Just good body mechanics?

[t_niehoff]

I keep seeing the "internal/external" concept come up in discussions. Even this forum has divided arts into internal and external based on the old chinese paradigm. Others talk about "engines" - with different arts having differnt engines. Etc.

But I think this way of looking at things is based on an error -- it is based on the belief that there is a particular way of moving or using your body or generating power in the fight-as-a-whole. In other words, that there is one body mechanic, a "universal" way of using your body for everything you do. I submit that isn't how it works and it isn't even possible.

In fighting you are doing different TASKS at different times depending on the demands of the moment, and that for any particular TASK, there is an optimum way of using your body to accomplish that task. There isn't an internal way of doing that task, an external way of doing that task or different "engines" for doing that task -- there are, however, an optimum way of performing that task. Skill is defined by psycho-motor researchers as your ability to bring about a desired result (perform a task) with max certainty and min time and/or effort. In other words, skillful performance of a TASK by definition will use optimum body mechanics. Not internal, not external, not some unique engine, but the optimum way of doing whatever the task is. There is, for example, optimum ways of performing a hip throw, a hook kick, etc. Not an internal hook kick, and external hook kick, an internal hip throw, and external hip throw, etc. Just good and bad mechanics.

How can we judge whether the mechanics are optimum? By results -- how well you are able to perform that TASK with max certainty and min time/effort. If you don't have good results, then you don't have the optimum mechanics for that task. With that in mind, you won't judge what you are doing based on some theoretical view of how things should be done (am I living up to the WCK standard?) but on results. And you can do this across arts.

When you examine boxing or wrestling or BJJ or muay thai or any other functional combative art, you see they don't talk about some "universal" mechanic that defines their art. They look at the mechanics as being dependent upon the task.

If you begin with the question "what are the optimal body mechanics (that bring about the desired results with max certainty and min time/effort) for this task?", there's no need to talk about internal, external, engines, etc. Those things just confuse the process.

[CFT]

But boxing looks very different to Muay Thai. Wrestling looks different to BJJ. "Internalists" don't claim a universal body mechanic either do they? They must focus on task specific development as well otherwise they just wouldn't get anywhere.

In fact aren't you advocating a universal set of task specific body mechanics when you say:


There is, for example, optimum ways of performing a hip throw, a hook kick, etc. Not an internal hook kick, and external hook kick, an internal hip throw, and external hip throw, etc.I say that each "art" has their own set of task specific body mechanics which are a reflection of their developmental and (yes!) philosophical framework.

[chusauli]

There is no one set of body mechanics, but there are common patterns: shoulders dropped, sink elbow, tighten fist, use the hips, heels push off the ground, etc.

Tai Ji, Xing Yi and Ba Gua do not look like each other at all, but share the above characteristics. Although they are the 3 internal systems, they do not need one another. And usually people trained in all three are not as good as one who just specialized in one of these arts. Many internalists use the "turtle back" or "Han xiong ba bei" (Empty chest, raise upper back), or "hunchback" or Kyphosis like posture, stemming from excessive hypertrophy of localized muscles. It centers about concentrating energy along the dan tian and then releasing the power, akin to a big spring. Most systems use the term Wai San He to describe the external 3 harmonies and relationships between the shoulders and hips,
elbows and knees, and hands and feet, to be coordibnated with the inner 3 harmonies (Nei San He) of xin (heart/mind) and yi (intention), yi and qi, and qi and li (force, power).

All systems use the whole unit power, but use it according to their system. That is why the shapes differ.

There's no real "internal" or "external", but both. Many may be explaining what they are feeling inside and lining up their organs and qi pathways.

I believe all systems use this idea and term it wrong - it basically is efficient and optimum mechanics, not necessarily "good" or "bad".

[t_niehoff]

There is no one set of body mechanics, but there are common patterns: shoulders dropped, sink elbow, tighten fist, use the hips, heels push off the ground, etc.


But that raises the question of "why do they ahve these common patterns?" I think the answer is "because they are all doing similar tasks".



Tai Ji, Xing Yi and Ba Gua do not look like each other at all, but share the above characteristics. Although they are the 3 internal systems, they do not need one another. And usually people trained in all three are not as good as one who just specialized in one of these arts. Many internalists use the "turtle back" or "Han xiong ba bei" (Empty chest, raise upper back), or "hunchback" or Kyphosis like posture, stemming from excessive hypertrophy of localized muscles. It centers about concentrating energy along the dan tian and then releasing the power, akin to a big spring. Most systems use the term Wai San He to describe the external 3 harmonies and relationships between the shoulders and hips,
elbows and knees, and hands and feet, to be coordibnated with the inner 3 harmonies (Nei San He) of xin (heart/mind) and yi (intention), yi and qi, and qi and li (force, power).

All systems use the whole unit power, but use it according to their system. That is why the shapes differ.


Boxing, wrestling, etc. all use "whole unit power" too. To do anything powerfully, it only makes sense to use your whole body -- but how you use your whole body will depend on the task you are trying to do.

My point is that the so-called "internal arts" don't have similar mechanics except when then are doing similar things (the same tasks). The mechanic is TASK SPECIFIC.



There's no real "internal" or "external", but both. Many may be explaining what they are feeling inside and lining up their organs and qi pathways.


Or, a better way of saying it that that "there's no real internal or external, but neither." Perhaps the ancient chinese used the TCM qi paradigm to try and expain or describe their mechanics, but this isn't a very good way of explaining or describing things from a realistic POV. Instead of talking about how they are "feeling" inside (which may not reflect what is really going on) or lining up their organs (I don't know about you, but my organs aren't that mobile) or qi pathways (which are fictitious), why not talk about precisely what you are physically doing? I submit that the ancient chinese couldn't do that since they didn't have either the language or the knowledge to really do that -- the best they had at the time was the TCM model. But today, we can do that.



I believe all systems use this idea and term it wrong - it basically is efficient and optimum mechanics, not necessarily "good" or "bad".

Then why not just say "use optimum body mechanics for that particular task"?

[t_niehoff]

But boxing looks very different to Muay Thai. Wrestling looks different to BJJ. "Internalists" don't claim a universal body mechanic either do they? They must focus on task specific development as well otherwise they just wouldn't get anywhere.

In fact aren't you advocating a universal set of task specific body mechanics when you say:

I say that each "art" has their own set of task specific body mechanics which are a reflection of their developmental and (yes!) philosophical framework.

I think there is an optimal way of doing (and using your body) any particular task. In other words, body mechanics is task specific. As arts share tasks, they will tend to share these mechanics. I don't think it useful to say "boxing looks different than muay thai" because that suggests that there is one set of mechanics for boxing and one set for muay thai. What I mean is that when you look at particular tasks, if both arts share a similar task, then they'll share the mechanics for that task. And if they don't share the task, then they won't share the mechanics.

From what I've seen, most "internal arts" don't approach things from a task (skill) perspective but from a movement or motor perspective, i.e., starting with "you should move this way" rather than "this is the optimial way to perform the task."

Even in WCK, you learn and practice the YJKYM why? What TASK is that the optimal body mechanics for?

[grasshopper 2.0]

Couldn't it be said that the use of "optimizing mechanics" vs "internal/external/chi" are simply different ways of describing the same thing to achieve the same goal?

If so, why should we care that the other describes it as chi or geometry?

[t_niehoff]

Couldn't it be said that the use of "optimizing mechanics" vs "internal/external/chi" are simply different ways of describing the same thing to achieve the same goal?

If so, why should we care that the other describes it as chi or geometry?

Optimal body mechanics is not the same thing as "internal" or "external". My point is that there is no such thing as internal or external -- just optimal mechanics for a specific task. And that when we begin to look at things other than that way, it only adds confusion.

For example, pushing a car. There is an optimal way of using your body to push a stalled car (the task). That's not "internal" or "external". Same with anything we do. Would talking about internal or external HELP someone learn or develop their car pushing mechanics?

[Hendrik]

O
For example, pushing a car. There is an optimal way of using your body to push a stalled car (the task). That's not "internal" or "external". Same with anything we do. Would talking about internal or external HELP someone learn or develop their car pushing mechanics?

sure,

knowing

"externally" how to make use of the joins, muscle..... physical parts and body weight properly ;and
"internally " knows how to breath properlly and syncronized the breathing rythm with the "external" .

Do HELP someone learn and develop their car pushing mechanics a great deal.

AND, Pushing a car is not sliding open a very heavy door thus there are different way of "external" and "internal" dealing with sliding open a steel door.


IE hammering a nail is different compare with shooting a crossbow, and they are different compare with poking with a spear....

Different machanics learning can be described with the "external" and "internal" catagorization to clearly and effectively Help /IMprove one's learning, develop, experience... and handling the different activities.

[grasshopper 2.0]

Ya I see ur point. I think that, much like there are various ways to teach mathematics or philosohpy (diagrams, logic, real world examples, etc), there are ways to teach martial arts - its as diverse as the people learning the subject.

For some, concept of internal/external is more to their liking and to you and I, the concept of mechanics is more to our liking.

It's only confusing to those that do not agree, understand, or want to learn using those models. It is not for everyone. It surprises me that many that come into class are turned off by the lack of "martial mysticism" of our class - they want the idea of "chi/external/internal" incorporated into their martial art and look elsewhere. But, then again, it doesn't offend me either.

I don't think it would be productive of us to eliminate the concept of internal/external altogther just because we don't agree with it. I mean, I don't believe in santa but do u see me trying to kill that idea?

[Hendrik]

Couldn't it be said that the use of "optimizing mechanics" vs "internal/external/chi" are simply different ways of describing the same thing to achieve the same goal?

If so, why should we care that the other describes it as chi or geometry?

Nope, Internal and Chi actually goes further then most basic machenics.

[t_niehoff]

sure,

knowing

"externally" how to make use of the joins, muscle..... physical parts and body weight properly ;and
"internally " knows how to breath properlly and syncronized the breathing rythm with the "external" .

Do HELP someone learn and develop their car pushing mechanics a great deal.

AND, Pushing a car is not sliding open a very heavy door thus there are different way of "external" and "internal" dealing with sliding open a steel door.


IE hammering a nail is different compare with shooting a crossbow, and they are different compare with poking with a spear....

Different machanics learning can be described with the "external" and "internal" catagorization to clearly and effectively Help /IMprove one's learning, develop, experience... and handling the different activities.

You are pointing to different tasks (pushing a car vs. sliding a door open, hammering a nail vs. poking with a spear) use different mechanics. I've already said that: mechanics are task specific.

That said, you go on to say that internal/external help people to learn and improve their ability to perform these tasks (improve their body mechanics). Yet, what we see -- the eivdnece -- is that the folks that don't use those distinctions have achieved superior results. Athletes have obtained levels of performance at levels never before even dreamed ofwithout any internal/external or qi paradigms.

BTW, I'm not saying that breathing, etc. isn't important, but all good athletes develop the ability to breath well while performing their activity (or they couldn't perform it well).

Why do you need to refer to internal/external when you can say "just do this and that." If you want to teach someone to hit a baseball or throw a ball, you don't need to -- and it won't help -- to add layers of unnecessary concept.

[t_niehoff]

I don't think it would be productive of us to eliminate the concept of internal/external altogther just because we don't agree with it. I mean, I don't believe in santa but do u see me trying to kill that idea?

It's not a question of whether we agree with the concept or not but rather critically examining whether that concept is useful or beneficial or whether it actually hinders development.

For the sake of argument, let's say that some concept actually hinders your development. You believe some idea, but your belief is wrong. OK? Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you.

[grasshopper 2.0]

Ya I agree with you. For me, ill let those people decide what they want from their martial arts training. Its really not my place to say what should or should not stay. Let it take its own course - like evolution, maybe 20 years from now people will see ur perspective and schools teaching internal/external will be few and far between. Or maybe vice versa.

[t_niehoff]

Ya I agree with you. For me, ill let those people decide what they want from their martial arts training. Its really not my place to say what should or should not stay. Let it take its own course - like evolution, maybe 20 years from now people will see ur perspective and schools teaching internal/external will be few and far between. Or maybe vice versa.

Why do we need to wait 20 years? I think the evidence is in.

When you say it is not your place to say what should or should not stay, I think you are completely wrong. Only YOU can decide -- if you take responsibility for your own development. If YOU are trying to get better and develop, how can you take the position of "I'll wait for it all to get sorted out eventually." Do you have the time to wait?

[Hendrik]

That said, you go on to say that internal/external help people to learn and improve their ability to perform these tasks (improve their body mechanics).


Yet, what we see -- the eivdnece -- is that the folks that don't use those distinctions have achieved superior results.


I dont know about you but I have witness superior results before and after one learn the external/internal way of TCMA IMA.









Athletes have obtained levels of performance at levels never before even dreamed ofwithout any internal/external or qi paradigms.



Athletes is not the norm. not everyone or any age of human can be an Athletes.
Athletes means a certain selective group of Human being who with a good healthy inheritance of physical body trainor DRUG to compete in some specific sport. Even if the price is long term damaging the Physical body or death, that is not an issue.

Have you seen a person with Heart condition or kidney condition or lung condition or High Blood pressure or Ashma become an Athletes?

In the modern western Athletes world, even the exercise Video tape put a disclaimer as " Check with your MD before doing the exercise." that tell you what is Athletes.



While a TRUE Internal ART /Qi paradigm TCMA system has again and again produce figthers such as Chen Man-Ching of Taijiquan that heal their body and also attain a good figthing skill.

Which in the Modern Western Athletes world is not possible because the activity for the Athletes is not mean for normal living people who could get sick and aging and not target to win a sport with all cost.








BTW, I'm not saying that breathing, etc. isn't important, but all good athletes develop the ability to breath well while performing their activity (or they couldn't perform it well).


there are lots of different methods and mechanics in breathing alone.

A healthy athletes can do any breathing or hold breathing, even if the breathing strain and stress their system , as they like to just drain out that last drop of their blood to win but careless if the next second they drop dead.

An aging person or not as healty or those with high blood pressure or Chronic illness will not be able to do what a healthy athletes do or else could cause serious damage to one's body including death.

Also, an aging and damaged Athletes will not be able to do what they once can do and not to mention they have to take drug all their life to pay for what damage they have done.





Why do you need to refer to internal/external when you can say "just do this and that." If you want to teach someone to hit a baseball or throw a ball, you don't need to -- and it won't help -- to add layers of unnecessary concept.

Because you are not live in the real world where people do get sick and ill, heart condition, ashma, high blood presure....... and TCMA IMA could provide these ordinary people to heal and DEFENSE themselve when they needed, when the Modern Western Athletes training abandon them.


See, it is not about brutally using the body with all cost to win. or be a loser or no can do because one is sick.


TCMA IMA is about be able to evoke's human's natural potential to live , to heal, to fight and to defense oneself when one needs it.
Many have walked this path of TCMA IMA for at least hundred of years and it works. It works even today.

[grasshopper 2.0]

I should clarify - it is not my place to say when it comes to someone else's training (unless they ask me specifically). And as for my own training, ya I don't take an external/interal approach.

[Hendrik]

Why do we need to wait 20 years? I think the evidence is in.

Sure, One doesnt need to wait 20 years.
The evidence is either one know it or not. if one know it, it might be has been practice since 20 years ago. if one doesnt know it then another 2000000000000 years still not practicing it.


Face it.

what to discuss if one doesnt know what is TCMA IMA?

be it taking the position defending it or debunk it.

It totally doesnt make sense to talk about something one is clueless.

[Hendrik]

For the sake of argument, let's say that some concept actually hinders your development. You believe some idea, but your belief is wrong. OK?

Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you.


Sure, how many athletes take illegal drug which could damage their body or killing themself for sake of Winning at all costs?

is those believe right?

Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you?

[t_niehoff]

Sure, One doesnt need to wait 20 years.
The evidence is either one know it or not. if one know it, it might be has been practice since 20 years ago. if one doesnt know it then another 2000000000000 years still not practicing it.

Face it.

what to discuss if one doesnt know what is TCMA IMA?

be it taking the position defending it or debunk it.

It totally doesnt make sense to talk about something one is clueless.

Hendrik, a person doesn't need to do or "understand" something to see evidence that it works. I don't "understand" rocket science, but I can see that it works.

Body mechanics are, as even you pointed out, task specific. Give an "internal" guy a hip throw and an "external" guy a hip throw, and they'll end up doing the same thing because there is an optimal way to perform that task -- and by doing it, you will find those naturally. So it isn't necessary or useful to take an internal/external approach if you want to teach or develop your hip throw; instead, just learn the mechanics from someone who can do the hip throw, and get out and practice doing that task (trying to hip throw people) to develop skill doing that task. With that skill will come better mechanics. All the internal/external stuff does is prevent you from looking for the optimal mechanics.

[t_niehoff]

Sure, how many athletes take illegal drug which could damage their body or killing themself for sake of Winning at all costs?

is those believe right?

Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you?

Hendrik, that's intellectually dishonest. This is a discussion about body mechanics -- sure SOME athletes do these things. But most don't. How athletes train has nothing to do with those that cheat with performance enhancing drugs.

[Hendrik]

person doesn't need to do or "understand" something to see evidence that it works. I don't "understand" rocket science, but I can see that it works.

Sure, if one know where to look.




Give an "internal" guy a hip throw and an "external" guy a hip throw, and they'll end up doing the same thing because there is an optimal way to perform that task -- and by doing it, you will find those naturally.


That is what you think not what it is.

[Hendrik]

This is a discussion about body mechanics -- sure SOME athletes do these things. But most don't. How athletes train has nothing to do with those that cheat with performance enhancing drugs.


Sure, fill a car with super gasoline and it will run faster, but the tear and wear and damaging effect is not mention. when winning at all cost is the goal, look at those who got caught in Olympic and ask how many didnt get caught? is that about body mechanics or is it about "as soon as no one find out" everything is ok for sake of winning bottom line?

also, can a person with ashma, or other chronic disease using the same athletes body mechanics ? can s/he be an athletes?

[anerlich]

I agree with the basic premise of the OP.

I think it is not as simple as "one best way to do everything", because there are many variables at play.

The "best" way to throw a punch varies depending on whether your major concern is sheer impact power, being able to keep a strong defense while punching, staying mobile, whether kicks are allowed, whether takedowns and grappling are allowed, how important it is to immediatelly follow up with another technique, etc.

Most try to compromise between these often conflicting aims, but give different weights to the different aspects. Hence you get people advocating differnet ways of punching.

Also body types have a roel to play here, as does personal preference.

We all need to get form one place to another, but there are many ways to do that - walk, run, cycle, car, motorcycle, plane, etc. That doesn't even go into what ype of car, etc. might suit one best.

And I can'r see WTF the use of illegal drugs has to do with this discussion, unless your body mechanics change with them

[sihing]

I agree with the basic premise of the OP.

I think it is not as simple as "one best way to do everything", because there are many variables at play.

The "best" way to throw a punch varies depending on whether your major concern is sheer impact power, being able to keep a strong defense while punching, staying mobile, whether kicks are allowed, whether takedowns and grappling are allowed, how important it is to immediatelly follow up with another technique, etc.

Most try to compromise between these often conflicting aims, but give different weights to the different aspects. Hence you get people advocating differnet ways of punching.

Also body types have a roel to play here, as does personal preference.

We all need to get form one place to another, but there are many ways to do that - walk, run, cycle, car, motorcycle, plane, etc. That doesn't even go into what ype of car, etc. might suit one best.

