Internal IP training

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Training and Health
21

Well, that’s just it, the high level stuff is a different beast altogether and even though it all can be explained by biomechanics, it doesn’t change the fact that “explanations never won converts”.

well said…

ngfamilymember, do you want to take over as we have the same training??
ten tigers, cause nobody in here would beleive me.

And no, I don’t really have anything much to add, Some of us where fortunate to learn some of the unorthodoxed, esoteric methods passed on by Dr. John Winglok Ng and even though our teacher published articles on the basic elements of such methods, the discussion can be very vast sometimes and time consuming. The other thing though, is it is quite simple too, after you get past all the little tib-bits of this and that, it all boils down to proper mechanics, intent, and simple Faith.

I was just adding that I love these conversations, not because I feel I have nothing to offer or am too good to offer anything, it’s just becoming a lost art and there are those who are in the “know” and still keep some of the knowledge alive and kicking.

Thanks, take care.
-Ngfamilymember

22

Internal iron palm training? How do you people walk around in fantasy land all day? It must be nice being on drugs and living in a fog your whole martial arts life.

If Mike Tyson hit your student I bet it would hurt a lot more than the strike you dealt him. He would probably say, “I felt that punch come out of my ass”. Grow up

23

Rookies :smiley:

24

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1032518]
Yes, and no, a sifu can only take you so far.[/quote]
Well, the impetus primarily comes from the student. However, without a knowledgeble sifu, all the will and effort in the world will get you only so far.
.

Maybe I did not express myself correctly, there are muscles that are apparent, like the six packs. However, there are training methodologies that will give you a hard stomach where there are no apparent six packs. And then there are the tendons and so on.

My Chow Gar sifu also has a high opinion of boxing and admires their relaxed movements. However, he would never refer to boxing as an internal art.

And I agree with you as many TCMA-ists have a healthy opinion of boxing.

25

[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1032587]Internal iron palm training? [/quote]

It exists and is as real as the universe that you live in, but just like the universe not many understand its history and potential.

It has nothing to do with fantasy, but knowledge based reality.

:rolleyes:

He would say that, unless he had trained in IRON BODY…:smiley:

26

mysterious power, just because you have no clue as to what is being discussed here doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
no one is delusional, none of us would want to fight mike tyson, however if we had to, now would be the time as he has been out of training for over a decade,and i understand his life style is not condusive of a ring fighter. i am sure he still has some of it in him and could hit like a freight train. no one would try to defend themselves against him as you would a normal person.
i am surprised however that you didn t say “bruce lee”, LOL, LOL

27

Well, the impetus primarily comes from the student. However, without a knowledgeble sifu, all the will and effort in the world will get you only so far.

Two way street, a Sifu can only hold your hand for so long and then he becomes a crutch.

My Chow Gar sifu also has a high opinion of boxing and admires their relaxed movements. However, he would never refer to boxing as an internal art.

And there are many IMA that would disagree with him, William CC Chen is one, for example.

Internal is what internal does…

28

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1032672]
Internal is what internal does…[/QUOTE]
actually, I think that one can look at so-called “internal” in one of two ways: training and outcome / effect

if we use training medthodology (the path up the mountain) as the yardstick by which we measure the relative “internalicity” of a given system, of course we can’t say that boxing or wrestling are “internal” in the same way that something like taiji or even some of the hakka systems (e.g. - SPM, Chow Ga) are; that is because the focus, priorities, cultural context, etc. are very different from one to the other;

however, if we look at outcome / effect (the “top” of the mountain), we can see that (good) wrestlers develop what essentially is the equivalent of “teng ging” (listening skill), “pang ging” (uprooting), “gan” (rootedness) etc. to the point of being essentially indistinguishable from a skilled taiji player; and boxers, in my estimation, tend to be pretty good at delivering “fa jing” (power issuance) when they strike using pretty much the same mechanics as a xing yi or taiji guy does; similarly, boxing footwork is an excellent example of “hin gung” or lightness skill (in the realistic sesnse, not in the “run up a wall” artifact)

so the question is - if someone trains a so-called “interal” system and is not able to produce the results that a boxer / wrestler produces, who is ultimately manifesting “internal” principles?

