Using "qi" to break vs. physics (video)

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
61

[QUOTE=EarthDragon;1119851]wow are people really ignorant, educate yourselves just a little before you post then people with knoweldge will make more sense.

will how do you vibrate or breath if it has nothing to do with qi? qi means “life force” the energy that give life, so to say qi has nothign to do it with means that brightness and heat have nothing to do with the sun.

perhaps peopel need to understand what qi is so it will help them realize that you need qi to live, without qi your dead. Do you now understand what qi is? so if you tie your shows, think, breath, walk or break bricks it is all done with conciousness
which is??? …qi[/QUOTE]

Without the frame, qi cannot equate to life. There is no division. Distinction is only made for the sake of discussion. As to consciousness=qi, I am not familiar with any classical source that says this, though, since there is no distinction, they are related phenomenon. One can lead the other.

62

[QUOTE=EarthDragon;1119812]here ya go IF this is a break that uses more focused qi and less power than most breaks, this is Rod aka teesao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmxhYDvXdGk[/QUOTE]

Looks like body mechanics to me. Notice he’s putting his whole weight behind it. That was like the vertical breaking equivalent of a 3" punch (which is also 100% physics and 0% mystical power, and just uses proper mechanics to put a lot of weight behind the punch).

Don’t get me wrong; that was an impressive break. That dude has good conditioning. I’ve randomly come across his videos on YouTube before and thought he was pretty good.

Can you explain what role the qi is playing in that break? Is it going into the brick and causing the strike to have more force than it would have if he didn’t use qi?

Good physical conditioning? Yes.

Good mental conditioning (confidence)? Yes.

Good mental focus? Yes.

Proper body mechanics? Yes.

Mystic energy assisting with the break or causing the break to have more power than it would otherwise? Are you saying this one is a “yes,” too?

63

[QUOTE=IronFist;1119859]Looks like body mechanics to me. Notice he’s putting his whole weight behind it. That was like the vertical breaking equivalent of a 3" punch (which is also 100% physics and 0% mystical power, and just uses proper mechanics to put a lot of weight behind the punch).

Don’t get me wrong; that was an impressive break. That dude has good conditioning. I’ve randomly come across his videos on YouTube before and thought he was pretty good.

Can you explain what role the qi is playing in that break? Is it going into the brick and causing the strike to have more force than it would have if he didn’t use qi?

Good physical conditioning? Yes.

Good mental conditioning (confidence)? Yes.

Good mental focus? Yes.

Proper body mechanics? Yes.

Mystic energy assisting with the break or causing the break to have more power than it would otherwise? Are you saying this one is a “yes,” too?[/QUOTE]

You are assigning one definition of qi, also the one that presumes the existence of later Western philosophical arguments in ancient China.

Chi is not separate from what you have listed, but to assign the definition of body mechanics to chi is not apt. One COULD argue that chi is the RESULT of good body mechanics, but not body mechanics themselves. Good body mechanics without good physical condition would limit what one would say was good chi in a context, so even this adjusted definition, chi as the result of good body mechanics, fails. Good body mechanics applied in the wrong context would also fail to support this definition. As such, the definition is a reference to a whole that includes a number of factors, and utterly lacks an equivalent in English, unless you know a useful word, easier to say, that describes the holistic cross reference of how body mechanics, conditioning, knowledge, and entrainment allow optimal reserves of energy for usage and optimal conveyance of that energy.

No classical scholar translates, without serious qualifiers, chi as “energy”.*

*Unless they are assuming that their readers are aware of the subtleties of the term.

64

You guys, when we say “these breaks aren’t using qi” we’re not talking about breath or consciousness or intent. Obviously the practitioners are breathing.

We’re saying there is no mystic energy that is giving the practitioner more power than he would have otherwise, and that the breaks are occurring simply as a result of impact physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics))

Similarly, we are saying that in iron body demonstrations, there is no mystic energy that is giving added protection to the practitioner. He is absorbing the sledge hammer (or whatever) blows through muscle tension and physics.

Obviously there is a mental component here. It definitely helps to “be in the right headspace” when you’re going to do a break or absorb a big blow. But “being in the right headspace” is also not qi.

We are looking for some example of qi (as mystic energy) that is adding a non-physical component to one of these feats.

Don’t get me wrong; I would love for this qi stuff to be legit. In fact, I practiced iron body (complete with qigong component) for years a while back. I wanted so badly to believe that I was using mystic energy or whatever to make myself stronger and more resistant to damage. But in the end, I really think it was just physical conditioning and being in the right headspace. I’ve never experienced or seen anything in other’s demonstrations that leads me to believe it’s anything other than physical conditioning and physics.

I never did iron palm, but I suspect it’s the same way.

