Empty Force

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Empty Force

Postby everything on Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:00 pm

The springiness and seemingly no effort from perfect timing and angles is something we've all surely experienced in MA or sports. That isn't the same thing as the weird stuff in demos.
amateur practices til gets right pro til can't get wrong
/ better approx answer to right q than exact answer to wrong q which can be made precise /
“most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. Source of all true art & science
User avatar
everything
Wuji
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: Empty Force

Postby LaoDan on Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:53 am

WW,

Us/We = those that read your posts, myself included.

What makes you think that Chuckrow’s interpretation of Treatise 7 applies to kongjin? I read it over carefully and did not find anything supporting “air level” or even “hair level” practices. In my interpretation of it, it could be used to support my position against the “no force” approach.

While I would have some minor disagreements with his conditions and other statements, the article is for the most part OK, especially since he includes section 8 and 11, without which the information would have been much less applicable to typical realistic free play interactions.

If anyone wishes to, we could start another thread analyzing Chuckrow’s article, section by section. It appears that my interpretations differ from WW, so there may be material for discussion.
LaoDan
Huajing
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:51 am

Re: Empty Force

Postby windwalker on Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:46 am

LaoDan wrote:WW,

Us/We = those that read your posts, myself included.

What makes you think that Chuckrow’s interpretation of Treatise 7 applies to kongjin? I read it over carefully and did not find anything supporting “air level” or even “hair level” practices. In my interpretation of it, it could be used to support my position against the “no force” approach.

It might be better to open another thread on it less confusion. This one is IMO done.

While I would have some minor disagreements with his conditions and other statements, the article is for the most part OK, especially since he includes section 8 and 11, without which the information would have been much less applicable to typical realistic free play interactions.

If anyone wishes to, we could start another thread analyzing Chuckrow’s article, section by section. It appears that my interpretations differ from WW, so there may be material for discussion.




Image

However, I learned from one of my teachers, Sam Chin Fan-siong, that the center of the spherical surface at the point of contact with the opponent does not even have to be within your body—it can be anywhere as long as (a) your body is inside the extension of the spherical surface at the contact point and (b) the force you exert is perpendicularly outward from that surface. One of Chin’s favorite defensive stances, “The Beggar’s Stance,” which illustrates this concept, involves facing the opponent with arms outstretched to create convex surfaces (see Figs. 7 and 8). Employing a sphere whose center is not that of your body does not negate any of the above analyses. Simply substitute the words center of the spherical surface for the words center of your body in the above analyses.

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

For what ever reason he didnt extend this line of thought publicly . Which would be that if ones center can be outside of ones body, then one can also move or connect with with another's with out direct contact or very little contact. .Teacher Gao, talked about this and demoed it in the clips that some mocked here...he might use other verbage for me its essentially referring to the same thing. Which is why I prefer using physics as a way of looking at it..

.suffice to say if their center can be moved or caused to move they will follow it trying to maintain their own central equilibrium. It feels like one is running down a hill trying to keep their balance only in this case one is trying to catch it. For those I work with we focus on and use "wave" as the model. Talking about the medium, resonance, period, Parallel axis theorem ect.

It might be a good topic to open for others to discuss with. Not really feeling it, considering the other thread. :P ....

on a side note

If the average person walked into Min's class and demanded a sample of empty force, he would be refused - not because empty force is a secret, but because without training and chi development that person could be seriously injured. If Min only used enough of her own chi for him to feel the effects, he might have a headache, become dizzy, turn pale, or lose consciousness. My teacher mention almost the exact same thing, and yes it did make us and others that visited get or feel sick as my friends student from HI did... Any less and her chi would merely pass through his body unfelt. Yet in a fight, the result could be tremendous. For these reasons, only students who have developed their own chi strength can experience the empty force.Not really true in my experience I would say most can feel something provided they can lower their own inner noise level..

http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php/topic,5548.0.html

This teacher is in the bay area don't know if she's still teaching or not....They did do a lot of standing practices from what I've heard....

Whether one accepts it or not. the base processes that its said to work by, all here practice on,
which for me makes a lot of these conversations a little confusing.

Its all good until people start to see what they're really talking about... :-\

later,,, :-\
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force

Postby oragami_itto on Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:10 am

Did you miss the part directly after that where he says a contact in point is required?

The center of the spherical surface at the point of contact with the opponent does not even have to be within your body—it can be anywhere as long as (a) your body is inside the extension of the spherical surface at the contact point and (b) the force you exert is perpendicularly outward from that surface.
"This principle is very obvious and requires no further elaboration."
-Yang Cheng Fu
User avatar
oragami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Empty Force

Postby Trick on Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:37 am

oragami_itto wrote:Did you miss the part directly after that where he says a contact in point is required?

The center of the spherical surface at the point of contact with the opponent does not even have to be within your body—it can be anywhere as long as (a) your body is inside the extension of the spherical surface at the contact point and (b) the force you exert is perpendicularly outward from that surface.

I think it mean the Chi-sphere’s contact point, but I’m probably wrong, I have difficulty with following these scientifically explanations.
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Empty Force

Postby Trick on Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:05 am

windwalker wrote: One of Chin’s favorite defensive stances, “The Beggar’s Stance,” which illustrates this concept, involves facing the opponent with arms outstretched to create convex surfaces (see Figs. 7 and 8). Employing a sphere whose center is not that of your body does not negate any of the above analyses. Simply substitute the words center of the spherical surface for the words center of your body in the above analyses.



Which is why I prefer using physics as a way of looking at it..
.suffice to say if their center can be moved or caused to move they will follow it trying to maintain their own central equilibrium. It feels like one is running down a hill trying to keep their balance only in this case one is trying to catch it. For those I work with we focus on and use "wave" as the model. Talking about the medium, resonance, period, Parallel axis theorem ect.
[/quote]
The outstretched arms “creating a sphere” might just involve an illusionary effect on the opponent where it might be difficult for him definite the correct distance? Or simply by spreading the arms one might divert the opponent focus on an broader field, thus making him unfocused and easier to topple ?
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Empty Force

Postby LaoDan on Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:20 am

WW posted from section 8 of the article.

Chuckrow talks about the center of the body in earlier sections of his article, but section 8 is used to demonstrate that the same principle applies when talking about the center of a sphere THAT IS NOT THE CENTER OF ONE’S BODY [Chuckrow: “Simply substitute the words center of the spherical surface for the words center of your body in the above analysis.”]. Here the center of the sphere is not the same as one’s CENTER OF MASS (or center of one’s body). This center in section 8 is the one that corresponds to the center of the spherical shape that contacts the opponent. The arm still produces an outward force at the point of contact with the opponent - indicated in Fig. 7 by the force vector arrow shown at a 90 degree angle to the periphery of the “sphere” formed by the arm at the point of contact with the opponent. This outward force vector would be necessary to keep the “Spherical Boundary” outside of one’s own body (the dashed line in the figure).

WW’s assertion that “...then one can also move or connect with [deleted erroneous duplication of the word “with”] another’s without [corrected from “with out”] direct contact or very little contact.” appears to be totally unsupported, and appears to me to be contrary to what is given in Chuckrow’s article. Chuckrow indicates that force from the external sphere’s center is present and should be in a radial direction. This force is provided by the arm that is being represented by the arc labeled “Arm”.

Although WW is not feeling like discussing this, I am certainly willing to discuss WW’s use of the Chuckrow article from previous posts of his. WW is also certainly welcome to post his replies.
LaoDan
Huajing
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:51 am

Previous

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest