Why you don't understand "Internal" yet..

[Matthew]

But lack of demonstration of applied skill cannot eternally be deferred on the grounds that applied skill is only ‘one part’ of wushu.

I agree - if you want to learn to apply it to something effectively, then you have to practice applying it to that.

I think the issue here is defining "applied skill". If it means learning how to apply my bodily mass with great efficiency of movement and maximization of force generation and then delivery (as in why I showed the clip of muhammad ali) - then you could readily see that "applied skill" using an axe while splitting wood, or while hoeing the ground.

This seems very close to saying that the effectiveness of nei gong is proved by the level of everyone who does anything well

The proof could be in how efficient they are, how much energy expended in their movements, and possibly in how much force they can generate, and deliver. This doesn't prove combative ability, and I haven't made claims that it does.

I'm arguing that Chinese arts have an organized system that provides expedience in developing Nei Gong.

The muay thai, san da and MMA coaching methods can churn out competent fighters, one after the other, on an industrial scale.

Competent ring fighters - yes.

If your goal is ring fighting - then you need to spend effort on tailoring your training toward those limitations.

This is a qualm you might have with TCMA in general, but most people I know practicing TCMA aren't doing it with interest to fight or win in rings - whereas most I know doing MMA, muay thai, etc have that as their primary motivation.

Whereas, [despite industrial ability of other arts to churn out fighters] we cannot even get a video of one well-known internal master punching a bag full contact. That also is a bit of an unfortunate pickle.

I really don't understand what you expect a video of someone hitting a bag to do for you.

Anyway - William CC Chen is seen hitting a bag for a couple seconds at the beginning and later in this clip : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tMo8gE2Yk

He mentions teaching Nei Gong, and visually looks quite efficient in movements despite being very old (maybe 80s?).

He also mentions in an interview that he never spent time in his life focusing on the health aspects of the art - and I believe I read that he churned out a couple decent ring fighters.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think more relevant to testing would be videos of research that can show body coordination and plug into muscle groups to compare efficiency. But who would even fund such research is the biggest question, issue, and challenge I see. Not much money on the table for "alternative" therapies/healing modalities, and even less that I'm aware of for longer term mutli-faceted studies it would demand.

Example 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN88QIsMHqA If this had more funding behind it - you could add in more variables, account for activated muscle tissues, test for muscle efficiency/o2 expenditure, and other things.

In the end though, All that probably wouldn't prove any single Nei Gong developing practice is better than another - due to intrinsic uncontrollable variables from person to person.

What research might be able to show is that certain nei gong practices (controlled) consistently (if you had large enough samples of people doing consistent interval tests bi-monthly while practicing those nei-gong developing methods) could achieve results in bodily power generation, possibly in power delivery (with sensors on a bag) in relation to bodily efficiency.


Example 2) Less scientific, but an example for you because you wanted people punching bags.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVkjj...tu.be&t=17m12s

It’s like claiming that western boxing proves nei gong and then saying that even so, the Chinese do it best. That just doesn’t add up.

I didn't claim western boxing proves anything.

I mentioned that Muhammad Ali looked to have fair amount of physical efficiency in movement and balance that could be attributed to some level of internal ability.

And I didn't say Chinese do anything best - I said they have organized methods to develop Nei Gong.

That would mean that these practices to develop Nei Gong could be taught Without learning any fighting (ex. Boxing in a Ring) and thus can have greater application to the myriad of things we do in our daily lives.

it rings an alarm bell for me, from a sports science perspective, when non-fight application seems to be more emphasised the more the subject turns to fight application.

My primary goal in practice is health benefit, so that's what I emphasize. If I had more free time, I would spend it doing volunteer work, finishing home renovations, traveling, or other things I don't get time to do- then if that were all done, I would spend extra time to train combative application and practice.

However, if all we’re saying is that nei gong improves some basic structural skills and balance, then there’s no problem with that.

Well - IMO there are tangible and less tangible benefits of it.

I don't claim to know the ultimate definition of Nei Gong, and certainly different schools/teachers definitions have variation.