I don’t know. I’m getting off topic. My original point with this thread was that it ****es me off when people who are obviously doing parlor tricks coughShaolinMonkscough pass it off as qi and mystic energy to attempt to fool the public into believing they have some sort of super powers. That kills the martial arts’ credibility, and it’s bad enough when it comes from some “no touch knockout” fool on the news, but when it’s from the Shaolin Monks, who most people would assume are legit, it’s like 10x worse.

65

[QUOTE=IronFist;1119580]This guy also does granite, too. (but look how far apart the supports are: leverage advantage???)

How strong is granite? I know everyone loves it for their counter tops in their kitchen. Is it hard to break?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAvtOOPFkGg&feature=related[/QUOTE]

For the record breacking granite like that is not very hard because it is thin and brittle. looks good though because everyone thinks granite is so hard… but Rocks are much weaker in tension than in compression.
To be honest none of those breaks are done with actual brick (which are much smaller and harder) and they are definitely not block, they are 2’ slabs and the ones with color in them are softer than the ones with out.

I do break the slabs and love watching breaking (Dale does a great job)

would love to see someone slap through an actual block one day… guess if you wanted to show me real chi power then take a fire brick and drill a finger through it with your energy.

66

[QUOTE=EarthDragon;1119851]wow are people really ignorant, educate yourselves just a little before you post then people with knoweldge will make more sense.

will how do you vibrate or breath if it has nothing to do with qi? qi means “life force” the energy that give life, so to say qi has nothign to do it with means that brightness and heat have nothing to do with the sun.

perhaps peopel need to understand what qi is so it will help them realize that you need qi to live, without qi your dead. Do you now understand what qi is? so if you tie your shows, think, breath, walk or break bricks it is all done with conciousness
which is??? …qi[/QUOTE]

You say qi is “life force”, the energy that gives life. You then also say consciousness is qi. You say one needs this “energy” and “consciousness” to live and perform acts like tying your shoes, thinking, breathing, walking, or breaking bricks.

So in short you are saying you must be alive to break bricks.

I don’t know how I can argue with that.

According to your logic, even when one does not “summon qi from the dantian” and merely uses physics to perform a brick break, you still attribute that ability to “qi” rather than physics alone.

So every break is a “qi break” because the person is alive and couldn’t perform the break without qi because “without qi you’re dead”.

You win every time.

67

Don’t get me wrong; I would love for this qi stuff to be legit. In fact, I practiced iron body (complete with qigong component) for years a while back. I wanted so badly to believe that I was using mystic energy or whatever to make myself stronger and more resistant to damage. But in the end, I really think it was just physical conditioning and being in the right headspace. I’ve never experienced or seen anything in other’s demonstrations that leads me to believe it’s anything other than physical conditioning and physics.

By my limited understanding of Iron Body qigong, the idea of using your qi has nothing to do with anything mystical. The simple act of putting your mental focus on the area being struck is what supplements it with energy (whatever you want to call that energy is up to you) and aids in the development of the body’s conditioning. This can be said to some degree about really anything…placing all your mind’s attention on a strike as it impacts, for example. It’s just the act of guiding more energy to an area when it needs it with mental direction. People do this all the time in various activities, whether or not they’ve even heard of qi. We’re all familiar with what you get out of a training session you’ve placed all your attention on, as opposed to what you get out of a session that you waltzed through while your mind was a million miles away…even if you did the exact same routine.

It may be just one aspect of the very general term “qi”, but I think it’s a valid one.

68

Iron Fist

Sigh.

Again, you are missing the point. The definition you use is, flat out, not relevant to traditional usage of the term qi. If, in presenting a more involved definition that more closely matches classical sources, I will use it, and if you are not familiar with it, then I’m not sure I will put much stock in it if you tell me that I’m the one not getting it.

I am not in the business of rooting out fraud, the skeptics who champion that inevitably fall into making their victories and their role into something more than it ever was, which is just more fraud, more BS, and no real overall change. Arthur Conan Doyle and Houdini are dead, and psychics are probably “channeling” them as we speak.

If you do not understand the terms you are using, and a historically accurate definition also happens to be at odds with a misuse of the term that you object to, I would think, at the very least, you would recognize the value of a more informed opinion on what its usage normally is, for the very least to inform your own debate.

You used the term qi erroneously, many do. By using solely the definition of frauds and the uninformed, I think it strange that you expect to do anything but empower them.

I have been in scores of kung fu schools, none of which did breaking demos, even if most did some sort of iron bridge or iron hand. Your argument unintentionally exaggerates the problem, the exaggeration then seeming to justify the cause. Breaking demos don’t make kung fu schools ineffective. Even fraudulent ones don’t. Not training for usage against diverse opponents does. End of story.

