Shifu Patterson Quotes

[sanjuro_ronin]

Since the last thread got closed and given to the nature of things, I thought it prudent to have a thread on what Shifu Patterson actually wrote, as opposed to what some may have "read".

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on why fighting doesn’t look “textbook:

Beyond that, actual fighting is not film making. You rarely get to see the "picture perfect technique". When you do, that is a true kodak moment. Mostly, and especially for the first several years of full contact competition, you see a developing use of principle in the evolving fighter. It is only after many years, when they become more calm in such a circumstance, that you may actually see more from them.

Which leads me to my second "disconnect". Most people do not train to "marry" the skills they gain through practice of their respective "art" to the actuality of the pressure of fighting. Things are different when another human being is determinde to hurt you and you are well aware of that fact.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on what is “uniquely internal” with his fighters:

So, what is uniquely internal in my guys and girls? The use of principle, the use of footwork, the use of tactics. Beyond that, isn't all martial arts just punches, kicks and throws?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on one of his experiences with IMA in America:
A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???"

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on forms:
From form we learn integration. Forms give us the end "frame" of motion for body kinetic alignment upon delivery of force. From form we also develop transitional strength. Form is VERY important. But not at the expense of other training. I.E. Comprehensive and appropriate "layered" drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing. To focus on form alone is futile. But to remove form entirely (which I will say is impossible in a moment with an anecdote) is equally futile.

At a seminar for MMA folks, a muay thai based fellow asked me a similar question and received a similar answer. Whereupon he said words to the effect of "I don't believe in forms at all." I asked him to assist me in a little demo and brought him out onto the floor.

I extended my hand with a pad and asked him to kick it with his best round kick. He did so after a few misgivings. I then said to him; "Now, describe to me how you just now performed that kick as if I were completely ignorant." After a few questions for clarification of what I wanted him to do, he began to in detail tell me about when and how he stepped his front foot, when and how he rotated his waist, when and how he counterbalanced his rotational force, etc.

When done, I said to him.. "Dude, that's form." You object to what you call form as long organized patterns of movement. But all movement, to be performed properly, has a "form". You're just used to doing small mini forms revolving around one or two movements only.

Form in traditional chinese arts is a lviing text book. It is a construct for the development of kinetic potential, a source of theory and tactical overlay perspective and a means of cultivating fitness/endurance in the body. It is also a means of evaluation of performance and skill capabilities. I.E.. if your balance falls apart at high speed on this or that movement, you either have work left to do or you have a mistaken perspective of that particular mechanic and it needs to be corrected.

To me, form is of essential value. If I were to try and percentage it out for you, I'd say my fighters had about a 50% focus on form. And the rest of what I named above (drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing) rotated in terms of percentage allotted depending on deficiency seen within form or performanc of form.

[Dragonzbane76]

hate to say it ronin but "someone" not naming names will probably come in here and drag this into the gutter with overbearing opinions.

I enjoyed the discussion in the other thread as well and respect Mr. Patterson for his opinions. hope this one doesn't end like the other.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on HIS IMA:
The internal arts as they were taught to me are complete. We do conditioning. We sweat. We bleed. We are not elitist snobs who are uinwilling to get dirty or roll around on the ground (ever heard of the three basin theory?).

We do mostly body weight strengthening exercises. But some are device driven. We hit things... lots of things.. in various ways. We fight. We do scenario training. We grapple. I will grant that I have encountered many in the USA who think this blasphemy but I have always just shrugged, smiled and then proven to them why they are misguided.

Patterson on How HIS IMA was trained inTaiwan compared to the USA:

I can only really speak to what I experienced in Taiwan and what I have experienced here in the US by contrast.

In Taiwan, at least in my day, all styles trained to fight. Very few exceptions to this. As such, all practioners understood that the ground was just another range/venue/transition of combative potential. So we all did it.. I never met anyone of any stylistic persuasion there that did not practice ground technique. Although we all had our differences in terms of emphasis.

It is only in the USA that I have seen such seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion over what qualifies as this or that or what defines this or that. Silly if you ask me. I have already stated that there are only so many things that can be done with a hand or foot. The rest is stylistic persuasion via tactical overlay or perspective of efficiency of combat.

Many things are a trade off. You want to be integrated? Then kinetic principles say you need to remain centered and not over extend your balance hence sacrficing your leverage and strength. You want to get to the enemy quickly? Then you might opt for long range extension knowing that you are momentarily vulnerable if you miss.. so don't miss, right? You want to be quick? You'll sacrifice some power potential via less mass involvement. Want to be powerful? You'll sacrifice some speed on the opposite end of that same coin to get your whole mass involved. (Of course, duly noted that both these ceilings appreciate in direct proportion to your ability).

So, I guess to elaborate... all old styles are complete. They need no outside help. It's all been done before. The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives, missing information or just plain obstinance in most cases I reckon.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on the Internal/external debacle:

As to the whole internal/external debacle. Again, I will say there are only so many things you can do with a hand or a foot. And there is nothing new under the sun in martial arts. It's all been done before. All complete styles/systems/arts have both Yin and Yang. If only one side is practiced, you are not going to become well rounded. You must condition yourself as well as meditate. You must fight as well as push hands. You must strengthen as well as learn to yield.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on complete systems:
Second, I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system. And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.

Perhaps I was fortunate to have open minded and knowledgeable teachers who encouraged me to explore other disciplines via "crossing arms" (this is what we said in those days) and to bring back any questions or dilemnas I had. There was always an answer waiting.

I remember in my first full contact event I had the fortune (or misfortune depending on how you look at things) to draw a Thai in one of my bouts. I won the bout on decision, but that man beat me to death with elbows and knees during. Afterward, my teacher took me aside for a few days and taught me a better way to deal with such attacks inside. The next time I fought a Thai, it was decidely different.

Practitioners evolve. No question about it. Every time we get our head handed to us, we evolve by necessity to avoid same from happening yet again.

But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before. Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on the influence of other systems:
Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.

As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg?

