if the connection is correct, the power will go through

[Finny]

Yep - there are definitely differing views on the hopping/jumping phenomenon.

Ultimately we basically have to agree to disagree. Those who are adamant 'believers' have not yet (imo) put forward any reasonable explanation beyond 'it has to be felt/you have to actually be there', and critics tend to be skeptical regardless, and perhaps a bit too sarcastic and dismissive.

[windwalker]

Yep - there are definitely differing views on the hopping/jumping phenomenon.

Ultimately we basically have to agree to disagree. Those who are adamant 'believers' have not yet (imo) put forward any reasonable explanation beyond 'it has to be felt/you have to actually be there', and critics tend to be skeptical regardless, and perhaps a bit too sarcastic and dismissive.

Why is it that those who've had an experience are called believers while those who've not had it, the skeptics/critics are not?

I would think the critics, would be the "believers" apparently they can not "believe" in something that is outside their own experience
and question / "mock" all others who've had the experience.

For them, and myself its not a "belief" it's an understanding based on experience.

Those that have had the experience are often more skeptical
then those who have not and spend a lot of time and practice
seeking to understand or come to an understanding of their experience.

What I've noted over the years is that any explanation offered will not suffice because the others "belief" will not allow for it.
This tends to leave " it has to be felt / you actually have to be there" as the only possible way for those that do believe to change their minds.

Oddly enough if its not shown but written about, the gen consensus tends to be that things are possible as most tend to "believe " they understand what they read in their own terms.

That is, until its "shown"

The other odd thing I note is that many host seminars for those interested that somehow the "skeptics/critics"
never seem to attend, maybe they dont know or miss em some how viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25087

Roy's in the house, get your ukemi on..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDQX4dtom8

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=25281&start=75

[Interloper]

My take:
It's not about the balloon itself, it's about your own ability to receive and propel force. If there is a gap between you and your opponent's force, he can't deliver it to you, and you can't receive or return it to him. If he is holding an object -- any object -- that can maintain any substance, if you can propel force in accord with your opponent's alignment, you can project through the frame of the object and into him.

Even a spherical, air-filled balloon has substance - the pressure of the trapped gases themselves and the skin of the balloon. Forget that it's a balloon. Think of being able to project force through other objects, such as a wooden staff.
Watch at about 5:55 (no, not fake. Seriously.):

[windwalker]

It's not about the balloon itself, it's about your own ability to receive and propel force. If there is a gap between you and your opponent's force, he can't deliver it to you, and you can't receive or return it to him. If he is holding an object -- any object -- that can maintain any substance, if you can propel force in accord with your opponent's alignment, you can project through the frame of the object and into him.

Not really true. I could post other clips showing this effect with out him using a medium for it pass through using the same teacher,
but feel it would be kind of pointless.

Whats missing in the conversation is what is acting on what, once this is understand the why, and how, can be addressed.
Many things should start to become a little more clear.

The why the movement sometimes starts before contact is made
as some questioned should become more understandable for the "believers"

Many talk of "intention" yin/yang empty and full ect, but seem to miss the real point of it...

[origami_itto]

For the sake of clarity, I'll say that I don't currently think that this model accurately describes what's happening...

Then I don't understand why it is being discussed.

Why discuss anything? To stimulate the intellect. And to explain what I meant originally in that model. We know the Bohr model is an inaccurate description of an atom, yet we still teach it. It's something to think about.

Not speed, precision.

But in the previous post you said, if the end ball is removed fast enough, then it isn't involved in the rebound. So now it isn't speed, but "precision" that is required for the last ball to not be bounced back by the reaction of the inelastic "wall"?

Precisely. The particular speed of the particular movements involved is part of the precision. The newtons cradle swings how it swings. It occurred to me that you could possibly put a strut across a little further up the string on the loose ball to give it a new arc that could possibly hit it the right way to show you what I mean, kinda.

It is all about precision. There are many different types of strikes, I've just narrowed them down to two and am describing them in simplistic terms. Try it for yourself. Feel the difference when you let the stick lay there, when you force it to stay there, when you let it bounce off, when you pull it off, when you strike a glancing blow. It's all about precision. The precise nature of the kind of strike I'm describing is to deliver more force than it receives.

The force of the balloon whack isn't directly lifting anything. The balloon whack sends the force into the structure.

