Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I'm putting together a little investigative paper, in which I'm planning on working with some experts in the "IP" area. But in order to make this paper, I need to understand what would and would not constitute having, "internal power" or "IP".

I am curious, what abilities should one who has "IP" be able to demonstrate that a non "IP" having person could not? What things are "proof" of IP? Thing's that I can put in a paper and point to after having met with IP experts. How would I know if a person had "IP" and was not simply strong in an "external way", or was using some kind of "trick" or other technique that might fool me? Beyond word of mouth, what proof of "IP" can I use?

Other then "it felt strange" what kinds of things could I point out, or ask about that would show someone having "IP" over "EP" (external power).

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Read the Baseline Skills thread on aikiweb. Look for Mike Sigman's Teacher Test criteria. This has all been stated in detail and at length in more than one thread. Baseline Skills will probably tell you all you need for your research.

Of course...you need to meet these "experts" in person. It has to be "experienced"--not talked about.

And another hint: save yourself the trouble of figuring out which ones do or don't have "it" by skipping the ones who don't already have a well established reputation for having the goods. A short list of those to see would include (in no particular order):

Dan Harden
Mike Sigman
Minoru Akuzawa
Rob John
Forrest Chang

These, at least, I'm sure of.

Dan has also stated that Sam Chinn has the goods, so add him.

Also, apparently, William Gleason.

Other people have given you a few other names.

But save yourself the waste of time by only going to those already acknowledged and recognized as real experts. No point in analyzing and finding the fallacies in a bunch of guys no one ever heard of and using their failings to represent IP.

David

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Cool thanks for the point in those directions, David.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I have felt Sam Chin hands-on and can verify that he has both IP and aiki. As mentioned in another thread, he is doing a workshop in Southern California in January, and in the Bay area in December.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Excellent idea.
Can you find some concrete indications and check for them in a blind test?
That would go a long way towards a general 'proof' that something exists which can be described as internal skill.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I think this is a great idea. And we could easily do it. It however might be rude at a seminar to suggest we do a blind test, and probably out of the scope for what I'm asking. But on a side note, I would love to do it if any IP experts were up to it.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

If you can, get the list of Stupid Jin tricks that Forrest Chang put together. Its been a few years since I read them but I remember them as being pretty comprehensive.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

At one point I was allowed to see the video of Forrest doing those. I don't think I can anymore, if it's possible I'd like to see that video again (calling to the powers that be).

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I think you could start with those that can pop off the wall with very loud noise. That could be number one. What do you think? :)

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I found that I could pop off the wall first time I tried. Because I can do it, I know that it must not be "IP"...

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Something simple like the teacher test is a good start as it is a static position.

Like i said in the other thread here basically demo's that don't require momentum, big movements, rotations (of the body or arms) or explosive power in order to pull it off. Not to say that those can't be used, but they aren't the primary means by which most internal people are generating power.

Anyone who has Jin, should be able to do Forrest Chang's stupid jin tricks. As Forrest said in his seminar, any big name guy should be able to do it, and might laugh because they are very basic things, that get built upon. I think there are 7 in total, and if you haven't been exposed to the subject matter before, they can be quite surprising, and the martial utility becomes apparent right away.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Thanks Hunter.
I was given a link and password to those video's once before, do you know how I could go about getting that again?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Hey Chris

we met, so i know how you feel about these things

in any case, here's a good video of CXW (Chen XiaoWang) showing movement that is conforming to the rquirements of internal strength

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Holnh...eature=related

Pay attention to the way he describes his various hits and how they look. I told you when we met that the dichotomy your proposing of athletics vs internal is nonsense there is no jedi stuff goning on here. But there is a different logic to the body movement to other types which are very good.

In any case why go to the students when there are legitimate masters around?

But just in case, in this video there is one guy with an Aikido background , a nidan in yoshinkan actually, who has spent his time pursuing internal training; you're familiar with the venue I understand. see if you can spot him. He's actually an aikiweb member too. He is much too modest to bring himself up, so I am taking the liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CELN-DQI5qc

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I couldn't tell who it was, you should tell us. Congrats to anyone who is willing to go in with the dog brothers!! It's no joke.

