens if.
I gave some examples in my last post. Side to side rotation exercises that are potentially very damaging to the lumbar spine but were done in the belief that they build up back muscles.
You are also confusing over-extension with over-rotation.
Perhaps you are not using “extension’’ in its anatomical meaning but just in one of its ordinary meanings of ‘going beyond’.
More, my example was to show not that neck damage is possible through throracic rotation when the hips are fixed.
But precisely that there is little neck damage (because the neck has a 180 degree ROM in the lateral plane), while there was damage to the lumbar spine from turning the upper torso while the bottom torso was immobile.
In that trial you may also have ignored evidence and replaced it with your take on things.
The woman claimed 50 % loss of mobility. The normal range for cervical lateral movement is 180 degrees and this is only one plane of movement each with their ranges of movement.
She looks at the jury without turning her body. She turns her neck 90 degrees, doesn’t she?
Did you ever see her turn her head in the opposite direction without moving her body?
Have you never had a neck injury which affected one side only?
I guess I should be relieved that there is no million dollars at stake in this discussion.
To repeat, I never made the argument that these movements are inherently harmful.
If in the normal range of movement they are fine, outside it they are not with some very serious consequences for that area.
Not all areas have the same consequences when their range of movement is exceeded. The spine is a very sensitive area with limited range of movement.
The turning of the torso that I wish to encourage is from the hips using the leg/pelvis joint and its 90 degree range of movement for lateral body rotation. I want to limit use of independent upper torso rotation.
More hips, less shoulders will now be a favorite saying of mine.
Yes, the key is to find a common language to describe body movement. Such a language exists. One has to take the time to learn it.
Best,
Ron
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by RonKreshmar » Mon May 19, 2003 3:21 am
Hi Louis,
I was half teasing re my incredulity.
Based on what I posted above about the difference when “is” is used predicatively vs metaphorically,
‘Pivot is a "metaphor" for a location in space and time’
If “is” is the “is” of a metaphor it is odd.
When it is read with “is” as the ‘predicative’ meaning of “is”, either as definitional, or simply as a genus/species relation, ie. class relation, it is decidedly odd.
But, cleverness aside.
A metaphor as you well know requires a source and a target.
If someone were to say give me a metaphor for ‘location in space and time’ would ‘pivot’ pop up?
Conversely, if someone were to say give me a metaphor for ‘pivot’ would ‘location in space and time’ pop up?
Point 3 is not a figurative entailment.
Unless you are using a metaphor here?
The first part after transf. is a restatement of point one, re physical object, from species to genus. ONLY the second part after fig. deals with figurative.
But, while these may be issues in the language of anatomy, language of physics, language of logic, language of linguistic analysis, these are all non-issues re Tai Chi.
Though you have assigned the ‘central pivot’ somewhere beyond the physical, it continues to haunt.
Some people have felt so grateful when being told where it is, that they felt like crying. No doubt due to relief after long fruitless searching.
As in
“At this time, since Master Wang was teaching at Hunan University, it was not easy to meet. After half a year I chanced upon him and excitedly began to demonstrate for him. He smiled and nodded his head, saying, "Although you are not at the heart of it, you are not far! You only know that the control is in the waist, but you have overlooked the word 'between' in the saying, 'The meaning and source of life is between the kidneys [here, kidneys means waist],' and you have skipped over the word 'middle' in the saying, 'You must at all times keep the mind in the middle of the waist.' You must understand that these two words show the location of the 'life meridian' of Taijiquan”
So Xiang Kairen had found IT. Yes, Tai chi is all about the “ between” the kindneys, taken by the Chinese to be the source of sperm.
Not only that, but
“If you are unable to find this, then you will not find 'central equilibrium' among the Thirteen Postures.”
So, at least now we know where the central equilibrium might be, or at least how to get to it.
But,
“It is true that this theory is quite abstruse and not easy to grasp”.
Exactly.
Since the “yao” is as elusive as the fictitious Scarlet Pimpernel, perhaps one more attempt to pin it down may be forgiven.