And I can'r see WTF the use of illegal drugs has to do with this discussion, unless your body mechanics change with them

Good post Anerlich...

I think Hendrik was referring to the fact that T likes to use top level athletes as examples, and as has recentled been brought to light, lots of them use illegal substances to enhance their performance. That doesn't mean to imply that they aren't using proper body mechanics as well, at least in my perspective.

In fighting, there are too many variables at play to say one method is the best, as your examples demonstrated. In the end, if you have no timing, you won't be able to use your body mechanics to deliver your tools. So what is more important, Timing or Body Mechanics? Neither, IMO, as both are of equal importance, just like your brain is no more important than your heart, as with out one or the other you won't be alive. It's all about making it one within your movement and ability to use it effectively. Some can do this better than others, why we don't always know why (natural abilities, training, coaching, experience???).

James

[t_niehoff]

I think Hendrik was referring to the fact that T likes to use top level athletes as examples, and as has recentled been brought to light, lots of them use illegal substances to enhance their performance. That doesn't mean to imply that they aren't using proper body mechanics as well, at least in my perspective.


Look at it from the performance perspective -- how can you know what IS optimal mechanics for doing something except by looking at what the best performers are doing?

The whole "drug" issue is a distraction -- that has nothing to do with body mechanics.



In fighting, there are too many variables at play to say one method is the best, as your examples demonstrated. In the end, if you have no timing, you won't be able to use your body mechanics to deliver your tools. So what is more important, Timing or Body Mechanics? Neither, IMO, as both are of equal importance, just like your brain is no more important than your heart, as with out one or the other you won't be alive. It's all about making it one within your movement and ability to use it effectively. Some can do this better than others, why we don't always know why (natural abilities, training, coaching, experience???).

James

It's not that too many variables are at play, it's that you CAN'T use one sort of body mechanic to do everything since body mechanics are task specific and so every different thing you do will use different mechanics. Of course a person needs timing, the ability to use those mechanics at the optimal time and in the appropriate situation. Mechanics is just one piece of the puzzle.

[t_niehoff]

Sure, fill a car with super gasoline and it will run faster, but the tear and wear and damaging effect is not mention. when winning at all cost is the goal, look at those who got caught in Olympic and ask how many didnt get caught? is that about body mechanics or is it about "as soon as no one find out" everything is ok for sake of winning bottom line?

also, can a person with ashma, or other chronic disease using the same athletes body mechanics ? can s/he be an athletes?

I think you are laboring under a false impression and confusing several things.

With regard to your false impression: Optimal body mechanics for performing a task will be the most "healthy" way of doing something. As an example, consider lifting a heavy weight -- you will be more likely to be injured lifting it using poor body mechanics than with proper, good body mechanics. Optimal body mechanics involves finding the way in which the body best performs, where it is strongest, etc.

Concern for optimal body mechanics isn't a "win at any cost" sort of thing. It's just recognizing that physically, there is an optimal way of doing any physical task.

With regard to your confusion: You keep pointing to all kinds of things that have nothing to do with optimal body mechanics.

[Pacman]

Optimal body mechanics is not the same thing as "internal" or "external". My point is that there is no such thing as internal or external -- just optimal mechanics for a specific task. And that when we begin to look at things other than that way, it only adds confusion.

For example, pushing a car. There is an optimal way of using your body to push a stalled car (the task). That's not "internal" or "external". Same with anything we do. Would talking about internal or external HELP someone learn or develop their car pushing mechanics?

i dont know where you got this concept of a "universal" mechanic. ive never heard of that in any internal art.

internal arts focus on complete relaxation and complete coordination of the body and the mind for speed/power

other trainers in other arts tell their trainees to relax and im sure to be coordinated..but they do not go through the relaxation training that internalists focus on.

in general, MT people will not do qigong for relaxation. in general MT people will not do 1000s of repetitions of movements in the air, focusing on being completely relaxed. in general, MT people will not do movements as slow as a snail, completely relaxed, every movement perfectly in order to coordinate their body and mind. the list goes on.

its all about different approaches to fighting and different approaches to training.

[Liddel]

I also agree with the OP. I think in a learning sence it may be helpful for an individual to have attributes emphasised through the internal external explanation/ approach. People learn in different ways and have different understanding that a teacher needs to tap into in the learing process.

Moreover its just a different way of getting an individual to grasp certain ideas to help them intergrate it into application.

However once you get to a certain level in performing a task through repetitive training i think the lines should begin to blur... where breathing tensions body behaviors are integral parts of the overall mechanics that come naturally from repetitive training.

For refference one could refer to internal and external IMO but at the end of the day they are sum parts of a whole.

It really is reverse engineering IMHO - i dont think long ago when systems where being nutted out that they theorised about internals and THEN set about applying them, rather through trial and error of actually doing specific tasks it was then improved on and aspects now called internals naturally evolved...

So by very nature it has more to do with mechanics than people want to admit.

I think also that those that are adamant about the internals being the only way to achieve quote "high level KF" should take that mentality and apply the theory to the animal kingdom.

If you have a critical mind youll know where im comming from.

Thats my quick take.

DREW

[t_niehoff]

i dont know where you got this concept of a "universal" mechanic. ive never heard of that in any internal art.


Are you saying that internal arts are using the same body mechanics as everyone else?



internal arts focus on complete relaxation and complete coordination of the body and the mind for speed/power


You can't have "complete relaxation" since our muscles to move, to maintain posture, etc. need to contract.

All athletes have coordination and focus. How is this any different?



other trainers in other arts tell their trainees to relax and im sure to be coordinated..but they do not go through the relaxation training that internalists focus on.


This is one great example of why "internal art" training doesn't work. All athletes learn when to exert themselves, when to rest, when to relax, when to explode, etc. by doing the activity (sport) itself. You can't learn how to do this is boxing or grappling by not boxing or grappling.



in general, MT people will not do qigong for relaxation. in general MT people will not do 1000s of repetitions of movements in the air, focusing on being completely relaxed. in general, MT people will not do movements as slow as a snail, completely relaxed, every movement perfectly in order to coordinate their body and mind. the list goes on.


MT fighters train like athletes. And that's why they can be "relaxed" while fighting. And why "internal martial artists" can't.



its all about different approaches to fighting and different approaches to training.

Yes, it is. And my point is that one approach doesn't make any sense and doesn't produce good results -- just the opposite.

[Hendrik]

Look at it from the performance perspective -- how can you know what IS optimal mechanics for doing something except by looking at what the best performers are doing?

.

What is best performers? those who take drugs? hahahaha

a 50 year old Terence will not do the same mechanics as what a 25 year old Terence do. Not to mention, how could one uses a different person " best performer" as one's reference, human is not robot, even robot, there is a different between Sony made or GE made.

Forget about those best performers reference.

[Hendrik]

I think Hendrik was referring to the fact that T likes to use top level athletes as examples, and as has recentled been brought to light, lots of them use illegal substances to enhance their performance. That doesn't mean to imply that they aren't using proper body mechanics as well, at least in my perspective.




James,

Yup, that is what I mean.


and also, every proper body mechanics has a limit, and sure Drug can boost that with the cost of something going to damage in a short run or long run.

the Qi paradigm practices in my understanding is placing a sensor system and a LIMIT monitor or fuel gauge in one's system. So one knows is it going to make it, is it crossing the boundary. is it a suitable mechanics...etc.

[Hendrik]

Look at it from the performance perspective -- how can you know what IS optimal mechanics for doing something except by looking at what the best performers are doing?

One cannot look at a four wheel drive and thinking the honda civic got to run like a Four wheel drive.

One needs to know one's honda civic to the detail of how much fuel left.






The whole "drug" issue is a distraction -- that has nothing to do with body mechanics.

Sure it got everything to do with the body mechanics.

People using drug to push thier limit when thier body mechanics cannot do it.

Isint it what the Viagra is for? the mechine is aging, the mechanics is still the same, but the drug force it to work harder. sure it comes with a consequence.

[anerlich]

a 50 year old Terence will not do the same mechanics as what a 25 year old Terence do.

I'm 54 and use pretty much the same mechanics I did when I started MA at 22. I've got a bit better over time, but my fundamentals haven't changed. WTF would be the point of learning something one way you'll have to do differently lin 20 years time?


the mechine is aging, the mechanics is still the same

You said it.

T has already dispensed with the "completely relaxed" fallacy.

In BJJ, we often do sparring rounds where we try to stay as relaxed as possible. Internal BJJ! Woo hoo!


but the drug force it to work harder. sure it comes with a consequence.

Viagra's only a problem for people with certain conditions, there are lot of folk tales and miscinceptions out there. Don't ask me how I know.

[Hendrik]

I'm 54 and use pretty much the same mechanics I did when I started MA at 22. I've got a bit better over time, but my fundamentals haven't changed. WTF would be the point of learning something one way you'll have to do differently lin 20 years time?


are you sure?

can your present maximum heart rate operate at the same rate at 22 and continous on as long as when you are 22?

Take a calculation and see for yourself.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

You are not the same person, you just not aware of it.

[t_niehoff]

What is best performers? those who take drugs? hahahaha

a 50 year old Terence will not do the same mechanics as what a 25 year old Terence do. Not to mention, how could one uses a different person " best performer" as one's reference, human is not robot, even robot, there is a different between Sony made or GE made.

Forget about those best performers reference.

So your idea is to look at people who aren't good at a particular task to learn how to best do something? That's f#cking brilliant.

We are talking about what are optimal body mechanics for doing a particular task. A 50 year old Terence will need to use the same mechanics as a 25 year old Terence -- the task doesn't change, so the mechanics needed to best perform that task won't change.

Will these body mechanics need to be customized to suit me? Of course. You can learn good mechanics from someone with good mechanics, then you customize them through actual performance. This is precisely what all athletes do.

[t_niehoff]

are you sure?

can your present maximum heart rate operate at the same rate at 22 and continous on as long as when you are 22?

Take a calculation and see for yourself.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

You are not the same person, you just not aware of it.

Hendrik, you keep changing the discussion. We're not talking about maximum heart rate -- we're talking about how to use your body to best perform a particular task. For example, there is a "best" way to lift a very heavy weight. It doesn't matter if you are 25 or 50, the mechanics are the same.

[Hendrik]

So your idea is to look at people who aren't good at a particular task to learn how to best do something? That's f#cking brilliant.


that is your assumption. Not what I said and certainly not what I do. hahaha

I rather use HRV, EEG....3D dyanamic analysis to fine tune mechanics according to my body.




We are talking about what are optimal body mechanics for doing a particular task. A 50 year old Terence will need to use the same mechanics as a 25 year old Terence -- the task doesn't change, so the mechanics needed to best perform that task won't change.



How Optimal is Optimal when as basic as the Maximum Heart rate is not considered? hahaha. See, your mind says yes but you dont know your body says no.



Will these body mechanics need to be customized to suit me? Of course. You can learn good mechanics from someone with good mechanics, then you customize them through actual performance. This is precisely what all athletes do.

sure, take some drugs after you dont know what to do.

[anerlich]

You are not the same person, you just not aware of it.

Don't patronise me, fool.

I still punch the same way, kick the same way, do backflips the same way, do the same forms, have the same running style.

You're confusing (intentionally and deceitfully) the tolerances and efficiency of the machine as it ages with the most effective mode of operation to perform a particular task. The latter remains constant even as the former changes

[Liddel]

a 50 year old Terence will not do the same mechanics as what a 25 year old Terence do. Not to mention, how could one uses a different person " best performer" as one's reference, human is not robot, even robot, there is a different between Sony made or GE made.
Forget about those best performers reference.

LOL this is just a pathetic way out and clearly he's never seen Randy the Natural. :p

Forget best preformers...dont you do that with internalist Sifu's etc do you not hold them up as your examples, the 'best performers' in you field..

Dude your all over the show !

DREW

[Hendrik]

Hendrik, you keep changing the discussion. We're not talking about maximum heart rate -- we're talking about how to use your body to best perform a particular task. For example, there is a "best" way to lift a very heavy weight. It doesn't matter if you are 25 or 50, the mechanics are the same.


AS simple as the most simple human mechanics, if you are right then what is Viagra for? hahaha.

and

BTW. even if one use Viagra one needs to know what is their Maximum Heart Rate. see, 50 is no longer 18. just dont die in bed. hahahaha

[Hendrik]

Forget best preformers...dont you do that with internalist Sifu's etc do you not hold them up as your examples, the 'best performers' in you field..



Nope.

it is the Principle one needs to know and fine tune for oneself adaptively at every instant, not hold anyone up as example. Must HOLD on NOTHING. Must not hold on even one's yesterday's practice.

IE: Even in Internal training, NOT every one is suitable to cosmic cycle Qi circulation. Some's physical body is just not suitable for certain training.
Thus, hold on to some examples or some fix way or mechanics are a kiss of death in the Internal training.

There is a Term for Hold on in Internal practice. That is the FAMOUS ATTACHEMENT. HOLD ON = ATTACHEMENT that is the biggest NO NO.


Thus, it said, Buddha Comes I chop the Buddha. Demon Comes I Chop the demon.

what shape do you hold on if you are water?

[Hendrik]

Don't patronise me, fool.

I still punch the same way, kick the same way, do backflips the same way, do the same forms, have the same running style.

You're confusing (intentionally and deceitfully) the tolerances and efficiency of the machine as it ages with the most effective mode of operation to perform a particular task. The latter remains constant even as the former changes


Who patronize you?

hahaha, isnt it shows how big your ego and then you go blind just trying to protect it with all the reasons ? hahaha

[Hendrik]

i

internal arts focus on complete relaxation and complete coordination of the body and the mind for speed/power

.



This is a biggest biggest misleading for IMA. It doesnt work this way.

[Liddel]

What other physical activities do you enduldge in Hendrik, any sports ?

Perhaps its better to use a sport for the sake of discussing this with you as your to entrenched in your MA views to have an open discussion and stay on topic...

Which begs the question, why do we not see advocates of internal MA's apply the same approach to sports they also do like football / swimming / Golf etc

Imagaine what Tiger could do if he concentrated on breathing and swung his club super slow mo 1000 times, he could even beat hogans record (?) this year, rather than these above average results hes achieved from just doing the task since he could walk. :rolleyes:

This also reminds me of Phelps pic comming out with him holding a Bong, man if he stayed off the Ganja he may have come away with MORE MEDALS :eek:

:p

DREW

[Liddel]

Nope.
it is the Principle one needs to know and fine tune for oneself adaptively at every instant, not hold anyone up as example. Must HOLD on NOTHING. Must not hold on even one's yesterday's practice.

I dont think this is truthful in the context of this thread. Its cart before the horse Hendrik..

The day you stepped into your Sifu's presence, why did you choose to take what he was teaching ?

Blind Faith, or the fact you experienced what he had and wanted to learn ?

Did you automatically have no attatchment in life or did you come to that conclusion after learning.... In other words you had examples to draw from...holding them up.

:cool:

DREW

[Hendrik]

What other physical activities do you enduldge in Hendrik, any sports ?

Dont even have to get to sports or MA.

Just say, practicing SLT. Can you repeat an identical SLT every time you practice it? if not then why? same mechanics right? but why cant be repeat identically?




why do we not see advocates of internal MA's apply the same approach to sports they also do like football / swimming / Golf etc

Good questions and I dont know the answer.

[t_niehoff]

that is your assumption. Not what I said and certainly not what I do. hahaha

I rather use HRV, EEG....3D dyanamic analysis to fine tune mechanics according to my body.


You aren't "fine tuning" anything that way. You only believe that you are.

The only way to fine tune mechanics for a particular task is by performing that task itself.



How Optimal is Optimal when as basic as the Maximum Heart rate is not considered? hahaha. See, your mind says yes but you dont know your body says no.


There is optimimal body mechanics for performing a hip throw. That doesn't depend on your max heart rate.

Your thinking is very confused.



sure, take some drugs after you dont know what to do.

WTF are you talking about? Look, there are optimal mechanics for doing any task. Like a hip throw. Drugs have nothing to do with that.

[Hendrik]

You aren't "fine tuning" anything that way. You only believe that you are.

That is your speculation.


The only way to fine tune mechanics for a particular task is by performing that task itself.

why do you think the HRV EEG....ect is used?




There is optimimal body mechanics for performing a hip throw. That doesn't depend on your max heart rate.

Sure,

you havent seen those who cant even move thier hip without pain yet.



Your thinking is very confused.

I dont think. I describe what is going on.
you are confuse because you think and expect other to run in a certain direction.




WTF are you talking about? Look, there are optimal mechanics for doing any task. Like a hip throw. Drugs have nothing to do with that.

DRugs can do lots of stuffs including feeling invincible and num when one has a hip which is hurting. depend it is a pure pain killer or a illegal sport drug. hahaha

[Liddel]

What i dont get Hendrik is why you just spit out posted roadblocks without offering a counter argument related to the overall thread instead you offer silly snide remarks in an attempt to debunk an obvious ligitimate argument about body mechanics vs internal external approaches....

What in your opinion does someone with internal attributes have over a student without ?

How does an internal approach effect the results of the individual over a body mechanics mentality/approach ?

Specifics would be nice in the interest of a good hearty discussion :o

Offering banter about max heart rates and drugs is making you look like you have no leg to stand on at this point IMHO.


Just say, practicing SLT. Can you repeat an identical SLT every time you practice it? if not then why? same mechanics right? but why cant be repeat identically?

Not sure who or why it has to be identical - your arguing semantics because every fight is differnt moreover every person you fight is different and would behave different...

But in the interest in discussion LOL...

While in a sence one sequence of SLT would not have every action in exactly the same place at exactly the same speed etc etc the mechanics invloved putting actions out bending wrist elbows, contractiing muscles rising lowering turning IS MECHANICALLY THE SAME ...

Including every time you pick your nose, or stand up from sitting down to dinner LOL

DREW

[Mr Punch]

Love how T has started to hit the theory big time! :p :D You getting old, mate? Finally realising discussion boards are always going to be heavy on theory?

Anyway...

you quibble with 'engine' vs 'mechanics'. Sure body mechanics in fighting are task specific, but there is also internal body mechanics (by which I don't mean the hokey internal vs external - just integral to your body): e.g. you don't want to splay your elbows out, you don't want to hunch your back excessively etc, and with those 'reaction' mechanics (task based) and integral mechanics there are general rules and principles. That's all the 'engine' is to me. It may mean something different to you.

I'm gonna get the hell out of this thread now: it's too theoretical for my liking - got some training to do! :D

[anerlich]

Who patronize you?

You did. You insinuated you know more than i do about what and how I move now as to what I did 30 years ago, when we've never met and you have no perceptible qualifications or expertise in this area. Patronising


hahaha, isnt it shows how big your ego and then you go blind just trying to protect it with all the reasons ? hahaha

That is your speculation.

IMO you have much more work to do in this area then I.


Just say, practicing SLT. Can you repeat an identical SLT every time you practice it? if not then why? same mechanics right? but why cant be repeat identically?

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and quantum mechanics - reality is probabilistic, not deterministic. We do not live in Groundhog Day.

That's about as relevant to the discussion as all your blathering about drugs ... do you have some sort of fixation in this area? ... so I'll include it, though it's not really relevant.

[t_niehoff]

Love how T has started to hit the theory big time! :p :D You getting old, mate? Finally realising discussion boards are always going to be heavy on theory?


Are you saying that body mechanics is theory?



Anyway...

you quibble with 'engine' vs 'mechanics'.