I'm not sure what I'm seeing in that video of CXW. I did see him using his favorite technique at 2:10.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I unfortunately no longer have access to them myself. I have access to my notes, which explain what the SJTs are conceptually, but I don't think I wrote down exactly what Forrest demoed for each one.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Hey Chris,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CELN-DQI5qc#t=2m17s

he appears before at 1m10s and again later. So, he credits the work he's done on IS to allow him to pull this off. And if you tally his hours training in martial arts I'm afraid his #1 would have to be Aikido. But he is a dog brother now too ( Mongolian Dog )

Another guy, Forrest Chang is someone who has put in a lot of work and training, can speak the language, and can understand the context of the chinese in martial arts too, and a very intelligent human being. Stupid Jin Tricks is a list of things that you should be able to do without training to do them if using internal stuff. The brain is a very plastic thing, no magic , no woowoo but sitll very plastic and trainable. Over time; with good guideance. He's worth meeting , but you'll have to be in the context of chinese IMA , I dont think he's very interested in aikido at all.

And I stand by what I said, human bodies are human bodies and scientific inquiry is a process. Stuff not understood will be better understood. That's all.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

is there real dog in mongolian dog? would it taste good with chili and coleslaw? oh crap! ck is going to kill me now! :)

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

That is awesome. Becoming a "Dog Brother" is also not an easy task, it's a very difficult and impressive thing to do!

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

You could actually walk away from the keyboard, be polite, and go meet someone in person. It's novel I know.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I wholeheartedly agree with Robert. I was HIGHLY skeptical of the whole Aiki/IP argument. However, instead of clinging to what I know and then doubling down on my ignorance (lack of first hand knowledge) and backing myself into a corner, I kept quiet about the topic and waited until I "felt" it before I said anything. If what I felt would have been BS, I would have been just as vocal.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Anyone can have a bad day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K2a6Phqwj4 (faint hearted beware)

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

CK is in a bunch of dog brothers videos, though his judo comp videos are not for public consumption. He does some pretty nifty stuff against much bigger guys.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

And has been said before ... fighting and IP/aiki etc are different. Fighting with aiki is different. Not to mention fighting with edged weapons is not to be trifled with (even if the edges are dull).

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

regardless, this guy stepped up and proved himself. He even fought a pro MMA match and won. Does this mean invincible warrior? No , but it goes to show that marshmallows and butterflies it's not.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/08/us/dog...rts/index.html

Jump to 3:33 at the CNN clip above and take a look at the effect of his punch on the other guy. As Alfonso pointed out, Mongolian Dog is a modest gentleman, and he is guided by the "be friends at the end of the day" mantra that is recited at each gathering.

Tin

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Another modest guy , Tin Tran has put in considerable time and effort in the internal strength department, and is also smarter than your average bear. You could do worse than meet and talk to him (actually you did do worse, you came and talked to me) Tin has a better analytical mind than mine for sure, and since he's not going to bring it up either, a grappler too. Both CK and Tin have posted here before and been ignored off hand, I would like to point that out, maybe a little searching through aikiweb will help you get some more useful information with which to keep on filling out the details about what the fuss is all about.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Alfonso,
I don't want you to think, and it sounds like from your posts you do, that I don't like Chinese internal marital arts. I do, I have trained seriously in them. One of my teachers who I hold in great esteem is an internal marital arts expert. I like Chinese internal.

But it's not what people want to make it out to be. It's not going to solve all your martial arts problems. If you want to learn how to use a system, you're going to have to spar and train hard with the system, there is no way around that. The internal model is an interesting one, some people might like using it to describe things, or learn things. However it's not describing you teaching anything that can't be found in modern athletics.

I'm not against Chinese internal, I'm against silly claims.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Props to him. I hope the guy serves as an example.

From what I remember of his posts here, the guy was nice and sensible. IMO, is the people who seems to act as if they are in a cult the ones that make exchanges about IP/IS almost impossible.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Yeah, I'm trying not to make any.

In any case fun discussion as always. BTW Chris is a really good aikidoka and a really nice guy. Since I'm embarassing people I thought I'd add that.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I'm almost positive that is the only time I've seen something like that in the middle of an IP/IT/IS thread! HA! Thanks.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

like Niven said
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it."

