Real or Fake?

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 03:43 PM

I remember watching that video some time ago and I feel no different now than when I first watched it:

"... Oh, great, another one."

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 04:25 PM

Quote:

hey, that's awesome for your dad, but i dare say he's the exception, rather than the rule.

well, I think there is always a genetic component, but taking care of yourself is a vital aspect. His father lived to 94 and swam everyday, and played golf once a week.

you cant defend the techniques of one, highly regarded old Chinese master as being applicable in the real world, and then play the 'exception to the rule card' for something else

If that guy had someone who didnt wish him honour as an attacker, the only thing he would be pushing would be '911' for an ambulance; and letting others 'buy in' to his illusion helps no one.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 05:18 PM

Quote:

My Dad is 81 this year. He taught me how to punch when I was a kid. He still has a better right cross than I have felt from anyone in my savate classes, and works a heavy bag like a demon. Maybe this guy wouldnt be as frail if he had actually had to overcome some resistance in the last 30 years?

Your Dad is awesome Cord and is not the acception but everybody has the ability to do this if they want; people are just too lazy. I will not be one of those lazy people and I hope when I'm your father's age I'm still doing what I'm doing today.

You are 100% correct when you said resistance. Like said on here over and over, resistance is required as if you have no resistance in your training then you will never truly understand technique let alone apply them. An assailant will be applying resistance and this guy and any of his students at their prime would be "destroyed" in seconds using this crap. Actually I apologize, crap is more useful then this stuff and I should never have compared it to crap.

Teachers that teach this, students that perpetuate that this stuff is real; and people that believe this stuff works and actually voted on here as "true" ... I have no words for you as I'd hate to compare something that may be useful.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 07:11 PM

The answer to the original question is so painfully obvious that I lose martial respect for any posters who think otherwise.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 07:25 PM

Quote:

you cant defend the techniques of one, highly regarded old Chinese master as being applicable in the real world, and then play the 'exception to the rule card' for something else

i'm not sure how they're even remotely the same.

Quote:

If that guy had someone who didnt wish him honour as an attacker, the only thing he would be pushing would be '911' for an ambulance; and letting others 'buy in' to his illusion helps no one.

again, the 80+ man who can still defend himself empty handed is the rarity, and not the norm, regardless of skill level.

and i think you guys are missing the forest for the trees.

there's nothing mystical going on here. he's just showing some basic skills for moving around the point of contact and manipulating the opponents balance, but it's done with "laorenjia" (old man flavor) and the exaggerated response from his students.

the resistance comes when you pair up with a young partner and train, not with the old man. come on. you're not going to roll with helio and go full bore. the guy's a thousand years old, but he can still show you some cool stuff.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 07:59 PM

I think Ashe makes a valid point re: cultural norms. I can understand his position in that the instructor isn't intending to demo against full resistance. But the problem remains, that when others (of any culture) see this type of thing, they may believe it as shown. Apparently some on this forum do. How is anyone to know where the "respect" line ends and the "functional" line begins?

And if it's understood that this demo cannot be done for real, then how is it a good representation of IMA?

FWIW, I have seen some videos of Ashe's instructor, and while I don't know if what he does is "internal" or not, that sh1t looked very real to me.

BTW - Who were the two that voted that it was real? I would like to understand your position, please.

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 08:23 PM

Quote:

The answer to the original question is so painfully obvious that I lose martial respect for any posters who think otherwise.

Agreed. I am sick of stuff like this, and I am super sick of people actually believing it. Including Aikido 5 on 1 demonstrations where everyone falls over, some not even being touched. or any of that ki blast george dillman crap.
If anyone is offended by this post. then they can get stuffed.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 09:14 PM

first thing I look for in video like this are the 'other' clues to help judge it's context. The video is advertising a website:
http://www.qigonghealingtreatment.com
and
http://www.qigonghealingtreatment.com/TieLao.htm

first clue: notice in this picture (captioned 'diciples'), the players are the same as in the video: http://www.qigonghealingtreatment.com/images/TieLao09.jpg
(they are even wearing the same clothes as in the video). The hands interlocking makes me believe a perhaps father/son relationship.

clue 2: books and video
http://www.qigonghealingtreatment.com/images/TieLao01.jpg

clue 3: from the main page, we get the name "Pang Ming" and google-fu that baby to produce this reference:
http://www.lifeqicenter.com/ZhinengQigong.html

and you get the picture. with so much product advertisement, referral awards, over-priced retreats, healing centers, etc which surround these interconnected groups, you watch the video again with new eyes.

realize, the people being thrown in Matt's video reference are not just anybody. they are students and/or family of the old man. That added info alone should give a little lean in judgement towards 'respectful cooperation' as being at least part of their reaction to his demonstration.
Add to that the knowledge that these groups are advertising the Pang Ming commercial TCM empire, and the lean of judgement to the video is further tilted towards 'willful deception' as being at least a possible motive. since, "more effective looking" = "more business" = "more money".

to me, that spells a context in which the video was likely made: the video was put together to look like a casual sidewalk demonstration, except the people being flown backwards have motive and interest to BE thrown backwards.

The context of the video alone looses credability...never mind the unconvincing reactions of the participants.

on a larger scale, if this stuff really DID do amazing and practical things...why the need to fake it? occams razor says that the answer is that qigong, TCM, IMA, etc - really DOESN'T add anything legitimately amazing beyond the mundane, otherwise it would be shown. instead, it's always exaggurated and faked.
Also the reason why you'll never see a video posted by any member here claiming higher knowledge of stuff like this. They want you to believe they posses 'internal power'...but they just won't be able to show you anything externally.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:37 PM

Quote:

I think Ashe makes a valid point re: cultural norms. I can understand his position in that the instructor isn't intending to demo against full resistance. But the problem remains, that when others (of any culture) see this type of thing, they may believe it as shown. Apparently some on this forum do. How is anyone to know where the "respect" line ends and the "functional" line begins?

And if it's understood that this demo cannot be done for real, then how is it a good representation of IMA?

FWIW, I have seen some videos of Ashe's instructor, and while I don't know if what he does is "internal" or not, that sh1t looked very real to me.

BTW - Who were the two that voted that it was real? I would like to understand your position, please.

thanks for backing me up matt! =-)

anyway, i think perspective matters a lot.

i think that when many of you look at this clip what you you see is this. which is definitely garbage, but what i see is much closer to this.

one is fantasy and the other is refined body mechanics.

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:48 PM

Quote:

one is fantasy and the other is refined body mechanics.

maybe the body mechanics of someone whos asleep?

Posted by: DeadlyKnuckles

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:51 PM

Quote:

but what i see is much closer to this.

What I see in that video is the same I saw in the video in question - non-resistant cooperation.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 11:04 PM

"Until then... it's a mystery to you"... gotta love Sam's wit...

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 02:24 AM

age doesnt determine everything....my Grandmaster who passed away was still pretty able when he reached his 90s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k5e6kQtF6A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyNmV2Y43ko&feature=related

though I'd agree with you that those guys are jumping back on their own in video that was posted up in the beginning. The man barely moved & the guys jumped back 3 feet....doesnt make sense

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 04:11 AM

Cool vids... especially the 2nd one... what a hoot!

You're looking for a mystical explanation when there is none. That's why it doesn't make sense. Try Newton's 3rd law... every action has an equal and opposite _______ ? The more force the person adds, the more they push themselves off.

Obviously, there is a structural limit to your "frame", but that's the whole purpose of "conditioning"... no?

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 04:11 AM

Quote:

What I see in that video is the same I saw in the video in question - non-resistant cooperation.

some of you are just being outright belligerent.

the initial clip isn't even a demo. this is a demo clip.

both the initial clip, and the earlier one i posted are of snips of video shot during A CLASS.

do you guys resist and act non-cooperatively every time your instructor shows you something? if so, how do you ever get anywhere?

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 04:26 AM

Quote:

some of you are just being outright belligerent.

belligerent? lol
some of you are being outright dumb

Quote:

the initial clip isn't even a demo. this is a demo clip.

Dude, Im not the most experienced martial artist around, but honestly.. I cant help but laugh at these videos. What is that stuff meant to do? A guy grabs his hands, he raises them slightly and the guy flies back. jesus it just looks silly.

Quote:

do you guys resist and act non-cooperatively every time your instructor shows you something? if so, how do you ever get anywhere?

no, but straight after we know the technique we attempt to apply it full force in sparring. or else its totally useless isnt it? and if our instructor showed us some half assed move that looked like it would hurt a fly, id have something to say about it.

Still cant believe people think that stuff works

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:20 AM

The problem I have with these type of clips, and the 'internal' aspect of MA, is that those who study and teach them form an environment of belief in the intangible- Ki, chi, lifeforce, whatever you want to call it, its a definition of the indefinable. You have to take it on faith.

In such an environment, evryone involved is complicit in wanting it to work, and so it does. I dont think for a second that when a faith healer lays on hands and the recipient passess out, or starts the St.Vitus dance, anyone is faking anything, they feel what they feel, but its not the laying of the hands itself that has the effect, its the environment, and the psychological state of all present that allows it to happen.

i understand the concept of using someones energy against them- if you are lucky enough to catch a persons momentum, you can up-end them very easily, a judo 'drop-throw' just allows the victim to throw their face into the mat- stuff like that I understand- that is biomechanics.

Eyrie brought up newton's law, but most 'internal' demonstrations rely on no action causing an excessive opposite reaction. Thats not physics. Thats cr4p.

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:34 AM

in other words, people who do all that 5 on 1 hand wavy chi knockout stuff, are delusional.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:39 AM

It doesnt matter anyway, the Large Hadron Collider experiment will soon rip a hole in the universe and chi, ki and left hooks will all get sucked into nothing along with everything else

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:43 AM

on that topic.
Im gonna be really [censored] off if I get warped into nothingness or some crap

but wasnt it meant to start like an hour ago?

Posted by: ThomsonsPier

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 06:21 AM

Quote:

but wasnt it meant to start like an hour ago?

It did. There are no actual collisions scheduled until the twenty-first of next month, though.

The internal demonstrations I've seen have all been very effective and performed on sceptics and belligerent folk. On the other hand, they've all involved contact with the opponent somehow.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 06:57 AM

Quote:

but most 'internal' demonstrations rely on no action causing an excessive opposite reaction. Thats not physics. Thats cr4p.

Sure... some stuff that is "out there" (bad pun) is pure cr@p, and I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Just like I have no problem calling this cr@p. Or this. Surely, these things are blatantly obvious to most (except maybe to the people participating and being complicit in these things?). Then there are some which are clearly intended to demonstrate basic principles, in a limited format. Unfortunately, for most here, if it doesn't involve the ever popular catch-cries of "resistance" or "aliveness", it isn't "real". Seems like a fairly 1-dimensional view IMO.

Often, the people accusing others of BS are the very ones who have a misconception of what ki is or isn't. Qi/ki is a catch-all term to describe various phenomena that the ancient chinese had no scientific or logical explanation. As technology, knowledge and understanding advances, so should our understanding of what these things mean. What we now know as gravity and ground reaction force, was to the ancient chinese, the qi of heaven and the qi of the earth. Does qi/ki exist? Certainly, but not as we now know it.

With that, I leave you with the best explanation I've heard so far, of what ki is/isn't, from a well-respected martial artist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaSg4xoYWuI&feature=related

From about 4:00 onwards... especially at 4:14 where he says "ki is cr@p"...

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:16 AM

Quote:

[Often, the people accusing others of BS are the very ones who have a misconception of what ki is or isn't. Qi/ki is a catch-all term to describe various phenomena that the ancient chinese had no scientific or logical explanation. As technology, knowledge and understanding advances, so should our understanding of what these things mean. What we now know as gravity and ground reaction force, was to the ancient chinese, the qi of heaven and the qi of the earth. Does qi/ki exist? Certainly, but not as we now know it.

The why perpetuate the problem by insisting on their being an 'internal' element, and why keep using mysticism when a scientific reason exists?

The only explanation is that some profit from others hopes that there is more than to it than can be explained.

There are several olympic disciplines that would benefit greatly from being able to generate huge power from tiny movement, strangely, wherever real power and strength is displayed outside of niche MA's, it presents itself externally, and usually through good old fashioned gross-motor function.

'Internal' movements include heartbeat, respiration and peristalsis.
If your body moves an external object, then its an external action, all that varies is the subtlety and method used. Under arm roll, or full pitch bomb, you still throw the damn ball with your muscles.
Martial Arts in general would improve leaps and bounds if there was an acceptance that the rules that apply to every human body on earth cannot be re-written, and even those who have been wearing pyjamas for years are not exempt from them.

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:19 AM

Quote:

and even those who have been wearing pyjamas for years are not exempt from them.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:34 AM

Amen my brother.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:48 AM

Quote:

Then how is it different than external ma?

This has been my question for some time.

Posted by: skinters

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 10:54 AM

its like watching a magic show and being asked to volunteer to perform a trick,even if you know how the trick works you still go along with it ,same thing with this.

dont know if its respect,or not wanting to be seen as making a fool of someone, but how many have been in a similiar situation like with this ol man and say ..."sorry mate it just not working"

if you think you got some kinda ability to throw someone across the room just by looking at them be prepared for plenty of egg on your face.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 11:42 AM

Yo, Big C! Correcto-mundo! Most excellent post, dude.

Posted by: puffadder

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 11:48 AM

Quote:

Martial Arts in general would improve leaps and bounds if there was an acceptance that the rules that apply to every human body on earth cannot be re-written, and even those who have been wearing pyjamas for years are not exempt from them.

This is fine as far as it goes but unfortunately mankind doesn't yet know what all of those rules are. We're well past Newtonian physics now.

Yes internal arts involves fine manipulation of precise body alignments to generate power through the whole body instead of relying on building muscle mass in specific muscle groups. That, to me, is the main difference between so called external and internal although both types do both to a certain extent so the difference is one of degree I guess.

Yes many top sportsmen would undoubtedly benefit from studying how internal martial artists are able to develop power in that way. Some already are - it's certainly helped Tiger Wood's golf swing.

As to the qi/ki/energy side of it, I think these endless discussions are pointless. Nobody's minds will be changed by such discussions. Only personal experience either way can really change a person's mind.

Posted by: harlan

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:02 PM

So...was this all about chi/qi? Again?

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:23 PM

I just can't seem to understand how internal training/practice is any different, if it *must* be expressed externally ie; through the muscles. Seems like semantics to me.

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...44#Post16012721

Quote:

No... it's not semantics... doing a form or simply moving, using "internal" mechanics is not the same thing as doing an "internal form". Firstly, there is no such thing as an "internal form". All forms are external. It is the expression of internal body movement that takes form.

What is "internal body movement"?

Posted by: harlan

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:32 PM

Okay...okay...okay...I gotta question.

Define 'dropping'. One time my teacher illustrated something simple. He had me extend my arm, and then he dropped he arm on mine. Let if fall. Then he 'dropped' his arm on mine...and it was felt totally different. The second time, there was weight and impact, and it hurt. Now...there was no tensing of muscle, no 'striking'...it was simply dropping the arm with a different concentration (as far as I understand it). It was still an entirely physical act/external act, and as far as the eye is concerned...there was no difference.

Explain this difference...without resorting to 'qi'.

Posted by: TheCrab

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:36 PM

well either he used his muscles to make his arm hit you harder.
or he turned into a fairy and cast a magical spell on the castle

Posted by: harlan

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:48 PM

I see you need another beat down by the mods. I'll see what I can do to facilitate it for you.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:53 PM

Harlan,

There are ways to relax into strikes that are more sublte and less excessive than other ways. Usually its accomodated by long practice and being very efficient about the process. What it is not is something so extraordinary that it is beyound the physical ken of martial arts, or the professional athelete.

Efficiency and relaxation: look at a good boxer weave and throw a counter jab. A neophyte boxer would have a hard time doing it without expending lots of energy and being overly contracted in his musclature to push the technique out there, not so for the journeyman.

Harder hitting can be obtained through more practice and understanding how you can push the technique while being more relaxed in doing it. Efficient movement. Though of course, people will jump on me and say that's not all that's going on here.

