Thursday, August 4, 2022

Both end “al” but Centrifugal is not Internal



We are always saying that Classical Tai Chi is underpinned as Science. As a kind of Lab Experiment, at this juncture, show me a completely “internal” 4 minute Form if you disagree with anything  as follows. 

The objective is to play Tai Chi both fast and slow. Did you know that Small Frame, Small Circle is meant to do just that? In our 60’s Master Hwa and I were doing the Form in the 3-minute range. He did it faster than me; better continuity of Internal energy. Now that is faster than the "Fast Form" touted by Ma Yueh Liang. Interestingly, one never sees his Form but sees his wife (Wu's daughter) doing an excellent form. When one learns the Form and is good at it, it varies playing speed from fast to slow. Fast has "Fast" difficulty, and Slow has "Slow" difficulties. 

The crux of this is whether Fast or Slow; one cannot change the Form. Remember Wu told Young it cannot be changed?  Yes, there are various perturbations when it comes to “change”. If one goes very fast sans “Internal”, the Form inevitably changes because of centrifugal force. The postures begin to change because the internal energy flow is not maintained. The centrifuge effect takes the internal out of the equation. Limbs spin out of control, centrifugal force is changing everything about the postures. It's not like just learning a so-called "Fast Form" first. One first builds up Internal Energy; then, one can go fast. 

Slow playing builds up Internal Energy; one can then go faster and faster at a future time. Faster at this junction is called the "tight compact" Form. Yes, the postures get smaller, tighter. The steps for instance would have feet taking tinier steps, half size.  I figured out that Master Hwa went faster than me because he goes tighter and that because I am taller.  It is difficult for me at 6’3” to take tinier steps as it really begins to affect my balance.  We talked, and both laughed, about the size disparity recently and my balance problems because of height.

No comments: