A student of mine once told me after seeing a clip of a demo we did
That he couldn’t see what I did on film
A demo “filmed “ not shown
Written about
Why not post it allowing others who might be able to see what the student could not
A student of mine once told me after seeing a clip of a demo we did
That he couldn’t see what I did on film
Bao wrote:What he says about decreasing pressure and things that could be understood as “less engagement” is perfectly true and perfectly practical. However, very few who hasn’t experienced these things by themselves would understand how it works and how practical it really is. Must sound like philosophy for most people. But it isn’t. And again, it’s perfectly practical. And it works very good.
I suspect that what Cloudz and Bao wrote are both accurate, which is why it is often so difficult to understand TJQ without both the somatic feeling and some degree of theoretical and technical knowledge.
This ability does not rely upon vectors, but relies on awareness of changes and how combatants respond to those changes.
I have no experience or understanding of anything that operates outside the realm of physical science.
windwalker wrote:I have no experience or understanding of anything that operates outside the realm of physical science.
Do you claim to have an understanding of everything that operates within physical science ?
wayne hansen wrote:Real tai chi is literally passed on from hand to hand
A student of mine once told me after seeing a clip of a demo we did
That he couldn’t see what I did on film
wayne hansen wrote:Don’t know quite what you mean there
All tai chi taught through a good lineage I consider real tai chi as long as the way has not been lost
That goes for other arts as well
My teacher often says
They are just using simple leverage
Real tai chi pushing is something beyond that
wayne hansen wrote:Hope that answers your question
windwalker wrote:
This ability does not rely upon vectors, but relies on awareness of changes and how combatants respond to those changes.
Really ?
If it’s not about “vectors “ in understanding change, what is the understanding based on
LaoDan wrote:windwalker wrote:
This ability does not rely upon vectors, but relies on awareness of changes and how combatants respond to those changes.
Really ?
If it’s not about “vectors “ in understanding change, what is the understanding based on
If it was just about vectors, then pulling before pushing (or going down before going up, etc.) would not make much sense (it would not create an advantage). But something else happens when changing from one direction to another.
It makes sense if the body is thought of as a dynamic hollow sphere, " pushing or pulling " expanding, contracting. "going down before going up"
vertical rotation. ect.
I describe it as the person that is receiving the energy responds in a particular way (instinctive and/or habitual…), and fails to change appropriately when the attack changes, resulting in them becoming more vulnerable to the changed situation than they would have been otherwise.
That is different than the result from merely summing the different vectors.
Perhaps someone else has a better way of explaining it?
See Fig. 6 for the application of the above vector equation for the force required for deflecting incoming momentum displaced different amounts from the center of the defender.
Ian Sinclair wrote:
Newton's Third Law of Motion is the most relevant principle in this video. If I push a wall, the wall will push back. So, I don't push the wall. Well, I do, but not so much that I increase the pressure. I create the moment (I=L/w) and let the partner create the movement. The neat thing about force is that the force itself does not actually move. The mass accelerates and propagates increasingly chaotic reactive forces, and other reactions that can then be exploited.
If I get attached to vectors, or the reactive force, I will find resistance and fight against it. If I avoid the attachment, then I can exploit the reaction, then my partner pushes himself.
I don't think talking about Newton's Second Law of Motion and explaining angular momentum would be helpful or necessary in this video. I have videos in the works that will, at the very least, give some insight that will allow the physics to appear to make a little bit more sense. But the physics that can be spoken of is not the eternal way.
This video, of course, demonstrates an exercise with a cooperative partner. Applying this in combat requires a more complete set of skills, not only those being tested in this video.
4. “A Force of 1,000 Pounds can be deflected with a Force of Four Ounces.” What is meant by this oft-quoted saying is that a very powerful attack can be deflected with a very small force. How this defense can occur will be analyzed in the next sections. However, the wording of this saying leads to misunderstanding in explanations using physics because it does not make sense in terms of Newton’s third law.
According to that law, if there is a force of 1,000 pounds, it must be exerted on something (or somebody) that (or who) exerts 1,000 pounds back. Here, the force that the opponent exerts would be on you, and you of course would exert an equal and opposite force back on him. But the main idea is not to interact with the opponent in a way that can cause injury to yourself. The goal is to exert minimal force on the opponent and not interfere with his motion—only redirecting his attack to clear your body.
Using minimal force on the opponent means that you don’t need a lot of strength. It also means that he will, by Newton’s third law, use minimum force on you, which lessens the chance that you will be injured.
Not interfering with the opponent’s motion means that he will be more likely to over-extend and lose his balance. Then, he will either fall or pull back. If he pulls back, you can easily push or hit him.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests