Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

I personally have had the very fortunate experience of training with an expert in Chinese internal martial arts. Through my training with him, I learned that Chinese internal martial arts, were not magical, but just the most efficient ways one could use the human body. As I studied, I learned that I could do, at least on some level, all of the typical demonstrations of internal power. As my studies progressed I realized that modern athletic training covers most, if not all of what could be learned in the internal martial arts.

However, here on Aikiweb there seems to be a notion that "internal" and athletics are very different things. That some how athletes cannot do the things that internal martial artists can do. I don't believe this to be the case. I believe modern athletics training actually teaches the core lessons of internal martial arts, but in a more dynamic and functional way.

So I'd like to ask, what is the perceived difference, and assumed superiority of internal martial arts over good athletics training?

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Hi Chris. If you have found a way to train for what you want to get, that is a good thing. But anything you could be talking about (things that could be gained from "athleticism") is a different thing than what "they" are talking about.

Your question only computes if what you say is true from your experience is generally true for others-- that is, if you can get internal training from athleticism. But I hear people saying that they are going far and wide to learn how to train internals, via exercises that are not present in athletics. So.. I guess whatever they are talking about can't be gotten from athletics.

So can you clarify? Do you mean why do we perceive internal skill as superior to the very different thing of athletic skill? Or do you mean "given that internal skill is learned within regular sports, why are things like shiko better?"

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Chris, since I have little athletic training per se and don't know if it applies as you mean it (I've done some plyometrics and also some Pilates, and have applied them in general to how I move but don't consider them the same as what I learn from silk reeling or learning to move my center) - so may I ask you to go into detail of what you mean by athletics or athletic training? Thanks!

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

People do all kinds of strange things. I wouldn't make any assumptions, for myself, based on the fact that "they" go far and wide to do anything.

Why do you believe that internal is different then athletics? Why do you believe this is better?

Janet,
Athletics teach you how to move smoothly and from your center. The modern study of athletic movement (as one would find in football, basket ball, track and field etc) teaches any of the things I can think of that are learned in "internal". The language is different but the lessons are the same. It's hard to go into anymore detail without further understanding your knowledge of sports training.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

The internal power folks will tell you that the lessons aren't actually the same, that IP focuses on manipulating the structure of your own body, while athletes manipulate the outside world. They will also point out that internal strength continues to develop as people age, while athletic strength inevitably declines.

I do think that the degree of body control that some athletes have (notably gymnasts, but others as well) is often underestimated by non-athletes, but I'm not aware of any athletic discipline that claims to produce the abilities that the IP folks claim to have.

Studying the training of Chinese gymnasts and weightlifters might be interesting, as the Chinese seem fairly free of training dogma, and willing to consider any approach that works.

Katherine

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Wow. The confusion persists!

Chris asked a fairly straight forward, two part question.

1. What is the perceived difference between internal martial arts and good athletics training?

2. What is the assumed superiority of internal martial arts over good athletics training?

Jonathan,

Look at your post. You have stated conclusions, and then asked more questions. Chris was asking for your explanation. By simply providing the "what's, why's, and how's" you would have answered it, at least to the best of your present ability.

Why are they different? What are the differences?

This is a false statement, and plays no role in answering this question.

You guess? Why do you guess this?

Yes! Why? And how are they very different?

As far as I can tell Chris never required you to make that assumption, but if you feel it needs to be addressed, Why is shiko better? What does it provide that is not found in the realms of athletic training.

People, let's be more aware of our contributions to this forum. Let's move this discussion forward, instead of running in circles.

Let me help everyone. Good answers would be structured as follows:

1. The difference(s) between internal martial arts and good athletics training is/are [ … ], because [ … ].

2. The superiority of internal martial arts over good athletics training is [ … ], because [ … ].

And, of course, you can add any additional explanation that you think is necessary.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

I think I mentioned this before, but Ark was a competitive gymnast before he started developing these skills and conditioning. And he would be the first to say that gymnastics had no overlap training wise, and in fact impeded his ability to learn his current skill set.

One problem lies in the language, you say "center" or "koshi" or whatever, we might say the same, but the physical meaning and development is completely different.

On one hand there's a specific physical development and control over the core, spinal erector muscles, obliques, diaphram etc that comes with the IS training, and then there's utilization of some kind of elastic property that develops in the body (whether its fascia or not is anyone's guess), not to mention a unique use of forces within the body etc, which, coupled together are simply "different" from what you see in modern sports.

Then you might say, "sure we use that too! Because I got my ass handed to me by someone that also uses those parts"

Well sure, we're only human with two arms and two legs, so the same parts are going to be used, but the manner in which they're used, and the way in which they are conditioned is going to be different.

I'd also caveat that "mechanically efficient" does not equal IS.
As in, I'm sure Vlad of Systema is extremely efficient at throwing someone using what someone perceives as being extremely effective or "effortless," but it still wouldn't be IS.
That doesn't make it bad or inferior, it's just simply not within the IS frame work.
Same applies to even some schools of Chinese arts, plus there's always shades of gray where some aspects might be used by some schools, but lacking in others.

I dunno, its just kinda obvious once you cross hands with someone that actually has it. Just because someone handed your ass to you easily, and got you to be able to replicate a couple of parlor tricks doesn't mean that the person had IS. If it were me, I'd go round a couple more "name" persons (not necessarily the ones mentioned here) and collect more data.

It's pretty cut and dry if you ask me, just go and check someone out already dude!

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

It declines, but continous training will keep it at high levels if done correct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u0RVFpRNKU

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Internal martial arts = Exotic powers from orient.

Athletics = Ordinary western sport

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Hi - this is an interesting video, unfortunately in Chinese, showing how Zhang Zhi Jun's Taiji punch differs from the punch from "normal" martial artists (probably trained in sanda). He is in his 60s and quite well known for actually having fought in public and against some Shiorinji Kempo Challengers from Japan in the 1980s.

His punch is in terms of pressure ranks at the bottom which is bad, but the two things that they found, the vibration from the punch lasted much longer (i.e. the internal organs shook for longer causing more damage) and that the his use of all his muscles was pretty even and integrated (whole body power), measured using electrical readings compared to the others.

http://bugu.cntv.cn/life/science/zou...2/100843.shtml

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

This is exactly the reason. They are different and both indispensably useful in martial arts. Martial artists claim that internal skills don't require or are even hindered by athleticism because they do not understand what general physical preparation is and why it is not really optional for anyone undertaking any lifelong physical discipline. Similarly, athletes claim that martial arts is esoteric garbage because they have never had Mike Sigman swing a jo at them or been crushed by Ikeda Sensei.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Chris, I will admit complete ignorance of modern methods for teaching collegiate or pro athletics beyond that plyometrics is used in sports that involve jumping and cutting.
What I can tell you is that for many yrs in aikido I've been taught to "move from my center" but that qualitatively this sense of and use of center is different from what little I've started to explore more recently.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

The answer:

Now, you can go into as much questioning as you want here on Aikiweb, but 2 of the 3 people have stated that it is different. No one ever said superior.

I would suggest going back to your "expert in Chinese internal martial arts" (sorry, but you didn't name him/her) and ask for more training because from your posts, it would appear (I say appear and am not stating a fact) that you have missed something in the training from this highly regarded teacher.

Perhaps some more training will provide answers to your questions because at least 2 of the 3 (most likely all three, but I don't remember the third addressing this issue. He probably did, but I just don't remember) all agree on the Internal Training being different than "modern athletic training".

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Does not need to.
Dojo: Central valley Aikido, Shen wu.

Depends on what you call "modern athletic training" cause there are lots of modern athletic training methods. For instance: http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/un...muscles/page/1

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

There is no dichotomy. This will become part of the body of knowledge of sports medicine, it's already happening.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

I agree with this.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

And the sooner the "usual suspects" start to work with universities, investigation centers, or practitioneers like Daniel James (who posts here in AW) instead in engaging in the usual A: "You suck" B: "No, you suck more and your momma is ugly" ad infinitum, the better.

IMO, of course

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Katherine,
I understand that the "IP folks" say lots of things. They may or may not believe that the lessons are actually different, but this is still not a reason. Why are they different?

