Adhering as a martial sport

[marvin8]

The opponent that you are going to deal with may not be another Taiji person. You may have to use your Taiji skill to deal with a boxer, or a wrestler. If you are a Taiji person, you should not just stay within the area of "pushing". You should get into the areas of striking and wrestling.

For example, how do you test "4 oz against 1000 lb principle"?

- I'm going to throw 20 punches at you, if you can apply "4 oz against 1000 lb" in that period of time, you win that round. Otherwise, you lose that round.
- I'm trying to take you down within 1 minute, if you can apply "4 oz against 1000 lb" in that period of time, you win that round. Otherwise, you lose that round.

Now the question is how can you prove that you are only use 4 oz of force to deal with 1000 lb of force?

Here is how to "prove that you only use 0 (zero) oz of force to deal with 1000 lb of force:"

A taijiquan player leans forward (front kua closed) with front hand down, drawing a punch from the opponent (lure). The taiji player yields by shifting weight to rear kua and the opponent misses. The taiji player follows opponent out and lands a punch (e.g., brush knee—by closing front kua completely relaxed) on opponent's face before opponent's hand returns to guard position.

The result: The taiji player has lured, stuck, followed and punched opponent in the face with no initial eccentric or concentric muscles (no touch).

Should the taiji player be awarded points? Or is the "rule:" there has to be physical contact?

[johnwang]

Hey, it's possible to compare almost any two people's relative skill at a given task. The only question is how to define "winning" --if it's a competition, and no one says it has to be.

Winning means you can use your skill A to deal with your opponent's skill B within a certain period of time (20 punches, or 1 minute).

[Steve James]

If both A and B hod the string in their right hands, there is nothing to stop one from punching. But, it's not a test of punching skill.

[origami_itto]

I'm firmly opposed to the judofication. Cataloging and awarding points to limited techniques strips away so much of the art that happens in between the forms of movements, the blue notes of the art so to speak.

I'm just talking about how the art is taught. Along the way there are various games you can play. One of them is limited techniques. If you can't play this game, you're not at that level yet, but in such a case you couldn't really do push hands anyways. And within that (this) level of the game you can express a great range of skill.

Any other way you try to turn this into a competition will fail because you have have wildly different skill sets, people who are at various points in their progress, even using different methods, and different ideas of what push hands even is, clashing because they are not playing the same game. You need to standardize the actual game being played or there really isn't a point to turning it into a competition.

I could also say, just implement Chen Xin's 36 sicknesses as the only rule for "competition", or slightly modify it to allow techniques to end (terminate) in a clear application for the purposes of competition. If the truth is that people are not ready for that kind of competition yet, then I think that is the problem in the first place, therefore you need to approach the sort of ruleset expressed by Chen Xin's article in such a way, by limiting the ways in which it is acceptable to deviate from it.

As for blue notes I already mentioned having more than 32 allowed techniques and that's more than 8 or even 13, so, I don't think it is any less blue than the form.

What IS the point of turning it into a competition? What then IS the point of competing within that competition? What then is the point of training? To win that competition? What must be stripped from the practice to be competitive? Does the competition serve the art or does the art serve the competition?

I like push hands by agreement without keeping score or awarding trophies. Anything else just seems like a distraction to me.

[johnwang]

If both A and B hod the string in their right hands, there is nothing to stop one from punching. But, it's not a test of punching skill.

It's not to test your punching skill. It's to test whether you can use your skill to handle punching or not. Is it a correct assumption that we all try to develop some MA skill so we can deal with punching (or throwing).

[everything]

if we want to be very theoretical, through sheer logic, this would never work. all we have to do is take the extreme cases.

- does anyone here actually think he or she could somehow "adhere" against Tyson's punches? of course not.

- does anyone here actually think he or she could somehow "adhere" against Fedor's take down and arm bar? of course not.

but if we want to figure out some test of our individual level of adhering, there are already ways to do this. a great way is to just go wrestle with various grapplers. yeah sumo would probably be one of the best things to do. er but.

[johnwang]

- does anyone here actually think he or she could somehow "adhere" against Tyson's punches? of course not.

Not trying to deal with Tyson's 20 punches but any "beginner's" 20 punches. Is that too much too ask for? If you are good in Taiji "cloud hand", you should be able to use it to achieve that.

[klonk]

if we want to be very theoretical, through sheer logic, this would never work. all we have to do is take the extreme cases.

- does anyone here actually think he or she could somehow "adhere" against Tyson's punches? of course not.

...

Oddly enough, I think it would give me a better chance, slim as that chance may be, compared to most other strategies. The idea would be to adhere and keep the connection, braking and avoiding those world-class punches, while in an ideal case shifting off to one side.

Your argument from extreme cases is not a great one, because it works to criticize any defense, not just adhering. Take the word "adhering" in your question above, and substitute for that word any of the following:

Counterpunch
Block and punch
Bob and weave
Jump kick
Trip and throw

None of them gives the amateur a sure way of dealing with a hardened professional.

[Steve James]

Take professional athletes out of the equation. Maybe use someone Tyson's height and weight who just likes to fight.

Actually, I know WCC Chen used to have people stand at about push hands distance and ask them to try to hit him. The only requirement was to keep the feet fixed, except for single kicks. It was just a drill. However, it was not about adhering --though it could be described as a test of sensitivity.