So, once more in search of the “central “ pivot for Tai chi as a martial art.
It is on this pivot that the matter of whether one is doing Tai chi or just exercise rests.
When you say that
“I’m not sure he (Xiang Kairen) would have agreed that one should wait until your weight has arrived over one leg before the pivot becomes relevant.”
Given what and where he takes the pivot to be this comes as no surprise.
But, lets leave him and Master Wang aside for now.
My present version of this is that the most important pivot is a real pivot in the human body.
Its physical existence is demonstrable but to show in which sense of ‘central’ it is central will require argument.
It is not central geometrically, but crucial to the performance of movements in Tai Chi.
It is the ilio-femoral joint which allows lateral movement of the torso at the hip joints.
It is this joint that allows the sinking all of the body's weight to one leg.
It is this joint that allows turning the torso 90 degrees from the front so as to evade and attach at one stroke once the weight is shifted.
Its use in the bow steps of the form limits its range of movements so its full potential is not revealed in the bow step.
The bow step has weight on both feet and because of foot positions it allows transference of weight between those feet forward and backward while only folding the hips no more than the lateral distance beween the two feet.
But when all the weight is sunk to one leg, to one side, when one is single weighted then the marvels of the joint’s range can be revealed.
Then we have lateral weight shifts, quickly done with quick lateral turning of the torso made possible once one leg is a post for the torso to swing sideways on.
The bow step has its place in Tai chi applications but it is only one of many steps that take place in the form.
It is not a nimble step once one is in it.
But to get into it one has to be nimble- nimbly shift the foot direction, nimbly shift weight, nimbly move the moving leg, and then slowly transfer weight with just a touch of the hip rotation allowed by that configuration. That is, when one is using the bow step in actual application.
The main use of the bow step is in slant flying. It is also in slant flying where the version of the peng arm that is used in the form finds its proper use.
This is also the form of peng arm used in push hands often while in a bow step.
But there are other forms of the peng arm and other steps to complement those forms.
But that’s for another post, maybe even another thread.
Best,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-18-2003).]
I was half teasing re my incredulity.
Based on what I posted above about the difference when “is” is used predicatively vs metaphorically,
‘Pivot is a "metaphor" for a location in space and time’
If “is” is the “is” of a metaphor it is odd.
When it is read with “is” as the ‘predicative’ meaning of “is”, either as definitional, or simply as a genus/species relation, ie. class relation, it is decidedly odd.
But, cleverness aside.
A metaphor as you well know requires a source and a target.
If someone were to say give me a metaphor for ‘location in space and time’ would ‘pivot’ pop up?
Conversely, if someone were to say give me a metaphor for ‘pivot’ would ‘location in space and time’ pop up?
Point 3 is not a figurative entailment.
Unless you are using a metaphor here?
The first part after transf. is a restatement of point one, re physical object, from species to genus. ONLY the second part after fig. deals with figurative.
But, while these may be issues in the language of anatomy, language of physics, language of logic, language of linguistic analysis, these are all non-issues re Tai Chi.
Though you have assigned the ‘central pivot’ somewhere beyond the physical, it continues to haunt.
Some people have felt so grateful when being told where it is, that they felt like crying. No doubt due to relief after long fruitless searching.
As in
“At this time, since Master Wang was teaching at Hunan University, it was not easy to meet. After half a year I chanced upon him and excitedly began to demonstrate for him. He smiled and nodded his head, saying, "Although you are not at the heart of it, you are not far! You only know that the control is in the waist, but you have overlooked the word 'between' in the saying, 'The meaning and source of life is between the kidneys [here, kidneys means waist],' and you have skipped over the word 'middle' in the saying, 'You must at all times keep the mind in the middle of the waist.' You must understand that these two words show the location of the 'life meridian' of Taijiquan”
So Xiang Kairen had found IT. Yes, Tai chi is all about the “ between” the kindneys, taken by the Chinese to be the source of sperm.
Not only that, but
“If you are unable to find this, then you will not find 'central equilibrium' among the Thirteen Postures.”
