I’m finding that some throws are nearly universal. Sumi-otoshi (the four corners throw) appears in aikido, judo, and taijiquan. Consider the following clips:
This is an aikido version done smoothly against a student. Notice the positioning.
Now here’s a version from a Tomiki aikido competition. Great timing here.
This is a judo version in competition.
How is this done in taijiquan? Here you go:
Thing is, this throw is identical to an application of brush knee that I learned. In the pic above, Chen Yun-ching is showing the brush knee from the Chen Pan-ling form. Notice the hand position.
The great thing about the four corner throw is that this one technique can go in the direction of the four corners so easily, and with very little changing of the hands. It’s also one of the less strength powered throws. The four corner throw does involve lots of timing to get right, but that’s par for the course with internal techniques.
13 responses so far ↓
1 David // Jul 1, 2008 at 9:13 pm
As you study other arts, you’ll find similar techniques in all of them. This is what Bruce Lee was trying to explain through his concept of JKD; there are no superior techniques/styles, only superior attributes. This is where, I believe, Taiji excels. It is not a collection of techniques, but rather a way in which to train the body to move in its most natural state. It is from this state that the martial abilities of Taiji flow. Feel deeper, technique happens at skin level. Good Journey.
2 neijia // Jul 2, 2008 at 1:19 am
I really enjoyed this post and agree with the comment. “What we are after is the root and not the branches”. Still, this particular branch and the comparison of branches is really interesting. I am dying to go try out the throw, but won’t be at judo for a while due to a bjj diversion. Sweeps are the only throw-like maneuver I’m practicing.
Obi otoshi is another otoshi that seems to be in judo, aikido, as well as bagua, albeit not necessarily needing a belt grab. Not sure about taiji.
3 Dave Chesser // Jul 2, 2008 at 8:21 am
Neijia,
I’m finding that sumi-otoshi is basically just a really good kuzushi taken to its logical conclusion. As such, it’s a good throw but even if it doesn’t work then tai-otoshi or osoto-gari comes so easily after it. So it’s great for combo-ing and as a counter throw.
4 Meow // Jul 2, 2008 at 5:54 pm
i mentioned this in other threads, m.a. are almost all the same, same principles different expression / execution
david there are superior styles, the ones that use the attributes.. (and if you add them, well then it becomes good)
5 neijia // Jul 2, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Dave, thanks. I’ll try some of these combos in randori when I get a chance. Sumi otoshi does seem like “high judo”.
6 David // Jul 2, 2008 at 9:45 pm
In the end, any style can use the attributes, because we already possess them. Paul Vunak speaks about this in one of his books when he creates thought experiments of fights between different opponents of different styles. Combat is fluid and you cannot guarantee success by naming the style (i.e. Ali vs. Royce; either could win depending on thousands of variables. This does not mean that their art is suspect) The important point to remember is that combat is not what we train for in Taijiquan. The martial abilities come about because of the realization of our natural selves. We are not a collection of techniques.
7 neijia // Jul 2, 2008 at 11:49 pm
“We are not a collection of techniques.” This sounds like what Kano said or what Bruce Lee said, and similar to what Wang Xiangzhai said. But judo and jkd and yiquan (and taijiquan) all do have some techniques even if formlessness or spontaneity or simplicity or wuwei is the ultimate goal. All fine and good.
Sorry for a philosophical aside…
(rant on) But, if not a collection of techniques, then what is taijiquan? A collection of principles? An approach to finding wuwei? If those principles are applied in, say, bjj or judo, so it looks superficially on the outside like x, not y, is it still taijiquan? If your quan is a balance of yin and yang, isn’t it taijiquan? I would say yes, of course, but that gets so abstract as to be almost meaningless. So what is it? A particular training method? A fancy Taoist-based name later applied to a particular family/village art? A collection of techniques? A utopian ideal? All of the above? (rant off)
8 David // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:21 am
Hmmm… well thought out. Taijiquan is a martial art, a health exercise and a philosophy. We all agree on that. But when put alongside an art such as Aikido (for instance), the differences are stark. Taiji has what some may term “techniques”, a Chen style punch differs from a Yang style punch… the hand positions differ in each family style, etc. These are all useful in keeping the traditional art alive, it would be incredibly difficult to teach someone without the standards of the forms. But this is not Taiji. Taiji is not push hands, Taiji is not the form, Taiji IS. It is the awareness of the balance (or imbalance) of Yin and Yang, it is the awareness of wuwei, it is the awareness and acceptance of reality as it is. Taiji is driving a car, drinking a cup of tea, reading, breathing, typing this opinion on a keyboard, etc. We must always go deeper than the outer manifestations.
Bruce Lee wrote: ” Before I studied the martial arts, a punch was just a punch, a kick was just a kick. After I studied the martial arts, a punch was much more than a punch, a kick was much more than a kick. Now that I understand the martial arts, a punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick”.
As a last note: I think we should meditate on the difference when we say Taijiquan as opposed to Taiji.
9 neijia // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:04 am
I see what you mean. There are concrete characterizations like “originating in Chen village” or “a soft art” and there are abstract non-definitions. JKD has an even more difficult, controversial problem with definitions.Its interesting how much Bruce wrote about Taoist ideas, being like water, becoming one with the opponent, wuwei, etc.There is some evidence he studied some taijiquan and read about baguazhang mentioned in The Tao of Gungfu. In one of his books in the pro/con list, the section for taiji says Pro: the flow, and nothing in Con. There are also interviews where he apparently blasted the modern practice as useless (sounds like WXZ and many of us who actually like the art), much like he criticized all of the “classical mess”.
(ridiculous tangent on)
On a totally ridiculous tangent, I wish I had a time machine to go pick up Bruce to go challenge Wang when they were both in their prime due to their many similarities. They both criticized form-based training, they were both masters of their art, they both wanted to lift up Chinese arts, they both apparently sought wuwei and simplicity and mostly used strikes. Then, after Wang kicked Lee’s ass, I would want to know how Lee would adapt his training methods to incorporate this lesson. (ridiculous tangent off)
10 Meow // Jul 3, 2008 at 6:15 am
speak for yourself david, i train taijiquan solely for combat
11 neijia // Jul 4, 2008 at 11:02 am
Unexpectedly, I got to practice osoto gari at bjj. I couldn’t try sumi otoshi. That wouldn’t have really been appropriate. However, I see what you mean, Dave. We practiced the kuzushi very overtly. Done well enough, I see how it could complete the throw without any reaping. Nice.
12 DavidK // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Chen people:
Would you say this is an application of “Fist of Draping Body”? Sorry, I don’t really know the names of the techniques. It comes after the Hidden Hand Punch. I suppose it also comes from the Oblique Single Whip that comes before First Closing. The movements are very similar.
13 DavidK // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Look how much more the Judo thrower stays still, waits, and listens compared to the tossed. Awesome.
Leave a Comment