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Chris:

With all due respect, you start threads with foregone conclusions, which makes you are doing troll-like in nature. I have learned from, trained with, and taught very high level athletes. What they do, what they learned and what they teach have nothing to do with the IP stuff. Far too many people have tried pointing this out to you. You approach this from a closed-minded perspective. Why don't you just walk away from pretending to explore this arena when you simply refuse to budge from you position of labeling things as "silly claims." Go on training in the manner that you chose in peace and stop trying to instigate things from a closed-minded perspective. You appear to be a far better person than how you are coming across in the threads that you start in regards to IP.

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Mark,
I just want to talk about what it is you guys are doing. You can train however you like as well. But when we come to a forum, we are here to discuss, not just advertise.

To say I have no understanding in this area, is not only insulting, but very untrue. If you would like to talk about Aikido, I have quite a lot of experience. If you would like to talk about competing, and sparring I have done a lot of that too. If you would like to talk about Chinese internal, again I have spent a lot of time doing that with a known authority.

Now if what the "IP" group is doing is not one of those things, then perhaps your right. If this is something you invented and didn't come from Aikido, martial practice, or Chinese internal, you very well could be right. But if you are talking about any of those things above listed, I do have a fair amount of experience with them.

Now I have not yet met one of your inner circle, you are correct.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Chris:

I was directly referring to your reference regarding high level athletes and IP. You have made a claim and have even referenced Mr. Sigman as somehow supporting your claim, while others who directly train with him say that this is not what he believes. If you somehow equate IP with high level athletics, then I do believe that you are not there yet to fully understand what you think that you know. I frankly think that it is unfortunate that Mr. Harden will not allow you to attend one of his seminars. That leaves Mr. Sigman and Ark for you to experience (based upon the comments from others). When you actually get some hands on with one of them (hopefully more) you might actually open your mind up rather than looking to support your foregone conclusions. I am not the first person who has said that and certainly am unlikely to be the last. I am not trying to insult you or your experience base. I find you are the person who is pretending to have a discussion and use it as a venue to hold to your conclusions.

As to me, I have invented nothing and do not have some kind of mythical inner circle. I do get my out and explore what is out there. I come into those encounters with some believes that I test out. I have been pleasantly surprised with most of those experiences and they lead me to continue to keep an open mind and train harder. The biggest impediment that prevents a person from learning is what they believe that they already know.

I am sorry if my direct approach comes across as an insult to you. I thought that I made myself clear that I think that you are a good person who is not coming across that way in these threads.

Regards,

Marc Abrams

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Marc, (also sorry that I misspelled your name in my first reply)

As far as my conclusions go.
It's like anything else, if someone presents something that doesn't sound correct, you question it. If the answers given sound incorrect, you counter the answer in order to probe more deeply.

I do understand your argument that I haven't "felt" one of the few people who are deemed to have this special ability, that's what I meant by "your inner circle". Now it may have been incorrect for me to say "your inner circle", perhaps "the inner circle" would have been better. But the idea here is, there are only a very limited number of people (you listed only three, but there may be just over 10) that one can "feel" in order to understand this. That is why you claim I can't possibly "get it".

However if what they ("the inner circle") are describing is basically Chinese internal martial arts, I am familiar with that, and have "felt that". Now if they are doing something different then that, maybe you have a point. If it's something very new that this inner circle is doing, something that is not related to Chinese internal, then I'm just going to have to give that a try.

So if it's Chinese internal, let's talk about that, because I've felt it and know about it. If it's something new, something that's not Chinese internal, then I'll have to try that, and I think I'm going to get a couple chances in 2013.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

In my understanding, it's not a martial art. It's something that can be felt in some teachers of internal chinese martial arts and in a few teachers who haven't studied internal chinese martial arts at all.

One can be a great martial artist, a great athlete and a great teacher and not have these internal qualities and abilities.

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

I agree, it is not something that is limited to martial arts only. It can be felt with teachers of the Chinese arts and with teachers that have no experience with the Chinese martial arts.
And although I agree that there are not many who can teach it - there are a lot more teachers with these abilities then often is suggested here on this forum.

I do not agree at all ! Your statement goes against all Taoist and Buddhist basic ideas.

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

So you agree with Chris that good athletes have these internal qualities and abilities?

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

You went from great athletes to good athletes. Why would you do a thing like that?