Posted by: ashe_higgs

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 01:27 PM

really there's no such thing as "internal". there are some subtle ways to use the body that can make it SEEM LIKE the movement is all "energy" or that it happened "inside the body", but really it's still all just mechanics.

and anyway, the guy in the initial clip was touching his students. it was just a light touch, which is still very different than "no touch", which is technically called "kong jin" or "ling kong jin".

at a certain point, a light touch should be all that's necessary in order to show something in a learning environment.

as i've said over and over in this topic, you can train with resistance with your class mates, AFTER you get the lesson.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 01:49 PM

Training with resistance is fine but there was no resistance in the initial clip shown nor would there ever by any resistance.

Undeniably that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is scientifically proven and cannot be disputed. Much like a mathematical equation you can take the end result and work it backwards to decide what the starting point is. In doing so for this clip in question, or any others for that matter, not enough force was ever or COULD EVER be made to produce those results. No matter how much "internal" energy is created, no matter how much is understood about body mechanics or "internal body movement" is created. It is a FACT that it is not possible.

If anybody says otherwise then I will volunteer and you show me. If anybody thinks that the techniques done by a younger more fit person then this old man will work then show me. I will provide attacking resistance and by the time you open your eyes to a pounding headache and aches and pains, you will have been made a fool.

There is no such thing as chi/ki. There is however the ability to "focus" your body and mind as one to prepare to perform a certain function whether that is a strike, preparing to take a test, calming yourself or what have you. There is nothing magical about this. There is no energy you are using withing yourself or you are pulling from the ground into your body and then using it externally. You cannot use this to create more energy then what your muscles are capable of doing; body mechanics is a science and again is indisputable. If you believe otherwise then you better get out of the dark ages because guess what, the Earth is round and is not the centre of the universe.

Posted by: skinters

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 03:08 PM

Quote:

Okay...okay...okay...I gotta question.

Define 'dropping'. One time my teacher illustrated something simple. He had me extend my arm, and then he dropped he arm on mine. Let if fall. Then he 'dropped' his arm on mine...and it was felt totally different. The second time, there was weight and impact, and it hurt. Now...there was no tensing of muscle, no 'striking'...it was simply dropping the arm with a different concentration (as far as I understand it). It was still an entirely physical act/external act, and as far as the eye is concerned...there was no difference.

Explain this difference...without resorting to 'qi'.

the second time his arm was relaxed,its strange but you dont have to bust a blood vessel to hit hard .

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 03:10 PM

Quote:

This is fine as far as it goes but unfortunately mankind doesn't yet know what all of those rules are. We're well past Newtonian physics now.

Actually, we are not. His theories hold true today, but aside from that, the study of kinesiology and biomechanics has sky-rocketed in the last 20 years. Where there is sports performance there is money, and funding has not been a problem in this branch of science. None of that research has shown anything 'internal' (in the martial sense) about energy transfer or utilisation.

Quote:

Yes internal arts involves fine manipulation of precise body alignments to generate power through the whole body

Exactly- that is external, the same as a punch has little to do with the extension of an arm.

Quote:

instead of relying on building muscle mass in specific muscle groups. That, to me, is the main difference between so called external and internal

Sweet baby Susan! since when were we talking about muscle mass?!? Ever seen a lightweight weightlifter? or how about a gymnast? Neither display excessive 'muscle mass', but they sure as hell display a lot of power and stength- from 'external' motor function

Quote:

Yes many top sportsmen would undoubtedly benefit from studying how internal martial artists are able to develop power in that way. Some already are - it's certainly helped Tiger Wood's golf swing.

Have you ever seen the footage of Tiger swinging a club at the age of 5? Some people are just born to do what they do- their brains tell their bodies the perfect directions, muscles fire in perfect order at lightning speed, and no added chi or ki is required. He is a professional athlete, and of course he follows a conditioning routine (with golf the repetetive movement can be hard on the back, knees and elbows, so its as much for injury prevention as anything), but the only way to improve a golf swing, is by practicing and analyzing that golf swing.

Quote:

As to the qi/ki/energy side of it, I think these endless discussions are pointless... Only personal experience either way can really change a person's mind.

Empirical evidence from a respected source can change mine. Got any?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 08:03 PM

Quote:

The why perpetuate the problem by insisting on their being an 'internal' element, and why keep using mysticism when a scientific reason exists?

Please... would you mind NOT lumping EVERYBODY in with THAT same crowd? Not all MMA peeps are meatheads are they? So why do you people insist on tarring everyone in the other camp with the same brush? Is that fair? I don't think so...

What makes it "internal"?

#1. using a combination of weight (gravity), ground and breath pressure (collectively labeled as "qi" - as in the qi of heaven, qi of the earth, qi of man) - as the primary sources of "power". Qi doesn't exist as a sort of nebulous entity - it's just a convenient label. Call it the Force™ if you want, or just plain old physics.

#2. using the legs, pelvic girdle, dantien, middle and spine to convey #1 to any part of your body.

Since we're all subject to the same laws of physics, everyone is going to use #1 in some shape or form and in various combinations. IOW, nearly everyone is going to use varying combinations of "internal" and "external". By "external" I'm referring to isolated musculature - predominantly the major muscle groups - mostly the shoulders, lats and triceps.

So when I "look" at how someone moves, I look at whether they're using #2 to convey #1 or if they are simply using their shoulders or isolated musculature to generate power. That's the primary difference. Obviously, everyone is going to need to use muscle to move. It's physically impossible not to do so. The difference is where the power is sourced from, not whether they are moving or not, or whether some mystical energy is involved or not, or even whether you can punch harder one way or the other.

As you well know, it's difficult to gauge from video whether someone is using #2 to source #1. But, as harlan has noted, you can instantly feel the qualitative difference.

Back to the initial vid... all the old man is showing is how he conveys the ground to his arm. So that when the young men push on him, all they feel is pushing against the ground. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, plus the fact that the resultant force vectors are dynamic, the result is that they end up pushing themselves off him in what looks like a weird jumpy way - mostly because they are having difficulty counter-balancing and recovering.

Obviously, the old man is micro-adjusting the returning vectors dynamically, so as they push one way, he is returning another. And when they feel that reaction force, they are also adjusting accordingly in order to continue pushing back. If they were to come in harder, the likelihood of them recovering to counter the push would be more difficult.

As I mentioned before, it is also dependent on the structural strength of your skeletal framework, and there are limits to how much force you can receive in a static situation, before you have to move. Which is the other factor I look for... how much external pushing/pulling can the person take before having to move is a pretty good indication of how conditioned they are.

Obviously, that is going to be harder to detect in a dynamic situation, under different circumstances. How else would you grasp these subtleties if everything were done with resistance and aliveness? As Ashe said, resistance and aliveness is something you do AFTERWARDS, with your training partner. There's learning how to do it first, drill practice, and then application under resistance/alive situations.

The problem with most is that they want to run before they can crawl....

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:24 PM

Quote:

Define 'dropping'. One time my teacher illustrated something simple. He had me extend my arm, and then he dropped he arm on mine. Let if fall. Then he 'dropped' his arm on mine...and it was felt totally different. The second time, there was weight and impact, and it hurt. Now...there was no tensing of muscle, no 'striking'...it was simply dropping the arm with a different concentration (as far as I understand it). It was still an entirely physical act/external act, and as far as the eye is concerned...there was no difference.

Explain this difference...without resorting to 'qi'.

The difference is that the first time, he simply dropped his arm. The 2nd time, he dropped his entire body weight into your arm.

Same idea here: (around 6:50 onwards)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqDN6UR7U5Y

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 02:46 AM

Quote:

What makes it "internal"?

#1. using a combination of weight (gravity), ground and breath pressure (collectively labeled as "qi" - as in the qi of heaven, qi of the earth, qi of man) - as the primary sources of "power". Qi doesn't exist as a sort of nebulous entity - it's just a convenient label. Call it the Force™ if you want, or just plain old physics.

#2. using the legs, pelvic girdle, dantien, middle and spine to convey #1 to any part of your body.

Since we're all subject to the same laws of physics, everyone is going to use #1 in some shape or form and in various combinations. IOW, nearly everyone is going to use varying combinations of "internal" and "external". By "external" I'm referring to isolated musculature - predominantly the major muscle groups - mostly the shoulders, lats and triceps.

So when I "look" at how someone moves, I look at whether they're using #2 to convey #1 or if they are simply using their shoulders or isolated musculature to generate power. That's the primary difference. Obviously, everyone is going to need to use muscle to move. It's physically impossible not to do so. The difference is where the power is sourced from, not whether they are moving or not, or whether some mystical energy is involved or not, or even whether you can punch harder one way or the other.

Eyrie, what you have just written destroys, not defines, the difference between 'internal' and 'external'.

Firstly, you cannot 'isolate' a muscle- its impossible, and to isolate a group of muscles is rather a contradiction in terms.
Try something out for me- stand with your heels, buttocks and shoulder blades against a wall, and throw a punch without any of those points losing contact with the wall.
Does that, in any way, resemble any punching that you have encountered in 'external' arts?

Why do you think that movements like the squat and the clean are so intrinsic to sports and fight conditioning? Because everything comes from the legs, hips and core, thats why.
Did you know that when I throw a boxing uppercut in the clinch I never move my arm? (unless the guy is exceptionaly tall of course)
What you are talking about in #1 is inherent to all 'external' activities also. Cavity pressure provides support to the spine, so breathing technique and timing is crucial (valsalva movement/technique) in creating a firm base from which to generate power- you cant jump high from a soft yielding floor, the energy goes the wrong way.

An 'external' punch starts in the feet and builds momentum as it travels the length of the body, recruiting the whole musculature as it goes. The hand is merely the end of the whip, the power comes from the handle.

Thats what I am referring to about the issue with 'internal' arts, and their definitions. You complained about being bunched with bad apples, then used terminology that tried to distinguish the methods from good old fashioned kinesiology.
By your own definitions, we are all internal artists- even those who dont train, because we all move the same way- which has been my point all along. Thanks for backing me up

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 03:09 AM

Um... no... you guys assumed "internal" was based on qi and that qi was something mystical. You guys were out gunning for a fight, looking for a "bunk" explanation to debate, and slinging insults and innuendo along the way.

So.. I guess you're all internal artists then...

So why did y'all have such a big problem understanding what the old man did then??? Since you all move the same way, you can all do what he did then??? Right? So, what's the problem?

Is it real or fake? Or is it just new fashioned physics and kinesiology?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 03:26 AM

Quote:

Um... no... you guys assumed "internal" was based on qi and that qi was something mystical.

Er..with terms like 'qi of heaven and qi of earth' instead of balance and breath control, what do you expect?

Quote:

You guys were out gunning for a fight, looking for a "bunk" explanation to debate, and slinging insults and innuendo along the way.

Please show me where I insulted you?

Quote:

So.. I guess you're all internal artists then...

Yes, that is the exact point I made at the end of my post

Quote:

So why did y'all have such a big problem understanding what the old man did then??? Since you all move the same way, you can all do what he did then??? Right? So, what's the problem?

Thats silly. We do all move the same way.The workings of our physiology, our anatomy, and our relationship with gravity are all constants- no exceptions.
What we do with those rules is infinite, and down to how we train certain movements, that we come to know as 'skills'- just like the old guy has trained to use existing biomechanical concepts to do what he does.
If I ask you for a kinesiological breakdown, to the minutae, of a pole vault, from run up to landing, could you do that? Its an enourmous task, but it can be done. The parallel explanation for the old guy exists also (or at least the concepts he espouses), and there is nothing inherently more 'internal' about it than the pole vault.

Quote:

Is it real or fake? Or is it just new fashioned physics and kinesiology?

As i said, there is more psychology involved in that clip than anatomy, internal or external. I also said that I believe those in the clip feel what they feel, but I do not think they would do so in a different environment, and with a different person. Ever seen Derren Brown? Where the mind is taken, the body will follow.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 03:28 AM

If you disagree with eyrie, he believes he is being insulted.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 04:54 AM

Quote:

BrianS wrote:If you disagree with eyrie, he believes he is being insulted.

It's people like YOU and Ed that I'm referring to...

Quote:

Cord wrote: We do all move the same way.The workings of our physiology, our anatomy, and our relationship with gravity are all constants- no exceptions.
What we do with those rules is infinite, and down to how we train certain movements, that we come to know as 'skills'- just like the old guy has trained to use existing biomechanical concepts to do what he does.
If I ask you for a kinesiological breakdown, to the minutae, of a pole vault, from run up to landing, could you do that? Its an enourmous task, but it can be done. The parallel explanation for the old guy exists also (or at least the concepts he espouses), and there is nothing inherently more 'internal' about it than the pole vault.

Precisely. So what's the collective problem here? Perceptual bias?

Obviously, describing the bio-mechanical aspects of any movement is an enormous undertaking. I could summarize it as using the pole as a bow/spring of sorts, would that suffice? If I also say, "internal" involves using parts of your anatomy like a bow/spring, would that suffice as well?

So, are you saying it's not plausible from a Newtonian physics perspective? And that the alternative explanation of psychology/suggestibility is preferred? What parallel explanation/observation would you proffer?

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 05:02 AM

Maybe if you werent so condescending and arrogant WE wouldn't have a problem, I dunno.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 05:27 AM

Maybe if YOU weren't so condescending and arrogant, and actually read what I wrote, and attempted to understand it first, before dismissing it, WE wouldn't be having this conversation....

And that's a fact!

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 06:21 AM

Quote:

Absolutely. The idea that what you percieve as 'internal' is coming from a different source than what you percieve as 'external'. Its all coming from the same source.... Its ALL energy transference, and ALL subject to the same LAWS.

Exactly... so what is the problem here?? Is "internal" still "qi-based"? That's the argument I'm addressing. Or is it basic kinesiology and physics? Or maybe you guys would like to dispense with the internal/external dichotomy altogether? Or is a distinction necessary to delineate the degree to which and how it is applied?

Of course I don't discount the psychological factor, but by the same token, how certain are you that it is "exaggerated responses caused by the Uke 'wanting' the technique to work for the guy." Or is that your own perceptual bias at work?

Are you suggesting that some sort of psychological influence NEVER EVER happens outside such an environment? Doesn't psychology and deception play a part in warfare and combat?

Posted by: creative

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 07:05 AM

Hey Eyrie,
That all a good internal martial artist is doing is practicing good body mechanics makes perfect sense to me. - and I think to everyone else here.

So, everyone in most every sport attempts to achieve their outcome usinging good body mechanics - i.e. maximum outcome minimal effort.
From a striking/throwing perspective means that where power has to be generated, a good kinetic chain/energy transfer must be, and evidently is, achieved by the performers.

So here's what I don't understand:
1)If internal = good body mechanics, what is external?

2)If internal = good body mechanics, arent all (i'll say elite) performers using what you'd describe as internal power generation?

Genuinely looking for an IMAist oppinion, and am trying not to sound sarcastic/fasicious(sp?).

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:11 AM

Eyrie -

Quote:

Exactly... so what is the problem here?? Is "internal" still "qi-based"? That's the argument I'm addressing. Or is it basic kinesiology and physics? Or maybe you guys would like to dispense with the internal/external dichotomy altogether? Or is a distinction necessary to delineate the degree to which and how it is applied?

What do you mean "exactly"? If you're saying they are the same thing, then how can you tell Cord or anyone else that he doesn't know what he is looking at (re: "So.. I guess you're all internal artists then... ")? YOU are saying there's no difference, right? If that isn't what you mean, perhaps you should clarify.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:23 AM

Quote:

Or maybe you guys would like to dispense with the internal/external dichotomy altogether?

Bingo!

Quote:

Or is a distinction necessary to delineate the degree to which and how it is applied?

If I throw a ball underarm, and you throw a ball overarm, which one of us didnt throw a ball?

Quote:

Of course I don't discount the psychological factor, but by the same token, how certain are you that it is "exaggerated responses caused by the Uke 'wanting' the technique to work for the guy." Or is that your own perceptual bias at work?

It is an opinion, lent credence by other 'internal' maists on this very thread agreeing.

Quote:

Are you suggesting that some sort of psychological influence NEVER EVER happens outside such an environment?

Not at all. I have already mentioned faith healing, and there is also the field of hypnosis and NLP. It is worth considering, however, that for either of these to work, they must be applied to an accepting brain.

