I was asked this question on a different forum, and, for the sake of discussion, I'd like to share my response here: When we strike, we develop power from the feet, direct it with the waist and express it in the hands. What this means is that we, essentially, push off of the floor to push our whole bodyweight behind a strike. If you are double-weighted, what you are doing is pushing with both the front foot and the rear foot at the same time - what this does is direct your power upwards, rather than forwards. This has the effect of lifting your center of gravity, breaking your root and basically losing power. Really, you should only be pushing off of the one foot - if you are moving forwards, power should be driven from the rear foot, and the front leg should absorb the forward motion. If you are pulling backwards, the front foot should push off, and the rear leg should absorb the weight. This is distinguishing the weight - basically, knowing which leg should be driving, which should be absorbing, and acting on this knowledge to maximise power output. Thoughts?
Power from the hips and legs upward is a valid method of generating power. It is associated with uppercuts and hooks in boxing. Upward elbow strike in Tai Chi. Of course converting this power to forward force does complicate things... mostly the posture of the opponent must be broken so that they are leaning forward. If you look at Mike Tyson using boxing uppercut, both legs are generating power through the hips: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo2JxpcJ2BA"]Mike Tyson - The Uppercut! - YouTube[/ame] Here at around 5 and 7 seconds, and at 2:49, is an upward elbow in Tai Chi and both legs are used to generate the power, although the base is longer so the rear leg is also producing forward force: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk_mwm5tgCY"]Tai Chi Power Striking Taiji Fajin Training - YouTube[/ame] As for "pushing off", not being much more than a novice in Tai Chi, I don't know what the term correctly should be, but in general I avoid pushing off the ground in describing anything martial. The reason is that if the floor is really slick or uneven, an actual push off the ground can cause injury or for me to fall down/slip/trip. I prefer to use terms such as weight shift, move at the hips, stepping, lifting, pivoting (as well as using pivot points), and aligning the body. I want the feet to go where they naturally go. But this is just IME.
You have ignored the hip throw, shoulder throw, embrace throw, ... all depend on to push off from both feet. We can't look at TCMA just from the striker point of view. IMO, double weight has nothing to do with solo but has to do with your opponent. If your opponent push your right shoulder, you can yield by pulling your right shoulder back and spin. If your opponent push your right shoulder and hook your left leg at the same time, you can't yield because you are in "double weight". To me, "double weight" is your opponent puts you in a situation that you loss the ability to change.
To be fair, I did specify "when we strike", sort of suggesting I was talking specifically about the method of power delivery when striking... But, you are right - the throws that you list (although I'm not familiar with the term 'embrace throw') do drive from both feet - I would say that there is usually more drive in one foot that the other, thus using the rotation of the body to flow-the-throw, rather than trying to heave the other guy over... That's an interesting idea that I hadn't thought of, although I'm not sure I would class it as double weighting... Certainly something to think on though... RebelWado, Thanks for the videos, good to watch! The thing is, I've found that those other terms can also be misleading or difficult to understand. I remember I used to get so wound up when one of my old teachers always used to say "move from the hip", or "turn in the kua"... Ended up kicking myself when another teacher translated these terms into workable English for me... I'm starting to like the phrase "drive from the foot", rather than 'push off'...
When your body got "locked" and cannot change, that's "double weight". You will not lock yourself. Your opponent will try to lock for you. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrIYmvnmz7U&feature=relmfu"]ä½•è¬‚é›™é‡ (2/3) - YouTube[/ame]
My two pence. . The way I understand this at the moment is that it’s like “scales”. Within any movement you make, whether projecting, absorbing or what have you, each motion should be balanced in such a way that there is always an opportunity to move in a different direction. In other words, if you move in any direction, say forward, this should be balanced by an equal balancing motion backwards, so that one is never committed to moving in one direction as this will allow the opponent to potentially catch this unbalanced one directional and committed movement and take advantage of it. These balancing motions can be very small, but they should allow you enough neutrality (potential to move in any direction) so that if say you push an opponent and they follow your force and pull on your push, you can instantly change to pulling and stop yourself from being pulled off balance. However, this is a continuum, so once you are pulling back against your opponent, you should be able to seamlessly switch back to a push and potentially put your opponent off balance. IMO, “double weighted” is the lack of the above mechanics, but the above should be further reinforced by two related factors, silk-reeling force entwining the body to provide a multi-directional force with potential in all directions which reinforces the structure through wrapping, and roundness which makes movements non linear and harder for an opponent to take advantage of as the movements direction has no obvious trajectory.