My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them. We trained the arts as we were told to train them.

The fact that we have all three "internal" arts in the Tang Shou Tao system doesn't really change anything I've said. All three stem from the same principle base and and so "dovetail" quite nicely. And it is not at all uncommon, or wasn't in my day, for an "internalist" to start in one of the three and then branch into the other two. Just as it is not uncommon for long term practitioners starting with any other stylistic persuasion to eventually branch into other styles. Such is the evolution of a practitioner.

By example; once I actually understood there were different "lineages" out there, I once aske Hsu Hong Chi (XuHongJi) what "style" our Hsing-I (xingyi) was. His reply to me was: "Where come from, not important. Work, no work, THAT your concern!" And he walked away. I didn't ask that same questioin for many, many years after that first time. Message received, sir! Thank you for not killing me, sir!

I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh. The willingness to interact with others in whatever venue, be it push hands or organized fighting or backyard barbecue brawling, all contribute to keeping the mind evolving within the respective discipline being studied. It is only when people allow themselves to become too "comfortable" and hence "complacent" within only their own school or group that they become tunnel visioned and fail to dig deeper into their system to discover the wealth of information contained. It's there. You just have to look.

It is the questing that is important. The attempts to categorize and quantify only serve to obfuscate the truth. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you attempt to define something that is undefinable you limit your perspective awareness to the truth forever afterward.

Again, a "system" is defined by the perspectives it holds about how to best express and utilize the different ranges/tools of combat.. foot, hand, elbow, knee, shoulder, hip, head, trapping, grappling, throwing, submission.. the "system" is the blueprint that makes all these tools and ranges work efficiently together. The tools are the tools, but the "how" of utilization of the tools creates the "system" over time. The differing viewpoints on what is a good "trade off" create the different stylistic persuasions we see today. The rest is the individual in question. The respective strengths and weaknesses of that practitioner will then determine the selected and/or favored tools within the system of choice.

There is no such thing as a "bad" tool. And there is no such thing as a "superior" tool. There exist only poor decisions of when and how to use a tool, or, mistaken perspectives on the actual utility of said tool. All tools are useful in their respective time and place. And if there were such a thing as a "superior" tool, well then, we would ALL be practicing only that ONE THING. And it would have been discoverd LONG ago.

I have had numerous discussions with practitioners/teachers that tell me that they feel that they are able to fight and fight well. Oftentimes, by asking just a few quick questions... Do you spar in your school? What are the rules if any? Do you engage with outsiders at all? Do you go to other schools/venues to play with unknowns in contact environments? What are the rules, if any?..... tells me where their respective heads are. It is amazing to me how many practitioners keep their metaphorical heads in the sand but yet profess that "they know" what they do is real and effective.

And now we have come full circle. As my initial comment on this thread is once again here to be stated. I think there is a major disconnect in many schools today. They do not train essence for combat. They do not marry their style based skill sets with the pressure of actual fighting. Yet they profess that they know.

I say; good luck with that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on open minded teachers and training that lead to a complete system:

I think it always has MUCH to do with the teacher/environment. I also think it has to do with the individual.

Master Hsu had many, many accomplished friends from different disciplines. They used to drop by the school all the time to show us "their style's way" of doing things. This always prompted MANY questions in us regarding the whys and wherefores of our respective differences of technical persuasion and tactic.

I was fortunate.... no doubt about it.. to have open minded teachers that did not shun others that were different as being "wrong" but only as different.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I hope I am not overstepping my position here, but I just wanted to make sure that things being attributed to Shifu Patterson are attributed correctly.

If Shifu Patterson feels this thread is in bad taste, I will deleted at once.

[sanjuro_ronin]

hate to say it ronin but "someone" not naming names will probably come in here and drag this into the gutter with overbearing opinions.

I enjoyed the discussion in the other thread as well and respect Mr. Patterson for his opinions. hope this one doesn't end like the other.

Well, it can be moved to the Southern forum where I can moderate it, but I trust my fellow Mods :)
I'd close it and sticky it, but I can't do that in the main forum.

[Dragonzbane76]

Patterson on open minded teachers and training that lead to a complete system:

I think it always has MUCH to do with the teacher/environment. I also think it has to do with the individual.

Master Hsu had many, many accomplished friends from different disciplines. They used to drop by the school all the time to show us "their style's way" of doing things. This always prompted MANY questions in us regarding the whys and wherefores of our respective differences of technical persuasion and tactic.

I was fortunate.... no doubt about it.. to have open minded teachers that did not shun others that were different as being "wrong" but only as different.

I would liked to have asked him if he felt that his "up bringing" was special when looking at all the other schools? Was he lucky in finding what he did, compared to all the other places to learn at?

I think that he was, but that's my opinion. The reasoning in my book for the debate about cross training is that most people don't have this and go looking into other places to find it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would liked to have asked him if he felt that his "up bringing" was special when looking at all the other schools? Was he lucky in finding what he did, compared to all the other places to learn at?

I think that he was, but that's my opinion. The reasoning in my book for the debate about cross training is that most people don't have this and go looking into other places to find it.

I would agree as this has been my experience too.
Some can argue that perhaps one was not long enough at a given school to learn these things but what is the logic of holding back the basics from a student that is learning how to protect themselves?
What is the logic in holding back what is basic in another system?

[Dragonzbane76]

holding back the basics from a student that is learning how to protect themselves?
What is the logic in holding back what is basic in another system?

why have any "secrets" at all IMO. You don't see other schools of thought doing this. You don't see someone that teaches physics holding back knowledge from a student. IMO you are paying for the understanding why hold out?

[Hardwork108]

I hope I am not overstepping my position here, but I just wanted to make sure that things being attributed to Shifu Patterson are attributed correctly.

If Shifu Patterson feels this thread is in bad taste, I will deleted at once.

Thank you for reposting the quotes. The major fact is that after all of his explanations he still gives credence to the existance of the Internals and the fact that the major kung fu styles are COMPLETE and he negates any none TCMA additions.