Quote:

Doesn't psychology and deception play a part in warfare and combat?

Absolutely, but nobody tries to convince a soldier that if he runs very fast into a static bullet, he will get shot.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:44 AM

In answer to the opening question, I have no doubt that the video is fake.

It is not an accurate representation of "internal arts".

As I discuss in the "hitting harder" thread:

Quote:

the principal distinction (between internal and external) can be summed up as this: external arts prioritise power. Internal arts prioritise impulse - ie. the transfer of momentum. Again, take a look at the end of my article "Hitting harder: physics made easy". This distinction flows through to the basic techniques - ie. the "form".

The internal arts of China (xingyi, bagua and taiji) are very specific, easily identifiable arts with a very specific set of techniques (see http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/05/internal-vs-external-martial-arts.html) - which are biased towards maximising impulse or momentum transfer. They do not focus on power.

Because it is very hard to apply "ideal" momentum transfer in a fluid, chaotic environment it necessarily takes longer to learn and apply internal arts. External arts that develop power first will be easier to learn and apply.

Nothing precludes 'external' arts from having an 'internal' aspect. In fact every system is a mix. It is a question of your technical priority. Put it this way - no strike can function without power. And no stike can be effective without impulse.

But at no stage does "internal" involve shamanism or magic. It is just a description of a technical focus.

In the thread on which that video appears I offered the following as an "honest" aged practitioner of internal arts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1A6YorAh2k

No magic, no throwing 10 m with just a wave of the hand. Just some direct and obviously bagua techniques. Not impressive? Whoever said internal arts had to look like magic? What is impressive to me is that this old guy could still apply some decent, direct and simple fighting skills (when it's clear a person his age could not rely on "power" - eg a massive shin kick to a heavy bag).

Is it an excellent video? No. It is honest. The other video is fake.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:59 AM

Quote:

The internal arts of China (xingyi, bagua and taiji) are very specific, easily identifiable arts with a very specific set of techniques - which are biased towards maximising impulse or momentum transfer. They do not focus on power.

Because it is very hard to develop efficient momentum transfer in a fluid, chaotic environment it is necessarily harder to apply. External arts that develop power first will be easier to learn.

But at no stage does internal arts technique involve shamanism or magic. It is just a series of strikes/deflections etc. Like any other art. The fact that they have a different technical focus is their distinguishing feature.

Awesome! Perfect clarification. Thankyou. now you just have to get everyone who teaches and learns such arts to drop the guff, and we can all go do squats together

Quote:

In the thread on which that video appears I offered the following as an "honest" aged internal artist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1A6YorAh2k

No magic, no throwing 10 m with just a wave. Just some direct and obviously bagua techniques. Not impressive? Whoever said internal arts had to look like magic?

I take you point, and i have seen such demo's before, but again, it is this complicit nature of the Uke that gets me.
Whenever such concepts are discussed, inevitably someone (like me) will ask for a demonstration of the principles in application, and what we get is 'he puts his had here, and I can do this'. Ok, very impressive. But if I post a clip of me with Crab, saying 'he leaves his hands down, and stands still and I can break his jaw like this', then what does it actually prove?

If anyone does offer footage of 'internal' arts in a live environment, then with attacks coming in, and the frantic nature of the situation, it just ends up looking like a fight, no more, no less.
That is not a bad thing, it merely shows that outside of ideals, the body pretty much responds uniformly to violence, using biomechanics common to all training

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 09:24 AM

I have some footage of Tim Cartmell (the obliging uke in the video) in a live environment. Tim has competed successfully in Asia in their equivalents of MMA for many years. However the footage was taken down off the net (I assume by Tim) so I don't feel entitled to put the video up.

Needless to say, it is quite impressive - but not in any magical way. Just good, efficient martial arts skill. And yes, he does bagua "circle walking" as far as I understand it, to this very day. He also does BJJ and other arts (and has for many years).

Don't know too much about the "guff". My internal arts training is of the Hong Yi Xiang / Wang Shujin variety (there are some videos of the Tang Shao Dao school Hong founded on Youtube - you can do a search and find them if you like - lots of "live" stuff). (My teacher Chen Yun-Ching is the son of Hong's and Wang's teacher, the Western trained hydraulics engineer and internal arts master Chen Pan-Ling who fled China for Taiwan in 1948.)

If arts like karate have suffered dilution, the internal arts have (especially from the Cultural Revolution) suffered an even greater dilution. This (together with its unfortunate nexus with "new age" fads in the West) has led to what I consider a great deal of misunderstanding about the principles of internal arts and their application.

In the absence of Western scientific knowledge, traditional Chinese culture used the internally consistent, but factually incorrect (imho) paradigm of "chi". Tim Cartmell mentions that he has never once had to use the word "chi" in his career. Neither have I. But when others who I respect have referred to it, they have been trying, in my opinion, to explain the concept of momentum flow and transfer by using terms like "chi flow and transfer".

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 10:08 AM

As I've said elsewhere, I wrote my article Hitting harder: physics made easy partly:

(a) because I was dissatisfied with the articles I have read up to now on the physics of punching; and

(b) because it seemed to that the biomechanics of "hitting hard" were common to all martial arts (as suggested by your comments about common biomechanics in fighting generally).

I wanted to find an analysis that would account for any technical approach - external or internal (particularly since I had experienced both types of art and could see the different technical approaches producing equally valid results, albeit in different time-frames).

In this exercise I also feel I have resolved, to my own satisfaction, what people mean by "chi" (to the extent that they are honestly and sincerely using the term to refer to practical techniques) - and similarly what karateka mean by such terms as "kime" (focus) etc.

It also explains, in my mind, the differences between punching a heavy bag or a makiwara etc. A good bag hit shows more power, a good makiwara hit shows more impulse, but both can apply a great deal of force. My analysis is consistent with the fact that it takes much longer to learn to hit the makiwara effectively than it does to hit a bag.

"Internal" techniques are grooved in isolation, much as one might groove a golf swing or tennis shots in a "non-live" environment (ie. not in a game). The analogy is decreasingly useful past this point because tennis (or any ball sport) involves so few variables by comparison to free fighting - you can get into playing games and applying your "ideal shots" far more quickly. Combat involves almost infinite angles and possibilities - so the variables are much greater, hence the level of "chaos".

Also fighting can use power to overcome technique to some extent (due to the more chaotic nature, no doubt). In tennis "power" is seldom useful against even mildy superior technique. Rather, a premium is placed on spending time practising moves in isolation with your coach - even long after you've started training in a live environment, but particularly before (my tennis coach trained me for a full 2 months before he reluctantly said I was ready to join the local club and play some doubles - they wouldn't have even let me in before that!).

So one might say that purely "internal" artists spend most of their time refining momentum transfer in isolation before they attempt to apply their techniques (whether it be in walking the circle, kata etc). On the other end of the spectrum a purely "external" artist (an untrained "big hitting" street fighter) will spend all his time "applying" his technique, and never isolating it (like a self-taught tennis player might tell you he has no time to practise his backhand and forehand baseline shots - he's too busy returning balls).

These are extremes. For most of us the answer lies somewhere in the middle - a balance of "internal" and "external" methodology. In fighting the pendulum has always swung more towards the external because, simply put, power counts and ideal technique is hard to apply...

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 10:37 AM

Quote:

Don't know too much about the "guff".

Quote:

the internal arts have (especially from the Cultural Revolution) suffered an even greater dilution. This (together with its unfortunate nexus with "new age" fads in the West) has led to what I consider a great deal of misunderstanding about the principles of internal arts and their application.

But much of that misunderstanding has been courted by those who profit from the misconceptions. That is the 'guff' to which I was referring.

Quote:

In the absence of Western scientific knowledge, traditional Chinese culture used the internally consistent, but factually incorrect (imho) paradigm of "chi". Tim Cartmell mentions that he has never once had to use the word "chi" in his career. Neither have I. But when others who I respect have referred to it, they have been trying, in my opinion, to explain the concept of momentum flow and transfer by using terms like "chi flow and transfer".

Again, fair enough, but to perpetuate the use of esoteric terms, and with them, leave open the gateway to myth and confusion, does a huge disservice to some interesting concepts.
That is why I dislike a division between the internal and external, when no such difference exists.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 11:00 AM

It is for this reason that I avoid terms like "chi".

As you will note from my articles, I generally use "internal" to refer to the Chinese schools of xingyiquan, baguazhang and taijiquan (with some off-shoots or related arts like liu he ba fa or yi quan).

I have used "internal" more liberally in this thread only to the extent that other arts will have some element of their technical focus - in training method (prioritising impulse) or in form (similar technique) or both.

I usually avoid jargon (I could have framed most of my articles about blocking, evasion etc. in "internal" terms, but I had no interest or reason to do so).

To the extent that this thread concerns a purported "internal" artist, I have used this term to show that the practitioner shown is neither internal in the narrow sense of xingyi, bagua, taiji etc., nor in any wider sense of "internal-like".

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 11:30 AM

Oh - and I despise the industries in new-age pseudo scientific guff. It is almost always a blatant, dishonest money-making scam.

As Ed points out, the videos discussed here and elsewhere showing people being propelled backwards across football ovals by the mere wave of a hand are generally part of some marketing attempt.

It is the kind of fakery (if not fraud) that bullshido would more meaningfully concern itself with (rather than obsessing about sincere suburban tkd kids doing spinning kicks for fun).

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 12:04 PM

Absurd. Let's see this work on someone who does not beleive it.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 01:41 PM

Quote:

Of course I don't discount the psychological factor, but by the same token, how certain are you that it is "exaggerated responses caused by the Uke 'wanting' the technique to work for the guy." Or is that your own perceptual bias at work?

Eyrie, the more I read of what you wrote I'm actually beginning to think that you believe that what happened in that first video was true; please correct me if I'm wrong.

You and I both know that if either of us stepped into that video right now and the old man tried any of that stuff it would not work; and never would work. I am not compliant and I would use force and unless he uses an equal or greater force then the results will be devastating for him.

Quote:

Back to the initial vid... all the old man is showing is how he conveys the ground to his arm. So that when the young men push on him, all they feel is pushing against the ground. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, plus the fact that the resultant force vectors are dynamic, the result is that they end up pushing themselves off him in what looks like a weird jumpy way - mostly because they are having difficulty counter-balancing and recovering.

You are fickin' kidding me?????

The only way these ukes would feel like they are pushing against the ground is if they were "pushing against the ground". This is an erect human being that is not stable, physically impossible. One could adjust their feet and body to prepare to a push thus managing oncoming force but this is clearly not evident in this video. Perhaps if somebody knocked this guy down and then pushed on him trying to move them then they would "feel like they are pushing the ground".

Quote:

Obviously, the old man is micro-adjusting the returning vectors dynamically, so as they push one way, he is returning another. And when they feel that reaction force, they are also adjusting accordingly in order to continue pushing back. If they were to come in harder, the likelihood of them recovering to counter the push would be more difficult.

I just shake my head why I read this stuff. This old man is not adjusting for anything let alone micro-adjusting. This guy probably has a hard time getting out of bed let alone sitting in a chair. When "they" feel the reaction force they adjust accordingly? What reaction force???? Any movement by these ukes are staged and are merely an act, an exaggeration or what ever you want to call it.

Please tell me you don't believe this could be real; if you do then there may be no hope for you. And if you do not believe this is real and that this stuff is bunk then please forgive me for thinking otherwise.

Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 06:33 PM

I really like the video, I think they are having a bit of a laugh and just fooling around.

Personally I voted fake, it is not 'martial', it could be art or perhaps a science lesson, all under set conditions mind.

That doesn't make it 'bad', alot of things are learn't mucking around but I do feel the younger students are being overtly respectful (as I would) due to the older mens age and experience.

what they are showing are little tricks to impress, it has little to do with applying a martial art or indeed 'fighting'.

im not sold on the internal arts application for the majority personally,

but I see enormous value in them as a long term study of many other things.

I 'flirt' with Tai Chi myself, it is great for the body and mind in so many ways.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 07:04 PM

Quote:

That is why I dislike a division between the internal and external, when no such difference exists.

Lest there be any mistake - the internal arts of xingyi, bagua, taiji etc. are very different from the rest - as I've said, in terms of method (prioritising impulse over power) and form (a specific set of techniques to match).

For this reason this is a distinction I will continue to maintain, particularly when discussing tma.

I will also, unapologetically, use "internal" or "soft" from time to time as a shorthand way of describing methods that are "internal-like" (ie. "like taiji etc.").

The idea that "all fighting ends up looking similar" doesn't alter any of this. Neither does anyone's percepetion as to the "street effectiveness" of the internal arts.

From my perspective, in asking people to stop calling arts "internal" one might as well be calling for an end to the use of "traditional martial art" or "karate" or "capeoeria".

The descriptor "internal" is useful. The fact that is occasionally misappropriated by charlatans or dreamers is not my or any other internal artist's concern.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 07:11 PM

Quote:

I will also, unapologetically, use "internal" or "soft" from time to time as a shorthand way of describing methods that are "internal-like" (ie. "like taiji etc.").

The idea that "all fighting ends up looking similar" doesn't alter any of this. Neither does anyone's percepetion as to the "street effectiveness" of the internal arts.

From my perspective, in asking people to stop calling arts "internal" one might as well be calling for an end to the use of "traditional martial art" or "karate" or "capeoeria".

The descriptor "internal" is useful. The fact that is occasionally misappropriated by charlatans or dreamers is not my or any other internal artist's concern.

Quoted for truth, pretty much sums up the thread for me.

Why do people get so bent out of shape about this kind of thing in the first place, be it parlor tricks or be it simple fakery (I figure the clip is a combination of both) it amazes me that it draws people's ire in such a way.

The are alot worse and certainly more dangerous (oom young doe anyone?) kinds of charlatanry (a word?) than this in the world, and in MA as well.

Quote:

A part of me wants to be evil and kick this oldman's @ss, and the [Email]dumb@ss's[/Email] perpetuating that this is real in the video.

Tell me, why do people believe in crap like this? Why do people show they can do crap like this and try to pass it off as real? People like that are looking for an @ss kicking in my books.

Nice man, that's classy, a perfectly appropriate way of dealing with a youtube clip with no context. Go find him and beat him senseless, then post in on youtube, there'll certainly be plenty of people to sit back and laugh at it, however ethically questionable such an act might be. Hey maybe next you can move on to bashing people's heads in at "chakra crystal" conventions or something.

I didn't see anything anywhere where the guy claimed to be an amazing fighter, just some parlor tricks of questionable merit in places.

You'd be doing the world a great service. I mean hey, who does he think he is posting stupid crap on youtube, no one does that!

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake - 09/11/08 07:14 PM

And while I don't find the need to use the "c" or "k" word, I don't care if others (particularly in internal threads!) do so - provided they are referring to the traditional paradigm (which I understand to be internally consistent and consistent with good technique).

I don't take it against people that they can't speak in terms of "momentum transfer" or use other physics terms correctly - particularly when the average "modern" martial artist here and elsewhere doesn't correctly understand or use physics terms such as "power", "force" etc. either...

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 07:29 PM

Quote:

Eyrie, the more I read of what you wrote I'm actually beginning to think that you believe that what happened in that first video was true; please correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you deny the physical explanation based on statics analysis? Analyse the physics and vector mechanics involved and tell me why I'm wrong. Till then, please refrain from telling me what I believe/don't believe.

Quote:

You and I both know that if either of us stepped into that video right now and the old man tried any of that stuff it would not work; and never would work. I am not compliant and I would use force and unless he uses an equal or greater force then the results will be devastating for him.

Uh... duh... that's obvious isn't it? If you or I wanted to f*ck him up, that would be simple. Which part of "obviously it's a limited demo" do people NOT understand?

Quote:

The only way these ukes would feel like they are pushing against the ground is if they were "pushing against the ground". This is an erect human being that is not stable, physically impossible. One could adjust their feet and body to prepare to a push thus managing oncoming force but this is clearly not evident in this video. Perhaps if somebody knocked this guy down and then pushed on him trying to move them then they would "feel like they are pushing the ground".

