Knowledge vs. Experience, Higher vs. Lower Level, Etc.

[Michael Udel]

Admin (Antonius) note: This thread was split (title chosen by Antonius) from another thread, which can be found here:

http://www.wongkiewkit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4663

There's an idiom in Chinese, that when translated to English means "Paying back a man in his own coin." For example, if someone treats you kindly, treat him with kindness, and if they treat you badly in some way, it may be necessary and/or beneficial to the situation to return the favor—just so.

I have heard something attributed to Arabic culture that a man should choose his enemies wisely because he will eventually become just like them. Meaning that a person inevitably feels forced to use the same tactics as his enemy in order to protect himself, but in doing so loses those qualities within himself he may have been trying to safeguard from his attacker. Cutting off one's nose to spite his face.

Greetings to all!

I just recently read through this thread, and thought I might add my humble opinion to the mixture of posts already here.

Through the years, I have learned that the best strategy for combat is no strategy at all except sufficient physical training to insure ample strength, speed, stamina, endurance, balance, body control, relaxed flexibility, and so forth, to prepare the body for maximum efficiency of spontaneous response.

Similarly, sufficient meditation training to insure ample mental and emotional calmness, focus, and presence in the moment seems to always allow automatic reactions to manifest the most appropriate tactics for the situation and circumstances at hand from the depths of the super-conscious mind.

When I read the above quote, I do not interpret it the same way that I think Sifu Barnett has interpreted it. BTW, because there are multiple Sifus with the same first names, when I refer to an Shaolin Wahnam Instructor in the third person I use their surname, but in the first person I use their Christian name followed with their last initial if I'm aware of a duplicate name on the forum.

Sifu Stier's post starts off with a disclaimer about his post being his humble opinion. Why shouldn't this be taken at face value? Is it discarded because of past interpretations by forum members of sarcasm on his part, and the previous use of phrases like "...my humble (but correct) opinion..." ? Does that bit of his personality incite you? Get under your skin?

...the best strategy for combat is no strategy at all...

I interpret this based on the premise that Sifu Stier later explained in his post to Kevin, which he has actually spoken about at other times on the forum. He clearly describes a strategy here.

I find the statement "the best strategy for combat is no strategy at all" to be profound and easy to understand. I think it fits perfectly with the Tai-Chi Chuan classic that, "If my opponent does not move, I do not move. If he moves slightly, I have already moved." Both statements indicate that the attacker, either because of an ambush and/or because he is the only one with an intention against the other person, does set the pace for the fight. Having "no strategy" means having no prejudices that can inhibit your complete freedom of action, and no prejudices, whether physical, emotional, or mental (you may substitute the word attitude for prejudice if you like) that can be used by your attacker to his advantage. It certainly does not mean that the concept of strategy should be absent from one's martial arts training. There has been nothing I have read from Sifu Stier to suggest that such a fundamental element is absent from his training or his teaching. My assumption is based on the premise of all of his posts to date.

...These Unknown 'X' Factors encompass a wide range of unpredictable variables which no defensive fighter can possibly control. There is simply no way to know with absolute certainty what someone else may decide to say or do in a personal confrontation situation.....especially someone who is speaking and acting under the influence of alcohol...cocaine...'speed'...or any number of other addictive substances. Such individuals may very well be totally uninhibited and unafraid of being hurt. I have personally encountered a few who were this way. They are definitely out there!...

Sifu Andrew, the above quote, and the post from which it came on May 27, 2005, has the same meaning as his first post on this thread, at least according to my interpretation. To suddenly change your interpretation from the good ole days when you either understood the clear meaning of Sifu Stier's posts, or at least dismissed it without comment, to a time now when you obviously interpret his posts as a criticism of Shaolin Wahnam and, further state his current posts are unclear (which happens to contradict Sifu Korahais' recent post praising Sifu Stier's writing ability), shows that your feeling about Sifu Stier has changed significantly, while his statements have not. The impression I get from your posts in this thread, Sifu Andrew, is very much that you dislike him, at least in the present moment, and that you are doing your utmost to find fault and be as vocal and aggressive as possible about it.

Even with Sifu Stier’s breadth and depth of knowledge and experience, he repeats himself quite a bit. Repetition is part of learning. Time and again Sifu Stier’s statements are well-accepted or left unchallenged at one time and criticized at another time by the same people who did not feel a need to respond previously. And what I have observed consistently is that usually those who are challenging and criticizing his posts are doing so in a very narrow-minded fashion, as though there is no larger premise for interpretation based on numerous other posts by or about him. The questioning by Sifu Barnett of Sifu Stier’s short post in this thread without considering what I have pointed out, but apparently focusing narrowly and only on current negative feelings toward Sifu Stier, is a prime example.

