# How does he do it?



## Zeny

Anyone can explain?


----------



## Buka

I believe it's called Chi Whizz.


----------



## Touch Of Death

A very willing partner.


----------



## MAfreak

Touch Of Death said:


> A very willing partner.


yes, thats the whole magic.
reminds me of this:


----------



## Zeny

Interesting... What about this one? How does he do it?


----------



## MAfreak

losers. they have to touch their opponents for this. 
this is how to do it:


----------



## Buka

The above two are different from the first one posted IMO.
I believe they are both Illegal Use of a Force Field.


----------



## Buka

MAfreak said:


> losers. they have to touch their opponents for this.
> this is how to do it:



I don't know if George Dillman does seminars anymore, but if there's ever one within driving distance I highly recommend going. You will be very entertained. I went to one about ten years ago, strictly to see a salesman in action. I took the seminar, quiet and respectful. I'm so glad I went. It was terrific. I'm still smiling, even as I type this.

We all need a little fun in life. Especially in our Martial life.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

There's no practical and ethical way I can think of to do the study, but I'd love to see an in-depth scientific examination of how certain instructors get their students psychologically conditioned to throw themselves, go down for no-touch knockouts, react to magical chi blasts, and the like.

Based on my personal experience in the Bujinkan and my outside observation of the phenomenon in other arts, I'm inclined to believe that it often starts with a practitioner who has genuine skills and can apply painful techniques on his demo partner. Over time, the uke starts subconsciously anticipating and reacting to the technique before it is actually applied. If the teacher and the culture encourage the uke to believe that this reaction is the result of super-refined technique or ki power, then the uke can be guided into responding more and more to psychological expectations rather than what is going on physically. In many cases the teacher himself may buy into the same fantasy.

In the videos posted by Zeny above, the instructor is working with push hands, which doesn't have that initial painful component to start the subconscious programming. I suspect the process is still pretty similar. Maybe in the beginning the teacher was genuinely off-balancing the student with actual push hands technique. Once that was established, rather than teaching the student how to correct the flaws in the balance which allowed that to happen, he (consciously or not) guided the student to attribute the result to magical chi forces, to anticipate those forces, and react more and more based on subtle cues from the teacher.

Or maybe the whole thing is just deliberately staged. All we know for sure is that a) the students are jumping around and throwing themselves rather than actually being pushed or pulled off balance and b) the instructor will not demonstrate anything that looks like that with a participant who doesn't already buy into the hype and isn't cooperating.


----------



## Tez3

Buka, I agree, I haven't seen Dillman but have watched one of his 'proteges' Paul Bowman do a 'no touch' KO, you're right it was very funny. The second time I saw him was at the seminar in the video below ( my husband is the very unimpressed grey haired chap sitting on the bench in the background) Bowman was due to do his no touch KO right up to the time that Iain Abernethy come into the seminar then it changed to watch you can see in the video. The elaborate bringing round of the downed chap is the same as the no touch KO though.
Grand Master Paul Bowman - Bing video


----------



## Xue Sheng

Comment on video of post #1 and Post #5.

both fake and not to be taken seriously. Also betting if anyone, that was not their student, walked up to them and said can I try, they would give you some nonsense about how it would be to dangerous, and how their students have been trained to handle it.


----------



## Zeny

What about this video? Real or fake? How do they do it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I am not in a position to declare anything 'real' or 'fake', but my impression from the videos is that such things appear not to be real to me.  My opinion only.

I believe that the power of suggestion is real and powerful; stage hypnotism can convince normal people to walk around a stage barking like a dog or quacking like a duck.  The people who are doing those things probably believe that they are in fact being hypnotized and are compelled to do whatever it is they are doing.

It has been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  I think such is the case in these videos.

Ultimately, the test of any martial arts claim is to reproduce it on an 'unbeliever' who is not associated with nor a student of the person performing the alleged technique.

With that said, I will say that I have seen techniques that seemed unbelievable, and have then had them performed on me and I began to believe in them, because they worked.  They were not as 'magical' as the videos shown in this thread seem to show; far more subtle and less spectacular.  I firmly believe that the techniques I have experienced are based in good body mechanics and a deep understanding of leverage, human anatomy, and power generation on the part of the practitioner.

I try to keep an open mind.  However, not so open that my brains fall out.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> I don't know if George Dillman does seminars anymore, but if there's ever one within driving distance I highly recommend going. You will be very entertained. I went to one about ten years ago, strictly to see a salesman in action. I took the seminar, quiet and respectful. I'm so glad I went. It was terrific. I'm still smiling, even as I type this.
> 
> We all need a little fun in life. Especially in our Martial life.


