"Theories of Hard and Soft in Hung Ga's Five Animals and Five Elements" by Frank Yee

[The Xia]

http://www.hungkuen.net/article-hardandsoft.htm

[mantis108]

Well, I felt a little disappointed with the article because the title is really interesting one and could go pretty indepth into theories and such. Unfortunately, it falls quite short of substance when it comes to Hard and Soft (Gangrou) not to mention it didn't quite deliver the relationship between all those listed components with respect to the Hung Gar style IMHO.

Mantis108

[The Xia]

I disagree. I thought the article did well in explaining the concepts. I think you should remember that it's an article on the topic, not a book.

[mantis108]

It's fine that you disagree. :) I don't meant to rock the boat but here's my case in point:

Since the main theme is "Theories of Hard and Soft" in a particular style (ie Hung Ga) So shall we look at this paragraph?


Hard and Soft Theory

The lowest level of a martial artist's kung fu skill will have either the qualities of "all hard and no soft" or "all soft and no hard." A person at the highest level of skill possesses b oth hard and soft with the a b ility to demonstrate their kung fu techniques at will. Unfortunately, most martial artists are either more "hard than soft" or more "soft than hard." Confucius once said, "when anything is overdone, it is the same as b eing incomplete." This holds true for kung fu performed overly hard or soft.

This is a statement of an general observation on hard and soft. It is not a theory. Where is the mathematics? What constitutes hard and what constitutes soft? How do we come to the conclusion of low level MAists either "all hard no soft" or "all soft no hard" as oppose to the master's "both hard and soft"? There is no definition nor is there an attempt to "theorize" hard and soft. Is it an attribute, dynamic, substance or power? The article assume or rather relies on the common knowledge of the readership of hard and soft. This means that anyone can bring in their understanding or perspective to interpret what hard and soft mean (ie tension vs no tension, etc).

Then further down there's 50/50 for the first level (master level I suppose) from a chart. We don't know what data the chart based on. Again they are arbitrary numbers with out the mathematics that upholds a theory. What if I put it to you that a master's hand would actually be more soft than hard instead of 50/50 because that's in accordance with the nature of Dao? How would the author prove me wrong? By throwing in an other quote from Confucius or stick to his own assertion?

I understand that an article is not a book but the article in question exposed certain shortcomings of the author's method of theorizing IMHO. May be he could revise the article to reflect how he truely feels about the subject. I have no doubt that we would all benefit from it. I believe it is due diligence of the writer to provide good and sound information or knowledge to the public. I believe it is possible to be concise and still get great amount of information and knowledge accross. Just a thought and observation. :)

I still appreciation that someone told the time to wrote it and upload it plus that you share the link.

Regards

Mantis108

[The Xia]

I feel that the article does address the question of "what is hard and soft" as seen in this excerpt,

Soft Theory - When using techniques with the soft theory in mind, one must go with the opponent like the dragon dodging right and left in defense; never force against force. Before an attack, one must totally relax ( b ody and mind) and concentrate all the power at one point. The moment of impact demonstrates the "extreme hard." Once the strike is over, the release and pull b ack reinstates the soft theory.

During transition periods like small steps or turning and jumping, one cannot b e stiff. The emphasis must b e placed on the soft. When one prepares to strike, depending on the situation, the stances of rising, sinking, floating and extending movements are done with hard theory.
Key points of soft theory emphasize chi, the usage of "spiral ging" and the a b ility to change into "hard ging." "Soft ging" can also b e called "hidden ging;" it is hidden and not seen.

Hard Theory - We concentrate all the power at one point and at the moment of impact use hard theory. The hard must b e learned through strict foundation training like stances training, b ridge hands training, b ag work and all types of conditioning. The key to "hard ging" is remaining strong when releasing power. One uses stomping of the foot and different sounds to deliver power. The strike must b e heavy like a hammer hitting or b om b exploding. During com b at, "hard ging" constitutes mostly offensive techniques; it overwhelms an opponent with force against force. It is considered as "yang ging" which may b e seen in its manifestations in nature.

Hard and Soft in Mo Duk - As a martial artist, one must have compassion as strong as their skills. To accomplish this task means to reach the highest level one can achieve.
With this explanation in mind, I agree 100% that a high level master is both hard and soft. As the saying goes, "Hard as iron, soft as thread".
In terms of being "all hard and no soft" or "all soft and no hard.", I can see how that categorizes beginners in martial arts.

