BS and the internal arts.

[Kung Fu Wang]

Training exercises that do not get a student ready to deal with a realistic encounter should not be taught as a method to deal with a realistic encounter.

You want to get better result from your training. For example, you can spend your valuable training time to train the following 2 areas.

1. 顺式 (borrow force, yield) - Your opponent pushes on your chest, you yield, redirect, and ...
2. 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating) - Your opponent tries to push you, you push his shoulder, or elbow, shake him, and destroy his force from generating in the early stage.

Which training will give you more value?

IMO, 2 > 1.

It's better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen, you then try to deal with it.

Taiji people like to train 顺式 (borrow force, yield). I like to train 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating). This is why I always end with serious argument with Taiji people.

 

[ChenAn]

Not sure what this thread is about. I like this story that comes from Hong Junsheng about his teacher Chen Fake:

"At one of the first government sponsored traditional martial art competitions in Beijing, in 1952, Chen Fake was invited to attend, as one of the judges.

The famed Wu Tunan (also known as the Northern Star of Taijiquan) was in charge. A discussion came up, with regards to categorization of styles,leading to a great deal of controversy as to where Chen Style Taijiquan belonged. Some suggested that it belonged to the External Division. At the time, the slow and gentle nature of Yang style Taijiquan was considered the standard of Taijiquan. What Chen Fake practiced certainly did not fall fall into this category.

Others countered that it is, after all, called Chen Style Taijiquan, so it should be included as part of the Internal Division. Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin. Someone turned to Chen Fake, Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?

Chen Fake answered, If the revered master Wu thinks it is external, then it is external! We did not have this distinction at home.

Hong Junsheng, a disciple of Chen Fake, was understandably upset about this treatment of Chen Style. He began his Taiji studies with Wu style, and later switched to Chen Style. For him, Chen and Wu were both authentic Taijiquan styles, and both were internal.

He begged his teacher for an explanation. Master Chen’s answer had nothing to do with either Chen or Wu styles: My ancestors invented it. My great grandfather practiced it . My father practiced it. I practice it now. We do not call it Taiji. We do not have a name for it. You can call it anything you want, I will still practice it the same way I was taught. I don’t care what they put in the name!"

So my philosophy is similar. I practice taiji because I can, and because I choose to do so. If someone think it's BS than it's BS, I don't really care. Taiji gives me health benefits and martial skills. I'm interested to develop my gongfu. I have nothing to prove to myself; therefore, I don't need to test anything. I have already tested whatever I wanted in my youth. I know exactly what I want and I'm doing it. If life force me I shell exert my gong on offender, but I neither seek it nor desire.

 

[Zeny]

What kung fu wang said above is interesting. Personally i train equally in 3 areas:

1) neutralise (hua) or receive (jie) the opponent's force, basically lead the force to emptiness, and counterattack if desired

2) prevent the opponent from generating force, this is usually done through superior positioning and without use of force rather than actually applying force to shake the opponent, an unbalanced opponent or an opponent whose structure or arms are in awkward positions cannot generate any meaningful force

3) seize advantage of weaknesses and openings created by opponent's structure and movement without use of force

 

[oaktree]

1. 顺式 (borrow force, yield) - Your opponent pushes on your chest, you yield, redirect, and .

If a person on my chest I want to turn to break the balance Baguazhang people we use the force given from the push to pivot to generate the force to turn is one possible way Baguazhang people deal with force. In my opinion, I do not want to be on the line of attack dealing with force especially if the force is coming from say the size of a linebacker.

破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating) - Your opponent tries to push you, you push his shoulder, or elbow, shake him, and destroy his force from generating in the early stage.

I guess it depends on what stage the encounter is in, then yes maybe jam him from the push or you can try to throw or joint lock or strike.

It's better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen, you then try to deal with it.

I agree.

Taiji people like to train 顺式 (borrow force, yield). I like to train 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating). This is why I always end with serious argument with Taiji people.

For me it depends on what is going on. For example if I was to late to prevent the force for generating for what ever reason then I might have to borrow force but I would not yield so much to redirect, I would be moving off that center line of attack and going in at angles or behind. My first fighting art was Western boxing here is a video of Taijiquan and Western Boxing that is more aligned with my ideas notice that he doesn't use any light touching or any BS but an actual workable training exercise.

 

[oaktree]

So my philosophy is similar. I practice taiji because I can, and because I choose to do so. If someone think it's BS than it's BS, I don't really care. Taiji gives me health benefits and martial skills. I'm interested to develop my gongfu. I have nothing to prove to myself; therefore, I don't need to test anything. I have already tested whatever I wanted in my youth. I know exactly what I want and I'm doing it. If life force me I shell exert my gong on offender, but I neither seek it nor desire.

