PDA

View Full Version : What actually makes an art 'internal'?



Jason H.P. Yoo
8th November 2006, 01:21
Granted, it's an adjective more often used to describe Chinese martial arts, not budo, but I occasionally hear or read of people talking about internal martial arts.

edg176
8th November 2006, 03:01
Do a search for the threads Mike Sigman participated in and you'll have plenty to start with.


And yes, Mike is the real deal. I've met him, and he can do the things he says he can do. And, regardless of what certain very vocal e-budo members think, it is not just "relaxation and good technique."

Joseph Svinth
8th November 2006, 03:47
If you're interested in the documentated history of the term, then you might want to look at the various essays by Stan Henning. See, for example, his discussion of this very topic in Tom Green's "Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia," pp. 69-70.

Per Henning, much of the modern understanding of these terms is based on distinctions created by the Guomintang-era Central Martial Arts Institute (created in Nanjing in 1927). In the Central Martial Arts Institute worldview, martial arts were divided into Shaolin (external) and Wudang (internal) systems. The official explanation was that External (Shaolin) schools were Buddhist, while Internal (Wudang) schools were Daoist. In practice, xingyiquan, baguaquan, and taijiquan were Wudang, while Shaolin incorporated everything else. (ASIDE: Obviously, such an arbitrary distinction ignored Muslim and other non-Han influences on the Chinese martial arts.)

Per Henning, the division into Internal and External systems appears to have originated in an essay called "Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan," written about 1669 by the Ming writer Huang Zongxi. "At the time, however," says Henning, "it was probably meant as a veiled political jab at the foreign Manchu regime rather than as a serious discussion of boxing theory."

See also Andrew D. Morris's "Marrow of the Nation: A History of Sport and Physical Culture in Republican China." FWIW, Morris notes that there were, by the Guomintang's count, 161 official styles of martial art in China in the 1920s. Also, alongside training in xingyi, wrestling, sword, and so on, official parts of the formal curriculum in those days included lectures in "The History of National Humiliation."

cxt
8th November 2006, 14:49
Jason

Mike Sigman may or may not be the "real deal" (my moneys on "not" ;) ) but his claims are certainly open to question.

My suggestion is to look around, there are a number of different "takes" and opinions, and viewpoints on the subject.

Not really the best answer I know, just the best I can give you--other than to strongly suggest that you start with what JS has posted above.

Mark Murray
8th November 2006, 15:19
Thanks Joe for the bit of history. Now I have more books to read. :)

The question that this brings up:
Using the historical definitions for External (Buddhist) and Internal (Daoist), do both sides have the skills that Rob, Dan, and Mike are doing? Or are those skills (which are labelled Internal) only found in the Internal (Daoist) Chinese arts?

Sochin
8th November 2006, 15:50
An external movment uses the muscles of the limb itself to provide movement in the extremity. If, whiile holding my hand out in front of me, I bend my wrist, that is an external movement. If I bend my elbow or make any movement of the forearm independantly while keeping the elbow still, it is external.

But if I move my arm by sitting into a stance, or a twist the waist or push with a foot, (as if the hand was just the end of a stick without ability for independant movment), that is 'internal.'

The source of movement in the hand must be inside the body, especially to be found in the opening and closing of the qua. The taiji of the Chen Style practical taiji (http://www.chenzhonghua.com/) of Chen Zhonghua is completely based on the rotating movments of chan fa, silk reeling, which is a much more accurate and descriptive term for taijii movments that the word 'internal.'

cxt
8th November 2006, 16:47
Mark

I think your post highlights a relevent point.

The idea that Buddhist kinda auto equals "external" and that Daoist auto equals "internal" is rough, workable, line of difference.

Clearly a workable distiction in broad strokes, just not sure how accurate it might be in dealing with individual groups and people.

What exact "skills" are you talking about?

And are you talking about stuff that can be done "on demand" and replicated, or are you heading into "chi ball" land??

I mean no offense, just trying to get a handle on what exactly your asking. :)

Mark Murray
8th November 2006, 17:06
Mark

I think your post highlights a relevent point.

The idea that Buddhist kinda auto equals "external" and that Daoist auto equals "internal" is rough, workable, line of difference.

Clearly a workable distiction in broad strokes, just not sure how accurate it might be in dealing with individual groups and people.

What exact "skills" are you talking about?

And are you talking about stuff that can be done "on demand" and replicated, or are you heading into "chi ball" land??

I mean no offense, just trying to get a handle on what exactly your asking. :)

Hello Chris,
I'm talking about the stuff that can be done "on demand" and teachable. Stuff that Rob, Mike, and Dan are doing (among others, possibly Ikeda but I really don't have the skill set to determine for sure.) I don't think anyone can really doubt that what they're doing isn't real. There's a post somewhere here on E-Budo about Rob and his teacher. If you go to AikiWeb, you can read more there (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11178). And for Mike, read Ledyard sensei's post (http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=81930#81930).

That's the stuff I'm wondering how it's defined in the martial arts. It's always called Internal, but is it found only in the Chinese Internal arts defined by Joe's post? My guess would be that it isn't. Which sometimes causes miscommunications when talking about Internal martial arts. :)

And brings us back to just what exactly are these Internal (as defined by Rob, Mike, Dan) martial arts? I'd definitely say that Aikido should be one of them (the question of "Is It?" is a whole different topic). I think, for me, it would be defined by using this "internal stuff" more often than not in a martial art. So, while theoretically, you could use it in lineages of karate, it wouldn't be a majority of usage. I'd then define that line of karate as not an internal art. Which wouldn't mean that all karate would be excluded.

Guess I'm just rambling at this point. :)

Mark

cxt
8th November 2006, 17:25
Mark

Cool--just wanted to be sure that we are the same relative page here.

BTW--that's the second time you have mentioned "skills" without being specific as to what exactly your talking about.
Its very hard to help answer your question without knowing specifcs of what you mean.

Since I have no idea of what you mean, I can offer no opinion as to if its "real" or not.

Or how it might be classified.

In VERY general terms--I sometimes feel that all to often people get too hung up in the minuta of small--sometimes nearly impossible to establish titular "differences" in how arts are trained and applied.

Distinctions with little difference.

In gross terms--was the blow "you" used to break "my" nose generated by "internal springing force/power" or was it overt "hard" power?

Either way "I" still have a broken nose and need to deal with the blood and trauma. ;)

One of the worst beatings I ever took (friendly match :) ) was at the hands of a Sun Taji Stylist.
It was almost as fun getting in on the sometimes heated discussion between him, a Chen style guy, and a Hsing-I practitioner over who was doing what "wrong."

In a way it was kinda refreashing to find that the "internal" camp has as many differing viewpoints, opinions, perceptions etc as the "hard" stylists do.

edg176
8th November 2006, 17:39
Chris,

It's the difference between transferring your weight by leaning from side to side, and transferring it by moving inside the body. It can be demonstrated: in karate Ushiro Kenji has demonsrated it, and there are plenty of Okinawan karate videos on youtube that demonstrate it.

