A Discussion on Yielding

[Michael Udel]

Glad to hear it

This has absolutely nothing to do with teaching "Sifu Stier some manners" as you put it. This thread is about "yielding".

Thank you, Sifu Andrew. I stand corrected.

Absolutely not. There will be no "fire-free zone" on this forum against any member.

Thank you again. Sorry for going off-topic. It seems my interpretation was completely wrong, but were in fact based on Sifu Marcus Santer's continued references to Sifu Stier's "ideas" and "concepts" as "flawed" and "wrong". Compare this style of debate to YunXiang's post on yielding that addresses a topic without addressing a person who has explicitly bowed out of this debate.

While writing this I see that Sifu Marcus Santer has also replied and advised me that I'm posting in the wrong place. My point is that if you wish to discuss yielding further, you simply leave Sifu Stier out of it. I am not his advocate, but I wish to be an advocate for the continued excellence and harmonious operation of this forum. I apologize in advance if this is being out of line. That's not my intention.

Respectfully,
Michael

[Mark B]

I think Marcus is right in (if I understand his term correctly) that 'slap hand' is better against a jab than peng, simply because there won't much of the opponent's weight behind it. One of the best things about peng is the way you can use it to control your opponent's center!

I thought Chia-Hua's post was great! Especially:

it's possible there is a tiny degree of neutralization--maybe a tiny bit of retreat or "absorption" in the peng-arm to guide the punch where you want it to go. And sometimes, that tiniest degree of yielding may be enough to throw off the energy.

I think this is great too!

What the word really means in Chinese is to change, transform and even reverse. If one accepts this definition, then it is possible to meet an oncoming attack without hard force

If this is true (and personally I think it is), what is the relevence of this?

Suppose the opponent's jab is coming in a direction from north to south. Sifu Stier's 'peng' moves from south to north.

I also don't really understand the classification of techniques into "low-level" or "high-level". I personally don't think they contribute much information, and can understand how they could be interpreted as rather patronising and condescending.

Mark

[Piers]

I must say that the relentless use of terms like ‘shallow’ and ‘low-level’, as well as describing Sifu Stier as having ‘poor understanding’, etc, do make me uncomfortable. It feels as though it’s a step beyond simply disagreeing with the techniques he advises and moves onto the territory of ‘getting back at him’.

I may be wrong, however. I’m not sure. If another school’s techniques do seem ‘incomplete and basic’ maybe we should simply say so, clearly and directly, even if it effectively insults that school.

[barrys]

It seems to me that whatever is happening here people will be manifesting their concept of "yielding" or "neutralise and return". Having had that realisation it will be interesting for me to go back through the threads on this topic and see what has happened.

Barry

[yeniseri]

yielding may be misleading at times

guys,

Yielding sounds nice and makes people feel good (at least some) but it may be useless depending on skill and behaviour, and physical conditioning.
In retrospect, if one see a jab coming straight to one's person, if one gets out of the way, there is no yielding since the recipient may be faster and there is nothing like a strong elbow that would not destroy the defense of one who has started the attack. My perspective is that this is a sucker punch! Yielding would imply, (to me) some contact where in the tuishou scenario, one felt impunged upon to either turn waist, apply push while peng is applied to leg/foot/knee of the hitter.

in a wrestling scenario, where one has already been grabbed, no yielding is possible but some kind of 'silk reeling' strategy (body repositioning, knee to upper body, etc). There is no such thing as a tai chi fight, a paqua fight or a kungfu fight. One uses the skills based on what has previously learnt and interestingly the sceanrio ususlly ends up in a wrestling type fist a cuffs.

just one thought.

[Antonius]

Dear everyone,

I would just like to quickly mention that I have reopend the "Shen Men Tao" thread. If Sifu Stier would prefer to bow out of this thread (as his posts seem to imply), then that is fine. He is welcome to continue sharing his wisdom in the Shen Men Tao thread.

Nevertheless, I hope that Sifu Stier will consider contributing to this topic of yielding. The title of the thread has been changed, so it is no longer a "debate" between Sifu Marcus and Sifu Stier. It is now an open discussion. On the other hand, it was Sifu Stier's comments on yielding that sparked this discussion, so it seems natural (to me, at least) for Sifu Santer to comment on some of Sifu Stier's material.