So, at least now we know where the central equilibrium might be, or at least how to get to it.
But,
“It is true that this theory is quite abstruse and not easy to grasp”.
Exactly.
Since the “yao” is as elusive as the fictitious Scarlet Pimpernel, perhaps one more attempt to pin it down may be forgiven.
So, once more in search of the “central “ pivot for Tai chi as a martial art.
It is on this pivot that the matter of whether one is doing Tai chi or just exercise rests.
When you say that
“I’m not sure he (Xiang Kairen) would have agreed that one should wait until your weight has arrived over one leg before the pivot becomes relevant.”
Given what and where he takes the pivot to be this comes as no surprise.
But, lets leave him and Master Wang aside for now.
My present version of this is that the most important pivot is a real pivot in the human body.
Its physical existence is demonstrable but to show in which sense of ‘central’ it is central will require argument.
It is not central geometrically, but crucial to the performance of movements in Tai Chi.
It is the ilio-femoral joint which allows lateral movement of the torso at the hip joints.
It is this joint that allows the sinking all of the body's weight to one leg.
It is this joint that allows turning the torso 90 degrees from the front so as to evade and attach at one stroke once the weight is shifted.
Its use in the bow steps of the form limits its range of movements so its full potential is not revealed in the bow step.
The bow step has weight on both feet and because of foot positions it allows transference of weight between those feet forward and backward while only folding the hips no more than the lateral distance beween the two feet.
But when all the weight is sunk to one leg, to one side, when one is single weighted then the marvels of the joint’s range can be revealed.
Then we have lateral weight shifts, quickly done with quick lateral turning of the torso made possible once one leg is a post for the torso to swing sideways on.
The bow step has its place in Tai chi applications but it is only one of many steps that take place in the form.
It is not a nimble step once one is in it.
But to get into it one has to be nimble- nimbly shift the foot direction, nimbly shift weight, nimbly move the moving leg, and then slowly transfer weight with just a touch of the hip rotation allowed by that configuration. That is, when one is using the bow step in actual application.
The main use of the bow step is in slant flying. It is also in slant flying where the version of the peng arm that is used in the form finds its proper use.
This is also the form of peng arm used in push hands often while in a bow step.
But there are other forms of the peng arm and other steps to complement those forms.
But that’s for another post, maybe even another thread.
Best,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-18-2003).]
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by tai1chi » Mon May 19, 2003 3:49 am
Hi Ron,
It's true; I've probably misread much of the evidence.
Re: the trial:
"She looks at the jury without turning her body. She turns her neck 90 degrees, doesn’t she?
Did you ever see her turn her head in the opposite direction without moving her body?"
Well, yeah, and I could write a really funny story about the whole thing, but you'd have had to have been there.
"Have you never had a neck injury which affected one side only?"
Fwiw, that pain in my neck--which started out being generalized to both shoulders-- gradually became localized on the left side, then the other. But, the whole episode was unusual; and I can't say that I've ever had a real injry.
[RK]
"I guess I should be relieved that there is no million dollars at stake in this discussion.
[SJ] Well, the jury was inclined to be sympathetic. But, having had other forms of injury, I wouldn't take a million bucks for my back health, which is why I have taken this discussion seriously.
[RK]
To repeat, I never made the argument that these movements are inherently harmful.
If in the normal range of movement they are fine, outside it they are not with some very serious consequences for that area.
[SJ]
Oops, please pardon my mistaken impressions. I just wasn't clear about the argument.
[RK] [snip]
The spine is a very sensitive area with limited range of movement.
[SJ] Agreed.
[RK]
The turning of the torso that I wish to encourage is from the hips using the leg/pelvis joint and its 90 degree range of movement for lateral body rotation. I want to limit use of independent upper torso rotation.
[SJ]
I know it must be crystal clear to you, but I'm a little unclear about what you mean by "independent." Does it have any relationship to the Classical idea of distinguishing between upper and lower?
[RK]
More hips, less shoulders will now be a favorite saying of mine.