Higaonna Morio
part 1 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X98FolFBAVA
part 2 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44aMGGHj6Ec
part 3 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7XwH9FRG0M

Uechi Ryu
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGIHXVeL24o

(sorry Mark, I know you've seen these already)

taiji:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDNr8v7eRI
Chen Zhonghua shows that even though he's in a deep horse stance, his _weight_ is mostly on one leg.


It is not a minor difference. It is the difference between the art, and a parody of same.

And as I tried to tell you earlier this year, and as Mark is telling you right now, it is teachable, learnable and repeatable.

I really am having a hard time understanding why you keep insisitng it's a small difference when it's really the whole deal.

cxt
8th November 2006, 17:48
edge

god (small "g" help me) not this again.

"Why" because I'm a practical guy.

That is pretty much the attitude I was getting at with my whole "broken nose" example.

We could spend forever on arguements over how force is "generated"--when in practical terms it ALL takes a backseat to how its "applied" and what effect it has.

Try it like this.

I hit a guy in the face and knock him out----you don't actually see exactly how I hit him--you just see the result--a "KO."

Now, how did I generate the power to do it?

"Internal" power, "external" "hard" power, or did I have roll of nickles in my hand? ;)

And other than the roll of nickels--what possible difference can it make to the guy on the ground???????

I don't understand why YOU have such a hard time understanding THAT.

edg176
8th November 2006, 17:51
Because when you lean when tranferring your weight, you telegraph your movement.

Think about why it would be an advantage to not telegraph your weight shift. For karate, kendo, judo, escrima, mma, soccer, whatever.

I'm not a master, (not even close) and even I can see the potential advantage. I'm having a hard time understanding why you can't.

Mark Murray
8th November 2006, 17:53
Mark

Cool--just wanted to be sure that we are the same relative page here.

BTW--that's the second time you have mentioned "skills" without being specific as to what exactly your talking about.
Its very hard to help answer your question without knowing specifcs of what you mean.

Since I have no idea of what you mean, I can offer no opinion as to if its "real" or not.

Or how it might be classified.


Chris,
I'll have to defer to those who know this way better than I do. The "skills" I'm referring to are those that Mike, Rob, and Dan can do.



One of the worst beatings I ever took (friendly match :) ) was at the hands of a Sun Taji Stylist.
It was almost as fun getting in on the sometimes heated discussion between him, a Chen style guy, and a Hsing-I practitioner over who was doing what "wrong."

In a way it was kinda refreashing to find that the "internal" camp has as many differing viewpoints, opinions, perceptions etc as the "hard" stylists do.

LOL, yeah, that would be refreshing to know.

Mark

cxt
8th November 2006, 17:56
edge

Please at least try and answer direct questions put to you.

I'm talking about concrete results---your talking about vague, poorly defined, rather nebulous methods to generate power.

(and a number of not really correct assumption I might add)

I deal with results and you want to deal with anything BUT results.

I just don't get that.

Mark Murray
8th November 2006, 18:06
edge

god (small "g" help me) not this again.

"Why" because I'm a practical guy.

That is pretty much the attitude I was getting at with my whole "broken nose" example.

We could spend forever on arguements over how force is "generated"--when in practical terms it ALL takes a backseat to how its "applied" and what effect it has.

Try it like this.

I hit a guy in the face and knock him out----you don't actually see exactly how I hit him--you just see the result--a "KO."

Now, how did I generate the power to do it?

"Internal" power, "external" "hard" power, or did I have roll of nickles in my hand? ;)

And other than the roll of nickels--what possible difference can it make to the guy on the ground???????

I don't understand why YOU have such a hard time understanding THAT.

In your example, I'd say that, really, there isn't much difference.

However, in other aspects, there is a world of difference. For example. Let's be the guy about to get hit in the nose. Depending on what the person doing the punching is using, my options are completely different. If it's just a muscle punch with a roll of nickels, hey, I can use basic martial arts and respond. Block and punch with karate, move and blend with aikido, etc.

If it's an external punch with some skill behind it, I have to be a lot better at timing, kuzushi, etc. My skills have to be close to the attacker.

If it's someone who is using internal skills, then I must be on par or better. In other words, I'd better know the internal skills, too.

Let's go back to a different perspective. Let's say, like you do, that we're doing the punching. Sure, the guy gets KOed. What does it matter how? Well, with just physical muscle and a roll of nickles, the chances are near 100% that we're going to break something and/or do some damage around the face area.

If we add some skill, we might be able to hit the face and KO the guy but the impact will be mostly in the head area. May or may not be bruising, but there's a likely chance.

If we use internal skills, we could KO the guy by sending force through the head area or we could also add that force through the whole body to rattle it.

So, yes, in your example, the guy is KOed. Who cares? In my example, I get a multitude of ways to get to the same point. I have a lot more options open to me. And isn't that what the martial arts are about? Opening up an infinite amount of accessible options? :)

Does that help convey a reason why?

Mark

edg176
8th November 2006, 18:09
Chris,
What question? You asked me the practical value. I told you. Nontelegraphic movement. For me, as a guy who is mostly concerned with sport fighting, this is a good thing.

I posted videos of people doing it, i.e. shifting their weight without leaning. How is that nebulous? Can't you tell the difference between a person who leans to shift their weight, and one who doesn't? What is nebulous about that? Here's a nonnebulous test for you: stand in a front stance. Without leaning back, pick up your front leg and step forward. Certainly you can see the advantage of doing that without leaning back right? Non telegraphic kicks? Or moving forward to punch without first telegraphing? That sure makes a difference in the outcome. If you telegraph, then that punch or kick doesn't land because the opponent sees it coming. If you don't telegraph, then the opponent isn't ready for the kick/punch and then they eat the strike. What's hard to understand about that?

You've seen Arakaki's book, "Secrets of Okinawan Karate" right? He goes _in depth_ on this.

I have answered your questions, and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and claim I'm not answering.

I explained it. You ignore me. Fine. It's almost like you have a vested reason in ignoring my points. If you cannot engage my points, then we are done talking. Because there is no conversation here, just me answering your questions, and you claiming I am not answering them.

Go back to doing what you were doing. These are not the droids you are looking for.

cxt
8th November 2006, 18:16
Mark

Actually no, it really does not.

In the first place, those are mostly "what if" kind of thing that can be spun in pretty much any direction a person wishs.

2nd it makes assumptions that are not based upon facts.
There is no evidence to suggest that a punch using "internal" power is any less damaging than a punch using "hard" external power.

Having been hit by both---I can assure you that FEEL in NO way different--they BOTH hurt ;)

Options are good.

BTW--exactly where and how did I give you the impression that I DON'T think that options are good?????? :(

cxt
8th November 2006, 18:23
edge

Are we having the same conversation here?

What I asked/we were talking about were about the EFFECTS of the blow.

NOT/NOTHING about "telegraphing" etc.

It was about "hows" of a blow being generated being are much less important than the "results" of said blow---IMO.

Tell you what--you quote back to me the exact section of my post where I asked you about "telagraphing" and I'll ship you the entre Box Set of Star Wars. ;)

(since you like the quotes--and seem to enjoy dealing with the Force ;) )

Your bringing alot of dead weight into this discussion that I never placed there.
My statements deal directly and specifcally with RESULTS.
Never said ANYTHING about "telegraphing" at all---that ALL YOU bro.

