Let's debate lightness

[Tez3]

Hi Tez,
I'll try to explain this from an internal arts perspective.
"Adhere' means to stick fast which is confusing because you cannot do it lightly, do you mean touch?"
When an internal stylist touches arms to another person we tend to touch softly as in very little muscle relaxed, we are trying to be sensitive to the movement of the opponent body structure, and direction of the force or energy, so if he is pushing to the right we are sticking and following and then redirecting is a possible method of dealing with force.
However, there does have to be a degree of force (4ounces is the metaphor) in order to move the 1,000 pounds. No force means no 4 ounces results in the force to keep moving at the momentum. It is the application to stick, follow and apply the correct amount of force at the right time to off balance a person which is why people who are lethargic can not redirect force because they can't even lift their arm up.
"You don't 'lead' a puppet you control it."
I was at the puppet museum and those puppets were on me pretty good. Elmo is actually pretty short.

Thank you for the explanation, I just actually wanted to know whether he meant touch or stick though.

After falling several times, he was amazed that he could be taken down without any force. To prevent further falls he started using more and more force while i maintained lightness and max 2 oz. i didn't manage to push him after that, but he remarked how tired he was and how much energy he had to expend to defend against my 2 oz pushes. If i had used slightly more force, maybe 10 oz, there would be no difficulty in pushing him but then i wouldn't be able to improve my skills.

so what you are telling us is that you magically pushed him over with your fingertips.

 

[Zeny]

To push a person without using force, is counter-intuitive and i certainly don't expect anyone to believe it. That is why this thread is called a debate.

If you don't use force, then you must use timing, guile and awareness of many other factors, as well as a deep understanding of the opponent's body and his intensions and tendencies. There is a logical method and it is certainly no magic.

Taichi asks you to use 4 ounces to deflect a thousand pounds and that slow can defeat the fast. This is also counter intuitive, and if you don't think outside the box, how will you be able to do this. For slow to defeat the fast, you certainly must acquire a high level of skill in something else rather than speed or force generation. What then is that something else?

 

[Zeny]

Kung fu wang, not everything can be seen in youtube.

 

[oaktree]

"To push a person without using force, is counter-intuitive and i certainly don't expect anyone to believe it. That is why this thread is called a debate." Well considering that No force defys newtons laws of motion
How does an object move if no force(energy)is being used? You can't say you use no force and then say you use a small amount of force. Go push a ball but don't touch it see how far it moves.

If you don't use force, then you must use timing, guile and awareness of many other factors, as well as a deep understanding of the opponent's body and his intensions and tendencies. There is a logical method and it is certainly no magic.

I said you need timing and timing means the correct time to off balance an opponent or listen however there has to be some force and this in the metaphor is 4oz which at the right time can move 1,000lbs because it off balances it on the right angle.

Taichi asks you to use 4 ounces to deflect a thousand pounds and that slow can defeat the fast. This is also counter intuitive, and if you don't think outside the box, how will you be able to do this. For slow to defeat the fast, you certainly must acquire a high level of skill in something else rather than speed or force generation

Slow can not beat fast that is why bullets go through people. Correct timing can beat fast.
You should try this experiment, have a world class track runner race an old lady tell me who won

 

[oaktree]

 

[Dirty Dog]

To push a person without using force, is counter-intuitive and i certainly don't expect anyone to believe it. That is why this thread is called a debate.

What you are describing is impossible, under the laws of physics that control this universe.
Perhaps you're thinking of some alternative reality?

If you don't use force, then you must use timing, guile and awareness of many other factors, as well as a deep understanding of the opponent's body and his intensions and tendencies. There is a logical method and it is certainly no magic.

If you don't use force, then it would have to be magic. Again, any time you like, I am sure that any of us would be happy to allow you to apply your 2oz of pressure and knock us down. No challenge no fight, no sparring, just a request for a demonstration.

Taichi asks you to use 4 ounces to deflect a thousand pounds and that slow can defeat the fast. This is also counter intuitive, and if you don't think outside the box, how will you be able to do this. For slow to defeat the fast, you certainly must acquire a high level of skill in something else rather than speed or force generation. What then is that something else?

You do know that stories like The Tortise and the Hare are make believe, right?
As philosophy and metaphor, what you're saying is peachy. As a strategy for a physical conflict? I don't recommend it.

 

[Zeny]

Aside from the things i have described, there are other elements that most people do not realise. A person's root or stability is not constant. Most people would say 'you have a strong root' and leave it at that. But the matter is far from that simple. If a person stands upright and places 100pc weight on one leg, and rotates his waist, or shifts his weight around as in the posture grasping sparrow's tail, it is far more probable than not that he may lose his uprightness or lessen his root somewhere in the process. There may be points where he has a better root and points where he doesn't.

By merely placing a soft palm on your partner's chest, without using force or resting on him (only lightly sticking), you can actually sense quite accurately the moment he has his root and the moment he loses it. All these extra information are vital if you wish to resort to other means, rather than force, to unbalance a person.

