• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

"Internal" strength in the martial arts

What do you think?

  • Internal strength is different from regular strength

    Votes: 4 6.8%
  • Internal strength is really just regular strength

    Votes: 55 93.2%

  • Total voters
    59

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
Anyone with some exposure to the martial arts has heard about 'external' and 'internal' martial arts.

I wrote this up recently on the issue

http://www.statisticool.com/internal.htm

Is their vector theory the best they can do? It isn't really a convincing theory I must say.
 
I'll admit to being a bit confused by some alleged aspects of martial arts. Ch'i in particular.

My first instructor was an ex-street rumbler. He taught us two styles, in a sense. We learned the traditional Japanese techniques/style (the "Formal" way of doing things) and also what he would often refer to as what works on the street.

One of the things that was stressed to us was that timing was a major factor in delivery. We were taught to, basically, get all the associated body movements working together to use the full effect of the momentums involved, concentrated at the point of contact. Nothing mystical there. Just getting the most "body" behind a punch as possible, while using stances that attempted to get the best compromise between speed and power ("if it's all power and no speed it won't land, if it's all speed and no power, it won't do any good if it does land").

When I first found Randi's weekly tidbits, I was a bit put off, while going through past issues, by some comments he made negative toward martial arts. I haven't had a formal lesson since the 80's. My first was in the early 70's. I have never been told about any mystical powers. Everything we were taught relied on using our bodies to the best of our abilities. Heavy drilling on timing and reflexes. Lots of drills on combinations. I never realized that the field seems to have been invaded by Woo. A little research eased my feelings about Randi's comments, but caused me some concern about where the martial arts were headed.

Now, all that being said, I've never heard the Internal/External thing. My opinion is that true martial arts are nothing more than learning how to use your body to it's maximum potential. I believe (based on the schools I was trained in) that a 4 part training regime -

1. Physical exercise/stretching

2. Formal technique training, solo and with partners, and reflex training *

3. Kata practice

4. Free style sparing

gives a good balanced way of learning any martial art. Done properly, you end up in good general physical condition. Have a large range of "tools" available to use, should the need arise (note that we were told to avoid conflict when possible). Have a good degree of self confidence, and (IMHO) no need to "Prove" that you are tough. Case in point, I was about 16 when I started my training. I'm about 52 now. There has been one time that I had no choice but to fight (I was grabbed by the arms by two guys that were walking past me). That is the only time I used (the pure basic fighting aspects of) my training in self defense. But over the years, I believe the general benefits of the training have served me many times and very well, from my general health, to my ability to think well under pressure, along with what I believe would be a long list of other benefits. Again, nothing mystical, just good physical and mental training.

OK, I rambled a bit. Sorry. But in summary, I think to deliver a good punch boils down to getting your body moving in the proper direction(s) at the proper time, and bringing it all together on your opponent. Now, whether that's External or Internal or what, I don't know. I think it boils down to using the right muscles. in the right way, at the right time :)

I will add that sometimes speed is more important than power. In the case I briefly described above, it was a quick snap kick to the groan that took the fight from 2 on 1, to 1 on 1, and allowed me to walk away, while the 2 thought things over ;)

* We had a few methods of working on reflexes. One was to be running in place while our instructor walked around us. He would yell Drop, or Jump, and swing a plastic tube at our head, or knees (never applying more than a gentle tap, if he made contact). My favorite involved using a string of lights he had along one wall. He would line us up, one half facing the lights, and one half with backs to them. He had a long cord with a switch attached for the lights. We would practice whatever "movements" we had been working on. Those facing the lights would attack when the lights flashed on, this required those defending to react to the movement, not the command to attack.
 
I think that the phenomena that are attributed to "internal strength", "Ki", "chi", or what have you are better explained by body mechanics, (kinesthesiology?)
or in some cases fakery.
Some of the fakery may not be deliberate. I have seen chi "demonstrations" passed on by teachers to students as fact, but they do not stand up to scrutiny by someone with an eye for mechanics. They may be believed, however.

I remember an interview with a martial artist who had begun, after some considerable training, to develop some real power in his blows. He said that his instructor told him that he was "beginning to flow chi."
More likely he was just, by dint of his training, becoming stronger and was more able to use that strength effectively.
 
