Another Henry Wang video:
http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/striking-the-striker-taijiquan-demo-by-master-henry-wang/
Private Lessons
Cost
Cost - US $600/day (minimum 3 days)
(including US $500 non-refundable deposit)
This fee covers the cost of 4 hours of lesson per day, accomodation and food.
Well, I can say I can’t afford that rate.
Does anyone know what style of taiji he teaches/practices?
Garbage! Why waste even a dollar on him, let alone $600!:mad:
you don’t think that’d be useful to move people out of the way when you’re walking down the sidewalk ??
come on, gotta be worth 600 a day,
:eek::eek::eek:
what a load of cr@pola - this is from the website!
[INDENT]This issue of cooperation is a difficult one to resolve. Master Wang’s students have reported different reactions after working with him in a no touch session. Some are extremely sensitive to energy and literally fall over when Master Wang works with them. Others feel little and can’t understand why others are responding when they don’t. One explanation is that one has to develop sensitivity to energy, just as Master Wang needs to develop transmission skills.
In practicing search center, one has to become softer and learn listening skills. The use of contact requires the development of sensitivity and relaxation. If you are too hard, it is easy for your partner to find your centre. No touch is, consequently, an excellent exercise for developing listening skills and sensitivity. If one can respond to lack of touch, then one is more able to feel even very soft contact.
If we, as his students, choose to be insensitive and not respond to Master Wang’s energy, it is possible to resist it. But there is no point in such an attitude. The purpose of tai chi for us is to increase our body awareness and sensitivity, develop chi energy, and to improve our health.
Can Master Wang direct his energy at an unwilling or unaware person and make them move? No, though he does feel this is a future possibility. He feels the mind is capable of almost anything, and that only lack of discipline and practice keep us from accomplishing what is now considered impossible.[/INDENT]
bolded part mine…
so, basically, if you are subjectively predisposed to being moved by the guy, you’ll be moved? riiiight…
If I tell you that you are hungry enough times you will believe that too! What the **** does that prove?
I cannot believe people buy into this ****! Yet another example of some of the BS poison that is killing the CMA! Everyone has a nitch, and I do not begrudge any man his success, but the fact their are ignorant masses out there forking out hard earned cash for this BS is sad to me!
Jake :mad:
If you’re gonna work with empty force, just buy Empty Force The power of chi for self-defense and energy healing. It’s a lot cheaper.
[QUOTE=Three Harmonies;772384]If I tell you that you are hungry enough times you will believe that too! What the **** does that prove?
I cannot believe people buy into this ****! Yet another example of some of the BS poison that is killing the CMA! Everyone has a nitch, and I do not begrudge any man his success, but the fact their are ignorant masses out there forking out hard earned cash for this BS is sad to me!
Jake :mad:[/QUOTE]
A-men
…
[QUOTE=RonH;772404]If you’re gonna work with empty force, just buy Empty Force The power of chi for self-defense and energy healing. It’s a lot cheaper.[/QUOTE]
So, if you spend less money on it, it’s less a bullsh8:rolleyes:
People like Wang can ge away with doing this because the vast majority of people who KNOW better and should speak up usually don’t.
I’m just curious, what would he teach you for 600 a day (in 4 hours) that would be worth that price? I mean is he going to correct your form (Chang Man Ching), or teach you his Empty Force methods.
[QUOTE=Corwyn;772625]So, if you spend less money on it, it’s less a bullsh8:rolleyes:[/quote]
Actually…yes. The information detailing specific methods usually runs at the inexpensive to freely distributed levels because it is part method, part hard work/effort put into it. Those that would charge such a high amount are people even I would stay clear of. Even those that claim that spending so much is a test to see how much you really want it is not good enough for me. I’ve always found it to be a stupid reason and it’s never a good judge of a person.
[QUOTE=woliveri;772672]I’m just curious, what would he teach you for 600 a day (in 4 hours) that would be worth that price? I mean is he going to correct your form (Chang Man Ching), or teach you his Empty Force methods.[/QUOTE]
Unless he’s got the ability to make you ‘empty forcing’ is a matter of days to weeks, he wouldn’t be teaching you anything you couldn’t get for cheap, if you went elsewhere.
