Internal Power Development Methods

Ashe Higgs wrote: just to clarify, the general sense of 意 (i or yi) in 意力拳 is more along the lines of "mental" as opposed to the more common use of yi as will or intent. so a rough translation is more along the lines of mental/physical martial art (as in the unification of), which is why we call ILC "the martial art of awareness".

That's sort of like thinking that the "I" in "Hsing I" (the old Wade-Giles spelling of Xingyi) means "mental". OK... I see your perspective, as you've written it. This is getting off into the 13-year-olds giving their take on automobiles and assuming that everyone knows what they do about cars, so I'm going to bail out right here.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

I'm confused...but that is okay really...it happens alot! Moving along now....

Ashe Higgs wrote: just to clarify, the general sense of 意 (i or yi) in 意力拳 is more along the lines of "mental" as opposed to the more common use of yi as will or intent.

I can see how this might be a convenient transliteration, but to me, 意力 connotates the power 力 of directed thought 意 - i.e. will, desire, and therefore intent - that is expressed in the fist. It's certainly a powerful name for a pugilistic system - with different layers of meaning.

But I'm not here to debate what meaning one chooses to assign to one's system or style, nor the inadequacies of the English language when it comes to interpreting or translating a contextual language, like Chinese, with its colorful imagery, that is so succinctly encapsulated in its pictographic form. 意 conveys the imagery of sound (tone) [of] the heart (mind)... and... that is that.

Let's just try to keep to the topic please, and thank you.

I came across the articles a while back... just stumbled on them again..
This is in relation to the muscle-jin mix; and the levels of purity that was brought up. I take it that pursuit of a specific level or training-aspect (or body limit) speaks directly to what kind of 'internal power development method' you use. (agree?) It also reminds me of what I think Mike is talking about when he speaks of seeking 'highly refined' versions of it. Just another point of view.... I thought it was neat. FWIW and IMO.

Scott P. Phillips wrote: 4 stages of Qi 2009 April 19 by Scott P. Phillips George Xu has simplified his explanation of the basic process of making martial arts internal. First there is External-Internal, which means that the jing and qi are mixed. Most martial arts use this method to great effectiveness. It is high quality external martial arts-- muscles, bones and tendons become thick like chocolate. Second is Internal-External, most advanced taijiquan, xingyiquan, and baguazhang practitioners get stuck here. It means that the body is completely soft and sensitive. While power is constantly available, the yi (mind/intent) is trained to never go against the opponent's force, so that when this kind of practitioner issues power it is in the opponent's most vulnerable place (in friendly practice it is often used to throw the opponent to the ground). Unfortunately, if the opponent gives no opening there is no way to attack. Also, at the moment of attack all jin, no matter how sneaky or subtle, becomes vulnerable to a counter attack. The third is Pure-Internal, this is very rare. All power is left in a potential state. Because there is no jin, one is not vulnerable to counter attack. To reveal this aspect of a practitioner's true nature requires completely relaxing the physical body so that jing and qi distill from one another. The body becomes like a heavy mass, like a bag of rice, Daoists call it the flesh bag. Then one must go through the four stages of qi: 1. Qi must go through the gates. The most common obstacle to this is strength, either physical, psychological, or based in a world-view. After discarding strength the shoulders must be drawn inward until they unify with the dantian. The same is true for the legs; however, the most common obstacle to qi passing freely through the hip gates is too much qi stored in the dantian. Qi must be distributed upwards and released in order for it to descend. 2. Qi must conform to the rules of Yin-Yang. As much qi as goes into the limbs must simultaneously go back into the torso. 3. The qi must become lively, shrinking expanding and spiraling. (This is what I'm working on.) 4. This one in Chinese is Hua--to transform, like ice changing into water and then steam. But George Xu prefers to translate in as melt the qi.

From<

...also remind's me of Marc's recent blog on balancing In-Yo. This is about 'maintaining harmony in the body', no?

p.s. what do you think they mean about 'world view' limiting it?? dunno

Josh Phillipson wrote: ...also remind's me of Marc's recent blog on balancing In-Yo. This is about 'maintaining harmony in the body', no?

