28 Jun 2007 16:43:28
Kirk Lawson
WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):

Tai Chi: What's it good for?

There seems to be three proposed and advertised benefits.

First, there's the claim that it's a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.
Is it? Why/Why not?

Second, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi increases... "Chi."
Is this even possible since Chi doesn't really exist?(1)

Third, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi improves health.
Does it? How so? Does it make the practitioner less vulnerable to
illness or something?

(1) Yeah, yeah. Tell me *why* it does so exist!

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals: http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing
is lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise." -Chas
Speaking of rec.martial-arts



28 Jun 2007 20:54:22
pboud
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Kirk Lawson wrote:
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> There seems to be three proposed and advertised benefits.
>
> First, there's the claim that it's a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.
> Is it? Why/Why not?
body posture, balance, breath control, relaxed posture.. (yeah yeah..
you can get those elsewhere, but you didn't say what it has that's *unique*)
>
> Second, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi increases... "Chi."
> Is this even possible since Chi doesn't really exist?(1)
Only if you reach the 8th level.. Tom cruise, a long-time practitioner,
has reached level 7 where he can, with concentration, make his Chi burp..
>
> Third, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi improves health.
> Does it? How so? Does it make the practitioner less vulnerable to
> illness or something?
If it does *NOTHING ELSE*... Tai-chi relaxes the mind, reduces overall
stress, and generates a bit of body movement.. so that, in and of
itself, promotes health and (since the body's not busy being stressed
out) reduces vulnerability to illness..

P.
>
> (1) Yeah, yeah. Tell me *why* it does so exist!
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
>
> FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals: http://www.lulu.com/lawson
>
> Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/
>
> "well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing
> is lying down..."
>
> "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
> artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise." -Chas
> Speaking of rec.martial-arts
>
>


28 Jun 2007 16:05:56
Supreme Ultimate Fist
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 28, 10:43 pm, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:
> First, there's the claim that it's a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.
> Is it? Why/Why not?

Yes it is. Why? Because a good practitioner is essentially a very
strong grappler with an alarming ability to hit *extremely* hard in a
clinch with any part of the body. See recently posted videos of Chen
Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc.

> Second, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi increases... "Chi."
> Is this even possible since Chi doesn't really exist?(1)

Well, the purpose of doing Tai Chi is not to increase your "chi", it's
to be able to break bits of people. Increasing your "chi" lets you do
Tai Chi better. "Chi" is a name for a set of subtle physiological
things that are not imaginary, probably having something to do with
the fascia and other stuff, but have not been much studied yet in that
combination by science.

> Third, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi improves health.
> Does it? How so? Does it make the practitioner less vulnerable to
> illness or something?

Some people claim that. Also, it's good for lowering blood pressure,
but not more so than yoga. Mainly it improves health in the way doing
any hard exercise regularly improves health.

Amituofo,
SUF
http://supremeultimatefist.com



29 Jun 2007 07:53:54
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.

Fraser




28 Jun 2007 20:43:07
David L. Burkhead
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Fraser Johnston wrote:
> "Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>
>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.
>
> Fraser

Frazer has suplexed the correct.

--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com-- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays





29 Jun 2007 09:01:02
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"David L. Burkhead" <dburkhead@sff.net > wrote in message
news:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Fraser Johnston wrote:
>> "Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
>>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>>
>>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>>
>> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.
>>
>> Fraser
>
> Frazer has suplexed the correct.

The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which I
dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm all
over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a better
fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't train
against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.

Fraser




28 Jun 2007 22:11:46
Jerry B. Altzman
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

on 2007-06-28 16:43 Kirk Lawson said the following:
> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> Tai Chi: What's it good for?

TAIJI
HuH! Yeah.
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
say it again y'all

sorry, just had that song go through my head.
Taiji is fun, honest; I do it (VERY poorly!)

> Kirk

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


29 Jun 2007 02:43:42
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 4:43 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:

> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> There seems to be three proposed and advertised benefits.
>
> First, there's the claim that it's a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.
> Is it? Why/Why not?

The proper practice of tai chi involves repetitive motion training,
which is designed to train (among other things) muscle groups which
are generally useful in a fight, and also will train "self defense"
applications. Regardless of the effectiveness of those applications
(such as basic punching and kicking) compared to other arts, training
hundreds of punches and/or kicks per day will enable the serious tai
chi practitioner to attempt to defend himself with martial arts.
Therefore, it is a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.

> Second, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi increases... "Chi."
> Is this even possible since Chi doesn't really exist?(1)

Haven't you answered your own question? If you ask again honestly and
with an open mind, then you will get a different answer. Perhaps a
quite interesting one.

> Third, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi improves health.
> Does it? How so? Does it make the practitioner less vulnerable to
> illness or something?

There are a few scientific/medical studies out there which have shown
the regular practice of tai chi improved memory (i think one of the
control groups were various pre-alzheimer's patients or something),
prevented osteoperosis, and improved balance. Other scientific studies
have shown that the regular practice of tai chi lowered blood
pressure.

There's probably more out there but that's all I can remember seeing/
hearing about.

> (1) Yeah, yeah. Tell me *why* it does so exist!

It exists because it does. Just because you've never seen/heard/felt
it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, it doesn't even mean it
would be difficult for you to see/hear/feel/taste/smell/touch. Ask me
for more information TODAY! Don't let this exciting opportunity slip
through your fingers forever! With a comparatively small (compared to
what you get) investment of time and money you too can experience the
WONDERS of Chi.

-



29 Jun 2007 02:49:53
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 4:43 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:

I might add, as an aside, a few unverifiable things I have seen while
learning and teaching tai chi. I say unverifiable because I forget
their names :)

I knew an older italian lady who had a frozen shoulder. When she came
to class she couldn't move it. After 4 or so months she could do the
form no problem and move her arm in such a way I didn't notice
anything wrong with it.

I knew an old man who needed a cane to walk when he came to class, but
would carry it out with him after the class.

Another old lady (a few were like this actually) had arthritis in the
hands when they started, and claim the pain and associated problems
disappeared within a few months of tai chi.

A personal experience of mine, I had a broken collarbone which caused
me constant discomfort, maybe like arthritis in the shoulder. the
discomfort disappeared after a few years of tai chi practice.

-



28 Jun 2007 20:03:39
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 28, 9:49 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:43 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>
> I might add, as an aside, a few unverifiable things I have seen while
> learning and teaching tai chi. I say unverifiable because I forget
> their names :)
>
> I knew an older italian lady who had a frozen shoulder. When she came
> to class she couldn't move it. After 4 or so months she could do the
> form no problem and move her arm in such a way I didn't notice
> anything wrong with it.
>
> I knew an old man who needed a cane to walk when he came to class, but
> would carry it out with him after the class.
>
> Another old lady (a few were like this actually) had arthritis in the
> hands when they started, and claim the pain and associated problems
> disappeared within a few months of tai chi.
>
> A personal experience of mine, I had a broken collarbone which caused
> me constant discomfort, maybe like arthritis in the shoulder. the
> discomfort disappeared after a few years of tai chi practice.
>
> -

"Bob Pendelton
You are getting this because you asked about my health statistics.
Another quarter has passed and I have a new set of blood chemistry
data. This test marks the end of my first year with Shaolin-Do. (I
tested for my green belt a year and a day after my first lesson.) The
good news is that my total cholesterol was down again. This time to
118. As a result the Dr. lowered my dosage on my cholesterol
medication. I now take it 2 times/week. Over this year my dosage on
that drug has dropped in steps from

7/week (daily) at the start of the year

5/week after 1 month of Shaolin-Do

3/week after 4 months

2/week after 12 months

The other good news is that I am still losing weight. I'm down nearly
40 pounds it the last year.

My A1c hemoglobin is up 0.1, which leaves it at 6.0, the top end of
normal. Which is still significantly better than it was a year ago. I
was very disappointed with the result. My Dr. checked my records and
noted that I was sick more times during the last quarter than I have
been for the previous year, and noted that blood sugar always goes up
when you are ill. He thought the level I was maintaining was amazing.
He asked me a number of detailed questions about Shaolin-Do. It is
completely out side of his experience."
-at http://www.austinkungfu.com/view_details.asp?ID_page=8&ID_cell=57&ID=161&s_type_sub=testimonial&b_buyable=False&n_size=5

So..... how is your tai chi different?

;)




29 Jun 2007 03:20:39
GreenDistantStar
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 10:43 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:


> It exists because it does.

We can say this confidently about things whose existence it would be
self-contradictory to deny. Chi is not such an example.

>Just because you've never seen/heard/felt
> it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The existence of such things (such as atomic and sub-atomic particles)
we inferred from their interactions and THEN observational evidence
arose as tools improved.
Chi we can't infer from anything, other than already well known and
understood biomechanical systems, and alas, no tools to discern the
mysterious Chi. It's a paucity of evidence, not suitable tools, that
makes discovering Chi such a tricky business.

> In fact, it doesn't even mean it
> would be difficult for you to see/hear/feel/taste/smell/touch.

Can you reconcile this statement with your previous one?

> Ask me
> for more information TODAY! Don't let this exciting opportunity slip
> through your fingers forever! With a comparatively small (compared to
> what you get) investment of time and money you too can experience the
> WONDERS of Chi.

Why don't you start up a Chi MLM company?

GDS

"Let's roll!"



29 Jun 2007 11:35:36
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183085393.561535.268790@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 4:43 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>
> I might add, as an aside, a few unverifiable things I have seen while
> learning and teaching tai chi. I say unverifiable because I forget
> their names :)
>
> I knew an older italian lady who had a frozen shoulder. When she came
> to class she couldn't move it. After 4 or so months she could do the
> form no problem and move her arm in such a way I didn't notice
> anything wrong with it.
>
> I knew an old man who needed a cane to walk when he came to class, but
> would carry it out with him after the class.
>
> Another old lady (a few were like this actually) had arthritis in the
> hands when they started, and claim the pain and associated problems
> disappeared within a few months of tai chi.
>
> A personal experience of mine, I had a broken collarbone which caused
> me constant discomfort, maybe like arthritis in the shoulder. the
> discomfort disappeared after a few years of tai chi practice.

So regular exercise can make people feel better. Awesome!!!!

Fraser





29 Jun 2007 05:48:46
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 11:03 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:

> So..... how is your tai chi different?
>
> ;)

Never said it had to be.

Shaolin and tai chi are related arts, anyways.

All in all though, the benefits I mentioned are in fact available to
people who practice tai chi. There are other benefits, of course - but
what I said will do for now.

-



29 Jun 2007 05:53:26
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 11:35 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:

> So regular exercise can make people feel better. Awesome!!!!

Right. Who ever said regular exercise didn't make people feel better?

Here are some more random facts:

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Oranges grow on trees.

This turkey sandwich tastes delicious.

Okay, now that we've entertained those random thoughts, we can discuss
tai chi. :)

It seems you have missed the point however. See, at least Mark Evins
provided shaolin as a counter-example. Apparently there is also hard
data to suggest that other forms of kung fu can have similar benefits
to the ones I described. So there are really two courses of action
that I can see for you, if you want in on this discussion. You can
provide some hard data about medical studies done to determine the
benefits of misc. art X, or you can try to discover what the special
benefits of tai chi are over and above "regular" exercise. I'll give
you an idea, although I'm not sure if this is the direction you were
expecting - tai chi has benefits outside of what regular exercise
gives you because it is a high level martial art.

-



29 Jun 2007 05:59:52
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 11:20 am, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:43 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It exists because it does.
>
> We can say this confidently about things whose existence it would be
> self-contradictory to deny. Chi is not such an example.

Of course it is. But, as you state in response below...

> >Just because you've never seen/heard/felt
> > it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> The existence of such things (such as atomic and sub-atomic particles)
> we inferred from their interactions and THEN observational evidence
> arose as tools improved.
> Chi we can't infer from anything, other than already well known and
> understood biomechanical systems, and alas, no tools to discern the
> mysterious Chi. It's a paucity of evidence, not suitable tools, that
> makes discovering Chi such a tricky business.

That's a nice proposition but it is false. The cost of an electron
microscope, mass spectrometer, or whatever "tool" you prefer, may in
and of itself may prevent you from looking into one. That does not
mean that the knowledge you could possibly gain - such as proof of
molecules, atoms, etc. doesn't exist.

So, to repeat myself, just because you didn't use the right tool,
doesn't mean chi doesn't exist. It just means you didn't look in the
right microscope yet. But this is the same thing people keep telling
you, not just me... Go and seek if you want to find. Just go, go and
look. You might not find it right away, you might need to wait for a
while as you visit many different schools.

> > In fact, it doesn't even mean it
> > would be difficult for you to see/hear/feel/taste/smell/touch.
>
> Can you reconcile this statement with your previous one?

You need the right tools for the right job.

> > Ask me
> > for more information TODAY! Don't let this exciting opportunity slip
> > through your fingers forever! With a comparatively small (compared to
> > what you get) investment of time and money you too can experience the
> > WONDERS of Chi.
>
> Why don't you start up a Chi MLM company?

You mean open a tai chi school? Sure, one day. But the above is just
more proof of why you don't believe in chi- it can be shoved in your
face.. people can beg you to learn it, and you just shrug it off. Of
course you will never find it if you don't look :)

-



29 Jun 2007 06:02:35
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:
> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.
>
> >> Fraser
>
> > Frazer has suplexed the correct.
>
> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which I
> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm all
> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a better
> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't train
> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>
> Fraser

Damn, when I do tai chi I usually gotta bring 3 or 4 shirts with me,
because they get drenched with sweat every 30-40 min.

-



29 Jun 2007 06:03:58
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:
> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.
>
> >> Fraser
>
> > Frazer has suplexed the correct.
>
> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which I
> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm all
> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a better
> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't train
> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>
> Fraser

Oh one other thing, about the not training against a resisting
opponent aspect. That isn't true, a major component of taiji training
is training against a resisting opponent. It's called push hands.
Right? :)

-



29 Jun 2007 14:10:34
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183096406.889867.150010@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> It seems you have missed the point however. See, at least Mark Evins
> provided shaolin as a counter-example. Apparently there is also hard
> data to suggest that other forms of kung fu can have similar benefits
> to the ones I described. So there are really two courses of action
> that I can see for you, if you want in on this discussion. You can
> provide some hard data about medical studies done to determine the
> benefits of misc. art X, or you can try to discover what the special
> benefits of tai chi are over and above "regular" exercise. I'll give
> you an idea, although I'm not sure if this is the direction you were
> expecting - tai chi has benefits outside of what regular exercise
> gives you because it is a high level martial art.

Cite?

Fraser




29 Jun 2007 14:11:56
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183097038.401136.6450@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
>> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
>> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
>> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>
>> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>>
>> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.
>>
>> >> Fraser
>>
>> > Frazer has suplexed the correct.
>>
>> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which
>> I
>> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
>> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm
>> all
>> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a
>> better
>> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't
>> train
>> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>>
>> Fraser
>
> Oh one other thing, about the not training against a resisting
> opponent aspect. That isn't true, a major component of taiji training
> is training against a resisting opponent. It's called push hands.
> Right? :)

Not when I did it. Of course it is fairly common. I did push hands in JJJ as
a balance exercise. I prefer rolling however.

Fraser




29 Jun 2007 06:59:50
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 2:10 pm, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:
> "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183096406.889867.150010@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It seems you have missed the point however. See, at least Mark Evins
> > provided shaolin as a counter-example. Apparently there is also hard
> > data to suggest that other forms of kung fu can have similar benefits
> > to the ones I described. So there are really two courses of action
> > that I can see for you, if you want in on this discussion. You can
> > provide some hard data about medical studies done to determine the
> > benefits of misc. art X, or you can try to discover what the special
> > benefits of tai chi are over and above "regular" exercise. I'll give
> > you an idea, although I'm not sure if this is the direction you were
> > expecting - tai chi has benefits outside of what regular exercise
> > gives you because it is a high level martial art.
>
> Cite?
>
> Fraser

You can cite me :)

-



29 Jun 2007 17:20:12
Gernot Hassenpflug
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Fraser Johnston" <fraser@jcis.com.au > writes:

> "Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183097038.401136.6450@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
>>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in
>>> messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
>>> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
>>> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
>>> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>>>
>>> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>>>
>>> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet. /../
>>>
>>> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which
>>> I
>>> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
>>> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm
>>> all
>>> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a
>>> better
>>> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't
>>> train
>>> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>>>
>>> Fraser
>>
>> Oh one other thing, about the not training against a resisting
>> opponent aspect. That isn't true, a major component of taiji training
>> is training against a resisting opponent. It's called push hands.
>> Right? :)
>
> Not when I did it. Of course it is fairly common. I did push hands in JJJ as
> a balance exercise. I prefer rolling however.

I'd say push-hands in its simplest form is one step up from
solo-training (and from there on there are many levels). Rolling is
many levels more complex than the most basic push hands if one wanted
to continue using the specific mechanisms one is training in Tai Chi.
--
BOFH excuse #449:

greenpeace free'd the mallocs


29 Jun 2007 04:17:01
TimR
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Tai chi demands an uncritical belief in some concepts for which there
is little or no scientific evidence.

Therefore, it tends to attract people who have a higher capability for
accepting this kind of ambiguity. On a continuum from skeptical to
gullible, they will be past the halfway mark to the gullible side, and
not just for tai chi. Some of them will be all the way to the right.

So. Half of them will girls, and because of the gullibility factor
most of those will be easy. Happy hunting grounds for the male
seeking to take advantage.

If you can read music you can do better in a rock band, lots of
groupies. But if not, Tai Chi is not a bad way to get laid a lot.




29 Jun 2007 04:45:03
suds mcduff
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


> If you can read music you can do better in a rock band, lots of
> groupies.

----Since when do you have to read music to be in a rock band?

But if not, Tai Chi is not a bad way to get laid a lot.

-----I'll have to look into it. Judo falls are starting to take a
toll......




29 Jun 2007 13:26:04
GreenDistantStar
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 7:17 pm, TimR <timothy...@aol.com > wrote:
> Tai chi demands an uncritical belief in some concepts for which there
> is little or no scientific evidence.
>
> Therefore, it tends to attract people who have a higher capability for
> accepting this kind of ambiguity. On a continuum from skeptical to
> gullible, they will be past the halfway mark to the gullible side, and
> not just for tai chi. Some of them will be all the way to the right.
>
> So. Half of them will girls, and because of the gullibility factor
> most of those will be easy. Happy hunting grounds for the male
> seeking to take advantage.
>
> If you can read music you can do better in a rock band, lots of
> groupies. But if not, Tai Chi is not a bad way to get laid a lot.

