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?
Quote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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 Quote:
|
Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
|
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?
Quote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Dojo: Central valley Aikido, Shen wu. Quote:
|
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?
Quote:
|
Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
Quote:
IMO, of course |
Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
|
Re: Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?
Quote:
Quote:
Point of fact, here's Tim himself: Quote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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. Quote:
At least the "modern athletic training" people are helping to diminish the suffering of another human beings. Are you doing the same? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.