Xingyi Pi Fist Breaks Stance, Subvert the Logic of Standing Combat

[windwalker099105]

attacking the balance vs attacking the structure

 

[isshinryuronin]

attacking the balance vs attacking the structure

I like the video and agree it's often wise not go right for a vital target, instead starting with a preparatory attack on the arms or legs. I don't think it's a matter of attacking balance vs structure. Attacking the structure will usually result in breaking balance (which I think the video showed) as well as create openings.

 

[windwalker099105]

Attacking the structure will usually result in breaking balance (which I think the video showed) as well as create openings.

an interesting view point... Watching the video, I thought it was more about illustrating. The differences in tactics, focus and skillets needed to be developed in order to use them..

Disrupting balance is not the same as attacking structure. They are different actions, requiring different skills.

Loss of balance is not a product of the opening — it is the opening itself. What follows, an expression of that loss, not a consequence of something done to create it.

Teacher Pang, attempting to make a distinction between CMA approach and others...

 

[isshinryuronin]

Disrupting balance is not the same as attacking structure. They are different actions, requiring different skills.

I see balance dependent on structure. How can one break the opponent's balance without first breaking his structure?

(Examples of breaking structure: Pulling the lead arm down causing a bend at the waist or kicking to the side of the knee with a similar effect. This will usually but not always result in loss of balance, but once the structure is compromised there will be at least a loss of response capability and decreased ability for power generation.)

 

[windwalker099105]

How can one break the opponent's balance without first breaking his structure?

this may help to understand it...

"Wang Yongquan, a prominent Yang-style Taijiquan master, used a method based on 4 skills.

Listening, Asking, Controlling, Releasing (听、问、拿、放): Understanding and manipulating the opponent’s force.

Indirect Contact: Striking the opponent’s center through an “energy balloon” rather than direct impact.

High-Level Reflexive Combat: At the advanced stage, Wang could automatically counter opponents without consciously aiming, similar to a table tennis player’s reflexive movements.


what is shown in the video along the same lines.
The point, to disrupt the balance..

 

[isshinryuronin]

this may help to understand it...

Nope.

How do you break physical balance without attacking structure?

 

[windwalker099105]

Nope.

How do you break physical balance without attacking structure?

Balance is not controlled by structure. It is a relationship. Structure may support it, but the effective balance point may not match the visible form.

You can disrupt that relationship directly without attacking structure. When you do, loss of balance comes first. Structural collapse or reactive adjustment follows.

Which model you train determines what you can do. In your case, you've already outlined how you would do it. The video shows it done in a different way, different view point...

 

[isshinryuronin]

You can disrupt that relationship directly without attacking structure.

HOW?

 

[windwalker099105]

HOW?

summery listed under the video

"庞超武术系统通过对比传统站立打击与形意拳的力学结构，探讨了在实战中如何利用前臂转动改变对手的重心。这种技术通过破坏对手平衡，为现代站立格斗提供了一种不同的战术视角。

ENGLISH
Pang Chao's martial arts system, by comparing the biomechanics of traditional stand-up striking with that of Xingyi Quan, explores how to use forearm rotation to shift the opponent's center of gravity in actual combat. This technique, by disrupting the opponent's balance, provides a different tactical perspective for modern stand-up fighting."

for those interested about "how"
teacher Pang's, Utube,

 

[Xue Sheng99]

I think you’re both getting hung up on you perspective as it applies to the arts you train.

I trained Xingyiquan, it was my favorite arts, and the video is showing some applications of Piquan, there is another I know that is, shall we say, much more damaging.

One slight correction to the video, Paoquan and Bengquan, especially Bengquan are direct punches. All of the 5 elements of xingyiquan can be used for striking if the opportunity arises

But back to balance vs structure. In CMA, especially ICMA, we talk about attacking the center, or controlling the center, and in this case you are looking to uproot, or take the other guys balance. They may have good structure, but if you get there center, you take their root, and the balance and structure are gone.

