View Single Post
Old 01-28-2013, 07:21 AM   #23
Location: ATL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 847
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Chris Hein wrote: View Post
It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people. If you go to an 'internal' seminar and did the same thing, most of the 'internal' people there would react poorly as well. Good athletes use there bodies correctly, bad athletes don't. Good internal people use their body correctly, bad internal people don't. It's just that I believe the 'good' ones on both sides of the fence are doing the same things, and you don't. So that's what we are discussing.
What I"m describing should, on some level, be demonstrable by anyone chasing "internal". Good, great, horrible, doesn't matter. the intention and goal is the same. While top level modern athletes certain learn efficient body/muscle usage, they do NOT train and sculpt their body/muscles to the degree that they obviously do and then magically eschew the use of those very muscles that they spend so much time keeping honed and at peek condition. It just doesn't work that way Chris. As someone else said in another thread here recently, you don't spend your entire life learning to do things one way and then suddenly stop doing it that way with any level of success. You could go get Lebron James, physically, one of the most gifted and high level athletes on the planet, and put him in the scenario I gave and I'm still 200% confident he would respond exactly the same way as anyone else. Just go watch him play, watch him fight through a hard screen and you will see his body respond in a way that is congruent with the example I gave. That is, the flexing and tensing of those honed and sculpted muscles to solidify his frame while he drives through that screen. There is nothing about what he's doing that's different than what any athlete, high level or otherwise, does and none of that matches up with the mindset and goal of what I described in the demo/test.

The idea/theory that you can make good alignment in all directions at the same time is an interesting one. But how are we going to do that? I think this is the question, and sticking point between us.
Most likely we don't completely know why, but that's only a sticking point for you. Science doesn't always know why something happens.

From my perspective, you describe good athletics, and describe that as being the beginning stage of 'internal'. But when I ask how it goes beyond this stage, I just keep seeing something like "it just does".
I feel my example and the description of it were quite clear in separating internal from external, internal from athletics. I never intended the discussion of this to go beyond this most basic of examples.

What is it that 'internal' does differently. When I ask that question I just get examples of results, and not explanations of how those results are achieved. I'm not trying to argue but I don't know how these things are suppose to work. And if no one else does, why make the assumption that something radically different is happening inside of the body?
Because it just doesn't matter. Science often times has results long before they have an understanding of why that result happened. The point that is made to you and others over and over again is that an increasingly high number of people, most of whom have decades of experience in martial arts (aka athletics) and other more modern activities, feel it and know it's different. You don't have to be a peak level athlete to validate it as different. At some point you have to be interested enough to get out and experience it yourself and go from there because it's more likely that none of us are going to "know" on a level that will appease you.
  Reply With Quote