On Talking About Internal Training

I am writing this with the hope that it is constructive and hope it is not seen as criticism. Yet another thread here is smoldering if not flaming, and has drifted from a discussion of aiki to a dissection of motives and personalities. I'm just an interested reader, with no claim to anything but sincere interest in these discussions.

Several aspects of the exchanges that stand out:

I perceive those here who are passionate about the value of internal training to be sincere; untempered, however, this sincerity and enthusiasm can alienate the "uninitiated." That seems to be the feedback that a lot of people gave in the "Closing Threads" thread.

In that regard, though, the more recent thread may have touched on a process issue for those who are studying these skills and want to discuss them:

How can you find appropriate visual examples to illustrate your points?

One option is of course to post examples of yourselves in action, as Mark Murray has. Seems like this is very simple, clear, and clean. But it may be limited by the willingness of volunteers.

Another that has appeared uncontroversial is using clips of renowned martial arts from You Tube or other sites.

If there is a lesson from the aiki thread at issue, it seems to be that using a picture of another poster's Aikido waza as a model for discussing principles of internal training will work more smoothly if permission is sought and given first. I'm not sure about obscuring faces, but that's just me...

Finally, there seems to be a tendency for conflict to spill over from the original parties to include other posters. I'm not sure what's going on there, and may have done it as well. But I offer this observation -- the exchanges are no longer between the two original parties, and the thread is, last I checked, still bogged down. So maybe discretion is well advised.

DH

I agree. We all are encouraged to offer our perspective. I admit that sometimes I get "confused" or maybe I should say more easily distracted by the particularly whizzing sound of a rock being thrown from a glass house. But maybe those harmonics just work that way on me...

Rob

David Henderson wrote: I perceive those here who are passionate about the value of internal training to be sincere; untempered, however, this sincerity and enthusiasm can alienate the "uninitiated."

IMO, what alienates the uninitiated is the amount of talk but no walk demonstrated while at the same time claiming everybody except the initiated sucks.

OK. I think for me this falls under the heading of a limited quantity of volunteers. But those who are in a position to demonstrate-the-walk probably need to reach their own conclusions about how, given their views on posting images, they intend to show, not tell.
IMO, too.

DH

Folks
It has been said that a picture is worth a 1000 words.......if words can't really "tell" the story what good are the pictures? A picture of the Grand Canyon is great, but not like being there. Pictures of great food and talk about it doesn't replace tasting it.......same with smell. Clips of folks help in raising interest and awareness........in the end you got to find someone who you trust to fill in where the pictures and words alone leave off........
Gary

David Henderson wrote: OK. I think for me this falls under the heading of a limited quantity of volunteers. But those who are in a position to demonstrate-the-walk probably need to reach their own conclusions about how, given their views on posting images, they intend to show, not tell. IMO, too.

I realize that this has been mentioned a few times before, David, but I'm of the opinion that "showing" people only has limited benefit. In terms of showing people who have no real idea and grasp of the mechanics (almost, let's say, trying to teach them what it's about), video representations and still pictures simply don't do any good. I know. I put out two different sets of videos in the 1990's and I quit selling them both times as it became apparent that for teaching the people who don't know, the vids simply didn't work. A hands-on feel is need to get people started.

In terms of a discussion between people who already know the topic to some degree, I think pictures and videos have a place to compare, discuss, and so forth. But the problem on this forum seems to be that of the people that know anything or supposedly know things, too many of them don't want to show the cards in their hand. The people who want to learn what the discussion is about... unfortunately it's one of those cases where you have to already know before the pictures/discussions make any sense.

I've allowed a number of people on the QiJin forum over time who then have access to about as complete a set of descriptive discussions, etc., as available anywhere on earth. Yet when I meet the people who are on QiJin but who never had any hands-on instruction in person I find that it's the same problem as with the video-tapes which foundered back in the 90's..... without that initial hands-on introduction and corrections, it's almost impossible for anyone to get anywhere.

So you see the problem. It's like trying to teach someone how to palpate for tumors using only a book and a video.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: IMO, what alienates the uninitiated is the amount of talk but no walk demonstrated while at the same time claiming everybody except the initiated sucks.