Yes. The "engine" metaphor suggests that our body is like an engine, and produces power in one way (one body mechanic) that is then channeled to different tasks. That's not how things work. Rather, each task uses body mechanics specific to that particular task.



Sure body mechanics in fighting are task specific, but there is also internal body mechanics (by which I don't mean the hokey internal vs external - just integral to your body): e.g. you don't want to splay your elbows out, you don't want to hunch your back excessively etc, and with those 'reaction' mechanics (task based) and integral mechanics there are general rules and principles. That's all the 'engine' is to me. It may mean something different to you.


All those things you label "internal body mechanics" are things that every competent fighter, regardless of their art, does. So what makes them "internal"? How is keeping your elbows down and tight to your body some"internal" mechanic?

Certainly there are some commonalities (that you can call principles, even though I don't think that is a good way to think of them) involved in using our body optimally. For example, postural aligment permits us to achieve full usage of the body's potential whereas if we are mis-aligned, we can't optimally use our body. That isn't something unique to anyone -- all athletes recognize this. Calling these things "internal" or referring to an "engine" only adds layers to that which aren't necessary and act to take us away from the reality of it.

[Mr Punch]

Are you saying that body mechanics is theory?No, I was suggesting that most things discussed on a forum relating to a physical activity are by nature theoretical.


Yes. The "engine" metaphor suggests that our body is like an engine, and produces power in one way (one body mechanic) that is then channeled to different tasks. That's not how things work. Rather, each task uses body mechanics specific to that particular task. OK. While I agree with your description of body mechanics being task specific, I found your distaste over 'engine' quibbling. But fair enough, now you've explained why you dislike it it makes sense.


All those things you label "internal body mechanics" are things that every competent fighter, regardless of their art, does. So what makes them "internal"? How is keeping your elbows down and tight to your body some"internal" mechanic? I explained this in my post. It is integral to your body: you can do those things (practising moving in a series of postures, keeping my elbows in, keeping my guard up) independent of anyone else.

To explain further: It only becomes task based when you add the other person. While the aim (for many modern MAists) is to become proficient at defending yourself, which of course relies on having someone to defend against and having more of a tested working task-based mindset (arguably), there are plenty of body mechanics which are useful to practise on your own at various stages of your development.


Certainly there are some commonalities (that you can call principles, even though I don't think that is a good way to think of them) involved in using our body optimally. For example, postural aligment permits us to achieve full usage of the body's potential whereas if we are mis-aligned, we can't optimally use our body. That isn't something unique to anyone -- all athletes recognize this.I have never suggested otherwise.


Calling these things "internal" or referring to an "engine" only adds layers to that which aren't necessary and act to take us away from the reality of it.As I just reiterated and hopefully clarified adequately, I was not using 'internal' in the old-school CMA way, but as one part of a training paradigm. Perhaps 'integral body mechanics' vs 'task-based environmental body mechanics) is a better way of thinking of it. All sounds like bollocks to me, hence my surprise at your starting this thread! What did you hope to achieve with this discussion, if anything?

[chusauli]

I think for the most part, all martial artists would like to model better mechanics (internal or otherwise) if they follow it for specific tasks (i.e. a goal in mind). I think "internal" a while back meant we keep it in the family, and we don't tell others. But I think it is all a set of good mechanics, regardless, for a specific task.

For example, when I have to learn to throw someone, I have to use throwing mechanics as opposed to striking mechanics.

Tai Ji is designed to yield, to take weight, then throw/push/joint lock people. WCK is designed to smother, engage, then disengage, take weight, control and strike. They are specific mechanics with different goals.

Without a goal in mind, we often flounder about.

A student tells me he wants to make a lot of money when he graduates from acupuncture school, so I ask him, "What does he consider a lot of money?"

"$10? $1000? $100,000 a year? It has to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timebound, otherwise it is pipe dreams."

So its is specific for all of us, and even task related as suggested by TN earlier.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think for the most part, all martial artists would like to model better mechanics (internal or otherwise) if they follow it for specific tasks (i.e. a goal in mind). I think "internal" a while back meant we keep it in the family, and we don't tell others. But I think it is all a set of good mechanics, regardless, for a specific task.

For example, when I have to learn to throw someone, I have to use throwing mechanics as opposed to striking mechanics.

Tai Ji is designed to yield, to take weight, then throw/push/joint lock people. WCK is designed to smother, engage, then disengage, take weight, control and strike. They are specific mechanics with different goals.

Without a goal in mind, we often flounder about.

A student tells me he wants to make a lot of money when he graduates from acupuncture school, so I ask him, "What does he consider a lot of money?"

"$10? $1000? $100,000 a year? It has to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timebound, otherwise it is pipe dreams."

So its is specific for all of us, and even task related as suggested by TN earlier.

Specificity rules

[Hendrik]

Body mechanics is a function of real time condition of the state of Body, mind, and environment.

I bring up the Maximum Heart Rate, The EEG....... because human are no Robot, the states and condition of the mind - body affect body mechanics.

But, how many willing to admit to the reality? instead of arguing for argument shake.


So what is internal training? in Today's langugare, the IMA, internal training is a training which takes components beyond the obvious Body mechanics into consideration to yield an effective result for REAL TIME and based on Individual. No more no less.

Why is it so difficult to accept those IMA technology exist?

Is those IMA technology GOD? certainly not. however, it does address important issues that most not aware of.

[t_niehoff]

Body mechanics is a function of real time condition of the state of Body, mind, and environment.

I bring up the Maximum Heart Rate, The EEG....... because human are no Robot, the states and condition of the mind - body affect body mechanics.

But, how many willing to admit to the reality? instead of arguing for argument shake.


Body mechanics are how you use your body (which includes your limbs) to perform a task. When we talk about optimal body mechanics we're referring to how to "best" (max certainty and min time/effort) use our body to perform that task. Objectively, that won't change -- so your heart rate or the condition of your mind won't change how to "best" do soemthing. As I've already indicated, there is, for example, an optimal way to lift a very heavy weight. That's not going to change because your heart rate increases or because of your mind. Physically, there is an objectively best way to lift a heavy weight. Who knows those mechanics? People who routinely lift very heavy weights.

Your approach isn't taking the task itself into consideration. You can hook yourself up to all kinds of machines, etc. but they can't tell you if you are performing the task optimially -- only performing the task can tell you that. Use the lifting the heavy weight example -- no EEG, heart rate monitor, etc. can show you or help you determine how to best lift a heavy weight.



So what is internal training? in Today's langugare, the IMA, internal training is a training which takes components beyond the obvious Body mechanics into consideration to yield an effective result for REAL TIME and based on Individual. No more no less.

Why is it so difficult to accept those IMA technology exist?

Is those IMA technology GOD? certainly not. however, it does address important issues that most not aware of.

IMA "technology" has not proved itself to be useful, it hasn't produced any significant results. To say that there is more involved that body mechanics is to state the obvious. Sure there is. But, by doing the task itself, you not only develop the mechanics, you develop the other aspects. This is standard athletic training. So why do we need internal/external nomenclature when we can just say "train like an athlete"?

[Hendrik]

As I've already indicated, there is, for example, an optimal way to lift a very heavy weight. That's not going to change because your heart rate increases or because of your mind.

one doesnt even have to go that far on Optimal way,

The reality is how simple the physical mechanics of man having sex is? brainless right and every man knows it right? but at certain condition, one needs Viagra to help to get the BASIC mechanics to work.

Not to mention the mind influence....

[Hendrik]

IMA "technology" has not proved itself to be useful, it hasn't produced any significant results.


sure, and you have never learn what is IMA to make that conclusion, isnt it ?

[t_niehoff]

sure, and you have never learn what is IMA to make that conclusion, isnt it ?

Hendrik, why are you being intellectually dishonest? That argument has been repeatedly demonstrated to be nonsense, yet you continue to cite it. A person doesn't need to study or practice something to be able to look at the evidence of its results.

Your intellectual dishonesty just demonstrates how you really can't offer anything else.

[Hendrik]

Hendrik, why are you being intellectually dishonest? That argument has been repeatedly demonstrated to be nonsense, yet you continue to cite it. A person doesn't need to study or practice something to be able to look at the evidence of its results.

Your intellectual dishonesty just demonstrates how you really can't offer anything else.



How many time your cite the Intellectual dishonesty term which for me means nothing but playing with words for argument shake. hahaha?


See, Truth is nothing to do with intellectual.

and in this case, you dont know the Truth of IMA because you dont know.

I know it because I have known those who live with IMA practice;
and IMA even become their health management/support aids.

and you just cant accept that right? hahaha

Who is said the world has to be spinning according to Terence?

[Liddel]

Who is said the world has to be spinning according to Terence?

How do you know the world is spinning at all Hendrik, how do you know the stars arent spinning around a static stationary earth at the center of the universe ?

People come up with ideas and based on observation and experimentation, test those theories validity.


I know it because I have known those who live with IMA practice;
and IMA even become their health management/support aids.

So based on your observation the internal approach has effect on these people you mention. But how does one determine that the results are the direct effect of IMA practice and not for the sake of argument... say placebo effect ?

Do you see what im saying, most people these days bang on about global warming and how its a problem... the issue is not wether there is global warming but rather the cause... is it because of humans letting carbons into the atmosphere or a natural part of a global cycle.... So

How do you determine that the results of IMA (specific to those using the internals for health management/support aids) are indeed direct results from IMA and not placebo effect or increased blood flow from body mechanics or rather actually just doing a task...? etc etc

Which lends back to KF - how come we dont see those using the IMA approach attaining higher results than those with plain old Body mechanics approach and how come that doesnt extend into other areas of physical activity beyond fighting...like sports ?

Im legitimatly curious....:o

DREW

[Hendrik]

How do you know the world is spinning at all Hendrik, how do you know the stars arent spinning around a static stationary earth at the center of the universe ?


That is your questions. not mine. So you got to solve it yourself.

if you go to sleep tonight and not waking up tomorrow morning what is all these stars spinning stuffs anyway?

hahaha. :D






So based on your observation the internal approach has effect on these people you mention. But how does one determine that the results are the direct effect of IMA practice and not for the sake of argument... say placebo effect ?

it is like eating lunch, one will be full if one had eaten real food. One cant believe oneself to become full.

However, one needs to get Real Food .

That is the difficult part for IMA, most people are thinking Pictures of Food as Food and keep talking and arguing and defending, sure, one can believe and talking and arguing that way 100000000000 years but never eat a thing.


IE such as the following.

internal arts focus on complete relaxation and complete coordination of the body and the mind for speed/power.

This is delusion which lead to no where like thinking about eating the picture food.


We today can tune the mind and body via Biofeedback machine into different state or alter-state. We talk about entering Alpha state ..ect.
alpha state is certainly and absolutely not Complete relaxation and complete coordination but a state.

Can one's training process get one there at will? the true IMA guy with a process can, even if the depth or how well into the state is depend the individual's practice; but the IMA process training does be able to get one there at will, for example.


Thus, making the above "Complete.." statements just tell one that is delusion because they dont even know the state exist. No to mention enter into it.....






Which lends back to KF - how come we dont see those using the IMA approach attaining higher results than those with plain old Body mechanics approach and how come that doesnt extend into other areas of physical activity beyond fighting...like sports ?

Dont know and dont really care what others using or not using similar to some use Viagra some dont. some even dont need to have sex.

But then, dont those high end Sport people using biofeedback to enter different states? what is that in the Chinese IMA term? the term is "internal training " isnt it?



You know, I dont really care for defending or attacking on these IMA stuffs....etc. why not get the IMA process, train it, get the modern Biofeedback... process, train it, then from there draw a conclusion based on the result and experience one got.

instead of these no end arguement like argue about religion which is just wasting life.



Ok, saying this, let me share with you. Chi Sau, yup, Chi Sau in WCK, is a basic training for Issuing or manupulating 3 D force vectors trajectory, but what has it becomes today?


Disregard of what it is become today does anyone know how to drill on project/manupulate the 3 D force vectors trajectory?
to be real honest, we ( I included) today doesnt have a clue on how these are done.
Thus, we cant operate close body as WCK once upon the time is.

if one keeping training in spearing a 6 feet pole, one will not know what to do and the body doesnt know the mechanics when the oponent enter the 3 feet zone. and that is the outcome one can expect.


Well, too long a story, the State entering, the 3 D force vectors trajectory projection...... those are IMA in today's term. Why make it so mysterious?

it is real.

[Pacman]

Are you saying that internal arts are using the same body mechanics as everyone else?


perhaps i misunderstood your point. when you said internal arts have a concept of a 'universal mechanic' it sounded like you meant that internal arts believe there is one way to do every movement. im saying that there is no grand unifying mechanic belief in the internal arts. this is not to say, that they do things the same as everyone else.



You can't have "complete relaxation" since our muscles to move, to maintain posture, etc. need to contract.


right. 'complete' is not to be taken literally. of course if there was no tension at all you would fall to the floor like a wet towel. when i said 'complete' i meant as much as possible. the degree of relaxation sought by internal arts is in general much higher compared to others. i have met some sifus and when they do chi sao their arms feel like rubber. people said when sum nung did the wooden dummy form or when he fought, his arms looked like whips.


All athletes have coordination and focus. How is this any different?

if you read my post i acknowledged that other athletes desire the same things, but the methods of training are different. i explained that specifically.



This is one great example of why "internal art" training doesn't work. All athletes learn when to exert themselves, when to rest, when to relax, when to explode, etc. by doing the activity (sport) itself. You can't learn how to do this is boxing or grappling by not boxing or grappling.

this is where i disagree. im not saying you can learn how to box without boxing, but you can't always learn everything by just doing that activity.

here is a very easy to understand example and point

tension, mental and physical, is natural under stressful situations like fighting. 99/100 people when put into a fight for the first time will tense up. physical tension slows you down physically, tires you out quicker. mental tension slows your reaction time and more.

the tense state can develop into a bad habit even if you are aware of it, although most people are not.

so it is helpful to do forms of trainign other than pure fighting to improve this.

its like boxers (your favorite) using a speed bag to improve hand eye coordination. sometimes you want to focus on a specific area of fighting training and not just jump into the ring over and over again.


MT fighters train like athletes. And that's why they can be "relaxed" while fighting. And why "internal martial artists" can't.

all i can say is that i disagree. just look at your favorite UFC guys. bj penn and anderson sylva look pretty relaxed to me physically. of course i cant tell for sure but from their facial expressions they look more mentally relaxed than others.

compare them to someone like forrest griffin.

there is a difference

internal stylists just stress the importance of a relaxed mind and body more than others and train for that specific goal. you can disagree to its usefulness but you CAN relax



In BJJ, we often do sparring rounds where we try to stay as relaxed as possible. Internal BJJ! Woo hoo!

thats an idiotic comment. its called an internal martial art not because it is the only one that trains internal aspects or trains only internal aspects but because internal aspects are the main focus.

[Pacman]

I think "internal" a while back meant we keep it in the family, and we don't tell others.

you're not serious, right?

[anerlich]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anerlich
In BJJ, we often do sparring rounds where we try to stay as relaxed as possible. Internal BJJ! Woo hoo!

thats an idiotic comment. its called an internal martial art not because it is the only one that trains internal aspects or trains only internal aspects but because internal aspects are the main focus.

Well Thank you. It was an intentionally facetious comment in the midst of many unintentionally facetious ones.

Tim Cartmell, a pretty high level practitioner of internal MA and BJJ black belt, thinks BJJ has internal aspects. Go to his forum and tell him he's an idiot too.

I trained intensively in the normally recognised internal MA's for five years. I'm quite sure I know a lot more about them than you. Not all internal MA practice is "soft" or "relaxed".


all i can say is that i disagree. just look at your favorite UFC guys. bj penn and anderson sylva look pretty relaxed to me physically. of course i cant tell for sure but from their facial expressions they look more mentally relaxed than others.

compare them to someone like forrest griffin.

there is a difference

internal stylists just stress the importance of a relaxed mind and body more than others and train for that specific goal. you can disagree to its usefulness but you CAN relax


Yeah, but BJ Penn and Anderson Silva would laugh at you if you said they were internal martial artists. I don't see how their performances and their types of training advance the case for internal MA practice in becoming an efficient fighter. If it gave these guys any sort of edge with all that money involved, they'd be doing it in a heartbeat. But they aren't.

An appropriate level of relaxation assists many physical activities. But produce the evidence that internal MA practice is required to achieve it. There are simpler ways to learn and achieve relaxation that do not have IMA's mystical baggage attached. And experience and familiarisation with the stress of fighting are needed as well if you are going to fight without undue stress and tension.

[Yoshiyahu]

So is there a way to make your body mechanics stronger???



Hendrik, why are you being intellectually dishonest? That argument has been repeatedly demonstrated to be nonsense, yet you continue to cite it. A person doesn't need to study or practice something to be able to look at the evidence of its results.

Your intellectual dishonesty just demonstrates how you really can't offer anything else.

[t_niehoff]

right. 'complete' is not to be taken literally. of course if there was no tension at all you would fall to the floor like a wet towel. when i said 'complete' i meant as much as possible. the degree of relaxation sought by internal arts is in general much higher compared to others. i have met some sifus and when they do chi sao their arms feel like rubber. people said when sum nung did the wooden dummy form or when he fought, his arms looked like whips.


This is nothing special -- this is what all athletes do. It has nothing to do with "internal" or "external", what you are calling "relaxation" comes from FAMILIARITY, from doing it so much that your body naturally uses just what it needs to get the task done.



if you read my post i acknowledged that other athletes desire the same things, but the methods of training are different. i explained that specifically.


Yes, and that different (internal) way of training doesn't work.



this is where i disagree. im not saying you can learn how to box without boxing, but you can't always learn everything by just doing that activity.


Sure you can. You learn and develop any physical skill by doing that skill -- not by doing something else. You learn and develop the ability to ride a bike by and through riding a bike, to surf by actually surfing, to swim by actually swimming, and so on.



here is a very easy to understand example and point

tension, mental and physical, is natural under stressful situations like fighting. 99/100 people when put into a fight for the first time will tense up. physical tension slows you down physically, tires you out quicker. mental tension slows your reaction time and more.

the tense state can develop into a bad habit even if you are aware of it, although most people are not.

so it is helpful to do forms of trainign other than pure fighting to improve this.


Forms, drill, ets. can't and won't help you develop the ability to not tense up when fighting. The ONLY way to develop that is by familiarity, by fighting. The more you fight, the more you become accustomed to it.

You believe this "internal" training works NOT FROM EXPERIENCE but from theory, from imagining that's how it should work.



its like boxers (your favorite) using a speed bag to improve hand eye coordination. sometimes you want to focus on a specific area of fighting training and not just jump into the ring over and over again.


The speed bag is for conditioning. It's common for fighters to do lots of conditioning exercises since that's what gets their body prepared for the sparring.



all i can say is that i disagree. just look at your favorite UFC guys. bj penn and anderson sylva look pretty relaxed to me physically. of course i cant tell for sure but from their facial expressions they look more mentally relaxed than others.

compare them to someone like forrest griffin.

there is a difference

internal stylists just stress the importance of a relaxed mind and body more than others and train for that specific goal. you can disagree to its usefulness but you CAN relax


All good fighters, just like all good atheltes, look "relaxed" since by being highly skilled, their bodies have learned when to turn it on and when to turn it off. This is nothing special. Good, athletic training develops that.

[t_niehoff]

So is there a way to make your body mechanics stronger???

Of coruse there is.

[sanjuro_ronin]

you're not serious, right?

