[Oliver101]

Hello.
Can anybody tell me what is going on in this clip?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fVJFE1OY988

Is this real?

[KiltedTaiji]

oh gawd...can't belive i wasted my time watching that.

[mix]

oh gawd...can't belive i wasted my time watching that.

+1

[bailewen]

I can't find anything about it to suggest it was a demo. Looks like a class to me. Unfortunately, the sound is too low for me to make out much of what they are saying.

Not sure why it's being called "empty force" since they are in physical contact.

At the 1:00 mark, AFAIK, he is making a point about elbow energy. The guy on the left is presenting a strong bridge on purpose so that the teacher can show him a near little "trick". You need the guy to feed you a strong bridge though to make it work.

At 1:16 the guy on the left actually asks (not to clear) either where to step or what kind of push to give. Then when he starts that little hula dance he looks down breifly and then says, "Yes." like he's going, "Oh yeah, there it is..." The shaking is where the little guy locks his wrist and just holds it there not quite sending him out, not quite letting him go.

At 1:31 the little old guy starts explaining how it works and tells him, "Ok, you try it on me now." and he gives the "younger" guy a little tension to work with. The next time he does it to the younger guy he says stuff like, "See? You need to send it out to the side a bit..." and stuff like that.

It's a lesson, not a demo. No empty force is involved. The little guy is showing how a strong bridge allows him to manipulate the bridge builder through just that one point of contact.

At 1:37 he brings his left hand up and points to where their bridges connect and points out how the wrist is being locked up. (not broken, just made so he can't move it freely to dissolve the push)

The wierdness at 1:57 is something I can do when the hands are much lower. Never tried it up high like that. It's not a move I could pull off sparring or anything. It's more like one of those little body mechanics demos you might show during a class. I can't do it well but just last week I was working with a guy to figure out how that worked as he said his own teacher was also really good at that "trick".

Interesting lesson.

This post has been edited by bailewen: 05 March 2008 - 03:27 PM

[ChiBelly]

His power seems less impressive than this guy, because he is unable to induce the same amount of hopping response.

[jpaton]

Exactly. Empty force at play. fake.

Cheers,
Pawel

how is it empty force when they are touching the whole time?

[ChiBelly]

how is it empty force when they are touching the whole time?

I think this depends on your definition. In my definition, when the movement of the recipient is clearly not in proportion to the physical force emitted by the sender, and can not be attributed to something obvious like gravity or pain, it's empty force. This is a definition I would use without interpreting whether or not I think it's fake. If your definition of "empty force" requires no contact at any point, then maybe this could be something like "hidden force."

This post has been edited by ChiBelly: 05 March 2008 - 04:13 PM

[ChiBelly]

Well, if you cannot logically understand the idea that fraud and fakery which is passed off as reality is detrimental to the subject in question, then I guess you cannot understand my point of view. I don't need to talk to them to understand that their actions are harming the honesty present in taijiquan.

Without taking sides, the question of what is "fake" or "quackery" is a common theme here on Empty Flower and relates to epistemology - the study of what is knowable. Each of us has experience and knowledge that tells us what to believe and what not to believe, and we usually express our opinions on that basis, and perhaps change our minds based on discussion with others. Pawel's experience is such that, for him, calling what he saw "fake" is not that drastic. For those of you with experiences that make you less certain about the truth of what you saw in the video, you are not ready to state an opinion as to the "fakeness" of it, so Pawel's statement might seem drastic to you and perhaps even insulting to the participants. But if he makes such a statement based on his honest experience rather than with the intention to troll, then you ought not to take it as insulting (although I am not saying that you specifically are Dmitri) but rather accept that someone does not have the same truth that you do. If a person honestly believes it is fake, and cares about Taijiquan, then saying so can be a mark of integrity.

I would add that there are personality and stylistic differences among us about how we express that we believe something is fake or has no value. Many people have trouble dealing with honest, opposing belief because they are invested so much in their own. Knowing this, if your goal is to persuade, I think it's important to be sensitive to it and not always be so direct; this is both out of consideration for other people but also because I think it's more effective. But that is my personality. There are so many threads on EF that have problems because (a) people have difficulty handling direct (yet honest) opinions and (b) people don't consider other people's personalities when expressing their own opinions. I haven't a solution for this problem, but consider the video below.