And yes, when fighting in actual combat, the techniques will not be picture perfect or like in the movies, but the principles stay unchanged.

And yes, one can learn a lot from cross testing, while possessing an open mind.

The chi talk is usually to impress the "gringos", but there is chi training without the flowery exaggerations.

Kung fu has always been about fighting. So, wether one trains the Internals or the Externals, the mindset has to be that of combat effectiveness.

[Dragonzbane76]

Kung fu has always been about fighting. So, wether one trains the Internals or the Externals, the mindset has to be that of combat effectiveness.

truth. :)

[SimonM]

Patterson on one of his experiences with IMA in America:
A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???"

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

Awesome story. :D

I like this human, he understands!

[Hardwork108]

As for secrets in kung fu, then yes there are. Many of the internal development gongs are secret.

There are attacking techniques and defensive techniques that are also secret.

So the secret is not only in hard training, because there are things that will need to be shown for one to learn and practice.

Kung fu training, specially the Internals have many subtlities. If the student is not shown or made aware of them then they will not develop in the necessary manner.

Again, I speak based on what I have seen and have been shown.

[taai gihk yahn]

As for secrets in kung fu, then yes there are. Many of the internal development gongs are secret.
There are attacking techniques and defensive techniques that are also secret.
yes and no; there may b specific information that certain people have that they r not sharing with most others; however, it does not mean that the information itself is secret; there are no secrets, per se, only things waiting to be discovered / rediscovered;


So the secret is not only in hard training, because there are things that will need to be shown for one to learn and practice.
Kung fu training, specially the Internals have many subtlities. If the student is not shown or made aware of them then they will not develop in the necessary manner.
disagree; no matter what, fundamentaly, all "internal" skill / gong is something that is doable by someone - as such, every single person has the capacity to spontaneously discover on their own these practices (and there r many ways to do this, not just one path); I mean, somewhere, somehow at sometime someone had to come up with these "secret gungs" without having been shown them by someone else - there had to be at one point an origin; and as such, because at least one person was able to come up w them independently, so can someone else; of course, most people won't, but enough will so as to demonstrate that if 'internal" is a natural practice, based on universal body principles, then spontaneous discovery is not only possible, but inevitable; for example, if u spend 10 minutes lying on the floor and allow the breath to truly manifest spontaneously without any conscious direction, u will learn a great deal about "internal" practice, moreso perhaps than someone spending 10 years adhereing to a "system" of breathing...


Again, I speak based on what I have seen and have been shown.
you have been shown how to do certain things that you yourself may not have been able to come up with independently; that doesn't mean others are not able to do so; IMPE, this occurs after ~8-9 years into a given practice;

IME, internal practice is about self-discovery; the sifu is there to guide, verify and make corrections, but ultimately, it is the task of the student to manifest the art uniquely in and of themselves;

[Hebrew Hammer]

Dear Ballsack,

Thanks for continuing what I thought to be one of the best threads I've read in a while. Its interesting to see the respect that Sifu Patterson commands on here, I had two friends who were long time students of his when he had his school here in La Mesa, Ca. They loved it. I was actually able to come by and observe a sparring session, his students went at it hard, no pads, no head gear, just intense application of their style. Having wrested in High School, my friend Bill (who was one of Sifu's students) wanted to test his grappling skills against a wrestler and we tussled using wrestling 'rules'...I didn't understand or appreciate how progressive that attitude was at the time but I do now. Needless to say I had about 40lbs on my friend Bill and it didn't go well for him but he learned from it and came back for more.

Then as I am now, I don't know much about Hsing I and I chose to dabble in Kenpo at that time of my life instead of taking advantage of what Sifu Patterson had to offer. I do believe Kung Fu has some very well rounded and effective (complete) styles, my only experience was with CLF which I have no doubt is effective street martial art. Where I think American Martial Arts schools of many flavors miss the boat, is their lack of sparring and application. I've spoken with Instructors of various arts when shopping for schools and many are afraid losing students, because its too hard or because of injury and potential financial loss. So they only offer a sparring class once a week or only to senior students.

All this crap about having a to be in MMA or having a ground game to be effective on the street is BS. I've seen quite a few fights in my time and have yet to see one break out in a BJJ match. They almost always involve drugs, alcohol, and or some woman at a bar or sporting event. If they do end up on the ground its because someone got knocked out and or 4-5 guys are kicking the crap out of one dude. So if you really want to train for a street fight, have a few drinks put a a rolled taco in your hand and have two or three people come at you from different directions. Don't spill the guac on the training mat.

I do like MMA, the UFC, and can appreciate good grappling, you should train in it and for it...its just not the end all be all of martial arts period. My two cents, I just had to get this off my chest. It's very therapeutic.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Sifu Patterson discussion.

Have a nice day.

[Ray Pina]

Good stuff. I like this Mr. Patterson.

[MightyB]

Good stuff. I like this Mr. Patterson.

True dat - he was putting out fighters way back when so called TCMAists considered fighting blase .

[sanjuro_ronin]

yes and no; there may b specific information that certain people have that they r not sharing with most others; however, it does not mean that the information itself is secret; there are no secrets, per se, only things waiting to be discovered / rediscovered;


disagree; no matter what, fundamentaly, all "internal" skill / gong is something that is doable by someone - as such, every single person has the capacity to spontaneously discover on their own these practices (and there r many ways to do this, not just one path); I mean, somewhere, somehow at sometime someone had to come up with these "secret gungs" without having been shown them by someone else - there had to be at one point an origin; and as such, because at least one person was able to come up w them independently, so can someone else; of course, most people won't, but enough will so as to demonstrate that if 'internal" is a natural practice, based on universal body principles, then spontaneous discovery is not only possible, but inevitable; for example, if u spend 10 minutes lying on the floor and allow the breath to truly manifest spontaneously without any conscious direction, u will learn a great deal about "internal" practice, moreso perhaps than someone spending 10 years adhereing to a "system" of breathing...


you have been shown how to do certain things that you yourself may not have been able to come up with independently; that doesn't mean others are not able to do so; IMPE, this occurs after ~8-9 years into a given practice;

IME, internal practice is about self-discovery; the sifu is there to guide, verify and make corrections, but ultimately, it is the task of the student to manifest the art uniquely in and of themselves;

I have seen many things taught as "secret" that I said, "really?"
I think that sometimes that bubble we live in is a lot smaller than we think and that getting out of it and seeing that what we do isn't that special is very, very important.
I have been shown "gungs" that were high level that were basic plyometric exercises ( style specific of course, but the core was obvious) and others that were simply "isokinetic".
I recall when I showed my sifu some literature on "dynamic tension", "reverse breathing" and the "valsva manuver" , he picked up right away the similarities to the Iron wire and was suprised that such "advanced" knowledge was so well known.