But where do these negative feelings come from? Everyone currently in conflict with Sifu Stier has also praised him, if not recently, then in-between posts critical of him. And yet you question his popping into and out of threads like he was the only person whose consistency could be questioned? That last sentence was a red-herring, an intentional misstatement of the larger truth. There is no breach of consistency in either case.

In the past, when things were good, you did not criticize Sifu Stier. It is illogical to say, online or in person, "Excuse me, I'd like to say at this juncture that I have no criticism to offer. Thank you." However, Sifu Santer invalidated this logic in a very childish way when he made public the fact that he and other Shaolin Wahnam Instructors had been criticizing Sifu Stier. It is one thing to discuss a person's statements on a relevant topic in a private setting, but it is improper to make this fact public. Is there any other intention that can be inferred other than Sifu Santer wanted to humiliate Sifu Stier and give the green light to other forum members that he was fair game for more potshots?

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.

Shortly after Sifu Marcus' post, Kevin began a series of exceptionally virulent personal attacks against Sifu Stier, the like of which I have never witnessed elsewhere on this forum since I’ve been here. The intensity and personal nature of Kevin’s posts were, I’m sure, not intended by Sifu Santer, but they were the direct and predictable result (I predicted it in my post here) of Sifu Santer prominently and clearly giving the green light for the pile-on.

We're all prone to mistakes and speaking in the heat of the moment, but the above quote by Sifu Santer was the second time he attempted to publicly humiliate Sifu Stier by stating in public that he and other Shaolin Wahnam Instructors had been sniggering behind his back, and Sifu Santer seemed genuinely proud of it! This kind of post is a crystal clear invitation to others to join in the attack, gang upon, and get your licks in while the time is ripe.

Incidentally, this reflects our courtesy and tolerance shown to forum guests.

Really? You are bragging about your courtesy while simultaneously humiliating someone by letting everyone on the forum know that you and other instructors criticized him. Hypocritical with a capital H.

Besides the offenses against logic and forum etiquette already mentioned, you also committed a prominent rhetorical error, Sifu Marcus. You referred to hearsay as though it were fact, attempting to corroborate something as yet unsubstantiated. Other members of the forum do not know what you and the other Shaolin Wahnam Instructors said about Sifu Stier behind his back. We are not privy to those conversations, which is why they should have been kept private. Even if it what you said were true (I am not trying to imply that you lied), it also does not establish fact. On the one hand, majority opinion is often correct, and even Sifu Stier has said words to the effect that the opinions of a majority of informed, experienced, and successful practitioners of a style are more valid than the opinion of one person who is not experienced and proven successful over time. But, on the other hand, history has shown that very often individuals who are lone dissenters and completely out of step with majority opinion, are in fact those with the courage to make great strides forward and see what others can not. Sifu Wong has repeated this, in one form or another, many times in reference to people willing to speak out about the therapeutic value of qigong and Chinese Medicine. So, majority opinion can be wrong, and lone dissenters can be quacks. They cancel out in general terms and must only be considered on a case by case basis. If in fact you were criticizing Sifu Stier with a group of other Shaolin Wahnam Instructors who have nothing better to do than talk about Sifu Stier and how wrong he is, it doesn’t prove anything, except that you were extremely impolite to reveal this fact on the forum, and I believe the fact you were so proud of it shows that something was affecting your normal sense of courtesy.

What is it about Sifu Stier that instigates you (plural) so? You can show exquisite, truly admirable tolerance and genuine concern for people like Kin Tama (BTW, there's a movie called Golden Balls) and Tom L, but Sifu Stier gets your goat regularly. Why?

Why do you so frequently misunderstand his statements? Another example being the notion that he threatened Kevin or Sifu Santer. When Sifu Korahais responded to Sifu Stier offering to "'Cross Hands' in a Gong-Sau contest" with Sifu Santer, Sifu Korahais suggested, rather suddenly, that he might pay Sifu Stier a visit in Sifu Santer's stead. Apparently, Sifu Korahais forgot that Sifu Stier has invited all comers, on many, many occasions on this forum, to visit his kwoon and test his martial skill at any time they wish. A standing, open, non-threatening, but instead, fact-substantiating invitation has been presented many times on this forum by Sifu Stier. In the context of this longstanding invitation, it seems a double misinterpretation to infer what he said to Sifu Santer as a threat. It is obviously part of Sifu Stier's kungfu cultural background to be willing to demonstrate his martial ability, which he restated: "Then...in the time honored tradition of the Chinese Martial Arts...".

