Counters to: Black Tiger Breaks Flank

[Adam B]

Like I told you and hakfudisciple before, if this discussion was in the real world, it would be much easier to demonstrate.

I agree, but we do the best we can with what we've got.

I guess you are looking for something specific but I am not sure what. What are you looking for?

Yes, I am. I am looking for your personal experience of the theories you are talking about. Maybe it would be easier for me to get across if I used an example.

Let's take your phrase, "You are your body, you are the technique." I had an experience recently in my kung fu practice that could very easily be described in this way. I was practicing a set that I do regularly, and during one specific part of the sequence, my whole body felt like it was floating on air through the techniques while at the same time being solidly rooted to the ground. I could literally feel the qi flowing through my whole body and being expressed through the techniques. After finishing the set, there was no doubt in my mind that this is what the classics mean by "Yi moves qi, qi moves form." Now, I can't reproduce this at will, and I'm certainly not at the level where I can move this effortlessly during combat or intense sparring. However, after having a glimpse of it, I can can easily see how with proper training I eventually will be.

Now, if you look at what I wrote, it is an experience I had that directly correlated to classical theory. I also very clearly differentiated when I was theorizing about more advanced levels of skill that I hadn't currently attained so as not to give the impression that I was above my actual level. It is ok to talk about theory and esoteric concepts that we believe based on the teaching of our school/master even if we haven't experienced them directly, but I feel it's important to be very clear in these instances that it is not direct experience. A good example of this is in your last post when you said:

Effortless force is something I have yet to achieve. My sifu has it, and I have only seen a few masters show it.

In my opinion, we shouldn't speak authoritatively on things that we haven't experienced directly. In my experience, people who have had direct experience can talk about it and in a very clear manner explain how the theories manifest to them personally.

Like I said before, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss these things and give the best of our understanding, but it should always be very clear when we're talking about something that we actually do/have done and when it's our theoretical understanding that we are working towards implementing.

All the best,

[Chiahua]

The attacks in which you speak of... the person attempting the break is exposed to themselves also. If Adam or anyone else here can pull it off it doesn't matter what I think about the technique... I have said that before.

Just because I see a problem with it doesn't make it any less or more effective... I'm stating my opinion on the technique and sequence coming from a different point of view. It could very well be that this technique could be applied on me and I may be unable to counter...

Skill, force, and technique decide success, for sure.

[Adam B]

There is an old Chinese saying that translates learn kung fu 1 yr you fight all the time... learn kung fu 10 yrs you never fight!

Lol. I like that. In all fairness, none of the fights I was in were life or death affairs. Most of them involved too much alcahol and testosterone and got broken up before any serious injuries resulted.

What type of full contact sessions without gloves? Like Kyokushin karate type full contact?

Yeah, I guess it was similar to that. I went and visited the other kung fu school in town and their sifu sparred with me for about 45 minutes. The only rule was no contact to the head. It was an interesting experience which taught me a lot, and I plan to go back sometime. He worked me over pretty good, but was in no way malicious, quite the opposite. They just hit each other when they spar in their school. The biggest difference between us was that his shen was completely calm through the whole sparring regardless of what was happening. He was also better with technique and speed, but the shen was the main factor.

[hakfudisciple]

Lol. I like that. In all fairness, none of the fights I was in were life or death affairs. Most of them involved too much alcahol and testosterone and got broken up before any serious injuries resulted.Yeah, I guess it was similar to that. I went and visited the other kung fu school in town and their sifu sparred with me for about 45 minutes. The only rule was no contact to the head. It was an interesting experience which taught me a lot, and I plan to go back sometime. He worked me over pretty good, but was in no way malicious, quite the opposite. They just hit each other when they spar in their school. The biggest difference between us was that his shen was completely calm through the whole sparring regardless of what was happening. He was also better with technique and speed, but the shen was the main factor.

Sounds like a good experience!

[Daoist]

Adam,

I think you are looking for me to prove myself to see if what I said is true. It is not my intention to prove anything to anyone. I just like to share what I have been taught and my own ideas/philosophy about the martial arts. My ideas do come from my own experience from many fights that I have had in the past. Be assured that I do not speak from theory alone. What I have said may seem mysterious or impractical, but it is in fact very simple. Martial arts are simple; fighting is simple. The problem might be is you do not have the experience to understand what I have said. The best way to understand is to simply do. Now, I am not encouraging anyone to fight, but after much experience, much is learned. If you have trained your art correctly, it is a part of you and you can never lose it.

[Matt F.]

Adam,

I think you are looking for me to prove myself to see if what I said is true. It is not my intention to prove anything to anyone. I just like to share what I have been taught and my own ideas/philosophy about the martial arts. My ideas do come from my own experience from many fights that I have had in the past. Be assured that I do not speak from theory alone. What I have said may seem mysterious or impractical, but it is in fact very simple. Martial arts are simple; fighting is simple. The problem might be is you do not have the experience to understand what I have said. The best way to understand is to simply do. Now, I am not encouraging anyone to fight, but after much experience, much is learned. If you have trained your art correctly, it is a part of you and you can never lose it.