[mantis108]

Well, I hate to neat pick, but ...

The site also said that a master is 50% hard and 50% soft, right? So, does that mean that the master is 50% of the time (say 12 hrs of the day) remains hard/tense and 50% of the time remains soft/relax? If so which 12 hrs are hard and which 12 hrs are soft? Let's shorten it to a 1 seconds time frame. During this time the master would be 50% (50/100 of a seconds) soft and 50% (50/100 of a second) hards when his in action right? but look at this:

"Soft Theory - When using techniques with the soft theory in mind, one must go with the opponent like the dragon dodging right and left in defense; never force against force. Before an attack, one must totally relax ( b ody and mind) and concentrate all the power at one point. The moment of impact demonstrates the "extreme hard." Once the strike is over, the release and pull b ack reinstates the soft theory. "

It is said that a boxer's jab such as Ali's punch is 4/100 of a second. He's almost always seens as relaxed before his punches and only "tense" for 4/100 of a second. I don't know if it's just me or is the above statement contradict the 50/50 claim? So the Kung Fu master's punch is different than a boxer's jab then? Why it takes 50/100 of a second instead of 4/100 of a second? Could you or anyone else clarify that? A similar statement appears the second time furthering the support for boxer's jab but in fact it should be 50/100 of a second in the Kung Fu master case (as postulated by the article):

"Hard Theory - We concentrate all the power at one point and at the moment of impact use hard theory. The hard must b e learned through strict foundation training like stances training, b ridge hands training, b ag work and all types of conditioning. The key to "hard ging" is remaining strong when releasing power. One uses stomping of the foot and different sounds to deliver power. The strike must b e heavy like a hammer hitting or b om b exploding. During com b at, "hard ging" constitutes mostly offensive techniques; it overwhelms an opponent with force against force. It is considered as "yang ging" which may b e seen in its manifestations in nature. "

Please bear in mind that 46/100 of a second difference is HUGE!

So in both soft and hard you are essentially doing the same thing. It is obviously an important point in the article. Why 2 theories to explain essentially the same thing then? Further on the one hand it saids there is extreme hard in the soft but soft is never force against. However, extreme hard is about force against force. It's that contradictory? Which is which that we should be using - hidden ging or yang ging or both. Is it simultaneously or is it one after another?

I also have a question on why and how "The key to "hard ging" is remaining strong when releasing power. One uses stomping of the foot and different sounds to deliver power. The strike must b e heavy like a hammer hitting or b om b exploding" produces hard power? So stomping and making different sounds makes the strike heavy like hammer hitting or bomb exploding? What's the connection? What's the theory or it is another observation on emperical behavior? How do we know it's not pacebo (sp?) effect?

Anyway, I believe that if we are serious about Kung Fu training, we should bring critical thinking to the table and not just believing everything is fine and wonderful. Just some thoughts...

Mantis108

[BruceSteveRoy]

http://yeeshungga.com/tradition/articles/

[The Xia]

Mantis, It's been awhile but I saw your post now and felt like responding. :)
I think you raise some interesting points.
The first point about breaking hard and soft down to hours in the day. lol that would be funny but I think that's taking it to a place that it isn't meant to be. I think you can however, make a point that even while not training or fighting, hard and soft applies to the way you should conduct yourself. I think it's briefly covered in one sentence. To be strong and compassionate can be seen as a trait of Mo Duk.
The second part about the boxer's jab is also well thought out. I still feel that you are taking it to a place it's not meant to be. It's not just in one strike but look at the way a beginner will do a form. Usually, it's soft to the point of weak or hard to the point of stiff. As abilities increase it levels out. The hard become strong, not stiff, and the soft becomes flowing, not weak. And as the person gets to a high level, he uses appropriate degrees of soft and hard. He has balance.
I think what the article is saying is that soft and hard are two aspects of the same thing.
As for the stomping of the feet and sounds. They do have purposes beyond placebo effect. Breathing and sounds do a lot. Breathing keeps you going and many of the noises help lock your body in the proper way to accomplish what you are doing. A lot of the noises also correspond with organs. This is very true with Hung Gar.
I agree with you about Kung Fu guys practicing critical thinking. Mentally processing concepts allows us to put them into use.

