windwalker wrote:In the past entering such contest and winning was the definitive way of proving and demoing a style.
In today's time taiji has retreated and created its own events with the advent of competitive push hand.
This has changed the dynamic and outlook so much that I don't think anyone really knows how taiji was used in the past.
Trick wrote:[
Yes it is a little difficult to follow you, on one hand you seem a little frustrated about not seeing to much Taiji in the boxing ring on the other hand you defend teachers who just by a wave of his hand make his students stumble and falling all over the place....What is it you want to say, you want to see more Kong Jin skilled people in the ring ? are you on a mission to produce Kong Jin or just regular Taiji students to enter the ring ?
windwalker wrote:Trick wrote:[
Yes it is a little difficult to follow you, on one hand you seem a little frustrated about not seeing to much Taiji in the boxing ring on the other hand you defend teachers who just by a wave of his hand make his students stumble and falling all over the place....What is it you want to say, you want to see more Kong Jin skilled people in the ring ? are you on a mission to produce Kong Jin or just regular Taiji students to enter the ring ?
Seems like you keep trying to reframe what I say into something else good attempt but really a no go .
according to history it seems it was pretty common in the old days if the old stories are to be believed. Just hasn't happened in modern times, could be wrong...Using what was trained was /is something that is looked at back then as now...chen guys vs muy thai,,,was it chen style?
Those in todays competitive events dont do to well against trained solders either but do in the ring, and for the most would do well in the streets.
johnwang wrote:I might have used EF on someone once before. During the 1979 SC tournament in Columbus, Ohio. I grabbed a guy's SC jacket and ran in circle. When he resisted my pulling, I let go my grip. His body flew back 10 feet in the air. Since I didn't use any pushing force, it must be the EF.
johnwang wrote:Is EF only the Taiji thing? Are there any XingYi or Bagua teachers ever talk about it?
windwalker wrote:LaoDan wrote:WW,
I am finding you a bit difficult to follow. First, someone who understands scientific principles should be able to understand what you practice. But I do understand science." However, even though my Ph.D. is in physics, I found Treatise 7, entitled “Strength and Physics,” very hard to understand" . So did he, he couldn't understand it because he didnt know it
LaoDan wrote:
If you think that this was an appropriate response to what I wrote, then it appears that you do not understand the scientific method. Perhaps your Ph.D. physicist friends could explain the difference between principles from physics that are established or accepted (e.g., wave dynamics), untested speculations based on those principles (e.g., wave dynamics as an explanation for kongjin), and actual evidence (experimental testing) for those principles being valid for the hypothesized situation. Most on this forum (myself included) appear to be unsatisfied with untested speculations. Whatever type of physicists your friends are (theoretical, experimental, applied), they should be able to explain the testing of theories (i.e., the scientific method) to you, and prevent you from making mistakes like this in the future. If you merely present untested speculations to us, then there is no reason for us to have to understand the physics that they are based on!
For quite a few years, I have been reading and re-reading Cheng Tzu’s Thirteen Treatises,1 written by my first T’ai-Chi teacher, Cheng Man-ch’ing (1900–1975). I consider most of this book to be very clear and filled with valuable information. However, even though my Ph.D. is in physics, I found Treatise 7, entitled “Strength and Physics,” very hard to understand.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 115 guests