Leaderboard

Now our perspectives are starting to diverge, but that’s a good thing, it makes for an interesting discussion 🙂 From my perspective, Peng is absolutely foundational to both applying and reversing qinna. Peng is the internal inflation that gives structural integrity: it’s what makes your own “hose” difficult to kink, and what allows you to effectively kink someone else’s. Without that internal fullness and continuity, qinna tends to become local, muscular, and easily countered. Peng is also inseparable from Ting Jin. Without Ting Jin, you don’t reliably perceive the opponent’s internal state, direction, or vulnerability, and without that perception, applying qinna becomes guesswork rather than skill. In that sense, Peng isn’t just supportive of qinna, it’s what makes refined qinna possible at all. That said, I completely agree that form alone does not produce functional skill. Partner work is essential. But in traditional internal training, partner work is introduced after the body method has been sufficiently forged. This sequencing is intentional. The uniqueness of internal martial arts lies precisely here: they prioritize the development of internal body capacity first, and only later does it become functional skill, when you learn to express it through specific applications. This difference in emphasis is also reflected in Chen Fake’s oft-quoted view that roughly 90% of training should be done alone, with only about 10% in partner work. That ratio is almost the inverse of most external or modern martial arts, where partner drilling dominates. The reason for this inversion isn’t philosophical, it’s practical: in internal arts, the primary task is forging the body method itself, which must be developed independently before it can function reliably under contact. So when I say the body method (Shen Fa) is the method, that’s not philosophical, it’s literal. Peng isn’t a concept you apply on top of technique; it’s a trained internal condition that techniques emerge from and are constrained by. Without it, you can still learn qinna, sweeps, counters, but they will be external, conditional, and limited. I also want to push back a bit on the idea that “actual training methods are kept private", while talking about principles reveals nothing. I think that framing slightly misses what’s really going on. The real dividing line isn’t principles vs. methods, it’s what can actually be transmitted without a teacher. You can talk about Peng endlessly, but talking about Peng does not give someone Peng. Likewise, you can talk about qinna, show qinna on video, or even break it down step by step, and none of that grants the ability to apply it internally. Without the internal body method, those methods are functionally hollow. In fact, I’d argue the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting: Applications are far easier to recover than the internal body method. Two bodies interacting can rediscover joint locks, sweeps, counters, and punishments. That kind of knowledge is mechanically available. But Peng, the internal inflation, continuity, and load-bearing integrity of the body, is far more elusive. It’s not obvious, not visible, and not intuitive. Once that is lost, it’s extremely hard to reconstruct. That’s why, historically, the “secret” was never really a specific application. The secret was the body method. Once Peng is genuinely present, applications stop being mysterious, you can feel where to apply force, where structure breaks, where control emerges. Without it, no amount of application knowledge closes the gap. So yes, talking reveals little, but that’s true of both principles and applications. What actually matters is whether the internal condition of the body is being cultivated. And that’s precisely the thing that cannot be learned from words, videos, or public discussion, and the thing most easily lost if it isn’t preserved carefully. I think we may actually agree more than it first appears. There is far too much pontificating about principles in the abstract. Where I differ is that I don’t see this as an error of emphasis so much as an error of intellectualization, trying to think one’s way into something that can only be embodied. Ultimately, whether we’re talking about principles, methods, or applications, the real issue is the same: the vast majority of people simply don’t have the principles in their bodies.

Do you realize you’re contradicting yourself? Taijiquan is famous for sticking and following, yet you're implying it "pushes people away" and avoids disable/control. At the same time, you describe Qinna as disabling and controlling the opponent, which is achieved precisely by sticking, following, listening, and maintaining contact. That sounds like something Taiji people wish they could do... You say Taiji and Qinna are "apples and oranges," different styles and methods. Then you say all martial styles share similar techniques. Those two claims cannot both be true. If Qinna truly shares no techniques with Taiji, then you can't say they share similar techniques. If techniques are shared across styles, then there is no problem acknowledging Qinna methods are within Taijiquan.

All martial styles has these similar techniques. You can't lump all the styles together and be confused about them. PS Please keep in mind, a competent Taiji practitioner has a Taji body.

The character for Xìng 性 Life is made up of the radical for xīn 心 heart, and shēng 生 birth (depicted by a plant sprouting from the earth.) For Mìng 命 Destiny the two kǒu 口 mouths are proclaiming lìng 令 decrees (depiction of placing a seal onto a document.) Zhongwen.com - Chinese Characters Etymologies

I am but one man, with limited resources in a land where each has the free will to choose and to do. I have no higher calling than to let existence run it's course.