There is actually some truth to that, to what extent is unknown, but for some time, the division of Internal and External was based on what was kept "inner" and what was taught to the outside.
Also, at one time the difference was that Inernal = CMA and External = MA that were forgien.

[couch]

FWIW, I also see Internal MA as something different.

Example: Qigong or Tai Chi I think are IMA. When I perform my Qigong set, I can feel the energy coursing through my body. Can I teach that to someone else? No. I can teach them the 'shell' of it, but they have to experience it for themselves.

So, I feel that the IMA is a PERSONAL experience. Can it help someone to fight? Perhaps - but this is where concepts and ideas can blur.

I can see where T might be going with all of this. The more gobble-dee-goop you give to someone to sift through, the more confusing it becomes. When you are taught to punch in a boxing gym, you glove up and start hitting...and you are 'coached' on how to hit. Given 'ideas' on how to improve the body mechanics of it all. For the mostpart - you teach yourself how to do things because if you do it right, you get results.

Anywho...this topic is maybe too far and wide. Keep it going...

[Hendrik]

There is actually some truth to that, to what extent is unknown, but for some time, the division of Internal and External was based on what was kept "inner" and what was taught to the outside.
Also, at one time the difference was that Inernal = CMA and External = MA that were forgien.


Sure, in one catagory, Shao Lin is external, Wu Dang is internal.

However, that is not what is discussed.




there is TCMA Internal art. and it is well define.



Wang Xiang Zai the founder of Da Chen Chuan have even make a summary and put it in written as clearly as the following.


禅家者流，乘有大小，宗有南北，道有正邪，学者须从最上乘，具正法眼，悟第一义。若小乘禅，非 正法也，论拳 如论禅，内家拳则第一义也，外家拳，则小乘禅，已落第二义矣。

大抵禅道，惟在妙悟，拳道亦在妙悟。然悟有深浅，有分限，有透彻之悟，有但得一知半解之悟。意 拳，应不立招术，乃透彻之悟也。意拳，即大乘拳也。不立招术，乃透彻之悟也。其它拳术，虽有所 悟，但皆立招 设术，俱非第一义也。若以为不然，则是见拳之不广，参拳之不熟耳。试取外家拳谱而熟参之，次取 太极，八卦而 熟参之，其真 是非，自有不能隐者 !



I have asked that claim to know it all Yi Chuan EXPERT BO TOXIC to explain the above. I am still waiting.

anyone like to help translate it? Thanks.

[chusauli]

"Internal" has many connotations, as does "external":

Internal - Daoist
External - Buddhit

I - Family
E - not related

I - Disciple
E - Student

I - Soft
E - Hard

I -trains the Qi
E- trains skin, sinew, and bones

I - Tai Ji, Xing Yi and Ba Gua "brothers" Cheng Ting Hua, Guo Yun Sheng, Liu De Kuan
E - Anyone not part of that brotherhood

I - Special Students who pay $3K
E - Regular students who pay monthly fees

I - Xin, Qi, Li
E - Hips/Shoulders, Knees/Elbows, Feet/Hands

And so on...

[Hendrik]

I - Special Students who pay $3K
E - Regular students who pay monthly fees


And so on...


What did the special students learn? get a Mac Airbook http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?afid=p202%7CGOUSB103943864&cid=OAS-US-KWG-CPUBrandTerms-US
for the seminal. :D


I- Apple
E-IBM pc

[chusauli]

Special Students under Moy Yat and Lee Moy Shan learned a special variation of Lop Geng Sao which allowed them to poke their opponent in the eye with their thumb.

And the $3K meant that they were "special" to their Sifu.

They didn't get a Mac Book Air.

[anerlich]

its like boxers (your favorite) using a speed bag to improve hand eye coordination. sometimes you want to focus on a specific area of fighting training and not just jump into the ring over and over again.

That's incorrect. I think it was Cus D'Amato that, when confronted with this misinformation, successfully performed a round on the speed bag blindfolded to dispell that notion. IMO the sucker moves too fast to see when you're going fast, it's more about timing rhythm and keeping your hands up.

You're right that T's good fighters who he urges us to try to emulate don't just spend their whole session duking it out. The question is whether practices like forms and qigong help you become better at duking it out - assuming that's the main aim of you're training, which isn't and doesn't have to be the case for everybody.

[Pacman]

That's incorrect. I think it was Cus D'Amato that, when confronted with this misinformation, successfully performed a round on the speed bag blindfolded to dispell that notion. IMO the sucker moves too fast to see when you're going fast, it's more about timing rhythm and keeping your hands up.

i can disagree with that reasoning, but i dont want to get off topic. the point is that there is a purpose to that training. boxers don't just do it for fun. after all its a holy functional art right?



The question is whether practices like forms and qigong help you become better at duking it out - assuming that's the main aim of you're training, which isn't and doesn't have to be the case for everybody.

great clarification of the argument. i happen to believe that qigong does help. other people that practice IMAs do as well, thats why they do it. i know others dont...which is why there are two categories internal and external

[Pacman]

Well Thank you. It was an intentionally facetious comment in the midst of many unintentionally facetious ones.

Tim Cartmell, a pretty high level practitioner of internal MA and BJJ black belt, thinks BJJ has internal aspects. Go to his forum and tell him he's an idiot too.


why would i do that? if you understood what i said then i wouldnt ahve to say again: relaxed doesn't automatically equal internal. so there is no logical reasoning that would suggest me to do that.



I trained intensively in the normally recognised internal MA's for five years. I'm quite sure I know a lot more about them than you. Not all internal MA practice is "soft" or "relaxed".

solid conclusion about knowing more than me when you have no idea about my background. you can say not all internal MA focuses on relaxation...i guess if you want to redefine internal MAs. the neija category was coined by some KF historian back in the day when he was talking about the arts coming from wutang mountain--tai chi, bagua, and xing yi.




Yeah, but BJ Penn and Anderson Silva would laugh at you if you said they were internal martial artists.

precisely why i didnt and would never. i pointed out the difference in relaxation when replying to niehoff about fighters not being able to relax.



I don't see how their performances and their types of training advance the case for internal MA practice in becoming an efficient fighter.

try to focus when reading and writing. re-read my post. i brought up these guys for the purpose of replying to a post about fighters not being able to relax. i was in no way making these guys the poster children for IMAs


An appropriate level of relaxation assists many physical activities. But produce the evidence that internal MA practice is required to achieve it.

again. basic reading comprehension skills would help here and save me the carpal tunnel from typing. i didnt say IMA was required. in fact i said the opposite -- that other arts might want to achieve some relaxation too. the difference is in the degree, the focus, and the training techniques.



experience and familiarisation with the stress of fighting are needed as well if you are going to fight without undue stress and tension.

i agree and said that regular sparring was needed too.

[chusauli]

BTW,

Internal = WCK
External = Non WCK

[Hendrik]

I trained intensively in the normally recognised internal MA's for five years. I'm quite sure I know a lot more about them than you. Not all internal MA practice is "soft" or "relaxed".

If you have train an intensive Internal Ma for five years with a real IMA sifu. you will not switch to join the general WCK School. because you no longer needs to.






solid conclusion about knowing more than me when you have no idea about my background. you can say not all internal MA focuses on relaxation...i guess if you want to redefine internal MAs. the neija category was coined by some KF historian back in the day when he was talking about the arts coming from wutang mountain--tai chi, bagua, and xing yi.




Everyone speak about RELAXATION and what is RELAXATION IS FOR? WHY? and WHAT DEGREE of RELAXATION is needed?




IMHO,
Again, these above are typical claim based on personal view instead of what is Internal art.

There are tons and tons of those who think they are training IMA for 30 years but still not even start the journey yet.

[chusauli]

Here we have a grandmaster of Yi Quan - Yao Zongxun, formal successor of Wang Xiangzhai, creator of Yiquan.

Do we all agree he has good mechanics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeQ76vOOq5k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOjct-3pFm8&feature=related

[t_niehoff]

Here we have a grandmaster of Yi Quan - Yao Zongxun, formal successor of Wang Xiangzhai, creator of Yiquan.

Do we all agree he has good mechanics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeQ76vOOq5k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOjct-3pFm8&feature=related

You can't separtate mechanics from the task -- "mechanics" is what you physically do to perform the task. To look at someone perform movements in the air can't tell you how they would do in performing the task. The only way to judge mechanics is by seeing the results of performance of the task.

[anerlich]

solid conclusion about knowing more than me when you have no idea about my background.

So enlighten us re your background and prove me wrong.


re-read my post.

It wasn't THAT impressive. You get carpal tunnel, I get eyestrain.


save me the carpal tunnel

Save yourself. Dont' reply!

[anerlich]

If you have train an intensive Internal Ma for five years with a real IMA sifu. you will not switch to join the general WCK School. because you no longer needs to.


I think I'm better qualified than you to be the judge of that.

[Liddel]

Isnt it funny how most the IMA's here cant agree on what actually defines an IMA, rather smilar to how many chunners argue what is and isnt VT....:p

Kinda ironic given most people seem to be able to identify good vs bad mechanics, i wonder why :rolleyes: :o

I also wonder how many of the IMA's here actually train to fight vs for health etc....? because that would kinda determine how moot alot of the points here actually are.....

DREW

[Hendrik]

I think I'm better qualified than you to be the judge of that.



your action is the best evidence no judge needed.

[Hendrik]

Isnt it funny how most the IMA's here cant agree on what actually defines an IMA, rather smilar to how many chunners argue what is and isnt VT....:p

Kinda ironic given most people seem to be able to identify good vs bad mechanics, i wonder why :rolleyes: :o

I also wonder how many of the IMA's here actually train to fight vs for health etc....? because that would kinda determine how moot alot of the points here actually are.....

DREW



Because IMA is a greatest excuse for fantasy. However, not all IMA are fantasy.

[Liddel]

Because IMA is a greatest excuse for fantasy.

Indeed, Kung Fu also.



However, not all IMA are fantasy.

Nor Kung Fu, but what specific bennifits have you experienced and from what specific training Hendrik....

No metaphors or mystic pigeon english sentences mate...just a plain old straight foward explanation for a simple guy (me) ?

Breathing techs help center the mind making actions flow better ?
Increase feeling/sensitivity ?
Faster reactions ?

Lets pull this thread out of the S h i t and get to the meat and veg :)

Its a big ask ........LOL

DREW

[Hendrik]

Breathing techs help center the mind making actions flow better ?
Increase feeling/sensitivity ?
Faster reactions ?



Do you mean Breathing techs alone increase feeling... faster reactions?

[Liddel]

Do you mean Breathing techs alone increase feeling... faster reactions?

Its a question to you and other IMA's not a statement...just trying to get the ball rolling...share your specific experience/s

What methods of IMA's do you use/advocate ?
and what are the direct results in terms of using VT ?

I have my own views, but id like to hear yours

:)

DREW

[Hardwork108]

Here we have a grandmaster of Yi Quan - Yao Zongxun, formal successor of Wang Xiangzhai, creator of Yiquan.

Do we all agree he has good mechanics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeQ76vOOq5k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOjct-3pFm8&feature=related

Talking of Yi Quan, did you know that we have at least one poster here who says that he has practiced 5 years (if my memory serves me correctly) of EXTERNAL Yi Quan? LOL!

Going back to the video, I believe that a lot of the body mechanics of an internalist cannot be seen by simply observing a video as even those happen at an internal level.

However, on another level one can still see the relaxedness (up to a point) and the flow during the motions, as well as the posture allignments.

[Hendrik]

Its a question to you and other IMA's not a statement...just trying to get the ball rolling...share your specific experience/s

What methods of IMA's do you use/advocate ?
and what are the direct results in terms of using VT ?

I have my own views, but id like to hear yours

:)

DREW


Ok.


TCMA IMA in my understanding is not learn about something but it is a continous details process of transcending/transforming oneself.

It is not doing thing in a different way but it is a continous process of investigation and improvement starting from where one is. It is a journey inward and at each mile stone of the journey one progress to be better then one before.

In this path, mind, physical body, breathing, awareness, and Qi all needs to be investigate and work on since all of these are interelated or a part of reality.

as for the method, nothing is fixed. and often it is like using a boat to cross the river after one cross a particular river the particular boat is abandon because that is no longer needed.

The ultimate goal is to become just "flow". however one needs to have something to starts to work on; to begin one needs to know how to deal with the physical, mind, awareness, and Qi with specific methods and then abandon all these methods so that the method no will not becomes a burden.



As you mention breathing above, there are different breathing training depend on what is the goal set. generally, breathing influence the clarity of mind and the operation of the body. thus, one can train the breathing to calm the mind or increase the potential of the physical body. on the other hand, one also can cultivate the Awareness to let the breathing return to its nature deep breathing state. So, there is no one method fit all. depend on what is one's goal.

However, saying the above doesnt mean one dont have to know the technic or technics of handling breathing for different goals. and those technics needs to be learn and practiced like a tool so that one can use it when needed.

breathing is just another angle looking at the reality called Oneself. from the angle of breathing one will see one's body, one's mind, one's qi, one's awareness in the breathing way. similarly, from the physical body angle one will see one's body, one's mind, one's qi, one's awareness in a different way then viewing them from the breathing angle.....so fort from each different angle....


Thus, oneself is very simple. however, viewing the oneself from different angle such as the breathing angle the physical angle.......etc are complex until finally after familiar with different view and each components , only then oneself becomes simple and with ease. Those are the training.

[Pacman]

Save yourself. Dont' reply!

i wont need to since i just solidly defeated all your points

[Pacman]

The ONLY way to develop that is by familiarity, by fighting. The more you fight, the more you become accustomed to it.

no. one component of "familiarity" as you say is muscle memory. to achieve muscle memory in punching, you do not need to fight with the punch. it would better serve you to punch 1000 times a day in the air. that would build muscle memory faster.

of course to utilize that punch you need to fight.

which is why i have said many times you need lots of things. not just pure fighting.



You believe this "internal" training works NOT FROM EXPERIENCE but from theory, from imagining that's how it should work.

you seem very rational and logical at times...but then many times you throw in things like this and thus your arguments are built like a house of cards.

you dont know this. in fact this is not true. there is no imagination involved only experience.


The speed bag is for conditioning. It's common for fighters to do lots of conditioning exercises since that's what gets their body prepared for the sparring.

i dont see what your arguing here. it seems like you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. do you remember your point. you were saying that all this other stuff is bogus. to get better at fighting you need to fight.

yet you just admitted that boxers do non fighting activity A so that they can be better fighters. well im saying that internal martial artists do non fighting activity B so that they can be better fighters



All good fighters, just like all good atheltes, look "relaxed" since by being highly skilled, their bodies have learned when to turn it on and when to turn it off. This is nothing special. Good, athletic training develops that.

not true that all fighters are relaxed...but even if it were true the point, as i have said many times, is that internal MAs can have similar goals as other arts. the difference is in the approach.


there are two arguments here.

1. you are arguing that "internal training" doesnt exist.
2. you are saying that it doesnt work.

well i dont see how you can argue #2 if it doesnt exist but cant fill all your logical holes.

internal training basically covers everything not purely about the physical body. that means basically certain aspects of the mind.

internal training is a category. it does exist. whether you think it works is another thing.

from my experience it works. i have done both. have you done both? it seems like you have not

[Pacman]

Going back to the video, I believe that a lot of the body mechanics of an internalist cannot be seen by simply observing a video as even those happen at an internal level.


this is true. look at sil lum tao. its difficult to understand the applications from observation alone.

[t_niehoff]

no. one component of "familiarity" as you say is muscle memory. to achieve muscle memory in punching, you do not need to fight with the punch. it would better serve you to punch 1000 times a day in the air. that would build muscle memory faster.

of course to utilize that punch you need to fight.

which is why i have said many times you need lots of things. not just pure fighting.


You ae confusing different things. Being able to "relax" in fighting comes from familiarity, from fighting enough that you can "relax" naturally. You can't learn or develop the ability to "relax" while fighting by not fighting.



you seem very rational and logical at times...but then many times you throw in things like this and thus your arguments are built like a house of cards.

you dont know this. in fact this is not true. there is no imagination involved only experience.


I am talking about experience fighting -- going all out, 100% trying to knock each other out, take each otehr down, submit each other, etc., and with competent fighters. So, have you done that? Have you sought out good fighters like MMA or TM people to spar with?



i dont see what your arguing here. it seems like you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. do you remember your point. you were saying that all this other stuff is bogus. to get better at fighting you need to fight.


Yes, to get better at fighting you need to fight. But, even more so, the only way to get better at fighting is by fighitng.



yet you just admitted that boxers do non fighting activity A so that they can be better fighters. well im saying that internal martial artists do non fighting activity B so that they can be better fighters


Look at it this way, the only way to become a better bike rider is by riding the bike. OK? You can't get better by not riding the bike. Now, bike riders may stretch, may run or lift weight or do all kinds of things to make their bodies healthier or better conditioned for their sport. OK? But none of that makes their SKILL at riding better -- the skill building comes from practicing the skill itself, from riding the bike. It doesn't come from all those things they do not riding the bike. Those only prepare the way for skill building.



not true that all fighters are relaxed...but even if it were true the point, as i have said many times, is that internal MAs can have similar goals as other arts. the difference is in the approach.


Yes, I know the difference is in approach. And the IMA approach doesn't work.



there are two arguments here.

1. you are arguing that "internal training" doesnt exist.
2. you are saying that it doesnt work.

well i dont see how you can argue #2 if it doesnt exist but cant fill all your logical holes.


I'm saying internal training doesn't work because the whole internal/external view is nonsense. What works is good, athletic training, the stuff all good athletes do. Everything else produces poor results.



internal training basically covers everything not purely about the physical body. that means basically certain aspects of the mind.

internal training is a category. it does exist. whether you think it works is another thing.

from my experience it works. i have done both. have you done both? it seems like you have not

Where are all the good, proven fighters that do internal training? They don't exist. End of argument.

[Pacman]

you sound like a broken record because you don't respond to my points, but rather repeat the same mantras over and over.

i wont repeat the cycle again with all your points but a few things i want to say



I am talking about experience fighting -- going all out, 100% trying to knock each other out, take each otehr down, submit each other, etc., and with competent fighters. So, have you done that? Have you sought out good fighters like MMA or TM people to spar with?


yes. i dont have super secret underground wing chun i mean muay thai i mean wing chun fight club like you but i have.




Where are all the good, proven fighters that do internal training? They don't exist. End of argument.

you mean why arent they in professional MMA fight leagues?

[t_niehoff]

you sound like a broken record because you don't respond to my points, but rather repeat the same mantras over and over.

i wont repeat the cycle again with all your points but a few things i want to say


I repeat the same few things because when you grasp these same few things, you'll see that all your "traditional" views (IMA, etc.) are nonsense.



yes. i dont have super secret underground wing chun i mean muay thai i mean wing chun fight club like you but i have.


Anyone can go crosstrain at a MT shcool or MMA school or try to find some place that has open mats. Anyone -- that is -- who REALLY wants to see whether or not they are fooling themselves. That people don't -- and won't -- do this IMO only underscores that regardless of what they say (on this forum or to themselves) that in their heart, they KNOW what would happen if they did go spar with competent people, and they don't want that confirmed.

BTW, this is nothing new. Hawkins, back when he was with Yip Man, joined a japanese karate school so that he could spar with some trained people. He even earned a BB in karate doing that.



you mean why arent they in professional MMA fight leagues?

I'm saying that there is no evidence that they exist except in people's imagination.

