the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

What if we removed the 4 oz ideal, the steel in cotton, the taiji high-falutin philosophy overlay, the suspect blather about 8 "energies" to force things to conform to the bagua, the TCM, the qigong, the internal power mysteries, the hippie limp noodle push hands, the slow motion old-man forms, the smoothness? What would we have from as down-to-earth a view as possible?

- a compact art that prefers a range between long distance striking and clinch/wrestling.
- like most arts, it has some strikes, some locks, some takedowns.
- none of those techniques are really unique
- not as many techniques in the respective areas vs. pure striking, locking, or throwing arts
- but it is still pretty cool and should be easy to learn for beginners.

If i showed my "gif project" mapped to form video to "normal" people or little kids, it should be obvious what some moves can do. Then if you add back in the 4 oz, the philosophy, the ph (The good parts), the qigong, the writings, the bagua theory, the sublime "soft" art bits, things get more interesting (arguably). But why not start with some down and dirty simple stuff. Palm to chin, elbow to face, knee to groin are obviously not "4 oz" techniques. It doesn't matter if TJQ doesn't have a monopoly on that stuff. Who cares. That should appeal about equally to the "practical" crowd here and the "qi hugging" crowd even if neither is fully satisified (again who cares except the unicorn-fairy-hobbyist who thinks this is the end-all, be-all (I love the art btw, not disparaging it, just the fairy)). For example, I know some people already take this "practical" approach but they go too far for my taste and seem to throw away all of the "internal". Others want to do only qigong (I'm ok with that if they admit they don't do MA).

/rant

I would think the start would be why 4 oz why not 1 pound 8 pounds or 20 pounds or 1 oz or less.

If one can understand why this measurement was chosen it might help in explaining why it was chosen.

A question one might ask themselves is that who's force can one really fee, l their own or another's

Still haven't thrown out the 4 oz ideal enough. Suppose you teach your 20 year old daughter and her friends "women's self defense" (not meant to be sexist but in this example, it is her and her other female friends). Perhaps you show them lots of knees and elbows maybe like this:



They don't have time to contemplate 4 oz, 1 oz, 1 lb, 8 lbs or learn a bunch of philosophy. Whatever we have left of "taijiquan" if we say this shell of taijiquan is not taijiquan has some good stuff for this class (which is not an "art" class). Can the MA portion of the class be taijiquan (plus some ground work)-based?

The 4 oz ideal is a progressive scaling of efficiency in interaction between two bodies.

The idea that it should be existent in all movement from the starting point is a ludicrous misunderstanding.

S.

Once you understand the why of 4oz, all the other questions will be answered.
Its not " a bunch of philosophy" there are very sound logical reasons for it.

of course each has to find their own answers with out which, any explanation will not
for the most part be understood or accepted.

everything wrote:Still haven't thrown out the 4 oz ideal enough. Suppose you teach your 20 year old daughter and her friends "women's self defense" (not meant to be sexist but in this example, it is her and her other female friends). Perhaps you show them lots of knees and elbows maybe like this:



They don't have time to contemplate 4 oz, 1 oz, 1 lb, 8 lbs or learn a bunch of philosophy. Whatever we have left of "taijiquan" if we say this shell of taijiquan is not taijiquan has some good stuff for this class (which is not an "art" class). Can the MA portion of the class be taijiquan (plus some ground work)-based?

The 4 oz ideal is perfect for this and similar situations. When a big guy puts all of his weight against her in a standing position, she just follow his movement, fill in and put him to the ground. It's completely effortless, the man will not even know what happened, but think he stumbled and fell. When he falls down, she quickly kick his nuts or whatever she think suits the situation.

She can also let him fall on his knee. There's no reason to jump at him and sacrifice her stability. Why not let him lose his balance instead?

What if we removed the 4 oz ideal, the steel in cotton, the taiji high-falutin philosophy overlay, the suspect blather about 8 "energies" to force things to conform to the bagua, the TCM, the qigong, the internal power mysteries, the hippie limp noodle push hands, the slow motion old-man forms, the smoothness? What would we have from as down-to-earth a view as possible?

I already find Tai Chi the most practical, down-to-earth martial art there is. And the "4oz" thingie is a part of it. But the old chinese way to verbalize things is in fact an old, chinese way to verbalize things. IMO, we should get rid of the mysticism and fancy talk and instead use our own language and our own way to describe reality. That deosn't mean we need to change anything that make Tai Chi Chuan what it already is, as the practical, commonsensical chinese martial art it in fact is.

Bao wrote:

everything wrote:Still haven't thrown out the 4 oz ideal enough. Suppose you teach your 20 year old daughter and her friends "women's self defense" (not meant to be sexist but in this example, it is her and her other female friends). Perhaps you show them lots of knees and elbows maybe like this:



They don't have time to contemplate 4 oz, 1 oz, 1 lb, 8 lbs or learn a bunch of philosophy. Whatever we have left of "taijiquan" if we say this shell of taijiquan is not taijiquan has some good stuff for this class (which is not an "art" class). Can the MA portion of the class be taijiquan (plus some ground work)-based?

