Are traditional MA methods useless?

[dezhen2001]

like i said, i'm just starting to learn the theory and understand pieces now. maybe someone who has more experience can explain better than me But training internally to me seems to use the tendons and natural body structure much more than muscles. How else can you explain a 79 yr old man who weighs around 100lbs (45kg) dealing with person after person without breaking any sweat. There's no muscle there, so what else can it be?

david

[scotty1]

Good technique.

[dezhen2001]

hi scotty i know good technique, but like i said, it's just something i am beginning to find out about. I can't really explain as i don't know enough about it.

Correct body mechanics yes, but again, they are different to those from boxing etc. But like i said, how can someone with no real 'muscle' do that? When everyone else trains with weights etc. to become 'stronger' and yet he has never trained them in his life?

david

[scotty1]

Yeah I think you've answered your own question mate. Superior body mechanics, experience, technique, timing etc. You are saying he's strong but saying that you've seen that through his fighting. But his fighting does not show superior strength, it shows superior figthing ability.

I lift weights to benefit other areas of my life than martial arts, but the benefits of weight training carry over well into MA, if you lift with the right intent.

I think part of the problem is that if you don't do it right lifting weights can make you 'tight', contract your muscles, which is obviously not good for an external MA or an internal MA, or Wing Chun, which is both! But if you stretch your muscles and learn to relax when you're lifting then I can't see how the increased strength could not benefit your body, whether or not you need that strength for your MA.

[Royal Dragon]

Just lift first, and then do your forms and the worries of becomming tight and stiff are aleviated as the forms will keep you loose. Just don't try to do 20 sets o 3 reps as heavy as you can, keep the weight light enough to do between 12-18 reps, or someties even 30-40 reps (I go back and forth) and wieghts will benifit both internal and external arts.

as for the 70 year old man with no muscle power? WRONG!!!!!

Muscles move the body, there can be no movement with out muscle. If he is exibiting lots of strenght, he has great muscle development. It may not be in his arms where you can see it readily, but it IS there. As an internal styleist that generates power from the torso, he's got to have a WELL DEVELOPED muscular structure of the core body. THAT'S where he genrates power from, THAT'S where his muscles are most developed. End of story.

Rember, chi does not move the body, Chi Moves the muscles, and THEY move the body.

Just because you can feel your Chi, does not mean you don't need good muscle structure. Infact with out it, your not going to be able to do much. Put your 70 year old master up against Ken Shamrock, and lets see who does better. (I'm betting on Kenny)

[dezhen2001]

hey mate

ok - a bad example i guess... but like i said, i'm not so good at explaining what i mean

I guess it's just 2 very different ways of achieving what you want. I think the goals are very different between these methods of training, althought there is some crossover. The intent is also different...

david

[dezhen2001]

hi RD

i wasn't stating anything about fighting skill, it was just a made up scenario. All that i was trying to convey is that someone who does not have 'big muscles' so to speak or lift weights can still generate a very high amont of force. I was asking - why is this???

Like i said before, because there are different body mechanics and principles involved.

Sorry if it wasn't clear,

david

[GinSueDog]

red5angel,
I have got to agree with you there. There are only so many ways the human body can move. The principles and theories aren't really that different, just the methods.-ED

[red5angel]

ED - I believe if everyone were to go to a good school that was not what they are trianing in, for example, a TMA guy goes to a 'modern' school, they would find things are much more similar then they appear to be.

I am not saying that either has anything to offer over the other, some will find one way is better for them then the other, but this runs parelell to the argument about which style is better........

[shinbushi]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
If weight training in a gym impacts an internal artist negatively, then I would suggest that their understanding of the body isn't as good as people seem to make it out to be. It seems that if the goal of internal styles, w/respect to the body is to master its energy in all aspects, then weight training wouldn't harm it... after all if you've mastered the body's energy, what's a little exertion in a gym? There is nothing fundamentally different about lifting rocks than weights or working in a field.

I don't do any ki/chi arts but, lifting can be detrimental to fighting.
I was a bodybuilder (entered the Mr. Tokyo 65 Kilo class) and when I quit lifting for size and appearance, by movement got better. If you lift wrong it will make you very stiff. Several of my stutens have improved after swictching to either combat conditioning or Scrappers routine. I still lift but for functional strength only. Most people also don't lift with full range of motion (Especailly the Japanese, lived there saw it) and thus become rigid.

[Royal Dragon]

You said
"i wasn't stating anything about fighting skill, it was just a made up scenario. All that i was trying to convey is that someone who does not have 'big muscles' so to speak or lift weights can still generate a very high amont of force. I was asking - why is this???"

I say, because they are strong. They DO have well developed muscle structure. Especially if it's an internal guy. The difference is WHICH muscles are well developed. In the case of the internal guy, it's the muscles of the core body, and THAT is where thier power generaton comes from. They may "Look" weak, but if you stripped them naked, and watched thier core body during a movement, you would clearly see wher all the power was comming from. Now, if a guy with that level of development in his core body, had the size of Ken Shamrock elsewhere, he'd be vertually impossible to beat so long as he practiced real lif combat skills along with his body development.

