Page 3 of 6

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:41 pm
by windwalker
His explanations seem kind of confused wrapped in his own usage of the Chinese words he uses to explain it.
He would be better served and those he works with would understand things quicker if he explained it using basic
physics.

The trend I've observed among many older traditional teachers now a days is to try to use physics to explain what they do
when ever possible making it is more accessible to those who are not culturally attuned to concepts like "qi" or "song" .

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:16 am
by middleway
His explanations seem kind of confused wrapped in his own usage of the Chinese words he uses to explain it.
He would be better served and those he works with would understand things quicker if he explained it using basic
physics.

The trend I've observed among many older traditional teachers now a days is to try to use physics to explain what they do
when ever possible making it is more accessible to those who are not culturally attuned to concepts like "qi" or "song" .


The problem with this approach is he would have to learn Physics first. There is a trend in the internal arts to use 'physics' terms that bare no relation to how they are used by actual physists. In such cases it is just further confusion.

thanks.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:47 am
by windwalker
middleway wrote:
The problem with this approach is he would have to learn Physics first. There is a trend in the internal arts to use 'physics' terms that bare no relation to how they are used by actual physists. In such cases it is just further confusion.

thanks.


I've been lucky in that some of those I worked with were PHD level physicist.
One of those I work with here is a robotics professor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKP0EpU ... e=youtu.be

some of the things he teaches, builds and works with.

He keeps me honest with the explanations I use for physics.
The problem is that sometimes what I use it for may not be as academic
and there for not so clear. We talk in and use concepts like "moment of inertia"
" parallel axis theorem" "wave theory" ect. to explain a lot of the things we work with.

The Chinese terminology is kept to a minimum. Interesting enough most of the old concepts
used also can be related quite directly to modern physics language.

When I use the physics, a lot of times he will quote something in Chinese
from the taiji classics that says pretty much the same thing...which is very cool

Whats shown in the OP clip should be quiet easy for most here to do
I would think...

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:25 am
by middleway
I've been lucky in that some of those I worked with were PHD level physicist.


Agreed you are very lucky, but i am sure you can appreciate, most people are not and do not have access to a PHD level physicist! :)

Whats shown in the OP clip should be quiet easy for most here to do
I would think...


Yes i think it can be taught in under 1 hour as others here have said.

thanks.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:37 am
by windwalker
middleway wrote:Agreed you are very lucky, but i am sure you can appreciate, most people are not and do not have access to a PHD level physicist! :)



But they do have access to their own inquiring minds. Once some one learns to think out side the box so to speak.
many things can be explained with out recourse to what was presented in the OP clip. He talks of the many taiji people he's met not being
able to get past their shoulders, with him of course being an example of one who has....marketing 101 ;)

For example one might take this clip
and relate it to what was explained by the clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LDQuslvn4E

"no force to keep it moving" ;)

A little dry when viewed but when put into and used to explain
applications it can help to makes things a little more clear and repeatable.
of course anything that makes what ever more clear is always good.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:05 am
by middleway
But they do have access to their own inquiring minds. Once some one learns to think out side the box so to speak.


well yes. And i am a huge fan of physics, it fascinates me. However, It is my expeience that too many people attribute the spookyness of Quantum Mechanics to their Internal Arts and end up peddling non sensical crap because they misunderstand the experiments and the findings.

A little knowledge can go a long way ... but it can also send people a long way off track. If we are talking basic mechanical concepts like momentum, rotation etc then of course these are a bit more simple to grasp.

cheers.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:09 am
by Bao
charles wrote:While the teacher had some skills, I never met a single student of his who had anything beyond beginner-level skills, but he had a large following of dedicated students who all thought that they were learning The Real Stuff. Twenty years later, the students are still beginners.


The whole story seems very similar to many other teachers and their students. :(

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:30 am
by oragami_itto
middleway wrote:
But they do have access to their own inquiring minds. Once some one learns to think out side the box so to speak.


well yes. And i am a huge fan of physics, it fascinates me. However, It is my expeience that too many people attribute the spookyness of Quantum Mechanics to their Internal Arts and end up peddling non sensical crap because they misunderstand the experiments and the findings.

A little knowledge can go a long way ... but it can also send people a long way off track. If we are talking basic mechanical concepts like momentum, rotation etc then of course these are a bit more simple to grasp.

cheers.