[Mike Patterson]

I had two friends who were long time students of his when he had his school here in La Mesa, Ca. They loved it. I was actually able to come by and observe a sparring session, his students went at it hard, no pads, no head gear, just intense application of their style. Having wrested in High School, my friend Bill (who was one of Sifu's students) wanted to test his grappling skills against a wrestler and we tussled using wrestling 'rules'...I didn't understand or appreciate how progressive that attitude was at the time but I do now. Needless to say I had about 40lbs on my friend Bill and it didn't go well for him but he learned from it and came back for more.


Yes. This is how were were in those days, how it was in my teacher's school when I trained and how I still am today.

We always welcomed outsiders to come by and train with us, fight with us, or do whatever they wanted to do at their comfort zone with us to invest in the learning process.

We have always been game to do such things. This is what I find sorely lacking in many schools in this country today (and not only kung fu schools), and have mentioned consistently since my beginning post in the first thread.

Just because you have not seen other kung fu schools that do train the way we do, does not mean they're not out there. They are. Unfortunately, just not many of them.

I do not feel this to be the shortcoming of the respective style, however, but instead it is the shortcoming of the transmission of the style that should be blamed.

Open and sincere exploration will always lead to the deepest awareness. This is true of anything and not just kung fu training. A closed mind or a mind that says "I am already there" is a mind that will cease to grow.

Now I'm off to enjoy my labor day weekend with my lovely wife. So you all enjoy yours, too. :)

[SimonM]

, he picked up right away the similarities to the Iron wire and was suprised that such "advanced" knowledge was so well known.

You know what it took for my sifu to teach the "secret" Iron Wire?

A few dedicate students to ask for it, and to be willing to practise it.

[lkfmdc]

I go out for a few hours, and I come back and you guys got a perfectly good thread locked :rolleyes:

[Hardwork108]

yes and no; there may b specific information that certain people have that they r not sharing with most others; however, it does not mean that the information itself is secret; there are no secrets, per se, only things waiting to be discovered / rediscovered;
I respectfully disagree. There ARE secrets in the TCMAs. People, even in this "scientific" age have to accept that no matter what effect this may have on their egos.

However, I agree with you that there are certain information and training modes that may be secrets waiting to be discovered and one can discover them through regular and dedicted training, one way or the other.



disagree; no matter what, fundamentaly, all "internal" skill / gong is something that is doable by someone - as such, every single person has the capacity to spontaneously discover on their own these practices (and there r many ways to do this, not just one path);
I disagree. Some things one can discover on his own, but other things not. That is why we seek qualified teachers for an specialized discipline, otherwise books and dvds would do fine....



I mean, somewhere, somehow at sometime someone had to come up with these "secret gungs" without having been shown them by someone else - there had to be at one point an origin; and as such, because at least one person was able to come up w them independently, so can someone else;

That one person may is likely to have been born into TCMA practice and hence an every day practitioner of kung fu within a system that was in his family for generations. We are talking about a lot of accumulated specialist knowledge. The evolution of such discoveries is very different then some John Dough discovering some Internal methodology.


of course, most people won't,
That means that at least for them it will be a secret and secrets are usually applicable to most people, not everyone, because then no one would know it.



but enough will so as to demonstrate that if 'internal" is a natural practice, based on universal body principles, then spontaneous discovery is not only possible, but inevitable;
I see your logic, but I disagree. One can say that eating is a "natural practice" therefore, everyone can learn to cook to be able to nourish themselves, but what are everyone's chances of becoming master gourmet chef?

There is a lot of accumulated knowledge contained within the TCMAs, centuries of trial and error, so it would be very difficult to some guy come up with an internal tendon developing exercise on his own, specially in "blinded by science" world where many don't believe that the Internal exist! Do you see what I am getting at?


for example, if u spend 10 minutes lying on the floor and allow the breath to truly manifest spontaneously without any conscious direction, u will learn a great deal about "internal" practice, moreso perhaps than someone spending 10 years adhereing to a "system" of breathing...
I would say that it will all depend on who is doing the teaching. ;)

Some of the most amazing Internal exercises that I have seen did not even involve any specialist breathing methodologies.



you have been shown how to do certain things that you yourself may not have been able to come up with independently; that doesn't mean others are not able to do so; IMPE, this occurs after ~8-9 years into a given practice;
Believe me, there is stuff out there that you could not come up with on your own in a lifetime.

I have seen things in the Chow Gar school that I have not seen anyone mention here. I have even tried to test people's possible knowledge here by subtle clues and asking certain questions about given practices(as these are methodologies that are not discussed outside of one's schools), yet no one ever came close to the descriptions or assemssments I was looking for ABSOLUTELY NO ONE!

I have watched the way certain Chow Gar forms were performed by various schools, on video clips, yet again, they were missing elements. In a very, very few cased, the performing sifu would be hiding things, but mostly and including even the real sifus students did not have a clue, when performing the form.


IME, internal practice is about self-discovery; the sifu is there to guide, verify and make corrections, but ultimately, it is the task of the student to manifest the art uniquely in and of themselves;

I agree on one level but on another I believe that you and I have been exposed to very different Internal methodolgies. There is NOT just one internal methodology, there are many otu there. Of course, they will share common ground regarding certain aspects.

