No idea from that clip to be honest. Impossible to tell, but I'm not sure how it could be the same thing unless you practice it. Some mechanics come naturally and they can be refined to a high level, but I don't think it's a natural progression but rather quite specific things that we don't really do naturally. edit. "good form" can mean a lot of things, like external alignments, not necessarily the basic force generating body mechanics I'm alluding to.
The mechanics being taught are essentially what I mentioned in the other thread; bowing of the spine is the major aspect. Rasmus teaches to open at the front and close at the back(torso), it can also be reversed. The basic absorb and project mechanic he's teaching has the shoulders and front torso "opening" and the hips and knees (legs) underneath "closing" etc. Then the mechanics reverse for the issuing part/ the generating force part I suppose. The natural reaction is to brace and or root and meet the force in some way - even if it just to meet it with structure. It's (this is) not about structure or having a good structure it's about using your body a certain way that produces force out (generating force). The movement becomes the technique in the basic sense, but you should start to use it (the model) in other techniques to generate force; eg. in strikes and throws. This kind of thing is not really taught in techniques in most other styles. The "mechanics" of bowing and open / close can be used to generate force for any technique including striking. I think, like with anything, you have to train a certain way to make it workable and effective. I think with many styles, in their particularly striking they mostly use a whip like mechanic discussed in the other thread. The bow model in my opinion needs some solo and partner work to get good at. When we see some of these other clips, I don't think we are seeing the same thing; we do see good structure, good natural (force generating) mechanics, good alignments, refined etc. I think that's where to confusion and disagreement is. I think these use "good natural mechanics" - that's the force generation part I'm trying to pinpoint. I think with most wrestling styles it's natural to brace/ root and push off the ground - this mechanic is not that. It's not really about rooting and or bracing, it's about first allowing the body to "absorb" the force which dissipates it. It isn't "locking up" the structure, this isn't about "tensegrity" or "good alignment" in my opinion. Those things are not really generating force or "storing" it like the bow model alludes to. TCC is at it's core about cycling through open close or store and release - loading like the bow and releasing like the arrow. And that's keeping it pretty simple. I think the more you "do the work" the more you see that it's a different way of moving/using the body and generating force than a natural way of doing so that doesn't really manifest without the work, you have to work at it, like anything.
I don't really see the bowing and open close/ store release mechanics in these - they are what generate the force in the "bow" model I first described in the other thread. Rasmus' clips are simply the closest I have seen being taught on video to use for reference and get some basic ideas across. I don't personally claim to know exactly what and how the guys in these clips train them/ teach body mechanics or how they would describe the body mechanics they are using there to generate the force they apply. All I can say is that I cannot see what I am describing in these clips. I'll repeat that I do think it's something you need to train for and be taught, I just don't know about it being taught whether separately or in techniques or even talked outside of some "internal" circles. To be clear, I'm not talking about body alignments, structural integrity, rooting, tensegrity or other such descriptors of certain body mechanics that are indeed evident in most MA clips.
"Good form" was the comment to the second video I posted. Impossible to tell? I saw a good few of those wrestlers performing, to my eyes, the exact same technique as Mr. Rasmus, albeit in a more fleeting fashion, as one would expect in a live situation against a resisting opponent. Are you saying there are invisible things going on in the first video you posted? I was pretty sure I understood the gist of what he was saying, and that didn't include invisible stuff - what would be the point of a physical demo if it didn't show the technique? To my mind, Mr. Rasmus was using idiosyncratic and ornate language to describe mechanics, nothing more.
