Last try to convince Bill that chi is real.

[Bill Glasheen]

I have two current teachers who use the dreaded "Qi" word in the way they teach and theren's no magic, and no plethora of attributes attached to the one word. And both have very, very solid fighting skills and very clear ways of teaching said skills.

And any number of world class athletes are highly superstitious. It doesn't seem to get in the way of their performance at the end of the day. They succeed in spite of - and not because of - their ideas about causality.

I always enjoy a good martial arts teacher and practitioner. I never let language and terminology issues get in the way of learning.

I handle the science on my own time.

I remember a discussion I had previously with you about Chinese herbology, Wes. No amount of science was going to change your mind about evidence-based methods. So... we'll agree to differ on this.

Show me some "qi", and we'll see if we can make something of it.

Actually - most people who know about Neijia classify two other systems (Tongbei Quan & Liu Ha Ba Fa) as "internal". There is also "not" the dichotomy that's listed in the definition amongst "internal" stylists. Who don't even use that term to describe themselves. Of course this is just based on the practitioners I know here in the States (I study Xing Yi Quan...) and those that I met and/or trained with when I was in China.

and Yiquan as well.

I referenced Sun Lutang. You can take your disagreements up with him. In any case, my point to John was adequately made.

- Bill

[wes tasker]

I remember a discussion I had previously with you about Chinese herbology, Wes. No amount of science was going to change your mind about evidence-based methods. So... we'll agree to differ on this.

Nice of you to bring that up......

Show me some "qi", and we'll see if we can make something of it.

That's an interesting way of putting it seeing that you have no idea of how either teacher uses the word in training. You'll notice that I stated that there was no magic associated with the way they use the word.....

I referenced Sun Lutang. You can take your disagreements up with him.

How much of Sun Lutang's works have you read? Do you know the history of why he used the term "neijia"? I wasn't disagreeing as much as adding the fact that alot of people consider the other two arts to be grouped in with Xing Yi, Ba Gua, and Tai Ji.... There's more to the history of "internal" arts than what can be read on Wiki......

-wes

[Bill Glasheen]

What's your agenda, Wes? Do you want to be disagreeable and sarcastic, or do you want to shed some light?

You want some references? Here are some from Tim Cartmell whom I noted earlier in the thread. He was kind enough to post on my Forum, and sent me some books to read. And for your edification, he translated the text (below) from Sun Lutang.

- Bill

Principles, Analysis, and Application of Effortless Combat Throws Publisher: Unique Publications (August 1998) ISBN 1-883175-06-2 or 0865681767

Xing Yi Nei Gong: Xing Yi Health Maintenance and Internal Strength Development by Dan Miller, Tim Cartmell; Publisher: Unique Publications (October 1998) ISBN 0-86568-174-0

A Study of Taijiquan by Sun Lutang, Tim Cartmell (Translator), Publisher: North Atlantic Books (June 2003), ISBN 1-55643-462-6

A Detailed Analysis of the Art of Seizing and Locking by Zhao Da Yuan, Translated by Tim Cartmell

The Method of Chinese Wrestling by Tong Zhongyi, Tim Cartmell (Translator), Publisher: North Atlantic Books (November 9, 2005) ISBN 1-55643-609-2

"Standing Grappling: Escapes and Counters" DVD December 2006

[wes tasker]

What's your agenda, Wes?

It is simply to say that their is more to the "internal" arts than what you posted. I've read all the books by Tim Cartmell as well. He's not the only authority out there on Neijia.

That and to posit the idea that a teacher can use the word / concept of Qi in teaching and it does not have to be magical and/or obfuscating.

Your opinion seems to be that whenever the word is used people learn "in spite of" it. I disagree. No agenda beyond that.

Do you want to be disagreeable and sarcastic,

That's particularly funny coming from you.....

-wes

[JOHN THURSTON]

Of course it appear the second Is another way to spell Hsing-I.

I have praticed various Ba-Gua "poisitionings" (imagine a T'ai Chi Posture stationary) And there are many many many Bagua styles and positions, but those that I have seen are stationary.
(the lion, the Bear etc.)