People get rich because other people are willing to pay for their brand of entertainment.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Zeny said:


> What about this video? Real or fake? How do they do it?



What is the point of this thread?

Some of this is questionable and some is real, some is rather well done, and some of what Adam Mizner is doing in this video is real as well. However without being there and being able to push hands with all of them, I cannot tell you fake or real in all cases.

Look at the feet of those that are being pushed, look at the body mechanics, watch the amounts of force being used by attackers.

And I am still wondering "What is the point of this thread?"


----------



## Zeny

Point of thread:

1) it is interesting to listen to the different views of people with respect to those videos

2) this being a taichi forum, i hope there is someone who could do the above fajin and explain to me the actual mechanics of it. Honestly, i can bounce people 1-2 steps without problem but i cannot do the fajin in the videos


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Zeny said:


> What about this video? Real or fake? How do they do it?


In this one, the guy demonstrating is mostly using real technique. His demo dummies are generally overreacting. In some cases it's just being a bit overly compliant and adding an extra 10% or so to their reaction. In other cases they're way overdoing it - maybe not as bad as in the first couple of videos, but definitely overselling it. In a few cases you can see the recipient use his legs to jump up and back, rather than stumbling back because he has been off-balanced.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Zeny said:


> Point of thread:
> 
> 1) it is interesting to listen to the different views of people with respect to those videos



OK



Zeny said:


> 2) this being a taichi forum, i hope there is someone who could do the above fajin and explain to me the actual mechanics of it. Honestly, i can bounce people 1-2 steps without problem but i cannot do the fajin in the videos



As I said before, I'm not teaching via web forum. But do what I said as to what to look at, and go from there


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tony Dismukes said:


> In this one, the guy demonstrating is mostly using real technique. His demo dummies are generally overreacting. In some cases it's just being a bit overly compliant and adding an extra 10% or so to their reaction. In other cases they're way overdoing it - maybe not as bad as in the first couple of videos, but definitely overselling it. In a few cases you can see the recipient use his legs to jump up and back, rather than stumbling back because he has been off-balanced.



Pretty much... but I can tell you from experience, some of those apparent over reactions are real. But for the most part you are correct, they are over selling it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

To answer the OP's original question AS IF the techniques being demonstrated were 'real', let me repeat:

1) Deep understanding of body mechanics.
2) Firm understanding of pressure points on humans.
3) Years of experience generating power through leverage, 'rooting', and again, body mechanics.​
Unbelievable-looking things can be done by some adepts, but in my limited experience, they are generally less amazing to see.  They are, however, amazing to have a given technique performed on one.  And the results can be devastating.

I am no expert.  I am incredibly fortunate to be trained by experts.  It is truly eye-opening.  But nothing quite as dramatic as seen in some of the videos above.


----------



## mograph

Tony Dismukes said:


> Maybe in the beginning the teacher was genuinely off-balancing the student with actual push hands technique. Once that was established, rather than teaching the student how to correct the flaws in the balance which allowed that to happen, he (consciously or not) guided the student to attribute the result to magical chi forces, to anticipate those forces, and react more and more based on subtle cues from the teacher.


Interesting hypothesis. If I understand you, it begins with a legitimate expression of technique, and proceeds incrementally through conditioning and suggestion.

The technique seems _similar_ to classical conditioning, where the unconditioned stimulus (US) would be the actual, initial pushes from the teacher, and the corresponding unconditioned response (UR) would be the fall in response to a real push. Next, the conditioning would consist of the suggestion of the teacher's abilities, along with the witnessing of the technique performed on previously conditioned students; along with a gradual reduction of the visible movement (and push effort) of the teacher. As a result, what would be a neutral stimulus (NS) to a non-student (the light touch), has become a conditioned stimulus (CS) to the student, leading to a conditioned reaction (CR): the light touch (NS -> CS) results in a physical response (CR). 

Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mograph

Tony Dismukes said:


> In this one, the guy demonstrating is mostly using real technique.