[Pacman]

I repeat the same few things because when you grasp these same few things, you'll see that all your "traditional" views (IMA, etc.) are nonsense.

i see. but in a discussion if you disregard a person's response and keep repeating the same things over and over then you sound a bit unreasonable.

[t_niehoff]

i see. but in a discussion if you disregard a person's response and keep repeating the same things over and over then you sound a bit unreasonable.

What most people -- like you -- keep repeating (in different forms and on different subjects) is the same, their beliefs based on theory, what they believe to be true in their "mind's eye" (fantasy). The answer to this is always the same: trust only the fight. Only believe genuine, proven evidence. That's not unreasonable. That's called being rational.

[Pacman]

What most people -- like you -- keep repeating (in different forms and on different subjects) is the same, their beliefs based on theory, what they believe to be true in their "mind's eye" (fantasy). The answer to this is always the same: trust only the fight. Only believe genuine, proven evidence. That's not unreasonable. That's called being rational.

uhhh well if you actually read and processed what i have been writing i am totally for that and have not done anything contrary to that.

the problem is that for every discussion you repeat the above, even when it doesn't really apply to the topic at hand. you use it as a default response to say the other person isn't thinking and you are.

and btw, "genuine evidence" does not come only from some fight league on TV. your bogus term "functional arts" for boxing, MT, BJJ as well as the pedestal you place them on is not very well thought out

you constantly use the fact that MMA leagues such as UFC are dominated by these arts as evidence of their superiority. as if they were picked by the UFC through natural selection

however you fail to realize that each one of the arts you see, MT, BJJ, and boxing (and to a lesser extent Judo and wrestling), already have well established and extremely competitive leagues of their own prior to the formation of MMA leagues such as UFC. and as a result of this there are a lot of hardcore trainers and fighters out there with a long history of competition.

how many hardcore KF fight leagues do you see? None. In fact, how many KF kwoons do you see that train as hard as your average boxer? Very very few.

this is why you see these arts in the UFC. not because KF training doesnt work, but because there are very few that do it.

So whenever you deride what you have not experienced, real kung fu training, and use its lack of presence in the UFC as evidence that it doesn't work just realize that you are using extremely faulted logic

[t_niehoff]

uhhh well if you actually read and processed what i have been writing i am totally for that and have not done anything contrary to that.


Really? So at what MMA schools or MT schools have you visited to test your theories?



the problem is that for every discussion you repeat the above, even when it doesn't really apply to the topic at hand. you use it as a default response to say the other person isn't thinking and you are.


But it does apply -- WCK is a fighting method. Everything in it can only be evaluated in that light, in terms of fighting. As I have said before, what I hear are people giving their theories or opinions not based on quality experience fighting. I point that out because that is significant -- it means their opinion or view isn't based on good evidence but something else.



and btw, "genuine evidence" does not come only from some fight league on TV. your bogus term "functional arts" for boxing, MT, BJJ as well as the pedestal you place them on is not very well thought out


Good evidence of what works in fighting comes ONLY from trying it with competent fighters. How can anyone measure their fighting performance? To do that, you need to know how good the competition is. It is the same in any sport or athletic activity. That's how you determine how good a boxer you are, how good a wrestler youa re, how good a tennis player you are, etc. Not only that, but if you want to see how good a particular part of your game is, you need to try it against proven, good people. If you are able to stop a takedown from some guy on the street (streetfighter) or one of your students what does that prove? That you were better than some unskilled guy. Does that mean you can make it work against someone who had some skills or attributes? No. However, if you can consistently stop the takedowns of a Div 1 wrestler, then you are good.



you constantly use the fact that MMA leagues such as UFC are dominated by these arts as evidence of their superiority. as if they were picked by the UFC through natural selection


They were. MMA fighters use what works -- what is proven to work. If someone finds a better way, they will adopt it immediately. Why? Because it is a sportand they want to win, they want any advantage. Tai ji isn't a part of MMA for a reason.



however you fail to realize that each one of the arts you see, MT, BJJ, and boxing (and to a lesser extent Judo and wrestling), already have well established and extremely competitive leagues of their own prior to the formation of MMA leagues such as UFC. and as a result of this there are a lot of hardcore trainers and fighters out there with a long history of competition.


I do realize that. And because they took the "sport" route, and used the sport model of training, those arts focus on results (winning the sport). As such, they are driven by results, and so their training has adopted, and continues to evolve, optimal ways of getting those results (training).



how many hardcore KF fight leagues do you see? None. In fact, how many KF kwoons do you see that train as hard as your average boxer? Very very few.


Exactly. And that's why "kung fu" is forthe most part crap. They are not DOING it -- not playing the game (fighting) like the functional (sport) arts are. Their training methods haven't evolved but remain stuck in a very poor model adopted hundreds of years ago by people who really didn't know much about the human body or how to train athletic excellence.



this is why you see these arts in the UFC. not because KF training doesnt work, but because there are very few that do it.


You say KF trianing works but can't show it -- where are any proven fighters that have developed significant skills that have done ONLY traditional training? Not guys that did the silly stuff and then went out and trained MMA. They don't exist.



So whenever you deride what you have not experienced, real kung fu training, and use its lack of presence in the UFC as evidence that it doesn't work just realize that you are using extremely faulted logic

You can keep repeating that traditional training does work but that doesn't make it so. Where is the evidence that it produces good fighters? Just provide that evidence.

There is no doubt that the modern sport-model of training works and produces good results -- you can look at all the functional arts, boxing, MT, BJJ, sambo, etc. and see that for yoruself. You can look at any proven fighters and see that. Why is it we can see that so easily but can't find a single example of a traditionally (only) trained good fighter?

If you can't point to any evidence, then your views aren't based on evidence. If they aren't based on evidence, then they are irrational views.

[Chango]

George St Piere is a traditional martial artist

Also Lyoto Machida is a traditional martial artist! both UFC champs.

[Liddel]

George St Piere is a traditional martial artist

Also Lyoto Machida is a traditional martial artist! both UFC champs.

You can use examples like Cung Lee and Karo as well as others like the above as traditional examples in MMA but its well known in the UFC those individuals had to train MMA to then use it as a base for bringing out thier original styles...

Only then when they had the foundations in MT Boxing and Ground were thier base systems then able to flourish in that platform, cage fighting.

This has been mentioned several times by Joe Rogan in commentary of the last few UFC's and the individuals themselves in IV's.

I personally believe peeps like GSP who began traditional style(s) at a young age like 5 or 6 are the best fighters in UFC and are amazing to watch, but its a bit ambiguous to use them as an example of traditional styles working at that level.

Thats just the state of it and im a staunch VT person so..... But for T to chain punch post about VT's training problems and to look to higher levels etc...take it with a grain of salt.

DREW

[Chango]

I guess I will be off of the X-Mas list for some people! But I firmly believe that everyone must build basic fighting skills stand up and on the ground before they can use a style etc..... I think it's very much like having a general education before moving to a particular speacialty. I don't think it has to be MT. BJJ etc.... But I do believe it's vital that you have atleast a base skill in all ranges. But that's just me:D

[LSWCTN1]

I guess I will be off of the X-Mas list for some people! But I firmly believe that everyone must build basic fighting skills stand up and on the ground before they can use a style etc..... I think it's very much like having a general education before moving to a particular speacialty. I don't think it has to be MT. BJJ etc.... But I do believe it's vital that you have atleast a base skill in all ranges. But that's just me:D

i see where you are coming from, but how do you develop those base skills in the first place?

even TN agrees that you learn up to a certain point then go on to utilise those skills by fighting/sparring

could make a good discussion...

[Chango]

I personally believe that you should be sparring from day one! Of course controlled at first. To be honest I feel at the least 80% of your time should be spent in application! Maybe that comes from my wrestling and boxing back ground. Your learning begins on the mat with a resisting partner where you realize your limitations etc.. right away! I know some may argue that it will take forever to get through "the system". My point of view on that is if you can't use it your really don't have "the system" in the 1st place.

Of course this is more of a training culture and method issue. These can vary from school to school.;)

[t_niehoff]

George St Piere is a traditional martial artist

Also Lyoto Machida is a traditional martial artist! both UFC champs.

You have used as examples two guys that BEGAN with TMAs, but then began training in functional ways and practicing functional martial arts (BJJ, wrestling, MMA, etc.). It's not the TMAs that made these guys good -- it is the modern, sport-oriented training that made them good. They wouldn't be successful without that modern training. However, there are lots of fighters who never did any TMAs and are great fighters.

Once again, it is HOW you train that develops skill.

[Chango]

T,

I think you are missing the point. Also who's to say that it was the sport fighting that made them good! I do agree the sport fighting method is vital in playing the MMA game. From your logic the only good fighting is MMA! I have to say I disagree with you on that point!


However until we see them actually fight I guess we don't really know if they will fight like a competitor or with the TMA. My guess will be a mix of the two. I can only give you examples from my own experiences. Before I was able to understand about mechanics etc... I could hit and kick really hard. My ground game has always been there. However I was not able to refine what I did until I was involved with a TMA. It taught me how to look for what is important.

I think a arguement can be made that those guys that I mentioned have a very clean and effective approach to their fighting. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that this comes from their traditional back ground.

Please allow me to say this a good fighter is a good fighter. It's more about the person and not his/her MA.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Georges St. Pierre and Lyoto Machida are interesting and inspirational fighters for guys like us, I would think, because they both have demonstrated that a strong traditional background that's really brought up-to-date and pressure tested...as well as being crosstrained/mixed with other arts...

can pay huge dividends.

[Wayfaring]

You have used as examples two guys that BEGAN with TMAs, but then began training in functional ways and practicing functional martial arts (BJJ, wrestling, MMA, etc.). It's not the TMAs that made these guys good -- it is the modern, sport-oriented training that made them good. They wouldn't be successful without that modern training. However, there are lots of fighters who never did any TMAs and are great fighters.

Once again, it is HOW you train that develops skill.

Here's another guy who is an example of this:

http://www.mmatko.com/royce-gracie-vs-jason-delucia-classic-jiu-jitsu-vs-kung-fu-fight/

He's posted on this board before I think. Jason DeLucia lost a Gracie challenge when they were doing that - and it reformed his views on classical TMA training. He went on to fight in the early UFC's and had a pretty successful MMA career. But he did change the way he trained due to his experience.

[Liddel]

It's not the TMAs that made these guys good -- it is the modern, sport-oriented training that made them good. They wouldn't be successful without that modern training. However, there are lots of fighters who never did any TMAs and are great fighters.

I would go far as to say that IMHO once they had made thier training more functional and gained more experience (because Kung Lee did San Shou and GSP entered tourneys early early on) they utlise more tools / better timing and smoother movement than other good fighters that dont have a TMA background.

I generalise i know, but over time you can see the trend IMO.

Getting back to Body mechanics in a Wing Chun sence, functional training is a must but the real issue lies in the styles method of applying body mechanics.

And Wing CHun IMHO has a use of body mechanics so different to everyday body behaviour its method has to be taken into consideration when learning its body mechanics.

Example.

Put a newbie with no fighting experience in a ring on day one and say just do what feels natural, Go BANG.... 9 times out of ten IME you would see the individual perform lets say anywhere between 35 - 45% the same body mechanics of boxing.
Body unity, power lines weight dist etc etc would all be off and require tweaking / perfecting but the base would be there because Boxings mechanics are more simlilar to everyday body behaviour...its closer to a natural state of behaviour than WC's mechanics.
(opinions will vary on the % sure.)

Not everyone would behave the same but more would be similar than not IME.

Now Wing Chun is far from this. Your everyday natural body behaviour would rarely find anything similar to Bong Sau, Tan Sau huen sau... perhaps ones natural behaviour when picking up heavy objects is to keep the elbows in but even thats a stretch and would be unique if just thrown in a ring.

And its for this very reason i believe that what would be the traditional aspects of Wing Chun - the drills and especially the forms are a must - to introduce different habbits shapes and actions that essentially are teaching you foreign actions to become habbit....
Its my opinion through the experience of teaching people in VT (as an assistant) that without the forms and drills prior to more functional training like sparring then fighting and/or compitition etc you cant truely make the habbit actions of Wing Chun your own fighting habbits... people revert to the original basic bahaviour which is why so many are said to "look like KB" etc.

And this is where the lines can blur....

On the other side - the problem that arises with whats considered "fantasy training" is riding on the back of these wing chun specific factors, the fact that the type of person thats attracted to Wing Chun is generally not the natural fighter who wants to bang from day one, they generally are attrackted to boxing or KB...and also that people get stuck in drills and forms and dont complement that with functional application of the skills that are being trained to become habbit because they dont have the inclination to fight...thier more the intelectual hobbiest.
There are a myriad of reasons that muddy the waters of the Traditional training method because there is more room for error...without proper time in a style and quality of instruction.

So the long short of it is IME for a person to become good with VT mechanics they really do need the forms to introduce the unique mechanics, drills to marry that to timing and more dynamic spontaneous behaviour and then sparring / fighting or basic compitition to elevate its functionality -

Without all these elements combined the house of cards becomes less and less stable. its a simple fact.Its a balance IME.

But to say you dont need the forms or drills to make it functional is a farce IMO akin to discounting the importance of good hard sparring etc.

Hope i got my point across. :rolleyes: :o

DREW

[Chango]

I should have been clear. These basic skills should be shown as sort of a general Ed approach. Of course drills can be introduced but again live real energy must be 1st priority. I don't mean that it has to be full power etc... all of the time. However a challenge should be present once the student develops.

:D

I must say that I'm really enjoying this discussion. I may not agree with everyone but I see everyone's logic!! I can really take something from this type of thread! :p:D:)

[Liddel]

live real energy must be 1st priority. I don't mean that it has to be full power etc... all of the time. However a challenge should be present once the student develops.

This is one of my pet peeves about alot of the Lop Sau, Gor Sau platform drills out there...

I only spent a few months on co operative repetitive drills like Chi Sau and Poon sau. After that you were introduced to larger resistance new actions and it became spontaneous and un co operative... so it became a very introductory sparring platform IMO.

People have then offered the opinion your engaging in a drill with rules and its still un realistic and while im not trying to say it's fighting, if one person chooses to dis engage or try an action outside of the particular 'ruleset' for lack of a better word we punch/trade which makes it still somewhat realistic, especially if resistance spontenaeity(sp?) and intent to catch the body are present.

To many Chunners remain in the co operative repetitive stage of drills etc which adds more fantasy and takes away from functionality even more so than not adding sparring to the mix.

Its easy to see those people as they try to complicate the drill perhaps using several actions before catching the target when a Pak Da would have been the ticket...theres thousands of examples.

If you know what i mean...:rolleyes:

DREW

[sihing]

I would go far as to say that IMHO once they had made thier training more functional and gained more experience (because Kung Lee did San Shou and GSP entered tourneys early early on) they utlise more tools / better timing and smoother movement than other good fighters that dont have a TMA background.

I generalise i know, but over time you can see the trend IMO.

Getting back to Body mechanics in a Wing Chun sence, functional training is a must but the real issue lies in the styles method of applying body mechanics.

And Wing CHun IMHO has a use of body mechanics so different to everyday body behaviour its method has to be taken into consideration when learning its body mechanics.

Example.

Put a newbie with no fighting experience in a ring on day one and say just do what feels natural, Go BANG.... 9 times out of ten IME you would see the individual perform lets say anywhere between 35 - 45% the same body mechanics of boxing.
Body unity, power lines weight dist etc etc would all be off and require tweaking / perfecting but the base would be there because Boxings mechanics are more simlilar to everyday body behaviour...its closer to a natural state of behaviour than WC's mechanics.
(opinions will vary on the % sure.)

Not everyone would behave the same but more would be similar than not IME.

Now Wing Chun is far from this. Your everyday natural body behaviour would rarely find anything similar to Bong Sau, Tan Sau huen sau... perhaps ones natural behaviour when picking up heavy objects is to keep the elbows in but even thats a stretch and would be unique if just thrown in a ring.

And its for this very reason i believe that what would be the traditional aspects of Wing Chun - the drills and especially the forms are a must - to introduce different habbits shapes and actions that essentially are teaching you foreign actions to become habbit....
Its my opinion through the experience of teaching people in VT (as an assistant) that without the forms and drills prior to more functional training like sparring then fighting and/or compitition etc you cant truely make the habbit actions of Wing Chun your own fighting habbits... people revert to the original basic bahaviour which is why so many are said to "look like KB" etc.

And this is where the lines can blur....

On the other side - the problem that arises with whats considered "fantasy training" is riding on the back of these wing chun specific factors, the fact that the type of person thats attracted to Wing Chun is generally not the natural fighter who wants to bang from day one, they generally are attrackted to boxing or KB...and also that people get stuck in drills and forms and dont complement that with functional application of the skills that are being trained to become habbit because they dont have the inclination to fight...thier more the intelectual hobbiest.
There are a myriad of reasons that muddy the waters of the Traditional training method because there is more room for error...without proper time in a style and quality of instruction.

So the long short of it is IME for a person to become good with VT mechanics they really do need the forms to introduce the unique mechanics, drills to marry that to timing and more dynamic spontaneous behaviour and then sparring / fighting or basic compitition to elevate its functionality -

Without all these elements combined the house of cards becomes less and less stable. its a simple fact.Its a balance IME.

But to say you dont need the forms or drills to make it functional is a farce IMO akin to discounting the importance of good hard sparring etc.

Hope i got my point across. :rolleyes: :o

DREW

Excellent post Drew, very well put:)

James

[Pacman]

Exactly. And that's why "kung fu" is forthe most part crap. They are not DOING it -- not playing the game (fighting) like the functional (sport) arts are.

you are wrong. you are making a bad generalization based on a presumably poor experience.

you must have had a POS teacher and thus a POS experience, but dont label all KF as crap because of that.

KF training can be functional. even if there is not a public fight league

there are KF kwoons that have not been commercialized and are not run by know nothing sifus and are still "DOING IT". they have some different fighting and training philosophies than some of the other fighting arts these days but they still train real applications and still spar and fight.

KF was not always about fun for the kids at the local community center...being taught by some hippy with a pony tail who learned crap in the 60s.

you talk about the sport model and the motivation to win and how that shapes training. well back before guns came about, KF was life and death. KF was about power. that was a great motivator. thats why people paid tons of money to learn it. thats why KF has a tradition of only being known by the very wealthy (yip man and yuen kay san and others). this motivation shaped training methods to be functional.

there are still kwoons that train for fighting, but it is rare. that doesnt mean that KF is crap.

just because there is no KF fight league that doesnt mean KF is crap. Judo is a subset of jiujitsu and was made into a sport way before there were jiujitsu leagues. with your logic, back then you would say that jiujitsu training was crap and judo was the cat's meow because judo was a sport and jiujitsu was not.


They were. MMA fighters use what works -- what is proven to work. If someone finds a better way, they will adopt it immediately. Why? Because it is a sportand they want to win, they want any advantage. Tai ji isn't a part of MMA for a reason.

if you read and understoood what i wrote about the availability of competent trainers in KF you wouldn't make this argument. its faulty logic. you are ignoring a large variable.

[Pacman]

Put a newbie with no fighting experience in a ring on day one and say just do what feels natural, Go BANG.... 9 times out of ten IME you would see the individual perform lets say anywhere between 35 - 45% the same body mechanics of boxing
...
...
...