I believe both parties involved are familiar with traditions of Chinese Martial Arts. Why jump to conclusions? I think it's because at some times you wish to interpret Sifu Stier's posts in a much more negative way than they were intended, and without regard to the larger picture of so many previous posts that were interpreted more accurately, or at least more neutrally.

Regarding Kevin's posts and the responses they received, I encourage everyone to express themselves on this forum, even when afraid of making mistakes, and Kevin is no exception. I am glad he is expressing himself, although I am not trying to say that I am at some higher position than him that I can look down and smile in a patronizing way.

Looking at the previous exchanges between Kevin and Sifu Stier, there is an obvious dislike for Sifu Stier by Kevin. The many lengthy personal attacks he has made so ridiculously and venomously against Sifu Stier and, to the shock and dismay of us all, against Sifu Stier's family, demonstrate exactly how prejudiced Kevin is in reading Sifu Stier's posts. And yet several of you congratulated Kevin for his recent comments, which I agree were much more polite (only because they couldn't have possibly been any more offensive than on previous occasions! Nowhere to go but up) than before, but the underlying message had not changed. Perhaps you disagree? So be it. What is much more important is the obvious pattern shown in this thread. Sifus Barnett and Korahais made their criticisms of Sifu Stier in an obvious way that gave Kevin, a person with a repeated history of outrageous verbal attacks against Sifu Stier, the incentive to attack once again. Sifus Barnett and Korahais, knowingly or not, chummed the water with the inevitable result being the sharks would circle and come in for the meal. And then you congratulated Kevin for toning things down??? How could he not tone it down? Where else could he go? How many Shaolin Wahnam Instructors need to praise Kevin in this situation? What message are you sending? I agree people deserve credit for expressing themselves appropriately on the forum. This is valid in all cases, and also in this case. I was also glad to see Kevin expressing himself and posting, but the situation is tainted. Anyway, that last part of the story worked out well because, in spite of previous conflict, Sifu Stier addressed Kevin directly and kindly.

Best wishes,
Michael

[yeniseri]

How to separate false from real?

michael,

Don't you agree that the one who states he has the most tools show the real state of grandmastership of self? This is what I understand to be the essence of an art. Take away the titles, the wahtever and it comes down to the man and his actions. The glue that binds all this stuff rests on self control and giving the 'benefit to the other' keeping in mind there is no physical presence.

If one is getting angry because someone disagrees with them or their appraoch, what kind of skill is that? Or better yet, what is it an indicator of?
Sifu Wong's obsrvation of people (masters, etc) who wear the robe, spout the jargon but their actions are way off from what they purportedly teach is classic but some do not know (lack awaress) of this so their pretense is glowingly present.

I shan't go any further but peace and goodwill to all!

[Darryl]

"Paying back a man in his own coin."

Interesting idiom, but like them all, it's very open to interpretation

For my slant on a summary,

Sifu Stier: "You say nothing of consequence"
Sifu Marcus: "Read my words"
Sifu Stier: "Stop what you are doing, you're damaging my professional reputation"
Sifu Marcus: "Really?"

.. which grew into ..

Sifu Stier: "I, the great and glorious one, hand picked Grandmaster of three styles, practitioner for over 30 years, challenge you, the certified instructor of less than five years, to a battle that will end in death and pain - because that's how I train"
Sifu Marcus: "Pardon?"
Sifu Stier: "Stop saying what you are saying or I, the one who never goes looking for a fight, will come and find you"
Sifu Marcus: "Are you serious?"
Sifu Steir: "Yes I am serious. Now stop changin the subject"
Sifu Marcus: "You want to issue a challenge to stop me from accepting your previous challenge?"
Sifu Stier: "Yes"
Sifu Marcus: "And you don't see anything worrying about this?"
Sifu Stier: "No"
Sifu Marcus: " ... "

And you wonder why I find this amusing?

[Antonius]

Hi Michael. Thank you for your honest opinions.

Even with Sifu Stier’s breadth and depth of knowledge and experience, he repeats himself quite a bit.

Sifu Stier's knowledge and experience are, in my opinion, questionable. As the Buddha taught, and as we still teach today in Shaolin Wahnam -- we should not take anything on faith alone, nor on the reputation of a master. In short -- we should question everything.

What do we know about Sifu Stier's experience other than what he tells us? His posts sometimes hint at a depth of experience, but at other times, they suggest a complete lack of it. Without substantiation in the form of pictures, videos, publication, or a face-to-face meeting -- how can you be so sure about his experience?

And this is precisely the point I am trying to make about Sifu Stier. Just because he calls himself a Grandmaster doesn't necessarily mean that he is full of experience. He may be. Or he may not be. I've met both kinds along the path, and it's not always easy to differentiate -- even for someone like me with many years of experience.

