"Internal" strength in the martial arts

[thaiboxerken]

There are those in the forum that believe a person can learn how to fight without pressure testing (sparring). They are wrong, but those people are in the forum.

 

[JMA]

There are those in the forum that believe a person can learn how to fight without pressure testing (sparring). They are wrong, but those people are in the forum.

Not again that subject. I mean, there is an endless threat about that on the forum... (can't find it because the search option don't work well, don't know why).

I still wonder why people are so proud to do a fighting sports, with as only goal in mind to be able to win a real fight.

Like if the real purpose of a martial art was to be able to win a real fight. Really funny

Call me a skeptic if you want, but are you sure it's a meaningfull goal in life, from a philosophical (ethic or moral especially) point of view?

There is no way I would for exemple incourage my (future) kids to practice a fighting sports (vs. a martial art like Aikido). For me, it would be like saying to them: "You should sign on the army" (or "You should have a gun in your house for your own protection."). I would need to be insane first in order to tell them that...

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I guess it depends on how you define “regular strength”. In one of his books or articles I read, Arnold Schwarzenegger tells of one instance when his friend Franco Columbo was trying to do squats with a very heavy weight and was unable to do them due to the weight being too heavy. However a few minutes later a group of Italian American kids came into the gym who were fans of Franco Columbo and Franco decided to try to squat the weight again to show off in front of his fans. He was able to easily squat the weight several times when before he wasn’t able to do it once.
He was able to do it because he was motivated to show off in front of his fans. I don’t know whether it was adrenaline or mental focus that made him able to lift it when he hadn’t before but I suppose you could define “regular strength” as what you can regularly lift and then “internal strength” as what you can lift when motivated the right ways or under specific pressures and then you have more adrenaline or are more mentally focused.

All of which are “internal” but then again so are muscles themselves. And none of which involve any sort of “chi” as it’s commonly defined by those who practice tai-chi or other ‘internal’ martial arts.

 

[Wudang]

All of which are “internal” but then again so are muscles themselves. And none of which involve any sort of “chi” as it’s commonly defined by those who practice tai-chi or other ‘internal’ martial arts.

"Chi" when used in the classic tai chi sense refers to "leg strength". They are written in a jargon, a technical shorthand for people who have a clue about the subject, which discounts most western tai chi people and a shocking percentage of eastern.
Actually if you read the so-called Tai chi classics there is not a single reference to chi in them. Only "jing" - refined or trained strength.

 

[Wudang]

(btw... it is actually "quelLE surprisE" Wudang ).

Damn, you're right and I've also been pronouncing it wrong.

 

[JonnyFive]

I started Krav Maga here (as designed by Imi Lichenfeld and friends) in college (which I still do off and on, total of about four years), which is about as devoid of mystical ploppity plop as you can possibly get.

From my personal, totally biased perspective, all the mystical ploppity plop seems pretty worthless.

If by "internal strength" we're talking about chi energy and stuff like that (which I assume we are, as it's mentioned in that link), I think it's all a bunch of bunk. Martial arts, in my experience, are about physical ability, mental toughness, and technical skill.

I am not, however, a tenth level grand qi super master, so perhaps one could shed additional light on this subject.

 

[luchog]

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!

It can be done fairly easily with the naked arm too. It works better as a palm-strike rather than a closed fist, since you can move a greater mass of air that way. particularly if you keep your fingers together and slightly cupped.

 

[luchog]

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.

In theory, whether a training technique involves free sparring or not doesn't necessarily affect whether it's "good" or not. All that matters is if it works. In practice, free sparring is generally necessary to learn how to evaluate and react to an opponent in a real-world situation. However, that should come much later in the training, once one has already learned proper form and technique. Without the latter, the former is completely useless, and even potentially counterproductive, since it can teach bad habits or cause avoidable injury.

If your Aikido dojo doesn't include free sparring as part of the training, then you've got a bad dojo and need to find a new one. Unfortunately, there are bad dojos around. The problem with learning Aikido is that you'll spend a whole lot of time doing kata in order to avoid injuring yourself severely while sparring. A huge percentage of your early training is simply learning how to fall correctly.

And anyone who tells you that Aikido is "non-violent" either doesn't understand the art, or is trying to sell something. It is possible, and indeed the entire point of the art, to injure someone severely. The difference between Aikido and most other martial arts is that you're not attempting to injure your opponent, you're helping your opponent to injure himself.

 

[JonnyFive]

There are those in the forum that believe a person can learn how to fight without pressure testing (sparring). They are wrong, but those people are in the forum.

That's just moronic. There is nothing like being attacked by someone else, and sparring is the closest you can come to it in a relatively safe environment. There isn't any substitute for it, really... well, except for actually going out and getting into fights, but that has distinct disadvantages.

