Empty Force Challenge

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

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:31 pm

wushutiger wrote:He is performing nonsense, it is the perfect video showing the complete delusion and destruction of CMA.



You do understand that the same argument can be made for CMA. Which has yet to be proven inside a modern sport event.

If you would like to discuss the theory or what is shown that's okay. If it's about proving, or trying to change an opinion I see no point.

Must be a Monday :P
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Appledog on Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:50 pm

windwalker wrote:
wushutiger wrote:He is performing nonsense, it is the perfect video showing the complete delusion and destruction of CMA.



You do understand that the same argument can be made for CMA. Which has yet to be proven inside a modern sport event.

If you would like to discuss the theory or what is shown that's okay. If it's about proving, or trying to change an opinion I see no point.

Must be a Monday :P


Your argument here is invalid because it requires that the only way to test combat effectiveness is to win a modern sport event. There are a couple other reasons too -- It would make a great topic for a thread I think. But i'd have to disagree.

I have seen plenty of videos of people who do kung fu beating on people who do "mma" of some sort -- or in streetfights, for example which some may argue is a better metric.

Once as a joke I posted one of these to a MMA discussion forum with the title "MMA Master destroyed by Tai Chi". The post was deleted because it was claimed the event was unsanctioned.
Appledog
Huajing
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:39 pm

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby wushutiger on Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:03 pm

There is a vast difference between a logical technique being demonstrated and this empty force bullshit. Trying to equate the two is ridiculous. Combat competition is not necessarily required to understand whether a technique is in line with reality or not.
User avatar
wushutiger
Wuji
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:14 pm

wushutiger wrote:There is a vast difference between a logical technique being demonstrated and this empty force bullshit. Trying to equate the two is ridiculous. Combat competition is not necessarily required to understand whether a technique is in line with reality or not.



The same arguments used against CMA. The Old Masters entered events of their time to prove their styles with other people who entered the same events.

Not here to change any opinions or argue about it.

Most of the things posted on the net are only demos of a concept that some use. You have an opinion. I have my own based on experience.

If you feel the need to talk about it. It would be better to start with a theory by which it works.

I don't feel the need, not an issue for me.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Trick on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:18 pm

windwalker wrote:
wushutiger wrote:He is performing nonsense, it is the perfect video showing the complete delusion and destruction of CMA.



You do understand that the same argument can be made for CMA. Which has yet to be proven inside a modern sport event.

I don’t understand the talk about “why not show TCMA vs modern day MMA fight” as some kind of way to prove the existence of EF as an technique of pure physics....But if need to talk about challenge fighting about this EF topic, why not just say TCMA vs TCMA fight,for example Hop-Gar vs Taiji-Empty force master, who would you bet on? 8-)
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:28 pm

Trick wrote:I don’t understand the talk about “why not show TCMA vs modern day MMA fight” as some kind of way to prove the existence of EF as an technique of pure physics....But if need to talk about challenge fighting about this EF topic, why not just say TCMA vs TCMA fight,for example Hop-Gar vs Taiji-Empty force master, who would you bet on? 8-)



The one who was better at what he did of course.

As many of you already stated competitions past and present are really the only objective way that one has of measuring effectiveness.

Somehow it seems like most here want me to some way validate my own experiences. Not happening I validated them for myself.

Kong Jin,. As CMA has yet to be proven in a modern combat event. The same arguments used to invalidate Kong jin, can also be applied to CMA

The only difference is the experience of those here. Most would agree on the effectiveness , that is yet unproven in the ring
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:33 pm

Anyone here want you to talk about some of the theory posted here or the clips in this thread it might be interesting.

Outside of that seems pointless to me

Carry on
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Finny on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:45 pm

windwalker wrote:
The only difference is the experience of those here. Most would agree on the effectiveness , that is yet unproven in the ring


That is absolutely NOT the 'only' difference.

One is a disparate body of physical teachings, which can be viewed, discussed and analysed.

The other is a fairy tale.

'Unproven' or not is something to be discussed (I would disagree, but it is an entirely subjective assessment. Typically those who cry 'unproven' - are those who insist that those CMA exponents who have competed successfully "are not using CMA" - as I said, a different discussion entirely)
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:59 pm

Finny wrote:
That is absolutely NOT the 'only' difference.