It doesn't really help when the most educated minds with skills enough to write on the subject didn't understand basic physics.

Cheng Man Ching for example thought that an arrow would accelerate after it left contact with the bowstring.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:00 pm
by everything
my first teacher (my dad) was a PhD physicist and that can quickly go too far in the other direction. "sink qi to dantian" isn't something that "physics" understanding really helps in any case. heck for that matter, you could be an expert on VO2 max, which actually is measurable, and what good would that do. you (general you) still can't beat jon jones or whomever you think is the "fighter" you must fight in the comic book men fantasy in your head.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:22 pm
by wayne hansen
Most of those who quote physics do it in a halfarsed way
If scientists understood internal martial arts they would have invented it
Those who invented it were naturalists not scientists
Anyone who can't explain it in simple terms it is because they don't understand it
Misdirection is for commercial gain
I did a couple of seminars in the early 70's and realised it was a con
It is hard enough to teach people who attend your classes on a regular basis
Plus when you travel to teach others you leave your real students unattended

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:57 pm
by charles
everything wrote:...can quickly go too far in the other direction. "sink qi to dantian" isn't something that "physics" understanding really helps in any case.


The human body is a very complex organism/mechanism, too complex to fully and accurately model in all of its facets. If the organism/mechanism is sufficiently and appropriately simplified, some aspects of it can be well represented as mathematical models to which physics can insightfully be applied.

I think it also important to differentiate between "physics" and "physical" explanations. One can describe what is physically happening without necessarily describing it in the language of science. Such is the case, for example, with "sink qi to the dan tian". There is a physical component to it that can easily be described in terms of the physical actions without invoking hardcore science.

wayne hansen wrote:Most of those who quote physics do it in a halfarsed way...


Due, in part, by how appropriately the model is created and, in part, by how well those applying the physics actually know physics.

Anyone who can't explain it in simple terms it is because they don't understand it
Misdirection is for commercial gain


Sometimes that is true. Sometimes, however, it is simply due to one not having the ability to present things in simple terms. The ability to present complex things in simple terms is not a skill that many have.

Sometimes people purposely obfuscate information for commercial or personal gain.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:28 pm
by Bao
charles wrote: Sometimes, however, it is simply due to one not having the ability to present things in simple terms. The ability to present complex things in simple terms is not a skill that many have.


That's very true. Also, some people have learned to do something just with doing, but never understood how to explain what they do.

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:46 pm
by windwalker
Edited :-\

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:51 pm
by windwalker
oragami_itto wrote:
middleway wrote:
But they do have access to their own inquiring minds. Once some one learns to think out side the box so to speak.


well yes. And i am a huge fan of physics, it fascinates me. However, It is my expeience that too many people attribute the spookyness of Quantum Mechanics to their Internal Arts and end up peddling non sensical crap because they misunderstand the experiments and the findings.

A little knowledge can go a long way ... but it can also send people a long way off track. If we are talking basic mechanical concepts like momentum, rotation etc then of course these are a bit more simple to grasp.

cheers.


It doesn't really help when the most educated minds with skills enough to write on the subject didn't understand basic physics.

Cheng Man Ching for example thought that an arrow would accelerate after it left contact with the bowstring.


His student who does understand physics seems to feel a little differently.

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.

This essay ends with Prof. Cheng saying, “This treatise reveals the secret of many generations of T’ai Chi Ch’uan masters. I hope the practitioner will pay special attention to this!” He evidently considered this essay, which deals in part with neutralization, to be very important and chose to use physics as the main expository tool.

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

A phd in physics found it hard to understand, so he investigated it using his back ground making it more clear to himself and those that might read it
hopefully able to attain the physical results through his practice. A good inquiring mind.. ;)

Re: Sink the Qi, set the shoulder — Sifu Adam Mizner

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:44 pm
by oragami_itto
The arrow accelerates producing a
force equal to or greater than the original force. For
example, if the impelling force is one hundred pounds,
the velocity can accelerate to a force of two hundred
pounds. We achieve an impelling force of two hundred
pounds by applying the relation: Force times Speed
equals Energy. In physics we have the formula: Force x
Speed x Time = Energy.6


That is incorrect. There are different ways you can read into it and restate it to make it look better but it is simply wrong.