The theory sounds good, is there any empirical evidence?

<NB: bangin' Wannabe's mom doesn't count >

GDS

"Let's roll!"



29 Jun 2007 13:51:03
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 4:20 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@nict.go.jp > wrote:
> "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> writes:
> > "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1183097038.401136.6450@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
> >>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >>> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
> >>> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
> >>> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
> >>> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> >>> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> >>> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet. /../
>
> >>> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which
> >>> I
> >>> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
> >>> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm
> >>> all
> >>> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a
> >>> better
> >>> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't
> >>> train
> >>> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>
> >>> Fraser
>
> >> Oh one other thing, about the not training against a resisting
> >> opponent aspect. That isn't true, a major component of taiji training
> >> is training against a resisting opponent. It's called push hands.
> >> Right? :)
>
> > Not when I did it. Of course it is fairly common. I did push hands in JJJ as
> > a balance exercise. I prefer rolling however.
>
> I'd say push-hands in its simplest form is one step up from
> solo-training (and from there on there are many levels). Rolling is
> many levels more complex than the most basic push hands if one wanted
> to continue using the specific mechanisms one is training in Tai Chi.
> --
> BOFH excuse #449:
>
> greenpeace free'd the mallocs

Well, to make sure we're on the same page - push hands is supposed to
mean "tui shou" - no tone marks on usenet, but saying "tui shou" is
pretty specific, specific enough to look up the tone marks I guess.

What's rolling? o_O

-



29 Jun 2007 13:52:29
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 7:17 pm, TimR <timothy...@aol.com > wrote:
> Tai chi demands an uncritical belief in some concepts for which there
> is little or no scientific evidence.

No it doesn't. Who told you that?

> Therefore, it tends to attract people who have a higher capability for
> accepting this kind of ambiguity. On a continuum from skeptical to
> gullible, they will be past the halfway mark to the gullible side, and
> not just for tai chi. Some of them will be all the way to the right.

> So. Half of them will girls, and because of the gullibility factor
> most of those will be easy. Happy hunting grounds for the male
> seeking to take advantage.

Lol, point taken, I guess that's one reason I detest wet noodle
schools of tai chi.

> If you can read music you can do better in a rock band, lots of
> groupies. But if not, Tai Chi is not a bad way to get laid a lot.

Can't say I agree or disagree, but it's an interesting conclusion :)

-



29 Jun 2007 14:02:37
GreenDistantStar
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:

> What's rolling? o_O

The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....

GDS

"Let's roll!"




29 Jun 2007 14:08:22
Shuurai
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 28, 7:05 pm, Supreme Ultimate Fist
<supremeultimatef...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:43 pm, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>
> > First, there's the claim that it's a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.
> > Is it? Why/Why not?
>
> Yes it is. Why? Because a good practitioner is essentially a very
> strong grappler with an alarming ability to hit *extremely* hard in a
> clinch with any part of the body. See recently posted videos of Chen
> Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc.

How many tai chi people people other than Chen Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc
actually become strong grapplers with alarming abilities to hit
extremely hard from the clinch? In fact, how many tai chi people
become even basically competant grapplers with an ability to hit at
all from the clinch?

> > Second, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi increases... "Chi."
> > Is this even possible since Chi doesn't really exist?(1)
>
> Well, the purpose of doing Tai Chi is not to increase your "chi", it's
> to be able to break bits of people. Increasing your "chi" lets you do
> Tai Chi better. "Chi" is a name for a set of subtle physiological
> things that are not imaginary, probably having something to do with
> the fascia and other stuff, but have not been much studied yet in that
> combination by science.

So it's not that first thing that nobody can actually measure or
explain, it's that second thing that nobody can actually measure or
explain... :b

> > Third, there's the claim that the practice of Tai Chi improves health.
> > Does it? How so? Does it make the practitioner less vulnerable to
> > illness or something?
>
> Some people claim that. Also, it's good for lowering blood pressure,
> but not more so than yoga. Mainly it improves health in the way doing
> any hard exercise regularly improves health.

Fair enough.



29 Jun 2007 09:09:12
Matthew Weigel
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

mark.evins@gmail.com wrote:

> -at http://www.austinkungfu.com/view_details.asp?ID_page=8&ID_cell=57&ID=161&s_type_sub=testimonial&b_buyable=False&n_size=5
>
> So..... how is your tai chi different?

That reminds me, are you still coming by Austin every so often? :-)
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker
unique & idempot.ent


29 Jun 2007 14:10:35
Shuurai
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 28, 10:11 pm, "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com > wrote:
> on 2007-06-28 16:43 Kirk Lawson said the following:
>
> > Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
> > Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> TAIJI
> HuH! Yeah.
> What is it good for?
> Absolutely nothing.
> say it again y'all

I just heard that song this morning, and was going to post the same
thing. You thunder stealing bastard. :b



29 Jun 2007 14:14:08
Shuurai
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 7:45 am, suds mcduff <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > If you can read music you can do better in a rock band, lots of
> > groupies.
>
> ----Since when do you have to read music to be in a rock band?

Real rock bands kick the shit out of posers who read music :b



29 Jun 2007 15:00:03
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's rolling? o_O
>
> The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"

Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
just don't have any applicability to the question.

-



29 Jun 2007 08:27:41
Scary
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 9:53 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:
> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
>
> > Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> > Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet.
>
> Fraser

See it's working isnt it!



29 Jun 2007 08:28:21
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 9:09 am, Matthew Weigel <nospamuse...@idempot.net > wrote:
> mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > -athttp://www.austinkungfu.com/view_details.asp?ID_page=8&ID_cell=57&ID=...
>
> > So..... how is your tai chi different?
>
> That reminds me, are you still coming by Austin every so often? :-)

Yes, I do. About every three months I make it down there. Last time
was May, next time will be August tho I don't have dates on that,
yet.

> --
> Matthew Weigel
> hacker
> unique & idempot.ent




29 Jun 2007 09:31:15
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > GDS
>
> > "Let's roll!"
>
> Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> just don't have any applicability to the question.

You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.

> -




29 Jun 2007 16:36:29
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > > GDS
>
> > > "Let's roll!"
>
> > Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> > learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> > just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> > -

In this case I would say no - I'm giving Gernot some respect on this
because he's never given me any reason to doubt him.

A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
mention of "rolling hands" - and I am perfectly willing to admit there
are such named training exercises I'm unaware of.

If it turns out Gernot was referring to randori-like exercises, or
judo-like throws, or groundfighting or anything like that, I'd be
sorely disappointed in him that he would make that kind of error in
judgement. Unless of course he's just referring to sparring with
grapplers, in which case I guess I could agree, sorta :p to a limited
extent, anyways.

-



29 Jun 2007 09:58:42
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 11:36 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > > > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > > > GDS
>
> > > > "Let's roll!"
>
> > > Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> > > learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> > > just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> > > -
>
> In this case I would say no - I'm giving Gernot some respect on this
> because he's never given me any reason to doubt him.

Ok. I'll accept that.

Context is the key here: Fraser mentioned that he'd "..rather be
rolling" as compared to doing push hands.
Gernot explained that push hands has a built in system in which it
becomes more difficult as one's skill advances. He then went on to
comment that "rolling" is many levels more complex than the most basic
push-hands.

You asked what "rolling" is.

Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
"listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.



> A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
> mention of "rolling hands" - and I am perfectly willing to admit there
> are such named training exercises I'm unaware of.
>
> If it turns out Gernot was referring to randori-like exercises, or
> judo-like throws, or groundfighting or anything like that, I'd be
> sorely disappointed in him that he would make that kind of error in
> judgement. Unless of course he's just referring to sparring with
> grapplers, in which case I guess I could agree, sorta :p to a limited
> extent, anyways.
>
> -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




29 Jun 2007 11:06:37
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Shuurai" <Shuurai11@hotmail.com > wrote
> How many tai chi people people other than Chen Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc
> actually become strong grapplers with alarming abilities to hit
> extremely hard from the clinch? In fact, how many tai chi people
> become even basically competant grapplers with an ability to hit at
> all from the clinch?

More all the time as the martial aspect of taiji is more emphasized than the
forma.
The Chen Family 'tigers' only started coming to the West a couple of decades
ago- at that, they played to very select audiences, and cost a lot of money
to see. Over the years, they've generated a lot more students, by granting
an easier access. In addition to that, as they have to maintain the
attention of dedicated students, their practice methods and 'reasoning' have
become more 'filled out' than ever before in the Western world.
You can thank people like Mike Sigman for qualifying to study under the real
deal.
I don't know where you were all this time, but the Gracies were not the
first time people saw a grappler- or a well-conditioned athlete, for that
matter.

> So it's not that first thing that nobody can actually measure or
> explain, it's that second thing that nobody can actually measure or
> explain... :b

I can't even quite understand why 'measuring' and 'explaining' are all that
necessary to a martial practitioner. I've heard you guys get all worked up
about how to express a punch in a mathematical equation- and then get all
huffy about what variables had to be included in the math soas to express
all the variables inherent in punching-
fucking hilarious.
The reality is that they hit harder than anyone I've ever experienced in a
life of martial study. They walk out of grappling applications just as
roughly, if they want to hurt you. They have some martial skills that are
very attractive, if you actually fight for a living- as they have for some
350 years.
They have 800,000,000 people fully convinced that they rule fighting skills-
have had that reputation, in a nation of fighters, for centuries.
They do so well, that the only other Tie Cheezers tried to learn by
mimicking them- and that don't work half bad in itself.
If you just do the quigong aspect, as with any other pentjak application,
there are common benefits; exercise targeting the whole body, 'centering'
the mind/body connection, breathing aspects; all that.

>> Some people claim that. Also, it's good for lowering blood pressure,
>> but not more so than yoga. Mainly it improves health in the way doing
>> any hard exercise regularly improves health.
> Fair enough.

Actually, an interesting offshoot of using martial movement systems for that
exercise is doubly beneficial.
There is a school of thought that maintains the practice of martial movement
will 'express itself' in action when the subconscious mind perceives a
hazard. It was widely held by students of Marshal Ho's variant of Yang
practice. My first tie chee teacher, Rita Williams, used to walk around the
bad parts of town in the hopes of being attacked. As she was a very large
black woman, I don't think anybody ever actually bothered her. <g >

Chas




29 Jun 2007 17:36:13
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 12:58 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 11:36 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > > > > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > > > > GDS
>
> > > > > "Let's roll!"
>
> > > > Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> > > > learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> > > > just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> > > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> > > > -
>
> > In this case I would say no - I'm giving Gernot some respect on this
> > because he's never given me any reason to doubt him.
>
> Ok. I'll accept that.
>
> Context is the key here: Fraser mentioned that he'd "..rather be
> rolling" as compared to doing push hands.
> Gernot explained that push hands has a built in system in which it
> becomes more difficult as one's skill advances. He then went on to
> comment that "rolling" is many levels more complex than the most basic
> push-hands.
>
> You asked what "rolling" is.
>
> Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
> highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
> opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
> "listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
> responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
> relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.
>
> > A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
> > mention of "rolling hands" - and I am perfectly willing to admit there
> > are such named training exercises I'm unaware of.
>
> > If it turns out Gernot was referring to randori-like exercises, or
> > judo-like throws, or groundfighting or anything like that, I'd be
> > sorely disappointed in him that he would make that kind of error in
> > judgement. Unless of course he's just referring to sparring with
> > grapplers, in which case I guess I could agree, sorta :p to a limited
> > extent, anyways.
>
> > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Oh in that case I'll agree; 'rolling' is very much more complex. I
must say however, I find it sickeningly satisfying that agreeing to
this point can be done without giving any indication of what I mean by
more or less complex :0)

-



29 Jun 2007 10:45:34
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 12:36 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:58 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 11:36 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > > > > > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > > > > > GDS
>
> > > > > > "Let's roll!"
>
> > > > > Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> > > > > learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> > > > > just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> > > > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> > > > > -
>
> > > In this case I would say no - I'm giving Gernot some respect on this
> > > because he's never given me any reason to doubt him.
>
> > Ok. I'll accept that.
>
> > Context is the key here: Fraser mentioned that he'd "..rather be
> > rolling" as compared to doing push hands.
> > Gernot explained that push hands has a built in system in which it
> > becomes more difficult as one's skill advances. He then went on to
> > comment that "rolling" is many levels more complex than the most basic
> > push-hands.
>
> > You asked what "rolling" is.
>
> > Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
> > highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
> > opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
> > "listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
> > responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
> > relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.
>
> > > A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
> > > mention of "rolling hands" - and I am perfectly willing to admit there
> > > are such named training exercises I'm unaware of.
>
> > > If it turns out Gernot was referring to randori-like exercises, or
> > > judo-like throws, or groundfighting or anything like that, I'd be
> > > sorely disappointed in him that he would make that kind of error in
> > > judgement. Unless of course he's just referring to sparring with
> > > grapplers, in which case I guess I could agree, sorta :p to a limited
> > > extent, anyways.
>
> > > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh in that case I'll agree; 'rolling' is very much more complex. I
> must say however, I find it sickeningly satisfying that agreeing to
> this point can be done without giving any indication of what I mean by
> more or less complex :0)

Do you have to try to turn every post into a troll?
Is this some kind of obsessive/compulsive disorder that you haven't
successfully addressed yet?



> -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




29 Jun 2007 11:09:26
Shuurai
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> > How many tai chi people people other than Chen Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc
> > actually become strong grapplers with alarming abilities to hit
> > extremely hard from the clinch? In fact, how many tai chi people
> > become even basically competant grapplers with an ability to hit at
> > all from the clinch?
>
> More all the time as the martial aspect of taiji is more emphasized than the
> forma.

So where are all these people?

> The Chen Family 'tigers' only started coming to the West a couple of decades
> ago- at that, they played to very select audiences, and cost a lot of money
> to see. Over the years, they've generated a lot more students, by granting
> an easier access. In addition to that, as they have to maintain the
> attention of dedicated students, their practice methods and 'reasoning' have
> become more 'filled out' than ever before in the Western world.

A couple of decades ago... even if we assume a "select" audience,
surely there would be a few notables here in the West by now?

> You can thank people like Mike Sigman for qualifying to study under the real
> deal.

Mike should write more.

> I don't know where you were all this time, but the Gracies were not the
> first time people saw a grappler- or a well-conditioned athlete, for that
> matter.

Of course they were not. What does it have to do with tai chi?

> > So it's not that first thing that nobody can actually measure or
> > explain, it's that second thing that nobody can actually measure or
> > explain... :b
>
> I can't even quite understand why 'measuring' and 'explaining' are all that
> necessary to a martial practitioner. I've heard you guys get all worked up
> about how to express a punch in a mathematical equation- and then get all
> huffy about what variables had to be included in the math soas to express
> all the variables inherent in punching-

Because we don't see the need to apply a made-up concept like "chi" to
anything that is being done. Everything we do amounts to the human
body moving in accordance with physical law. "Chi" is just a make-
believe term people use in an attempt to explain the details they do
not yet have and explanation for.

> fucking hilarious.

I agree.

> The reality is that they hit harder than anyone I've ever experienced in a
> life of martial study. They walk out of grappling applications just as
> roughly, if they want to hurt you. They have some martial skills that are
> very attractive, if you actually fight for a living- as they have for some
> 350 years.

Who are they fighting for a living? Which of them has actually been
fighting actively in the past few decades; who are they fighting, and
where?

> They have 800,000,000 people fully convinced that they rule fighting skills-
> have had that reputation, in a nation of fighters, for centuries.

Most people see tai chi as something old people do - quite a lot of
people would find it hard to believe it's even considered a fighting
system. I've rarely heard anyone come close to saying that they
"rule" fighting skills.

> They do so well, that the only other Tie Cheezers tried to learn by
> mimicking them- and that don't work half bad in itself.

Same thing has happened to karate, tkd, the various kung fu styles,
silat, wrestling, jujutsu; most of the styles out there today are
copies of what someone else was doing. More often because it was
making money than anything else.



29 Jun 2007 13:01:44
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Shuurai" <Shuurai11@hotmail.com > wrote
>> More all the time as the martial aspect of taiji is more emphasized than
>> the
>> forma.
> So where are all these people?

Practicing taiji- some seem to be teaching it now.

> A couple of decades ago... even if we assume a "select" audience,
> surely there would be a few notables here in the West by now?

There are- considering that 'notables' is being known amongst a relatively
small group.

>> You can thank people like Mike Sigman for qualifying to study under the
>> real
>> deal.
> Mike should write more.

He has a huge body of work on the various nejia lists. He's published a
number of videos with good explanation, practice methods and demonstrations.

>> I don't know where you were all this time, but the Gracies were not the
>> first time people saw a grappler- or a well-conditioned athlete, for that
>> matter.
> Of course they were not. What does it have to do with tai chi?

The 'sudden appearance of a grappling sport' isn't much of a surprise for
them.

> Because we don't see the need to apply a made-up concept like "chi" to
> anything that is being done. Everything we do amounts to the human
> body moving in accordance with physical law. "Chi" is just a make-
> believe term people use in an attempt to explain the details they do
> not yet have and explanation for.

Not at all.
'Chi' is the only Chinese word you know; maybe 'kung fu', but you probably
don't have the translation right on that one either.
'Chi' is a very big word; like 'energy' or 'force'- you have to use
modifying words to more specifically describe *which aspect* of 'energy' or
'force' or 'power' or 'strength' you're talking about.
When you confront a 'generic' word with self-defining definitions, you can
rebut them any way you choose- it's your strawman, burn him as you will.

> Who are they fighting for a living? Which of them has actually been
> fighting actively in the past few decades; who are they fighting, and
> where?

I don't know the specifics of 'the past few decades', as I don't keep up
with them particularly. The competition to become one of the 'Ten Tigers of
Chenjiazhou' is very rigorous, for example.
In the case of my own teachers, all of them had killed men with their
skills- some of them on multiple occasions. Some of them had formal events,
some in wartime and slave camps, some in more ad hoc situations.

