A Discussion on Yielding

[steve]

Marcus

Why do you keep on having to refer to Sifu Stier?! The question is for you... no reply needed.

[yeniseri]

Yang

As Sifu Stier stated "Deflect, Parry and Punch" is the sequence but it appears in all Yang styles, regardless of whether it is 'Old Yang', 'Secret Yang', Special Yang, Imperial Yang or whatever- a small point nonetheless.

As Antonius stated there are multiple uses and apraoches depending on the skill of the practitioner.

[Sifu Stier]

Of course. This sequence of movements appears in all of the major traditional styles of Tai-Chi Chuan to the best of my knowledge, but I can't say whether it appears in the Form Sets of the lesser known styles. Perhaps others here who practice such methods can address this question.

The translation of the names of traditional postures and movement sequences into English, and other non-Chinese languages, often seems to be somewhat of an injustice to the original names used by the old Masters, obscuring the original intention of the movements and their applications. This sequence of 'Step Forward, Deflect, Parry, and Punch' is a good example.

The oldest Name List in my possession identifies this sequence as 'Chin4 Pu4 Pan1 Lan2 Chui2' and translates it as 'Advance Step, Remove, Obstruct, and Pound', which better describes the Intention and Application of the movement pattern than the more common, modern translation. The English word 'Remove' has a softer, different connotation of meaning to it than does the word 'Deflect', thus implying to me a less forceful and more gentle neutralization of attack.

Similarly, the English word 'Obstruct' is a more accurate translation of the Chinese Character, and paints a more accurate word picture of the Intention and Application of the Form than does 'Parry'. And lastly, the English word 'Pound' translates better than 'Punch' because the Chinese 'Chui2' implies pounding or beating with a hammering action more than hitting with a straight punch. So at the very least, 'Chui2' implies that the fisted blow which concludes the sequence has a downward pounding, descending trajectory of motion, or hammering action to some degree, which is not at all communicated by the word 'Punch'.

Oh, well! I better stop, or I'll be accused of splitting hairs again. Now that it can be my decision to do so in Shen Men Tao, I am tempted to revert to the use of the older Form Names in order to better convey the Intention and Applications of the movements they represent. I hope that eveyone here understands that they can call these same Form Postures whatever they want to. I am not saying that the old names, or any other name preference is the only correct way to identify the postures. You call 'em as you wish, OK?

Regards ~

Sifu Stier

[Marcus]

Hello everyone,

I appreciate this has been a long thread and to those of you who have followed it from the beginning I apologise for this brief "interlude". The last few posts on this thread would seem to indicate that a review is in order:

Steve:

Marcus
Why do you keep on having to refer to Sifu Stier?! The question is for you... no reply needed.

By asking me this question in a public forum instead of asking me by PM or e-mail (which would have been more appropriate) I felt it necessary to reply in public. The original nature of this thread was for a debate between me and Sifu Stier, which he refused to enter into. To put it nicely, this started because Sifu Stier challenged me to add something specific from my own direct experience and understanding. I know it's asking a lot, but to avoid raking up old ground, please read this thread from the beginning. I know the answer to your question, you clearly don't.

Sifu Stier:

And seriously, you don't have even the smallest clue about my Tai-Chi Chuan technique performance

Your post started off so well. I recently did a search on the web, granted, not an extensive search as I've better ways to spend my time. I was unable to find anything to show me what you look like, let alone base opinions on your Tai Chi Chuan. But this is an old point which regular readers will be familiar with, so I won't waste anymore of their time on it. I base my opinions on what you have written on the Shaolin Wahnam Institutes forum, and you know what they are. I won't repeat them here as I generously agreed to stop using such terms in relation to you.

Finally, my time, like everyone elses is precious to me. I prefer to spend as much of it with my family as I can, so I make the following statement: From now on I will not reply to time wasting posts, petty jibes or insults. I choose to focus my time on the job in hand, continuing with this thread. I've come to learn that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If you want to drink, drink, if you don't, don't. The choice is up to you.

I apologise to those of you who were looking forward to my video links post demonstrating how the same set can be performed by beginners and masters alike, with each benefiting according to his level of attainment. But my alloted "forum" time for today, has been taken up with this post. I will post it first thing tomorrow, I promise.