Newton's Third states an EQUAL and opposite force is the reaction. If the force of the balloon whack isn't what is being rebounded by the ground, where does that "extra" force come from that is bouncing the opponent?

Try this yourself. I'm confused about whether we're talking about the uke or the balloon, but with the balloon and frame, or any other object of a reasonable weight and composition. Try the different strikes with a stick. See which strikes make the object pop up higher. Some types of strikes deliver different amounts of force in different ways.

A strike delivered with the right "spiraling energy intention" or "english" so to speak, doesn't re-absorb any force.

Ah, so it isn't speed, it isn't "precision" it is now "spiraling energy intention". So if a force is applied to a series of rigid objects, as long as the force has the right spiraling energy intention, the producer of the force is immune to any reaction forces?

Not immune to "any" reaction force, but subject to less.

The hypothesis of this model is that the strike is like a whip crack that sends a wave of force through the body.

Wait, it is no longer a series of colliding inelastic bodies, it is now something entirely different, a wave action through a medium?

Yep. A wave action through colliding inelastic bodies strung together. The string of pearls I mentioned earlier. Lay them on a flat surface. Flick one and see what happens. Flick it left, right, into the rest of them, away from the rest of them, grab one end and pull it tight, push the ends towards each other, pull it tight let go of one end and then quickly move it in one direction then the other. See what happens differently when you apply different kinds of force to it.

The force is equal to the force of the strike as applied to the hands through the expanding air in the balloon plus any additional force generated by the uke's reflex responses to keep the balloon in place.

Okay, so the uke is adding to the stick's whacking force? Why is he doing that?

The point is that it isn't intentional. Ever have a doctor hit your knee with the little hammer? Why did you kick your leg? You must have been faking.

Why does he want to - or even care about - keeping the balloon in place?

I would imagine because Master Gao said "hold this balloon while I hit it with stick"

When it reaches the floor and rebounds it breaks his root

But Newton's Third states EQUAL and opposite. If it is EQUAL, why is his "root" broken? The ground is "throwing" him upwards with greater force than he exerts on the ground?

,

making it feel as though he's lost his balance, like in rooting practice when you are leaning and the incoming force is abruptly removed.

Wait, so the uke is really leaning on the guy with the stick? And the stick is somehow supporting him and then taken away?

Look at the pogs. The structure sitting there exerts a constant force on the ground, incoming force from above, a falling weight, exerts a greater than usual force through the structure against the ground. The ground applies an equivalent upwards force, the slammer stops because it can't travel through the pogs, the body at rest exerts much less downward force, the leftover upward force travels through the structure and everything bounces.

You can try this at home, just grab something you don't mind hitting with a stick and play around with different ways to hit it. Put it on carpet, linoleum, hardwood, grass, tile. Hit it hard, soft, penetratingly, askance, with a pop, with a dead lay, go nuts.

Okay, and then what? I have a bunch of varying experiences that I then attempt to use to determine some underlying principle? Scientists have already done exactly that and come up with "laws" that describe that behavior. Even after seven years of education in mechanical engineering, I'm pretty sure I'm not as smart as Newton, Galileo, Liebniz or similar scientists.

And none of what I'm saying violates any of these principles, obviously, because it's observable phenomena.

I don't have any degrees in anything. I taught myself to manage linux enterprises and write programs and have been doing that for the last 20 years instead.

So I definitely appreciate the knowledge and experience of others in helping me find the right way to express these concepts that seem so patently obvious to me through experience and experimentation.

There are ways to hit almost anything from the top and lift it from the bottom.

Not really. Certain things, with certain mechanical properties, sure. Others, not so much.

That's where "almost" comes in, and why I didn't say "everything and anything"

I fully appreciate the difficulty in attempting to describe complex "systems" and their behaviors. One of the difficulties in modelling complex systems is that in order to create a model of that system the system must be simplified enough that it can be modelled. In the process of that simplification, the model often no longer has much bearing on the real-life system it attempts to model.

It is challenging. We haven't managed to get past the point where some folks in the conversation are calling into doubt the transfer of kinetic energy through a structure, dismissing this basic engineering concept as "unknown forces traveling through the student's body". In that environment it is impossible.

We also got a bit bogged down in a separate concept, what I'll call a "lifting strike". I'd like to get into that outside the context of the demo.

