"Internal" strength in the martial arts

[T'ai Chi]

Anyone with some exposure to the martial arts has heard about 'external' and 'internal' martial arts.

I wrote this up recently on the issue

http://www.statisticool.com/internal.htm

Is their vector theory the best they can do? It isn't really a convincing theory I must say.

[Wudang]

Is their vector theory the best they can do? It isn't really a convincing theory I must say.

It's not intended to convince people who know nothing about the art such as yourself.

Personally I find it interesting but not terribly useful since as soon as you start to apply it you get overwhelmed by complexity.

[This Guy]

I'll admit to being a bit confused by some alleged aspects of martial arts. Ch'i in particular.

My first instructor was an ex-street rumbler. He taught us two styles, in a sense. We learned the traditional Japanese techniques/style (the "Formal" way of doing things) and also what he would often refer to as what works on the street.

One of the things that was stressed to us was that timing was a major factor in delivery. We were taught to, basically, get all the associated body movements working together to use the full effect of the momentums involved, concentrated at the point of contact. Nothing mystical there. Just getting the most "body" behind a punch as possible, while using stances that attempted to get the best compromise between speed and power ("if it's all power and no speed it won't land, if it's all speed and no power, it won't do any good if it does land").

When I first found Randi's weekly tidbits, I was a bit put off, while going through past issues, by some comments he made negative toward martial arts. I haven't had a formal lesson since the 80's. My first was in the early 70's. I have never been told about any mystical powers. Everything we were taught relied on using our bodies to the best of our abilities. Heavy drilling on timing and reflexes. Lots of drills on combinations. I never realized that the field seems to have been invaded by Woo. A little research eased my feelings about Randi's comments, but caused me some concern about where the martial arts were headed.

Now, all that being said, I've never heard the Internal/External thing. My opinion is that true martial arts are nothing more than learning how to use your body to it's maximum potential. I believe (based on the schools I was trained in) that a 4 part training regime -

1. Physical exercise/stretching

2. Formal technique training, solo and with partners, and reflex training *

3. Kata practice

4. Free style sparing

gives a good balanced way of learning any martial art. Done properly, you end up in good general physical condition. Have a large range of "tools" available to use, should the need arise (note that we were told to avoid conflict when possible). Have a good degree of self confidence, and (IMHO) no need to "Prove" that you are tough. Case in point, I was about 16 when I started my training. I'm about 52 now. There has been one time that I had no choice but to fight (I was grabbed by the arms by two guys that were walking past me). That is the only time I used (the pure basic fighting aspects of) my training in self defense. But over the years, I believe the general benefits of the training have served me many times and very well, from my general health, to my ability to think well under pressure, along with what I believe would be a long list of other benefits. Again, nothing mystical, just good physical and mental training.

OK, I rambled a bit. Sorry. But in summary, I think to deliver a good punch boils down to getting your body moving in the proper direction(s) at the proper time, and bringing it all together on your opponent. Now, whether that's External or Internal or what, I don't know. I think it boils down to using the right muscles. in the right way, at the right time :)

I will add that sometimes speed is more important than power. In the case I briefly described above, it was a quick snap kick to the groan that took the fight from 2 on 1, to 1 on 1, and allowed me to walk away, while the 2 thought things over ;)

* We had a few methods of working on reflexes. One was to be running in place while our instructor walked around us. He would yell Drop, or Jump, and swing a plastic tube at our head, or knees (never applying more than a gentle tap, if he made contact). My favorite involved using a string of lights he had along one wall. He would line us up, one half facing the lights, and one half with backs to them. He had a long cord with a switch attached for the lights. We would practice whatever "movements" we had been working on. Those facing the lights would attack when the lights flashed on, this required those defending to react to the movement, not the command to attack.

[Bikewer]

I think that the phenomena that are attributed to "internal strength", "Ki", "chi", or what have you are better explained by body mechanics, (kinesthesiology?)
or in some cases fakery.
Some of the fakery may not be deliberate. I have seen chi "demonstrations" passed on by teachers to students as fact, but they do not stand up to scrutiny by someone with an eye for mechanics. They may be believed, however.

I remember an interview with a martial artist who had begun, after some considerable training, to develop some real power in his blows. He said that his instructor told him that he was "beginning to flow chi."
More likely he was just, by dint of his training, becoming stronger and was more able to use that strength effectively.

[T'ai Chi]

It's not intended to convince people who know nothing about the art such as yourself.


Ok, the wu in your name is wu as in 'nothing' apparently.


Personally I find it interesting but not terribly useful since as soon as you start to apply it you get overwhelmed by complexity.

Find what interesting exactly? Pretending "internal" is something different from "external"?

[Mashuna]

Find what interesting exactly? Pretending "internal" is something different from "external"?

You're asking for clarification when Wudang posts that something is 'interesting' without explaining himself :jaw-dropp

:id:

[Big Al]

In my teens, I did Wadu Ryu karate at a local dojo. The sensei did talk about "extending ki", but he never got into mystical "the force is with you" woo.

I agree that putting your whole body behind the blow is important - for example, I still remember the difficulty I had in mastering just the right butt-heave used in the execution of lunge and snap punches.

Other factors were:


Tight, square fist, concentrating the force on the two big knuckles directly in line with the forearm. My index and second finger knuckles are huge, and I can fold the other two right out of the way. This increases the impact pressure and ensures all the force vector lies along the line of the arm.
Being properly braced for a punch or kick. We would take up positions such as homni (the deep horse stance) and the sensei would try to push us off balance.
Acceleration and speed.
Accuracy - it's no good if the blow skids off someone's cheekbone.
Follow-through: don't waste energy in pulling back.These factors are addressed by conventional boxers - I used to box, too. I did begin to feel good after a while, but I'm sure that was just due to regular, intensive workouts.

[T'ai Chi]

You're asking for clarification when Wudang posts that something is 'interesting' without explaining himself :jaw-dropp


And? He is free to not answer further, just like anyone else is. I'm sure even you can understand that.

BTW, "Mashuna", if you read closer, it was clarification for what the "it" he referred to was, not why he thought it was interesting.

[Kaarjuus]

2. Formal technique training, solo and with partners, and reflex training *


What is solo technique training?


3. Kata practice


And what are katas good for?

[Big Al]

What is solo technique training?

Where yoiu practice techniques like punches, kicks, stances, etc. without a sparring partner.

And what are katas good for? Practicing complex sequences of moves - a kata is a sort of set-piece routine. This is in contract to kumite, which is free sparring.

[Kaarjuus]

Where yoiu practice techniques like punches, kicks, stances, etc. without a sparring partner.


Ok. Like with a punching bag?


Practicing complex sequences of moves - a kata is a sort of set-piece routine. This is in contract to kumite, which is free sparring.

I know what katas are. I asked what are they good for. When looking at, say, Wado Ryu katas (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wado+ryu+kata&search=Search), they look of little if no use in free sparring, simply dead exercise.

[This Guy]

What is solo technique training?

Solo in the sense I was referring to would be when you practice a given movement (punch/kick/whatever) while stepping down across the floor. It's not solo in the sense that your the only one doing it, but in that your not interacting with anyone else. Basic repetition training. We would sometimes work in place (stepping forward or backward, as required, then returning to our starting position), or step forward from one end of the dojo to the other, turn and work our way back. pretty standard I believe, but also an important part of training, IMHO.


And what are katas good for?


Katas are IMHO good for getting good form. Since most katas that we had at least, used not only a lot of basic movements, but also some of the less practiced "formal" movements. They also help work on combinations. I also think they can add a sense of realism to a practice session your doing alone, at home or whatever. We were taught, and were expected to do our katas as if we were fighting someone. We were expected to pause at some points in some katas, and look in the direction of the attack we would be blocking/dodging, whatever, or in the direction of the invisible opponent we were attacking. We were also expected to put a lot of strength/effort into our katas. No sloppy moving around the floor slinging your arms and legs about ;)

[JMA]

"Internal" strength is just focus + good psychomotricity.

[This Guy]

Ok. Like with a punching bag?



I know what katas are. I asked what are they good for. When looking at, say, Wado Ryu katas (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wado+ryu+kata&search=Search), they look of little if no use in free sparring, simply dead exercise.

Wado is actually the style I started with. Before Master Otsuka passed away, and things got changed by his son Jiro (I believe). The katas we used were pretty basic katas. I believe most styles of Karate and Tae Kwon Do use the same general combinations, just with minor alterations for the difference in styles, and maybe a few added or left out steps.

They can be very dead things. But that was a good way to get a good butt kicking in my dojo ;)

If done correctly they are VERY dynamic, and alive. If you haven't had the chance, try to catch a tournament, either live or on TV, and watch the Kata competition. The ones that get the prizes will have shown you just how alive katas can be :)

EDIT to add - Actually looked at the link you gave. If you compare the first two, you'll get an idea of how different katas can be. I mean no disrespect for Michelle Tough, but I think if you compare her to Tatsuo Suzuki, whom I believe was Master Otsuka's second in command for most of the time the Master was still active, you'll see (well, I saw ;) a higher degree of realism and "feeling" in his movements. The movements were more crisp and precise, and had more determination behind them. Anyway, I saw it that way :)

[Kaarjuus]

I also think they can add a sense of realism to a practice session your doing alone, at home or whatever. We were taught, and were expected to do our katas as if we were fighting someone. We were expected to pause at some points in some katas, and look in the direction of the attack we would be blocking/dodging, whatever, or in the direction of the invisible opponent we were attacking.

If done correctly they are VERY dynamic, and alive.

I'm somewhat confused. I thought katas are a pre-defined set of movements? For example, the Pinan series. It's a set list of moves to do, in precise order. I see neither realism nor life in this.

Wouldn't simple shadow boxing be better, where you are free to imagine whatever attack you want, and respond with whatever block or counterattack you want? No need to memorize an otherwise useless order of movements, you can train combinations, and work on your form.


EDIT to respond to addition: no discussion about it, Tatsuo Suzuki showed better form in his katas. It still seems pretty pointless to learn a long pre-defined set of moves by heart and practise it to perfection. Pointless in terms of combat or free sparring.

Also, in this kata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBsvyBezUSk), Tatsuo Suzuki did some moves that seem a very bad idea in sparring. For example, at 00:19, he stands on left leg, his hands are above his head, and his right leg is in the air drawn close to his left leg. The move itself is impractical and he himself is unbalanced.

[This Guy]

I'm somewhat confused. I thought katas are a pre-defined set of movements? For example, the Pinan series. It's a set list of moves to do, in precise order. I see neither realism nor life in this.

Wouldn't simple shadow boxing be better, where you are free to imagine whatever attack you want, and respond with whatever block or counterattack you want? No need to memorize an otherwise useless order of movements, you can train combinations, and work on your form.

Katas are pre-defined movements. And yes, shadow boxing, or sparing with your local punching bag can be good. But I believe that kata practice is a valuable piece of a total training picture. It's hard to describe all the reasons. If you had ever performed a very good kata, and felt the feeling that tells you you did it well, you'd understand better what I'm trying to describe, but am not finding the words to do so.

Also, in this kata, Tatsuo Suzuki did some moves that seem a very bad idea in sparring. For example, at 00:19, he stands on left leg, his hands are above his head, and his right leg is in the air drawn close to his left leg. The move itself is impractical and he himself is unbalanced.

The moves he was doing, was a block with his hands, and the leg movement was avoiding a leg sweep (I believe). These were defensive movements, not offensive. And yes, at the instant he was doing them, he was off balance, but I would argue that his (invisible) opponent was committed to the attack he was defending himself from, and therefore it was not an issue. ;)

Some movements in katas don't appear to make much sense, and in my opinion are designed more to show your ability to perform the prescribed movements in the correct order (getting your hands/feet/body from one position to the next without falling on your butt for instance ;) Some are meant to just look good. Most do simulate possible, however unlikely, situations.

[Curnir]

When I was about 18-20 I did a lot of wakiwara punching training, mostly against concrete walls.
I almost never used full power during these sessions, but when I did I found that I was holding back quite a lot of my power when I struck with a fist compared to when I struck with the palm of my hand.
Presumably this was an instictual way to pretect myself from getting hurt.

Since it was a great way to clear my head (no thoughts just the punching), I tried a session once when I was angry (not merely miffed, but borderline berserk) I struck the target once... and all my anger was drained away by the shock of the stupidity in the act I preformed. Punching a concrete wall with full power... If I had struck the wall in the "wrong" way I would definately have hurt my hand, but luckily I didn't even get a minor scratch.

After that I set up wooden boards for breaking, and found that I could replicate 'no holding back' punch if I emptied my mind and focused on the punch, but I must say that I prefer the palm strike better than the fist.

Later on I described the feel of the exercise I went through before the punch to a Kung Fu practitioner his response was:
"Wow you know how to use chi??"

For me it was just a way to temporarily remove a mental block, for him it was a magical mystical energy I accessed.
*sigh*
Go figure.


oh and... I do not recommend punching concrete walls.

[Garrette]

I have to agree with This Guy on katas/forms/etc. and on Michelle Tough vice Tatsuo Suzuki. For Michelle, it was pleasant to watch but she seemed on the edge of of-balance at many points and seemed to be doing the form for the sake of the form. Not so with Suzuki.

My martial arts experience is fairly extensive but almost entirely informal. I have done Tae Kwon Do forms and Ju-Jitsu preceptors. For TKD, the forms were helpful in cementing stances and moves into my head (from a visual-memory standpoint).

For Ju-Jitsu, the preceptors (there are only a few) were shorter and more violent and even when done alone gave a sense of actual fighting. The intent, according to my friend/instructor, was to develop a habit or instinct so that when faced with any of a variety of suitable real-life situations, the preceptor kicked in, at whatever point the situation called for.

Having worked in the security field for a long while, nearly always with a psychiatric patient component, I had chances to use my training. Never the JJ, though, as it tends to be destructive. Some karate, ninjutsu, and TKD was always welcome.

[Mashuna]

And? He is free to not answer further, just like anyone else is. I'm sure even you can understand that.

BTW, "Mashuna", if you read closer, it was clarification for what the "it" he referred to was, not why he thought it was interesting.

Thanks, "T'ai Chi".

[Wudang]

I was refering to Mike Sigman's analysis of Internal Strength and the classic 8 Jings in terms of the underlying force vectors and the resultant vectors. I did a weekend seminar with Mike and talked to him extensively for many years both privately and via the 6H ec mailing lists so I know his ideas very well.
They are very useful in terms of analysis and getting you thinking about what you're doing and trying to achieve but they're not always so helpful as the classic imagery. An analogy I used once talking to him was that the difference between "Qi" and "peng jing" is like centrifugal and centripetal force. Neither of the former exist but can be easier for people to grasp than the things that actually do exist.
The problem is that once you get past a simple lever model of say the arm then you get lost in the complexity of all the muscles that support the hinge. Mike has ideas regarding fascia and etheric qi that I don't go along with at all.

[luchog]

"Internal" strength is just focus + good psychomotricity.
IMO there's a bit more to it than that, particularly since "focus" is a particularly nebulous term. When most people use the term, it tends to mean something along the lines of "concentration", but good internal strength relies on a number of factors. Concentration, certainly, but observation, attitude, control of fear, flexibility, determination, decisiveness, and so on.

The best example I've seen of "inner strength" and it's cultivation is Miyamoto Musashi's Ni Ten Ichi Ryu, the Way of Strategy, expounded in his Go Rin No Sho, The Book of Five Rings.

There really isn't a true divide between "internal" and "external" strength, and martial arts which emphasize one over the other are ultimately weaker than one which puts equal emphasis on both, and are typically prone to woo -- either physical/situational or metaphysical, depending on which one they emphasize.

[baron]

I recognise martial arts for what it is, a discipline often undertaken with great skill, but when these guys start claiming all sorts it makes me wonder what's going on.

A while ago I saw some self-proclaimed master punch the air infront of a candle. The candle went out. He said that it was due to his projection of chi, and it had taken 10 years to learn. Initially I was impressed.

It wasn't until at least a year later I tried it myself. The candle went out on the 5th try. Just to prove to myself I hadn't misremembered I did it again now. This time it took about 10 tries, but I got there in the end. Chi energy? 10 years to learn? Riiiiight.

[Kaarjuus]

It wasn't until at least a year later I tried it myself. The candle went out on the 5th try. Just to prove to myself I hadn't misremembered I did it again now. This time it took about 10 tries, but I got there in the end. Chi energy? 10 years to learn? Riiiiight.

Well.. you can learn the basic punch in no time, but if you train long and hard, you will attain a higher degree of realism and "feeling" in your punch. Your movement will be more crisp and precise, and will have more determination behind it :D

[Thinktoomuch]

Baron, if you did it with your arms naked, I am impressed. If you had your karategi on, any little trained weakling like me can do it. It is the snap of the sleeve that does it. My sensei was honest, he just showed it as a cheap trick....:D

ETA: try with a horizontal shuto above, but not touching, the flame (naked arm). If you can not do it, let me know and I'll tell you the trick for that one too...

[baron]

Baron, if you did it with your arms naked, I am impressed. If you had your karategi on, any little trained weakling like me can do it. It is the snap of the sleeve that does it. My sensei was honest, he just showed it as a cheap trick....:D


The first time I can't recall, I'm afraid. The second I was wearing a t-shirt but the sleeve reached the elbow. I must admit to trying it around 20 times after my post and failing. Still, I definitely did it once with a t-shirt on! :)

[Wudang]

There are some interesting definitions of "internal strength" here but almost none address the OP which is about neijia, a particular meaning of the word which has nothing to do with focus, concentration or whatever. It's a non-intuitive way of using muscles to get some interesting effects. Some magicians have found aspects of it - see the book Body Magic for instance.
Problem is that too much of the stuff out there is disinformation spread by poseurs wishing to attract dilettantes with disposable income and a dislike of sweat to their classes when all people with real results are noted for training like madmen, quel surpris.

[Big Al]

ETA: try with a horizontal shuto above, but not touching, the flame (naked arm). If you can not do it, let me know and I'll tell you the trick for that one too...

Gyakuzuki or haishu seem to fit the bill, too.

[drkitten]

I'm somewhat confused. I thought katas are a pre-defined set of movements? For example, the Pinan series. It's a set list of moves to do, in precise order. I see neither realism nor life in this.

Wouldn't simple shadow boxing be better, where you are free to imagine whatever attack you want, and respond with whatever block or counterattack you want? No need to memorize an otherwise useless order of movements, you can train combinations, and work on your form.

Um, that's what katas are -- training on combinations and working on your form.

Katas merely train specific combinations -- in theory, although of course arts will vary on this -- the combinations trained in katas are those are are likely to be useful. I mean, sure, I can make combinations up myself to practice with, but some combinations are obviously better than others (e.g. punch to the stomach, then punch to the head while the opponent is leaning forward), while others are unobviously better than others (I didn't know myself that after this move, the opponent is likely to be off balance in this way, so that throw will be unusually effective.)

I trust the sifu/sensei to know how to throw a punch better than I do. Seems I should also trust him to know which punch to throw better than I, yes?

[cgordon]

NitPicky mode: Kata, the Japanese word, is singular and plural. There is no 'katas' ...

And kata are not only the solo forms practiced in Chinese and Okinawan systems. In classical Japanese arts, kata are paired exercises that, while pre-determinate in terms of what happens, are ramped up significantly as the student progresses. In practicing classical Japanese kata, the senior usually takes the 'losing' role, in order to lead the junior to proper form and execution. At some levels, paired kata like this are _almost_ more like free form, because if one of the participants fails to make the proper call/response, someone's gonna get whacked.

Kata is an essential and irreplaceable element of training in classical Japanese systems (sword, jujutsu, etc), and is balanced by a certain amount of free-play, notably in arts like judo, which, practiced in the manner Kano prescribed, uses about equal parts of kata and randori (free-play). If you've ever seen senior folks in Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu doing kata, you really ought to take a look. It's intense, powerful and nothing at all like the acrobatics you see kids doing 'musical kata' on the Martial Arts Network.