Once you are acutely aware of this, then it is simply a matter of leading him towards positions where he has a weak root. At that moment only 2 oz is sufficient to unbalance him.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Zeny

I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and say I do not think you know what the meaning of 'Force' is.
Force is a vector quantity that has bot magnitude and direction and without either one of those you have no movement there for you cannot, by the laws of physics move something, without force

F=ma
Force = (the mass of and object)(acceleration)

Please look here

 

[Zeny]

Xue Sheng, thanks. Appreciate the clarification.

Let's say i place my palms on sand, and if i push the sand lightly, it creates a shallow mark, and if i push harder, it creates a deeper mark.

The amount of energy used in the push is what i mean when i use the word 'force'. Is there a better word? If there is, let's use that word from here onwards.

If the person i push is made of sand, i would not want to create any deep mark on the person.

 

[oaktree]

But you have to use a degree of energy or force to move,lead, off balance an object.
You can not use no force, you can use minimal force,a degree of force but saying no force even denys fa jing

 

[Zeny]

I did say no force, but what i mean is very minimal force, at most 1-2 oz, which is akin to no force.

If you don't allow your partner to place any force on your body, he will not be able to reach a 'handle' to stabilize himself, and thus he must rely completely on his own balance and stability in order to maintain standing. If his balance is not good (imagine standing on one leg) you can topple him easily.

 

[Tez3]

I did say no force, but what i mean is very minimal force, at most 1-2 oz, which is akin to no force.

If you don't allow your partner to place any force on your body, he will not be able to reach a 'handle' to stabilize himself, and thus he must rely completely on his own balance and stability in order to maintain standing. If his balance is not good (imagine standing on one leg) you can topple him easily.

Now, though you are talking about things that every martial artist knows, it's isn't 'special' but quite normal. When sparring, martial artists of all hues will try to make their opponent 'off balance' enough to be able to strike successfully at them, they won't go down merely by being off balance but it makes taking/throwing/striking at lot easier.

 

[Zeny]

Tez3, you are right. Now we are on the same page. I'm only going slightly further, unbalance an opponent without relying on force (only a very light mark on the sand man).

I also never said it is special, i'm only asking for the views of those who agree and those who disagree in order to create some entertainment.

 

[Tez3]

Tez3, you are right. Now we are on the same page. I'm only going slightly further, unbalance an opponent without relying on force (only a very light mark on the sand man).

I also never said it is special, i'm only asking for the views of those who agree and those who disagree in order to create some entertainment.

You are actually going a step too far with the 'no force' argument because it can't be done, it's a simple as that.

I will also add we aren't here for your entertainment, we come to learn and discuss.

 

[Zeny]

That kind of response pretty much puts a stop to any debate.

 

[Tez3]

That kind of response pretty much puts a stop to any debate.

You aren't debating though, you put up a post then say 'right who disagrees with me?' now you've said it's for entertainment.
You tell us things that people who know say are actually impossible, you also keep changing the goal posts, so no I wouldn't say my comments have stopped the 'debate' if in such it ever was.

 

[mograph]

Zeny, please do not use the words "no force" when you mean "a small amount of force."
The two phrases are not equal.

They are not "akin" either. That is like saying that if an opponent does not move (due to no force being used), it is akin to his falling down (due to a small amount of force being used). Since the two outcomes are completely different, they are not akin to each other.

Now, if something is not being used (when a small amount of force is being used), please define what that thing is: the thing that is not being used. Please do not use the word "force" to define the thing that is not being used.

If you want to teach, you must be able to use different words to get your idea across, as the need arises.

 

[oaktree]

Well I don't know if it was for entertainment purposes, however when people search on Google or inquiry about internal arts, as practitioner of said arts we need to present something plausible, something that has merit, educational and in line with the people who created the art based on their theory.
Now, having a different approach or concept does present a debate and open possibilities such as the video of knife defense and ground work in Taijiquan that agree and disagree which is done intelligently, and I am always up for an intelligent conversation. I think this threads problem is the inconsistency of the definition of terms being used. Now if I recall the original posters native language wasn't English so maybe a misunderstanding of terminology or maybe a radically different approach, but in almost 2 decades in martial arts and 10 in internal arts have not seen anyone use zero force and have someone unbalance.
I have seen some one commit to an attack with a lunge to grab and right when the person went to grab the teacher moved away causing the student to fall due the off balance of the student it had to do with the concept of his intent is going to grab and because his intent is so locked on that position he off balance if the teacher moved, aikijujutsu and aikido and sword arts do this and it is difficult to put into words but nothing mystical about it and can be explained with psychology and physics

 

[mograph]

I think this threads problem is the inconsistency of the definition of terms being used.

Indeed.

 

[oaktree]

This reminds me of a story with my teacher.
So we are discussing in how to feel the correct timing of the opponent attack.
So we sit in seiza legs bend back and he says ok feel when I am going to attack, so I'm thinking ok, he raises up to strike to early try again, raises up to attack wham to late,
Relax, finally I get it right, I am thinking I am a qigong master right psychic powers but my teacher tells me the secret and it was actually something we notice unconscious and I saw the cue unconsciously and because my unconscious wasn't aware of it my consciousness side tried to use super natural as a means to rationalize it.

However I am near sighted so may be I really didn't see the cue and I am a qigong master