That's because you, like many others here, are thinking in such 1-dimensional terms. When you push against an erect stable object, and you push it against its stable base, where is the force dissipated to? C'mon... it's basic physics. If you push against its unstable point, or beyond its CG, obviously it topples. The human body's proprioception function acts in various ways to counter a push. When you receive a push to one side, where does your weight go? Obviously there's a physical limit to how great a push you can receive. How much/how far can you get pushed before your CG displaces beyond your base and you topple? Do you not micro-adjust during the push in an attempt to remain stable?

Quote:

I just shake my head why I read this stuff. This old man is not adjusting for anything let alone micro-adjusting. This guy probably has a hard time getting out of bed let alone sitting in a chair. When "they" feel the reaction force they adjust accordingly? What reaction force???? Any movement by these ukes are staged and are merely an act, an exaggeration or what ever you want to call it.

Are you telling me your proprioception system is not capable of micro-adjustments to counter the force of gravity? What does it look like when you try to counter the effects of gravity, and try to remain standing, as you're losing your balance? If you push against a wall or tree with a slightly downward angular force, what happens? When you find yourself popping off the wall, what does your body try to do? Does it look silly? Exaggerated? Staged?

As far as I'm concerned, it's basic physics and kinesiology. So... tell me why my static analysis is wrong from a physics/vector mechanics perspective.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:08 PM

Quote:

What do you mean "exactly"? If you're saying they are the same thing, then how can you tell Cord or anyone else that he doesn't know what he is looking at (re: "So.. I guess you're all internal artists then... ")? YOU are saying there's no difference, right? If that isn't what you mean, perhaps you should clarify.

Well, I have been saying that for sometime now... the problem is, people like you, Ed and Brian seem to want to put anything and anyone, who is in YOUR opinion, remotely associated with "internal" into the "qi" camp.

I'm not telling Cord or anyone anything, least of all what they know/don't know. I'm simply pointing out what I see - in what I see as real, physical terms, as opposed to what you people think you see. So far, no one has ventured a physical explanation for anything, at least, not without my prompting.

Because no one here seems interested in civil, dialectic debate and discourse, except maybe Cord. You all have your own perceptual bias and opinions of what "it" is - and have to resort to demeaning and bullying others to conform to your worldview, when you cannot proffer a substantive argument to the contrary.

I think Dan summed it up quite well... what other people believe and do with regards to the words "qi", "ki", "internal", is none of my concern. Personally, I NEVER use any of those words when teaching - never have, never will. Not sure how many times I have to say this...

BTW, I see no difference between what the old man did and the fundamental basis of Aikido's kokyu nage. Other than the fact that his is a static example, and the general idea is to be able to eventually apply it in a dynamic situation. That takes training, lots of training and really good timing. If you've read John Stevens, you'd know he refers to it as "breath timing" throws... and for good reason.

Obviously, it's not going to "look" the same in dynamic application... but if you took a frame-by-frame snapshot of well-executed one applied in a dynamic situation, what would that look like? A static "pose"? A silly "jump" from uke?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:25 PM

Quote:

It is an opinion, lent credence by other 'internal' maists on this very thread agreeing.

Yeah, Derren Brown can "hypnotise" a group of people to all do the same thing too... and their perception of what happened also seemed consistent too. Just because a bunch of people agree doesn't make it true either. Argumentum ad populum.

Quote:

Absolutely, but nobody tries to convince a soldier that if he runs very fast into a static bullet, he will get shot.

No, I'm referring to warfare strategy, and espionage particularly, which involves a great deal of deception/counter-deception and getting into the minds of the enemy combatant and finding potential psychological weaknesses that can be exploited.

So, why not in one-to-one/one-to-many combat?

Posted by: DeadlyKnuckles

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:30 PM

My "qi" is bigger than your "qi". And it comes in various colors.

Wait, what?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:40 PM

Nice... another d!ck swinger... real mature.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 09:07 PM

Quote:

Well, I have been saying that for sometime now... the problem is, people like you, Ed and Brian seem to want to put anything and anyone, who is in YOUR opinion, remotely associated with "internal" into the "qi" camp.

Perhaps that is because you keep trying to tell us that we don't know what we're talking about on one hand, and then tell us 'exactly - it's all the same thing' on the other. Some people would call that "bullsh1tting". If we know of one, then we should be able to understand the other, if it's the same thing, right? Or do you mean that we know nothing at all?

Quote:

I'm not telling Cord or anyone anything, least of all what they know/don't know. I'm simply pointing out what I see - in what I see as real, physical terms, as opposed to what you people think you see. So far, no one has ventured a physical explanation for anything, at least, not without my prompting.

So again, you KNOW for certain what is going on exactly. And we poor, uneducated saps are just stumbling around blindly, thinking we see........what exactly?

Here's what I see - a video demonstrating some martial skills that will not get the results shown, for real. This may be due to instructor deference, or it may be due to them trying to sell something magical to idiots. In any case, it won't work, despite all your $100 words, and apparent mind-reading.

Quote:

Because no one here seems interested in civil, dialectic debate and discourse, except maybe Cord. You all have your own perceptual bias and opinions of what "it" is - and have to resort to demeaning and bullying others to conform to your worldview, when you cannot proffer a substantive argument to the contrary.

Amusing how "we" are always the ones with the bias. We aren't allowed to have opinions now? And I have already given my substantive argument in the original thread about this video. The student's reactions are far too exagerrated to be real.

Quote:

Obviously, it's not going to "look" the same in dynamic application...

Is it so obvious? Then why did you offer that particular vid as a good representation of IMA? Clearly, most of us do not think it is a good representation of anything.

Quote:

but if you took a frame-by-frame snapshot of well-executed one applied in a dynamic situation, what would that look like? A static "pose"? A silly "jump" from uke?

Perhaps if we ever saw those techniques being used in a resistant situation with those same effects, that statement would have some weight. If it was possible to do it reliably, we would have seen it, and this would not be a discussion. And I still don't know what "internal body movement" is. Unless you mean something like when I shift my internal organs around to avoid a knife stab.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 09:39 PM

Hmmm.... where did I call you "poor uneducated saps" or say that you weren't allowed an opinion? Where does it say that I have to agree with your opinion, or your line of argument?

Why is it that Dan and I can have an argument and equally agree and disagree on issues? Why is it that others have a problem?

Quote:

Is it so obvious? Then why did you offer that particular vid as a good representation of IMA? Clearly, most of us do not think it is a good representation of anything.

Fer pete's sake... Oh... I get it... you want to see "real" fighting... sorry, can't find one on YouTube. Aw gee, that's too bad.

Quote:

Perhaps if we ever saw those techniques being used in a resistant situation with those same effects, that statement would have some weight. If it was possible to do it reliably, we would have seen it, and this would not be a discussion. And I still don't know what "internal body movement" is. Unless you mean something like when I shift my internal organs around to avoid a knife stab.

*sigh* Back to the same 1-dimensional argument. You're just looking for a bullshido beatdown. Sorry... can't help you there.

Tell you what Matt... you're right and I'm delusional and full-of-sh!t. You want me to conform and speak at your level, and not use $100 words... I get it... you just don't like me. You know what? It's OK... coz at my age, I couldn't give a fack what people think of me.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 09:52 PM

Ditto.

It's not that I don't like you personally. You seem like a fine guy to have a BBQ or watch sports with. I just don't like being bullshat by people, or videos......or anything.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 10:53 PM

Well, I'm not trying to BS you or anyone. I can't help it if you think it's BS though. I've put forth arguments why I think it's valid. But then I have a very different perspective based on my personal knowledge and experiences. That our respective perspectives and differences leads us to very different conclusions is obvious. I'm not saying you're wrong or right. But you OTOH think I'm delusional because I don't share your perspective?

It's not a debating tactic I would expect from a "martial artist"... I thought only politicians and lawyers used that sort of lowdown tactic to destroy the other party's credibility.

Take for example the other videos... the one I offered f taiji push hands... you thought it was "better", while Dan didn't think it was "real" combat taiji. Dan offered one of another Bagua practitioner... which I didn't find explicated "internal" well enough. Who is BS-ing who?

So... you can either choose to address the arguments in a mature logical fashion, or you can insinuate and insult me with a view to destroying any public credibility I have or don't have. It doesn't matter to me either way.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 05:21 AM

Quote:

It's not a debating tactic I would expect from a "martial artist"... I thought only politicians and lawyers used that sort of lowdown tactic to destroy the other party's credibility.

But you said:

Quote:

No, I'm referring to warfare strategy, and espionage particularly, which involves a great deal of deception/counter-deception and getting into the minds of the enemy combatant and finding potential psychological weaknesses that can be exploited.

So, why not in one-to-one/one-to-many combat?

I dont get it? martial artists are supposed to be noble and dignified, yet use deception and pyschological warfare all at the same time?

Thats a tall order.

Look, as far as i am concerned, your credibility is not in question, I am sure you train hard and love what you do, and are perfectly capable of fighting and using what you have been taught in any environment you see fit.

That does not stop me thinking the intitial video that spawned this, now tedious thread, is, in martial terms, not a good one.

last time I checked, we all agreed that both 'internal' and 'external' arts relied on musculo-skeletal biomechanics.

I dont see why this thread has even continued, we should all be celebrating with beer and pudding by this time, not flogging a semantic horse till its more miserable than those involved in the damn argument.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 05:38 AM

Quote:

I dont get it? martial artists are supposed to be noble and dignified, yet use deception and pyschological warfare all at the same time?

Which damn rule book are you looking at?? Deception and psychological warfare has been part and parcel of combat and war for as long as our illustrious history. You only have to look at our politicians as a paragon of nobility, dignity, deceit and cunning - all at once.

Quote:

That does not stop me thinking the intitial video that spawned this, now tedious thread, is, in martial terms, not a good one.

And that's fine. It's hard to find any really good stuff that's illustrative on Youtube. There's always someone that will find fault with something - not enough resistance, not alive enough, too fake, or some other reason. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. Then had to endure a barrage of insults and insinuations regarding my state of mind. (For those still in doubt, yes, it's still sharp, as is my wit and tongue... and, no, you don't ever want to play Scrabble with me).

Quote:

last time I checked, we all agreed that both 'internal' and 'external' arts relied on musculo-skeletal biomechanics.

How else could it not? What I don't understand is why I'm getting lumped into the "chi" camp - because I can understand and explain it from the other perspective??

Quote:

I dont see why this thread has even continued, we should all be celebrating with beer and pudding by this time, not flogging a semantic horse till its more miserable than those involved in the damn argument.

I wouldn't refuse a beer, but you can keep your stinking Yorkshire pudding...

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 06:05 AM

Quote:

I agree with all the above apart from the nobility and dignity.

Well, they are the new nobility... (for us Constitutional Monarchists) and they do try to act dignified... sometimes... not very successfully though, especially when they get busted in a compromising position.... very undignified.

Quote:

But thats the point. We (you included), have agreed on a perspective that makes sense, so why does 'the other' perspective need to be championed?
its like you are saying yep, it all comes from the same source as 'external' biomechanics....but it doesn't really.

If that not what you are saying, then stop saying it

Because the "other" perspective isn't completely wrong either. Some pretty smart old Asians figured this cr@p out over 3000 years ago. How they figured it out without the aid of modern technology, is the amazing thing. So credit where credit is due.

Quote:

I was thinking more a traditional apple crumble with devonshire clotted cream.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 10:12 AM

Quote:

Because the "other" perspective isn't completely wrong either.

There are two perspectives. 1. That 'internal' arts rely on exactly the same biomechanics as boxers, cyclists, karateka, deep sea fishermen, toddlers in the playground, everyone on earth, but apply their biomechanics to a specific, subtle skillset.
or 2. That internal MA's teach you to harness the undefinable 'life force' within all of us, and project it at an oponent.

Working on the sane principle that we all agree that perspective no. 1 is correct, and working on the principle that the old Asian guys would be smart enough to accept that explanation had it been available to them at the time, I dont see why some interesting principles need to be kept in the dark ages by people who insist on trying to explain the evident with the intangible.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 11:08 AM

Quote:

Uh... duh... that's obvious isn't it? If you or I wanted to f*ck him up, that would be simple. Which part of "obviously it's a limited demo" do people NOT understand?

A good demo should be a representation of techniques that "could" be used. When used it will not look as pretty but there will be effectiveness as the techniques work. This would "never" work so why demo something like this?

Quote:

That's because you, like many others here, are thinking in such 1-dimensional terms. When you push against an erect stable object, and you push it against its stable base, where is the force dissipated to? C'mon... it's basic physics. If you push against its unstable point, or beyond its CG, obviously it topples. The human body's proprioception function acts in various ways to counter a push. When you receive a push to one side, where does your weight go? Obviously there's a physical limit to how great a push you can receive. How much/how far can you get pushed before your CG displaces beyond your base and you topple? Do you not micro-adjust during the push in an attempt to remain stable?

Huh? Back to what you said earlier, you mention the students are pushing like they are pushing against the ground and then are reacting accordingly. Now you are saying you understand body physics, so which is it.?

If I push against the ground I do not have to move or adjust or mico-manage or do anything. I don't have to flinch or react in any way. A push-up is pushing against the ground and none of that happens. If I push against a solid tree the tree doesn't move and nor do I. No micro-management and no flinching. This is a frail old man and people are reacting like some magical force is moving them. If it was a young strong strapping stud and they moved as such it still would be exaggerated.

Quote:

Are you telling me your proprioception system is not capable of micro-adjustments to counter the force of gravity? What does it look like when you try to counter the effects of gravity, and try to remain standing, as you're losing your balance? If you push against a wall or tree with a slightly downward angular force, what happens? When you find yourself popping off the wall, what does your body try to do? Does it look silly? Exaggerated? Staged?

Again, pushing off a wall, the ground, a tree ... no silly looked exaggerated movements.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, it's basic physics and kinesiology.

Yup, basic physics, no question at all.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 06:33 PM

Quote:

There are two perspectives. 1. That 'internal' arts rely on exactly the same biomechanics as boxers, cyclists, karateka, deep sea fishermen, toddlers in the playground, everyone on earth, but apply their biomechanics to a specific, subtle skillset.
or 2. That internal MA's teach you to harness the undefinable 'life force' within all of us, and project it at an oponent.

Working on the sane principle that we all agree that perspective no. 1 is correct, and working on the principle that the old Asian guys would be smart enough to accept that explanation had it been available to them at the time, I dont see why some interesting principles need to be kept in the dark ages by people who insist on trying to explain the evident with the intangible.

The problem stems from an understanding (or lack thereof) of what "qi" is... it's NOT an "undefinable life force". I've already explicated what it means in the context of IMA - weight, GRF, and breath pressure. In basic physicical terms, these are all forces, are they not?

So, in that context, "sinking your qi" is basically dropping your weight... the difference is how much of your own musculature interferes with purely dropping your weight. The amount of muscular tension we tend to naturally hold in our bodies to keep it upright is the problem. Hence the admonition to "completely relax".

Does that make sense?

@Dereck... your "basic physics" needs more work....

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 09:29 PM

I believe when people use ki and chi to explain things they are trying purposefully to be mystical. They are basically bullsh1tting others into thinking they know more or can do more than they actually can. There are much better ways to describe what we see that are not mystical BS.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 10:19 PM

I believe people who think ki and chi is mystical, are trying purposefully to be antagonistic. And they don't really know how to explain it in real physical terms either. If they knew better ways to explain what we see, instead of calling it mystical BS, or calling people who can explain it both ways bullsh!tters, perhaps they could expound these "better ways" and it might help further the discussion in better ways.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/12/08 11:45 PM

Quote:

I believe when people use ki and chi to explain things they are trying purposefully to be mystical. They are basically bullsh1tting others into thinking they know more or can do more than they actually can. There are much better ways to describe what we see that are not mystical BS.

And I think you are being intentionally provocative about it without accepting any of the nuances or historical reasons why people might use these terms, largely so that you can tell everyone else how wrong they are. How what they do doesn't really work, etc.

In fact i'm willing to bet dollars to donuts you don't know much of anything about the background or history of internal MA, so you get on this forum and think anyone using the terms is the same as a kid who posts about being able to use his Dragonball Z abilities. NOT correct.

You guys need to freakin' relax, everytime someone posts some cheezy thread about energy balls you guys fly into a blind panic and start pissing all over everything that moves, threatening to beat up old men, etc.

I gotta wonder why the instantaneous angry reaction.