Of course, others, including Sifu Stier, may have a different perspective, and that is their prerogative. Even if he chooses not to participate, we are grateful to Sifu Stier for sparking such a fascinating discussion.

Best regards,

[Chiahua]

levels of analysis

Suffice for me to say that the word “yielding” can be misleading. The word used in Chinese is 化 and it means “neutralising” and even then, that is not complete. What the word really means in Chinese is to change, transform and even reverse. If one accepts this definition, then it is possible to meet an oncoming attack without hard force, and in a forward, spiraling manner.

Also, while the Taijiquan classical principles are universal, they are expressed in words, which are provisional. So, one interpretation of the principles apply in one context and not another (much like the postures themselves). For me, the classics mean something different at each stage of my development, not that they drastically change in meaning, but I see new and deeper aspects all the time.

Mr. Zhang's post really gets to the heart of "yielding". The discussion of "yielding" and "neutralizing" echo a previous discussion on "peng" the skill("gung") vs. "peng" the visible technique("fa")--the two are certainly related but not identical. "Yielding/Neutralizing" can be viewed as a "gung" or "fa"--you can have "yielding/neutralizing" even when you are visibly moving your body forward. But you can also have a forward "pressing" energy even as you are moving your body backward. In fact, if you don't have that intention, you are at risk of being bowled over by the opponent. This video clip with Sifu Wong and Sifu Javier shows some awesome examples.

What the word really means in Chinese is to change, transform and even reverse.

And this point was actually pointed out by Sifu Steir when he talks about "instant karma"--turning an opponents initial attack back onto him. This isn't any particular teznique, but an overall principle well accepted in taijiquan. If you move forward with a peng (which may or may not be the best decision, I don't know given my inexperience...), you still want to neutralize(yield?) just to throw off the force of the punch, using 4 ounces against 4000 lbs.

Respectfully,
Chia-Hua

[yeniseri]

peng can be yielding/neutralizing

When pung encounters a stronger force, it may easily be turned to neutralizing (collapsing the forearm/wrist) and allowing the insistance to continue (charging) and at last moment, either whip forearm (lower) to diagonal flying with assistance from other forearm, or use of leg placement to unbalance. Difficult to visualize in this format but I hope it is easy to conceptualize. The closest I can approximate is parrying in fencing (touch and go) as opposed to forward/backward charging.

[Marcus]

Good evening everybody,

Sifu Stier is interesting. The Shaolin Wahnam Institute have retreated a few steps in order to accommodate him. Anthony has announced that we do not need an apology, the Shen Men Tao thead has been opened again and to my surprise, this thread on yielding was moved from its original place. I have no complaint about this. I presume this is to enable Sifu Stier to continue posting on the Shen Men Tao thread without distraction. It also signifies that "yielding" is of general interest, and not just connected with Sifu Stier.

Sifu Stier called me (and Joko) an arse kisser. I (and presumably Joko too) have left that behind so that we can continue in a civilized manner a fruitful discussion on yielding, which I believe can benefit many people.

Sifu Stier then jumps in, not to provide his thoughts on yielding which we will much appreciate, but to dig up old wounds, which we have left behind to heal. Of course I have read his Tai Chi Chuan posts. And since he asked for it, I shall give him my opinion.

I was surprised to find many of his concepts low level, and many of his posts revealed his lack of experience in what he said. Although some of my fellow Shaolin Wahnam instructors had discussed this in the course of our teaching, out of respect for Sifu Stier, we did not express on the forum our disagreement with his concepts, although some of what he had said contradicted our basic philosophy, and was published on our very own forum. Incidentally, this reflects our courtesy and tolerance shown to forum guests.
There are, however, two notable exceptions, both of which were instigated by Sifu Stier himself. They are the Zen-Tao thread with Anthony, and the Breathing Control thread with Jeffrey.

Similarly I would not have expressed my disagreement with his concept on yielding had he not questioned my ability as a sifu, and challenged me to show him something refreshing. Having accepted Sifu Stier’s challenge, I would like to continue this discussion to justify why I say his concept and techniques on yielding are low level, otherwise I may be accused of making empty statements. It is also a good opportunity for Sifu Stier to show his deep knowledge and debunk me, but I hope it will be carried out in a civilized manner.