Is this an attempt to defeat their structure, well, yes you are looking to do that. But from an ICMA perspective, you are looking to take their balance which in turn defeats structure. Not defeating the structure to take their balance

One application of Hengquan will go under structure to take their center, then structure is gone, opponent is on the ground. But it is more of an aggressive slip of an incoming strike to attack the center and up root.

However one must also note, xingyiquan is very aggressive as compared to other ICMA styles. Everything is attack, attack is attack, block is attack, going forward or backwards are attack. It was once said to me by one of my shifus that as far ar he could tell, xingyiquan was the only internal art that thought preemptive strikes were a good thing. Another saying about Xingyiquan that gets misunderstood is “ Xingyiquan never backs up” that does not mean it doesn’t go backwards, it means even when backing up, it attacks. As I said, it is aggressive

 

[JowGaWolf]

Balance and Structure are the same thing. One is general the other is specific. Examples from General to Specific.
General vs. Specific
Structure = the general condition (the overall framework that supports balance).
Balance = the specific manifestation of that structure (how stable or unstable it is).

Think of it like this:
Structure → Balance (stable)
Structure → Imbalance (unstable)
Structure → Sitting balanced (chair intact, person steady)
Structure → Sitting imbalance (chair broken, person unstable)

You cannot affect the specific (balance) without first affecting the general (structure).
Balance doesn’t exist independently — it’s always tied to a structure. Structure is the foundation. Balance is the state of that foundation. Balance is always a product of forces acting through a structure.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In martial arts, we are all taught structure first and from that structure we learn balance.

 

[isshinryuronin]

You cannot affect the specific (balance) without first affecting the general (structure).

I see balance dependent on structure. How can one break the opponent's balance without first breaking his structure?

We're on the same page here. The others have it backwards, I think perhaps too immersed in the Daoist metaphysical aspects of CMA rather than the basic, simple primaphysical. Not their fault. IMO, much CMA is over-burdened with philosophical concepts that can cloud the concrete issues of execution. No offense meant; it's just the way I see it. But if it works in their MA world view, good for them. I'm just a simple guy who tends to see things in the least complex way possible .

 

[JowGaWolf]

We're on the same page here. The others have it backwards, I think perhaps too immersed in the Daoist metaphysical aspects of CMA rather than the basic, simple primaphysical. Not their fault. IMO, much CMA is over-burdened with philosophical concepts that can cloud the concrete issues of execution. No offense meant; it's just the way I see it. But if it works in their MA world view, good for them. I'm just a simple guy who tends to see things in the least complex way possible .

The only way that I could think of attacking balance without breaking structure is to force people to use unfamiliar structures. Here are some examples.
In martial arts force someone with bad footwork to move around. This forces his body to be in structures in which balance is unfamiliar.
In martial arts, boxing etc. we can see this through frantic footwork and uneven footwork.


Structure is not being attack. The body is moving into structures in which it doesn't know balance:

I've seen this happen in fighting as well. Youtube isn't what it used to be this is what I was able to find. The guy that falls fell while attacking the person he's sparring with. His body moved into a position "structure" that he was unfamiliar with and as a result he couldn't find balance.

In the "attack balance" without attacking structure perspective, it seems to = What I do to myself. How do I destroy my own balance by taking structures in which my balance is unfamiliar with. I know traditional martial arts are always strict about not using a specified structure of a system and do not like when people abandon that structure. If a person trains one structure for years and then ventures out of that structure then they put themselves in body structures in which they do not know where the balance is. If you punch mean and I do a lean back as a defense, then my body must either find balance right away or I'll fall backwards. It's things like that that makes me think that some say balance and structure are different.

Every structure has a balance but the body doesn't automatically know where that balance is when moving into unfamiliar structures.

 

[Xue Sheng99]

Balance and Structure are the same thing. One is general the other is specific. Examples from General to Specific.

