How to use internal power in throwing?

[Formosa Neijia]

Shenfa just means "body method." It's nothing special. Ballet dancers have shenfa, anyone that does anything physical over a period of time has shenfa. Having a shenfa doesn't make you internal.

Internal is more than just body mechanics. That's the main problem with this discussion.

Dave C.

[nianfong]

the definition of "internal" is different for everyone. even if you talk about qi and dantian power, all CMA have it. neigong, that is. and if you even want to go more classical, dian xue type stuff is in shaolin as much as it is in any of the 3 big internal arts. cun jin, tou jin, etc is all in shaolin too.
in taiwan, you call them neijiaquan because of their emphasis on the qigong, the neigong, the breathing, the body unification. but SC has been around since before any split between external and internal, so it has it all. shaolin also has the same things, with the right teachers.

internal = taiji. neigong focus. soft vs hard fighting strategy, and forms/drills to train this. still has body hardening, classically (guo bin dao from the taiwan cultural university in the old days could poke a quarter-sized hole into 3/4" plywood with just 2 fingers. and he could pull his balls into his body to protect them.)
external = Muaythai. still has neigong, but it focuses on body hardening and a hard-on-hard fighting strategy.

that's the only difference, really, is emphasis and strategy. SC, and throwing arts usually use both soft-vs-hard strategies, and hard vs hard strategies. and the breathing is emphasized during posture training. when you throw, it's neither internal nor external. it's just a throw. when you want to say it's internal, you say it has unification of the body and breath etc. and that happens naturally with any successful throw.

[C.J.Wang]

There are more accurate ways to gauge a person's skill level and understanding of MA than fighti record and lineage.

For example, when I see someone who has managed to explain the mechanics of IMA power generation and structure use - all in accordance with what I have learned from various masters in Taiwan - in just a few paragraphs, I know that person has the goods.

[Sprint]

There are more accurate ways to gauge a person's skill level and understanding of MA than fighti record and lineage.

For example, when I see someone who has managed to explain the mechanics of IMA power generation and structure use - all in accordance with what I have learned from various masters in Taiwan - in just a few paragraphs, I know that person has the goods.

My sentiments exactly. Well said.

[DeusTrismegistus]

There are more accurate ways to gauge a person's skill level and understanding of MA than fighti record and lineage.

For example, when I see someone who has managed to explain the mechanics of IMA power generation and structure use - all in accordance with what I have learned from various masters in Taiwan - in just a few paragraphs, I know that person has the goods.

My sentiments exactly. Well said.

Being able to talk about something on the internet does not = having the goods. Knowing of something and knowing about are different. I have a friend who can in very good detail tell me how an internal combustion engine works, what all the different parts of a car engine do, how the computers systems effect air flow and gas usage, yet he wouldn't know what a torque wrench is if it hit him on the head. I also have another friend who only knows some basics about how engines work but can fix almost any problem you will ever have.

[Sprint]

Deus I hear what you are saying. I have found that people who have experience of something tend to discuss it in a different way to those who have only read about it. Sometimes people say stuff and you think yeah that's my experience. When lots of different people describe things that echo your own experience it makes you think that you know something. All right it's not cast iron proof. You only get that from comparing skills directly.
There are many things that can be described that only really make sense when you have experienced them. Much of what I have read concerning IMA was for a long time completely beyond me. Having experience however shows that most of what I read was completely lucid and only really makes sense after the fact. Zen koans only make sense when you realize that the point of zen is to experience, not conceptualize.

[C.J.Wang]

"Having the goods," by my definition, means that that the person has knowledge that I could learn and improve from. It doesn't necessarily entail that he or she must be able to kick my butt in a fight.

A world-class coach doesn't need to run faster or jump higher than the athletes he coaches; he offers his valuable experience and advice to the atheletes to better their games. I believe the same scenario should apply to the teacher student relationship in MA.

Many MA practitioners worship their sifu and masters for combat prowess. To me, I don't care if someone could kill E.T. with his "chi" from 5000 miles away; If he can't effectively teach, explain, and show me how to acquire such skill, it's all useless.