My only beef, really, is people who over-emphasise one aspect of a total training programme, when martial arts should have a rounded and integrated training programme. In

We can't control people's practices and beliefs, and any emphasis they place on their daily activities.

America is in a health epidemic - not everyone wants to learn how to apply efficiency of movement to fighting people.

I can understand why you say you are frustrated though - but if you relieve the "TCMA" of having any ego or self - then who cares what others think of "TCMA" as a vague generalized whole? If you can spar, defend yourself, or fight in a ring - then be the example you wish to see/others to see.

[YouKnowWho]

most people I know practicing TCMA aren't doing it with interest to fight or win in rings ... My primary goal in practice is health benefit, so that's what I emphasize.

Thanks for being honest. Now I know exactly where you come from. For a while I had a feeling as a chicken was trying to talk to a duck.

If one trains

- combat and he says that he trains health, he is humble.
- health and he says that he trains combat, he is bragging.

We have just seen too many of this stuffs. It's hard to be serious about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UdFvoXI6VU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CHFp9THyBc

[Miqi]

I agree - if you want to learn to apply it to something effectively, then you have to practice applying it to that.

I think the issue here is defining "applied skill". If it means learning how to apply my bodily mass with great efficiency of movement and maximization of force generation and then delivery (as in why I showed the clip of muhammad ali) - then you could readily see that "applied skill" using an axe while splitting wood, or while hoeing the ground.

Hi Mathew,
That people become good at things doesn’t in any way support Chinese nei gong training. It may be that efficient movement is, theoretically, what Chinese nei gongs sets and practices claim they will achieve – but it is a logical fallacy to claim that anything that is done efficiently is therefore a proof of the effectiveness of Chinese nei gong sets.

The proof could be in how efficient they are, how much energy expended in their movements, and possibly in how much force they can generate, and deliver. This doesn't prove combative ability, and I haven't made claims that it does.

I'm arguing that Chinese arts have an organized system that provides expedience in developing Nei Gong.

To be clear, what you are saying is that the proof of nei gong training is in its development of more efficient power generation. If you say that the evidence is anyone who has more efficient power generation, that’s a logical fallacy – Ali didn’t use Chinese nei gong; his power generation comes from a completely different training programme. We should avoid ‘result theft’ and show Chinese practioners with superior power generation methods. And we should avoid disparaging people who ask for evidence of this very bold claim.

I don’t disagree, by the way, that there is a peculiar ‘nei gong’ if you like developed way of punching. I just don’t believe that anyone really understands it without being able to do it to some degree, and that applies to me as well. And I would also suggest, respectfully, that if you talk about it, you must know it, and you should avoid shifting discussion to health and wood chopping when the issue is raised – otherwise, we’ll talk in circles for ever.

Competent ring fighters - yes.

If your goal is ring fighting - then you need to spend effort on tailoring your training toward those limitations.

This is a qualm you might have with TCMA in general, but most people I know practicing TCMA aren't doing it with interest to fight or win in rings - whereas most I know doing MMA, muay thai, etc have that as their primary motivation.

I think we should be very, very careful of using the fact that some arts produce competent fighters as some kind of ‘evidence’ of their inferiority to other ‘traditional’ arts. That seems to be a logical fallacy to me – one we usually hear from JKD practioners. While it is a given that TCMA is geared to more than just fighting, and also that ring fighting is a different ‘problematic’ to other fight scenarios, the merits of any TCMA coaching method in terms of fighting abilities are not raised by other schools’ focussing on ring fighting.

Nor is quite correct to avoid questions of application by appeal to the merits of non-combat related supplementary benefits. In my view. I also feel embarrassed to make these points – I feel like I’m being rude.

I really don't understand what you expect a video of someone hitting a bag to do for you.

I feel a bit embarrassed then, like I’ve asked a really stupid question – which I may have. My training is quite basic compared to what you’re talking about, so I think in basic terms, like, can you hit a bag.