[bakxierboxer]

Mantis -

> It is said that a boxer's jab such as Ali's punch is 4/100 of a second. He's almost always seens as relaxed before his punches and only "tense" for 4/100 of a second. <

I'm not sure where you got that timing figure.
"Many years ago" Ali/Clay (at the time?) was featured on the Johnny Carson Show. Johnny "got" him to do a jab through a photo-electric eyed timer and break a single board. ET was .20 seconds.

In a rather good example of apples-to-oranges, the following year saw Mas Oyama's second book, "This Is Karate" published with a selected 5th Dan wired to an electro-myograph and breaking 5(?) boards. ET was .22 seconds.

Not exactly on topic for "hard vs soft".... but only for informational purposes.

> So the Kung Fu master's punch is different than a boxer's jab then? Why it takes 50/100 of a second instead of 4/100 of a second? Could you or anyone else clarify that? A similar statement appears the second time furthering the support for boxer's jab but in fact it should be 50/100 of a second in the Kung Fu master case <

I don't recall the article in question venturing into timings.

> Please bear in mind that 46/100 of a second difference is HUGE!

Someone needs to come up truly accurate timings using the same methods and similarly effective punches.
Jab vs "power punch"?
Apples'n'what"?
Speed-wise, boxers aren't even in the ballpark vs a good "short-hand" stylist.

> So stomping and making different sounds makes the strike heavy like hammer hitting or bomb exploding? What's the connection? What's the theory or it is another observation on emperical behavior? How do we know it's not pacebo (sp?) effect? <

Stomping is somewhat style-dependent.
Some "just do it", others use it to emphasize a final "lock" into a hard effort.

Variant sounds create different types of energy with different effects.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

The Xia -

> I think what the article is saying is that soft and hard are two aspects of the same thing. <

Certainly, although I might say that this thread has been more about instantiations or manifestations of those "qualities" in relative isolation.

As you say above, they are aspects of the "same thing" and I feel that they must be considered as such.... one might even spend some time "contemplating" the symbol itself, taking special note of the fact that they are intertwined and *blend* together.... even down to the level of action and reaction, although some techniques can make it a little hard to spot those elements.

> As for the stomping of the feet and sounds. They do have purposes beyond placebo effect. Breathing and sounds do a lot. Breathing keeps you going and many of the noises help lock your body in the proper way to accomplish what you are doing. A lot of the noises also correspond with organs. This is very true with Hung Gar. <

Agreed as above.

> I agree with you about Kung Fu guys practicing critical thinking. Mentally processing concepts allows us to put them into use. <

Heh! except for the fact that most forums tend to generate criticism rather than critical thinking....

Pete

[The Xia]

I agree bakxierboxer. Although criticism can be critical thinking. :D

[bakxierboxer]

I agree bakxierboxer. Although criticism can be critical thinking. :D

I hope that's not meant to include the bulk of the "heated verbiage" on that "BS" thread.

[The Xia]

I hope that's not meant to include the bulk of the "heated verbiage" on that "BS" thread.
No. I wasn't referring to that thread.

[bakxierboxer]

No. I wasn't referring to that thread.

Didn't really think so... ;)

[GeneChing]

The cover story was somewhat related to this topic: The Method of Hung Ga's Ging (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=651)by Master Frank Yee (translated by Pedro Cepero Yee)

[mantis108]

Thanks for the article. It's great that it covers a lot of different issues concerning the subject of Jing (Ging in Cantonese) - power issue. While I appreciate the article and Master Yee's openess in sharing his views, I can't say that I agreed with the view point in the article concerning Jing. Of course, he knowledge and experience in Hung Gar is much appreciated.

One of the points that seems problematic for me is the following quote:


Gum Gong Ging
This ging comes from the Sil Lum book Sil Lum Boon Yeurk Bo Law Mat Ging, meaning the hard and sharp which destroys everything. To attain gum gong ging, you need to know all the previous ging's, combined with hard and soft ging, as well as extensive training. The gum gong ging is the highest level of Hung Ga.

