Question about internal blocking

[SAAMAG]

In essence he is correct. However, he is correct according to a specific context which is different than the context that was implied in the question. In a sense he is saying, "Yin is Yang and Yang is Yin, it is the interplay of the two principles that causes life." Which principle "appears" to predominate at any one time depends upon the context one is using to define a specific phenomena.

I use the example of three bowls of water to illustrate this principle.

Let us take three bowls of water. One has 40*F water, the second has 60*F water, and the third has 80*F water. The question is, is the second bowl filled with warm or cool water? The answer depends upon which other bowl we are contrasting it with. When contrasting it with 40* water it is warm, when contrasting it with 80* water it is cool. Inherently it is neither warm nor cold. It is one or the other depending upon the context; depending upon what it is contrasted with. Inherently a block or movement or limb or mind is neither alive nor dead, we merely "refer" to it as live or dead to illustrate contrasting phenomena or conditions of being. The terms are useful expedients that allow us to communicate apparent differences between phenomena.

Since an arm is living flesh your Sifu is correct, it cannot be anything other than alive, however according to the context of the principles under discussion it may be "referred to" as live or dead.

Relative to the energy being displaced or absorbed or stopped. The goal is to make sure the incoming attack doesn't hit it's target while leaving the defender in a position to counterattack.

One thing I've learned through the years is that defensive tactics are for the most part universal. If something works it works, if something doesn't it doesn't. Doesn't matter where it comes from really. I've seen more similarities between systems than I have differences (in those systems that actually have and maintain a fighting background).

[Scott R. Brown]

Relative to the energy being displaced or absorbed or stopped. The goal is to make sure the incoming attack doesn't hit it's target while leaving the defender in a position to counterattack.

One thing I've learned through the years is that defensive tactics are for the most part universal. If something works it works, if something doesn't it doesn't. Doesn't matter where it comes from really. I've seen more similarities between systems than I have differences (in those systems that actually have and maintain a fighting background).

Hi Van,

I agree with your comment, but I am unclear how your comment here applies to the comment you quoted?

[HardWork8]

I highly doubt that...

Well you are wrong. You just don't see what you don't want to see. You have demonstrated that in another thread.

yes, but you used it to press your own personal agenda, using it as a way of pointing out that he didn't understand what you were saying;

That is because VanKuenDIDN'Tunderstand what I was saying. The only person who has demonstrated a concise understanding of the subject is Scott R. Brown and to some extent you and TaiChiBob. NOBODY ELSE!

if you still don't get why that is uncool, then that's as may be, I'm not gonna press the point any longer

Well I'll drink to that!

right - he was "secretly" getting info to use against you on a "secret" internet formum that you would have no way of knowing how he got that "secret" information

No he was hoping that you and others would come out and say that you didn't know anything about it OR that this was a BS concept,etc. Then he would have come and debunked the concept of "live" blocks/striking and would have attempted to ridicule me.

I know some people who have more than a passive knowledge who never used that term,

Well, it seems that Vankuen was not one of these people!

although they displayed characteristics similar to others who did; and the way they explained their stuff was reflected in their choice of terms; hence the use of "subjective", as there is no standard "objective" lexicon for describing these things

Say what you will. Anyone remotely familiar with the concept of "live" blocking/striking under whatever name, would have recognized and appreciated the subject matter from the info that I had provided.

no, what I mean is that I don't know about what you were trying to explain to Vankuen specifically, because i was not involved in that discussion (or if I was, have forgotten about it by now) - meaning that it may or may not have been the same thing, but that I was speaking from my own direct experience as to what i thought the terms suggested

Well, thanks for clarifying that.

and BTW, as far as correlating the usefulness of this skill in combat: can you provide an example of where you have applied this yourself in either a NHB or "street" setting?

No I can't. I have not fought in NHB. I did not have any of these skills when I was involved in street fights. Infact I am still developing them.
I can tell you that they are valid skills for those who understand their potential, who by the way, would not have asked the question that you just did.