Saying that internal focuses on manipulating the structure of your own body, but athletics doesn't is not logical. Athletics is about properly aligning, moving and using the body. It teaches the principles of proper use of the physical body. There is absolutely no doubt that athletics focus on manipulating the the structure of your own body.

If internal martial arts don't manipulate the outside world, how do they interact with it? If internal martial arts don't have an effect on the world outside of the body, then how are they useful for anything, let alone martial arts.

Athletics have proven time and again to help people into old age. Look at Jack Lalanne (who passed this weekend at 96) He could do things that no internal martial artist could even touch. At 80 yeas of age he swam 1.5 miles, pulling 80 boats, each with 80 people in them. At half his age, 80% of people couldn't do that. Everyone dies, Ueshiba and Lalanne, who do you think was stronger at 80?

Rob John,
I find it strange that all the "internal people" who possess so much "internal power" are also athletes. Perhaps they are simply telling you that it's not athletics, but something else. Ark has more videos than any of the other internal people, he's also an ex gymnast and kickboxer (I'm sure he's done a few other athletic things as well). Strange that the more athletic they are, the more things they show.

As far as using the elastic nature of the body, sports people discuss this all the time. The language is different but they are talking about the same thing.

Athletics take less time to learn, are more clearly explained, more widely available, and demonstrate more effective ability.

Why is "internal" different then athletics? What can an internal martial artist do that a good athlete cannot?

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Great link - Thanks!

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

I've never met or trained with Tim Cartmell. But, in all the time I've read about him, he seemed like the kind of martial artist that kept an open mind and got out there and actually trained with all manner of martial artists. Just look at the people he's trained with:

Seriously, he seems like a very open minded martial artist who looks for quality people to train with. I would be that if someone came up to him and said, hey, Tim, there's a guy who says that his Internal Training methods are different than everyone else's and that he can also use these methods in an MMA environment, that Tim would keep his mind open and when the chance came, he'd look to train with that guy.

Point of fact, here's Tim himself:

So, I thought that maybe there was someone else that Chris had trained with that he hadn't reported. You never know.

Yep, and all those people are now Internal Martial Arts experts, right? ;)

Knowing theory about how the body possibly works will never equal actual training to create a martial body. But you know this. :)

Mark

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Tim Cartmell is very open minded. So am I. I am just asking for someone who spends a lot of time doing the "IP" stuff as talked about here on Aikiweb to tell me how and why "IP" is better/different then athletics training.

It's kind of like someone saying, "this is so because I say it." And I ask," can you tell me why?" and they say, "you're so close minded, I just told you because I said so."

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

I don't know of any athletic training that teaches coordination of ki through intent to move the body. Could you tell me where they're doing that?

Thanks.

David

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

I'm currently training in both olympic weightlifting and IP-influenced aikido(*). My sense so far is that the two take different approaches in search of different goals. I'm not yet knowledgeable enough in either to be much more precise than that, I'm afraid.

I will say, though, that your relationship to gravity is very different when your goal is to put an attacker on the ground than when your goal is to put a heavy weight over your head. Channeling the energy that an attacker helpfully provides is also very different than supplying all of the energy necessary to move a barbell from a dead stop. These guys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tl9N...eature=related
clearly know something about explosiveness and structure -- that's double bodyweight they're lifting -- but I'm not sure it's the same stuff IP martial arts study.

My feeling is that both have important lessons to teach -- which is why I'm doing both -- but that they aren't the *same* lessons.

Katherine

(*) IP-influenced aikido = aikido in the dojo of one of the folks who is trying to incorporate IP into his art. Not going to get into the whole debate about what is and isn't IP, or who does or doesn't "get it."

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Man, this stuff just eats you alive, doesn't it?

The question comes back to the same line as what is the difference between internal arts and external arts. External arts are athletics. So it's the same question. And that has been answered many times.

David

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Wrong.

My point is "modern athletic training" encompasses lots of different approaches. You can't (well you can but I think you shouldn't) say all "modern athletic training" is the same thing. Except, of course, if you are a recognized authority on that matter, but I missed that part.

Apples have been falling from trees since ever... Who needs to know what gravity is? Who needs science when the shaman can give you the answers? What about the possible uses of IS training in sports performance, medicine, rehabilitation, workplace ergonomics?