29

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1032686]actually, I think that one can look at so-called “internal” in one of two ways: training and outcome / effect

if we use training medthodology (the path up the mountain) as the yardstick by which we measure the relative “internalicity” of a given system, of course we can’t say that boxing or wrestling are “internal” in the same way that something like taiji or even some of the hakka systems (e.g. - SPM, Chow Ga) are; that is because the focus, priorities, cultural context, etc. are very different from one to the other;

however, if we look at outcome / effect (the “top” of the mountain), we can see that (good) wrestlers develop what essentially is the equivalent of “teng ging” (listening skill), “pang ging” (uprooting), “gan” (rootedness) etc. to the point of being essentially indistinguishable from a skilled taiji player; and boxers, in my estimation, tend to be pretty good at delivering “fa jing” (power issuance) when they strike using pretty much the same mechanics as a xing yi or taiji guy does; similarly, boxing footwork is an excellent example of “hin gung” or lightness skill (in the realistic sesnse, not in the “run up a wall” artifact)

so the question is - if someone trains a so-called “interal” system and is not able to produce the results that a boxer / wrestler produces, who is ultimately manifesting “internal” principles?[/QUOTE]

Nice post.

30

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1032686]actually, I think that one can look at so-called “internal” in one of two ways: training and outcome / effect

if we use training medthodology (the path up the mountain) as the yardstick by which we measure the relative “internalicity” of a given system, of course we can’t say that boxing or wrestling are “internal” in the same way that something like taiji or even some of the hakka systems (e.g. - SPM, Chow Ga) are; that is because the focus, priorities, cultural context, etc. are very different from one to the other;

however, if we look at outcome / effect (the “top” of the mountain), we can see that (good) wrestlers develop what essentially is the equivalent of “teng ging” (listening skill), “pang ging” (uprooting), “gan” (rootedness) etc. to the point of being essentially indistinguishable from a skilled taiji player; and boxers, in my estimation, tend to be pretty good at delivering “fa jing” (power issuance) when they strike using pretty much the same mechanics as a xing yi or taiji guy does; similarly, boxing footwork is an excellent example of “hin gung” or lightness skill (in the realistic sesnse, not in the “run up a wall” artifact)

so the question is - if someone trains a so-called “interal” system and is not able to produce the results that a boxer / wrestler produces, who is ultimately manifesting “internal” principles?[/QUOTE]

I don’t make the distinction of external and internal in reference to martial arts practice.

I think it’s just silly to look at the body as separate in that respect. There is really nothing but the whole body which includes mind. An integrated unit.
You can either fight or you can’t.
You can either meditate or not.
You can either be strong or you aren’t

compartmentalized descriptions can help a learning process as far as organizing thoughts go. But if not done in logical and easy to read order, it is going to wind up being fudge.

31

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1032686]actually, I think that one can look at so-called “internal” in one of two ways: training and outcome / effect

if we use training medthodology (the path up the mountain) as the yardstick by which we measure the relative “internalicity” of a given system, of course we can’t say that boxing or wrestling are “internal” in the same way that something like taiji or even some of the hakka systems (e.g. - SPM, Chow Ga) are; that is because the focus, priorities, cultural context, etc. are very different from one to the other;

however, if we look at outcome / effect (the “top” of the mountain), we can see that (good) wrestlers develop what essentially is the equivalent of “teng ging” (listening skill), “pang ging” (uprooting), “gan” (rootedness) etc. to the point of being essentially indistinguishable from a skilled taiji player; and boxers, in my estimation, tend to be pretty good at delivering “fa jing” (power issuance) when they strike using pretty much the same mechanics as a xing yi or taiji guy does; similarly, boxing footwork is an excellent example of “hin gung” or lightness skill (in the realistic sesnse, not in the “run up a wall” artifact)

so the question is - if someone trains a so-called “interal” system and is not able to produce the results that a boxer / wrestler produces, who is ultimately manifesting “internal” principles?[/QUOTE]

Well said and well put Christov.
Fact is that the whole internal/external thing are just terms, no more no less, just because certain MA don’t use them doesn’t mean they don’t have the same skills.

32

I used the word,“internal” for lack of a better term. But, a specialized skill, nonetheless.
Those that have experience, know exactly what I am referring to.
As my teacher likes to say,“What have you seen? What have you felt? Who have you met and touched?”
most people who like to scoff, usually have never had any real experience with any of this.
Perhaps their teacher didn’t have the skills, or just chose not to show or teach them.
Perhaps the student just didn’t get it, or the teacher chose not to teach him. There are alot of reasons. But they usually fall into the above catagories.

33

[QUOTE=TenTigers;1031687]we’ve seen several people on this forum demonstrate very good IP, however, I am interested in if people have any info or experience with more internal versions, such as cinnabar palm.
I have heard of practitioners delivering light (not mere touching, mind you, but not hard strikes) strikes that left full imprints.
I have heard of people striking and leaving a bruise on the other side of the body-this one, although sounds fantastic, I can sort of say I experienced. I struck a training brother and he said he felt it go all the way through to the other side. It wasn’t anything mysterious, just faht-ging, a nice, short, pulse/shock punch. BTW-he was wearing chest gear.
So I can understand if someone had developed that o a higher degree.
What is the difference with the training?
For me, the shock power came from a combination of things, definatley relaxation/looseness. I am sure the training with the rings has helped as well.
What are your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

I asked GM Chicoine about this sort of thing before I began the regular IP training. He said that bruising the other side of the body with a strike could be generated after Poison Hand training.

He did the Poison Hand training himself as did five senior students.

He said that the herbs required are nearly impossible to get.

34

true “poison hand” has absolutely nothing to do with herbs or jow. that is some type of assassination technique where you put poison on your hands and hit someone with it.
he (chicoine) was referring to feeman ongs “poison hand soak”. i am pretty sure dale still has it and sells it. ark wong also had a poison fingernail jow you cooked into a sand block and flicked your fingernails against. it turned the nails black and poisoned the nails,and in essence made the poison needles. it contained things like,“wild wolfs’ teeth,tiger claw,” and different poisonous animal parts. i have both formulas for history sake, but this is not true poison hand skill.

35

[QUOTE=teetsao;1032751]true “poison hand” has absolutely nothing to do with herbs or jow. that is some type of assassination technique where you put poison on your hands and hit someone with it.
he (chicoine) was referring to feeman ongs “poison hand soak”. i am pretty sure dale still has it and sells it. ark wong also had a poison fingernail jow you cooked into a sand block and flicked your fingernails against. it turned the nails black and poisoned the nails,and in essence made the poison needles. it contained things like,“wild wolfs’ teeth,tiger claw,” and different poisonous animal parts. i have both formulas for history sake, but this is not true poison hand skill.[/QUOTE]

Yes it was a “soak”…so to speak. The herbal “jow” component was applied as a hot (pan on the stove) soaking of the hand for a certain period of time.

The method of striking the bag was different than the regular IP conditioning method.

Your hand wasn’t “poisonous” so to speak…or else your next sandwich would be your last!

36

[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1032702]I don’t make the distinction of external and internal in reference to martial arts practice.

I think it’s just silly to look at the body as separate in that respect. There is really nothing but the whole body which includes mind. An integrated unit.
You can either fight or you can’t.
You can either meditate or not.
You can either be strong or you aren’t

compartmentalized descriptions can help a learning process as far as organizing thoughts go. But if not done in logical and easy to read order, it is going to wind up being fudge.[/QUOTE]

agreed - the “subtext” of my post was to in fact point out the fallacy of the division if, ultimately, you can train “internally” but not get “internal” results whereas someone who does not train “internaly” doesn’t get “internal” results; it’s not black and white, it’s shades of gray, and therefore to classify one as opposed to the other creates an artificial contrivance;

of course, there are certain training approaches that “internal” styles use that impact the physiology in a specific manner - but they are not the only way to get the results that one sees in skilled combat, be it sport or otherwise;

but bear in mind that these “internal” training’s are nothing more than a codification of what the human organism naturally moves towards on its own, and that one could spontaneously arrive at these trainings (I mean, someone had to come up with them at some point, right?) given the right circumstances (and practicing combat under pressure is, IMPO, one of those cricumstances where either you discover the “truth” of these skills, or you fail to become an effective fighter)

this is, of course, in relation to fighting, not any sort of health practice - that is another discussion entirely…

37

Poison Hand is also another term for dim-muk, dim-yuet, etc.
as far as the ability to cause bruises on the other side, Richard Barathy was known to be able to do this as well.
(then again, R.A.B. was pretty extraordinary himself)

38

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1032768]snip

but bear in mind that these “internal” training’s are nothing more than a codification of what the human organism naturally moves towards on its own, and that one could spontaneously arrive at these trainings (I mean, someone had to come up with them at some point, right?) given the right circumstances (and practicing combat under pressure is, IMPO, one of those cricumstances where either you discover the “truth” of these skills, or you fail to become an effective fighter)

this is, of course, in relation to fighting, not any sort of health practice - that is another discussion entirely…[/QUOTE]

hands over a decent cuban and a banana :stuck_out_tongue:

39

[QUOTE=TenTigers;1032742]I used the word,“internal” for lack of a better term. But, a specialized skill, nonetheless.
Those that have experience, know exactly what I am referring to.
As my teacher likes to say,“What have you seen? What have you felt? Who have you met and touched?”
most people who like to scoff, usually have never had any real experience with any of this.
Perhaps their teacher didn’t have the skills, or just chose not to show or teach them.
Perhaps the student just didn’t get it, or the teacher chose not to teach him. There are alot of reasons. But they usually fall into the above catagories.[/QUOTE]

How many mms fights have your or your teacher fought and killed the other guy? Your teacher essentially showed you something that is untestable unless you get attacked on the street.

If you can’t test it then how do you know you it works or that you can even set it up? Let me guess. Your teacher fought death matches in China when no one was looking.

You guys are worse than Kung Fu larpers because you make fun of them while not seeing that you are training garbage. Hand conditioning is normal but you crazies vaguely elude to having special abilities. “I hit my student through his chest protector and he felt it through to his other side.” Yeah, ok. Spar with someone for real and hit him with IP. And then when called out on your bs you say you never claimed to be doing anything special. If you did not think it special you would have referred to it as hand conditioning instead of “internal” IP. Wake up already cause you are on drugs.

40

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1032686]actually, I think that one can look at so-called “internal” in one of two ways: training and outcome / effect

if we use training medthodology (the path up the mountain) as the yardstick by which we measure the relative “internalicity” of a given system, of course we can’t say that boxing or wrestling are “internal” in the same way that something like taiji or even some of the hakka systems (e.g. - SPM, Chow Ga) are; that is because the focus, priorities, cultural context, etc. are very different from one to the other;

however, if we look at outcome / effect (the “top” of the mountain), we can see that (good) wrestlers develop what essentially is the equivalent of “teng ging” (listening skill), “pang ging” (uprooting), “gan” (rootedness) etc. to the point of being essentially indistinguishable from a skilled taiji player; and boxers, in my estimation, tend to be pretty good at delivering “fa jing” (power issuance) when they strike using pretty much the same mechanics as a xing yi or taiji guy does; similarly, boxing footwork is an excellent example of “hin gung” or lightness skill (in the realistic sesnse, not in the “run up a wall” artifact)[/quote]

One of the distinctions of training the Internals is that your abilities will stay with you for a lot longer than the boxer. Health wise, one would also end up at a better place.

Also, there are Internal power/strength development methodologies use different approaches that classifies them as Internal, much more than the boxing path would. There are body unity concepts and training methodologies in Chow Gar that you will never ever see in boxing.

In fact most people who practice kung fu nowadays will not be familiar with them, and the evidence of that is in this very discussion and others that I have participated, in this forum and others. Some of these distinct methodologies can be found in some lineages of Dragon, Pak Mei and Hsing I, among others.

I am given to understand that Tai chi had a similar approach (to Chow Gar) in creating body unity (also strength and power), which somehow got lost along the way, or at least where most of the practitioners are concerned, nowadays.

So, to compare boxing efficiency to that of Internal TCMAs, is in some ways pushing it, as there are many, dare I say more occult, or closed door methodologies (and they do exist,no matter what the deniars say or think), who many that make these comparisons are not aware of.

Of course, I will agree that efficient external technique at some point can “overlap” with internal principles, but that does not make them the same.

I would say, 9 times out of 10, none of them.

I mean if you reverse what you just said and say what if the Internal guy can make what he does work, while the boxer can’t, would that ultimately mean that the Internalist was manifesting “external” principles?? Of course not!

One does not become a great boxer by NOT making his given external martial art work for him. The same would be true of any Internal martial arts system.

The subject area is very complex and each of us have knowledge that is based on different methodologies and approaches, even if some of them will undoubtedly overlap. So, I guess we will always see things that may not be considered by the other, meaning that I cannot expect everyone to “appreciate” what I am saying.