"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.

[bakxierboxer]

I agree bakxierboxer. Although criticism can be critical thinking.

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 by Master Frank Yee (translated by Pedro Cepero Yee)