> Most people see tai chi as something old people do -

Yes; amongst the most popular exercises in the world.

> quite a lot of
> people would find it hard to believe it's even considered a fighting
> system. I've rarely heard anyone come close to saying that they
> "rule" fighting skills.

That's a matter of your own provincialty, no offense.

> Same thing has happened to karate, tkd, the various kung fu styles,
> silat, wrestling, jujutsu; most of the styles out there today are
> copies of what someone else was doing. More often because it was
> making money than anything else.

Silat has a strong tradition of people only practicing the 'pentjak'; the
choreography. There's a whole system of 'competition' between them, but it's
only in performance skills, kinda like 'kata competition'.
There is an old saying in Silat that it can only be felt, not seen; the
'kembang' is the 'flower' (what you can see in demonstration/performance),
and the 'buah' is the fruit of that flower- but one is not the other.

Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




30 Jun 2007 00:37:29
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 2:09 am, Shuurai <Shuura...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> > More all the time as the martial aspect of taiji is more emphasized than the
> > forma.
>
> So where are all these people?

Hello!

-



30 Jun 2007 00:38:12
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 1:45 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 12:36 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:58 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 11:36 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > > > > > > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > > > > > > GDS
>
> > > > > > > "Let's roll!"
>
> > > > > > Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> > > > > > learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> > > > > > just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> > > > > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> > > > > > -
>
> > > > In this case I would say no - I'm giving Gernot some respect on this
> > > > because he's never given me any reason to doubt him.
>
> > > Ok. I'll accept that.
>
> > > Context is the key here: Fraser mentioned that he'd "..rather be
> > > rolling" as compared to doing push hands.
> > > Gernot explained that push hands has a built in system in which it
> > > becomes more difficult as one's skill advances. He then went on to
> > > comment that "rolling" is many levels more complex than the most basic
> > > push-hands.
>
> > > You asked what "rolling" is.
>
> > > Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
> > > highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
> > > opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
> > > "listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
> > > responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
> > > relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.
>
> > > > A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
> > > > mention of "rolling hands" - and I am perfectly willing to admit there
> > > > are such named training exercises I'm unaware of.
>
> > > > If it turns out Gernot was referring to randori-like exercises, or
> > > > judo-like throws, or groundfighting or anything like that, I'd be
> > > > sorely disappointed in him that he would make that kind of error in
> > > > judgement. Unless of course he's just referring to sparring with
> > > > grapplers, in which case I guess I could agree, sorta :p to a limited
> > > > extent, anyways.
>
> > > > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Oh in that case I'll agree; 'rolling' is very much more complex. I
> > must say however, I find it sickeningly satisfying that agreeing to
> > this point can be done without giving any indication of what I mean by
> > more or less complex :0)
>
> Do you have to try to turn every post into a troll?
> Is this some kind of obsessive/compulsive disorder that you haven't
> successfully addressed yet?
>
> > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Oh, and saying that rolling is more complex than push hands isn't a
troll? Give me a break :p

-



29 Jun 2007 20:47:09
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:11:46 -0400, Jerry B. Altzman wrote:

> on 2007-06-28 16:43 Kirk Lawson said the following:
>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> TAIJI
> HuH! Yeah.
> What is it good for?
> Absolutely nothing.
> say it again y'all

I'm going to have to put on some They Might Be Giants to get the tune out
of my head now.


> sorry, just had that song go through my head.
> Taiji is fun, honest; I do it (VERY poorly!)

So it's good for fun. :-)

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



29 Jun 2007 20:47:09
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:05:56 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:

> On Jun 28, 10:43 pm, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>> First, there's the claim that it's a useful Self Defense/Fighting tool.
>> Is it? Why/Why not?
>
> Yes it is. Why? Because a good practitioner is essentially a very
> strong grappler with an alarming ability to hit *extremely* hard in a
> clinch with any part of the body. See recently posted videos of Chen
> Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc.

Can you proffer evidence that a TC practitioner is a "strong grappler" vrs
other well acknowledged grappling arts? Can you proffer evidence that a
TC practitioner can hit harder in the Clinch than, say, a boxer who trains
to do so and has a long history of the practice?

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



29 Jun 2007 19:29:54
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote
>>>>See recently posted videos of Chen
>> Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc.
> Can you proffer evidence that a TC practitioner is a "strong grappler" vrs
> other well acknowledged grappling arts? Can you proffer evidence that a
> TC practitioner can hit harder in the Clinch than, say, a boxer who trains
> to do so and has a long history of the practice?

He just did.
Obviously, if you don't believe yer lyin' eyes, you can seek them out and
present your own body for the experience.
If you don't believe anything that you don't, yourself, experience, you'll
need to be where it's being done by the people who do it.

Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




29 Jun 2007 22:22:52
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:31:15 -0700, mark.evins wrote:

> On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > What's rolling? o_O
>>
>> > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>>
>> > GDS
>>
>> > "Let's roll!"
>>
>> Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
>> learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
>> just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.

Of course he is. There's a *reason* we named the Richman Scale after him.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals: http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing
is lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise." -Chas
Speaking of rec.martial-arts



29 Jun 2007 22:53:02
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:29:54 -0600, Chas wrote:

> "Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote
>>>>>See recently posted videos of Chen
>>> Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc.
>> Can you proffer evidence that a TC practitioner is a "strong grappler" vrs
>> other well acknowledged grappling arts? Can you proffer evidence that a
>> TC practitioner can hit harder in the Clinch than, say, a boxer who trains
>> to do so and has a long history of the practice?
>
> He just did.

No he didn't. He dropped some names but no one in the general grappling
community with any cred is vouching for that statement. If I said that
some no-name fella could shoot in league with the Olympic Pistol team, or
was in the same league as the top combat handgun instructors, you might
want *someone* in those circles to vouch for the claim.


> Obviously, if you don't believe yer lyin' eyes, you can seek them out and
> present your own body for the experience.
> If you don't believe anything that you don't, yourself, experience, you'll
> need to be where it's being done by the people who do it.

I'll happily take the word of someone with some grappling cred. But
they're strangely silent. :P

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



29 Jun 2007 22:11:55
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote
>> He just did.
> No he didn't. He dropped some names but no one in the general grappling
> community with any cred is vouching for that statement.

So what is it you want?
To travel the countryside, playing a flute and challenging the local toughs?
If you want to see taiji, go where it's done. If you want to challenge it,
step up.

> If I said that
> some no-name fella could shoot in league with the Olympic Pistol team, or
> was in the same league as the top combat handgun instructors, you might
> want *someone* in those circles to vouch for the claim.

I'd drop by his shop and see what he's doing, not sit around and theorize
about what he might/could/ought be about.

> I'll happily take the word of someone with some grappling cred. But
> they're strangely silent. :P

Name one that's bothered to find out for himself.
use the space below:



Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




30 Jun 2007 04:56:12
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 10:22 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:

> > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> Of course he is. There's a *reason* we named the Richman Scale after him.

Because you lost.

If you "won", you wouldn't feel such a need to marginalize me, even in
my absence, by naming a scale of trolling after me.

Think about it.

-



30 Jun 2007 03:24:01
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 7:38 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 1:45 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 12:36 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 12:58 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 11:36 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 30, 12:31 am, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:00 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, GreenDistantStar <GreenDistantS...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 9:51 pm, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > What's rolling? o_O
>
> > > > > > > > The bit you wish you'd learned when it's all too late....
>
> > > > > > > > GDS
>
> > > > > > > > "Let's roll!"
>
> > > > > > > Erm sorry GDS, but I need a defenition from someone who actually
> > > > > > > learned tai chi. Your comments don't make any sense, basically they
> > > > > > > just don't have any applicability to the question.
>
> > > > > > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> > > > > > > -
>
> > > > > In this case I would say no - I'm giving Gernot some respect on this
> > > > > because he's never given me any reason to doubt him.
>
> > > > Ok. I'll accept that.
>
> > > > Context is the key here: Fraser mentioned that he'd "..rather be
> > > > rolling" as compared to doing push hands.
> > > > Gernot explained that push hands has a built in system in which it
> > > > becomes more difficult as one's skill advances. He then went on to
> > > > comment that "rolling" is many levels more complex than the most basic
> > > > push-hands.
>
> > > > You asked what "rolling" is.
>
> > > > Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
> > > > highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
> > > > opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
> > > > "listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
> > > > responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
> > > > relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.
>
> > > > > A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
> > > > > mention of "rolling hands" - and I am perfectly willing to admit there
> > > > > are such named training exercises I'm unaware of.
>
> > > > > If it turns out Gernot was referring to randori-like exercises, or
> > > > > judo-like throws, or groundfighting or anything like that, I'd be
> > > > > sorely disappointed in him that he would make that kind of error in
> > > > > judgement. Unless of course he's just referring to sparring with
> > > > > grapplers, in which case I guess I could agree, sorta :p to a limited
> > > > > extent, anyways.
>
> > > > > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Oh in that case I'll agree; 'rolling' is very much more complex. I
> > > must say however, I find it sickeningly satisfying that agreeing to
> > > this point can be done without giving any indication of what I mean by
> > > more or less complex :0)
>
> > Do you have to try to turn every post into a troll?
> > Is this some kind of obsessive/compulsive disorder that you haven't
> > successfully addressed yet?
>
> > > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh, and saying that rolling is more complex than push hands isn't a
> troll? Give me a break :p

Have you ever known Gernot to troll? Was any part of his brief post
about push hands and rolling in any way loaded with <wink wink nudge
nudge > statements?
No.
Yet, you could not simply respond to my explanation without making
such a sneer, obviously set up to troll for argument.

This is the very reason that you are so often summarily dismissed in
everything you say; you turn your posts, at every opportunity, into
this kind of <wink wink > sneer, baiting a hook so that you can argue,
twist your definitions, ignore context and make stupid remarks.


> -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




30 Jun 2007 13:54:34
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 6:24 pm, mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:

> No.

He said that rolling was more complex than push hands. When you think
about that, he's comparing exercises which have different purposes,
from different arts. No logical discussion can come of this.

> Yet, you could not simply respond to my explanation without making
> such a sneer, obviously set up to troll for argument.

I'm not the one trolling for an argument :)

> This is the very reason that you are so often summarily dismissed in
> everything you say; you turn your posts, at every opportunity, into
> this kind of <wink wink> sneer, baiting a hook so that you can argue,
> twist your definitions, ignore context and make stupid remarks.

Right-o, mark. And if I didn't tell you to tell me I knew nothing
about internal martial arts, you'd do it anyways.

-



30 Jun 2007 15:50:40
Matthew Weigel
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

mark.evins@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 9:09 am, Matthew Weigel <nospamuse...@idempot.net> wrote:
>> mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> -athttp://www.austinkungfu.com/view_details.asp?ID_page=8&ID_cell=57&ID=...
>>> So..... how is your tai chi different?
>> That reminds me, are you still coming by Austin every so often? :-)
>
> Yes, I do. About every three months I make it down there. Last time
> was May, next time will be August tho I don't have dates on that,
> yet.

Feel free to drop me a line next time you're in town; seems like I know a fair
number of folks at the Shaolin-Do school (including Bob Pendleton, actually)
at this point. Embarrassingly, my cell phone number hasn't changed since I
last accidentally posted it to Usenet ;-)
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker
unique & idempot.ent


01 Jul 2007 13:01:05
xiaou2
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


I have to say, I find this absolutely hilarious...


> You asked what "rolling" is.
>
> Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
> highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
> opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
> "listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
> responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
> relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.

...Why? Because Push Hands can be defined almost the same
exact way, if not word for word. The ignorance almost
stuns me. I feel complete pity for sure.


The only difference? One is standing, and one is not.


Tai Chi may look simplistic from a certain point of
view. However, at its true depths, you realize its
true power and abilities. However, many never get past
the baby steps to ever find out. And or sadly, people are
not taught properly.

I can tell right away that Frasier was not taught well,
as I recall doing a simple Tai Chi "Drill" of movment that
litterally ignited my knees and legs within a few
minutes time. There is a Huge difference between doing
something, and doing it correctly.

While Push Hands is a little limited in real application,
it has within it some very Powerful and fully working
concepts. (that can be applied in real applications)

You must know when to be hard, soft, which directions to
move what parts, maintain ballance, feel oppositions
forces and directions.. To see weaknesses and even
feel weaknesses in thier stuctures (including your
own) To be able to react in a miliseconds notice of
sensing a weakness, to use in order to off-balance, attack,
redirect,etc. To know deeply and to be able to use
various leverage systems, and balance triggers. To be able
to use almost Zero effort or movment, being more relaxed at
all times (gaining effeciency, more speed,
and more power this way), and change energy
directions as they come in, and deleiver a crushing blow
afterwords, should there be that opening. (and if done correct,
there should be)

If anything, Tai Chi is Much more complex than rolling.

It takes more skill to maintain ballances upright. More
ability to redirect powerful attacks. More Specific training
methods to aquire the skills as well as the amazing strike
power. Training in Upright grappling, locks, interceptions,
redirections, strikes in all ranges. Training in accute
sensativity and the reactional paths. Ability to set up,
read, and coherse reactions from the enemy. And much more.



One time, I played a little game of push hands with a much
larger artists. I was shown the basic hand positions and
general movments before... but never the full system of
how things work and why.

We both were fairly equal with wins and losses as far
as I recall. Id push him at the right moment... and he
would have to take a big step and lose. Or he would pull me,
and I would step off ballance. But something amazing
was about to happen...

I was starting to understand how some things were
working. It was almost on an sub-concious level...
and working its way to the surface...

If i can remember correctly, this is what happened:

- He overpowered my left arm as to create an opening
at my chest

- His opposite hand was on top and 'inside' of my
other arm... so as to have a clear path to my chest.

- He shoots his Left Palm out twords my chest. But,
as he's doing this, I quickly lock my hand to his elbow.

- As He Hits me nearly if not dead center in my chest,
you could hear a Loud "THUD!" But, as it happened.. or
a split second afterwords, I quickly pivoted my body to
the side.

- When he had hit me, his forces were changed, because
I was gripping his elbow. They canceled most of his
forces out... because his forward push - just made me Pull
him.

- After I turned, that Pull energy that He unknowingly
gave me, propelled him forwards at great speed.

- As he moved into me, I pulled his elbow on the way in,
thus speeding him even more. Also, as he came past me,
I used my other hand to push his back. The angle of my
stance made him miss my body, and he litterally flew
past me.

He stood confused, and amazed, nearly 15ft away
from me! I too, was pretty shocked. I never thought
something like that was possible. I dont think I could
have repeated it either. It was absolute perfection of
just the right movements and energies at just the right
moments. After that, and after we both tried to
understand what the hell happened...
he didnt want to play anymore!

(he said something like: "I hit you hard!!!, but then
it was like I you werent even there!"


And that was Nothing. A good player would be able to
do this sort of thing on every incomming blow. Fighting
such a person would be almost like trying to fight
something made of water... where it just slips away from
you somehow... and your left all wet in the process somehow.
Ohh, and get him mad... and you get the 100ft tall Tidle wave.


Push Hands is not a Fighting System. Its a training
tool. But when used and with other advanced knowledge and
training, becomes a very serious weapon and or protection. A
skill that is in comparison 'lightyears' above the
'typical' simplistic fighter.




>> A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
>> mention of "rolling hands"


Rolling Hands, or 'Chi-Sao' is similar to Push Hands. It comes
from the Wing Chun system. It shares the same goals as being
soft, effortless, and to use the oppositions energies
(among other things).

However, its motions or "circles" are "tighter". It uses
less pushing and off-balancing, and more strikeing and
blocking. It goes much further than that alone.. but that
should be enough to get one to explore it should
there be interests.



Anyway, no matter what art, there are always the similarities
there. As martial arts is pure science. The question is:

If you cant see the similarites in 2 different arts, just
how good of an Artist do you think you really are?





01 Jul 2007 13:44:37
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 1, 9:01 pm, xiaou2 <xia...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> If anything, Tai Chi is Much more complex than rolling.

Depends how you think about it. You say "tai chi" and considered as a
whole, you are obviously correct. "Tai Chi" requires a concentrated
effort to unify body and mind orders of magnitude above what you get
in "rolling" as rolling has been described. But if you mean push hands
(which is the subject of the comparison AFAIK) then push hands is
actually more simple. It is for all intents and purpose a
choreographed exercise, however, this is an oversimplification, there
is in fact a free aspect to it which is slowly introduced, even from
the very beginning. Right? When it becomes more complex than rolling
is when it becomes free sparring.

> It takes more skill to maintain ballances upright.

This is both fortunately and unfortuntely true. Fortunately because if
you can maintain your standing posture you will win, unfortunately
because it takes more time to learn to fight this way.

> One time, I played a little game of push hands with a much
> larger artists. I was shown the basic hand positions and
> general movments before... but never the full system of
> how things work and why.

Yeah I remember teaching push hands to this shotokan guy, he went
flying. He never came back. Taiji and similar arts aren't for
everyone. If someone has too much mental baggage-well-it's not that
they can't learn, it's that they won't want to.

> I was starting to understand how some things were
> working. It was almost on an sub-concious level...
> and working its way to the surface...
>
> If i can remember correctly, this is what happened:
>
> - He overpowered my left arm as to create an opening
> at my chest
>
> - His opposite hand was on top and 'inside' of my
> other arm... so as to have a clear path to my chest.
>
> - He shoots his Left Palm out twords my chest. But,
> as he's doing this, I quickly lock my hand to his elbow.
>
> - As He Hits me nearly if not dead center in my chest,
> you could hear a Loud "THUD!" But, as it happened.. or
> a split second afterwords, I quickly pivoted my body to
> the side.
>
> - When he had hit me, his forces were changed, because
> I was gripping his elbow. They canceled most of his
> forces out... because his forward push - just made me Pull
> him.
>
> - After I turned, that Pull energy that He unknowingly
> gave me, propelled him forwards at great speed.

Sounds a lot like what happened to the shotokan guy I mentioned.

> - As he moved into me, I pulled his elbow on the way in,
> thus speeding him even more. Also, as he came past me,
> I used my other hand to push his back. The angle of my
> stance made him miss my body, and he litterally flew
> past me.

:)

> He stood confused, and amazed, nearly 15ft away
> from me! I too, was pretty shocked.