Now, all of this may seem like a personal attack to you. It's not. I'm not calling him stupid (he's obviously highly intelligent). I'm not trying to discredit him. Basically, I'm just questioning his credentials. I find this to be a reasonable request of someone who claims to be an authority on any subject.

And when it comes to a subject as esoteric as the Internal Martial Arts, where there are so few trusted authorities in the first place, I think it is especially important. If Sifu Stier does indeed possess all that he claims, then in the end, there will be no problem. But until then, I think we owe it to those with less experience to question everything.

Time and again Sifu Stier’s statements are well-accepted or left unchallenged at one time and criticized at another time by the same people who did not feel a need to respond previously.

We have challenged his concepts from the beginning. Just look at the Zen and Tao thread. But in general, we also witheld many of our opinions -- out of respect and propriety.

For a long time, I secretly suspsected that Sifu Stier might not have the experience that he claims to have. But honestly -- I wasn't sure. Even now, I cannot say for certain. All I know for certain is that his experience is still questionable even after 1.5 years and 800+ posts.

Why did we change tactics after 1.5 years? Why did we start to freely offer opinions that we previously withheld? I think that I answered this here.

Is there any other intention that can be inferred other than Sifu Santer wanted to humiliate Sifu Stier

Personally, I don't think that "humiliate" is the right word. In my opinion, "humble" (as a verb) would be a better word.

Shortly after Sifu Marcus' post, Kevin began a series of exceptionally virulent personal attacks against Sifu Stier, the like of which I have never witnessed elsewhere on this forum since I’ve been here.

This is where you really lose me, Michael. Kevin's posts were tame compared to Sifu Stier's. And Kevin made considerable progress in a short amount of time. He apologized for his shortcomings, and improved on them admirably. As far as I'm concerned, the lesson that Kevin learned made all of the posts I've ever written in response to Sifu Stier worthwhile. You cannot put a price on such lessons.

Sifu Stier was the first member of our discussion forum to use such frequent personal attacks that the moderators were forced to "meet" (virtual meeting) to discuss how to handle him. At the time, a decision was made to bend the rules out of respect for his status as a Grandmaster. Had he been anyone else, he would have been handled much differently.

In retrospect, maybe that was a wrong decision. Maybe we should have handled him decisively from the beginning. But then, all those unexpected lessons might have been missed, which would have been a real loss.

Respectfully,

[Andrew]

Michael,

You have obviously spent much time to compose your post. I will not add more comments here as I have already partially addressed part of your comments elsewhere (regarding why I made the comments I did). I would just ask you to consider whether or not you are making double-standards here --- one "all-forgiving" and one "other". You have seen an aggressor -- but have you seen the aggressor?

Andrew

[Sifu Stier]

Expectations and Disappointments!

Dear Sifu Collett:

Your recent post on this thread was a tremendous disappointment to me. I have admired your absence from these absurd arguments and debates from the start, while wondering if others had also noted that you remained aloof from it all. But now I see that you have been sucked into the fray.

Feeling obligated to offer some kind of sympathetic support to your embattled brothers? I'm sorry! I really am. You have been the one Wahnam Sifu who has always been courteous, respectful, and helpful from the beginning of my participation on this forum. However, I understand the pressures and expectations of group solidarity, and know from personal experience with same that it can often be quite difficult. My respect for you remains as before, and although that probably doesn't matter to you, it does to me!


Sifu Korahais:

Thank you for validating Micheal's observations so beautifully....by clearly demonstrating that you really didn't hear any of them. I expect as much from you, and have rarely been surprised or disappointed by your responses. Once again, you repeatedly and directly insult Grandmaster Lee in your most recent post, although I have no doubt that you feel smugly justified in doing so.

"In the end", to use your words, any determination of the knowledge and skills that I possess will not be done by you or your comrades. I have withstood the test of time for many, many years before you guys arrived on the martial arts scene, and will probably be around for many years after you have all faded into the sunset.

Regards ~

Sifu Stier

[Kevin]

I just wanted to make a few quick replies to Michael Udel's last post.

My prior posts to Sifu Stier on the "Shen Men Tao" and "Yielding" threads came from me and me alone. I did not post them after "the green light for the pile on" from Sifu Santer. Nothing that Sifu Santer had said or posted made me say what I did. My posts then were in direct response to what Sifu Stier had said.

I realize that this is the Internet, typed words, etc. But I do believe (and others on this Forum agreed) that Sifu Stier was physically threatening me when he stated in post # 269 of the Shen Men Tao thread, "..please seek me out and show me what you have to teach me". I understand that this Forum has people on it from many different countries, and therefore, many different languages. And along with that, certain sayings can be interpreted in different ways by those of differing cultural backgrouds. But Sifu Stier is American, so am I, so is Sifu Korahais. And in the USA, the phrase "come show me what you have to teach me", in the context that Sifu Stier used it, would usually be the precursor to a physical fight. That's what I got from it. That's what others got from it. Maybe that's not what Sifu Stier meant, as he went on to explain. But I disagree.

