Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?

Hi Lorel,

Good points, but I think clarity, objectivity, patience and logic is also needed in IS/IP/Aiki proponents posts.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Hi Lorel, Good points, but I think clarity, objectivity, patience and logic is also needed in IS/IP/Aiki proponents posts.

Clarity--besides describing this phenomena in terms that are phenomenologically convenient to the IP proponent (and to other IP guys) it is hard to achieve clarity. That is, clarity is not available to people who don't do this stuff because you can't perfectly describe the body-mind dynamics and effect an intersubjective miracle. Tim Fong's Spear Post is probably the closest thing to achieve objectivity and clarity, because he touches on anatomy.

Objectivity--IP guys suggest to other people to meet these people claiming to do something different. I don't know how 'objective' you can go beyond that.

Patience--Chris is intellectually dishonest and that stuff does not warrant patience, especially mine. If he was ignorant, and honest and humble about it, then of course, patience is granted. BTW, it took a lot of patience for me to carefully write that post. I don't think Chris is aware that he is intellectually dishonest.

Logic--Please point out to me where an IP proponent has failed to be 'logical'. Maybe David and I got carried away by posting some sarcastic stuff, but beyond that...where is the ill-logic?

Mike Sigman wrote: Great ideas on tools/measuring-devices. I stood up and practiced some pretend interactions with an imaginary partner and paid attention to the forces in and around my feet. It's *possible* that a sophisticated extrapolation from some type of force-plates under the feet would be helpful, but I have no expertise in that area. In terms of my center, I can do a number of tricks with it that have been trained over time, plus I can source forces at will in different directions (my body's alignment structure subtly reforming for each new force). In relation to an opponent's forces, I can vector-add forces in such a way that the resultant is uncomfortable for him. None of these things is an actual change in my COG, of course, but an opponent may feel an effect (the vector-resultant for the combined structures of our bodies) that suggests something to do with my COG. It's mostly just me deliberately manipulating forces in relation to a joined "unit-body", though. 2 cents. Mike Sigman

I think the key question might be "Are force plates or similar technologies likely to be useful?" I suspect to a certain audience they offer objective information and interesting aids to understanding. As a feedback tool they might help develop an externally based sensitivity to ones own internal structure through seeing what works and what doesn't. Progression by coming to recognise this and associate it with internal feedback mechanisms like you describe would be the next step.

If the path to sensitivity is quicker using something like this (and given the long lead times to expertise quoted this might just be the case) then its a useful tool for the masses.

In taking on what Mike is saying something like preasure mats which allow a visualisation of dynamic weight distribution could be useful. This is an example from google here - didn't see a price though

Daniel James wrote: In taking on what Mike is saying something like preasure mats which allow a visualisation of dynamic weight distribution could be useful. This is an example from google here - didn't see a price though

Maybe not as hi tech as what you are showing here, but the Wii board has an exercise application that shows weight distribution and center of balance.

Greg

Chris Hein wrote: I have seen lots of videos of internal, I like to look at all these things quite a bit, but I wanted you to specifically show me the videos that you think are important. I don't see anything on the video of Ark that an athlete cannot do. The only thing I can't do as well as Ark on that video is the suwari waza kokyu ho shove. Then again Ark has been doing this longer then I have. What do you think is on that video that an athlete cannot do?

If you can pull off the shiko (sumo stomp) with someone on your back, that would be rather interesting. That one requires very little leg muscle to pull off despite the fact that beginners use their quads way to much which also applies to mabu/tenchijin as well. While I won't go into the mechanics of how the exercise is done other than saying that it requires "being under" the weight your arms and legs and that you don't bend your waist, the version he demonstrated requires making the other person effectively part of your body.

I will lay out how most people usually attempt kokyu ho, I have seen power lifters, MMA semi-pro's etc usually try it in this manner. After that I will talk about how you should be doing it, which goes back to that list of things that IS people tend to do.

The goal of the exercise is not to push the person backwards, rather to pop them predominantly upwards. Given the path of the arms, there will of course be some lateral movement. Once the person is up, then you can manipulate them over to the side via the same mechanic you use to pop them upwards (via the same list of things I mentioned to you earlier) rather than pulling them around with the arms, or twisting the hips with a rotation. It is more or less kokyu dosa. From what I remember Akuzawa sensei saying in the past, this is more or less how they spent their class time in Sagawa's Daito Ryu dojo.

It has to be understood what it feels like when this exercise is done properly. To both people, it feels like no muscular effort was expended. There is no straining of muscles like when one bench presses a lot of weight or arm wrestles. It is completely effortless and even if one was to stop raising the arms at any point, there is no straining of the arm and back muscles, you can more or less hold that position indefinitely. The partner being lifted should not break their grip at any point, though clearly the harder they grip the easier they will be to lift. If they break their grip, the person lifting has no weight to work with.

