^^ This. If anything it is often the other way around. Things look very different but end up being very much the same. Take the shifting in hiriki no yosei in yoshinkan aikido versus the shifting in chum kiu in wing chun. The root is in opposite places (toes vs heels). The Weight is in opposite places (front leg vs back leg). The toes are exact opposite (out vs in). On the outside they appear to be entirely opposite but inside these movements are very much the same.
I already provided an answer to this question before you asked it. To summarize the answer: Soft-style allows for more fluid change of direction when you generate force compared to hard-style. "Internal" guy presumably starts building the structure to shift-direction when generating power from day one. This takes a lot longer than focusing on generating power in one direction. If "Internal" guy was an automobile, it would be an automatic transmission. "External" guy would be a stick-shift (manual transmission). External guy can learn to shift gears faster, but not until External guy moves towards the methods of Internal guy, can he develop an automatic transmission, and then the gears shift automatically.
It does not matter what martial movements are visible to the eye, it should always be the same on the inside. For all I know the man in the video is internal. I can't tell from a form if the person has a six direction body or if he has captured and held onto his zhuangtai. What is most important is the man and how he approaches his art not whether that art classifies itself as external, internal or both. The man in the video does not look like he needs any corrections.
In this clip, as best as 1 can tell by looking at a vid, the internal guy's difference 'would'/'could' be - if they chose to do so, would be making a more studied use of spinal column rotation at slower speed, as the major lynch-pin of orchestrating footwork, weight change, inclining, whole body movement, joint alignment, combined attack and defence; BEFORE executing the swifter and faster movement expressed in this vid. In my lineage, it is pretty much a tie between evasive footwork and spinal column rotation - especially for turning movements - that form the basis of a lot of other work and effort. The footwork, most folk get to reasonably quickly, spinal column rotation somewhat less so - it has taken me 7.5 years to become fully conscious of this aspect. Still have to add a lot of other aspects to be effective and useful.
I agree that when your feet are not moving, some styles may be able to "vibrate/rotate" their body back and forth better than some other styles. In both standard shift and automatic, the moment that you put your gear into the 1st gear, or drive mode, you can't shift it to reverse suddenly. The moment that you use your footwork to spin your body, it's hard to suddenly spin your body into the reverse direction. This is why I use a clip that use "footwork". When you spin your body by your footwork, you will use your body to pull your leg. This is the only way that your body can turn in fast speed. There is no external way, or "internal" way difference there. Here is another example that I don't think the "internal" power generation will be able to do any different. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPGlo3rxDWg&feature=youtu.be"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPGlo3rxDWg&feature=youtu.be[/ame]
Lol, that's pretty funny. I recognise many, many similarities and I don't really stick religiously to any one style, I'm not a purist at all I am a cross trainer at heart. I follow a similar philosophy to JKD in that I am more interested in a "style" that works for me. I'm not a big believer in group styles or "styles" per se. But that's another discussion I would have to concede that I use TCC as base. But I also think in some cases we are warranted to say something is different. This happens to be one of those. We can agree to disagree. But I will say that I have been doing TCC/"internal" for a long time now. It's only the last 2-3 years I have really understood some of this model. We use different conceptual models all the time, some of what is recruited in the model is the same - we all have the same human body for example. Just that the recruitment/mobilization works a little differently. Is that enough for me to say to talk about "something different". Personally I believe so with my current thinking on the subject. There is, to my mind, a different conceptual model and a host of different training methods. The results don't have to be different although there probably are qualitative differences - the practical results are the same. A hit in the face is still a hit in the face etc. Hitting something that measures force for example is still measuring the same thing in the same way.