An American Doctor Named (i am sorry here, Feldenkreist (?sp?) tapped into the thoery of the Bagua positions, so many on the midwest have never heard of Ba-gua Chi Kung--by pratice their feldenkriest????? positions.

I rather doubt the "Interrnal Arts Masters" would think much of that.

The are a forms of Chi Kung, some, like the many Ba guas, are stationery and some are moving.

Iron Shirt Chi Kung features a certain set of postures to improve posture by improving 'rooting".

So, as was stated in the thread by knowledgeavle people :Chi" might just have been a bag into which were tossed many form of stimulation, lessessening of tension, improving balance, contoling more specifiaclly Parts of the musculature and tendons etc.

I DO hae a hard time going beyound the notion of the cuktivation of oneself and the pasage of what might be called Chi into and opponent upon touching (I have felt that-and seen the aura from anothers hand when my eyes were closed etc.) I have feli minor electirc shocks, but since the sender can generate only infitesimal 'electric' power, so, therefore, the sensitivity of the receptot is sensitive, as sensitive as that of the transferor.

Could Chj start a car? No, but a car does not have a CNS as sensitive as ours either.

And the other enrgy factors mentioned on the thread may, ages ago, in ignorance, and for simplicity, were put into the "Chi" bag.

Perhaps some can help me, do the 'Accupressure" ponts, which hte Kyusho points mimic, have an exact mediacal geography thruogh science.

If not, they still work.

Thanks for the hospitality Sesnsel Bill!!!!

john

[Bill Glasheen]

Thanks for articulating your thoughts, Wes.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

John

This is an article from Tim Cartmell's website. He published this in Inside Kung-fu Magazine on July, 1992.

INTERNAL vs. EXTERNAL - What sets them apart?

In this article, Tim articulates his own ideas about the internal vs. external dichotomy. You will see specific references in the article to Xing Yi Quan. Note in particular how he doesn't throw the "chi" (qi, ki, prana, etc.) word around. Rather he is quite specific about the concepts he refers to. This I believe comes from his superior understanding of two languages and cultures. Tim is quite proud of his ability to avoid nondescript language in his analyses.

IMO, the whole "chi" thing happens due to an inability to translate from one language/culture to another. There's that, and then there's the whole "hidden secrets" thing. Everyone wants to believe there's a secret sauce. There is, but... As Wes himself points out, it isn't magic or voodoo.

Of particular interest elsewhere on the Website is the following:

...after twenty-five years of martial arts study and practice I think the labels Internal and Extermal, although convenient, are really misnomers. ... What (Sun Lu Tang et al) were referring to when they chose the label Internal was the underlying principles which were common to the arts they studied. Principles of the arts later named Internal were complete physical relaxation, yielding to force, the use of the power of the whole body under mental control and relying on sensitivity and skill to overcome brute strength. Now here is the problem with such labels. It is not the particular Art itself that is Internal or External, it is the way the art is practiced. There are no Internal or External martial arts, only Internal and External practioners ...

More on this can be found at Tim Cartmell's Biography.

This is his main website.

Tim Cartmell Shen Wu Martial Arts

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

TO a degree, i have to agree with bill.


Look at boxing.

It's often labelled as an external style.


But how many different methods are there to box?


In boxers, out boxers, Counter punchers....

And even then there is variation. Both foreman and Tyson are in boxers, but both box very differently.


Read a good hsing i book, the principles and body mechanics are VERY similar to jack dempsey's book(the super expensive one).

Does that make Boxing internal or external?


Look at uechi: We are both 'hard and soft'.

Would we be an internal style of not?

[MikeK]

Note to self: Don't post funny videos.

[JOHN THURSTON]

Well, of course different Sifu's have different opinions.

Mine simply stated in passing that he felt T'ai chi, Hsing I and Ba Fa were the so called jewels in the crown.

Ba Fa certainly did not seem particulary internal at the time, but I only got through the entire form once or twice.

I noted that Hsing I was fast and powerful.

Bagua's, as I think Wes will testify, come in many forms and postures and I would not pretend to state that they were completely "external or internal"

Of course I do think Uechi Sanchin is an example of "internal' development in an art that has nearly always been labeled "external".