This exercise does not rely on usage of the shoulder, biceps and triceps to carry the load, or pop a person back. If you try to lift someone from that position predominantly using those muscles, it becomes quite an effort and your partner can feel you straining. If you try using the biceps, the arms tend to move backwards a bit, making the load greater on the biceps. If you raise/lift with the shoulders, the same thing happens as the shoulders wind up being disconnected from the body and are loaded. Using the triceps is a better way which I used for a long time, but is not correct either. Even if you use all 3 together it still will not work properly in recreating the feeling I described above. You do not want to pull the person forwards either. While this may take their balance, now you have more of their weight going straight down on you which makes them even harder to lift!

It does not rely on the muscles of the back either. One of my training partners has significant back problems and can not use his back muscles without a lot of pain. Nor does he do much conditioning so he has to rely purely on skill in terms of manipulating where he routes incoming force. Now I bring this up as certainly conditioning plays a role in Akuzawa's demo, but want to note that it can be done purely through "skill" in terms of using the 7 things I listed earlier. Chaining together muscle groups doesn't work either.

It does not rely on leaning forwards into your opponent and then pushing. If you think about it for a second, if you lean in, it would certainly add something to a push backwards, however you would be in a mechanically compromised position to lift someone into the air at that point. You would likely find your torso being pushed towards the ground as your partner went upwards. If anything you want to go slightly back to counteract your arm extension. My guess is that we see Akuzawa's slight lean afterwards as a result of his partner's grip pulling him back a bit, but it is clearly after his partner has left the ground.

The version practiced by the aunkai doesn't require opening/closing the body either, namely making the torso go from a concave to convex position. Thats not to say that a breath powered version (hey the aikido version does call it kokyu, while the aunkai version is agete-literally hand raise), would not involve doing so.

It does not rely on structure/optimal alignment either, which runs true of most aunkai exercises where you are put into extreme positions where there is really only a few ways to make the exercise work (some of which are correct and some of which are not I have more recently discovered). This is readily obvious by the starting position.

From the position itself, you can't physically get any lower than your partner....

So how do you do it?

This will not be a full how to, as there is a prerequisite understanding of some of the 7 skills I listed earlier, namely "getting under" so that it feels as though you have a center of gravity lower than your opponents. As described above, you really can not get lower than your opponent physically as you can not bend one's legs even further than in seiza. Nor do you want to lean forward for the reasons discussed previously. If you are under someone, wether physically, or in the manner discussed in IS, it is always a lot easier to raise them up!

You do not want to lock the arms, but instead keep them straight. The arms merely make an arc from your lap up past shoulder height. It should have been clear from what I wrote above that the arms are not bearing the load, somewhere else is. For a long time I tried using the lower back and that is NOT right. It could sort of work, but it isn't really correct. The following is my own personal understanding. Other's are probably doing it more correctly than myself. It's more like you put the weight of your hands in your lower crotch, coupled with "reflecting" the other persons weight/energy into the ground while you push into the ground with the psoas. You effectively need to source power from somewhere lower than your partner.

The above mostly ends the how to, though I would be remiss if I did not at least attempt to explain part of what it means to "get under" or "be under" your partner. Chris, I want to help you understand so that you don't think we are trying to play word games with you.

Alex Lee recently showed me a way in which just about anyone can feel what it is like to be under your own hands VERY quickly. He had me basically squat and hold a bo/jo/bokken with my arms outstretched opponents of me. He then rested his weight on it and told me to stand up. Of course I could not lift it and him up with all my muscles straining. What would up happening was that it was as though I was doing a pullup, trying to pushback against his weight with my arms/shoulders and then trying to push with my quads off the ground.

What he suggested I do instead was pretend I was doing the limbo dance and go underneath the bo/jo/bokken (starts to look in some aspects like a power lifter). Now this doesn't mean lean back, as if you do that at this point you will fall over, rather my crotch pushed forwards and I could feel the inner part of the legs and the lower crotch area between the testicles and the anus take the load. I could then effortlessly raise the weapon and stand up. This took me maybe 2-3 times to figure out and about the same for another training partner who only has about 1 month of IS experience.

Now I can personally recreate that under the hands sensation fairly easily now without having something in my hand, it does tend to fall apart though as soon as I touch someone else as I have to figure out how to "get under" that additional weight and make it part of me. When I do have it, it becomes rather easy to move them.

I forgot to add, that I think that Akuzawa is always "under" his partners so thats why you see them unbalanced/move the way they do.