Regardless of whether or not what is shown in the demo is "real", the analysis you have offered is not a sufficiently accurate to be much more than wishful thinking and bears little scientific rigour.

It's a starting off point to consider it on a gross level. The entirety of the process is an intersection of physics and biology and psychology.

For the sake of scientific rigor, discard "he's faking it" and describe what's happening. Assume that it is 100% actually happening the way it appears in the video, the uke isn't faking, and explain it to me like I'm five.

Assume it happened to you, Master Gao hit the balloon and a fraction of a second later you felt like you were falling off the edge of a sidewalk, explain what happened without the intellectually lazy "I was faking it"

[Interloper]

Not really true. I could post other clips showing this effect with out him using a medium for it pass through using the same teacher,
but feel it would be kind of pointless.

If you are referring to psychological-neural attack and response, then I would not disagree with that. Making a person react without touching him is part of the tactical work of a number of martial systems. However, when discussing mechanical movements, I would disagree that there can be -mechanical- (whether internally or externally driven) manipulation of an opponent without either making direct contact with him or having an object between you, making contact with both of you. Unless you are referring to using a sonic boom to move someone, that is.

Whats missing in the conversation is what is acting on what, once this is understand the why, and how, can be addressed.
Many things should start to become a little more clear.

The why the movement sometimes starts before contact is made as some questioned should become more understandable for the "believers"

Many talk of "intention" yin/yang empty and full ect, but seem to miss the real point of it...

Movement made before contact, IME, is within, creating internal structure and 6-directional force/energy... being "on." You can also make subtle movements that trigger a psycho-neural reaction in the opponent, if he is sensitive (i.e. not psychotic or unaware) to it.

Rather than cryptic messages, why not lay out, in plain English terms, what you are driving at. I would be sincerely interested to hear about what you are thinking and implying.

[Niall Keane]

hmmm... I thought, by its title, this was going to be an off-topic thread about electrical wiring for something, car-maintenance or whatever...

has anyone's gungfu improved with this discussion?

[rojcewiczj]

In an attempt to return to the initial premise of this topic, I would like to say that when whatever is in the back connects or engages with whatever is in the front than the connection is full. When the back of the spear press es to the tip, when the hips press to the tip of the fist, when whatever is furthest back is engaging to what is furthest in front then the connection is more full. When the back supports, the front may express. When you're whole body engages the opponent then the thrust of your fingers may effect them.

[rojcewiczj]

Engagement without moving, moving without disengagement...

Engagement without moving means to bring the whole-body into relation with the opponent, to press ones back towards them without making a movement at the front.

Moving without disengagement means to thrust the front out without losing the press from the back.

The back neutralizes, the front destroys, the back never retreated, the front is poised to conquer...

[Finny]

Why is it that those who've had an experience are called believers while those who've not had it, the skeptics/critics are not?

I would think the critics, would be the "believers" apparently they can not "believe" in something that is outside their own experience
and question / "mock" all others who've had the experience.

This doesn't really make any sense Windy. Those who've "had an experience are called believers".. because they believe the questioned demonstrations are genuine and not faked/staged.

Why would critics, who "can not believe in something that is outside their own experience" be called 'believers'? By your own description, they DON'T believe in the legitimacy of what is being discussed. The other camp DO believe. Simple.

For them, and myself its not a "belief" it's an understanding based on experience.

Those that have had the experience are often more skeptical
then those who have not and spend a lot of time and practice
seeking to understand or come to an understanding of their experience.

What I've noted over the years is that any explanation offered will not suffice because the others "belief" will not allow for it.
This tends to leave " it has to be felt / you actually have to be there" as the only possible way for those that do believe to change their minds.

Very well, you don't like it described as a 'belief'. It's an understanding based on experience.

To those who have not had that experience, obviously it looks like something that does not follow the laws of physics.. which are also based on (humanity's collective) experience.

When we see something CGI or photoshopped, that appears incongruous or nonsensical, we don't react with "oh well, perhaps if you were there it would make sense" - we say "that shit is obviously photoshopped - the real world doesn't operate like that."

One of the key principles in communication is that the burden of proof lies with those making claims.

It is not the job of skeptics to scour the earth for someone to show them this. These are allegedly skills which can be taught, which can confer unusual (illogical?) powers to the user. Yet NONE of these masters has ever shown these skills using an outsider. They only ever seem to work on students.

