Equally it cuts both ways - I HAVE done it and felt it and still consider the principles to be pretty much the same, albeit teh nuances differ ever so slightly There is only so many ways a body can physically move so why this is such a contentious issues is beyond me - high refinement looks like no movement...what's controversial about that????
"At rest" doesn't mean not moving. I mean it is constant or persistent state. Something like a platform that is always there. "In transit" doesn't refer to moving either. I mean it is a temporary state. Something that is sustained only for the moment.
It doesn't help that when people do attempt to describe it, they couch that explanation in nonsense (such as "if I sink 3 metres, they move 3 metres"). I thought I got where Cloudz and Mr. Rasmus were coming from initially, but apparently I don't, and couldn't :dunno: I've watched a few of the Rasmus videos, and I thought I'd deciphered his idiosyncratic jargon, and recognised many mechanical aspects from my own practice. But it seems the arguments are disappearing into ever-decreasing circles out of a certainty that whatever I might understand, it can never be this exclusive "thing".
David, Meh, I'm not going to be able teach you IMA in written form on a forum. Though I can point you towards a great course on Internal Power made by a friend of mine who also happens to be a BJJ guy - who is successful in competition. It will all be a lot less vague for you then, it comes with video training. David I'm on my way out the door. But I think you focused on what the drill looks like, rather than (more importantly) how he explains it in the longer clip(s). I have also provided some pointers along the way regards how I see it. Yes there are some things in the way that push drill is done that are visible - mainly the closing/opening of the legs and opening/closing of shoulders. The main driver which is the spine isn't easily seen in my opinion. I could see the legs bending in your clip but I couldn't really see their shoulders from the front. The most important aspect and the one that you can't really see is the action of the spine. In the clip you posted I couldn't see that and I couldn't really see if the shoulders were opening out whilst the legs closed. I saw what looked like pushing, but I'm not sure how you can really know exactly how their force was generated from a clip like that. Which is why I said to me it was inconclusive. maybe they were absorbing force in a similar way, but aren't we talking about power generation. That drill has two aspect, only one half is the fa-jin part. However in the model the first part is the storing part - the loading of the bow. I'm not sure how much Rasmus talks about this or goes into details. But you could do a similar looking thing and dissipate an incoming force, however to bow your limbs the right way to store through these movements is "internal work". I just wouldn't know if they were doing that or not. And as I have said without learning it and training it I can't see that happening by chance. Re. the spine; We're talking at best movement at the base and top of the spine of a few centimetres, how would you know if that's a trained thing done on purpose or just something that's happening due to other reasons other than generating force or a store release type of mechanism ?
If you take a drill like 9 Palace step, then there is quite a bit more than a few centimetres moving at base and bottom. Spinal rotation does not have to be a 'large' movement however. For me what is interesting about the spinal column is being able to rotate it, with minimal movement of other joints, ligaments, fluid; unless they are useful to me. Going back to 9 Palace step, where the movement can be quite large, the 1 foot step has an evasion, entry and optionally escape; comes through counter spinal column rotation (but is aided by lower legs aligning somewhat - a necessary simplification here) - so one foot step becomes extremely efficient - but the spinal column has to rotate effectively, timing has to be perfect, and the knees/lower legs have to align - so it is not trivial. The entries that come from 9 Palace step often lead into interesting applications e.g. single leg lotus sweep, and it gives a good pinning angle as well. Combined with an incline on the central column, and you have an excellent position to push/strike the opponent. For anyone not familiar with '9 Palace step' of Practical TaiChiChuan, read Bagua Circle walking - almost the same. Like a lot of things in ICMA, these combined movements are not easy to develop or orchestrate; and take a lot of concerted concentration and effort e.g. Jian/straight sword form. Sometimes it helps to slow down, sometimes faster is better. Depends somewhat on what is being taught e.g. Yin Style Bagua is generally taught fairly fast and nippy.
OK. I have a little experience in both so-called "internal" and "external" systems.Terms I find meaningless as many CMAs have various types of "internal" training. @ G-I fail to comprehend how a Hsing I or TC's man's "intent" is any more refined or internal or whatever than a good Hung man's. First, I'm using the term "mechanics" for the movement of the body in space. I'm going to mention spinal action. Many CMAs have "additional" mechanics,which vary among systems.I can't tell you exactly what a Southern Mantis practitioner does w/his spine as I've never studied SPM. I can relate what some TC people may do. So here's a real basic one presented in isolation-meaning for the moment forget about what the rest of the body is doing. In executing "an",usually mistranslated as "push" in the solo form. Part of the mechanic when issuing would be to close the spine-that is,to physically diminish the space between the vertebrae.This,and I cannot emphasize this enough, is not a mental or visualization thing,just a physical action. If you can tell by looking if someone is doing this or no,then you must be very experienced and very,very good in this sorta thing. And if any of you know any say,western boxers or JJJ people utilizing this I'd be interested to hear. Just don't tell "The Board" I'm revealing "secrets" again. I'd like to add a reminder that "internal" and "soft style" are not synonymous, Ba Chi is a hard system. A hard "internal" system.
