PDA

View Full Version : I'm sure this has already come up here.



Pages : [1] 2

peng
4/28/2006 1:02am,
Anyone care to advance an opinion about this guy?

http://www.internaldamagetaichi.com/

Saker
4/28/2006 3:56am,
Get Your Chi on!

oh my god I just laughed so hard I think I shat myself. Peng you owe Merseyside Police a new pair of uniform trousers.
I tried my hand at tai chi for about three months and my instructor was an ex-para (a real one before you ask) who was well into self defence applications of tai chi stuff so I respect the concept. But come on "down and dirty tai chi for the str33t". He's got to be full of ****, as I unfortunatly no longer appear to be.

MrMcFu
4/28/2006 4:44am,
You still can't argue with that.

http://www.internaldamagetaichi.com/images/eric.jpg

TheSparrow
4/28/2006 6:22am,
It's great how they can make a video about "deflect, parry and punch". :sniperdan

Kintama
4/28/2006 6:31am,
anyone know the difference between a deflect vs. a parry ?

Gezere
4/28/2006 9:40am,
anyone know the difference between a deflect vs. a parry ?

I was going to say the same thing. Parry and deflecting are the same thing.

When you parry you are deflecting.

He does have the right idea. Taijiquan was a combative art that became extremely watered down. He is right that forms are simply tools. So it seems he is trying to bring back tH3 [email protected]! Taijiquan. I would have to see what his other training methodolgy intails.

peng
4/28/2006 1:27pm,
anyone know the difference between a deflect vs. a parry ?
A deflect in this context attacks the arm in a downward fashion, a parry is a deflection to the side. That's one of the problems you run into with translations of these things. We call it "Step forward, deflect downward, parry, and punch" and the movement includes two kicks, two sideways parrys, a rollback, and a punch, as well as multiple other implied strikes.

I'm not particularly crazy about the way he's illustrating the applications, but it's a step in the right direction.

Saker
4/28/2006 1:44pm,
I'm not particularly crazy about the way he's illustrating the applications, but it's a step in the right direction

Agreed, you actually done any training with this bloke then?

peng
4/28/2006 1:48pm,
Agreed, you actually done any training with this bloke then?

Not this guy, no. I just ran across the video online and wanted to see what the scoffers thought.

I think the single biggest challenge to the promotion of Taiji as a fighting art is that it's hard to see where the action's at.,

Shaolinz
4/28/2006 1:52pm,
A deflect in this context attacks the arm in a downward fashion, a parry is a deflection to the side.

There is no different between a deflection and a parry. Even with these two definitions:
1. deflect is not an attack
2. parry being a deflection is circular.

A parry is a deflection (usually with a weapon) and deflect just means to turn aside or deviate. Circle terms are the enemy. Alot of people won't even consider the existance of an unarmed parry. It would simply be called a deflection.

Edit: Also what is this guy translating from? English to English?
Edit: In his video his parry and deflect are both to the side just different sides. He even messes it up while he is demonstrating it by himself. In application he complete disregards the "downward motion".

peng
4/28/2006 1:57pm,
There is no different between a deflection and a parry. Even with these two definitions:
1. deflect is not an attack
2. parry being a deflection is circular.

A parry is a deflection (usually with a weapon) and deflect just means to turn aside or deviate. Circle terms are the enemy. Alot of people won't even consider the existance of an unarmed parry. It would simply be called a deflection.

Edit: Also what is this guy translating from? English to English?
Chinese to english. The original descriptive names made extensive use of idiom and other cultural idiosyncracies. The english translations often just go for a description of the mechanics.

I'm talking about what that word is used to refer to within the context of the form.

Yes, a parry is a deflection, but within the context of the name of that movement, the "deflect" is fully known as "deflect downward" and is not illustrated in that video. Also, within the context of this movement, parry refers to a deflection to either side.

I agree that a parry is a type of deflection. I agree that, in essence, they could be the same word. However, the difference between deflect and parry within the context of that movement is the difference between a horizontal and vertical redirection of force.

Shaolinz
4/28/2006 2:03pm,
I understand the idea but I have this odd feeling that guy never translated anything from chinese. Watching his video he appears to be unable to even remember which one is the parry or deflection and when it must be done. Now don't think that I'm telling you, your wrong I understand that the original technique may have been discussed this way. However, in the instance of this person, its incorrect. He did parry, parry, punch

peng
4/28/2006 2:18pm,
I understand the idea but I have this odd feeling that guy never translated anything from chinese. Watching his video he appears to be unable to even remember which one is the parry or deflection and when it must be done. Now don't think that I'm telling you, your wrong I understand that the original technique may have been discussed this way. However, in the instance of this person, its incorrect. He did parry, parry, punch

He did not translate directly from the chinese, that is correct.

The posture names were translated back in the fifties and sixties. They vary from style to style, but this guy trained in the same system that I train in, at least in regards to the main form, so I'm familiar with the rest of the applicability of that technique.

It's a common practice to shorten the full name of "Step forward, deflect downward, parry and punch" into the shorthand "deflect, parry, and punch". I assure you that the deflect part of that is a completely different movement than the parry pat of it. It's confusing if you aren't familiar with the application, but if you study the form, it serves as an effective reminder of the various pieces and parts of the movement.

He did NOT illustrate the application associated with the deflect downward.

As I said before, the BASIC complete technique involves two kicks to the inside of the lower leg, a rollback movement, two parrys, the downward deflection, and the punch. The only part that he illustrated in that clip was the punch and one of the parrys, kinda. That's part of what i don't like about his illustration. It doesn't really communicate the true beauty of what they call "reeling silk" energy, which means that we're always at the strongest part of some technique> Basically, in theory, at any given moment, you've got another technique to transition into from an advantageous position.

On the other hand, though, if you show all the applications at once, folks start accusing you of mystic bullshit.

Shaolinz
4/28/2006 2:25pm,
Yea so basically. He has no idea what technique he is doing. He failed to realize a parry/deflection is basically the same thing. He did TWO parrys (both outside deflections) and a punch. So he fails in his knowledge of what he is teaching. So in one single video (which was staged and they got to review he could have easily fixed the problem except for the fact he probably doesn't even know it was a mistake) he has basically debunked his own ability. I think this guy would be considered a step in the wrong direction for martial arts.

Btw, when your discussing an individual instructor try to keep the ideal seperate from the reality. The ideal of the technique may exist... but not here...

peng
4/28/2006 2:42pm,
Yea so basically. He has no idea what technique he is doing. He failed to realize a parry/deflection is basically the same thing. He did TWO parrys (both outside deflections) and a punch. So he fails in his knowledge of what he is teaching. So in one single video (which was staged and they got to review he could have easily fixed the problem except for the fact he probably doesn't even know it was a mistake) he has basically debunked his own ability. I think this guy would be considered a step in the wrong direction for martial arts.

Btw, when your discussing an individual instructor try to keep the ideal seperate from the reality. The ideal of the technique may exist... but not here...

It's impossible to say whether or not he understands the complete technique from this video.

It's hard to show every technique of a movement in a single application, the way the system works, the name of the movement is the same, even if you're using a different specific technique. Perhaps he didn't feel the deflection was necesarry to show the idea of the particular application he was trying to get across.

The video is intended for folks who study the style, so they're not as likely to get hung up on things like that.

I get better instruction in person, so I'm not buying it, lol.

Like I said, he doesn't come across as the best, but it's better than old men waving hands in the park, at least.

Shaolinz
4/28/2006 2:51pm,
I'd prefer the old man waving his hands in the park. The old man never claimed his techniques would be legit on t3h stre4t.