As far as me personally attacking Sifu Stier's family..? I went back and re-read all of my previous posts. I didn't say anything negative regarding his family. My statements that mentioned his family and students simply stated that I felt bad for them knowing they had to deal with him, considering how he had acted on this Forum.

Just wanted to clear a couple of those things up..not bring them back up. I've left those posts far behind. I posted those out of emotion, and in doing so missed the opportunity (at that moment) for learning and growth that Sifu Stier's posts were offering. I've since learned from my mistake, learned from those posts, and continue to learn and be open.

Michael Udel asks why the Wahnam Sifus were congratulating me on my recent posts. Only they can accurately answer that question. Maybe simply because they see that a light has gone off for me, that I'm starting to "get it" now. I've learned this lesson, and am now ready to learn the countless others that await me. Instead of facing the wind as the stiff, unbending tree, I've learned it's much more fruitful to bend and sway with the wind, to use it to my advantage-much more educational.

Best wishes to all,

Kevin

[Antonius]

Dear Sifu Stier,

Once again, you repeatedly and directly insult Grandmaster Lee in your most recent post, although I have no doubt that you feel smugly justified in doing so.

I do not feel that I insulted your Sifu, and I certainly would not feel smug if I did. Would you please show me exactly where you think I "repeatedly and directly" insulted Grandmaster Lee?

What I did do was this: I refused to take anything on faith alone. And I will continue to do that until my death. Interestingly, you once agreed with this philosophy. It was in response to Jeffrey's post back in the Breathing methods and control in Taijiquan thread. In respose to Jeffrey, you said:

I sincerely hope that everyone reading these posts noticed the bold type of your training tenet: Don't take anything on faith alone.

All I want is some substantiation of your credentials, Sifu Stier. Is that really too much to ask of someone who has been offered the title of "Grandmaster" and treated as a respected guest for 1.5 years? Or are we just supposed to take it all on faith?

All the best,

[qingui]

[QUOTE=Michael Udel

Why do you so frequently misunderstand his statements? Another example being the notion that he threatened Kevin or Sifu Santer....... In the context of this longstanding invitation, it seems a double misinterpretation to infer what he said to Sifu Santer as a threat. It is obviously part of Sifu Stier's kungfu cultural background to be willing to demonstrate his martial ability, which he restated: "Then...in the time honored tradition of the Chinese Martial Arts...". .........

Dear Michael,

I think you are bias here. I remember my first impression of Sifu Stier's statement that you quoted sound more like a threat and not an invitation to demonstrate his martial ability. Just to be double sure I go through his statement again and it is still more a threat to me. May be you have missed the last sentence that clearly stated that it is NOT going to be a friendly sparring match to compare notes.

[Sifu Stier]

Yep....take it on faith, or not, as you wish. If that's not good enough, please feel welcome to drop by when you come this way next time, and I'll show you all of my credentials. We can sit and compare notes over a nice cup of hot Jasmine or Lychee Tea, OK?

Regards ~

Doc

[Andrew]

We are all taught (and Sifu Stier agrees -- see Anthony's post above) to accept nothing on faith alone --- yet in his last post expects us to accept all he says / has said / will say on faith alone. This is obviously another case of Sifu Stier not contradicting himself

Kevin,
You have indeed learnt valuable lessons and your posts reflect this extremely well.

It is sad, though, that others here seem incapable of learning at all.

Andrew

[Charles David]

Dear Friends and Family,

It has been such a wonderful experience for me to be able to learn from Sifu and to be able learn from all of you here on this forum. If only you could know how much it means to me...

I want to take this opportunity to tell you all that you are in my thoughts and prayers and that I will be sending my blessings to each and every one of you.
May you all be healthy and happy.

Sifu Stier, I certainly hope that we will be able to enjoy tea together in person some day soon. This cyber brew can't suffice.



With Shaolin Blessings,

[Charles David]

Dear Siheng,

You wrote,

It is sad, though, that others here seem incapable of learning at all.

I agree(d).

I was sad just a little while ago...

That's the problem with us being in different time zones. Just as you are busy being sad, I'm getting ready to celebrate. A little more sadness and you'll be good as new!



Corrigibly Yours

Sidai,

[Maxime]

Brother Charles,

I take the opportunity to tell you I really appreciate your state of mind and your kindness.

I remember having talked to you last year during the Intensive Chi Kung graduation dinner. We were both emphasizing the importance of the Ten Shaolin Laws.