The idea of "change" is paramount in Chinese cosmology. Taiji and Bagua have both called themselves "the art of Change" at one time or another. I suppose what George Xu is talking about (he's not an expert on IMA's, BTW... his roots are southern Shaolin) relates to the theoretical ideal. The easiest way to explain that ideal is to think of the Yin-Yang symbol (the "Two Fishes") and note that there is a wavy vertical line that separates the white 'fish' from the black 'fish'. In the ideal of the Yin-Yang cosmology (and that also means the Japanese In-Yo cosmology), things arrive at a state where the vertical wavy line disappears and there is no difference between Yin and Yang because they are the same thing. The ideal of that last step is related, but it's a bit of a reach. In reality, martial-arts usually seek to maintain a balance of "hard" and "soft". So the 'ideal' arts will have names like "Tai Chi" or "Go-Ju" or "Six Harmonies" (Liu He) or something like that.

As a for instance, Aikido that is only yielding and passive blending would be too Yin. An Aikido with proper balance would have yielding/blending balanced by Atemi. An idealistic Aikido would have some mythical someone standing quietly, using his mind-intent and qi-skills, and opponents would be defeated (with no movement) whenever they attacked. Nice thought, but probably not workable in some of the bar-fights I've been in.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Josh Phillipson wrote: I came across the articles a while back... just stumbled on them again.. This is in relation to the muscle-jin mix; and the levels of purity that was brought up. I take it that pursuit of a specific level or training-aspect (or body limit) speaks directly to what kind of 'internal power development method' you use. (agree?)

Is there such a thing as "pure internal"? the skeptics in me said "i don't think so". methinking, only folks who have reached such state as "pure internal" would know, right? or folks just theorized such a state? but then the cynical part of me said, such theorists, in the world of martial arts, tends to be extinct rather quickly. or are we talking about those "hand waving, orgasm inducing non-touch mojo" folks that Ellis mentioned?

stage #4 "melt the qi"? isn't that what you do when you make grill cheese sandwich to go with tomato soup on a cold day?

i am thinking there might be a stage #5 where we can "pour the wine and cut the qi"

*sorry could not help myself. go back to the corner in the bar, behind the bouncers, and use my intent to keep folks away from me*

Hi Phi, *I* don't know...and try to keep an open mind, but I lean towards what you think.. heh.Well, that's pretty funny. I don't know. Lotsa BS, as usual, I expect nothing less. But as with all things, there is a spectrum...and i guess there is likely to be an extreme here too, in this type of movement. That said, even just the basic concept of IP/IT _is_ a 'kind of extreme' as considered compared to the 'normal' body movement of an untrained or a 'straight' as Dan calls them (/me). No? It is a 'leap' from one 'domain' to another...why couldn't there be another one nestled inside the previous one. Another 'level of quantization' or potential control...waiting to be tapped....I say that because I assume there must be something very deep here for people like Sagawa and others to have spent a lifetime digging it all out. (NOT to imply that i knew what they were doing)

Well...regarding the progression from solid to liquid to gas...at this point, I took that as a comment on the mobility of it....(i..e just how easily it 'flowed' to where it was needed). I expect this was more a comment on the quality of the trained refined body. You know...the progression and where it will lead. Having to do with: "Being able to move the strength to where it was needed". Different levels of viscosity and ease of doing so. I wonder (out loud) if the same *type* of training that initially got you there to/from the 'basics'...or if indeed training has to adapt and change to get better and better (as I expect). Can't keep doing the same thing to get new results, can you? Seriously; I don't know what the potential is...it is an honest question.
That said..I still have no idea just how many ways _that_ (i.e. qi,etc) mixes or is combined with the groundpath/peng nor what the author actually means...in terms of a body movement types/modes/styles. Honestly...I just thought it was a neat POV...to be considered. But 'being ponderous' and considering that too much will get your ass extinct...as you say. ; )

That's only what I think. (at this point)
*hey grab me a beer back there*

"pour the wine and cut the qi"

just don't cut that cheese near me.