Even in those arts using solo kata, kata is seldeom ever just waving your arms around (I will except those modern systems that build kata on the fly or cobble together peices of many forms just to have something that looks cool), but is almost always a methodology for teaching certain things, and those things are not necessarily combative techniques ...

After 34 years or so of classical (Japanese sword, staff and jujutsu) AND modern combatives (police and military hand-to-hand/CQC/personal combatives), I've got to say that I learned as much about timing, control of spacing and initiative from kata as I did from free-play.

And personal combat is all ABOUT initiative, timing, spacing, and control of the common center.

[This Guy]

NitPicky mode: Kata, the Japanese word, is singular and plural. There is no 'katas' ...

SNIP

Thanks for the correction, and added information :)

I used to jokingly tell folks, I can count in Japanese, and I can kick your butt, and tell you in Japanese what blows I administered, but that was the extent of my Japanese. It's been so long, I can't even do the latter now :(

[Thinktoomuch]

NitPicky-picking mode: given that we are writing in English (sort of :D ) does not really matter what the form is in the original language, it is the accepted English usage of foreign words that matters. Therefore, "katas" as a plural is acceptable, like Wudang's "dilettantes" instead of "dilettanti". (btw... it is actually "quelLE surprisE" Wudang :) ).

Disclaimer: this is what I was taught learning the Queen's English, maybe Murican is different ...:D

[Kaarjuus]

If you've ever seen senior folks in Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu doing kata, you really ought to take a look. It's intense, powerful and nothing at all like the acrobatics you see kids doing 'musical kata' on the Martial Arts Network.


I've never seen Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu kata. But I searched youtube and watched some videos. Again, I saw nothing but dead movements. Can you point me to some good videos?

[cgordon]

You'd have to define 'dead movements' I suppose. Experiencing the real thing, live and in person is the only way. Video can't really convey the sense of the thing. And most times, videos like that are actually posed and not performed at speed, with full intent, anyhow.

[This Guy]

I've never seen Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu kata. But I searched youtube and watched some videos. Again, I saw nothing but dead movements. Can you point me to some good videos?

Have you actually taken any martial arts classes? I suspect not. But of course, could be wrong.

Any movement performed in martial arts can be very dead or very alive, and that can either be seen by an observer, or felt by the performer, and sometimes both (but not always).

A simple punch can be anything from throwing your hand out, to a perfect movement that not only places your hand in contact with the target (real or imaginary), but also has your body movements all perfectly being at the right place/right angle/right time, to make it the most effective punch your capable of delivering. When you get that perfect combination, you feel it. When your foot placement, hip movement, shoulder movement, arm/hand movement all hit the correct point at the correct time, it's a beautiful thing :)

But trying to impart that feeling is, I would imagine, about the same as an NBA star describing the feeling of hitting a 3/4 court shot, while spinning in the air, and hitting nothing but net, to someone that never played basketball. The difference being that you can see the results of the basketball shot, but not necessarily the perfect punch.

A perfect kata (if one has ever been performed) would be a series of perfect punches/kicks/blocks and related movements performed in the correct order, while moving around the floor (for those that have more than one step). You start and end at the exact same point (in most), you don't bounce up and down, but have a constant head level (should be able to perform it with a board just above your head, and never open or close the distance between your head and the board, unless of course there are jumps or something :)). No wasted movements. And should be done as if there were opponents against you, not just like your doing a dance, though the result might look somewhat like a dance.

I would suggest that if you haven't, you might consider finding a local school, and try a few months of lessons. If time permits, go to a few of the schools and observe a lesson or two. If they won't let you observe, you probably don't want anything to do with them. Some offer a two week intro course. That isn't bad to get an idea of whether or not you would like to try it, but it's not enough to actually learn anything. I'd suggest trying the intro, see if it's something you'd like, then try to get a 6 month contract. 6 months should give you a good idea of what it's about. After that, you'd be in a better position to decide if a 12 month contract would be a good or bad thing for you :) If there are less than two lessons a week, I'd walk out and check another school. My first dojo had two (or three) classes a week for each of 4 (maybe 5) levels. Once you advanced to the third level classes you could attend the class above or below your level at no additional cost. There were a few months I was taking about 8 classes a week. Two a night on some nights, plus a couple open classes we had on the weekends. Classes should be at least 2 hours (at least after the intro).

I think most styles, if taught correctly, are equally as good at both physical conditioning, and self defense. I'm partial to the Japanese arts, because that was what I started with. WADO used to be a very well rounded style, in my opinion. I'm not sure where it stands now though. I do know that when Master Otsuka passed away there was a break up. His son Jiro took over, and made some changes away from the original style as created by the Master. Suzuki, I've been lead to believe, broke off and stayed more with what the Master had taught. I'm not sure what names are used to distinguish the two systems. But I'm sure either would give a well rounded training regimen.

Korean, Chinese, or other arts I'm sure are generally as good, if not better (just to appease practitioners of those styles;)). My brother achieved a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and has really enjoyed that style over the years. While in the military, I worked out with folks from several different styles (Kung Fu, some Okinawan, and a few others) and from my somewhat limited direct exposure, I enjoyed what I saw. I've had pleasant experiences with (Don't laugh!) Chuck Norris' schools and David Deaton (a local chain of schools). I think by and large, it's the performer more than the particular style, that makes the difference. I'm sure there are exceptions (maybe we'll get some other points of view here :)).

If your a master of some style, I apologize for my assumption that your not well trained in "the arts". But I also suspect that if you were well trained in any of the martial arts, you'd have a better understanding of what Kata are good for :)

(Just previewed what I wrote! Sorry for being so "wordy". But not sure what I'd cut out, so leaving it all in. Hope something there helps someone :))

[Kaarjuus]

Have you actually taken any martial arts classes? I suspect not. But of course, could be wrong.


I did a little judo when little. I started to practise mixed martial arts recently.


I think most styles, if taught correctly, are equally as good at both physical conditioning, and self defense.


Well, firstly, "taught correctly" is the clincher here. Having students practise katas is not a correct training method in my mind. And secondly, since quite several arts do not do free sparring , they often use techniques that simply will not work against a resisting opponent. Aidiko is a prime example in that regard.


I've had pleasant experiences with (Don't laugh!) Chuck Norris' schools and David Deaton (a local chain of schools).


What's wrong with Chuck Norris' schools? He is God :)

[JMA]

Aidiko is a prime example in that regard.

I can assure you than when I practice Aikido I often resist my uke (partenair) in ordre to teach him how to do the technique properly. He'll notice that the way he do things don't work if I'm resisting, and with a few explanation try to improve his move. So it's mostly pedagogical.

I don't resist white belt movement of course, there is not point in that. I'm not teaching them something by doing that. But the more I practice with an advance student, the more I resist what they're doing.

Of course I don't resist with strenght, but mostly with techniques (shift of balance, counter-moves, and so on).

So what you were stating is just untrue: the partenair resist in Aikido. :p

ps: I understant your point of course. I do Aikido because my goal in life is not to hit people or even kill them in real fight... But everyone is different in that regard. I know that most people in combat's sports enjoy hiting other people, feeling and inflincting pain, and so on... I'm just not like that. I'm not a violent guy...

[thaiboxerken]

There is no such thing as internal strength. There is good body mechanics and poor body mechanics. Pure physical strength helps as well.

[This Guy]

SNIP
ps: I understant your point of course. I do Aikido because my goal in life is not to hit people or even kill them in real fight... But everyone is different in that regard. I know that most people in combat's sports enjoy hiting other people, feeling and inflincting pain, and so on... I'm just not like that. I'm not a violent guy...

I'm with you on that :)

Believe it or not, my reason for taking my first martial arts class had nothing to do with fighting, and everything to do with magic (stage type, not black or whatever;)) Long story, but it's true.

And I've never done full contact sparing, and would not. I have a large dislike for pain, and no desire to cause it in others either.

Of course, that dislike for pain over rides my desire to not hurt others, if/when the options come down to hurting someone else, or getting hurt. :)

[Wudang]

There is no such thing as internal strength. There is good body mechanics and poor body mechanics. Pure physical strength helps as well.

Internal strength is pure physical strength. It is trivially obvious that if you change your stance you change how force is propagated through that stance. Anyone who has a half-decent book on east german research on sports science or any books on how the west has built on that should know that.
Anyone who's trapped in a cult that says that anything they see on TV is real won't get that.

[Kaarjuus]

I don't resist white belt movement of course, there is not point in that. I'm not teaching them something by doing that.


So providing a realistic sparring is not teaching something? How can the students know whether a technique is working if their opponents are just pretending it works?


I do Aikido because my goal in life is not to hit people or even kill them in real fight... But everyone is different in that regard. I know that most people in combat's sports enjoy hiting other people, feeling and inflincting pain, and so on...

Wow.. it's been a while since I encountered such a sweeping denigrating statement.

First, there are many ways to subdue an opponent. Aikido does not seem to be very good in that regard, since its techniques are not trained in a free sparring environment. Brazilian jiu jitsu, for example, is pretty good in that regard. It doesn't involve strikes or kills, but it does utilize pain via joint manipulation. How exactly can one overcome physical violence without inflicting pain (barring chokes, of course)?

Second: so most people in combat sports are both sadists AND masochists?

[thaiboxerken]

There are those in the forum that believe a person can learn how to fight without pressure testing (sparring). They are wrong, but those people are in the forum.

[JMA]

There are those in the forum that believe a person can learn how to fight without pressure testing (sparring). They are wrong, but those people are in the forum.

Not again that subject. I mean, there is an endless threat about that on the forum... :p (can't find it because the search option don't work well, don't know why).

I still wonder why people are so proud to do a fighting sports, with as only goal in mind to be able to win a real fight.

Like if the real purpose of a martial art was to be able to win a real fight. Really funny :p

Call me a skeptic if you want, but are you sure it's a meaningfull goal in life, from a philosophical (ethic or moral especially) point of view?