I haven't had a thing to say to or about you since our exchange sometime ago, and quite frankly had forgotten all about you until you showed up on this thread; so how exactly am I carrying around anything?

Does "go fu(k yourself" ring a bell?

besides, I have more than enough on my plate dealing with your immediate idiocy here, no need to reference past material;

Any idiocy here is yours. You are protecting Vankuen who has already made an idiot out of himself in the other thread as well.

First, he had no idea what I was talking about and was accusing me of selling my "magical Chi" powers, then when others backed up what I was saying he turns around and in not so many words says, that he knew all along. Then you are here protecting him.

He also couldn't see that no matter what the situation, the concept of redirecting force is a defensive move.

As always you seem to be very economical with the truths that you see.

I'd say that any guess you make would be hazardous;

It would be if it was a guess on your or Vankuen's honesty or intelligence.

anyway, the only way to really know if I, or anyone really "understands the concept" is to touch hands;

Not really and you have missed the point. I don't have to touch hands with Scott R. Brown to know that he understands the concept and by the same token, I don't have to touch hands with Vankuen, to know that he has absolutely no idea about this concept.

I mean the man didn't even appreciate the inherent differences between the Shotokan way of blocking and the internal way...LOL!

which if you are ever in NYC, you are more than welcome to come by and do;

NO need for that, but I will hold your hand if you want.

otherwise, no matter what I say, you can always draw some sort of conclusion that I don't know what I am talking about, as is your wont...

Rather like you have many times yourself about me?
Don't get me wrong. You seem to at least know/have an idea of the subject. That puts you ahead of most "Kung fu" men in these forums.

fortunately, I am quite secure in the level of my own experience, you can deride it all you like, it doesn't change the nature of what I know

The same statement applies to me as well.

you should talk to Shadowlin about setting up a thread dedicated to chastising me for my behavior -

I am not familiar with Shadowlin and his problems with you.

Did you also gang up on him with a few other dishonest forum "traditional kung fu experts", who don't believe in internal training and think that forms are outdated. Is that why he doesn't like you?

it would doubtless provide hours of entertainment for you both

No thank you. You and Vankuen have provided enough entertainment (not to mention laughs) for me recently.

[SAAMAG]

Hi Van,

I agree with your comment, but I am unclear how your comment here applies to the comment you quoted?

Wrong button. I'm so used to quoting instead of just simply replying. Most of the time I read something and it gets me thinking about something related, and so I just hit quote a lot of times even if it doesn't directly relate. Sorry about the confusion.

[SAAMAG]

I'm going to respond to you one last time, and one last time only. After that...you're on ignore unless you make posts that are constructive.

No he was hoping that you and others would come out and say that you didn't know anything about it OR that this was a BS concept,etc. Then he would have come and debunked the concept of "live" blocks/striking and would have attempted to ridicule me.

Your psychic abilities are failing you here. I asked because you couldn't or wouldn't answer. I even stated that in the other thread.

First, he had no idea what I was talking about and was accusing me of selling my "magical Chi" powers, then when others backed up what I was saying he turns around and in not so many words says, that he knew all along. Then you are here protecting him.

Re-read what was said, in both threads. Don't nickpick pieces of sentences like you usually do, really read it and try to understand. "Your idea" is a common idea in gung fu and also non-chinese styles. There are other styles that have the same concepts. EVEN KARATE stylists. I wasn't sure what you were talking about with those two words...so I wanted elaboration. You simply need to be able to back up whatever you make claims about...or at the very least elaborate on it. What's your inherent problem with that? You seem to be more concerned with getting defensive and arguing with people (which I see you've done your entire time here) instead of simply backing up your statements.

I get caught up in the moment sometimes as well...regretfully so. Long story short...I wanted you to elaborate on the two words you were using. You didn't. This thread was created as a byproduct. That's it. End of story. Let it go.

