Deficiencies in WSL teachings

[guy b.]

it definitely needs reliable strategies to both defend against a. grapplers who would take you to the ground, and b. to escape and recover from the ground to your standup game if the unexpected occurs. Most lineages of VT/WC do not adequately address both these areas, leaving practitioners vulnerable to a good grappling attack. In my view, that is a deficiency that is best acknowledged and dealt with.

VT isn't concerned with fighting on the ground. Personally I think this a good thing, because it is clear and there is no muddled/bad teaching of second hand grappling in the system. Bjj is an excellent ground grappling system which is readily available in most western countries. If grappling is a concern then bjj is the place to look for answers.

 

[geezer]

VT isn't concerned with fighting on the ground. Personally I think this a good thing, because it is clear and there is no muddled/bad teaching of second hand grappling in the system. Bjj is an excellent ground grappling system which is readily available in most western countries. If grappling is a concern then bjj is the place to look for answers.

I quite agree. That doesn't change the fact that VT/WC is deficient in offering protection against a good grappler/ground fighter. Maybe if some of the other groups that have attempted to concoct their own anti-grappling programs were able to accept that this is an area VT/WC doesn't address very well, they would come to the same conclusion as you and I.

God, wierd finding myself agreeing with Guy. ...I think I kinda like it!

 

[WTchap]

Strength is required for any movement, including internal MA movement. All movement requires muscles to exert forces on the skeleton. A "softer approach", whatever that might mean, is no different.

We've been over this - at least once already. Yes - muscle, and therefore strength, is always used, whatever the art. But if you can't see the difference between the use of strength in an internal art, compared to an external art, then I'm sorry... for starters you're either not training Yiquan, or your teacher in that art is not teaching you properly. It's that simple.

Maybe he just likes to believe in fairy tales? Without more information I have no way of evaluating his claims because it is difficult to tell what exactly he is claiming.

Just use your head. If you advocate that PB is a good instructor, and that the art he teaches is effective, then it stands to reason that Sifu Niels Pivato, who learned WSLPBVT directly from PB, has trained in a system that is practical, hands on and not based on fairy tales... yet when Pivato met Sergio, he was shown something that was enough for him to want to learn from Sergio. You think Pivato was convinced by talking about it? That he attended a seminar and didn't want, ask for and get, hands-on time with Sergio? Really?

I know what I train in Yiquan.

With all due respect, either the Yiquan you train is not actually Yiquan, or you haven't understood what you've been taught. It is an internal art, yet you seem to know nothing about what makes an internal art, internal. We both agree that Qi myth and fairy tales should not be a part of the equation, and that leaves a physical explanation - yet you don't seem to understand any of the physical hallmarks that run through all of the internal arts. You constantly ask what the physical processes and training are (but if you have it, you'll know it, Guy) and when I talk about it in brief, you say you don't understand the language.

But nobody has given any indication of what this person thinks Sergio's system offers that is lacking in VT.

Really?

If it is something physical then describe what it is in simple physical terms showing how it is different to movement in VT.

As you are refusing to read what I've written in the past, including what I wrote about 'connections' in my previous post... do me a favour. First, go speak with your Yiquan teacher. Ask him or her the same question. The, let's talk some more.

I don't know what this means

Believe me, I'm beginning to believe you. I think you really, genuinely don't know.

I believe you didn't go on to explain your understanding of any of these things. Please do.

You want me to detail how I train these things, and train them on a daily basis. That's what it would take, a detailed explanation. Sorry, I'm not going to do the job of your Yiquan teacher. God, I hope you're not paying him/her for your lessons.

Everyone has fascia, musculature, tendons and so on...

Yep, and that's the beauty of the internal systems - everything they have to offer is available to anyone who wants to train it. No mysterious force, no Harry Potter magic.

.... which allow the body to move in a connected rathr than disjointed way, barring physical impediment.

Yes, but how do we use them? Do we automatically use them in an optimal way for a specific outcome - in this case, fighting? I remember once, on another forum, someone from WSLVT said that the elbow position used in their art was not natural - it had to be trained for function. We all have an elbow, and we use it, quite naturally, for many things... but we don't all automatically use it the VT way.

