Vertical + Slanted Pulling vs Vertical + Horizontal Pulling
Both methods can work, but they operate on different biomechanical strategies.
Vertical + slanted pulling is generally more efficient, safer, and more “internal.”
Vertical + horizontal pulling can be powerful, but costs more energy and exposes structure.
Below is a clear comparison using sports science, biomechanics, and Tai Chi principles, so you can see why.
I. Method A
Sink + Relax Shoulders + Drop Elbows + Forearm Rotation
(Vertical + Slanting Energy｜沉、鬆、旋)
What is actually happening biomechanically
1. Vertical force (gravity-assisted)
Uses body mass, not muscle force
Ground reaction force travels:
feet → legs → kua → spine → arms
This is stacked alignment, not pulling strength
2. Slanted / spiral vector
Forearm rotation + torso rotation
Creates off-axis torque
Breaks partner’s balance before strength can engage
3. Joint safety
Shoulder stays relaxed
Elbow stays heavy and dropped
Force passes through joints, not into joints
Sports science interpretation
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mechanical advantage | Gravity contributes to force output |
| Moment arm efficiency | Diagonal torque destabilizes with less force |
| Kinetic chain continuity | No “leakage” between segments |
| Neuromuscular inhibition | Balance loss shuts down partner strength |
📌 Result:
Small motion → big effect
Low effort → high off-balancing
Tai Chi classical view
沈中有引 (Within sinking, there is leading)
鬆而不懈 (Relaxed, but not collapsed)
引進落空 (Lead in, drop into emptiness)
II. Method B
Vertical + Horizontal Pulling
(Up–Down + Backward / Sideways Force)
What is happening biomechanically
1. Vertical force
Helps slightly with rooting and weight
2. Horizontal force
Requires:
arm strength
back muscles
grip or tension
Partner feels the direction clearly
3. Structural exposure
Shoulder girdle engages early
Elbow may lift or lock
Spine often leans to compensate
Sports science interpretation
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Higher energy cost | Horizontal force fights friction & balance reflex |
| Opponent adaptation | Direction is readable |
| Joint loading | Stress accumulates in shoulder/elbow |
| Force vs balance | You move mass, not center |
📌 Result:
Works on weaker or slower partners
Fails against trained balance or timing
More fatigue, less subtlety
III. Efficiency Comparison (Key Table)
| Criterion | Vertical + Slanted | Vertical + Horizontal |
|---|---|---|
| Energy cost | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Low | ⭐⭐ High |
| Balance disruption | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent | ⭐⭐ Moderate |
| Joint safety | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ High | ⭐⭐ Risky |
| Timing sensitivity | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ High | ⭐⭐ Low |
| Works on strong opponents | ✅ Yes | ❌ Often no |
| Tai Chi compliance | ✅ Classical | ⚠ Partial |
IV. Why Slanted Beats Horizontal (Physics Explanation)
Human balance is strongest front–back and side–side.
It is weakest diagonally and rotationally.
Horizontal pull → opponent braces
Diagonal + sinking → opponent’s reflex fails
This is called in sports science:
Vector misalignment
Postural reflex disruption
Torque dominance over linear force
In Tai Chi terms:
“You don’t move their body; you move their center.”
V. The Hidden Truth: Why Some Masters Still Teach Horizontal Pull
They are not wrong—they are teaching stages.
Horizontal force:
easier to feel
easier to teach beginners
safer to demonstrate quickly
But at high level:
Horizontal component shrinks
Slanted + vertical dominates
Arms become transmitters, not drivers
VI. Final Verdict (Clear and Honest)
✔ Most efficient and highest-level method:
Sink + relax shoulders + drop elbows + spiral rotation
→ vertical + slanted pulling
⚠ When vertical + horizontal is acceptable:
Beginner training
Demonstration
Cooperative partners
Transitional stage
❌ What to avoid:
Pure horizontal pulling
Arm-led force
Leaning or shoulder tension
One-Sentence Master Summary
The more vertical and slanted your pull becomes, the less strength you need—
and the more your partner moves themselves.
In the world of internal martial arts (like Tai Chi or Baguazhang), the debate between Vertical/Slanting energy and Horizontal energy isn't about which is "right," but rather about which is more mechanically efficient for unbalancing a human body.
Both approaches are "correct" in different contexts, but they rely on different sports theories and biomechanical principles. Here is a breakdown of how they compare.
1. Vertical & Slanting Energy (Internal Mechanics)
This approach—common in styles that emphasize "sinking the shoulder" and "dropping the elbow"—relies on Gravity and Spiral Force (Chan Si Jin).
The Theory: By rotating the forearm while sinking the elbow, you create a "screw" effect. Instead of pulling "back," you are pulling "down and through."
Sports Science Context: This utilizes Multi-Planar Loading. In physics, it is harder for an opponent to resist force coming from two vectors simultaneously (e.g., pulling back while also pulling down).