I might be more willing to accept that kind of criticism from someone with a little more exposure to the internal side of things, but from people with virtually none frankly it comes off as simply being juvenile, bullshido-esque antics on a forum, if you wanna argue about something then argue about it with some form of reason and depth, don't just play schoolyard bully and expect people to be persuaded.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 12:25 AM

I wanted to add that in these threads there have been a few folks who have taken the high road to some degree and actually written things of substance on the "against" side, thanks for that.

I wish more people could post like this instead of the standard "f* you you're wrong and it's all fake BS" mode that seems to be dominating the conversation.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 12:36 AM

FWIW, have a read of Mike Sigman's comments on this video here:
http://aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=165498&postcount=123

The whole thread here:
http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11629&highlight=baseline+skills

Note that this thread is discussing "baseline skills" common to many Asian MAs.

Also note, people on Aikiweb tend to be a little more civil even if they are muttering "f* you" under their breath.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 02:04 AM

And yet someone who claims to have no basic physics or internal training is somehow qualified to criticize what I write as "dribble" (or did you mean "drivel")?

BTW, calling someone a bullsh!tter is not being PC either...

Yeah, sure... internal is based on the same bio-mechanics as external. It's how it's trained and used that distinguishes it. But of course, if you knew that you wouldn't be such a passive-aggressive AH.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 02:23 AM

Oh, oh.

Eyrie used the "AH" acronym...

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 03:14 AM

eyrie should be banned!! He called me an AH!!!

Dribble, you know, like slobbery spit.

It's external, you wouldn't understand. You have to FEEEEL it.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 03:39 AM

Quote:

since I have no "internal" training I guess I have no say so on what videos are fake or not.

But thats it Brian, we all do have training in the internal arts- even non martial artists do. We all breath, we all make imperceptible adjustments of musculature as we move to maintain centre of balance, and we all use our hips, legs, and core to transmit, and recieve kinetic energy in every action we make in life.

Much of the frustration on here comes from the conflict of emotions some 'internal' practitioners have coming to terms with that.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 03:48 AM

Quote:

Much of the frustration on here comes from the conflict of emotions some 'internal' practitioners have coming to terms with that.

Likewise... much of the aggressiveness comes from 'external' practitioners coming to terms with the fact that there is nothing mystical about "internal" and that it's based on the same bio-mechanics - just used differently.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 03:54 AM

Quote:

eyrie should be banned!! He called me an AH!!!

Dribble, you know, like slobbery spit.

It's external, you wouldn't understand. You have to FEEEEL it.

So ban me already then...

It's internal, you wouldn't understand it.. You wouldn't be able to FEEEEL it even if it crawled up your nether regions and died... coz y'all rednecked Arkansians aren't that saavy.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 04:03 AM

Quote:

Likewise... much of the aggressiveness comes from 'external' practitioners coming to terms with the fact that there is nothing mystical about "internal" and that it's based on the same bio-mechanics - just used differently.

Eh? are you saying that it is other martial artists enforcing mysticism on the internal arts, and that the arts play no part in perpetuating that themselves!?

Isn't qi gong a religion, as well as a form of physical training? Isn't almost every 'internal' demo presented in such a way as to have people bouncing off the demonstrator left and right for seemingly no apparent reason? Is it in the interest of the internal artist to de-mystify and explain, or remain enigmatic?

Now a demo is a demo, and all arts show themselves in an 'ideal' light, and that is not my gripe, my gripe is that there is no 'internal' and 'external'. If we all agree that the power has to come from the same body systems, then there is no way that you can use a term that alludes to that being otherwise.

its like saying that because a car and a motorbike have different steering systems, you cant call the bikes power source a combustion engine. When it is.
Thats just daft.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 04:06 AM

Quote:

...we all do have training in the internal arts- even non martial artists do. We all breath, we all make imperceptible adjustments of musculature as we move to maintain centre of balance, and we all use our hips, legs, and core to transmit, and recieve kinetic energy in every action we make in life.

I just realized how naive that comment was. If only that were the case, there'd be no need for "internal" training would there? Why bother "training" what people already supposedly "do" naturally?

So the real question is what is "internal" training doing that is necessarily different and why would it need to be trained if it were already something one does naturally?

Might as well go to the gym and pump some iron instead right?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 04:20 AM

Quote:

Eh? are you saying that it is other martial artists enforcing mysticism on the internal arts, and that the arts play no part in perpetuating that themselves!?

Haven't you been paying attention? Brian just used the word mystical BS to describe ki/chi when I have all along maintained there's nothing mystical about it. What other people do/call it is NONE of MY concern, yet I am being accused of being the one perpetuating the mysticism. Hello? Anyone home?

Quote:

Isn't qi gong a religion, as well as a form of physical training?

Sanchin is a kiko (qigong). Does that make karate a religion?

Quote:

Isn't almost every 'internal' demo presented in such a way as to have people bouncing off the demonstrator left and right for seemingly no apparent reason? Is it in the interest of the internal artist to de-mystify and explain, or remain enigmatic?

And the basic premise of a push is to demonstrate what...? The ability to redirect a push (without obvious mechanical means) is an indication of what...? There's nothing mystical about it. The problem is, you folks are not seeing the demo for what it is... you're looking for some example of "real" fighting technique, with aliveness and resistance, and such "rubbish" has no martial value.

Turn it around and ask, if there was a way for me to train in a way that would allow me to withstand a push/pull better so it would be harder for the average person to pull me into guard or push me in a single leg takedown, would I be interested? What standing exercises which train my ability to receive a push/pull and manipulate such push/pull forces with no obvious mechanical means would basically demonstrate this ability??

It's nearly like a difference between internal and external THINKING....

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 04:40 AM

Quote:

And with that in mind, yes, 'internal' maists could benefit from appropriate resistance training, because the body works how the body works.

And what is a push test demo if not a limited form of resistance training?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 06:03 AM

Quote:

And what is a push test demo if not a limited form of resistance training?

Why would you want to limit yourself?

Look, the idea is simple. You address the basic attributes of the body with activity designed to improve them (conditioning). Then you apply the improved attributes to your chosen skillset (MA), and thus, with greater raw material to work with, your performance improves.

its the old argument of do you do 'activity x' to get fit, or do you get fit to do 'activity x'?

The weight of evidence tells us that auxilliary conditioning improves every activity.

now i know that push-hands drills and similar are exhausting, and yes, they do rely on resistance, but they are not consistent, nor progressive, as they rely on the attributes of your partner, so if you get partnered with a weaker, or less able person than you, then you do not stimulate an adaptive response.

Consistent, specific, and progressive conditioning from sources outside of your art will help improve the attributes from whence you draw your ma performance.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 06:23 AM

The group of ma having the designated label of 'the internal arts' (taiji, xingyi and bagua) have a very similar and unique, highly efficient technical base.

I believe these techniques could be profitably used by 'modern' ma (as Tim Cartmell, Liu De Xiu and others have done in full contact fighting in Taiwan etc.). It is sad that so much hokum surrounds them.

Those who don't practise the ima might ultimately use similar priniples - all roads lead to Rome. But they don't do ima, and often don't really appreciate what they offer - probably because the magicians who have created the present 'industry' have clouded and subverted a wonderful, simple and useful set of skills.

Sorry, but many of these skills are not in MMA, karate or other 'external' arts. This is not a pronouncement that ima are better; just different. And if you haven't studied them, you probably won't know what I mean! You certainly won't get any idea from the 'new age' chi crowd; this is not ima. Victor said it best; after 30 years of taiji his teacher has never once mentioned 'chi'. My teachers haven't either.

I practise ima today to add refined and subtle techniques to my method - useful for a rapidly decaying body that cannot rely much on power.

Are ima 'essential' - certainly not. But I find their technical base more efficient in terms of momentum tranfer etc. I see no reason they would be useful - particularly to someone who is experiencing diminishing returns of the same 'external' training after having trained for many years.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 06:32 AM

Quote:

Why would you want to limit yourself?

I don't think that was the issue here.

The issue was a misconception of what a limited demo conveyed in terms of what constituted "internal".

Quote:

Look, the idea is simple. You address the basic attributes of the body with activity designed to improve them (conditioning). Then you apply the improved attributes to your chosen skillset (MA), and thus, with greater raw material to work with, your performance improves.

No argument there.

Quote:

The weight of evidence tells us that auxilliary conditioning improves every activity.

And "internal" methods are not "conditioning" - albeit of a different variety?

Quote:

now i know that push-hands drills and similar are exhausting, and yes, they do rely on resistance, but they are not consistent, nor progressive, as they rely on the attributes of your partner, so if you get partnered with a weaker, or less able person than you, then you do not stimulate an adaptive response.

Well, you gotta work with what you got dontcha?

Quote:

Consistent, specific, and progressive conditioning from sources outside of your art will help improve the attributes from whence you draw your ma performance.

No argument there either.

Look I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Can we agree that the internal/external dichotomy, as loose and artificial as it may be, is essentially working towards the same goals, albeit with different methods and approaches with regards to conditioning, structural strength, postural integrity, power generation etc.?

So... how about this video as an example of good "internal" skills?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vitxPuC7sTI&feature=related

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 06:36 AM

Quote:

I believe these techniques could be profitably used by 'modern' ma (as Tim Cartmell, Liu De Xiu and others have done in full contact fighting in Taiwan etc.). It is sad that so much hokum surrounds them.

Agreed.

Quote:

Those who don't practise the ima might ultimately use similar priniples - all roads lead to Rome. But they don't do ima

Eh? So they do them, but they dont do them? (here we go again!). If I dont know the name for the Sun, do I not benefit from its warmth?

Quote:

because the magicians who have created the present 'industry' have clouded and subverted a wonderful, simple and useful set of skills.

Agreed.

Quote:

Sorry, but many of these skills are not in MMA, karate or other 'external' arts. This is not a pronouncement that ima are better; just different. And if you haven't studied them, you probably won't know what I mean!

How much clinch work have you done? Is controlling your oponent in the clinch pure brute force, or is a sensitivity to his movement, direction of force, and balance vital? do you not use these things against him?
Is the clinch not defined as an external art?

I am not saying the arts in question are not valid, I am saying the techniques share the same source as 'external' MA's, thus making the only reason to differentiate them the very 'guff' surrounding them that you dislike!.

The body either exerts force, or it recieves force. If a boxer reacts to a wild swing by reflexively avoiding it, and the thrower of the swing unbalances himself having missed, and falls, has the boxer not just practiced the very principles of 'internal MA'?
We all use an oponents energies against them.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 07:13 AM

More of the same dude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy-sN4m1vK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsdScRBZF4w&feature=related

I don't know who he is... some Soke-doke of some kind of Okinawan krotty... good internal skillz though... Too bad about the dumb uke... falling over for him....

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 07:59 AM

Real or Fake?

4:31 onwards...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXsMSoXrNgo

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:04 AM

Filipino Morris Dancing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krxYkRkJ69E&feature=related

Real MA or Fake?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:09 AM

So, by posting other clips are you attempting to redirect attention away from the discussion in progress? Are you bored of it, or merely having difficulty answering the observations offered? In the attempt of redirection, has the nature of the communication changed? Did you have to use a different keyboard?
Thought not.

Bad demonstrations are bad demonstrations. Waving a sweeping brush at a horde of marauding swordsmen is no more likely to work than letting someone grab you with real intent and expecting them to bounce 3 feet backwards as if having recieved an electric shock.

Does either example negate the kernel of reality that lies in all arts? course not.
Does either example dissuade me from seeing the idea of seperating arts into internal and external as a folly born of misconception on both sides? Not a chance.

Next.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:24 AM

I don't know how many times I have to say it Cord. You might do "internal-type" movements - many people do. But you don't do xingyi, bagua or taiji - therefore you don't do "the internal arts". And many of the specific techniques in those arts are not in MMA. This is not meant to be confrontational. You might not care for the exact techniques in xingyi, bagua and taiji (you might think they are not as effective as what you would do in that situation). I happen to, but hey, that's my preference.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:29 AM

Eyrie wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, sure... internal is based on the same bio-mechanics as external.

and:

Quote:

Look I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Can we agree that the internal/external dichotomy, as loose and artificial as it may be, is essentially working towards the same goals, albeit with different methods and approaches with regards to conditioning, structural strength, postural integrity, power generation etc.?

I agree. But that still leaves the real question behind this debate- why have the dichotomy in the first place if it segregates and breeds misunderstanding?

Surely there must be a better answer to this 'why', than merely 'just because', for it to have any validity

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:30 AM

Yeah... I'm bored. Besides, I've already addressed the observations.

The point of the other videos are to highlight what I see as good examples of "internal" skills. The question is what do YOU (general) see, inspite of the poor quality of ukes allowing Seikichi to REALLY show his stuff?

How about the Kuroda video? Make any sense of it? Now that's really, really sophisticated usage of the same underlying skills I'm talking about. BTW, the pinkie trick is easy... it's simply an extension of the old man push demo. If you understand what the push demo is basically demonstrating, you'd grasp the pinkie wrestling trick... it's the same thing. Martial applicability..? Oooh... I can think of several....

OK, maybe not the Filipino Morris Dancing... that was to highlight the point that people see what they want to see... i.e. the dance and not the underlying skill involved.

The underlying skill, that is equally applicable to any field of athletic or artistic endeavor - that's what I'm talking about. I just happen to label it "internal". If the labeling is an issue, then let's dispense with it and just talk about the underlying skill.

What is the underlying skill that all these people have in common?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:32 AM

Quote:

I don't know how many times I have to say it Cord. You might do "internal-type" movements - many people do. But you don't do xingyi, bagua or taiji - therefore you don't do "the internal arts". And many of the specific techniques in those arts are not in MMA. This is not meant to be confrontational. You might not care for the exact techniques in xingyi, bagua and taiji (you might think they are not as effective as what you would do in that situation). I happen to, but hey, that's my preference.

So did the principles not exist before they were branded with the name of an art? or were they observed and noted from experience out in the real world, and then codified and trained in themselves just the same as how external arts developed?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:35 AM

Quote:

What is the underlying skill that all these people have in common?

Being able to choose their Uke's

That what you have until now, insisted on calling 'internal' arts involve their own specific skillset(s), has never been a bone of contention.

As someone who specificaly trains to isolate and use those skillsets, perhaps it is better for you to tell me what you see, just the same as I would defer to a boxing coach to explain the concepts within that art.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:39 AM

Now you're being facetious... or is that because you don't know either?

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:40 AM

For crying out loud - the "dichotomy" only exists because the Chinese used this term to distinguish the arts of xingyi, bagua and taiji from other arts (which focussed more on pragmatism and quicker fighting skill development).

Today people want a handy label to describe "more efficient" movement - so they describe what they do incorrectly by reference to 3 or 4 Chinese arts that happen to focus on this aspect (mostly to the exclusion of any "realism").

So CAN this debate once and for all. The "dichotomy" of "internal-like" vs. "external" (external was used in China to describe anything that wasn't taiji, bagua or xingyi) has been brought into existence by "chi merchants" - yes. But it has also been perpetuated by the people who say "I do something like that too".

The debate is ridiculous. I can't even describe to my teacher the nature of this kind of debate. He blinks and frowns when I ask him about things "internal" (neija). He says "it just means xingyi, bagua and taiji". He's right. End of story.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:42 AM

I edited my last post having scanned how it read. As you have found, humour is not always easy in text.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:46 AM

Quote:

For crying out loud - the "dichotomy" only exists because people used this term to distinguish the arts of xingyi, bagua and taiji from other arts (which focussed more on pragmatism and quicker fighting skill development).

Today people want a handy label to describe "more efficient" movement - so they describe what they do incorrectly by reference to 3 or 4 Chinese arts that happen to focus on this aspect (mostly to the exclusion of any "realism").

So CAN this debate once and for all. The "dichotomy" of "internal-like" vs. "external" (external was used in China to describe anything that wasn't taiji, bagua or xingyi) has been brought into existence by "chi merchants" - yes. But it has also been perpetuated by the people who say "I do something like that too".

The debate is ridiculous. I can't even describe to my teacher the nature of this kind of debate. He blinks and frowns when I ask him about things "internal" (neija). He says "it just means xingyi, bagua and taiji". He's right. End of story.