Chris Hein wrote: First off, this comes from me, not my teacher. Second, the group of internal martial artists that is not the Aikiweb IP IS or whatever group is MUCH larger than this small group of internal. Most IMA would say Dan, Ark, Mike who? Your group is not that large, although you're working it, I'll give you that. I could probably find 50 people who think chickens can speak English. People from all over the world, different people who have never met. I could put them on a forum together and try to tell them that chickens can not in fact speak English. Those 50 people would act like I'm crazy, because they all believe it. Looking at this small group it would be easy for them to say, "Chris, everyone is telling you the same thing, why don't you listen, chickens can clearly speak English."

All you have done is once again discredit..well more accurately dismiss, personal testimony of dozens of experienced martial artists while offering not one thing....nothing...in rebuttal except yours.
You have hundreds of these observers of English speaking chickens telling you that what they felt and feel in IP/aiki is different from what they had done their whole lives. The way they are training to move their own body is NOT the same as what they had been doing their whole lives. Okay
Please explain why they all do not know what they are talking about
HOW WERE THEY TRICKED?
.
After you address that lets see you tackle Jon Haas's post
Please respond to Jon's example where his body was being conditioned in a different manner and his own people were having trouble throwing and locking him
He went back to athletics-what he had always done- and they could.
He went back to IP training and they had trouble throwing him and locking him again
Explain this to us.

Maybe he wasn't flexing and lifting properly or we wasn't strong enough?

Of the hundreds who are now training this way and all agree that it is "different" than athletics, what are we supposed to say? That none of us know what we are talking about,?
Is that your argument and talking points?
Dan

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: If you can pull off the shiko (sumo stomp) with someone on your back, that would be rather interesting. That one requires very little leg muscle to pull off despite the fact that beginners use their quads way to much which also applies to mabu/tenchijin as well. While I won't go into the mechanics of how the exercise is done other than saying that it requires "being under" the weight your arms and legs and that you don't bend your waist, the version he demonstrated requires making the other person effectively part of your body. I will lay out how most people usually attempt kokyu ho, I have seen power lifters, MMA semi-pro's etc usually try it in this manner. After that I will talk about how you should be doing it, which goes back to that list of things that IS people tend to do. The goal of the exercise is not to push the person backwards, rather to pop them predominantly upwards. Given the path of the arms, there will of course be some lateral movement. Once the person is up, then you can manipulate them over to the side via the same mechanic you use to pop them upwards (via the same list of things I mentioned to you earlier) rather than pulling them around with the arms, or twisting the hips with a rotation. It is more or less kokyu dosa. From what I remember Akuzawa sensei saying in the past, this is more or less how they spent their class time in Sagawa's Daito Ryu dojo. It has to be understood what it feels like when this exercise is done properly. To both people, it feels like no muscular effort was expended. There is no straining of muscles like when one bench presses a lot of weight or arm wrestles. It is completely effortless and even if one was to stop raising the arms at any point, there is no straining of the arm and back muscles, you can more or less hold that position indefinitely. The partner being lifted should not break their grip at any point, though clearly the harder they grip the easier they will be to lift. If they break their grip, the person lifting has no weight to work with. This exercise does not rely on usage of the shoulder, biceps and triceps to carry the load, or pop a person back. If you try to lift someone from that position predominantly using those muscles, it becomes quite an effort and your partner can feel you straining. If you try using the biceps, the arms tend to move backwards a bit, making the load greater on the biceps. If you raise/lift with the shoulders, the same thing happens as the shoulders wind up being disconnected from the body and are loaded. Using the triceps is a better way which I used for a long time, but is not correct either. Even if you use all 3 together it still will not work properly in recreating the feeling I described above. You do not want to pull the person forwards either. While this may take their balance, now you have more of their weight going straight down on you which makes them even harder to lift! It does not rely on the muscles of the back either. One of my training partners has significant back problems and can not use his back muscles without a lot of pain. Nor does he do much conditioning so he has to rely purely on skill in terms of manipulating where he routes incoming force. Now I bring this up as certainly conditioning plays a role in Akuzawa's demo, but want to note that it can be done purely through "skill" in terms of using the 7 things I listed earlier. Chaining together muscle groups doesn't work either. It does not rely on leaning forwards into your opponent and then pushing. If you think about it for a second, if you lean in, it would certainly add something to a push backwards, however you would be in a mechanically compromised position to lift someone into the air at that point. You would likely find your torso being pushed towards the ground as your partner went upwards. If anything you want to go slightly back to counteract your arm extension. My guess is that we see Akuzawa's slight lean afterwards as a result of his partner's grip pulling him back a bit, but it is clearly after his partner has left the ground. The version practiced by the aunkai doesn't require opening/closing the body either, namely making the torso go from a concave to convex position. Thats not to say that a breath powered version (hey the aikido version does call it kokyu, while the aunkai version is agete-literally hand raise), would not involve doing so. It does not rely on structure/optimal alignment either, which runs true of most aunkai exercises where you are put into extreme positions where there is really only a few ways to make the exercise work (some of which are correct and some of which are not I have more recently discovered). This is readily obvious by the starting position. From the position itself, you can't physically get any lower than your partner.... So how do you do it? This will not be a full how to, as there is a prerequisite understanding of some of the 7 skills I listed earlier, namely "getting under" so that it feels as though you have a center of gravity lower than your opponents. As described above, you really can not get lower than your opponent physically as you can not bend one's legs even further than in seiza. Nor do you want to lean forward for the reasons discussed previously. If you are under someone, wether physically, or in the manner discussed in IS, it is always a lot easier to raise them up! You do not want to lock the arms, but instead keep them straight. The arms merely make an arc from your lap up past shoulder height. It should have been clear from what I wrote above that the arms are not bearing the load, somewhere else is. For a long time I tried using the lower back and that is NOT right. It could sort of work, but it isn't really correct. The following is my own personal understanding. Other's are probably doing it more correctly than myself. It's more like you put the weight of your hands in your lower crotch, coupled with "reflecting" the other persons weight/energy into the ground while you push into the ground with the psoas. You effectively need to source power from somewhere lower than your partner. The above mostly ends the how to, though I would be remiss if I did not at least attempt to explain part of what it means to "get under" or "be under" your partner. Chris, I want to help you understand so that you don't think we are trying to play word games with you. Alex Lee recently showed me a way in which just about anyone can feel what it is like to be under your own hands VERY quickly. He had me basically squat and hold a bo/jo/bokken with my arms outstretched opponents of me. He then rested his weight on it and told me to stand up. Of course I could not lift it and him up with all my muscles straining. What would up happening was that it was as though I was doing a pullup, trying to pushback against his weight with my arms/shoulders and then trying to push with my quads off the ground. What he suggested I do instead was pretend I was doing the limbo dance and go underneath the bo/jo/bokken (starts to look in some aspects like a power lifter). Now this doesn't mean lean back, as if you do that at this point you will fall over, rather my crotch pushed forwards and I could feel the inner part of the legs and the lower crotch area between the testicles and the anus take the load. I could then effortlessly raise the weapon and stand up. This took me maybe 2-3 times to figure out and about the same for another training partner who only has about 1 month of IS experience. Now I can personally recreate that under the hands sensation fairly easily now without having something in my hand, it does tend to fall apart though as soon as I touch someone else as I have to figure out how to "get under" that additional weight and make it part of me. When I do have it, it becomes rather easy to move them.

