the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

windwalker wrote:Then why use the word ?
Not asking you or anyone to buy into anything. I am questioning why somebody would use the word from a different culture trying to attribute other things not within or from the culture .

origami_itto wrote:

windwalker wrote:Then why use the word ?
Not asking you or anyone to buy into anything. I am questioning why somebody would use the word from a different culture trying to attribute other things not within or from the culture .

I'm using the word accurately. If you'd care to provide a different explanation for the avrieties, properties, substance, and composition of "Qi" I am all for it.

What I am not going to do is buy into whatever it is you're trying to prove or disprove by making your friend hop by waving your hands at him from a few feet away.

1) I don't buy that it's reality
2) I don't believe that, even if it were reality, that there was a single thing useful about the ability worth the amount of time and effort you have to put into it

When I meet someone in person who can do that to me I will change my stance. Otherwise it's just a bunch of play acting for the camera.

windwalker wrote:Are the people in your Clips play acting?

origami_itto wrote:

windwalker wrote:Are the people in your Clips play acting?

I can't speak for anyone else.

then, why presume to speak for anyone else's training , and those interacted with...




Generally my partners and I are trying to not let the other do whatever it is they want to do.
That other guy wanted to do some of them "here stand here and let me do this thing" type stuff.

looks very compliant...ie structured within a format,,called push hands


Simply put "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence", come on down to Florida and provide some compelling evidence. I don't care enough about the parlor tricks to put much effort into it.

need to let Perry Mason go,"old tv lawyer" ,,,no one is asserting anything



As my body and perception changes my understanding changes with it, but "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I have no compelling evidence to convince me that waving your hands at someone can make them hop against their will. Prove me wrong, by all means, but just because I use the word Qi to describe something doesn't mean I'm joining the yellow bamboo cult.

When I meet someone in person who can do that to me I will change my stance.
Otherwise it's just a bunch of play acting for the camera.

(Tai Chi), it is both scientific and philosophical. These two are combined together, using boxing principles and boxing methods. So I think it means that if you don’t have the knowledge of Tai Chi and the understanding of the word Tai Chi, you won’t be able to practice Tai Chi very well. What is Tai Chi?

When I want to hit him it’s my YI, QI. YI, QI! YI, QI. Don't mind him, your finger... When your finger touched him, you look at your own finger. You look at your fingers and like your lips self-merging, where got so many word! No need request his hand to touch up and down, Grab people to fight,
No need to. Like this, Wherever, Wherever all accurate, wherever all accurate, wherever all accurate, so in your normal practicing, do it like this.

Appledog wrote:So far nobody seems to understand what I meant, although windwalker almost got it for a second a few posts ago. So I will give two examples. One of inside to outside and one of outside to inside.

Stand in the Michaelangelo pose. Bend your arm at the elbow -- try to only move on the elbow. Is this a whole body internal movement?

If you say the answer is no, then the question becomes why not?

That is to say, not "why not" for the obvious, external reason -- but why didn't you make it a whole body internal movement? Can you make it a whole body internal movement but only "move" on the elbow?

Example two; any circular silk reeling exercise. This is intended to be some kind of whole body circular motion. But is it, really? Can you willingly make it noncircular and nonwholebody but give the impression that you are doing it? What is more likely, obvioulsy, is you are not doing it properly, and there will be some kind of qi blockage affecting your movement... But, if not, could you sabotage it intentionally?

A to B or B to A, in the middle is a harmonization of qi inside the body which justifies the movement -- if you want there to be.

Master Fung: The field or aura is simplythe radiation that we give off as living beings. Just like an electric motor generates an electro-magnetic field, our bodies also generate an energy field that surrounds us or, more accurately, is simply part of us.

Student: So field strength exercises are really just an extension of our other training, a further refinement of the basics?

Master Fung: Now your on the right track. Field strength exercises will help develop the proper timing for using Hunyuan strength against an opponent.

The basic idea is to intercept the opponents intent so he ends up receiving not only your strength but a reflection of his strength as well.

Student: Is that why you get such strong reactions from your students when you bounce them?

Master Fung: Yes! That's what I've been trying to tell you.

You in particular are always trying to figure out how to get me by using more strength.

The reason you flip up and fly away so much is a result of your strength reflecting off my frame back to you.

Most of the time I don't even have to use any strength of my own to bounce you...you supply all the strength that's needed.

everything wrote:thanks for those videos. the topic brings up a tangent in my mind that a lot of threads make me think about. maybe it's another thread topic. we seem to talk mostly about taijiquan if we talk IMA here. but it doesn't seem like "blending" and "soft" and "rotational" within those templates"is the only "IMA".

xingyiquan and "kao" come to mind. sometimes in futbol i accidentally or on purpose "kao" someone. there isn't necessarily "rotation". there can just be the right angle, nevermind "internal" anything. a guy tried to go around me but his dead angle just hit my strong angle so he fell. i suppose we can argue that one's body might go orthogonal to the "line of force" and so there is the tiniest of "rotations" as a shoulder bump goes one way but there is a tiny rotation to move some of that horizontal direction of force downward as well as the footwork adjustments happen. i tend to think it's more of a counter-example, with more "linearity" and less "circularity". but we could say it's all using little bits of circularity. this example seems concrete, but the concept is still abstract to me. i could argue either way. or maybe we just say it's always angles AND rotations (and "qi" but we can leave that out for the moment).

wayne hansen wrote:Giles do the other two teachers mentioned here post on this site
If so what names do they use