I don't think the discussion revolves around who sucks. Fighting is fighting, skill is skill. Those stand on their own merits. The other discussion is around a definition of aiki and a skill set that many are unfamiliar with, and internal skills that many don't know. I thinkg that get ironed out pretty quickly in person.
It's pretty much stated over and over that the information is known, and since its known it can be identified and discussed. It's just touch in this venue.
As an example:
I had a Hung gar / taiji fighter up yesterday, who's fought in various countries all over and is quite capable. We ended up sharing and talking over a hell of allot of common info, and some defining differences. He had no trouble-nor do I-in splitting the discussion between Internal, and fighting skills and where they overlap and why- in grappling. So here outside of the aiki arts, there were three different arts represented and we had a great physical discussion of "it" that was neutral and informative, without defense or prejudice in any way. On top of that it just so happned to involve humor and a kinship. We intend on following it up again with food and beer.
So knowing "it" or not should be a neutral discussion. Maybe it can only be so in person, where the hands on portion makes it definitive and obvious...and as I pointed out informative and friendly.

I am thinking of trying graphics but Mike may be right in the end about hands-on.

Dan Harden wrote: As an example: I had a Hung gar / taiji fighter up yesterday,

Just to make a side-point, nothing important, but worth commenting on after seeing this sort of thing for a while. I don't judge Aikido by everyone I meet who claims they do Aikido. There are people who do good Aikido and there are people who "do Aikido". Same with Daito Ryu, I don't casually mention a comparison about some "Daito Ryu fighter" when most of the people I've seen doing DR aren't doing DR a favor by claiming to represent the art. And so on. I don't know anyone in North America who does Taiji well-enough to say that what they do is Taiji... much less to be an honest representative to "Taiji fighting".

The real problem is that Hun Gar (*real* Hun Gar) and Taiji movement are pretty much two different things (think "Teacher Test", etc.). If you've trained yourself to really do one of them, you've pretty much guaranteed yourself that you're not doing the other one in the traditional manner. So a HunGa/Taiji combo is almost an oxymoron. And I'm not saying that to start some bickering. I'm saying that it's probably a little offensive to real Taiji or to real HunGar to say someone is a HunGar/Taiji fighter. It's better to say that someone *claims* to represent HunGar and Taiji fighting, etc., and I'd probably just nod off to sleep without saying anything. Maybe it'd make my point if I said someone was DaitoRyu/Pankration fighter and watch all the D.R. guys flinch.

And BTW, it's often better for a lot of arts if it's left open-ended whether someone fully represents the art they're claiming to represent. I often say that "So-and-so has been doing Taiji for 25 years" and I leave it open like that rather than saying "So-and-so is a senior Taiji expert". Most of the people I know who "teach Taiji" are part of the great unwashed masses with no real skills to speak of, despite the many years they've been dabbling. Same is true of most arts, but you already know that. I want to be considerate of the people about whom I'm speaking.... but I also want to be careful and not let anyone misrepresent a decent martial style by too-carelessly using some names as "what they do".

YMMV

Mike Sigman

Mike,

I appreciate your point, and having seen clips of various artists, I am aware of my own limitations in understanding just by seeing. My point, I guess, might be better laid out by talking about multiple audiences. The two groups are those you discuss, and they always will be communicating (talking and understanding) at a different level.

But the fact remains that there are multiple groups of readers who think these posts are worth reading, and a number of actively training posters who think its worth talking about.

For me, I have no interest in intruding on that conversation. If I have a question, I'll ask. But with the realization that this medium limits what can be provided by way of an answer.

That doesn't eliminate the underlying problem for those who are training actively in this area and who are trying to use images to communicate. They still face the same problems.

I think those problems likely go beyond the question of what source to use. But I agree with you that the unwillingness of some to post images of themselves has a role. One way of looking at it, that I'm not sure has been discussed before, however, is the value and viability of posting such images for those of you who do have a basis of knowledge to say what you want to say to each other.

The rest of us will just do what we do.