There is no way I would for exemple incourage my (future) kids to practice a fighting sports (vs. a martial art like Aikido). For me, it would be like saying to them: "You should sign on the army" (or "You should have a gun in your house for your own protection."). I would need to be insane first in order to tell them that...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I guess it depends on how you define “regular strength”. In one of his books or articles I read, Arnold Schwarzenegger tells of one instance when his friend Franco Columbo was trying to do squats with a very heavy weight and was unable to do them due to the weight being too heavy. However a few minutes later a group of Italian American kids came into the gym who were fans of Franco Columbo and Franco decided to try to squat the weight again to show off in front of his fans. He was able to easily squat the weight several times when before he wasn’t able to do it once.
He was able to do it because he was motivated to show off in front of his fans. I don’t know whether it was adrenaline or mental focus that made him able to lift it when he hadn’t before but I suppose you could define “regular strength” as what you can regularly lift and then “internal strength” as what you can lift when motivated the right ways or under specific pressures and then you have more adrenaline or are more mentally focused.

All of which are “internal” but then again so are muscles themselves. And none of which involve any sort of “chi” as it’s commonly defined by those who practice tai-chi or other ‘internal’ martial arts.

[Wudang]

All of which are “internal” but then again so are muscles themselves. And none of which involve any sort of “chi” as it’s commonly defined by those who practice tai-chi or other ‘internal’ martial arts.

"Chi" when used in the classic tai chi sense refers to "leg strength". They are written in a jargon, a technical shorthand for people who have a clue about the subject, which discounts most western tai chi people and a shocking percentage of eastern.
Actually if you read the so-called Tai chi classics there is not a single reference to chi in them. Only "jing" - refined or trained strength.

[Wudang]

(btw... it is actually "quelLE surprisE" Wudang :) ).

Damn, you're right and I've also been pronouncing it wrong.

[JonnyFive]

I started Krav Maga here (http://www.kravmagainc.com/about.html) (as designed by Imi Lichenfeld and friends) in college (which I still do off and on, total of about four years), which is about as devoid of mystical ploppity plop as you can possibly get.

From my personal, totally biased perspective, all the mystical ploppity plop seems pretty worthless.

If by "internal strength" we're talking about chi energy and stuff like that (which I assume we are, as it's mentioned in that link), I think it's all a bunch of bunk. Martial arts, in my experience, are about physical ability, mental toughness, and technical skill.

I am not, however, a tenth level grand qi super master, so perhaps one could shed additional light on this subject.

[luchog]

The first time I can't recall, I'm afraid. The second I was wearing a t-shirt but the sleeve reached the elbow. I must admit to trying it around 20 times after my post and failing. Still, I definitely did it once with a t-shirt on! :)

It can be done fairly easily with the naked arm too. It works better as a palm-strike rather than a closed fist, since you can move a greater mass of air that way. particularly if you keep your fingers together and slightly cupped.

[luchog]

First, there are many ways to subdue an opponent. Aikido does not seem to be very good in that regard, since its techniques are not trained in a free sparring environment.

In theory, whether a training technique involves free sparring or not doesn't necessarily affect whether it's "good" or not. All that matters is if it works. In practice, free sparring is generally necessary to learn how to evaluate and react to an opponent in a real-world situation. However, that should come much later in the training, once one has already learned proper form and technique. Without the latter, the former is completely useless, and even potentially counterproductive, since it can teach bad habits or cause avoidable injury.

If your Aikido dojo doesn't include free sparring as part of the training, then you've got a bad dojo and need to find a new one. Unfortunately, there are bad dojos around. The problem with learning Aikido is that you'll spend a whole lot of time doing kata in order to avoid injuring yourself severely while sparring. A huge percentage of your early training is simply learning how to fall correctly.

And anyone who tells you that Aikido is "non-violent" either doesn't understand the art, or is trying to sell something. It is possible, and indeed the entire point of the art, to injure someone severely. The difference between Aikido and most other martial arts is that you're not attempting to injure your opponent, you're helping your opponent to injure himself.

[JonnyFive]

There are those in the forum that believe a person can learn how to fight without pressure testing (sparring). They are wrong, but those people are in the forum.

That's just moronic. There is nothing like being attacked by someone else, and sparring is the closest you can come to it in a relatively safe environment. There isn't any substitute for it, really... well, except for actually going out and getting into fights, but that has distinct disadvantages.

No matter how much you practice your skills in a controlled setting (i.e. with a partner, but with defined "we are going to do this technique" rules), it's nothing like the sheer chaos of free fighting. Suddenly all those well rehearsed techniques need to be adapted to what your opponent actually does, and the position you actually find yourself in. It's even more fun when grappling is involved (or potentially involved).

I'm not some martial arts master, but I know enough to know sparring is essential to learning any martial art (except those ones where you're not actually trying to defend yourself or anything).

Anyway, that's kind of off topic, but it's still a good point.

[Kaarjuus]

In practice, free sparring is generally necessary to learn how to evaluate and react to an opponent in a real-world situation. However, that should come much later in the training, once one has already learned proper form and technique.

Why? In my gym, when learning Brazilian jiu jitsu, we started free sparring almost from the get-go. You learn a technique, you practise it. Like swimming. Or, say, squash.

[JonnyFive]

Why? In my gym, when learning Brazilian jiu jitsu, we started free sparring almost from the get-go. You learn a technique, you practise it. Like swimming. Or, say, squash.

I tend to agree with this view. While I think that the intensity and complexity of sparring can and should be ramped up as the student increases in skill (this will be a natural consequence of knowing more about fighting, for one), I think it's important to begin it early in some form, so as to get some practical experience.

At least if you're teaching an art that considers itself to be a self-defense system. The student should begin learning how to apply their techniques in a relatively realistic, if limited, situation from early on.

If the art is primarily a sport art, or for fitness or something, then I don't think sparring is necessary at all (although it's a killer workout). However, it riles me up when those kind of schools slap "self defense!" onto their list of tags. It's dishonest to claim to teach self defense without really teaching word one about how to defend oneself in the real world.

[Bronze Dog]

I recognise martial arts for what it is, a discipline often undertaken with great skill, but when these guys start claiming all sorts it makes me wonder what's going on.

A while ago I saw some self-proclaimed master punch the air infront of a candle. The candle went out. He said that it was due to his projection of chi, and it had taken 10 years to learn. Initially I was impressed.

It wasn't until at least a year later I tried it myself. The candle went out on the 5th try. Just to prove to myself I hadn't misremembered I did it again now. This time it took about 10 tries, but I got there in the end. Chi energy? 10 years to learn? Riiiiight.

When someone can ignite a candle by punching at it, I'll be impressed. :D

[firecoins]

I haven't read the thread but I have experience here.

Internal strength is minsnomer. It isn't "strength". It is a comibination of balance & body movement. The combination of keeping your own balance and off balancing an opponent makes you "powerful" but it isn't strength.

[Wudang]

I haven't read the thread but I have experience here.

Internal strength is minsnomer. It isn't "strength". It is a comibination of balance & body movement. The combination of keeping your own balance and off balancing an opponent makes you "powerful" but it isn't strength.

Absolutely wrong. Those skills are useful but without strength they're worthless.

[JMA]

Absolutely wrong. Those skills are useful but without strength they're worthless.

"Worthless" is a big word. Of course if you have an athletic body, it's nice (especially if you want to date a lot of girl :p), but if you don't (and most of us don't, I must confess), having "balance & body movement" is quite nice and can be enough to get you out of trouble.

Anyway, in front of someone with a gun, even if you have an athletic body, you're dead, so...

And obviously, nobody will have an athletic body at 60 years old (even at 40 years old, you're already losing it). A figthing sport wich only is efficient when you are in your early 20ies, is not very motivating when you are not in your early 20ies anymore...

[firecoins]

Absolutely wrong. Those skills are useful but without strength they're worthless.
Really? You never done judo have you? Balance and off balancing are pretty good skills to have if you do judo. Try being strong without balance.

[Kaarjuus]

A figthing sport wich only is efficient when you are in your early 20ies, is not very motivating when you are not in your early 20ies anymore...

Which fighting sports would those be?

[Wudang]

Really? You never done judo have you? Balance and off balancing are pretty good skills to have if you do judo. Try being strong without balance.
I assume english isn't your native language otherwise you would have noticed that I said they are good skills. I've done judo thanks and Shuai Chiao and i repeat they're pretty worthless without strength.

[Wudang]

"Worthless" is a big word. Of course if you have an athletic body, it's nice (especially if you want to date a lot of girl :p), but if you don't (and most of us don't, I must confess), having "balance & body movement" is quite nice and can be enough to get you out of trouble.

Where did I say an athletic body? I said strength. And the situations where it can be enough are extremely restricted.

Anyway, in front of someone with a gun, even if you have an athletic body, you're dead, so...

So what? What if he doesn't have a (rule8ing) gun? Are you now going to argue that I shouldn't pay attention to possible collisions on the road because they won't help against an air strike?

And obviously, nobody will have an athletic body at 60 years old (even at 40 years old, you're already losing it). A figthing sport wich only is efficient when you are in your early 20ies, is not very motivating when you are not in your early 20ies anymore...
I'm 48 thanks and keeping fit is harder and harder and my belly is bigger than it should be. I'm still pretty strong though even though I don't have much time for CV work.

[casebro]

Internal strength? You mean like the Viking Berserker? Or anybody in a bar fight? They remind me of insane people- their faces even change. There is nothing holding them back, they are insane! I guess if you can foster that transition, you are using your "internal strength". Or you really, REALLY want to do somebody serious, no-holds-barred, bodily harm. I don't see that far-east mysticism has any corner on it.

It's why you can be mad(crazy, unreasonable) or mad (lose you temper, break things).

[Wudang]

What the OP refers to is explained here: http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/peng-index.htm

There's a fair bit of jargon involved and some crap references to "qi" as Mike unfortunately believes that if he was in a cynical frame of mind he wouldn't be open to common problems of expectancy and so on. Good mechanical engineer, crap psychologist.

[cgordon]

Why? In my gym, when learning Brazilian jiu jitsu, we started free sparring almost from the get-go. You learn a technique, you practise it. Like swimming. Or, say, squash.

Nothing at all wrong with that. It's very judo, in that way, BJJ is (especially as seeing that BJJ is really a stripped down version OF judo), and judo being the traditional art that it is, it emphasizes ALL aspects of martial practice, reishiki, kihon, kata, randori and so on.