At least the "modern athletic training" people are helping to diminish the suffering of another human beings. Are you doing the same?

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Well, an athletic person (say, a fighter) will have good movement, etc., but he won't have developed the ability to use ki at the direction of the mind.

Note that this ability without physical conditioning is in itself worthless. You don't "hit" someone with your ki: you hit them with your body. But if the body is conditioned to move and strike with mind/ki as the primary motivators (instead of primarily by muscular manipulation), the quality is different. Note again that this mainly applies to human-human interaction: not to things like pulling boats, though it will undoubtedly improve even that performance. For internal arts, a big part of the mix is how your mind/ki interacts with the opponent's mind/ki to influence his perceptions, feelings, intentions and therefore his actions. Much of the long-bouncing from an effortless old man comes about because the qualities of the movements in relation (and the feelings/perceptions in the mind/ki of the opponent) cause certain reactions in the attacker that lead him into worse and worse positions, where his efforts to correct himself actually help to propel him away.

A well conditioned fighter can probably beat a poorly conditioned internal artist. Because the ki only works effectively in coordination with the muscles, bones, fascia, mind and breath. So an internal artist will get better results with better physical conditioning. But no amount of athletic conditioning affects the mind/ki development because most of it involves things that actually weaken or constrict the ki, as Rob explained that Ark's gymnastics actually hampered his ability to develop internal power. Ark also said that most people who get involved in Aunkai just drop weight training because they find that it works against them. Dan has said similar things.

Hope that helps.

David

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Hi Michael, it was an honest probe for clarification of the question, because I wanted to know if we were supposed to be trying to convince him that the 2 are different, or if we were supposed to make a case for one being better.
But, I see we are supposed to do both-- since having an answer to one of those questions makes the other moot, I guess it was dumb to ask for clarification.

My answer: internal training teaches me to generate a different kind of force usage than I learned in normal life. I couldn't learn it from athletics, so that's why I see them as different. Of course it also could be because I am dumb, whereas if I was smart I could have learned this from athletics. Why is the new usage superior? Because it is teaching me aiki, which I failed to learn before.

So it's all in whether or not you are happy with your training (if you are getting what you want, then who is anyone to tell/convince you that something is superior?).

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

However, it's important to note that the primary goal of internal training is not "to put an attacker on the ground". It's simply to develop and unbreakable orientation of the body to the six directions of up/down (gravity), forward/backward and left/right. Akuzawa sensei was very firm in stating that his practice is to tune this orientation to a very high degree so that the body becomes self-correcting at all times and in response to any force that tries to move it within those six directions. "Whatever happens to the attacker," he said, "results not from an effort to do anything to him but because he has attached himself to you and your body's actions to correct its orientation take him out of his own orientation." (interpreted)

So the goal is not to put an attacker on the ground, but to maintain our own equilibrium despite any external efforts to break it.

And he further emphasized that our energy must not go out of our body, as we might ordinarily think of throwing or striking someone. The energy stays inside us and works to correct our orientation. We "choke-out" techniques from within and they stop at the boundaries of our own body. It's the attacker's relation to our body that causes him to absorb force from our movement.

Hoping that helps.

David

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Is this with respect to aikido training or martial arts in general?

I personally would hesistate to call one superior over the other, in particular because there are a wide range of skills and skillsets that result from internal training (with different levels of "purity") while good athletics training develops a second, useful skillset.

I do wonder why if you have had some time with someone with some skill why you might be asking the question. What are the attributes you usually tend to feel when working out with someone with "internal skills" and how are you able to replicate them via good athletic training?

I think Rob gave a pretty good overview from a conditioning standpoint as to how the approaches differ, and how different schools/people might have mixes of internal/external. I certainly don't mind laying out some of the things typically associated with an internal approach that result in differences from good athletic training. I would be happy to do so in response to answering my question above.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Sure. From what I've read here, though, maintaining that equilibrium while in motion is yet another level of development, and I would imagine doing so while manipulating other objects or people is yet another step beyond that. Yet those two additional steps are the very core of athletics or, for that matter, practical martial arts.

So returning to the core of the thread, I can see how internal training is different, but agree with the OP that it is not necessarily better, depending on the individual's goals.