One of the major problems is that wrestlers, etc. just assume "well, I
can get a leg lock or something" (to paraphrase GDS). What they don't
get is that all of this happens *during transition*. If you lost your
balance it's too late, you simply won't be *able* to move in such a
way. Was your opponent able to turn around in mid flight and grab you
so that he would not be 15 feet away? Was he able to stop himself in
the middle of the hit once he had committed to it? Of course not!

> I never thought
> something like that was possible. I dont think I could
> have repeated it either.

Sure you can. Just practice more push hands, with more and more
skilled opponents. If we could practice, we could try to introduce
those kinds of energies you experienced into the push hands. It may be
a little different in yang style, but fajing is a little more visible
in the chen forms, we could even create push hands exercises based on
combat applications, to cater to any kind of approach you're looking
for. You should have a look into this kind of experimentation
yourself, choreograph it with a partner then slowly open it up. That's
the only way to know for sure. You shouldn't give up on such a rich
and interesting gem as this. What else would you do with your time?

> It was absolute perfection of
> just the right movements and energies at just the right
> moments. After that, and after we both tried to
> understand what the hell happened...
> he didnt want to play anymore!

Right.

> (he said something like: "I hit you hard!!!, but then
> it was like I you werent even there!"
>
> And that was Nothing. A good player would be able to
> do this sort of thing on every incomming blow.

Well maybe not EVERY blow, but enough to turn the odds strongly in his
favor :) Let's not overestimate ourselves now.

> Fighting
> such a person would be almost like trying to fight
> something made of water... where it just slips away from
> you somehow... and your left all wet in the process somehow.
> Ohh, and get him mad... and you get the 100ft tall Tidle wave.
>
> Push Hands is not a Fighting System. Its a training
> tool. But when used and with other advanced knowledge and
> training, becomes a very serious weapon and or protection. A
> skill that is in comparison 'lightyears' above the
> 'typical' simplistic fighter.

Given that YES, some sensitivity is trained in grappling work, this
isn't entirely a true statement. Where taiji (for example) comes in
ahead of grappling/rolling is in the "whole body" aspect of it.
Unfortunately you cannot simply put taiji's theory of the whole body
into grappling because it does not fit - it would require a massive
paradigm shift at the basic training level which is inconsistent with
how most rollers (MMA people) want to practice.

In short, even if they believed in it, even if they wanted it, they
wouldn't enjoy doing it and they would just keep rolling the way they
always did. It's what they know and it works for them.

> >> A cursory internet search on google did in fact turn up links to
> >> mention of "rolling hands"
>
> Rolling Hands, or 'Chi-Sao' is similar to Push Hands. It comes
> from the Wing Chun system. It shares the same goals as being
> soft, effortless, and to use the oppositions energies
> (among other things).

Actually chi sao means sticky hands IIRC, rolling hands that I
mentioned seems to have been used in place of push hands. the tui in
tui shou isn't as standard as some think, you can also say da shou, ka
shou, etc. and it means the same basic thing.

> However, its motions or "circles" are "tighter". It uses
> less pushing and off-balancing, and more strikeing and
> blocking. It goes much further than that alone.. but that
> should be enough to get one to explore it should
> there be interests.

Chi sao in wing chun is categorically different than tui shou in tai
chi. Many, many arts, incl. hung gar, preying mantis, monkey boxing,
etc. all have sensitivity training. In fact I would go so far as to
make the rather bold claim that any art which survived the 17th
century had sensitivity training exercises similar to chi sao/tui
shou. A punch is a punch, it's like a technology.

> Anyway, no matter what art, there are always the similarities
> there. As martial arts is pure science.

Right.

> The question is:
> If you cant see the similarites in 2 different arts, just
> how good of an Artist do you think you really are?

Probably not very good. It's when you *also* can see the differences
that you enter the door :p and at that point you give up all the
variations and focus on the one art you feel you need the most.

-



02 Jul 2007 08:13:37
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


<mark.evins@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183139134.651214.46140@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Do you have to try to turn every post into a troll?
> Is this some kind of obsessive/compulsive disorder that you haven't
> successfully addressed yet?

Our scale for rating trolls is named after him. A bit of a hint.

Fraser




02 Jul 2007 08:44:01
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"xiaou2" <xiaou2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Xns99605BBF67B3Axiaou2hotmailcom@66.250.146.128...

> I can tell right away that Frasier was not taught well,
> as I recall doing a simple Tai Chi "Drill" of movment that
> litterally ignited my knees and legs within a few
> minutes time. There is a Huge difference between doing
> something, and doing it correctly.

Maybe I was just fitter than you?

Fraser




02 Jul 2007 03:25:06
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 2, 8:13 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:
> <mark.ev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183139134.651214.46140@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Do you have to try to turn every post into a troll?
> > Is this some kind of obsessive/compulsive disorder that you haven't
> > successfully addressed yet?
>
> Our scale for rating trolls is named after him. A bit of a hint.
>
> Fraser

Since you seem to attack any topic which relates to traditional
martial arts, it would seem the "Richman" scale is no more than an
indication that traditional martial arts is the topic of discussion.
Of course you would call it a troll. But you have to wonder why you
are saying such a thing in this thread, when I have obviously been the
#1 contributor of reliable information on this thread so far. Let's
see, eight videos, two rundowns, not to mention my ignoring mark's
obvious troll for a flamewar.. not to mention my undeserved
explanation to you... And here I am, with yet more information for you
(see previous post). Richman scale hah!

If I wasn't here, no one else would answer your questions about tai
chi. Really. The only reason mark is posting is because I goaded him
into it.

Now if only goading was allowed on the qijin forums :/

-



02 Jul 2007 03:36:55
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 2, 8:44 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au > wrote:
> "xiaou2" <xia...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns99605BBF67B3Axiaou2hotmailcom@66.250.146.128...
>
> > I can tell right away that Frasier was not taught well,
> > as I recall doing a simple Tai Chi "Drill" of movment that
> > litterally ignited my knees and legs within a few
> > minutes time. There is a Huge difference between doing
> > something, and doing it correctly.
>
> Maybe I was just fitter than you?
>
> Fraser

Maybe. And then again, maybe not. Given that tai chi requires orders
of magnitude more stamina than simple rolling, I'd be inclined to
believe not. There is a very good reason I've come to this conclusion
as delineated below.

Tai chi is not about using all your strength and getting gassed. If it
was that simple, anyone could do it. It's about NOT getting gassed.
However, to get to that point you have to gas every part of your body
at the same time. This is exceptionally difficult for a MMA guy mainly
due to what a MMA guy thinks getting gassed means versus what a taiji
guy thinks getting gassed means.

If you snap and gas only a part of your body, or worse give up - then
you have failed at tai chi and you have to start all over again.

In tai chi there is no spot training, however if one part of the body
is weaker it will naturally snap before the others. So although it is
not spot training, it also is, but it is never viewed as spot training-
only as part of this unified whole. In this manner, over time there
will be no blockages of qi, this means that there will be no
discrepancies.

Then something happens, it connects with the theory.

You have wuji.

>From wuji comes taiji.

There is one principle, in stillness it is whole, in movement it is
separate.

Everything moves in spirals. How do I know? Because it has to; if it
didn't, then the qi would break. This means one part of your body
would be gassed before the others.

So this is why the training can't fit into rolling, rolling implies a
break of the qi even before you are on the ground, and can't even be
performed at all at the beginner level with an unbroken qi.

So if you don't let your qi break you can't be taken down. When
explained this way it makes perfect logical sense, although it is a
big if, isn't it? :) It's not about "we don't know if it will work".
It DOES work. The question is, how can you train your qi so that it is
strong enough to deal with that sort of attack. It is no longer an if
but a how.

So thats the theoretical difference. While you are rolling around, you
don't realize that it's an improper method of training so that you may
be a better groundfighter later on(!) It just looks and feels that way
for a very long time. Maybe even more than a lifetime.

-



02 Jul 2007 06:39:47
xiaou2
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


> Maybe I was just fitter than you?
>
> Fraser


Heya Fraser,

Certainly, you may have been.. but just to be sure,
Lets try an example, and you can tell me how
it went ok?

I will show you 2 versions of the same excercise. If
you do it the wrong way, it will be easy. Do it right,
and it should be very challenging and somewhat painful.

(You will need to find a clock with a second hand,
or a stopwatch, or a person to let you know when
time is up. Also, if you can, a small pastic cup
or plate.. ect. Some object that can be ballanced
easily - but if falls, wont break)


Do this way first:

1) Start out with both feet together.

2) Raise your knee up so that its level
with your hips. The rest of the leg can just
hang down loosely. Lock out the opposite legs
knee so that it is perfectly straight.

3) You want it level like a table surface,
and then place a small plate/obj. near
the end of your knee.

(The point of the object, is that you want
to keep the surface level at all times. If
it falls, have someone reset it for you... or
just forget about it. Just be aware that as you
stand there... your leg may start to drop, and
you have to correct and raise it back to level)

4) Stay there in ballance 2 minutes time. Its ok
if you sway back and forth.. and you might even cramp,
but do NOT put the leg down durring that time. Hop
arround if you have to, to get back in ballance.

5) After set down.. Shake it loose. Make sure to
note how it felt durring the test. Also, if someone
is there, have them note at what exact time they saw
you haveing trouble with ballance and maintaining a
perfect level leg surface.


--- That should have been fairly easy ---

Now, lets try it again... but this time:

1) Start out with both heels together. Then point
both toes out at 45 degree angles away from each other.
(IE: Left toe points twords 10 and right points
twords 2 - on a clock)

2) Raise the opposite legs knee up to level.

3) BEND your post legs knee so that your
body lowers about 3". Your hanging legs
heel should be parallel to your post legs
knee. (unless maybe your legs are differnt
proportions than mine?)

The main point, is that your post leg needs
to be in a deep bend. It should be a little
uncomfortable, and probably hard for many to
maintain. You must be careful, because in time
you may start to raise your body so that the
knee is not bent deep enough. You must correct
this immediately, or you are not doing the
excercise correctly, and will not benefit
fully.

4) The rest of its the same. Note the after
effects. Post your results / experience please.


If you are in great shape leg-wise and do not
feel much at all, and have perfect ballance
in the deep knee stance... then increase the
time durration untill you do experience
ballance problems, fatigue, pains..etc.

In one place I was at, we started at 2min per
leg, and upped it to 3 later on. Took quite
a while, but eventully, my leg was stable as
oak for the entire 3 min time.

Why is this so important?

Because when you do any sort of kicking,
you need ultimate stability so that you maintain
perfect energy direction, transmission, no loss
of power nor problems with your ballance should
you miss, be blocked, etc. Also, even small things
such as footwork will be enhanced. Faster, more
stable, and able to use these to deleiver more
powerful attacks.

If the Tai Chi drills are done properly, at first,
it should be painful and stressfull.

I imagine Yoga is somwhat similar, though Ive not had
the pleasure to partake in that as of yet.


Laters,
Steve
:)



02 Jul 2007 14:46:27
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"xiaou2" <xiaou2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Xns99611B1B38B92xiaou2hotmailcom@66.250.146.128...
>
>> Maybe I was just fitter than you?
>>
>> Fraser
>
>
> Heya Fraser,
>
> Certainly, you may have been.. but just to be sure,
> Lets try an example, and you can tell me how
> it went ok?
>
> I will show you 2 versions of the same excercise. If
> you do it the wrong way, it will be easy. Do it right,
> and it should be very challenging and somewhat painful.
>
> (You will need to find a clock with a second hand,
> or a stopwatch, or a person to let you know when
> time is up. Also, if you can, a small pastic cup
> or plate.. ect. Some object that can be ballanced
> easily - but if falls, wont break)
>
>
> Do this way first:
>
> 1) Start out with both feet together.
>
> 2) Raise your knee up so that its level
> with your hips. The rest of the leg can just
> hang down loosely. Lock out the opposite legs
> knee so that it is perfectly straight.
>
> 3) You want it level like a table surface,
> and then place a small plate/obj. near
> the end of your knee.
>
> (The point of the object, is that you want
> to keep the surface level at all times. If
> it falls, have someone reset it for you... or
> just forget about it. Just be aware that as you
> stand there... your leg may start to drop, and
> you have to correct and raise it back to level)
>
> 4) Stay there in ballance 2 minutes time. Its ok
> if you sway back and forth.. and you might even cramp,
> but do NOT put the leg down durring that time. Hop
> arround if you have to, to get back in ballance.
>
> 5) After set down.. Shake it loose. Make sure to
> note how it felt durring the test. Also, if someone
> is there, have them note at what exact time they saw
> you haveing trouble with ballance and maintaining a
> perfect level leg surface.
>
>
> --- That should have been fairly easy ---
>
> Now, lets try it again... but this time:
>
> 1) Start out with both heels together. Then point
> both toes out at 45 degree angles away from each other.
> (IE: Left toe points twords 10 and right points
> twords 2 - on a clock)
>
> 2) Raise the opposite legs knee up to level.
>
> 3) BEND your post legs knee so that your
> body lowers about 3". Your hanging legs
> heel should be parallel to your post legs
> knee. (unless maybe your legs are differnt
> proportions than mine?)
>
> The main point, is that your post leg needs
> to be in a deep bend. It should be a little
> uncomfortable, and probably hard for many to
> maintain. You must be careful, because in time
> you may start to raise your body so that the
> knee is not bent deep enough. You must correct
> this immediately, or you are not doing the
> excercise correctly, and will not benefit
> fully.
>
> 4) The rest of its the same. Note the after
> effects. Post your results / experience please.
>
>
> If you are in great shape leg-wise and do not
> feel much at all, and have perfect ballance
> in the deep knee stance... then increase the
> time durration untill you do experience
> ballance problems, fatigue, pains..etc.
>
> In one place I was at, we started at 2min per
> leg, and upped it to 3 later on. Took quite
> a while, but eventully, my leg was stable as
> oak for the entire 3 min time.
>
> Why is this so important?
>
> Because when you do any sort of kicking,
> you need ultimate stability so that you maintain
> perfect energy direction, transmission, no loss
> of power nor problems with your ballance should
> you miss, be blocked, etc. Also, even small things
> such as footwork will be enhanced. Faster, more
> stable, and able to use these to deleiver more
> powerful attacks.
>
> If the Tai Chi drills are done properly, at first,
> it should be painful and stressfull.
>
> I imagine Yoga is somwhat similar, though Ive not had
> the pleasure to partake in that as of yet.
>
>
> Laters,
> Steve


I'll give it a try and let you know. Can't be worse than leg pressing hundreds
of kilos. In response to your other message it is good to hear you are ok.
Sorry to hear about you losing your job without getting the satisfaction of
punching the guy. And good luck with the girl. Lifes always more interesting
with women involved.

Fraser




02 Jul 2007 07:33:49
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 2, 2:39 pm, xiaou2 <xia...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > Maybe I was just fitter than you?
>
> > Fraser
>
> Heya Fraser,
>
> Certainly, you may have been.. but just to be sure,
> Lets try an example, and you can tell me how
> it went ok?
>
> I will show you 2 versions of the same excercise. If
> you do it the wrong way, it will be easy. Do it right,
> and it should be very challenging and somewhat painful.
>
> (You will need to find a clock with a second hand,
> or a stopwatch, or a person to let you know when
> time is up. Also, if you can, a small pastic cup
> or plate.. ect. Some object that can be ballanced
> easily - but if falls, wont break)
>
> Do this way first:
>
> 1) Start out with both feet together.
>
> 2) Raise your knee up so that its level
> with your hips. The rest of the leg can just
> hang down loosely. Lock out the opposite legs
> knee so that it is perfectly straight.
>
> 3) You want it level like a table surface,
> and then place a small plate/obj. near
> the end of your knee.
>
> (The point of the object, is that you want
> to keep the surface level at all times. If
> it falls, have someone reset it for you... or
> just forget about it. Just be aware that as you
> stand there... your leg may start to drop, and
> you have to correct and raise it back to level)
>
> 4) Stay there in ballance 2 minutes time. Its ok
> if you sway back and forth.. and you might even cramp,
> but do NOT put the leg down durring that time. Hop
> arround if you have to, to get back in ballance.
>
> 5) After set down.. Shake it loose. Make sure to
> note how it felt durring the test. Also, if someone
> is there, have them note at what exact time they saw
> you haveing trouble with ballance and maintaining a
> perfect level leg surface.
>
> --- That should have been fairly easy ---
>
> Now, lets try it again... but this time:
>
> 1) Start out with both heels together. Then point
> both toes out at 45 degree angles away from each other.
> (IE: Left toe points twords 10 and right points
> twords 2 - on a clock)
>
> 2) Raise the opposite legs knee up to level.
>
> 3) BEND your post legs knee so that your
> body lowers about 3". Your hanging legs
> heel should be parallel to your post legs
> knee. (unless maybe your legs are differnt
> proportions than mine?)
>
> The main point, is that your post leg needs
> to be in a deep bend. It should be a little
> uncomfortable, and probably hard for many to
> maintain. You must be careful, because in time
> you may start to raise your body so that the
> knee is not bent deep enough. You must correct
> this immediately, or you are not doing the
> excercise correctly, and will not benefit
> fully.
>
> 4) The rest of its the same. Note the after
> effects. Post your results / experience please.
>
> If you are in great shape leg-wise and do not
> feel much at all, and have perfect ballance
> in the deep knee stance... then increase the
> time durration untill you do experience
> ballance problems, fatigue, pains..etc.
>
> In one place I was at, we started at 2min per
> leg, and upped it to 3 later on. Took quite
> a while, but eventully, my leg was stable as
> oak for the entire 3 min time.
>
> Why is this so important?
>
> Because when you do any sort of kicking,
> you need ultimate stability so that you maintain
> perfect energy direction, transmission, no loss
> of power nor problems with your ballance should
> you miss, be blocked, etc. Also, even small things
> such as footwork will be enhanced. Faster, more
> stable, and able to use these to deleiver more
> powerful attacks.
>
> If the Tai Chi drills are done properly, at first,
> it should be painful and stressfull.
>
> I imagine Yoga is somwhat similar, though Ive not had
> the pleasure to partake in that as of yet.
>
> Laters,
> Steve
> :)

Isn't this a form of spot training, which is a no-no?