Great I think you should train in what you want and like from the art I do the same in my Japanese sword class, However if my sword class started talking about this could be used in a real fight with a line backer with no sword I may be questioning the realism of it. Granted my sword art could teach me foot work that may help but I need something else to deal with it.

The arguement could be made that well the sword art isn't made to deal with the line backer, that is true and in that regard I would not critique it or try to change it to deal with the line backer unless I found changing principles on my own would help me deal with the line backer and then testing my hypothesis or if someone claims the principles already there can deal with the line backer but are not realistic or logical comparing the variable to my experience or similar realistic fighting.

What this thread is about is BS. It is about examing the internal arts fairly and criticism and critique for those who want to train it as a means to protect yourself in a real encounter.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not sure what this thread is about. I like this story that comes from Hong Junsheng about his teacher Chen Fake:

"At one of the first government sponsored traditional martial art competitions in Beijing, in 1952, Chen Fake was invited to attend, as one of the judges.

The famed Wu Tunan (also known as the Northern Star of Taijiquan) was in charge. A discussion came up, with regards to categorization of styles,leading to a great deal of controversy as to where Chen Style Taijiquan belonged. Some suggested that it belonged to the External Division. At the time, the slow and gentle nature of Yang style Taijiquan was considered the standard of Taijiquan. What Chen Fake practiced certainly did not fall fall into this category.

Others countered that it is, after all, called Chen Style Taijiquan, so it should be included as part of the Internal Division. Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin. Someone turned to Chen Fake, Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?

Chen Fake answered, If the revered master Wu thinks it is external, then it is external! We did not have this distinction at home.

Hong Junsheng, a disciple of Chen Fake, was understandably upset about this treatment of Chen Style. He began his Taiji studies with Wu style, and later switched to Chen Style. For him, Chen and Wu were both authentic Taijiquan styles, and both were internal.

He begged his teacher for an explanation. Master Chen’s answer had nothing to do with either Chen or Wu styles: My ancestors invented it. My great grandfather practiced it . My father practiced it. I practice it now. We do not call it Taiji. We do not have a name for it. You can call it anything you want, I will still practice it the same way I was taught. I don’t care what they put in the name!"

So my philosophy is similar. I practice taiji because I can, and because I choose to do so. If someone think it's BS than it's BS, I don't really care. Taiji gives me health benefits and martial skills. I'm interested to develop my gongfu. I have nothing to prove to myself; therefore, I don't need to test anything. I have already tested whatever I wanted in my youth. I know exactly what I want and I'm doing it. If life force me I shell exert my gong on offender, but I neither seek it nor desire.

Damn, you took my quote....and expanded it

I have always like that story.

Another old quote I like is "Internal goes to external and external goes to internal"

Basically, if trained right we all end up in the same place.

It just seems that everyone today is either in a rush to to the biggest bad *** on the planet or to be the most enlightened being around and real training of the "internal stuff" gets lost in the mix

Another thing, it is very possible that the whole Internal vs external thing has more to do with a political statement against the Qing than it has to do with marital arts themselves. See "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan by Stanley Henning"

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You want to get better result from your training. For example, you can spend your valuable training time to train the following 2 areas.

1. 顺式 (borrow force, yield) - Your opponent pushes on your chest, you yield, redirect, and ...
2. 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating) - Your opponent tries to push you, you push his shoulder, or elbow, shake him, and destroy his force from generating in the early stage.

Which training will give you more value?

IMO, 2 > 1.

It's better to prevent a problem from happening than to let a problem to happen, you then try to deal with it.

Taiji people like to train 顺式 (borrow force, yield). I like to train 破式 (prevent your opponent's force from generating). This is why I always end with serious argument with Taiji people.

You need both. Ideally, we'd like to shut down an opponent before he can get a solid attack going. Realistically, that's not always going to be possible.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

My first fighting art was Western boxing here is a video of Taijiquan and Western Boxing that is more aligned with my ideas notice that he doesn't use any light touching or any BS but an actual workable training exercise.

My only problem with that video is the way his boxer friend leaves his punches extended and stands there statically while he demonstrates his counter. A competent boxer knows that the sort of counter he's demonstrating is a possibility and so will retract the jab immediately to cover against the counterattack. (Not to mention adjusting his footwork to adapt to the new angle of the opponent.) Perhaps he was doing that just to demonstrate the concept more clearly, but it could be misleading for students who don't understand boxing.

I do appreciate his acknowledgment that high level boxers use fa jin. I've seen too many martial artists who seem to think that boxing punches are all about brute strength.