Kano formulated judo specifically to conserve the old forms, which were in danger of dying out, in part, due to the onslaught of western attitudes and practices (boxing and wrestling got real popular in Japan in those days and in fact, many a jujutsu and judo practitioner made a living taking on all comers in the wrestling or boxing ring).

Where most modern (post Meiji) budo went wrong is targeting an educate-the-masses methodology in their curricula, and working hard to avoid injury at all costs. In most cases, the old schools concentrated on developing a small handful of students and left the mass training to the spearmen and foot soldiers (Point your spear THAT way Yoshi, and do NOT trip your squad-mate!).

The old arts realized and PRACTISED the idea that every technique must be tested. But they also knew that technical expertise could be amplified and enhanced by what many want to call 'dead' practices, such as static basics and repetitive forms drills. Anyone calling classicla arts dead in that context knows little or nothing about those systems.

Free-play is only one part of practical and thorough budo training.

If you can't do the basics and don't drill them, all the sparring in the world is just flailing about.

And yes, I'm a classicist. I do the old forms. Love 'em. And have also pursued CQC in a professional context (and have some scars and am missing a 1/3 of a collarbone to reflect my experiences in that realm).

My practice in the classical budo only ever enhanced my CQC and quite probably saved my life at least once, and maybe more times...

Those who disregard the classical budo (NOT modern karate, aikido, TKD and so on, by the way) in favor of the MMA paradigm are really only getting a small piece of the whole picture.

MMA methods are an excellent teaching paradigm, and have been exhaustively studied and implemented in many classical systems, but many folks who practice those classical arts have little or no interest in doing the (very nearly WWF style) competition seen in most MMA sport combat.

Competition in those terms is irrelevant to the goals of most classical arts. That's why you don't see those guys competing. It isn't interesting or relevant to what they're doing. I know, aside from my old bones, old injuries and bad attitude, I feel the same way.

When I was young, I loved competition, and competed avidly. Now, however, I care little for such, and prefer to focus on a different sort of accomplishment - my own, irrelevant and unconnected to whether I am the baddest mutha on the block.

Been there, done that, got some scars and a few pretty medals for my efforts (and $120 a month from the VA), and vastly prefer the slow and steady classical methodology to the flash and fast burn of 'modern' concepts.

YMMV, of course.

[This Guy]

SNIP

vastly prefer the slow and steady classical methodology to the flash and fast burn of 'modern' concepts.


My memory is a bit foggy on the details now, but Master Otsuka, the founder of the WADO system gave an interview to Black Belt magazine back in the late 60s or early 70s(he was born in 1892). In it he stated he got up every morning and spent, I believe, 1 hour working on one technique (one blow, kick, block, whatever). He would work on that one move for, I think he said, one week (might have been a month), then switch to another one. He also practiced walking through the busy Tokyo sidewalks, not allowing anyone to brush against him. Sidestepping, and weaving through the crowds.

Never got to meet the man, but knew several that had. From all I heard, he was a remarkable example of a true martial artist. Heard some descriptions of some demonstrations he gave from eye witnesses, that bordered on the woo, but I think can be explained by simply having trained himself to a such a fine degree that his ability to judge, and feel what his opponent was doing, or going to do was above anything most people are able to achieve. Not that they couldn't, just that most people don't spend the years/hours/days doing it.

Of course, having started his training at age 6 under his Uncle, by the 60s, he had invested a bit of time ;)

[firecoins]

I assume english isn't your native language otherwise you would have noticed that I said they are good skills. I've done judo thanks and Shuai Chiao and i repeat they're pretty worthless without strength.
I see you are into insults. How hard can you punch if you off balance? How far can you throw someone without proper technique? Without balance or proper body movement your strenght will greatly be reduced.

Royce Gracie beat stronger opponents in the early UFCs.

[Kaarjuus]

It's very judo, in that way, BJJ is (especially as seeing that BJJ is really a stripped down version OF judo)


In the sence that it skips stand-up, and throws out unnecessary parts like kata, yes.


and judo being the traditional art that it is, it emphasizes ALL aspects of martial practice, reishiki, kihon, kata, randori and so on.


All aspects of traditional Asian martial practice, you mean.

[cgordon]

In the sence that it skips stand-up, and throws out unnecessary parts like kata, yes.

The unnecessariness or not is a subject of much debate. In the end, it boils down to what each practitioner enjoys, desires and is interested in doing.

That's one of the problems of the debate itself ... there are as many reasons for studying a martial discipline as there are folks doing so.

When I was young (and engaged in professions that required immersion in actual violence), I wanted to be the baddest fighter on the block. Needed to be as tough, fast and violent as I could, for it was an issue of survival.

Now, old, broken down and tired, I don't see the need. I went there, got the t-shirt and some interesting tales to tell over beer, and don't need to go back. Besides, living in a non-third-world environment, in a non-police or (active) military profession, the chance of me ever needing to actually _fight_ are slim and none.

I'm perfectly happy to train classically, wearing funny clothes and studying the tactics and srtategies of Japanese medieval armed and unarmed combat systems. And as I said before, when I WAS engaged in professions of violence, and had to fight, my survival was as much a matter of things I had learned in the classical traditions as it was the CQC training I was doing. The two complemented each other in many ways.

If folks want to do nothing but go to the gym and fight, that's fine. Their business. I'm perfectly happy to let the MMA crowd do their thing. It's just another facet of martial practice. And, quite frankly, yes ... it's a lot of fun!

Where I get my pants in a wad is people who have neither real-world experience with violence or any actual classical martial training under their belts proclaiming what classical methodology can or cannot do in said violent situations and with folks who without a real point of reference for what traditional or classical arts are painting broad brush condemnations of the methods and practices.

All aspects of traditional Asian martial practice, you mean.

Pretty much, although some of the old European fighting schools used very similar methods to teach and train students.

And not all Asian systems follow the same patterns either.

[Wudang]

I see you are into insults. How hard can you punch if you off balance? How far can you throw someone without proper technique? Without balance or proper body movement your strenght will greatly be reduced.

Royce Gracie beat stronger opponents in the early UFCs.

No, I'm into people not constructing strawmen based on a (deliberate?) misreading of what I wrote.
Point out where I said they weren't good. I clearly said they were useful and you keep saying "no you're wrong they are useful".

[thaiboxerken]

Football teams scrimmage as part of training, as well as going through drills, tactics and techniques. I have to wonder why some martial artists think that scrimmaging isn't necessary.

[Jekyll]

"Chi" when used in the classic tai chi sense refers to "leg strength".
Have you got any sources for that? I've never seen it translated that way before it.
Actually if you read the so-called Tai chi classics there is not a single reference to chi in them. Only "jing" - refined or trained strength.
Sorry, this just isn't true. Of course the word chi can always be translated as breath in the context of these poems. There is no need for a belief in magic powers to understand them it's just extended metaphor.

[cgordon]

Football teams scrimmage as part of training, as well as going through drills, tactics and techniques. I have to wonder why some martial artists think that scrimmaging isn't necessary.

I have to wonder why some martial artists who have a very limited slice of knowledge feel the need to comment on areas in which they have no experience, much less expertise.

Sigh.

You actually training these days Ken, or just keeping up with the latest MMA competition videos?

[thaiboxerken]

No experience....... I only have 12 years of "no experience." One of my training partners was just featured on MSNBC's "Warrior Nation" series. But I have no idea what I'm talking about....

Oh, have you an argument besides ad-hom?

[Wudang]

Have you got any sources for that? I've never seen it translated that way before it.

I tried to track it down in my archives and failed. It was posted on either the neijia or 6H mailing lists and I'm fairly sure it was Chen Xiao Wang who said it but I could be wrong. Though see this
http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm

Sorry, this just isn't true. Of course the word chi can always be translated as breath in the context of these poems. There is no need for a belief in magic powers to understand them it's just extended metaphor.
You're right and I'm wrong. In fact the 3rd line of the Tai Chi Chuan Lun refers to Chi.
That's also why the chinese say a good fighter "has no chi" - i.e. he's so fit and relaxed you can't hear him breathing.

[cgordon]

No experience....... I only have 12 years of "no experience." One of my training partners was just featured on MSNBC's "Warrior Nation" series. But I have no idea what I'm talking about....

Oh, have you an argument besides ad-hom?

Hey, not ad hom, at least not specifically at YOU, Ken. However, if the shoe chafes ...

And as for my arguments, we've chased this all over the map in the 'Why do people still study traditional martial arts" thread.

Bottom line: I agree with your 'live-training' vs ''kata-based-training' to some degree, but still maintain that your (and many others on BOTH sides of the silly argument) are seriously limited. Both methodologies have value in their places, however, very few folks who seem to be wading in with guns blazing seem to have really done their research ...

And as for 12 years being a lot of experience ... it's okay. I'm coming up on my 33rd year of studying martial arts and combatives. At year 12, I though I knew a lot, too.

[cgordon]

A trenchant summary of the arguments:
http://www.comics.com/comics/fminus//archive/images/fminus20070146612119.gif

[Jekyll]

I tried to track it down in my archives and failed. It was posted on either the neijia or 6H mailing lists and I'm fairly sure it was Chen Xiao Wang who said it but I could be wrong. Though see this
http://www.iay.org.uk/internal-strength/related/interview.htm

Cool. Seeing it in a Japanese context makes a lot more sense, by the time the word 'qi' made it across it seems to have lost any link with the word breath. So you get Aikidoka obsessing over ki(which no one claims to understand) and kokyu or breath power as two separate entities.
You're right and I'm wrong. In fact the 3rd line of the Tai Chi Chuan Lun refers to Chi.
That's also why the chinese say a good fighter "has no chi" - i.e. he's so fit and relaxed you can't hear him breathing.
You get marks for admitting it, and I hadn't heard that saying before. Thanks.

[Wudang]

Cool. Seeing it in a Japanese context makes a lot more sense, by the time the word 'qi' made it across it seems to have lost any link with the word breath. So you get Aikidoka obsessing over ki(which no one claims to understand) and kokyu or breath power as two separate entities.

You get marks for admitting it, and I hadn't heard that saying before. Thanks.