Katherine

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

It's a different usage of "athletics" though:

Ueshiba Sensei brought Mr. (Noriaki) Inoue with him. After they showed some techniques, Ueshiba Sensei said: "You are probably thinking that we cannot possibly do these techniques without some sort of collusion between us. Since you are all martial arts practitioners, if there is a man among you, come and test this old man." However, no one stepped forward. At 35 I was the youngest among them. I had recently arrived in Manchuria and several government officials were observing the demonstration. I thought that I should test my own ability and said, "Yes, I will try". Ueshiba Sensei replied: "You are Mr. Tenryu, aren't you? You too are probably imagining that an old man like me won't be able to throw you very well. However, budo is much more than what you think it is. He offered his left hand saying it was weaker than his right and continued: "You must be quite strong physically. I am not putting strength into my arm so you can do anything you want with it. Try!"

I thought that this old man was speaking nonsense and slapped his hand down as I grabbed it. But the moment I touched him I was startled. I felt as if I had taken hold of an iron bar. Of course, I knew very well from my experience in Sumo that it would be useless to struggle against him. I immediately knew I had been defeated. However, I couldn't just leave things like that and attempted to twist his arm up and out. He didn't move an inch. I tried again with both hands using all my might. But he used my strength against me and I fell down.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Hi Chris,

Again we run into the language barrier where we aren't talking about the same usage. You say elastic, and to be sure, there's some overlap, but there's a specific way in which the elastic nature of the body is trained to obtain a specific result.

Let's take another example, the valsalva technique is used in sports, and to a certain degree there's overlap (I think) with the breath methods used in internals, in so far as you're raising the pressure inside your body. The problem is that there's a specific manner in which the breath/pressure is used in order to obtain a specific result. IE it's only a smaller part of the big picture.

But the way I just wrote the above, you'd say, sure a boxer exhales sharply when they punch, to maintain the pressure in their core, so they "must" be doing the same thing.

Yet if you and I were to get together it'd be fairly easy to show you that something different is going on.

I'd agree in a sense its "athletics" in that you have to train extremely hard, condition your body physically, but the end result is different.

I think someone else summed it up perfectly when they said, take a body builder and a power lifter, both lift weights, both are athletes,
but the methodology and results of their training are completely different. Same difference.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

:D
What else do we know for sure?
Does being a good fighter and winning competitions mean they have internal power? No.
Does going to live and train in China or Japan with the masters mean ypu learned nternal power or Aiki? No it doesn't.
Does knowing some very good and practical principles for fighting mean you have internal power? No it doesn't.
Does being a Chinese Master level teacher of the internal Chinese martial arts mean you have internal power...nope.
Does being a Japanese shihan mean you have aiki? Not on your life.
Would some people rather die than admit they don't know it and nether does their teacher whom they love?...you betcha
Have any number of people gotten up and gone out and met folks teaching it and came away understanding it is different than what they had thought and what they had trained their whole lives...yup..
And while not a requirement...friends have been made while doing so. Not such a bad deal I think.
Dan

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

But athletes don't keep it all strictly inside. And athletics neither teaches nor has anything to do with using the ki with the mind. Plus, the muscular focus of athletics can seriously damage the ability to do those internal things. So...not really related.

Still...better....for what? To develop bujutsu, it's the only true way. Martial arts that fail to include this element are just an outer appearance of what real martial artists actually do within the same form. And athleticism is just muscular development and exertion. They're better than getting no exercise, but they don't even enter the arena of real martial arts.

Best wishes.

David

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

This is grievously incorrect. Athleticism is the characteristic of being prepared to undertake a broad range of physical tasks. Muscular development and exertion are incidental to the necessity to prepare oneself for a variety of circumstances. Developing athleticism simply requires addressing the areas in which you are weak, either physically or technically, and applying some of your training time to addressing these areas. Internal skills will be a tremendous asset when the task in front of you is physical conflict. All the internal power in the world will not help you, however, if the task in front of you is to quickly run a mile or lift a heavy object off your loved one. That athleticism is not taken more seriously as one of the roots of martial capability indicates that folks are seriously deluded. Training exclusively in internal power will result in you becoming a specialist, and when facing the unknown, the survival rate for specialists drops precipitously. Hopefully we all known what Heinlein has to say on the subject of specialization.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Among other things, it completely dismisses the examples of both MMA fighters and professional military and law enforcement, both among the groups most likely to encounter actual martial situations.