However, I have to agree with Demetrio that it feels self limiting and unsatisfying when the use of images tilts towards a critique of other martial artists. To Dan Harden I'd suggest it is asking a lot of people to say you are just using them as a model of what is wrong with a particular type of training, and, yes, if he were to perform that same technique, his own acts would show the same kinds of deficits, but then decline to just show what he is talking about.

Ulitmately, I conclude its not viable, because it causes to much friction for the discussion to continue on its merits. YMMV

Regards,
DH

David Henderson wrote: But the fact remains that there are multiple groups of readers who think these posts are worth reading, and a number of actively training posters who think its worth talking about.

Hi David:

Well, I more or less agree with you. However, this is a tricky topic. Notice how easily it got "lost" for a number of years because it's so tricky. Notice how Jun was so unsure of it as a topic that he put it into "Non-Aikido Martial Traditions", as a matter of fact. If nothing else, that shows clearly that this is a tricky topic and we're watching a period of, perhaps, transition. Your input to the transition itself is good and I think some rules/protocols are going to be developed out of all of these discussions. None of it is going to be easy, although it should be fun to watch develop.

[[snipsky]] The rest of us will just do what we do.

That you will. And those of those who have information will also do what we will. It's the nature of things. Personally, I know that if it were me and if I were really interested in the topic, I'd go look and get involved in the discussions. I watch with interest the number of people who probably now realize there's something at least somewhat important being discussed, yet they let the years keep slipping by before they can make up their mind to do anything definitive.

Since I personally can't comprehend that kind of behavior from someone who is *really interested* in various Asian arts, I tend to just shrug off people who haven't made much of a move before now. It's why I suggested in an earlier post to not worry too much about trying to convince anyone; the interested people will come, look, evaluate the importance, and so on. Certainly there are enough clues in the literature that someone really interested should have already been motivated by now. Many other people are happy with Aikido (and karate and Taiji and Xingyi and Iaido, etc., etc.) as they know it. I say let them alone, if they're happy.

However, I have to agree with Demetrio that it feels self limiting and unsatisfying when the use of images tilts towards a critique of other martial artists. To Dan Harden I'd suggest it is asking a lot of people to say you are just using them as a model of what is wrong with a particular type of training, and, yes, if he were to perform that same technique, his own acts would show the same kinds of deficits, but then decline to just show what he is talking about.

A fair point, IMO. Probably worth an extended discussion.

Ulitmately, I conclude its not viable, because it causes to much friction for the discussion to continue on its merits.

It's a difficult call. I certainly see your point. On the other hand, I also understand what Dan sees and I can see the rationale for taking a publicly posted picture of any claimant to expertise and examining that expertise in light of the basic skillset that Dan is talking about. These are simply weird times. What has happened is that a set of skills basic to most of Asian martial arts is coming back into play and none of us realized the importance of those skills when we first encountered our basic Asian martial art. Now that the true basic place of those skills is becoming obvious to the first wave (and that's all it is; I don't think there are any true "experts" yet), it's difficult not to point out that obviousness to a lot of people who also claim to be similar enthusiasts. There is no one answer about how to handle these things and we're trying to discuss the protocols and set them sort of arbitrarily. I don't think anyone is trying to be too presumptive in this time of change; then again this is a time of change and there are a number of people who will resist the change because they already have a place in the pecking-order, so there will always be some friction, right or wrong, too.

I'd just suggest that people contribute, as you've done, to the overall discussion and hopefully we all get through it with the most benefit for the most people. Interesting times.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Dan Harden wrote: I don't think the discussion revolves around who sucks. Fighting is fighting, skill is skill. Those stand on their own merits. The other discussion is around a definition of aiki and a skill set that many are unfamiliar with, and internal skills that many don't know. I thinkg that get ironed out pretty quickly in person.

Let's see, here is a pic of me (the guy wearing the black skirt):


I do not have any problem with a yoga/pilates/feldenkrais/aikido/judo/kali/mma/kenjutsu/whatever practitioner or instructor saying after watching it that I lack proper posture/ki flow/kokyu/handsomeness/et c.if it is done in good standing.