[klonk]

A more interesting question is what powerhouse professionals would do to each other within a fighting format of adhering defense, equals against equals. I suppose Yeung will further clarify the rules for us shortly. I hope they do not include a grey-bearded old man going up against world champion fighters from any discipline, for I already spend too much on dit da jow.

(Actually, I don't spend anything on that. Ben Gay works better and I can get it at the corner store.)

[Yeung]

1. Open to all, as any contact is a kind of adhering, any one is a winner if one’s strike technique is so good that the opponent fail to provide any defense.
2. Pushing is really a substitute for a strike, and is a win if the opponent cannot retaliate. But this is not the case of trying to push the opponent away in defense of a grab for example.
3. If the opponent threw punches and one just avoiding them without confrontation then one will be disqualified.
4. If one tries to do a take down and avoided retaliation like a strike on the back of the head for example but not successful, then there is no score and one should just kept trying. If one got hit while doing a take down then it is a loss.
5. Fighting is open to any techniques but adhering is limited by using controlled striking techniques only for safety reasons.
6. Sumo is a good example of adhering if it is open to all kinds of striking techniques.
7. I am not sure of the meaning of “run your hand away”, if one can avoided a strike and retaliate at the same time is a win.
8. The idea came from the internal practice of a club or a group of practitioners, as most groups have some sort of packing orders. Everyone in a group is open to challenge by others. So, why not inter group contest?
9. The limitation of adhering is the uncontrolled techniques that might endanger oneself and the opponent.
10. The name of the game is to determine a better athlete that is all in terms of skill, speed, and strength. The mentioned styles teach openly techniques to control, so the question is just being in a position to control. Different martial arts have different techniques to control, for example grabbing an incoming punch and turn it into a arm hold, etc.
11. Good on you, if you can apply the 4 oz to 1000 lb principle. If does no sound too difficult if you let the 1000 lb pass you by and hit him or her on the back of the head with 4 oz, or more or less.
12. Any style is ok as long as the athletes can execute controlled techniques, such as “touch strike” to the vital areas of the body.
13. Duration is an important factor, I am not sure but I think there is no time limit in Sumo. With equal skills then strength and speed will be the determining for the winner.
14. The idea is to formalize the informal or friendly contest between practitioners.
15. Extreme cases are good examples of the gap between sport and reality, and the aim is to close up the gap so to speak. There were many cases where experts got kick between the legs by beginners accidentally or intentionally.
16. May be adhering is just a contest of mixed martial arts restricted to controllable techniques for safety reasons. The rules are simple, win by any controlled strike, take down, or submission; no score for trade off, no time limit in a restricted area, and disqualification for avoidance or uncontrolled techniques.

[MaartenSFS]

The problem with this kind of strategy is that if one person tries really hard to adhere then the best thing to do against them is to not let them adhere, leaving them totally exposed. I have been trying to modify a Tuishou-type practise for my swordsmanship called Niandao (Sticky Sabre) to make it more realistic for a long time now, but it really only works for one-handed swordsmanship. If one person doesn't play by the rules then they can easily win and the skills don't translate well to fencing.

With my unarmed fighting I have experienced the same problem. I spent a lot of time training Zhanshou (Sticky hands - different character from the one in Wingchun), but found it difficult to translate into sparring. After I stopped training it and put a lot of emphasis on drilling the various techniques as they would be used in sparring, with entering techniques that make it possible to even be in the right range, I found that I could now use all of those adhering techniques.

[suckinlhbf]

Pushing is really a substitute for a strike

Push and strike are totally different. We push the others away, and they don't get hurt. And strike is to hit and keep the other in the same spot so most of the power can get and stay in the body to hurt. Push is a game, and strike is martial. It is not martial art if strike is being substituted by push. In the ring, the fighter cannot push to KO. Push somebody away looks nice and impressive as in most of the performance but it takes the martial content away from martial art. It is not promoting but degrading the art. Just look at how CMA guys fights MMA guys.

run your hand away

走手 is the terminology in Chinese. The hand moves away and changes a split second before being touched. Going further with this is to move the body away so there is no body contact. The only contact is the finishing strike. It is the goal of training.

The "adhering as martial sport" could be a start to experience the skills but better dump it and move forward after getting it.

[johnwang]

Pushing is really a substitute for a strike

- Pushing is rear end collision, You move away from me. I borrow your moving away force and push you (A -> B ->).
- Striking is head on collision. You come toward me. I borrow your incoming force and punch you (A -><- B).

The opportunity and timing are completely different.

[johnwang]

The "adhering as martial sport" could be a start to experience the skills but better dump it and move forward after getting it.

Agree with you 100% there. Many people start PH when they were young. They still doing PH when they are older. If people only test their MA skill against their own MA style, they will never be able to deal with people from other MA systems.

This remind me the 1st month that I worked for IBM. My manager wanted to to write a "random number generator". I wrote that program within a short period of time. But I didn't turn in to my manager. After 3 months, my manager asked me if I had finished that program or not. I told him that I did finished. But I still tried to test my program that did generate random number forever (not repeating the same sequence after several billion of times.). I then understood that my manager just wanted to test my programming ability. He didn't care about the mathematics prove of my computer program correctness. My mind was still in the graduate school research environment and not in the industry development world. What an industry development world require will be different from a graduate school research environment require.

To stay in school too long will make one has problem to face the real world. To stay within the PH environment too long also will make one has problem to face the real world.