It's important to remember that there's not just one specific example of the error of 'double weighting', but typically in tcc 'doubling' describes an inbalance of some kind. Where there should always be a balancing of yin and yang designated elements/ aspects. There are also other errors of doubling. eg. double floating. this is basically saying you have either yin yin or yang yang going on somewhere, where it should be yin and yang.. One clear example of double weighting is if someone pushes into your right arm and you weight/place that force into your right leg, your weight is now stuck or trapped by the force of the opponent on that side. You havn't acheived the correct balance of Yin and Yang in this context of weighting. To avoid this situation it is necessary to receive that force across the body into the opposite side leg/ foot. In tcc force is received and issued across opposite sides of the body. So another example would be if you issue the same way. If you issue force from your weighted right foot/leg into your right arm (same side) you are again weighted and connected on one side. if someone catches that force it will be very easy to unbalance you on/from that side. However if you issue across the body the root and expression of power are balanced across the body, making it harder for you to be unbalanced or disrupted on the side you have expressed power. The connection that runs across the body is maintained providing balance.. The connection is across the body like an X. So when reciving along one axis of the cross body (yin) you are free to issue through the other unweighted axis of the X (yang). You can also achieve this simultaniously.. The most common and simplistic description usually given in tai chi books is to have equal weighting between the legs which won't allow for clearly distinguishing between the subsantial and insubstantial (weighted and unweighted parts). Where yin is substantial (weighted) - connected/attached/grounded to the earth and yang is insubstantial - free to move (ie.connected to 'heaven'). Another meaning / description is to have force doubling in engaging with another, which is to meet force directly with force. So if we look again at the correct use of the cross body method, we see that looking at one side of the body, say the left, the left hand and foot should be in a state of yin yang. It's not a case of one side (of the body) being yin and the other being yang. If the left foot is yin the left hand is yang, making the right foot yang and right hand yin. And vice versa of course! I know this might be a bit confusing at first, but after a while of sinking in, it will make sense...........
Humm... I see it a different way, power coming from the feet to me is the beginning of a spiral and creates the touq necessary to power the waist and thus create the power in the strike. Moving the weight from the back foot to the front is issueing which is different and has far more to do with being double weighted. Or not should I say. None of this has anything to do with the hips, they are bone, muscle is required to generate power. Boxers start from the shoulder and follow through if they didnt move the hip they would loose power as the bottom half of their body would act as a brake.
Double-weighted is the inability to move and flow freely in a martially sound way. It can occur in the legs, arms or even the mind. Many confuse this, for example the horse riding stance is not double-weighted just because the weight it equal on both legs, the upper body should still be free to change. Of course if you believe that there are no options you are double weighted but this stwms from the mind. Having both hands fully extended in the same direction away from the body can leave one with no choice, and wide open / unprotected, it was one of the taboos of "the six paths and ten tapestries" (old nei jia chuan) and so can be an example of double weighted. Although there are parts of forms that seem to send many limbs out to attack at once and thus leave us without a guard, the real meaning of such postures is that the attacks and deflections can be done in various combinations, work well together and make us aware of potential vunerabilities and targets available to tai chi tactics.
Put your feet twice your shoulder width apart. Now move your weight over to the right. Keep going until you get to the point where it is an effort to move back over to your left. You are now double weighted. Double weightedness is where you are over extended to the point that your opponent can easily unbalance you. The above example is a good one to try out with a partner as when you get to that point they can hold you there with just a finger.