However if said person also claims to be an awesome martial artist who eats pro fighters for breakfast (unproven claims, btw) and I feel his use of the previous pic is a form of saying "look, this guy sucks but I'm awesome" then he should be aware, if he is at a reasonable distance, that at any moment I can knock at his dojo/gym/club/door asking for a hands crossing session.

I don't dismiss the value of internal training, but making fun or ridiculing people to make a point about the amounts of "it" someone has is, imo, a bad move.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: I do not have any problem with a yoga/pilates/feldenkrais/aikido/judo/kali/mma/kenjutsu/whatever practitioner or instructor saying after watching it that I lack proper posture/ki flow/kokyu/handsomeness/et c.if it is done in good standing. However if said person also claims to be an awesome martial artist who eats pro fighters for breakfast (unproven claims, btw) and I feel his use of the previous pic is a form of saying "look, this guy sucks but I'm awesome" then he should be aware, if he is at a reasonable distance, that at any moment I can knock at his dojo/gym/club/door asking for a hands crossing session. I don't dismiss the value of internal training, but making fun or ridiculing people to make a point about the amounts of "it" someone has is, imo, a bad move.

Are you addressing me?
I've never said those things. That would be hyperbole. Spend some time searching and show me where statements of this type ...exist. None of the statements I have made or even the tone supports such commentary. If you review even the little I did say in the pictures thread. None of your assertions will stand scrutiny.

As for internal skills and aiki
Please note in your search of threads to make your points... all the posts of those who came to 'air their frustrations -in person." They have all ended up adopting training this way. The posts are all here.
Why do you suppose that is?
Its a 100% conversion.
What manner of rationale can you assign to explaining this phenomenon?
Could it mean that what we have been saying all along...actually is consistently proving to be true, as witnessed by the members here?
Since by all acounts (as reported here) that statement appears to be true time and again, then the only flaw we are discussing is the human frailty factor; poor comminication skills, tough subject, difficult to hear, and difficult to say type things. As a stand alone factual review from visitors?
People who feel it-want to know how to train to get it.

Dan Harden wrote: Are you addressing me?

Do you feel adressed? Why? You've never said those things. Assume I'm talking about some crazy Pilates instructor and forget about it. Easy, isn't it.

I've never said those things. That would be hyperbole. Spend some time searching and show me where statements of this type ...exist. None of the statements I have made or even the tone supports such commentary. If you review even the little I did say in the pictures thread. None of your assertions will stand scrutiny.

It's not if my assertions stand scrutiny, It's about if someone's attitude can be seen as offensive or disrespectful to others and what can be their reactions. There's people around with no sense of humour. That's life.

As for internal skills and aiki

I've never dismissed the value of internal skills so don't mix things, please.

You are trying to put back internal skills in aikido, no problem. In fact I'm sure you're correct about it even if there is no available proof of your skills other than some testimonials from visitors who are not the top guys in the business. No sport fighting record data available, no LEO/Military experience data available, no pics, videos or testimonials of recognized pro fighters or athletes, no known students of yours storming NAGA, Olympics Judo or Wrestling, Golden Gloves, Pro Boxing, UFC or even track and field events...

However, I have no problem in assuming you are skilled and a competent trainer both in fighting and in internal skills developement. But this do not mean you have some kind of letter of marque to play the thoughest guy around and quality auditor of everybody at the same time.

Best.

Demetrio

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Do you feel adressed? Why?

Well, uhm...you quoted me as the lead-in to your post

I've never dismissed the value of internal skills so don't mix things, please.

Well you pretty much mix the issue in the balance of your post. I try to keep them separate. Here's why.
Any sport fighter is great without them. So how would having them be validated by sport fighting?
Inversley, do the hundreds of men, if not thousands who have these skills and choose not to participate in such venues-no longer have them? Are they now invalidated?

Since the recent re-discovery of this body of work and means to train it have been made by so many members here, and since there are hundreds of posts here that speak so positively of the training method that they have chosen to adopt, and since none of them chose to adopt this training based on being beaten up...
what does that say about their judgment of the validity of these skills in their training?