[HardWork8]

I'm going to respond to you one last time, and one last time only. After that...you're on ignore unless you make posts that are constructive.

Yes act superior so as to hide your "foot in the mouth" moment.

Your psychic abilities are failing you here.

It is your 22 years of MA experience that is failing you here (at least as far as kung fu is concerned).

I asked because you couldn't or wouldn't answer.

I answered it, but you couldn't see it. Because? Because you did not know what the heck I was talking about.

I even stated that in the other thread.

You have stated a lot of crap in these forums.

Re-read what was said, in both threads. Don't nickpick pieces of sentences like you usually do, really read it and try to understand.

Yes, that is it, pretend that I am the one who is in error so as to divert attention from your own lack of knowledge regarding "live" techniques.

"Your idea" is a common idea in gung fu and also non-chinese styles.

Well, if it is common then why did you not know anything about it?

YOU COULD NOT EVEN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A SHOTOKAN BLOCK AND AN INTERNAL BLOCK! LOL,LOL,LOL!

There are other styles that have the same concepts.

Can you name the other styles please? I am really curious and can't wait to learn something from you for a change. LOL!

EVEN KARATE stylists.

Please name the karate styles in question. There are karate styles who touch upon these concepts but none as profoundly as the Internal Kung Fu styles.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about with those two words...

It seems that you still aren't sure either and besides, if you had enough knowledge then you would not have needed elaboration MrVan"sensitivity is sensitivity"Kuen.

so I wanted elaboration.

And you got "elaboration" from Scott R. Brown who actually knows about the subject. Furthermore he elaborated using the same info that you found confusing Mr Van"redirection is redirection"Kuen.

You simply need to be able to back up whatever you make claims about...

I did and it was just enough for those who knew about these concepts to understand what I was talking about, Mr Van"redirection can be both attack and defense"Kuen.

or at the very least elaborate on it.

I gave you enough info. Others managed to understand but you didn't. FACE IT!

What's your inherent problem with that?

The inherent problem here is all yours. You don't seem to have any credible knowledge of authentic kung fu.

You seem to be more concerned with getting defensive and arguing with people (which I see you've done your entire time here) instead of simply backing up your statements.

My statement was backed up. You had no idea about the concepts.

I argue because there are those here who pretend to be experts in kung fu while possessing a superficial knowledge. When confronted, they HIDE behind false accusations and lies, while at the same time d1ck waving their many years of "MA" experience and "qualifications" LOL!.

I get caught up in the moment sometimes as well...regretfully so.

Regretfully for you.

Long story short...I wanted you to elaborate on the two words you were using.

You still don't get it do you? It was not a puzzle. Anyone who has been exposed to internal MAs will be able to understand the concept of "live" strikes and blocks, ESPECIALLY when provided with their distinctions with Shotokan techniques.

You couldn't because you and most people here do not seem to have knowledge of those internal concepts.

You didn't.

I did. It is you who didn't understand!

This thread was created as a byproduct. That's it. End of story. Let it go.

This thread was created by you because YOU didn't know anything about the concept of "live" blocks/strikes.
YOU made comments in the other thread that proved this fact.

Furthermore, when you were enlightened by Scott R.Brown you could have come back and acknowledged the fact that I was talking about valid concepts that you did not know about. Yes, and even apologize to me for suggesting that I was selling my "Magical Chi" powers.

Instead you came back and said that these were common concepts. Proving once and for all that you still did not know what these concepts are all about and that your current grasp of them is rather superficial, presumably like the rest of your "kung fu" knowledge.

[SAAMAG]

So speaking of communication...

I think the problem is when someone is starting his or her sentences with "YOU". This is implying that the author of the text is somehow in the know on what the other person's intentions/thoughts/motives were in previous communications. This of course, is wrong on the level that it is simply impossible to know these things. One can infer, one can surmise, one can guess...but not know.