Katherine

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

First I would like to say, the only way to move the body is by using intent to move the ki. It's not mysterious, that's the way we move. Our brain decides it wants to move (intent) sends a signal to the muscles (ki) and we start moving. This is normal, it does not take special training, well it does take the instinctual training that babies undertake.

Second, it seems to me that everyone here is talking about faith, not anything factual. If you look through the posts of the pro-IP people, you constantly see stuff like "so-and-so says, so it must be true", or "lot's of people do this stuff, so it must be something important". These are all statements of faith: I believe this person, so that must be so. It's not really an answer to the question.

I am asking a simple question, but let's make it simpler. What can an expert internal martial artist physically do that a good athlete couldn't do?

Mostly we get speculation, he said she said, elitist comments about how silly a question this is, but no real answers. Athletes are physically superior to those who don't practice athletics. I believe modern sport athletics encompass everything that internal training does, and then some.

I'm sure most of the replies to this will be along the line of, "nuh uh, your wrong", or "let me explain the theory of using (enter jargon here)". But let me save you the time. simply answer, what physical thing can an internal martial artist do better then a modern sport athlete?

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Chris, you win. We will never get to your level of athleticism in martial arts because we're doing sub-par athletics training.:eek:

Oh Lord help me see through the delusion that I'm doing something what might kill me in an actual situation! I'm a poor boy that doesn't know better.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

Corrected.

Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
 

"If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body…" 1 Cor 12

my 0.02c after enjoying the dialogue and I hope mostly on topic and from perhaps the sidelines of IS, well till I can grab some wrists of the AW almost famous (and not states side till a Boston conference next year anyways).

No disciplines, East or West have a monopoly on understanding the body - on almost any topic. For the current topic, be it ground path, rooting or ground reaction forces or something else - there is so much complexity here it is very difficult to understand and/or articulate.

A sprinter/runner understands very well the ground path and how to develop ground reaction forces at the correct angle to break the 10 second barrier and the weight lifter also how to have optimal alignment. For the complexity of a 2 person interaction probably its the IS that have the understanding. Each is different knowledge about almost the same thing applied to a different field of endeavour.

The different approaches (East and West) can inform and I think they do (aikido as elite sport ) on a range of topics related to martial arts.From my own experiences simple things are explainable explainable in both paradigms (unraisable body experiment circa. 10yrs ago) - but anything more complex requires lots of time and resources. Given time and resources I suspect given these some really fruitful work could be undertaken. But to what end? Well some people learn better with an eastern paradigm and some with a western one, whatever camp your in or straddling somewhere in the middle, a fresh set of eyes or view point can really help.

So around the world there are lots of people in sports science/biomechanics labs that are looking at all kinds of things to make athletes stronger and faster so why not IS? The trouble is people time and resources need incentive to do so, be it funding, fame, publishing in peer reviewed press, personal intrest. Funding wise in Australia at least a gold medal is worth something like $50M to the local economy and i suspect in the world of professional sport this kind of amount is not unusual. Thus olympic or big money professional sport can be persued, when this kind of money and accompanying intrest is brought to the IS and martial arts communities then i suspect there'll be some intrest. Same to for fame or at least making a name in a professional field, you might find doing IS research to be a high risk career move for a graduate student hoping to work in professional sport or something more mainstream 'cause it don't look nearly as good on the CV as something like tendon stiffness or throwing arm injury in baseball pitchers.

Beyond the science aspects and assuming the science can be done for the athlete/IS, its may not be suitable to be taught to the athlete at detail and instead some paradigm or descriptor might be used instead. So to if IS can be described in scientific terms, its going to be a challenge to explain in an eastern paradigm and needs to be considered.

Finally science in a plodding behemoth, it gets results - albeit slowly, but when it does it carries a lot of cred and like the creation/evolution issue it can be a bit tender and people get excited about there being a fence and which side they are on and how everyone should joint them there :)