It's not intended to convince people who know nothing about the art such as yourself.

Ok, the wu in your name is wu as in 'nothing' apparently.

Personally I find it interesting but not terribly useful since as soon as you start to apply it you get overwhelmed by complexity.

Find what interesting exactly? Pretending "internal" is something different from "external"?
 
In my teens, I did Wadu Ryu karate at a local dojo. The sensei did talk about "extending ki", but he never got into mystical "the force is with you" woo.

I agree that putting your whole body behind the blow is important - for example, I still remember the difficulty I had in mastering just the right butt-heave used in the execution of lunge and snap punches.

Other factors were:

  • Tight, square fist, concentrating the force on the two big knuckles directly in line with the forearm. My index and second finger knuckles are huge, and I can fold the other two right out of the way. This increases the impact pressure and ensures all the force vector lies along the line of the arm.
  • Being properly braced for a punch or kick. We would take up positions such as homni (the deep horse stance) and the sensei would try to push us off balance.
  • Acceleration and speed.
  • Accuracy - it's no good if the blow skids off someone's cheekbone.
  • Follow-through: don't waste energy in pulling back.
These factors are addressed by conventional boxers - I used to box, too. I did begin to feel good after a while, but I'm sure that was just due to regular, intensive workouts.
 
Last edited:
You're asking for clarification when Wudang posts that something is 'interesting' without explaining himself :jaw-dropp

And? He is free to not answer further, just like anyone else is. I'm sure even you can understand that.

BTW, "Mashuna", if you read closer, it was clarification for what the "it" he referred to was, not why he thought it was interesting.
 
Where yoiu practice techniques like punches, kicks, stances, etc. without a sparring partner.

Ok. Like with a punching bag?

Practicing complex sequences of moves - a kata is a sort of set-piece routine. This is in contract to kumite, which is free sparring.

I know what katas are. I asked what are they good for. When looking at, say, Wado Ryu katas, they look of little if no use in free sparring, simply dead exercise.
 
What is solo technique training?

Solo in the sense I was referring to would be when you practice a given movement (punch/kick/whatever) while stepping down across the floor. It's not solo in the sense that your the only one doing it, but in that your not interacting with anyone else. Basic repetition training. We would sometimes work in place (stepping forward or backward, as required, then returning to our starting position), or step forward from one end of the dojo to the other, turn and work our way back. pretty standard I believe, but also an important part of training, IMHO.


And what are katas good for?


Katas are IMHO good for getting good form. Since most katas that we had at least, used not only a lot of basic movements, but also some of the less practiced "formal" movements. They also help work on combinations. I also think they can add a sense of realism to a practice session your doing alone, at home or whatever. We were taught, and were expected to do our katas as if we were fighting someone. We were expected to pause at some points in some katas, and look in the direction of the attack we would be blocking/dodging, whatever, or in the direction of the invisible opponent we were attacking. We were also expected to put a lot of strength/effort into our katas. No sloppy moving around the floor slinging your arms and legs about ;)
 
"Internal" strength is just focus + good psychomotricity.
 
Ok. Like with a punching bag?



I know what katas are. I asked what are they good for. When looking at, say, Wado Ryu katas, they look of little if no use in free sparring, simply dead exercise.

Wado is actually the style I started with. Before Master Otsuka passed away, and things got changed by his son Jiro (I believe). The katas we used were pretty basic katas. I believe most styles of Karate and Tae Kwon Do use the same general combinations, just with minor alterations for the difference in styles, and maybe a few added or left out steps.

They can be very dead things. But that was a good way to get a good butt kicking in my dojo ;)

If done correctly they are VERY dynamic, and alive. If you haven't had the chance, try to catch a tournament, either live or on TV, and watch the Kata competition. The ones that get the prizes will have shown you just how alive katas can be :)

EDIT to add - Actually looked at the link you gave. If you compare the first two, you'll get an idea of how different katas can be. I mean no disrespect for Michelle Tough, but I think if you compare her to Tatsuo Suzuki, whom I believe was Master Otsuka's second in command for most of the time the Master was still active, you'll see (well, I saw ;) a higher degree of realism and "feeling" in his movements. The movements were more crisp and precise, and had more determination behind them. Anyway, I saw it that way :)
 
Last edited:
I also think they can add a sense of realism to a practice session your doing alone, at home or whatever. We were taught, and were expected to do our katas as if we were fighting someone. We were expected to pause at some points in some katas, and look in the direction of the attack we would be blocking/dodging, whatever, or in the direction of the invisible opponent we were attacking.