 

[mograph]

Another old quote I like is "Internal goes to external and external goes to internal"
Basically, if trained right we all end up in the same place.

A friend of mine described the path as a mountain, where on one side, the slope is gentle until halfway up, then the slope becomes steeper, up to the summit. The other side of the mountain begins steep, but becomes gentle halfway up. According to him, the former is a metaphor for the concepts of the "external" arts, latter for the concepts of the "internal" arts. To put it another way, the visible forms are easier to grasp (though physically demanding), while the internal work is harder to grasp (though Zhan Zhuang can be physically demanding). One learns soft and slow, then learns to punch. The other learns to punch, then learns soft and slow. I wouldn't argue too much about it, though. In the end, we serve each other tea at the top.

It just seems that everyone today is either in a rush to to the biggest bad *** on the planet or to be the most enlightened being around and real training of the "internal stuff" gets lost in the mix.

Either way, it's ego (... in the sense of protecting self-esteem, for all you martial Freudians out there).

Kenneth Cohen, in his book The Way of Qigong, described the process of gaining skill in qigong. At the end of the process (and I use the term "end" loosely), the practitioner sees himself as nothing special. Of course, if he goes around telling people that he's "nothing special," he still has a way to go yet.

Another thing, it is very possible that the whole Internal vs external thing has more to do with a political statement against the Qing than it has to do with marital arts themselves. See "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan by Stanley Henning"

Interesting link -- thanks for that. It's good not to get too attached to words, or to identify with our constructs, eh?

 

[oaktree]

My only problem with that video is the way his boxer friend leaves his punches extended and stands there statically while he demonstrates his counter. A competent boxer knows that the sort of counter he's demonstrating is a possibility and so will retract the jab immediately to cover against the counterattack. (Not to mention adjusting his footwork to adapt to the new angle of the opponent.) Perhaps he was doing that just to demonstrate the concept more clearly, but it could be misleading for students who don't understand boxing.

I do appreciate his acknowledgment that high level boxers use fa jin. I've seen too many martial artists who seem to think that boxing punches are all about brute strength.

I agree. I do think he was showing the angle of entering to the boxer's punch and that is why when I move off at an angle I tend to angle my head and lower my head a little just in case he does retract and aim for my head, I do like that in the video he gives something plausible against a more then likely encounter. When I was taught boxing it was all about flowing each punch thrown sets up another punch so if I over shot a hook my other hand is ready to throw a straight.

 

[oaktree]

mountain, where on one side, the slope is gentle until halfway up, then the slope becomes steeper, up to the summit.

I like my neijia like I like my woman more slope then steeps

 

[mograph]

What this thread is about is BS. It is about examining the internal arts fairly and criticism and critique for those who want to train it as a means to protect yourself in a real encounter.

Yes.

We need to be vigilant: the poetic style of the old instruction texts was likely a mnemonic device, but also likely a means of protecting the art from those who wanted to learn it quickly and sloppily. In other words, a student might only understand the metaphor after having done the experiential work.

To quote English translations of those texts, in an internet forum, is a lousy way to communicate the useful aspects of the practice, because it comes across as BS. Or arrogant: those translations, at best, only have meaning to those who have already come to understand the concept. For those who haven't gotten there yet, it only serves to remind them of their inadequacy and p*ss them off.

But in the studio, yes, there are teachers who either tell us that this technique will protect you, but I also think that many teachers don't tell us that those techniques will protect us, and we extrapolate to think that the technique will protect us! Because that's what we want to believe. We fill in the gaps, in other words.

So we need to ask the teacher: how could we use this in a real self-defense situation? But we're afraid to ask, lest we appear rude, and unless we've been in a fight, we can't tell if the teacher's answer is adequate.

Bottom line for me: the internal arts are not BS, but it's very easy to pretend to teach them, or to believe that we are teaching them when we are not: therein lies the BS.

... in my opinion.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes.

We need to be vigilant: the poetic style of the old instruction texts was likely a mnemonic device, but also likely a means of protecting the art from those who wanted to learn it quickly and sloppily. In other words, a student might only understand the metaphor after having done the experiential work.

Exactly, and also understanding the culture from which that metaphor comes from, which can make it difficult. Some of these posture names make it clear to a native Chinese person, but to the rest of the world it can be rather confusing.

To quote English translations of those texts, in an internet forum, is a lousy way to communicate the useful aspects of the practice, because it comes across as BS. Or arrogant: those translations, at best, only have meaning to those who have already come to understand the concept. For those who haven't gotten there yet, it only serves to remind them of their inadequacy and p*ss them off.