One is a disparate body of physical teachings, which can be viewed, discussed and analysed.

The other is a fairy tale.

'Unproven' or not is something to be discussed (I would disagree, but it is an entirely subjective assessment. Typically those who cry 'unproven' - are those who insist that those CMA exponents who have competed successfully "are not using CMA" - as I said, a different discussion entirely)



Can you invalidate this

Many past martial artists unknowingly developed empty force and became famous for their superior fighting prowess. For instance, Yang Pan-hou, who died in 1881, was the son of tai chi chuan's founder, Yang Lu-chan.

He once used empty force to counterattack an opponent who tried to attack him from the rear. Yang simply arched his back and set his opponent flying backward without even touching him.

Another famous Chinese martial artist who had access to empty force was Kuo Yun-shen. He taught hsing-i to Wang Xiang-zai, who in turn made martial art history with his da cheng quan (also known as i quan)

. Kuo could throw would-be assailants backward by snapping his shoulder in their direction, long before any physical contact was made.

Not to be left out, China's other famous internal system, pa kua, had a renowned expert who also possessed empty force - Tung Hai-chuan. His empty force palm technique was the equivalent of no-hands judo.


Should be easy, names and Styles

Do they all share in the same fairy tale
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:04 am, edited 4 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Trick on Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:09 am

This story came to my mind, a story that very well describe EF in action I would believe - “The tea master and the ronin”. http://yourwarriorsedge.com/warrior-wis ... the-ronin/
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Trick on Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:37 am

windwalker wrote:
Trick wrote:I don’t understand the talk about “why not show TCMA vs modern day MMA fight” as some kind of way to prove the existence of EF as an technique of pure physics....But if need to talk about challenge fighting about this EF topic, why not just say TCMA vs TCMA fight,for example Hop-Gar vs Taiji-Empty force master, who would you bet on? 8-)



The one who was better at what he did of course.

As many of you already stated competitions past and present are really the only objective way that one has of measuring effectiveness.

Somehow it seems like most here want me to some way validate my own experiences. Not happening I validated them for myself.

Kong Jin,. As CMA has yet to be proven in a modern combat event. The same arguments used to invalidate Kong jin, can also be applied to CMA

The only difference is the experience of those here. Most would agree on the effectiveness , that is yet unproven in the ring
as said previously in the thread, no need to stage a fight to show something believable something that might work in a non staged situation
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Finny on Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:19 am

windwalker wrote:
Can you invalidate this

Many past martial artists unknowingly developed empty force and became famous for their superior fighting prowess. For instance, Yang Pan-hou, who died in 1881, was the son of tai chi chuan's founder, Yang Lu-chan.

He once used empty force to counterattack an opponent who tried to attack him from the rear. Yang simply arched his back and set his opponent flying backward without even touching him.

Another famous Chinese martial artist who had access to empty force was Kuo Yun-shen. He taught hsing-i to Wang Xiang-zai, who in turn made martial art history with his da cheng quan (also known as i quan)

. Kuo could throw would-be assailants backward by snapping his shoulder in their direction, long before any physical contact was made.

Not to be left out, China's other famous internal system, pa kua, had a renowned expert who also possessed empty force - Tung Hai-chuan. His empty force palm technique was the equivalent of no-hands judo.


Should be easy, names and Styles

Do they all share in the same fairy tale


Uh, yes - yes they do.

For one - I don't need to 'invalidate' anything - the burden lies with those making claims. I could present equally preposterous passages from writings past, worldwide. Can you invalidate Moses parting the Red Sea? No, there's no need to - we all recognise a fairy tale when we see one.

Can you provide a source for the above quote? As far as I'm concerned it reads just like any number of other sensational, illogical historical claims.

Wang Xiangzhai was around quite recently, and his line (as well as Guo's) were widely taught. Where are the examples of the skills the above quote claims they possessed and practiced?
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:09 am

Interesting post from the web site outlines a perspective some of which I would agree with.

Western practitioners have a tendency to misunderstand and over complicate Lin Kong Jin more than any other Nei Jia skill, except perhaps Fa Jin.
interesting out look on "Fa Jin "echoed here by some

For one, it is a Jin (勁; power - not 精; essence) skill, and not a Qi skill. Lin Kong Jin, not Lin Kong Qi (which is kind of a thing, but a completely different thing). The cultivation of Jin involves Qi, but Qi is only one part of developing Nei Jin.

