Just good body mechanics?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

I keep seeing the “internal/external” concept come up in discussions. Even this forum has divided arts into internal and external based on the old chinese paradigm. Others talk about “engines” - with different arts having differnt engines. Etc.

But I think this way of looking at things is based on an error – it is based on the belief that there is a particular way of moving or using your body or generating power in the fight-as-a-whole. In other words, that there is one body mechanic, a “universal” way of using your body for everything you do. I submit that isn’t how it works and it isn’t even possible.

In fighting you are doing different TASKS at different times depending on the demands of the moment, and that for any particular TASK, there is an optimum way of using your body to accomplish that task. There isn’t an internal way of doing that task, an external way of doing that task or different “engines” for doing that task – there are, however, an optimum way of performing that task. Skill is defined by psycho-motor researchers as your ability to bring about a desired result (perform a task) with max certainty and min time and/or effort. In other words, skillful performance of a TASK by definition will use optimum body mechanics. Not internal, not external, not some unique engine, but the optimum way of doing whatever the task is. There is, for example, optimum ways of performing a hip throw, a hook kick, etc. Not an internal hook kick, and external hook kick, an internal hip throw, and external hip throw, etc. Just good and bad mechanics.

How can we judge whether the mechanics are optimum? By results – how well you are able to perform that TASK with max certainty and min time/effort. If you don’t have good results, then you don’t have the optimum mechanics for that task. With that in mind, you won’t judge what you are doing based on some theoretical view of how things should be done (am I living up to the WCK standard?) but on results. And you can do this across arts.

When you examine boxing or wrestling or BJJ or muay thai or any other functional combative art, you see they don’t talk about some “universal” mechanic that defines their art. They look at the mechanics as being dependent upon the task.

If you begin with the question “what are the optimal body mechanics (that bring about the desired results with max certainty and min time/effort) for this task?”, there’s no need to talk about internal, external, engines, etc. Those things just confuse the process.

2

But boxing looks very different to Muay Thai. Wrestling looks different to BJJ. “Internalists” don’t claim a universal body mechanic either do they? They must focus on task specific development as well otherwise they just wouldn’t get anywhere.

In fact aren’t you advocating a universal set of task specific body mechanics when you say:

There is, for example, optimum ways of performing a hip throw, a hook kick, etc. Not an internal hook kick, and external hook kick, an internal hip throw, and external hip throw, etc.
I say that each “art” has their own set of task specific body mechanics which are a reflection of their developmental and (yes!) philosophical framework.

3

There is no one set of body mechanics, but there are common patterns: shoulders dropped, sink elbow, tighten fist, use the hips, heels push off the ground, etc.

Tai Ji, Xing Yi and Ba Gua do not look like each other at all, but share the above characteristics. Although they are the 3 internal systems, they do not need one another. And usually people trained in all three are not as good as one who just specialized in one of these arts. Many internalists use the “turtle back” or “Han xiong ba bei” (Empty chest, raise upper back), or “hunchback” or Kyphosis like posture, stemming from excessive hypertrophy of localized muscles. It centers about concentrating energy along the dan tian and then releasing the power, akin to a big spring. Most systems use the term Wai San He to describe the external 3 harmonies and relationships between the shoulders and hips,
elbows and knees, and hands and feet, to be coordibnated with the inner 3 harmonies (Nei San He) of xin (heart/mind) and yi (intention), yi and qi, and qi and li (force, power).

All systems use the whole unit power, but use it according to their system. That is why the shapes differ.

There’s no real “internal” or “external”, but both. Many may be explaining what they are feeling inside and lining up their organs and qi pathways.

I believe all systems use this idea and term it wrong - it basically is efficient and optimum mechanics, not necessarily “good” or “bad”.

4

[QUOTE=chusauli;942731]There is no one set of body mechanics, but there are common patterns: shoulders dropped, sink elbow, tighten fist, use the hips, heels push off the ground, etc.
[/QUOTE]

But that raises the question of “why do they ahve these common patterns?” I think the answer is “because they are all doing similar tasks”.

Tai Ji, Xing Yi and Ba Gua do not look like each other at all, but share the above characteristics. Although they are the 3 internal systems, they do not need one another. And usually people trained in all three are not as good as one who just specialized in one of these arts. Many internalists use the “turtle back” or “Han xiong ba bei” (Empty chest, raise upper back), or “hunchback” or Kyphosis like posture, stemming from excessive hypertrophy of localized muscles. It centers about concentrating energy along the dan tian and then releasing the power, akin to a big spring. Most systems use the term Wai San He to describe the external 3 harmonies and relationships between the shoulders and hips,
elbows and knees, and hands and feet, to be coordibnated with the inner 3 harmonies (Nei San He) of xin (heart/mind) and yi (intention), yi and qi, and qi and li (force, power).

