What does "internal" mean to you?

[wenshu]

I am actually interested to hear why bawang thinks xingyi is ineffective.

More often than not when you strip away the hyperbole and off color humor you find he has a legitimate and well sourced reason for his opinions. Not saying I'll agree with it but the kid tends to know his shit.

Or I could go the Forum Thug route and challenge everyone who offends my delicate sensibilities. That's certainly one way to carry it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am actually interested to hear why bawang thinks xingyi is ineffective.

More often than not when you strip away the hyperbole and off color humor you find he has a legitimate and well sourced reason for his opinions. Not saying I'll agree with it but the kid tends to know his shit.

Or I could go the Forum Thug route and challenge everyone who offends my delicate sensibilities. That's certainly one way to carry it.

I think that Bawang said that the way Xingi is done NOW ( over emphaises on forms and "bridging" ) is ineffective and that in the "olden times" it was more of a "one punch, one kill" system.

[wenshu]

I think that Bawang said that the way Xingi is done NOW ( over emphaises on forms and "bridging" ) is ineffective and that in the "olden times" it was more of a "one punch, one kill" system.

Yeah that's it, I'm curious about where he got that.

[Mike Patterson]

[QUOTE=IronFist;1170362]

Bridging is when your forearms are touching. It's what happens in the process of "trapping."
[QUOTE]

Nope. If your forearms are touching, you are already way past the bridging stage and into full on engagement.

Like I said, Ironfist... we don't speak the same language. I teach fighting for a living so I look at things differently.

Bridging is the act of getting to the point of initial engagement. It can be accomplished many ways. Direct trapping is certainly an option against an extended guard, but it will never work against a closed guard. Bridging can also be accomplished by combination, provocation, invitation, flanking, etc., etc., etc.

If you say that your way is the way TCMA view, then all I can say is that you don't run in the same circles that I do, which I had already ascertained.

I was educated in the old way. WE have many ways to do all things.

[sanjuro_ronin]

[QUOTE=Mike Patterson;1170366][QUOTE=IronFist;1170362]

Bridging is when your forearms are touching. It's what happens in the process of "trapping."

Nope. If your forearms are touching, you are already way past the bridging stage and into full on engagement.

Like I said, Ironfist... we don't speak the same language. I teach fighting for a living so I look at things differently.

Bridging is the act of getting to the point of initial engagement. It can be accomplished many ways. Direct trapping is certainly an option against an extended guard, but it will never work against a closed guard. Bridging can also be accomplished by combination, provocation, invitation, flanking, etc., etc., etc.

If you say that your way is the way TCMA view, then all I can say is that you don't run in the same circles that I do, which I had already ascertained.

I was educated in the old way. WE have many ways to do all things.

This is really one of the big issues we seem to have.
I see this in WC and in Taiji and many other systems.
One mans' Xingi is not another and we seem to be "inundated" with what is clearly not being "spoken" in the same language.

I got my first glimps of this in WC when exposed to different "understandings" of Chisao and saw the same thing in Taiji with push hands.
As an example:
The typical Yang Tiaji push hands was a very impractical "sensitivity" drill, while the Chen Taiji I saw was more like "clinch fighting".

Of course THE issue is that what we tend to hear is ( in regards tot he practical expression of IMA):
That isn't the "real" *insert IMA here* but just "brawling" or "poor kickboxing".
That we tend to hear that from other "IMA" practitioners speaks volumes, no?

[Mike Patterson]

Of course THE issue is that what we tend to hear is ( in regards tot he practical expression of IMA):
That isn't the "real" *insert IMA here* but just "brawling" or "poor kickboxing".
That we tend to hear that from other "IMA" practitioners speaks volumes, no?

Oh yes... been there done that ad infinitum, Sanjuro. Back in the youth of the internet, I had people tell me that what I was doing was not real IMA. And when I would ask them to define it, they could not. Thing is.. I can. And not only can I define it, I can teach it, use it, teach others to use it, etc.

One especially long winded fellow told me; "Well, so what that you can fight like ten tigers, that doesn't mean you are doing real IMA". So I asked him to define what real IMA was and he listed out a few qualities.. so I had him look at me doing form and asked him publicly if he thought I had those same qualities. He had to say I did indeed.

So what the hell? These are supposed to be martial arts, are they not? IF... I can demonstrate proper form and function.. demonstrate all qualities that are supposed to be embodied in same AND I can both use it effectively as well as teach others. What does that make me? Am I NOT an Internal martial artist?

Some people have a very odd view of the martial arts in my opinion, Sanjuro. I prefer to stick with fighters. They tend to all hold the same views.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Finding good IMA's is like finding good Ninjitsu or Aikido, its exists...it takes a higher degree of skill to execute well in my opinion, and is difficult to find because of the mysticism surrounding these arts they also draws lots of pretenders...you could say that about most martial arts I suppose, but in particular these arts have taken the brunt of it.