I believe the book that it mentioned here is the Vajra Prajna Paramita sutra. Vajra (thunderbolt) is often translated as diamond, which is why it is translated as hard and sharp in the article. But Vajra can also be translated as "That Which Distroys" referring to the awesome power that is inherit in the thunderbolt. Here Vajra is a metaphor of Prajna (wisdom of void) having the same attributes as Vajra that cuts away all illusions. Paramita is "Bo Law Mat Dor" not Bo Law Mat. It means a raft or ride/Yana (methodology) that brings a person across a river (transcends the mundane life into the spiritual realm), which is the essence of Ch'an. Sutra is lessons, mostly spiritual in nature, that are written on papers that are threaded together as book. Given this is the last item and deemed as the highest of the training in Master Yee's view in the article, I would expect that it expounds on what Quan Ch'an He Yi (Fist and Zen being one) is about. I find the article's final position is largely weaken because of not addressing Quan Ch'an He Yi. Sorry to neat pick again ...

Just some thoughts

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Vajramusti]

I believe the book that it mentioned here is the Vajra Prajna Paramita sutra. Vajra (thunderbolt) is often translated as diamond, which is why it is translated as hard and sharp in the article. But Vajra can also be translated as "That Which Distroys" referring to the awesome power that is inherit in the thunderbolt. Here Vajra is a metaphor of Prajna (wisdom of void) having the same attributes as Vajra that cuts away all illusions. Paramita is "Bo Law Mat Dor" not Bo Law Mat. It means a raft or ride/Yana (methodology) that brings a person across a river (transcends the mundane life into the spiritual realm), which is the essence of Ch'an. Sutra is lessons, mostly spiritual in nature, that are written on papers that are threaded together as book
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((I havent read the article yet-but the above caught my eye. Could it be that the article's intent is to point towards a fusion of of hard and soft power without going too far into Chan/Dhyan.
In any case -the above is correct... contextually vajra can be an awesome thunderbolt-of wisdom or power. Vajramusti- lightning fist was a an old Indian MA.
Para--- really is the other side-the shore, the bank. Paramita is the transporting to the other side. Sutra is also thread- that which binds things together. Applies to orally conveyed literature as well- before the use of paper.
Interesting discussion- I have to read the article- but I dont know Chinese or hung ga.))

joy chaudhuri, sometimes aka vajramusti

[Vajramusti]

I read the article albeit quickly- didnt see anything wrong with it. The article does not try to get into the sutras etc- its hung ga context is pretty clear.

joy chaudhuri

[bakxierboxer]

I read the article albeit quickly- didnt see anything wrong with it. The article does not try to get into the sutras etc- its hung ga context is pretty clear.

I'm also not sure how he went from the article's cited Sil Lum book to an Indian text.
OTOH, he previously seemed to see something in an article that I didn't......

Pete

[mantis108]

May be it's just me... but by saying that Gum Gong Ging comes from a famous sutra like the Vajra Prajna Paramita, wouldn't it peak your ears if you have spent a little time in reader and trying to understand what that sutra really is about? Now, I am no scholar of Buddhism and that sutra, taking into consideration that it can be subjected to interpretaions like everything else, could have some secrets and higher meanings. I admit that at this point "it" alludes me. I would love to hear from everyone, who agrees with the position of the article, particularly concerning the relation between the Gum Gong Ging and the Sutra, his or her understand of that part. Is there a proof (some kind of qualifier) to the statement that is made by Master Yee. If so, where can I find this proof or how can I prove it? Frankly, IMHO it is taking a giant leap of faith in the article. So my question is how does this famous sutra connects with or rather expounds the secrets of the highest fighting prowess of Hung Gar really? What does imperminence has to do with ultimate fighting prowess? THanks.

Again, I am not trying to rock the boat but I believe that it's counter productive for traditional Kung Fu with articles that expect readers to be entained but not inspired enough to starting thinking critically for themselves.

Mantis108

[Vajramusti]

I am not sure that we are talking about the same article. I again - rather quickly looked at two Yee articles from this thread- the one in New hero and the other
in Kung Fu...I didnt see much dependence on linking the sutra to hung gar .
Could have missed a passing reference- but certainly the sutra did not have much to do with the major thrust of the article.
But going overa secod time- I did see a reference to Chan San feng as the "founder" of taichi- a common old myth that has been discounted in the literature for some time- with Chen Wan Ting being regarded as more of a pater familias. But again,the Chan San Feng reference can be discounted without takinga anything away from discussing different kinds of energy in hung gar-it seems to me.

joy chaudhuri

[CFT]

Sutra is also thread- that which binds things together. Applies to orally conveyed literature as well- before the use of paper.Hey Joy, is this the etymological origin of the english word "suture" - the surgical thread?