Efficiency: * High Structural Integrity: Dropping the elbow engages the latissimus dorsi and the core, rather than relying on the smaller deltoid and bicep muscles.
Rooting: Sinking the shoulder prevents your own center of gravity (COG) from rising, making it harder for the opponent to counter-pull you.
2. Horizontal Energy (External/Leverage Mechanics)
This is more common in wrestling or "hard" martial arts. It focuses on a direct line of force to move the opponent’s mass.
The Theory: You use your entire body weight to move the opponent’s center of gravity across the horizontal plane.
Sports Science Context: This relies on Newton’s Second Law ($F = ma$) and Linear Momentum. The goal is to maximize the acceleration of the opponent's mass in a single direction.
Efficiency:
Simplicity: It is faster to execute and requires less "fine motor" coordination under high stress.
Power: It allows for a massive burst of "explosive" power, provided your feet are firmly braced against the ground.
Comparison: Which is "Better"?
| Feature | Vertical/Slanting Energy | Horizontal Energy |
| Primary Muscle Groups | Lats, Serratus, Core | Deltoids, Biceps, Legs |
| Biomechanical Goal | Breaking the opponent's "Root" | Overwhelming the opponent's "Mass" |
| Energy Consumption | Lower (utilizes gravity) | Higher (requires muscular exertion) |
| Risk of Counter | Low (you remain "sunk") | High (you can be pulled off-balance) |
The Verdict on Efficiency
From a Physics perspective, Vertical/Slanting energy is more efficient for neutralizing a resisting opponent.
Because human balance is most stable against horizontal force (we naturally lean back or step into a pull), adding a vertical "sinking" component creates a Slanting Force. This forces the opponent’s COG to move toward the edge of their "Base of Support" (their feet) in a way they cannot easily brace against.
Scientific Insight: When you pull horizontally, you are fighting the opponent's friction against the floor. When you pull with a downward slant, you are using the opponent's own weight to help collapse their structure.
Summary
If you want to move someone much heavier than you, Vertical/Slanting energy is superior because it requires less raw strength. If you are already stronger and need a quick, decisive movement, Horizontal energy is often more practical in high-speed sports.
This video explains the "Sinking" quality (An/Lu energy) in Tai Chi, which is essential for understanding how vertical energy disrupts an opponent's balance more effectively than a simple horizontal pull.
In martial arts and grappling sports like Tai Chi, Judo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), or wrestling, pulling techniques are often used to off-balance an opponent (e.g., kuzushi in Judo) or control their position. The two approaches you describe align with "internal" vs. "external" styles or technique-focused vs. strength-focused methods. The first (sinking the body, relaxing the shoulders, dropping the elbows, and rotating the forearm for a vertical + slanting pull) emphasizes biomechanical efficiency, leverage, and whole-body coordination. The second (combining vertical and horizontal forces for a more horizontal pull) relies more on direct muscular force. Based on sports science principles like biomechanics, kinesiology, and motor control research, the first is generally more efficient and effective for most scenarios. I'll break it down step by step, compare them, and explain why.
Key Concepts from Sports Science
To evaluate these, we draw from:
- Biomechanics: Studies force application, joint angles, torque, and energy transfer. Efficient pulls minimize wasted effort while maximizing disruption to an opponent's base (center of mass or COM).
- Kinesiology and Motor Control: Examines muscle activation patterns, proprioception (body awareness), and sequencing (e.g., proximal-to-distal movement, where power starts from the core/hips and flows outward).
- Physics of Force Vectors: Pulling isn't just about raw strength; direction matters. A force vector that combines downward (vertical) and angled (slanting) components creates torque and unbalances an opponent more effectively than a flat horizontal one.
- Energy Efficiency in Grappling: Research in combat sports shows technique accounts for ~70% of performance (e.g., in BJJ), with strength/power at 5-15%. Over-relying on muscular force leads to faster fatigue.
These are substantiated by studies on grappling (e.g., Judo vs. BJJ motor efficiency, grip force production) and related movements like pulls in weightlifting or throws.
Description and Mechanics of Each Technique
- Vertical + Slanting Pull (Sinking, Relaxed Shoulders, Dropped Elbows, Forearm Rotation):
- How it works: You "sink" by bending the knees and dropping your COM (using gravity and rooting), relax the shoulders to avoid tension buildup, drop elbows close to the body for joint protection and better force alignment, and rotate the forearm (often supinating or twisting inward) to create a spiral or "corkscrew" effect. This generates a downward-vertical force combined with a slanting angle (e.g., 45-60 degrees), pulling the opponent off their base while twisting their posture.
- Biomechanical advantages:
- Leverage and torque: The slanting angle creates rotational force (torque) around the opponent's COM, making it easier to uproot or throw them. This is similar to how pelvic axial rotation + hip flexion in kicks (from Muay Thai/Karate/Taekwondo studies) combines vertical and horizontal shifts for power.