But as long as were on the subject---what about speed??
I could "telegraph" all day long and if your not fast enough to respond--then it matters zero.
Or what if your not aware enough to notice the "telegraph?"
Or what if I'm faking the "telegraph?"
Or what if I'm strong enough/hit hard enough that you simply can't block/deflect it enough to save you?

I can play "what if's" as well. ;)

Mark Murray
8th November 2006, 18:37
Mark

Actually no, it really does not.

In the first place, those are mostly "what if" kind of thing that can be spun in pretty much any direction a person wishs.

2nd it makes assumptions that are not based upon facts.
There is no evidence to suggest that a punch using "internal" power is any less damaging than a punch using "hard" external power.

Having been hit by both---I can assure you that FEEL in NO way different--they BOTH hurt ;)

Options are good.

BTW--exactly where and how did I give you the impression that I DON'T think that options are good?????? :(

Chris,
Guess we have different experiences. I've been hit with blows using external muscle and with internal power. They were very different to me. But, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. :)

It's a matter of perspective, I guess. To me, I view the blows as having separate aspects. Therefore, IMO, if someone views them as being the same, then they don't have the same view of amount of options that I have. Never said you didn't think that options aren't good, just explaining my view of there being multiple options. You've got a different view of things. Got no problems with that. :)

Now, back to the subject ... What actually does make an art "internal"?

cxt
8th November 2006, 18:55
Mark

I respectfully disagree.

You seem to be talking about "options" as multiple ways to generate power.

Have no problem with that at all. :)

But I'm talking about the results/application of that power--so I see no reason why that would "limit" me in the slightest.

If I could come up with an "across the board" pithy way to define/explain "internal" power, that most folks would accept--and I could work the proofs for---I'd do it.

But how much fun would that be---if everyone agreed?? :)

Ron Tisdale
8th November 2006, 19:09
In the mean time, you don't mind if the others here who DO find value in it continue to discuss? Correct?

Best,
Ron

cxt
8th November 2006, 19:23
Ron

"In the meantime you don't mind if the others that DO find value in it continue to discuss, correct?"

What???

I have no clue what your being sarcastic about.

Have I made any statements here that I find "no value" in internal arts??

Considering that I freely admitted that I recived quite a arse-kicking from a internal stylist--which would rather broadly suggest that I DO "find value" in its study.
Exactly what statements did I make that leads you to the conculsion that I find "no value" in the study of internal arts?

What the heck is wrong with people today?????

You want to bag on me--its a free country.

But at least do me the kindness of doing so for what I actually have said---and not what you "think" your hearing.

Sounds like you and edge are both having seriously different conversations than the one I'm having.

"Best"
Chris

Sochin
8th November 2006, 19:51
What does it matter to the poor person ko'd how he was put down?

Many top taiji players used to be strong, even top, hard style fighters...Chen Zhonghua included.

They were attracted to the internal styles because of their invisible subtleties causing the "How did he do that?" curiousity. They stayed because they found a system that they felt was superior or it suited their personl makeup better.

Seldom would you be ko'd by a n internal stylist who used silk reeling but you may have your elbow twisted until it is so broken it will never work properly again. Or your knee or ankle.

Chen Zhonghua has said that the Chen practical method is superior for a small framed person like himself to deal with the power and strength of a large person than his old hard style skills, skills which we all know fail all to often under the weight of a very large, strong person. In the Chen practical method, it doesn't matter how large your opponent is (how fast he is may be a different matter) superior training will defeat larger size, because the power of the rotation is stronger than any body part of even a very strong person.

So the answer would be: it matters to the loser if his joints are destroyed and it matters to the winner if he is more efficient at handling tougher opponents. This implies that your question is seeking an answer you already believe in but by asking it, you forget there are other questions that have valuable answers.

edg176
8th November 2006, 20:04
Ted,

I noticed you were in Canada, as is Chen Zhonghua. What's been your experience with the whole weight shifting thing I was discussing? Very curious.

cxt
8th November 2006, 20:07
Sochin

Nope.

That is what you infer, not what I implied.

The reason I asked the question was to nip in the bud the entire assumptive discussion as to "which art is better."

In this case, external vs internal.

I hate those pointless, endless, circle jerks kind of things.

(grappling vs strikeing, "modern" JJ vs "traditional" JJ, karate vs kung-fu, MMA vs "traditonal" external arts vs internal, crane vs tiger, Taji vs Hsing-I, take your pick)

By focusing on results, we can at least establish that any number of methods and approachs (depending on the skill of the user of course :) ) may be equally effective in terms of result--a "KO" a broken nose, a lock, a unbalenceing of an oppt--whatever.

Thus we can then talk about the methods themselves without having to mess around with all the claims about which is "better."

Because the "best" art/method etc is the one that works when you need it.

No matter what that art/method might be.

cxt
8th November 2006, 20:16
edg

Still waiting for you to post exactly where I asked/was talking about "telegraphing" in my posts.

The proper response when you accuse someone of something that they didn't actually do, or make unfounded assumptions about ones posts is to say "I'm sorry" and/or "Oops."

Perhaps instead of worrying so much about "weight shifting" and "telegraphing" a tiny bit of courtesy would not be a bad thing to train in??

That is after all one of the claimed virtues--esp in CMA.

Mark Murray
8th November 2006, 20:20
Sochin

Nope.

That is what you infer, not what I implied.

The reason I asked the question was to nip in the bud the entire assumptive discussion as to "which art is better."

In this case, external vs internal.

I hate those pointless, endless, circle jerks kind of things.

(grappling vs strikeing, "modern" JJ vs "traditional" JJ, karate vs kung-fu, MMA vs "traditonal" external arts vs internal, crane vs tiger, Taji vs Hsing-I, take your pick)

By focusing on results, we can at least establish that any number of methods and approachs (depending on the skill of the user of course :) ) may be equally effective in terms of result--a "KO" a broken nose, a lock, a unbalenceing of an oppt--whatever.

Thus we can then talk about the methods themselves without having to mess around with all the claims about which is "better."

Because the "best" art/method etc is the one that works when you need it.

No matter what that art/method might be.

But all of that is off topic. The question is what actually makes an art "internal". Do you have any ideas on that?

cxt
8th November 2006, 20:28
Mark

"Heavy sigh" actually no, its a direct response to direct statements made by others to me.
My responding to them is not "off topic."
Unless of course you wish to lecture them as well---if so--please direct your comments to everyone that has posted "off topic."

Also pretty sure that I have delt with the topic, directly, multiple times.

Just don't have an accurate guess as to what exactly makes an art "internal" and what/where/whom that line is drawn.

Like I said, Taji, Hsing-I, Bua Gua all take different approachs to training--yet all are seen as being "internal."

Maybe a good place to start is what each of them have in common and what each of them do differently.

Sochin
8th November 2006, 23:04
taiji:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDNr8v7eRI
Chen Zhonghua shows that even though he's in a deep horse stance, his _weight_ is mostly on one leg.

We are asked to rotate in the qua and shift the weight from front to back to front leg while rotating. This must be accomplished without swaying, or, in positive terms, while staying centered in the dang or the arch of the legs, unless the rotation pulls you into a step.