If done correctly they are VERY dynamic, and alive.

I'm somewhat confused. I thought katas are a pre-defined set of movements? For example, the Pinan seriesWP. It's a set list of moves to do, in precise order. I see neither realism nor life in this.

Wouldn't simple shadow boxing be better, where you are free to imagine whatever attack you want, and respond with whatever block or counterattack you want? No need to memorize an otherwise useless order of movements, you can train combinations, and work on your form.


EDIT to respond to addition: no discussion about it, Tatsuo Suzuki showed better form in his katas. It still seems pretty pointless to learn a long pre-defined set of moves by heart and practise it to perfection. Pointless in terms of combat or free sparring.

Also, in this kata, Tatsuo Suzuki did some moves that seem a very bad idea in sparring. For example, at 00:19, he stands on left leg, his hands are above his head, and his right leg is in the air drawn close to his left leg. The move itself is impractical and he himself is unbalanced.
 
Last edited:
I'm somewhat confused. I thought katas are a pre-defined set of movements? For example, the Pinan seriesWP. It's a set list of moves to do, in precise order. I see neither realism nor life in this.

Wouldn't simple shadow boxing be better, where you are free to imagine whatever attack you want, and respond with whatever block or counterattack you want? No need to memorize an otherwise useless order of movements, you can train combinations, and work on your form.

Katas are pre-defined movements. And yes, shadow boxing, or sparing with your local punching bag can be good. But I believe that kata practice is a valuable piece of a total training picture. It's hard to describe all the reasons. If you had ever performed a very good kata, and felt the feeling that tells you you did it well, you'd understand better what I'm trying to describe, but am not finding the words to do so.

Also, in this kata, Tatsuo Suzuki did some moves that seem a very bad idea in sparring. For example, at 00:19, he stands on left leg, his hands are above his head, and his right leg is in the air drawn close to his left leg. The move itself is impractical and he himself is unbalanced.

The moves he was doing, was a block with his hands, and the leg movement was avoiding a leg sweep (I believe). These were defensive movements, not offensive. And yes, at the instant he was doing them, he was off balance, but I would argue that his (invisible) opponent was committed to the attack he was defending himself from, and therefore it was not an issue. ;)

Some movements in katas don't appear to make much sense, and in my opinion are designed more to show your ability to perform the prescribed movements in the correct order (getting your hands/feet/body from one position to the next without falling on your butt for instance ;) Some are meant to just look good. Most do simulate possible, however unlikely, situations.
 
Last edited:
When I was about 18-20 I did a lot of wakiwara punching training, mostly against concrete walls.
I almost never used full power during these sessions, but when I did I found that I was holding back quite a lot of my power when I struck with a fist compared to when I struck with the palm of my hand.
Presumably this was an instictual way to pretect myself from getting hurt.

Since it was a great way to clear my head (no thoughts just the punching), I tried a session once when I was angry (not merely miffed, but borderline berserk) I struck the target once... and all my anger was drained away by the shock of the stupidity in the act I preformed. Punching a concrete wall with full power... If I had struck the wall in the "wrong" way I would definately have hurt my hand, but luckily I didn't even get a minor scratch.

After that I set up wooden boards for breaking, and found that I could replicate 'no holding back' punch if I emptied my mind and focused on the punch, but I must say that I prefer the palm strike better than the fist.

Later on I described the feel of the exercise I went through before the punch to a Kung Fu practitioner his response was:
"Wow you know how to use chi??"

For me it was just a way to temporarily remove a mental block, for him it was a magical mystical energy I accessed.
*sigh*
Go figure.


oh and... I do not recommend punching concrete walls.
 