I admire great examples of these arts when I see it, I just don't think I could particularly execute them well myself. Just stylisticly and mind sent. Much more of a hard stylist myself.

This same argument goes on all the time in Aikido forums as well. The softening of the present day Aikido much like the fitness versions of Tai Chi. AT one time I checked out many of the Aikido dojo's locally and only found one or two who practiced a harder more realistic 'style'. I tried it but found that I wasn't good at blending...I want to direct my attacks rather than counter.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Oh yes... been there done that ad infinitum, Sanjuro. Back in the youth of the internet, I had people tell me that what I was doing was not real IMA. And when I would ask them to define it, they could not. Thing is.. I can. And not only can I define it, I can teach it, use it, teach others to use it, etc.

One especially long winded fellow told me; "Well, so what that you can fight like ten tigers, that doesn't mean you are doing real IMA". So I asked him to define what real IMA was and he listed out a few qualities.. so I had him look at me doing form and asked him publicly if he thought I had those same qualities. He had to say I did indeed.

So what the hell? These are supposed to be martial arts, are they not? IF... I can demonstrate proper form and function.. demonstrate all qualities that are supposed to be embodied in same AND I can both use it effectively as well as teach others. What does that make me? Am I NOT an Internal martial artist?

Some people have a very odd view of the martial arts in my opinion, Sanjuro. I prefer to stick with fighters. They tend to all hold the same views.

It goes back to the old "form VS function" my friend.
To many it MUST look like xingi ( as in how the moves are done in a form) for it be xingi.
It is the same critique leveled at many TCMA ( WC comes to mind) and the more different a MA looks in practice, the more different it is "suppose" to look like in a fight.
We don't see that and as such the criticism leveled is, to a degree, valid.

[bawang]

I think that is likely the source of your problem with Patterson and his persona. One comment or two? hahahaha. dozens and always thematically similar? yeah...that says something about you whether you like it or not.

many internal and kung fu people in general i met have tried to sucker punch me. and i take it out on the internet. when i see someone make a post that reminds me of those peoople i sh1t on them for fun. i am very open about my reasons.

as for racism, i work out alot now and it makes me ornery. sometimes i take it too far so i edit them. i apologize if i come off that way. deep inside i am white just like you. i just have a bad case of jaundice.

also, i dont know if you know this, but the only reason i come to this forum is to p1ss people off.

[David Jamieson]

many internal and kung fu people in general i met have tried to sucker punch me. and i take it out on the internet. when i see someone make a post that reminds me of those peoople i sh1t on them for fun. i am very open about my reasons.

as for racism, i work out alot now and it makes me ornery. sometimes i take it too far so i edit them. i apologize if i come off that way. deep inside i am white just like you. i just have a bad case of jaundice.

also, i dont know if you know this, but the only reason i come to this forum is to p1ss people off.

1. Then they aren't internal kung fu people, they're idiots.
2. lol at internalized resentment.
3. Yes, I know that.

[Mike Patterson]

It goes back to the old "form VS function" my friend.
To many it MUST look like xingi ( as in how the moves are done in a form) for it be xingi.
It is the same critique leveled at many TCMA ( WC comes to mind) and the more different a MA looks in practice, the more different it is "suppose" to look like in a fight.
We don't see that and as such the criticism leveled is, to a degree, valid.

The many are ignorant, Sanjuro, nothing more.

The following quote is from Chen Pan Ling's original book on Tai Chi Chuan. For those of you who know who this man was, I need say nothing else. For those of you who don't, do some research. He was a peerless boxer in his time.

"You can practice Tai Chi using large circular movements; but combat conditions requre small, curved movement."

IMA in practice is practice only. The method of practice allows us to feel each body part and its respective role within the context of fluid power dynamics. Once those qualities have been absorbed and then IMA is used for fighting, the movement structures will no longer be recognizable to other than a highly trained eye.

Form... is NOT fighting. Fighting is fighting.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The many are ignorant, Sanjuro, nothing more.

The following quote is from Chen Pan Ling's original book on Tai Chi Chuan. For those of you who know who this man was, I need say nothing else. For those of you who don't, do some research. He was a peerless boxer in his time.

"You can practice Tai Chi using large circular movements; but combat conditions requre small, curved movement."

IMA in practice is practice only. The method of practice allows us to feel each body part and its respective role within the context of fluid power dynamics. Once those qualities have been absorbed and then IMA is used for fighting, the movement structures will no longer be recognizable to other than a highly trained eye.

Form... is NOT fighting. Fighting is fighting.

And see, THIS is why Shifu Patterson has my respect.
This is what people who DO, know and what people who don't do, have no clue about.
I would simply add to that in saying this:
It is in fighting that all the "secrets" are unlocked and I venture to say that unless one DOES fight they will never truly understand their art.