 Never mind --- got it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

mograph said:


> Interesting hypothesis. If I understand you, it begins with a legitimate expression of technique, and proceeds incrementally through conditioning and suggestion.
> 
> The technique seems _similar_ to classical conditioning, where the unconditioned stimulus (US) would be the actual, initial pushes from the teacher, and the corresponding unconditioned response (UR) would be the fall in response to a real push. Next, the conditioning would consist of the suggestion of the teacher's abilities, along with the witnessing of the technique performed on previously conditioned students; along with a gradual reduction of the visible movement (and push effort) of the teacher. As a result, what would be a neutral stimulus (NS) to a non-student (the light touch), has become a conditioned stimulus (CS) to the student, leading to a conditioned reaction (CR): the light touch (NS -> CS) results in a physical response (CR).
> 
> Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yep, that's pretty much it.

When I was in the Bujinkan, there were some teachers who demonstrated stuff like this and naturally some of us students had to try it out. I actually had a couple of training partners I could get to fall over without actually touching them. I wasn't even an instructor or particularly charismatic. Imagine if I was a charismatic instructor who had years to select the best ukes for my demonstrations!


----------



## Buka

Just thinking....is this pretty much the same thing, but on a grander scale?


----------



## mograph

I read an article once, which gave a plausible interpretation of this phenomenon in martial arts. If I recall, the author (_not_ Paul Dong, I think) experimented with "empty force," but did _not_ sell it as a self-defence technique. Instead, he saw _some of the typical demos_ not as demonstrations of the master's ability, but as demos of _the sensitivity of the master's students_.

In other words, if his students could sense and respond to a slight touch, they should be able to respond well to later training in various sensing and sticking jins for push hands practice. I think that honest masters who do these demos _and make no self-defence claims_ believe that the intent of the exercise is obvious (to showcase his sensitive students) and don't want to talk down to people by stating the purpose. However, we might _misinterpret_ the purpose of the demos as being "look what I can do to people!"

To me, this sensitive-student interpretation works with the classical conditioning hypothesis as well, where the honest master would gradually try to reduce the sensory stimulus in order to increase the student's sensitivity, by gradually reducing his push/effort. To use a sound/hearing analogy, he would speak more _quietly_ so the student would listen more _closely_. Then eventually, when he speaks normally (or shouts), the student would be blown away. ... Only he'd be listening with his _hands_ in this case.

Why doesn't the honest master ask his reacting students to dial down their reactions a bit? Because he wouldn't want to get in the way of their process ... at least until they get into serious push hands practice, where he would teach them to direct their sensitivity and _control_ it.

Of course, I also think that that any misinterpretation of those demos has led to some teachers' believing that they can _do_ the "no touch" to people for self-defence, or it has led to charlatans trying to misinform the public in that way.

... in my opinion.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

mograph said:


> I read an article once, which gave a plausible interpretation of this phenomenon in martial arts. If I recall, the author (_not_ Paul Dong, I think) experimented with "empty force," but did _not_ sell it as a self-defence technique. Instead, he saw _some of the typical demos_ not as demonstrations of the master's ability, but as demos of _the sensitivity of the master's students_.
> 
> In other words, if his students could sense and respond to a slight touch, they should be able to respond well to later training in various sensing and sticking jins for push hands practice. I think that honest masters who do these demos _and make no self-defence claims_ believe that the intent of the exercise is obvious (to showcase his sensitive students) and don't want to talk down to people by stating the purpose. However, we might _misinterpret_ the purpose of the demos as being "look what I can do to people!"
> 
> To me, this sensitive-student interpretation works with the classical conditioning hypothesis as well, where the honest master would gradually try to reduce the sensory stimulus in order to increase the student's sensitivity, by gradually reducing his push/effort. To use a sound/hearing analogy, he would speak more _quietly_ so the student would listen more _closely_. Then eventually, when he speaks normally (or shouts), the student would be blown away. ... Only he'd be listening with his _hands_ in this case.
> 
> Why doesn't the honest master ask his reacting students to dial down their reactions a bit? Because he wouldn't want to get in the way of their process ... at least until they get into serious push hands practice, where he would teach them to direct their sensitivity and _control_ it.
> 
> Of course, I also think that that any misinterpretation of those demos has led to some teachers' believing that they can _do_ the "no touch" to people for self-defence, or it has led to charlatans trying to misinform the public in that way.
> 
> ... in my opinion.



The problem with this idea is that even if were true, the student would be learning exactly the wrong thing to do with their sensitivity. A practitioner should develop that sort of awareness so that he can compensate and _keep_ his balance when someone works to subtly upset it - not so that he can throw himself around the room when someone sends a signal that they might like to off-balance him. It would be like developing punch awareness by practicing throwing yourself face-first into an opponents strikes every time he twitched.