How does discussing them, and who has them, how they are displayed in the arts equate to any sort of discussion of beating people up ...yet again?
All that does is mix the value of internal training and fighting. Something which I continue to discuss as separate issues, that may relate or not, depending on personal choice.

i wished i have a picture that i can post so folks can critic. i don't even own a camera. sheesh! i do have a picture of me in zebra speedo on the beach that i looked like a bloated whale which quite beautiful in some country (methink), so you folks should not hate me for being beautiful.

as far as internal stuffs go, i think IS just have bad marketing process. if you read through the various description of IS, you find stuffs like: guy pushed me and bounce back; guy tried stuffs on me and i didn't do anything and he couldn't make thing happen; i didn't do anything but folks couldn't get their techniques to work; and so on and so far. you noticed the theme "i didn't do much, just internal stuffs, and things either happen or not happen to folks." what sort of marketing is that? lets face it, internal stuffs are just not sexy!

whereas, aikido is good looking with guys in swirling skirts and women in pajama pants, flowing, flipping, and in general moving about looking good. and you have judo/bjj with sweaty, muscular guys rolling around in various suggestive poses. and taekwondo folks flying through the air like some kind of super hero while smiling with beautiful white teeth. we just looked good without trying, whereas, internal folks just sort of loitering around the landscape not doing a lot of anything.

on a side note, with all the discussion of IS, it got us aware of the IS folks and a chance to track them down and learn from them.

Mike,

Thanks for your response. I understand what you're saying and hope some shared areas of agreement can emerge on how to discuss this topic. I agree its worth the discussion that's occurring.

Regards,

DH

Dan Harden wrote: Well, uhm...you quoted me as the lead-in to your post

You quoted me first.

Well you pretty much mix the issue in the balance of your post. I try to keep them separate.

Dan, you're mixing things again. Me disagreeing with how you adress the value of internal skills developement and your e-attitude doesn't make me a dismisser of internal skills. Read my post again. I accept constructive technical criticism without problem, what put me on my nerves is people who act like if they were the owner of the "Seal of Approval" about other people skills be it internal or external.

And when the people who is stamping the seal of approval is, like in your case, someone who has not given any proof of skills other than some testimonials and obscure references to high ranked aikido practitioneers or kungfu fighters, you tell me...

I'm not against internals. But I'd rather prefer reading something in the line of "Bas Rutten came to me and was converted" than reading about "a quite capable taiji fighter". You is the one who is mixing internals with fighting pointing to testimonials of martial artists/fighters as means of validation. Make available testimonials of highly skilled martial artists about you and let's see what happens.

Of course, this is because we are in a martial arts related forum, what validates your approach to training is the martial side of things. It this were a track and field forum and you were promoting your training method for better performance you'll be asked to demonstrate yourself, or via your students, measurable running, long jump, shot putting or javeline throwing skills or testimonials of high ranked athletes.

Since the recent re-discovery of this body of work and means to train it have been made by so many members here, and since there are hundreds of posts here that speak so positively of the training method that they have chosen to adopt, and since none of them chose to adopt this training based on being beaten up... what does that say about their judgment of the validity of these skills in their training?

Well, I haven't seen high level martial performance from the people who has adopted this training.

How does discussing them, and who has them, how they are displayed in the arts equate to any sort of discussion of beating people up ...yet again?

Because we are in a martial arts environment, maybe?

If you want to compare cardio training methods you make people run, if you want to compare strenght training methods you make people move heavy things. How do you measure or compare martial (or martial related) methods for skill developement?

Best.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: How do you measure or compare martial (or martial related) methods for skill development?

We come up with some tests.

Rob,

Did you have in mind the kinds of tests you've been suggesting in other recent thread (with accompanying requests for input, additions)? Like applying force without committing weight, push tests, etc?

I had understood these to be tests you suggest using to assess the development of internal skills;

What I understood Demetrio to be pointing at was the ultimate relevance of martial effectiveness to the assessment of those (or any other) skill set; and

What I heard Dan to be saying was that he distinguishes between internal skills and and overall fighting ability, which these skills may enhance but which are not necessary to be a "good fighter" (paraphrasing).

