I appreciate this is going back a few pages but since most of the stuff on those reams of pages that have sprung up since yesterday aren't worth reading from anyone, thought I'd go back to one of the subjects.
BTW, I wrote most of this at the beginning yesterday, but the internet image thing is holding truer.
One word answer: structure.Originally Posted by HardWork8
Well, I guess this is an internet image problem thing. I've got myself into a lot of trouble with various people on the net for 'speaking' frankly, but I don't really know how to present myself 'better' on these kind of forums. I don't have any of these problems face to face.Well, if you look hard enough then you may find some such schools as long as you don't provoke the " snots" by acting like the king of the (Wing Chun) hill.
And to be fair, while I'm sorry for my apparent attitude, you come across as a complete arse too!
Er, maybe that doesn't make sense! How would my lack of knowledge of any field influence someone I 'met' being a pompous ****? Apart from which, since I've said very little on the subject how do you know what my knowledge of internals is limited to?Maybe your unfamiliarity with certain internal concepts gives you the illusion that some internal practicioners are the way they are?
Not including my own fu in this, but I disagree with this assumption. You keep bringing it up and asserting it like it's true: it doesn't mean it's true. Many people have brought up examples to you of TCMA that are completely 'external' (if you even take a base definition) even if you don't agree that certain legitimate lines of WC are; ie Lau Gar, Hung Gar, CLF (though I'm not sure: there may be some internals in some CLF), White Eyebrow, Beggar... etc etc. The list is long. If you count one example of a meditative routine in one form as internal, maybe you have a point. I just thing it's wrong.There are no totally external schools (nor internal ones either) of kung fu!
The style is made up of various people, no? If the people in that style don't emphasise any internal... ipso facto.What determines the definition as "external" or "internal" is the emphasis that a given style places on them. That is why the idea of people practising Wing Chun as solely an external style is laughable.
My WC teachers have always emphasized that real kung fu IS boring: it's hard work.One of the surest ways of putting off students is by emphasising "boring" Chi kung.
And BTW, I have asked my teachers exactly what they meant. They meant breathing naturally: specifically ignoring the intent part, the chi part, the dantien. The intent in wing chun is in lat sau jeuk chung (sp?!): it is the natural (well, 'trained natural') forward energy to strike. Hence the emptiness, the chan.
More about 'natural breathing' in a minute...
Books. Talk to the high ranking Cheung students here and ask how much dantien breathing has featured in their practice over the years. That's if you want to use one from my list as a benchmark: considering your arguments with Andrew Nerlich, Phil Redmond and Victor Parlatti in the past on this board, perhaps Cheung isn't your best option for support.Also, William Cheung's book on the internals has quite a few exercises.
OK, well this is where I've got to take you up on this 'chest breathing' thing. I've lurked on a few boards and I don't know of anyone using that phrase. I don't know of anyone who'd agree with the concept. It sounds like a typical straw man to me.In our school, breathe naturally means breathing through the dantien. I have seen this in other authentic kung fu schools as well. And to be honest, I hadn't heard of natural chest breathing in kung fu (nor karate) until I started posting in internet MA forums...
Well to be honest. I don't see the good in breathing from your chest. According to TCMA theory and what I have been taught in kung fu dantien breathing is healthier.
When my teachers and I talk about breathing naturally without any mention of the dantien, we are still talking about concentrating on breathing by focusing on abdominal (diaphragmatic) contractions: just like I was taught in swimming, in tennis, in running, in darts, in snooker/pool, in archery, in boxing, in choir, in speechmaking, in MMA, in aikido, in karate, in kendo, in didgeridoo, in recorder. With the possible exception of swimming and sprinting when you're really going full belt and there's no other option, you don't see any of these people's chests move excessively. Bear that in mind as we move on to your discussion of dantien breathing method...
OK, first, thank you very much for taking the time to explain your breathing process: I know it's difficult for anyone, and that English isn't your first language.I breath through my nose while my intention is placed at my lower abdomen and dan tien. The intention here leans on subtility and not tension.
There is hardly any chest movement. During strikes, breath is released from the pit of the stomach through the mouth (sometimes through the nose)...