Dear Daoist,

I can't speak for Adam, but I believe he was not asking you to prove yourself. However, some of your statements have been unclear. By that I mean they are open to interpretation by the reader. For instance -

One has to carefully exchange movement and stillness to win. One is yang, the other yin. If my opponent attacks me, I respond with stillness. Would I not be hit? No, I wait for him. Once he is in motion to strike, meet him with stillness, then change to movement. It doesn't matter the technique. Yield to the attack (Yin), neutralize (yin-yang), then attack (yang). That is all there is to it.

Depending on my experience and understanding, this could be brilliant, or cause me a lot of pain. I may think you are explaining proper distance and timing, or I might think you are saying that if I wait a bit, a high block will protect me against a leg sweep, because the technique doesn't matter.

An example from your experience to go along with your theory would be very helpful. Again, this is not to prove yourself to the forum members, but rather to help the reader understand exactly what you mean. Better understanding leads to better discussion.

-Matt

[Adam B]

I think you are looking for me to prove myself to see if what I said is true. It is not my intention to prove anything to anyone.

That is definitely your prerogative. However, you have to understand my perspective. With the exception of you and Jeff, I've either personally met or know someone who has personally met every other person in this thread. You'll have to excuse my expecting confirmation (as much as is possible through this medium) that you have experience of what you're talking about.

I just like to share what I have been taught and my own ideas/philosophy about the martial arts. My ideas do come from my own experience from many fights that I have had in the past. Be assured that I do not speak from theory alone.

That assurance is what I'm looking for. So far I haven't gotten it.

What I have said may seem mysterious or impractical, but it is in fact very simple. Martial arts are simple; fighting is simple.

As I said before, every other person I've met who has experience of high level arts can discuss them in a simple and practical way. This is why it's confusing to me that your posts seem so mystical.

The problem might be is you do not have the experience to understand what I have said.

It is possible that I don't have the experience to understand what you've said. It's also possible that you're an excellent fighter who also practices taijiquan but uses neither tajiquan techniques nor principles in actual fighting. I very truly hope that this is not the case, and I'm hoping you will show this to be incorrect.

All the best,

[Zhang Wuji]

While the recent posts are not irrelevant, I think they can detract from the thread. We are after all discussing the pattern "Black Tiger Breaks Flank" - its application, weaknesses, maybe its counters.

I agree the principles of flow, movement, and application are highly relevant to the discussion, but it may well be that no one here has actually used this particular pattern in a real fight (even if someone has used other qin-na techniques). Thus, it may not be possible for anyone to say authoratively that "this is how I really did it". We rely on the fact that the pattern (technique) is passed down by past masters who created and used it to really break someone's elbow, and also from extrapolation of other similar techniques we may have used in actual fighting. I have only ever used in in friendly sparring, and I naturally held back (plus, my partner was cooperative). But just because that was a less than lethal combat situation does not mean I did not to glean practical experience and usable principles from it.

I will respond to this:

How can I explain? Chi gives you skill (speed, strength, sensitivity). These skills give birth to your techniques. A technique by itself does not have much use without these.

Actually, I think too much discussion of technique without purpose leads the student astray. What I said before I hope wasn't too mystical. That was the clearest way I could say the truth about fighting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Lol. I suppose I could. That might be going off in a different direction though. When I said "You are your body, you are the technique", I meant it as a way of thinking to help someone understand fighting spirit. In a fight, there is only doing. Whatever techniques/skills you have practiced, they should flow from you, there should be no thought. Your body should express everything naturally. If you can't do this, then either you haven't practiced in the right way, or you are trying to force dead techniques onto your opponent.

The best martial art I have learned that achieves this effortless flow in fighting is Taijiquan. It takes a tremendous amount of determination to achieve, but it is well worth it. Fighting truly becomes an art.

Of course, anyone applying this pattern cannot do so in isolation (from preparatory steps and follow-up moves if the execution is checked by a counter), cannot do so in a jerky, staccato fashion, cannot stop and think about how to apply it and cannot do so without sufficient speed, force and sensitivity.

The point is for this technique to work, you must first have practised it. And practised it knowing how it is applied, the subtleties involved, covering onself, being aware of the possible weaknesses, learning to flow into a contingency pattern, in other words, the principles behind the technique. Hence, this discussion is not fruitless. Actual physical practice is essential, but a verbal discussion helps to crystallise the principles in a different manner, and leads one to try out the suggestions in practice.If we were to just talk about the technique, that would be useless, but if we integrate the discussion in our personal practice, we would have the advantage over someone who practises mindlessly.

Fighting is simple, true, but it is not easy. If it is so easy, everyone would be unbeatable. To reach a stage where you can say fighting is simple, there is a process you have to go through. For most of us, including me, this is work-in-progress.

As Adam has said, if you have the experience, you can present your ideas clearly. It is true that many things cannot be expressed in words, but in martial arts, there is nothing so mystical that it cannot be expressed simply. And even if you are of such a high level that someone less experienced cannot fully understand what you have said or written, it should be obvious even to that less experienced person that you know what you are talking abut.