Starting any discussion/debate/argument with the word "you" is not productive. More often than not, the person "in the know" is wrong, and this causes even more problems when the person using the terms believes his or her own created rhetoric.

Hopefully, for the sake of communication, we can all learn to perhaps not assume we know what the other person is thinking, or knows, or what their motives were. I think that is the key to success with any type of communications, be them sychronous or asynchronous.

[HardWork8]

So speaking of communication...

I think the problem is when someone is starting his or her sentences with "YOU". This is implying that the author of the text is somehow in the know on what the other person's intentions/thoughts/motives were in previous communications. This of course, is wrong on the level that it is simply impossible to know these things. One can infer, one can surmise, one can guess...but not know.

Starting any discussion/debate/argument with the word "you" is not productive. More often than not, the person "in the know" is wrong, and this causes even more problems when the person using the terms believes his or her own created rhetoric.

Hopefully, for the sake of communication, we can all learn to perhaps not assume we know what the other person is thinking, or knows, or what their motives were. I think that is the key to success with any type of communications, be them sychronous or asynchronous.

YOU didn't know about the concept of "live" blocking/striking (vs. "dead" blocking/striking).

YOU still don't!

YOU, as we speak, have realized that this is a valid concept eventhough YOU don't really understand it yourself.

YOU demonstrated an ignorance of the fact that redirection of force is primarily a defensive action.

YOU demonstrated an ignorance the difference between an internal kung fu style block and that of an external karate style such as Shotokan. A distinction that should be understood by all those who have taken their kung fu training holystically and beyond that of mediocracy and the practice of "glorified kickboxing".

YOU accused me of selling my "Magical Chi" powers, attempting to discredit what I was saying.

YOU then turn around and said that you knew all about it, and going on to wrongly state that it was a common concept in all kung fu and other martial arts, including some karate styles. Further proving that you really hadn't a clue about the subject. LOL!
Of course, all this after Scott R. Brown explained this concept,LOL!

YOU failed to apologize to me when the truth jumped out of your computer screen and slapped you in the face, going on to blame my "lack" of explanation to cover your lack of kung fu knowledge.

[HardWork8]

In essence he is correct. However, he is correct according to a specific context which is different than the context that was implied in the question. In a sense he is saying, "Yin is Yang and Yang is Yin, it is the interplay of the two principles that causes life." Which principle "appears" to predominate at any one time depends upon the context one is using to define a specific phenomena.

I use the example of three bowls of water to illustrate this principle.

Let us take three bowls of water. One has 40*F water, the second has 60*F water, and the third has 80*F water. The question is, is the second bowl filled with warm or cool water? The answer depends upon which other bowl we are contrasting it with. When contrasting it with 40* water it is warm, when contrasting it with 80* water it is cool. Inherently it is neither warm nor cold. It is one or the other depending upon the context; depending upon what it is contrasted with. Inherently a block or movement or limb or mind is neither alive nor dead, we merely "refer" to it as live or dead to illustrate contrasting phenomena or conditions of being. The terms are useful expedients that allow us to communicate apparent differences between phenomena.

Since an arm is living flesh your Sifu is correct, it cannot be anything other than alive, however according to the context of the principles under discussion it may be "referred to" as live or dead.

Great way of explaining the point. Again, what you have explained should have been easily understood by anyone who was exposed to the internals of kung fu.

I believe that someone here has to change their Tai Chi instructor or at least to understand the subject matter before putting forward a question to that instructor, so as to not phrase it in the wrong way. Or maybe do both.

[Scott R. Brown]

I have it on excellent authority that Scott now sleeps much better at night having been made aware of this

Well I did before you posted this:

Scott could simply be a silver-tongued devil who uses his capacity for being erudite to fool us all into complacency...hey, wait a minute...

Even though I have told you privately, "I am going to have to ELIMINATE YOU!!!", because of this indiscretion (you blabbermouth!) I now must announce it to the whole world in order to keep all the others quiet and under control!