I have to agree with This Guy on katas/forms/etc. and on Michelle Tough vice Tatsuo Suzuki. For Michelle, it was pleasant to watch but she seemed on the edge of of-balance at many points and seemed to be doing the form for the sake of the form. Not so with Suzuki.

My martial arts experience is fairly extensive but almost entirely informal. I have done Tae Kwon Do forms and Ju-Jitsu preceptors. For TKD, the forms were helpful in cementing stances and moves into my head (from a visual-memory standpoint).

For Ju-Jitsu, the preceptors (there are only a few) were shorter and more violent and even when done alone gave a sense of actual fighting. The intent, according to my friend/instructor, was to develop a habit or instinct so that when faced with any of a variety of suitable real-life situations, the preceptor kicked in, at whatever point the situation called for.

Having worked in the security field for a long while, nearly always with a psychiatric patient component, I had chances to use my training. Never the JJ, though, as it tends to be destructive. Some karate, ninjutsu, and TKD was always welcome.
 
And? He is free to not answer further, just like anyone else is. I'm sure even you can understand that.

BTW, "Mashuna", if you read closer, it was clarification for what the "it" he referred to was, not why he thought it was interesting.

Thanks, "T'ai Chi".
 
I was refering to Mike Sigman's analysis of Internal Strength and the classic 8 Jings in terms of the underlying force vectors and the resultant vectors. I did a weekend seminar with Mike and talked to him extensively for many years both privately and via the 6H ec mailing lists so I know his ideas very well.
They are very useful in terms of analysis and getting you thinking about what you're doing and trying to achieve but they're not always so helpful as the classic imagery. An analogy I used once talking to him was that the difference between "Qi" and "peng jing" is like centrifugal and centripetal force. Neither of the former exist but can be easier for people to grasp than the things that actually do exist.
The problem is that once you get past a simple lever model of say the arm then you get lost in the complexity of all the muscles that support the hinge. Mike has ideas regarding fascia and etheric qi that I don't go along with at all.
 
"Internal" strength is just focus + good psychomotricity.
IMO there's a bit more to it than that, particularly since "focus" is a particularly nebulous term. When most people use the term, it tends to mean something along the lines of "concentration", but good internal strength relies on a number of factors. Concentration, certainly, but observation, attitude, control of fear, flexibility, determination, decisiveness, and so on.

The best example I've seen of "inner strength" and it's cultivation is Miyamoto Musashi's Ni Ten Ichi Ryu, the Way of Strategy, expounded in his Go Rin No Sho, The Book of Five Rings.

There really isn't a true divide between "internal" and "external" strength, and martial arts which emphasize one over the other are ultimately weaker than one which puts equal emphasis on both, and are typically prone to woo -- either physical/situational or metaphysical, depending on which one they emphasize.
 
I recognise martial arts for what it is, a discipline often undertaken with great skill, but when these guys start claiming all sorts it makes me wonder what's going on.

A while ago I saw some self-proclaimed master punch the air infront of a candle. The candle went out. He said that it was due to his projection of chi, and it had taken 10 years to learn. Initially I was impressed.

It wasn't until at least a year later I tried it myself. The candle went out on the 5th try. Just to prove to myself I hadn't misremembered I did it again now. This time it took about 10 tries, but I got there in the end. Chi energy? 10 years to learn? Riiiiight.
 
It wasn't until at least a year later I tried it myself. The candle went out on the 5th try. Just to prove to myself I hadn't misremembered I did it again now. This time it took about 10 tries, but I got there in the end. Chi energy? 10 years to learn? Riiiiight.

Well.. you can learn the basic punch in no time, but if you train long and hard, you will attain a higher degree of realism and "feeling" in your punch. Your movement will be more crisp and precise, and will have more determination behind it :D
 
Baron, if you did it with your arms naked, I am impressed. If you had your karategi on, any little trained weakling like me can do it. It is the snap of the sleeve that does it. My sensei was honest, he just showed it as a cheap trick....:D

ETA: try with a horizontal shuto above, but not touching, the flame (naked arm). If you can not do it, let me know and I'll tell you the trick for that one too...
 