[Vajramusti]

There are parallel sounds in Indo-Aryan languages. Sanskrit however is much older than Latin. Also roots diverge into related meanings in languages.
Pali was the vernacular people's language--the Dhammapada and Hinayana lit. is in Pali. Sanskrit became a more refined language. Panini was the first major grammarian(sanskrit) anywhere and paved the way for linguistics. The later sutras including the mahayana ones are in Sanskrit.
Sutra is Sanskrit- gives rise to various words in the regional languages- suto in Bengali means thread.

Re-suture---the Latin suere=to sew.suture- a seam that has been sewn.
The suture sound-if you use the u parallels suto...what separates these things are regional accents and developments.

The spreading of sanskritic terms is quite extensive-- Daruma .Puto etc from Bodhidharama. Zen and Chan... from the pali (zanna) and sanskrit (dhyana)-awakenig and knowledge from meditation rather than reading. early Buddhist scholars- Indians and Chinese were involved in the translation of scriptures
from Sanskrit to Chinese- and sometimes from Chinese to Sanskrit when some manuscripts were lost.
There was once extensive intellectual and aesthetic relationships between India and China. Unfortunately with politics and wars, nationalism and even public policy and mis-education much is forgotten. Thanks to Mao- modern wushu has displaced in depth knowledge of some TCMA-s.
More than you asked!

joy chaudhuri

[GeneChing]

Both are connected to the root of "sew" S. sivyati, L. suere. The root meaning of the word sutra comes from 'thread'.

You know, you guys can always contact Frank Yee and Pedro Cepero-Yee about clarifications. I know Pedro has been known to lurk through this forum, but chooses not to participate actively. I respect that decision. He's not the only master that adopts this strategy. You can also write a letter to the editor (me) if you wish to choose a more 'old school' way of discussing this.

[mantis108]

I am not sure that we are talking about the same article. I again - rather quickly looked at two Yee articles from this thread- the one in New hero and the other
in Kung Fu...I didnt see much dependence on linking the sutra to hung gar .
Could have missed a passing reference- but certainly the sutra did not have much to do with the major thrust of the article.
But going overa secod time- I did see a reference to Chan San feng as the "founder" of taichi- a common old myth that has been discounted in the literature for some time- with Chen Wan Ting being regarded as more of a pater familias. But again,the Chan San Feng reference can be discounted without takinga anything away from discussing different kinds of energy in hung gar-it seems to me.

joy chaudhuri

Hi Vajramusti,

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=651

This is the article that I am referring to.

Hi Gene,

Thank you for the suggestion. I think the article is entertaining. I am just neat picking that's all. I meant no disrepect for Master Yee and his material. Besides having a bit of interaction between the readship of your magazine in your forum sound fun to me. Just a thought...

Thank you for doing an excellent job in the magazine and the forum.

Warm regards

Robert

[Vajramusti]

Got it. The link to the classic could have been made "philosphically" more clear but
the nature of the ging in hung gar for a careful non hung gar observer is clear enough. An article cannot be a book.

"The soft with the hard is the real soft; the hard with the soft is the real hard. The hard and soft combined is complete." (clear enough)


joy chaudhuri

[GeneChing]

...but it's nitpicking, not neat picking. Nits are lice eggs. The slang refers the to fastidious attention to detail needed to remove lice eggs. I just couldn't resist nitpicking neat picking. Better to neat pick than to meat pack, I suppose. :p

Actually, I'm glad to see that article elicit some dialog. I was afraid that it was too technical and that it would go over most of our readers' heads. It was very unconventional for a cover story because it's so specific to Hung Ga. We like our cover stories to have a more universal appeal. But that issue was our Wong Fei Hung - Hung Ga collector's issue (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=650), so it was unconventional from the get go. I actually posed the point about contacting Sifu Yee or Pedro mostly because I thought this was one of the more interesting discussions to arise from that piece, and I was curious as to their take on all of this. For the record, that issue was one of top sellers of last year so far.

[mantis108]

...but it's nitpicking, not neat picking. Nits are lice eggs. The slang refers the to fastidious attention to detail needed to remove lice eggs. I just couldn't resist nitpicking neat picking. Better to neat pick than to meat pack, I suppose. :p

:o okay.... Thanks Gene.