Josh Phillipson wrote: Well...regarding the progression from solid to liquid to gas...at this point, I took that as a comment on the mobility of it....(i..e just how easily it 'flowed' to where it was needed). I expect this was more a comment on the quality of the trained refined body. You know...the progression and where it will lead. Having to do with: "Being able to move the strength to where it was needed". Different levels of viscosity and ease of doing so. I wonder (out loud) if the same *type* of training that initially got you there to/from the 'basics'...or if indeed training has to adapt and change to get better and better (as I expect). Can't keep doing the same thing to get new results, can you? Seriously; I don't know what the potential is...it is an honest question. .

i am sure with the introduction of IP/IT (whatever) training, you are going to have a mixture of normal muscle way and the IP/IT way. i am sure the various IP/IT folks fall within that scale somewhere. from my point of view the first level is conditioning your body for IP/IT/aiki works. methink, this will take the longest. after that, i have no idea because i am not there yet. i am sure the various IP/IT/aiki masters can tell you the levels, but they are kinda mums about it. i don't know if they know either. or they might as well say, you will know when you get there, why asking about it? and get back to practice before i fajin/aiki your ass to the moon! i tell ya, these folks have no sense of humor.

interestingly enough, with the information sharing at light speed, we still need to cross hands in order to verify and sharing the right kind of information.

Phi Truong wrote: i tell ya, these folks have no sense of humor.

Well I won't address who "these people" are but I will tell you this. We have fun and laugh our butts off at my seminars and in my dojo.
I don't like people who are "playing" like they have an open hand when it is an ugly aggenda all along. Even more so when they have a steady reputation for causing trouble behind the scenes.
It takes quite a jerk to bring out my bad side. I men you really got to be a piece of work.

interestingly enough, with the information sharing at light speed, we still need to cross hands in order to verify and sharing the right kind of information.

Always was and always will be the best bet.
Good luck in your training
Dan

I have a 'IP methods' / how-to question - if anyone would is willing to share... I think Eyrie mentioned this before too... I would love to hear about it.

"Are there any best-practices for connecting arms to tanden? You know...to *connect* and also to override/rewire the 'typical shoulder' tendencies."

Josh Phillipson wrote: "Are there any best-practices for connecting arms to tanden? You know...to *connect* and also to override/rewire the 'typical shoulder' tendencies."

Well, let's think about your hand/arm for a second. You gotta move them and they have to have some power in them... if you don't have the shoulder to move them and give the power, what are you going to use in place of it and how do you hook it up? Let me toss out the obverse of that question in this way: If you don't have a developed dantien controlling the body connection and you don't have jin/kokyu skills that the dantien most efficiently points at the hands, then you're undoubtedly using shoulder. And voila', that's been borne out by observation over the years. Notice, BTW, that most people who use shoulder don't think that they really do.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

You know, in my experience the problem is that there are so many levels of this stuff. I know a 6th dan who has physically damaged shoulders to the point he cannot do a pushup - who threw a professional football player across the dojo in a kokyu nage. For a long while I was convinced that HAD to be THE kokyu skills because he could not possibly be using his shoulder... Today looking back on things, I can see that it was fantastic jujitsu maybe aiki jujitsu. But... it wasn't internal power and it wasn't aiki skills. And then, of the people I know who have some aiki skills they all say they suck (obviously not in comparison to the folks with no aiki or internal power).

Josh, I'll PM you my thoughts. I don't have it in me to post what I consider to be the essence of aikido in a non-aikido martial whatever thread. (I'm not complaining, and I am grateful, I just have to also respect my own personal boundaries.)

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: I know a 6th dan who has physically damaged shoulders to the point he cannot do a pushup - who threw a professional football player across the dojo in a kokyu nage. For a long while I was convinced that HAD to be THE kokyu skills because he could not possibly be using his shoulder... Today looking back on things, I can see that it was fantastic jujitsu maybe aiki jujitsu. But... it wasn't internal power and it wasn't aiki skills.

The answer is always in "how does it work", not in "I can do this and it blew people away". I mentioned this in a post long ago, the question: "Which would you rather do... impress beginners or impress someone who really is an expert".

Too much time is spent trying to portray demonstration scenarios as 'real fighting' scenarios. The practicality of the old Asian martial arts was centered around who really prevailed, not who did the best demo or whose demonstration wasn't the most impressive. It really all boils down to, "who is the really smart guy and who is the showboat who 'grabs the near for the far'?". Many Asian martial-arts stories are developed around that theme.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Hi Mike,
I wasn't sure how to respond to your post.

Mike Sigman wrote: ..You gotta move them and they have to have some power in them... if you don't have the shoulder to move them and give the power, what are you going to use in place of it and how do you hook it up?

