Tai chi, hsing i, Pa kua video clips!

[cha kuen]

Many good clips on hsing yi, waterboxing, chen tai chi and pa kua. His uprooting power is awesome and looks real.

Here's the link:
http://www.hsing-i.com/pics/index.html




kung fu books

[Shadow Dragon]

The Chen small Circle first section looks a bit odd to me.

Movements and sequence are different from the Small frame form I am learning.

Cheers.

[Walter Joyce]

Been there before. Looks external to me, if you care to make that distinction.

[Justa Man]

Looks external to me

You're buggin man. That's Mike Patterson.

[Walter Joyce]

Three things.

I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

It is not always fair to judge from a tape.

Fighting skill and internal fighting skill are two different beasts from the same family.

Just because it looks external to me doesn't mean it is, and doesn't mean its not fighting skill. Like I said to someone else recently, if someone kicks your a$$, you're not gonna say to him, "hey, that wasn't internal."

[Waidan]

That would be pretty funny though:

"Wow, that guy just threw you through a windshield and broke your collarbone!"

"Yeah, but it was all 'li'. Dude's got no real skill."

[Justa Man]

Just because it looks external to me doesn't mean it is, and doesn't mean its not fighting skill.

You're right. In this instance it is not external.

Like I said to someone else recently, if someone kicks your a$$, you're not gonna say to him, "hey, that wasn't internal."

What's your point?

[Justa Man]

Just because it looks external to me doesn't mean it is, and doesn't mean its not fighting skill.

You're right. In this instance it is not external.

Like I said to someone else recently, if someone kicks your a$$, you're not gonna say to him, "hey, that wasn't internal."

It would be pretty funny, like how Waidan said, but what's your point?

[Walter Joyce]

Whats your point? I think mine was clear enough.

[Kumkuat]

I don't think anybody here is good enough to determine if someone is moving internally by just a clip. And besides, just because you can kick someone's butt doesn't mean you're doing it internally.

[Justa Man]

My point.
You commented on Mike Patterson's clips, saying they look external. I said you were buggin. You then went on to say 3 things. One, that you could be wrong. Well, of course you could be wrong. That's why I said you were buggin. Two, that it isn't fair to judge from a tape. Well, of course it isn't fair Walter. I think everyone knows that. But that you know this, yet still judged is odd. Three, that fighting skill and internal fighting skill are two different beasts from the same family. Besides this last one being irrelavent to the topic, again you are saying something that is blatently obvious.

I felt like you could have gone further with your comments. Like maybe they were leadijng up to something, but you only stated the obvious, and thus I feel you had no point other than to point out the obvious.

So, Walter, what's your point?

[Stacey]

Those are some of the best looking CMA clips on the internet. He has kung fu. Internal and external are relative. Who cares, he can root, connect his body and move smoothly. I think his kung fu looks good.

[cha kuen]

Those are some of the best video clips on the net because Patteron actually has a foundation to work off of and his uprooting stuff is real and not like those guys that have his students jump back!

But...good stuff I think.

kung fu books

[Walter Joyce]

First, this is a board where people posts opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree. You twice asked for an explanation of my "point", so here it is.

As to "it looks external to me": this is not necessarily an insult. The basis of the comment lies in my earlier training in kenpo. In the system I studied at the highest level that I was taught in that system I saw a high degree of similarity in moving around an opponent and striking compared with what I saw in the ba gua applications videos.

Every internal art has an external component, get over it.

My second set of comments, without listing each and responding seriatim, were aimed at allowing for error in my assessment and stating what the possible basis for that error might be. My comments as to it not mattering what method was used if the person defeats you with it was an attempt at humor, and a assertion of the principle that at the heart of it, distinctions as to internal and external are more imortant in training than in fighting. Someone made the point, and think it was well stated, that no one here can tell for certain if someone is moving internally or externally from a video. I believe that videos are at best a guide to the external expression of any art, not its internal roots.

These are my opinions, feel free to express your own. When I express mine I accept that I may be wrong. I write here more to discover what I am trying to understand rather than to showcase any knowledge. (If that were my aim my posts would be less, and shorter.) Sometimes I think carefully before I post, other times I treat the board as a casual conversation and just post an off hand comment. The post in question was an example of the latter.

If you have it all figured out, and post for a different reason, then feel free to do so.

While this is only a type-written medium, I did detect a ceratin hostility to your posts. If I am wrong about that, well add that to any lists you may be keeping of my errors.

If I am right, I ask, whats the problem? Do you always get angry when you disagree with people or is something else at play?

[Justa Man]

Every internal art has an external component, get over it.

Your assumption is amusing Walter. I never had a problem with it to begin with.

You know, I did have a problem with you. Your first comment was what you decribed; treating the board as a casual conversation and just posting an off hand comment. I felt like once you got called out on it, you then went into the "free of liability" post. Your first post seemed to be exactly what you later described as a showcase of knowledge, just because it was as you described; short. It was this assumed knowledge you showcased incorrectly that ticked me off, because it's Mike Patterson we were looking at, not Joe Idaho who has some internal art clips for show on his website.
That was my hostility you correctly detected. But you explained yourself well, and I understand things better. There is however something about you I don't really like, I can't place my finger on it, but I don't have to like you. I respect you for your explanation and appreciate it.