Reverse direction isn't as difficult if the motions are more circular (e.g. figure eight, parabolic, spiral) and structure/balance is maintained. In essence, one is only shifting the external direction of the force... internally, it is continuous motion shifting within different circles. Internal methods focus more on building the structure for continuous motion rather than the start, stop, start (in different direction) of external methods. A Tum Pai instructor (grandmaster now) described this to me as hard style is like either a hand cannon or a sub-machine gun. Great power but with reload/recovery transition time between attacks or rapid fire with lack of power. What you want is to be like a .50 caliber machine gun, both have great power/penetration and rapid fire. I don't see much difference between internal power generation and external power generation because the video is of training method. This is not the actual application in combat shown. When training the movements, both internal and external methods need to build strength and coordination through repetition. The video shows an exercise that could be used the same in both internal and external methods to build the strength and coordination. There is a difference in application based on how good the structure is developed. For example, take the exercise in the video, in soft-style training, it would not be unusual to hold a staff across the shoulders to isolate the movements so that the back is kept straight (no leaning). This would be drilled over and over again in a relaxed manner. When the application is used in sparring or real combat, we can see if structure is kept or not. I do not care if soft or hard style guy... what matters is if the structure is maintained in real situations. If structure is not maintained, then I will see more leaning and being more off balanced, although the raw strength will still be there. The transitions between movements will be more visible (e.g. more predictable and with more lag time) as a result. On the other hand, if the strong but relaxed structure is maintained, the movements will be more fluid and the transitions more subtle. Have both power and be rapid fire.
You're like a lot of people David. You look at the effects of an exercise or drill and you see it as a technique. What do you do? for comparison you go on you-tube and look for something that looks similar in technique. I strongly believe that this is not the point of the pushing drills. Pushing is used primarily to train issuing force (fa-jin) in a safe way. I think there are other drills in "IMA" that are confused as technique training when really they are more about training body mechanics. That you may use a push/shove or projection is neither here nor there. We all know it would probably not accomplish much. Ever consider that you might be taking or looking at this the wrong way? By wrong I mean a way that is much less fruitful for you - if you have a genuine interest. I am not saying any or every style can't reach high levels of refinement and body mechanics - absolutely they can. I have never said this body mechanic is *special* or gives you super powers. Force is still force. The exercise of pushing is a co- operative one. There are lot's of strings to body mechanics, lot's of good stuff that is in many styles. I simply feel there is something to be found in IMA training that isn't commonly found, articulated or trained in other styles. People can believe if they like that I have no experience in any other styles or systems, that's fine I am not going to hold it against them If you tried to do "the push" live it's no different to any other offensive technique. Try hip throwing a wrestler or judoka that doesn't want to be. It's extremely hard whoever you are and whatever you do. Same with trying to punch a boxer. You're coming at this with pre conceived notions. Trust me.. Just like in the other thread where I mentioned a couple words being conceptual metaphors. I was right about that too, even if my attempts at explanation could have been better. Patronising enough? I am saying something is different (*that's all*) and that starts with recognising a different conceptual model. I think that that is there to make a start. The training used works more with the fascia/connective tissue and intent more than other training I know about. You don't need much movement to stretch this "body sheet" if conceiving and using the "bow model". I am genuinely trying to share some ideas. It's not much fun when the feedback is mostly contemptuous and dismissive. Like I said that's fine, I don't feel an overwhelming need to convince others. But I also don't mind shooting the breeze now and again. But I prefer to at least be talking to people that are open to a reasonable discussion and interested in exploring the topic of internal training. I'm really not that interested in full blown arguments. This is not really about principles. This is a more specific thing that you issue force with. It is not directly visible or recognisable just seeing someone move. It hides within larger grosser movements. How could it not when you are aiming to be able to use the basic mechanic (driven by intent) whilst hardly moving at all. If you are not open to that, it will be really hard to continue a discussion. What you are essentially saying is to just take your word for it that people you say are doing the same mechanic simply because apparently all training leads to the same destination. It might all lead to refinement, but it seems this is going to come down to arguing over whether that is refinement of the same body mechanics. Largely yes there are loads of body mechanics we all refine, but this is a specific one that drives the force generation. The core training components of which are flexing of the spine in conjunction with breath. Wouldn't you have thought you need to train a mechanic first in order to refine it?
Cloudz, I prefer not to use the word mechanics to describe the development of the platform. I prefer to use the term "structure". The structure should be strong/resilient and relaxed. I think mechanics is the blueprint on how to build something. The mechanics can be limited by an improper or weak structure.