Actually that statement i incorrect

General vs. Specific
Structure = the general condition (the overall framework that supports balance).
Balance = the specific manifestation of that structure (how stable or unstable it is).

That statement even proves what you are saying wrong. You first say they are the same, then say they are dependent

Structure
Structure is from the Latin word structura which means "a fitting together, building." Although it's certainly used to describe buildings, it can do more than that. A family's structure includes the relationship of its members, your body structure can refer to how your muscles and bones fit together. Sentence structure is how a sentence is put together, including subjects, verbs, and all that stuff English teachers love to yap about. Structure is usually a noun, but it can also be a verb meaning to impose order, like if you "structure an argument to convince your parents to let you stay out later."

Balance
Physical (Ability)
In biology and movement, balance is the ability to distribute your weight to stand or move without falling. It relies on a combination of eyesight, muscle strength, joints, and the inner ear

Think of it like this:
Structure → Balance (stable)
Structure → Imbalance (unstable)
Structure → Sitting balanced (chair intact, person steady)
Structure → Sitting imbalance (chair broken, person unstable)

OK, still, not the same

You cannot affect the specific (balance) without first affecting the general (structure).
Balance doesn’t exist independently — it’s always tied to a structure. Structure is the foundation. Balance is the state of that foundation. Balance is always a product of forces acting through a structure.

No one has said otherwise

 

[Xue Sheng99]

We're on the same page here. The others have it backwards, I think perhaps too immersed in the Daoist metaphysical aspects of CMA rather than the basic, simple primaphysical. Not their fault. IMO, much CMA is over-burdened with philosophical concepts that can cloud the concrete issues of execution. No offense meant; it's just the way I see it. But if it works in their MA world view, good for them. I'm just a simple guy who tends to see things in the least complex way possible .

You are not understanding the terminology and trying to change it to something you understand by way of belittling it... not cool. And now you are into semantics

It is not "the Daoist metaphysical aspects of CMA rather than the basic, simple primaphysical. "
Pick up a pencil. place it perperndicular to your finger and try and balance it. Now if you can balance it from the edge, they you need to contact the scientific community to report your amazing discovery. From what point on the pencil do you balance it on your finger? Based on whatever structure yuo choose your body has a central point of balance. That less "Metaphysical" for you

Now, I did not expect youo to start insulting and belittling a style based on culture, but you sure did there. And saying no offence intended does not make it any less offensive.

You are doing what so many do, as I said, don't understand a thing, change it to something you understand, because taking the time to understand it, just takes to long

Yes, CMA is loaded with metephores and translation errors do not help, neither does belittling or insulting it based on lack of understanding and assumption

We're done here, sorry I added to this thread to give folks the opportunity.... you have a nice day

NOTE:
Taijiquan, Baguazhang and XIngyiquan, did not come from Taoists.
- Taijiquan as a link to Taoism via mythology and adoption of some of its philosophy
- Baguazhang has a link to Taoism based on the claim that Dong Haichuan learned a circle walking QIgong from a Taoist, And this is what he based Baguazhang on
- Xingyiquan has no actual link to taoists beyond it being adopted by them after it was created. It comes from Dai family Xinyiquan, who taught it to Li Luoneng who developed Xingyiquan

 

[windwalker099105]

The others have it backwards, I think perhaps too immersed in the Daoist metaphysical aspects of CMA rather than the basic, simple primaphysical.

Ya might want to rethink that. Those working with it do so based on experience. There are things that directly translate to physics and others that do not, based on what is being affected. How this is explained depends on the teacher and can vary. The effect, however, is quite consistent — teachers using the same type of demonstrations are working from the same underlying principles.

A person standing on a bus may have good structure. The bus stops suddenly. Does the person lose their balance first, or their structure?

The video was pointing out the different principles by which what are commonly called internal arts approach the same problems.

In doing so, it made a distinction between those approaches and the methods more commonly associated with externally based arts......

A distinction that you and others have made quite evident through your own descriptions and examples.