Hey...That's what I was asking.

Mike Sigman wrote: Let me toss out the obverse of that question in this way: If you don't have a developed dantien controlling the body connection and you don't have jin/kokyu skills that the dantien most efficiently points at the hands, then you're undoubtedly using shoulder.

Are you saying that to connect the dantien and the hands I have to have hands and a dantien? : ] Okay, i'm being a wise alek.... i know..but you bring up a point about 'a dantien most efficiently pointing at the hands'. That, I assume is only found after 'searching' in the body for it, for a long time. You remind me of an exercise that you mention in an interview... here<. I will try it out for some time.

Mike Sigman wrote: The answer is always in "how does it work", not in "I can do this and it blew people away".

Hi, since I'm posting like a rabid monkey; even though no one asked me; I thought all that pointed to was the validity & practicality of it. "Tested in the fires of battle" and all that. That's what I took from it anyway. Especially Rob's story of the broken-shouldered gent. Meaning....if he didn't have the wherewithal to muscle it, therefore it implies the technique was good...and the fact that the guy went flying like that means that the method's potentials are high. fwiw.

Hi Mike,
Well, okay; but this is me thinking out loud...and it's ugly (ain't the first time, eh?)..but it does come down to specific how-to nuts and bolts specifics.. ...I'll take another swag at your post.
For reference:

front of body back of body

Firstly:
-I take your point about the arms being a conduit to/from the body. Not much 'intervention'/effect should be generated by them...transferring force from inside. What do you make of the fact Takeda and Sagawa had big strong forearms? Is that like a 'funnel' to redirect (locally?) external forces and bring them inside in a controlled fashion?
-I take your point about not using shoulder muscles (you must be talking about deltoids predominantly, yes?)
-I take your point about somatically (i.e. 'in' the body: finding the connections in the torso (i.e. main players must include; scapula, rhomboid, lats (?), traps(?). serratus anterior(?). What would your list be?
-also understood that the 'dantien must point efficiently' to the hands. Any tips? Would you still point me to the same exercise as in the link?

Here are some questions I find myself unable to completely answer:
-is upper dantien passive or active? I don't know what active would mean here exactly..so by elimination..
-should connections be made from torso outwards to hands? or simultaneously from outside to inside, meeting at shoulder? - perhaps fingertip-to-fingertip connection is easiest to do first...then work on connecting that on downwards? comment?
-Are you suggesting (somehow finding &) making the shoulder a true pivot point, manipulated by sets of muscle (scissor jack or crane?
-when you have the right feeling ; does your arm and shoulder feel 'powerful' or 'like nothing'? (like an puppet on a marionette string? In motion do you switch back and forth between the modes? Do you feel that have 'indirect' control of the arm? Does it come to feel 'normal'?
-does how your shoulder feel, exist more or less independently of whether or not there is a load on it?
-is there a trick to using the 'shoulder muscles' in a new way? Or do they (i.e. delts) become vestigial-like?

anyway; you suggested to think...this is what i thunk.

How do you hook it up?

Rob Liberti wrote: You know, in my experience the problem is that there are so many levels ... that it was fantastic jujitsu maybe aiki jujitsu. But... it wasn't internal power and it wasn't aiki skills.

aiki no jutsu? it is a progression isn't it; jutsu, aiki jutsu, aiki no jutsu? one is to lead into the next. What is it then we are training? What quality or thing that should lead one into the next? Why do we get stuck?

well to me, and I'm doing this off the cuff:

jujitsu is like "soft and/or flowing art"

aiki jujitsu is like the "soft and/or flowing art of blending energy" - or something like that - basically really advanced jujitsu using awesome aiki tricks - but not actually supported and powered by a body with developed internal power (the "aiki body")

aiki no jitsu is like the "art of aiki"

Sometimes we do things and we say well, that is just an aiki trick - and what is usually meant (my perception) is that someone just did really cool blending trick where you do some very good physical (or even just mainly mental "intent") yin/yang pivoting-type movement were something is feeding as much as something is receiving.

When we say aiki in general, we typically mean aiki no jitsu which can be differentiated in that you expect internal power to be there supporting the aiki you are doing with yourself and the other person.

I haven't recognized anyone's aikido at the level of aiki no jitsu.