OK, but I dont see why they need to be segregated from all other martial arts, seeing as how they rely on the same physical principles as all others, thats all.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:55 AM

They might rely on the same principles in very general terms - but its the technical skill set (doesn't every art have them?) that is quite distinctive. And the fact that they spend inordinate time developing efficient moment transfer in a "non-live" environment (something you wouldn't agree with). In other words their training methods are also very different. Different from karate, tkd and even "gung-fu" (the Shaolin styles).

Why are they "segregated"? Why call "karate" by that name? Or Muay Thai?

"Neija" (literally "internal") refers to the "science" that existed in the early days. They didn't know how to explain "momentum transfer" or "power". So created a paradigm - chi flow (instead of momentum flow). Their common technical base and emphasis on particular training methods led them to be lumped together, just as Okinawan karate (a series of quite distinct styles) is lumped together.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 09:01 AM

Quote:

Being able to choose their Uke's

That what you have until now, insisted on calling 'internal' arts involve their own specific skillset(s), has never been a bone of contention.

As someone who specificaly trains to isolate and use those skillsets, perhaps it is better for you to tell me what you see, just the same as I would defer to a boxing coach to explain the concepts within that art.

I've already said it before... 3 things... weight, ground, breath. How well he uses the ground, his weight, and breath (harder to detect).

The dance video of Seikichi Uehara is actually a really good demo. There was a Noh/Kabuki one I'd come across before which showed not only the performance (which in physical terms was a rather difficult one - almost as physically exhausting as a ballet performance), as well as the personal PT exercises the performer used to "condition" his body. Speaking of ballet, it's a good example of body conditioning too.

Most of these exercises are similar in nature... and involve one or many of the following elements:
1. breathing (and all the nuances of breath control)
2. balance (holding contradictory lines of intention)
3. bodily coordination and control
4. intent (see 2)
5. complete relaxation - while doing all of the above

If that vaguely sounds like Yoga... or even sanchin it's purely coincidental.

But that's not the problem is it? The problem is how people extrapolate those underlying skills into a martial application. For some, they need to see a "real" application, before they can see the value in the method.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 09:13 AM

OK, maybe one more video... posted earlier in the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqDN6UR7U5Y

Limited demo but he's actually explaining how this magic ki stuff works!

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 09:30 AM

Quote:

It's internal, you wouldn't understand it.. You wouldn't be able to FEEEEL it even if it crawled up your nether regions and died... coz y'all rednecked Arkansians aren't that saavy.

Never said I don't have a basic understanding of physice. I just don't have a physics degree.
I do have internal training though. I have been doing sanchin for years. I'm an internal master!!

I assure you, we Arkansans are not all rednecks, I'm certainly far from it,but since you can't win your pathetic argument I guess you need to resort to demeaning people.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 09:49 AM

Quote:

OK, maybe one more video... posted earlier in the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqDN6UR7U5Y

Limited demo but he's actually explaining how this magic ki stuff works!

Great. Two guys wearing dresses and mumbling, not to mention an extremely overacting uke and a "soke" ,oh boy.

"emptying and relaxing" "strength flowing into your opponent" "relaxed method" lol . What I saw and heard was an overanilization of a technique with a low percentage use.

Did you see how the second uke didn't fall? He just rolled forward slowly to the same technique that supposedly made the other crossdresser drop like a bag of rocks. This is why this stuff is so mystical and just stupid. There is very little reality and a whole lot of useless babbling.

Like you, he's more likely to talk someone to death than actually be able to do something.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 10:05 AM

Quote:

They might rely on the same principles in very general terms - but its the technical skill set (doesn't every art have them?) that is quite distinctive. And the fact that they spend inordinate time developing efficient moment transfer in a "non-live" environment (something you wouldn't agree with). In other words their training methods are also very different. Different from karate, tkd and even "gung-fu" (the Shaolin styles).

Why are they "segregated"? Why call "karate" by that name? Or Muay Thai?

"Neija" (literally "internal") refers to the "science" that existed in the early days. They didn't know how to explain "momentum transfer" or "power". So created a paradigm - chi flow (instead of momentum flow). Their common technical base and emphasis on particular training methods led them to be lumped together, just as Okinawan karate (a series of quite distinct styles) is lumped together.

So, if, by isolating the study of movement and balance, and studying them in such a removed form as to make the application in fighting require training outside of that study, are they not just 'arts' who's principles could be applied as easily, in practical terms, to anything, as opposed to being focussed on martial application?
I mean, we dont say a Nurse has 'martial training' because she has done a manual handling course, do we?

Eyrie wrote:

Quote:

I've already said it before... 3 things... weight, ground, breath. How well he uses the ground, his weight, and breath (harder to detect).

OK, here is another example of these combined elements in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDDbWaXQGKs&feature=related

Posted by: JasonM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 10:25 AM

wow...that was a lot of weight and nicely done..

Ya think the IMA masters could do that?

(j/k)

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 10:43 AM

Quote:

So, if, by isolating the study of movement and balance, and studying them in such a removed form as to make the application in fighting require training outside of that study, are they not just 'arts' who's principles could be applied as easily, in practical terms, to anything, as opposed to being focussed on martial application?
I mean, we dont say a Nurse has 'martial training' because she has done a manual handling course, do we?

I was telling you what the internal arts are because you asked. I didn't think you'd agree with their approach.

As it happens, it's not that they fail to apply the techniques. They just spend a long time isolating movements before they apply them (although they do apply them in limited ways right from the start - in semi-free sparring where you break from push hands etc.). So traditionally they say that in xingyi you spend 5 years, bagua 8-10 years and taiji 15 years before you can rely on the techniques ("15 years before you leave the training hall" is the saying). Not everyone will agree (Liu De Xiu was competing at quite a young age in full contact, as was Tim Cartmell).

But in the end they take longer to apply because of their "perfectionist" approach (think of perfecting serves, ground strokes and volleys in tennis for many years before you get into a proper game and you have an approximate analogy). That's why most people who do internal arts for fighting do so in conjunction with other arts or after coming from other arts (ie. as a means of adding to what they already know).

Like I said, you don't have to agree with the approach and I'm not asking you to. I'm just trying to explain what I know of the internal arts. I'm a karate man myself, come to internal arts lately. As I've said in my article "My quest for the martial holy grail", my karate instructor (and his Chinese teacher Hong Yi Xiang) refused to teach the internal arts until substantial mastery of a practical external art (ie. an art that was not one of the xingyi, bagua or taiji group) had been perfected. I said already that I didn't think it would be your cup of tea (ie. adopting the entire methodology and art).

As to your comment "are they just arts"... For many people they are just that and no more - witness the number of old folks doing taiji. The efficient flow of momentum, the biomechanically sound movement etc. are all good for health (not in any mystical way, but in the sense of good design). My 70 year old internal arts teacher is a good example. He and his elder brother are healthier and more supple in their body than I am in my 40s.

Xingyi is the "most external" and most practical of the 3 and that is where I am focussed now (and I still practise my standard karate/arnis/staff/qin-na etc. - the internal arts I do as an adjunct). Bagua is "softer" and taiji is the softest. They are progressively more "advanced" in efficiency of movement, but progressively harder to apply and hence more "art like".

I don't advocate them as practical fighting arts for beginners or even for intermediate or advanced. But for those who have reached a point of diminishing returns in other systems, they can breathe a whole new life into your fighting. I am moving better now than I did in my early 30s despite immunologically related arthritis etc. I'm moving way "smarter". But I don't think I would have had any value from internal arts in terms of fighting until recently.

I know many so-called "combat" internal artists who can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag (these are the types who believe in inflated claims made by charlatan teachers).

In short, I've chimed in to give you my understanding of the internal arts - not to recommend them to all or say they are "superior".

My Chinese teacher says they are good for a particular purpose at a particular time in your training. I agree with him.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 10:59 AM

Thank you Cord for your preceding few posts. You saved me the trouble of writing the same thing.

The nature of "internal" debates and most of these type demos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vitxPuC7sTI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy-sN4m1vK8

Leads me to believe that they (the debates and demos, not the arts) are completely fake. Sadly, I'm not even sure if Eyrie was joking or serious about these being good demos or not. These appear to be 100% fake to me. Some of the other other vids had *some* useful things in them, but these are exactly the kinds of demos that make people laugh at martial artists.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 12:08 PM

Quote:

Real or Fake?

4:31 onwards...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXsMSoXrNgo

The finger wrestling; nothing but fake. I watched this whole series and called bull$hit on many of this crap they perpetuated as real as did others. Just because it is on TV or somebody says it is real does not make it real.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 12:17 PM

I was going to say the same thing Matt; fake but there is small amounts of things useful. (i.e. turning of the wrist in the beginning).

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 07:28 PM

Quote:

So, if, by isolating the study of movement and balance, and studying them in such a removed form as to make the application in fighting require training outside of that study, are they not just 'arts' who's principles could be applied as easily, in practical terms, to anything, as opposed to being focussed on martial application?

Precisely! Martial application is simply a form of practical application of the same underlying principles of movement and balance.

Could it be that the problem is people are only wanting to see the martial application and not the preceding steps leading to it? Is not conditioning, and the myriad forms of conditioning, simply a way to develop the body to do specific tasks - i.e. application of a conditioned body to perform a skill? Whether it be dance, martial arts, calligraphy or tea ceremmony?

Let's put it another way... if IMA/EMA are simply training methods to achieve the same thing - body conditioning, structural strength, postural integrity, power generation etc. and all MAs aim to develop some level of sensitivity along with manipulation of forces, then is it not plausible that a demo of the ability to utilize the conditioned body and sensitivity to manipulate external and internal (i.e. gravity, ground, breath pressure) forces, is simply a demonstration of a level of ability?

Or is the problem that our respective perception filters and realm of experience prevents us from seeing beyond our current level of understanding and experience? i.e. anything beyond our realm of understanding is therefore mystical, fake or BS.

IMO, what I would class as pure "internal" involves the ability to manipulate weight (yours or theirs), ability to manipulate the GRF vector to bounce/project someone, and the ability to manipulate breath pressure as a power adjunct (in order of difficulty). But there's no point talking about these things if it is beyond the general level of experience and comprehension. Yes, HTF do you manipulate the GRF to throw someone... that's the "trick" isn't it? It all starts with a push and the ability to ground a push and redirect a push without moving. Surely, some people understand this as basic judo push/pull? Think of it as push/pull on a slightly different level. Gravity is a pull. GRF (the stuff that makes us stand up and walk) is a push. What's the difference?

Would you simply stand there and receive a punch in a real-world application? Of course not! That's just plain dumb. It's simply a training method, which allows you to do that WHEN the timing, distance and opening is appropriate. Just as all other forms of body conditioning allows you to do other things... (like punch hard, clinch, takedown, armbar etc.) WHEN those conditions are met.

IOW, these things are simply "training methods" or peripheral conditioning. For all intents and purposes, it's just a form of body building... you pump iron, "internalists" do something else. You can build muscle, or you can build a different kind of "muscle".

So, you might do sanchin, taiji or some other form of qigong, but which "muscle" are you developing? Or are you simply mimicking the outer (external) form of movement and calling it "internal"? Does doing the form make it "internal" vis-a-vis your Sun/warmth argument. Or does doing it with the intent of "internalized" movement make it "internal"?

Taiji, bagua, xingyi might be classed as "internal" methods... but there's a heck of a lot of people that simply mimic the external movements and call it "internal"... oh just because it is "internal".

Maybe it's fake/BS, OR maybe a slight paradigm shift is required to see it differently...

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:08 PM

Quote:

I was going to say the same thing Matt; fake but there is small amounts of things useful. (i.e. turning of the wrist in the beginning).

Yeah, the problem is you guys are looking at immediate martial application against a resistive/alive opponent, rather than a training method to get there.

Maybe this will help. Same silly dood in a dress... using a trained method in a familiar application to resist being thrown. 1:31 onwards...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrOL6p5XsAk&feature=related

Which is essentially the same as this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMw_Jtn3Avc

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:18 PM

Internal or external?

http://www.aikiweb.hit.bg/mits_yamashita_se.htm

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:51 PM

Doesn't it strike you as a bit ODD that the sickly and frail ones always figure out a way to "apply techniques without force"?

My question is what is Helio doing that's different? Is it "internal"? Maybe... on some arbitrary scale of internal to external.

You're not getting the point... there's always going to be a range of skills and abilities between "internal" and "external" with everyone. It's how much of your own muscular power you're relying on to make a technique work, or how much of the natural forces of gravity, ground and breath to do the job for you.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 08:57 PM

I hope you mean "internal-like" or not...!

Aikido is NOT one of the internal arts. It has some "internal-like" aspects, but its technical base is far closer to, say, karate, than it is to taiji, xingyi or bagua (although some try to connect it with the latter).

Yes, some locks etc. are congruent. But it is how you deflect or engage an attack that is different.

As I've said elsewhere, the fact that you do something by not opposing force with force does not make you "internal". It MIGHT make you "internal-like" (if you are using a taiji/bagua/xingyi like technique). But the essence of the internal arts philosophy is not remotely the same as aikido's "harmonising ki". In fact, the internal arts have many movements that are completely unlike aikido (ie. they can be very confrontational). They have a Daoist philosophy with no moral overtones (Daoism is amoral). There is no "benevolence" or "harmony" or "love" underpinning the internal arts. To the extent that they have a "conflict avoidance" philosophy, they are just being pragmatic (if you live by the sword, you'll probably die by it). The philosophy of the internal arts is therefore a pragmatic, amoral one. This is very distinct from Ueshiba's philosophy.

Having studied aikido I can say this: it has a paradigm that relies heavily on the term "ki". However this is not to say that the paradigm (in particular as it relates to technique) is similar to the internal arts of China. The internal arts writings refer to chi only in a very general sense: this does not intrude into the physical study (unless you are practising, say, taiji with a teacher who has a "new age" flavour). By contrast, aikido references the "ki" paradigm in ordinary training (as you would expect from the name of the art). "Ki harmonisation" is at the core of aikido.

Accoringly, in terms of how eyrie is using the term "internal" (ie. "ki-based"), it might be said that aikido is far MORE "internal" that the internal arts will ever be!

I do not agree with the appropriate of the term "internal" by aikidoka purely from an accuracy perspective. Neijaquan (internal fist) is a term coined for the 3 principal "soft" arts of China and their offshoots. It is a term like "karate" that describes a particular group of styles - nothing more and nothing less.

I'm now exiting this debate as I can't find any more ways of saying this.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 09:14 PM

Yeah, Dan... the problem is this "harmony" thing has been twisted and misinterpreted as some New Age "peace and love" thing.

It really means "in harmony with the natural forces" (already mentioned). If you read Ueshiba's doka carefully, especially where he speaks of mixing fire and water, the 8 powers etc.. he's essentially talking about the SAME things as yin/yang, taiji, bagua. If you watch some of the Ueshiba demos, you'll see him demonstrate the same basic qi skills as found in taiji, bagua and xingyi.

That some aikido have turned it into a conflict avoidance thing is how they choose to interpret the art, just as how some people interpret qi and ki to mean some mystical life force.

If anything, have a read of the Baseline Skillset thread on Aikiweb. I know it's a really long, drawn out thread, but it's worth the read, and will illuminate how and why some people choose to interpret it as meaning something different altogether. In the end, you and I are talking about the same things.... even if Aikido is not a pure "internal" art by your definition.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/13/08 09:39 PM

The writings of the internal arts refer to various concepts common to all "chi"/"ki" paradigms. However taiji, bagua and xingyi do not rely on "qi skills" (cf. aikido's kokyu ho etc.) except in the somewhat dubious demonstrations that were "crowd pleasers".

I agree that aikido has been misinterpreted. It has fallen foul of the new age movement as much as the internal arts of China. But it does have a different base. "Harmony with the natural forces" might be common, but it manifests very differently in the Chinese arts and aikido. So differently that this commonality should not lead them to be grouped together.

Ueshiba clearly referenced Daoism in formulating his philosophy, but his concept of "harmonising ki" goes further than concepts like "wu-wei" in Daoism imho. Ueshiba's personal philosophy seems to have more in common with the later "quietist" movement than with Daoism in its Dao De Jing manifestation.I'm NOT saying one is better etc. They are just different.