But, when one sees the pratical applications of Sanchin, and there seen to be more than a few, does that make it 'external'?

A good question and one that I wish someone (else) would develop an answer for as I cannot answer properly.

John

[Bill Glasheen]

Note to self: Don't post funny videos.

What, are you nuts?

The "chi" thing is one of many controversial subjects. I can remember back in the old kyusho alliance days where we had many different groups from many different styles talking about one common interest - kyusho and/or tuite (a.k.a. targeted, sequential striking). I can remember the expression "chi wars" being used when the chi-meisters would get into battle with the scientists of the group. I recall threats of bodily harm, etc., etc.

What made a lot of that go away was rigorous testing of ideas. Having emotional attachments to ideas not tested or supported by evidence and/or field trial is self-defeating if you are practicing a martial art. The work Dr. X, Bill Jackson (the cinematographer) and I did with the no-touch knockouts was one such example of thoughtful testing. Another was a randomized trial testing the cycle of destruction - a key theoretical underpinning of the chi-based approach to kyusho.

Smart people evolve through all this.

• The Missouri (show me) crowd sometimes learn that a given chi-meister may have stumbled on something, but doesn't quite know how to get his/her arms around it. Through a process of investigation and discovery, the essence of "it" is made clear, and the bothersome language goes away.
• The chi-sters are often stopped in their tracks when a given accepted method, approach, or theory (developed through thousands of years of blah, blah, blah...) is shown not to be better than random chance when tested in a controlled setting.

My recommendation to people is to stay in school (to develop a strong, broad knowledge base), train, and keep an open mind. And never, ever be afraid to question.

Tradition and folklore can get you into trouble, waste your time, and keep you from reaching your potential. A classic example here was the 8 glasses of water a day thing. It was conventional wisdom that this was healthy. Then one day someone on this forum asked that pesky "Missouri" question. Why of course it's true! Let's just find that study where... Er... Uh...

Hmmm...

And finally... If it wasn't for a little humor now and then, we wouldn't be getting people to the table talking about important concepts. I consider humor to be such an important part of martial arts that I used to ask an open-ended question on the written exam for every test in my large UVa classes. The top ten humorous responses got extra credit, and were read outloud in the final class of the semester.

I still remember those 2-page answers that Karl Fugelso* used to write. He always got the number 1 response. And no matter what aspect of martial arts I asked about, Karl could always write something that sounded like it came straight from Penthouse Letters.

- Bill

* Karl became a Uechi dan, won the "best chest" contest as a frat boy at UVa (judged by the sorority girls), and is now a respectable Assistant Professor in the Art Department at Towson University.

[cxt]

Bill

You know there is a serious problem with the methodology when the "pro-chi" crowd wants to change the definations/redefine exactly how the word "chi" is used.

Its NEVER a broader change--its almost always some MUCH more narrow and largely ideosyncratic use that allows them to make the same claims-albit in highly altered and AGAIN, ideosyncratic form--but without being hung out to dry on the proofs.

Its essentially arguement by "technicality."

[JOHN THURSTON]

Well,

This is always fun. And I agree that the ancient and Modern Chinese and Japanese Martial artists do drop ten pounds of physical 'energies' into a five pound bag and call it "Chi" of "KI".

But, merely addresasubg the matter of electrical energy in the body, the defense has left us "pro Chi" guys a bit of an opening.

Since the amount of measurable electricity in the body is minute, the systems that uses that 'power' to transmit commande and receive energy must be correspondingly sensitive.

Thus, control of various parts of the body-or any part depends on the receipt of information transmitted via a series of bio "switches" called axons.

Sensei Evan has showed us a few times that if the flow of energy through this system can be disrupted by physucall pressure on points where it is not sufficiently 'protected" --rather odd thisgs do happeen.

Now, is this 'chi' no, of courser not, merely an illustration of one of the observed effects dropped into the aforemantioned five pound bag.

Humans have it a bit rough, if our bodies were classified in the sane way the military classifies Military Vehicles, we would be the ultimate 'soft skinned vehicle". The transition from a quadrapedal animal to a bipedal animal opened many vulnerable points to attacks that are somewhat naturally protected in a quadriped..