And its for this very reason i believe that what would be the traditional aspects of Wing Chun - the drills and especially the forms are a must - to introduce different habbits shapes and actions that essentially are teaching you foreign actions to become habbit....

this is a VERY VERY intelligent post.

without the high repetition drills and practice to give you the muscle memory and relaxation to make WC natural (things terrence thinks are useless fantasy) in a live situation almost 100% will do the natural non WC thing.

this is why we get people like terrence ignorantly saying that WC is not going to look like WC in a real fight or that there is only one set of fighting movements that "everyone" will use

this is why, despite all terrence's eloquence and some insightful remarks i know that he does not know much about anything regarding wing chun.

the reason that many schools stick to the drills and dont go into the fighting that much is because the sifu does not know how to fight himself...but he wants to teach for some reason.

and because there is no competition he isnt ousted as a fraud. back then you would have other schools challenging you for business. this free market would weed out the phonies.

these days they have leagues and competitions to do that. unfortuantely there is no KF fight league.

[t_niehoff]

you are wrong. you are making a bad generalization based on a presumably poor experience.

you must have had a POS teacher and thus a POS experience, but dont label all KF as crap because of that.

KF training can be functional. even if there is not a public fight league

there are KF kwoons that have not been commercialized and are not run by know nothing sifus and are still "DOING IT". they have some different fighting and training philosophies than some of the other fighting arts these days but they still train real applications and still spar and fight.

KF was not always about fun for the kids at the local community center...being taught by some hippy with a pony tail who learned crap in the 60s.


You keep SAYING that traditional KF training can produce good fighters, yet you haven't been able to produce any EVIDENCE that this is true. Where are these good fighters that tradtitional training has produced? Where?



you talk about the sport model and the motivation to win and how that shapes training. well back before guns came about, KF was life and death. KF was about power. that was a great motivator. thats why people paid tons of money to learn it. thats why KF has a tradition of only being known by the very wealthy (yip man and yuen kay san and others). this motivation shaped training methods to be functional.


That's all nonsense, it is a fable, a fantasy -- "back when KF was life or death." There's no doubt that in the past people trained to fight. But they were limited by their experience and understanding of how we learn and develop athletic skill. They were limited by their education, by their lack of genuine knowledge, by their customs, by their legends, by their cosmology, etc. They were limited by geography, by the level of opponents they faced, etc. They did the best they could with what they knew -- they just didn't know much compared to what we know today. That's why athletes are doing things unimaginable in even the recent past.



there are still kwoons that train for fighting, but it is rare. that doesnt mean that KF is crap.


Pay attention. I am not saying "kung fu" is crap -- I'm saying that how it is taught and trained is crap. The traditional way of teaching and training TMAs is a very poor way to learn and develop athletic skill. If you tried to teach a functional art, like boxingfor example, the way a TMA is taught and trained, you wouldn't get good results either.

How do we know it is crap? By the results -- or lack thereof -- of its practitioners. And, by comparing its methods to how functional, modern, sport-oriented training methods (and its results). To top that off, modern research into sport science and motor skill development reinforces that view.



just because there is no KF fight league that doesnt mean KF is crap. Judo is a subset of jiujitsu and was made into a sport way before there were jiujitsu leagues. with your logic, back then you would say that jiujitsu training was crap and judo was the cat's meow because judo was a sport and jiujitsu was not.


My "logic" is to look for evidence before jumping to conclusions. You want to believe that traditional training "works". But you can't supply any evidence that it does. All you can do is assert that it really does work. That is a very simple thing to see -- all it takes is a trip to mix it up with some competent fighters. You can see for yourself whether YOUR tradtional training works or not. What I don't hear from you or anyone is that you are doing that.

If you are so sure that your traditional training works, why don't you go visit a MMA school or MT school and see? Why not ask your sifu to go with you?

The answer is we both know what would happen. You would get spanked. So would your sifu. That's not an insult. It's what will happen to anyone who isn't training functionally. You know that. But you don't want to admit it to yourself.



if you read and understoood what i wrote about the availability of competent trainers in KF you wouldn't make this argument. its faulty logic. you are ignoring a large variable.

You keep trying to find EXCUSES why you can't find any evidence. People really can levitate they just are rare and secretive.

[sanjuro_ronin]

RE: Muscle memory -
If one wants "short term" muscle memory gains then doing 100's or 100's of reps for a short period of time is the best way to go, however, if one wants long term muscle memory retention,a more limited and "even paced" training is more benefitial.
Studies have shown this to be true in even fine motor skills.
Of course one must be as SPECIFIC as possible to the actual activity EX:
1000 punches in the air are far less benefitial for developing "powerful" punches than 100 punches on a heavy bag, or focus mitt ( for example).

[t_niehoff]

I would go far as to say that IMHO once they had made thier training more functional and gained more experience (because Kung Lee did San Shou and GSP entered tourneys early early on) they utlise more tools / better timing and smoother movement than other good fighters that dont have a TMA background.

I generalise i know, but over time you can see the trend IMO.


I think this is a TMA appeal -- trying to find some advantage to TMA training. But it doesn't make sense. For example, if you take someone who practices some complete bullsh1t (that we can agree on) and then goes off and trains MMA with some good trainers and fighters, then becomes really good at MMA, it hardly proves that the bullsh1t provided any advantage in their development.

There's no doubt that TMAs have good, useful techniques, mechancis, etc. But the way they are taught/trained doesn't produce good results. If it did, then GSP and Machida wouldn't have NEEDED to do all the functional training that they did.



Getting back to Body mechanics in a Wing Chun sence, functional training is a must but the real issue lies in the styles method of applying body mechanics.

And Wing CHun IMHO has a use of body mechanics so different to everyday body behaviour its method has to be taken into consideration when learning its body mechanics.


I don't agree. In fact, if we try to use body mechanics that aren't very natural (something we will normally do) they won't work, certainly not under high levels of pressure or stress.

Body mechanics is using your body in a specific way to accomplish some task. Our bodies are hard-wired, via "design", to move in certain specific ways. You can't get around that. It's when we try -- when we don't move naturally -- that we f#ck everything up.



Example.

Put a newbie with no fighting experience in a ring on day one and say just do what feels natural, Go BANG.... 9 times out of ten IME you would see the individual perform lets say anywhere between 35 - 45% the same body mechanics of boxing.
Body unity, power lines weight dist etc etc would all be off and require tweaking / perfecting but the base would be there because Boxings mechanics are more simlilar to everyday body behaviour...its closer to a natural state of behaviour than WC's mechanics.
(opinions will vary on the % sure.)


When you give people a new task they are not going to immediately perform it with optimal mechanics. By practicing the task, and getting pointers from people who can perform the task skillfully (with max certainty and min time/effort) they will learn and develop the ability to perform it skillfully too.

WCK's mechanics are different from boxing because the task is different. Boxing isn't attached fighting, it is unattached striking. WCK is an attached fighitng method that combines striking and grappling. So naturally, the mechanics are different. But if you ask an untrained person to hold and hit, for example, then it will begin to look very similar to WCK mechanics.



Not everyone would behave the same but more would be similar than not IME.

Now Wing Chun is far from this. Your everyday natural body behaviour would rarely find anything similar to Bong Sau, Tan Sau huen sau... perhaps ones natural behaviour when picking up heavy objects is to keep the elbows in but even thats a stretch and would be unique if just thrown in a ring.


If you put people into an attached fighting situation and just let them go at it, you will see bong, tan, etc. arise.



And its for this very reason i believe that what would be the traditional aspects of Wing Chun - the drills and especially the forms are a must - to introduce different habbits shapes and actions that essentially are teaching you foreign actions to become habbit....


The curriculum of WCK provides a trainee with the contact skills (actions and tactics) necessary for attached fighting. They are not introducing "habits" since a habit is an unconscious behavior -- and can only be developed by really doing the behavior enough to make it unconscious. Fighting habits can only be developed by fighting.

The forms don't develop anything. They are a "textbook". A toolbox. You don't need forms. In fact, some branches of WCK, and even early WCK, didn't ahve forms. Forms are just an ancient, traditional way of passing on the text.



Its my opinion through the experience of teaching people in VT (as an assistant) that without the forms and drills prior to more functional training like sparring then fighting and/or compitition etc you cant truely make the habbit actions of Wing Chun your own fighting habbits... people revert to the original basic bahaviour which is why so many are said to "look like KB" etc.

And this is where the lines can blur....

On the other side - the problem that arises with whats considered "fantasy training" is riding on the back of these wing chun specific factors, the fact that the type of person thats attracted to Wing Chun is generally not the natural fighter who wants to bang from day one, they generally are attrackted to boxing or KB...and also that people get stuck in drills and forms and dont complement that with functional application of the skills that are being trained to become habbit because they dont have the inclination to fight...thier more the intelectual hobbiest.
There are a myriad of reasons that muddy the waters of the Traditional training method because there is more room for error...without proper time in a style and quality of instruction.

So the long short of it is IME for a person to become good with VT mechanics they really do need the forms to introduce the unique mechanics, drills to marry that to timing and more dynamic spontaneous behaviour and then sparring / fighting or basic compitition to elevate its functionality -

Without all these elements combined the house of cards becomes less and less stable. its a simple fact.Its a balance IME.


The problem is that mechanics are task specific. And that you can only develop the mechanics for doing a task by doing the task. For example, you can't develop the mechanics for throwing a ball without throwing the ball. Mechanics are part of an action. ACTION + OBJECTIVE (task) = SKILL. You need to perform the task so that you have feedback. Practing a form for throwing a ball will never develop the mechanics or skill in the task.

It's the same with WCK mechanics. If you aren't doing the task, you can't develop the mechanics.



But to say you dont need the forms or drills to make it functional is a farce IMO akin to discounting the importance of good hard sparring etc.

Hope i got my point across. :rolleyes: :o

DREW

Whenever we talk about mechanics, we need to also talk about the task. The mechanics are there not just for themselves but to perform some task. It is the performance of the task that is the objective.

The forms and drills of WCK teach trainees how to perform an action. But they can't teach you or develop the ability to perform the task -- the task is something we do in fighting. By taking the ACTION you learn in the forms and drills and then using it to perform the TASK (fighting), you develop SKILL (the ability to perform the task with max certainty and min time/effort).

[k gledhill]

This is one of my pet peeves about alot of the Lop Sau, Gor Sau platform drills out there...

I only spent a few months on co operative repetitive drills like Chi Sau and Poon sau. After that you were introduced to larger resistance new actions and it became spontaneous and un co operative... so it became a very introductory sparring platform IMO.

People have then offered the opinion your engaging in a drill with rules and its still un realistic and while im not trying to say it's fighting, if one person chooses to dis engage or try an action outside of the particular 'ruleset' for lack of a better word we punch/trade which makes it still somewhat realistic, especially if resistance spontenaeity(sp?) and intent to catch the body are present.

To many Chunners remain in the co operative repetitive stage of drills etc which adds more fantasy and takes away from functionality even more so than not adding sparring to the mix.

Its easy to see those people as they try to complicate the drill perhaps using several actions before catching the target when a Pak Da would have been the ticket...theres thousands of examples.

If you know what i mean...:rolleyes:

DREW

good post,
the vt drillers have to keep the knowledge that they are 'drilling' using the tan/jum positions basic stance to move from as a starting point in 'drilling' ...not to strike with arms in 1-2 actions 'drilling'...not trying to stick to arms...this is simply because your 'drilling' with a 'partner' in a mutual exercise to develop HITTING SKILLS .

To hit people you try to use 2 free arms a lead [man sao] and a rear [ vu sao] in endless non thinking rotation, only relying an a 'working lead' to remove/clear a path to keep striking with man/vu ....

If we maintain 2 free hands in rotation shifting with and to a fight we become fluid.
And are able to face any action or force with techniques worked earlier in 'drills'.

One thing to maintain is that when sparring VT DOESNT FIGHT VT :D in other words one of the sparring partners adopts a random attack mode, not a vt mode ..because if your both doing vt your still 'DRILLING' :D


I found that in my early training time doing vt I was being shown a lot 'drills' as 'moves'....one classic misunderstood drill is the turning tan sao punch aka stand in front of someone in a basic stance and turn so that the tan blocks the incoming punch while punching with the other hand....'drill' to train the facing outside flank, not stand inside 2 arms wailing on you :D the extending punch is actually a jumming strike, while the spent strike returns to an elbow in position/'drill' in tan shape to recover the SLT idea of keeping the elbows tight to the centerline before striking...drilling ....you should do this alone without anyone trying to hit you, its just for your stance and elbows...not so a guy walks up stands square to you doesnt advance and starts to throw haymakers :D:D:D sure you can try to make it work , but then all the higher, guiding ideas /tactics/concepts just got thrown out ....none of which states you stand in front of someone and deliver magic ['drills' ] bullets like your superman .

1-2 actions in dan chi-sao 'drill' not using the wrist to try to block a punch :D that is nicely delivered right under the wrongly applied 'wristing' action :rolleyes:

long list of redundant drills fighting is a lot simpler , less 'arm names' going on , more aggressive entry and maintaining the attacking ...

[Chango]

Terence,

I can completely understand why you have your point of view. However we cannot assume the TMA's are complete BS as your post suggest. As with anything quality does vary.

I can only say at this point GSP and Lyoto Michida both continue to find value in their TMA training. That is very evident in all of their interviews and of course they would not bother mentioning the fact that they trained in these arts .

I can personally relate to this. After my father moved to the west coast and I was looking for another teacher/ trainer I went to a few different schools. I trained more then 1 year at one school. Now that I look back I feel that school was a total waste of my time. The issue was not just the school but it was the teacher and the training culture and me. I still to this day cannot identify with that particular art. So up to this point I do not mention this as part of my past training etc...

I do however agree with you in the since I think in martialarts in general alot of what is viewed as traditionalism has gotten in the way of real and practical training! On the flip side of this I have seen many times and I mean alot since the MMA movement gyms and schools that teach very little quality and the better athelete determines the out come of the fight. Just brawling and forced sloppy hold/locks/chokes. That's the problem when something goes mainstreme you get a lot of poor quatlity! I can say also at the same time the more people do it the better the top schools become as the competition grows! Two sided coin!

Let's not forget BJJ is a traditional art and so is the original Mui Tai. Rickson and Royce and the Gracies have proven that TMAs are very functional. We cannot forget Anderson Silvia as well.

[Chango]

Terence,

If sport training is your measure then I agree! There is a best way to train for particular event. MMA has it's rules and equipment and you start from a face to face one person to one person of equal experience and skill. (or close)

However if you are discussing self-defense and or combat. That is a different story. Let me be clear I'm not sideing with the idiots that say "MMA stuff does not work in real fight" I think that is silly. MMA skill will without question enhance your self-defense and combat skill. But it must be said if you are going to play a particular sport you must train in it's fundementals I.E. GSP and Michida's MMA prep. But again what makes them great fighters goes to their complete picture!

I'll throw something out there. Matt Hughes was not a traditionally trained martialartist. He did Highschool/college wrestling. He is one the top UFC fighter but he has major trouble with those who have a TMA background. I think that became evident when he faced GSP the second time. As a matter of fact I think no matter how many times they step in the ring GSP will own him 4 out of 5 times. But that's just my opinion. :cool:

[chusauli]

Hi Chango,

I think Terence's bringing up sports is that sports shows a modern paradigm of athleticism and training other than traditional training.

Let's take something that may not be related to martial arts as an example, kettlebells.

The average person first introduced to them might have a real difficult time with a 16 Kg KB to do swings, cleans, jerks, long cycle, high pulls, and snatches. They might be able to crank out a few. The idea of sets and reps is still far off. Not dropping them on their foot, or injuring yourself with a lift would be the main goals.

Later, when that person gets some coaching, they might be able to pull off 3 sets of 10, or 5 sets of 5 reps per exercise and consider that a tough workout.

But if they go into competitive Kettlebell Lifting and learn from a world class coach like Valery Fedorenko, you have to start doing 78 jerks, and 75 snatches per side with a 32 Kg Kettlebell if you are over 98 Kg in competition.

The point is, with sport/competitive KB training, you do much more than get in shape - you train with a competitive edge, figuring on ways to reduce friction, powder the hands, increase weight/reps, rest inbetween each lift, breath, etc. and you're competing with athletes with similar training. Pro's also show a different work ethic and standard, not shared by backyard practitioners.

It is completely different from backyard training to get in shape, or supplement martial arts, or a women wanting to tone up, or prevent osteoporosis...

If we use this comparison of what Terence is bringing up, we can see what may be lacking in today's TMA training vs. MMA training.

Best regards,

[sihing]

Hi Chango,

I think Terence's bringing up sports is that sports shows a modern paradigm of athleticism and training other than traditional training.

Let's take something that may not be related to martial arts as an example, kettlebells.

The average person first introduced to them might have a real difficult time with a 16 Kg KB to do swings, cleans, jerks, long cycle, high pulls, and snatches. They might be able to crank out a few. The idea of sets and reps is still far off. Not dropping them on their foot, or injuring yourself with a lift would be the main goals.

Later, when that person gets some coaching, they might be able to pull off 3 sets of 10, or 5 sets of 5 reps per exercise and consider that a tough workout.

But if they go into competitive Kettlebell Lifting and learn from a world class coach like Valery Fedorenko, you have to start doing 78 jerks, and 75 snatches per side with a 32 Kg Kettlebell if you are over 98 Kg in competition.

The point is, with sport/competitive KB training, you do much more than get in shape - you train with a competitive edge, figuring on ways to reduce friction, powder the hands, increase weight/reps, rest inbetween each lift, breath, etc. and you're competing with athletes with similar training. Pro's also show a different work ethic and standard, not shared by backyard practitioners.

It is completely different from backyard training to get in shape, or supplement martial arts, or a women wanting to tone up, or prevent osteoporosis...

If we use this comparison of what Terence is bringing up, we can see what may be lacking in today's TMA training vs. MMA training.

Best regards,

Anything that is done at the level of a professional, is different from the backyard, just trying to get tone type of workouts for sure. Can we get to our goals faster by following the example set forth by the pro's? I'm not sure, because if your intent is not the same as the pros, then you will not put in the same effort, nor will you care about the details like a pro does. For example, I've been working out with weights for many years now. In my 20's I got sick of looking at pictures of myself, being to thin/skinny. So I educated myself on how to lift weights, talked to a few people then began the process. Lots of improvement happened over the first couple of months, I put on about 10lbs of muscle in 3mths, but then the plateau happened, and all of a sudden my ability to add on more muscle slowed. Since then I've had ups and downs when it came to working out. Since my metabolism has slowed down since my 20's, I don't find it difficult anymore to put on weight. And I'm pretty satisfied with the shape of my body, it's good enough for my needs and looks. But if I wanted to I already know exactly what I need to do to add more muscle on, the question is do I want to put that work in? Personally NO I don't.

All of this stuff, is based on personal needs. Yeah, if I wanted to be the so called "complete" fighter, then I could go to the more professional gyms and train with them and become better overall, but that is not my goal. I do what I do because I like it, it's as simple as that. All this talk about fighting, and can you do it or not is pretty funny to me since none of us here are fighters. Fighting to me is about two people wanting to find out who is the best fighter, their ability to defeat the other in combat, a competition of sorts. For me I have no interest in that, why would I? To satisfy my ego by overcoming and dominating another, to test myself? What am I testing? If I defeat someone in a sparring match what I have proven, and do I have to continually go thru this process to provide proof of my abilities to myself? You know what, if I spar with someone, I'm not going to put in 100% effort, as I have no ill intent on defeating this guy anyways as I don't really care. When I played competative tennis I was the worst practice player around, because I didn't care, the match is where I needed to play well and did play well. LOL, all of this sounds like the dog chasing his tale if you ask me.