When someone who has no real experience speaks, he fools nobody. One example outside the martial arts - I have served in the military. Some civilians who have read tons of books about military training and warfare may know loads, much more than me, but I can immediately spot a wannabe bull-shitter who has never gone through the same training. On the other hand, I have never seen combat, so if I were to boast of my self-imagined combat exploits, a war verteran would simply snort at my ignorance and likely say nothing. If that combat veteran were to write about his experiences, you can be sure that much of his experience would be lost in the translation to print, and that many people reading it would not be able to feel the same fear, pain, trauma and exhilaration he had. Still, it would be obvious that he has been there and done that.

Is there a point to this entire discussion at all? Again, an analogy from my military training. I have had bullets go past me, been wet and cold for days with no change of clothes, bitten by insects, and so on, but I have not been in war. But am I more prepared than the average civilian, even if I am not tested in the ultimate crucible? I think so, and so, to relate back to this discussion, training and discussion may not be the real thing, but they help.

With that, let's get back to the discussion of the pattern and its underlying principles. No one here needs to prove anything - just discuss your experience augmented with your intellectual extrapolations rather than use intellectual speculation alone.

[Daoist]

Zhang Wuiji,

Your insult is thinly disguised. That is ok. You do not know me and I understand your doubts. I never said that I was a high level taiji master. I do not consider myself a high level taiji master. I am a relative beginner, having spent most of my kungfu training in Xingyiquan.

You are right when saying that there is no high level concept that cannot be expressed simply and specifically. Being specific though, is to see something in a narrow way. I prefer to see things in a broad and all-encompassing way. To understand broad and mysterious concepts, you have to have a broad outlook, not a narrow one.

I agree with you however. Let us move on and discuss the technique which started this discussion.

I looked at the video of this technique posted earlier. This is a very good technique. Not only is the person's elbow in danger from being broken, the step in front of the leg puts the person's knee in jeopardy. From my experience, once your opponent steps in front of your leg, it is almost too late. You must step to the diagonal as soon as you feel pressure on your wrist and elbow before the step is placed, or conversely, if your opponent steps in front of your leg first, you must free that leg. Once you have stepped to the diagonal, the shoulder is one option, as seen in the video. Just be careful to cover your face. If you use the shoulder, there is a risk that your opponent could try to take you down. You could alternatively use "zhi" or press from Taijiquan in conjunction with a kick to the groin. This way, you are facing your opponent more squarely, and you are more prepared to defend against a blow to the face.

[Zhang Wuji]

Daoist, I should quickly add that I did not intend to insult you as a person. Usually, my posts are not directed at any one person but are general in nature. It so happened that your posts (together with Adam's) were a convenient platform for me to put forth my view that the most complicated concepts can always be explained in a simple manner - it all depends on the person explaining, his experience and expressive ability. Perhaps the "you" references made you think I was referring solely to you.

I am a Taijiquan practitioner myself, and I actually agree with some of your points, especially that if you have trained the art well, it is part of you. I am sure you also agree that anyone with real experience can spot someone else speaking authoritatively without real experience.

As for the technique, let me share something. Why do we not use our palm to push the opponent's elbow to its break point, and instead use the inside of the forearm? The idea is to employ this technique when you are close, and have no need of a long fulcrum which is less stable. This is a Tiger pattern so your hand should be a Tiger Claw which then generates force in your forearm. Try doing this pattern with an open palm or closed fist and you may find there is a qualitative difference in the feel of the pattern.

The other thing that puzzled me for a while was the name of the pattern. I mean, ostensibly, this is a pattern that breaks the elbow, not the flank, so why the name? Before I carry on, any one like to venture an opinion?

[Daoist]

Zhang Wuji,

I understand. I took no offense.

[Phoenix]

When I say "effortless force", I mean the ability to repulse someone by merely touching their attack. This might seem too fantastic to believe but it is true. Not many masters have this skill though.

And fewer had the POWER or KNOWLEDGE of putting you out even whiteout touching you.

[drunken boxer]

I am not too familiar with the technique in question, but I just wanted to say I thought this was excellent:

When someone who has no real experience speaks, he fools nobody. One example outside the martial arts - I have served in the military. Some civilians who have read tons of books about military training and warfare may know loads, much more than me, but I can immediately spot a wannabe bull-shitter who has never gone through the same training. On the other hand, I have never seen combat, so if I were to boast of my self-imagined combat exploits, a war verteran would simply snort at my ignorance and likely say nothing. If that combat veteran were to write about his experiences, you can be sure that much of his experience would be lost in the translation to print, and that many people reading it would not be able to feel the same fear, pain, trauma and exhilaration he had. Still, it would be obvious that he has been there and done that.

Is there a point to this entire discussion at all? Again, an analogy from my military training. I have had bullets go past me, been wet and cold for days with no change of clothes, bitten by insects, and so on, but I have not been in war. But am I more prepared than the average civilian, even if I am not tested in the ultimate crucible? I think so, and so, to relate back to this discussion, training and discussion may not be the real thing, but they help.

Thanks Wuji.