Yes, the key is to find a common language to describe body movement. Such a language exists. One has to take the time to learn it.
[SJ] Well, I think Louis has already raised the point that anatomy, mechanics and metaphor do not usually align.
"Waist", "hips", "shoulders" are not medical terms, and we probably never be satisfactorily able to anatomically identify the "yao", "kua" --let alone "dantien." Personally, I think the attempt at clear communication is more important than the nomenclature, especially when the physical stakes may be high.
Best,
Steve James
It's true; I've probably misread much of the evidence.
Re: the trial:
"She looks at the jury without turning her body. She turns her neck 90 degrees, doesn’t she?
Did you ever see her turn her head in the opposite direction without moving her body?"
Well, yeah, and I could write a really funny story about the whole thing, but you'd have had to have been there.
"Have you never had a neck injury which affected one side only?"
Fwiw, that pain in my neck--which started out being generalized to both shoulders-- gradually became localized on the left side, then the other. But, the whole episode was unusual; and I can't say that I've ever had a real injry.
[RK]
"I guess I should be relieved that there is no million dollars at stake in this discussion.
[SJ] Well, the jury was inclined to be sympathetic. But, having had other forms of injury, I wouldn't take a million bucks for my back health, which is why I have taken this discussion seriously.
[RK]
To repeat, I never made the argument that these movements are inherently harmful.
If in the normal range of movement they are fine, outside it they are not with some very serious consequences for that area.
[SJ]
Oops, please pardon my mistaken impressions. I just wasn't clear about the argument.
[RK] [snip]
The spine is a very sensitive area with limited range of movement.
[SJ] Agreed.
[RK]
The turning of the torso that I wish to encourage is from the hips using the leg/pelvis joint and its 90 degree range of movement for lateral body rotation. I want to limit use of independent upper torso rotation.
[SJ]
I know it must be crystal clear to you, but I'm a little unclear about what you mean by "independent." Does it have any relationship to the Classical idea of distinguishing between upper and lower?
[RK]
More hips, less shoulders will now be a favorite saying of mine.
Yes, the key is to find a common language to describe body movement. Such a language exists. One has to take the time to learn it.
[SJ] Well, I think Louis has already raised the point that anatomy, mechanics and metaphor do not usually align.
"Waist", "hips", "shoulders" are not medical terms, and we probably never be satisfactorily able to anatomically identify the "yao", "kua" --let alone "dantien." Personally, I think the attempt at clear communication is more important than the nomenclature, especially when the physical stakes may be high.
Best,
Steve James
- tai1chi
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: NY
by RonKreshmar » Mon May 19, 2003 5:27 am
Hi Steve,
The upper torso rides along with the lower torso. It does not turn by itself when the bottom is not moving.
And is not deliberately turned by me when the bottom is not moving.
In slant flying the turn is from the hips only, no need to twist the upper torso.
In single whip, both arms drop down from the end of push, and then unfold one hand whipping to the left, the right moving slower to the right and stopping at 1 o'clock with a right toe in, left toe out stepping pattern. No symbolic little upper torso turn.
No leg steps in the sense of lifting the feet totally off the ground so as to change location.
"STEPS" in Tai chi can refer to just foot movements which allow torso rotation without stepping in the usual sense of lifting the feet and leg so as to change its location.
In roll back there is no combination of upper torso turning and weight shifting to the rear. There is only weight shifting with the torso turning on the hips. If my hips have to turn more to the left I turn my right foot inwards.
Upper torso turning has no function in applications, it's redundant. The little bit of turn it can add is a negligible addition to the hip turns' range of movement. And it loads muscles that can be left at rest.
Sure,people can find in it a source of movement and use it. But what it can contribute is small compared to hip movement.
Better,IMO, to proscribe it and concentrate on using just the hips.
Doing the form has its place in Tai chi. Being done so slowly it can allow for all sorts of additions that are useless in applications, even dangerous, but that are quite safe in the form.
Though as I said I have seen forced upper torso turning during the form.
Lower torso turning at the hip can be very quick. Someone trying to do upper torso turning quick, well we know where that goes, besides not taking you very far.