Normally in the horse-riding stance there is fractionally more weight on the left leg than the right (for example in the Single Whip posture.) Although if you were doing a mirror form then it would be the other way about, of course! One leg is the 'pillar' one is the 'post'. The difference shouldn't be visible to anyone else, but the person doing it should be able to distinguish between the two.
Assume single Whip finishing posture (Wu style), without moving the upper body try to move a leg? (my point will be evident) Many adhere to rigid 70-30 or 90-10 rules and keeping central alignment to the point taking it to mean upright to gravity and not head-spine-heel, its a case of the ass before the cart. Form came from fighting, but many now impose form on fighting, restricting what they may do structurely, instead of what was obviously intended by the system designers - practicing ways to recover and counter efficiently. So "double weighted" although certainly can exist where a practitioner does not understand their bodies potential and has been led by their opponent into a trap, nowadays many Tai Chi players as opposed to Tai Chi Chuan fighters effectively trap themselves with impractical, deviant, pseudo-esoteric takes on martial guidelines, that become obvious to the extreme with any amount of serious partner practice. I would view "double weightedness" as a point of either no or extremely restricted (and obvious to the opponent) recovery due to over commitment to a certain action, this bad habit gets one "stuck" and of course leads to one "being completly regulated by others".
Sorry, but I'm still not getting your point at all. From the single whip finishing posture, you can easily move the 'empty' right leg. You can't easily move the 'full' left leg without first shifting your weight to the right leg, but that's no different from any other posture. You don't move the leg that is supporting your weight. Am I missing something?
In Wu Style single whip the legs are in horse riding stance, albiet with slight emphasis in one leg. The other cannot be empty, this would defy gravity or engineering's middle third rule. (Though we get some traction and static friction, our legs arch us to the ground. The tensile elements (muscles / tendons) hold our form rigid in the single whip form. Therefore as we do not rely on ropes or shores to hold us up, the weight must act within the middle third of the body, i.e. between the legs. Therefore it is impossible to move one leg without shifting our weight (by moving upper body). we may lower onto one leg but this moves the upperbody position. This is the opposite to stances such as cat stance, where all of the weight can be carried by one leg (the other free to kick "step back rod the tiger" for example) I have heard some Tai Chi players declare horse riding double weighted because of this. And if they hold on to doctrines like "no leaning" they are correct they cannot move freely and are double weighted. In combat to "go back" upon the same line would be stupid, you have taught your opponent your direction and range already. So shifting weight straight onto a leg only to free the other is very unwise. But here the old masters advise us by suggesting flying oblique. Here we first rotate with martial technique, then sink and gather then release and shoulder behind us. So we have jist been taught no to be linear and dumb, but how to recover or counter strategically with tai chi tactics. We have been taught one solution to avoid becomming "double weighted". edit: I have replied Johnno to your following post, just seems to be caught up on approval again. Incase its lost... I practice Wudang (Practical) Tai Chi Chuan and no fast hand form exists in the style, the weapon forms are practiced “fast” once proficiency is achieved. But even there in the sabre form (Xuan Xuan Dao) there is a style called “Sweeping a thousand soldiers” and in the sword form (Qian Kun Jian) there is a style called “Turn back to put on armour”, both of these styles “finish” in horse stance. Basically the “error” of double-weightedness is avoided once one has both the awareness and capability of utilising their body’s potential. So in such cases the lower body (legs) are considered Yin (dead) while the upper body Yang (alive). This is why I really like Cheng Tin Hung’s translation of “Nei Gung” as “inner potential”, the exercises train such. Turning, twisting, shifting