by Bill Glasheen » Tue Mar 23, 1999 9:04 pm
I would like to start this thread with a recent post on rec.martial-arts. I have removed names to minimize the risk of inflaming where it is not necessary, and to avoid giving attention where it is not due.
Bill
****************************
(name removed) wrote in message ....
>> Is internal strength, in your opinion, a purely physical phenomenon, just different somehow from normal strength? (I.e. more efficient body mechanics, training the muscles so that different sets of muscles are used or different sets of muscles are strengthened, perhaps visualization techniques, etc.)
Sure. But it's even cleverer than I originally thought. I would have given an unequivocal "yes" a few years back, but now I realize that there is an interesting caveat. Essentially, yes.
>> Are you saying, in regards to the silat discussion, that silat does not have "real" internal strength? Or are you saying it's simply not real taiji, or hsingi, or pakua, but may have bona fide internal strength?
Think of the Boogum strength. It's different and I can show how and someone experienced can spot it right away. It takes a lot of training to learn how to do it... bear that in mind; it's not something you fall into. Once you learn it, it would be absurd to switch back to normal mode. I have never seen any Silat with that sort of movement mode; and that's a big point. I got into an argument with some rather smug Uechi Ryu guys who bristled at the very idea that Uechi didn't have everything in it already. Yet I did some Uechi, too. I know that it is impossible to train Sanchin, etc., and learn this form of strength. The Sanchin training is one form of training and internal strength is another. So when I see someone moving with a way that precludes internal training, I can extrapolate that "assuming this person's training is sort of representative of his style's, then the chances of seeing real internal strength (given how difficult it is to learn) in this style is almost non-existent". Do you see the reasoning? Of course, when I make an assertion that broad I have to make the caveat that I could remotely be wrong, and I'm willing to look.
>> If taiji has many people who can't produce internal strength, but a few who can, isn't it possible that a few silat or kuntao people can do it as well also, even if most can't?
No, because in Taiji everyone is trying to do this thing and most can't. In Silat no one is really trying to do this thing, so probability goes toward zero. Same caveat as above.
>> Just because it's unlikely in your opinion that authentic neijia arts got transmitted correctly to Indonesia, does that mean that you also think that Indonesians (ethnic Chinese or no) could not have independently developed exercises for training "real" internal strength? Or do you think that training in neijia arts under good teachers is the only way to develop it?
Even in China, the number of people, even with good teachers, who are good is astonishingly small. While the scenario you mention is remotely possible, it's almost a rhetorical consideration. Remember that I said in a previous post that there are some overlaps with extensively trained martial artists, sometimes.
(name removed from signature)