Little thought: Tai Chi Chuan and the Dunning-Kruger-Effect

[Steve James]

Imo, the super-soft stuff is fine. The issue is only whether it will work against someone who isn't super soft, isn't trying to be, and doesn't care that you are or not. Here's the thing, at least for me. Why compete against others who are trying to be super soft? But, if one does, and one believes in the super soft, then compete against the hardest and stick with the soft, even though you lose, until either you can make it work or you stop believing. This isn't true just for tcc, either. One only improves by trying ... a lot, and the more skill required, the more one will have to train.

[kenneth fish]

[willywrong]

Imo, the super-soft stuff is fine. The issue is only whether it will work against someone who isn't super soft, isn't trying to be, and doesn't care that you are or not. Here's the thing, at least for me. Why compete against others who are trying to be super soft? But, if one does, and one believes in the super soft, then compete against the hardest and stick with the soft, even though you lose, until either you can make it work or you stop believing. This isn't true just for tcc, either. One only improves by trying ... a lot, and the more skill required, the more one will have to train.

I think the expression supersoft is actually half the problem with those that approach push hands or have disdain for it. The degree of softness always has to be guided by the 4 ounce principle which is not about softness so much has it's about sensitivity to motion.

[Steve James]

Ok, medium soft ... or even not soft. Doesn't matter. The principle is the same no matter the name.

[windwalker]

I think the word softness is sometimes misleading.
one still has to deal with the mass just depends at what point one wants to deal with it.
in things that have a mind, its the mind the leads it, once this is understood it is also understood that those that are "softer" if its based on a solid understanding of
what this means mostly have the highest skill level.

those that dont understand this dont have this option, the operate mostly on the touch level which is what most of this "soft" idea is really talking about.
of course this level wont and cant work, its to slow
it would be like trying to surf a wave, with a very heavy broad, one that doesnt allow for changes and tends to only go in one direction.

the reason for what is called the soft practice is that it allows one to discern what is actually changing and be able to change with it.
do not resist, do not run away,,,this is the saying.

most seeking an outcome tend to bypass this part, in favor of an outcome.
this can be seen in most of the competitive ph matches.
where with some coaching and practice a lot of the struggling can be negated.

Master Wang became a pushing hands champion in Taiwan while still in his twenties. He was disappointed with his achievement as he realized it depended on strength and technique and not on relaxation and softness. He wondered what happened to the concept of four ounces moving a thousand pounds.

After he met Grandmaster Huang of Malaysia, he realized that here was finally someone who possessed soft martial skills. He studied as much as possible with Huang when he visited Taiwan. Later Master Wang was able to discover the secrets of softness and called his new art search center in order to emphasize softness rather than pushing.]

http://www.searchcentertaichi.com/search.html

here is a guy who competed for money was successful and

wondered what happened to the concept of four ounces moving a thousand pounds.

he went on to find his own answers.

"money" tends to put the edge on competition

[Steve James]

Ok, medium soft ... or even not soft. Doesn't matter. The principle is the same no matter the name.

[willywrong]

Ok, medium soft ... or even not soft. Doesn't matter. The principle is the same no matter the name.

Please tell me how you would express the principle Steve as I'm courious to hear it from you.

[Steve James]

I got over trying to define "soft" a decade ago. Besides, like every other quality in tcc, there's no such thing as absolute soft. It, like everything that can have a yin/yang attributes, is solely relative to its opposite. So, there are only metaphors and similes like "pin in cotton" or "four ounces." If anyone ever tried to measure or quantify them, they couldn't come up with a real value anyway. Therefore, what "soft" is is never really the point.

There, you've heard it from me; and, no, I don't have a video.

[windwalker]

they couldn't come up with a real value anyway. Therefore, what "soft" is is never really the point.

not really true IMO. they use 4oz as a measure to answer this question about how to be light enough but still stick. In this sense the "soft" as you point out is
quite right it's not about the softness, more about what we call the awareness/perception level.

too light, "disconnecting" is more then just physically disconnecting, more importantly IMO is the fact that one is no longer able to follow or lead the others intent.
too heavy, "resisting" is also more then just heavy, it means that one is also not following the others intent.