PHFFT...well all I have to say to that is duìniútánqín...which translates as "Playing a lute to a cow

Truth is, without knowing the entire story behind that Chinese idiom..... it really does not have the effect it is supposed to have..... my sister-in-law used that on me to describe our conversation once, when I was having diner with her, at a pizza hut (believe it or not) in Beijing.

But in the studio, yes, there are teachers who either tell us that this technique will protect you, but I also think that many teachers don't tell us that those techniques will protect us, and we extrapolate to think that the technique will protect us! Because that's what we want to believe. We fill in the gaps, in other words.

Here is the thing about many of these older Chinese sifu types, mine included, and many in the west do not want to hear or believe this. They know better than you as to what you are ready to learn and they are not beyond telling you they know nothing about what you are asking eventually find that they know exactly everything as to what you previously asked...happened to me more than once over the years...they now feel you can understand, so they show you. Which of course lead to the question "I asked you about this before and you said you didn't know" Which leads to the answer "you did, I do not remember"

So we need to ask the teacher: how could we use this in a real self-defense situation? But we're afraid to ask, lest we appear rude, and unless we've been in a fight, we can't tell if the teacher's answer is adequate.

What I said above applies here.

We, especially us in the west (but it is in China today too) always want things now, we want it fast, we want to be dangerous immediately...... we rarely want to put in the time to get there however

Bottom line for me: the internal arts are not BS, but it's very easy to pretend to teach them, or to believe that we are teaching them when we are not: therein lies the BS.

... in my opinion.

Agreed

 

[oaktree]

But in the studio, yes, there are teachers who either tell us that this technique will protect you, but I also think that many teachers don't tell us that those techniques will protect us, and we extrapolate to think that the technique will protect us! Because that's what we want to believe. We fill in the gaps, in other words.

Well I have been there in which I have asked teachers how would this work in realistic applications and sometimes yes I get a BS answer that I know the teacher truly believes he would do. When someone teaches me a technique I evaluate it and rationalize it, try to find flaws in it, try to look for counters in it. If the technique looks plausible, then I will train in the technique and have my opponent make sure it doesn't work, if the technique is working on a resistant opponent it is more then likely a technique I will keep and train with.

So we need to ask the teacher: how could we use this in a real self-defense situation? But we're afraid to ask, lest we appear rude, and unless we've been in a fight, we can't tell if the teacher's answer is adequate.

We should question methods that to us appear flawed, maybe we are missing something. When we go to school and we do not understand something we raise our hand ask the teacher to explain. If my math teacher is saying 1+1=3 then yes they need to explain why or else I doubt they really have ever done math. If someone thinks I am rude for that well then I am rude.

Bottom line for me: the internal arts are not BS, but it's very easy to pretend to teach them, or to believe that we are teaching them when we are not: therein lies the BS.

I don't think the Internal arts are BS I think people who are saying certain things would work in a fight using internal arts without using any type of logic or experience in fighting in the street are BS and any methods that are in relation to said BS should be questioned, examined for vaildation.

 

[mograph]

Here is the thing about many of these older Chinese sifu types, mine included, and many in the west do not want to hear or believe this. They know better than you as to what you are ready to learn and they are not beyond telling you they know nothing about what you are asking eventually find that they know exactly everything as to what you previously asked...

We, especially us in the west (but it is in China today too) always want things now, we want it fast, we want to be dangerous immediately...... we rarely want to put in the time to get there however

Yep. I should have said that ... sometimes the teacher does know, but won't tell us. That was my old Sifu -- he waited until we reached a threshold to tell us the next thing. But then again, his English was pretty bad.
... but sometimes the teacher doesn't know, and abuses their position by acting like a sifu who knows, but holds back. They get all mysterious and metaphorical, like The Sphinx in Mystery Men.

It can be hard to tell the difference, but I suppose that this is why reputation is so important with old-school teachers.

 

[oaktree]

We, especially us in the west (but it is in China today too) always want things now, we want it fast, we want to be dangerous immediately...... we rarely want to put in the time to get there however

I don't know if everyone wants to be dangerous immediately however I do want to know how to defend myself. As soon as I stepped on the mat in Escrima I learned how not to block a knife attack, First lesson in BJJ I learned how to escape out of someone's guard and a rear naked choke. First lesson in Baguazhang I learned how to get behind someone, First lesson in Aikijujujutsu I learned how to break someone's balance. When I teach Taijiquan I will show the form but I will let that person at least leave knowing some sort of self defense otherwise might as well teach them dancing. Maybe my method of approaching neijia is wrong untraditional but I want my students to survive and they are not going to do that with fluffy paddy cake.
I agree you should put time into the arts but putting time in the arts to train unrealistic for a fight is BS

