"Internal" strength in the martial arts

[JonnyFive]

This is true, but the question is when to start free sparring; and this will vary considerably depending on the art. Something like Aikido, which is based on leveraged throws and joint locks, requires far more time to master the techniques before free sparring, because of the risk of serious injury. Something like Karate or Kung Fu, which primarily involve striking, can begin sparring earlier, becasue of the availability of adequate safety gear to prevent serious injury.

Yeah, that is a pretty good point.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So it looks like the voters agree that the person's brand of "internal" is really just regular old external strength.

Yup. Me too.

 

[Wudang]

I didn't vote as you haven't defined "regular strength".

 

[AgingYoung]

Anyone that can develop their chi to the extent Bruce Lee did will become a formidable opponent. You'll know when you are at par with that level. You will be able to do a two finger one arm push up. When you're at that level of chi you really don't need to know much technique.

If anyone would like to develop their chi (or internal muscular mechanics) to that degree it's a simple matter. Every day, for the next ten years, take a step. That journey of 1000 miles begins with a single one armed pushup. Never let up. Tha tha tha that's all, grasshoppers.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

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 ...

Hello Dustin,

It might be the two are the same thing. My opinion of any mental state is that it's an electro-chemical entity. In a certain e-c state or focus you could release the chemical adrenaline that would boost your physical ability. People that are on pcp have an extremely enhanced physical ability. Chemicals (ie pcp or adrenaline) effect your strength.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I don't know if it's ever been mentioned before so I'm going to take this opportunity to mention it. Chi just might be the ability to control the release adrenaline at will. A similar phenomenon could be people that have the ability to control the rate of their heart beat. That just might be the explanation of what some have termed chi.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I had some more thoughts on this so I decided to post them. If my supposition is true that chi is the ability of people to release adrenaline then ancient people would have noticed that. They would have noticed that two seemingly equal opponents were obviously unmatched. They explained it in terms of 'chi'. Today we are attempting to understand 'chi' from their perspective. That might not be the best way to fully understand the idea. If you could train to release adrenaline at will you could call it ‘chi’ or what ever. Adrenaline by any other name will cause you to move like greased lightening.

Gene

 

[Wudang]

No, if you want a readable treatment of what the word Chi means/meant try http://www.amazon.com/Shorter-Scien...ef=sr_1_2/103-1649691-7683817?ie=UTF8&s=books
Oddly enough a lot of this stuff got written down, a little obscurely sure, but there are people who understand how to disambiguate the terms used.

 

[AgingYoung]

Wudang,

I see you're saying 'no', but I don't know who you're talking to.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

All a person's strength is internal. Another aspect of that strength is Tendon reflex^WP. What I've heard is that the feed back system between the muscle and the tendon is a function of the cross-sectional area of the tendon. When you stress the tendons they increase in cross-section and can give the same muscle mass more apparent strength.

Gene

 

[T'ai Chi]

I didn't vote as you haven't defined "regular strength".

It is the default position. 45 people who voted seemed to have no difficulty understanding this.

As opposed to those who posit another type of strength different from muscle, bones, efficient movement, timing, etc. Ie. people like you, perhaps?

 

[Jekyll]

It is the default position.

As opposed to those who posit another type of strength different from muscle, bones, efficient movement, timing, etc.

People like you.

This article sums up Wudang's teacher's attitude to the magic in some tai chi.

http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/articles/the_water_margin.html

Now let's talk about your t'ai chi, T'ai Chi.

You don't spar, you don't wrestle. As far as I can tell you don't do pushing hands, you certainly don't do what Wudang and I would consider pushing hands. You've shown no knowledge of what the movements in the form actually mean. Sort your own training out before telling people what they do and don't think.

That aside, I do almost agree with you on this one. Internal strength(or jing to give it is trendy name) is just good conditioning and good structure.

 

[T'ai Chi]

This article sums up Wudang's teacher's attitude to the magic in some tai chi.

And...?

Now let's talk about your t'ai chi, T'ai Chi.

