Gary, check you pm
~Wen~
No I don’t Gary, though I’ve trained with both Mooney and Montaigue.
And regardless of whether it result in a knock out or not, the claim is still that you can effect someone’s “energy” by using your “energy” with no contact. In fact an outsider could argue that the no-touch KO is more usuefl as it doesn’t need a follow up strike??
that is not the arguement bob
"And regardless of whether it result in a knock out or not, the claim is still that you can effect someone’s “energy” by using your “energy”
No, the claim is that it can be used to KO people without touching them, who cares if you disrupted their energy if you blocked and hit them in a dim-mak point instantaneously? (via Erles wudang stuff) But you should care if someone claims there is no need to touch your opponent to KO them, hence the topic of the thread.
Gary
So Gary, can you use your chi to weaken / disrupt someone else’s chi without any physical contact?
Still not on topic eh bob
Not really a valid question Bob, if I did think I could do such a thing , would I try and use it in combat to KO a person? The answer is No, absolutely not, that is the topic of the thread, again, feel free to join at any time.
Gary
PS: You mentioned you worked with Mooney? Did you get KO’d by a “no-touch” method? Or did you get pushed over from a distance?
No, neither.
I just find your no-touch KO comments interesting when your own teacher claims he can disrupt qi with just the swish of a hand.
Just seems to be a question of degree to me - one can make you weak, the other can knock you out.
ok
That is a valid point,
But degree is what is important, hence Erles material is not Qi dependent to end the fight, the no touch KO is. Degree can mean a big difference. Feel free to join the no-touch KO topic at any time!
Gary
Hmm, maybe not qi dependent, but very qi based?
No touch KO - be interesting to feel it, certainly dont think RM can do it.
No doubt those who claim they can would say it was “too dangerous” to try on non-students?
Why is it always fat American looking guys, doing the “no touch” or "empty force? I know before the download is finished that when it opens, its going to be some fat American karate looking guy!
Why?
Skard1
Anyone can disrupt energy
I mean think about it - if someone falls over because you jump out of a dark alley and yell “SURPRISE!”, that’s surely energy disruption. Same differnce if your dog abeys a hand signal, your wife responds to a facial expression, or a moving object near your eyes makes you blink. Some people suffer “no-touch knockout” when they see blood.
There are central and peripheral nervous system effects from an enormous variety of sensory stimuli, and I think some of these effects have predictable consequences. You can’t prove these effects involve qi when qi is incorrigible, but if you’re on to something you ought to be able to reproduce statistically significant consequences. Not everyone falls over when I yell “surprise”, but more often than not it sates my childish palate (if not there’s always KFO forums 
)
Well that’s how “no contact” work is explained and trained in the style I practice, as a psychological effect. And that would be my own explanation for the instances I’ve seen it demoed by other people - the thing is they invariably describe it as projecting chi to effect the other person.
I agree that that description is wide open to doubt, and although it is neither proven nor disproven, most people agree that the onus of proof is on the claimant. A point worth making, however, is that “instumentalist” explanations are rife in western science, too. Nobody has seen a particle-wave, but the posited properties of such an entity fit a proportion of otherwise unexplainable experimental data. The theory is useful, hence “instrumental”. The entities of TCM seems to fall under a similar category, because their assumption has lead to an effective clinical science.
But let’s return to the consequences of such claims - the trouble with Rich Mooney is that he can’t reproduce them and it matters. With Erle Montaigue there is no major combat significance to the qi disruption movements… they are embedded in forms that contain a great deal of information about how to move when you fight, and the applications to which the disruptions are attached require conventional striking anyway. There’s no place for using qi disruption movements, by themselves, in fighting, and I could only specualte on why they’re in there (perhaps to train fa-jing? perhaps, if you believe in TCM, to teach about the health effects of unbalanced meridians? I don’t know). Anyhow, I think EM is a different case from RM.
Bob,
You mentioned a couple of posts back that you’ve trained with both Rich Mooney and Erle Montaigue. I was wondering if you might write a few words about what positives and negatives you gained from each, and perhaps why you left your training? Just curious for the first-person perspective.
Cheers 
Worked more extensively in EM system than with RM - which was 2 or 3 seminars.
EM system - ok for some things, but limited in some areas, questionable historical claims, I used it more as an “add on” to one of the traditional family styles. Some nice application work, push hands not so good, power development not so good. Nice guy but not my cup of tea these days
RM - showed some decent enough application work, the tai chi ruler / energy work doesnt do much for me, nor does the hysteria evoked by anyone questioning what he does