I only dabbled with aikido (great instructor, students made my knuckles itchy) so can't comment. The Mike Sigman I quoted above did a lot of aikido and tentatively suggested that the ki in aikido may have come from some practices in the religious school O'sensei belonged to. It wasn't something I was interested in so stored in memory even less reliably.

[thaiboxerken]

Bottom line: I agree with your 'live-training' vs ''kata-based-training' to some degree, but still maintain that your (and many others on BOTH sides of the silly argument) are seriously limited. Both methodologies have value in their places, however, very few folks who seem to be wading in with guns blazing seem to have really done their research ...

I just figure that if kata had enough value to be necessary, then all fighters would do it. Since very few thaiboxers, wrestlers and BJJ practitioners do it, it's probably not necessary. Sparring, however, is a necessary component to become adept at fighting. Kata is drill, yes, and I guess it could have value. But it's definitely not an important drill, not as important as others.

[luchog]

I tend to agree with this view. While I think that the intensity and complexity of sparring can and should be ramped up as the student increases in skill (this will be a natural consequence of knowing more about fighting, for one), I think it's important to begin it early in some form, so as to get some practical experience.

At least if you're teaching an art that considers itself to be a self-defense system. The student should begin learning how to apply their techniques in a relatively realistic, if limited, situation from early on.

This is true, but the question is when to start free sparring; and this will vary considerably depending on the art. Something like Aikido, which is based on leveraged throws and joint locks, requires far more time to master the techniques before free sparring, because of the risk of serious injury. Something like Karate or Kung Fu, which primarily involve striking, can begin sparring earlier, becasue of the availability of adequate safety gear to prevent serious injury.

[luchog]

I just figure that if kata had enough value to be necessary, then all fighters would do it. Since very few thaiboxers, .

Not sure what Thai boxers you've known, but all the ones I've known have started out with technique drills.

[thaiboxerken]

Your attempt to equivocate Kata with learning technique is rather pathetic.

[JonnyFive]

This is true, but the question is when to start free sparring; and this will vary considerably depending on the art. Something like Aikido, which is based on leveraged throws and joint locks, requires far more time to master the techniques before free sparring, because of the risk of serious injury. Something like Karate or Kung Fu, which primarily involve striking, can begin sparring earlier, becasue of the availability of adequate safety gear to prevent serious injury.

Yeah, that is a pretty good point.

[T'ai Chi]

So it looks like the voters agree that the person's brand of "internal" is really just regular old external strength.

Yup. Me too.

[Wudang]

I didn't vote as you haven't defined "regular strength".

[AgingYoung]

Anyone that can develop their chi to the extent Bruce Lee did will become a formidable opponent. You'll know when you are at par with that level. You will be able to do a two finger one arm push up. When you're at that level of chi you really don't need to know much technique.

If anyone would like to develop their chi (or internal muscular mechanics) to that degree it's a simple matter. Every day, for the next ten years, take a step. That journey of 1000 miles begins with a single one armed pushup. Never let up. Tha tha tha that's all, grasshoppers.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

I don’t know whether it was adrenaline or mental focus that made him able to lift it when he hadn’t before but I suppose ...

Hello Dustin,

It might be the two are the same thing. My opinion of any mental state is that it's an electro-chemical entity. In a certain e-c state or focus you could release the chemical adrenaline that would boost your physical ability. People that are on pcp have an extremely enhanced physical ability. Chemicals (ie pcp or adrenaline) effect your strength.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

I don't know if it's ever been mentioned before so I'm going to take this opportunity to mention it. Chi just might be the ability to control the release adrenaline at will. A similar phenomenon could be people that have the ability to control the rate of their heart beat. That just might be the explanation of what some have termed chi.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

I had some more thoughts on this so I decided to post them. If my supposition is true that chi is the ability of people to release adrenaline then ancient people would have noticed that. They would have noticed that two seemingly equal opponents were obviously unmatched. They explained it in terms of 'chi'. Today we are attempting to understand 'chi' from their perspective. That might not be the best way to fully understand the idea. If you could train to release adrenaline at will you could call it ‘chi’ or what ever. Adrenaline by any other name will cause you to move like greased lightening.

Gene

[Wudang]

No, if you want a readable treatment of what the word Chi means/meant try http://www.amazon.com/Shorter-Science-Civilisation-China-Abridgement/dp/0521292867/sr=8-2/qid=1169803922/ref=sr_1_2/103-1649691-7683817?ie=UTF8&s=books
Oddly enough a lot of this stuff got written down, a little obscurely sure, but there are people who understand how to disambiguate the terms used.

[AgingYoung]

Wudang,

I see you're saying 'no', but I don't know who you're talking to.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

All a person's strength is internal. Another aspect of that strength is Tendon reflex. What I've heard is that the feed back system between the muscle and the tendon is a function of the cross-sectional area of the tendon. When you stress the tendons they increase in cross-section and can give the same muscle mass more apparent strength.

Gene

[T'ai Chi]

I didn't vote as you haven't defined "regular strength".

It is the default position. 45 people who voted seemed to have no difficulty understanding this.

As opposed to those who posit another type of strength different from muscle, bones, efficient movement, timing, etc. Ie. people like you, perhaps?

[Jekyll]

It is the default position.

As opposed to those who posit another type of strength different from muscle, bones, efficient movement, timing, etc.

People like you.

This article sums up Wudang's teacher's attitude to the magic in some tai chi.

http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/articles/the_water_margin.html

Now let's talk about your t'ai chi, T'ai Chi.

You don't spar, you don't wrestle. As far as I can tell you don't do pushing hands, you certainly don't do what Wudang and I would consider pushing hands. You've shown no knowledge of what the movements in the form actually mean. Sort your own training out before telling people what they do and don't think.

That aside, I do almost agree with you on this one. Internal strength(or jing to give it is trendy name) is just good conditioning and good structure.

[T'ai Chi]

This article sums up Wudang's teacher's attitude to the magic in some tai chi.


And...?


Now let's talk about your t'ai chi, T'ai Chi.


Why? What does my views of taiji have to do with me asking people to vote in a poll about supposed different kinds of strength? Nothing.


You don't spar, you don't wrestle. As far as I can tell you don't do pushing hands,


You have no clue what I do or do not do. In fact, you seem to make up stuff as you go about people. Is this how you intend to represent your teacher? :)

One thing I don't do, is pretend "internal" is different from regular ol strength. You've admitted you do give it another term. Why? Marketing?

[cgordon]

Your attempt to equivocate Kata with learning technique is rather pathetic.

Which just tells me that you know nothing (still) about what 'kata' really is.

You're still stuck in the mindset that kata is the solo handwaving so many modern MA practice (see XMA and musical kata, for instance).

In the classical sense, kata has little at all to do with your notions, and is, I suspect, probably far beyond your desire to actually learn anything at all about.

Not everyone is you (thank goodness) and not everyone has the same goals and ideals you have (however skewed they may be). That's what makes the world go 'round, I suppose.

[Jekyll]

Why? What does my views of taiji have to do with me asking people to vote in a poll about supposed different kinds of strength? Nothing.
But you haven't just asked people what they think. You've posted your little article and before I interrupted you were busy telling Wudang what he really thought.

You have no clue what I do or do not do. In fact, you seem to make up stuff as you go about people. Is this how you intend to represent your teacher? :)
No, this is how I represent myself. Feel free to correct any mis-apprehensions I have about your training.

One thing I don't do, is pretend "internal" is different from regular ol strength. You've admitted you do give it another term. Why? Marketing?
Firstly, no one talks about theory in class, we just get on with training. The internet's the place for all this theorizing marlarky.

Secondly using your body correctly is different from conditioning it well. Knowing how to use it is more than just "regular ol strength" there's a reason you don't see winners of the worlds strongest man competition dominating in boxing and wrestling, or power lifters necessarily doing that well in strongest man competitions and that reason is skill.

[T'ai Chi]

But you haven't just asked people what they think.

So you're mistaken again. Par for the course.


Secondly using your body correctly is different from conditioning it well. Knowing how to use it is more than just "regular ol strength" there's a reason you don't see winners of the worlds strongest man competition dominating in boxing and wrestling, or power lifters necessarily doing that well in strongest man competitions and that reason is skill.

Obviously. But again, we have someone like you waxing romantic about regular ol skill, calling it something different like 'internal'. Why do you feel the need to try to invent a new category of strength when the old ones work perfectly well?

[Jekyll]

So you're mistaken again. Par for the course.
How so?


Obviously. But again, we have someone like you waxing romantic about regular ol skill, calling it something different like 'internal'. Why do you feel the need to try to invent a new category of strength when the old ones work perfectly well?

What are you driveling about? You ask what internal strength is. People tell you. You fail to understand and then complain that they're using the words internal in reference to your question.

The internal strength you are going on about is neither just "regular ol skill" nor just "regular ol strength". It's a mixture of both. If you actually bothered with either your Chinese language lessons or your tai chi lessons as you claim to do you might understand this; Jin as in pengjin (one of the tags you used) refers to trained force.

[Wudang]

It is the default position. 45 people who voted seemed to have no difficulty understanding this.

Or perhaps like you aren't terribly knowledgeable on the subject.

As opposed to those who posit another type of strength different from muscle, bones, efficient movement, timing, etc. Ie. people like you, perhaps?

So that's "regular strength"? Okay. Internal strength is muscle trained in a particular way and using some interesting tricks of relaxation etc.

[thaiboxerken]

You're still stuck in the mindset that kata is the solo handwaving so many modern MA practice (see XMA and musical kata, for instance).

That is the common definition. So yes, I'm "stuck" in that mindset. Anything else is not "kata" according to that common usage.

[T'ai Chi]

Or perhaps like you aren't terribly knowledgeable on the subject.


Perhaps all 46 people aren't knowledgeable. Perhaps you are the only knowledgeable one here. But probably not.


Internal strength is muscle trained in a particular way and using some interesting tricks of relaxation etc.

Can you point to a video of someone using what you brand internal strength so we can see how it is different from regular ol strength?

[Wudang]

Can you point to a video of someone using what you brand internal strength so we can see how it is different from regular ol strength?

Not on the net that I can find but videos by Mike Sigman, Chen Xiao Wang, Ren Guang Yi to name a few.

