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

[JowGaWolf]

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

Neither happens first as separate events. They happen together as part of the same process.

• You cannot lose balance without the structure changing
• You cannot change structure under force without affecting balance

The body is already in motion with the bus, so it’s not adapted to the sudden deceleration. When the bus slows, that change in force acts on the structure, and as the structure responds, the balance changes.

In that context, a standing structure is weaker than a seated structure because it has less support and a higher center of mass, so it’s more easily affected by changes in force. When seated, the structure is more supported and moves more in sync with the vehicle, so the same loss of balance doesn’t occur.

Martial Arts Equivalent​

• High stance
  
  • Higher center of mass
  • Less rooted / less support
  • Easier for force to shift the body
  • → Easier to break balance
• Low stance
  
  • Lower center of mass
  • More grounded / more support
  • Better able to absorb and redirect force
  • → Harder to break balance

People who are sitting maintain balance with far less effort because their structure is more supported and moves more in sync with the vehicle.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

When it happens to you are you feeling the structural changes internally? instead of feeling it as if someone is pushing or pulling?

 

[isshinryuronin]

unwilling to consider that there may be another way of viewing or doing something, discussion tends to become difficult.

Oh, there are definitely multiple ways of viewing something - sometimes it affects a result, other times it doesn't, all coming out in the wash. Take qi/chi for example. Some see it as an "internal" or spiritual phenomenon, others as purely "external" biophysical, yet either way it can have the same outcome in execution. I acknowledged this in my post:

if it works in their MA world view, good for them.

The important thing is that it has an effective outcome. For some, viewpoint "A" allows them to best translate concepts into action; for others, having viewpoint "B" allows them to best put the concepts into action. I have no problem with this. I merely expressed my viewpoint, not thinking it was an attack on a whole culture. Can we all be friends again?

 

[windwalker099105]

When it happens to you are you feeling the structural changes internally? instead of feeling it as if someone is pushing or pulling?

I used the word inertia as a common term describing what most people might understand.

In answer to your question, there are no "structural" changes felt as such. What is felt are the reactions to a change in balance. The body responds. When balance is lost, the body attempts to regain it.

It is interesting that the videos showing this happening are often the very ones questioned as being faked or dismissed with "whatever" explanations.

For those who are genuinely interested, it would be more productive to attempt what is being shown in some of the videos that are most often questioned. In the process, they may come to understand why they cannot do it...or arrive at an understanding if they can.

summery listed under the video
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."

He outlines the differences, talks about what he does, and why.....

 

[windwalker099105]

The video's summery does not say

"Attack the opponent's structure."

Nor does it say:

"Collapse the opponent's frame."

What it says is:

利用前臂转动改变对手的重心

"Use forearm rotation to change the opponent's center of gravity/center relationship."

and

通过破坏对手平衡

"By disrupting the opponent's balance."

The stated objective is balance.


The forearm rotation is the method.
The change in the opponent's center relationship is the mechanism.


The result is loss of balance.


This aligns with:

Affect balance, and the body's structure responds.

than with:

Attack structure, and balance is lost as a consequence.

Notice that the summary focuses on:

• 重心 (center of gravity/center)
• 平衡 (balance)

not:

• 骨架 (skeletal structure)
• 架子 (frame)
• 结构 (structure)

The teacher's emphasis appears to be:

Change the opponent's center relationship through forearm rotation, thereby disturbing balance.

 

[windwalker099105]

same concepts slightly different way

 

[isshinryuronin]

The forearm rotation is the method.
The change in the opponent's center relationship is the mechanism.


The result is loss of balance.

This particular move is not unique to xingyi or other CMA - the forearm rotation to "grab and pull" that of the opponent, breaking his structure and balance. The circular rotation also allows that same hand to flow and reverse direction into a strike. It is a part of my karate. (It is thought that xingyi played a part early on in karate's development.)

The above is the simple way I see it, rather than describing it with CMA terminology such as "borrowing, grounding, rooting, centering, etc." This is likely due to karate being a young upstart compared to CMA and having a more stripped-down approach. Up to the beginning of the 1900's there weren't even formal names of the techniques - it was just the master saying, "do this, then do that" as he demonstrated the moves. No doubt this Okinawan karate culture affects my viewpoint just as CMA's culture affects many of your viewpoints.

 

[Kung Fu Wang105]

This particular move is not unique to xingyi or other CMA - the forearm rotation to "grab and pull" that of the opponent, breaking his structure and balance.

- You throw a punch, your opponent blocks it.
- You pull back your punch, slide along his forearm and grab on his wrist.
- You put another hand to control his elbow joint, you then guide his leading arm and jam his own back arm.