I am wondering -- are the criteria you suggested directly related to the issue of martial effectiveness, or indirectly, to the extent there does exist a relationship between the two? Not saying there isn't,just to be clear, but the question was "testing."

Any thoughts you have would be welcome.

Regards,

DH

David
What I have said is that they were two different topics. Not...that they do not overlap. Just that they can be discussed as two separate issues. There are many excellent fighters who are external. There are probably many lousy fighters who practice internal arts.

If people just want to fight...go for it. One personal prejudice is that it needs to seriously involve grappling. But beyond that-you need read no further.

I think internal training gives distinct advantages if you opt to go down that road. But it needs to be a foundational shift in focus.
In martial applications there are some things that people have written in about that is very simple and effective testing that answeres direct questions; attempting to get kuzushi and a fit-in to throw. The counters in traditional work involve speed and positional change, foot work etc., to counter. With internal skills you don't really have to do much of anything to present a very significant resistance..through change -before- your body moves. Your body cancels and absorbs input before you start moving, and before you even consider positional change. I've said it before that you can feel like you are tryting ot throw someone made out of hard rubber.
Having your body absorb and follow before your body moves to follow, or presenting central axis strength that can be pivoted on, or better still a centered strength that can be revolved "around" is not something I've seen or experienced in any refined sense in most Japanese artists. Most of whom are still one-side weighted, hip driven, and susceptible to being thrown in vectors that remain vulnerable.

How does that present in a martial sense?
Training this way makes you much more difficult to throw or off balance, while being able to issue power simultaneously. Further, the power strikes in short spaces are very damaging as well. in fact the ability to generate striking power in small spaces in grappling is off the charts compared to normal training.
And none of this has anything to do with technique, other than it has a tendency to cancel them out while remaining uncommitted yourself and still remaining mobile. Again, an external artist trying to throw someone with decent internal power and skills will prove to be quite an undertaking.
None of that will do much good if you don't practice to use them that way, example: an opponent stands outside and peppers you with strikes and beats you down with hand speed.

Dan,

Thanks for your thoughts. That was very clearly stated for me. I have had a few opportunities in the last several years to work with a friend who has taught CMA for many years, and emphasizes internal skills (sorry I can't be more specific) and their martial application.

You won't be surprised that these concepts are similar to discussions we have had. I have some experience with dropping into a "hole" I didn't know I'd created, and having the rebound lift me off my feet, and other experiences that remind me of things you've described.

So, without getting into degrees and levels of understanding, what you've so clearly laid out resonates with me. I think it also bears thinking about. That I've yet to do.

Regards,

DH

Dan,

That was a nice and illustrative post.

Thanks.

I do not have any problem with a ...practitioner or instructor saying after watching it that I lack proper posture/ki flow/kokyu/handsomeness/et c.if it is done in good standing.

What qualifies as "in good standing"?? I think that particular still frame shows too much shoulder use, but then, I have the same problem.

Snip obvious hyperbole...

I don't dismiss the value of internal training, but making fun or ridiculing people to make a point about the amounts of "it" someone has is, imo, a bad move.

'Couse it is. Probably one reason I haven't seen Dan do it.

Oh, I forgot this gem

if he is at a reasonable distance, that at any moment I can knock at his dojo/gym/club/door asking for a hands crossing session.

My money would be on Dan hands down 95% of the time. Hey, everyone has a bad day But the real point is, what kind of a jamoke would do such a thing, in this day and age? One who belongs in a prison, that's what. You can get all the fights you like there...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: One who belongs in a prison, that's what. You can get all the fights you like there...

I have often wondered how we 'martial artists' would fare in such an environment. It would be interesting to know if Clint George's aikido skills will be effective in such an environment.

I would guess that talking about Internal Training is still a topic to be feared, dismissed, and regulated. Rather than discussed on its own merits, it appears that things have been reduced to pounding square pegs into round holes. I hope that I am wrong -- for it would be a shame to see people being restricted from having a voice based upon the very legal use of public pictures. I'm sure Dan would agree.

Right, Dan?

Dan ...?