All systems use the whole unit power, but use it according to their system. That is why the shapes differ.

Boxing, wrestling, etc. all use “whole unit power” too. To do anything powerfully, it only makes sense to use your whole body – but how you use your whole body will depend on the task you are trying to do.

My point is that the so-called “internal arts” don’t have similar mechanics except when then are doing similar things (the same tasks). The mechanic is TASK SPECIFIC.

There’s no real “internal” or “external”, but both. Many may be explaining what they are feeling inside and lining up their organs and qi pathways.

Or, a better way of saying it that that “there’s no real internal or external, but neither.” Perhaps the ancient chinese used the TCM qi paradigm to try and expain or describe their mechanics, but this isn’t a very good way of explaining or describing things from a realistic POV. Instead of talking about how they are “feeling” inside (which may not reflect what is really going on) or lining up their organs (I don’t know about you, but my organs aren’t that mobile) or qi pathways (which are fictitious), why not talk about precisely what you are physically doing? I submit that the ancient chinese couldn’t do that since they didn’t have either the language or the knowledge to really do that – the best they had at the time was the TCM model. But today, we can do that.

I believe all systems use this idea and term it wrong - it basically is efficient and optimum mechanics, not necessarily “good” or “bad”.

Then why not just say “use optimum body mechanics for that particular task”?

5

[QUOTE=CFT;942697]But boxing looks very different to Muay Thai. Wrestling looks different to BJJ. “Internalists” don’t claim a universal body mechanic either do they? They must focus on task specific development as well otherwise they just wouldn’t get anywhere.

In fact aren’t you advocating a universal set of task specific body mechanics when you say:

I say that each “art” has their own set of task specific body mechanics which are a reflection of their developmental and (yes!) philosophical framework.[/QUOTE]

I think there is an optimal way of doing (and using your body) any particular task. In other words, body mechanics is task specific. As arts share tasks, they will tend to share these mechanics. I don’t think it useful to say “boxing looks different than muay thai” because that suggests that there is one set of mechanics for boxing and one set for muay thai. What I mean is that when you look at particular tasks, if both arts share a similar task, then they’ll share the mechanics for that task. And if they don’t share the task, then they won’t share the mechanics.

From what I’ve seen, most “internal arts” don’t approach things from a task (skill) perspective but from a movement or motor perspective, i.e., starting with “you should move this way” rather than “this is the optimial way to perform the task.”

Even in WCK, you learn and practice the YJKYM why? What TASK is that the optimal body mechanics for?

6

Couldn’t it be said that the use of “optimizing mechanics” vs “internal/external/chi” are simply different ways of describing the same thing to achieve the same goal?

If so, why should we care that the other describes it as chi or geometry?

7

[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;942742]Couldn’t it be said that the use of “optimizing mechanics” vs “internal/external/chi” are simply different ways of describing the same thing to achieve the same goal?

If so, why should we care that the other describes it as chi or geometry?[/QUOTE]

Optimal body mechanics is not the same thing as “internal” or “external”. My point is that there is no such thing as internal or external – just optimal mechanics for a specific task. And that when we begin to look at things other than that way, it only adds confusion.

For example, pushing a car. There is an optimal way of using your body to push a stalled car (the task). That’s not “internal” or “external”. Same with anything we do. Would talking about internal or external HELP someone learn or develop their car pushing mechanics?

8

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;942745]O
For example, pushing a car. There is an optimal way of using your body to push a stalled car (the task). That’s not “internal” or “external”. Same with anything we do. Would talking about internal or external HELP someone learn or develop their car pushing mechanics?[/QUOTE]

sure,

knowing

“externally” how to make use of the joins, muscle… physical parts and body weight properly ;and
"internally " knows how to breath properlly and syncronized the breathing rythm with the “external” .

Do HELP someone learn and develop their car pushing mechanics a great deal.

AND, Pushing a car is not sliding open a very heavy door thus there are different way of “external” and “internal” dealing with sliding open a steel door.

IE hammering a nail is different compare with shooting a crossbow, and they are different compare with poking with a spear…

Different machanics learning can be described with the “external” and “internal” catagorization to clearly and effectively Help /IMprove one’s learning, develop, experience… and handling the different activities.