When you do that, it doesn't matter whether you can destroy his balance, or his structure, you can do many things since none of his arms can give you any trouble.

 

[Kung Fu Wang105]

The stated objective is balance.

The forearm rotation is the method.
The change in the opponent's center relationship is the mechanism.

The result is loss of balance.

If I want to punch on my opponent's face, unless I can pull him into my punch (A + B > A), When my fist land on his face, I want him to have the best structure and the best balance. Why? This way I know that all my punching power can get into his body.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If I want to punch on my opponent's face, unless I can pull him into my punch (A + B > A), When my fist land on his face, I want him to have the best structure and the best balance. Why? This way I know that all my punching power can get into his body.

That's one way to look at it. If the opponent's structure is strong, and he is "locked" in place, there will be less give when you land the strike. When looked at as an isolated situation on its own, this is a plus.

However, it must be weighed against the advantages of his structure and balance being broken, resulting in a diminished capacity for him to defend or attack. IMO this is more advantageous than the above situation as it allows a greater chance for your attack to land. Also, his structure can be broken in a way that his body is drawn towards you, giving the effect of you pulling him in.

You throw a punch, your opponent blocks it.
- You pull back your punch, slide along his forearm and grab on his wrist.

To be clear, in this case I was not speaking of literally grabbing him with your hand. The friction of your forearm rotation allows for the "pulling" action as can be seen in the video. Should you make contact at or near the crook of his elbow you will have something more solid for your forearm to pull against, making this action even more effective as his body is jerked forward in your direction as you immediately reverse your hand's direction meeting him head on (A+B>A).

 

[Same Trick50]

. 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.

I think it’s you that think [up] to much here. Daoism is naturalism

 

[Kung Fu Wang105]

the advantages of his structure and balance being broken,

In order to move into my opponent faster than my own speed, I will need to borrow his resistance when he has good balance/structure.

When you pull your opponent's leading arm, if his structure and balance is not broken, his resistence force can pull your body in. This will speed up your forward movement. You forward move plus the pulling come from his resistance can help you to move in twice as fast, your punch can also generate twice as much power.

Your opponent's good balance and good structure may not help you to take him down, but it can help your punching power.

The discussion starts to get difficult when we mix striking art and throwing art. IMO, structure/balance is not that important for the striking art.

When my fist lands on my opponent, I want him to have good balance/structure right at that moment. When I try to set up my punch, if my opponent has

- poor structure/balance, I can pull him into my punch.
- good structure/balance, his resistance can pull me into punching him.

Whether my opponent has good balance/structure or not, I can take advantage on both situations (from a pure striking art point of view).

 

[JowGaWolf]

This particular move is not unique to xingyi or other CMA - the forearm rotation to "grab and pull" that of the opponent, breaking his structure and balance.

This is how I understand it as well. The move requires the opponent to deal with it and as he sets his structure to deal with the incoming force. You apply a different force in a different direction. You are now applying force against a structure that was not meant to handle it. The result is that the structure breaks. When that happens, the balance is lost. This is how I understand it from a CMA perspective and how I've applied to attacking and defending.

In short, I try to get my opponent into a structure that will be least affective in dealing with the force of the technique that I want to apply. In defense, I try to respond to the incoming force in a way that makes it more difficult to apply. If a person wants to push me has hard as they can then I want to give and move in the direction of the push so that that they only find emptiness. I don't want to give them the resistance that they need in order for their push to be effective.

I want to apply force and resistance in a way that works better for me than for my opponent. This means I need to know when to allow my opponent's energy to smash against a wall or to flow past me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The above is the simple way I see it, rather than describing it with CMA terminology such as "borrowing, grounding, rooting, centering, etc." This is likely due to karate being a young upstart compared to CMA and having a more stripped-down approach.

I do CMA and my mind works in a similar way. I know for me, my understanding is Application -> concept. Starting from Concept -> figure out application is the long way around. It's the way that I originally learned Jow Ga. But now my mind works Application -> Concept. You can show me a technique and the application of it and I will discover the concept.

The discussion starts to get difficult when we mix striking art and throwing art. IMO, structure/balance is not that important for the striking art.

Balance is important but it's more that with striking, "bad balance" is a self-inflicted wound. It can occur even if your opponent isn't manually manipulating your structure. That's why I showed the video of the basketball players falling over without having being touched. Similar risks exist in striking. It becomes a self-inflicted wound.

In wrestling, you have to deal with the manual manipulation of your structure which is why strikers are often out of place. They spend a lot of time making sure that they don't cause themselves to lose balance and they rarely have to deal with people manually manipulating their structure. In practice it's good to have experience with both.

Your opponent's good balance and good structure may not help you to take him down, but it can help your punching power.