Concerning WC, within the training system, there is testing methods that provide evidence of your skills and if you are learning something or not. I've met up with people from other lineages thru seminars I've done, with no problems. I've also met up with guys better than me and that is where I see what I have to work on, no problem. The whole process of learning, experiencing, teaching and then repeating is fun, and that is why I continue to participate. Just like sometimes posting on this forum is fun, when it isn't I leave.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hi Chango,

I think Terence's bringing up sports is that sports shows a modern paradigm of athleticism and training other than traditional training.

Let's take something that may not be related to martial arts as an example, kettlebells.

The average person first introduced to them might have a real difficult time with a 16 Kg KB to do swings, cleans, jerks, long cycle, high pulls, and snatches. They might be able to crank out a few. The idea of sets and reps is still far off. Not dropping them on their foot, or injuring yourself with a lift would be the main goals.

Later, when that person gets some coaching, they might be able to pull off 3 sets of 10, or 5 sets of 5 reps per exercise and consider that a tough workout.

But if they go into competitive Kettlebell Lifting and learn from a world class coach like Valery Fedorenko, you have to start doing 78 jerks, and 75 snatches per side with a 32 Kg Kettlebell if you are over 98 Kg in competition.

The point is, with sport/competitive KB training, you do much more than get in shape - you train with a competitive edge, figuring on ways to reduce friction, powder the hands, increase weight/reps, rest inbetween each lift, breath, etc. and you're competing with athletes with similar training. Pro's also show a different work ethic and standard, not shared by backyard practitioners.

It is completely different from backyard training to get in shape, or supplement martial arts, or a women wanting to tone up, or prevent osteoporosis...

If we use this comparison of what Terence is bringing up, we can see what may be lacking in today's TMA training vs. MMA training.

Best regards,

Post should be stickied !

[Chango]

Well said Robert C!!!

I agree the culture of TMA is much different in today's world:D

[chusauli]

Many thanks Chango, James, Sanjuro!

I was watching my son's western fencing class today and struck at how functional the class is taught. Its very different from TMA's where we teach a form, exercises, applications, sticking hands, etc.

If you ever have a chance to see an Olympic sport being taught, especially a martial related one, you'll notice several things about functionality. First off the equipment is designed to be used safely - a mask, a bib, and a foil with a blunted rounded edge and a flexible temper is used. It made contact worthwhile and possible.

The class started out with footwork, simple stuff - advance, retreat, advancing cross over, retreating crossover, lunge, reset to on guard. Then the teacher had the kids play a variation of mixing up the footwork. He later made it into a game of "Simon Says"... Although linear, the footwork was excellent, fast and to the point.

Later he did some lunging drills by dropping a target and having the students individually lunge and stick the target.

He taught some parrying drills 6, 4, 8, 7 which correspond to our 5 corners, and drilled each fencer with a partner.

They did some fencing to work the drills of parrying.

He introduced the drill of disengagement to lunge, then had the students drill it with a partner.

Then they did more fencing with the drill of disengaging.

They finally ended with the class each fencing one opponent in succession - the person who scored first became "King/Queen of the Castle" and took on all comers.

I left the class shaking my head - how would WCK be taught in this manner? Everything was done for maximum efficiency and functionality to score. All was realistic. Yes, granted, its not fighting with real swords or dueling, and the students are taught etiquette and to acknowledged they've been scored on. There's no chest thumping, calling someone names, they salute each partner, and overall, its darn fun, and a good sweat. One little angel was a tigress with the foil and even gave the coach a run for the money. And I can see how fast theses kids can advance.

TMA's - we have to rethink. You can give a child a sport and have them grow and just get better at the game. And they even have enough to ad lib and experiment with it and improve their timing, focus and strategy. Modern sports are a good barometer of useful, practical, functional teaching.

I admit I'm rather dumbstruck right now.

[Hendrik]

If we use this comparison of what Terence is bringing up, we can see what may be lacking in today's TMA training vs. MMA training.



IMHO,

This comparision is not valid for TCMA IMA.


MMA training is for those who have good health good body and young.

BUT, For those who are less healthy or sick or old age cant Do MMA or else they end up more sick or even dead.





TCMA IMA using NON-Dissipative Standing post and Qi Channel opening to transcent the body for both health and power issue. That is not for Competition or sport.

TCMA IMA is not a competition sport. TCMA IMA is targeting to do 1, transcent the body to a higher level for health and 2, maximum destruction or protection.

This above definition is what I learn from the writing of Wang Xiang Zai and Ma Li-Dang.

In fact, Wang Xiang-Zai specifically put it that " any excersice or training that cause one to feeling forcefull in the diapham is damaging the body. "

Ma Li-Dang specifically put it that Sport is not for those with health condition such as Kidney, Heart, lung..... issues it is too much dissipative and could cause serious damaging. When one already has health condition one needs to cultivate the Qi and re build the body, only after that one be able to do martial art stuffs.

Sure, those who is proffesional such as Wang Xiang-Zai or Ma Li-Dang could use his cultivation for challenging.....ect But again, those are not for sport.


Terence's view is great for the Young and careless and strong. Those are sport and not everyone suitable for. in fact it is a suicide for those who has health condition.


As for the maximum damage? that doesnt needs alots similar to it doesnt matter how many reps one can do bench press, a knife or a bullet always can cause the damage. True fighting is not based on what Terence think it is.

If Mas Oyama fighting 6 people still end up in hospital. What can those who Terence think as the best...etc get ambush in different situation do? NOTHING or NOT much at all. This is not a movie and not a sport.

and that is the realty of fighting.




When I was very young and live in Penang Malaysia, there is a case of a Rich young man who is also a Judo Champion got kidnap but due to his Judo Champion ship the bad guys put even more control on him and end up he die tragically.

so, what is fighting? what is selfdefence? you know what I rather go train my IMA and pray more and avoid walking into trouble. To train in fighting? be a gung ho bushido? forget about it.



As a conclusion, the sport Terence bring up and the TCMA IMA the Chinese create are two different things. What to compare for who is better? None.
Just my thougths.

[chusauli]

And that is the difference between TMA and Sports (or shall I say "Martial Sports")... Hendrik does make good points.

I am not saying WCK is a martial sport; it is still a martial art.

[Hendrik]

And that is the difference between TMA and Sports (or shall I say "Martial Sports")... Hendrik does make good points.

I am not saying WCK is a martial sport; it is still a martial art.



RC,

Agree.

and the trouble we need to face is between WCK is a martial art or WCK is a Martial entertainment art : IE game or dance or even cult while idolized the Sifu and fantasying Dao and ZEN which has little to do with martial training and real life.

Just some thoughts

[chusauli]

In today's day and age, many want entertainment. Students pay their money and want to be entertained without hard work or real cultivation. They want to do forms, some weapons, a little sticking, some sparring and get the next belt or sash. They play disciple, and actually schools these days say they teach "self-respect" or "self discipline", not self defense.

Teachers automatically bill with their credit card services to collect the next month's fee's whether they show up or not. Vanpools to pick up young students provide a few hours of babysitting for stressed parents; if the kids get actual skills is amazing. Most will never accomplish anything, and their only achievement is that belt, sash, or certificate. Then a child can say, "that's what I did when I was a kid!", before they get into the rat race and go into the workforce, and raise rugrats of their own. Perhaps its better than overweight kids growing up on products full of high fructose corn syrup and Pokemon on their Nintendo DS or Wii systems.

This is the era of fast food martial arts. You have a story, want to make people part of that story and "honorable tradition", and bill them, all the while supporting your family. The tournaments, trophies and competitions are really only for school visibility and attracting more students. And these days, all participants get a trophy just for entering.

How's that as a summary for what is taught for martial arts here in the year 2009? Compare that to you or any other oldtimers who suffered to learn their arts.

If you are one of these instructors, please note I am not criticizing you, its just a statement of what is. I think its great you provide for your family.

Don't get me started on the health industry and food industry....

[LSWCTN1]

i just wanted to bring up a few points, dont know if they are relevant to this post but...

here is the greatest p4p in the history of mma. at 7.50 and 8.40 he would have head his face stomped beyond all recognition on the street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEWeQE2LwJU

whilst a good, infact excellent, training method - sparring with any mma fighter or otherwise does have its limitations

also, i personally dont feel that even a trained bjj guy would deliberately take a real (outside of sport) fight to the ground. maybe use his training to facilitate a standing choke/submission but not a deliberate 'roll' on the floor

I'm sure even knifefighter would back me up on this

so if you are training in the most realistic way for the street why practice something that you want to avoid?

of course that a rhetorical question, i know the answer and so does everybody here - but for this exact reason please dont discount other things that you feel to be unnecessary.

like your own sifu said just today, he didnt understand certain aspects and why they where part of the sytem. until he was shown why. its human nature to discredit and discount something until they see that it has worked. like you have done with TCMA and its training methods. maybe one day you will be shown and your opinion will change. maybe your right. and maybe if you was to be shown, you will put it down to a freak of nature

[Hendrik]

In today's day and age, many want entertainment. Students pay their money and want to be entertained without hard work or real cultivation. They want to do forms, some weapons, a little sticking, some sparring and get the next belt or sash. They play disciple, and actually schools these days say they teach "self-respect" or "self discipline", not self defense.....



That is reality.

even MMA I see it same, as entertainment.

I know those who suffer sickness that has to rely on thier IMA training to survive and hopefully get well. I know those who have to wake up 5am do a 1.5 Hour training , 45min Noon , 1Hour before sleep. No sex no soft drink not even cake.
and they dont know when they going to get heal or cure but walk the path day in day out...... because this is real fighting ---survival when there is no hope from the medicine doctors or western medicine. Those are real serious training.

I know lots of those in China and asia, Taiji Sifu such as Ma Hong, Chen Man Ching ,

Zhou Qian Chuan the ex gate holder of Emei 12 Zhuang (an army major general, Zhou Qian Chuan, who was also a Western medical doctor. Major General Zhou had serious internal cracking in his liver caused by the violent vibrations of a bomb that had exploded very close to him. He had tried all the famous Western medical doctors and no one could heal him. Grandmaster Yong Yan befriended the major general, treating and curing his ailments with Emei Qigong healing techniques.)


(side topic, dont WCner feel great that SLT is from Emei 12 Zhuang where there is technology to heal the liver issue above? that is how deep SLT's mother art is even with today's Western medicine standard. Bottom line Zhou was heal. I do feel great because SLT is a real deal)


They all heal and become advance IMA after the body heal. perhaps because of thier survival perhaps because they really work deep into knowing their mind/body just to be able to live.


How many could going through that and get the real thing? 1%?


Thus, I dont believe in the so called figthing training because they are still make believe. When one has to face one's own death unless one train that is what real training is. I always salute those who heal and become a great martial artists because they face dead and win once.

as for good body mechanics, can one take a deep breath with ease or doing a KI without stress the internal organs? if not what body mechanics? one has not even start to learn how to handle Oxigen in take yet.


The foward pressure of doing SLT in YJKYM is a kissed of death for take down because this broken the law of Broken sharpness or Poh Jian. when the SLT can nolonger do Boomerang, that is when the take down is easy. With the Boomerang, take down is really difficult.

bottom line, WCK is a close body art and it must not Poh Jian and it must not givin others a lead on Shun Sou Cien Yang or Converniently pull away the Goat. to the worst some even do Broken Arrow where even worst then Poh Jian as I have mention years ago in this forum.

With a forward pressure habit, Coverniently pull away the Goat is the problem, thus, there is no suprise for WCner got take down easy because they lost thier gyroscope and boomerang/Sickling power and only sitting in poor forward pressing goat. and they lost thier goat.

With the gyroscope and Boomerang, you pull him you got cut, you push him you got cut. you hug him you got cut. That is WCK.



Why I always mention the White crance + Emei 12 Zhuang? you want your Gyroscope and Boomerange power back? Up to you.



just some thoughts.

[Liddel]

There's no doubt that TMAs have good, useful techniques, mechancis, etc. But the way they are taught/trained doesn't produce good results. If it did, then GSP and Machida wouldn't have NEEDED to do all the functional training that they did.

I see your points and thier value / relevance T but can we really say for sure they needed more functional training or just more experience at a higher level of competition..... College tennis players have the function but if they were to play fed express at wimbledon its obvious they'd need to lift thier game.

I say this cause it almost seems like your saying GSP or Lyoto were not functional untill they got to those other arts / training approaches ?, where as i see it as they increased thier already great functionality of 'insert style here' and took a different approached based on the platform / task- cage fighting.


I don't agree. In fact, if we try to use body mechanics that aren't very natural (something we will normally do) they won't work, certainly not under high levels of pressure or stress.

Body mechanics is using your body in a specific way to accomplish some task. Our bodies are hard-wired, via "design", to move in certain specific ways. You can't get around that. It's when we try -- when we don't move naturally -- that we f#ck everything up.

My point was how similar is a style of fighting to every day natural actions ?
Boxing actions are certainly closer and more familiar to the lamen than Bong Sau and other Wing Chun actions my friend :rolleyes:

Shouldnt that mean you already seperate the method of learning the mechanics between WC and 'insert style here' as a bi-product of this fact ?

I guess it leads to this -

time/effort) they will learn and develop the ability to perform it skillfully too.


WCK's mechanics are different from boxing because the task is different. Boxing isn't attached fighting, it is unattached striking. WCK is an attached fighitng method that combines striking and grappling. So naturally, the mechanics are different. But if you ask an untrained person to hold and hit, for example, then it will begin to look very similar to WCK mechanics.

Well i can only speak to my own experience and i have not found the same results. But if thats your expereince fine. :)

And are we ok with things looking the same or actually functionig the same...cause anyone who naturally busts out a good Bong(for example) in your senario would be unique IMO and not the norm. In fact i believe through my own experience they would end up looking more like wrestling.

Good discussion though :rolleyes: Im off for a boys weekend to watch a buddy in a Boxing comp. police vs firefighters...Im sure ill be mulling over your POV go the 5.0 :p

Take care

DREW

[Pacman]

You keep SAYING that traditional KF training can produce good fighters, yet you haven't been able to produce any EVIDENCE that this is true. Where are these good fighters that tradtitional training has produced? Where?

i understand what you are saying, but can you at least acknowledge that good fighters can exist even if you do not see them in the public arena.


But if you ask an untrained person to hold and hit, for example, then it will begin to look very similar to WCK mechanics.

i doubt the average person would keep his elbows in, maintaining contact with both arms on his opponent at all times during the motion, with his body "sinking" down and forward.


The traditional way of teaching and training TMAs is a very poor way to learn and develop athletic skill.

what is the method. be specific. because i think this is where we fundamentally agree on what the 'traditional' way of teaching is



On the flip side of this I have seen many times and I mean alot since the MMA movement gyms and schools that teach very little quality and the better athelete determines the out come of the fight. Just brawling and forced sloppy hold/locks/chokes. That's the problem when something goes mainstreme you get a lot of poor quatlity

very good post. i have seen this as well from my MMA friends and acquaintances. poor quality MMA AND WC leads towards pure aggression and brawling where the better athlete determines the fight (also someone who might randomly get caught during a barrage of punches--how many times have you seen this in the UFC)

[t_niehoff]

i understand what you are saying, but can you at least acknowledge that good fighters can exist even if you do not see them in the public arena.


I don't acknowledge what I don't see for myself. In other words, I require evidence before I believe something. I don't take anything for granted. Nor do I assume thigns because I want them to be true.

For ANYONE to develop good, solid fighting skills they will need to do certain things. It doesn't matter what their art. How do we know this to be true? By evidence -- that all proven good fighters train in a certain way and by the research into sport science and motor skill development.



i doubt the average person would keep his elbows in, maintaining contact with both arms on his opponent at all times during the motion, with his body "sinking" down and forward.


Throw people in a pool and they won't immediately and spontaneously develop good swimming habits either -- but thje more they do it, the more their body will find the optimal ways of moving in the water.



what is the method. be specific. because i think this is where we fundamentally agree on what the 'traditional' way of teaching is


Forms, unrealistic drills, etc. The TMA approach separates currciulum from application (which is why people can learn the curriculum of WCK and not be able to fight worth beans)-- in other words, where there is not a 1 to 1 to 1 correspondence between what you learn, drill, and perform.

[Pacman]

I don't acknowledge what I don't see for myself. In other words, I require evidence before I believe something. I don't take anything for granted. Nor do I assume thigns because I want them to be true.


you must be a lawyer, because you keep throwing in things i didnt say or advocate such as "Nor do I assume things because I want them to be true", suggesting that I have.

i understand your point about observation, but im sure you believe things without seeing them. im sure if your friend told you that he found a shiny quarter on the ground you would believe him without asking to see the quarter first.

the difference here is your mindset on the existence of good KF training vs finding shiny quarters.

you already have it in your mind that KF training is worthless--probably from a poor personal experience or inadequate teacher




For ANYONE to develop good, solid fighting skills they will need to do certain things. It doesn't matter what their art. How do we know this to be true? By evidence -- that all proven good fighters train in a certain way and by the research into sport science and motor skill development.


not that i necessarily disagree with this entire statement, but im just surprised that you have met all good fighters that have ever existed and found out that they train the same way. thats pretty remarkable.



Forms, unrealistic drills, etc. The TMA approach separates currciulum from application (which is why people can learn the curriculum of WCK and not be able to fight worth beans)-- in other words, where there is not a 1 to 1 to 1 correspondence between what you learn, drill, and perform.

forms are to get movements perfect before you learn to apply it. a good teacher will teach you the applications of the form. if not, i can see how one must think it is a waste of time, especially with something like SLT. like all soft styles, movements are subtle

what unrealistic drill? i know you think chi sau is unrealistic, but thats because, judging from your comments, thats because you think the movements are unrealistic. i mean, you are against simultaneous blocks+strikes which is probably one of the most fundamental concepts of wing chun.

no wonder you said you approve of fighting like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krg4k8uB4E8

[t_niehoff]

you must be a lawyer, because you keep throwing in things i didnt say or advocate such as "Nor do I assume things because I want them to be true", suggesting that I have.

i understand your point about observation, but im sure you believe things without seeing them. im sure if your friend told you that he found a shiny quarter on the ground you would believe him without asking to see the quarter first.

the difference here is your mindset on the existence of good KF training vs finding shiny quarters.

you already have it in your mind that KF training is worthless--probably from a poor personal experience or inadequate teacher


I know traditional training methods produce poor results because of the evidence -- we know what sort of training produces good results, from both proven results and from science. You keep saying that tradtitional training produces good results but cannot produce any evidence of that. Why not?



not that i necessarily disagree with this entire statement, but im just surprised that you have met all good fighters that have ever existed and found out that they train the same way. thats pretty remarkable.


I don't need to meet all good fighters just like I don't need to meet all good athletes in any sport to know what sort of training produces solid results. And once you know what sort of things do produce solid results, you know what sort of things don't.



forms are to get movements perfect before you learn to apply it. a good teacher will teach you the applications of the form. if not, i can see how one must think it is a waste of time, especially with something like SLT. like all soft styles, movements are subtle


Yes, I know what forms do -- they are for teaching the tools of a particular art. But you don't need forms (boxing, wrestling, etc. don't have them) to learn the tools. Nor is WCK a "soft style" -- there is no such thing. These terms (internal/external, soft/hard) are meaningingless.



what unrealistic drill? i know you think chi sau is unrealistic, but thats because, judging from your comments, thats because you think the movements are unrealistic. i mean, you are against simultaneous blocks+strikes which is probably one of the most fundamental concepts of wing chun.