-



02 Jul 2007 09:14:21
Jerry B. Altzman
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

on 2007-07-02 02:46 Fraser Johnston said the following:
> I'll give it a try and let you know. Can't be worse than leg pressing hundreds
> of kilos. In response to your other message it is good to hear you are ok.

Having done both leg presses and the types of exercises Steve's
describing, I can say that they're very different.

> Sorry to hear about you losing your job without getting the satisfaction of
> punching the guy. And good luck with the girl. Lifes always more interesting
> with women involved.

Um, interesting as in "may you live in interesting times" is widely
called a curse.

> Fraser

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


02 Jul 2007 21:51:52
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote in message
news:jW6ii.468$3z1.150@newsfe12.lga...
> on 2007-07-02 02:46 Fraser Johnston said the following:
>> I'll give it a try and let you know. Can't be worse than leg pressing
>> hundreds of kilos. In response to your other message it is good to hear you
>> are ok.
>
> Having done both leg presses and the types of exercises Steve's describing, I
> can say that they're very different.
>
>> Sorry to hear about you losing your job without getting the satisfaction of
>> punching the guy. And good luck with the girl. Lifes always more
>> interesting with women involved.
>
> Um, interesting as in "may you live in interesting times" is widely called a
> curse.

You have obviously met a women.

Fraser




02 Jul 2007 10:41:10
David L. Burkhead
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Fraser Johnston wrote:
> "xiaou2" <xiaou2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99605BBF67B3Axiaou2hotmailcom@66.250.146.128...
>
>> I can tell right away that Frasier was not taught well,
>> as I recall doing a simple Tai Chi "Drill" of movment that
>> litterally ignited my knees and legs within a few
>> minutes time. There is a Huge difference between doing
>> something, and doing it correctly.
>
> Maybe I was just fitter than you?

Wait a minute. He said "literally"? I want to see video of that, or at
least pictures of the burn scars.

--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com-- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays





02 Jul 2007 08:06:56
Shuurai
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


> > Rolling is the colloquialism for free sparring on the ground. It's a
> > highly technical skill which requires developed knowledge of how an
> > opponent moves, how to detect those moves by way of, in essence,
> > "listening" (to borrow a term from taiji), and responding and planning
> > responses in advance. It's a game of patience, skill and shifts from
> > relaxation to exertion and, probably, both combined.
>
> ...Why? Because Push Hands can be defined almost the same
> exact way, if not word for word. The ignorance almost
> stuns me. I feel complete pity for sure.

The only way you can define push hands and rolling as the same thing
is if you're unsure of what one or both of them actually is.

> The only difference? One is standing, and one is not.

Not even close.

> While Push Hands is a little limited in real application,
> it has within it some very Powerful and fully working
> concepts. (that can be applied in real applications)

Rolling, on the other hand, is quite identical to real application,
and literally *is* a working concept. This is one of the big
differences between it and push hands.

Welcome back to the group; it's good to hear you're doing well.



02 Jul 2007 09:25:50
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Shuurai" <Shuurai11@hotmail.com > wrote
> The only way you can define push hands and rolling as the same thing
> is if you're unsure of what one or both of them actually is.

Not exactly- some push hands gets very rough. An example would be Don
Miller/Mario Napoli competing in the tournament with specialized technique
that spoke to an evasion of rules, rather than an expression of skill. Push
hands is more likened to Arm Wrestling; a competition based on a specific
attribute.
Rolling is freestyle practice; also within a set of restrictions soas to
lessen the possibility of severe injury.
Taiji can't be done in that sort of manner. The whole idea is to produce
this extraordinary expression of power, so it's not in the nature of the
skill to be mitigated much, and certainly not whilst being attacked.
That's why the demos are so soft- if you get frisky with it, bones break.

> Rolling, on the other hand, is quite identical to real application,
> and literally *is* a working concept. This is one of the big
> differences between it and push hands.

Yes; as it depends on a completely different skill-set, it's easily
diluted/mitigated.
Not so with a number of other systems.
This has been a contention in Indo systems for many decades. The new guys do
something that looks like bad TKD/judo; the old guys won't dilute their art
sufficient to play games with it.

Chas




02 Jul 2007 13:43:01
Supreme Ultimate Fist
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 4:08 pm, Shuurai <Shuura...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> How many tai chi people people other than Chen Yu, Chen Xiaowang etc
> actually become strong grapplers with alarming abilities to hit
> extremely hard from the clinch? In fact, how many tai chi people
> become even basically competant grapplers with an ability to hit at
> all from the clinch?

A minority. ;-)
I didn't say taiji wasn't insanely hard to learn, even if someone who
can do it is willing to teach you. But in the hands of a skilled guy
it is most definitely a "fighting tool".

> > . "Chi" is a name for a set of subtle physiological
> > things that are not imaginary, probably having something to do with
> > the fascia and other stuff, but have not been much studied yet in that
> > combination by science.
>
> So it's not that first thing that nobody can actually measure or
> explain, it's that second thing that nobody can actually measure or
> explain... :b

Not really - it's more that no one has bothered to try to measure or
explain it yet. For most of medical history scientists assumed that
the fascia was just passive friction-reducing stuff and ignored it,
now recent guys actually studying are saying "Hmm, whaddya know,
actually this stuff is a bit like _muscle_ in some respects, it's
sorta stretchy and so on". I'm confident "chi" can be explained in
terms of some unusual coordinations of purely physical things,
including but not limited to some aspects of the fascia, but the
skilled guys haven't exactly been throwing themselves at scientists
and demanding to be studied...

Amituofo,
SUF
http://supremeultimatefist.com



02 Jul 2007 13:46:51
Supreme Ultimate Fist
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 2:47 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:
> Can you proffer evidence that a TC practitioner is a "strong grappler" vrs
> other well acknowledged grappling arts? Can you proffer evidence that a
> TC practitioner can hit harder in the Clinch than, say, a boxer who trains
> to do so and has a long history of the practice?

No, a boxer doesn't train to do what I'm talking about. But to answer
your question: I can't proffer any evidence, as I know of no videoed
fights between taiji guys and boxers or grapplers. Chen Fake took
public challenges from all-comers in Beijing in the 1950s. I don't
believe those fights were filmed, but that don't mean they didn't
happen. ;)

Amituofo,
SUF
http://supremeultimatefist.com



02 Jul 2007 13:48:54
Supreme Ultimate Fist
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 4:53 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:
> No he didn't. He dropped some names but no one in the general grappling
> community with any cred is vouching for that statement.

Well, we'll have to wait for some guy in the "grappling community"
with "cred" to go visit a taiji guy and report. ;-)

Amituofo,
SUF
http://supremeultimatefist.com




02 Jul 2007 14:49:32
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Supreme Ultimate Fist" <supremeultimatefist@gmail.com > wrote
>......but the
> skilled guys haven't exactly been throwing themselves at scientists
> and demanding to be studied...

At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked to
study anybody.
For 'scientists' to have any opinion on taijieezers would be like an
astronomer that never looks up opining where the Moon is.

Chas




02 Jul 2007 16:51:25
Jerry B. Altzman
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

on 2007-07-02 16:49 Chas said the following:
>> ......but the
>> skilled guys haven't exactly been throwing themselves at scientists
>> and demanding to be studied...
> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked to
> study anybody.

Lester Ingber?

> Chas

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


02 Jul 2007 15:04:15
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote
>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked
>> to study anybody.
> Lester Ingber?

Little fat guy; thick glasses; family owned the candy shop on 4th?
Gee; we thought he was a queer.
sorry.

Chas




02 Jul 2007 17:20:50
Jerry B. Altzman
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

on 2007-07-02 17:04 Chas said the following:
> "Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@altzman.com> wrote
>>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked
>>> to study anybody.
>> Lester Ingber?
> Little fat guy; thick glasses; family owned the candy shop on 4th?
> Gee; we thought he was a queer.

Naw, scientist who went out and studied karateka
http://www.ingber.com/#KARATE
Probably not queer, not sure if he was little or fat, and he's been
looking long and hard at karate for 30 years at least.

> Chas

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


02 Jul 2007 15:58:55
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote
>>> Lester Ingber?
>> Little fat guy; thick glasses; family owned the candy shop on 4th?
>> Gee; we thought he was a queer.
> Naw, scientist who went out and studied karateka
> http://www.ingber.com/#KARATE
> Probably not queer, not sure if he was little or fat, and he's been
> looking long and hard at karate for 30 years at least.

Oh- maybe his little brother using his ID.

Chas




02 Jul 2007 22:26:52
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:56:12 +0000, Renli wrote:

> On Jun 30, 10:22 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>
>> > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>>
>> Of course he is. There's a *reason* we named the Richman Scale after him.
>
> Because you lost.

Lost what? A good source of entertainment?


> If you "won", you wouldn't feel such a need to marginalize me, even in
> my absence, by naming a scale of trolling after me.

I didn't coin the term.


> Think about it.

After "thinking about it" the conclusion is that you don't know anything
about this topic either.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



02 Jul 2007 22:27:05
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:11:55 -0600, Chas wrote:

> "Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote
>>> He just did.
>> No he didn't. He dropped some names but no one in the general grappling
>> community with any cred is vouching for that statement.
>
> So what is it you want?
> To travel the countryside, playing a flute and challenging the local toughs?
> If you want to see taiji, go where it's done. If you want to challenge it,
> step up.

I'm willing to accept monetary donations of "Tai Chi = Grappling"
supporters who wish to finance my Voyage of Discovery (aka "vacation").


>> If I said that
>> some no-name fella could shoot in league with the Olympic Pistol team, or
>> was in the same league as the top combat handgun instructors, you might
>> want *someone* in those circles to vouch for the claim.
>
> I'd drop by his shop and see what he's doing, not sit around and theorize
> about what he might/could/ought be about.

I'm willing to accept monetary donations of "Tai Chi = Grappling"
supporters who wish to finance my trip.



>> I'll happily take the word of someone with some grappling cred. But
>> they're strangely silent. :P
>
> Name one that's bothered to find out for himself.
> use the space below:

Fraser.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



02 Jul 2007 22:27:05
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:25:06 +0000, Renli wrote:

> Since you seem to attack any topic which relates to traditional
> martial arts, it would seem the "Richman" scale is no more than an
> indication that traditional martial arts is the topic of discussion.
> Of course you would call it a troll.

Ask him his opinion on Judo. It's *definitely* a TMA.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



02 Jul 2007 22:27:06
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:01:05 +0000, xiaou2 wrote:

> xiaou2 <

How ya doing? Things going better for you?

You training anywhere yet?

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



02 Jul 2007 22:55:29
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:46:51 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:

> On Jun 30, 2:47 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>> Can you proffer evidence that a TC practitioner is a "strong grappler" vrs
>> other well acknowledged grappling arts? Can you proffer evidence that a
>> TC practitioner can hit harder in the Clinch than, say, a boxer who trains
>> to do so and has a long history of the practice?
>
> No, a boxer doesn't train to do what I'm talking about. But to answer
> your question: I can't proffer any evidence, as I know of no videoed
> fights between taiji guys and boxers or grapplers. Chen Fake took
> public challenges from all-comers in Beijing in the 1950s. I don't
> believe those fights were filmed, but that don't mean they didn't
> happen. ;)

It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



02 Jul 2007 22:55:53
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:48:54 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:

> On Jun 30, 4:53 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>> No he didn't. He dropped some names but no one in the general grappling
>> community with any cred is vouching for that statement.
>
> Well, we'll have to wait for some guy in the "grappling community"
> with "cred" to go visit a taiji guy and report. ;-)

I would indeed be satisfied with that.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 03:11:46
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 10:26 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23565SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:

> >> > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>
> >> Of course he is. There's a *reason* we named the Richman Scale after him.

(emphasis "we")

> I didn't coin the term.

(emphasis "I")

Well Kirk, what can I say? You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't
you?

Classic Kirk :) perfectly willing to accept that his pot had given
birth.

-



03 Jul 2007 04:54:28
GreenDistantStar
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 4:49 am, "Chas" <chascleme...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Supreme Ultimate Fist" <supremeultimatef...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >......but the
> > skilled guys haven't exactly been throwing themselves at scientists
> > and demanding to be studied...
>
> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked to
> study anybody.

Uh, you're joking, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__sNgnYEEXA

> For 'scientists' to have any opinion on taijieezers would be like an
> astronomer that never looks up opining where the Moon is.

Which of course astronomers don't do. If we want real information
about how stuff works, we look to science, not metaphysicians, whose
positive contributions to society are close to zero.

GDS

"Let's roll!"





03 Jul 2007 09:29:00
xiaou2
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> Isn't this a form of spot training, which is a no-no?

You take things to far... and do not seem to understand
the Aim of what is taking place.


Im merely giving him a way to immediately see drastic
results. Should he try it on his own without a spotter,
he may make a mistake that would compromise the output
levels. That would be bad.


When you are in class, the teacher is the spotter.
Eventually, you learn to spot yourself.. and to
feel when things are not quite right.


If I were reciting this to a student, it would be
differnt. However, that is not the case here.

Please think more clearly about what things you
try to 'Correct' me on. Thanks.





03 Jul 2007 02:50:24
Supreme Ultimate Fist
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 4:55 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO10041SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:
> It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
> from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.

Oh, those already exist if you want to look them up: there are lots of
eyewitness reports over the decades of Chinese shuai jiao guys etc
challenging taiji guys and getting owned.

Or does your idea of "grapplers with credentials in the field" exclude
Chinese for some reason, and apply exclusively to contemporary western
sportfighters? Curious if so.

Amituofo,
SUF
http://supremeultimatefist.com



03 Jul 2007 06:02:04
rusty
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 29, 6:51 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:20 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@nict.go.jp> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> writes:
> > > "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1183097038.401136.6450@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
> > >>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in
> > >>> messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > >>> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
> > >>> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
> > >>> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
> > >>> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> > >>> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> > >>> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet. /../
>
> > >>> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which
> > >>> I
> > >>> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
> > >>> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm
> > >>> all
> > >>> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a
> > >>> better
> > >>> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't
> > >>> train
> > >>> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>
> > >>> Fraser
>
> > >> Oh one other thing, about the not training against a resisting
> > >> opponent aspect. That isn't true, a major component of taiji training
> > >> is training against a resisting opponent. It's called push hands.
> > >> Right? :)
>
> > > Not when I did it. Of course it is fairly common. I did push hands in JJJ as
> > > a balance exercise. I prefer rolling however.
>
> > I'd say push-hands in its simplest form is one step up from
> > solo-training (and from there on there are many levels). Rolling is
> > many levels more complex than the most basic push hands if one wanted
> > to continue using the specific mechanisms one is training in Tai Chi.
> > --
> > BOFH excuse #449:
>
> > greenpeace free'd the mallocs
>
> Well, to make sure we're on the same page - push hands is supposed to
> mean "tui shou" - no tone marks on usenet, but saying "tui shou" is
> pretty specific, specific enough to look up the tone marks I guess.
>
> What's rolling? o_O
>
>
_
Tai chi is great for disabling an opponent wothout touching.
see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5r4EfdC-yw

rusty
-




03 Jul 2007 07:09:06
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Kirk Lawson" <lawson@NO10041SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote
> It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
> from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.

I'd be interested to hear of a grappler that actually went and found out.
They don't seem to do much of that.

Chas




03 Jul 2007 07:13:02
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"GreenDistantStar" <GreenDistantStar@gmail.com > wrote
>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked
>> to
>> study anybody.
> Uh, you're joking, right?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__sNgnYEEXA

They never contacted me or anyone I know.

>> For 'scientists' to have any opinion on taijieezers would be like an
>> astronomer that never looks up opining where the Moon is.
> Which of course astronomers don't do.

They don't look up??

> If we want real information
> about how stuff works, we look to science, not metaphysicians, whose
> positive contributions to society are close to zero.

Which scientist contacted/examined Taiji practitioners?
What did they find out and publish?

Chas




03 Jul 2007 09:29:20
Jerry B. Altzman
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

on 2007-07-03 09:13 Chas said the following:
> "GreenDistantStar" <GreenDistantStar@gmail.com> wrote
>>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked
>>> to
>>> study anybody.
>> Uh, you're joking, right?
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__sNgnYEEXA
> They never contacted me or anyone I know.

Um, Chas, I likes ya a lot, but:
if you close your eyes, does the universe vanish out of existence?

> Which scientist contacted/examined Taiji practitioners?
> What did they find out and publish?

Taiji I can't speak about; I know the power expressed is odd. I'd think
Mike Sigman counts as a scientist contacting and examining Taiji
practitioners, no?

> Chas

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.


03 Jul 2007 07:47:26
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote
>>>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked
>>>> to
>>>> study anybody.
> Um, Chas, I likes ya a lot, but:
> if you close your eyes, does the universe vanish out of existence?

The point was the number of scientists that have approached to study
anything about 'internal art'. I submitted that, in fifty years of study
with various teachers, not one scientist has approached to study any of
them.
Hence the usage; 'my entire history'.

> Taiji I can't speak about; I know the power expressed is odd. I'd think
> Mike Sigman counts as a scientist contacting and examining Taiji
> practitioners, no?

Not if he's dismissed as a charlatan by these detractors-
If remembers, he was my first example as a person actually willing/able to
go to the best, learn the skills he's got, and demonstrate/teach them.

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




03 Jul 2007 08:58:21
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:54:28 -0000, GreenDistantStar
<GreenDistantStar@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Jul 3, 4:49 am, "Chas" <chascleme...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Supreme Ultimate Fist" <supremeultimatef...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> >......but the
>> > skilled guys haven't exactly been throwing themselves at scientists
>> > and demanding to be studied...
>>
>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked to
>> study anybody.
>
>Uh, you're joking, right?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__sNgnYEEXA

>GDS
>
>"Let's roll!"
>
>
are those the same guys that concluded that boxers punched harder than
anyone else,all the while ignoring the huge weight differences?


03 Jul 2007 08:06:45
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

<pnumiadontspamme@yahoo.com > wrote
> are those the same guys that concluded that boxers punched harder than
> anyone else,all the while ignoring the huge weight differences?

That whole thing was entirely too gay.
Actors who were models coming out of ballet to mimic martial art.
creepy.