[Bhassler]

Throwing is throwing... in terms of body mechanics, it doesn't matter whether you are using so call internal force or whatever, everyone has to play by the same principles that make a hip throw, or shoulder throw, or pickup, etc... work... there may be variations on those throws, but the basic principles need to stay the same for them to work well.

Question for the SC guys:

I was playing with a basic hip throw a while back. A has his right leg in front of B's left leg and his right arm behind B's waist. So A can turn his hips away from B and drag B's waist to throw B over A's hip (so the direction of A's hip cirlce is right hip forward, left hip back). The typical counter is for B to sink and drive his left knee forward a little bit between A's legs. At this point, A can reverse the direction of his hip circle, borrowing B's force, and still make the throw (instead of throwing B around the outside of A's hip, A will circle around and come slightly under B's hip to throw B more over A's hip-- it's easier to do than to describe). However, if B is quick enough, instead of just driving his left knee forward he can instead circle his own hips in the same direction of A's circle but a little bit smaller, and dump A backwards instead of getting thrown. A of course could counter by changing his own circle to move inside of B's-- whoever can get the smallest circle at the right angle wins.

This is a fairly simple thing to do in a cooperative or semi-cooperative setting, and obviously much harder to do against a fully resisting opponent, but the method is in an isolated context typical of a lot of things that happen in taiji. Does SC use minute adjustments like this for it's borrowing? If so, how is the ability trained to do that in a "live" setting?

[Dmitri]

the definition of "internal" is different for everyone.
[...]
that's the only difference, really, is emphasis and strategy.

Well, proper 'internal' training also gives you things like zero-range striking power. But those aside -- what you said there, "emphasis and strategy", make it a HUGE difference. Different emphasis in training (and we're talking VERY different, in this case of taiji vs. muay thai) develops (very) different results, as one progresses in their studies. Strategy (and tactics) matter a great deal too, as (for example) with internal power you don't need to "wind up" to hit, so your movement and "fighting behavior" will be different, not dramatically so, but should be noticeable enough.

Over time, as the skill levels increase, these training progressions come very close, so you could almost say they are different paths to the same mountain, but there IS a difference in abilities and experience, once you've reached the top.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Throwing is throwing... in terms of body mechanics, it doesn't matter whether you are using so call internal force or whatever, everyone has to play by the same principles that make a hip throw, or shoulder throw, or pickup, etc... work... there may be variations on those throws, but the basic principles need to stay the same for them to work well.

Question for the SC guys:

I was playing with a basic hip throw a while back. A has his right leg in front of B's left leg and his right arm behind B's waist. So A can turn his hips away from B and drag B's waist to throw B over A's hip (so the direction of A's hip cirlce is right hip forward, left hip back). The typical counter is for B to sink and drive his left knee forward a little bit between A's legs. At this point, A can reverse the direction of his hip circle, borrowing B's force, and still make the throw (instead of throwing B around the outside of A's hip, A will circle around and come slightly under B's hip to throw B more over A's hip-- it's easier to do than to describe). However, if B is quick enough, instead of just driving his left knee forward he can instead circle his own hips in the same direction of A's circle but a little bit smaller, and dump A backwards instead of getting thrown. A of course could counter by changing his own circle to move inside of B's-- whoever can get the smallest circle at the right angle wins.

This is a fairly simple thing to do in a cooperative or semi-cooperative setting, and obviously much harder to do against a fully resisting opponent, but the method is in an isolated context typical of a lot of things that happen in taiji. Does SC use minute adjustments like this for it's borrowing? If so, how is the ability trained to do that in a "live" setting?

The way you described the set up for the hip throw is wrong. Imagine you are throwing someone with a basic hip throw. You have to step in and turn so you are both facing the same direction. If your right foot is in line with their left foot, then your hips will be offset to their left side. If you try to throw them then they can simply step around you or sink and pull you back as you described. You need to get your feet to both be inside their feet. So your right foot should be just inside their right foot and your left foot should be just inside their left foot. Then your hips should be directly in front of theirs. When you do this then you will pick them up on your hip and they should feel pretty light and you should be able to let go and let them hang there without them falling off. Most people need to push their hips even further over to get them on the hips properly. So if you are throwing them over your right side you should push your hips to the right so the outside edge of your right hip is outside the right edge of their hips.

