I've seen at least two purported "Chinese martial arts" enthusiasts who frequent another forum say something about an "argument" how silk-reeling, etc., works. The interesting thing to me is that supposed CMA enthusiasts aren't aware of the basic information that I did in the O.P. of this thread or they wouldn't have made the remarks they did.
Hi Mike, can you post links for those enthusiasts' descriptions? I do appreciate the fact that the way a person describes something to some degree
can tell you if he is doing something you recognize. It's the "to some degree" part that I worry you may overestimate. It's like the old blind folks describing an elephant thing. One person may think the skin contour is relevant because it tracks the musculature underneath... whereas you don't care about the skin and think people who talk about it are missing the point of how an elephant's motor anatomy works. As one rough example.
For instance, you may think I am trying to BS here but I am being honest: the 4 directions of force you laid out here really are old news, like you said. And they underlie what *I* meant when I wrote this post.
I have practiced those directions explicitly in the past, but the way they interplay when used in combination and in serial sequence results in curved motions that I practice now. (like you said was demonstrated by Feng.) So the post was about what I do now (the curved motions). They curved nature of the motions are in my mind linked to "using the ground/gravity" because they seem to exist as a direct effect of trying to not "lose" the feeling of the ground/gravity. (Meaning, if you don't care about jin, then those 4 directions won't automatically merge together and mutually round each other out.) So-- because I wrote that post instead of citing Peng, Lu, An, and Jing, does that mean I am not doing anything like you are doing? Maybe. Or maybe it means a lot of info is structured in my mind in a way that is kind of disimilar to yours?