SJ
Does it have any relationship to the Classical idea of distinguishing between upper and lower?
Oh, sure it's in accord with my interpretation of the classics. Multiple statements can be taken to refer to hip movement. With the vagueness of the term yao, my hip emphasis is not contrary as such.
But, it may be contrary to some other interpretation. And then what matters is what differences follow from the different interpretation with respect to performance of movements.
I have never found any prescription to move from the shoulders.
[SJ] Well, I think Louis has already raised the point that anatomy, mechanics and metaphor do not usually align.
"Waist", "hips", "shoulders" are not medical terms, and we probably never be satisfactorily able to anatomically identify the "yao", "kua" --let alone "dantien."
But the terms can align.
This doesn't mean, as Louis fears, that there is reductionism. It's complementary knowledge.
Since I have to deal with the English words supplied by translators such as Louis, I then evaluate those ordinary statements in terms of their multiple meanings in English and apply what little knowledge of anatomy and mechanics I have acquired to sort out what is relevant to movements suitable for applications.
EG. I don't find any use for Kairen's 'central pivot' interpretation.
The reason I appreciate your and Louis's input is to work up a clear expression of my beliefs so that experienced Tai chi folks can understand them. That's one reason I posted, to get feedback.
One major hurdle is that in my desire to apply knowledge from areas that have quite rigorous definitions of terms that this is not readily useful in communicating with others who do not have a good grasp of those other languages.
I have only a moderate grasp. So, errors from the perspectives that I wish to apply may be made without correction.
Best,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-19-2003).]
The upper torso rides along with the lower torso. It does not turn by itself when the bottom is not moving.
And is not deliberately turned by me when the bottom is not moving.
In slant flying the turn is from the hips only, no need to twist the upper torso.
In single whip, both arms drop down from the end of push, and then unfold one hand whipping to the left, the right moving slower to the right and stopping at 1 o'clock with a right toe in, left toe out stepping pattern. No symbolic little upper torso turn.
No leg steps in the sense of lifting the feet totally off the ground so as to change location.
"STEPS" in Tai chi can refer to just foot movements which allow torso rotation without stepping in the usual sense of lifting the feet and leg so as to change its location.
In roll back there is no combination of upper torso turning and weight shifting to the rear. There is only weight shifting with the torso turning on the hips. If my hips have to turn more to the left I turn my right foot inwards.
Upper torso turning has no function in applications, it's redundant. The little bit of turn it can add is a negligible addition to the hip turns' range of movement. And it loads muscles that can be left at rest.
Sure,people can find in it a source of movement and use it. But what it can contribute is small compared to hip movement.
Better,IMO, to proscribe it and concentrate on using just the hips.
Doing the form has its place in Tai chi. Being done so slowly it can allow for all sorts of additions that are useless in applications, even dangerous, but that are quite safe in the form.
Though as I said I have seen forced upper torso turning during the form.
Lower torso turning at the hip can be very quick. Someone trying to do upper torso turning quick, well we know where that goes, besides not taking you very far.
SJ
Does it have any relationship to the Classical idea of distinguishing between upper and lower?
Oh, sure it's in accord with my interpretation of the classics. Multiple statements can be taken to refer to hip movement. With the vagueness of the term yao, my hip emphasis is not contrary as such.
But, it may be contrary to some other interpretation. And then what matters is what differences follow from the different interpretation with respect to performance of movements.
I have never found any prescription to move from the shoulders.
[SJ] Well, I think Louis has already raised the point that anatomy, mechanics and metaphor do not usually align.
"Waist", "hips", "shoulders" are not medical terms, and we probably never be satisfactorily able to anatomically identify the "yao", "kua" --let alone "dantien."
But the terms can align.
This doesn't mean, as Louis fears, that there is reductionism. It's complementary knowledge.
Since I have to deal with the English words supplied by translators such as Louis, I then evaluate those ordinary statements in terms of their multiple meanings in English and apply what little knowledge of anatomy and mechanics I have acquired to sort out what is relevant to movements suitable for applications.