Your kung fu teacher told you the meaning of the word qi. Classical sources, as well as a number of Chinese, American, and Japanese authorities on ancient and classical China, told me. I’m not crazy with what people nowadays think they can do with chi, but I’m also not crazy with what people think is liberal, or conservative, or a host of other misused terms. You asked for whether chi or physics was involved, I assumed this would include ACTUAL scholarly usage of the word chi, which makes a tougher argument, since it does not translate simply as “energy”.

69

[QUOTE=IronFist;1119869]You guys, when we say “these breaks aren’t using qi” we’re not talking about breath or consciousness or intent. Obviously the practitioners are breathing.

We’re saying there is no mystic energy that is giving the practitioner more power than he would have otherwise, and that the breaks are occurring simply as a result of impact physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics))[/QUOTE]

Don’t know why that is so hard to grasp.

70

A divide between qi and physics is not implicated by the classical term qi, period. It’s called a vexed question. If you want to disprove qi as a traditional concept, you need familiarity with the concept, and you flat out do not have it.

You’re arguing for the elbow to the back of the head as a defense to the double leg. Congratulations, a fine irony.

71

To illustrate, if you suggest that by consuming food(matter) you convert it to energy needed to break a board using the minimum energy needed(energy again in context of matter) by using the proper body mechanics(being a means of relating matter and energy), and this involves good structure(again, matter using energy in pattern to an optimal performance), you have not debunked chi, you have pretty much stated the classical definition of chi recognized still today.

72

Watch the video in the first post:

…"the most mysterious power of kung fu is called qigong. Through breathing and a series of systematic movements, qigong products a type of energy called qi.

Once you can freely direct this energy to a particular part of the body, you can produce enormous power.

Used correctly, qi can make any part of the body as hard as steel."

Do you think he is talking about “breathing” or “consciousness,” or “intent” or “focus?” No. He is talking about mystic power, something that goes above and beyond simple physics. And he is talking about moving that mystic energy to specific body parts in order to make them “as hard as steel” (read: make them more able to withstand damage).

I am asking for an actual example of this, eg. where the resistance to damage is not the result of physical conditioning but instead is the result of “directing [qi] to a particular part of the body.”

73

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1119887]To illustrate, if you suggest that by consuming food(matter) you convert it to energy needed to break a board using the minimum energy needed(energy again in context of matter) by using the proper body mechanics(being a means of relating matter and energy), and this involves good structure(again, matter using energy in pattern to an optimal performance), you have not debunked chi, you have pretty much stated the classical definition of chi recognized still today.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious with this?

I guess all power lifters are qigong masters, too, since they eat food which becomes muscle which makes them able to lift a lot of weight. And focusing their intent on lifting the weights when they’re in the gym is another demonstration of their incredible qi power.

Get outta here with this

If this is the case, then it must suck to do CMA where you have to spend hours “training your qi” when every other athlete in the world does it subconsciously without even trying and without special qi development exercises.

74

[QUOTE=IronFist;1119892]Watch the video in the first post:

Do you think he is talking about “breathing” or “consciousness,” or “intent” or “focus?” No. He is talking about mystic power, something that goes above and beyond simple physics. And he is talking about moving that mystic energy to specific body parts in order to make them “as hard as steel” (read: make them more able to withstand damage).

I am asking for an actual example of this, eg. where the resistance to damage is not the result of physical conditioning but instead is the result of “directing [qi] to a particular part of the body.”[/QUOTE]

If you go to a college level political science class, you should not expect the definition of conservative or liberal to match the popular definition, because one is instructive, one is utilitarian, and the two uses have little common ground.

Now, a person may BE a true conservative in ways AND believe in aspects of the popular definition that may seem counter to that, this is a case of what they are versus what they believe, and it does not necessarily make them liars or frauds, merely contradictory as any other human.

Breaking works when it fulfills the classical definition of chi, regardless of what other beliefs the practitioners doing it ascribe to it. If they are not guiding a mystical energy to the hand, but the belief enables them to strike without unnecessary concern, then the belief is useful, utilitarian, one could even suggest expedient means. If they actually believe it, they cannot be termed a fraud, as that entails knowledge they may not have. If it is useful, then it cannot be termed a harm of any serious merit, either.

There is a difference between belief and fraud, and I find people who erase that line to be telling a falsehood for their own goals, which is not different than fraud.

As for wanting to fulfill the definition you state, it is not a Chinese definition, and so it is helpful to point that out, since that is the central topic. If more people knew the proper definition, less people would claim much about it.

75

If this is the case, then it must suck to do CMA where you have to spend hours “training your qi” when every other athlete in the world does it subconsciously without even trying and without special qi development exercises.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like these discussions always end up as semantic arguments.

76

[QUOTE=LFJ;1119844]It was an interesting word choice, but not mine, lol. It’s in the video description posted by the uploader.[/QUOTE]

Haha, sorry LFJ, I was trying to make it clear that I could see that by nesting the quotes. But yeah, I knew it wasn’t your gaffe.