this is what I posted on a thread of similar content in the Main Forum:
[INDENT]ok - one more time for the folks in the balcony:
it’s very simple guys: “qi” is a metaphor; it is a qualitative, and in a way highly subjective (and historically succesful) descriptor for the total set of functional interelationships that occur in the body and in the environment within which the body functions (basically, the universe); it looks at the net effect of many different processes that at one time could not be observed independently, but as a functional whole could be observed and qualified (notice I don’t say quantified: TCM in its original form was not looking at lab values or EKG’s - it looks at tongue color/texture, pulse qualities - these are all qualitative descriptors as well);
the reason that it persisted for so long as a useful concept is that, as a technology it has very good predictive value: this is because over a long period of time, using a relatively internally consistent system (e.g. Chinese medicine), people observing how the human organism functioned under various situations gathered a great deal of empirical data and passed it on in the form of semi-linear pattern recognition; in other words, using “qi” as a concept tells you a lot about the “how” on a macro level; it doesn’t, however, tell you that much about the “what” or the “how” on a cellular level, because the technology didn’t exist to tell you all that; knowing the macro-“how”, you can certainly be effective in many ways, but knowing the “what” and micro"how" is ultimately more effective;
so, in the last 110 years, we have learned more about the “what” and micro"how" than all of human history combined; we have imaged and observed things down to a level that is unprecedented; so why haven’t we “found” “qi”? simple; it’s because “qi” is NOT an independent “entity”; it is NOT a discreet “force” that exists independent from other things; it is not something that one can emmanate from their finger tips - even if there were such a thing, that would not be “qi” per se: it would be something like telekinetic energy (which, to date, has not been observed by any reliable means anywhere); “qi” is not electrical current, heat, kinetic energy, magnetic fields: these are all measurable things, and they all occur naturally in the human body; they all participate in physiological function, and are therefore encompassed by the descriptor of “qi”
the whole phenommenon of throwing someone across the room or “KOing” them can be described quite easily: stimulation of the autonomic nervous system (controls BP, HR, RR, digestion, emesis, sweating, temperature control, certain types of muscle function, and, of course the adrenaline fight/flight response) will generate all the strange effects observed; as the ANS can be impacted through things like hypnosis, entrainment, mob psychology you can subconsciously program yourself or be programmed to have autonomic effects with the right trigger - if you observe others and then pattern their responses to what your teacher is doing for years on end, no shocks that he can KO you with little effort (and in all liklihood, you are predisposed to it any way, since the people searching out and studying with teachers like that are the ones who want that sort of thing to be real anyway); self-fulfilling prophecy, nothing more nothing less - so, in a way, what you see is real, but it is a reality that is very context dependent…
and BTW, as far as the whole notion of what “qi” is - if it was going to be anything it would be breath - although it’s more than just the air that you take in and breathe out: it’s also the function of the respiratory mechanism (lungs, diaphragm); and because breath is a basic aspect of all physiological function, it is a good place to start when looking at how the human body works, especially when you don’t have x-rays and lab tests: breath effects everything from blood oxygenation to proper digestion to muscle function; so “qi” is a pretty pragmatic concept to begin with, not some mumbo jumbo mystical BS; actually, the etymology of the character for “qi” is a depiction of vapor rising off of rice: basically describing the process of fermentation…pretty “earthy” origins…
so cut the cr@p guys: free yourselves from seeking the extraordinary - enjoy the profoundly ordinary, such as it is…[/INDENT]
'nuff said…
[QUOTE=cjurakpt;772833]this is what I posted on a thread of similar content in the Main Forum:
so, in the last 110 years, we have learned more about the “what” and micro"how" than all of human history combined; we have imaged and observed things down to a level that is unprecedented; so why haven’t we “found” “qi”? [/QUOTE]
Hi cjurakpt,
I got two words for ya…
Dark Matter.
Haven’t found that yet either, the most prevalent ‘thing’ in the universe, sort of like the source of 10,000 things… no wait a minute, that’s called something else by Chinese philosophy…
Then there is one other thing that people feel strongly, that motivates movement and behavior, but also can’t be measured, something the Amazing Randi wouldn’t recognize if it walked up and hit him in the head… love.
Now I know that’s The four letter word on a fighting forum…
[QUOTE=spiralstair;772864]Hi cjurakpt,
I got two words for ya…
Dark Matter.
Haven’t found that yet either, the most prevalent ‘thing’ in the universe, sort of like the source of 10,000 things… no wait a minute, that’s called something else by Chinese philosophy…
Then there is one other thing that people feel strongly, that motivates movement and behavior, but also can’t be measured, something the Amazing Randi wouldn’t recognize if it walked up and hit him in the head… love.