Hunter,

Thank you for this explanation. So, the getting under uke (using the jo/bokken example) you are connecting to uke and taking his tension (or taking his center) into you and channeling into into the lower crotch & inner thighs? The visual I get is a line that is coming directly through you and into the ground...like a tripod. Am I getting this visual correct? I'm asking this to get a visual and understanding in my head.

I agree with Chris. It's just a parlor trick. All you need to do is generate a force vector from the ground to respond to your opponent's force vector. Just learn that skill, and you're golden.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Alex Lee recently showed me a way in which just about anyone can feel what it is like to be under your own hands VERY quickly. He had me basically squat and hold a bo/jo/bokken with my arms outstretched opponents of me. He then rested his weight on it and told me to stand up. Of course I could not lift it and him up with all my muscles straining. What would up happening was that it was as though I was doing a pullup, trying to pushback against his weight with my arms/shoulders and then trying to push with my quads off the ground. What he suggested I do instead was pretend I was doing the limbo dance and go underneath the bo/jo/bokken (starts to look in some aspects like a power lifter). Now this doesn't mean lean back, as if you do that at this point you will fall over, rather my crotch pushed forwards and I could feel the inner part of the legs and the lower crotch area between the testicles and the anus take the load. I could then effortlessly raise the weapon and stand up. This took me maybe 2-3 times to figure out and about the same for another training partner who only has about 1 month of IS experience. Now I can personally recreate that under the hands sensation fairly easily now without having something in my hand, it does tend to fall apart though as soon as I touch someone else as I have to figure out how to "get under" that additional weight and make it part of me. When I do have it, it becomes rather easy to move them.

A photo or sketch of this setup would really help. Sounds like a nice drill but the particulars are not clearly described to my reading.

David Orange wrote: Ark effortlessly lifts that guy up and sets him back.