Chas




03 Jul 2007 14:11:07
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 9:47 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote
>
> >>>> At no time in my entire history of martial art, has any scientist asked
> >>>> to
> >>>> study anybody.
> > Um, Chas, I likes ya a lot, but:
> > if you close your eyes, does the universe vanish out of existence?
>
> The point was the number of scientists that have approached to study
> anything about 'internal art'. I submitted that, in fifty years of study
> with various teachers, not one scientist has approached to study any of
> them.
> Hence the usage; 'my entire history'.
>
> > Taiji I can't speak about; I know the power expressed is odd. I'd think
> > Mike Sigman counts as a scientist contacting and examining Taiji
> > practitioners, no?
>
> Not if he's dismissed as a charlatan by these detractors-
> If remembers, he was my first example as a person actually willing/able to
> go to the best, learn the skills he's got, and demonstrate/teach them.
>
> --
> Chashttp://www.jacksandsaps.com/

There are quite a number of scientific studies that have been done and
are currently being done on tai chi. Some of the chens are involved
from what I hear.

Results so far are promising, as they have been in the past, but no I
don't have anything bookmarked if that is anyone's next question :)

-



03 Jul 2007 14:16:37
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 5:29 pm, xiaou2 <xia...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > Isn't this a form of spot training, which is a no-no?
>
> You take things to far... and do not seem to understand
> the Aim of what is taking place.
>
> Im merely giving him a way to immediately see drastic
> results. Should he try it on his own without a spotter,
> he may make a mistake that would compromise the output
> levels. That would be bad.
>
> When you are in class, the teacher is the spotter.
> Eventually, you learn to spot yourself.. and to
> feel when things are not quite right.
>
> If I were reciting this to a student, it would be
> differnt. However, that is not the case here.
>
> Please think more clearly about what things you
> try to 'Correct' me on. Thanks.

Just asking a question.

You answered that yes it was a form of spot training, and you also
implied that I was taking things too far. Your answer was good
though :)

I've been mulling over some 'drastic results' exercises too, mainly
involving a simple step by step description to push qi through the arm
via muscle, but I'm thinking it might require pictures to get the
point across properly. Your example is better than what I was thinking
of for a "drastic results" exercise. But as you have a lot of
experience with this stuff, maybe we could discuss my idea sometime
too and you tell me a better way to explain it. I might add that my
example, technically, would be "spot training" and for the exact same
reason as you said about your exercise would need a spotter ^^

Good luck and hope you can stay stable. I didn't have a job for 3
years once, but I was lucky, I found free lessons in the park ^^

-



03 Jul 2007 14:22:26
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 9:02 pm, rusty <lwinmor...@shaw.ca > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 6:51 am, Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 4:20 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@nict.go.jp> wrote:
>
> > > "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> writes:
> > > > "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:1183097038.401136.6450@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> On Jun 29, 9:01 am, "Fraser Johnston" <fra...@jcis.com.au> wrote:
> > > >>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> wrote in
> > > >>> messagenews:boidnfYKB-cYzhnbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > > >>> > Fraser Johnston wrote:
> > > >>> >> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote in message
> > > >>> >>news:pan.2007.06.28.16.22.18.704297@NO23637SPAM+dayton.ne...
> > > >>> >>> Weekly On Topic Thread (WOTT):
>
> > > >>> >>> Tai Chi: What's it good for?
>
> > > >>> >> Causing pointless arguements with morons on usenet. /../
>
> > > >>> The funny thing is I did an 8 week Tai Chi course about 13 years ago. Which
> > > >>> I
> > > >>> dare say is more experience than a lot of the Tai Chi guys have in sport
> > > >>> martial arts. I kinda enjoyed it. When I finished each session I felt warm
> > > >>> all
> > > >>> over. But never really broke a sweat. I dare say yoga would make you a
> > > >>> better
> > > >>> fighter purely from the physical conditioning aspect. In both you don't
> > > >>> train
> > > >>> against a resisting opponent but in yoga you at least drip sweat.
>
> > > >>> Fraser
>
> > > >> Oh one other thing, about the not training against a resisting
> > > >> opponent aspect. That isn't true, a major component of taiji training
> > > >> is training against a resisting opponent. It's called push hands.
> > > >> Right? :)
>
> > > > Not when I did it. Of course it is fairly common. I did push hands in JJJ as
> > > > a balance exercise. I prefer rolling however.
>
> > > I'd say push-hands in its simplest form is one step up from
> > > solo-training (and from there on there are many levels). Rolling is
> > > many levels more complex than the most basic push hands if one wanted
> > > to continue using the specific mechanisms one is training in Tai Chi.
> > > --
> > > BOFH excuse #449:
>
> > > greenpeace free'd the mallocs
>
> > Well, to make sure we're on the same page - push hands is supposed to
> > mean "tui shou" - no tone marks on usenet, but saying "tui shou" is
> > pretty specific, specific enough to look up the tone marks I guess.
>
> > What's rolling? o_O
>
> _
> Tai chi is great for disabling an opponent wothout touching.
> see:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5r4EfdC-yw
>
> rusty
> -

Hey - I took a look at that video, and Master Henry Wang's website.

In the tai chi world, no touch skill is regarded as something of a
false satori. It is not something which should be focused on at all.

Generally speaking it is said to only work with one's own students...

...big clue as to what is happening there.

The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao, and
sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.

-



03 Jul 2007 08:58:31
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote
> In the tai chi world, no touch skill is regarded as something of a
> false satori. It is not something which should be focused on at all.

In addition, it's a culminating skill of 'all skills'. If it's possible at
all, it's the result of disciplined study of the basic skills.

> Generally speaking it is said to only work with one's own students...

Some would say that it takes a body of trust to be able to manifest the
skill without damaging the subject. It's not about 'moving' people, or
knocking them out- it's about causing massive damage/death.

> ...big clue as to what is happening there.

bad conclusion though-

> The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao, and
> sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.

That's another clue with several 'conclusions' possible.
I've never had 'no-touch' demonstrated to me, or in my presence.
That said, I've known some people who could produce some startling results
with 'touch', and claimed having witnessed some startling things done from a
distance- and claimed practice methods that would train the skills.

Chas




03 Jul 2007 15:30:34
Mike
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

I'm sorry about not following up on your reply to my reply the
otherday, but the first time I posted, it was lost.
It is amazing how fast these threads can fly if you are busy doing
something else.

I think this is a good spot to jump in an raise the issues I meant to
address.I do not mean to ignore any comments or questions you might
have made earlier, please ask them again if it seems like I am dodging
something.

> > Um, Chas, I likes ya a lot, but:
> > if you close your eyes, does the universe vanish out of existence?
>
> The point was the number of scientists that have approached to study
> anything about 'internal art'. I submitted that, in fifty years of study
> with various teachers, not one scientist has approached to study any of
> them.

Scientific study of a phenomenen does not entail the scientist going
and subjecting themselves to the "lifestyle" for a lifetime.

If scientists wanted to study the effects of celibacy on the
biochemical processes in the human body, would you require them to
join a monastery for 20 years, in order to "step up"?

> Hence the usage; 'my entire history'.

I personally know one scientist who went and visited you. Your claim
of "your entire history" seems to only incorporate those that sign up
for class.

> > Taiji I can't speak about; I know the power expressed is odd. I'd think
> > Mike Sigman counts as a scientist contacting and examining Taiji
> > practitioners, no?
>
> Not if he's dismissed as a charlatan by these detractors-
> If remembers, he was my first example as a person actually willing/able to
> go to the best, learn the skills he's got, and demonstrate/teach them.

I don't see an example of a scientific study in what you just
described.

Countless times we have tried to ascertain *what* might be studied,
and *how* it might be studied.

I have volunteered my time and efforts, but cannot get past the
hostility that arises when the fact that a true scientific study *has*
to accept the fact that the study might lead to a negative result.

The usual response is "You think I might be wrong? My sensei will kick
your ass! That will show you!"

As if a person being able to beat me up qualifies his words or thought
to be correct.

-Mike K.







03 Jul 2007 10:43:41
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Mike" <mkorneck@nd.edu > wrote
> Scientific study of a phenomenen does not entail the scientist going
> and subjecting themselves to the "lifestyle" for a lifetime.

Depends on the 'phenomenon'-
an example would be people like Alexandra David-Neal, who 'subjected'
herself to a number of disciplines to validate their 'special skills'.
At the minimum, it requires going where the phenomenon is happening. An
example would be validating the early reports of 'dancing lights in the
North sky'- scientists would never have studied the Aurora Borealis without
those reports.

> If scientists wanted to study the effects of celibacy on the
> biochemical processes in the human body, would you require them to
> join a monastery for 20 years, in order to "step up"?

Not as necessary as going to the monastery to find out.
You have to go where the skill is done- and then you have to sort out which
monks are lying about being celibate.

> I personally know one scientist who went and visited you. Your claim
> of "your entire history" seems to only incorporate those that sign up
> for class.

You mean 'you'?
Not only did you not ask to experience anything, I've been ill for years now
and unable to maintain practice. I showed you some positional things using
the bone shield and that's about all.
Thanks again for the pizza though.
And, in terms of my history; nobody ever asked to study any of my teachers-
no need to study me, I'm pretty straightforward in what I do.

>> If remembers, he was my first example as a person actually willing/able
>> to
>> go to the best, learn the skills he's got, and demonstrate/teach them.
> I don't see an example of a scientific study in what you just
> described.

Mike's a scientist- doctorate from one of the tech schools; MIT or similar;
electrical engineering or somesuch, if I understand correctly.
He approached the study with a strong background in martial art- found out
who were the big dogs, qualified for study with them, did the practice; all
that.

> Countless times we have tried to ascertain *what* might be studied,
> and *how* it might be studied.

your protocol isn't the concern of the practitioner. If you have to change
what he does, he's not doing what he does anymore.

> I have volunteered my time and efforts, but cannot get past the
> hostility that arises when the fact that a true scientific study *has*
> to accept the fact that the study might lead to a negative result.

never seen that either-

> The usual response is "You think I might be wrong? My sensei will kick
> your ass! That will show you!"

How come you never see the sensei?

> As if a person being able to beat me up qualifies his words or thought
> to be correct.

It's the object of any martial art.
People would go do yoga or finger-painting otherwise.

Chas




03 Jul 2007 16:53:38
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 10:58 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...@comcast.net > wrote:

> [snip]

I've gone through some agony trying to find a response to what you
said, but in truth there is nothing I could possibly add to your post.
Good stuff Chas ^^

-



03 Jul 2007 11:04:47
I can't believe it's not a Ba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 9:09 am, "Chas" <chascleme...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Kirk Lawson" <law...@NO10041SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote
>
> > It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
> > from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.
>
> I'd be interested to hear of a grappler that actually went and found out.
> They don't seem to do much of that.
>
> Chas

Fraser?

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals: http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral
Standing
is lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of
martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas speaking of rec.martial-arts





03 Jul 2007 12:29:50
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"I can't believe it's not a Badger!" <lklawson@gmail.com > wrote
>> I'd be interested to hear of a grappler that actually went and found out.
>> They don't seem to do much of that.
> Fraser?

I thought he checked out some no-touch people that ended up in his city.

Chas




03 Jul 2007 18:39:30
Mike
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> Depends on the 'phenomenon'-
> an example would be people like Alexandra David-Neal, who 'subjected'
> herself to a number of disciplines to validate their 'special skills'.

SInce when is the study of Chi simply restricted to what it feels like
to be on the end of a Chi strike?
Do I need to stick my fingers in a wall socket in order to study
electricity? Or are there perhaps better experiments that would allow
me to gather more precise and informative data?

> At the minimum, it requires going where the phenomenon is happening. An
> example would be validating the early reports of 'dancing lights in the
> North sky'- scientists would never have studied the Aurora Borealis without
> those reports.

I'm sure the interactions between the earth's magnetic field and the
solar wind would have been studied regardless of whether or not there
were pretty lights to look at.

> > If scientists wanted to study the effects of celibacy on the
> > biochemical processes in the human body, would you require them to
> > join a monastery for 20 years, in order to "step up"?
>
> Not as necessary as going to the monastery to find out.
> You have to go where the skill is done-

Chi is being done everywhere all around me at all times. Walk down the
street. You'll see them right next to the fortune tellers and others
psychics. Open up a phone book. There they are!

Now if only we could agree on some sort of criteria by which to judge
which ones are the real deal...

> and then you have to sort out which monks are lying about being celibate.

Ahh, so some of the monks might be lying about being celibate?

How about the possibility that some ofthe monks might be lying about
the benefits? Can we acept that possibility as well?

> > I personally know one scientist who went and visited you. Your claim
> > of "your entire history" seems to only incorporate those that sign up
> > for class.
>
> You mean 'you'?

Yes I mean me. I'm probably the one who most closes fits the
definition of a scientist amongst the vast horde of the scientific
community that you claim flatly denied the possibility of anything
supernatural.

> Not only did you not ask to experience anything, I've been ill for years now
> and unable to maintain practice. I showed you some positional things using
> the bone shield and that's about all.

I hinted at the fact that I was in a severe amount of pain due to the
fact that my hotel actually had free weights and that I could squat
and deadlift the nights prior and thus wasn't in a mood for much more
of a demonstration.

I was there for the company. I've been exposed to the positional
things before tho, or at least things similar. By that Tai Chi
instructor I told you about and others.

Maybe next time.

> Thanks again for the pizza though.

My pleasure.

> > I don't see an example of a scientific study in what you just
> > described.
>
> Mike's a scientist- doctorate from one of the tech schools; MIT or similar;
> electrical engineering or somesuch, if I understand correctly.

Where's the data? Scientific studies involve data of some sort.

I'm a scientist, I play the trombone. I've studied (practiced playing)
how to play the trombone. But that doesn't mean i've conducted a
*scientific study* of the trombone.

And not to nitpick a dude from MIT, but an engineering degree
generally makes him an engineer.

> > Countless times we have tried to ascertain *what* might be studied,
> > and *how* it might be studied.
>
> your protocol isn't the concern of the practitioner. If you have to change
> what he does, he's not doing what he does anymore.

That's why I time and time again ask for definitions and possible
protocols from the practictioners.

> > I have volunteered my time and efforts, but cannot get past the
> > hostility that arises when the fact that a true scientific study *has*
> > to accept the fact that the study might lead to a negative result.
>
> never seen that either-

Try postulating that a Chi dude might be a fraud.

> > The usual response is "You think I might be wrong? My sensei will kick
> > your ass! That will show you!"
>
> How come you never see the sensei?

I've met several instructors in Chi who didn't pass the grade. Walk
down to the park in the morning at a University.

Furthermore, I've had several senseis, thank you. The existence of the
sensei is not in question.

> > As if a person being able to beat me up qualifies his words or thought
> > to be correct.
>
> It's the object of any martial art.

I don't doubt that some people can beat me up. It's not a subject of
debate.

> People would go do yoga or finger-painting otherwise.

And people do. And they claim that it increases their Chi.

-Mike K.



03 Jul 2007 12:52:04
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Mike" <mkorneck@nd.edu > wrote
> SInce when is the study of Chi simply restricted to what it feels like
> to be on the end of a Chi strike?

Sure is the first, most convincing, experience that many people have.

> Do I need to stick my fingers in a wall socket in order to study
> electricity? Or are there perhaps better experiments that would allow
> me to gather more precise and informative data?

They're not going to happen until after you're convinced there's something
to study.

> I'm sure the interactions between the earth's magnetic field and the
> solar wind would have been studied regardless of whether or not there
> were pretty lights to look at.

But they went there to see the lights.

> Chi is being done everywhere all around me at all times. Walk down the
> street. You'll see them right next to the fortune tellers and others
> psychics. Open up a phone book. There they are!

We were talking primarily about martial exponents.

> Now if only we could agree on some sort of criteria by which to judge
> which ones are the real deal...

You can start with the ones that can demonstrate the mechanism by hitting
you.

>> and then you have to sort out which monks are lying about being celibate.
> Ahh, so some of the monks might be lying about being celibate?

Gee; d'ya think?

> How about the possibility that some ofthe monks might be lying about
> the benefits? Can we acept that possibility as well?

Sure.

> I hinted at the fact that I was in a severe amount of pain due to the
> fact that my hotel actually had free weights and that I could squat
> and deadlift the nights prior and thus wasn't in a mood for much more
> of a demonstration.

Sure.

> I was there for the company. I've been exposed to the positional
> things before tho, or at least things similar. By that Tai Chi
> instructor I told you about and others.

I truely enjoyed meeting you and spending that time.
You're good company, and welcome back.

> Maybe next time.

I doubt if I will regain much of my skills-

>> Mike's a scientist- doctorate from one of the tech schools; MIT or
>> similar;
>> electrical engineering or somesuch, if I understand correctly.
> Where's the data? Scientific studies involve data of some sort.

Are you familiar with his body of work?
He's both written a lot and made a number of videos.

> And not to nitpick a dude from MIT, but an engineering degree
> generally makes him an engineer.

Unfamiliar with scientific principles/methodology?
I think Mike's interest was piqued by a comparison of 'chi' with electrical
phenomenon.

>> your protocol isn't the concern of the practitioner. If you have to
>> change
>> what he does, he's not doing what he does anymore.
> That's why I time and time again ask for definitions and possible
> protocols from the practictioners.

And you get various answers- and the most cogent quibble is with the
parameters of the protocol.

>> never seen that either-
> Try postulating that a Chi dude might be a fraud.

When the proof positive is the hitting part?

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




03 Jul 2007 17:55:41
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:

> On Jul 3, 4:55 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO10041SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>> It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
>> from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.
>
> Oh, those already exist if you want to look them up: there are lots of
> eyewitness reports over the decades of Chinese shuai jiao guys etc
> challenging taiji guys and getting owned.
>
> Or does your idea of "grapplers with credentials in the field" exclude
> Chinese for some reason, and apply exclusively to contemporary western
> sportfighters? Curious if so.

SC players are more than a bit close to the source. To ensure objectivity
I'd prefer it to be from a non-Chinese system. There are lots to choose
from, Judo, BJJ, Wrestling...

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 17:56:02
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 03:11:46 +0000, Renli wrote:

> On Jul 3, 10:26 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO23565SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>
>> >> > You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you.
>>
>> >> Of course he is. There's a *reason* we named the Richman Scale after him.
>
> (emphasis "we")

As a group collective term. You having trouble with Remedial English?