- Would you be comfortable, based on your personal perception, creating a reply on this thread calling it "fake", or
- Do you feel that, since you have not met this person, given his age and apparent years of experience, that it entitles your respect and serious consideration?

More importantly, what criteria do you use to choose between the two approaches? Are you aware of your criteria? Independent of your belief, would you consider it rude or disrespectful if someone else called it "fake?"

This post has been edited by ChiBelly: 05 March 2008 - 04:52 PM

[Oliver101]

Hello.
Thank you for your answers so far, especially to bailewen.
I cannot say exactly why but to me it doesn´t look like it is fake, maybe the reaction of the reciever is a bit exaggerated.
It is similar to some of the things shown by Wei Shuren on Youtube.
I don´t really understand what they are doing but it looks quite interesting and i would really like to know how it works.
The hopping shown by the reciever of Master Fang Nings pushes seem to be very exaggerated.

[ChiBelly]

Neither, and that's exactly my point: not enough information. Your example is not 100% valid (IMO) in this case, because Kim is an individual (he may be promoting a style, but he's not professing a certain "type" of training... not sure how to explain it... hope you understand the difference...) whereas I was referring to a specific practice, not to whether someone (a person) is an honest one or not.

If what Mr. Kim professed was a type of training, like in the first clip, then no, I would not automatically say that it is a complete waste and fraud (even if it appeared to me that way) unless I at least touched hands and had some exchange of ideas with a valid representative of the style. At the very least, if I felt strongly enough about it, I would use words like "it looks like" or "it seems to me". I wouldn't use such absolute wording as "There is one old man faking the issuing of power, and another faking taking it in."

That said -- I'm not saying Pawel should STFU, mind you. Everyone's got their own "style"... I was just making an observation and asking a question.

I think you are saying that it's different to criticize Kim specifically versus practioners who, by inference, represent a particular style and set of training methods? The thing is, Kim claims to be a representative of Ninjutsu, and a grandmaster at that. I think there are probably serious Ninjutsu practioners, who, in defense of the quality of their discipline, would not hesitate to call Kim (and what he practices) fraudulent, without hedging their words. On the video, and in his book (although I haven't read it, so this is hearsay), he claims Ninja levitation to be a "practice" that one should spend significant time training.

I do not know if this kid was joking, but there is even an imitator:



I think your observation is valid, especially in the sense that there are probably practices that we don't understand and ought not to disregard quickly without at least objectively justifying our reasons for doing so. If you don't do this, you can miss out on something good, and it's less useful for people to hear your opinion. There are many people in the general public who fail to justify their opinions in regards to Taiji - i.e., disregard it as a martial art because they've only seen new agers practice it, "it's too slow," etc.

On the other hand, due to personal experience, some things will seem so obviously fake that we do not spend a lot of detailed thought on justifying that belief. I think this is where the video falls for Pawel. But since this is a discussion board, where others are undecided and have less background, and cannot distinguish between the various practices of Taiji, it's useful for Pawel to answer your questions.

It's also useful to be able to articulate one's base assumptions about the reality of a particular topic, both for one's self and for the sake of argument so people can "see where you are coming from." This will allow a person to make a statement without always having to justify it in detail. If you observe something that goes against your base assumptions, I think you ought to be able to call something "fake" and be direct about it on the message boards, so long as the readers are aware of what your base assumptions are.

However, I am probably more like you in how I respond to such things, although I generally don't say anything at all when I don't find value in what I see. But that's because I have no integrity.

This post has been edited by ChiBelly: 05 March 2008 - 06:08 PM

[jpaton]

Ok, fine: Amended: 99% empty force. happy now? Jeez, this video or form of practice is 100% detrimental to real taijiquan. There is no merit behind it.

Cheers,
pawel

no not really any more or less happy then i was before, a little curious as to why you're so dramatic tho...