Why? What does my views of taiji have to do with me asking people to vote in a poll about supposed different kinds of strength? Nothing.

You don't spar, you don't wrestle. As far as I can tell you don't do pushing hands,

You have no clue what I do or do not do. In fact, you seem to make up stuff as you go about people. Is this how you intend to represent your teacher?

One thing I don't do, is pretend "internal" is different from regular ol strength. You've admitted you do give it another term. Why? Marketing?

 

[cgordon]

Your attempt to equivocate Kata with learning technique is rather pathetic.

Which just tells me that you know nothing (still) about what 'kata' really is.

You're still stuck in the mindset that kata is the solo handwaving so many modern MA practice (see XMA and musical kata, for instance).

In the classical sense, kata has little at all to do with your notions, and is, I suspect, probably far beyond your desire to actually learn anything at all about.

Not everyone is you (thank goodness) and not everyone has the same goals and ideals you have (however skewed they may be). That's what makes the world go 'round, I suppose.

 

[Jekyll]

Why? What does my views of taiji have to do with me asking people to vote in a poll about supposed different kinds of strength? Nothing.

But you haven't just asked people what they think. You've posted your little article and before I interrupted you were busy telling Wudang what he really thought.

You have no clue what I do or do not do. In fact, you seem to make up stuff as you go about people. Is this how you intend to represent your teacher?

No, this is how I represent myself. Feel free to correct any mis-apprehensions I have about your training.

One thing I don't do, is pretend "internal" is different from regular ol strength. You've admitted you do give it another term. Why? Marketing?

Firstly, no one talks about theory in class, we just get on with training. The internet's the place for all this theorizing marlarky.

Secondly using your body correctly is different from conditioning it well. Knowing how to use it is more than just "regular ol strength" there's a reason you don't see winners of the worlds strongest man competition dominating in boxing and wrestling, or power lifters necessarily doing that well in strongest man competitions and that reason is skill.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But you haven't just asked people what they think.

So you're mistaken again. Par for the course.

Secondly using your body correctly is different from conditioning it well. Knowing how to use it is more than just "regular ol strength" there's a reason you don't see winners of the worlds strongest man competition dominating in boxing and wrestling, or power lifters necessarily doing that well in strongest man competitions and that reason is skill.

Obviously. But again, we have someone like you waxing romantic about regular ol skill, calling it something different like 'internal'. Why do you feel the need to try to invent a new category of strength when the old ones work perfectly well?

 

[Jekyll]

So you're mistaken again. Par for the course.

How so?

Obviously. But again, we have someone like you waxing romantic about regular ol skill, calling it something different like 'internal'. Why do you feel the need to try to invent a new category of strength when the old ones work perfectly well?

What are you driveling about? You ask what internal strength is. People tell you. You fail to understand and then complain that they're using the words internal in reference to your question.

The internal strength you are going on about is neither just "regular ol skill" nor just "regular ol strength". It's a mixture of both. If you actually bothered with either your Chinese language lessons or your tai chi lessons as you claim to do you might understand this; Jin as in pengjin (one of the tags you used) refers to trained force.

 

[Wudang]

It is the default position. 45 people who voted seemed to have no difficulty understanding this.

Or perhaps like you aren't terribly knowledgeable on the subject.

As opposed to those who posit another type of strength different from muscle, bones, efficient movement, timing, etc. Ie. people like you, perhaps?

So that's "regular strength"? Okay. Internal strength is muscle trained in a particular way and using some interesting tricks of relaxation etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're still stuck in the mindset that kata is the solo handwaving so many modern MA practice (see XMA and musical kata, for instance).

That is the common definition. So yes, I'm "stuck" in that mindset. Anything else is not "kata" according to that common usage.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Or perhaps like you aren't terribly knowledgeable on the subject.

Perhaps all 46 people aren't knowledgeable. Perhaps you are the only knowledgeable one here. But probably not.

Internal strength is muscle trained in a particular way and using some interesting tricks of relaxation etc.

Can you point to a video of someone using what you brand internal strength so we can see how it is different from regular ol strength?