the upper body and keeping alignment* allows us to flow into the next movement. * Earlier I posted “leaning”, here the written word falls short of thoroughly explaining the physical action. If by lean one means sticking the **** out and being full of hollows and bumps this is of course an error, however I’m suggesting “reaching” more so, so the upper body expands in one direction which counter-weights and sinks the weight onto one side, and allows for the lower body to expand in the opposite direction, so alignment of heel-spine-head top is kept, and movement free. In combat this allows for one to “sneak” our steps around opponents for example by leading their intention with our upper bodies, which I’ve found to be an excellent method to do what other styles call “bridge” into an opponent. The throw associated with “Embrace the Tiger and return to mountain” would be an excellent example. One should also consider the classic text: “You can often see people, who have Practiced their skills for several years, But who still cannot change and turn. This leads to their being entirely Regulated by others. They are not aware of their Sickness of Double-Weightedness. If we wish to be free of this sickness, We must know yin and Yang.” The author is clearly talking about observing people spar or fight whether that’s tui shou wrestling or sanshou sparring or actual combat who knows, but we can be sure it reflects all three. It’s the inability to effectively “change and turn” that he describes as double weightedness. Earlier he explains how to avoid the error: “sink the weight on one side then Sui (follow)” So it’s not about restricting ones actions, fighting in a strait-jacket that forbids horse-riding stances but it’s about knowing and being able to move and change regardless of the external form, and knowing our own limitations so we don’t end up placing ourselves in positions we can’t move from. Each fighter will be slightly different in this regard, and have their “own style”. Some can reach lower than others, have more flexibility etc. but your Nei Gung practice should have your potential and limitations hardwired into your awareness, with experience we should be able to “feel” or “see” these limits and potentials in the opponent, and so should be able to “regulate” him, trap him if you like. Then “The Fighter’s Song” advice has real meaning, some lines of it below: “let him attack with great force, Use four taels to displace a thousand catties Entice the opponent into the void…… If the opponent moves a little, Then I move first… The jin (force) is broken, but the Yi (intent) is unbroken” So if we know what we are doing and understand the opponent we can entice him to act in error, lead him to a vulnerable position, and as we have set him up, though he initiates the “physical” action, we have already anticipated this, and so our physical action will “arrive first”. Practically speaking some real simple examples… Hold a low guard to seek a head shot, and vice versa, feint and draw, or in clinch, add pressure one way, get a reaction then take it away, it’s all the same punching, kicking, wrestling really. We can also use rhythms, feints and shape/form etc. tactfully that probably gave rise to the misinterpretation of what empty force actually is, beyond the Jedi BS its actually not so difficult to “move” an opponent or his guard without touching him. Cheng tin Hung wrote on this: “But what if he refuses to make any advance? In that case you should lure him into a movement by pretending that there is a loophole which you have neglected to guard. It will lead him into a trap. But creating favourable situation in this way is possible only to persons with a comparatively high level of achievement behind him” http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/articles/1979v3n10_1.html I would concur; it takes skill and experience to pull this off. Basically one has to thoroughly understand errors before one choses to pretend to make them. After all one need to be able to counter the punishment one has encouraged, that means really know how to change and turn, and have no issues with “double weightedness”.
Niall, Would I be right in thinking that the 'single whip' finishing posture is done in an archery stance in the fast form? (I've got a feeling that it might be the same in the Chen slow form.) I haven't done much fast form yet, so I'm a bit hazy about this.