 

[Xue Sheng]

I don't know if everyone wants to be dangerous immediately however I do want to know how to defend myself. As soon as I stepped on the mat in Escrima I learned how not to block a knife attack, First lesson in BJJ I learned how to escape out of someone's guard and a rear naked choke. First lesson in Baguazhang I learned how to get behind someone, First lesson in Aikijujujutsu I learned how to break someone's balance. When I teach Taijiquan I will show the form but I will let that person at least leave knowing some sort of self defense otherwise might as well teach them dancing. Maybe my method of approaching neijia is wrong untraditional but I want my students to survive and they are not going to do that with fluffy paddy cake.
I agree you should put time into the arts but putting time in the arts to train unrealistic for a fight is BS

Do what you feel you should, I would like people to know how to defend themselves as well, but I prefer a more traditional approach in Nejia (and even Waijia) and it is not fluffy paddy cake. Basics and structure before SD. First thing I learned in Bagua was how to move, applications came after I knew more about moving and a palm change or two. Xingyiquan, I learned Wuji then Santi Shi and then Zhan Zhuang and then started the five elements and there were no applications prior to learning piquan. Wing Chun I had to learn Siu Nim Tao before getting into Chi Sau or SD. Jujutsu I had to learn how to roll and fall before any applications. As for Aikido, the fist thing people should learn, IMHO, is how to fall, roll and move. Can't talk for Aikijutsu.

Learn it another way is fine, but be careful that you are not teaching something other than what it is

My old school, old geezer, Dinosaur approach is not popular today... sorry....I'm old and set in my ways and I see a lot of what is out there as effective, but something other than what they profess to be teaching and I am sorry, but I put the majority of the 20th generation Chen family in that category. I have never look at any marital art I have ever trained as a quick fix to anything. Student shows up the first day for a taiji class, they do not need SD, they need basics and structure IMO so that when they get to SD they are doing Taiji SD not karate or some other MA SD. But like I said, I'm a MA dinosaur and you can add to that I have been taught by many old school dinosaurs so that is, I guess, why I think, and feel like I do.

 

[Xue Sheng]

... but sometimes the teacher doesn't know, and abuses their position by acting like a sifu who knows, but holds back. They get all mysterious and metaphorical, like The Sphinx in Mystery Men.

It can be hard to tell the difference, but I suppose that this is why reputation is so important with old-school teachers.

Yes, yes it can.

The first time I taught taijiquan (over 20 years ago), it was for my first sifu and after a few months I began to realize that I could not answer all my students questions. Shortly after that I realized my first sifu could not answer them either. So I quit teaching and started training with my second sifu.

 

[oaktree]

Do what you feel you should, I would like people to know how to defend themselves as well, but I prefer a more traditional approach in Nejia (and even Waijia) and it is not fluffy paddy cake. Basics and structure before SD

My video on youtube shows pretty much how I would teach.Here is fundamentals here is form and often I would get why do I have to do this form, how does this apply to fighting, so when I show them more fighting concepts they understand the form better. To a student first learning Bagua toe in toe out they think this is kinda of stupid then I show them how it can trip how it can enter into someone's space then they think oh I get it cool.

As for Aikido, the fist thing people should learn, IMHO, is how to fall, roll and move. Can't talk for Aikijutsu.

Lets see if I remember my first Aikido class I think it was some break falls and I think a wrist grab escape.
Aikijujutsu was Ippon dori first move. But usually break fall practice is done at start of class maybe spend some time on it then actual technique. It varies by teacher. Sword first learn how to hold a sword and basic cuts but then right into the practice. Yes you need fundamentals no question about that but students should leave knowing something applicable then faced with a knife and they do a horse stance and say come back tomorrow when I finish lesson # 2

I have never look at any marital art I have ever trained as a quick fix to anything. Student shows up the first day for a taiji class, they do not need SD, they need basics and structure IMO so that when they get to SD they are doing Taiji SD not karate or some other MA SD. But like I said, I'm a MA dinosaur and you can add to that I have been taught by many old school dinosaurs so that is, I guess, why I think, and feel like I do.

So you are more of the ball in the cup and I am PS4
I am somewhat radical in things I would hate for one of my students to get his butt kicked and think hmm I should have showed him how to block a punch.But we both agree that BS should not be taught. And most likely when I am going to wear my depend diapers I will recant what my younger self says now that you should train health more so you don't have to wear depend diapers so fast

 

[Xue Sheng]

fluffy paddy cake and now depends diapers...alrighty then