I look forward meeting you in the future,

Sorry if my post is off-topic

Shaolin Salute,

Maxime

[beausimon]

There is only so much that exchanging views in writing can do. I think Dan Docherty and Chu King Hung understood this.

http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/informa...ter_calls.html

A Master Calls: The Dan Docherty Interview: Part Two
By A. D. Davies

Apart from the letters which have appeared in FAI, what reactions have you had to your interview in issue 46?

Well I had several hundred letters and calls from all over UK and from Europe and these were almost entirely favourable. It's fairly obvious that many people out there are interested in learning or at least in looking at Tai Chi which works as a fighting art. However, there were a couple of adverse reactions - from Tai Chi teachers of other styles. One incident in particular may interest readers.

You had a 'visitor'?

Correct. I was teaching my class in Covent Garden London, at about 8pm. on Friday, 22nd April, when a sturdy, balding Chinese gentleman of medium height came through the swing doors of the studio followed by a retinue of nine or ten persons. It was fairly evident they hadn't come to join the class. I recognised the Chinese gentleman from photos I'd seen in martial arts magazines both here and in Hong Kong. It was Chu King-hung. I also recognised one of his students.

Is that Master Chu King-hung of Yang Style Tai Chi?

None other. He told me he had some matters discuss with me, but that he could wait until after the class. After about 35 minutes watching me teach the class self defence, pushing hands and hand form, Chu gestured for me to come over. He told me that neither I nor my students had any internal power and that, in his 32 years of practising Tai Chi and his 15 years teaching it in Europe, I was the only one to say bad things about Yang style Tai Chi. I told him that I had never seen any Yang stylist here or in the Far East who could use Tai Chi effectively as a martial art and that I felt entitled to say so. Likewise he was free to express a contrary opinion.

He challenged me to do a `chi power' demonstration with my students and then he would do one with his. Now I've seen many of these so called `chi power' demonstrations where co-operative students are sent flying under carefully controlled circumstances. Some supreme charlatans even claim to be able to do this from a distance without touching! I said to him that this was no way to test skills, the traditional Tai Chi method was to have a pushing hands contest; student against student or teacher against teacher. He then demanded that I push hands with one of his students.

How did you feel about this?

It wasn't his place to tell me what to do, so I said it must be student with student. The senior student he'd selected was well over 6' tall and I believe his name is Bob Coleman. I knew him because in 1985 he'd attended one of my courses in Tai Chi spear. I nominated my student, Carl Burgess, to face him. Carl is considerably shorter than Bob and he has been studying Tai Chi for about 8 months.

Before they started, I told Carl the tactics to adopt. They made contact and Bob moved in with a strong push. Carl diverted it, twisted and threw Bob onto his back. There was a pregnant silence until Chu called, "Again!".

This time Bob came in a bit harder Carl gave way and turned him, pushing him into the wall. Bob thanked Carl and admitted he'd lost. He also said to Chu that Carl was good. I asked Chu what he wanted next. He looked at me and in a loud confident voice, he said, "I must have contact." At the same time he brandished his arm in front of him the way the hero does in the climactic scene in third rate kung fu movies, just before he beats the bad guy to a pulp and gets the girl.

So you and Master Chu pushed hands?

Three times. The first time he stepped in with a hard push. I diverted it thus destroying his balance. Instead of admitting he'd lost, he complained that I was bigger than him. I told him that he'd known this before he came and that he claimed to be a master with 32 years experience. He seemed to have forgotten that I'd got no internal power. So we pushed again, and again I destroyed his balance. After he'd lost balance he grabbed my neck for a moment, but still couldn't destroy my balance. I told him he'd lost again, but he denied it saying that the floor, was slippery. I pointed out that it was the same for both as we were both wearing trainers. Suddenly he shouted to one of his students to take a photograph as my neck was red. I intimated to this gentleman in dulcet Glaswegian tones that such action might not be in his own or the camera's best interests. No photos were taken.

Chu then demanded a third pushing hands bout. He adopted the same tactics and again I easily destroyed his balance. This time he said "Different method!" I pointed out that he'd known this also before he came. I told him that he was the one with no internal power, that I have students better than him, that he was a bullshitter and that I had just shown his Yang style to be useless for self defence.

How did your own students react to all this?

They were astonished that someone of Chu's experience and status in Yang style circles would make such a challenge in the first place. Obviously

they were pleased at the outcome and amused by Chu's excuses. He'd swaggered in like big John Wayne, but went out like Mickey Rooney. To lose once may be considered unfortunate; to lose five times doesn't leave much room for doubt.

What about Master Chu's students?