Which again comes down to "how much have you trained in them"? I HAVE trained with quite a few taiji stylists and pushed hands and my JKD Sifu is a Chen style disciple, so I have quite a bit of exposure - I am not just fighting my styles corner Here is CMC showing a similar mechanic [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6e01Gb-2h4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6e01Gb-2h4[/ame] The always great Wang - skip to 6:52 [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NWxbDSpgG0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NWxbDSpgG0[/ame] The simialrities acorss styles are remarkable....what is exceptional is how differently the styles trained to get to those points
In TCC you don't train open close / store release through the whole form just to use that power generation for a few fleeting moments. You use it to generate power whenever you issue it, in all your movements. Sorry but seeing a few fleeting moments in a clip is just as possible to be pure coincidence than anything else. Let alone consciously training like that to produce force in all your movements that way. Rasmus description I think is in the longer second clip of over half an hour that I posted, not the first. I saw his description ages ago - I think it is in that longer clip I posted. He has too many clips to be sure, plenty to watch, but I think in that longer clip there is a better explanation than simply what you can see or get from the first demo. Hopefully it gives some ideas as to the Bow/ store release model I alluded to. What he does is not definitive though - he does use the hermetic tradition a lot rather than CMA models and exercises for instance. The nature of body mechanics is you can't always see what's going on from a clip - it requires some context, explanation. And even better to do some of the drills that go into it. The nature of "internal" is also that you train the mind and intent to do these things, so the effect is very small inside, but this does not mean it is weak. It's about trained movements internally but these could be considered micro movements once your training improves. You begin with larger gross movement and exercise. The goal in the end is to have little to no external/ visible movement but plenty going on inside that just isn't on display that much if at all. He's not my teacher and I have learnt this from a different source, I just see some similar things in what he's doing. You've heard the old joke about how many tai chi guys it takes to change a light bulb. There are a ton of variation in what tai chi guys do. I am sharing my opinion based on what I train. If you want to believe "it's all the same" and think it's all on the surface to be seen, that's ok. Believe what you like guys, there's nothing different out there for you to try or think about - got it. This sort of thing is always a hard sell, it's ok, don't buy it. Others might be interested in the work or it might spur someone to research or look more into, so there you go.
To be honest the only closed mind seems to be your mate - try going outside your style and you will find there are as many similarities as differences.....but never forget viva la difference!
I think most of the training in most styles is a waste of time, their is only certain things that need to be trained., most of it for solo training is right at the beginning of set.
Not when the same stimulus results in the same reaction repeatedly. If you have a clip of Mr. Rasmus being as continually composed under similar pressure to those Greco-Roman wrestlers, I'd love to see it. Or experience. I recognised what Mr. Rasmus demonstrated from my own experience. I found that wrestling video in short order, because I knew that they would demonstrate a similar mechanical solution. It doesn't matter that I've never studied Greco-Roman wrestling, or even watched a match before. I recognised the mechanical principles involved and knew the most likely source for examples. Every practitioner does this to some extent given enough exposure. That doesn't mean that one can't recognise the effects by sight. As Hannibal said, many arts begin with gross survivability before refining form; that doesn't mean that subtleties and minutiae are not present at any stage of progression. It may even have no formal part of the syllabus, but you will still find practitioners who are using these principles. Specialisation and application may differ, but no art has a monopoloy on these things. Sorry, could you be a bit more patronising, please?
Some of us do both external and internal arts and feel the similarities in our daily practicing of said arts. Not saying they are 100% the same, but not so different as some TCC practitioners want to believe. The ones that cling to mysticism largely - in my experience. I do think asking what experience in external arts you have is relevant if you are going to keep telling others they aren't doing research or work themselves and they know nothing. You asked for clips showing you similarities. Yet, when presented with clips, you dismiss them because they don't fit your previous mindset. Hannibal has also told you he practices both external and internal arts and sees the similarities of power generation in his actual practice. I do CLF and Yang TCC. Being grounded, having a firm root, using the waist, keeping relaxed until the proper moment in executing a strike. Making sure your body is aligned properly. Acceleration. Proper use of breath. Using someone's own energy against them instead of fighting force with force. These things are similar in both CLF and Yang TCC.
My first teacher also taught Tai Chi, for what it's worth. In the Mr. Rasmus video I posted, he explicitly says that people should look to sports that use the body in similar ways to their art, because those sports have a level of funding and research behind them that TMA's can't match. That doesn't sound like the words of a man who is practising something that is only possible to accomplish through a specific lineage of one martial art from one area of the world.
Well..are you writing a book ?, if so, leave that chapter out. Like I was saying before, principles of real martial arts are all the same, what difference does it make who my teacher is?
If you ever had had a teacher - of any standing whatsoever - which you never have had; it would give you an atom or 2 of credibility here. Right now your credibility is less than a squashed-up bus ticket 'chi' floating about in the wind.
Maybe you could utter a few words about what Martial external/internal/made-up-fantasy/otherwise - that you have trained in? I will pre-empt the usual evasive response and suggest a couple for you:- Google-do and keyboard-fu.
Mods:- How about adding to Tos, when asked about your training background, you are obliged to reply politely with specific styles and Teachers names; that way round spoofters, Mumbo-jumbo Cheesy-Fu types, Bio-Pixie Fairy Tale Plasmoid Toothpaste types, spotty 16 year old wannabes, Trolls etc; have to show some credibility.
