I started training in Aikido in January and love it so far. I sometimes have trouble breaking 10+ years conditioning in punch and kick arts though. All the time I’m feeling like I should be popping my opponent in the nose HARD, and instead I’m trying to dislocate his elbow, since it’s supposedly the more “humane” thing to do!
Anyhow, something really interesting just happened in class last week were my Sensei pulled back on my scapula (shoulder blades) and said something to the effect of:
“You’re going to have to work hard to correct this mis-alignment. Your structural integrity depends on it. Until you get it right you’re going to be weak with ki extension.”
The trippy thing is that George Xu once gave me similar advice at a Chen Taiji seminar. I ignored him at the time since he was sort of harsh with his critisism in general, and I thought it was “too hard”:rolleyes: Yeah, I’m sometimes sceptical of all this internal ki/chi stuff.
Anyway, later on during the class, I started really feeling like my throws were effortless. Every time I re-align my shoulders according to Sensei’s directions I feel this surge of power, sort of like I’m a few inches taller, and the throws get alot easier. My partners usually ask me to ease up after awhile which is funny since to me I feel like I’m hardly doing anything!
So what do you guys think? Is this ki, or just good body mechanics? Or psychosemantic? Is this similar to “internal” style power like taiji or bagua?
BEats me.. 
But I know that correct body posture/structure will definatly have you doing better throws. Maybe he meant that the ‘flow’ in your tecs will be messed up if you don’t have the right posture?
Good body mechanics!! I practiced Aikido for a few years, It has some good stuff to offer, however, I would not consider it internal. My personal opinion is that the theories of Ki, at least in America are not as developed as qi, qigong, Chinese internal arts. I dont think an ‘unbendable arm’ is any sign what so ever of internal strength. Aikido is a good art, I just don’t see to much internally!
I agree with bodhitree.
It’s all about bodymechanics… I believe this is true whether it’s Aikido, Chinese Internal martial arts or whatever.
Having practiced Aikido in the past (3 years) and Chinese IMA (Ba Gua and Tai Ji in particular), there is little “internal training” in Aikido as opposed to the Chinese arts.
Using Chi/Ki in martial arts practice is all about using your breath, intent and bodymechanics in a congruous fashion. There seem to be very few exercises in Aikido which address these things specifically. There’s biomechanical exercises such as funekogi undo, tenkan/irimi exercises and such, but no specific training in how to integrate your breath and biomechanical exercises…
I don’t train in any of the above mentioned systems any longer, but still practice an art that puts great emphasis on biomechanics, breath and intent… they just don’t call it Chi. 
KG
What´s psychosemantic?
Nothing to do with fancy ki flow(ery)
Aikido IS an internal art,but it does not fool around with poetry about it. 
I do not wholly agree with Kempo Guy about exercises.Definitely does aikido have “ki exercises”-it´s own,if small qi-gong exercises.Breathing is of extreme importance.
All of technique in aikido is based on well-established physics of movement.Aikido is internal in sense that it does not oppose but flows,not imo in a sense of metaphysical whoopla.
Styles should never be based on metaphysical whoopdida, it should always be based on common sense, imo.
Aikido’s breathing-exercises are more based on the breathing done in zazen (meditation) in the zen school of buddhism.
I´m not sure if I had you right,chen but zazen would refer to sitting meditation if I remember right (which is a part,yeah) but it does not make up for the whole show.
I meant the breathing-exercises done in aikido is similar to zazen breathing.
Only Aikido schools I’ve visited that have emphasized any ‘breathing techniques’ have been the “Ki Society” type dojo. Most other dojo talked about it (kokyu chikara etc.), did some zazen etc. but never had a step by step way of integrating movement, relaxation and breath.
This is very different from Chinese “Internal” MA where they emphasize these types of exercises.
I’d be curious to know what the “small Qi-Gong” type exercises in Aikido are. I was not aware of these…
Personally I don’t characterize styles as Internal/External, but perhaps we should determine what make one art internal over another?
KG
Internal/External classification is a hard one,not the least due to the fact that as the whole yin/yang goes,one is not simply all internal or external and may very well move from internal to external etc. in MA context,don´t you think?
I don´t like this classification method but was I supposed to separate these,I would say it´s the differences in power generation and so on.I have the idea that this is easier to do in the massive group of CMA´s.Sarcastically put,another strives for “external” movement in terms of developing external features of strength and technique and another one emphasizes imaginary energy. 
Aikido might not be internal in the sense that some CMA are,but I think it qualifies.
It´s been time since I´ve been searching this stuff but coming to qi-gong (ki-gong) equivalents of aikido.The founder developed his own set of “rowing exercises” and related.You might want to pick up some book or go to,say www.aikidojournal.com
I read an article resently, where an old Chen-style Tai Chi Chuan master complained about how most tai chi chuan schools all over the world over-emphasized the “soft”- element of the art. He said that since the art is based on the Tai Chi (yin/yang)symbol, both soft and hard elements should melt into each other in tai chi chuan, so that a technique regarded as “soft” should be used in it’s right condition, and a “hard” technique should be used when that is appropriate. TCC could’nt be said to be based on real Taoist philosophy, if it preferred one theory opposed to another.
Don’t you all think that all MA that is one-eyed in it’s philosophy should reconsider this?
I guess the guy was just pointing out that they´re watering it down,or how ever you call it,by doing that.
Besides,don´t advanced TCC´s actually use a considerable amount of muscle too? So I thought.
As a scientist (or would-be;)), u must know that muscles are meant to move the body. So any movement AT ALL uses muscles, if it was just the blink of an eye.
If u mean physical strength, then u could argue that powerful strikes with chi behind them are physical as well, as all movements done by the body IS by natural law; physical. It is not like some ghost or god entered your body and used it at it’s will, and you don’t have control over it.
You could argue even further, and say that chi is THE source of energy used to execute a movement, so a punch used by a boxer or a throw used by an aikidoka has chi behind them as well, because u can’t move without energy, or chi.
Of course.
But you knew what I meant by that,right?
Chi is a cultural joke.
i guess..
So, u got the monkey-pox or sumthin?
I could make a darwin avatar for u, just say when, and I’ll be there.
You could also argue that without chi we’d all be dead.
It’s the positive and negative forces in your body…
As for Tai Ji, no you should not use “muscle” in that you should not force anything. There are certain ‘jings’ where when executed may look like your using excessive muscular force.
When studying Internal MA, I was taught that Internal had nothing to do with whether an art was soft, used Qi or what not. It had to do with how you manifest your ‘jing’, i.e. the issuance of whole-body power using proper biomechanics and dynamic relaxation. IMA’s also seek to develop the feel of a “united body” over strength, and uniting your mind and body to direct your “jing”. One of the requirements during the issuance of force in IMA is using a unified body.
External MA then uses sectional power, meaning the body is not united in it’s issuance of force. An external artist may strike using a lot of rotational power from the hip which generates a whip like motion to the fist (as an example). While the external practitioner may be relaxed during the strike (until the final moment of impact), the issuance of power differs from the ‘whole-body power’ used in IMA.
Of course one of the GENERAL differences in characteristics between IMA and EMA imho is the difference in it’s application.
IMA’s characteristics are to never issue force until you are in an advantageous position by trying to ‘borrow the opponents energy’; sticking and following the incoming force vector; and lastly avoidance of direct contact (never meet power with power).
These principles hold true for most biomechanically efficient styles.
Just some thoughts from the cheapseats…
KG
Good thoughts there.
"You could also argue that without chi we’d all be dead. "
Except this.
You would have to make predictions about chi,show how it influences us and it is there.
Then you should show that we need chi to live.
External MA then uses sectional power, meaning the body is not united in it’s issuance of force.
The body is always united in all movements done. This is a rule, except if someone cuts off your arm or foot while u strike..
U say that the real difference between the two so-called “branches” is the development of power in techniques and in some parts of their philosophies. But in fact then all arts can be said to be different in this sense, as they all have their unique developments of power/force and unique philiosophy. A so-called “external” style like white crane can be gentle in technique, and an “internal” style like Hsing-I can be very aggresive. So there is no set rule when it comes to MA. it can all be boiled down to this: Defeat your opponent before he defeats you. All else is just speculation.
Depends on how you look at chi/ki I guess. To me it means ‘life force’, nothing more nothing less. Hence, without ki we would be unable to live. Everybody has ki some stronger, some weaker.
KG