Rear leg locked or not?

[dmax999]

Ok, time for my next question for the experts.

Recently we did a strange exercise in Xing-I to get our back straight. It was putting your back against a corner and rearranging it so there was no space between the spine and the wall corner, which let me know how out of straight my back really is when I thought it was.

Now the Tai Chi question: I believe this same thing can be applied to Tai Chi as it makes it nearly impossible for someone to pull you forward off balace while you are like this (simple physics here). However, when I move forward in a stance to put my weight over my front foot I have a choice. My back can remain straight and rear leg have a bit of a bend at the knee, or I can straighten out the rear leg more or just short of locking it and a bend forms in the lumbar area of the back.

I believe leaving the rear leg bent is the proper answer, but I am wondering if additional flexibility would allow both straight lower back and straight rear leg.

 

[pete]

keep the knee bent.

locking out the knee will also lock up your hip and ankle and cause you to lose your connection with the ground through the sole of your foot. if you try to keep the foot rooted, you will find too much tension building in the muscles of your legs, again defeating the purpose of good tai chi structure.

the use of this type of stance is for what some arts call a 'bracing angle', which is established to resist, not yield. thus, more difficult to move in a straight line, but locked out of any serious circuluar movement.

keep the knee bent, with an internal connection to the big toe, will allow you to remain rooted and centered, with the ability to yield and stay balanced three dimensionally.

pete.

 

[dmax999]

Thanks, that confirms what I had thought. Never paid much attention to that detail before, but now I know what its supposed to be I will.

 

[East Winds]

dmax999,

I agree. We shouuld never lock our joints in Taijiquan. However your question raises another important point often mis-interpreted by taijiquan players. Do you mean an straight back or an upright back???

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[dmax999]

It was actually a straight back going straight up. Put your back against an outside corner, so the point of the corner is poking you on the spine. One heel is agains one of the walls next to the corner, the other is out about a foot forward pointing the same way as the corner. Move your back around until there is no space between your back and the corner, except for above the shoulders and back of the head. This is what I was told is a correct san-te (sp?) Xing-I position.

As always, when I see how to do something different then I thought of before, I try to put it into my Tai Chi and see what I get. Trying to put this into Tai Chi, I ran into the rear leg thing, which I never put much thought into before. Still working on if this back change is a good thing or bad thing.

Many of my improvement have come about by trying "stupid" thing while doing Tai Chi. I do it all the time, even when trying bad things you learn why doing it that way is wrong and increase your knowledge.

 

[East Winds]

dmax999,

Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked for clarification was Cheng Man-ching stylists have back leg bent and body upright, whilst Traditional Yang stylists have back leg straight (not locked) and spine straight buy inclined at an angle.
And whilst these positions are both correct for their particular styles, they have huge implications for weight distribution and effectiveness in martial applications. Haven't done so much Xing-I that I would know how this would apply to that particular art. A good example of what I am talking about can be found in the illustrations of Cheng Man-ching and Yang Zhen-duo/Yang Cheng-fu in a very good article by J.Justin Meechan - A Comparative Study Between Traditional Yang Style of Yang Cheng-fu and Cheng Man-ching Style. It can be found at

www.sataichi.com/compare.html

and talks about some of the implications of weight distribution in both postures.

Hope this addsd to the debate

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[pete]

...Cheng Man-ching stylists have back leg bent and body upright, whilst Traditional Yang stylists have back leg straight (not locked) and spine straight buy inclined at an angle.

east winds, i am only slightly familiar with either of these yang styles through seminars, demonstrations, and some bad cmc/yang classes several years ago, but had a similar thought regarding the position of the back. my teacher emphasizes that the lower back must remain open, and to align the tailbone down to the heel and up through the top of the head to act as an axle to turn the body. unless i am misunderstanding your description, i'd question whether the cmc style is closing up the spine and interupting the internal connections and impeding the natural range of motion to turn... please clarify.
thanks,
pete

 

[vampyre_rat]

I too would be curious as to how the CMC stylist would be impeding their range of motion. If the qua (sp?) is loose and flexible then there will be a large amount of rotation available about the hips and by keeping an erect spine (no forward inclination) you could utilise that turn to its fullest.

As to the rear leg being bent? well there is bent and there is bent.

Is it bent and alive or is it just collapsed? if its collapsed then its wrong, but if not....

One aspect of the no inclination and the bent rear leg is that the stance will tend to be somewhat shorter. I recently read the translation of Sun Lu Tangs taiji book, and he advocates the short postures in his style as they are closer to a 'natural fighting' stance, i.e. you're not going to go into a large long posture in a fight, but instead be more boxer like and keep your feet closer together to help manoverability.