9

Ya I see ur point. I think that, much like there are various ways to teach mathematics or philosohpy (diagrams, logic, real world examples, etc), there are ways to teach martial arts - its as diverse as the people learning the subject.

For some, concept of internal/external is more to their liking and to you and I, the concept of mechanics is more to our liking.

It’s only confusing to those that do not agree, understand, or want to learn using those models. It is not for everyone. It surprises me that many that come into class are turned off by the lack of “martial mysticism” of our class - they want the idea of “chi/external/internal” incorporated into their martial art and look elsewhere. But, then again, it doesn’t offend me either.

I don’t think it would be productive of us to eliminate the concept of internal/external altogther just because we don’t agree with it. I mean, I don’t believe in santa but do u see me trying to kill that idea?

10

[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;942742]Couldn’t it be said that the use of “optimizing mechanics” vs “internal/external/chi” are simply different ways of describing the same thing to achieve the same goal?

If so, why should we care that the other describes it as chi or geometry?[/QUOTE]

Nope, Internal and Chi actually goes further then most basic machenics.

11

[QUOTE=Hendrik;942756]sure,

knowing

“externally” how to make use of the joins, muscle… physical parts and body weight properly ;and
"internally " knows how to breath properlly and syncronized the breathing rythm with the “external” .

Do HELP someone learn and develop their car pushing mechanics a great deal.

AND, Pushing a car is not sliding open a very heavy door thus there are different way of “external” and “internal” dealing with sliding open a steel door.

IE hammering a nail is different compare with shooting a crossbow, and they are different compare with poking with a spear…

Different machanics learning can be described with the “external” and “internal” catagorization to clearly and effectively Help /IMprove one’s learning, develop, experience… and handling the different activities.[/QUOTE]

You are pointing to different tasks (pushing a car vs. sliding a door open, hammering a nail vs. poking with a spear) use different mechanics. I’ve already said that: mechanics are task specific.

That said, you go on to say that internal/external help people to learn and improve their ability to perform these tasks (improve their body mechanics). Yet, what we see – the eivdnece – is that the folks that don’t use those distinctions have achieved superior results. Athletes have obtained levels of performance at levels never before even dreamed ofwithout any internal/external or qi paradigms.

BTW, I’m not saying that breathing, etc. isn’t important, but all good athletes develop the ability to breath well while performing their activity (or they couldn’t perform it well).

Why do you need to refer to internal/external when you can say “just do this and that.” If you want to teach someone to hit a baseball or throw a ball, you don’t need to – and it won’t help – to add layers of unnecessary concept.

12

[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;942758]I don’t think it would be productive of us to eliminate the concept of internal/external altogther just because we don’t agree with it. I mean, I don’t believe in santa but do u see me trying to kill that idea?[/QUOTE]

It’s not a question of whether we agree with the concept or not but rather critically examining whether that concept is useful or beneficial or whether it actually hinders development.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that some concept actually hinders your development. You believe some idea, but your belief is wrong. OK? Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you.

13

Ya I agree with you. For me, ill let those people decide what they want from their martial arts training. Its really not my place to say what should or should not stay. Let it take its own course - like evolution, maybe 20 years from now people will see ur perspective and schools teaching internal/external will be few and far between. Or maybe vice versa.

14

[QUOTE=grasshopper 2.0;942791]Ya I agree with you. For me, ill let those people decide what they want from their martial arts training. Its really not my place to say what should or should not stay. Let it take its own course - like evolution, maybe 20 years from now people will see ur perspective and schools teaching internal/external will be few and far between. Or maybe vice versa.[/QUOTE]

Why do we need to wait 20 years? I think the evidence is in.

When you say it is not your place to say what should or should not stay, I think you are completely wrong. Only YOU can decide – if you take responsibility for your own development. If YOU are trying to get better and develop, how can you take the position of “I’ll wait for it all to get sorted out eventually.” Do you have the time to wait?

15

That said, you go on to say that internal/external help people to learn and improve their ability to perform these tasks (improve their body mechanics).

Yet, what we see – the eivdnece – is that the folks that don’t use those distinctions have achieved superior results.

I dont know about you but I have witness superior results before and after one learn the external/internal way of TCMA IMA.

Athletes have obtained levels of performance at levels never before even dreamed ofwithout any internal/external or qi paradigms.

Athletes is not the norm. not everyone or any age of human can be an Athletes.
Athletes means a certain selective group of Human being who with a good healthy inheritance of physical body trainor DRUG to compete in some specific sport. Even if the price is long term damaging the Physical body or death, that is not an issue.