Now that i'm doing some internal stuff, I'm hittng at least 3 time harder, just by applying the powere genration methods of the internal styles, and i'm not really that well developed. From a mechanical stand point, the core body can genrate much more power than just an arm or leg, and this can have a multiplying effect when added to arm and leg power, hence your real little 70 year old man with semmingly super human strength.

For a live example of a rather normal looking guy with this kind of hidden power, check out Wai lun Choi in Chicago, he's the example come to life, and can SHOW you the how's and why's of whats going on. Plus, he has weight lifting routines specifically designed for internal principals.

As for the lifitng being detrimental to fighting arrts, I think many guys (specifcally Keith Hackney and Ken & Frank Shamrock)will tell you MUCH different. It's not the lifting that's bad, its HOW you lift. Body building is BAD for Martial arts, strength training for sports performance is what we need. There is a difference.

I lift, and I have had no problems at all, infact only benifits. I'm faster, I can hit harder, and controll better. I'm not going for size mind you, but strength and power. If I get obsessive, and tighten up a bit, I jsut don't lift again until fully recovered, that's all.

[dre]

"Dre - I won't debate the pros and cons of boxing with you, Black Jack has already done that (thankyou Black Jack)."

OK

"I do realise that you train in a hard and realistic manner, and did actually say as much in my posts. But that is not the majority."

I agree with you, but in a larger picture. The majority of people train for Fun/SelfDefence/Heath (mental or physical) not to practicipate in hard contact fighting sports. I think this is true for both MMA and TMA. I'd say most (western) Boxers in the US are in it for health ,not to go fight for awards. There is nothing inherently wrong with other goals, it's just that they require different standards.

Also I think that self-defence and sport are very different things. Sport can greatly, greatly add to self defence skills ,but it isn't the whole thing (will a hihgly trained MT guy know how to get out of some mugger's bear hug? No, Not will out some self-defence drills ,but once he gets out of the Hug he can beat the living s*** out of his attacker).

"You talk about MMA and TMA as if they are seperate. The dirtly little secret is that (Darth Vader Voice of TMA) *MMA , I AM you father."

That may be true, but doesn't stop the fact that the son's training is now (in many cases) more realistic and effective than the Fathers."

I don't think traning methods are necissarily partial to "modern" or "traditional" although you are more likely to find some types of traning in those systems. I think there are some tradtional drills that are kind of overlooked (but highly usefull) to the Modern fighter (I'm thinking of Iorn Plam) but aren't put into the more eclectic systems. I mean , think of it, how is hitting hard stuff not going to make you a better fighter? There are of couse MMA drills that aren't included in many TMA schools too , but I think they'll get there.

"MMA fight, lots. I have never seen a TMA school that fought, lots"

I agree , generally, but the learning curve on TMA is usually longer , and TMA dosen't begin with a focus on Fighting Sports like lots of MMA does.

"No I don't, I said a lot of MMA gyms train more effectively than a lot of traditional kwoons. Because they fight a lot."

I think I remember you saying like 99% of Boxers/MMA Etc train for full contact , I might be wrong about the quote. But the idea of my statement was that that iws untrue ,becuase there are lots of "Heath-ers" in MMA , one becuase it's physically demanding, and two becuase of self-defence benefits.

"There probably are yes, but they are not what we are talking about, and even including those, I would venture that there are more boxing/MMA gyms that train effectively and realistically than there are 'proper' Kwoons. "

Hard to say, there aren't that many Kwoons. It wouldn't be hard for there to be "more" since there are so few Kwoons to begin with. KF is kinda on the rare side . . .

[red_fists]

Looks like, a few People didn'T read some of my Posts.

So I will repeat.

TMA has Weight Training in it, it is specialised and totally geared towards that specific System.

All the methods are contained within the System.

Problem is that this often only becomes a factor after many years of study and is often not apparent to an outsider.

Internal Arts use muscle strength, but only the minimal amount needed to overcome the Opponent, most of the power comes from correct Body structure/Alignement and optimized execution of the movements with coordinated Breathing.

Most external Arts at a higher Level will strive for the same .
Nuff said.

[Merryprankster]

dehzen,

Just so you don't think I'm a complete jerk, I really do think that there's way more similarity than differences between good training and good training What I'm trying to say is that the argument isn't over internal and external or TMA and MMA...it's over good and bad. Categorically denying the benefits of certain ways of training because "sifu said," is what sticks in my craw. I don't deny that "internal methods," whatever they may be, might be effective. I am skeptical of some of the more outlandish claims, but I don't dismiss it outright. Lack of confirmation doesn't mean "conclusively wrong." It means "We cannot demonstrate that it's either 'right' or 'wrong'." I deal with this in the intel world all the time.