However, I will say again, there is a lot out there that no one has any clue about (no matter what their ego dictates to them) and that includes you and I.

[Hardwork108]

I have seen many things taught as "secret" that I said, "really?"
I think that sometimes that bubble we live in is a lot smaller than we think and that getting out of it and seeing that what we do isn't that special is very, very important.
I have been shown "gungs" that were high level that were basic plyometric exercises ( style specific of course, but the core was obvious) and others that were simply "isokinetic".
I recall when I showed my sifu some literature on "dynamic tension", "reverse breathing" and the "valsva manuver" , he picked up right away the similarities to the Iron wire and was suprised that such "advanced" knowledge was so well known.

I see what you are getting at and I am sure that what you say is true, but there are other gungs. Not having been exposed to them does not mean that they do not exist, or if they exist, then they must be well known, under another name.

Let me give you an example. When I first mentioned that the strength training in my Wing Chun practice did not involve weight training, all of the "experts" including a few "sifus" (sometimes they seem to be dropping out of the sky in this forum..LOL) on that particular thread, gave me the usual "troll", "fantasy-fu" etc, treatment, calling me a weak "stick man" and other words of ridicule.

Then on another thread a few years later I mentioned that there was no weight training in my Chow Gar school that the strength and power came from what are generally known as "development" forms, gungs and two man exercises. Then the same thing ensued....I was again a "weakling", "stick man", "fantasy internalist", "chi blaster", etc.

Then the same people who had no clue about two different strength development methodologies from two different Internaly practiced TCMAs, come up and say that there are "no secrets" in the TCMAs and that everything is in the public arena.....LOL!

The fact that people did not contemplate the idea of gaining strength and power without weight training (one wise guy, with the usual "decades of experience" even suggested or hinted at Olympic Weight training practice for my Internals....LOL!), suggests that the methodologies in question were not know to them.

I humbly suggest that people come off their high horses and continue learning and researching the TCMAs.

Some years ago I read an interview with Chan See Meng, reputadely the most advanced disciple of the late Great Grand Master Chee Kim Thong (declared a Chinese National Treasure), who was lamenting the passing of his master and the fact that he was still learining the most advanced aspects of the Internals which he did not manage to complete, because of his master's death.

This stuff goes deep, VERY deep, and to suggest that there are no secrets or suprises as regards the highe level TCMA methodologies points more to our human ego than any actual facts. Just my take....

[Hardwork108]

I have searched for such method all my life. So far, I still have not found it yet. If you can write a book about it, I'll be the 1st person to buy your book.

You can research the Hakka arts, as regards the Chow Gar training - including the so called "development" forms, two man resistance exercises and the specialised gungs, which work together to unify the body.

The problem with the Hakka systems is that a lot of the training is not in the public domain, no matter how many schools you see teaching "openly", but it is a fascinating area of research. :)

As for Wing Chun, there was plenty of resistance training, such as chin ups (8 types), animal walking and seat ups/ leg raises, as well as exercises such as supporting one's own weight on one's hands/arms for long periods.

As for the legs there would be the traditional horse stance training (that also has other purposes) and squat type exercises.

Basically, working with one's own body weight replaced the need for weights.

[MightyB]

I have searched for such method all my life. So far, I still have not found it yet. If you can write a book about it, I'll be the 1st person to buy your book.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CX63GP4ML._SS500_.jpg

There you go!

[Hardwork108]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CX63GP4ML._SS500_.jpg

There you go!

I have that book, but it does not come close to the stuff I have seen in Chow Gar, and please believe me, what I have seen in that style is relatively very little.

[omarthefish]

There is a limitation by using the dymantic training method.
Perhaps. I just know that at least one or two of the most powerful hitters I have ever met relied exclusively on that sort of training.

I once sent a guy to check out Chris Chan. I was already training with YC Wong so I didn't go myself but based on his personality I thought Chan would be a good fit for him. So after watching the class he asks Chris, "So tell me why I should train with you." He said that Christ bust out laughing and then turned to the firedoor next to him, one of those big metal doors, and he punched it... left 4 dents in it, one for each knuckle and said, "I can teach you how to punch like that."

I met another one of his students who was "scary strong" and his method was to use his stance to lean into a wall as hard as he could and use his punches or crane hand etc. to slowly push himself away from the wall while using his legs to push himself into the wall.

And then there's the infamous "39 grinds". . .

Maybe they didn't get powerlifter strength but the strength that was directly relevant to their art was f'ing intense.

[Hardwork108]

There is a limitation by using the dymantic training method.

Believe me that Chow Gar goes far beyond that.




Both resist training (use your opponent's body weight) and horse stance training (use your own body weight) are weight training by my definition.
The two man exercises involve resistance, but not really lifting or carrying of each others' bodies as in many other martial arts.

Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYD8Iz7rgwM




http://www.esnips.com/doc/e8760c01-af97-4344-a457-b58e1e9e20e3/靈猴上樹.jpg

I need to open my kung fu horizons much more, it seems. :D

[Hardwork108]

I have question for Sifu Patterson.

Sifu, is Zhan Zhuang training part of the curriculum you teach? If so, how significant a role does this methodology play in your teachings?


.

[lkfmdc]

Let's throw this here

http://www.hsing-i.com/hsing-i_journal/RSPCT.html

(should be fun)

[Ray Pina]

OK. Now I know who we're talking about.

I have only scene form application videos with him. Is there anything else out there that may interest me? Any of his students out there? Show promise?

[ShaolinDan]

Lol, nice pic, YKW. :)

P.S. Nice discussion too, BTW. Thanks Sanjuro, MP, and everyone. :)

[Lebaufist]

Awesome thread. Sifu Patterson's philosophies are a hallmark for teachers that still have a fighters perspective. I've see the same echoes in what I've said to students over the years in one way or another.

His explanation on forms should be dittoed (I'm old) and sent to every CMA school in the country as their new byline.