What I expect depends on the context. Starting with me, I expect to able to demonstrate – to an amateur, middle aged level and appropriate to any claims that I may have made about my level or abilities (which aren’t big claims) – that I can punch a bag with at least some power, that I can show a particular shen fa peculiar to yiquan, that I can demonstrate its difference to western boxing and other kinds of punching. I also use a lot of western boxing training, and punching methods – just depends what I’m doing. The faster, the more boxing like. However, I can and do demonstrate relaxed, whole body power as per yiquan, and as per my level, before talking about abstract theory. I don’t claim to be a master, I don’t have any students and I don’t need money from martial arts. And I don’t really show anything beyond that – there again, I’ve not claimed to able to do anything beyond that. I just show what I’m talking about for critique and mutual discussion. I also expect not to censor criticism. And I hope that I might set an example to people who do make a lot of money and have a lot of students and do claim high levels of understanding and by definition, ability – because the reality is, if you claim to understand it, then you’re claiming to be able to do it, despite modesty.

I expect anyone who claims to know, to be able to do, and so to be able to show. Unless they’ve become disabled. I would expect to lose face if I didn’t demonstrate in the same arena anything that I claimed in that arena. This is the TCMA way as I understand it.

For those who talk about superior efficiency from nei gong, I expect a video that shows it. And not some nonsense with a compliant student. For those who have light touch fly away power, I expect you to show it on an inanimate object. For those who talk obnoxiously about superficial ‘external’ muscling of mere inanimate objects and mere external ability, to show better, or be quiet. For those who claim to be powerful, skilled and knowledgeable in public in a way that insults others (that isn’t you Mathew) but then won’t show themselves, I don’t expect them to sit in silence and ponder the old rules of the CMA world – but I wish they would.

And most of all, I’d like the really famous masters to put up convincing videos – and let us amateurs free from putting ourselves forwards as the only examples.

[Miqi]

What research might be able to show is that certain nei gong practices (controlled) consistently (if you had large enough samples of people doing consistent interval tests bi-monthly while practicing those nei-gong developing methods) could achieve results in bodily power generation, possibly in power delivery (with sensors on a bag) in relation to bodily efficiency.

No. We should separate this kind of thing from combat training, and stop using it a shield to deflect attention from combat training. It’s valid, interesting stuff – but it’s not an excuse.

I didn't claim western boxing proves anything.

I mentioned that Muhammad Ali looked to have fair amount of physical efficiency in movement and balance that could be to some level of internal ability.

Personally, I would be wary of borrowing Ali’s skill to prove the efficiency of a method he never used. If anything, it proves his trainer’s method is better than yours.

And I didn't say Chinese do anything best - I said they have organized methods to develop Nei Gong.

That would mean that these practices to develop Nei Gong could be taught Without learning any fighting (ex. Boxing in a Ring) and thus can have greater application to the myriad of things we do in our daily lives.

I like to think that somewhere there’s a lumberjack forum where the following conversation is taking place:
A. “How does nei gong apply to woodcutting? Do you have a video showing your method and results?”
B. “Nei gong is for more than just woodcutting – it could be useful for other things, such as fighting as well.”
A. “Yes, but how is your woodcutting any different to anyone else’s?”
B. “Nei gong is about doing things efficiently. Jimmy Smith, the world champion lumberjack is a great example of nei gong.”
A. “But Jimmy Smith doesn’t do nei gong.”
C. “Anyone who uses any actual force when cutting a tree is merely muscling the tree using external force. Here is a video of someone just touching a tree with his axe lightly, and it falls over. That’s the real internal nei gong woodcutting.”
D. “I think I’ll just buy a chainsaw.”

My primary goal in practice is health benefit, so that's what I emphasize. If I had more free time, I would spend it doing volunteer work, finishing home renovations, traveling, or other things I don't get time to do- then if that were all done, I would spend extra time to train combative application and practice.

Xinyidizi’s ‘stages’ argument is wrong, partly just because it is, and partly because it allows people to say that even though they have no practical ability, nevertheless they are still owners of the high powered race car. In reality, you theoretical understanding and practical training are closely tied together in and mutually informing system in my view. Which means if you practice health benefits, then I take you at your word – and your understanding of anything else is limited by that.