"Mostly on one leg" would not be agreeable to him I think, in the rear or front qua would be better but I can't speak for him!

Chris: I was implying that I was implying the obvious...not you.

cxt
8th November 2006, 23:49
Sochin

Sorry Sochin, my mistake.

edg176
9th November 2006, 00:15
Ted,
Thanks. So, when you rotate, do you find the pressure on your feet changes as you go from back to front, even as you stay centered over the dang?

I have been playing with some weight tranfer stuff, specifically the tension between the back of one leg and the front of the other. It's interesting.

Asura
9th November 2006, 06:41
Thought I'd jump in here as Chris decided to ask some pretty basic, but actually valid questions coming from someone that doesn't have these skills


edge
It was about "hows" of a blow being generated being are much less important than the "results" of said blow---IMO.

Sure, but the context you gave, namely someone getting hit in the nose, one by someone having internal skills, one without, is hardly a good example.
a) you're assuming that both strikes would KO the person, which assumes a lot of things.
b) the before and after of the strike isn't being considered, etc.

Since you're interested in the "results" of internal strikes here's some advantages that i can think of off the top of my head

- "external strikes" don't have that extra unbalancing effect on contact.

- the strikes themselves tend to demand less energy for execution than an "external" strike that generate the same amount of power. Allows you extra stamina without having to jump rope or run the mile ;)
Also why I didn't gass out the first time I rolled on the ground, and even took a bjj blue belt or two with me and choked them out.

- say you miss your target, the "internal" strike doesn't send you off balance. Because the internal strike is done with a focus on maintaining equilibrium you don't have anything to really give your opponent. In essence he can't use that force against you. Commit without commiting and all that good stuff.

- The above point leads into the non telegraphing bit. I can't tell you how useful this stuff is in grappling. Strikes aside, it allows you to snake on holds without your opponent realizing what you're doing until its too late. Its like having the base without needing the positioning (to talk in bjj terms)

etc etc etc



But as long as were on the subject---what about speed??
a)I could "telegraph" all day long and if your not fast enough to respond--then it matters zero.
b)Or what if your not aware enough to notice the "telegraph?"
c)Or what if I'm faking the "telegraph?"
d)Or what if I'm strong enough/hit hard enough that you simply can't block/deflect it enough to save you?


a) & b) & c) Doesn't matter. If you faked, I'll move in and get you. If you didn't fake I'll still get you ;) That's where the "commiting without commiting" comes into play. I can commit 100% of your bodyweight in a vector, but be able to change it instantaneously, since equilibrium in the body is constantly being maintained. As for speed, I dunno I workout with shoot fighters here in tokyo, including a couple semi-pro guys and it allows me to be kind of "lazy" in my defense. The only time I get put at a disadvantage is if I lose my concentration at keeping my equilibrium together and start "fighting" them. Then its definitely their game.

d) There's no real concept of "blocking" once you have this body skill. I've seen Ark take a full on midlevel thai kick from a 230lb australian guy (and all muscle at that) and it didn't phase him at all. The guy said it felt like he was hitting rubber.

Of course, all this is just talk.
I suggest you go out there and feel it for yourself. Plenty of examples have been given as to people that can do. Rest is up to you :)

cxt
9th November 2006, 15:35
Asura

1st , going to say it AGAIN, I have nothing but respect for the internal arts.
Have trained with people quite skilled at them--and know first hand their effectiveness--felt it myself plenty of times.

Only want 2 things here---keeping the converstion on the up and up, and no "style" bashing---thats it.

With all respect--your not reading my posts carefully or in context.

1-The "KO" example--I'm not makeing any "assumptions" at all.
I used it illustrate that if one does not know how power is being generated--then one can't tell from the results.

It may matter to the person generating the power, but in terms of results---its largely a distinction without a difference.

2-Your assumeing that external strikes don't have an "unbalanceing effect"--not sure that you can actually prove that they don't.
You made the claim--its up to YOU to provide proof of that.

3-Your assumeing that the internal strikes use less energy.
I would be delighted to read your proofs/formula/calculations that prove that.

4-Also be delighted to see your proofs that an internal strike does not "offbalance you" if you miss.
As I see it that would have far more to do with the relative level of skill of the person using the art--not an inherant function of the art itself.
A "newbie" internal stylist would be just as likley to make a mistake as any other "newbie"
Besides, there is no evidence that an external strike would be any more likley to "unbalance" you if you miss--AGAIN, the it would depend on the relative skills of the person involved and the situation--not the art.

5-"Telegraphing" there is no evidence presented that the internal arts are any better than the external ones with not telegraphing.
Again, please present proofs of your claims.
Again, that would seem to depend on the skills of the person using the art.
Boxers--quite external" are specifcally trained NOT to telegraph.

The LAST section--those were SPECIFIC response to edges little "what if" games--not general statments/stituations.

They were made to illustrate the futility of playing such "what if" games.

But I thank you for proving my point--one can ALWAYS spin the situation around to where you "win" thus such "what ifs' are worthless--as I was illustrating to edge.

As you say, lots of things are just talk.

Don't know Ark or any of the other folks personally at all--they may be tough as tungstan for all I know.

That being the case I can only deal with claims and what is presented.

cxt
9th November 2006, 15:47
Oops, hit the wrong key.

Sochin
9th November 2006, 17:43
Ted,
Thanks. So, when you rotate, do you find the pressure on your feet changes as you go from back to front, even as you stay centered over the dang?

I have been playing with some weight tranfer stuff, specifically the tension between the back of one leg and the front of the other. It's interesting.

Since I am such a beginner and hesitate to lead someone wrong, I asked my teacher about this. He wrote: The pressure is in a different place on power and stable leg and the foot does rotate so the answer is yes, the pressure on the feet changes.

The power leg is the one which has the opening of the qua and the stable leg is the the one which is closing the qua. I'm not sure what he meant by the "foot rotates."

edg176
9th November 2006, 18:16
Ted,
Thanks again. That gives me quite a bit to play with. I hadn't thought about what I was doing as opening or closing the qua, but now that I just tried it, that is what is going on.

Sounds like your teacher is a real gem =)

Asura
9th November 2006, 23:35
That being the case I can only deal with claims and what is presented.

Alright, so putting aside the whole "prove this or that" stuff to the side, what was your impression of those people you trained with?
Did you get a chance to recieve their strikes?
Was it push hands context? Or actually sanshou (freehands/sparring)?

As for the claims I made, its readily apparent to anyone that trains in this stuff semi-seriously for more than six months. If it isn't...well maybe they need to rethink their training regimine?

cxt
9th November 2006, 23:52
Asura

This is what I mean--and why I am often viewed as being mean ;)
The answer to your first question is to be found in the very first sentence of my response to you above....ie positive.

"Did you get a chance to receive their strikes"

Ah--yeah, thats why I already mentioned how they "feel."

It was freesparring.

(and why they felt to me no different than strikes by similarly skilled people of other styles)

Its funny how often the use of the phrase-- "its readily apparent"

REALLY means:

"this is how I feel about it--but I haven't a shred of proof to support my feelings and post hoc rationaliztions."

Claims require proofs.......period.