Last edited:
Baron, if you did it with your arms naked, I am impressed. If you had your karategi on, any little trained weakling like me can do it. It is the snap of the sleeve that does it. My sensei was honest, he just showed it as a cheap trick....:D

The first time I can't recall, I'm afraid. The second I was wearing a t-shirt but the sleeve reached the elbow. I must admit to trying it around 20 times after my post and failing. Still, I definitely did it once with a t-shirt on! :)
 
There are some interesting definitions of "internal strength" here but almost none address the OP which is about neijia, a particular meaning of the word which has nothing to do with focus, concentration or whatever. It's a non-intuitive way of using muscles to get some interesting effects. Some magicians have found aspects of it - see the book Body Magic for instance.
Problem is that too much of the stuff out there is disinformation spread by poseurs wishing to attract dilettantes with disposable income and a dislike of sweat to their classes when all people with real results are noted for training like madmen, quel surpris.
 
ETA: try with a horizontal shuto above, but not touching, the flame (naked arm). If you can not do it, let me know and I'll tell you the trick for that one too...

Gyakuzuki or haishu seem to fit the bill, too.
 
I'm somewhat confused. I thought katas are a pre-defined set of movements? For example, the Pinan seriesWP. It's a set list of moves to do, in precise order. I see neither realism nor life in this.

Wouldn't simple shadow boxing be better, where you are free to imagine whatever attack you want, and respond with whatever block or counterattack you want? No need to memorize an otherwise useless order of movements, you can train combinations, and work on your form.

Um, that's what katas are -- training on combinations and working on your form.

Katas merely train specific combinations -- in theory, although of course arts will vary on this -- the combinations trained in katas are those are are likely to be useful. I mean, sure, I can make combinations up myself to practice with, but some combinations are obviously better than others (e.g. punch to the stomach, then punch to the head while the opponent is leaning forward), while others are unobviously better than others (I didn't know myself that after this move, the opponent is likely to be off balance in this way, so that throw will be unusually effective.)

I trust the sifu/sensei to know how to throw a punch better than I do. Seems I should also trust him to know which punch to throw better than I, yes?
 
NitPicky mode: Kata, the Japanese word, is singular and plural. There is no 'katas' ...

And kata are not only the solo forms practiced in Chinese and Okinawan systems. In classical Japanese arts, kata are paired exercises that, while pre-determinate in terms of what happens, are ramped up significantly as the student progresses. In practicing classical Japanese kata, the senior usually takes the 'losing' role, in order to lead the junior to proper form and execution. At some levels, paired kata like this are _almost_ more like free form, because if one of the participants fails to make the proper call/response, someone's gonna get whacked.

Kata is an essential and irreplaceable element of training in classical Japanese systems (sword, jujutsu, etc), and is balanced by a certain amount of free-play, notably in arts like judo, which, practiced in the manner Kano prescribed, uses about equal parts of kata and randori (free-play). If you've ever seen senior folks in Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu doing kata, you really ought to take a look. It's intense, powerful and nothing at all like the acrobatics you see kids doing 'musical kata' on the Martial Arts Network.

Even in those arts using solo kata, kata is seldeom ever just waving your arms around (I will except those modern systems that build kata on the fly or cobble together peices of many forms just to have something that looks cool), but is almost always a methodology for teaching certain things, and those things are not necessarily combative techniques ...

After 34 years or so of classical (Japanese sword, staff and jujutsu) AND modern combatives (police and military hand-to-hand/CQC/personal combatives), I've got to say that I learned as much about timing, control of spacing and initiative from kata as I did from free-play.

And personal combat is all ABOUT initiative, timing, spacing, and control of the common center.
 
NitPicky mode: Kata, the Japanese word, is singular and plural. There is no 'katas' ...

SNIP

Thanks for the correction, and added information :)

I used to jokingly tell folks, I can count in Japanese, and I can kick your butt, and tell you in Japanese what blows I administered, but that was the extent of my Japanese. It's been so long, I can't even do the latter now :(
 
NitPicky-picking mode: given that we are writing in English (sort of :D ) does not really matter what the form is in the original language, it is the accepted English usage of foreign words that matters. Therefore, "katas" as a plural is acceptable, like Wudang's "dilettantes" instead of "dilettanti". (btw... it is actually "quelLE surprisE" Wudang :) ).

