All right I've been told twice now that I'm way off base. That's cool. But now explain how it is that I'm off base.
We'll never come to an understanding if I explain what I know, and you just say "no, you are wrong." So what am I wrong about?
I do agree with Rob John by the way, the method I'm describing is the same used by boxers. That is also why I have said in the past that top level athletes do internal (not just boxers but golfers, footballers etc.). I believe the description Jack Dempsey gives in "Championship Fighting" of throwing a punch, is a perfect example of internal.
I promise I'll try to keep this from being personal if you will. I would like to root this problem out.
Hi Chris, there is nothing personal here. There's no "shame" in not knowing this stuff, everybody is in the same boat until they are personally shown something. "Internal" is not a copyrighted word, and like any other word it can mean different things to different people. In this case (insert acronym for Mike, Rob, Dan, Etc) are talking about a specific skillset that you won't get naturally. It has nothing to do with natural movement, any more than a perfect golf swing is natural. Any complex athletic movement is a learned skill, and people take decades to master this one IF they have a good combination of interest, talent, dedication, and good access to information. It has nothing to do with yoga, in fact IMO yoga would be counterproductive. Skills are highly specific, bowling isn't going to help your golf much. Heavy weightlifting isn't going to improve your endurance, in fact it will do the opposite. Etc. You have to know what the target is, and intelligently shoot for it. To understand the target, you have to get a hands-on demo. There's no other way. The only real purpose of these discussions is to make that point, and if someone isn't interested enough to check it out in person, there's no utility in discussion. I wish there a way to do it all in writing, that would be a huge benefit, but it just doesn't work.