Otherwise its "just talk." ;)

Asura
10th November 2006, 01:55
It was freesparring.

(and why they felt to me no different than strikes by similarly skilled people of other styles)


Well, if their movement and strikes didn't feel that different/disconcerting, then maybe they weren't that skilled. Be nice to know what skilled people of other styles you were comparing your experience to.


Best proof is in actually feeling it though.
If you ever come to Japan look us up.
I'd be happy to roll with you :)

hl1978
10th November 2006, 16:03
Asura

This is what I mean--and why I am often viewed as being mean ;)
The answer to your first question is to be found in the very first sentence of my response to you above....ie positive.

"Did you get a chance to receive their strikes"

Ah--yeah, thats why I already mentioned how they "feel."

It was freesparring.

(and why they felt to me no different than strikes by similarly skilled people of other styles)

Its funny how often the use of the phrase-- "its readily apparent"

REALLY means:

"this is how I feel about it--but I haven't a shred of proof to support my feelings and post hoc rationaliztions."

Claims require proofs.......period.

Otherwise its "just talk." ;)


Thats pretty different from my own experience. About 6 weeks ago I went to a sanda seminar with freesparring and the difference between internal strikes and external strikes was extermely different.

The internal ones were more penetrating, and unbalanced people quite easily. The external ones, while somewhat painful, did not cause an unbalance of the body, its as though they only hit the surface.

As Rob said, perhaps you didn't expereince someone striking in that manner? What you feel is completely different, you may not recognize why it is different the first time you recieve it, but you will recognize there is a difference.

As for proof, there have been plenty of postings/video around here for internal striking and how it effects the body. Alternatively, make a trip to train with Rob in Japan. Thats how I first experienced this sort of training.

cxt
10th November 2006, 16:41
Asura

Ah, so now were falling back on fallcious reasoning.

If the strikes didn't feel that much different--then they can't have been doing it right. ;)

Sure, because you have the math/formula that shows objects strikeing at the same speed and same mass land with different impact if the force driving them is "external" or "internal."

Love to read your proofs--you do have such proofs right?????????


Oh, BTW the implict smugness your self reference in terms of skill did not go unoticed.
OF COURSE, you personally and folks you train with are OF COURSE "doing things right."
OF COURSE you and you buddies are the guys that set the standards.
OF COURSE, you got the SKILLZZ. ;)
So of course you get to question/comment on everyone elses lack there-of.

Would not be a conversation with you without such self-important puffery eventually being expressed. ;)

cxt
10th November 2006, 16:47
hl

With all respect, that makes little sense.

Claims that can't be proven on-line should not be made on line.

The "unbalenceing" reasoning you present is unsound--as I have already mentioned.
The effect you decribe is has not been established to be "just" a function of the internal arts.

Nor can it be seperated from the context of the person using the art.

Again, as mentioned, "newbies" make the same mistakes in every art---a "newbie" internal stylist is just as likely to screw things up and not do the technique correctly--thus one can't assume that "unbalencing" is going to happen---any more than a boxer can assume that they are going to get a KO.

"Possible" sure---but one should not speak of "possibilties" as "facts."

cxt
10th November 2006, 17:41
Asura

Thought of one more.

How can they be "doing it wrong???"

Remember my argument is that someone can mess up an internal arts just as easily as they can mess up anything else.

Your the person that is suggesting that there is something inherent in the art itself--something beyond the person USING it.

If "they", the guys I know, ain't doing it right----then it MUST be the person, who and how its taught---not the art itself that "really" matters. ;)

Thanks for the help.

Tom H.
10th November 2006, 18:56
Sure, because you have the math/formula that shows objects strikeing at the same speed and same mass land with different impact if the force driving them is "external" or "internal."If a solid spherical mass of uniform density with a radius of 15 cm and a weight of 4 kg is thrown at 10 m/s and strikes you after traveling 20 m through air at 1 atm then it won't matter whether a xingyi guy, a karate guy, or a trebuchet launched it. I don't think that's a good model for an incoming fist, however.

You could start with a model of the human body as a collection of flexible rods connected by several different kinds of elastic cords. Keep it static and linear for starters. If you want to get fancy, you could model activation and deactivation of muscles by letting muscle properties (e.g. elasticity) vary in time.

cxt
10th November 2006, 19:42
Tom

Your right, "crude" it its.

Sochin
10th November 2006, 19:59
...How can they be "doing it wrong???"

Remember my argument is that someone can mess up an internal arts just as easily as they can mess up anything else.
...


They can do internal wrong by doing it externally by switching from following rules for internal generation of percieved power to external.

Most tai chi, especially combat tai chi, is external in practice and application, even in Chen systems. I myself did 15 years of external tai chi and bagua while doing karate. No real difference except the forms were new.

If your internal opponent breaks your nose, he probaby broke it just like a karate guy would or a boxer, without any internal stuff at all.

Now I'm learning an amazingly different way to move and way to generate power and it follows the tai chi classics.

Much in the Chinese systems were lost in the cultural revolution; much in Chinese systems is secret and demos do the form wrong to hide these secrets, except from indoor disciples.

If these internal friends of yours hit the same as your external system buddies, something is wrong.

cxt
10th November 2006, 21:06
Sochin

Or maybe just like every other newbie, they simply fail to apply the lesson learned effectivly--which can happen to anyone of any art at any time.

Unlike Asura, who seems to feel that there is some kind of de-facto superority in HIS groups approach to the internal arts.

I tend to look at arts as extensions of the people using them.

I can't put Taji in a ring and have it fight Hsing-I---I can only "match" them when filtered thu living breathing people.

And people are vastly different.

I don't really think you can seperate the person from the art.
In persons "A's" hands Tai Chi is an effective and punishing martial art, in the hands of person "B" it can't be used to fight off an attack of kittens.

Its not the art--its the person.

Like I said before, a punch in the face from my internal buddy feels no more or no less painful or effective than a punch in the face from my buddy the boxer or the TKD guys I know or Shotokan, or Goju people I have trained with, or the Wing Chun guy I sparred with last fall.

Of similer size, weight, years of training or course.

The assumption you and Asura etc are making is that "there must be somthing wrong" with them is both fallcious and assumptive--Oh, and ITS "wrong."
Unless you can provide more than just your "say so" of the supposed power of internal striking methods----good luck with that--love to see it BTW

I'm going to have to side with physics, common sense and not having fallen off the turnip truck yesterday.

hl1978
10th November 2006, 21:36
Sochin

Or maybe just like every other newbie, they simply fail to apply the lesson learned effectivly--which can happen to anyone of any art at any time.

Unlike Asura, who seems to feel that there is some kind of de-facto superority in HIS groups approach to the internal arts.

I tend to look at arts as extensions of the people using them.

I can't put Taji in a ring and have it fight Hsing-I---I can only "match" them when filtered thu living breathing people.

And people are vastly different.

I don't really think you can seperate the person from the art.
In persons "A's" hands Tai Chi is an effective and punishing martial art, in the hands of person "B" it can't be used to fight off an attack of kittens.

Its not the art--its the person.