More significantly, this discussion on yielding will benefit many people. Sifu Stier’s concept and techniques of yielding as revealed in his posts on the forum contradict our basic teaching in both Shaolin Kungfu and Wahnam Taijiquan, In fact, in my opinion, if students follow Sifu Stier’s advice which I quoted, they may have a high chance of developing knee injury.

Earlier I mentioned that there are many of Sifu Stier’s concepts in his Tai Chi Chuan posts that I find to be of low level (note I said posts, it is the quality of these that I am referring to, not his Tai Chi Chuan as I have never seen it). I shall give one example, substantiated with reasons. But if Sifu Stier wants more examples, I shall post them, but I would prefer to carry on with this "yielding" thread. I shall also not mention here how some of his posts revealed his lack of experience in what he said. But if he wishes to know, I can discuss them too.

The one example that comes to mind now is his mention that one has to practice the Tai Chi Chuan Long Form completely to have a chi flow. (I am recalling from memory. If I err in details, please correct me.) This struck me as very low level. In our school, irrespective of whether it is in Wahnam Tai Chi Chuan, Shaolin Kungfu or Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, all students even at the beginners’ level can generate a chi flow using any one pattern.

As I have mentioned before, "low" and "high" are relative. To most people who have practiced Tai Chi Chuan, Shaolin Kungfu or chi kung for years, and cannot generate a chi flow, Sifu Stier’s concept and technique of performing the Tai Chi Chuan set completely in order to have a chi flow, is high level. To me and those who can generate a chi flow with just one pattern, his concept and technique are low.

I will post more later if time permits, for now I must go and enjoy my practice.

Kind regards

Marcus


Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha

[joko]

Sifu Stier called me (and Joko) an arse kisser. I (and presumably Joko too) have left that behind so that we can continue in a civilized manner a fruitful discussion on yielding, which I believe can benefit many people.

Oh, yes, I have left it behind long time ago. I must admit that at first I was a little bit upset, but in fact it had helped me confirming my previous understanding that for me the way I react or look at things or fact is more important than the fact itself.

I would like to continue this discussion to justify why I say his concept and techniques on yielding are low level, otherwise I may be accused of making empty statements.

Yes, it confirms that we in Shaolin WahNam would not make baseless statement and would be responsible.
Joko

[RPJ]

Yielding : mind or form ?

Many interesting contribution to this thread !

Between them, I like a definition of yielding posted by Zhang Wuji:

"What the word really means in Chinese is to change, transform and even reverse. If one accepts this definition, then it is possible to meet an oncoming attack without hard force"

Reading this definition brought me back to the personal experience field, rather than on the level of rational thinking or cultural knowledge.

I have been so lucky to receive teaching directly from a Grandmaster ; well, I remember some situations in which I was invited, for training purposes, to carry an attack. If I was allowed, for training purposes, to get in touch with Grandmaster's arm, trying to grip it for example, I got the impression that it almost "liquified" !

I got the impression that Grandmaster's body, under an attack situation, can become so soft that it cannot be significantly hurt or blocked.

I intuitively (and by personal experience) believe that this "transformation" (see Zhang Wuji definition) can be viewed as high level example of "yielding". And indeed, this kind of "yielding" is mostly achieved through a state of mind, and in a minor part as a result of external forms or techniques.

I also believe, based on personal experience, that only mind control can instantly change the Grandmaster's yielding arm, liquid as water, into a weapon arm, solid as rock !

Riccardo

[Sifu Stier]

Sifu Santer:

I am growing weary of your arrogant insistence that my understanding of Tai-Chi Chuan principles is shallow and flawed, and that my techniques are low level. Your continuing antagonism offends me, offends my family, offends my Master, and is offending to Shen Men Tao. Are you challenging me? Are you saying that until you see physical proof of the efficacy of my views that you intend to continue denigrating my knowledge, skills and experience? This is how I am reading your rude comments. If this is not your intention, I urge you to cease and desist now!

If this IS your intention, just say so directly. Then...in the time honored tradition of the Chinese Martial Arts, we can make arrangements to 'Cross Hands' in a Gong-Sau contest when I visit the U.K. later this year. If all that you say about me is true, it should be an easy victory for you, and your allegations will be vindicated even if your attitude is not. If your view of my gung-fu is not correct, everyone will know that you were wrong merely by looking at you! Please know, however, that if this is what you want to happen, it will NOT be a friendly sparring match to compare notes.