1 Am Not a Meathook; Why Are You Hanging on Me?

T'ai-chi ch’uan emphasizes relaxation and sensitivity and abhors stiffness and tension. If you hang your meat on meathooks, this is dead meat. How can we even discuss sensitive ch'i? My teacher detested and forbade this, and so scolded his students by saying that he was not a "meathook." This is an oral teaching in the Yang family transmission. The concept is very profound and should be conscientiously practiced.

http://www.lipeiyun.com/Lipeiyun/Announcements/Entries/2011/12/11_tai_chi_materials.html

1 Am Not a Meathook; Why Are You Hanging on Me?

many talk about cultivation heaviness, not understanding what this really means, as those who do the same for lightness.
both IME are mistakes

[Steve James]

they use 4oz as a measure to answer this question about how to be light enough but still stick.

Well, 3 oz would be better. But, my point is that no one bothered to measure. They didn't used ounces in those days, and it takes an expert to know what 1,000 catties would weigh in our measurement. We don't really need to know; that knowledge will not make anyone more skillful. "If" it wasn't a metaphor then, it certainly is one now. The numbers don't matter.

Again, soft has no meaning without a relation to something hard. Neither are "things." They are relative states or qualities, and that's the only way either can really exist: i.e., in relation to one another.

Anyway, arguing about soft is like arguing about lukewarm or room temperature; it's all relative. So, maybe a thread could be started where people could debate their perspectives

[willywrong]

I got over trying to define "soft" a decade ago. Besides, like every other quality in tcc, there's no such thing as absolute soft. It, like everything that can have a yin/yang attributes, is solely relative to its opposite. So, there are only metaphors and similes like "pin in cotton" or "four ounces." If anyone ever tried to measure or quantify them, they couldn't come up with a real value anyway. Therefore, what "soft" is is never really the point.

There, you've heard it from me; and, no, I don't have a video.

That's a strange explanation for a principal but I kinda get it. Steve I don't believe I've asked you for a video for a while and just to be clear I have decided that your a knowledgeable man so please don't be defensive with me as I am really only a seeker, the same as most people are on this forum. And there I go I just used another generalisation so I better watch out for Dmitri or maybe he will find this one more acceptable than the last one. I do enjoy your posts Steve.

[willywrong]

they couldn't come up with a real value anyway. Therefore, what "soft" is is never really the point.

not really true IMO. they use 4oz as a measure to answer this question about how to be light enough but still stick. In this sense the "soft" as you point out is
quite right it's not about the softness, more about what we call the awareness/perception level.

too light, "disconnecting" is more then just physically disconnecting, more importantly IMO is the fact that one is no longer able to follow or lead the others intent.
too heavy, "resisting" is also more then just heavy, it means that one is also not following the others intent.

1 Am Not a Meathook; Why Are You Hanging on Me?

T'ai-chi ch’uan emphasizes relaxation and sensitivity and abhors stiffness and tension. If you hang your meat on meathooks, this is dead meat. How can we even discuss sensitive ch'i? My teacher detested and forbade this, and so scolded his students by saying that he was not a "meathook." This is an oral teaching in the Yang family transmission. The concept is very profound and should be conscientiously practiced.

http://www.lipeiyun.com/Lipeiyun/Announcements/Entries/2011/12/11_tai_chi_materials.html

1 Am Not a Meathook; Why Are You Hanging on Me?

many talk about cultivation heaviness, not understanding what this really means, as those who do the same for lightness.
both IME are mistakes

I like that explanation.

[willywrong]

they use 4oz as a measure to answer this question about how to be light enough but still stick.

Well, 3 oz would be better. But, my point is that no one bothered to measure. They didn't used ounces in those days, and it takes an expert to know what 1,000 catties would weigh in our measurement. We don't really need to know; that knowledge will not make anyone more skillful. "If" it wasn't a metaphor then, it certainly is one now. The numbers don't matter.

Again, soft has no meaning without a relation to something hard. Neither are "things." They are relative states or qualities, and that's the only way either can really exist: i.e., in relation to one another.