To the extent that I see taiji demonstrations looking similiar to some of the aikido demonstrations (eg. in
"pushing power" where people are flung great distances), I don't see this as a real application of either art... Rather it is just an illustration of balance, often exaggerated for "fair-ground effect". It has more in common with standing on eggs and spear bending at the throat (common fair-ground stuff) than it does with the real techniques of those arts...

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 12:11 AM

Quote:

I agree that aikido has been misinterpreted. It has fallen foul of the new age movement as much as the internal arts of China.

exactly. but, as for every art, it can't be judged by it's mainstream face. if it's the art that is being evaluated, then you need to look at it's essence. it's true I don't understand the essence of Aiki arts, but from what I've seen of fairly senior and capable Aikidoka, it's not just fluff. there is alot of substance there in the art.

I don't think the videos show that substance. There really are Aikidoka that you can 'attack' in a non-scripted way, and they respond effectively. There is a guy I've trained with only twice that has somewhat blended his Goju and Aikido training...I'd say his aikido training has helped him in timing and his spatial awareness that enables his Goju to a high level. I was impressed by how he works the combination of principles.

Aikido as a technical art of body dynamics is not flawed. it's when people try to make it something that it is not - that's where the problem happens.

my opinion. I have only been an interested observer of Aiki arts, not a practictioner.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 12:15 AM

Hmmm... and yet here we have one Mike Sigman, who studied directly under LiangShouYu, ChenXiaoWang and other taiji greats... saying precisely that... the basic skills are the same and are common to most Asian MAs... from taiji, xingyi, bagua, white crane, karate, silat, aikido, judo, jujitsu etc.

Quote:

The writings of the internal arts refer to various concepts common to all "chi"/"ki" paradigms. However taiji, bagua and xingyi do not rely on "qi skills" (cf. aikido's kokyu ho etc.) except in the somewhat dubious demonstrations that were "crowd pleasers".

I beg to differ. The knee bounce trick is a basic "qi" skill - from Yiquan (c/f Xingyiquan), to ChenXiaoWang showing it in Chen taiji, to Ueshiba of Aikido. I'll admit they are merely for "show" - as demonstrations of such "basic" skills, rather than demonstrations of any real or perceived application.

Quote:

I agree that aikido has been misinterpreted. It has fallen foul of the new age movement as much as the internal arts of China. But it does have a different base. "Harmony with the natural forces" might be common, but it manifests very differently in the Chinese arts and aikido. So differently that this commonality should not lead them to be grouped together.

Why not? If the theme is common, and the skills are common... why should they not be categorically grouped together as subsets of the same skill base - even if their "technical" base is different? The underlying skills which drive the technical skills are the core of what makes it the "same".

Quote:

Ueshiba clearly referenced Daoism in formulating his philosophy, but his concept of "harmonising ki" goes further than concepts like "wu-wei" in Daoism imho. Ueshiba's personal philosophy seems to have more in common with the later "quietist" movement than with Daoism in its Dao De Jing manifestation.I'm NOT saying one is better etc. They are just different.

I can understand the reasoning for wanting to separate them, based on philosophical doctrine, but that's nitpicking. Sure it saves having a philosophical argument regarding what is internal/external, but as much as one would like to believe the myth that taiji was "invented" by a Daoist immortal, the fact remains, and has recently been admitted to by the Chen village standard bearer, that Chen taiji (and therefore Yang taiji and all the other taiji variants) has its origins in Shaolin.

Quote:

To the extent that I see taiji demonstrations looking similiar to some of the aikido demonstrations (eg. in "pushing power" where people are flung great distances), I don't see this as a real application of either art... Rather it is just an illustration of balance, often exaggerated for "fair-ground effect". It has more in common with standing on eggs and spear bending at the throat (common fair-ground stuff) than it does with the real techniques of those arts...

And what drives "real techniques"? Is it not the same basic human bio-mechanics and physics that drives everything else from weightlifting to dancing?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 12:21 AM

Quote:

but, as for every art, it can't be judged by it's mainstream face. if it's the art that is being evaluated, then you need to look at it's essence.

ROTFL...so... what WERE those people saying in College Aikido and Aikido in MMA setting thread... I wonder?

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 12:25 AM

sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 12:42 AM

Mate, you should read it... coz it has a direct bearing on what you just said.... and my responses to that effect.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 01:01 AM

Eyrie, are you mistaking "technique" over "force"? Proper technique while uses energy will use less energy then forcing something; technique usually wins. Is that what you are trying to say with "internal" and "external"?

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 01:03 AM

Sigman is right - all ma rely on the same basic principles; my physics article explores this and Cord is arguing this point.

But as far as I am concerned aikido is not similar technically to taiji or bagua (certianly not xingyi).

Those 'pushes' and 'knee bounces' etc. don't occur in any internal form. There is nothing like Chen 'fajing' in aikido, for example, nor is there any aiki type footwork in Chen - for example.

I am not denigrating aikido which I greatly admire - merely pointing out that if you want to group it with taiji etc. you may as well throw in practically anything.

The 'internal' pushing demos are 'show' or just basic balance.

The philosophical base to aikido has a profound effect on its technical approach so I disagree that my distinction is 'nit picking'.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 01:45 AM

Quote:

Eyrie, are you mistaking "technique" over "force"? Proper technique while uses energy will use less energy then forcing something; technique usually wins. Is that what you are trying to say with "internal" and "external"?

No, I'm saying you're mistaking a limited demo in a semi-static mode for "real" technique. The limited demo is meant to "demonstrate" (that's what "demo" means!) an "ideal", in which principles of movement are conveyed. IMO, it's NOT "technique".

How you apply the "ideal" (or as close to the ideal as possible) is a matter of training/practice/application skill. That's what I mean by "technique".

How much of your own physical force you use is in your "technique". The limited demo shows the "ideal" of utilizing "natural" forces to do the work.

See, I don't see things as clear-cut as win/lose.

It either works or it doesn't. That takes skill and "technique" - as in ability to apply skill. Of course, the less of my own physical energy I have to use the better for me. I let uke do all the work, or gravity, or weight or something else.

But then I'm lazy like that...

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 01:50 AM

Quote:

Sigman is right - all ma rely on the same basic principles; my physics article explores this and Cord is arguing this point.

But as far as I am concerned aikido is not similar technically to taiji or bagua (certianly not xingyi).

Basic skill is not the same as basic principle. But I get your drift. Also, no disagreement there with technical differences.

Quote:

Those 'pushes' and 'knee bounces' etc. don't occur in any internal form. There is nothing like Chen 'fajing' in aikido, for example, nor is there any aiki type footwork in Chen - for example.

It might not be in the form or other "externalities", but it is a clear demonstration of the same skills. You are right in that there is no fajing in Aikido... at least not demonstrated substantively by Ueshiba. But there's no denying that if you understand the basic paradigm on which the basic skills are founded, and how fajing is an extrapolation of those skills, then there is no reason why one can't fajing - irrespective of whether one is "doing" Aikido at the time or not. I.e. the skill transcends the art.

Quote:

I am not denigrating aikido which I greatly admire - merely pointing out that if you want to group it with taiji etc. you may as well throw in practically anything.

No offense given, none taken. An excellent point... a good jujitsu practitioner may start to approach "internal" eventually, but does that make jujitsu internal? I think that's what Mike's saying... it doesn't matter what art it is... they all have at its basis the same skill subset.

Quote:

The philosophical base to aikido has a profound effect on its technical approach so I disagree that my distinction is 'nit picking'.

That maybe true, but then a "form" is only there to give a thing its "shape". My question is... what creates the "form"?

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 03:03 AM

Any art can become 'internal' in the sense you are using it (ie. using little power but efficient momentum transfer). But this, and broad agreement in principle, doesn't bring aikido any closer technically speaking to the 3 major ima of China.

For eg. aikido techniques (eg. irimi nage or kote gaeshi) can be modified to follow ima 'rules of movement' - by this I mean the footwork, use of hips/hands etc. You end up with something very different, as I have found. I'd have to film both approaches to illustrate the difference. They are like comparing shorin ryu to Muay Thai...

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 03:37 AM

My point is that the skills amount to more than a broad principle.

The pushing demos on this thread arguably show some element of similarity in skills - but I think the demos are mostly (entirely in some cases) for show and a poor marker for "similarity" in skill set.

What creates a "form"? It's your approach/tactics. For example, if you are aggressive, the form of your tactics is going to be very direct and confrontational. If you are defensive you will evade and parry, countering when there is an opening.

Your approach might be based on maximising power - which is how the 3 internal arts and their offshoots view all other arts (and given that other arts are, to a greater or lesser degree, more pragmatic, this is not an insult).

Your approach might be based on maximising impulse (the ima "tactic" or approach).

In my opinion, aikido doesn't seek to maximise impulse like the 3 ima of China do - it still uses the same framework/foundation of its closest related external arts in Japan. What it does differently from other "external" ma is that it seeks to utilise the opponent's power. This latter element might be common to the ima and aikido as a very general statement of philosophy - but this is different from the approach that creates the "form".

So I adhere to my view that "internal" (as a translation of "neija") refers to neijaquan - taiji, bagua, xingyi, liu he ba fa, yi quan etc. They have a broadly common skill set. They have a similar philosophy and goal to aikido in some respects, but this is as far as it goes.

In the end, all efficient techniques use less power and rely more on impulse. Cord would agree with this, as would you. So I fear we are arguing semantics... Like Cord, I start to question the need for the "dichotomy" if "external" and "internal" take this definition (although I have, and will continue on occasion, to describe something as "internal" - note the quotation marks - because of it's similarity in approach to the 3 ima).

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 04:14 AM

Quote:

For all intents and purposes, it's just a form of body building... you pump iron, "internalists" do something else. You can build muscle, or you can build a different kind of "muscle".

Ugh!

You were doing so well till this point.

How can you develop a different type of muscle? are you saying that the fibres change, (and I am not talking fast/slow twitch, I am talking fundamental change in nature of what they are), or the way they communicate with the brain is different?
Do you think that everyone who lifts weights is a bodybuilder?
Do you understand that the exact principles you have been talking about were displayed using the exact same type of muscle tissue in the weightlifting clip I linked?

'Internal' practice requires the exact same anatomical and physiological structures as everything else, it is merely a skill to which you apply your body. It does not change its nature.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 04:38 AM

It's true that in the traditional "qi paradigm" internal arts were said to develop/build something other than muscle. But this was clearly a paradigm developed out of a lack of science to explain what was actually happening.

In other words, it was observed that internal artists were applying the same force but needing to "work" less, hence use less power, hence require less muscle, than comparable Shaolin practitioners. But they weren't doing so because they had developed anything other than efficient technique.

For what it's worth Cord, I don't think eyrie was doing anything other than using a shortcut for what I have just said. I doubt he was suggesting any "internal muscle" development etc.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 04:47 AM

An example of what I mean might be found in golf:

You could train to hit the ball farthest by weight training, or you could train to perfect your technique. In golf it is easy to see how the latter is better: many an old codger has hit the ball right up to the green where a young muscled beginner can only hit the ball a few metres.

In combat, the ensuing chaos makes it much harder to rely on clean technique, hence the analogy starts to fall down; combat will always find simple power very useful indeed.

In eyrie's terms it could be said that the golfer and bodybuilder are "developing" 2 different things...

Posted by: Gavin

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 04:53 AM

God is this still going on....jesus, have we decided anything yet? Tie Chee people are still hippies ain't they Cord, please tell me at least that's still true?

Can't be bothered to read through the whole thread coz I can pretty much guess what's been said....

I'd just like to address the comment about building a different 'kind' of muscle, which it doesn't. Tai Chi has a very specific method of developing the physiology, making the body more efficient in combat than I believe pumping iron does, but it doesn't build a different muscle, more one specifically tuned to do the job at hand. As with 'lifters' and actually anyone who uses their musculature, we all soften before we contract. When you're going to do a dead lift you'll grab the bar an then 'soften' the muscles to get into position for the explosive recruitment of the motor units to lift the weight. This is all we do in Tai Chi, but the process is extremely precise and learnt slowly to train the body to 'soften' to the maximum possible whilst still being able to maintain a position of strength, our Tai Chi 'root'. I'm sure most of the lifters on the forum we agree that the more you relax the better the explosion produced is, this is because (in laymans terms) the more fibres you relax, the more fibres you have a available to contract.

This then takes us to the next stage in the process which is the contraction, which again something like Tai Chi is mathematically precise on. As a physical therapist one thing I'm interested in is synergistic muscles misbehaving, that is muscles that assist the primary ones in a given movement. Quite often due to posture or habit our synergistic muscles overcompensate for poorly performing muscles and other times a lot of people will over tense and actually fire up agonistic and antagonistic muscles at the same time, all of which drastically affect performance. I see this a lot with people who lift weights which is a major cause of injury IMO, but also in virtually every Martial Artist I see. Again the Tai Chi method of training extremely slowly to begin with is too ensure that contraction of the muscles is done in an extremely precise and efficient order. This is then taken into something like push hands to drill in a resistant and progressively more intense drills to make maximum efficient usage of the body (a step many so called IMA's totally bypass yet still profess being 'deadly' without ever having touched a soul). You can also then start looking at the more advanced Martial forms that develop the 'Fa Jing' or more precisely 'Fa Geng' skills, like the Long Boxing form in Yang Style Taiji. Which again takes muscle recruitment to another level, and again is then put through the mill to ingrain it as a physical practical skill....rather then a theatrical display or theoretical discussion on the internet.....

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 05:02 AM

Thanks for elucidating Gav... interesting to get a different and more learned perspective. It also helps break the boredom of having to address the accusations of BS.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 05:06 AM

Quote:

Any art can become 'internal' in the sense you are using it (ie. using little power but efficient momentum transfer). But this, and broad agreement in principle, doesn't bring aikido any closer technically speaking to the 3 major ima of China.

Sure... and I agree. Internal is merely a label as is "external". I'm quite happy for that title to go to the Big-3. Ultimately, skill is skill... whether it's internal, external or spatial.

Quote:

For eg. aikido techniques (eg. irimi nage or kote gaeshi) can be modified to follow ima 'rules of movement' - by this I mean the footwork, use of hips/hands etc. You end up with something very different, as I have found. I'd have to film both approaches to illustrate the difference. They are like comparing shorin ryu to Muay Thai...

This is what I mean by "what creates 'form'". It isn't just tactics... it's also how your conditioned body moves and responds dynamically to changing variables, including the ability to change gears, switch tactics, etc. in "mid-flight".

Quote:

In my opinion, aikido doesn't seek to maximise impulse like the 3 ima of China do - it still uses the same framework/foundation of its closest related external arts in Japan. What it does differently from other "external" ma is that it seeks to utilise the opponent's power. This latter element might be common to the ima and aikido as a very general statement of philosophy - but this is different from the approach that creates the "form".

Not that it can't though... since the Founder never demonstrated any explosive power releases, oooh except maybe on one video dated 1967 prior to his passing, with the late Terry Dobson. I believe it was funekogi and there was a distinct power release at the end of each out stroke.

So it does make you wonder... not that the art doesn't seek it... but whether the individual trains for it, is capable of it, and more importantly chooses to do it.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 05:10 AM

Clearly every activity is "muscle specific" and by inculcating technique you are also developing muscles suitable for the task.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 05:18 AM

Which is why I'm less focused on "technique" these days, and more on simply moving (or moving less, as the case may be).

Again, I point you to the Bu no Mai video of Uehara... which IMO is very enlightening...

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 05:48 AM

I was actually addressing that last point to Gavin re: muscle development.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 08:27 AM

Quote:

Doesn't it strike you as a bit ODD that the sickly and frail ones always figure out a way to "apply techniques without force"?

No. Should it? I have never said that MA technique requires muscle - just that it makes it better.

Quote:

My question is what is Helio doing that's different? Is it "internal"? Maybe... on some arbitrary scale of internal to external.

Helio is doing BJJ. Using ground, breath, and gravity, the same way it's taught everywhere.

Quote:

You're not getting the point... there's always going to be a range of skills and abilities between "internal" and "external" with everyone. It's how much of your own muscular power you're relying on to make a technique work, or how much of the natural forces of gravity, ground and breath to do the job for you.