These are taught in the context of Martial Arts - presumably at some point the skills should be able to be used against someone aggressively attacking the exponent.. yet after all the decades of people video taping martial arts, there is to date not a single example of this..

And there are MANY documented instances of these skills failing when tried on anyone other than students.

[windwalker]

guess you missed the many seminars given by people who are said to have such skills, some on this site.

To those who have not had that experience, obviously it looks like something that does not follow the laws of physics.. which are also based on (humanity's collective) experience.

It does follow physics along with other factors based on the " humanity native to China's " collective experience.
Many failures? really...Please show any clip of CMA being used in the ring looking like its practiced. With the distinctive movements and flavor that its practice with. Like boxing as practiced, kinda looks like mmmm like boxing when used.

Its an old argument that can only be settled by ones self. I've settled mine....others need to settle their's.

This doesn't really make any sense Windy. Those who've "had an experience are called believers".. because they believe the questioned demonstrations are genuine and not faked/staged.

Why would critics, who "can not believe in something that is outside their own experience" be called 'believers'? By your own description, they DON'T believe in the legitimacy of what is being discussed. The other camp DO believe. Simple.

yes it's simple, those who've experienced the same things will tend to view and except what is shown based on their experience.
Those who have not do not "believe" it is possible. How can they know with out the "experience" they can't know, but believe they do,
their mind is closed to any possibility that does not fit into "their" experience Ok

When we see something CGI or photoshopped, that appears incongruous or nonsensical, we don't react with "oh well, perhaps if you were there it would make sense" - we say "that shit is obviously photoshopped - the real world doesn't operate like that."

Are you claiming what was shown in the clip was photoahopped or CGI.

At any rate its kinda boring.

As I've noted there are people who give seminars, some who post here, who if they posted clips many might question what was shown by those not having the experience. Others who've had it, tell them they should go to the seminars to experience it for themselves.
As it is some here having been to some of the seminars don't even "post" about them.
Ever wonder why

speaking of which

If you doubt the authenticity of this concept or demonstration, you haven't really studied or seen any actual taijiquan.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=25281&start=90

kinda illustrates my point.


I've had these conversations before and felt they where real until, it gets to a point where its really not about discussion different viewpoints,
it becomes proving them which to me is kind of point less for the foregoing reasons mentioned.

Off line its different, for the most part people who've had the same experience are really looking at different ways of viewing or understanding it.
This to me is a conversation / discussion. Actually off line is better then on line..


I could probably offer a good explanation for what is going on and have off line for some...
The tack that some are taking talking about in·animate objects is mistaken. No teacher that I've met would explain it
in this way although they do as much as possible use "physics" where appropriate.

[Finny]

guess you missed the many seminars given by people who are said to have such skills, some on this site.

Not sure if you're aware.. not everyone here lives in the US. I'm in the most isolated capital city on the planet, in Western Australia. Happily one of my old Wing Chun brothers is one of the early I Liq Chuan students in Oz, and I've been to a couple of seminars with Sam Chin, and hung out with him a bit. He is amazing, and showed some incredible skill. But he never made me or anyone else spontaneously hop. But like most I don't really place much value on MA seminars and can't justify the expenditure given the inherent limitations on the return.

It does follow physics along with other factors based on the " humanity native to China's " collective experience.
Many failures? really...Please show any clip of CMA being used in the ring looking like its practiced. With the distinctive movements and flavor that its practice with. Like boxing as practiced, kinda looks like mmmm like boxing when used.

Its an old argument that can only be settled by ones self. I've settled mine....others need to settle their's.

This is where we must agree to disagree. The movements shown in the OP clip perfectly demonstrate my point. No one, being pushed backwards or down/backwards, 'hops', unless conditioned to do so. I don't buy the whole 'trying to catch the momentum' argument either - if someone is truly doing that, they RUN/stumble/fall backwards, not hop.

We can debate CMA being used in the ring looking like it's practiced elsewhere if you'd like. I don't disagree that it's exceedingly rare, but personally I would contend that there are examples on video. Regardless it's not the topic here.

yes it's simple, those who've experienced the same things will tend to view and except what is shown based on their experience.
Those who have not do not "believe" it is possible. How can they know with out the "experience" they can't know, but believe they do,
their mind is closed to any possibility that does not fit into "their" experience Ok

Again we must agree to disagree. I don't think my mind is closed to the possibility. You are though correct that without experiencing it, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "other factors" are involved. Unless you mean the conscious decision on the part of the student to hop/jump.