Disclaimer: this is what I was taught learning the Queen's English, maybe Murican is different ...:D
 
If you've ever seen senior folks in Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu doing kata, you really ought to take a look. It's intense, powerful and nothing at all like the acrobatics you see kids doing 'musical kata' on the Martial Arts Network.

I've never seen Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu kata. But I searched youtube and watched some videos. Again, I saw nothing but dead movements. Can you point me to some good videos?
 
You'd have to define 'dead movements' I suppose. Experiencing the real thing, live and in person is the only way. Video can't really convey the sense of the thing. And most times, videos like that are actually posed and not performed at speed, with full intent, anyhow.
 
I've never seen Shinto Muso Ryu or Hontai Yoshin Ryu kata. But I searched youtube and watched some videos. Again, I saw nothing but dead movements. Can you point me to some good videos?

Have you actually taken any martial arts classes? I suspect not. But of course, could be wrong.

Any movement performed in martial arts can be very dead or very alive, and that can either be seen by an observer, or felt by the performer, and sometimes both (but not always).

A simple punch can be anything from throwing your hand out, to a perfect movement that not only places your hand in contact with the target (real or imaginary), but also has your body movements all perfectly being at the right place/right angle/right time, to make it the most effective punch your capable of delivering. When you get that perfect combination, you feel it. When your foot placement, hip movement, shoulder movement, arm/hand movement all hit the correct point at the correct time, it's a beautiful thing :)

But trying to impart that feeling is, I would imagine, about the same as an NBA star describing the feeling of hitting a 3/4 court shot, while spinning in the air, and hitting nothing but net, to someone that never played basketball. The difference being that you can see the results of the basketball shot, but not necessarily the perfect punch.

A perfect kata (if one has ever been performed) would be a series of perfect punches/kicks/blocks and related movements performed in the correct order, while moving around the floor (for those that have more than one step). You start and end at the exact same point (in most), you don't bounce up and down, but have a constant head level (should be able to perform it with a board just above your head, and never open or close the distance between your head and the board, unless of course there are jumps or something :)). No wasted movements. And should be done as if there were opponents against you, not just like your doing a dance, though the result might look somewhat like a dance.

I would suggest that if you haven't, you might consider finding a local school, and try a few months of lessons. If time permits, go to a few of the schools and observe a lesson or two. If they won't let you observe, you probably don't want anything to do with them. Some offer a two week intro course. That isn't bad to get an idea of whether or not you would like to try it, but it's not enough to actually learn anything. I'd suggest trying the intro, see if it's something you'd like, then try to get a 6 month contract. 6 months should give you a good idea of what it's about. After that, you'd be in a better position to decide if a 12 month contract would be a good or bad thing for you :) If there are less than two lessons a week, I'd walk out and check another school. My first dojo had two (or three) classes a week for each of 4 (maybe 5) levels. Once you advanced to the third level classes you could attend the class above or below your level at no additional cost. There were a few months I was taking about 8 classes a week. Two a night on some nights, plus a couple open classes we had on the weekends. Classes should be at least 2 hours (at least after the intro).

I think most styles, if taught correctly, are equally as good at both physical conditioning, and self defense. I'm partial to the Japanese arts, because that was what I started with. WADO used to be a very well rounded style, in my opinion. I'm not sure where it stands now though. I do know that when Master Otsuka passed away there was a break up. His son Jiro took over, and made some changes away from the original style as created by the Master. Suzuki, I've been lead to believe, broke off and stayed more with what the Master had taught. I'm not sure what names are used to distinguish the two systems. But I'm sure either would give a well rounded training regimen.

Korean, Chinese, or other arts I'm sure are generally as good, if not better (just to appease practitioners of those styles;)). My brother achieved a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and has really enjoyed that style over the years. While in the military, I worked out with folks from several different styles (Kung Fu, some Okinawan, and a few others) and from my somewhat limited direct exposure, I enjoyed what I saw. I've had pleasant experiences with (Don't laugh!) Chuck Norris' schools and David Deaton (a local chain of schools). I think by and large, it's the performer more than the particular style, that makes the difference. I'm sure there are exceptions (maybe we'll get some other points of view here :)).