Kind regards

Marcus

Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha

Kind regards

Marcus

Namo Amitabha Buddha

[Antonius]

Hi everyone.

As promised, I made another video to show that yielding and countering can be done in 1 second, even with a major footwork adjustment. I apologize in advance for the quality of the video. I could not borrow a digicam this weekend, so I had to use my camera phone. Nevertheless, I think it gets the job done.

I'd like to mention that the footwork was purposely exaggerated in this video. It may be a bit blurry, but if you watch carefully, you can see that I pull the front foot quite far back, and then place it all the way across the line on the pavement. This should be more than enough to simulate the footwork adjustment in the pictures of Simon and Mark. Without the exaggerated footwork, the technique can actually be done faster.

The video can be found here.

Enjoy,

[Sifu Stier]

Is it Live or Memorex?

Sifu Santer:

Give it to me one more time...one more time...one more time...one more time. I think you might be repeating yourself...repeating...yourself. Good grief, Charlie Brown! Give it a rest!


Sifu Korahais:

Did you ever actually look at the posted photo sequence? You don't include the forward step with the left foot at the end of the sequence, and you don't demo with a live opponent. Your video still is not the same as the photo sequence! Don't insult our intelligence, please!

Sifu Stier

[Jordan]

Sifu Santer:

Sifu Korahais:

Did you ever actually look at the posted photo sequence? You don't include the forward step with the left foot at the end of the sequence, and you don't demo with a live opponent. Your video still is not the same as the photo sequence! Don't insult our intelligence, please!

Sifu Stier

Sounds like someone's been proved wrong but can't admit it

[Mark Blohm]

Siheng Anthony,

Thank you for supplying that video.

Did you ever actually look at the posted photo sequence? You don't include the forward step with the left foot at the end of the sequence, and you don't demo with a live opponent. Your video still is not the same as the photo sequence! Don't insult our intelligence, please!

Sifu Stier,

You might find this thread useful:

http://www.wongkiewkit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2406

Mark

[Sifu Stier]

Eyes Wide Shut!

So...you're all going to insult my intelligence by insisting that Photo #4 of Marcus's Post #142 does not clearly show the defender taking his last step forward with his left foot while executing the takedown? He even comes closer to the park bench in the background as proof that he was indeed stepping forward. Anthony boldly asserted that he could perform this application exactly as shown in the photo sequence against a live opponent in one (1) second or less. This he has not done thus far. Both of his volunteered videos to date show him ending his technique with the right foot forward, and were performed solo without demonstrating the technique on a live opponent as depicted in the photo sequence.

Both videos do demonstrate his hand technique in one second or less, but not with the same footwork as the photos depict, thus requiring considerably less time to execute. Anthony knows this, which is why he presented the videos in the manner he did. Close...but no cigar! He is barely able to perform the hand technique in the promised amount of time without the extra step required by the still photos, making it highly improbable that his boastful claim could be validated in the promised amount of time with the previously omitted step included. A totally lame and pathetic joke! You completely lose face again!

Sifu Stier

[Antonius]

A totally lame and pathetic joke! You completely lose face again!

If you say so, Sifu Stier. But what I don't think you realize is that nothing you say at this point has any weight. People can clearly see for themselves.

Folks, just look with your own eyes. You don't need to listen to my words or to Sifu Stier's words. Just look. The answer is right before your eyes. To make the comparison easier, here is the original photo of Simon and Mark. And here is the first video I made to substantiate my claim. After which, Sifu Stier said:

I give you my word that I will enthusiastically acknowledge your proof when I see it, and again reaffirm my admiration for your courage in boldly making the claim and then proving it! As you well know I'm sure, in the martial arts world alot of people make alot of claims about alot of skills, but very few are able to actually substantiate their claims.

To which I provided a second video to further substantiate my claims.

Sifu Stier, I'm genuinely sorry to see that you are not a man of your word. There is no play on words here. I am not grandstanding or trying to patronize you. I am speaking straight from the heart.

Part of me expected this reaction from you, but part of me was genuinely hoping that you would do as you said you would. To me, it seems much worse to go against your word than to be proven wrong about a silly photo. Of course, I know that you will not agree that you have gone against your word, and you will probably argue vehemently that I did not provide proof. But as I said earlier, I don't think you will convince many people now. They can see for themselves.