So let it be known and shouted from the highest rooftops,

I WILL ELIMINATE CHRIS!!!!

I will do so quickly, but in a painful and probably very bloody manner, and when he least expects it. Probably tomorrow night at about 8PM if I can catch my flight to NY. If I can't get the flight I'll have to pencil him in for another time. However, even if it takes 30 or 40 years to get around to it, rest assured, I WILL GET YOU CHRIS!!! AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!!!

P.S. I'll be sure to post it on YouTube so you can all see for yourself what happens when you cross a silver-tongued dev......er...... I mean... ME!

[mawali]

I never heard of the concept of internal blocking before but I will take a stab here!
To me such a concept does not exist and for those who give it presence/thought, they were either not taught properly or they are reading too many translated material based on fantasy.

Someone throws a punch and you initiate an internal block, how do you do that?
Perhaps it is the phrasing of the understanding, I don't know. You must throw an appendage (hand or foot, preferably hand) to stop the block if you are using a low level MA but in CMA, as I understand it, approaches the use of tuishou principles to blend the attack and dissipate to throw the attacker by using his own momentum. The low level block appears (I do not know) to be just a one stage act without a fluid or continuous post action continuance or ending of the initial momentum. Block, to me, as understanding implies a 'static' action, though it is valid as a way to stop an onslaught!

There are efficient and inefficient blocks and from my own CMA teachers, a block is associated with a low level art! I have never heard any of my CMA teachers use the word 'block'. They have insinuated 'merging ' 'blending' 'absorbing' and similar analogies when one responds to an attack.

[SAAMAG]

In general, styles and theories aside, there are only a few ways one can keep themselves from being hit, listed in what I feel is most desired to least desired.

1. Not be there
__a. Typically involves footwork and/or body movement

2. Redirect the attack:
__a. Typically involves meeting the attack and moving it away from it's target in a subtle manner. This is often times combined with using the attacking force to gain an advantage; ie. the idea of pushing when pulled and pulling when pushed for example. This movement can be done both defensively or offensively.

3. Block the attack:
__a. Requires movement of the arm or leg to sharply collide with the attacking force in an effort to force it off it's path--this can be done with varying levels of force to simply "tap" the attacking force or to "smash" it, ie. the intent of the block can be offensive or defensive in nature.

4. Absorb the attack:
__a. Cover the intended target to absorb the attack. This is literally taking the attack in real time, but absorbing it through a part of the body not originally intended as the target. ie. using the arm to cover the side of the head when punched, raising the shin to literally stop a kick, raising both arms to create a wall or barrier, etc.

These ideas are seen in almost any style that uses a pragmatic approach to fighting, regardless of whether it's internal, external, from inside china, outside china, done in a gi, or in a dobok, or in really really really tight tights. The energies that are present in each method are dependent upon the individual, not the style of fighting, and can vary depending on the individuals intent and conditioning.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In general, styles and theories aside, there are only a few ways one can keep themselves from being hit, listed in what I feel is most desired to least desired.

1. Not be there
__a. Typically involves footwork and/or body movement

2. Redirect the attack:
__a. Typically involves meeting the attack and moving it away from it's target in a subtle manner. This is often times combined with using the attacking force to gain an advantage; ie. the idea of pushing when pulled and pulling when pushed for example. This movement can be done both defensively or offensively.

3. Block the attack:
__a. Requires movement of the arm or leg to sharply collide with the attacking force in an effort to force it off it's path--this can be done with varying levels of force to simply "tap" the attacking force or to "smash" it, ie. the intent of the block can be offensive or defensive in nature.

4. Absorb the attack:
__a. Cover the intended target to absorb the attack. This is literally taking the attack in real time, but absorbing it through a part of the body not originally intended as the target. ie. using the arm to cover the side of the head when punched, raising the shin to literally stop a kick, raising both arms to create a wall or barrier, etc.