Only if you define empty as zero weighted, which is not the case. That would be to take 'empty' in a strictly literal sense, which isn't appropriate here. If you have a 70/30 weight distribution for example you're not defying gravity, and we would still designate 30 as 'empty' and 70 as 'full'. That what's described as seperating the substantial from the insubstantial. You can do this in 49/51. But if you are truly 50/50 ( a feat in itself) you aren't seperating them. As long as you can pick up the leg, it is free to move and not 'full' but 'empty' (insubstantial). Stepping is like controlled falling in a way (unless moving slowly and placing the foot then shifting into it). I think full and empty were adopted as easier words to use than substantial/insubstantial, but probably not as accurate in conveying their meaning. You may well be balanced in terms of upper and lower yin and yang in the context of solo form practice (in horse stance) with that designation, but that quickly breaks down if you shift to say a grappling context and being in a clinch. Now your arms are not free to move. It also only applies to when you do have 50/50 distribution which is only really ever in transition in solo form. The bulk of the time you will not have weight distributed in this way. But the distribution will be shifting and changing constantly. We should always emphasise that such designations always tend to be context dependent. Though theoretically it holds true in the horse stance example that you're yin/yang balanced above vs below, In solo form context your upper torso is always free to move by default, it's always insubstantial.. Personally, I think this uppper lower designation may have come from some Wu people defending their dan bian horse stance posture from other stylists (eg. Yang/ CMC people) making a ctritique that it's double weighted.. Some people didn't/don't really get that the Wu style Dan Bian posture isn't equal distribution, neither physically or in intent. Just to be clear to move one leg all your weight doesn't have to be balanced on the other leg. You can be 51/49 and still move a leg. As you move it, this distribution will get larger, but the point is you're not really going anywhere at 50/50 because to pick up a leg off the ground you have to make a shift, however small. And from there you basically fall into your steps when you move (step) naturally at anything above walking speed.
Regarding what is empty and full, thats my point that people get to pedantic about it, especially with forms. Its really to do with fighting as in the classics, and basically if you onow yourself enough and have enough experience with opponents, you should not get caught unnecessarily off balance, over extended or trapped and should have enough internalised skill to counter and recover effectively in a martially sound way. Edit.... Real problem posting on this forum? Always good sign to be able to modify and adjust, orthodox techniques serve to ingrain principle. Once we have principle.... Try out with Fan Teng Lang too (centrapetal / centrafugal wave) position, range and angle can be adjusted so our weight ends on either foot, hence why i believe horse stance used. Also orthodox follow up is to stamp back of opponents calf to collapse him, if range an issue one can kneel into back of his knee in horse stance. Im assuming orthodox app against back fist where strikjng arm is parried and seized and under ear struck simultneously? If so try "jow" in in your striking arm to guard against elbows. My coach used a variation of fan through back striking with palm (in peng) at the upper arm near armpit, had the effect of dislocating shoulder on a few lads, even though he was holding back.
With regard to Single-whip, the martial mechanics, timing, positioning are much more important to me than worrying about being slightly weighted more on one leg. What has always bothered me about this application is countering whilst too close to the opponent's elbow. I have encountered a few folk who can easily keep me at bay in single whip with minimal effort. Someone (a strong fellow) asked me to demonstrate Single Whip to them, I made the smash (light) on his elbow rather than to the head to demonstrate the risks of Single Whip and how to use it to be more martially effective. No-one taught me this - it just seemed how to apply it vs this much stronger geezer.
I'd be more worried if I wasn't slightly more weighted in one leg. Considering these questions might help understand why I say that, bearing in mind that these are not absolutes but are usually more relevent than not.. Where and in what position is your dead angle the most vulnerable and exposed ? In striking how often will you realistically be able to reach your target without any projection or movemnent towards you front foot ? So it's important to know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Mabu (horse stance) is in my opinion used in Wu style more for training purposes than as any technique marker set in stone. Whether that is in relation to timing, mechanics or position of a technique The way I was taught single whip in Wu style; though the exterior may look just like an equally weighted horse stance, you are in fact just slightly projecting and shifting toward the side where the lead hand is. The only technique that horse stance was directly trained for in CMA (that I have heard of) was hip throw or over the back/ shoulder throws where single leg balance was not used. Other than that I don't think horse stance has any real great relevence at all to any particular combat technique that I can think of. Horse stance is used in CMA as basic strength training for the legs. There's no reason to think that the Wu style form in this case is any exception to this general rule in CMA. However the slight projection and small amount you shift to the lead hand is there (in my opinion) so we don't completely forget that the techniques ascociated with the posture don't rely on being in or finishing in a dead centre position.