----------



## mograph

Tony Dismukes said:


> The problem with this idea is that even if were true, the student would be learning exactly the wrong thing to do with their sensitivity. A practitioner should develop that sort of awareness so that he can compensate and _keep_ his balance when someone works to subtly upset it - not so that he can throw himself around the room when someone sends a signal that they might like to off-balance him. It would be like developing punch awareness by practicing throwing yourself face-first into an opponents strikes every time he twitched.


I agree, but suggest (giving lots of benefit of the doubt to the hypothetical honest master) that the student's wild reaction is meant to be _temporary_. But ... said master should have allowed the wild reaction only _once_. Hm. Point taken.


----------



## Zeny

I'm waiting for oaktree to come along and call BS on these videos


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

It's not important whether those clips are true or fake but whether this kind of skill is useful in fighting or not. 

You can push your opponent off cliff, into traffic, into sharp object, ...  It still violates a very important MA principle and that is to "keep your friend close but your enemy closer". There is a good reason than you want your opponent to be under your knee so you can control him, and don't let him have chance to hurt your family members.

The 

- "push" use 1 contact point that move an object from point A to point B without changing the level of the gravity center.
- "throw" use 2 or 3 points contact that drop the gravity center and make the object to fall.

If you have the ability to "push", all you need is to add you "leg skill" and you can upgrade your "push" to "throw".

My question is if you have the ability to "throw", why do you even care about "push"?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Because you can't always throw and if you are pushing properly, or understand a push in Taiji it also uproots. So it takes advantage of center of gravity. Also if you watch 3rd OP video closely, they are not all pushes.

My question then is what do you do if you can't throw?


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> My question then is what do you do if you can't throw?


Silly Xue Sheng ... you use DIM MAK! DEATH TOUCH! AIIIEEEEEE!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Xue Sheng said:


> My question then is what do you do if you can't throw?


You can always pull your opponent in (or borrow the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent), land your "rooting leg" at the proper spot and use your "attacking leg" along with your hands to throw.


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> My question then is what do you do if you can't throw?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can always pull your opponent in (or borrow the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent), land your "rooting leg" at the proper spot and use your "attacking leg" along with your hands to throw.


So if you can't throw ... you throw?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mograph said:


> So if you can't throw ... you throw?


*You only need to throw your opponent down once in order to end the standup fight*. If the opportune is not there, there is no rush. You can always wait or create your opportune later.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *You only need to throw your opponent down once in order to end the stand* *up fight*. If the opportune is not there, there is no rush. You can always wait or create your opportune later.



Yep then it turns into a ground fight, you can't ever assume that because they are on the ground and you are standing that they aren't dangerous.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can always pull your opponent in (or borrow the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent), land your "rooting leg" at the proper spot and use your "attacking leg" along with your hands to throw.



If they are relaxed you can't throw or pull, then what...stand there

You can also uproot and push and/or use qinna. You can also step behind and trip and knock them down, there are many many options and a push, down right, is just another tool in a tool box.... there is more to Taijiquan than throwing


----------



## mograph

Xue Sheng said:


> You can also uproot and push and/or use qinna. You can also step behind and trip and knock them down, there are many many options and a push, down right, is just another tool in a tool box.... there is more to Taijiquan than throwing


Yes. There are many applications to peng/ji/an.

For example, if a taijiquan artist (A) can push an opponent (B) away, they can also _ uproot_ B. If B is fast and attempts to regain footing, B is not concentrating on A. The distraction due to the uprooting allows A to manipulate B and apply a technique.

It's shortsighted to assume that peng/ji/an are only for putting distance between the artist and the opponent.


----------



## Flying Crane

White crane punch of death.  Against that, none will stand.  It's been proven.  In a court of law, no less.  And written about in peer-reviewed journals.  Of the scientific variety.


----------



## mograph

Flying Crane said:


> White crane punch of death.  Against that, none will stand.  It's been proven.  In a court of law, no less.  And written about in peer-reviewed journals.  Of the scientific variety.


I bow to your superior peer-review-fu!


----------



## oaktree

So I was teaching my student applications today and we were talking about a movement that has the potential to be a throw. I use the word potential because it Can be used for other things. So I use my body mechanics to lift them similar to seoi nage. I could have taught that if you move just the right time you can off balance him with out touching him and he will trip. It's not magical its like this: when someone goes to grab and takes a step forward if we move at the right timing we can off balance the person because there mind is fixed on me, it's difficult to explain and found in swordsmanship. It's basically a psyche out.
However again, nothing mystical about it. And yes those videos are mostly bs


----------



## oaktree

All this chi magic reminds me of a story.
 I had a friend who use to believe in magic and every day he would go in his room and practice his magic. Eventually he grew into his late 30's never looking to work or do anything but do his magic and living in his parents home.