No matter how much you practice your skills in a controlled setting (i.e. with a partner, but with defined "we are going to do this technique" rules), it's nothing like the sheer chaos of free fighting. Suddenly all those well rehearsed techniques need to be adapted to what your opponent actually does, and the position you actually find yourself in. It's even more fun when grappling is involved (or potentially involved).

I'm not some martial arts master, but I know enough to know sparring is essential to learning any martial art (except those ones where you're not actually trying to defend yourself or anything).

Anyway, that's kind of off topic, but it's still a good point.

 

[Kaarjuus]

In practice, free sparring is generally necessary to learn how to evaluate and react to an opponent in a real-world situation. However, that should come much later in the training, once one has already learned proper form and technique.

Why? In my gym, when learning Brazilian jiu jitsu, we started free sparring almost from the get-go. You learn a technique, you practise it. Like swimming. Or, say, squash.

 

[JonnyFive]

Why? In my gym, when learning Brazilian jiu jitsu, we started free sparring almost from the get-go. You learn a technique, you practise it. Like swimming. Or, say, squash.

I tend to agree with this view. While I think that the intensity and complexity of sparring can and should be ramped up as the student increases in skill (this will be a natural consequence of knowing more about fighting, for one), I think it's important to begin it early in some form, so as to get some practical experience.

At least if you're teaching an art that considers itself to be a self-defense system. The student should begin learning how to apply their techniques in a relatively realistic, if limited, situation from early on.

If the art is primarily a sport art, or for fitness or something, then I don't think sparring is necessary at all (although it's a killer workout). However, it riles me up when those kind of schools slap "self defense!" onto their list of tags. It's dishonest to claim to teach self defense without really teaching word one about how to defend oneself in the real world.

 

[Bronze Dog]

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.

When someone can ignite a candle by punching at it, I'll be impressed.

 

[firecoins]

I haven't read the thread but I have experience here.

Internal strength is minsnomer. It isn't "strength". It is a comibination of balance & body movement. The combination of keeping your own balance and off balancing an opponent makes you "powerful" but it isn't strength.

 

[Wudang]

I haven't read the thread but I have experience here.

Internal strength is minsnomer. It isn't "strength". It is a comibination of balance & body movement. The combination of keeping your own balance and off balancing an opponent makes you "powerful" but it isn't strength.

Absolutely wrong. Those skills are useful but without strength they're worthless.

 

[JMA]

Absolutely wrong. Those skills are useful but without strength they're worthless.

"Worthless" is a big word. Of course if you have an athletic body, it's nice (especially if you want to date a lot of girl ), but if you don't (and most of us don't, I must confess), having "balance & body movement" is quite nice and can be enough to get you out of trouble.

Anyway, in front of someone with a gun, even if you have an athletic body, you're dead, so...

And obviously, nobody will have an athletic body at 60 years old (even at 40 years old, you're already losing it). A figthing sport wich only is efficient when you are in your early 20ies, is not very motivating when you are not in your early 20ies anymore...

 

[firecoins]

Absolutely wrong. Those skills are useful but without strength they're worthless.

Really? You never done judo have you? Balance and off balancing are pretty good skills to have if you do judo. Try being strong without balance.

 

[Kaarjuus]

A figthing sport wich only is efficient when you are in your early 20ies, is not very motivating when you are not in your early 20ies anymore...

Which fighting sports would those be?

 

[Wudang]

Really? You never done judo have you? Balance and off balancing are pretty good skills to have if you do judo. Try being strong without balance.

I assume english isn't your native language otherwise you would have noticed that I said they are good skills. I've done judo thanks and [SIZE=-1]Shuai Chiao and i repeat they're pretty worthless without strength.[/SIZE]

 

[Wudang]

"Worthless" is a big word. Of course if you have an athletic body, it's nice (especially if you want to date a lot of girl ), but if you don't (and most of us don't, I must confess), having "balance & body movement" is quite nice and can be enough to get you out of trouble.

Where did I say an athletic body? I said strength. And the situations where it can be enough are extremely restricted.

Anyway, in front of someone with a gun, even if you have an athletic body, you're dead, so...

So what? What if he doesn't have a (rule8ing) gun? Are you now going to argue that I shouldn't pay attention to possible collisions on the road because they won't help against an air strike?

And obviously, nobody will have an athletic body at 60 years old (even at 40 years old, you're already losing it). A figthing sport wich only is efficient when you are in your early 20ies, is not very motivating when you are not in your early 20ies anymore...

I'm 48 thanks and keeping fit is harder and harder and my belly is bigger than it should be. I'm still pretty strong though even though I don't have much time for CV work.

 

[casebro]

Internal strength? You mean like the Viking Berserker? Or anybody in a bar fight? They remind me of insane people- their faces even change. There is nothing holding them back, they are insane! I guess if you can foster that transition, you are using your "internal strength". Or you really, REALLY want to do somebody serious, no-holds-barred, bodily harm. I don't see that far-east mysticism has any corner on it.

It's why you can be mad(crazy, unreasonable) or mad (lose you temper, break things).