Or, to give another example, anyone can grab a sword and draw it, but can everyone draw a sword like Kuroda Sensei. Check 0:46 - 0:53 in this video:

His speed is more than just the result of lots of practise - it is how he practices. I'm not going to write an essay on it - do some research if you're interested. But I'll give you one word (even though I know you don't want to understand it): connections. And yes, I'm meaning in the body.

Everyone breathes and everyone coordinates breath with physical effort naturally.

Yes, but does a person studying advanced yoga, for example, just breathe in exactly the same way as a guy sitting at home, watching TV? Or do you concede that what an advanced yoga practitioner has learned to do with their breathing is different from how everyone coordinates breath?

I'm not seeing what is special about metion of these mundane things.

I know you're not seeing it. You're not able to see how mundane things can be trained and used in a way that offers additional benefits.

Look, you've heard of Wang Xiangzhai, yes? He created the art you say you study. He wrote that his Zhan Zhuang exercises should include, among other things, movement and non-movement, empty and full, relaxed and tense. Does everyone do this automatically because we all have the same fascia, musculature, tendons and so on. Or does Yiquan have a training methodology that teaches you how to use the body? (and I'm not even touching on the art's heavy use of visualisation and intent training... which, yes, has to have a connection to what you're doing physically).

I'm not even sure why I bother asking you these questions - it's pretty clear that you're not studying an internal martial art.

 

[KPM]

For what its worth WTChap, I've been following everything you've been saying recently in this thread. And I have never studied I Chuan, Hsing I, or Tai Chi.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For what its worth WTChap, I've been following everything you've been saying recently in this thread. And I have never studied I Chuan, Hsing I, or Tai Chi.

The "Internal" training can help you (general YOU) to pay attention on some areas that you may not pay enough attention before. But if you already pay attention in those areas, the term "internal" will have little meaning to you.

- Your arm should coordinate with your leg (3 outer harmonies). This is my major concern about WC SNT that I don't see such "coordination".
- Your mind should always focus on your leading hand at any moment (3 inner harmonies).
- You should only see body move (Shenfa) and not arm move. This is also my concern about WC SNT that I only see arm move and I don't see much body move.
- Your body should push/pull your limbs.
- All power generation come from bottom and up, back and forward.
- You power generation come from compress and release.
- The beginning of your next move should be blended nicely with the end of your previous move.
- Your opponent may force you to move back but he will never break your structure.
- Your structure should be from the top of your head all the way to the back of your foot.
- Concentrate on "body unification" and ignore "muscle group isolation".
- If your opponent wants to move in a certain way, help him to move more than he wants to, and lead him into the emptiness.
- ...

 

[guy b.]

But if you can't see the difference between the use of strength in an internal art, compared to an external art, then I'm sorry... for starters you're either not training Yiquan, or your teacher in that art is not teaching you properly.

I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term, or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific. So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense. Beyond that he really hasn't provided any detail at all.

As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.

You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.

 

[Juany118]

I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term, or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific. So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense. Beyond that he really hasn't provided any detail at all.

As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.

You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.

Pretty sure on that last bit he did, if in broad strokes, earlier when I raised that the Wing Chun I study rather holistic, or hybrid, and thus contains internal and external principles side by side. I noted the "physics" of maneuvers that are consistent with Internal arts and so argued that if the mechanics are the same then, regardless of the teaching method or semantics involved those techniques can be seen as internal. He argued, while noting method and semantics differences, that this is not the case in his opinion. Simply because he does not produce a treatise on the subject to your satisfaction doesn't mean it wasn't addressed.

 

[guy b.]

Pretty sure on that last bit he did, if in broad strokes, earlier when I raised that the Wing Chun I study rather holistic, or hybrid, and thus contains internal and external principles side by side.

You could go to wikipedia and copy paste something similar. There is nothing specific enough to answer.