I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again
I will never spell nitpicking wrong again

[quote]Actually, I'm glad to see that article elicit some dialog. I was afraid that it was too technical and that it would go over most of our readers' heads. It was very unconventional for a cover story because it's so specific to Hung Ga. We like our cover stories to have a more universal appeal. But that issue was our Wong Fei Hung - Hung Ga collector's issue (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=650), so it was unconventional from the get go. I actually posed the point about contacting Sifu Yee or Pedro mostly because I thought this was one of the more interesting discussions to arise from that piece, and I was curious as to their take on all of this. For the record, that issue was one of top sellers of last year so far.

Thanks for that info. Keep up the good work. Thanks

Warm regards

Mantis108

[mantis108]

Got it. The link to the classic could have been made "philosphically" more clear but
the nature of the ging in hung gar for a careful non hung gar observer is clear enough. An article cannot be a book.

Agreed, if indeed the link is only meant to be philosophical and not literal.


"The soft with the hard is the real soft; the hard with the soft is the real hard. The hard and soft combined is complete." (clear enough)

The statment in and of itself has no inherit problem at least not in this English translation. However, Gang Rou in Chinese is not a generic term like Hard and Soft in English IMHO. The meaning and definition of Gang Rou in the Yijing (classic of change), where the usage of the term in TCMA originated, is a lot deeper and is esoteric Chinese worldview or Daoist in nature. It is definitely not generic hard and soft context. If it is used in a generic context, which is most commonly done these days, it is open to selective interpretation and the original meaning would be either waterdown or even worst altered. From what I understand from the article, this selective interpretation is used. Also when it is placed with Gum Gong Ging which the article suggests is derived from the Buddhist classic, well, a red flag immediate is raised for me. I believe the author in this case is treading dangerous ground here for whatever reason. If you read through the article carefully, is he suggesting that Gang Rou as Jing (Ging) is subservient to Gum Gong Ging (Jingang Jing) meaning there are levels of Ging (kind of rock paper scissors) or is he suggesting a mashing of 2 worldview based prowess? Is Hung Gar Daoist or Buddhist? Is it both in his point of view? If it is neither, why would he chose to use these terms? Is it okay for the readers to selectively interpert the article as well? Remember Gang Rou isn't merely descriptive term or adjective; nor the sutra is generic in nature. It is a critical error to assume that it is okay to use selective interpretation of terms in any technical piece without some caveats or qualifiers IMHO. It should not be the reader's responsibility for due care. It should be the writer's duty to present accurate and concise information in any article. We as readers should not assume it's okay to selectively reinterpret any idea, concept or statement in any article as long as it pleases us. Good Kung Fu to me is based on details; not gross assumptions. Reading and writing concerning all aspects of Kung Fu is no difference. Just some thoughts.

I am sorry that if I sounded like I am making a big deal out of this. I do understand that an article is not a book. But it's not an excuse to greenlight gross assumptions IMHO (not suggesting this is the case in the article). I am just being honest with my views that's all. Of course, it is unfair to seem to suggest there is something wrong with the article especially the author(s) does not participate in the discussion. For that I apologize to Master Yee and his interpreter or any who feel uncomfortable with this discussion. Again I mean no disrespect. I am just relating my views that's all.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Vajramusti]

Enjoyed the article and your critique. A fairly good discussion- better than many threads.

So many articles in MA dont even try to be analytical- at least the article tries to do so. With a scholarly hat most martial arts articles could be regarded as junk-
as is the case with the the common one upmanship posts on forums. One has to sifta lot to find an occasional gem. On soft and hard- much depends on the epistemology that the reader is using and thinks that the writer is using. In martial arts- atleast many of them in TCMA involves heightened awareness, intuition and feeling--- so the hard/soft distinction can be intuitively but clearly understood but may not be as clear in ordinary prose.

Because POVs can be involved-- to the extent that I have seen some(havent seen all) well known hung gar masters move I would regard them as more hard than soft from my POV.... though they like Yee sifu would say that they fuse the hard and the soft. The sanchin breathing and iron wire alone would make it harder than I care to be....but I dont do hung gar. Just interested in having some understanding of
other arts that I dont do.

joy chaudhuri