Anyway, arguing about soft is like arguing about lukewarm or room temperature; it's all relative. So, maybe a thread could be started where people could debate their perspectives

I think you're right about the relative weight 3 ounces would be better than 4 ounces if one could still stick to the principal of 4 ounces. I think it's a matter of the degree of sensitivity of the person involved although I'm not sure that it's all about sensitivity, sensitivity without a lot of other things being in place doesn't necessarily lead to good function.
Went and saw a really old doctor about 2003 as I was suffering some nerve damage in my lower extremities (peripheral neuropathy) and he used a small machine, handheld to test my sensitivity. I had to tell him when I could fill him testing against my skin. I had my eyes closed. After the test I asked him about the machine he told me that it measured down to 11 g. Wish I had that sensitivity (trained). Smile

[flints]

My understanding is that "soft" means using energy/mind intent rather than muscle. I have met people that can do that, and who can fight. Mark Rasmus is one of those people. My teacher is another. I agree that soft and slow tai chi is not a martial art unless it can be credibly used against fast and hard combatants. As always relative skill and conditioning will make a difference. Neija Boxer, I note that you did not answer my question: is it the case that you are so good that you think push hands is not worth your time, or are you not good at it and think it easier to do other things. If you are good, none of the things you mentioned should matter: you would be able to deal with any of their frames or strictures or whatever. And the fact that you picked up an insulting term from an Australian does not make it any less insulting (though admittedly if said in an Australian accent it would be much more humorous). Your intentional disrespect just makes me think you aren't really good at it. Afterall why be good at something that's not worth doing. But maybe I'm wrong

[windwalker]

they use 4oz as a measure to answer this question about how to be light enough but still stick.

Well, 3 oz would be better. But, my point is that no one bothered to measure. They didn't used ounces in those days, and it takes an expert to know what 1,000 catties would weigh in our measurement. We don't really need to know; that knowledge will not make anyone more skillful. "If" it wasn't a metaphor then, it certainly is one now. The numbers don't matter.

Again, soft has no meaning without a relation to something hard. Neither are "things." They are relative states or qualities, and that's the only way either can really exist: i.e., in relation to one another.

Anyway, arguing about soft is like arguing about lukewarm or room temperature; it's all relative. So, maybe a thread could be started where people could debate their perspectives

I think you're right about the relative weight 3 ounces would be better than 4 ounces if one could still stick to the principal of 4 ounces. I think it's a matter of the degree of sensitivity of the person involved although I'm not sure that it's all about sensitivity, sensitivity without a lot of other things being in place doesn't necessarily lead to good function.
Went and saw a really old doctor about 2003 as I was suffering some nerve damage in my lower extremities (peripheral neuropathy) and he used a small machine, handheld to test my sensitivity. I had to tell him when I could fill him testing against my skin. I had my eyes closed. After the test I asked him about the machine he told me that it measured down to 11 g. Wish I had that sensitivity (trained). Smile

its not really about the weight as was pointed out, it is a question of sensitivity, the question is sensitive to what?
once a person can answer that many things should become very clear.

IMO, the sensitive to what is answered by "intent" this allows one to start late and arrive first, it also allows one to "not resist, not run away" this can not be based on touch alone, its to slow one will always be late or to early in their movement.
from the following post.

My understanding is that "soft" means using energy/mind intent rather than muscle. I have met people that can do that, and who can fight.

3. Newton’s Third Law. It is impossible for an object to exert force on another object without that object exerting a force back. According to Newton’s third law, if object A exerts a force on object B, then B exerts an equal and opposite force back on A (see Fig. 2). These two forces are called an action and reaction pair. Thus, when someone exerts force on your body with his hand, before you even do anything, your body automatically exerts a force back on his hand that is exactly equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force his hand exerts on your body. Similarly, when you place your hand on his body, now another two forces come into play. One is the force that you are exerting on his body with your hand. The other is the equal and opposite force exerted on your hand by his body.

http://www.chuckrowtaichi.com/ChengCh.7.html

has some really good explanations for much of what is being discussed here.

By controlling the force you exert on the opponent, you automatically control his force on you.