Do not "break at the waist"

 

Michael wrote that he recently purchased Master Hwa's DVD series and has some questions about the Tai Chi Classics saying not to lean the body, the weight distribution of the body, the Tai Chi Classics, and Yin and Yang:

"As I watched the video more intently, I'm being drawn to the movement of the lower limbs from the hips down. Can I assume that master Hwa advocates the separation of yin-yang footing with 100% weight on one leg and the other 0% in all postures (except the end of the single whip)? While I understand the significance of the weight shifting from one stance to another - I'm interested to know the weight distribution of the brush knee step at the end. Is it 100% in the front leg, and the back leg is insubstantial? I'm studying the classics by zhang sang Feng, and the classics mentioned that one should not lean on any side. I would interpret this as leaning forward, backward, or at the sides - but if there is 100% weight on one leg, I do assume that there is a leaning force involve? "

In Classical Tai Chi, my teacher, Master Stephen Hwa, explains the principles of movement (the how and why) in terms of Yin and Yang. He also explains the regulations in terms of "bodyweight distribution." When one moves, they do not let their weight "distribute" itself in an out-of-control manner. Carrying the weight in an out-of-control way is a grievous error and can have both health and martial consequences. This concept is explained in detail: DVD series, Yahoo Email Group, Classical Tai Chi Forum, Classical Tai Chi Website (Table of Contents for DVD). 

When one takes a step forward in Classical Tai Chi, the weight stays 100% on the back foot until the front foot is flat on the ground 0%. The practitioner will then pull the body forward till the bodyweight of 100% is on the front foot, with the back foot becoming 0%. The body weight distribution is both dynamic, fluid, and continuous through all postures with no exception. The correct movement for weight distribution is illustrated in the Tai Chi Walk, as seen in the attached video link to Youtube.

An understanding of "leaning" in Classical Tai Chi should encompass the thought that one should take the Tai Chi Classics with the proverbial "grain of salt." The Classics are, as Master Hwa has said and are "attributed to various authors." Regardless of who wrote them, we did not hear of them until Wu Yu Xiang "finds them in a Salt Shop." The Classics, for one, do not specify what they mean by "lean." Did "do not lean" by the mystical Zhang Sanfeng mean do not lean at all, do not lean too much? 倾斜, is defined as "incline, tip, bias, slope, but I cannot find the word "lean" defined as "incline" in Chinese. Lean in Chinese is more like "thin" as in a lean piece of meat. happen to like "incline" better than the word "lean" used for Tai Chi terms and in pinyin one says "Qingxie." 

There is the term "incline" in the Wu Family Gold Book as elucidated by Grandmaster Wu Kung Cho. What he means is do not "incline" by breaking at the waist. You see a lot of "breaking at the waist" in some styles of Tai Chi; it is painful to watch. Master Hwa does use the term "lean." In his explanation, he makes it work in English where "incline" would not. He does not caution against it, as does Zhang Sanfeng; on the contrary, he tells us how and why we need to do it. You can read it in detail on page 56 of his treatise in "Uncovering the Treasure." I think there is a crucial point regarding not "breaking at the waist" when he says: "The head, the body, and the back leg form a straight line in the lean forward." One can readily see that breaking at the waist would break the straight line and any energy flow. 

To sum it up, while having some key insights, the Classics are often filled with "contrariness" and can be very cryptic. Therefore, I would not attribute deviation in basic principles of Classical Tai Chi to what are often contrary statements in the Tai Chi Classics, hence "take it with a grain of salt." No pun on the "Salt Shop" of the Classics discovery intended. 