>> I didn't coin the term.
>
> (emphasis "I")

Pretty self explanatory.


> Well Kirk, what can I say?

Why start asking for help now?


> You're being intentionally obtuse, aren't you?

Only if your "Conversational English" is at a pre-school level.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 15:34:32
Supreme Ultimate Fist
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO32410SPAM+dayton.ne > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 4:55 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO10041SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
> >> It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
> >> from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.
>
> > Oh, those already exist if you want to look them up: there are lots of
> > eyewitness reports over the decades of Chinese shuai jiao guys etc
> > challenging taiji guys and getting owned.
>
> > Or does your idea of "grapplers with credentials in the field" exclude
> > Chinese for some reason, and apply exclusively to contemporary western
> > sportfighters? Curious if so.
>
> SC players are more than a bit close to the source. To ensure objectivity
> I'd prefer it to be from a non-Chinese system. There are lots to choose
> from, Judo, BJJ, Wrestling...

Mmm, so you'd dismiss an account of a judoka getting owned by an
aikidoka or vice versa because they were both Japanese so too "close
to the source"? Weird.

If anything Chinese wrestlers admitting they got owned by a taiji guy
are more reliable witnesses because their pride as _Chinese_ fighters
is at stake. See the famous encounter between Shen San and Chen Fake.
(Shen San got owned very politely, as he later admitted in gratitude.)

If you're seriously saying there's no evidence that taiji works
martially because there is no record of a fight between a taiji guy
and a BJJ guy - well, like Chas says, it's up to the BJJ guys to pick
a fight. ;-)

Amituofo,
SUF
http://supremeultimatefist.com



03 Jul 2007 21:07:43
Kirk Lawson
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:34:32 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:

> On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO32410SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Supreme Ultimate Fist wrote:
>> > On Jul 3, 4:55 am, Kirk Lawson <law...@NO10041SPAM+dayton.ne> wrote:
>> >> It doesn't have to be video to satisfy me. Simple eye-witness reports
>> >> from grapplers with credentials in the field would suffice.
>>
>> > Oh, those already exist if you want to look them up: there are lots of
>> > eyewitness reports over the decades of Chinese shuai jiao guys etc
>> > challenging taiji guys and getting owned.
>>
>> > Or does your idea of "grapplers with credentials in the field" exclude
>> > Chinese for some reason, and apply exclusively to contemporary western
>> > sportfighters? Curious if so.
>>
>> SC players are more than a bit close to the source. To ensure objectivity
>> I'd prefer it to be from a non-Chinese system. There are lots to choose
>> from, Judo, BJJ, Wrestling...
>
> Mmm, so you'd dismiss an account of a judoka getting owned by an
> aikidoka or vice versa because they were both Japanese so too "close
> to the source"? Weird.

Yeah, I'd be suspicious that nationalistic pride might influence the
results. I'd prefer that the test be as objective as possible. Funny of
me to want that, I know.


> If anything Chinese wrestlers admitting they got owned by a taiji guy
> are more reliable witnesses because their pride as _Chinese_ fighters
> is at stake.

That's certainly one belief.


> See the famous encounter between Shen San and Chen Fake.
> (Shen San got owned very politely, as he later admitted in gratitude.)

I'll look it up when I have time.


> If you're seriously saying there's no evidence that taiji works
> martially because there is no record of a fight between a taiji guy
> and a BJJ guy - well, like Chas says, it's up to the BJJ guys to pick
> a fight. ;-)

Lots of grapplers hang out the shingle, daring any and all to come. It's
an old and honored Western tradition dating back to at least to the Middle
Ages and the Company of Maisters.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 20:43:51
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jun 30, 3:50 pm, Matthew Weigel <nospamuse...@idempot.net > wrote:
> mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 9:09 am, Matthew Weigel <nospamuse...@idempot.net> wrote:
> >> mark.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> -athttp://www.austinkungfu.com/view_details.asp?ID_page=8&ID_cell=57&ID=...
> >>> So..... how is your tai chi different?
> >> That reminds me, are you still coming by Austin every so often? :-)
>
> > Yes, I do. About every three months I make it down there. Last time
> > was May, next time will be August tho I don't have dates on that,
> > yet.
>
> Feel free to drop me a line next time you're in town; seems like I know a fair
> number of folks at the Shaolin-Do school (including Bob Pendleton, actually)
> at this point. Embarrassingly, my cell phone number hasn't changed since I
> last accidentally posted it to Usenet ;-)

It would be an honor, sir.
Perhaps I'll be more rested and less brain fried next time we meet. ;)

> --
> Matthew Weigel
> hacker
> unique & idempot.ent




04 Jul 2007 13:47:52
Fraser Johnston
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?


"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:j4OdnZFJq7s6CBfbnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "I can't believe it's not a Badger!" <lklawson@gmail.com> wrote
>>> I'd be interested to hear of a grappler that actually went and found out.
>>> They don't seem to do much of that.
>> Fraser?
>
> I thought he checked out some no-touch people that ended up in his city.

Yeah did that too.

Fraser




04 Jul 2007 08:42:25
xiaou2
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Your answer was good
> though :)

Thanks

> I've been mulling over some 'drastic results' exercises too, mainly
> involving a simple step by step description to push qi through the arm
> via muscle, but I'm thinking it might require pictures to get the
> point across properly. Your example is better than what I was thinking
> of for a "drastic results" exercise. But as you have a lot of
> experience with this stuff, maybe we could discuss my idea sometime
> too and you tell me a better way to explain it. I might add that my
> example, technically, would be "spot training" and for the exact same
> reason as you said about your exercise would need a spotter ^^

I would be happy to discuss such things. Feel free to post or
email me the details.

> Good luck and hope you can stay stable. I didn't have a job for 3
> years once, but I was lucky, I found free lessons in the park ^^

Again, Thanks,

Steve



04 Jul 2007 12:16:03
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote

> > Generally speaking it is said to only work with one's own students...

"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net > wrote:

> Some would say that it takes a body of trust to be able to manifest the
> skill without damaging the subject.

Some would say there are frauds everywhere. Some would say some people
shouldn't be trusted.

> It's not about 'moving' people, or
> knocking them out- it's about causing massive damage/death.

Only in your and their imagination.

"Renli" <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote

> > The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao, and
> > sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.

Some do.

"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net > wrote:

> I've never had 'no-touch' demonstrated to me, or in my presence.

So in your experience ...?

> That said, I've known some people who could produce some startling results
> with 'touch', and claimed having witnessed some startling things done from a
> distance- and claimed practice methods that would train the skills.

Ah, you go by hearsay. I became a friend with a very reliable and
trustworthy man (who was also a research scientist). After about 5 years
it came out that he could do 'unusual' things - like stop a train with
his mind and similar. In fact, he said, there were articles written
about him in Australia where he went for some conference (and because he
was tired, he let some of his powers slip out of control a bit - I can't
remember the exact explanation). He was very calm, matter of fact, quite
confident; didn't mind at all being told that his imagination was
getting a bit overactive. Within a couple of weeks his behaviour became
a bit erratic and eventually he ended up in a psychiatric ward being
diagnosed as a schizophrenic/manic-depressive. Only then his wife told
us that this happens every now and then (this was a third our fourth
episode) when he gets under some big stress.

Anyway, with your age and experience you should know better than to rely
on other people's claims.

Have you seen Amazing Kreskin's stage performances (30-40 years ago?) or
Derren Brown (nowadays) - esp. his 'no touch' punch? I'm sure there are
lots more performers who can 'demonstrate' this amazing power. Some of
them just happen to be in MA :^)

--
Regards,

Karel


04 Jul 2007 11:50:48
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 4, 7:16 pm, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao, and
> > > sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.
>
> Some do.

So that we do not "go by hearsay" please provide a reference for your
statement above.

> Anyway, with your age and experience you should know better than to rely
> on other people's claims.

:)

> I'm sure there are
> lots more performers who can 'demonstrate' this amazing power. Some of
> them just happen to be in MA :^)

If this is a roundabout way of saying such people lack credibility
(and by implication "reliable" fighting skills) then I wholeheartedly
agree. Which is why I am asking for a reference for the above :)

-



04 Jul 2007 07:59:07
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Karel Koskuba" <karel@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote
>> That said, I've known some people who could produce some startling
>> results
>> with 'touch', and claimed having witnessed some startling things done
>> from a
>> distance- and claimed practice methods that would train the skills.
> Ah, you go by hearsay.

Notice the words 'I've known.....'.
Nothing 'hearsay' about it.
I've not experienced 'no-touch', but I have experienced the contact skills.

> Anyway, with your age and experience you should know better than to rely
> on other people's claims.

I do. If they can't do it *to me*, I don't put much credence in it.
The thing is; I've experienced 'hits' from very sophisticated practitioners-
sufficient to let me know that they did things others say is impossible, and
to credential the things that they, themselves, were striving to learn.

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




04 Jul 2007 11:01:42
Mike
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> > SInce when is the study of Chi simply restricted to what it feels like
> > to be on the end of a Chi strike?
>
> Sure is the first, most convincing, experience that many people have.

So that restricts it?

> > Do I need to stick my fingers in a wall socket in order to study
> > electricity? Or are there perhaps better experiments that would allow
> > me to gather more precise and informative data?
>
> They're not going to happen until after you're convinced there's something
> to study.

People were convinced by observing the external effects. They
personally did not have to get struck by lightning. To be accepted in
EE school you don't have to go "take a blast for the team".

> > I'm sure the interactions between the earth's magnetic field and the
> > solar wind would have been studied regardless of whether or not there
> > were pretty lights to look at.
>
> But they went there to see the lights.

And if that's all they did, that's all that would have been
accomplished. Alot of people standing around, going "Woah, pass me the
pipe."

> > Chi is being done everywhere all around me at all times. Walk down the
> > street. You'll see them right next to the fortune tellers and others
> > psychics. Open up a phone book. There they are!
>
> We were talking primarily about martial exponents.

I wasn't aware the True Chi was only limited to martial art types.

> > Now if only we could agree on some sort of criteria by which to judge
> > which ones are the real deal...
>
> You can start with the ones that can demonstrate the mechanism by hitting
> you.

Seems like a crude mechanism by which to judge. Especially considering
that Chis is supposed to be more than just hitting. In my experience
and yes I have had some experience, The Chi dudes don't hit near as
hard as the non-chi dudes.

And that's even why the Chi dudes position me up, stretch me out, and
then hit me in the floating ribs in the middle of their sentence.

> >> and then you have to sort out which monks are lying about being
celibate.
> > Ahh, so some of the monks might be lying about being celibate?
>
> Gee; d'ya think?

Yep I do think. That's why it is important to be objective.

> > How about the possibility that some ofthe monks might be lying about
> > the benefits? Can we acept that possibility as well?
>
> Sure.

What criteria would you use to judge the validity of their beneficial
claims? How do you judge?

> >> Mike's a scientist- doctorate from one of the tech schools; MIT or
> >> similar;
> >> electrical engineering or somesuch, if I understand correctly.
> > Where's the data? Scientific studies involve data of some sort.
>
> Are you familiar with his body of work?
> He's both written a lot and made a number of videos.

A scientific study needs to meet some criteria. I've gone through some
of the stuff on the web, but none of it meets the definition of
scientific study.

> > That's why I time and time again ask for definitions and possible
> > protocols from the practictioners.
>
> And you get various answers- and the most cogent quibble is with the
> parameters of the protocol.

I'm not sure which quibble you refer to, but when the parameters of
the protocol invalidate a scientific study, it can no longer be called
a scientific study.

I try to gather information and inquire about reasonable experiments.
Reasonable in the fact that I am not the entire US government with
near inexhaustible resources, not a Research Institution with millions
of dollars. I am a guy who has access to some equipment that he might
be able to borrow.

I am not interested in touring the entire world and letting everyone
punch me. There are multitudes of CHI (tm) masters becoming
enlightened every year. It would be a never ending line. And then, I'd
have to compare those punches to the dudes in the non-chi line. Makes
my floating ribs hurt just to think about it.

> >> never seen that either-
> > Try postulating that a Chi dude might be a fraud.
>
> When the proof positive is the hitting part?

Proof positive? Why would it be proof positive? Lots of people hit
hard. You are painting CHI into a circle with these required criteria.

-Mike K.




04 Jul 2007 12:09:31
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Mike" <mkorneck@nd.edu > wrote
>> > SInce when is the study of Chi simply restricted to what it feels like
>> > to be on the end of a Chi strike?
>> Sure is the first, most convincing, experience that many people have.
> So that restricts it?

Few people want to investigate something they've had no experience with-
you won't do it on the basis of videos, of credible reports, historic
referrence, or by going to see them yourself-
the 'restriction' isn't from the exponents of the skill.

> I wasn't aware the True Chi was only limited to martial art types.

It's the general topic of conversation here though-
if you want to talk about 'chi' with other practitioners of other systems,
there's less interest.

> What criteria would you use to judge the validity of their beneficial
> claims? How do you judge?

Never known a lifelong celebate- not in my circle of acquaintances.

> A scientific study needs to meet some criteria. I've gone through some
> of the stuff on the web, but none of it meets the definition of
> scientific study.

Then I guess you work with what you gots.

> I try to gather information and inquire about reasonable experiments.
> Reasonable in the fact that I am not the entire US government with
> near inexhaustible resources, not a Research Institution with millions
> of dollars. I am a guy who has access to some equipment that he might
> be able to borrow.

Then I guess you work within your limitations.
Don't bitch when you can't do the work.

> I am not interested in touring the entire world and letting everyone
> punch me.

Yeah; that's what I did, and it gets hard on you.
--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




05 Jul 2007 01:04:46
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net > wrote:

> "Karel Koskuba" <karel@golem.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >> That said, I've known some people who could produce some startling
> >> results
> >> with 'touch', and claimed having witnessed some startling things done
> >> from a
> >> distance- and claimed practice methods that would train the skills.
> > Ah, you go by hearsay.
>
> Notice the words 'I've known.....'.
> Nothing 'hearsay' about it.
> I've not experienced 'no-touch', but I have experienced the contact skills.

But it is 'no-touch' skills that were the subject. And as you say, you
have not experienced it. Your knowledge came second-hand.

> > Anyway, with your age and experience you should know better than to rely
> > on other people's claims.
>
> I do.

But you don't. It is 'no-touch' skills that were being questioned.

> If they can't do it *to me*, I don't put much credence in it.

It is 'no-touch' skills that were being questioned. No-one did it to you
and yet you replied ...

>Some would say that it takes a body of trust to be able to manifest the
>skill without damaging the subject. It's not about 'moving' people, or
>knocking them out- it's about causing massive damage/death.

Hence my (previous) reply to you.


Perhaps you've made a mistake? If you go back and check what you were
replying to you can see it was 'no-touch'.

--
Regards,

Karel


05 Jul 2007 01:41:04
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Renli <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Jul 4, 7:16 pm, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > > The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao, and
> > > > sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.
> >
> > Some do.
>
> So that we do not "go by hearsay" please provide a reference for your
> statement above.

Are you standing by your statement? First make a stab at defending it,
then I'll provide reference :^)

> > I'm sure there are
> > lots more performers who can 'demonstrate' this amazing power. Some of
> > them just happen to be in MA :^)
>
> If this is a roundabout way of saying such people lack credibility
> (and by implication "reliable" fighting skills) then I wholeheartedly
> agree.

Fighting skills don't come into it one way or the other.

--
Regards,

Karel


04 Jul 2007 18:58:52
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Karel Koskuba" <karel@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote
>> I've not experienced 'no-touch', but I have experienced the contact
>> skills.
> But it is 'no-touch' skills that were the subject.

When?
At this point, we're talking 'tai chi' and the effects they produce with
'touch' skills.

> And as you say, you
> have not experienced it. Your knowledge came second-hand.

I have no knowledge of legitimate no-touch skills. I do have experience with
people who did everything they claimed to do, and their report of such
events. They were credible in reports of skills prior to that, and had no
reason to lie.

>> I do.
> But you don't. It is 'no-touch' skills that were being questioned.

No; we've got people who don't believe that taiji has any unusual skill at
all- much less 'no-touch'.

> It is 'no-touch' skills that were being questioned. No-one did it to you
> and yet you replied ...
>>Some would say that it takes a body of trust to be able to manifest the
>>skill without damaging the subject. It's not about 'moving' people, or
>>knocking them out- it's about causing massive damage/death.

Yes; it's much like uke in an aikido situation- he has to have some training
in order to take the application at all (without getting hurt). The same
level of training is necessary for any number of other 'uke' situations.
The whole idea of 'no-touch' isn't about mitigated technique. Any dilution
of such efforts would be difficult to control, at best.

> Perhaps you've made a mistake? If you go back and check what you were
> replying to you can see it was 'no-touch'.

Yes; and the possible factors having to do with students being in collusion
with instructors, or alternative explanations.

Chas




05 Jul 2007 02:09:37
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 5, 8:41 am, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote:
> Renli <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 7:16 pm, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Renli" <usagi.mei...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > > The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao, and
> > > > > sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.
>
> > > Some do.
>
> > So that we do not "go by hearsay" please provide a reference for your
> > statement above.
>
> Are you standing by your statement? First make a stab at defending it,
> then I'll provide reference :^)
>
> > > I'm sure there are
> > > lots more performers who can 'demonstrate' this amazing power. Some of
> > > them just happen to be in MA :^)
>
> > If this is a roundabout way of saying such people lack credibility
> > (and by implication "reliable" fighting skills) then I wholeheartedly
> > agree.
>
> Fighting skills don't come into it one way or the other.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Karel

I'm a little tired to jump through that hoop these days. But here is
my stab.

In my very long time doing every major style except possibly hao
style, and other IMA like liu he ba fa and xingyi, I've never come
across a reference that any family member or lineage holder will talk
about no touch skills. In fact every instance where it is mentioned is
an instance where it is denounced as a trick.

If one such person acknowledged the existance of empty force, then he
would fall under the shadow of performing tricks.

Furthermore you usually hear about ling kong jing from a certain kind
of martial art and it's students these days. And the founder of that
art said that ling kong jing was not correct. Several top students
also said "it is...hypnotism". So in that respect sure it works, but
it is a trick.

