Wanted to see if you guys in here could elaborate on something for me! I came across this in another forum, and though I’ve trained in internal styles before, I never came across specific references to this in either instance. Did a search about it, still nothing on it. I’m sure it could simply be the semantics of it all…but just in case:
I’m looking to see if any of you have heard of “live blocks” vs “dead blocks” directly from your Sifu’s…I’m looking for someone who’s actually been taught something about this as opposed to you guys delibarating on what the meanings might / could be.
I’ve taught others about making your techniques “alive” as opposed to “dead” but this was dealing in terms of making something your own, using in a spontaneous manner, and not being constricted by doctrine. Never heard it as far as a real concept specifically related to blocking in the internal martial arts.
I’m looking to see if someone who trained in the internal martial arts has come into first hand knowledge of the ideas about live and dead blocks…meaning if it was a concept specifically given to them by their sifu to describe a blocking methodology.
Ah…okay…so you’re using your block as an offensive measure as well as defensive? So then the definition of the live block according to your system is to use it in an offensive manner?
Never heard of “live or dead blocking.” That being said…
“Blocking” is a bit of mis-nomenclature with most martial arts / artists. A block by definition is when you stand 20 feet away throw a baseball, and I throw a baseball and knock it out of the air! Most MLB players could do no such thing, and most people I know in the MA cannot either. A more accurate way to protect yourself from strikes is to slip and cover, much like boxers do. This is how I have been taught from my teacher. The second you put out a limb to “block” a strike you open yourself up for the follow up.
Cheers
Jake
the catalyst for this thread seems to think that you all don’t have the inside line on “live” and “dead” blocking…or that you simply don’t want to speak up for fear of being ridiculed.
So do you guys think he’s right or is it that perhaps it’s just a misunderstanding of semantics? Anyone out there with a decade or two of internal training have any ideas as to this subject?
I honestly would like to know a little more about this. I’ve studied a couple of internal arts and have not heard those terms used…ever. Perhaps it’s just terminology that his sifu uses for something that might be a universal theory in internal arts…not sure because the guy won’t elaborate on his rhetoric.
If he doesn’t explain himself, what good is his teaching?
If he is using terms no one seems to understand, who benefits?
What is the rest of his character like? Is he using ambiguous terms to sound mysterious and wise?
I know of a Sifu who is as dumb as a door. He can barely read and is generally immature. He uses profound silence and pithy non-sense in order to avoid answering questions he can’t answer and to boost his aura as a mysteriously wise instructor.
[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;859758]If he doesn’t explain himself, what good is his teaching?
If he is using terms no one seems to understand, who benefits?
What is the rest of his character like? Is he using ambiguous terms to sound mysterious and wise?
I know of a Sifu who is as dumb as a door. He can barely read and is generally immature. He uses profound silence and pithy non-sense in order to avoid answering questions he can’t answer and to boost his aura as a mysteriously wise instructor.[/QUOTE]
Wow…you’ve pretty much described him to a tee. That’s amazing…and I completely understand what you mean. I’ve been going rounds with this guy intellectually on another thread and everytime I see one of his posts, there’s always someone that questions an odd statement he makes about internal arts or his training thereof…and he goes on the defensive as opposed to backing up or elaborating on his statements. The one time he tried to elaborate, the person he was talking to just so happened to have much more experience than him on the very subject and it got ugly after that.
I’m more of a realist when it comes to martial arts, and just wanted to get some feedback from those that studied the more internally focalized arts to see if these terms were simply unknown to me, or to a majority. He seems to think that anyone that knows anything about the real internal arts will definitely know what the terms mean without elaboration. Ho hum…
Yes, there are those who buy into the all-knowing and wise MA teacher and cultivate a contrived image of themselves in order to receive adulation from naive students.
The words certainly must mean something to him, but if he won’t explain what it means to anyone else then it gives the impression, or rather it appears he is trying to give the impression, that he possesses “special” knowledge. It becomes, “I know something you don’t know! That makes me smart, wise and special, while you are just an insignificant nobody!”
There is such a thing as a “live limb” and a “dead limb”, an “alive mind” and a “dead mind”, an “alive body” and a “dead body”. Perhaps he has an incomplete understanding of these concepts and is feigning wisdom, or perhaps he is trying to use the same principles and apply them to blocks.
An alive limb, or live limb possesses a small amount of nervous energy commonly referred to as Chi. It is easier to demonstrate than to explain. It is something that is clearly apparent when it is shown to another. The limb is filled with physically energy and appears to move with a focus or intent of mind. The limb is not tense, but neither is it devoid of energy or overly tensed, that would be a dead limb.
The nervous energy (nervous here means energy of the nerves, not anxiety) allows the limb, arm, hand, foot, fingers, etc. to display sort of a firm suppleness, without appearing or being overly firm or hard. The muscles are not tight, but they are in a tonic state. There is a sense of presence in the limb.
When a live limb moves it appears graceful and where it is supposed to be, as opposed to appearing to be moving in a haphazard and uncontrolled manner. The limb appears to have a conscious intent behind it that may be observed without actually observing the entire person. For example, it would be noticeable if all you saw was the hand moving in space as opposed to observing the entire body moving while focusing on the hand. The limb is not required be to moving however in order to observe its condition of liveness. It would be noticeable in a still photo as well.
A live limb is more responsive to its environment than a dead limb and thus moves quicker and hits harder because the antagonistic muscles do not impede its movement.