Like I said before, a punch in the face from my internal buddy feels no more or no less painful or effective than a punch in the face from my buddy the boxer or the TKD guys I know or Shotokan, or Goju people I have trained with, or the Wing Chun guy I sparred with last fall.

Of similer size, weight, years of training or course.

The assumption you and Asura etc are making is that "there must be somthing wrong" with them is both fallcious and assumptive--Oh, and ITS "wrong."
Unless you can provide more than just your "say so" of the supposed power of internal striking methods----good luck with that--love to see it BTW

I'm going to have to side with physics, common sense and not having fallen off the turnip truck yesterday.

The internal strikes I have felt, feel heavier, the reason being is how much weight is actually going into the punch.

This doesn't mean leaning more into the punch, thats what I always thought about when someone meant using more bodyweight. It has more to do with alingment to maximize how much of that bodyweight force is entering the person. Now, external forms definatly stress proper alignment, but they don't stress the internal feelings to develop that alignment, and how the force exerted by an outside body when struck effects that, to anything more than the extent of how doing so could damage yourself. (or at least what I have found doing 13 years of predominatly external arts).

The result is that when you punch someone in such a way, more of the power that you have exerted goes into your opponent and less of it goes back into you.

I know exactly where you are coming from, I once thought along the same way, but as I stated earlier, perhaps there isn't as much mass behind the technique as you think.

cxt
10th November 2006, 22:08
hl

I honestly mean no offense---but your "explination" makes little sense.

Stuff like "bodyweight force entering a person" sounds nice even kinda scientific---but its largely just "sounds" like it actually means something concrete.

As far as "more of the power goes into your oppt and less back into you"

Love to see to the math for that----as well some shred of proof that such things are the sole provience of the internal systems.

Actually physic's provides very detailed information on how bodies recact when struck.
Do a pretty good job with things like mass, acceleration, impact forces, velocity etc.

No, you have no clue "where I'm coming from"---your letting the fact that I belive that claims require proofs.
And that I am putting claims made here to a critical analysis to effect your perceptions of me--its giving you a erronous impression.

ImBatman
10th November 2006, 22:15
Unlike Asura, who seems to feel that there is some kind of de-facto superority in HIS groups approach to the internal arts.

From my experience, there is indeed a superiority to the approach taken by Asura's group. Before training with them in Japan, I had not encountered a group that teaches internal bodyskill in such a direct manner. This becomes evident when you witness the degree of skill exhibited by many students in the class with only a year-or-so of training. This in and of itself gives me reason to believe that Rob and his instructor are on to something.. even (gasp), a superior approach.

I certainly agree that it is the person, not the art. I would say that Rob's group deals with this concept directly in that they training students from the very basics of how to move with a greater degree of bodyskill. This is quite a contrast to simply training in technique 'arts' that teaches you to twist your hips when you punch. By focusing on training these fundamentals of body movement and equilibrium, you are essentially training the person much more than teaching an art.

hl1978
10th November 2006, 22:26
hl

I honestly mean no offense---but your "explination" makes little sense.

Stuff like "bodyweight force entering a person" sounds nice even kinda scientific---but its largely just "sounds" like it actually means something concrete.

As far as "more of the power goes into your oppt and less back into you"

Love to see to the math for that----as well some shred of proof that such things are the sole provience of the internal systems.

Actually physic's provides very detailed information on how bodies recact when struck.
Do a pretty good job with things like mass, acceleration, impact forces, velocity etc.

No, you have no clue "where I'm coming from"---your letting the fact that I belive that claims require proofs.
And that I am putting claims made here to a critical analysis to effect your perceptions of me--its giving you a erronous impression.


As an engineer I am quite familiar with the concepts you are referring too. If you are familiar with statics then you well know about how forces are distributed and how there are push back effects (from simple physics) when one object strikes another or when being loaded. Go kick a telephone pole, clearly force exerted by your leg goes back into you, assuming you don't knock the telephone pole over.

As for I know where you are coming from, I once thought the way you did with regards to external and internal being more or less the same. I thought the body mechanics being trained were the same, turns out they aren't.

Let me ask you a question, how do you put more bodyweight into a punch? Is it leaning in more? Is it using the back foot more to propell you forwards? Clearly you can't increase the mass in the F=MA equation, but how can you get more of it involved when striking?

You also failed to address my point with regards to examining the effects of exerting force on an outside object back within your own body. In my own experience with the internal martial arts this is a key difference. Now if you want mathematical equations to describe how a feeling within my own body feels, that is going to be difficult. A free body diagrain could be possible, however to model all 206 bones and corresponding joints will be quite difficult to express a feeling.

I spoke of alignment earlier, and as I clearly stated teaching proper alignment is not the sole providence of IMA. I will reiterate again, that the teachings of how this alignment effects one's ownself is different between external and internal training methodologies.

cxt
10th November 2006, 22:34
ImBatman

And its exactly that smug attitude of claimed/assumed "superority" that marks Asura/Mike Sigman and company etc interaction around here.

And that attitude cause problems---for them.

It was clear from the very first posts what direction this was heading--- the phraseology seldom lies. ;)

Its odd---the number of people that DON'T feel the knee-jerk need to log onto websites and loudly proclaim the "superority" of THIER teacher, THEIR personal approach and THIER methodology.

The ones that DO feel such a need are seldom worth listening too.

In contrast, those worth listening too seldom need to brag or toot their own horn.

cxt
10th November 2006, 22:43
hl

Your not LISTENING to me.

I told told you have no idea where I'm coming from.

I'm NOT saying that I think/feel the internal and external art are "more or less the same."

Never even suggest such a things--they are not.

I'm suggesting that the results ARE "pretty much the same" ie how you generate the force used in blow is secondary to its effects.

In any measurable aspect anyway.

"Feelings" are indeed difficult to model ;)

Which is precisely why that carry no weight (yes that's a contextual pun ;) ) in arguement and precisley why they are scorned in place of facts.

Tom H.
10th November 2006, 22:51
The assumption you and Asura etc are making is that "there must be somthing wrong" with them is both fallcious and assumptive--Oh, and ITS "wrong." Unless you can provide more than just your "say so" of the supposed power of internal striking methods----good luck with that--love to see it BTWChris, can you hold that thought? I've bought their hook, line, and sinker, and have started training with Akuzawa's stuff (from a baseline of almost zero martial experience). If I can get to an interesting level of development in the next 6-18 months I will be looking for people to test myself against. If we meet you can tell me if I feel just like everyone else.

I don't know that this stuff is better. I just have my feelings to go on for now. :look:

hl1978
10th November 2006, 22:55
Perhaps a good way to advance this convesation is to find video which shows the effect on the body when someone is struck with an internal type strike and a similiar strike done by someone approaching it from an external type strike.

Yes, both can cause a KO, but if you look how it effects the body itself it is quite different. Perhaps that will get around the questions of how it feels different.

cxt
10th November 2006, 23:06
Tom

Again---back to the whole "its the person" thing.

What you can or can't do to me PERSONALLY is hardly relevent--as all sorts of factors play into overt effectiveness.

Consider this--if we were to meet and I was to trash you--would you honestly give up what you do and switch to something else???