[IronFist]

It goes back to the old "form VS function" my friend.
To many it MUST look like xingi ( as in how the moves are done in a form) for it be xingi.
It is the same critique leveled at many TCMA ( WC comes to mind) and the more different a MA looks in practice, the more different it is "suppose" to look like in a fight.
We don't see that and as such the criticism leveled is, to a degree, valid.

Even though that's a different argument, I'm on that side of the fence.

If you train WC vertical fist centerline punches all day from YJKYM and then in a fight take a kickboxing stance and throw crosses and hooks, you're not doing WC.

Some people will say "BUT WE ARE USING WC PRINCIPLES THEREFORE IT IS WC."

To that I say lol.

Every art says that. Every art has pretty much the same principles, you know, things like "efficient use of power" (there are no arts that say "we use power and motion inefficiently"), or "keep good balance" (there are no arts that say "we intentionally fight from a mechanically disadvantageous position"), or "strike your opponent's weak points" (there are no arts that say "we aim for targets that won't do much damage").

The "principles" of every martial art are:

- defeat your opponent
- use focus, strength, leverage, power, speed
- protect yourself

So how do martial arts differ? In their application of those same principles.

A WC punch is different from a boxing punch.

A WC stance is different from a boxing stance.

WC blocks are different from boxing crab defense.

etc.

(I use WC and boxing as examples because they are very different)

It is laughable for a WC guy to step into the ring, throw jabs, crosses, and hooks, shell up for defense, and then claim he was using WC. He was boxing. Sure, maybe his WC training influences his approach to boxing, maybe he aimed his jabs and crosses at his opponent's centerline, but he was still boxing, not doing WC.

These people might as well speak Spanish and claim they are speaking German. After all, both Spanish and German have the same principles, you know, the use of nouns and verbs and conveying information.

But there's an even more important point that those people are missing:

Why train one way if you're going to fight another way? That goes against everything sport science knows about everything!

Neurologically speaking, training punches chambered at your hip all day does not carry over to punches thrown from a boxing stance chambered at your chin as well as training punches from a boxing stance chambered at your chin all day does.

Training WC punches from YJKYM has minimal carryover to boxing style punches from a boxing stance. Therefore, if you are going to fight in a boxing stance, you are wasting your time training in YJKYM if the purpose of your training is to make you a better fighter.

If when someone fights, it looks like kickboxing, they should spend their time training to be as strong as efficient in kickboxing as possible. Otherwise it's like playing checkers all day in order to prepare for a chess match.

And don't even get me started on the people who boast that they spend 45 minutes on Sil Lum Tao, the first 40 of which on the slow tan sao at the beginning.

This stuff is up there with qi blasts, "weights make you slow and inflexible," and "lift with your tendons, not your muscles."

You can't blame people for thinking this stuff, though. Most of them are given this misinformation from their instructor, and most people dare not question their instructor (lest they be qi blasted for their insolence or whatever).

[IronFist]

It is in fighting that all the "secrets" are unlocked and I venture to say that unless one DOES fight they will never truly understand their art.

I'll agree with this 100%.

You can replace "fight" with "training against a resisting opponent" and it's still true.

Just so long as you're not doing a 10 hit combo against someone who left their arm extended after they threw a punch that wasn't going to hit you even if you didn't block it.

[Mike Patterson]

Even though that's a different argument, I'm on that side of the fence.

If you train WC vertical fist centerline punches all day from YJKYM and then in a fight take a kickboxing stance and throw crosses and hooks, you're not doing WC.

Some people will say "BUT WE ARE USING WC PRINCIPLES THEREFORE IT IS WC."

To that I say lol.

Well... I'm not able to speak about the WC aspect of your diatribe, Ironfist as that is not my system. But you may have just answered your own original thread query in your twisted logic.

To an internal martial arts practitioner, form is training only, and a means to an end. It is not considered the end unto itself.

For us to be able to learn our methodology of mechanics, the movements initially must be big. Otherwise, a student has little to no hope of actually understanding how the body works in our way.

So "internal" to me, is a system of training... nothing more. You may not agree with our system as we see it, but it is our method and it works if done properly.

Just one simple (well, relatively) example. Pi (splitting) is composed of two parts in our system in relation to "form" and has a footwork that is a step through and half step follow up in relation to it's "form". But to us it is a template of how to utilize a certain body mechanic in relation to force. Namely up to down.

In addition to the standard footwork found in the initial "Pi" movement, however, we also have variants of footwork in terms of when force is released. I.E. front foot, rear foot, conjoined.

So... if in a fighting context, I am to use "Pi".. am I then constrained to using only the archetype of its original form? Or can I utilize the first part of the form only? The second part of the form only? May I use it with front foot, or rear foot, or conjoined release in terms of timing? If I do none of these things, then it would NOT be Xingyi.. but if I utilize any of these things in conjunction with proper body mechanics, then it most certainly is Xingyi.

If you don't get that it's not my problem. But that is the "internal" way.