Hi David,

I'm just catching up on some of this thread, but to be fair, it's not that Akuzawa lifts that guy all on his own. Nor I think it was his goal to have the holder respond in that exact manner. The guy holding is adding a lot to the direction he ultimately takes. He is taken up and to the rear and since he doesn't want to fall awkwardly (and has no chance of keeping his shoulders down), he tries to get the rest of his body back in order and in balance, and ends up with a "seiza hop™". If the guy was a statue, Akuzawa's push back wouldn't have been so dramatic, or if the guy was just a bag of potatoes, he would have just slumped backwards. In any case it takes two-to-tango, your mileage may vary, etc.

So, to ask someone to replicate certain results, requires a certain amount of similar circumstances/constraints/controls, etc. All other things being equal that is, such as skill.

Thanks,
Adam

Lorel Latorilla wrote: Clarity--besides describing this phenomena in terms that are phenomenologically convenient to the IP proponent (and to other IP guys) it is hard to achieve clarity. That is, clarity is not available to people who don't do this stuff because you can't perfectly describe the body-mind dynamics and effect an intersubjective miracle.

Which has resulted in the IS people developing their own language, let's call it "internalese", only understood by them.

Imagine for a moment I started to post in Spanish how to do a shoelace (whick is itself a complex task) then, when you say you didn't understood I put the blame on you.

Tim Fong's Spear Post is probably the closest thing to achieve objectivity and clarity, because he touches on anatomy.

At least he tried to use a common code. Why other IS proponent can't try the same? People here are not (well, not most of them) illiterate. Plus if the skeptics see an IS proponent trying to establish communication in a code they understand may be they start to pay attention.

Objectivity--IP guys suggest to other people to meet these people claiming to do something different. I don't know how 'objective' you can go beyond that.

That's not objectivity. That's asking for another subjective account to add to the many we have.

Objectivity: an objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied.
http://www.iva.dk/jni/lifeboat/info.asp?subjectid=314

How could you guarantee Chris' account of what happened in the case he met a skilled IS proponent lacks subjectivity?

Patience--Chris is intellectually dishonest and that stuff does not warrant patience, especially mine. If he was ignorant, and honest and humble about it, then of course, patience is granted. BTW, it took a lot of patience for me to carefully write that post. I don't think Chris is aware that he is intellectually dishonest

There are more people reading and participating than Chris, and even if you consider him intellectually dishonest, there have been few posts really adressing the OP question: what is the perceived difference, and assumed superiority of internal martial arts over good athletics training?

Logic--Please point out to me where an IP proponent has failed to be 'logical'. Maybe David and I got carried away by posting some sarcastic stuff, but beyond that...where is the ill-logic?

The lack of logic is in a generalized use of:

Person X performs better than Person Y
Person X is an IS stilyst while Person Y is an athlete.
Therefore: IS is superior to athleticism.

Don't you see the flaws in this logic?

Dan Harden wrote: All you have done is once again discredit..well more accurately dismiss, personal testimony of dozens of experienced martial artists while offering not one thing....nothing...in rebuttal except yours.

Then we are even. I say no, they say yes, it's a draw. We'll have to go beyond mere opinion if we are going to get anywhere.

You have hundreds of these observers of English speaking chickens telling you that what they felt and feel in IP/aiki is different from what they had done their whole lives. The way they are training to move their own body is NOT the same as what they had been doing their whole lives. Okay Please explain why they all do not know what they are talking about HOW WERE THEY TRICKED?

This is what we are trying to get to the bottom of. I'm not saying that these people are not experiencing something. I'm saying that I don't believe it's what they think it is. They are saying that it is. We are now trying to hash out the details. It is possible that I am wrong, but I have seen nothing other than opinion, speculation and accounts of personal experiences as arguments.

I discount personal experience because it's subjective. In my head I might see dragons flying around, but that doesn't mean they are. Personal experience is a very real thing to you, but not necessarily to anyone else.

After you address that lets see you tackle Jon Haas's post Please respond to Jon's example where his body was being conditioned in a different manner and his own people were having trouble throwing and locking him He went back to athletics-what he had always done- and they could. He went back to IP training and they had trouble throwing him and locking him again Explain this to us.

Again Dan, I can't speak to his personal experiences. Maybe if we talk in an objective fashion, something where we can all get information at the same time we can talk about it.

Of the hundreds who are now training this way and all agree that it is "different" than athletics, what are we supposed to say? That none of us know what we are talking about,? Is that your argument and talking points? Dan

I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm not trying to call anyone anything. I simply want to figure out what is going on.

Dan, it would help so much if you could make a quick video. Why won't you do this?