[AgingYoung]

When I was a young wrestler I was at a tournament and watched one of the experienced wrestlers walking around in a corner. When I got near him I noticed he was talking to himself. :) I thought he was nuts! The expression is 'he was psyching himself up'. I've since learned (from my sensei spirit guide) that mental state is a determining factor in physical ability. It is possible that ability can be turned on and off at will. I can't do it to any noticeable degree.

There are cases where someone sees a loved one being hurt and they rise to an incredible level of strength or endurance. It might be that some people can just visualize such a circumstance and it has the same effect. If there's anything external that changes a person's physical ability I would say it could only be seeing someone you love in serious distress. Any change in your ability having seen that is intrinsic to the person; it's internal.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

video here

http://www.robisen.com/index.cfm/2006/10/9/New-Ren-Guang-Yi-Video

You can watch that video and see some amazing power.

Gene

[Wudang]

I watched the start and you can't really see that much. I hate those silk pyjamas as they make it difficult to see the muscle usage.

[AgingYoung]

Several things stand out in my mind when I watch it. One is flexibility. Another is the apparent strength and fluid motion regardless of where his center of gravity is. I noticed a few corrections he made in his stance but over all it was an excellent demonstration. A third thing is the pronounced focus of force when he 'wiggles' at times.

I haven't done this yet but I'm going to follow along in his motion. If you do that, Wudang, you should get a good idea of what muscles are in play. I suspect in my case I'll be using muscles that don't even exist!

Gene

eta: I tried keeping up with that dancing fool. After a very poor imitation half way thru I had to take a break. :)

[Wudang]

I haven't done this yet but I'm going to follow along in his motion. If you do that, Wudang, you should get a good idea of what muscles are in play.

No, I'll get a good idea of what muscles I think are in play and be prey to the same self-perception disorder that has so screwed up neijia.

[SirPhilip]

Find what interesting exactly? Pretending "internal" is something different from "external"? It isn't different, but involves a very different psychophysical approach which is not known in the West, and probably never will be except by ancedote. Only a handful of people actually teach genuine "internal" styles, and all schools have airtight restrictions about accepting anyone, and are closed-door. It sounds cliche, but they do exist. Don't go looking for one though. All of them are nondescript philosophical and eastern religious sects, and employ a very rigorous emphasis on sitting yogic techniques to gain greater control over the body during conscious activity. Certain aspects of sparring and fighting is a way this is measured.

[Wudang]

It isn't different, but involves a very different psychophysical approach which is not known in the West, and probably never will be except by ancedote. Only a handful of people actually teach genuine "internal" styles, and all schools have airtight restrictions about accepting anyone, and are closed-door. It sounds cliche, but they do exist. Don't go looking for one though. All of them are nondescript philosophical and eastern religious sects, and employ a very rigorous emphasis on sitting yogic techniques to gain greater control over the body during conscious activity. Certain aspects of sparring and fighting is a way this is measured.

Bollocks. People like Chen Xiao Wang teach openly. I am not aware of any internal style that teaches yogic sitting and that includes the obscurer styles like Luhobafa. In fact sitting is precisely what you shouldn't do. First thing is standing - Zhan Zhuang.

[T'ai Chi]

It isn't different,


I agree. 93.88% also say it is not different.

From observation, it seems that talking about bowling, going to the bathroom, fixing a car, etc., no mention of 'internal strength' is mentioned. It only seems to crop up when talking about martial arts.

[T'ai Chi]

Not on the net that I can find but videos by Mike Sigman, Chen Xiao Wang, Ren Guang Yi to name a few.

Most likely, they'll be doing stuff that

a) can be described by regular ol strength just fine, and

b) won't be actual free fighting, but static applications

Any video clips of someone bowling using what you call 'internal strength'?

[SirPhilip]

Bollocks. People like Chen Xiao Wang teach openly.

The few schools that teach real internal techniques are closed-door, and are related to eastern mystical (mythical) lineages. The only known, credible person I know of who teaches (http://www.taichiaustralia.com/Interview%20With%20Jane%20Yao.htm) "openly" in the U.S is Jane Yao (http://www.sifuyao.com/). I believe her basic classes are free, which is generally indicative of the real thing. Don't bug her for a demonstration though.

I am not aware of any internal style that teaches yogic sitting and that includes the obscurer styles like Luhobafa. In fact sitting is precisely what you shouldn't do. First thing is standing - Zhan Zhuang. To accomplish what. External schools use techniques mainly for fitness with a focus on competitive fighting or dancing, internal ones involve arcane psychosomatic processes, and only practice sparring as a balance factor.

[SirPhilip]

You can watch that video and see some amazing power. Gene Yawn, or fall asleep. This is power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbUDmCJ5Vg).

[AgingYoung]

SirPhilip,
:)

Mentally visualizing a movement helps you increase your reflex. The quick snapping movement seen in the video if practiced regularly should cause the tendons used to slightly tear down then rebuild with greater cross sectional area. I think that type of training can be over down. I read about a weight lifter that used it that seriously ripped a tendon.

If you could figure out an emotional state that would release adrenaline you could possibly link that state to some simple trigger. You might develop the ability to instantly put yourself into that mind set that would cause the adrenaline to flow.

I've wrestled guys that seemed to be as physically built as I was yet they mopped the mats up with me. It always amazed me to get stomped so badly by someone that looked to be in about the same shape as I was. That happened at an invitational regional tournament and another time at the freestyle national tournament (aau). I think the difference between me and these clearly superior opponents was the way they would psyche themselves up, the way their muscle was distributed (more in the forearms, backs and legs) and finally that cross section of the tendon.

I think if you spent a lifetime working on those areas you would clearly be superior to someone that looked to be about your size.

Gene

[Wudang]

The few schools that teach real internal techniques are closed-door, and are related to eastern mystical (mythical) lineages. The only known, credible person I know of who teaches (http://www.taichiaustralia.com/Interview%20With%20Jane%20Yao.htm) "openly" in the U.S is Jane Yao (http://www.sifuyao.com/). I believe her basic classes are free, which is generally indicative of the real thing. Don't bug her for a demonstration though.

To accomplish what. External schools use techniques mainly for fitness with a focus on competitive fighting or dancing, internal ones involve arcane psychosomatic processes, and only practice sparring as a balance factor.
Oh please, learn a little before you post. She teaches Wu Jien Chuan style, it's a very well known lineage and his grandkids teach openly and his daughters book on his style is well-known. Other Wu lineage guys like Wang Pei Sheng teach openly. And those guys did not spar as "a balance factor", they sparred because that was the point.
Half my style is "closed door", BFD.

[SirPhilip]

Oh please, learn a little before you post. She teaches Wu Jien Chuan style, it's a very well known lineage and his grandkids teach openly and his daughters book on his style is well-known. Other Wu lineage guys like Wang Pei Sheng teach openly. And those guys did not spar as "a balance factor", they sparred because that was the point.
Half my style is "closed door", BFD. If so, I'm surprised you've failed to distinguish Ch'i Kung from Nei Kung. What you describe is common, external Ch'i Kung. Ch'i Kung forms the basis of Nei Kung, which doesn't begin until a specific point, often decades. Internal schools are not 'fighting' schools, per se. Their practices are akin to European occultism with a naturalistic/mystical slant.

[SirPhilip]

I've wrestled guys that seemed to be as physically built as I was yet they mopped the mats up with me. Very good description. Yeah, some of them are very over the top. Bruce Lee being a well-known example. You could say it's the Asian version of hyperathleticism in the west.

[Wudang]

If so, I'm surprised you've failed to distinguish Ch'i Kung from Nei Kung. What you describe is common, external Ch'i Kung. Ch'i Kung forms the basis of Nei Kung, which doesn't begin until a specific point, often decades. Internal schools are not 'fighting' schools, per se. Their practices are akin to European occultism with a naturalistic/mystical slant.

If you're trying to equate "nei kung" with taoist internal alchemy all I can say is that it's a rather unusual distiction and quite at odds with the normal use of "nei kung". And what I describe is not normal external Ch'i Kung though they can be the end result of conditioning.
I can only assume that you are taking your instructor's word blindly for these idiosyncratic definitions. They are, in my experience, merely smoke and mirrors for a lack of actual results.
Look, FFS, read up on Wu Jin Chuan's life. Maybe start with one of Wile's books or Ma Yueh-Liang's or Wang Pei-SHeng's.

[Wudang]

and finally that cross section of the tendon.

Do you usually disect your opponent to measure the cros-section of their tendons? Talk about a bad loser ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

If so, I'm surprised you've failed to distinguish Ch'i Kung from Nei Kung. What you describe is common, external Ch'i Kung. Ch'i Kung forms the basis of Nei Kung, which doesn't begin until a specific point, often decades. Internal schools are not 'fighting' schools, per se. Their practices are akin to European occultism with a naturalistic/mystical slant.

Where to you get this stuff, ninja magazines?

[SirPhilip]

Where to you get this stuff, ninja magazines? It's fairly well known that they exist, mostly as a historical curiosity. I use 'fairly' optimistically. Research it, although you probably won't find anything to correlate to what I described, unless you have first hand knowledge of people who know of them.

[SirPhilip]

If you're trying to equate "nei kung" with taoist internal alchemy all I can say is that it's a rather unusual distiction and quite at odds with the normal use of "nei kung".

Nei Kung roughly translates to "internal work" or "internal power". Kung Fu, likewise "difficult work". So there isn't much context even between these two terms. ("I'm a master at hard work..", "I'm a hard work master", "I practice a special form of hard work..").

And what I describe is not normal external Ch'i Kung though they can be the end result of conditioning. I can only assume that you are taking your instructor's word blindly for these idiosyncratic definitions. I'm not a practitioner. I get into enough trouble without dancing around in a park wearing pajamas and slippers making graceful gestures and animal postures. My hats' off to any straight man who tries to pull that in a San Francisco park daily, though.