Why Square Form looks Robotic

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvaXibEWIm8 "Robotic Tai Chi" Link. Why Classical Tai Chi Square Form looks "Robotic": Look deeper than the solid and broken I Ching lines in the diagram below. Note the points inside the circle below where straight lines actually touch the circle and voila we have eight, ( 8 ) straight lines, which is an Octagon. Now geometry tells us we can make those straight lines VERY small and have many POINTS. Note how the "roboticness" disappears as the number of straight lines increases we cannot see them anymore and yet a very nice circle results. Here's a link to a "Triacontagon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triacontagon where you can still see 30 straight lines and points making a circle. Here is a Chiliagon with 1000 sides making the circle which of course you cannot see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiliagon. The example of a chiliagon is also referenced by philosophers. David Hume points out that it is "impossible for the eye to determine the angles of a chiliagon to be equal to 1996 right angles, or make any conjecture, that approaches this proportion." When we do the small circle, small frame square form as you see in the misunderstood "Robotic Tai Chi" video link, those become very small straight lines. In fact, the more robotic the better. It gets very small straight lines, think things like 64, 128, to make the circle. How many there are depends on the skill of the practitioner. Yes, it also gives us more points on the circle and those points are where the form changes directions. Think of the possibilities as far as the martial application is concerned if you can change direction so fluidly going to a plethora of tight angles so well. Do you see all of the articulations at the joints, shoulders, elbows, knees, hips, etc? All of those articulations result in the extremities, arms, legs, etc. moving in straight lines from POINTS of articulation. Is this not seeking the straight from the curved and the curved from the straight as well? Just as the Tai Chi Classics say.

The "rocking" Fulcrum?

 https://youtu.be/B7iFQWYQwEM A MOVING FULCRUM IS NOT A FULCRUM, see image. I think I will remain in solidarity with my Ph.D. Engineer, and Tai Chi Master Stephen Hwa. I am constantly meeting students who are calling a "lever" a "fulcrum" and then there is the "OUCH" factor:

A student quoted and then asked: "I have a quote, "The hips are the fulcrum of the body and connect the upper with the lower.” (https://citylifestyle.com/los-angeles...) Explain why Master Hwa thinks that the hips should remain less mobile than the waist".

A response from Sifu James Roach: How can people say things like "ALL of the movements are generated by the hips first, not the waist," "turn your hips, etc. This is something that can put a very painful torque in the knees. This refrain and misunderstanding of the hips role indeed appear prominent and quite vocal in studying the large frame Tai Chi Style. The hips are a large and complex joint of the body and, like any joint, are necessary for movement. They are necessary for movement but not sufficient to power or "generate" movement. In other words, they do not move in and of themselves but move as a result of action initiated by other parts of the body.

Stating that they are "the fulcrum of the body and connect the upper with the lower" still is not a sufficient explanation of what powers or "generates" their movement. A crowbar at its bend ) is also a fulcrum but without a source of power "generation," it is just a metal bar. What exactly is the mechanism that they use to move in and of themselves? There is no such self-perpetuating mechanism in the hips wherein one can "generate movement."

The hips "permit," "allow," "tolerate," "provide for" movement, but they do not "generate movement generation of movement for our hips comes either from our legs or from our waist and not from the hips themselves. See the attached video for examples of what happens when practitioners turn hips and waist simultaneously. In large frame Tai Chi, the movement of the legs to turn the hip is "folding the hip or Kua." A leg pushing the body either forward or backward makes one hip rotate into itself, and the other rotate out of itself, hence the inguinal "fold' so coveted by large frame practitioners.

As far as "Power" is concerned, one will reduce or drain off power when turning the "hip first" (which, as we said, is impossible because it does not generate its movement). Keep the hip still and then turn the hip "first," and you can readily see the difference in the "generation" of power. The hips can rotate forcefully in a large frame once the legs push the body and reach the apex of a weight shift. As we have stated previously, however, power drains after rotation. The compact frame does this by pulling.

In contrast to pushing, pulling moves are internal and stay energized. Energy is not lost but constantly recirculated and not dependent on legs for power. Talking about "fulcrums" is of prime importance as to how one locates or places a working fulcrum. In the video, one can see the turning of hips lowers the yin/yang junction (fulcrum) to an area of the knees. In the background, one can readily see several practitioners of "external" style Tai Chi turning their bodies at the hips, lowering the junction to the area of the knees in the mistaken impression that "generating movement by the hips first and not the waist" can be used to "turn the body."

Master Stephen Hwa, Ph.D. says: "The most important instruction on Internal Discipline passed down from Wu Chien Chuan to my teacher Young Wabu is that": "Every movement in Tai Chi Form has to have two complementary parts of the body, a moving part (called Yang) and a stationary part (called Yin). When the yin-yang junction locates in the torso of the body, it is an internal move. When it is outside the torso, it is an external move".

27

People reached

12

Engagements

Boost post

6You and 5 others