When I wrestle, I will sometimes load my opponent with my weight because I know that he will make an effort to try to balance the weight instead of applying the technique. But with more advanced appoints, they will not bother to balance the weight, They will dump the weight in a way that allows them to take advantage of dumping the weight.

- good structure/balance, his resistance can pull me into punching him.

This depends on where he's giving resistance. If you and I spar and I begin to fill that you like to try to pull in general then I will start to try to deny you the structure you need in order to pull. Even if I can't escape the grip, I will try to position my arm so that the pull is not in the direction you want.

 

[punisher732]

I think the issue is that both "structure" AND "balance" are fluid ideas relative to what is trying to be accomplished.

Think of a gymnast pose like an "arabesque". It has a distinct structure and balance point to shift all of the limbs to extend away from the body. The gymnast has to shift their balance point to accommodate their shifts in weight distribution etc. The "structure" during these transitions is also dynamic.

But, I can break someone's "structure" without doing anything to their balance. For example, have a person stand upright with an arm extended and push down on it and have them resist. Then have them tilt their head down towards their shoulder and retry it. They are significantly weaker because their structure has been broken, but nothing has been done to their balance.

Balance on the other hand is more tied directly to structure. So, in order to displace balance, I HAVE to disrupt/break their structure first. In the real world, we see this example in demolitions. Once the structure is weakened or removed, the building easily falls or collapses. This is because "balance" is dependent on the structure. The structure is designed to handle specific forces/loads in a specific plane/manner. In the example of the building, it is structured to handle vertical forces of its own weight and gravity, but it also has to allow for horizontal force of the wind. Too rigid of a structure and if the building can't "sway" its own structure is its own demise because the horizontal force of the wind will break the structure.

 

[everything]

inertia and the bus stopping seem like good descriptions. if you haven't felt being "pushed", usually I explain it can be like standing in the ocean and you are moved and that's it. you don't feel any "force", your structure and balance are fine. but you cannot "defend" being moved (other than "swimming"). this is just from "gentle push" in IMA. perhaps "swimming" (yield and song) makes it so you do not have "too much structure" where the force will apply. this is a bad analogy, but it seems a little like this.

 

[windwalker099105]

inertia and the bus stopping seem like good descriptions. if you haven't felt being "pushed", usually I explain it can be like standing in the ocean and you are moved and that's it. you don't feel any "force", your structure and balance are fine. but you cannot "defend" being moved (other than "swimming").

Good analogy...

Which is why used as a strategy it forces the other person to consciously or unconsciously attempt to maintain or regain their balance.

The thread can be viewed from several levels:

Tactics: what is being accomplished.
Strategy: the approach being used.
Method: how it is actually done.

As the OP highlighted:

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."

In this case, the focus is on a different strategic approach to the same tactical objective, contrasting the methods used by external and internal approaches.

The discussion seems to become confusing when people move between these levels without realizing it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But, I can break someone's "structure" without doing anything to their balance. For example, have a person stand upright with an arm extended and push down on it and have them resist. Then have them tilt their head down towards their shoulder and retry it. They are significantly weaker because their structure has been broken, but nothing has been done to their balance.

This example doesn’t demonstrate a “broken structure” in the usual mechanical sense. It shows a compromised or less efficient structure, not a collapsed one.

In biomechanics or martial contexts, “structure breaking” usually means:

• The alignment can no longer support load efficiently
• The person can’t transmit force through their body
• Their posture is unstable or collapses under pressure

But in the example:

• The person is still upright
• Their joints are still stacked well enough to function
• They can still resist force—just less effectively
  

In your example the structure is altered or degraded, not broken

Balance shifts as the structure changes with the arm extended, and it shifts again as force is applied.

How balance responds​

Your body subtly compensates by:

• Activating stabilizer muscles in the core, back, and legs. This is the body adjusting to maintain balance, because when structure changes, balance changes as well.
• Making tiny shifts (often invisible) in weight distribution through your feet
• Adjusting spinal alignment to keep the center of mass over your base

 

[JowGaWolf]

I explain it can be like standing in the ocean and you are moved and that's it. you don't feel any "force", your structure and balance are fine. but you cannot "defend" being moved (other than "swimming").

If you are physically being moved, then your structure is changing. If it's the water or the shifting of the sand under your feet, It's causing structural change.

With something as simple as an action figure, you can see that whenever the structure changes, the balance has to change too. Even small adjustments shift how the weight is distributed and what keeps it upright.

An action figure falls or tilts when structure changes.
A human body adjusts to prevent that from happening as the body's structure changes.

 

[windwalker099105]

If you are physically being moved, then your structure is changing. If it's the water or the shifting of the sand under your feet, It's causing structural change.

If a book is moved across a table until if falls off, was its structure changed