Sifu Stier, you might want to ask yourself this question: how come so many people can clearly see in the pictures and videos what you cannot?

[LeeWeiJoo]

Dear Siheng Anthony,

Thank you for providing the 2 yielding videos. They prove to me, just as expected, that it can be done under 1 second. I have never doubted our Shaolin Wahnam arts from the start.

I also applaud the courage, wisdom and steadfastness of my Sihengs in face of the challenges on this thread. I have learned many things from their contributions.

With Shaolin Salute,
Lee Wei Joo

[Mark Blohm]

So...you're all going to insult my intelligence by insisting that Photo #4 of Marcus's Post #142 does not clearly show the defender taking his last step forward with his left foot while executing the takedown?

Sifu Stier,

In the second video that Sifu Anthony has provided, his left foot does move forward as he executes the takedown. Just as in the first video. Can't you see that?

Mark

[Sifu Stier]

From the Ridiculous to the Absurd!

I may not be the smartest guy on the planet, but I'm not blind! The still photo series of Post #142 clearly shows the defender taking an additional step in Frame #4, ending with his left foot forward in his final stance position. He doesn't merely shuffle his left foot forward in its rear position of the previous frames, like Anthony does, but actually steps forward with the left foot. Hello! The photograph doesn't lie!

Anthony approximates the performance of the arm and hand movements depicted in the still photos, but not the steps and footwork. Period! He begins and ends his video sequence in both videos with his right foot forward. He never takes that additional step forward with the left foot as shown in the still photo #4.

I'm glad the still photo sequence was posted along with both of the bogus video 'proofs', so they can be easily compared. Anyone with sufficient vision to closely examine both will be able to see that there is a major difference in the final stances of each. I am amazed that anyone would dare debate the discrepancy, and find it hard to believe that I alone am able to see the difference.

This is a grand joke, right? You're just messing with me now, right? And it isn't even April Fool's Day yet. What a hoot! Thanks guys. I'll be laughing about this one for years to come!

Sifu Stier

[Darryl]

Dear Sifu Stier,

I've think I've finally understood where you're coming from.

In post #142, the first picture has Simon with his right leg in front. Are you under the impression that the 4th picture has Simon with his left leg in front (and the photographer has moved)?

If so, this explains the confusion. The transition from picture #3 to picture #4 is a 90o degree turn to Simon's left, not swapping one foot for the other. This is why you don't see the extra step in Anthony's video's, because it was never there in the picture display.

Picure 1 - Right leg forwards, weight 50/50
Picture 2 - Right leg forwards, shifting weight towards the back leg
Picture 3 - Right leg forwards, shifting weight towards the front leg
Picture 4 - Right leg forwards, weight 50/50 with a 90o degree turn to the left by pivoting on the feet, not swapping them over or lifting them off the ground.

In post #144, Simon wrote

damn, someone spotted the changed foot position! It could have been worse, if Mark had stepped in with the other leg I would have had to switch stance completely for the throw. Which is why students of Wahnam first learn to come back to false leg before stepping forward again. Only later is the move done as a swallow

I believe Simon has made the same mistake as me and not noticed you are referring to a missing photo. His comment is referring to Pictures #2 & 3 in my summary, not #3.5. His answer would have read as

Picure 1 - Right leg forwards, weight 50/50
Picture 2 - Right leg moves back, both feet now next to each other
Picture 3 - Left leg forwards, placing foot behind the assailants leg
Picture 4 - Left leg forwards, weight 50/50 with a 90o degree turn to the right by pivoting on the feet, not swapping them over or lifting them off the ground.

So he would have had to change his stance (from right to left) and it would have included an extra step (by moving the right leg back and left leg forwards), but it would still be the same as the 4 picture series (except felling to the other side).

When you wrote

making what appears to be four weight transfers...i.e. forward to initially contact the pusher, backward to yield and neutralize, withdraw lead foot from inside the pusher's leg and reposition it outside his leg with a forward step, ending with another forward step to perform the takedown

in Post #143, I missed what you were saying. There is no other step forwards, we apply the felling technique there and then.

[Charles David]

The other left

Dear Darryl

Thanks for clearing this up for us.

To be honest, I'm really curious to see how this one turns out.


"No, no, no, the other left!"



Wishing you continued mirth and merriment,