When not striking one breaths naturally through the dan tien in a relaxed manner. The aim is to eventually breath that way all the time to make it NATURAL for real. Relaxed dan tien breathing also contributes to the higher level softness and sensitivity required in advanced training whereas a more tense manner of breathing inhibits hypersensitivity.
I agree with most things in your paragraph. The bits we do differently, or that I disagree with I've bolded and I'll look at now.
1) We tend to breathe in through the nose. We do not focus any 'intent' on our abdomen. From what I've been taught about intent, intent should be on striking your opponent, full stop. Your intent leads your strikes. If your intent is focused within yourself you do not have appropriate release of your power. There's nothing mystical about this: to me it's the same as Fedor saying he fights everyone as though they're personally trying to harm his family (except that maybe that's a bit nuts... which is maybe why I'm not an unbeatable world champion, but I digress!).
At higher levels of 'internal' method, and martial principles in general, some people say there should be no intent, but that's a different story.
2) 'Not tension' - sometimes, for some strike patterns, tension in the abdomen is a good thing.
3) 'Breath is released from the pit of the stomach': this is obviously a digression from anatomical/physiological fact, and straying into visualization. I think this is the main difference between your 'dantien breathing' and my 'abdominal breathing': you use visualization. The charlatan internal teachers I've met in the East and West who couldn't tell you or demonstrate exactly what they wanted you to do physically would always talk about chi or use some analogy, some visualization. The good ones would use the analogy once you'd got it to some degree, just as a teaching tool. It's like the truism that in the East, people don't talk about 'chi/ki' as anything mystical, or pseudo-physical like it can be manipulated. I'm not saying that you're talking ****, just pointing out a couple of differences in your way of thinking and mine.
I snipped this bit, because this is completely odd to me. The length of breath has no relation to the strike, though as you say, the contraction may do. It's not something I would ever focus on or say, this breath is for this strike, but it's something I would hope would come naturally after practice. And it seems a little at odds with your statement earlier that you don't use tension in your abdomen in any strikes.The release of the breath is longer for more penetrative strikes and also emphasis is placed on the part of the abdomen/diaphram's expansion or contraction depending on the type of the blow delivered.
LOL! My teacher taught us both, and said, 'Do what you like!'. Personally, I like that aspect of HK based attitudes.Some styles of kung fu advocate the placement of the tongue on the ceiling of the mouth others don't. In my Wing Chun school we do both.
Again, I think your idea of 'natural chest breathing' is largely a straw man.Well, I said what I said because logically speaking for most people in the West who breath naturally through the chest it is the easy way out when compared to the more unusual way of breathing naturally through the Dan tien.
Of course.While we are on the subject of the internals, it is worth mentioning that the training is multifaceted and involves other areas and levels and is not just about "deep breathing".
That depends on definitions, translation and the attitude of your teacher. I don't mean attitude like 'good' or 'bad', just that cultural attitudes affect training a lot too. HK teachers have a more relaxed attitude than some others I would say. I had a Malay WC acquaintance for a while too, who had a completely different attitude too. I say, somewhat nebulously, that some of SLT is for practising 'energies', so I'll say, 'Use this energy' or 'Use that energy', where other teachers may use a chi analogy. I can explain them all in terms of a fist hitting an opponent's body and explain them too though. And the intent is always externally projected: ie the focus is always on beating someone down (to put it crudely for effect).Also, I had not come across WC people who did not recognize the first part of Siu Lim Tao as on one level, a chi kung exercise.
is this an attempt at sarcasm / belittling in order to generate some sort of emotional response on my part? are you suggesting that a) I don't actually understand dantien breathing / qigong or that b) my sifu is "no good"? that's a pretty odd thing to say, considering you don't know anything really about my training / his instruction; again, this seems typical of your ad hominum attack m/o, which for some strange reason you can't seem to forgo even during an attempt at a reasoned discussion about technique; anyway, please don't be concerned about "teaching" me anything - from the way you discuss internal / qigong, it is readily apparent that your level of experiential understanding is far less than mine, there is really nothing at all that you have to offer me in this area;