These ideas are seen in almost any style that uses a pragmatic approach to fighting, regardless of whether it's internal, external, from inside china, outside china, done in a gi, or in a dobok, or in really really really tight tights. The energies that are present in each method are dependent upon the individual, not the style of fighting, and can vary depending on the individuals intent and conditioning.

You talk as if getting hit is a bad thing, I can't tell you how many peoples fists I have smashed with my face and how many kicks I have crushed with my groin !

[SAAMAG]

see, here is where I have a problem with you: your propensity to abrogate individuals who you have decided do not "get it" according to your own highly selective criteria, as to what constitutes "true" gung fu skill as if it were a universal benchmark; I wish it were isolated, but for some reason it's a mindset with which TCAm is rife; it's this "what I know is the real deal, anyone who doesn't know it isn't" elitism that I find distressing; like there is some set of distinct hierarchy that everyone has to travel up through to get to the same "truth"; sorry, just doesn't sit well with me, and doesn't stand up to the test of reality; to wit, I can tell you that GM Chan Tai Shan never talked about, taught or demonstrated anything as concerned usage of his gung fu in fighting that resembled the sort of "internal skills" that you seem to be talking about ("live / dead", "sticking", etc.) and that I have since been exposed to in my experiences with bagua, taiji and other so-called "internal" styles that have informed my opinion as I have expressed it to Vankuen (in fact, he was of the opinion that that entire approach was of no use at all); and I am pretty confident that he had more "real" gung fu in his "byu ji" than you have in your entire body; of course, you can say that CTS had no idea of what real gung fu was if you like...
my point is that you have this set of criteria for what constitutes "real" gung fu skill / knowledge and you apply it to others as if it were some sort of fundamental law of the universe; I take issue with this based on a) direct experience with what I would consider "real" gung fu that does not fall into the particular skill sets you appear to value so highly; b) I generally distrust the opinions of people who fervently support a given perspective when perpetuation of their own self-identity / interest and / or livelihood are dependent thereupon; see, I used to think this way - I was convinced that there was a better way to which everyone ought to subscribe; now i realize that there is a better way - for me, not necessarily the next guy; meaning that, in fact, i have no particular issue with the way you or anyone else wants to pursue their own particular path; but what I do take issue with is when someone tries to universally extrapolate their approach via a perspective of exclusivity stating that anyone who does not "get" your perspective doesn't have / know "real" kung fu; I mean, why can't you just describe what you have / know and if someone else has a similar set of experiences, then you have something to talk about, and if they don't you can elaborate on your own state of understanding, and leave it at that, instead of trying to qualify it as "real" or not? if nothing else, you would certainly come across as less pedantic and TCMA-zombie-like

That was pretty much my problem as well. The idea of the "secret" society of "real" gung fu stylists. It's been propogated far too long. I only have one thing I ask of ANYONE and that is to back up one's [sweeping] claims with intelligent, logical, and pertinant details. That's it.

So if someone were to say for example: internal chinese gung fu training gives it's students a more profound level of sensitivity over someone who doesn't train in internal chinese gung fu. I would say--how so? Given that everything is empirical, so how does internal training give someone an advantage over another person from a biological perspective? We all recieve tactile inputs, we all use the same nervous system to transmit data to the brain, the brain interprets the data, we react.

There are many people who have great sensitivity, who don't train anything "internally". Kali / Escrima, JKD, Judo, Jiu-jitsu, Wrestling, MT, and any other style that deals with having to anticipate the opponents intention through the sense of touch should have great sensitivity. I would also venture to say that those styles mentioned above would be better at applying it in a live environment because of the more realistic training atmosphere.

But that's neither here nor there I suppose. It's just a thought that was never manifested due to a degredation in communication. Perhaps you all might have some thoughts on it?

[SAAMAG]

You talk as if getting hit is a bad thing, I can't tell you how many peoples fists I have smashed with my face and how many kicks I have crushed with my groin !

That's one of my quotes..."if you haven't been hit in the head yet -- you haven't started training"