 

[SaulGoodman]

I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term, or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific. So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense. Beyond that he really hasn't provided any detail at all.

As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.

You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.

 

[geezer]

I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be.

...You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.

Dang. It's happening again. I seem to find myself agreeing with Guy again.

My concept of VT/WT/WC doesn't deny the possible benefits of "internal" training, but we don't emphasize it either. We consider our system "soft" in that we stress relaxation and proper structure rather than pure muscular strength to achieve power, and we seek to borrow force rather than clashing with it. So we are "soft" but not "internal" ...at least in the sense that some of the classical Chinese arts are.

If you want to talk about qi, dantien, meridians, and the like, fine. On the other hand, like GM Yip, we feel that everything we do can be adequately explained with simple scientific principles as well. There are many ways to explain things that can be useful to the student. I'm good with whatever works, since the proof is in the pudding.

 

[WTchap]

I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term...

If you reread my posts, you'll see I've answered this already.

...or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific.

As a WSLVT practitioner, if you're really interested I'd suggest you contact him. I can see where he's coming from, and so from his already-stated perspective I don't need to know more - though I'd be interested to hear it, sure.

So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense

Yes, and that has also already been addressed in earlier posts. His point is imperfectly worded, but most reasonable people can see the point he's trying to make.

As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.

I'd rather that you describe Yiquan in a sentence or two, to be honest - as, IMO, it is actually a deep art. Simplified in form (Xing), complex in Yi.

However, I'll talk about it in part in answer to your question below...

You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to.

Again, I've already answered this in previous posts. I said that the difference is to "get more bang for your buck." This work can aid in greater power development, and help to get the power out. Using it can help in other ways too, for example, how you manage incoming force. The difference between this and "normal day to day life" as you put it, is optimisation. Hence, why I referenced Yoga and breathing, and Kuroda Sensei and a sword draw.

But if you want to look at some of this from Yiquan, I'd say look to Yiquan's Zhan Zhuang (as all internal arts make use of the same training you find here).

In a static pose, you're relaxing into the posture, trying to maintain it using only the necessary postural muscles, but using the natural effect of gravity to add in 'some' tension in the tissues required for a release of energy/force (so Zhan Zhuang training is connected to Fa Li training). I know you're going to say "what tissues?"... well, think about it for a bit, or ask your teacher.

The postures also typically make use of the winding and/or pulling that I mentioned in earlier replies to your questions, to help with this. They also might use a form of pairing, too. I know you're going to ask "what does winding, pulling and pairing mean?"... well, think about it a bit, or ask your teacher.

All of the tissues and muscle groupings 'connect' back to the center, and so this training as a whole helps work, and connect, the parts of the body that have great potential for storing and releasing. There is an elastic quality to this work. From this, you can probably understand why I earlier quoted Wang Xiangzhai talking about movement and non-movement, empty and full, relaxed and tense. If you don't understand, think more about it, or ask your teacher.

Tai Chi should also make use of this, as should Xingyi, as should Bagua.

The reason that there's so much visualisation in this practise relates back to what I've posted earlier on this subject. In Zhan Zhuang, the optimisation I mentioned relates to working the high potential for power/force, and is trained from static postures that are not actually static at all (as described above).

How you think that can be summed up in "two sentences, it's simple" is beyond me (and brevity itself).

 

[Nobody Important]

Dang. It's happening again. I seem to find myself agreeing with Guy again.

My concept of VT/WT/WC doesn't deny the possible benefits of "internal" training, but we don't emphasize it either. We consider our system "soft" in that we stress relaxation and proper structure rather than pure muscular strength to achieve power, and we seek to borrow force rather than clashing with it. So we are "soft" but not "internal" ...at least in the sense that some of the classical Chinese arts are.

If you want to talk about qi, dantien, meridians, and the like, fine. On the other hand, like GM Yip, we feel that everything we do can be adequately explained with simple scientific principles as well. There are many ways to explain things that can be useful to the student. I'm good with whatever works, since the proof is in the pudding.