Eric Joyce wrote: Hunter, Thank you for this explanation. So, the getting under uke (using the jo/bokken example) you are connecting to uke and taking his tension (or taking his center) into you and channeling into into the lower crotch & inner thighs? The visual I get is a line that is coming directly through you and into the ground...like a tripod. Am I getting this visual correct? I'm asking this to get a visual and understanding in my head.

Yes, Mike Sigman has presented diagrams previously which show two people with their centers connected together as though they are a 4 legged horse. You are connecting their center/the power they are giving you "to your crotch" and loading/issuing power from there. It is almost like you are bypassing your own arms/shoulders.

Hopefully, I made it clear in my explanation that this is only one component of the entire picture. "Sinking the qi", reflecting your opponeent's power, and the rest of the stuff I previously listed is beyond what I want to lay out for now as I don't have the entire picture myself. I could probably recite the theory, but that doesn't mean I actually know how to do it.

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: A photo or sketch of this setup would really help. Sounds like a nice drill but the particulars are not clearly described to my reading.

I work at home so I can film it, but I don't have anyone to push on me.

I'll film something and put it up in a bit.

i thought i mentioned in passing by way of the runner example, but i guessed i need to spell it out a bit clearer.

when i heard the word "athleticism", in my mind, i thought of runner, swimmer, weight lifter, high jumper, basketball player, soccer player, and so on. from my point of view, athletes trained to be one dimension dealing with force. if a push straight from the front of an athlete he/she/it would push straight back. however, if someone would apply a force lateral to the athlete at the same time, his/her/it would have a hard time dealing with it. if you watch some of the soccer plays, you would see a soccer player running full tilt and if another player body check him/her from the side, the running soccer player would often goes tumbling into the grass. IS folks basic training is to be able to deal with forces coming at many directions at the same time - up, down, front, back, left and right - to name a few. so from my point of view, IS training, at the foundation, is multi-dimensional force neutralization. now, if normal athlete learn such training, would make them much better athlete than before. the soccer player would keep on going and score! (yup! me likes soccer!)

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: There are more people reading and participating than Chris, and even if you consider him intellectually dishonest, there have been few posts really adressing the OP question: what is the perceived difference, and assumed superiority of internal martial arts over good athletics training? The lack of logic is in a generalized use of: Person X performs better than Person Y Person X is an IS stilyst while Person Y is an athlete. Therefore: IS is superior to athleticism. Don't you see the flaws in this logic?

The OP was answered
Why do you perceive internal superior to athleticism
In some ways it's not a question of superior or lesser
In other ways it is; among which are being:
Harder to throw
Harder to lock up
Easier to throw others
Easier to lock
Hard hits in small spaces
With weapons it gets even better-I would argue it superior there.

There was never a question as to how or why.

The question of performance is relative to demand. There are things that someone with IP skills can do that an equal sized athlete cannot. I don't debate it here. No athlete.has ever disagreed with me in person...and it is never contentious and ugly. It's friendly and matter of fact.

My only caveate -if we are talking Martial arts- it sure as hell doesn't teach you how to fight. That's a different topic and that's your own hard work of a different sort. You make of it what you will.

Dan

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: If you can pull off the shiko (sumo stomp) with someone on your back, that would be rather interesting. That one requires very little leg muscle to pull off despite the fact that beginners use their quads way to much which also applies to mabu/tenchijin as well. While I won't go into the mechanics of how the exercise is done other than saying that it requires "being under" the weight your arms and legs and that you don't bend your waist, the version he demonstrated requires making the other person effectively part of your body.

I tired this last night. I could do it. I do however use my quads and butt muscles. Other then getting someone to touch our muscles or attaching sensors to them, I don't know how we could figure out if IP people are using less muscle when they do this. I can however achieve the same result.

This also might be a sticking point for your opinion and mine. In my opinion achieving the same result is fine. But you might be interested in some other quality of the result. Either way, I'll post a video and we can talk about it.

I will lay out how most people usually attempt kokyu ho, I have seen power lifters, MMA semi-pro's etc usually try it in this manner. After that I will talk about how you should be doing it, which goes back to that list of things that IS people tend to do. The goal of the exercise is not to push the person backwards, rather to pop them predominantly upwards. Given the path of the arms, there will of course be some lateral movement. Once the person is up, then you can manipulate them over to the side via the same mechanic you use to pop them upwards (via the same list of things I mentioned to you earlier) rather than pulling them around with the arms, or twisting the hips with a rotation. It is more or less kokyu dosa. From what I remember Akuzawa sensei saying in the past, this is more or less how they spent their class time in Sagawa's Daito Ryu dojo.