I have a bit of a problem with the terms 'mechanics' and 'structure' for the simple reason that I don't think that everyone means the same thing when they use the two terms. Personally, I think of 'structure' as the 'shape', and 'mechanics' as the way that we actually use the 'shape'. That's putting it in very simple terms for the sake of clarity.
Rebel, On the terms.. let's use the analogue of a building, (for structure) I don't really use it ("structure") to signify anything much more than its most basic meaning (edit. shape works). We all have a structure in that sense. When people use that term in these discussions I always feel they are trying to talk about alignment and connectivity. Alignment would be putting your materials in the right place for you building - if you misalign your bricks you will have a weaker building. Your materials need to be held together and work together in certain ways - this is where connectivity comes in. So, how I think of it is that structure = alignment and connectivity (of your raw materials). Regards mechanics; this means to me moving parts that achieve a function. Talking about how these moving parts work together or even singling out a moving part to talk about it come under the terminology of "(body) mechanics". I've reflected on this a fair bit and think it's about right; in that it's logical, confirms to pretty standard meaning/usage and understanding of the words used. So in that last post when I singled out the flex of the spine I referenced "mechanic" Does that make sense, I don't think I have used the term structure much if at all in this discussion. I tend to talk about it's component parts; connectivity and alignment, as I have found when people use it in these discussion they are alluding to those things anyway. Make sense ? I would go along with that, it matches what/ how I am thinking about it - as you say, in simple terms.
My take on the terminology: Technique is anything you learn and reproduce. So whether it is using the muscles, or some occult method of resisting force without using muscles, it is still technique. Structure and mechanics are synonymous: there are always forces acting on us, and our musculoskeletal system acts to counter them. Inactivity does not exist, and whether you are static or acting against an opponent in a forceful and dynamic encounter, it is still mechanics.
Wait, so you post a demonstration of a mechanical principle that you claim is unique to a particular art, but somehow when I find, what I believe to be, a similar demonstration of said mechanical principle it's not valid because your demonstration wasn't actually showing what it claimed to demonstrate? I don't follow your logic. Please explain the mechanism of the fascia, and how this differs from any other physical activity. If you could avoid using the words "magnetic" and "electric", that would also be appreciated Also, please explain how intent plays any role other than affecting the physical systems of the body. This is the first post that you've actually attempted to give any explanation, which is why I believe the feedback has not been to your liking. I'm open to anything, but only if it can be satisfactorily explained or demonstrated for me. You are the one who is expecting us to take your word for it. Explain the mechanisms involved without resorting to mystical or pseudo-scientific jargon and I'll happily consider your points. Until then, you haven't actually given us any sustenance in this food for thought, as far as I can see.
As I read it, Cloudz was saying that just because it looks superficially similar it doesn't mean that it is actually working the same way.
Yeah, I get that, although what he actually said was he had no way of knowing if they were doing it or not, whilst also saying that no-one could possibly know how it was done without substantial training in a particular line of one martial art. I'm more than happy to learn something here, but first I need someone to present something other than vagaries and mumbo-jumbo.
Going back to structure and mechanics, I can see how they can be used interchangeably. However, I still feel they need to be separate concepts. I consider structure to be the "at rest" and the mechanics to be the "in transit". The building or shape analogy for structure works for me except that there is more to a building than the walls and ceiling, there is also the electric wires, the ventilation system, and the plumbing, for instance. Along these lines, structure to me is also how the body is hardwired to do things. For example, when I started Aikido cross training after years in Karate, I was fast and fairly powerful, but I was also quite hard and rigid in comparison. I had to change how my whole body was hardwired. Through experience mostly, I learned to be more relaxed and use more the concept of whole body motion rather than isolated movements. My detailed mechanics for generating power could stay the same with alignment, proper pivot points, etc., but the fact I was more relaxed in execution is something that affected all my mechanics.
I find the distinction between 'moving' and 'at rest' to be an artificial one. As David Harrison said, we are never not active, even when we aren't moving. When we are moving we have structure, and when we are not moving we are still using mechanics.
I think I get where Cloudz is coming from. Some things are just really hard to explain in words, the only way to understand them is to do them. I don't think that is being evasive or 'mysterious', it's just the way things are.