I wouldn't.

cxt
10th November 2006, 23:13
hl

I have no trust in videos---I can produce a video of me talking with alien beings from the Crab Nebula if you give me some time. ;)

(interesting beings--but a bit "stuffy" as they have 3 legs they are able to get much more of their body weight into blows without loseing balance the way we bipeds can--so they kinda make fun of us about it. ;) )

The best way to advance this conversation is by laying off claims that can't be supported.

You "feel" one way--I "feel" another.

The difference is that I'm not makeing claims based upon my "feelings."

Tom H.
10th November 2006, 23:38
Consider this--if we were to meet and I was to trash you--would you honestly give up what you do and switch to something else???Yes. I've done it before, painfully. Not in the martial arts, though..

(It kind of depends on what we're comparing.. I'm not sure I want to enter a semi-holds-barred fighting world like MMA. If I don't, I fully expect a good experienced fighter to take me out for the same reason that performance with weights in the gym is unrelated to performance in the ring against an aggressive opponent.)

Cady Goldfield
11th November 2006, 00:04
Chris, with all due respect, you will never get an answer to your question that you can truly absorb until you get on the mats. Verbal explanations do little or nothing to show the differences between internal and external power. You need to have it demonstrated to you. It's heady, esoteric stuff.

If you ever have the opportunity to train with a true internal-arts practitioner, that will be your best way to understand. I hate to see you keep going in circles, with Rob and others trying to explain, and you thinking you're getting a runaround.

For heaven sake, man, get on the mats! :)

cxt
11th November 2006, 00:45
Cady

Ok, with all due respect--I'll say it AGAIN.

Have trained with a number of internal guys (and a gal) have experienced it first hand.

Understand quite well its effectiveness.

I just don't run around publically proclaiming how "badass" it to all and sundry.

My objections AGAIN are claims made on-line without a shred of proof backing it up.

I object to sloppy thinking, poor science and nebulous post hoc rationaliaztions--as should you.

I object to "heady esoteric stuff" when--as it is here--being couched in smug "superior" attitude, in place of specifics.

Never met Rob, as far as I know have never even spoken to him.

But Asura and company most certainly are, as you so aptly put, giving folks the "run around." ;)

cxt
11th November 2006, 00:51
oops. wrong key

Cady Goldfield
11th November 2006, 01:08
Chris,
I didn't get the sense that there was any arrogance or superiority issues happening here. Internal stuff is just generally weird -- it's about manipulating your own internal muscles, weight, etc. against an opponent's incoming attack, instead of using torque and acceleration to power a percussive or projectile counterattack. I spent over 20 years in external arts before "discovering" another world, and it's just completely different in its generation and delivery of power.

I say "esoteric" because it is made of much smaller, subtler movements than we're used to generating "externally," and can't be shown to you visually; it has to be done TO you so you can feel what's being done.

Anyway, there are a lot of people out there who say they are doing "internal" arts, but interpretations vary. You may have trained with some, but we have no idea what those individuals' skill sets are, or what you were experiencing. To that end, such discussions here are doomed to be fruitless.

As has been noted, a lot of internal-power knowledge was lost with China's Cultural Revolution, when anyone with any intellectual acumen, formal learning or other knowledge was considered "dangerous," and killed or "repurposed." What remains has been carefully guarded in pockets and hidden places. So, the vast majority of people you see in the main stream, may well not have such knowledge. It is very jealously hoarded.

But it's there. Many years ago, I had the fortune to encounter a visitor from China who had me come at him full force (I was a gung-ho karate and gungfu student in those days) with an attack. Seemingly without moving or even shifting his feet, the gentleman sent me flying across the room. A verrry subtle internal series of movements on his part redirected my own force and used it against me. If anything showed the true meaning of "stopping the spear" (as in the Chinese characters/Japanese kanji for "martial arts"), that was it.

I appreciate your frustration, but all I can suggest is that when you find the real thing, you will definitely know it.

cxt
11th November 2006, 01:20
Cady

Sorry, but that is my direct impression.

I read sweeping generalizations about any number of things. I read people makeing highly judgemental remarks about folks they have never met in terms of whom is doing what "wrong."

I read people asserting things as if they are according to Hoyle "facts" and when questioned about the specifcs of their statements---well things kinda fall apart.

Don't know how many times in this discussion alone, internal arts were presented as being able to do "things" other arts/people can't--again sans proof.

Other arts were presented in negative light as not being able to do "things"--again sans proof.

Very early on in this discussion I suggested that if folks were REALLY interested in what makes a internal art "internal" a good place to start would be a comparison of the BIg Three internal styles and looking at what they have in common and what they do differently.

That suggestion was ignored in favor of people repeating over and over again about whom/what they study is superior.

And as a personal aside, I resent the assumption/implication that I neither have experiened the "real thing" nor would recognise it when I did.

That is a good example of the "attitude" I was speaking of.

Rather than treat it/me as a decent guy that simply differs in opinions---you couch it in terms that strongly imply I lack expereince--which is NOT the case.

Don't think your trying to be smug--but that is how I read it.

(not going to go home and hang myself over it :)
Just trying to illustrate the attutide I was talking about. )

K. Cantwell
11th November 2006, 01:48
Jason,

As a corollary to Mr. Svinth's post way back on page one, you could also see Draeger and Smith's Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts or Bruce Frantzis' The Power of Internal Martial Arts for somewhat academic discussions of the difference between external and internal arts.

There is also a nifty book by Howard Reid entitled The Book of Soft Martial Arts, which has a short discussion of the internal arts as compared to the external. Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming also discusses this in a bunch of his books.

You'll find different authors focusing on different things: training, qi, power generation, philosophy, etc.

Like most of this stuff, nothing is nice and clear cut and everything has that ever-present haze of gray.

Good luck in your search for answers.

Kevin Cantwell

hl1978
11th November 2006, 05:33
hl

I have no trust in videos---I can produce a video of me talking with alien beings from the Crab Nebula if you give me some time. ;)

(interesting beings--but a bit "stuffy" as they have 3 legs they are able to get much more of their body weight into blows without loseing balance the way we bipeds can--so they kinda make fun of us about it. ;) )

The best way to advance this conversation is by laying off claims that can't be supported.

You "feel" one way--I "feel" another.

The difference is that I'm not makeing claims based upon my "feelings."


Look at the internal videos critically, and you will notice differences. Now if you want to construe those videos as having overly compliant partners in terms of how their bodies are effected, that is a valid criticisim (it certianly would look that way until you are struck in such a manner), but you will notice a theme throughout them.

If you want to ignore evidence, thats your perogative.

Asura
11th November 2006, 15:38
But Asura and company most certainly are, as you so aptly put, giving folks the "run around." ;)

I dunno, I put out exercises for people to try on Aikiweb, as well as an article on human movement as it relates to Martial movement ^^;
Give it a read and tell me what you think. I'm pretty straightfoward, and if you ask me a direct question about this stuff I'll answer it as best I can.

DDATFUS
13th November 2006, 00:12
Robert, could you supply a link to the information you posted on aikiweb? I checked aikiweb, but I haven't spent much time there and I couldn't figure out exactly where to look.