You are doing what so many do, as I said, don't understand a thing, change it to something you understand, because taking the time to understand it, just takes to long

totally agree

 

[JowGaWolf]

Actually that statement i incorrect

That statement even proves what you are saying wrong. You first say they are the same, then say they are dependent

Structure
Structure is from the Latin word structura which means "a fitting together, building." Although it's certainly used to describe buildings, it can do more than that. A family's structure includes the relationship of its members, your body structure can refer to how your muscles and bones fit together. Sentence structure is how a sentence is put together, including subjects, verbs, and all that stuff English teachers love to yap about. Structure is usually a noun, but it can also be a verb meaning to impose order, like if you "structure an argument to convince your parents to let you stay out later."

Balance
Physical (Ability)
In biology and movement, balance is the ability to distribute your weight to stand or move without falling. It relies on a combination of eyesight, muscle strength, joints, and the inner ear


OK, still, not the same

No one has said otherwise

I see where I caused confusion with how I how I worded it.

When I said “they are the same,” that wasn’t the right way to express what I meant. I wasn’t saying structure and balance are identical in definition.
What I meant is that they are directly connected, not separate ideas.

A clearer way to say it is this:

• Structure is the framework or system
• Balance is the condition that appears within that structure

So balance isn’t structure, but it doesn’t exist independently either. IIn my mind I tend to understand this visually. I see structure as the framework, and balance as what shows up when force moves through it.

hat statement even proves what you are saying wrong. You first say they are the same, then say they are dependent

Structure
Structure is from the Latin word structura which means "a fitting together, building." Although it's certainly used to describe buildings, it can do more than that. A family's structure includes the relationship of its members, your body structure can refer to how your muscles and bones fit together. Sentence structure is how a sentence is put together, including subjects, verbs, and all that stuff English teachers love to yap about. Structure is usually a noun, but it can also be a verb meaning to impose order, like if you "structure an argument to convince your parents to let you stay out later."

Balance
Physical (Ability)
In biology and movement, balance is the ability to distribute your weight to stand or move without falling. It relies on a combination of eyesight, muscle strength, joints, and the inner ear

The definitions you gave are correct in a general sense.
The issue is that they’re being applied outside the context of what we’re discussing. We’re not talking about balance and structure as isolated concepts—we’re talking about how they function together in movement and application.

In that context, balance isn’t something separate you deal with on its own. It always shows up through a structure. You don’t encounter balance without some form of structure expressing it.

That’s the point I was trying to make. Poor wording on my part earlier made it sound like I meant they were identical, which isn’t what I meant. What I was pointing to is their relationship in practice:

Structure is the framework, and balance is what shows up when force acts through that framework. You can define them separately, but in practice they’re never encountered separately.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Now, I did not expect youo to start insulting and belittling a style based on culture, but you sure did there.

There's sometimes a fuzzy line between critique and insult. Apologies it came off as harsh.

And saying no offence intended does not make it any less offensive.

I had my doubts that this would work . I did try to stress that it was only my opinion and point of view.

A person standing on a bus may have good structure. The bus stops suddenly. Does the person lose their balance first, or their structure?

I agree that inertia can trump structure when it comes to balance, but don't think it comes into play that much in self-defense. This thought did actually fleetingly come to mind as I pondered the issue while posting.

 

[windwalker099105]

I agree that inertia can trump structure when it comes to balance, but don't think it comes into play that much in self-defense. This thought did actually fleetingly come to mind as I pondered the issue while posting.

only relating my experience. There’s nothing for me to agree or disagree with. What I do notice is that when someone hasn’t had the same experience and is unwilling to consider that there may be another way of viewing or doing something, discussion tends to become difficult.

At that point, we’re no longer comparing experiences; we’re defending assumptions. I should know, because I’ve come from where you and some others are to where I am now. I can fully appreciate why it must seem strange at times.

Concerning inertia, you might consider the mechanisms by which it’s generated and how the body reacts to or feels it.