I can do this, but I'm not sure if I would meet your qualifications. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but again if the same result can be achieved, I don't know what else to look for.

On something like this, would your argument be that IP people would be less fatigued than an athlete doing the same thing? Or simply that you are interested in a specific quality personally?

It has to be understood what it feels like when this exercise is done properly. To both people, it feels like no muscular effort was expended. There is no straining of muscles like when one bench presses a lot of weight or arm wrestles. It is completely effortless and even if one was to stop raising the arms at any point, there is no straining of the arm and back muscles, you can more or less hold that position indefinitely. The partner being lifted should not break their grip at any point, though clearly the harder they grip the easier they will be to lift. If they break their grip, the person lifting has no weight to work with.

Again, effortless seems a bit subjective. What is effortless for one might not be effortless for another even though they are using the same means. For example, If I can easily bench 400lbs, and you can only bench 200lbs, benching 175 might be effortless for me, and I could do many many reps, for you it would be very near max, and take a lot of effort. I understand what you are saying, but I feel that "effortless" is a very personal thing.

The above mostly ends the how to, though I would be remiss if I did not at least attempt to explain part of what it means to "get under" or "be under" your partner. Chris, I want to help you understand so that you don't think we are trying to play word games with you.

I appreciate your efforts.

Phi Truong wrote: i thought i mentioned in passing by way of the runner example, but i guessed i need to spell it out a bit clearer. <snipped stuff> if you watch some of the soccer plays, you would see a soccer player running full tilt and if another player body check him/her from the side, the running soccer player would often goes tumbling into the grass. IS folks basic training is to be able to deal with forces coming at many directions at the same time - up, down, front, back, left and right - to name a few. so from my point of view, IS training, at the foundation, is multi-dimensional force neutralization. now, if normal athlete learn such training, would make them much better athlete than before. the soccer player would keep on going and score! (yup! me likes soccer!)

Sorry Phi, I must be in some kind of mood today, but a body in motion where that body is in the air (such as a running athlete or IS master), at some point, can be toppled as easily as the next guy. If there's no ground to support or act against, then all you're dealing with is momentum that can be be redirected, especially if you're talking about a force directed from the side. Perhaps walking would be a better example. At least one foot is on the ground at all times.

Thanks,
Adam

Dan Harden wrote: The OP was answered Why do you perceive internal superior to athleticism In some ways it's not a question of superior or lesser In other ways it is; among which are being: Harder to throw Harder to lock up Easier to throw others Easier to lock Hard hits in small spaces With weapons it gets even better-I would argue it superior there.

I could say the same thing of someone who was about to undergo athletic training. Athletic training makes you better at all of those things as well.

The question of performance is relative to demand. There are things that someone with IP skills can do that an equal sized athlete cannot.

What are these things, can you show them?

No athlete.has ever disagreed with me in person...and it is never contentious and ugly. It's friendly and matter of fact.

Here again we have subjectivity. I'm not saying this is so, but you could just be saying this. If it is true (which I don't actually doubt) I don't know the caliber of athlete. Even if they are high end athletes I don't know their understanding of what they are doing (natural ability vs trained athletics). Even if all of those things are so, it could be that they were just saying that to be nice to you.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what you have presented is in no way evidence.

My only caveate -if we are talking Martial arts- it sure as hell doesn't teach you how to fight. That's a different topic and that's your own hard work of a different sort. You make of it what you will. Dan

This is the same for athletics. They many the body better, but don't teach you how to fight. A body that works better is better in a fight, but being able doesn't mean you are good in a fight.

Chris Hein wrote: .....I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm not trying to call anyone anything. I simply want to figure out what is going on.

You could also argue that description of riding a bike are ridiculous and you really...want to figure out how to do it by reading about it on the net. Sooner or later someone is going to say "Hey Chris, go sit on a bike and make it move."

This is what we are trying to get to the bottom of. I'm not saying that these people are not experiencing something. I'm saying that I don't believe it's what they think it is. They are saying that it is. We are now trying to hash out the details. I discount personal experience because it's subjective.

This goes nowhere. .I say I move from Dantian/hara, you say so do you. Okay.
I encounter this all the time. in person, it is agreed that it is different.
Next?
Eliminating martial techniques, there are any number of power out examples that have been offered. I do a push-out drill where they are in hanmi or any other position they want to be in with their arms straight out. I stand in a highly compromised straight leg, straight arm stance, with my arms out toward them palms to palms. They try to push and walk. I stand there, they feel like it is pushing on a wall. I then wiggle and turn to jello and they still cannot move forward.
Where is the athleticism in what I am doing?
What conditioning is doing that?

Dan, it would help so much if you could make a quick video. Why won't you do this?

