FluffyGuardian

So this is really just a skill issue. Qinna works well when you know how to use touch to control the opponent's psychology. The problem with how a lot of people attempt Qinna is like: 1) I want to control that joint. 2) Let me walk over and try to apply pressure and strength onto that joint, maybe to grab or crank it. 3) Opponent feels it... tenses up, resists, and fights against it. Qinna fails. A lot of people use Qinna by telegraphing their intent. A Taijiquan's approach to Qinna is very much like Sun Tzu's quote: "Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west" which is a tactic that extends well beyond just Qinna in Taijiquan. An example: 1) I want to control that joint. 2) I will first control the neighboring joint. 3) Opponent feels it, and his attention is at that neighboring joint. 4) Then I trick him because he didn't pay attention at the actual joint I wanted. His own resistance also helped me. You use touch to dictate what information to send to the opponent and what to hide from the opponent. Through that, you play mind games and influence how they try to resist. So if Qinna is an acceptance of a "starting position" or people "playing the same game", then that just sounds like training wheels, and you never took them off. I recall a story where Chen Yu once said something like: "People say Qinna doesn't work because they can just hit you. But every time I Qinna them, they suddenly don't want to hit me."

This is rather interesting because... You already said "Peng isn’t just supportive of qinna, it’s what makes refined qinna possible at all." You mentioned how great Wang Haijun is. And despite having said all that... your conclusion is that Chen style Qinna is bullshido. So... (rhetorical question; I'm not seriously asking you), is Wang Haijun's Peng not good enough for Qinna? Actually, as you have already saw, the Qinna techniques are known by Feng Zhiqiang as well; some of the basic ones are just straight up everywhere in traditional martial arts in general. Regarding strengths and weaknesses and CZK known for Qinna, part of that also stems from marketing. In the Beijing circles, long ago, the marketing went something like this: Hong Junsheng - issuing power/energy (fa) Tian Xiuchen - neutralize (hua) Chen Zhaokui - seize (na) Feng Zhiqeng - hit (da) It's a marketing/propaganda framing because someone wanted to promote each of these individuals. And in order to do so... they wanted to assign a specialized skill to each of them, like handing out a trophy to be linked to their names. It is true that Chen Zhaokui is known for Qinna... but... that's not their primary skill set. It's not like they heavily use Qinna over other methods. It is true that Feng Zhiqiang was known for hitting... but... his tuishou skills were also top-notch. So this is really just.... a marketing strategy. In reality, some of these folks are... good at all of those things... But to market them... someone had to be compress each of them into 1 dimension. I get it. I can relate to your sentiment here. But, this is not about the Chen Family. It is not about their art being lost. This is not even about martial arts. This is about the paradigm of Skilled Trades. If you want to learn blacksmithing, you become a blacksmith's apprentice. Chinese martial arts were regarded as Skilled Trades. And Skilled Trades have "Trade secrets". The process of becoming an "apprentice" in Chinese martial arts is known as Baishi. And you can Baishi for Traditional Chinese Medicine or even some obscure musical instrument. Lots of great restaurants around the world have "secret recipes/ingredients" that they don't want others to know. In the modern times, Baishi has become very corrupt in the Chinese martial art scene. A lot of it has become a financial transaction. A lot of high-profile teachers may now have hundreds/thousands of disciples. Think about it... take $10,000, the cost to become some big name's disciple. Now multiply that by 100 people. Congratulations, you are a millionaire! And we didn't even factor in tuition costs. It has become rather scam-ish.

Well, that's me being nice here.... Because if even the "masters" of styles or lines don't have Qinna... and if I am not allowed to assume they have Peng... then effectively, the entire style/lineages don't have Peng. See how I am trying to be nice here? Your critic is fair and correct, but... the implications is more bleak. So this is where I disagree, but I am not surprised that you think that. And ultimately, the problem starts with when you said "In Chen Taijiquan, the body method is [...]" because there are a lot of different levels of Chen Style. A lot of commercial "Old Frame" is very basic. Sorry to say, they don't have Shen Fa. If Shen Fa was nothing more than Peng in movement... we already have a word for that... it's called Peng. The word, Shen Fa, exists for a reason; it's not some redundant word. On paper, Chen Zhaokui's line is known for "Xiongyao Zhedie" (Chest and waist body folding) which is a name for one example of Shen Fa (Body Method) among many that don't have official names. According to Zhang Maozhen's book (he's student of Chen Zhaokui, Feng Zhiqiang, and his dad who did Small Frame), Chen Fa'ke had "Basic Frame (Lao Jia)", "Advanced Frame", and "Gongfu Frame". One would learn it in order. Shen Fa, in Chen Zhaokui's line, relates to methods regarding the torso, including Kua, Pelvis, Dantian, Chest, Ribs, Back, etc... Although those are words that other lines and styles may use... they are not used the same way in this line. Now... you might disagree with me, but... to me, that would be like disagreeing with Chen Fa'ke's son. Remember when you said Shen Fa is what's private? You are correct. It is private. This isn't taught to the public.