If your a master of some style, I apologize for my assumption that your not well trained in "the arts". But I also suspect that if you were well trained in any of the martial arts, you'd have a better understanding of what Kata are good for :)

(Just previewed what I wrote! Sorry for being so "wordy". But not sure what I'd cut out, so leaving it all in. Hope something there helps someone :))
 
Last edited:
Have you actually taken any martial arts classes? I suspect not. But of course, could be wrong.

I did a little judo when little. I started to practise mixed martial arts recently.

I think most styles, if taught correctly, are equally as good at both physical conditioning, and self defense.

Well, firstly, "taught correctly" is the clincher here. Having students practise katas is not a correct training method in my mind. And secondly, since quite several arts do not do free sparring , they often use techniques that simply will not work against a resisting opponent. Aidiko is a prime example in that regard.

I've had pleasant experiences with (Don't laugh!) Chuck Norris' schools and David Deaton (a local chain of schools).

What's wrong with Chuck Norris' schools? He is God :)
 
Last edited:
Aidiko is a prime example in that regard.

I can assure you than when I practice Aikido I often resist my uke (partenair) in ordre to teach him how to do the technique properly. He'll notice that the way he do things don't work if I'm resisting, and with a few explanation try to improve his move. So it's mostly pedagogical.

I don't resist white belt movement of course, there is not point in that. I'm not teaching them something by doing that. But the more I practice with an advance student, the more I resist what they're doing.

Of course I don't resist with strenght, but mostly with techniques (shift of balance, counter-moves, and so on).

So what you were stating is just untrue: the partenair resist in Aikido. :p

ps: I understant your point of course. I do Aikido because my goal in life is not to hit people or even kill them in real fight... But everyone is different in that regard. I know that most people in combat's sports enjoy hiting other people, feeling and inflincting pain, and so on... I'm just not like that. I'm not a violent guy...
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as internal strength. There is good body mechanics and poor body mechanics. Pure physical strength helps as well.
 
SNIP
ps: I understant your point of course. I do Aikido because my goal in life is not to hit people or even kill them in real fight... But everyone is different in that regard. I know that most people in combat's sports enjoy hiting other people, feeling and inflincting pain, and so on... I'm just not like that. I'm not a violent guy...

I'm with you on that :)

Believe it or not, my reason for taking my first martial arts class had nothing to do with fighting, and everything to do with magic (stage type, not black or whatever;)) Long story, but it's true.

And I've never done full contact sparing, and would not. I have a large dislike for pain, and no desire to cause it in others either.

Of course, that dislike for pain over rides my desire to not hurt others, if/when the options come down to hurting someone else, or getting hurt. :)
 
There is no such thing as internal strength. There is good body mechanics and poor body mechanics. Pure physical strength helps as well.

Internal strength is pure physical strength. It is trivially obvious that if you change your stance you change how force is propagated through that stance. Anyone who has a half-decent book on east german research on sports science or any books on how the west has built on that should know that.
Anyone who's trapped in a cult that says that anything they see on TV is real won't get that.
 
I don't resist white belt movement of course, there is not point in that. I'm not teaching them something by doing that.

So providing a realistic sparring is not teaching something? How can the students know whether a technique is working if their opponents are just pretending it works?

I do Aikido because my goal in life is not to hit people or even kill them in real fight... But everyone is different in that regard. I know that most people in combat's sports enjoy hiting other people, feeling and inflincting pain, and so on...

Wow.. it's been a while since I encountered such a sweeping denigrating statement.

First, there are many ways to subdue an opponent. Aikido does not seem to be very good in that regard, since its techniques are not trained in a free sparring environment. Brazilian jiu jitsu, for example, is pretty good in that regard. It doesn't involve strikes or kills, but it does utilize pain via joint manipulation. How exactly can one overcome physical violence without inflicting pain (barring chokes, of course)?

Second: so most people in combat sports are both sadists AND masochists?
 

Back
Top Bottom