They are, in my experience, merely smoke and mirrors for a lack of actual results. Look, FFS, read up on Wu Jin Chuan's life. Maybe start with one of Wile's books or Ma Yueh-Liang's or Wang Pei-SHeng's. Ch'i Kung is a form of physical fitness which employs styles and techniques. Nei Kung is eastern mysticism on wheels, and revolves around being able to push it out of the body. Since, despite the many schools, styles, techniques, teachers, and students, nobody can even demonstrate it's simple presence in the body, which is the point as a prerequisite to Nei Kung, that should give you some perspective.

[Wudang]

Nei Kung roughly translates to "internal work" or "internal power". Kung Fu, likewise "difficult work". So there isn't much context even between these two terms. ("I'm a master at hard work..", "I'm a hard work master", "I practice a special form of hard work..").

And this shows what exactly?

I'm not a practitioner.

That is obvious.

Ch'i Kung is a form of physical fitness which employs styles and techniques. Nei Kung is woo on wheels, and revolves around being able to push it out of the body. Since, despite the many schools, styles, techniques, teachers, and students, nobody can even demosntrate it's simple presence in the body - which is what Ch'i Kung revolves around, that should give you some perspective on it actually is.
[/quote]
Ch'i kung is a fairly new label for "Dao yin" and "Tu na" and can even be used to describe more esoteric practices such as cultivation of the etheric ch'i etc. It's the sort fo nebulous term that lends itself to snake oil salesmen and charlatans. Many people also try to make "nei kung" nebulous as it makes it easier to market their own crap on the back of it.
Nei kung is not "lim kong king" or emitted or etheric ch'i. Nobody can demonstrate nei kungs presence in the body any more than they can demonstrate the presence of cartwheels in the body. It's something you do.

[AgingYoung]

Wudang,

You have to know how frustrating it is. When you tie up with someone and you start to move around then notice they have a grip on your head and aren't turning it loose... You know you've lost before it even starts.

Here is a good blog on strength training and tendons.
http://beastskills.blogspot.com/2005/02/tendon-strength.html

I don't think the body is that much of a mystery. Muscle mass isn't the deciding factor in strength. I think muscle is what is meant in this thread by 'regular strength'. If 'internal strength' means tendon or that control system over muscle then I would agree that there's a difference between the two. I really don't think it's so mysterious that you need some direction from some ancient wisdom to acquire and perfect it.

Gene

[SirPhilip]

That is obvious. Ad-hominem penalty. I know what I'm talking about. Ch'i Kung and Nei Kung are historically based on vitalism and eastern mysticism. All lineages recognize this. They don't openly teach Nei Kung. You are indignant because you think your school teaches actual Nei Kung. You also are incorrectly defining Nei Kung as being simply physical exercises/techniques, when it never was anything of the sort.

Ch'i kung is a fairly new label for "Dao yin" and "Tu na" and can even be used to describe more esoteric practices such as cultivation of the etheric ch'i etc. It's the sort fo nebulous term that lends itself to snake oil salesmen and charlatans. Again, you are pretending they aren't based on concepts of vitalism and other principles, completely unrelated to western notions of physical fitness and body function.

Many people also try to make "nei kung" nebulous as it makes it easier to market their own crap on the back of it. If a school claims to practice Nei Kung, which means "internal work" (connoting yoga), they are claiming to be able to directly harness or manipulate "Ch'i" to perform work while fighting.

Nei kung is not "lim kong king" or emitted or etheric ch'i. Nobody can demonstrate nei kungs presence in the body any more than they can demonstrate the presence of cartwheels in the body. It's something you do. This conflicts with the historical basis, principle, and theory surrounding it and what people who actually hold positions in lineages define it as. The concept of "Ch'i", a type of vital force, is well established as the single purpose for both activities. If you go up to any one of these lineage holders and flatly ask why they don't regard it as a token form of physical fitness and simple dance, and don't get a straight answer, that is why.

[Wudang]

Here is a good blog on strength training and tendons.
http://beastskills.blogspot.com/2005/02/tendon-strength.html

I'll have a look later, thanks

I don't think the body is that much of a mystery. Muscle mass isn't the deciding factor in strength. I think muscle is what is meant in this thread by 'regular strength'. If 'internal strength' means tendon or that control system over muscle then I would agree that there's a difference between the two. I really don't think it's so mysterious that you need some direction from some ancient wisdom to acquire and perfect it.

Gene

To me "internal strength" is just how the msucles reinforce each other. You see some guys who train on nautilus stuff who have monster biceps but can't curl a modest free weight because the reinforcing muscles can't handle it. Different ways of holding your body train different patterns of that reinforcing and some of them seem a bit weird to the untrained eye, just like a good experienced judoka can seem like a magician to the untrained eye.
You don't need direction from ancient wisdom, you need a few pointers to get you started (for most people) then there's a lot you can figure out for yourself.

[Wudang]

Terms: if you think that a western boxer and a wing chun guy throw a punch with the same mechanism, you'll think that internal and external strength are the same thing. If you don't, you should accept that external and internal strength are different. And of course, a lot of the time, it will depend on the conversation you're having. A strong judoka might have a weak punch, does that mean he lacks strength? We could coin the term "boxing strength" as a shorthand for what he lacks but if it's not recognized by boxers as a convenient shorthand it's no use.
Within the traditional martial arts community (and I don't mean karate schools invented last Tuesday) the term "internal strength" has a history of use and abuse, just like quantum mechanics. Some people take the internal too literally, which is one reason I sometimes prefer to call it "leg strength" except then every rugby player in the world would be offended if I said he lacked "leg strength" and I'd rather upset 10 tai chi "players" than 1 prop forward.

[T'ai Chi]

Some people take the internal too literally, which is one reason I sometimes prefer to call it "leg strength"
..


So "internal" really means just using muscle in the legs? WTF?

Readers, also check out

http://ofinterest.net:16080/ttr/

A page that debunks a so-called test for internal strength (ie. just using the leg and arm muscle).

[Wudang]

So "internal" really means just using muscle in the legs? WTF?

No, but it emphasises the key point. The leg muscles are the root.
ETA: "internal strength" is using leg muscles in the same way that sex is applying friction to your genitals. The details are important, as the guy with belt sander found out.

Readers, also check out

http://ofinterest.net:16080/ttr/

A page that debunks a so-called test for internal strength (ie. just using the leg and arm muscle).

Pity that it's written by a liar. Mike does not claim "no movement whatsoever", the claim is to not withdraw your shoulder or hand. The sad thing is that a lot of people who have been teaching tai chi for many years can't do this simple trick of pushing with your leg through the back and not have to chamber to do it. That's the root of "brush knee" in every tai chi style whether compact or large and whether you open or close.
Yes, it's trivial. It's the equivalent of asking a boxer to jab. If he can't jab without chambering he's a phoney. Most tai chi teachers are phoneys and phoneys at that level.

[SirPhilip]

I definitely agree that martial arts schools have a very high noise-to-signal ratio, whether it be pragmatic significance or esoteric. Few deliver on the former, and the latter is something of legends. Far rarer are the handful that actually practice the two together. It's important to understand what a pure external school is. A near perfect example is the Gracie's. No legacy code there, except which is written in competition all the time, and they could easily claim to be "special", given their ridiculous record. Any school which teaches external arts with an esoteric basis, is almost always either a form of aerobics or a confused confluence of historical cliches to varying degrees. Jane Yao, by contrast, is representative of a non-descript Nei Kung practitioner.

[Wudang]

No, Jane Yao is not a "non-descript nei kung practitioner", she describes herself as a teacher of Wu Jin Chuan and Hao style tai chi chuan, both well-known and well-understood lineages.
I agree that Gracie jujitsu is not an internal style.
If by "legend" you mean half history and half made-up, I'm here giving the history side.

[Modified]

Anyone that can develop their chi to the extent Bruce Lee did will become a formidable opponent. You'll know when you are at par with that level. You will be able to do a two finger one arm push up. When you're at that level of chi you really don't need to know much technique.

I used to be able to do that, but it wasn't because of my "chi"; it was because I was skinny and wiry like Bruce Lee (plus I have big hands and thick finger bones - don't know if that was the case with Bruce). Now that I'm 50 lbs heavier and have the same size finger bones, I doubt that any amount of training that didn't involve losing weight would allow me to do that without damage, but I have no doubt that the current me could throw around the former me like a sack of potatoes.

[Bubblefish]

Anyone with some exposure to the martial arts has heard about 'external' and 'internal' martial arts.

I wrote this up recently on the issue

http://www.statisticool.com/internal.htm

Is their vector theory the best they can do? It isn't really a convincing theory I must say.


I think the vector theory is appropiate, but not complete. True, vectors are used in martial arts. The internal martial arts, as I understand them from years of practice, develop not only a sensativity so one can 'feel' the vectors of nature 'flow' around them (which I often wonder if this sensativity of vectors is 'qi') but also transform the bones and facia (sp?) to conform to these vectors, transforming body alignment to be in harmony with the 'vectors' of nature.

The 'internal' strength of the internal arts (four ounces can move two thousand pounds) is not the same as physical strength at all, it's more to do with aligning the 'vectors' of the opponent, so one simply moves the 'center' of the opponent in the direction of thier 'vector', which requires very little strength at all.
The 'center' is 'yin', and it's very soft and easy to move when one can 'feel' it. However, to feel it takes some years and years of practice, and the internal arts develop this sensativity which external arts do not, at least not overtly.

[SirPhilip]

No, Jane Yao is not a "non-descript nei kung practitioner", she describes herself as a teacher of Wu Jin Chuan and Hao style tai chi chuan, both well-known and well-understood lineages.

She doesn't teach or demonstrate Nei Kung openly. None of the lineage holders, or anyone else, does either (except in private). She teaches Ch'i Kung.

I agree that Gracie jujitsu is not an internal style. If by "legend" you mean half history and half made-up, I'm here giving the history side. Chinese legends are replete with warrior sages with supranatural capabilites. They've carried over to popular culture well. Chinese medicine, and styles such as Ch'i Kung and Tai Chi Chuan (among others) are based on them. It's a bit strange, don't you think, that they regard them with such high distinction?

[Wudang]

She doesn't teach or demonstrate Nei Kung openly. None of the lineage holders, or anyone else, does either (except in private). She teaches Ch'i Kung.

And you're privy to this secret how?

Chinese legends are replete with warrior sages with supranatural capabil