- Whole-body integration: Sinking engages the hips, core, and legs first (proximal-to-distal sequencing), transferring energy efficiently without over-relying on arms. Relaxed shoulders prevent "energy leakage" (e.g., shrugging dissipates force), and dropped elbows align the arm bones (radius/ulna) for better stability and reduced injury risk.
- Force vector: Primarily downward + angled, which disrupts balance by pulling the opponent into a void (e.g., over their toes or heels). Forearm rotation adds a "winding" effect, increasing grip strength and control (seen in grappling grip studies).
- Energy use: Low muscular effort; uses body weight and gravity for amplification. Proprioception (balance awareness) is enhanced, as in freestyle wrestling where dynamic balance aids quick pulls.
- Vertical + Horizontal Pull (More Horizontal Emphasis):
- How it works: This combines upward-vertical stabilization with a stronger horizontal component, often pulling straight across or slightly upward. It might involve more tension in the shoulders and back, without as much sinking or rotation, leading to a "yanking" motion.
- Biomechanical advantages:
- Direct force: Good for quick, explosive displacement if the opponent is already off-balance. Horizontal emphasis can generate high linear velocity (e.g., like in countermovement pull-ups, where explosive hip extension adds power).
- Muscle recruitment: Heavily engages upper back (teres major/minor, rhomboids) and horizontal movers (e.g., lats in a neutral plane). Useful in scenarios like guard pulls in BJJ or straight takedown defenses.
- Force vector: More level (horizontal), which can drag an opponent forward if they're light or unstable.
Comparison: Which is Correct or Better?
Neither is universally "correct"—it depends on context (e.g., opponent's stance, your position, or sport rules)—but the vertical + slanting method is generally better and more efficient based on sports science. Here's a side-by-side:
| Aspect | Vertical + Slanting Pull | Vertical + Horizontal Pull | Winner & Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency (Energy Use) | High: Uses gravity, relaxation, and sequencing to amplify force with minimal muscle fatigue. Studies in BJJ/Judo show endurance-strength profiles favor technique over raw power. | Moderate: Relies more on muscular tension, leading to quicker fatigue (e.g., grip strength drops faster without rotation). | Slanting: 70% of grappling success is technique; horizontal overuses arms/back. |
| Effectiveness (Disrupting Balance) | Superior: Slanting torque unroots opponents by shifting their COM vertically + angularly (e.g., like COM shifts in roundhouse kicks). Proprioception in Greco-Roman wrestling emphasizes this for control. | Good but limited: Horizontal force works if aligned with opponent's weak plane but often meets direct resistance, requiring more strength. | Slanting: Better leverage; physics favors angled vectors for torque (e.g., 2.5x more pelvic rotation in efficient movements). |
| Joint Safety & Biomechanics | Excellent: Dropped elbows/relaxed shoulders reduce shoulder strain; rotation aligns forearms for stability (similar to chin-ups being lat-dominant and safer than wide-grip pull-ups). | Riskier: Horizontal emphasis can bow elbows outward, increasing vulnerability (e.g., in punch biomechanics, horizontal leaves joints exposed). | Slanting: Prevents "energy splits" (force leakage); sinking protects spine/pelvis. |
| Power Output | Amplified: Whole-body (hips first), with studies showing faster velocities in sequenced movements (e.g., knee/hip extension in pulls). | Raw but variable: Explosive if strong, but less transferable (e.g., gym pulls like high pulls build vertical power but not slanting control). | Slanting: Proximal-distal sequencing > direct force; e.g., Judo athletes show strength-speed profiles from angled pulls. |
| Adaptability | Versatile: Works in standing (throws) or ground (submissions); common in internal arts like Tai Chi for "soft" power. | Situational: Better for horizontal drags (e.g., in BJJ guard work) but less for uprooting rooted opponents. | Slanting: Broader application; motor efficiency research differentiates Judo (angled pulls) from BJJ (endurance holds). |
| Training Transfer | Builds long-term skill: Emphasizes motor control and balance (e.g., Y-balance tests in wrestlers favor dynamic proprioception). | Builds strength: Good for raw force but may reinforce poor habits (e.g., back-dominant hinging in deadlifts slows speed). | Slanting: Technique-focused; 5-15% strength gain from gym transfers better with proper angles. |
Why the Vertical + Slanting Pull is More Efficient Overall
- Scientific Backing: Biomechanical analyses (e.g., of throws in Judo or kicks in martial arts) show combining vertical shifts with angled/rotational forces produces higher velocities and impact with less effort. Horizontal pulls often result in "force opposition" (pushing back equally), while slanting creates asymmetry. In grappling, specific grips (with rotation) yield higher isometric strength and control.
