Old Yang TaiChi Chuan- “Session 2a” -the angle of the foot-toes (right foot) in the ‘first ball’ of single-hand peng

Good to hear not just me .. I hope someone may enlighten us

Since I posted the question in this post, it “simmered” (percolated and all that), and I note it could be that the foot doesn’t really change position, but the pressure down that leg (the left-rear leg) changes, by lifting and placing again.. such that the sole is nearly in the same place, but the ankle changes a bit (and this alters the “stretch in the inner-thigh/groin and reconnects the pelvis-spine onto it -sort of lifting a stack of plates, or folded clothes, and then placing back down.. same pos, but better connects.

It makes it more an issue, as I can rotate my ankle in (as he mentions) so to go from 45 degrees, in to 30 or further…. so I could lose it, but sense I’m missing something

There is the “Squishing a grape” under the ball of the foot- first in lead foot, then in rear foot– that compression of the sole from that pressing down is a method in Bagua of energy going-down – so seems there is that..
…
I don’t know the “hip uncomfortably wide” relates to what I mention above, nor my exper…
thx for your reply Markus- best of luck in your practicing
….
I hope one might read and have desire to respond that ‘gets’ this, and is more a TaiChiChuan person (which I must admit, I’m more a NeiGung, and the othe 2 Int’l arts- vs a TaiChi proclivity.. although this Training-Circle is adjusting that..

Hard to see
in videos.
It’s even hard to “understand” with a live instructor.

I’m certainly not the one to straighten out this issue
(I’m not even sure we’re all looking at the same issue.)

Heck, before this Edition I had never even heard of single hand peng vs double hand peng.
I thought that peng was peng.
I still find no distinction in the Tai Chi classics by Yang, Lu-Shan or Yang, Ban-hou or Yang, Chen-Fu between single hand peng and double hand peng.
But these Old Masters were pretty ambiguous.

However, Bruce is working with specific internal energies.
So I accept his analysis.

I’m not too concerned about whether something is “Old” Style or a modern variation.

I am interested in whether or not the movement works.
And I’ve been trying to get this peng deal in push hands for years–For the heck of me, I can’t figure out what my feet should be doing when I connect, attach, stick, lead an opponents arm–bull fighter’s cape?–the bull fighter keeps both feet together and is standing on his tippy toes–like a ballet dancer–obviously that’s not taiji.
Or am I trying to lead the opponent into emptiness–my empty leg?

This is why I’m paying to see Bruce’s take.

And I’ve always been taught that if there is a mistake, look first to your feet.

So the footwork is critical.

In Session 2a Bruce is trying to correct a raw beginner.
So I wouldn’t use this to set my posture.
I’d just take Bruce’s general principles.

I did like Month’s 2, Session 16a,
“Double Hand Peng and Deng Jyan”

There Bruce shows how “The twisting in of the rear foot causes the upward peng energy of the front arm.”
Mind you, he’s talking here about making a small movement of 1/100 inch.

It’s cool that this slight twist can prime the pump to “lead” (or “guide”) peng up to the opposite kwa.

When I told my bagua teacher about this he thought that it was unnecessary and that it interrupted the direct surge of forward power.

I apologize for not really seeing what everyone here is talking about.
Sorry if this is going off on a different tangent.

Bob
Post Falls, Idaho

Hello Larissa, best wishes and luck in your practice.. (good I’m not alone in this question — I don’t know if Bruce will see this question-thread, or if it might be answered in a Q&A….

just to add my plodding along with this, since my initial posting– I note that just as in a bow&arrow type stance, where the toes of the front foot are “almost’ straight-ahead, but a ‘bit’ inward (ie if fwd=left, the L-toes are slightly towards-R, such that L-big toe is a bit in).. and the rear foot is even-a-bit-more (thus rear=R a bit “out” so little-toe is a bit further Right… so the feet are slightly Jshaped, not exactly parallel…
I think perhaps the step from the “holding-Ball” on R-Foot step fwd into Single-Hand Peng. the L-foot seems a hint more open (but not enough to be “duck-feet” as if say step open to the left.. that is too much).. thus when then step together with R- then Fwd-R… rear=L is about 50degrees or such (nearly 45, but a bit more)… and thus not much in..
but I think even just a degree or so it makes a difference as it gives the reason to lift-toes/turn in as weight shifts Fwd… which creates a turning of leg up through pelvis..

felt as like a drive-shaft-cam or a drilling (which I feel as like a wheel on the wall between my hands rotating .. like a fan is there, slightly turns.. which beckons the fwd motion of body, and hands…

(then the Deng Jyau, back press of leg.. isn’t so much a push back, but a lengthening of leg back, as hands lengthen fwd… -which I see as the “CloudHands” movement… as taught in Training Circle ‘1’ for those who saw those… -the release/ripple wave in torso-guts (spherical).. which is setup by this rear-ft rotation/toe-lift (but I find, for me, if the toes/foot moves more than a fraction of inch, it is too much and I don’t have that turning feeling rise and flow up along the leg and fwd and out-through).

anyway- not sure if that might help any… stumbling through this move over and over I do find little things- I do still wonder about the stepping-angle-aligns in this section. luck all – any others make more sense of this? cheers

I don’t know if this question is just interpreted to be a confusion of ‘angles’ (re 8 directions as commented on previously in the Training Circle, and covered in Month9 session 16)… but that wasn’t my confusion at all, and I don’t think the others in this thread were either.

I don’t know if an answer will respond to this, often questions can be understood as just asking the ‘usual students don’t get this’.. but if one is clear of which direction facing.. and steps in a direction (lead foot) point in the direction facing… then:
step fwd (ex a diagonal-corner), then step fwd with rear foot, turning 45 (thus ex lead foot is now pointing straight at wall, and rear foot is directly at the diagonal or 45), just from the stepping.. Then pushing-shifting fwd- the rear foot wouldn’t (couldn’t) twist “in to 45” – if it is already at 45 prior to that.

a way of making sense is if the step fwd, to the diagonal-corner either the foot points out to the side (slight duck step? which doesn’t seem correct), or the foot points directly, but as step fwd and to the side [90 or 45 degrees, which changes what was the front foot to become rear foot..], at that time the supporting foot (was the lead-fwd, and becomes the rear) slips/twists so the toes don’t pt to the diagonal-corner, but NbyNE so to speak, and then need to twist back into NE (as facing-shifting towards E).
In other words- it seems the foot needs to slip at step on it or else isn’t pointing ahead prior to the step in regards the foot turn in as “Deng Jau”

---

this may have been easier to describe with a visual, but the directions facing-steping as turn make sense to me (and this is how it is verbally covered in the video).. but as this sort of driving-fwd stance shift seems to be a reoccuring-component in the form, I wonder if it might be addressed. Great info and material, just questions can be confused and as different question is answered if it is believed the common-misunderstanding is arising.

This along with some questions already being confused about how a move is mentioned in the Form, and secondly in repeating isolation, and thirdly in martial-application (3 separate contexts, thus could make sense of variations)..
I hope Bruce doesn’t decide to simplify the material, and share less, so that that kind of confusion doesn’t arise (as seems comments are asking for less implications= less info; to be more “clear” is to be direct and cover less depth);
hopefully those studying might relisten and work over materials to catch what is there. (and questions like this thread might seem to arise solely from that same light-skimming of the info)