EG. I don't find any use for Kairen's 'central pivot' interpretation.
The reason I appreciate your and Louis's input is to work up a clear expression of my beliefs so that experienced Tai chi folks can understand them. That's one reason I posted, to get feedback.
One major hurdle is that in my desire to apply knowledge from areas that have quite rigorous definitions of terms that this is not readily useful in communicating with others who do not have a good grasp of those other languages.
I have only a moderate grasp. So, errors from the perspectives that I wish to apply may be made without correction.
Best,
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonKreshmar (edited 05-19-2003).]
- RonKreshmar
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
by Michael » Mon May 19, 2003 9:17 pm
Everytime one bends one knee or elbow it is one motion closer to being worn out. Ask my orthopedist. Those of us who do taiji are lucky as our joints tend to be well lubricated and hopefully such harmful motion will be negated. But for most, movement is "dangerous" in that regard I suppose.
Is there some risk? Possibly. I know you are convinced. If one goes past safe limits in a "ballistic" way of course there is risk. Thoracic "turning", "pivots" or whatever one chooses to call it, is a problem if all done at one location. but each vertabra has its own range of motion and it is cumulative. One never has to go outside of those "safe" limits, whether you are moving fast or slow. Practice makes one aware of those limits much better than some may believe. And you know, those "limilts" can vary from one individual to another.
I don't know where you have learned your set, but Single whip is not done as you describe by anyone I know, including teachers. No "turning", "revolving" of the thoracic spine? The completed turn to the left is not what I call "symbolic". So your movement to left stops when your right toe/foot does? Sorry if I read that wrong, I don't have the time to labor over all that has gone before.
If in Rollback I decide that it is desirable (and the conditions exist for this) to continue my leftward motion and take the opponent to the ground. How do I do that without involving the spine? What is "useless" there, may not be useless here. Theory does not determine what is "useless". The situation does.
Know that all you say about the hips is true as far as power etc. BUt sometimes that will not do it alone, one needs more. Maybe from the spine, top to bottom. If you think not, you are kidding yourself, or you are a very, very advanced practioner.
That "relaxed" muscle that you do not want to involve? Sometimes one even needs to use localized muscle. There is no "law" against it. It states that one use only what one needs. No more.
I think you are making this a much bigger issue than it needs to be. I know better than argue with "belief" as you have described your opinion. I have to go with Louis on this one.
Most respectfully,
Michael
Is there some risk? Possibly. I know you are convinced. If one goes past safe limits in a "ballistic" way of course there is risk. Thoracic "turning", "pivots" or whatever one chooses to call it, is a problem if all done at one location. but each vertabra has its own range of motion and it is cumulative. One never has to go outside of those "safe" limits, whether you are moving fast or slow. Practice makes one aware of those limits much better than some may believe. And you know, those "limilts" can vary from one individual to another.
I don't know where you have learned your set, but Single whip is not done as you describe by anyone I know, including teachers. No "turning", "revolving" of the thoracic spine? The completed turn to the left is not what I call "symbolic". So your movement to left stops when your right toe/foot does? Sorry if I read that wrong, I don't have the time to labor over all that has gone before.
If in Rollback I decide that it is desirable (and the conditions exist for this) to continue my leftward motion and take the opponent to the ground. How do I do that without involving the spine? What is "useless" there, may not be useless here. Theory does not determine what is "useless". The situation does.
Know that all you say about the hips is true as far as power etc. BUt sometimes that will not do it alone, one needs more. Maybe from the spine, top to bottom. If you think not, you are kidding yourself, or you are a very, very advanced practioner.
That "relaxed" muscle that you do not want to involve? Sometimes one even needs to use localized muscle. There is no "law" against it. It states that one use only what one needs. No more.
I think you are making this a much bigger issue than it needs to be. I know better than argue with "belief" as you have described your opinion. I have to go with Louis on this one.
Most respectfully,
Michael
- Michael
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
- Location: Wi. USA
Return to Tai Chi Theory and Principles
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest