Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?

Chris Hein wrote: What is IP, I really haven't seen any answers about that. Rob suggested that it's some kind of body skill. Others have suggested similar things. If this is the case, if IP is a body skill, then it seems to me that it would be an athletic practice. If this is the case, why aren't sports teams all employing IP teachers. We saw from Hunters example that at least NFL teams are aware of these types of teachers, yet they choose not to employ them.

Probably because it doesn't give results immediately. Pro Athletes have a short lifespan in their careers, it wouldn't make sense for them to give up on all their old habits and train in this new bodyskill for a few years to see any benefit.

Also, not everyone will get it. Even in Chen village where everyone is exposed to this bodyskill constantly, there are reports of people who don't attain any of these skills.

Phi Truong wrote: the term i used is IS (internal skills), not IP (internal power). it's learned skills to mind manage body movement for efficiency, for long duration, against various constraints such as size, speed, age that common folks could do to enhance their performance vs genius such as Ueshiba, Kano, Funakoshi. there is nothing magical about this. these are skills that were kept secret for a long time, and still are. these skills can be trained once you understand the various parameters and so on. also helped with folks who know to give a helping hand.

Hi Phi (that sounds good! )

the bolded section of your quote is for me the closest to what I think IS is, and the most efficiently said.

This whole subject just can't be seen as a body skills thing. The mind has a huge part to play in it all. The interesting thing is for me is, that the mind can only really play its full and active part, when the body has been trained to do as the mind tells it. An interesting and frustrating conundrum, that has plenty of potential for people to dress up as magic or mystical secrets. When they are in fact just a very specific set of learned mind/body skills.

The days of secrets are over, it is too easy now to see and debunk the charlatans, and there are plenty of folk who know how to do this IS/aiki stuff who are willing to share what they know.

Well done Phi for encapsulating endless words into a short crisp sentence

regards

Mark

Chris Hein wrote: These two seem like different things to me. Which one is more like IP? I'm only asking because different people seem to give slightly different answers.

At the moment, I'll guarantee you that even the people who are named as "does I.S." are all doing different things, different levels of things, or have otherwise different understandings of what internal strength is. As I've said a number of times, this whole topic is in the beginning stages, particularly in regard to Aikido, so I wouldn't commit much to anybody or any set syllabus yet. That being said, there have been a number of posts over the years laying out what the differences are between I.S. and normal movement. It seems pointless to repeat the same explanations for everyone person that didn't see or understand what's been posted before. As many people have suggested, it's just easier to go see someone with purported skills and start building a data base.

2 cents,

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman wrote: The days of secrets are over, it is too easy now to see and debunk the charlatans, and there are plenty of folk who know how to do this IS/aiki stuff who are willing to share what they know.

Hmmmmm.. I don't know if the days of secrets are over. I have things that I reserve for people who I think are ready for them. Over the years I found that if you start showing bells and whistles along with the basic things, the gung ho guyz will all start trying to do the bells and whistles and their basics don't develop... so I try to separate different levels of information to different levels of people. That would be "secrets".

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Chris there are numerous body skills that are not athletic in nature. Not to be facetious, knitting, painting and calligraphy are, by my definition, body skills with no athletic component. Whether IS/IP skills can be translated into all athletics or a few is a question that I can't answer.

And Katherine, competitive marksmen don't pause their heartbeat, but rather take their shots between heartbeats.

Now, when is the next Dan Harden seminar? Are any scheduled for out here in the West Coast?

Michael Hackett wrote: And Katherine, competitive marksmen don't pause their heartbeat, but rather take their shots between heartbeats.

My understanding was that EKG studies had actually shown their hearts skipping a beat. But I can't find the reference at the moment so I could easily be mistaken.

In any case, the central point remains: not all body skills are athletic, and many body skills have both mental and physical components.

Katherine

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: OMG!!!

What?

You think science is advanced enough to actually be able to even begin to start an approach to IS/aiki? As advanced as the robotics field is today, they *still* aren't using humans as a base for programming. Instead, they're still using, well, basically, "what ifs" and "if then" kind of computing.

Physics can't even come up with a formula for when a human goes from a walk to a run cycle.

As advanced as CGI/animation is today, they *still* aren't using humans as a base for programming. Instead, they're doing motion capture to get the outward physical movements.

Best you'll get is an overview and even then, it's going to be as broad as the example I used. Heck, it's not even close to psych 101, but then again, nothing we have right now is even close to IP/aiki. The human body is far too complex. So if you think my answer was silly, think how others view the question for a "scientific" approach.

Mark Murray wrote: What? You think science is advanced enough to actually be able to even begin to start an approach to IS/aiki?

Yes.

Best you'll get is an overview and even then, it's going to be as broad as the example I used. Heck, it's not even close to psych 101, but then again, nothing we have right now is even close to IP/aiki. The human body is far too complex. So if you think my answer was silly, think how others view the question for a "scientific" approach.

I don't think your answer was silly. Defeatist, or based in limited knowledge about science. As I don't know what is your field of expertise IRL I chose to think you are a defeatist

BTW, If i cared about what people thinks about me or my opinions I would not be posting against the "party line". You (pl) don't validate me.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: OMG!!!

Depends.

If you are referring to it being analyised in a lab, certainly there has been some of that. I think some Tai Chi people have been analyized and linked to in the non-aikido traditions forum a few years back.

I can't speak for Mark, but if his comments were along the lines of, "Oh hey, that felt wierd and made my partner move in a strange way. How do I go about recreating that?" And then playing with various conditions in ones own body to recreate it, it sounds like the same process one goes through in the lab.

On an other related note, I had heard a few years back some Kinesiology guy checked out Akuzawa during an Aunkai class and basically said what he was doing was outside his own frame of reference. Now this wasn't in a lab, but I guess either he couldn't quite figure out what was going on without the right tools, or whatever Akuzawa was doing was fairly unusal compared to normal human movement.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Depends. If you are referring to it being analyised in a lab, certainly there has been some of that. I think some Tai Chi people have been analyized and linked to in the non-aikido traditions forum a few years back.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

I can't speak for Mark, but if his comments were along the lines of, "Oh hey, that felt wierd and made my partner move in a strange way. How do I go about recreating that?" And then playing with various conditions in ones own body to recreate it, it sounds like the same process one goes through in the lab.

Sounds like but it isn't.

On an other related note, I had heard a few years back some Kinesiology guy checked out Akuzawa during an Aunkai class and basically said what he was doing was outside his own frame of reference. Now this wasn't in a lab, but I guess either he couldn't quite figure out what was going on without the right tools, or whatever Akuzawa was doing was fairly unusal compared to normal human movement.

I don't deny Akuzawa or any other skilled IS/IP can do unusual things. But that doesn't solve what IS/IP is and how operates.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Sounds like but it isn't.

I'm not a scientist, rather an engineer, so lab work for discovering new things and recreating them is outside my area of expertise. My fiancee is a Ph.D scientist specializing in biochemistry and it sounds like what my fiancee has done in the lab to me.

I don't deny Akuzawa or any other skilled IS/IP can do unusual things. But that doesn't solve what IS/IP is and how operates.

I would agree. We do however know what it is not:

It is not focusing on chaining together groups of muscles.

It is not focusing on hypnosis or suggestion, though expressing it can confuse/trick people due to lack of familarity.

It does not rely on using the arms/shoulders as a means of generating power.

What we can figure out from watching video is:

Motion tends to start in the middle of the body and propegate out, rather than starting at the leg and passing through the body out to a limb.

Power can be generated from compromised positions, so it doesn't soley require good alignment to generate power. Rotation isn't required.

People who feel IS practioners while they are doing their demonstrations report that they don't feel muscles tensing during the demonstrations. The practioners appear very relaxed.

People touching the IS person seem to loose their balance very easily.

Now this of course doesn't answer what exactly it is either. Analyising enough video, we could probably come up with a list of attributes which most might agree on in terms of what the effects of using it are, but still not have an idea how it is created within the body.
---------

Chris,

you can check out this video with a couple more demos here

See if you can do what he is doing without your partner regarding weight transfer, plus pinky wrestling (at 4:27) is always fun too Cordelli's comments are interesting at 5:25. I have never felt the final demo, so I have no clue how that one works.

Mike Sigman wrote: Hmmmmm.. I don't know if the days of secrets are over. I have things that I reserve for people who I think are ready for them. Over the years I found that if you start showing bells and whistles along with the basic things, the gung ho guyz will all start trying to do the bells and whistles and their basics don't develop... so I try to separate different levels of information to different levels of people. That would be "secrets". FWIW Mike Sigman

Hi Mike,

you are probably right, too big a generalisation to hold water. Of course there are things that will be reserved and taught to those that are ready for them, as well as things which are explicitly taught that the student just does not grasp, but with enough practice, a lightbulb moment occurs/can occur. If a lower level student is aware that the higher level student is being taught something, for their grade so to speak, is that a secret? The information is not known but they are aware that they will get it when they are ready.

I completely agree, without the basics in place, it doesn't matter what level of secret / information thats given, there are going to be problems.

regards,

Mark

I think that if physics or whatever were interested, it could explain the majority of what's going on in IS/IP, but where's the interest? You need someone who is in that field of study to become interested or at least curious enough to want to take it on and then give them access to someone with a full range of well developed skills who also has the desire to be studied.

IMO it's a study of the relaxed human bodies ability to convey/transmit forces.

Jason Casteel wrote: IMO it's a study of the relaxed human bodies ability to convey/transmit forces.

relaxed bodies and minds Jason, bodies and minds.

Jason Casteel wrote: I'm amazed that you guys have let yourselves get roped along this far.

Hope springs eternal.

Besides, it hasn't been a complete waste of energy. There have been some good posts from a number of people, and if Diana Frese takes Dan up on his generous invitation to train, then one more aikidoka will come back to AikiWeb with an informed opinion.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: "It can be analyzed" doesn't mean "It is being/has been analyzed". Can anyone provide citations of peer reviewed published studies? I'm all ears (read: eyes) Big can of worms.

This video (now 4 years old) is fun to watch, and the motion-capture body sensors are rockin', but the student-researchers barely scratch the surface of what's going on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN88Q...layer_embedded

Their mentor professor did a more in-depth study (see link below), but also failed to determine what Chen Xiang -- an IP-conditioned Baji and Taiji practitioner -- was doing. So, even with video with state-of-the-art motion-capture sensors, and top-flight scientific researchers at Stanford getting their hands on an "internal" martial artist, they still are baffled at the source of his power, and end up calling his IP source "Chi." The complexity and nuance of what he is doing within his body was not captured by the sensors,

http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/...20Stanford.pdf

There is a lot of stuff published in medical and sports medicine journals, etc. concerning typical martial and combat arts. No shortage of stuff about "external" power generation (conventional hip torque-driven power, etc.) --

http://www.jssm.org/combat.php

But because IP and aiki are lesser-known body skills, and are not mainstream (especially not in the sports world), they are still under the radar for these researchers.

That's why the Stanford people were so blown away by Chen. It's something they had never seen before in any of their athlete subjects.

The first step in using western science as a tool to illuminate is to decide what to illuminate. IP is complex and so simple representative tasks that show IP, are measurable and are repeatable would be an important first step.
Often the trouble is that western science (reductionist) finds that a single example is proof enough that a phenomena can be explained, but that other disciples (based on catagorisation or examples) with say 'yes thats fine but what about .... and what about...' so the two approaches tend not to communicate so well.

I would say that some of the 'ki tricks' made popular by Kohei Tohei as some fairly simple examples of Ki that are quite measurable. The criticism is that these examples are too simplistic, prove nothing and thus the 'what about xyz' arises.

I would presume that there is some overlap between 'Ki tests' and IS and look to the forum members to suggest more that could be investigated.

Jason Casteel wrote: IMO it's a study of the relaxed human bodies ability to convey/transmit forces.

This sounds like the field of athletics again.

Mike Sigman brought up some interesting stuff. So even among the those who are "in the know" there are arguments about what IP is. Why is there a difference of opinion? Are the different camps talking about drastically different skill sets, or are they simply talking about minor details. When Mike, Ark and Dan all get together can't we see the difference's and hash out what is the same?

I would like to ask Mike, Ark, and Dan how do you guys feel to each other?

Hi Cady,

I know that video, I've been around here (and around e-budo and Aikido Journal) for about 6 years. I remember well the ki wars. This issue has been discussed to boredom without the IS/IP people moving an inch from the IHTBF.

I don't see how someone can seriously say the article you linked is "an in-depth study" when others like this one are common.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this thread and mind my own bussiness but I can´t help to think there is something fishy that makes the people who are promoting IP/IS avoid their skills being subjected to scientifical analysis while at the same time they have no problem in writing thousands of posts, for years, in various websites and forums. There is an insane amount of hours invested in promoting, discussing, debating, etc. IS/IP training and, as result: a handful of middle-aged middle-class, most of them hobbyist, martial arts practitioneers.

If you have the method to develop great balance, strenght that doesn't fade with age, coordination, psycho-physical integration, etc. and you're not thinking in the quality of life of senior citizens, victims of muscular degenerative diseases, manual workers, sports practitioneers approaching the end of their careers... so you are not knocking the doors of universities, hospitals, sientific societies, niosh and the like for getting them interested because your method works and you can prove it instead of spending your time and efforts in the intardnets then you are a very strange person.

IMO, of course.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: I know that video, I've been around here (and around e-budo and Aikido Journal) for about 6 years. I remember well the ki wars. This issue has been discussed to boredom without the IS/IP people moving an inch from the IHTBF. I can´t help to think there is something fishy that makes the people who are promoting IP/IS avoid their skills being subjected to scientifical analysis while at the same time they have no problem in writing thousands of posts, for years, in various websites and forums. There is an insane amount of hours invested in promoting, discussing, debating, etc. IS/IP training and, as result: a handful of middle-aged middle-class, most of them hobbyist, martial arts practitioneers. If you have the method to develop great balance, strenght that doesn't fade with age, coordination, psycho-physical integration, etc. and you're not thinking in the quality of life of senior citizens, victims of muscular degenerative diseases, manual workers, sports practitioneers approaching the end of their careers... and you are not knocking the doors of universities, hospitals, sientific societies, niosh and the like for geting them interested because your method works and you can prove it but spends your time in the intardnets then you are a very strange person. IMO, of course.

It does seem strange, from both a financial and civic minded standpoint.

Demetrio,
I didn't mean that the article itself was the "in-depth" study -- it was just to provide some reference about what the chief researcher was doing beyond the students who made the video above.

My point, basically, was what Mark Murray was saying in post #307: That there are a number of "things" happening in the body that cannot be observed in the way that your linked article explains an observable sequence or linear chain of "events." IP is not one discrete action or function that can be traced to one physiological event.

The tools for scientific inquiry don't exist yet for this area, probably because Western science hasn't gotten its meathooks into it yet. Like I said, it's still below the radar. The Stanford study is one of the first I've heard of, and they seem to be few and far between.

Cady Goldfield wrote: The tools for scientific inquiry don't exist yet for this area, probably because Western science hasn't gotten its meathooks into it yet. Like I said, it's still below the radar. The Stanford study is one of the first I've heard of, and they seem to be few and far between.

Cady, go to http://scholar.google.com/ and type tai chi + elderly in the search field.

Chris Hein wrote: This sounds like the field of athletics again. Mike Sigman brought up some interesting stuff. So even among the those who are "in the know" there are arguments about what IP is. Why is there a difference of opinion? Are the different camps talking about drastically different skill sets, or are they simply talking about minor details. When Mike, Ark and Dan all get together can't we see the difference's and hash out what is the same? I would like to ask Mike, Ark, and Dan how do you guys feel to each other?

i'm not sure how what I said falls into athletics, in my opinion it be far more clincal.

It can only be one thing. They're talking about the same things, the same change in the way the body is moved and controlled. While there are varying methodologies, the core is essentially the same.

Demetrio, What's your theory so far?

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Cady, go to http://scholar.google.com/ and type tai chi + elderly in the search field.

Demetrio,
I did just that a few years ago. I was not surprised that none...NONE...of those studies even touched on IP.
The problem with these studies is that they address the "wrong" issues, largely balance and fall-prevention in mainstream tai chi practice -- which is overwhelmingly lacking in IP.

Just because tai chi is known as an "internal" art, doesn't mean that IP exists in the majority of schools and practitioners. And not just tai chi, of course, but all of the so-called internal MAs. If it were so common, we probably wouldn't be having this debate to begin with.