(instead of throwing B around the outside of A's hip, A will circle around and come slightly under B's hip to throw B more over A's hip

Throwing someone around the outside of your hip is a bad hip throw.

Now in sparring the basic hip throw is one of the most difficult moves to use. One major reason is the foot placement. It is difficult to get your hips lined up with the partners. So you will usually end up off to one side as you describe in your post, with your right leg being in line or just inside their left leg and your left leg being outside their left leg. If that is the case then you are much better off using leg blocking, leg lifting, or vertical lifting.

This is a fairly simple thing to do in a cooperative or semi-cooperative setting, and obviously much harder to do against a fully resisting opponent, but the method is in an isolated context typical of a lot of things that happen in taiji. Does SC use minute adjustments like this for it's borrowing? If so, how is the ability trained to do that in a "live" setting?

My answer to this is yes SC does use these minute adjustments you talk about. I imagine different people will train different ways but IME the minute adjustments start happening naturally as you spar. There are drills for countering and stuff which give you the basics but the details of the little movements and the fighting for position really happens in sparring.

[dragontigerpalm]

the definition of "internal" is different for everyone.
[...]
that's the only difference, really, is emphasis and strategy.

Well, proper 'internal' training also gives you things like zero-range striking power. But those aside -- what you said there, "emphasis and strategy", make it a HUGE difference. Different emphasis in training (and we're talking VERY different, in this case of taiji vs. muay thai) develops (very) different results, as one progresses in their studies. Strategy (and tactics) matter a great deal too, as (for example) with internal power you don't need to "wind up" to hit, so your movement and "fighting behavior" will be different, not dramatically so, but should be noticeable enough.

Over time, as the skill levels increase, these training progressions come very close, so you could almost say they are different paths to the same mountain, but there IS a difference in abilities and experience, once you've reached the top.

The expression that I'm familiar with is: While there are many paths to the top of the mountain, the view is the same".

[Dmitri]

View is the same but how you feel/who you are may be different, e.g. compare someone who studied to become a professional rock climber and it took him 2 weeks to climb, and someone who went to a business school and became an investor, got rich and bought a helicopter to fly to the top in 2 minutes. Same view, but...

[dragontigerpalm]

View is the same but how you feel/who you are may be different, e.g. compare someone who studied to become a professional rock climber and it took him 2 weeks to climb, and someone who went to a business school and became an investor, got rich and bought a helicopter to fly to the top in 2 minutes. Same view, but...

But for those that actually put in the time and effort to climb to the top and earn their position regardless of their approach or methods - how different will they be at the top?
From one who is at the foot of what appears as an insurmountable mountain.

[Dmitri]

But for those that actually put in the time and effort to climb to the top and earn their position regardless of their approach or methods - how different will they be at the top?

Sure, but there are different way to climb too. Like I posted before on another thread, imagine that one goes to a rock-climbing school, then spends a long time thinking about it, then designs some gear to be used, researches the best approaches to the top, etc., then spends some time training to use that gear, and then finally goes on to climb.
The other one just climbs, and climbs, and slips, and keeps climbing, and figures it all out along the way.
Both invested time and effort into climbing and did it "physically", but their experiences and respective expertise would be very different IMHO.

From one who is at the foot of what appears as an insurmountable mountain.

I'm not comparing with the "bottom people"... If you look from the bottom, you may not see the difference. But if those two guys sitting on top enjoying the view talked about their experiences, they would find a lot of similarities, sure, -- but also a lot of differences.

[JessOBrien]

when I see someone who has managed to explain the mechanics of IMA power generation and structure use - all in accordance with what I have learned from various masters in Taiwan - in just a few paragraphs, I know that person has the goods.

See that's the thing CJ. You are a real person with a real name with a real teacher. So when you say something it has meaning, it has context, it has a basis for reality.

However some people come post on here and it's hard to tell what the context of what they are saying is. I have read excellent internal descriptions that were very intriguing, which it turns out came from a guy who didn't have a freaking clue how to do what he was writing about.

How do you know someone has teh goods? What if they are just cutting and pasting it?

I happen to disagree with JW on many points. But since I know who he is, his posts carry much more weight than someone who might just be parroting what they read somewhere.

-Jess O