Have you seen a person with Heart condition or kidney condition or lung condition or High Blood pressure or Ashma become an Athletes?

In the modern western Athletes world, even the exercise Video tape put a disclaimer as " Check with your MD before doing the exercise." that tell you what is Athletes.

While a TRUE Internal ART /Qi paradigm TCMA system has again and again produce figthers such as Chen Man-Ching of Taijiquan that heal their body and also attain a good figthing skill.

Which in the Modern Western Athletes world is not possible because the activity for the Athletes is not mean for normal living people who could get sick and aging and not target to win a sport with all cost.

BTW, I’m not saying that breathing, etc. isn’t important, but all good athletes develop the ability to breath well while performing their activity (or they couldn’t perform it well).

there are lots of different methods and mechanics in breathing alone.

A healthy athletes can do any breathing or hold breathing, even if the breathing strain and stress their system , as they like to just drain out that last drop of their blood to win but careless if the next second they drop dead.

An aging person or not as healty or those with high blood pressure or Chronic illness will not be able to do what a healthy athletes do or else could cause serious damage to one’s body including death.

Also, an aging and damaged Athletes will not be able to do what they once can do and not to mention they have to take drug all their life to pay for what damage they have done.

Why do you need to refer to internal/external when you can say “just do this and that.” If you want to teach someone to hit a baseball or throw a ball, you don’t need to – and it won’t help – to add layers of unnecessary concept.

Because you are not live in the real world where people do get sick and ill, heart condition, ashma, high blood presure… and TCMA IMA could provide these ordinary people to heal and DEFENSE themselve when they needed, when the Modern Western Athletes training abandon them.

See, it is not about brutally using the body with all cost to win. or be a loser or no can do because one is sick.

TCMA IMA is about be able to evoke’s human’s natural potential to live , to heal, to fight and to defense oneself when one needs it.
Many have walked this path of TCMA IMA for at least hundred of years and it works. It works even today.

16

I should clarify - it is not my place to say when it comes to someone else’s training (unless they ask me specifically). And as for my own training, ya I don’t take an external/interal approach.

17

Why do we need to wait 20 years? I think the evidence is in.

Sure, One doesnt need to wait 20 years.
The evidence is either one know it or not. if one know it, it might be has been practice since 20 years ago. if one doesnt know it then another 2000000000000 years still not practicing it.

Face it.

what to discuss if one doesnt know what is TCMA IMA?

be it taking the position defending it or debunk it.

It totally doesnt make sense to talk about something one is clueless.

18

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;942782]

For the sake of argument, let’s say that some concept actually hinders your development. You believe some idea, but your belief is wrong. OK?

Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you.[/QUOTE]

Sure, how many athletes take illegal drug which could damage their body or killing themself for sake of Winning at all costs?

is those believe right?

Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you?

19

[QUOTE=Hendrik;942808]Sure, One doesnt need to wait 20 years.
The evidence is either one know it or not. if one know it, it might be has been practice since 20 years ago. if one doesnt know it then another 2000000000000 years still not practicing it.

Face it.

what to discuss if one doesnt know what is TCMA IMA?

be it taking the position defending it or debunk it.

It totally doesnt make sense to talk about something one is clueless.[/QUOTE]

Hendrik, a person doesn’t need to do or “understand” something to see evidence that it works. I don’t “understand” rocket science, but I can see that it works.

Body mechanics are, as even you pointed out, task specific. Give an “internal” guy a hip throw and an “external” guy a hip throw, and they’ll end up doing the same thing because there is an optimal way to perform that task – and by doing it, you will find those naturally. So it isn’t necessary or useful to take an internal/external approach if you want to teach or develop your hip throw; instead, just learn the mechanics from someone who can do the hip throw, and get out and practice doing that task (trying to hip throw people) to develop skill doing that task. With that skill will come better mechanics. All the internal/external stuff does is prevent you from looking for the optimal mechanics.

20

[QUOTE=Hendrik;942811]Sure, how many athletes take illegal drug which could damage their body or killing themself for sake of Winning at all costs?

is those believe right?

Would that be something you might want to know and perhaps eliminate? It seems to me that if your further development was your objective, then that would be important to you?[/QUOTE]

Hendrik, that’s intellectually dishonest. This is a discussion about body mechanics – sure SOME athletes do these things. But most don’t. How athletes train has nothing to do with those that cheat with performance enhancing drugs.