Now, Dan is doing aiki powered MMA - that is just awesome and he's doing it against people who are also using aiki power (or anti-aiki) in their MMA. That is a whole different level. It brings things outside of theory and asks you to test what you can do - and asks you to put your a*s on the line.

I personally get stuck because the level of intent required is mentally exhausting. I am building it up and making things cleaner and cleaner. (I kinda wish I could learn it like neo learned kungfu in the matrix.)

Rob

A very kind sempai helped me correct my flawed definition of aikijujitsu... Here is what she wrote:

Jujutsu is the mechanical craft of locks, pins, chokes, throws using good leverage, timing, etc. It's a stand-alone "external" skill set but does not contain subtle "internal" power generation and structure.

Aikijujutsu isn't just jujutsu with "aiki tricks" thrown in. To make aiki application work consistently, you must have aiki inculcated in your body, at least to a basic extent. It's not like the "undbendable arm/unopenable fist" stuff. You may not have an intellectual grasp yet of what it is, but there has to be the intuitive sense and "feel" from hands-on transmission by the teacher. When aikijujutsu is introduced in the curriculum, students start developing the aiki within their training and learn to apply it as a power enhancer to their jujutsu.

Eventually, aiki is taught as a discrete body method and students practice exercises and drills that refine it without using any external martial application (i.e. without jujutsu). At that point, you learn the universality of an "aiki body" and that it is something you don't turn on and off just to perform a martial application; rather, it's an entire method you adapt as a means of carrying yourself as second nature.

It's a natural continuation of what the body has started to learn in aikijujutsu, but the aiki applied in aikijujutsu is not just a bunch of discrete "tricks." It's more of an introduction to the basics of the method and is quite systematic by design.

-- Anyway, sorry for misinforming, and thank you to my sempai. Rob

I think it was Don Angier who said, "Aiki is anything you can't do to a chair..."

Thanks Rob...based on that definition, then I'd classify most BJJ as Aiki jiu jitsu. interested in your thoughts on that.

The word mechanical makes my skin crawl...but yeah, based on the delineation made between the two definitions above then I'd agree.

Based one the pedogogy of BJJ....the same type of breakdown is made by most of the masters, that is between mechanics/techniques...and "inculcating feel".

They don't use the word Aiki in what they talk about because it is not in their vocabulary, but....same idea I think.

The thrid paragraph...teaching aiki void of technique is not something I NOT have seen in BJJ..and may very well be the separation point between "some internal skill" vs "alot of internal skill"...or a distillation of skill and the effective ability to transmit.

Honestly, I have felt very few guys that have this type of skill, but among the top guys in the BJJ world, you feel it, and they talk about it in the way AJJ is defined above.

Again, interested in other's perspective on this.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Thanks Rob...based on that definition, then I'd classify most BJJ as Aiki jiu jitsu. interested in your thoughts on that. The word mechanical makes my skin crawl...but yeah, based on the delineation made between the two definitions above then I'd agree. Based one the pedogogy of BJJ....the same type of breakdown is made by most of the masters, that is between mechanics/techniques...and "inculcating feel". They don't use the word Aiki in what they talk about because it is not in their vocabulary, but....same idea I think. The thrid paragraph...teaching aiki void of technique is not something I NOT have seen in BJJ..and may very well be the separation point between "some internal skill" vs "alot of internal skill"...or a distillation of skill and the effective ability to transmit. Honestly, I have felt very few guys that have this type of skill, but among the top guys in the BJJ world, you feel it, and they talk about it in the way AJJ is defined above. Again, interested in other's perspective on this.

BJJ does not use aiki/ki/kyoku. Just because something is effective does not mean it is using a specific set of body skills and conditioning that changes your physical makeup and how you move all the time. I really wish people would stop saying activity Y is awesome so they must be using internal skillz. BJJ is mechanical ju-jutsu. It's not that different then Judo, except the gi's have more patches. There are places where some of these body skills are 'hidden in plain sight' in Judo like the ju-no-kata, koshiki-no-kata, and itsutsu-no-kata. Of course no one does them any more.

Really? folks that do BJJ use no aiki/ki/kokyu? No one at all?

No one in Judo either? no one?

This is based on what experiences you have had? With how many people?

No kokyu at all?

A side issue of course....I think you missed my point of my post.