It comes down to how you interpret your teachers teachings and how they did, and how they did etc. Paths diverge and some lead to chaos and are fruitless, while others continue to thrive even though they have followed different paths.

 

[East Winds]

Pete,

Yes I think you have it in one!! I agree entirely with your teacher. In traditional Yang, there is a dynamic tension between the back leg and the bowed front leg which does not exist in CMC style. As I do not practise CMC style I cannot comment on why Professor Cheng changed Yang Cheng-fu's stance. (Or indeed why he changed so much of Yang Cheng-fu's form!!!). Perhaps one of our CMC practitioners might like to comment as this is relevant to dmax999's original post.

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[East Winds]

vampyre-rat,

Thanks for your response. It arrived in between my reading Pete's post and composing my own reply. That is the first time I have heard a CMC explanation of the narrow stance. Can't comment on the martial applicability of such a stance, but of course the longer Yang stance is 70 - 30 as against the CMC 0 - 100. The dynamic tension involved in the traditional Yang posture allows for great flexibility in movement and certainly does not restrict or inhibit the opening of the kwa. My understanding is that CMC shortened and altered the form to simplify it and make it easier for western consumption. My fear is that in the process he lost much of taijiquans original flavour and intent. Just my opinion of course!!! Some of my best friends are CMC practitioners!!!!

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[pete]

thanks for the conversation east winds.

vampyre rat, i agree about the aliveness required in the bend... it is required to maintain the connection to the ground in the yin leg. otherwise, the 'collapse' as you call it will cause the foot to lazily slide about and actually can be very harmful to the knee joint.

the turning i am refering to can be tested very easily.

begin standing in a shoulder width stance, put your weight into your right leg and step with your left so your feet are at right angles. as you settle into your stance, facing left, adjust your right foot by moving the toes 45deg to the left. continue turning your waist to the left until you feel the connection to the ground under your right foot dissipate... that's when its time to step with the right foot. *** purposely left out upper body directions for simplicity of writing!!!***

try it both ways, 1. spine perpendicular to the ground and 2. tailbone connected to right heel. both ways with 'sung kua'.

let me know if there is a difference in the range of motion turning to the left and/or an interruption within the connections in the lower back in either case.

like i said, this is not a yang style (traditional or cmc) that i practice, but i would think this would be a universal tai chi principle... although i could be very wrong~

pete

 

[vampyre_rat]

vampyre-rat,

Thanks for your response. It arrived in between my reading Pete's post and composing my own reply.
....but of course the longer Yang stance is 70 - 30 as against the CMC 0 - 100.

.... My understanding is that CMC shortened and altered the form to simplify it and make it easier for western consumption. My fear is that in the process he lost much of taijiquans original flavour and intent. Just my opinion of course!!! Some of my best friends are CMC practitioners!!!!

Very best wishes

East Winds

Hi!

Well, I am confused about the 70-30 and 100-0 comment? are we referring to a rear posture? Because if it is a front posture then we too go for a '70-30', although if we were to stand with each foot on a separate set of bathroom scales, then this is more of a feeling that and actual weight distribution. Of course even within a 'style' there are differences.

My own understanding for the reduction of postures in the form was so that it was easier to teach people a complete sequence or form. Something that he (CMC) felt kept all the important flavour of the longer form, but was both quicker to perform (for those with less spare time) and easier to learn from beginning to end. It takes about a year or so to learn the form, so I would imagine it would take longer to learn the longer form. All the changes in the form happened in Taiwan, before he went to america.

As to flavour and intent, I think its more that the students lost it. I feel that he had it, but the teaching just did not get across to everybody.

It is sad when a great teacher comes along and the students for whatever reason do not take in the teaching, but this is true for all fields of learning.

All the best

VR

 

[East Winds]

vampyre_rat,

"Waisanhe" - (shoulder and hips, elbows and knees, hands and feet). -- They should also have included brain and typing fingers!!!!! You are correct my post about 70-30 : 100-0 makes no sense whatsoever!!! What I meant to say was that in a rear stance Traditional Yang stylists leave 30% weight in the front foot whilst as I understand it CMC stylists transfer all the weight to the rear foot. Sorry for the confusion and I stand to be corrected on that assumption if I have mis-interpreted it! I had the privelage a couple of years ago to "push" with William C. C. Chen. Quite an experience!

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[vampyre_rat]

East Winds,

no worries about the confusion, it's my normal state!

I had not realised that the trad. yang style did not go all the way back in the rear postures.

Push-hands with William CC Chen? You lucky thing.

All the best

VR