They were initially shell-shocked, but after I'd expressed myself in typically diplomatic terms about their style and their teacher, a couple of them tried to hit back at me, not by saying how good he was or by trying to turn defeat into victory, but by reproving me for my choice of adjectives and nouns. A young woman who was one of the strongest critics of my language ended up calling me an "arsehole."

Don't you think you were a bit too abrasive?

Not at all. The whole thing was a total surprise to us. They'd come along unheralded and uninvited. They'd disrupted my class. It was obvious they'd planned the whole thing and come well-prepared with a camera to record my humiliating defeat at their hands. Chu had issued and insisted on persisting with the challenge despite defeat after defeat and had then come up with pathetic excuses. I felt some sympathy for Bob Coleman, because he was very honest and sincere throughout, but I don't feel the least bit apologetic for anything I said either then, now or in FAI 46. You know the Edith Piaf song 'Je ne regrette rien.'

How did it end?

I said I'd heard enough bullshit for one night and I told them to go home. They left and we left. Outside I saw Bob go up to Chu and shake hands. He apologised for losing. We felt thirsty rather than apologetic so we went for a few drinks.

Have you heard anything since?

Chu called me on the Monday morning and wanted to talk to me. I told him I'd done all my talking on Friday night, and I would send him a letter about the incident and about arranging a pushing hands contest between our students if he so wished. That remains the position.

In `FAI' 48 there was a very angry letter from John Eastman of Yang style Tai Chi in which he is strongly critical of you and of many of the things you said. Do you accept his criticisms?

In the Hong Kong police force we had a term for people like John, 'Chocolate Policeman.' This refers to the kind of officer who was useless on the street, but had a nice nine to five job shuffling paper. If they left their air conditioned offices to go out in the hot sun they'd melt - just like chocolate. John's fairly typical of Yang style Tai Chi people; the kung fu is in the mouth not the hands. The best answer to his letter is to ask readers to compare it to what I said in the interview in `FAI' 46.

Are there any specific points you'd like to deal with?

Yes. He criticises photos that were used in the article, but these were selected by `FAI' from a wide variety of photos, also the first thing most people mentioned to me about the article was how good the photos were.

Again John, a self-confessed professional journalist and Yang style Tai Chi instructor, mentions conversations he had with me. He asks what 'differentiates my Tai Chi from other external styles which also utilise and demonstrate nei kung." This suggests that I am a hard stylist. However, then he says he put it to me that much of what we taught was similar, that I agreed with this, saying with a smile that the reason I emphasised the difference was business. This is untrue, except maybe for the smile and it belongs to the "Freddy Starr ate my hamster" school of creative journalism.

On the subject of internal strength, it was John who asked me about learning it and about the possibility of private lessons in pushing hands and self-defence techniques. He shows his ignorance of it when he suggests that the feats shown could be replicated by hard stylists. I don't recommend this as

He says that a tofu hand can't do much in a fight, but that water under pressure can?

The analogy is incomplete. Your opponent is a man, not water. This is a further example of the prevarication's Yang stylists come out with when confronted with uncomfortable issues such as how a Tai Chi man can temper the fist so it can hit the hard bones in the face. Their maxim seems to be, "if in doubt, waffle!" I know if I was in trouble I'd rather have someone like the redoubtable Mr. Gary Spiers on my side than any five of these jokers. I saw Mr Spiers give one of his inimitable demonstrations up in Glasgow about 16 years ago. These clowns are equally inimitable but in a different way!

John also has interesting and wonderful ideas about the Chinese language, despite the fact that, as he admitted to me, he is unable to read Chinese. He suggests that the character `Chuan' of Tai Chi Chuan is not really a fist in a martial arts sense but is "a fist with which we should pound ourselves into better, healthier more accomplished human beings." This is doublespeak, where defeat is victory, the truth is a lie and so on. Presumably practitioners of all other 'Chuan' such as Shaolin Chuan, Hung Chuan etc. are also not really practising martial arts. Maybe Kendoka should be cutting themselves with their swords. Sado-masochism is both a novel and unusual reason for practising martial arts.

But surely the health side of Tai Chi is important?

I don't deny it, but I'm not old and I'm not sick. There are five short passages which together compromise the Tai Chi classics. Certainly some contain references to health, but each of them has references to the use of Tai Chi Chuan as a martial art. Because our Tai Chi follows the theory outlined in these passages, because our Tai Chi is a proven fighting art that is why we claim the connection with Chang San-feng. Our Tai Chi is at least as good for health as any other Tai Chi, where it differs is in its proven fighting capability.

Aren't you just stirring up trouble in 'knocking' other styles?