A drill or exercise is unrealistic when it is not performed under realistic (fighting) conditions. Unrealistic drills cannot develop realistic skills. Chi sao is an unrealistic drill.

I am not "against" simultaneous block and strike (which, btw, is a misunderstanding of the kuit 'lien siu die da'), it's just that simul block and strikes at noncontact are low-percentage, high risk moves when done under realistic conditions. If you sparred against competent fighters you'd know that.

Moreover, from my perspective, the WCK method does not involve blocking.



no wonder you said you approve of fighting like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krg4k8uB4E8


I approve of the sparring, they have the right sort of intensity. They just don't have the method.

[Pacman]

I know traditional training methods produce poor results because of the evidence -- we know what sort of training produces good results, from both proven results and from science. You keep saying that tradtitional training produces good results but cannot produce any evidence of that. Why not?


first, i think we have different definitions of what traditional KF is.

second, i can. i just can't point out a UFC guy. UFC guys typically train in your favorite arts. there are numerous reasons for this that have nothing to do with effectiveness as I have discussed before. i know you will repeat "they do it because it works" and "the fact that you dont see KF in the UFC means it doesn't work". again, this is flawed logic as you know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


But you don't need forms (boxing, wrestling, etc. don't have them) to learn the tools.

i wrestled for four years in high school. we practiced our moves in the air in addition to many other things. these are analagous to forms. i never boxed but forms are no different than practicing moves in the air.


I don't need to meet all good fighters just like I don't need to meet all good athletes in any sport to know what sort of training produces solid results. And once you know what sort of things do produce solid results, you know what sort of things don't.

i think you are ignoring all the extremely sh!tty fighters out there as well. im sure you watched bisping vs henderson the other day. neither seemed very skilled at standup fighting.

the individual makes up for a lot of the result. it is not training alone. you really can't say (especially with your limited observations) that only one type of training can produce these sorts of results unless you could look at how a person would perform with one sort of training and another in a side by side comparison.


These terms (internal/external, soft/hard) are meaningingless.

you're right. shotokan karate is pretty much the same as taijiquan. its nearly impossible to categorize training and fighting approaches.


A drill or exercise is unrealistic when it is not performed under realistic (fighting) conditions. Unrealistic drills cannot develop realistic skills. Chi sao is an unrealistic drill.

ok its not a 100% fighting situation. you are focusing on using only your hands and you know your opponent will only use his hands.

i take it then you would be opposed to sparring with protective gear too as that is unrealistic and can give a false sense of security.

you must also be opposed to trainers holding focus pads up for people to drill combinations as that is unrealistic as well.

you must hate hitting a heavy bag too? hitting a heavy bag is unrealistic because it only simulates a beatdown on a quadriplegic.


I am not "against" simultaneous block and strike (which, btw, is a misunderstanding of the kuit 'lien siu die da') it's just that simul block and strikes at noncontact are low-percentage, high risk moves when done under realistic conditions. If you sparred against competent fighters you'd know that.

then if your opponent comes at you with a barrage of attacks you have two options. either keep blocking each punch or keep moving away. if you do not put any pressure on your opponent and disrupt his attack its only a matter of time before one passes your guard and you get hit.

if you fought competent people you would know this


I approve of the sparring, they have the right sort of intensity. They just don't have the method.

actually, you said something to the affect of "this is what Wing Chun will look like in a real situation no matter what".

and btw, having pure aggression -- wanting to knock your opponents head off at all costs will not clear your mind or make you a skilled fighter.

[t_niehoff]

You still cannot point to any evidence -- to anyone who using the tradtitional training method only who has developed good, proven fighting skills.

Since you can't do that, it means that you have drawn the conclusion that traditional training produces good results without any good evidentiary support.

That is irrational.

There is no point in me continuing to try and discuss things with you -- clearly evidence and reason can't and won't convince you of anything.

The only thing that can poosibly help you is good experience -- go visit a good MMA gym or a good MT school and see how well your traditional training works. Better still, take your sifu with you. When you are both pounded into the ground maybe that will open your eyes.

[sihing]

The only thing that can poosibly help you is good experience -- go visit a good MMA gym or a good MT school and see how well your traditional training works. Better still, take your sifu with you. When you are both pounded into the ground maybe that will open your eyes.


Jeez your predictable. Funny thing is I have a guy I train, he also goes to the local (not where I live) MT gym and when he does spar the coach's there he doesn't get pounded. As a matter of fact they tell him after that they have problems with him and what he is doing, to the point that they want to have a seminar on WC sometime in the future. This guy has only WC training in his background, TWC/WT and now WSLVT. He tells me that once he is in closer range it just comes out naturally.

Just thought I would post this as you use this challenge allot. It doesn't always result like you say it will:eek:

James

[t_niehoff]

Jeez your predictable. Funny thing is I have a guy I train, he also goes to the local (not where I live) MT gym and when he does spar the coach's there he doesn't get pounded. As a matter of fact they tell him after that they have problems with him and what he is doing, to the point that they want to have a seminar on WC sometime in the future. This guy has only WC training in his background, TWC/WT and now WSLVT. He tells me that once he is in closer range it just comes out naturally.

Just thought I would post this as you use this challenge allot. It doesn't always result like you say it will:eek:

James

My post -- and the point behind it -- wasn't directed at you but Pacman.

And, btw, I have heard that sort of story before. Would you mind telling me the name of the "good MT school" (what I talked about in my post) your student trains at?

[Pacman]

You still cannot point to any evidence -- to anyone who using the tradtitional training method only who has developed good, proven fighting skills.

Since you can't do that, it means that you have drawn the conclusion that traditional training produces good results without any good evidentiary support.

That is irrational.

I dont know how many times I have said this. I can.

I have my own experience and my own observations and people i know personally. If i threw out the names of people I knew what would that do for you? Nothing

I just can't point to anyone in the public UFC arena because no one trains in WC.

And no one trains in WC in the UFC not because KF training is useless, because there are no KF trainers. There are no WC trainers in the UFC because there didn't exist a WC sport league like their existed MT leagues, boxing leagues, and wrestling leagues prior to the inception of MMA

[sihing]

My post -- and the point behind it -- wasn't directed at you but Pacman.

And, btw, I have heard that sort of story before. Would you mind telling me the name of the "good MT school" (what I talked about in my post) your student trains at?

Terence,

If I tell you the name of the MT school he is going to, what are you going to do, track it down, find the website, call some people and make a judgement on the quality of the school? LOL. Besides, your the one that always says that all you need to do is go down to the LOCAL MT/MMA gym and find out what's what. What does it matter where he trains MT, since you always post that Muay Thai is realistic training as well as Wrestling or MMA schools, so why would we have to prove this school is credible? It seems to me, whether or not this MT school is good or bad, it decredits your constant challenge to anyone that slightly disagrees or states a different POV than yours. By the way aren't all MT schools the same? According to you they are. Either way, the purpose of my post to you was to simple say that your challenge does not always turn out like you think it does, but since you are so attached and identified with your belief's you can't believe anything outside of that. Oh well;)

James

P.S. I don't know the name of the school he trains at, neither am I inclined to ask him, it's really a non issue to me, but since you keep bringing up that challenge I thought I would mention about it here once. And I didn't say it was a "good" MT school, just LOCAL like you say in your posts.

[Pacman]

bump . . . . .

[Knifefighter]

no wonder you said you approve of fighting like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krg4k8uB4E8

Please post the clips of your method of full contact fighting that is superior to what they are doing. Of course, we know you can't do that because you are doing nothing that comes close to full contact fighting. The guys in those videos have 10 times the fighting ability of the theoretical pretend fighters who sit around and criticize them.

[Knifefighter]

i think you are ignoring all the extremely sh!tty fighters out there as well. im sure you watched bisping vs henderson the other day. neither seemed very skilled at standup fighting.

Bwwhaahaahah!!! Dan would completly eff you up in less than a minute.

[Pacman]

Please post the clips of your method of full contact fighting that is superior to what they are doing. Of course, we know you can't do that because you are doing nothing that comes close to full contact fighting. The guys in those videos have 10 times the fighting ability of the theoretical pretend fighters who sit around and criticize them.

i do the same thing they do. gloves. face mask. punches and kicks and elbows.

what they do is not skilled fighting. it is brawling. if you can't see it i really dont know what to say.

people give props to people because they do full contact. it takes balls to fight and get hurt.

however, it doesn't necessarily mean you are skilled at fighting. even if you win a some matches it doesn't mean that you are skilled.

people can win a fight by overpowering the other person or outlasting them with their physical conditioning.

using skill is something different entirely

im not even saying i am better than them. what i am saying is that i aim for a style of fighting that is more than going agro on the other person.

come on. use some jabs. some footwork. set up your opponent. dont come straight at them with punches. what im saying is not revolutionary here.


Bwwhaahaahah!!! Dan would completly eff you up in less than a minute.
Reply With Quote

no sh!t. one hit from him and im toast. not to mention that he has a better ground game than me.

i was talking about his boxing skills

the point is that niehoff always talks about how certain methods produce great fighters...but he fails to see the ****ty skills that can produce too

[Knifefighter]

what they do is not skilled fighting. it is brawling. if you can't see it i really dont know what to say.

come on. use some jabs. some footwork. set up your opponent. dont come straight at them with punches. what im saying is not revolutionary here.

LOL.... aren't you one of the guys who emphasize "the street". 99% of streetfights leave you no time or distance for set ups, jabs, or even much footwork.

[Pacman]

LOL.... aren't you one of the guys who emphasize "the street". 99% of streetfights leave you no time or distance for set ups, jabs, or even much footwork.

great job avoiding my statements. just like terrence.

you can look at all my posts

i have never ever used the term "the street" once.

but since you mention it, you can definitely use footwork to sidestep as someone comes at you--there are other alternatives to throwing a barrage of punches at him you know.

you can also definitely throw a jab or a fake to create an opening or set up an attack.

this is pretty basic stuff and im surprised that you dont know

[Sihing73]

LOL.... aren't you one of the guys who emphasize "the street". 99% of streetfights leave you no time or distance for set ups, jabs, or even much footwork.

Hello Dale,

So what do you use in a street fight? Since according to your post above you can't use much footwork, jabs, etc. What special magic formula do you use to win a "Street Fight". Also how does your training prepare you for the "Specific" atmosphere or needs of a real street fight.?

[Knifefighter]

Hello Dale,

So what do you use in a street fight? Since according to your post above you can't use much footwork, jabs, etc. What special magic formula do you use to win a "Street Fight". Also how does your training prepare you for the "Specific" atmosphere or needs of a real street fight.?

Street fights usually begin at very close quarter range. This type of fighting quickly evolves into one person "swarming" another, not too much different that what you saw in those clips of the supposed "inferior techniques" of those WC guys and really not too different than what you would have experienced in your supposed "law enforcement" days. Often, it involves being pushed into some type of fixture, such as a wall, a table, a car, etc. and usually has a good amount of stand-up grappling, often ending up on the ground. Often there is not time or space for much footwork and, other than a possible first set-up, not much opportunity for the traditional kinds of setups you might learn in a sparring situation where two guys square off and continually break off contact.

How has my training worked towards a street environment? Full contact fighting, starting in close quarters, not stopping for walls or "out of bounds", including both observable and hidden weapons that can be utilized at any time, multiple opponents, utilizing a variety of environments and obstacles, etc. If you really want to train for the street, it needs to be as close to the same situation as possible. Traditional sparring is not training for the street, although it can be a small portion of it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

That was a good post. Dale makes a lot of sense with this.

[Pacman]

Street fights usually begin at very close quarter range. This type of fighting quickly evolves into one person "swarming" another, not too much different that what you saw in those clips of the supposed "inferior techniques" of those WC guys and really not too different than what you would have experienced in your supposed "law enforcement" days. Often, it involves being pushed into some type of fixture, such as a wall, a table, a car, etc. and usually has a good amount of stand-up grappling, often ending up on the ground. Often there is not time or space for much footwork and, other than a possible first set-up, not much opportunity for the traditional kinds of setups you might learn in a sparring situation where two guys square off and continually break off contact.

How has my training worked towards a street environment? Full contact fighting, starting in close quarters, not stopping for walls or "out of bounds", including both observable and hidden weapons that can be utilized at any time, multiple opponents, utilizing a variety of environments and obstacles, etc. If you really want to train for the street, it needs to be as close to the same situation as possible. Traditional sparring is not training for the street, although it can be a small portion of it.

ok so to train for "street fighting" then it sounds like you throw all techniques out the window and basically just punch and kick as hard and as fast as you can.

this is an example of using force to overcome force. it can work, but it is not the only way.

footwork doesnt mean muhammed ali style foot shuffling, it means moving strategically.
unless you are fighting in a phone booth you have enough space to move away from his centerline--you dont need that much room. especially if the guy is going aggro on you then that is probably the best thing to do. (if a bull is coming at you, do you step aside and stab it or do you try to absorb the impact while sticking out your sword?)

otherwise you will just be exchanging strikes with the other guy, face to face. you might hit him but he also might hit you. soon, someone will get lucky and land a good strike and the fight will be over...

[Knifefighter]

ok so to train for "street fighting" then it sounds like you throw all techniques out the window and basically just punch and kick as hard and as fast as you can.

this is an example of using force to overcome force. it can work, but it is not the only way.

You can punch and kick (and grapple) as hard as you can and still use technique. They are not mutually exclusive.

And while technique definitely is important, force/power is equally, if not more, important... something the theoretical pretend fighters fail to understand. If you ever get into a real fight, or even a full-contact training session, with someone who is bigger and/or stronger than you are, you will find this out.

[Sihing73]

You can punch and kick (and grapple) as hard as you can and still use technique. They are not mutually exclusive.

And while technique definitely is important, force/power is equally, if not more, important... something the theoretical pretend fighters fail to understand. If you ever get into a real fight, or even a full-contact training session, with someone who is bigger and/or stronger than you are, you will find this out.

Hello Dale,

Superior strength is a very strong factor and certainly has an effect. When two equally skilled fighters meet then the stronger one has an advantage. However, superior skill can defeat brute force. However, size is an important consideration and is one reason for "sport" fighters being divided into seperate weight classes.

Aside from power generation a larger fighter is often able to absorb more damage than a smaller person as well and this can also play into victory.

I had the privilege of training with a very large corporal at the PA State Police Academy. His last name was Ortiz and he did some pro boxing or sparred with some pro boxers. A large majority of the combatives training at the academy was based on boxing. Anyhow, his arms were almost as large as my leg and there was no way I could match him in strength. I remember trying to Pak his arm once and it was like hitting a wall, needless to say this did not work with him. Empty handed he would tear me up every time. However, the story changed slightly whenever I picked up a baton. Still, I would certainly shoot someone like him in a real encounter rather than try to fight him.

Funny thing, the other night I was watching wrestling, WWA or some such, I normally do not watch this stuff but I don't think anything else was on. Anyhow they had this guy, the Big Show about 480 lbs or so fighting some guy more normal size. The smaller guy jumped off the top rope and hit the Big Show in the shoulder and I think the head with a kick. Guess what, the smaller guy actually bounced off and the Big Show may have taken a step or two but did not fall down. Guess who won the fight?? :D Of course I realize wrestling is fake ;)

Size and strength can be a strong deciding factor when the opponents are of equal skill or there is a larger difference but it is again only one factore to be considered.

[Liddel]

Size and strength can be a strong deciding factor when the opponents are of equal skill or there is a larger difference but it is again only one factore to be considered.

Anyone remember one of the early UFC's with Keith hackney vs a big freakin marshmellow man...droped him with a nice overhead palm strike.

He hammer striked the dude into submission...but broke his hand in the process :o

IME with street fighting, aggression is a huge factor and it just so happens that more often than not the bigger person has the most aggression, sometimes the more intoxicated person also has the more percieved aggression :p.


Street fights usually begin at very close quarter range. This type of fighting quickly evolves into one person "swarming" another

Most of the street fights ive been in, less than a handfull in 29 years or witnessed, up in the hundreds - began at a longer range.... Because street fights IME are usually born out of an minor thing followed by posturing bad mouthing and finally contact.

In these situations ive faired better from having a better situational awareness, feeling when its going to kick off and escalate from confrontation...

On one occasion i was attacked from behind while crossing the road so that is outside the box.:o


And while technique definitely is important, force/power is equally, if not more, important... something the theoretical pretend fighters fail to understand.

IME they are hand in hand, the last street fight i had years ago outside a party in the burbs was with a fit guy twice my size who wouldnt let me walk away...
There was no way i was going to trade with him. he swung i head guarded up and VT stomped his kneecap dropping him...dug an angry kick in while he was down and bolted - he had mates present.

Street fights are rarely fair IME, so you need an edge. Some of my more passive training partners advocate strike first, during the b i t c h talk.... If your talking you aint fighting.... and more often than not an aggressor is setting up for a sucker punch...why wait ?

DREW

[Pacman]

You can punch and kick (and grapple) as hard as you can and still use technique. They are not mutually exclusive.

i agree, but from your last post and how you poo poo'd anything but going straight at the guy it seemed that you placed little importance on technique.



And while technique definitely is important, force/power is equally, if not more, important... something the theoretical pretend fighters fail to understand. If you ever get into a real fight, or even a full-contact training session, with someone who is bigger and/or stronger than you are, you will find this out.

power is definitely a factor. i dont deny that.

there comes a point, however, when increases in power yield less increases in effectiveness. like a root x curve.

the effectiveness of power is less relevant in a boxing context. in this case, i would say speed is more important.

in a wrestling context, your mass and power gives you an advantage, however it can be overcome through skill. your power will only be a factor if your opponent wants to fight force with force. what if he doesnt? (think bagua or aikido)

this is what primitive fighters fail to understand.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think the point is, Pacman, that in a real encounter the amount of techniques one will be able to use is going be much more limited than if it were some sort of a match - precisely because the fighters will probably be going right in and looking for a quick victory.

So a good fighter will need technique, alright...but the most direct and high percentage techniques and strategies are the ones that will prevail the most.

And the other point is not some much about size as it is about power generation - for usually the one who lands the first hard strike, kick, or decisive takedown will have a very big advantage.

[Pacman]

I think the point is, Pacman, that in a real encounter the amount of techniques one will be able to use is going be much more limited than if it were some sort of a match - precisely because the fighters will probably be going right in and looking for a quick victory.

So a good fighter will need technique, alright...but the most direct and high percentage techniques and strategies are the ones that will prevail the most.

And the other point is not some much about size as it is about power generation - for usually the one who lands the first hard strike, kick, or decisive takedown will have a very big advantage.

i see what you are saying...but everything you said about quick victories, who lands the first hit or takedown, direct techniques applies to any opponent--ring or street.

in fact, if a guy wants to come straight at me with a flurry of punches and kicks (your description of a street fight) that is a lot easier to handle than someone who reads me and my reactions and sets up his attacks with jabs and fakes etc.

lets get specific. if im fighting a guy on "the street" who is looking to knock my head off and coming straight for me...and on top of that this guy is bigger (longer reach) and stronger than me the last thing i would want to do is meet him head on like those guys in the video. like what dale approves of

i would get slaughtered!!! maybe id land a punch but one punch from this huge guy and i would be out.

i would use some BASIC technique to try to evade and create some openings. use some skill to avoid getting hit. don't just go all in....do or die strategy