It seem s to me that this may leave a number of points (dare I say it-Kyusho points) bereft of natural protectiions.

If one can attack these exposed points and even minutely disrupt the flow of information and commands flowing through the system--it may be shut down or used to create pain.

In the final analysis, the very fact that the eletrical energy in the nervous systems is miniscule, taken together with an exposure of nerves and nerve junctions existant in a rather slightly built biped suggests the the miniscule flow of electrical impulses can be disrupted.

Think of it another way: pain is the interpretation of a certain type of signal received via our CNS.

So, if a severe headache can be cause by the receipt and (mis?) interpretation of electrical (I know, the closing of Axon 'ewitches") messages.

The "energy work" of the various Chi Kungs, one of which I have always maintained to be Sanchin, may only minutely change the axonically transmitted 'energy' of the CNS---but minute is 'plenty".

To argue against my self, real electricity, such as is transmitted through a condemned man to cause his death is relatively immense, and 'minute' will not do the job.

I don't know. It is possible that the immense overload of the CNS by suchhigh voltage may trigger a 'shut down' response-so the poor condemned man literally must 'cook' to death like a pickle with an electrode at each end.

But it has been shown that disruption of the CNS can be effecteed by a subtle seriries of blows.

Nothing about "'ol sparky' is particularly subtle

J

[Bill Glasheen]

John

You argue best when you argue my point. You went through a fairly coherent discussion of physiology without the need to conjure up the "c" word.

The idea of targeting your strikes on the human anatomy exists independent of all the chi theory. Any person who knows to hit you laterally in the jaw or kick your family jewels understands the concept. Chi-sters do not own kyusho; they only conjure up the "c" word (and various chi theories) to explain and predict. And generally the theory doesn't predict anywhere near as well as a good understanding of anatomy and physiology.

The more you get into physiological reasons why things work, the more you'll understand the advantages and limitations of this approach to self-defense. For example... Pain points tend not to work under extreme conditions such as a life-threatening situation or someone who is drugged. There are sound neurological reasons for that. On the other side, some nerve strikes work better when combined with others because of the way our nervous system is set up.

One of my favorite class of techniques comes under the category of what Bruce Miller calls reflex points. Here you're dealing with stimulating responses in the body which happen under a broad range of conditions. For example we will gag pretty reliably under a variety of conditions, and the gag reflex can be accessed via the suprasternal notch. Just about any joint has a reflex point accessible with a bladed hand or foot weapon. These cause the joints involuntarily to bend regardless of what the person wants to do. While not painful, you easily can control someone if you know what you are doing.

I do have a problem with many of the LFKO points (light force knockout). Many are demonstrated under uncontrolled conditions. It's clear that the power of suggestion is very strong. So it's extremely difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe here, and the field is a bad place to test your theories.

So my suggestion to most is to consider targeted sequential striking (a.k.a. kyusho) as the poison on the end of your spear. You want the spear (your weapon) to do the job by itself if possible. But if you can get a force multiplier effect by interfering with someone's natural physiology, well that's clearly a desirable added value.

And finally... It pays not to get too cute when your life is on the line. Under the survival stress response, all but the most trained lose all of their fine motor coordination, and some or most of the complex motor coordination. If your kyusho technique (of doom) requires that you hit with a high degree of precision, then you are doing yourself a disservice by making this a key part of your self-defense repertoire.

The cute stuff is for the gifted who already are one up on the opposition. When it comes to saving your life though, KISS is a better general approach.

Bill

[Sochin]

Not all of this looked like self hypnosis; some looked like aikdo dojo movies from long ago.

Hong Junsheng says of his book, Chen Style Taijiquan Practical Method,

"This book stresses practical self defense skills and avoids bogus talk of "mind intent" and "qi." The self defense and attack techniques of every move are explained, as well as the possible response of the opponent."

And else where he writes, (I paraphrase):

If there is a physical effect of my movement, then there is a physical explanation of my movements.

Then he would go on to do amazing things with his structure and use of silk reeling techniques.

His student, Chen Zhonghua, is a worthy student and international standard bearer for the Practical Method of his teacher, Hong.

This kind of true taiji is so cool compared to the use of the mystical word, "chi" to hide deficiencies.