Just good body mechanics?

[t_niehoff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CFT]

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

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

There is, for example, optimum ways of performing a hip throw, a hook kick, etc. Not an internal hook kick, and external hook kick, an internal hip throw, and external hip throw, etc.

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

[chusauli]

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

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

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

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

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

[t_niehoff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[t_niehoff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[grasshopper 2.0]

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

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

[t_niehoff]

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

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

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

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

[Hendrik]

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

sure,

knowing

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

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

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


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

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

[Pacman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hendrik]

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

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

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