How does he do it?

[mograph]

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]

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

Never mind --- got it.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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