For me, some western boxers use their spine very effectively e.g. Mike Tyson. Qi Na - locking, stunning, seizing - techniques are unlikely to function effectively without good alignment along the centre-line and spinal column - to aggregate aligning force - otherwise Qi Na tends to become hands, wrists, arms - and just muscular strength alone. Muscular strength with centre-line aggregate force is much more useful. Qi Na does come with 1 small l problem - namely the tendency to slightly lock oneself as well as the opponent. Vs 1, not too much of a problem, but more than1 opponent, you cannot afford to 'lock' yourself. This is something I try very consciously to study i.e. make my locks effective, but flowing and smooth to be released instantly when necessary e.g. greater danger from another opponent.
I just don't buy that "internal" guys will have better "structure" than the external guys have. Some external MA systems have much higher "structure" requirement than the Taiji system. Just try to hold these postures for 5 minutes then you will feel it yourself.
But not with such mechanics,tho'. Or are you saying otherwise? Thoughtful question. Won't hurt mine,even with my bad disc. But these mechanics are learned in specific sequences - otherwise you can grind your joints up pretty good.
Some Taiji styles have higher postures and larger frames than others, and some practitioners within the same style use higher or lower postures than others. There isn't really a set 'hight' as such within Taiji, just certain common principles. (Although different styles clearly interpret those same principles in rather different ways!)
It's not the high posture or low posture. It's the "structure" that your head, body, back leg are aligned in a perfect straight line. This way your body will be able to spin with the maximum power and with the maximum speed. Do "internal" systems ever address this kind of body structure issue at all, or even recognize this issue? Since we are talking about "structure", how will "internal' guys train the following "structure" any different?
Yes, that is the sort of thing that I was referring to. In Wu style Taiji the torso ls aligned with the rear leg when the body is angled because it transmits power efficiently without a break in the structure. (The way that it was originally done in the Yang style, as evidenced by old photos.) Compare that with many modern Yang style practitioners and (more extremely) Cheng Man Ching practitioners, where the torso is always kept vertical regardless of what the legs are up to. I've never done CMC, but to my untrained eyes it looks structurally very weak.
I cannot see Tyson worrying about opening up his gua, with flowing chi, navigating bagua cardinal points, lowering his dantian etc - just that he had excellent sideways movement and really used his spinal column to get the combination of optimal angle and rotating torque strikes i.e. his head always looked dead-eye straight at the opponent, but upper body really moved, rotating around his spinal column - and his footwork was not bad - but not a touch on Ali or even Sugar Ray Robinson. Errol Graham was a UK boxer who had excellent timing and body movement - I think there is a vid somewhere of him actually lifting an opponent with white crane flaps its wings when he ducked under him. For 'mechanics' - I actually prefer the term 'fluid mechanics' as anatomically and Newtonian Physics wise, this is closer to what we are (about 80% fluid, + some bio-sensors and some boney harder stuff) i.e. we are not solid cars, trains etc. Also 'fluid mechanics' chimes closer - to me - with what folk talk about with regard to contraction/expansion and also to the dreaded 'Chi' word i.e. when ICMA is very effective, there is a sense of viscous fluid being transported to the target area very effectively.
For me, a lot depends on what you can do with the structure. I have encountered some pretty capable CMC folk, and some less so. I could say the same about pretty much all TCC stylists that I meet - some are very effective, some less so. Structure is largely a frame of reference, developing application and function, from that frame of reference is much more difficult and interesting. Most folk get stuck at PH, and do not go into application very much.
What do you mean?, by harder......physically that is obvious, correctly could be a whole new ball of wax, building muscle strength is a simple mindless act, developing other things that involve the mind and body could be a lot harder and take a lot longer than simple muscle strength. So you have two issues, one of time, and one of results, in short time frame pick muscle development , if long time frame choose mind and body development. Maybe
They aren't mutually exclusive....and anyone saying "muscle strength is a simple mindless act" clearly has never done it or they wouldn't spout such crap
