[QUOTE]This statement contradicts with what Ron Panunto stated about traditional teachers and their training methods. Maybe today teachers in China/Taiwan teach this way but according to him and what I read it was done differently in the past. Open mideness and criticism of teachers training was considered a no no. You could not question what you were learning and had to clean for the teacher/etc. (he was like a father figuare).[/QUOTE]
Maybe Ron Panunto(whom ever he is) is wrong. My teacher is Chinese and was trained traditionaly in China since the 40's. He did not have to clean/slave away for his teacher and he most certainly did spar(both emptyhand & with weapons). His teachers taught him martial arts, not how to be a maid :P Though there was still much beating with sticks, lol. I'm sure there were teachers that made students clean, cook, bathe, & feed them, but often this was most likely because they liked taking advantage of people ;) There's been frauds & jerks in the martial arts world for hundreds of years :P

We have to have some common sense to know Tim is an excellent exception, and not the rule so we must be open minded. The type of art also matters,
Xingi, shuaijiao, san soo and similar arts are structured so that one may actually acquire skill.
It is not that it is acquired in less time (though that may be a telling point) but students actually "make contact" and can acquire the skills necessary to become good.

The new wushu is mostly "show", ballet like and no room for true expression. So even less people who do good in form go for actual physical contact as in san soo or shuaijiao.
If one was smart enough and open minded enough, some of the older teachers put up with crap (eating bitter) knowing that in itself was training and learned enough despite being illiterate. Sun Lutang's background is certainly a good template. He was eager, filial and happened to meet and trian with the best of the "old school". He exceeded his own masters' expectations!
QUESTION:
Do the same winners who excel in form become the push hands or san soo, or shuiajiao winners. NEVER.

"Do the same winners who excel in form become the push hands or san soo, or shuiajiao winners. NEVER."

Some do. I've known of quite a few actually, though not all of them did so competively. If you're trying to win San Shou championship, you don't want to hurt yourself in forms competition or the other way around.

Speaking of Ron Panunto, he wrote an excellent letter to the editor in this month's Inside Kung Fu Magazine chastising them for printing an article on "empty force."

I'm glad to hear about the letter to the editor - I didn't see the new issue yet. I wanted to write one myself.

With so many great people doing so many great things in the IMAs why do they print crap like that.

I brought the "No Touch" article to my school & accused my teacher of holding back on us. We all got a good laugh.

At least the guy admitted that after he started no touch his students started leaving. The two students in the photos that were falling without being touched looked hilarious!

I guess tyhey do it to stir up controversy. I never take that rag seriously anyway. Sometimes I buy it to read David Caradine's barefoot chronicles (not that I take his TCC seriously either).

"No Touch" is exactly the type of thing the IMAs do not need.

It was a good letter to the editor and I agree that "empty force" is largely an "empty farce" in martial terms. It is, however, a legitimate aspect of some internal teaching in the sense that the teachers and students do believe that it is possible and are not just trying to "run a scam". After all, healing from a distance is an accepted aspect of qigong medical theory so it's not surprising that some martial artists would believe that it can also be accomplished in a martial context.

I think the idea of being able to defend yourself "at a distance" is very seductive to the types of student that are often attracted to the internal arts ... until they find out that hard work, sweat and the odd bruise are the main secrets to learning how to defend yourself. Most of these leave the legitimate instructors to go in search of those teachers who specialize in mystery, neo-taoism and what a cynic might call "stage magic".

Healing from a distance is a crock too. It has been debunked many times.

Why aren't physics, biology, & chemistry interesting enough to people? Why are people always looking for supernatural things?

Lots of people who look to the supernatural have spent very little time studying the natural - which alone could occupy many lifetimes. And although some folks believe we get many lifetimes we do not!

So you did go and check with God about that weird idea, 'reincarnation'?! And what did he say exactly? I'd be really interested to get this issue settled, thanks!

(Maybe what you label as supernatural, other people approach as natural? Please, what's natural in a mathematical theory of 'bosons', 'quarks' and the like?)

I'd like to know why so many folks assume something as awsome as God would need a gender distinction.

Jens,

It all has to do with the empirical method. When you learn "no touch" fighting step in the ring with some "yes touch" fighters & test your hypothesis. Then get back to me.

Dragonprawn,

Yes, well-. While I agree, that going into the ring and getting myself killed would be a way, for me, to test my hypothesis about the existance of God, it comes out as a very poor method for testing your hypothesis about the non-existance of 'reincarnation', since it would only work if I came back into your life somehow conscious of the fact that I had a piece of information for you, or if we could get in contact after I had settled the question -on the other side- after my death...

Unless you want to infer that reincarnation does not exist, on the absence of evidence available to you? -but that would be against the empirical method, eh?