77

[QUOTE=Taixuquan99;1119898]If you go to a college level political science class, you should not expect the definition of conservative or liberal to match the popular definition, because one is instructive, one is utilitarian, and the two uses have little common ground.

Now, a person may BE a true conservative in ways AND believe in aspects of the popular definition that may seem counter to that, this is a case of what they are versus what they believe, and it does not necessarily make them liars or frauds, merely contradictory as any other human.

Breaking works when it fulfills the classical definition of chi, regardless of what other beliefs the practitioners doing it ascribe to it. If they are not guiding a mystical energy to the hand, but the belief enables them to strike without unnecessary concern, then the belief is useful, utilitarian, one could even suggest expedient means. If they actually believe it, they cannot be termed a fraud, as that entails knowledge they may not have. If it is useful, then it cannot be termed a harm of any serious merit, either.

There is a difference between belief and fraud, and I find people who erase that line to be telling a falsehood for their own goals, which is not different than fraud.

As for wanting to fulfill the definition you state, it is not a Chinese definition, and so it is helpful to point that out, since that is the central topic. If more people knew the proper definition, less people would claim much about it.[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but it sounds like you’re saying “qi is real, but it doesn’t mean mystic energy, it just means breathing and consciousness.”

So if that’s the case, then all these Shaolin Monk demonstrations are fraudulent because it’s not possible to breathe in your arm to make it hard like steel.

I can understand the original definition of “qi.” Hundreds or thousands of years ago before anyone knew much about science, I could see people assigning a concept to “life force.” X is alive, it has qi. Y is not alive, it doesn’t have qi. When you eat something, you’re absorbing its qi and its qi is becoming part of you (which is actually pretty correct with regard to molecular breakdown and how your body absorbs food).

I won’t even argue against that definition because it’s fine.

But people extend the definition of qi further into a tangible energy that can be moved around and used to “make the body as hard as steel,” and that’s what I’m either calling BS or or asking for proof of, because every “demonstration” of this I’ve seen has been the result of physical conditioning and physics (which may or may not include parlor tricks), and has nothing to do with moving energy around or qi (outside of the fact that the practitioner was alive and breathing and conscious during the demo, obviously). But it appears they want to fool the public into believing they have some sort of special power, and that is what makes the martial arts look bad.

But really, saying “well he was breathing and therefore he was using qi” doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what I’m talking about, and that includes you.

78

[QUOTE=Punch.HeadButt;1119899]Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like these discussions always end up as semantic arguments.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, a few people in this thread have already started to do that. Hopefully I clarified in the post above this one.

79

[QUOTE=IronFist;1119894]Are you serious with this?[/quote]

Absolutely.

I guess all power lifters are qigong masters, too, since they eat food which becomes muscle which makes them able to lift a lot of weight. And focusing their intent on lifting the weights when they’re in the gym is another demonstration of their incredible qi power.

Not all, but, by the classical definition, those who are healthier for it, do it for the optimum health, eat healthy, and did other things to address other aspects of health and fitness that weights don’t, would be healthy, and thus, have good chi. In performance, it might be limited to their specialty, but that would always be true no matter the specialty.

Get outta here with this

No.

If this is the case, then it must suck to do CMA where you have to spend hours “training your qi” when every other athlete in the world does it subconsciously without even trying and without special qi development exercises.

This is false in many ways.

First, because of the obsession in China with cultivation, it is true that many simple things get stretched out into endless regimens merely to maintain one teacher’s authority. However, it is not universally the case, nor does it mean the many of the regimens do not have a core that, if allowed to, would rapidly convey expertise.

Second, most martial qigong relates closely to the way key techniques in the style play out, in exactly the way practicing swinging a bat relates to hitting in the batting cage or at the plate, or practicing a tennis swing, or any of the myriad or techniques in almost any other sport fill the same roll. A good batter does not become so subconsciously, sorry, you’re pulling that out of your arse.

Third, many of those techniques are quite practical in their historical context, which may include such things as war and famine and repression. To train like a modern athlete in a time of famine, simply in order to maintain martial skill, would be suicide.

I think you are under the false idea that you know what you are talking about because a kung fu teacher said it. As I stated, martial artists aren’t the most educated lot in any society.

80

[QUOTE=IronFist;1119894]Are you serious with this?

I guess all power lifters are qigong masters, too, since they eat food which becomes muscle which makes them able to lift a lot of weight. And focusing their intent on lifting the weights when they’re in the gym is another demonstration of their incredible qi power.

If this is the case, then it must suck to do CMA where you have to spend hours “training your qi” when every other athlete in the world does it subconsciously without even trying and without special qi development exercises.[/QUOTE]

Q to the E to the mutherfucking D.

This is exactly the case. There is nothing mystical about it.