----------



## Zeny

None of the demonstators in the videos i linked has said their fajin is done with chi.


----------



## oaktree

Zeny you seem to want to look for magical ways of applications and having linked actual fights in other threads for you none of the guys in your video can fight if they needed to. So yes maybe it looks cool and wow but it's like watching a magician and building false hope of actual combative skills. When I teach I don't teach bs my students some of them grew up fighting so there is no bs in the approach.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Zeny said:


> None of the demonstators in the videos i linked has said their fajin is done with chi.


I don't care if they call it chi or fajin or physics or Martian mind control rays. The fact is that in the first 2 videos the demo dummies are throwing themselves around in a way which is not based on the actual physical movements of the demonstrator. It's either conscious fakery or (more likely, IMO) the result of self-hypnosis and psychological conditioning. If the demonstrator tried the same movements with someone who hadn't been taught to respond that way, the results would be completely different.

The 3rd video has actual legitimate technique. The demo dummies are just overselling it to various degrees.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Zeny said:


> None of the demonstators in the videos i linked has said their fajin is done with chi.



There is no fajin without qi.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> White crane punch of death.  Against that, none will stand.  It's been proven.  In a court of law, no less.  And written about in peer-reviewed journals.  Of the scientific variety.



You seem to have forgotten.... the mighty and all powerful style of.....XUEFU!!!!!!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

mograph said:


> Interesting hypothesis. If I understand you, it begins with a legitimate expression of technique, and proceeds incrementally through conditioning and suggestion.
> 
> The technique seems _similar_ to classical conditioning, where the unconditioned stimulus (US) would be the actual, initial pushes from the teacher, and the corresponding unconditioned response (UR) would be the fall in response to a real push. Next, the conditioning would consist of the suggestion of the teacher's abilities, along with the witnessing of the technique performed on previously conditioned students; along with a gradual reduction of the visible movement (and push effort) of the teacher. As a result, what would be a neutral stimulus (NS) to a non-student (the light touch), has become a conditioned stimulus (CS) to the student, leading to a conditioned reaction (CR): the light touch (NS -> CS) results in a physical response (CR).
> 
> Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Perhaps more an example of Shaping, since that produces a progressive series of responses based upon rewards for progressive approximations of the desired behavior. This isn't a pure example of shaping (it does follow some of the principles of both Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning), but it's likely the approval of the instructor and other students that serves as the reward, and the student gradually becomes more and more "responsive" - giving a larger response to a smaller input.


----------



## mograph

gpseymour said:


> Perhaps more an example of Shaping, since that produces a progressive series of responses based upon rewards for progressive approximations of the desired behavior. This isn't a pure example of shaping (it does follow some of the principles of both Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning), but it's likely the approval of the instructor and other students that serves as the reward, and the student gradually becomes more and more "responsive" - giving a larger response to a smaller input.


Good catch. I eschewed the operant path because of what I saw as a lack of reward, but the instructor's _attention_ (and, as you wrote, approval) is a reward. "Pick me, Sifu!"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

mograph said:


> Good catch. I eschewed the operant path because of what I saw as a lack of reward, but the instructor's _attention_ (and, as you wrote, approval) is a reward. "Pick me, Sifu!"


And a powerful reward for most folks - more so to some people, and maybe those are the people who are drawn to these instructors.

By the way, shaping can also happen to perception. It's entirely possible (and likely in some cases, given their apparently sincere attempts to work with skeptics and challengers) that some of these instructors truly believe they are that good. It doesn't help that there are actual, workable techniques that seem just as mysterious. 

For instance, I had someone from Yanagi-ryu demonstrate something to me in a seminar without explaining what was going to happen. He had me try to punch him in the chest. When I did, he used his hand to change my targeting (apparently something they spent a lot of time working on), and I simply missed without him moving. It looked like a damned Jedi mind trick, because the movement of the hand looks like Obi Wan waving his hand at the Storm Troopers on Tatooine. I had to believe in that one, since I didn't know what was supposed to happen beforehand, but it worked. Not something I'd want to trust in a fight, but interesting.