- Real-World Efficiency: In sports like wrestling or BJJ, elite athletes prioritize technique (e.g., sinking for root) over brute horizontal force, as it conserves energy for prolonged matches. Horizontal pulls can work for short bursts but lead to higher injury risk and lower success rates against skilled opponents.
- When Horizontal Might Be Better: If the goal is quick displacement without unrooting (e.g., pulling into a clinch in Muay Thai), or if you're much stronger than the opponent. But even then, adding slant improves it.
If you're training this, start with the slanting method: Practice sinking drills, elbow drops, and forearm twists on a heavy bag or partner to build efficiency. For horizontal, incorporate rows or pull-ups to build base strength, but integrate angles for transfer. If this is for a specific art (e.g., Tai Chi), let me know for more tailored advice!
太極語言為主，運動科學為輔，避免學院化，但保持嚴謹。
一、完整中文翻譯與整理（核心比較）
兩種「拉」的方法，本質不同
方法 A
下沉＋鬆肩＋沉肘＋前臂旋轉
👉 形成 垂直＋斜向勁
這是多數高階師父強調的方式。
內在動作不是「拉人」
而是：
先沈（重量落入腳與胯）
再旋（丹田與前臂螺旋）
空出方向（身體內部撤空）
對方不是被你拉走，
而是失去支撐後自己跌入你所創造的空間。
方法 B
垂直＋水平一起用力
👉 拉得比較「橫向」
這種方式在某些門派、某些階段也會看到。
特點是：
有下沉
但同時明顯使用水平拉力
手臂、背肌參與較多
二、運動科學與生物力學的正式比較
1️⃣ 方法 A：垂直＋斜向（最省力）
生物力學本質
利用 重力（vertical loading）
加上 斜向扭矩（off-axis torque）
破壞對方的「中軸穩定」
運動科學解讀
人體最弱的平衡方向是：
斜向＋旋轉
一旦平衡反射被破壞：
肌力會「來不及啟動」
對方不是輸在力量，而是輸在神經反應
結果
小動作 → 大效果
用意不用力
對強者也有效
關節安全、可長期練
2️⃣ 方法 B：垂直＋水平（能用，但代價高）
生物力學本質
一半借重力
一半用肌力拉動對方質量
運動科學解讀
水平方向是人類最習慣、最容易防禦的方向
對方能：
預期方向
啟動對抗肌群
用步法化解
結果
對初學者有效
對高手容易被化
消耗體力
肩、肘、背壓力大
三、效率總比較（重點表）
| 比較項目 | 垂直＋斜向 | 垂直＋水平 |
|---|---|---|
| 能量消耗 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 低 | ⭐⭐ 高 |
| 破壞平衡 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 極強 | ⭐⭐ 中 |
| 對高手有效 | ✅ 是 | ❌ 常失效 |
| 關節安全 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 高 | ⭐⭐ 風險 |
| 太極經典符合度 | ✅ 完全 | ⚠ 部分 |
四、為什麼「真正高手的水平力會消失？」
這一點非常關鍵。
初期
需要「水平感」讓學生感覺到有拉
否則學生會覺得「什麼都沒做」
中期
水平力變小
斜向與旋轉增加
高階
幾乎看不到水平力
只有沈、旋、空
對方卻自己走、自己跌
👉 不是不用水平力
👉 而是 水平力已經被轉化為「結構變化」
五、神經科學解釋：為什麼斜向會讓人「來不及用力」
人體平衡依賴三大系統
前庭系統（耳內平衡）
本體感覺（關節、肌肉）
視覺參考
當你：
垂直下沉（改變重心）
同時斜向旋轉（改變軸線）
👉 這三個系統 同時收到衝突訊號
結果是：
大腦需要「重新計算姿勢」
在這一瞬間：
肌力輸出被抑制
反應延遲
太極說：
「彼勁未發，我勁已在彼身中」
六、完整對應到「掤、捋、擠、按」
掤（Peng）
結構圓整
不是硬撐
是讓力進得來
捋（Lu）
真正的拉
核心是：
沈
旋
空
不是手拉，而是身退中有引
擠（Ji）
兩股力交會
斜向壓迫對方中線
本質仍是旋轉造成的結構擠壓
按（An）
表面向下
內在仍是：
下沉
向外擴散
破壞根基
👉 四勁其實共享同一個內在引擎
👉 差別只是 方向表現
七、一句真正的總結（核心中的核心）
水平力越多，太極越低階；
斜向與下沉越純，內勁越高級。
或用太極老話說：
「非以力勝人，乃以勢奪人。」
如果你願意，下一步我可以再幫你做三件事之一（或全部）：
把這一套寫成「推手教學講義」（可直接教學生）
對照吳式、武式、鄭子系的不同說法
用「丹田氣圈／電子核心模型」重新說一次
你只要說一句：「下一步怎麼走？」