Well - IMO there are tangible and less tangible benefits of it.

I don't claim to know the ultimate definition of Nei Gong, and certainly different schools/teachers definitions have variation.

We can't control people's practices and beliefs, and any emphasis they place on their daily activities.

America is in a health epidemic - not everyone wants to learn how to apply efficiency of movement to fighting people.

I can understand why you say you are frustrated though - but if you relieve the "TCMA" of having any ego or self - then who cares what others think of "TCMA" as a vague generalized whole? If you can spar, defend yourself, or fight in a ring - then be the example you wish to see/others to see.

In my experience, the concept of attacking people for having ‘an ego’ is just a way of defending oneself, or one’s beliefs from criticism. Perhaps a wiser approach is to recognise that we all have egos. And then the real teaching of the Buddha, which you mentioned, might, somehow let us have a bit of compassion for those who needed to pretend to have skills and abilities that they didn’t really have. I don't really mean you by that Mathew - you've tried to explain a fairly basic distinction in terms and application, and I thank you for that. Good luck with your training and health improvement.

[Matthew]

No. We should separate this kind of thing from combat training, and stop using it a shield to deflect attention from combat training. It’s valid, interesting stuff – but it’s not an excuse.

Miqi - I don't believe Internal training is independent in the scope of TCMA - but it can be developed independently and is especially useful for those with physical ailments.

I'm not sure if I'm being perceived as "shielding to deflect attention from combat training" - because the purpose of this thread is aimed at helping 1) define, 2) discuss and 3) discover if and how internal development practices in TCMA are quite expedient at developing bodily efficiency.

I see you aren't inclined to isolate Nei Gong development and fighting - which is fine, but you are posting in a thread that is isolating it purposely (for right or wrong) - in order identify what it is people mean when they use the term internal.

Personally, I would be wary of borrowing Ali’s skill to prove the efficiency of a method he never used. If anything, it proves his trainer’s method is better than yours.

This is really my own fault - I should have been using the term more like "practices to develop Nei Gong" for clarity since the beginning.

There is misunderstanding in why I posted a clip of Ali. Nei Gong was being used as a descriptor of someone's skill in bodily efficiency.

Nei Gong (internal skill) in its most general application sense, was defined (by me) as the ability to generate and deliver power. Muhammad exhibited that. It is defined as that, not "proven" by that.

His teacher may very well have had some understanding of how to develop nei gong (internal skill). I have seen videos of mexican boxers who are concerned with efficiency of motion, although it would be far fetched from saying they developed organized systems comparable to those some TCMA have.

It's still a language/terminology issue - even someone who didn't practice to develop nei gong, but knew Chinese language/culture might be able to help explain better.

C. “Anyone who uses any actual force when cutting a tree is merely muscling the tree using external force. Here is a video of someone just touching a tree with his axe lightly, and it falls over. That’s the real internal nei gong woodcutting.”

I agree - it would be silly for english people in daily conversation to mis-use a Chinese term.

Further - I don't know why you are repeatedly associating videos like that with the definition of nei-gong development/practice after being linked to other teachers hitting punching bags who are from TCMA schools.

I assume you've cut wood and realize how poor people often do at their first attempts to chop wood - they depend heavily on shoulder and back muscles with very low efficiency of movement.

You could teach someone to develop internal skill (nei gong) through chopping wood, as long as you gave them very specific feedback on how they are inefficiently using their force, bodily structure, breathing, etc.

B. “Nei gong is about doing things efficiently. Jimmy Smith, the world champion lumberjack is a great example of nei gong.”
A. “But Jimmy Smith doesn’t do nei gong.”

Nei Gong is simply a chinese terminology - don't get stuck at that point.

Just because someone did not do Chinese Nei Gong (internal development) practices, it doesn't mean they wouldn't Develop Nei Gong (internal skill), IMO it only means they aren't using an organized or systematized way to develop it (or teach it).