I have set by the side lines for the past couple of weeks and seen alot of folks post alot of things about jiu jitsu and what it is and isn't and frankly most of the stuff I have seen posted as examples of jiu jitsu were not very impressive and frankly embarrassingly poor examples of jiu jitsu.

It makes me wonder if maybe there have never really experienced good forms of jiu jitsu and that part of the issue is simply a big part of the confusion for many.

So when I see definitions of what jiu jitsu is and isn't I start going down my personal checklist.

Speed? Naw can't be it, I go very slow and don't use speed at all. Heck I am moving in slow motion most of the time.

Strength? Nope. I de-emphasize that as well and I am working very hard and reducing proprioceptions, feel, and reference points...all things my BJJ instructors emphasize.

Breathing? Well heck ya. All good BJJ instructors and players understand the importance breath and relaxation play in the process. Kokyu is very, very important.

Timing? Well that is a very important element in BJJ for sure. However, many of us in BJJ will play this down as well too and put ourselves in very bad positions and use very, very small and increasingly small movements to work our way out of bad situations. However, there may be a debate on if it is internal or external technique that is used to do this. I submit that it is a combination of the two at a higher level.

So, Mechanical? I don't think that is a fair description of what jiu jitsu is or should be....if that is what folks think JJ is, then it leads me to believe that they have had some very poor exposure to JJ as this has not been my experience.

At this point, I have enough experience with IT stuff to simply understand the basic concepts, to identify when I feel it, and to know when I am doing it and not doing it.

My personal goal is to synthesize eventually this stuff into my personal training of jiu jitsu.

I don't think some of the definitions and examples of jiu jitsu on here have been very good...personally I think there are alot of folks talking about jiu jitsu that have no real grasp or concept of what it is and isn't...it encompasses alot more.

The current SMEs on IT/IS skills have done a very good job I believe in the past few years defining how to train and isolate these skills in order to improve upon them.

What I have been fascinated with though, is how all of a sudden, everyone with a little exposure or practice is suddenly enlightened on what is and isn't (Insert here whatever you want).

Mechanical? BJJ? As Mike Sigman states about IT skills... that tells me alot about your knowledge of good Jiu Jitsu.

I agree to a degree that you can isolate out Jiu Jitsu (external) skills and Aiki (Internal) skills.

To be honest though, the folks I have seen defining the what is jiu jitsu have not really provided me personally anything useful at all when it comes to a good example of jiu jitsu.

I used to come on here and debate with Mike and Dan over IT and that I really thought that what they were describing was just good jiu jitsu. They told me that I needed to feel it.

So I have...and you know what...I agree...I see their point! I see it loud and clear.

I feel a little better about it now and what the difference is between external and internal skills.

They are correct and I am on board with them.

However, I keep seeing folks talk about Jiu Jitsu...and what it is and what it isn't...and I am beginning to think that not alot of folks really understand what good jiu jitsu is and isn't...aside from the whole IT issue.

Hey Rob Liberiti...this is not an attack on you by any means...so I hope you don't take it that way....I think what you are trying to do is a good thing by defining this...I simply want to discuss it as much as you do.

My fear though is that the what is considered jiu jitsu is being glossed over way too, too much....and that it is not getting much credit for what it is and what is going on...much the way the whole IT discussion is going.

So kudos to Rob for starting this discussion.

I'd be curoius to hear from anyone that is a brown belt or higher in BJJ there impression of this. Not sure how many are out there that read aikiweb...but I think they would take exception or find it laughable that JJ is mechanical.

This is good jiu jitsu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeBkt...eature=related

at about 2:04...Saulo is on the back of Roy. I am betting the reason Roy does not know where to go is because Saulo has dropped his weight down is aligned and centered on Roy and Roy cannot reference Saulo's center at all.

Having trained with Saulo, He is very good at this. Now, I am not saying that this is Aiki in the sense that alot of you IT guys are describing....but it certainly is not mechanical.

Anyway...this is good, connected Jiu Jitsu.

I won't say that this is "bad" jiu jitsu...but in the context of what I call or define as "good" jiu jitsu...this is not what I subscribe to in my understanding or goals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suXxYE3LFr0

Static ukes, heavily relying on speed, movement, and timing, force....also heavily scripted....MECHANICAL.

So, what is the difference and how to these two videos relate to the whole internal discussion?