When you have achieved the Liu He (Six Combinations), you have developed Jin (Qi =/= Jin; Yi + Xin + Qi + Li = Jin, everything correctly unified as one force is Jin).

When you cultivate a certain quality and quantity of Jin, you can learn to do certain skills with this Power. Ting Jin, Fa Jin, Hua Jin, Ti Jin, and many more. The Waysun Liao version of Tai Chi Classics lists many of these skills, after talking about Qi and some simplified meditative ways to cultivate Jin. A good perspective of "jin" how many here would agree with it?

At the end of the list in the Tai Chi Classics, it says this:


Distance Power (ling kung jing)

As the vibrations of internal power increase and become more polished, it is believed that one can gain the ability to transfer power without being in direct contact with the opponent; in other words, power can be transferred over distances. This technique, known as Distance Power, is thought to take decades of practice to achieve.


In other other words, there are more than two dozen ways you can emit, absorb, and otherwise "transfer" Power (Jin) through physical contact in a fight. Through Ting Jin (Listening Power), you can read your opponents intentions through sensitivity to their Power and how it moves. With Tzeh Jin (Borrowing Power), you can "take" your opponents force and bend it to your own use after he moves against you, and then you can use your opponents own force in order to do things like Fa Jin.

Then, Lin Kong Jin is, very simply, the ability to do any of that without actually touching. If you can't do those other skills, Lin Kong Jin is a pointless parlor trick because you have no real understanding of the far more important Nei Jia skills, and this is why so few people really understand it after becoming enchanted with its almost mythical standing. echoes what I noted, its a part of much larger process


Controlling people with Shen and Qi alone is perfectly doable and I have indeed done it myself, but that is a nonphysical skill (influencing mind and energy alone) and has nothing to do with the actual nature and application of traditional Lin Kong Jin, which is a physical skill (influencing the body directly). Interesting, outlook. Something to think on :P
http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php?topic=5548.0

More from the same poster.

Clyman is part of an entire generation that got a bad translation and never learned enough Chinese to correct the mistake. And unfortunately, it passed down so now most people make the same mistakes, and few people really understand the significance of the difference.

It's similar to mixing up words like "grate" and "great." Understandable for some, especially children and non-native speakers, but eventually you either have to learn the difference or look like an idiot forever. Jin and Jing sound exactly the same, but in Chinese they are spelled differently and mean different things. And for Nei Gong, this distinction is very important to maintaining a genuine development.


This is why I feel its important to get a native speakers perspective. The poster out lines mistakes that some make.


posted because it makes interesting reading....and might help some to view things in a different way...
or not... Main take away, its part of a process that develops according to level of skill, effort and understanding...

Reading the whole post there are parts I wouldn't agree with but still find interesting..
others might find it also...

later :-\
Last edited by windwalker on Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:58 am, edited 8 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby Trick on Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:27 am

“Distance Power (ling kung jing)
As the vibrations of internal power increase and become more polished, it is believed that one can gain the ability to transfer power without being in direct contact with the opponent; in other words, power can be transferred over distances. This technique, known as Distance Power, is thought to take decades of practice to achieve.”......never read the “classics”, is this really from them? ....and it writes “it is believed” indicating that the writer is not in the possession of this skill, so why would that writing be believed?
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Empty Force Challenge

Postby windwalker on Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:47 am

Trick wrote:“Distance Power (ling kung jing)
As the vibrations of internal power increase and become more polished, it is believed that one can gain the ability to transfer power without being in direct contact with the opponent; in other words, power can be transferred over distances. This technique, known as Distance Power, is thought to take decades of practice to achieve.”......never read the “classics”, is this really from them? ....and it writes “it is believed” indicating that the writer is not in the possession of this skill, so why would that writing be believed?


Donno why would you?

Others might feel different.

A lot what was written accords with my own experiences and thought
although I use a more physics based perspective to view it through.

Just posted for others to read and gen info.....by which it might be viewed from...

done with thread. :P

Thanks to all for
an interesting conversation. :-\

@appledog,

thanks for an interesting link,
like the way they approach the subject ;) ..
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bao and 1 guest