The only other people I've 'knocked' as you put it are other Tai Chi people. You'll note that in the original interview I didn't criticise any current teachers by name. I only do so now because they have now come forward to take issue with me physically and verbally. Furthermore, I believe my criticisms are valid ones. Some Tai Chi teachers charge more than twice what I charge for classes. You need to pay whether or not you can make the class. The teacher is hardly ever there himself and even when he is he has nothing of value to teach. If 'knocking' these guys stirs up trouble, I am only too happy to continue 'knocking'.

What about the anecdotes that John relates about Cheng Man-ching's fighting ability and his criticism that if you need to enter a contest to find out how good you are then your ability is not very high?

I heard the same fairy tales about Chu King-hung and other Tai Chi teachers - all this rubbish about their fantastic 'chi power'. John was modestly reticent about his own fighting ability and in this regard he has much to be modest about.

Secondly, Yang stylists rightly boast of the fighting ability of Yang Lu-chan, who first brought Tai Chi to Peking and who took on all comers. This led to his appointment as martial arts instructor to the Manchu Imperial Guard. Presumably he was not very good either.

Another point, since well before Yang Lu-chan came on the scene Tai Chi, though still a Taoist martial art, was no longer exclusively taught by Taoists. By that I mean that, though Tai Chi Chuan retained the Taoist philosophical principles on which it was based and though a thorough knowledge of these principles was and still is necessary to practice the art, the teacher's themselves were no longer Taoist hermits. For the most part from Yang Luchan onwards they have been professional Tai Chi instructors not Taoist sages, and that includes the long time Kuomintang member, Cheng Man-ching.

As regards Cheng Man-ching's knowledge of the martial aspects of Tai Chi, I would advise those interested to study his books and compare what he says and what he shows to what is in our book 'Wutan Tai Chi Chuan' Furthermore anyone is welcome to come to watch any of my classes and compare the methods.

Another Yang style teacher who learned from Tung Ying-chieh, one of Yang Cheng-fu's senior students, told me that as far as they were concerned Cheng Man-ching was nothing special.

I would have to endorse that view.

John Eastman also refers to using acupressure where, by use of Chin force, Chi energy is extended into the patient and says that similar methods using a fist at high speed rather than a finger at slow speed would cause damage rather than healing.

In the 17 years I've been practising martial arts, both here and in the far East I have met many seemingly normal, rational, intelligent people who, as soon as the word `Chi' is mentioned, abandon all their critical and analytical facilities.

You don't need to be a doctor to know that using a fist on someone at high speed can hurt them, but that is nothing to do with Chi. Also striking nerve centres or pressure points of a compliant patient are one thing, but trying to do so to another trained martial artist who is turning, twisting, attacking and defending is another matter.

You seem very dismissive of Chi energy.

I'll tell you a story. Last summer I attended two lectures in London given in Chinese to a Chinese to a Chinese audience from a Chinese gentleman, Professor Lin Yun. The story goes that at the age of six, in Peking, the professor was recognised by the lamas of the Yung-ho Temple as an emanation of a Bodhisattva, so they taught him the secrets of the Black Sect of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism.

The lectures were respectively about Chi and about Feng Shui (geomancy) which the professor claimed to be interrelated and about which, according to the literature provided, he is an expert. The professor must be in his early fifties.

The first lecture was about Chi. His argument was that you could tell how the Chi flowed in individuals by looking at their posture, behaviour etc. He got a couple of members of the audience to come out, he made some general remarks about their Chi, then gave them advice on certain exercises to practice to improve the flow.

In the literature provided many awe inspired disciples of all nationalities told anecdotes about the professor. One even claimed that during one of the professor's lectures that she had seen a huge and brilliant white face hovering above him!

The second lecture was to be on Feng Shui and was scheduled for late at night, so Chinese restaurant workers could attend. I got there half an hour early and waited outside the cinema where it was to be held. However, when this master of the secrets of the Black Sect of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism arrived he had to be supported by his two extremely attractive female assistants, one holding each arm to help him into the cinema. He could barely walk. I don't want to speculate as to what had happened to the professor's Chi flow.

But why do so many people Believe in Chi energy?

Maybe they've been reading too many 'Fantastic Four' comic books. Also it gives the promise of an easier way than actually training or striving. The thing is some teachers of the Chinese martial arts deliberately use jargon like `chi energy' in the wrong context to mislead students into thinking that there is some mystical key which one day they will somehow acquire and then they too will become Taoist sages.

What have been some of the more positive responses to the original interview?

Owing to the response I received, I've had to start organising seminars on a regular basis both in London and elsewhere. Also it has made me realise the poor quality of much that is written about Tai Chi and has stimulated me to try and put together some articles for 'Fighting Arts International'.

A. D. Davies is a freelance writer who has been practising martial arts, including various Chinese systems, for the past 15 years.