Best,
David

Tom H.
13th November 2006, 00:22
The two I know of are here:

Training the Body for Martial Movement, Part 1 (http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10763)
Training the Body for Martial Movement, Part 2: Exercises (http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10764)

I like the second part more :), and I'm pretty sure that someone somewhere posted a good overview of shiko, but I haven't been able to find it.

Asura
13th November 2006, 07:11
The two I know of are here:

Training the Body for Martial Movement, Part 1 (http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10763)
Training the Body for Martial Movement, Part 2: Exercises (http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10764)

I like the second part more :), and I'm pretty sure that someone somewhere posted a good overview of shiko, but I haven't been able to find it.

There's an ok description of Shiko here at the Sumo federation website:
http://www.sumo.or.jp/eng/kyokai/kenko_taiso.html

They don't include specific instructions for how to work on weight shifting, and seperating your body into three axis etc...
Two key points I'd pay attention to: When you do shiko you don't simply "raise" the leg seperately on its own. Rather it needs to initially be "pulled" along by the extremities of the body, in this case the arm.
Second thing: When rising up, don't push the ground with the feet. Instead pull yourself up with the spine.
Done right Shiko is an extremely effective body connection exercise :)

Bod
13th November 2006, 15:06
Misquote cxt: "The strike didn't feel any different to me".
Misquote reply: "Then it wasn't internal ma".

Well, there's one answer to "What actually makes an art internal?" - the strikes should feel different. Also touched on were "the training methods are different".

As for talking about the physics, I believe that has little value when talking about the martial arts. When the guys on the shooting forum talk about the effects of a bullet, they rarely talk about F=Ma and all that. The ydon't talk about computer simulations either. The best they can do, to discuss the effects of different rounds, is to use ballistic gel, and photograph it at high speed. This is because at high speeds and low mass the determining factor in the effect of a bullet is how the energy from pressure waves is distributed by the receiving body.

Now a strike is low speed, medium mass event and not directly comparable to a bullet impact. Still the effect of how the energy is distributed by the striker and the struck is hard to model or describe in terms of physics.

In fact it is almost impossible, because the striker and the struck can change their action and reaction during the strike, by use of their mind. I.e. they can both relax and tense their bodies in many different configurations. The computer programmmer cannot easily model "B rolls with the punch", or "A tenses close to impact due to his natural aversion to striking others".

Another difficulty with talking physics, is that the brain can know how a movement should work, but a well coordinated movement happens only when the brain is thinking at a a tangent, and not about how the individual body parts are moving. Thus the description of the action, and the actual action are totally different.

This is why you get statements like "move your chi into your hand". It's about using mental imagery to subtly affect your coordination, on a subconcious level.

It's not totally different to ideas of "follow through" in tennis. The action you make after the ball leaves the racket cannot - scientifically - affect the ball. Yet it does. Because of the way the body and mind are subconciously working before you hit the ball. If you only talk scientifically about how the shot works you never get to the practical benefit.

Finally, I've got nothing against physics. I got a degree in the subject. But physicists stick to talking about simple systems. Not body mechanics.

cxt
13th November 2006, 23:04
Bod

I'm staying out of any discussion concerning training specifics--as long as they don't "style bash" and as long as they stay on the up and up---no "snake oil."

But I respectfully disagree that physics can't be useful when talking about martial arts.

The problems you mention, (among others) with modeling an event are the EXACT problems one faces when trying to make claims about what a strike/technique is "supposed" to do.

Thus, in my opinion, if one has such diffculty in simply modeling an event---then one should be VERY, VERY careful about what claims one makes.

I respectfully suggest that saying--my paraphrase--"Its very tough to model" is simply a step away from "its too complex for anyone not trained by ME to grasp."

An easy "out" so to speak.

All kinds of things related to MA can be calculated, tested and modeled quite well.

DDATFUS
14th November 2006, 21:14
Tom, Robert, thanks for the links. Those are interesting reads.

Dan Harden
19th November 2006, 03:27
There's an ok description of Shiko here at the Sumo federation website:
http://www.sumo.or.jp/eng/kyokai/kenko_taiso.html

They don't include specific instructions for how to work on weight shifting, and seperating your body into three axis etc...
Two key points I'd pay attention to: When you do shiko you don't simply "raise" the leg seperately on its own. Rather it needs to initially be "pulled" along by the extremities of the body, in this case the arm.
Second thing: When rising up, don't push the ground with the feet. Instead pull yourself up with the spine.
Done right Shiko is an extremely effective body connection exercise :)

Hi Rob
I agree with all of what Rob states except I'd also concentrate on dividing the axis's into outer and inner as well. Rob we had talked about this before where I carry weight transfer on the outside and draw separately with the inside. I think it contributes to other things we do where it is more of the same zero-balance mutli-drectional work using inside and outside and contradictory forces in mutiple planes.
A simple example for guys who want to try feeling a basic "innner/outer" work is to have someone push on a shoulder and learn to transfer and support the force on the opposite body line. If you carry the load on the outside of the opposite side and sink- you can draw up on the inside and attack in all angles independently. Thats very simple, but it works in Shiko with sinking and rising happening at the same time. I draw on the inside and lift and carry on the outside
The real power comes in being able to maintain a neutral zero-balanced state with someone wailing on you or trying to throw you. The force of the thrower gets transfered back at them in multiple angles of "their attack" resulting in them locking themselves up or popping off you. There are some fun "tactile training exercies where you can "agree" with, say a pull, on you and they lose power to pull you.

Chris. We should just bang and roll. I have no issues with your doubts. I just question the skill (not the rank or name, I could care less) of the internal players you have met if they cannot demonstrably display the difference. You may find internal skills in a MMA format quite interesting as a skill set. I'd probably have fun changing your mind about all this :)
I completely dissagree with you about there not being a difference both in feel and in effect. Everyone I know, knows instantly that it is different.
Cheers bud
Dan

cxt
20th November 2006, 01:53
Dan

Like I keep saying, there is little to nothing to change my mind about :)

I have NO doubts as to the effectiveness or efficiency of the internal arts.

My objections are with claims that can't be supported, general attiudes of superiority along with attendent assumptions--thats pretty much it.

Beyond those those things, I'm staying out the conversation---which in terms of techniques and applications, seems to be a good one. :)

Trust me or not--matters little to me, but the folks I have worked out with, would be familiar to you--esp on the Taji side of things.

To use the same set of assumptions you make---perhaps the reason they feel litle different to me, is that being a climber, my sense of internal balance is more finely developed than most--thus the whole "unbalanceing" effect is largely wasted upon me. :)

Dan Harden
23rd November 2006, 13:26
Hi Chris
Fair enough. I hope that superiority thing isn't addressed to people other than methods. As a method I think they are superior. Demonstrably so. And can be used in any art. Its just a better way to live, climb, do physical labor, or martial arts. Beyond that anyone who feels *he* is superior because of the knowledge of these things is a fool.
Again, internal skills are the pre-eminent means for using the body in the arts though.
Cheers, and happy Thanksgiving
Dan

cxt
23rd November 2006, 15:09
Dan

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours! :)

I still think/feel--forgive the gender specific wording, only using it for effect--that its the "man" not the "method."

A respectful opinion only.

With the full and certain knowledge that I can and have been wrong before. :)