I find this agreeable, however, the topic of "internal" can be quite ambiguous & suggestive. It depends on how one views & understands the topic of internal. Is it simply relaxation & intent, is it structure & alignment, is it breathing, is it a mindset, is it chi or is it all these things? If so to what degree is each emphasized & why?

Without specific excepted parameters agreed upon by all parties a discussion on internal can become quite a quagmire.

 

[guy b.]

I find this agreeable, however, the topic of "internal" can be quite ambiguous & suggestive. It depends on how one views & understands the topic of internal. Is it simply relaxation & intent, is it structure & alignment, is it breathing, is it a mindset, is it chi or is it all these things? If so to what degree is each emphasized & why?

Without specific excepted parameters agreed upon by all parties a discussion on internal can become quite a quagmire.

Correct. Without specific information it is possible to be talking about completely different things while both using the fuzzy language of "internal"

 

[WTchap]

Without specific excepted parameters agreed upon by all parties a discussion on internal can become quite a quagmire.

Aint that the truth! In my opinion, the greatest contribution to sorting out 'internal' comes from today's teachers - and often (though not always) from people in the West.

Masters from the past new their arts' results from experience, but perhaps described the cause and effect incorrectly. So we have odd stories and theories concerning Qi/Chi, claims/ideas that have not (as yet) been reliably tested.

I don't think in terms of Qi. It's far simpler to look at what is actually happening physically.

Is it simply relaxation & intent, is it structure & alignment, is it breathing, is it a mindset, is it chi or is it all these things?

With the exception of Qi, I think it is all of these things plus the use of the dantien, and utilising "connections" LOL - the 'body suit' is a nice way of tying the latter two together in a way that makes sense (without needing too much knowledge of anatomy)

If so to what degree is each emphasized & why?

From what I'm taught, all of the above is learned and is equally important. But maybe the quagmire can't be fully avoided (it is a kinda complex form of training), and in that sense it's like the "what did Yip Man teach?" arguments, or "who got the real YM Wing Chun?" discussions... these topics have been debated pretty much ever since YM's death in the 70s.

And sometimes, no names need be mentioned, some people just like to argue.

 

[WTchap]

Without specific information it is possible to be talking about completely different things while both using the fuzzy language of "internal"

Well, regarding Zuan Zhuang in Yiquan, I gave you (above) enough information for you to tell me how it relates to your own understanding and training in Yiquan.

 

[guy b.]

If you reread my posts, you'll see I've answered this already.

You haven't answered in a specific way, only in terms so general as to be meaningless

As a WSLVT practitioner, if you're really interested I'd suggest you contact him. I can see where he's coming from, and so from his already-stated perspective I don't need to know more - though I'd be interested to hear it, sure

I don't need to know either. I know what I am training in internal MA and I strongly suspect, from what they say, that this person has no clue. I am inviting criticism in this thread. If there is criticism to make then make it please.

most reasonable people can see the point he's trying to make.

I am sorry, I don't see it, and I am a reasonable person with internal MA experience. What he is saying seems on the face of it to be nonsense. I think that he is probably trying to rationalise his illogical choice to himself, rather than face the unpalatable truths about himself which would make his choice logical.

I'd rather that you describe Yiquan in a sentence or two, to be honest

I think this is probably because you are worried you will give the wrong answer

In a static pose, you're relaxing into the posture, trying to maintain it using only the necessary postural muscles, but using the natural effect of gravity to add in 'some' tension in the tissues required for a release of energy/force (so Zhan Zhuang training is connected to Fa Li training). I know you're going to say "what tissues?"... well, think about it for a bit, or ask your teacher.

The postures also typically make use of the winding and/or pulling that I mentioned in earlier replies to your questions, to help with this. They also might use a form of pairing, too. I know you're going to ask "what does winding, pulling and pairing mean?"... well, think about it a bit, or ask your teacher.

All of the tissues and muscle groupings 'connect' back to the center, and so this training as a whole helps work, and connect, the parts of the body that have great potential for storing and releasing. There is an elastic quality to this work. From this, you can probably understand why I earlier quoted Wang Xiangzhai talking about movement and non-movement, empty and full, relaxed and tense. If you don't understand, think more about it, or ask your teacher.