Just because chopping an axe is one technique TCMA - it would be erroneous to say all people must study TCMA to use an axe. Your imaginary conversational argument makes a similar error.

Xinyidizi’s ‘stages’ argument is wrong, partly just because it is, and partly because it allows people to say that even though they have no practical ability, nevertheless they are still owners of the high powered race car.

IMO, the fast race car is an inadequate analogy. It could imply "fast car will win a race" as "strong or efficient body will win a fight" which is obviously silly.

but let's expand it beyond the speed variable to really utilize that analogy.

Here is one extreme of the spectrum:

You have your "fast car", but your car's ignition timing is wrong (your 02/gas ratio is wrong), and your tire camber is off (needs alignment), timing belt has some slippage, etc.

Then the car's efficiency is low. This could be likened to many amateur MMA fighters that I'm personally friends with. They have a huge motor, and could still "beat me in a race (fight)", but it says little about their efficiency in expending energy.

THIS is where nei gong development can help them expediently develop efficiency. Sure, eventually they would develop it in fighting anyway, but they may have "blown the motor" or "damaged the transmission" by then.

This is the core of my argument - expedient teaching of internal development methods can be done- NOT that Muhammad Ali can knocking people out proves combat efficacy of internal development.

I gave some possible research methodologies in my last post for testing the "expediency" of such teachings.

In reality, you theoretical understanding and practical training are closely tied together in and mutually informing system in my view. Which means if you practice health benefits, then I take you at your word – and your understanding of anything else is limited by that.

I emphasize health practice, so no, I don't emphasize combat training as my primary goal at this point in my life.

I also have only spoken on the health efficiency aspects, and shown, where applicable, how they apply to anything the body does (including combative training.)

Again - just as a fighter shouldn't only focus on internal development -

a race car driver wouldn't dismiss a car mechanics advice on tuning, motor buildout, etc.

In my experience, the concept of attacking people for having ‘an ego’ is just a way of defending oneself, or one’s beliefs from criticism. Perhaps a wiser approach is to recognise that we all have egos.

Thank you

And then the real teaching of the Buddha, which you mentioned, might, somehow let us have a bit of compassion for those who needed to pretend to have skills and abilities that they didn’t really have. I don't really mean you by that Mathew - you've tried to explain a fairly basic distinction in terms and application, and I thank you for that.

I can see that the quality ( lack thereof) in my explanation of the Chinese term has been inadequate and caused misunderstanding.

I appreciate your feedback on it, because it offers me a chance to hone my language practice/ability.

[bawang]

I can see that the quality ( lack thereof) in my explanation of the Chinese term has been inadequate and caused misunderstanding.

then stop typing.

your words flow like diarrhea.

[brucereiter]

Thanks for being honest. Now I know exactly where you come from. For a while I had a feeling as a chicken was trying to talk to a duck.

If one trains

- combat and he says that he trains health, he is humble.
- health and he says that he trains combat, he is bragging.

We have just seen too many of this stuffs. It's hard to be serious about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UdFvoXI6VU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CHFp9THyBc

This type of video and practice Makes me embarrassed and angry, I love tai chi chuan, hsing I and Bagua and have spent many years developing my skills.
I would love to meet this guy and have a exchange with him. In my opinion he is a idiot and the people who follow him are insane. I wish dale freeman would not use the names tai chi chuan, hsing I or Bagua to describe what he does. He should be ashamed! And the brain washed weak minded people who follow him just disgust me.

To me ima has nothing to do with health, how ever one of the many benefits of internal martial arts practice is increased good health. With out the martial art part of ima I do not think one can get the health benefits of ima.

Empty force as show in these type of videos is stupid.
Until I meet a human who can do that to me against my will I call bull****.

[rett]

This type of video and practice Makes me embarrassed and angry, I love tai chi chuan, hsing I and Bagua and have spent many years developing my skills.
I would love to meet this guy and have a exchange with him. In my opinion he is a idiot and the people who follow him are insane. I wish dale freeman would not use the names tai chi chuan, hsing I or Bagua to describe what he does. He should be ashamed! And the brain washed weak minded people who follow him just disgust me.