A limb empty of this energy, or too filled with energy, is a dead limb. A dead limb is both limp and floppy when it moves as a result of not enough nervous energy, or stiff and awkward when too much energy is present. There is a noticeable lack of proper physical control in a dead limb. It is weak and appears weak to those who are familiar with live and dead limbs. It is common in beginners because they have not developed the necessary nervous and muscle control in their limbs. It may be manifested by trying too hard or not trying hard enough.
A live mind is a mind that is relatively free of the obstruction of needless thoughts and anxieties. It is open and receptive without being passive, dull and empty. When speaking of an empty mind within this context it should not be understood to be a mind empty/absent of thoughts, but as a mind empty of fixation, grasping or clinging to thoughts, objects, things and stimuli. At the very least it is relatively empty of fixation, grasping and clinging. A live mind is alert and responsive to what is going on around it and is thus free of fixation or focus on only one thought or stimulus. Thoughts and stimuli are noticed but not held, grasped without release, by our attention.
A dead mind is fixed and inflexible. It grasps and clings to thoughts, objects, things or stimuli and is thus bound to those phenomena. A dead mind is dull and unresponsive or at least less responsive to changing circumstances because it cannot extricate itself efficiently from what it is grasping or clinging too. It is unable to respond spontaneously to stimuli and is thus slow to react to changing conditions. Think of it as if your hand grasping something. You must let go of what you are grasping before you can grasp something else. With the mind, when we have an emotional attachment to whatever it is we are mentally grasping, it becomes much harder to let it go and free our mind.
A live mind functions quicker and more efficiently, is more responsive to changing stimuli and more spontaneous than a dead mind.
That sort of movement is something that has been a mainstream in all the gung fu forms that I’ve studied - Jingang Quan, Wu Xing Quan, Wing Chun, and of course Tai Chi…just honestly never heard of it called “live” vs. “dead” in any of the systems.
I’ve also seen it applied in what most people know as styles that are known for using physical force only, such as Kung jung mu sul, a with couple of Karate guys that I know as well.
Again, thanks for the elaboration. I appreciate it.
it’s an interesting question; one way to answer it would seem to be to say that a “typical” closed fisted karate block (meaning something that uses part of a limb to create a barrier between an incoming attack and the defender’s torso) constitutes a “dead” block, in the sense that once the contact has been made, there is no further attempt to capitalize on that contact (of course, this is one interpretation - there are plenty of folk who, rightly so IMHO, would argue that what is generally thought of as a block in karate is anything but, but that’s not really the point here); the “block” is both the means and the end…
OTOH, if one contacts an opponent in such a way that one can then capitalize on that contact, then it would stand to reason that one is being responsive in a live, or perhaps a “lively” manner; in the same vein, slipping and all that is an excellent tactic, as Three Harmonies points out and I would characterize that response as also being “lively”;
the perfect contrast between a dead and alive hand would be here…(I think this example proves how well-rounded I am)
so back to “liveliness”: there is a certain resilience, a buoyancy to it; it is, to me, the manifestation of the balanced expression of “sung” and “peng”, using the classical terms; that is, one is able to absorb and rebound almost simultaneously, reacting instinctively but not habitually, without the interference of “the judge” getting in the way
now, his is not to say that this necessarily has relevance to fighting per se; it may, it may not, but as I have never directly observed nor experienced it in a situation of the sort, i cannot say (others might) - it does, however, seem to me a skill set that speaks directly to intrinsic properties of the human organism though, and therefore worth cultivating in general, meaning that if one is able to acquire this quality, it would be of benefit in terms of overall health maintenance, for various reasons (which i won’t bore you with unless people are really interested)
[QUOTE=Vankuen;859823]Makes perfect sense guys! Thanks a million.
That sort of movement is something that has been a mainstream in all the gung fu forms that I’ve studied - Jingang Quan, Wu Xing Quan, wing chun, and of course Tai chi…[/quote]
And yet, even then you had no idea what I was talking about.
You haven’t practiced real kung fu either, but I won’t hold that against you (as long as you refrain from giving advice on “kung fu”).
AND, why then didn’t make an educated guess during days and days of discusson and arguments with me in the other thread? The simple answer is that you didn’t know what I was talking about.
And before you say but you didn’t explain what you were talking about then here are some of my comments (not all directed at Vankuen] on the subject:
If you had known what I was talking about you would have guessed what was meant by “live” or “dead” blocking/striking. YOU DIDN’T AND NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO SAVE FACE BY SAYING THAT YOU KNEW ALL ALONG BUT SOMEHOW DID NOT MANAGE TO “GUESS”.
And here are some of Vankuen’s “enlightening comments”:
LOL…:rolleyes:
Here you are saying that you have no idea of how internal blocking concepts(including “liveness”), are different from external blocking such as those of shotokan. Yet in your answer to Scott R. Brown you seem to say,“hey, I knew all that but under a different name”.
Now, we all know that YOU DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING!
A punch is just a punch…LOL! There are internal punches and external punches as well, not forgetting that they can be live or dead. Confused? You won’t be after a few years of real kung fu practice.
Here is another gem:
That just shows how much you know about the internals.
I said this before and I will repeat again, redirection of force is a defensive movement, how you end it is up to you but to redirect force you need to receive it first and that means a force has to be unleashed against you. This means an ATTACK!
You have seen all that, yet during many days of discussion you couldn’t even guess? And you had to come to the internal forums for your answers? And even here ONLY ONE PERSON has given a valid answer.
Rather proves my point doesn’t it?
Don’t thank him as he hasn’t saved your forum skin yet!