Well, I guess we all love Chen Style in this thread. Here are reasons why you are wrong: For sophisticated Taijiquan lines, Qinna... is built into the form itself... Jin... can be related to Qinna. For example... here is Feng Zhiqiang (Chen Fa'ke's disciple). The guy on the left is using a Qinna method from Chen Style's Tuibu Ya Zhou. Qinna is not some special, isolated system that exists separate from Chen's form. Maybe that's true in your form and other styles, but not Chen Style. A snapshot from the form to correspond to it: Now in Chen Style, you can use Zhou Jin (Elbow Jin) to counter this Qinna: And once again... this comes straight from the form. This can be found in Chen's Er Lu. You could "Fa Jin" here. In other words... Fa Jin is not necessarily about sending someone far away... or even necessarily hitting. The sequence Tuibu Ya Zhou is not only for "this specific technique" nor is it "only for Qinna". Like many movements, it contains many genres shoved inside. It just so happens that your Taijiquan doesn't have Qinna, and that's fine. That is very normal. The guy you posted... learned their Tuishou and application from Chen Yu's dad.

Here's the key point though. If you know how to build the foundation of a house, does that mean you know how to build the walls and roof? Do you know how to install plumbing? Electrical wiring? A foundation is essential, but the skill of building it does not automatically teach you everything else required to complete the house. Not even close... That was my argument. I never said Peng isn't important to Qinna. What I said was that Peng alone does not teach Qinna, and this is demonstrated clearly in the very conversation where Qinna was argued to not even be part of Taijiquan at all. Taiji practitioners are data points, and the data is very clear: The overwhelming majority of Taijiquan practitioners do not know Qinna, despite all the talk about Peng. If Peng were sufficient to teach Qinna, this wouldn't be the case. And here's the other thing about Peng and Qinna as it relates to Yang Taijiquan that I don't see anyone talk about. First of all, Yang Taijiquan (generally speaking) are very vulnerable to Qinna; they don't have much it. For one thing, some of them like to stick their thumbs out. Some calls this the "Tiger's Mouth". From a Qinna perspective, there are methods you can use by catching the thumb. In Chen Taijiquan, at least in my line, we are taught to not stick the thumbs out because it can be caught even in Tuishou. There are reasons we also don't see Chen Style use Yang's "Peng gesture" shape-wise. You don't see Chen Style's arm with a simple inward-facing palm as the outer hand like this: Why? Because this shape is simple and has a weakness. This "Peng" in the arm is strong against onward pressure, but it's weak against downward pressure, especially at the extremities like the wrist. Chen Style's version is more complex, and they uses a compound jin of sorts. You have Peng in the arm just like Yang Style, and then you apply a twist in the forearm such that palm is facing more upwards instead of inwards. By doing this, it's strong against both onward pressure and downwards pressure. So this is an example of a practical nuance... which principles don't talk about. Chen's "Peng Gesture" is actually a "Peng + Coil Gesture". Again, we have data points. And the data suggests that Taiji practitioners, the self-proclaimed "Internal" practitioners, have far fewer applications than so-called "External" practitioners. The data says that most Taijiquan practitioners (especially Yang Style)'s applications that are shown... are like 95% "Pushing someone away". They are so lacking in diversity in applications that people (including some in this thread) believe that is all Taiji is... is pushing someone away... They seriously think... that is the ultimate goal. Pushing and shoving has become... their "Signature Move". Well... no wonder applications are so easy to recover... when the recovered application is pushing someone away.... I agree with this! But I never said a specific application was a secret... I specifically said that methodology is kept private. Shen Fa is a methodology, and in the Chen Family... it's way more complex there simply Peng.

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.

Here is Chen Yu, grandson of Chen Fa;ke of the Chen Family, doing some of the same Qinna as your Qinna video In Aikido.... this is called Nikyo. In Chinese martial arts... this is everywhere. White Crane has it... Bajjiquan has it... Taijiquan has it (or some who preserved it still do at least)... but like... this is very common in martial arts across culture. Chinese martial arts are said to have four genres: Ti (Kick), Da (Hit), Shuai (Throw), Na (Grasp).