[TenTigers]

Awesome thread. Sifu Patterson's philosophies are a hallmark for teachers that still have a fighters perspective. I've see the same echoes in what I've said to students over the years in one way or another.

His explanation on forms should be dittoed (I'm old) and sent to every CMA school in the country as their new byline.
xeroxed, at least.

[Pork Chop]

xeroxed, at least.

i was going to say scanned. :) hehe

patterson's one of the guys i always wanted to study with, but wrote off the idea because I don't like the idea of living in cali; though I guess he's in vegas now. Cartmell's another one.

my first kung fu school was a tang shr dao affiliate in Okinawa.
I knew all the forms (still remember a few), but there was a language barrier so I didn't get much else. always kind of kicked around the idea of completing the first style i started. Aside from being my first style, I like hsing yi because the power's very close to the dempsey drop step. Unfortunately things just never worked out.

those guys really seem to go about it the right way.
same with all the shuai chiao guys I've met.

[Mike Patterson]

I have question for Sifu Patterson.

Sifu, is Zhan Zhuang training part of the curriculum you teach? If so, how significant a role does this methodology play in your teachings?


.


Sorry. Didn't see this until now. I've been gone for the Labor Day weekend.

Standing practice is very important in our methodology. Again, no more OR LESS important than anything else.

Meditation aspects aside, from standing practice we learn to hold a position of "ease" in the body, meaning no antagonism and no tension. Appropriate "linkage" of the soft tissues and proper alignment of the skeletal system allow for cultivation of a relaxed, natural and fluid movement structure over time. This translates then to efficiency of motion via the "non antagonism" learned, which in turn translates to speed.

To us, the philosophy of "walking before running" can be applied to standing practice vs. movement. If you cannot relax during standing, you have little hope of truly relaxing during high speed dynamic movement. Such was the opinion of the people who trained me and now my own as well.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets not make this about Strength training people, ok?
Start another thread.

[taai gihk yahn]

Sorry. Didn't see this until now. I've been gone for the Labor Day weekend.

Standing practice is very important in our methodology. Again, no more OR LESS important than anything else.

Meditation aspects aside, from standing practice we learn to hold a position of "ease" in the body, meaning no antagonism and no tension. Appropriate "linkage" of the soft tissues and proper alignment of the skeletal system allow for cultivation of a relaxed, natural and fluid movement structure over time. This translates then to efficiency of motion via the "non antagonism" learned, which in turn translates to speed.

To us, the philosophy of "walking before running" can be applied to standing practice vs. movement. If you cannot relax during standing, you have little hope of truly relaxing during high speed dynamic movement. Such was the opinion of the people who trained me and now my own as well.

Well-stated, very clearly and without added hokum. It takes the "mystery" out of the practice and makes it more widely accessable.

In the ontology of standing --> walking --> running, one learns to harmonize several things, including breath, voluntary skeletal movement and the ground reaction force, as all of these travel through the non-contractile structure (osseous and soft tissue); specifically, the soft connective tissue functions in context of tensegrity principles (continuous tension / discontinuous compression). one may later be able to synchronize various autonomic functions as well, as one increases one's ability to listen / look into oneself in a way that is more sensitive and discerning; but never does this mean one must take leave of reason and intelligent thought in favor of intuitiveness...both must work together, hand in hand, otherwise one misses the forrest for the trees or the trees for the forrest, depending on where one is in excess...

that said, my belief is this: that there is more than ample capacity on the part of so-called "western" methodology to fully encompass and describe the workings and effects of so-called "internal" practice; it just takes a range of knowledge somewhat outside the main (e.g. - a great deal of information may be gleaned looking at "western" practices such as Rolfing/Structural Integration, Alexander Technique, Feldenkreis, Osteopathy, tensegrity, chaos / complexity theory etc.), but aso if one explores the standard body of anatomical / physiological knowledge, one will find many of the so-called "qi" phenomenon clearly described and articulated, and localized anatomically (simply put - if one has certain "internal" experiences but no training in physiology, one may be prone to interpret these experiences as something outside the normal range of body function - but in fact, these experiences can be defined from a physiological perspective quite readily!)

in other words, whereas for many years, people have, for, in their estimation, a perceived lack of "western" science's capacity to describe what is happening vis-a-vis 'internal" training, defaulted to using terms such as "qi", "jing", "sung", etc.; in contrast to this, I personally have found that there is more than sufficient extant conceptual apparatus to clearly discern what is going on in this area;

my personal belief is that many people would prefer to keep "internal" couched in terms that the typical "western" mind cannot understand with ease - the effect is to keep these practices necessarily obscure, to lend the teacher thereof a quasi-mystical sheen, and maintain the practices in a state of mystical "otherness"; when u pull away the veil, now u enable people to no longer be hoodwinked by teachers who themselves have a dubious understanding of what is going on, and get away with sounding authoritative by citing things like "qi", with the caveat that it's really inexplicable by nature (which is untrue);

I think that in time, the practice of internal will be as well-articulated in a manner that can be clearly understood by all; not only will this increase people's ability to get the most out of the practice, it will prevent charlatans with incomplete learning to lead other's astray...

[Mike Patterson]

Well-stated, very clearly and without added hokum. It takes the "mystery" out of the practice and makes it more widely accessable.