Now I know that’s The four letter word on a fighting forum…[/QUOTE]
dark matter has not been directly measured, true, but there is more and more evidence for its existence;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A588224
and just remember that, although physicists do tend to be more “spiritual” than other scientific disciplines, they still have to play by the rules of theorizing, observation, experimentation, refutation, etc.; so they can’t just say “well, I’ve felt it, so it must be real”
as for love: in most cases, for most people, it’s another name for preference, for picking and choosing; and preference changes, sometimes rather abrubtly; love, as most people experience it, is therefore highly relative; if you are talking about Love, like the way Rumi talks about it, or maybe even Christ (hard to tell what he actually did say), then you are probably looking at something along the lines of what Krishnamurti calls “choiceless awareness”; in the case of the former, its just another aspect of emotion / mind’s craving for self-validation; in the latter, it speaks to a way of seeing and being in the world that creates a sense of space and freedom from habitual repetition, but in and of itself is not a specific “thing” either;
[QUOTE=cjurakpt;772881]dark matter has not been directly measured, true, but there is more and more evidence for its existence;[/QUOTE]
So, something that is phenomena-less, that composes the background in which phenomena stands out be measured, is not real until it is itself measured?
Didn’t someone once say that the Tao isn’t the wheel, but the hole in the center where the axle could exist?
I agree that most things claimed as “chi” are just interactions between posture, angles, gravity, and people’s expectations.
Still, it’s a great big universe, most of it still undocumented.
“cjurakpt” is quite correct in his interpretation of origination of the character “Ch’i”. The first half denotes “rice” or “rice eating people” and the second part or “hat” denotes “gas rising” from the surface.
Common direct translations include:
- air; gas; vapor; atmosphere
- breath
- spirit; character
- influence
- bearing; manner
- smell; odor
- to be angry; to be indignant
- to provoke; to goad
If you consider all possible contexts of the character (and there are many), the only one really applicable directly to CMA is the following:
Def: “(in Chinese Boxing) the ability to use one’s inner strength such as control of muscle and breathing.” Notice the definition does not include any word or words denoting any form of energy. And you won’t find any such words in any other context definition either. At least none of which I am aware.
Having spent a great deal of time living and learning in Asia, it appears to me that it is a predominantly western perspective to wish to assign a mystical component to the concept of Ch’i. And there are nowadays numerous Asian teachers all too willing to capitalize on that perspective.
In my day, those who practiced IMA were a great deal more pragmatic about their approach than many seem to be today. Mostly, when the word was used in conjunction with training, the connotation was one of breath.. “your ch’i is not smooth” meant your breathing is not being properly controlled.. “the ch’i here is bad” meant let’s move away from the foul smell eminating from that binjo (sewer) over there.
My two and a half cents.
Almost word for word with what my teacher Tim says.
Good post Mike!
Jake 
[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;772999] Mostly, when the word was used in conjunction with training, the connotation was one of breath.. “your ch’i is not smooth” meant your breathing is not being properly controlled.. “the ch’i here is bad” meant let’s move away from the foul smell eminating from that binjo (sewer) over there.[/QUOTE]
thanks for the input Mike - to be fair, it is my teacher’s interpretation of the charcter, not mine (credit where due, etc.);
and what you say above that I quoted meakes sense: and encompasses not onl y what you are breathing, but how - meaning, to me, that “qi” is grounded in functional context; coordination of breathing, muscle function, ground reaction force and tensile properties of connective tissue system is what gives you good postural integrity and allows your to work optimally in gravity, whether for health maintenance or for useage in fighting; of course, you need good technique as well if you want to be realistic - guys like Cartmell are much appreciated because they delve into the old as well as keep abreast of the new, giving a well-rounded perspective;
BTW Mike, are you by any chance Michael Patterson the physiologist? just curious…
[QUOTE=cjurakpt;773011]BTW Mike, are you by any chance Michael Patterson the physiologist? just curious…[/QUOTE]
Well, I have studied physiology and Chinese Tui Na (under Hsu Hong Chi) extensively. But somehow I think I am not the person you are referencing. If you look in my public profile, you will see my website link at hsing-i.com
But just to make things easier.. I am one of the senior students of the late Hsu Hong Chi (Xu Hong Ji) of Taiwan. My grand teacher was Hung I Hsiang and my great grand teacher was Chang Cheng Feng. I am the person who trained all those successful IMA full contact fighters throughout the 90’s until 2000 for competition in the KuoShu/SanShou/SanDa arena. I am the current head of Shen Lung Tang Shou Tao (Hsu Hong Chi’s association) in the U.S.
Tim Cartmell is related to me, kung fu family wise. He studied first with my teacher (albeit after I had already left Taiwan for the U.S.) and then later with others of our family.