Tai Chi should also make use of this, as should Xingyi, as should Bagua.

The reason that there's so much visualisation in this practise relates back to what I've posted earlier on this subject. In Zhan Zhuang, the optimisation I mentioned relates to working the high potential for power/force, and is trained from static postures that are not actually static at all (as described above).

How you think that can be summed up in "two sentences, it's simple" is beyond me (and brevity itself).

It can be summed up in 3 or 4 words, none of which appear here

 

[Nobody Important]

Aint that the truth! In my opinion, the greatest contribution to sorting out 'internal' comes from today's teachers - and often (though not always) from people in the West.

Masters from the past new their arts' results from experience, but perhaps described the cause and effect incorrectly. So we have odd stories and theories concerning Qi/Chi, claims/ideas that have not (as yet) been reliably tested.

I don't think in terms of Qi. It's far simpler to look at what is actually happening physically.



With the exception of Qi, I think it is all of these things plus the use of the dantien, and utilising "connections" LOL - the 'body suit' is a nice way of tying the latter two together in a way that makes sense (without needing too much knowledge of anatomy)



From what I'm taught, all of the above is learned and is equally important. But maybe the quagmire can't be fully avoided (it is a kinda complex from of training), and in that sense it's like the "what did Yip Man teach?" arguments, or "who got the real YM Wing Chun?" discussions... these topics have been debated pretty much ever since YM's death in the 70s.

And sometimes, no names need be mentioned, some people just like to argue.

I think that any discussion that involves Dantian could not exclude simultaneous discussion of Chi. It is a major chakra in CMA, the Field of Cinnabar, and as such a storage place of Chi. I think yao (waist) is a better topic & less controversial, lol.

 

[WTchap]

@guy b.

Okay (sigh), I'm done with you. If that's your response to Zuan Zhuang training in Yiquan, then:

1. Sorry, I don't believe you're actually studying the art - you're just bull$hitting your way to more questions
2. There's no point in me trying further. No matter how much I give you, no matter how much I try to explain something to you, you're just going to continue saying that to you it is "meaningless"
3. Your inability to even attempt an answer to others questions is just rude.

You're a troll . Congratulations, you convinced me to keep trying. Idiotically, I did try.

Good luck with whatever the heck internal art you think you're training.

 

[WTchap]

I think that any discussion that involves Dantian could not exclude simultaneous discussion of Chi. It is a major chakra in CMA, the Field of Cinnabar, and as such a storage place of Chi.

I think that for some, this is how they describe it. For me, Qi, and talk of monitoring it etc., is a very wiggly can of worms.

The dantien and mingmen training that I’ve been taught is a set of physical exercises for this area of the body (combining breath work with physically expanding and contracting, etc.; and then leading on to rotational movements and side-to-side movements, and so on). There’s a lot of stretching going on, and it takes a bit of coordination, too. It's good training – and in some exercises it shows well how movement in the dantien area can directly correspond with/lead the arms.

I think yao (waist) is a better topic & less controversial, lol.

Less controversial, for sure.

 

[guy b.]

@guy b.Okay, I'm done

Ok

Sorry, I don't believe you're actually studying the art

That's your perogative. I am stuying Yiquan

o matter how much I try to explain something to you, you're just going to continue saying that to you it is meaningless

I think you aren't that good at explaining. If you want to make a criticism you need to be clear. Virtually nothing in internal MA is clear, and most understand very little.

Your inability to even attempt an answer to others questions is just rude

I'm sorry, the only questions I saw were ones where you were attempting to get me to answer my own question to you. If I missed anything different then please ask again and I will do my best to answer (if it is important to you).

Congratulations, you convinced me to keep trying

I am not interested in continuing meaningless discussion, which is what this has amounted to. I do wish to answer criticism of VT where it arises. Since you didn't provide anything concrete it wasn't possible to answer and I wouldn't count it as meaningful criticism. Sorry. I am very happy to stop talking about it.