If you study Chinese philosophy you will find that having a great skill is related to having a certain attitude, a certain quality that in many aspects is similar to what we would call a gentleman, a scholar, or in general what we would call chivalrous behavior. Your original ki is by nature sort of rough. Through shugyo you polish the ki and it expresses itself by good behavior, a sense for harmony (to name just some of the qualities) and in your particular skill. It does not matter at all what the particular skill is. So if someone specializes in an athletic activity then that can be his shugyo - if he is considered great at it, than his ki must also be very finely polished. It should show in his behavior and his skill. Your skill could be anything; Aikido, Shodo, Shinto shugyo, etc.

If you look at old athletes that were champions in their time, then you will notice that their stamina and physical strength is no longer the same as it was before. I just read that the Brazilian football player Pele had to go to hospital. He was a great athlete, but it would be unthinkable that he would nowadays manage to play a full match or that he would join a team of pro's in their twenty's. Yet if the task would be; take the ball and try to go passed him, just about everyone will have a hard time doing it. According to Chinese philosophy this is because his ki is still refined and polished. And by the way - Pele is very much a gentleman.
In a similar way you should be able to recognize the polished skills of a ceramist, calligrapher, archer - even if he is aging.

Does this mean that I agree with Chris? Well, I do not know - it seems to me that he is still searching for answers and is trying to come up with the right questions.

What I do see on this forum are many statements that are quite vague about what IP / IS is or how to attain it. Often it is not even clear if with IP / IS is meant ki or something else all together. Fact is that many, if not most of the statements on IP / IS have very little or no relationship to the original Taoist or Buddhist ideas on this subject. No wonder that there is so much confusion.
At the same time I also sense a certain reluctance to answer Chris' questions. The much heard remark "It has to be felt", although I agree with it in principle, is starting to sound like a cop out and an argumentum ad nauseam. Besides, if it is about ki, then it is not so much about feeling at all.
More importantly, in the passed 2500 years there have been so many books written adding more and more knowledge over the centuries, that it is odd to see the people who claim the most experience in this, be so reluctant to share their knowledge about IP /IS in this thread. It does not seem gentleman-like behavior that should come with true shugyo.

Tom

Re: Requirements to demonstrate "IP"?
 

OK, fair enough, I am going to throw this out for what it's worth - it is my view on things and not necessarily how others that are studying IP/IS look at things.

I like to look at it this way:

IS - Internal Strength or Internal Skill? I think both terms can be used when discussing what we are doing - so, I think I will differentiate by IStr for strength and ISkl for skill.
ISkl - I see internal skill simply as a label depicting some level of Internal strength and/or power.
IStr - I see internal strength as a quantified capacity of a potential internal force; i.e. How strong are you, etc.

IP - I see internal power as a quality of use of an internal strength force. As in the formula Power = force (strength) times acceleration (speed) in other words, a less strong but faster person can delivery more power than a slow strong person. IMO, there are many forms and levels of IP with Tohie's Ki tests being on a lower level and Takeda's AIKI being on a very high level.

AIKI - as mentioned above, I see AIKI as a high level form of IP - it is the joining of opposing forces (in/yo, yin/yang) within the body to establish internal balance in a static as well as a dynamic state.

In summary, we are working on increasing our ISkl by developing our IStr to be manifested by IP via the AIKI methodology. Simple, right? - let's break it down a little. First we need to develop a body ready for AIKI, we do that by training for internal strength and internal power. These are two different things, and as in the development of external muscle strength and muscle power, there are different activities for each development. In the internal strength model, you need to develop a strong connected body that is instant on with the transmission of energy to all parts all the time; this is where the capability of having one thing moves, all things move comes from. The solo exercises we do for this are the ones that get our fascia, ligaments, and tendons more engaged and moving together. Next we need to develop internal power so you can do something with the internal strength/force - as mentioned, power is a quality that utilizes the strength/force; where the most prevalent quality is acceleration/speed. This is where the exercises we do that focus on flexibility and range of movement come in. Then, we take that AIKI ready body and apply the attributes of the AIKI model to direct the internal activities required for the use and manifestation of soft power.

Anyway, just the way I like to categorize the various aspects of what we are doing and bring them all together to provide the functions we are trying to accomplish - of course, other views may be different.

Greg