I do, however, subscribe to occam's razor--the simpler explanation is the one you run with. If I can describe something in the very mundane and concrete language of biomechanics and physics, rather than discussing the somewhat ill-defined concept, of "internal energy," which has a definition that varies even from practitioner to practitioner, then I will.

What I am TRULY frustrated with, is the unwillingness of many people to apply critical thinking skills to their methods of training. This doesn't mean you have to reach the same conclusions as the next guy, but it does mean you have to actually think about what you're doing. It also means--and this is the very FIRST step in critical thinking, that you have to decide if "there is enough evidence," to support the assertions of your "argument."

For instance--take George Dillman and his pressure points. I know some people who have personally been knocked out, gotten sick, gotten wobbly, etc. However, I do not think this is enough evidence to say that what he is doing is interrupting the flow of chi through certain meridians, or even disrupting neural pathways. Why? Because the people who attend Dillman seminars are EXPECTING some kind of consistant "negative," result to their bodies. Even the skeptics (Meaning those who can be swayed by evidence) who are there KNOW who he is and what he claims to do. He will also say that these points don't work on everybody, and that makes me wonder if the people who think it's all crap are the ones it doesn't work on.

So what do you do? You conduct a double blind experiment in which the people getting "pressure pointed," don't know anything about what's going on, other than "this guy is going to touch you in some spots and we're going to record the results." The people who will observe/record the results will have absolutely no idea what the results are supposed to be either, so their observations aren't tainted. Dillman will NOT be allowed to talk about what he's doing. Observers would be allowed to talk to the subject only after he/she gets poked around. A unique observer would have to be used for each unique subject to avoid tainted results.

Now, if you get a hundred or so people who get poked around in this scenario, and 75% of them are knocked out by a particular combination, then Dillman's on to something.

But, if 75% don't or if the results vary wildly, like extreme happiness or calm in several person and nausea in others, then you can say that in all likelihood, he's probably not, and there are OTHER reasons behind the effects that manifest themselves at this seminars.

For those of you here who are dense--this is an EXAMPLE of a way in which you might try and verify a claim that is considered to be somewhat fantastic by many. I don't equate "internal training," with Dillman's pressure point techniques.

Or take your quarry stone and sledghammer example. If you tense the muscles in your body and take the impact off your hard tissue, the largish area of the slab, and inelasticity of the slab of stone means that the pressure is drastically reduced. The effects of this can be dramatic-- a force of 100 newtons on 1 sq cm-- 1cm on each side--results in a pressure of 100 (is it pascals? I can't remember). However, if I double the length and width to 2cm on each side, I've just QUARTERED my pressure. Breaking the slab dissipates a tremendous deal of energy that will never make it to your body, and anything that DOESN'T break the slab isn't going to be enough to actually hurt you, thanks to the reliance of pressure on it's inverse relationship to surface area. I'd be much more impressed if he took the shot from the sledgehammer by itself in the same place.

If it's explainable, easily, by physics and some biomechanics, I don't need to talk about internal energy--occam's razor.

I'm willing to bet that a knee to the stomach hurts more than somebody landing on it from six feet up---but I'll save that for later, because I"m strapped for time.

For years, football coaches told you not to drink water at practice because it would give you cramps. Don't lift weights because it will make you slow and tight, etc. Boxing coaches used to say the same thing about lifting.

There isn't a coach in the country that will tell you that now, and Holyfield had a successful run in the HW division after "bulking up." How you lift is rather important, as is stretching

Bodybuilding--the way it is now, is an example of a good thing gone wrong. Look at pictures of Frank Zane, and I think you'll see what I mean. His level of muscular development certainly wouldn't have inhibited any sort of activity. Plus there's nothing healthy about GH, massive amounts of steroids and gonadotropins, and synthol.

But this isn't the only way to lift. Look at high level wrestlers and olympic weightlifters (not the superheavies...c'mon!)--phenomenally strong, hard and dense-looking musculature... and yet, they also are simply "athletic."

In other words, lifting rocks or lifting weights doesn't matter--you're working against resistance, and I fail to see how internal energy could be hampered by one and not the other.

[dezhen2001]

you explained things far more eloquently than i could red

MP: don't worry mate, i know ur not an ogre I understand exactly what you're saying. None of the things i mentioned were meant to be taken as examples of 'mystical qi powers' or anything (I'm not rich mooney ), just skill developed by hard training. I'm sure that there are other ways of achieving the same effect, but what i was trying to show was that Internal training CAN develop this. It doesn't matter if you subscribe to the way things are explained or not - results are achieved, if you put in the time and effort.
Again, what i said were mearly examples, not to be taken that they were the greatest thing (re. your knee comment). I also find the way my Sifu explains things to me far easier to understand than physics and biomechanics etc. so that's how i understand things...

david