LOL. I'm not getting the point.

Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 07:03 PM

me neither..........

Generally I get very confused when the IMA gang start trying to explain things.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 07:18 PM

Quote:

I have never said that MA technique requires muscle - just that it makes it better.

Any movement requires the use of muscle... even standing still or remaining seated requires the use of muscle to keep you from falling over.

So, it's not a question of using or not using muscle, but how efficiently you use your whole body - not just muscle, but your skeletal structure and tendons as well - as a kind of tensegrity framework.

The difference is essentially in how much of your legs and core you can acquire at any given moment to do the work. And whether you're allowing the natural forces of gravity and GRF to do most of the work, since, as you know, any muscle tension bleeds power.

Quote:

Helio is doing BJJ. Using ground, breath, and gravity, the same way it's taught everywhere.

In similar ways maybe, not the same way I don't think.

If only that was all there is to it... remember what Victor and WT said about there being "layers" of experience?

In what way does BJJ use mind-directed forces - a key power adjunct in the "internal arts" - by Dan's definition, to effect "technique" or is it purely mechanical leverage?

In case people are wondering if "mind-directed forces" pertains to some Jedi mind trick, it's not... it's using your intent (the mind-body connection) to form lines of power extension. IOW, where your mind and intent goes, the body follows... or in more flowery terms... the yi leads the qi.

Most people would know this concept as punching thru your target, which is but one line of intent, along the same axis as where your power is going. There are other directions in which lines of intent can be formed - up, down, left, right etc... without your physical body necessarily moving in that direction.

Now, if you're wondering how the f* that works... it's one of the basic exercises common to a number of Japanese gendai and koryu MA variously called kokyu-tanden-ho, reiki-no-ho, or more simply kokyu-ho.

Hmmm... does that make some JMA "internal"?

Or maybe Dan's right, maybe Aikido IS an "external" art... considering that a lot of Aikido people do this exercise as some sort of physical strength/mechanical leverage contest - even if the ground, gravity and breath are always there.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 08:10 PM

Quote:

So, it's not a question of using or not using muscle, but how efficiently you use your whole body - not just muscle, but your skeletal structure and tendons as well - as a kind of tensegrity framework.

The difference is essentially in how much of your legs and core you can acquire at any given moment to do the work. And whether you're allowing the natural forces of gravity and GRF to do most of the work, since, as you know, any muscle tension bleeds power.

I'm sorry, but this is more claptrap. People are either efficient or not. No one can use their muscles without also using their tendons, skeleton, etc. IMA people move the same way EMA people do.

Quote:

If only that was all there is to it... remember what Victor and WT said about there being "layers" of experience?

Mits Yamashita seems to think it is pretty much the same thing, huh? And I personally do not really buy into so many "layers" - especially if you normally train with resistance.

Quote:

In case people are wondering if "mind-directed forces" pertains to some Jedi mind trick, it's not... it's using your intent (the mind-body connection) to form lines of power extension. IOW, where your mind and intent goes, the body follows... or in more flowery terms... the yi leads the qi.

Most people would know this concept as punching thru your target, which is but one line of intent, along the same axis as where your power is going. There are other directions in which lines of intent can be formed - up, down, left, right etc... without your physical body necessarily moving in that direction.

I beleive in EMA this is called "faking out the opponent".

Quote:

Now, if you're wondering how the f* that works...

Nope. See above.

Quote:

Hmmm... does that make some JMA "internal"?

Don't know, and not the topic in any case. But I know fake demos when I see 'em.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 08:37 PM

Quote:

People are either efficient or not. No one can use their muscles without also using their tendons, skeleton, etc. IMA people move the same way EMA people do.

OK, if they move the same way, and people are either efficient or not, how does one become more efficient? How do you teach someone to move more efficiently? Do you throw them into the resistance/aliveness end up front? Or do you show them in a different way, and then gradually increase the resistance level?

Instead of attacking everything I say, as if you have some sort of personal vendetta against me, how about addressing the efficient body movement thing in more detail like I'm trying to?

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 09:31 PM

My my, is eyrie accusing yet another person of irrationality, bias, ad hominem attacks, etc, etc, etc? Poor eyrie--why is everyone so mean to you?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 09:37 PM

Maybe they're still smarting over some comment I made in some other thread... So have you anything substantive to add to the discussion, or are you here as part of the peanut gallery audience?

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 11:02 PM

Yes, I have something substantial to add: The old man's "powers" are fake as a three dollar bill.

Now please explain how a man who whines incessantly about ad hominem attacks get's off calling me part of the "peanut gallery."

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 11:08 PM

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem, pointing out that someone in the audience is throwing peanuts, or nut-like projectiles, isn't attacking a person's character.

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 11:37 PM

More to the point: when eyrie does it, it is not an ad hominem attack. If I (or anyone else) does the same to eyrie, it is an ad hominem attack.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/14/08 11:48 PM

It's kinda off-topic and you're dragging sh!t from the other thread, in which you, rather than replying to the argument, you proceeded to "attack or appeal to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim"... Which according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem is.

Next?

Irimi, tenkan, tenkan, irimi!

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 02:05 AM

The old man is a fake.

Posted by: ShaoLimper

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 04:49 AM

Real.
Masters of ba ghua zhang do have a high focus of their chi, and can do things that we might consider 'superhuman' but is honestly attainable by anyone. Now, the effect is not quite to that extent, though. Students that have had such a master for so long a time, often come to believe him something greater than he actually is. That is demonstrated with the younger man that literally jumps. Though subconsiously exagerated, it is possible to simply puch the person away as if that person were nothing, and that happens when you see the second oldest man with the second youngest. That is real, and only possible by training in Ba Ghau Zhang of Taijiquan.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 05:04 AM

It's posts like that that keep my skepticism strong. oh boy...

Posted by: Gavin

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 05:43 AM

Quote:

It's posts like that that keep my skepticism strong. oh boy...

And mine!

Posted by: ShaoLimper

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 06:00 AM

Quote:

It's posts like that that keep my skepticism strong. oh boy...

Heheh. Honestly, something like that is completely unbelievable until you experience it yourself. I have, but hey! I am a guy on the internet saying stuff. Why believe me? If you ever get the chance, go check it out. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Well, unless it costs you some hefty gas money to go wherever there is a practitioner. =]

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 06:44 AM

Well I have 'checked it out'.

That video shows a highly respected/endeared elder with very 'obliging' students. It is not illustrative of bagua or of real 'powers'. Sorry.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 09:33 AM

Quote:

Do you throw them into the resistance/aliveness end up front? Or do you show them in a different way, and then gradually increase the resistance level?

I believe that people learn most efficiently by giving them progressive resistance from the beginning. It's possible to learn from other methods, but it will take longer.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 10:12 AM

I don't necessarily agree. People learn to be good fighters with resistance - this is absolutely true. But people don't learn optimal technique without isolation.

For example the optimal golf swing or tennis forehand/backhand must be learned in isolation - not under the pressure of "resistance" (eg. you can't learn a good tennis forehand by playing games - you need isolation practise). So too with any refined skill - and the infinite angles and possibilities of combat make for a much more complex skill set than a ball sport imo.

At the same time those infinite angles/possibilities make combat chaotic by comparison to, say, a game of tennis where the variables are few. So combat places a premium on power - not necessarily refined/precise technique. In combat simple power can trump "superior technique". Not so in, say, tennis or golf where simple power can be beaten by even slightly superior technique. A powerful young man often beats a smaller, older man with better skill. But a powerful young man who hasn't much golf swing can't compare to an octogenarian who has skill (that's my limited golf experience).

So the internal arts of China might have an impractical methodology for combat, but in my experience they are very useful for precise, efficient momentum transfer because they teach you to rely less on power. And I'm talking here about "real" internal arts - not the hokum we've seen with this pushing/waving nonsense.

Ideally for combat you follow Matt's approach. But you also practise refining momentum tranfer without pressure - selectively applying/learning to apply that refined technique under pressure.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 04:21 PM

Quote:

In case people are wondering if "mind-directed forces" pertains to some Jedi mind trick, it's not... it's using your intent (the mind-body connection) to form lines of power extension. IOW, where your mind and intent goes, the body follows... or in more flowery terms... the yi leads the qi.

Increasing neuromuscular coordination and stimulating improvement in the CNS.

its all very well pointing out others lack of understanding of the 'internal', but if you dont think that these priciples are at the core of 'external' power generation, then you have some reading to do

I already know they are at the heart of both internal and external- because there is no difference in principle. The body generates, recieves, and absorbs kinetic energy just the same way.
Did you know that deceleration and energy absorption is key to plyometric and dynamic training?
Can you think of anything more 'external' than this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEeqHj3Nj2c

Look at the landings. Can you think of a clearer demonstration of energy absorption/displacement?

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 04:33 PM

Quote:

its all very well pointing out others lack of understanding of the 'internal', but if you dont think that these priciples are at the core of 'external' power generation, then you have some reading to do

Exactly, Cord! This is the fundamental flaw with Eyrie's argument - that he is sitting there, dispensing his priveledged knowledge from on high to us, who couldn't POSSIBLY have any related understanding. The Mits Yamashita article seemed to confirm my own (limited) experiences with Aikido and BJJ - that they use a very similar movement/power generation model.

Posted by: janxspirit

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 04:37 PM

Quote:

well if you know how the trick works you still go along with it.

People want to believe in magic that doesn't exist instead of enjoying the magic that does exist.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 07:25 PM

Quote:

The Mits Yamashita article seemed to confirm my own (limited) experiences with Aikido and BJJ - that they use a very similar movement/power generation model.

And so they should! Both are related through traditional jujutsu! Neither are related to taiji, bagua or xingyi however...

Aikido is not "internal", as I've pointed out. This isn't a criticism - just a categorisation based on skills/techniques.

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 07:31 PM

Quote:

People want to believe in magic that doesn't exist instead of enjoying the magic that does exist.

How absolutely true!

Just how amazing is the physical universe in its complexity!

Compare this to the 2 dimensional and simplistic "explanation" of sophisticated technology as "magic".

As Arthur C Clarke said: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/15/08 07:56 PM

Quote:

Increasing neuromuscular coordination and stimulating improvement in the CNS.

And PNS and ANS function.... No where have I said it was mystical "chi" life force, did I? We're dealing with a living, breathing human body, which works in only so many ways... why people insist on attributing that label to me is frankly beyond me and getting quite tiresome.

Quote:

its all very well pointing out others lack of understanding of the 'internal', but if you dont think that these priciples are at the core of 'external' power generation, then you have some reading to do

You know, that's what I've been trying to say all along... there's nothing mystical or BS about 'internal', because it IS the CORE of power generation that is manifested 'externally'. All movement has to be engaged "internally" first before it can be manisfested "externally"... doesn't it?

So... can we all now put to rest what I believe/don't believe? Is everyone happy now, that internal/external dichotomy is unnescessary since they are based on the same things - i.e. how the human body fundamentally works?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 01:13 AM

Quote:

I believe that people learn most efficiently by giving them progressive resistance from the beginning. It's possible to learn from other methods, but it will take longer.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. I don't see any problem with that do you?

Quote:

Exactly, Cord! This is the fundamental flaw with Eyrie's argument - that he is sitting there, dispensing his priveledged knowledge from on high to us, who couldn't POSSIBLY have any related understanding. The Mits Yamashita article seemed to confirm my own (limited) experiences with Aikido and BJJ - that they use a very similar movement/power generation model.

Excuse me... the only flaws in the argument is yours. Who were the ones accusing who of arguing the belief in ki/chi/qi as a "mystical" power? Who were the ones who admitted arguing from a limited perspective of so-called "internal" and "internal-like" arts, and then while not offering a different perspective, as Cord has done here, proceeded to insult and belittle others?

Riding off the back of Cord's arguments is not the same thing as making the point yourself, which as I recall, you failed to do so many times, even when given the opportunity to do so. Instead, you resorted to playground bully tactics along with your cohorts.

All along I have maintained that none of what some of you call "internal" is mystical BS. Yet, several of you chose to label me, in a vague attempt to discredit the line of argument, when you could not address your semantic and philosophical differences in a civil and logical manner.

No where have I offered any sort of "privileged" knowledge from any height. That's your perception and interpretation. I'm not privy to any level of "knowledge". All I offered was my perspective and opinion.

Posted by: DeadlyKnuckles

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 05:48 PM

Quote:

All movement has to be engaged "internally" first before it can be manisfested "externally"... doesn't it?

Can you elaborate?

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 06:03 PM

Sure. Your brain decides what you are going to do due to what it perceive externally and sends impulses to the muscles to react accordingly. So Eyrie, are you saying this is "internal" movements? Hope you've got more then this.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 06:44 PM

Dereck, you (and many others) are making an assumption that I am arguing from a perspective that "internal" means something other than what you (and many here) perceive.

If you read the interplay between Cord & I carefully, you should realize by now that we are essentially talking about the same thing.

Posted by: DeadlyKnuckles

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 07:17 PM

I still don't get what, "all movement starts 'internally' before it's manisfested 'externally'" means.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 07:36 PM

All movement is driven by levels of consciousness - unconscious (autonomic function), sub-conscious, conscious. Training (as in repetitive action/habit-forming motion) in certain and specific ways, imprints conscious movement in other levels of consciousness.

It's so you can chew gum and walk at the same time.

Posted by: DeadlyKnuckles

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 07:46 PM

Quote:

All movement is driven by levels of consciousness - unconscious (autonomic function), sub-conscious, conscious. Training (as in repetitive action/habit-forming motion) in certain and specific ways, imprints conscious movement in other levels of consciousness.

It's so you can chew gum and walk at the same time.

That's... a unique way of looking at it and one I've never seen before. And I've seen my fair share.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/16/08 08:08 PM

Why would it be... "unique"? Isn't that how the human body works? Aren't we talking about the same thing? Internal to external?

Ever seen a paraplegic using a standing frame in physiotherapy?

Posted by: DeadlyKnuckles

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/17/08 02:04 AM

Quote:

Aren't we talking about the same thing?

I'm wondering the same thing.

Quote:

Ever seen a paraplegic using a standing frame in physiotherapy?

Can't say that I have.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/17/08 02:30 AM

Aside from all the ongoing posts here I am trying to understand the differences between internal and external training and how it could benefit someone. I just can't see it!

Maybe I'm dense,but I can look at a video and tell if it's fake or not.

I guess when I can look at a video that claims to be internal and doesn't look external I'll be convinced, or atleast I'll have a better understanding.

Til then.......

Posted by: dandjurdjevic

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/17/08 02:36 AM

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/09/understanding-internal-arts.html

Posted by: eyrie

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/17/08 02:46 AM

Quote:

Aside from all the ongoing posts here I am trying to understand the differences between internal and external training and how it could benefit someone. I just can't see it!

I thought Cord addressed it quite well... didn't you understand him? Or is that another tangential personal swipe?

Quote:

Maybe I'm dense...

Your words... not mine

Quote:

I guess when I can look at a video that claims to be internal and doesn't look external I'll be convinced, or atleast I'll have a better understanding.

And all the videos Cord posted don't fit your perception paradigm?

Real or Fake?

Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 08:07 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 08:14 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 08:56 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 09:01 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 09:07 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 09:30 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:23 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 12:57 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:03 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:25 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:28 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:36 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:38 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:42 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 01:45 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 02:18 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 03:36 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 03:37 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 03:43 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 04:25 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 05:18 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 07:11 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 07:25 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 07:59 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 08:23 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 09:14 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:37 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:48 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 10:51 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/09/08 11:04 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 02:24 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 04:11 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 04:11 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 04:26 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:20 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:34 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:39 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 05:43 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 06:21 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 06:34 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 06:57 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:16 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:19 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:34 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:48 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 10:54 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 11:42 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 11:48 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:02 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:23 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:32 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:36 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:48 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 12:53 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 01:27 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 01:49 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 03:08 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 03:10 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 08:03 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/10/08 09:24 PM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 02:46 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 03:09 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 03:26 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 03:28 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 04:54 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 05:02 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 05:27 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 06:05 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 06:21 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 07:05 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:11 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:23 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:44 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 08:59 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 09:24 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 10:08 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 10:37 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 11:00 AM

Re: Real or Fake? - 09/11/08 11:30 AM