In the ontology of standing --> walking --> running, one learns to harmonize several things, including breath, voluntary skeletal movement and the ground reaction force, as all of these travel through the non-contractile structure (osseous and soft tissue); specifically, the soft connective tissue functions in context of tensegrity principles (continuous tension / discontinuous compression). one may later be able to synchronize various autonomic functions as well, as one increases one's ability to listen / look into oneself in a way that is more sensitive and discerning; but never does this mean one must take leave of reason and intelligent thought in favor of intuitiveness...both must work together, hand in hand, otherwise one misses the forrest for the trees or the trees for the forrest, depending on where one is in excess...

that said, my belief is this: that there is more than ample capacity on the part of so-called "western" methodology to fully encompass and describe the workings and effects of so-called "internal" practice; it just takes a range of knowledge somewhat outside the main (e.g. - a great deal of information may be gleaned looking at "western" practices such as Rolfing/Structural Integration, Alexander Technique, Feldenkreis, Osteopathy, tensegrity, chaos / complexity theory etc.), but aso if one explores the standard body of anatomical / physiological knowledge, one will find many of the so-called "qi" phenomenon clearly described and articulated, and localized anatomically (simply put - if one has certain "internal" experiences but no training in physiology, one may be prone to interpret these experiences as something outside the normal range of body function - but in fact, these experiences can be defined from a physiological perspective quite readily!)

in other words, whereas for many years, people have, for, in their estimation, a perceived lack of "western" science's capacity to describe what is happening vis-a-vis 'internal" training, defaulted to using terms such as "qi", "jing", "sung", etc.; in contrast to this, I personally have found that there is more than sufficient extant conceptual apparatus to clearly discern what is going on in this area;

my personal belief is that many people would prefer to keep "internal" couched in terms that the typical "western" mind cannot understand with ease - the effect is to keep these practices necessarily obscure, to lend the teacher thereof a quasi-mystical sheen, and maintain the practices in a state of mystical "otherness"; when u pull away the veil, now u enable people to no longer be hoodwinked by teachers who themselves have a dubious understanding of what is going on, and get away with sounding authoritative by citing things like "qi", with the caveat that it's really inexplicable by nature (which is untrue);

I think that in time, the practice of internal will be as well-articulated in a manner that can be clearly understood by all; not only will this increase people's ability to get the most out of the practice, it will prevent charlatans with incomplete learning to lead other's astray...

Agreed in virtually every respect. :)

I have time and again through my own exploration of many of the western methodolgies you mentioned above (and other constructs as well) seen the same principles espoused. I do not believe this negates the methods passed down through hsingi (xingyi), pakua (bagua) or taichi (taji). Quite the opposite, I believe this validates them. The Western world is constantly "re-discovering" things that the Eastern world has known about for centuries. Such is our (western) need to know "why". The Eastern people have often taken the perspective of "empirical observation" and just accepted that something "is" or "is not" based on experience. I don't find this wrong, simply different. I personally actually take a certain "comfort" in the fact that western science has validated many things I have practiced for decades in their own way.

And I could not agree with you more on your final two paragraphs. I have spent the better part of my life "lifting the veil" on such people. That veil is far too easy a place to hide. ;)

[taai gihk yahn]

Agreed in virtually every respect. :)
I have time and again through my own exploration of many of the western methodolgies you mentioned above (and other constructs as well) seen the same principles espoused.
sure: for example, taiji principle: "empty the collar, suspend the top" v. Alexander Technique: "the head floats free and away"; and if u look at the biomechanics of things like osteopathy and chiropractic, u can in fact identify specifically the structures that are involved in the various internal art principles, giving one a way to communicate to students / patients that encompasses both approaches;


I do not believe this negates the methods passed down through hsingi (xingyi), pakua (bagua) or taichi (taji). Quite the opposite, I believe this validates them.
Yes! I have been saying this here for years - if you have a given approach that leads you to certain "truths", and then if u have another approach that is, for all intents and purposes, completely different, and yet you arrive at essentially the same conclusion, this is about as powerful relatively-objective "proof" that one can get at! the best "proof" of one's own paradigm is someone from another paradigm with no interest in or even knowledge of your own, coming to the same conclusions;


The Western world is constantly "re-discovering" things that the Eastern world has known about for centuries.
well, yes, although admittedly there r things that "the west" discovered that "the east" never dreamed of - in my mind, one of the most pivotal things being the discovery of the cell, which fundamentally altered the understanding of human physiology / medicine (prior to this, in a way, "western" medicine was more similar to "eastern" than not, to wit, the classification of humors);


Such is our (western) need to know "why". The Eastern people have often taken the perspective of "empirical observation" and just accepted that something "is" or "is not" based on experience. I don't find this wrong, simply different. I personally actually take a certain "comfort" in the fact that western science has validated many things I have practiced for decades in their own way.
yes, it's a matter of approach - so-called "eastern" thought (which was greatly influenced by relatively "western" regions such as Persia) is generally synthetic, top-down pattern recognition, that is very much an either/or sort of construct (one can argue that yin/yang is a "primative" form of binary processing, lol); "western" approach is more "bottom up", although, of course, each contains elements of the other;


And I could not agree with you more on your final two paragraphs. I have spent the better part of my life "lifting the veil" on such people. That veil is far too easy a place to hide. ;)
it's just allowed for so much deception - deception of other and of the self - it's like, when u hit the wall on ur ability to talk about biomechanics, all of a sudden it becomes "qi"; what's more, I believe that the vast majority of people who use this term fail to understand it! Personally, I find the definition used by Ted Kaptchuk in "Web that Has no Weaver" to be the most coherent and comprehensive I've read to date (if u've read him, u understand; if u have not, I enthusiastically recommend it, and can say without hesitation that u will enjoy his take on TCM immensely, as it will probably dovetail w a lot of ur own perspective);

I think that the bottom line is that, if one looks at it honestly, with an inquisitive, non-presupposing mind, then one can see clearly; of course, it may not be as romantic and esoteric as one would like either, lol...

anyway, all of this agreement is making me dizzy...