So who talks about empty force?
doc fai wong
earle montague
cheng man ching
Maybe a few others, but these people are hardly lineage holders, let
alone heads or next of kin on family systems. Some would even argue
they are top practitioners, no insult intended. After all, it is
possible to learn a great deal from someone if you have never done it
before. Maybe after a few years it would be different but thats not
the point. The point is, who out there would have something to teach
you after those few years who still purports empty force? I'd like to
know :)

-



05 Jul 2007 03:31:44
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net > wrote:

> > But it is 'no-touch' skills that were the subject.
>
> When?
> At this point, we're talking 'tai chi' and the effects they produce with
> 'touch' skills.

Not from what I'm reading :^)

"Renli" wrote...
> In the tai chi world, no touch skill is regarded as something of a
> false satori. It is not something which should be focused on at all.

> Generally speaking it is said to only work with one's own students...

You say...

>Some would say that it takes a body of trust to be able to manifest the
>skill without damaging the subject. It's not about 'moving' people, or
>knocking them out- it's about causing massive damage/death.

What is it you are talking about??? From context it's clearly 'no-touch'.


>> And as you say, you
>> have not experienced it. Your knowledge came second-hand.

>I have no knowledge of legitimate no-touch skills. I do have experience
>with people who did everything they claimed to do, and their report of
>suchevents. They were credible in reports of skills prior to that, and
>had no reason to lie.

It doesn't matter how credible you consider it, it's still second-hand.
What is your problem with it?

--
Regards,

Karel


05 Jul 2007 03:29:02
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 5, 10:31 am, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> "Renli" wrote...
> > In the tai chi world, no touch skill is regarded as something of a
> > false satori. It is not something which should be focused on at all.
> > Generally speaking it is said to only work with one's own students...
>
> You say...

Yes, I do say.

This is the point where my credibility gets attacked, right?

In that case I would like to propose that my opinion matters very
little in this discussion, and that what we need is a quote from a
lineage holder about empty force skills. After all, when we drink from
the well we must remember the source of the water.

-



05 Jul 2007 10:42:42
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Renli <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Jul 5, 10:31 am, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Renli" wrote...
> > > In the tai chi world, no touch skill is regarded as something of a
> > > false satori. It is not something which should be focused on at all.
> > > Generally speaking it is said to only work with one's own students...
> >
> > You say...
>
> Yes, I do say.
>
> This is the point where my credibility gets attacked, right?

Hey, calm down. If you had bothered to read what "you say", namely ...

>Some would say that it takes a body of trust to be able to manifest the
>skill without damaging the subject. It's not about 'moving' people, or
>knocking them out- it's about causing massive damage/death.

And then looked at the top of the post you would had seen that it was a
reply to Chas. Your text came in just to clarify to Chas, what he was
replying to.

--
Regards,

Karel


05 Jul 2007 13:09:49
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 5, 5:42 pm, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> Hey, calm down. If you had bothered to read what "you say", namely ...

No one ever be.. renli friend before

me karel friend now
^^
-



05 Jul 2007 15:00:14
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

Renli <usagi.meijin@gmail.com > wrote:

> > > > > > The top family members and lineage holders in chen, yang, wu, hao,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > sun *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills.

me:
> > > > Some do.

> I'm a little tired to jump through that hoop these days. But here is
> my stab.

When you say - (they) *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills" - it
looks like you must be pretty sure.

> In my very long time doing every major style except possibly hao
> style, and other IMA like liu he ba fa and xingyi, I've never come
> across a reference that any family member or lineage holder will talk
> about no touch skills. In fact every instance where it is mentioned is
> an instance where it is denounced as a trick.

The last sentence seems to indicate that there are instances when some
"family member or lineage holder" denounced it as a trick. In other
words some do talk about it. :^)

It seems that when you wrote "never talk about" you meant "never talk
about in a positive way". I would had no problem with that.

There was an interview, published few years ago in one of the Tai Chi
magazines (I think with a Wu family member), where he replied to a
question about 'empty force' by saying that it was not meant to be a
demonstration of any action on the student by the teacher but rather a
an exercise for the benefit of the student. I think he also said that to
think that the teacher is using any kind of force is to misunderstand
what's going on (but maybe that was implied). He didn't go into any
detail.

During a conversation, Chen Xiaowang was asked about 'action at a
distance' and replied, in effect, 'there is no such thing'. He then
added that using a feint attack with one hand to get your opponent to
move closer to your real attack with the other hand could be considered
a sort of 'empty force' and perhaps that's what it originally meant (he
does like to find something positive to say whenever possible :^) ).


> The point is, who out there would have something to teach
> you after those few years who still purports empty force? I'd like to
> know :)

Don't ask me :^)

--
Regards,

Karel


05 Jul 2007 08:30:34
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Karel Koskuba" <karel@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote
> When you say - (they) *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills" - it
> looks like you must be pretty sure.

Geez; you've made yer little semantic point, move on.
He wasn't speaking in metaphysical certitudes, but in an understood
generality of a high abstraction level for literary emphasis.
Is that, like, a German thing or something; Polish, maybe?

> The last sentence seems to indicate that there are instances when some
> "family member or lineage holder" denounced it as a trick. In other
> words some do talk about it. :^)

You are sharp, Karel.
Do you grade papers for a living; something like that- pointless
bean-counting?

> It seems that when you wrote "never talk about" you meant "never talk
> about in a positive way". I would had no problem with that.

That's as intellectually dishonest as one can be; obdurate, willfull,
misconstruction.

> There was an interview, published few years ago in one of the Tai Chi
> magazines (I think with a Wu family member), where he replied to a
> question about 'empty force' by saying that it was not meant to be a
> demonstration of any action on the student by the teacher but rather a
> an exercise for the benefit of the student. I think he also said that to
> think that the teacher is using any kind of force is to misunderstand
> what's going on (but maybe that was implied). He didn't go into any
> detail.

Ok; you've proved that there is an exception in the span of human history,
but you don't quite know when/where it was; good work, Karel- silver star
next your name in the Big Book of Obsessives.

> During a conversation, Chen Xiaowang was asked about 'action at a
> distance' and replied, in effect, 'there is no such thing'. He then
> added that using a feint attack with one hand to get your opponent to
> move closer to your real attack with the other hand could be considered
> a sort of 'empty force' and perhaps that's what it originally meant (he
> does like to find something positive to say whenever possible :^) ).

'a conversation'?
With some un-named researcher who failed to adequately record the data soas
to revisit the event for analysis?
Your quibbles are becoming less credible under even rudimentary scrutiny.

> Don't ask me :^)

didn't.

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




05 Jul 2007 14:37:47
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Karel Koskuba" <k...@golem.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > When you say - (they) *never ever* talk about "no touch" skills" - it
> > looks like you must be pretty sure.
>
> Geez; you've made yer little semantic point, move on.
> He wasn't speaking in metaphysical certitudes, but in an understood
> generality of a high abstraction level for literary emphasis.
> Is that, like, a German thing or something; Polish, maybe?
>
> > The last sentence seems to indicate that there are instances when some
> > "family member or lineage holder" denounced it as a trick. In other
> > words some do talk about it. :^)
>
> You are sharp, Karel.
> Do you grade papers for a living; something like that- pointless
> bean-counting?
>
> > It seems that when you wrote "never talk about" you meant "never talk
> > about in a positive way". I would had no problem with that.
>
> That's as intellectually dishonest as one can be; obdurate, willfull,
> misconstruction.
>
> > There was an interview, published few years ago in one of the Tai Chi
> > magazines (I think with a Wu family member), where he replied to a
> > question about 'empty force' by saying that it was not meant to be a
> > demonstration of any action on the student by the teacher but rather a
> > an exercise for the benefit of the student. I think he also said that to
> > think that the teacher is using any kind of force is to misunderstand
> > what's going on (but maybe that was implied). He didn't go into any
> > detail.
>
> Ok; you've proved that there is an exception in the span of human history,
> but you don't quite know when/where it was; good work, Karel- silver star
> next your name in the Big Book of Obsessives.
>
> > During a conversation, Chen Xiaowang was asked about 'action at a
> > distance' and replied, in effect, 'there is no such thing'. He then
> > added that using a feint attack with one hand to get your opponent to
> > move closer to your real attack with the other hand could be considered
> > a sort of 'empty force' and perhaps that's what it originally meant (he
> > does like to find something positive to say whenever possible :^) ).
>
> 'a conversation'?
> With some un-named researcher who failed to adequately record the data soas
> to revisit the event for analysis?
> Your quibbles are becoming less credible under even rudimentary scrutiny.
>
> > Don't ask me :^)
>
> didn't.
>
> --
> Chashttp://www.jacksandsaps.com/

I think Karel is okay. There was a misunderstanding, and quite
admirably, Karel patched things up on the other end and everything
flowed rather smoothly. In the end we agree, and to me that is most
important. I also like how karel proposed some ways we could continue
the discussion, such as suggesting that demonstration of empty force
was for the benefit of the student (question; what benefit does it
provide?) and secondly that chen xiaowang said that although there is
no action at a distance, "feint" is something of an empty force,
right? :) Lots of interesting speculative conclusions are possible
with this. Renli is pleased.

-



05 Jul 2007 10:23:43
Term Limits Now
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> If scientists wanted to study the effects ofcelibacyon the
> biochemical processes in the human body, would you require
> them to join a monastery for 20 years, in order to "step up"?

Or have them talk to me. It's been about 20 years; after about the
first five it becomes less difficult.




05 Jul 2007 19:40:32
Mike
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> >> > SInce when is the study of Chi simply restricted to what it feels like
> >> > to be on the end of a Chi strike?
> >> Sure is the first, most convincing, experience that many people have.
> > So that restricts it?
>
> Few people want to investigate something they've had no experience with-
> you won't do it on the basis of videos, of credible reports, historic
> referrence, or by going to see them yourself-

You keep glossing over the fact that I have gone to see Chi dudes
before.

You're a firm exponent of anecdotal evidence and yet you won't accept
anyone elses unless it affirms the point you want it to. That is not
science. In the big bad world of conspiratorial science, that sort of
thing will get you fired or worse.

> > What criteria would you use to judge the validity of their beneficial
> > claims? How do you judge?
>
> Never known a lifelong celebate- not in my circle of acquaintances.

I never asked that question.

I asked what criteria you would use to judge the validity of their
various beneficial claims.

> > A scientific study needs to meet some criteria. I've gone through some
> > of the stuff on the web, but none of it meets the definition of
> > scientific study.
>
> Then I guess you work with what you gots.

Maybe, but you don't call it a scientific study.

> > I try to gather information and inquire about reasonable experiments.
> > Reasonable in the fact that I am not the entire US government with
> > near inexhaustible resources, not a Research Institution with millions
> > of dollars. I am a guy who has access to some equipment that he might
> > be able to borrow.
>
> Then I guess you work within your limitations.
> Don't bitch when you can't do the work.

Noone's bitching on this end. I'm lamenting the fact that noone is
interested in the truth, they are simply interested in claiming they
know the truth. Big difference.

> > I am not interested in touring the entire world and letting everyone
> > punch me.
>
> Yeah; that's what I did, and it gets hard on you.

No you didn't. You went around until you decided you had enough, then
went back home. There's a *whole* lot of everyone else out there who
hasn't punched you.

I can't believe we've whittled down CHI to the "punch test".

-Mike K.



05 Jul 2007 14:23:35
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Mike" <mkorneck@nd.edu > wrote
> You keep glossing over the fact that I have gone to see Chi dudes
> before.

Yes; I remember- I get you mixed up with the rest of them sometimes.
The failure to investigate before opining is endemic amongst them.

>> Never known a lifelong celebate- not in my circle of acquaintances.
> I never asked that question.
> I asked what criteria you would use to judge the validity of their
> various beneficial claims.

no idea- I'm a practitioner, not an onlooker.

>> Then I guess you work with what you gots.
> Maybe, but you don't call it a scientific study.

Neither do I pretend to-
I do it.

>> Yeah; that's what I did, and it gets hard on you.
> No you didn't. You went around until you decided you had enough, then
> went back home. There's a *whole* lot of everyone else out there who
> hasn't punched you.

I thought you used 'entire world' as an hyperbole meaning 'longtime search',
not a metaphysical exclusive.

> I can't believe we've whittled down CHI to the "punch test".

'We', who?

--
Chas
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/




05 Jul 2007 21:33:15
Karel Koskuba
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net > wrote:

> Geez; you've made yer little semantic point, move on.

I like to make sure there is no misunderstanding. If it disturbs you,
ignore it - esp. as I wasn't talking to you.

> Do you grade papers for a living; something like that- pointless
> bean-counting?

Are you sore about your own argument?

> > It seems that when you wrote "never talk about" you meant "never talk
> > about in a positive way". I would had no problem with that.
>
> That's as intellectually dishonest as one can be; obdurate, willfull,
> misconstruction.

Not only sore, bitter, too.

> > There was an interview, published few years ago in one of the Tai Chi
> > magazines (I think with a Wu family member), where he replied to a
> > question about 'empty force' by saying that it was not meant to be a
> > demonstration of any action on the student by the teacher but rather a
> > an exercise for the benefit of the student. I think he also said that to
> > think that the teacher is using any kind of force is to misunderstand
> > what's going on (but maybe that was implied). He didn't go into any
> > detail.
>
> Ok; you've proved that there is an exception in the span of human history,
> but you don't quite know when/where it was; good work, Karel- silver star
> next your name in the Big Book of Obsessives.

What's wrong with you?

> > During a conversation, Chen Xiaowang was asked about 'action at a
> > distance' and replied, in effect, 'there is no such thing'. He then
> > added that using a feint attack with one hand to get your opponent to
> > move closer to your real attack with the other hand could be considered
> > a sort of 'empty force' and perhaps that's what it originally meant (he
> > does like to find something positive to say whenever possible :^) ).
>
> 'a conversation'?
> With some un-named researcher who failed to adequately record the data soas
> to revisit the event for analysis?
> Your quibbles are becoming less credible under even rudimentary scrutiny.

You are a twit. The conversation was between Chen Xiaowang and myself. I
didn't feel the need to advertise that fact so I put it in third person.

> > Don't ask me :^)
>
> didn't.

So why the tirade?

--
Regards,

Karel


06 Jul 2007 09:50:42
Chas
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

"Karel Koskuba" <karel@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote
>> Geez; you've made yer little semantic point, move on.
> I like to make sure there is no misunderstanding. If it disturbs you,
> ignore it - esp. as I wasn't talking to you.

It's just that it's interminable- and a consistent thread by the majority of
the guys that have a problem with Ollie.
It's third-grade stuff, buddy.
The use of the word 'all' in common conversation means 'with exceptions that
prove the fucking obvious, Karel'.
It's not a metaphysical certainty, or law of physics or recipe for some
chemical reaction.

> Not only sore, bitter, too.

Add resentful.
It's a bad day, in a string of bad days.
That doesn't vitiate the point, buddy.

> What's wrong with you?

Jus' pickin' fights-
This seems particularly justified- not that that's a necessary criteria in
my present mood.

> You are a twit. The conversation was between Chen Xiaowang and myself. I
> didn't feel the need to advertise that fact so I put it in third person.

Twit or not, reporting an anecdotal conversation without attribution as
evidence is precisely what you people are quibbling about, right after
stating the obvious as some sort of insight known only to 'scientists', is a
waste of time.
That said, I've had conversations with skilled people wherein they said
precisely the opposite in private as they had stated in public- as
concerning 'dim mak', 'no touch', 'delayed reaction', the nature of 'chi'.
No one cares to be ridiculed- particularly on the basis of some 'if-then'
proposition. (If you can kill a man like that, then you must be able to put
this goat to sleep.)

>> > Don't ask me :^)
>> didn't.
> So why the tirade?

jus' feelin' grumpy-
tag, you're It.
Best regards as always-

Chas




06 Jul 2007 15:59:25
Renli
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

On Jul 5, 10:00 pm, Karel Koskuba <k...@golem.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> There was an interview, published few years ago in one of the Tai Chi
> magazines (I think with a Wu family member), where he replied to a
> question about 'empty force' by saying that it was not meant to be a
> demonstration of any action on the student by the teacher but rather a
> an exercise for the benefit of the student. I think he also said that to
> think that the teacher is using any kind of force is to misunderstand
> what's going on (but maybe that was implied). He didn't go into any
> detail.

I'm not sure he needed to. I probably understand exactly what he
meant. I assume you do too?

I like Tai Chi magazine. There's a lot of synergy going on. Right
after I experienced sinking in transition, there was an article
published which mentioned it ^^ One day I'm going to try and backorder
every issue.

-



06 Jul 2007 18:33:09
Mike
Re: WOTT - Tai Chi: What's it good for?

> >> Never known a lifelong celebate- not in my circle of acquaintances.
> > I never asked that question.
> > I asked what criteria you would use to judge the validity of their
> > various beneficial claims.
>
> no idea- I'm a practitioner, not an onlooker.

I think you know what I'm geting at and are ignoring the point, but to
take that statement as it is written and apply it to the original
analogy as *it* was presented, you are saying that: *Yes, you would
need to be celibate for 20 years in order to conduct a study on the
benefits of celibacy.*

> >> Then I guess you work with what you gots.
> > Maybe, but you don't call it a scientific study.
>
> Neither do I pretend to-
> I do it.

Some of us do it *and* want to scientifically study it.

> >> Yeah; that's what I did, and it gets hard on you.
> > No you didn't. You went around until you decided you had enough, then
> > went back home. There's a *whole* lot of everyone else out there who
> > hasn't punched you.
>
> I thought you used 'entire world' as an hyperbole meaning 'longtime search',
> not a metaphysical exclusive.

I raised it to an exclusive in response to how you were applying it.
If you want it to mean 'longtime search', then who are you to judge
who's longtime search is over, who's is just beginning and who's is
ended?

> > I can't believe we've whittled down CHI to the "punch test".
>
> 'We', who?

You claimed it was the "proof positive". That certainly raises it to a
rather prestigous level of importance.

Here I have access to the fastest high speed cameras in the world,
various thermal equipment, electron microscopes, magnetometers and
who's knows what else... and my study has now been restricted to
running around letting guys punch me.

-Mike K.