Are you claiming what was shown in the clip was photoahopped or CGI.

Absolutely not.

I could probably offer a good explanation for what is going on and have off line for some...
The tack that some are taking talking about in·animate objects is mistaken. No teacher that I've met would explain it
in this way although they do as much as possible use "physics" where appropriate.

You have said this ad nauseam, but never have. The closest you have come is to alluding to "operating at the level of intention". I don't know what that means.

I'm certainly not interested in proving to you that what you believe is mistaken. I'd love to experience things life has taught me are impossible, like making someone react as the student in the OP does.. without telling them to.

Do you think the master in the OP video could replicate that reaction in the average person walking down the street, without any coaching?

[windwalker]

Do you think the master in the OP video could replicate that reaction in the average person walking down the street, without any coaching?

If by this your talking usage, they wouldn't have time for a any reaction.
If your talking as in the demo,,,yes for most people he could probably do what was shown to most people.
Don't really know what's the point of the question....It's a demo the students there are not jumping or doing anything for any of
the reasons some might list other then they have to because its what they feel.

There are times when the teacher is not quite correct
and they won't react....Have also experienced this with my own teacher. It's like he missed.

And then there are times when one wonders about if it will
work and it does leaving one wondering what just happened.


Really, at some point I would like to just talk and discuses.
Each time I've tried it turned into something else.
Something I've no interest in.

Do appreciate your reasoned response

[Finny]

If by this your talking usage, they wouldn't have time for a any reaction.
If your talking as in the demo,,,yes for most people he could probably do what was shown to most people.
Don't really know what's the point of the question....It's a demo the students there are not jumping or doing anything for any of
the reasons some might list other then they have to because its what they feel.

What do they feel? A spontaneous need to hop? What causes that?

The point of the question is - the ONLY time we EVER see the hopping/bouncing phenomenon, is in demonstrations on students.

To those of us here who have not had this done to us, these look like the student is actively hopping backwards. 'Reasons' for this could be many and varied - I tend to think it's 'giving face' to the teacher, not wishing to make them look bad. But I don't know.

There are times when the teacher is not quite correct
and they won't react....Have also experienced this with my own teacher. It's like he missed.

And then there are times when one wonders about if it will
work and it does leaving one wondering what just happened.


Really, at some point I would like to just talk and discuses.
Each time I've tried it turned into something else.
Something I've no interest in.

Do appreciate your reasoned response

Likewise - I have seen your frustration play out here over the years, and admire your willingness to continue discussing the topic. But ultimately I think we do just have to agree to disagree, or at least agree that without experiencing it ourselves, we're unlikely to be convinced.

[Interloper]

What do they feel? A spontaneous need to hop? What causes that?

The point of the question is - the ONLY time we EVER see the hopping/bouncing phenomenon, is in demonstrations on students.

I've seen this kind of demo done by others; it is meant to show an expression of principles, not be a "this is how it would look in the mean streetz" scenario. It's an expression of 6-directional (really, spherically directed) force, as projected through an object, in this case a balloon. Force that is skillfully directed can be projected into another person even through a seemingly fragile object - which itself becomes a conduit for the force without any harm to itself.
You can do the same thing with a more substantial object, such as a jo/bo like Horikawa Kodo used in the video I posted.

But the problem is, people are so distracted by the props, such as a balloon, that they miss the point about the body mechanisms the demonstrator is using to create force, and the way he is delivering it -- as a rapid pulse through sudden expansion. That is what would make a recipient bounce back. He doesn't have the connected body structure or mechanisms to receive and ground out that force, so his body is physically repulsed back. He tries to regain his structure by coming back to the ground on his feet, but still there is too much energy left to dissipate into the ground and he is compelled to move back again. The only alternative would be to be knocked over on his butt (i.e. his spine bends at the waist and his knees buckle), but to avoid that and to remain upright, he must "bounce." Sometimes, in such demos, the first couple bounces are real, then the demo partner adds his own created ones for dramatic effect. I wouldn't write off all demos like this demo as fake; just perhaps a bit "enhanced."