[Mike Patterson]

sure: for example, taiji principle: "empty the collar, suspend the top" v. Alexander Technique: "the head floats free and away"; and if u look at the biomechanics of things like osteopathy and chiropractic, u can in fact identify specifically the structures that are involved in the various internal art principles, giving one a way to communicate to students / patients that encompasses both approaches;


Yes! I have been saying this here for years - if you have a given approach that leads you to certain "truths", and then if u have another approach that is, for all intents and purposes, completely different, and yet you arrive at essentially the same conclusion, this is about as powerful relatively-objective "proof" that one can get at! the best "proof" of one's own paradigm is someone from another paradigm with no interest in or even knowledge of your own, coming to the same conclusions;


well, yes, although admittedly there r things that "the west" discovered that "the east" never dreamed of - in my mind, one of the most pivotal things being the discovery of the cell, which fundamentally altered the understanding of human physiology / medicine (prior to this, in a way, "western" medicine was more similar to "eastern" than not, to wit, the classification of humors);


yes, it's a matter of approach - so-called "eastern" thought (which was greatly influenced by relatively "western" regions such as Persia) is generally synthetic, top-down pattern recognition, that is very much an either/or sort of construct (one can argue that yin/yang is a "primative" form of binary processing, lol); "western" approach is more "bottom up", although, of course, each contains elements of the other;


it's just allowed for so much deception - deception of other and of the self - it's like, when u hit the wall on ur ability to talk about biomechanics, all of a sudden it becomes "qi"; what's more, I believe that the vast majority of people who use this term fail to understand it! Personally, I find the definition used by Ted Kaptchuk in "Web that Has no Weaver" to be the most coherent and comprehensive I've read to date (if u've read him, u understand; if u have not, I enthusiastically recommend it, and can say without hesitation that u will enjoy his take on TCM immensely, as it will probably dovetail w a lot of ur own perspective);

I think that the bottom line is that, if one looks at it honestly, with an inquisitive, non-presupposing mind, then one can see clearly; of course, it may not be as romantic and esoteric as one would like either, lol...

anyway, all of this agreement is making me dizzy...

I have read, attended lectures by, and spoken to, Mr. Kaptchuk. :)

I agree.. too much deception. Too much ignorance. And interestingly, one of my students spent a great deal of time talking to me over the years about the "binary progression" he believes is contained within the patterns of the I Ching. It has made for many a night of spirited conversation within our school walls.

Oftentimes, western people tend to receive a very narrow perspective of what a specific character like "chi" means in Mandarin. I once had a very long "disagreement with a fellow over what he thought he was talking about as "jin" energy vs. "jing" essence, only to find out that he had made one of the classic mistakes when not reading, writing or speaking the language of origin.

But I, like you, now feel dizzied by all this agreement from another mind other than my own. I think I need now retire and meditate on all this as I find it quite unsettling. ;)

[Hardwork108]

Sorry. Didn't see this until now. I've been gone for the Labor Day weekend.
No problem. I appreciate the time you took to answer my question Sifu Patterson. :)


Standing practice is very important in our methodology. Again, no more OR LESS important than anything else.

Meditation aspects aside, from standing practice we learn to hold a position of "ease" in the body, meaning no antagonism and no tension. Appropriate "linkage" of the soft tissues and proper alignment of the skeletal system allow for cultivation of a relaxed, natural and fluid movement structure over time. This translates then to efficiency of motion via the "non antagonism" learned, which in turn translates to speed.
My Chow Gar Mantis sifu, who spoke highly of Hsing I made parallels between the Zhan Zhuang practice of Hsing I and that of "similar end" methodologies in Chow Gar.

So basically, as I understand it, on one level these exercises help in creating a type of "internal linking" of the body, that contributes to this given style's body unity faculties which also contributes to relaxation, speed and power, as well.

I am curious as how long, generally speaking do you require your beginner to intermediate level students to keep the postures, at each go?


To us, the philosophy of "walking before running" can be applied to standing practice vs. movement. If you cannot relax during standing, you have little hope of truly relaxing during high speed dynamic movement. Such was the opinion of the people who trained me and now my own as well.
That opinion is a wise one. It is nowadays my experience that many people regard such training as "fantasy-fu" or for "relaxation", but I hope that your words will enlighten such people.

Thank you again, sifu.

[taai gihk yahn]

I have read, attended lectures by, and spoken to, Mr. Kaptchuk. :)
awesome! Kaptchuk's a hoot, isn't he? I met him some years ago when he gave a lecture at Columbia in NY while I was a PT student, they had him come in via their dept of alternative /complimentary whatsits; he gave a very interesting account of the history of "alternative" medicine in the US, not just TCM, but all kinds of vitalist / electromagnetic medicine movements in the 19th and 20th cen.(at one point he said "bullsh1t" during the lecture - he stops and ask, to no one in particular, "am I allowed to say 'bullsh1t' at Columbia?"); we chatted a bit after, he's one guy w his head screwed on right;

[Dale Dugas]

I met Ted years ago as well and just had him for a class at New England School of Acupuncture called Experience, Experiments, and the Soul in Chinese Medcine.

I have to say it was one of the better classes I have ever attended.

Ted also swore, and then looked out at the class and asked if it was okay to swear.

We agreed that it was.

[lkfmdc]

A very long time ago a friend of mine who does both Hsing Yi and Taiji said that to him "internal" meant understanding the "hydraulics" of the human body... it seems a reasonable approach, regardless of the metaphors to seek to figure out how exactly the body works most efficiently

It might shock a few here, but even "MMA kickboxing knuckleheads" practice slowly at times to examine how their techniques work and to work on the fine points.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The consensus seems to be that, YES, western systems do have the very same "internals" as eastern ones, that one will indeed find the same attributes and techniques and practices, the difference simply being the "jargon" that is used.
Truly, if one sees a high level athlete perform their sport one sees all that is "internal": structure, relaxation, alignment, full body union, etc, etc.
It does truly seem to be a case of Tomato/tomahtoe.

Having been exposed to high level IMA and high level EMA and perhaps more importantly, high level physical performances, I have seen this too.

[Mike Patterson]

I am curious as how long, generally speaking do you require your beginner to intermediate level students to keep the postures, at each go?


Meditation "class" is scheduled for one hour. Beginners learn five shapes initially and are encouraged to stay in them until fatigued and then taught how to try and alleviate that fatigue before giving up on the shape and resting. This process is helpful in trying to learn the principle I spoke of prior regarding "non-antagonism" within their bodies.

The intermediate students generally stand for the entire hour (unless newly graduated), moving from shape to shape without rest. However, it should be duly noted that some shapes are more physically demanding than are others and so by practicing accordingly, one can sort of "rest" at leas a portion of the body while continuing to practice.