Mike Sigman wrote:
The sub-point I'd make is that while you're describing a particular approach within Yiquan, people in yiquan actually have a variety of ways that they teach some of the skills, yet, for the most part, all of them can bounce someone away, regardless of the individual approaches. The same sort of bouncing can be done in Xingyi, Taiji, Shaolin, etc., etc., and they all would have different ways of describing and teaching how to do elementary bouncing, whether contradictory training is explicitly mentioned or not. The main point I'm making is that we probably should stick to just the baseline skills and if we do go into some of the secondary skills, we all need to think exactly what is going on physically and try to avoid the jargon associated with the individual approaches we use.
I make no apologies for trying to think in terms of examples, rather than abstract terms. My point is that without setting up an example, a discussion domain, there's really no point in discussing it at all.
How can you discuss things students should be feeling or doing with certain feelings without approaching it from a particular interpretation? You can't. We have here an intuitive/subjective concept, which we have to put into words? What words, though?
The WHOLE point of yiquan was giving a set of words AND practices for discussing what students should be feeling, that can be linked to specific things that can be practiced. Otherwise yiquan would still be xingyiquan. So if I'm going to pick a jargon bias, I'll pick yiquan,, rather than sticking to loaded, abstract terms which no one can relate to.