Well, earlier, you mentioned how Taiji and Qinna were "two methods and styles". And that Qinna involves a lot of grabbing. And that they are so different that you said: "you are comparing apples and oranges!" And then... you showed me a Tai Chi video... of a guy using... Qinna... In other words... the video is titled apple, and the content was about oranges.

You're not being very consistent here.... So... according to you... I am not looking at Taiji here, right?

Oh god... this guy is not good. 9:27 - "Turning my face away so I don't have to deal with the incoming blow" Let's put this into perspective... in Boxing... they are perfectly fine with getting punch in the face. Getting punched in the back of the head (Rabbit punch), on the other hand... is illegal in Boxing. Even Boxers don't want to get struck in the back of the head. And to then... spin out... giving the opponent your back from a grappling range....

Wow. So Taiji's Peng went from "five bows, whole-body power" to "forearm only." Damn... is this the trajectory Taiji now... After "Peng and Song", is the next stage: "Peng and Song... but only in the forearms" ... Oh.... really now... you actually understand his Chinese? He made zero mention of Peng and forearms. He did, however, repeatedly used words like Dantian, Qi, Waist, Ma Bu, Twisting in the foot, Zhen Jiao (Shocking foot), Li, etc....

Ooof... yikes...

Oh right... you're the guy who didn't know what Sanshou was either. Let me quote you Fu Zhongwen, Yang Chengfu's disciple, in his own book: As you can see... sanshou is a word even Yang Family members used. And contrary to what you thought Sanshou meant,, they do not mean Sanda, the sport. The same is true for Shuai Jiao. It also refers to a genre, not just a sport. And the same is also true for Qinna. It also refers to a genre. Taijiquan traditionally has Sanshou, Shuai Jiao, and Qinna methods. But you are a classic case of exactly what I have been talking about. You don't even realize what you don't have; you didn't even know what the words meant.

Another aspect of “methodology beats principles” is that Peng and Song alone do not teach entire categories of skill. Peng will not teach you qinna. It will not teach you how to reverse or escape qinna once it’s applied. It will not teach leg sweeps, trips, or counters to them. It will not teach you how to punish errors. Principles are publicly discussable because they are safe. They don't reveal missing content. If the methodology for qinna, sweeps, counters, and punishment isn’t trained, those skills won’t “naturally emerge” no matter how refined someone’s Peng is. Talking about Peng, Song, and intention costs nothing, reveals nothing, and cannot be used to reconstruct lost methods. This may also explain why books, aimed at a public audience, only talk about principles. There is nothing to lose by talking about them. Actual training methods, on the other hand, are kept private.

I agree with you that methodology leads to principle, but.... in the Tai Chi community, by and large, people believe the opposite. They believe that principle leads to methodology, or... they believe principles ARE the methodology. And that's why I wrote methodology beats principles because... in my experience, people who talk about principles often lack methodology or believe the principles is the "how" part. They view Tai Chi as nothing more than a checklist. They are obsessed with finding the "essence" of the art. A principle, by definition, is a fundamental truth/proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning." But here's the problem. An "essence" is a distillation of something. They are constantly in pursuit of subtracting their own art. For example, Taijiquan is known for Ba Jin: Peng, Lu, Ji, An, Tsai, Lie, Zhao, Kao. But in today's Taijiquan community, people seem to realize that Peng is "fundamental" whereas the remaining 7 are not. One is not literally using all 8 of those Jins at the same time, but Peng is always present and is the mother of all other jins. So, due to their mindset, they essentially tossed the other 7 out the window. Very often, they define Taiji as "Peng and Song"; they don't care about other jins anymore. The last four hardly ever gets mentioned. When I say that they believe principles lead to or are the "methodology", one example of that is that they might believe if they ONLY practice Peng and Song, they will magically be experts in the remaining 7 Jins. There seems to be a trend here..... Originally, Taijiquan was a Northern Chinese martial art with striking, standup grappling, locking, tripping, etc... Then... Taijiquan was actually... 13 Postures (8 Jin + 5 Directions) Then... Taijiquan was actually... 8 Jins... Then... Taijiquan was actually... 4 Jins: Peng, Lu, Ji, An.... they are the Primary Jins whereas the remaining four are Secondary Jins. Then... Taijiquan was actually... Peng and Song.... Then... I see people recently coming up with theories to argue that Peng and Song are either the same thing... or they want something more abstract to encapsulate it. They want to distill it even more... to 1 word. And through this pursuit of distillation... the more and more they seem to lose.