By the way, what makes you infer, that I hold any hypothesis about 'no touch' fighting?
I was just pointing out, that what the natural sciences of the West claim as natural is heavily contextualized, and that they posit their own definition of 'natural'. I felt my comment was somewhat to a side, since I read your post as voicing a frustration, rather than arguing a point, which made me put it in parentheses.

But hey, come to think of it, doesn't Ling Kong Jing has to do with opening the dragon gate, and not with spooky action at a distance?

Jens,

Look, first of all, I'm from New York City so don't try to lecture me about King Kong.

Second, since you don't seem to understand the empirical method allow me to use an analogy.

Lets say that my hypothesis is that all swans are white. all you have to do to disprove it is show me a black swan. You see, real science works by disproof.

There you have it. Since my hypothesis is that reincarnation does not exist you are free to try & disprove it. Good luck (not that I believe in luck either).

Well, step right over here, and I'll clobber you with sharp, pointy objects until your gruesome death is done...

Aw, come on, where's your smile, professor?
(I know from your other recent message that the will is there, though your don't actually use smileys...)

You could try to disproves my hypothesis, analoguous to yours, that all swans are NOT white... Happy hunting

Look at history. Everyone thought the world was the center of the universe, it was flat, that was the science of the day. Today we know that the earth is round and not the center of the universe...

Look at history. Many scientific facts to disprove the bible, but later in time more scientific facts disprove the previous ones only to reinforce what the bible says...

Science has recently proven the Big Bang theory, pagan scientists are now caught in a funk because of cause and effect(the universe didn't always exist as they originally thought). They realize that the cause, the thought and planning behind the universe, could only be from God.

Look at history. Science has constantly f*cked with itself and people. Look at what happens when you let science be your God.

Again, I know I should run away from such a thread.
DP,
I cannot say your conclusions are wrong but your empirical logic is not really logical.
Science or modern technology cannot come close to answering our questions about everything.
Take acupuncture for example. Even though MD's are beginning to accept it as a possible treatment, their acceptance is only based on what can be proved in a lab. There is yet no scientifically accepted reason why acupuncture works but it does for many things. Because the mechanism is unprovable in the Western Lab, it stops any further use by western MD's...I am rambling but the point is everything cannot be proven by Western Standards.

I am not advocating just believe because I said so and I know basically Westerner's are of the "Show Me" or "Prove It" mentality.
The mechanisms for why IMA work cannot yet or have not yet been satisfactorily explained in Western Terms/Scientifically.
That does not stop me from practicing and believing that they work.
Finally, if you are limiting yourself to explanations derived from Biology, Chemistry and Physics, you will severly limit yourself because these disciplines are so limited. Inability to explain certain phenomena in Western terms also does not mean they do not exist......

Very unwise to get into this thread...but cannot help refer people to Karl Popper on the empiricism stuff.
Also, regarding no touch. I know most people claiming this are charlatans and there is no other way to good martial arts than hard work including blood, sweat and tears. However, need you touch the flame to be burnt? I challenge all to go into your kitchen, turn on a hotplate to full and hold your hand two inches above it indefinitely (be sure to not touch!)...see if you get burnt or not? This little experiment will show in a few seconds that energy travels from source outwards quite easily and touch is not necessary. It's just that this does not lead to good martial arts without hard work...the magic is still practice, practice, practice.
I like to remain open to what's possible but follow the path that I know gets results.
Ever get that feeling someone is looking at you, you turn around and they are?

unwise,

do you feel like someone is flipping you off?

They are.
Bob #2

unwise,

Are you saying someone can push me down from a distance with body heat?

I think you are a bit unclear on the different types of forces and how they can be transferred.

You can certainly project qi through your eyes ... some practitioners have a look in their eyes that makes someone who can't or won't fight want to crawl home to mommy.

As to projecting qi from your palms at a distance for fighting purposes ... Unwise will be living up to his monniker if he learns such skills and then starts a fight somewhere with someone who enjoys and is good at fighting.

Hmmmm...unwise again but I will reply. I guess I am not saying any of these things. I don't know! My point is to be open and not arrogant with knowledge and experience...not that you can beat someone up without touching them.
I know someone whom I trust on these things who can demonstrate a few weird small things (including on me), who always points out that they are mere party tricks which are useless in a fight...but goes some way in demonstrating forces can be projected. He uses it to point out our pathetic egocentric know-all attitude (i.e. general human)is very poor indeed and we should be more open to our universe and our own nature. Stop the monkey mind dictating to the rest of our being the way things are and actually sit back and observe the way things are.
He always stresses these phenomenon are useless as a means of fighting and if you want to hurt someone without touching them then buy a gun.
Anyone enquiring after these things gets laughed at and told to pursue something useful.
A point I do make is simply if you think science and empiricism has a good grasp on the explanation of phenomenon in our universe you obviously have not studied much science.