If I'm reading your intentions incorrectly, please clarify and rectify this situation by changing the tone of your comments to me and about me immediately. Understood? Enough already!

Sifu Stier

[Antonius]

Dear Sifu Stier,

It would seem that my comment about you not being able to spar with words, but only with your fists, is looking more and more accurate.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You insulted Sifu Santer and Sifu Wong (whether or not you admit it). But when we raised this issue, you pleaded innocence and then attacked us some more. And yet now you feel justified taking the same tone that I took in the Shen Men Tao thread? Odd. How you can defend both sides of the argument is beyond me.

Anyway, if you are so eager to "cross hands," and refuse to show your abilities with verbal sparring, then you need not challenge Sifu Santer. He has a wife and young child. I'm sure that he has better things to do.

I don't.

Will you be visiting Florida anytime soon? I sure hope so. If not, then perhaps I can pay you a friendly visit in Texas. I have a student in your neck of the woods, and I've long wanted to see Austin.

While we're busy laying down physical threats, let me make a few things clear. If you and I were to "cross hands," then I would insist that we take a video of the affair. Regardless of the outcome of this friendly sparring match, I would insist that this video be made public on the forum.

I would also like to mention that I would consider this to be a friendly sparring match, not a "fight." In Shaolin Wahnam, we are used to exhibiting control in free sparring. For my part, you should have no fear of being injured in the unlikely event that you lose. Back in my Karate days, challenges -- and injuries -- were common. But I am grateful to Sifu Wong for teaching me control, and for helping me put those days behind me.

However, accidents sometimes happen, and you should of course be prepared for the possibility. On the other hand, I would ask that you be kind enough to also exercise control, and to try your best not to hurt me. Quite frankly, I think I would feel safe sparring a grandmaster of your experience.

I would also ask to be shown (i.e. via video), some of your kung fu. This seems only fair since you have seen many videos of my kung fu. If you like, I would be happy to keep this video private and for my eyes only.

Another option would be for you to spar with my sihing, Kai, when he comes to visit North America. Although I would regret losing the opportunity to spar with you myself, I would greatly enjoy watching a sparring match between two masters of similar experience.

Either way, I'm sure that many people on this forum would be eager to finally see your kung fu in action. More importantly, it will be a great way for people to see how kung fu can still be used in friendly sparring.

Respectfully,

[Charles David]

How very interesting.

I hope that Sifu Stier will rethink his decision about this being an unfriendly match.

I find it astounding to think that he would want to hurt any of my brothers.

Could it be that he really does wish us harm?




With Shaolin Salute,

[Sifu Stier]

Sifu Korahais:

There you go again, twisting my words and offering the old bait and switch! I have never challenged anyone on this forum. I invited Kevin to show me what he has to teach me since he spoke to me like a scolding parent or superior senior. I truly wondered what made him feel that it was his place to say the things he did. Is his physical conditioning superior to mine? Better stamina and endurance? Stronger? More flexible? Greater balance and body control? Greater concentration? Better focus? Superior Internal power development? What exactly? I was curious to know. Had I meant to challenge him in fighting, I would have said so directly. You make many incorrect assumptions.

Similarly, I did not challenge Sifu Santer, but merely asked him directly if this is what he is wanting. His words challenge my reputation as a professional teacher daily, which affects my career and my ability to provide for my wife and five children, but you apparently have no problem with that discourtesy. In light of his condescending tone of superiority towards me verbally, it is very interesting to see that you feel he needs you to stand in for him!

When do you yield to and neutralize perceived threats or attacks, if ever. Under what circumstances? I'm only asking because all I see here is immediate 'hard-style' counter-attack. I can't ask for a simple and direct answer to a legitimate question of someone who has singled me out for over a month now? I am surprised that anyone would find this unreasonable! I respect myself sufficiently to say "enough is enough." How long have I patiently yielded every day, week after week, before asking that it stop now? How long did you wait to challenge me in retaliation? What? An hour or so?

Ai ya! Yau mou gau cho ah!

Sifu Stier