Er...because I'm not interested in doing so.
It would also "help so much" if you met Ark, Mike or me.
Cheers
Dan

Chris Hein wrote: Other then getting someone to touch our muscles or attaching sensors to them, I don't know how we could figure out if IP people are using less muscle when they do this.

So...your saying....It has to be felt?

time for me to quit reading ...been doing to much of that lately....

as for the original question...I'm still searching for the individual/s who went and got hands on time with someone with this ability and says they are full of it...haven't seen it yet.

Brian Griffith

Chris Hein wrote: I can do this, but I'm not sure if I would meet your qualifications. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but again if the same result can be achieved, I don't know what else to look for. On something like this, would your argument be that IP people would be less fatigued than an athlete doing the same thing? Or simply that you are interested in a specific quality personally? ----- Again, effortless seems a bit subjective. What is effortless for one might not be effortless for another even though they are using the same means. For example, If I can easily bench 400lbs, and you can only bench 200lbs, benching 175 might be effortless for me, and I could do many many reps, for you it would be very near max, and take a lot of effort. I understand what you are saying, but I feel that "effortless" is a very personal thing.

I think you might have recognized something there.

There is a specific quality/feeling/sensation that we are all looking for. That is to say, that to most people looking from the outside, wether someone uses internals or externals to power something it looks the same, but to both people it feels substantially different. This is why I hesitate to call one way better than the other if the same results are achieved. Now if you have a little bit of experience with internals, and you watch you might be able to tell how each movement was powered between the athletic person and IS powered person. Likewise, the effects on the partner might look different.

I understand your point regarding strength and how "effortlessness" can be subjective. If you decide to chase after this feeling/mode of movement, the feeling of it being effortless is really just that. For example, if I raise my arms with no one pushing on them, then I raise my arms with someone holding on to them utilizing IS for both raises, it really doesn't feel any different to me. My arms kind of just float upwards as though something else was raising them other than my shoulders. To the person who is holding my arms, they don't feel me lifting them up at all. What feels strange to them is that they do not feel any resistance, they can't really tell where I am sourcing my power from.

The wacky thing is that when I do conditoining exercises now, my shoulders don't really get tired like I used too, instead other parts of my body start to get tired and from my experienced this shifts lower and lower the more skilled/conditioned you get.

Now to get back to your original question in your first post, the way in which this may be "better" is that the athletic person may not have experienced this sort of thing before so you have that element of surprise/unreadability coupled with being able to generate power from unusual positions in which others might be seriously compromised.

Adam Bauder wrote: Sorry Phi, I must be in some kind of mood today, but a body in motion where that body is in the air (such as a running athlete or IS master), at some point, can be toppled as easily as the next guy. If there's no ground to support or act against, then all you're dealing with is momentum that can be be redirected, especially if you're talking about a force directed from the side. Perhaps walking would be a better example. At least one foot is on the ground at all times. Thanks, Adam

Well, if you look at the Mifune "Essence of Judo" video that sort of situation actually arises. Mifune, while in the air and without a connection to the ground via his own body, connects through his opponent's body to the ground and throws the opponent.

That video really is amazing to watch. I don't have time right now to watch the whole thing (its 60 minutes long) to find that particular demonstration.

Dan Harden wrote: You could also argue that description of riding a bike are ridiculous and you really...want to figure out how to do it by reading about it on the net. Sooner or later someone is going to say "Hey Chris, go sit on a bike and make it move."

But the thing is, I can see people riding bikes. I can't see any internal people doing anything that I don't understand.

Eliminating martial techniques, there are any number of power out examples that have been offered. I do a push-out drill where they are in hanmi or any other position they want to be in with their arms straight out. I stand in a highly compromised straight leg, straight arm stance, with my arms out toward them palms to palms. They try to push and walk. I stand there, they feel like it is pushing on a wall. I then wiggle and turn to jello and they still cannot move forward. Where is the athleticism in what I am doing? What conditioning is doing that?

Again Dan, this is simply a description. I can think of any number of ways to do this. I have been practicing stage magic since I was a small child. I know quite a bit about the art. It is rare that I see something that I do not understand. But if you were to simply say, "This guy had a quarter, then it disappeared, how do you explain that." I can't , because I didn't see it, I don't know the context that this is happening in. Can I think of ways to do it, yes, but those would be pure speculation until I saw it.

Er...because I'm not interested in doing so. It would also "help so much" if you met Ark, Mike or me. Cheers Dan

This is fine, but don't compare taking 10 minutes out of your day to make a video to support your statements, to me paying several hundred dollars, and many hours of travel, to do something that I don't believe is worth my time.