To me ima has nothing to do with health, how ever one of the many benefits of internal martial arts practice is increased good health. With out the martial art part of ima I do not think one can get the health benefits of ima.

Empty force as show in these type of videos is stupid.
Until I meet a human who can do that to me against my will I call bull****.

My first thought on seeing that video was that it must be a spoof.

Do you, or does anyone else know for sure if that's actually supposed to be real? Is that what they actually do at that school?

It's just pushing straight against pushing. My understanding of a more skilled response would be to change the angle of contact so the push loses force and the pusher's balance is compromised (even if only slightly). Or something like that.

(I won't even comment on the waving the arms and making the guy roll around part)

[brucereiter]

My first thought on seeing that video was that it must be a spoof.

Do you, or does anyone else know for sure if that's actually supposed to be real? Is that what they actually do at that school?

It's just pushing straight against pushing. My understanding of a more skilled response would be to change the angle of contact so the push loses force and the pusher's balance is compromised (even if only slightly). Or something like that.

(I won't even comment on the waving the arms and making the guy roll around part)

It is my understanding based on the videos and the website http://sifudale.com/Home_Page.html that dale freeman is delusional and thinks what he presents is real martial art.

I am going to call the number on his site and see if he will talk to me.

[Dale Dugas]

Something bad happened in 2007 with this person.

http://www.oregon.gov/omb/boardactio...ugust15_07.pdf

Bad enough they levied this against him and his licensure.

*FREEMAN, DALE OWENS, LAc; AC00213; SHERIDAN, OR
Licensee entered into a Stipulated Order with the Board on August 2, 2007. This order placed the following conditions on Licensee's Oregon acupuncture license: reprimand, quarterly Board reporting, may practice only at the Grand Ronde Health and Wellness Clinic in Grand Ronde, Oregon. All other practice locations must be pre-approved by the Board's Acupuncture Committee.

Licensee may not examine or treat any female patients. Licensee is restricted to seeing only male patients 18 years of age or older. Limitations regarding acupuncture instruction.

Must maintain a chart for each patient and document treatment provided. The terms of Licensee's March 3, 2005 Stipulated Order remain in full force and effect, except the chaperone requirement in that Order has been superseded by the terms of this Order.

Sounds like hippie qi gong boy has some nasty background with females.

RED FLAG RED FLAG

[bawang]

It is my understanding based on the videos and the website http://sifudale.com/Home_Page.html that dale freeman is delusional and thinks what he presents is real martial art.

hes just a predator. video looks like standard new age cult indoctrination, childhood regression + hypnosis

[YouKnowWho]

To me ima has nothing to do with health, how ever one of the many benefits of internal martial arts practice is increased good health. With out the martial art part of ima I do not think one can get the health benefits of ima.

Agree with you 1000% there. I started my Taiji training when I was 7 years old (that was almost 60 years ago). I also train XingYi and Baga (8 palms only). It's very funny for me to argue with "internal" guys that "internal" is more than just for health, self-cultivation, and inner peace.

[Dragonzbane76]

lol def. a red flag dale.

[Matthew]

I started my Taiji training when I was 7 years old (that was almost 60 years ago). I also train XingYi and Baga (8 palms only). It's very funny for me to argue with "internal" guys that "internal" is more than just for health, self-cultivation, and inner peace.

Hi John, Sad to see you have decided to ignore the definitions/concepts many people have laid in this thread for what Internal (Nei Gong) means and how it is intertwined with the external practices.

Further - if you are so experienced and have so many years on most people here- I hope you will serve as a good example for the future, not only in your leading discussions on martial efficacy..

but in realistically addressing people here instead of falsely categorizing your own imaginary group of people ("internal guys") who are posing imaginary arguments from a unified front of "health, self-cultivation, and inner peace".

[xinyidizi]

With out the martial art part of ima I do not think one can get the health benefits of ima.

If by the martial art part you mean the fighting part then I'm not sure how getting kicked in the nuts or getting knocked down can give us health benefits.