The 4 oz ideal is perfect for this and similar situations. When a big guy puts all of his weight against her in a standing position, she just follow his movement, fill in and put him to the ground. It's completely effortless, the man will not even know what happened, but think he stumbled and fell. When he falls down, she quickly kick his nuts or whatever she think suits the situation.

She can also let him fall on his knee. There's no reason to jump at him and sacrifice her stability. Why not let him lose his balance instead?

What if we removed the 4 oz ideal, the steel in cotton, the taiji high-falutin philosophy overlay, the suspect blather about 8 "energies" to force things to conform to the bagua, the TCM, the qigong, the internal power mysteries, the hippie limp noodle push hands, the slow motion old-man forms, the smoothness? What would we have from as down-to-earth a view as possible?

I already find Tai Chi the most practical, down-to-earth martial art there is. And the "4oz" thingie is a part of it. But the old chinese way to verbalize things is in fact an old, chinese way to verbalize things. IMO, we should get rid of the mysticism and fancy talk and instead use our own language and our own way to describe reality. That deosn't mean we need to change anything that make Tai Chi Chuan what it already is, as the practical, commonsensical chinese martial art it in fact is.

Man that is a great answer!

windwalker wrote:Once you understand the why of 4oz, all the other questions will be answered.
Its not " a bunch of philosophy" there are very sound logical reasons for it.

of course each has to find their own answers with out which, any explanation will not
for the most part be understood or accepted.

Hmm yeah that makes sense for RSF level, I think. For our hypothetical class, if we eliminate the "4 oz" vocabulary for this scenario (use "follow" as Bao said may still make sense), I think it will be easier for people.

And again, teaching a knee or elbow - that part should be a good, hard strike (the "yang" part after the yin of the follow/stick/yied - but I suggest we don't use this vocabulary either; then again that is very much in the popular culture of most of the world, I'd guess, so maybe it's fine).

shawnsegler wrote:The 4 oz ideal is a progressive scaling of efficiency in interaction between two bodies.

The idea that it should be existent in all movement from the starting point is a ludicrous misunderstanding.

S.

I'm kinda just saying toss the vocabulary and the idealism (4 oz is really difficult) and romanticism and legendary stories (and some mysterious, sublime stuff we may have felt before that no one else even on RSF would believe) for now for some basic, down and dirty, "self-defense" easy technical moves.

[keep in mind I actually like all the stuff I want to toss for this; it just seems better to toss it for this scenario]

I have just broken the spine of my old Everlast free-standing heavy bag. I got a new one last weekend and I do intend to break this one too. I will never be able to break it if I just use 4 oz force on it.

Instead of thinking about:

- old,
- sick,
- weak,
- 4 oz,

one should think about:

- young,
- healthy,
- strong,
- 1000 lb.

When you are 70 years old, you should have the:

- look of 60.
- health of 50,
- sex desire of 40,
- confidence of 30,
- young heart of 20.

everything wrote:I'm kinda just saying toss the vocabulary and the idealism (4 oz is really difficult) and romanticism and legendary stories (and some mysterious, sublime stuff we may have felt before that no one else even on RSF would believe) for now for some basic, down and dirty, "self-defense" easy technical moves.

Had lunch with a fellow registrant at a woodworking seminar I attended. Turns out he was Canadian Special Forces. He described his training with his fellow men (and women). They train nothing but 3-second killing moves - John would be happy. They regularly knock each other unconscious in their training. Once, he told me, they were invited to some friendly sparing at a local Karate studio. Within 2 minutes, none of the Karate students would go anywhere near them.

If that's what you want, it's not difficult to find. But, for better or worse, that isn't what typical Taijiquan training looks like. Most people aren't too happy doing something "for health" and having things broken and torn and being knocked out. Just sayin'...

Sure, there are stories of CMC being knocked out by YCF, and, if that's what you want, I can point you to people who practice Taijiquan that way and who embody the 4 oz thing.

For a start it wasn't 4 oz that is just a western approximation of the Chinese measurement
The 4 oz is on the receivers side on hitting you are meant to add the attackers thousand pounds to your 4 oz
As was quoted from CTH on another thread
To leave anything out makes you a cripple
Never heard that one before Niall but it says it all

Killing with 4 ozs would be a death touch. Hmm.

I often wonder how the 4 oz thing relates to generating fa jing.

Still so high level. This 100 lb woman with her palm strike to 200lb persons chin is not 4 oz plus 1000 lbs.

That's one reason I say disregard that all for now. Get rid of it. What do we have left? You don't think it's good? Not taijiquan any more?

How about if you teach XYQ for this class? Why doesn't TJQ work as well if that is what you say?

everything wrote:Man that is a great answer!

johnwang wrote:I have just broken the spine of my old Everlast free-standing heavy bag. I got a new one last weekend and I do intend to break this one too. I will never be able to break it if I just use 4 oz force on it.

Who ever said anything about using 4 oz against a bag or use it to punch someone? 4 oz principle is one way you can deal with incoming force, like handling a body's weight or a fist.

4 oz principle dealing with incoming force and good punching power to demolish someone's face, do you see them as mutually exclusive? Why not have both?