----------



## zzj

I'm not going to stick my foot into these threads that Zeny has posted, as I have told him I do not pretend to know enough about all these to have an opinion. That said, have a look at this video, especially Adam Mizner's freestyle demo from 5:02 onwards.*I'm outta here*


----------



## oaktree

zzj said:


> I'm not going to stick my foot into these threads that Zeny has posted, as I have told him I do not pretend to know enough about all these to have an opinion. That said, have a look at this video, especially Adam Mizner's freestyle demo from 5:02 onwards.*I'm outta here*


The girl way in the back in the black top and skirt looks kinda of cute not the one sitting on the red chair that one seems ok...the one next to the ugly one holding the pink thing may be third best. The one girl white shirt black pants top of green bleachers looks cute too. I get distracted easy by cute girls.
My wife calls me bian tai.I think that means I am a nice guy￼


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> I get distracted easy by cute girls.


Did you see the video of Ian Sinclair (Tai Chi vs. MMA) that I posted in another thread? There's a pole dancer doing a demo (not like that!) in the background. I think you'd like it.


----------



## oaktree

mograph said:


> Did you see the video of Ian Sinclair (Tai Chi vs. MMA) that I posted in another thread? There's a pole dancer doing a demo (not like that!) in the background. I think you'd like it.


Omg she is polishing the pole too her stroke work is impeccable.


----------



## mograph

oaktree said:


> Omg she is polishing the pole too her stroke work is impeccable.


Ya gotta respect professionals.


----------



## Zeny

What about this video? Is it BS?


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> If the demonstrator tried the same movements with someone who hadn't been taught to respond that way, the results would be completely different.



Ah but one can't demonstrate on outsiders because it's 'too dangerous', it always has to be a student who has been trained and can take the pain/being KO'd.


----------



## oaktree

Xue Sheng said:


> Because you can't always throw and if you are pushing properly, or understand a push in Taiji it also uproots. So it takes advantage of center of gravity. Also if you watch 3rd OP video closely, they are not all pushes.
> 
> My question then is what do you do if you can't throw?


If you can't throw then look for another way to bring him down. For example let's use seoi nage a common arm throw. If you get the arm break it first over the shoulder so you got that at least. If you are not getting under his center of gravity for what ever reason, then you could step to the side and behind him under the arm you hold and choke and kick out his back of knee.
In essence, if you can't throw adapt to another technique because nothing looks more sad then trying to throw someone and you can't throw them.


----------



## oaktree

Zeny said:


> What about this video? Is it BS?


Actually I didn't mind that video, looks more plausible. If something looks plausible then I will say so, if not I will say it looks like bs. For me, I would have to touch hands. I have felt fa jin pushes and they have pushed me back so I do but in it, but it wasn't so exaggerated and my teacher said proper lining up of the body to the point of off balance. I am a big advocate of realism in self defense. I was telling my student this that we can do Taijiquan for health if that is your main focus, but I want you to look at the applications to have an idea. As teacher's in my opinion, what we partake in knowledge we want our students to defend themselves intelligently and give them all we have to offer. I feel giving a student a low percentage method of dealing with an attacker is irresponsible. I recall the first time I asked my student to throw a punch I said leaving your arm out for me to demonstrate and talk about points is good however, in real life this won't work so throw your punch and snap it back to ready position.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Zeny

I am still not entirely sure what the true point of this thread is but you may want to familiarize yourself with MT Rules, specifically these
*
1.10.2 No Art bashing. *

No one art is "the best", no one "style" is the best. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Do your research and find what best fits your ability and need.


*1.10.3 No Individual Bashing / Fraud Busting. *

It is not our mission to out and expose frauds or decide who "sucks". Such discussions rarely lead anywhere other than to headaches, and lawsuits.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Zeny said:


> What about this video? Is it BS?


I don't have a problem with that one. I'd have to touch hands with the teacher myself to fully gauge his skill level and I don't know for sure how deliberately compliant his demo partner was being, but at least the teacher was using real techniques and his demo partner was reacting to the actual technique being performed rather than throwing himself based on a non-verbal suggestion.


----------



## Zeny

Xue sheng, like i said, i like to listen to the views of people like oaktree with respect to the videos i've linked. Despite our disagreements on certain things his comments are actually made in good faith and i welcome them.

I am not debating, bashing, or promoting any art or any person. This thread is actually one where i did not express much of an opinion. Have i breached any forum rules by linking videos and asking questions?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Just letting you know, what your doing or what your intentions are matter not to me


----------



## mograph

Well, _that_ happened.


----------



## Xue Sheng

A yup...... and just when I figured out it was all done with mirrors too


----------

