Martial Arts Experiences Discussion Thread

[James Y]

Stabbed For No Reason



Jim

[James Y]

Sifu Alan Yee, Choy Li Fut Kung Fu / Interview with Mark V. Wiley



This is one of the best martial arts interviews I've listened to, because he is both very knowledgeable and humble. Very few martial artists possess both of those traits.

BTW, to avoid confusion, Choy Li Fut is just an alternate spelling of Choy Lee Fut. There are several other alternate English-language spellings that different people use, like Choi Lai Fut, Choy Lay Fut, Choy Lei Faht, etc., etc. But the Chinese characters are the same. There are different lineages, but they are all Choy Lee Fut, and come from the same root.

In Mandarin, Choy Lee Fut is pronounced Cai Li Fo.

Regarding "internal power," or "internal energy development," my CLF sifu, as well as Master Chan Yong-Fa of Australia (whom Alan Yee mentions in the interview, and who held a 3-day workshop here at the invitation of my sifu back in 2001), both possess very high internal development, even though most people consider Choy Lee Fut as strictly an "external" system. TBH, they both possessed more "internal development" than I've seen in some practitioners of "internal" styles, like some teachers of Xingyi, Tai Chi/Taiji, etc. In reality, CLF contains both internal and external practices. My point in bringing it up here is that a highly advanced practitioner of virtually ANY martial art can possess "internal development," if Qigong of any kind is a part of the curriculum.

In application, when I use CLF, I tend to prefer medium to close-range. CLF is not just wide, long-range arm-swinging. That's a misconception people get from seeing people doing CLF forms. My sifu (and myself by extension) tends to shorten the movements in actual use. It can be done without any loss of power, and it can be very difficult to defend against that way. Also, many long-range-looking strikes in CLF actually work as combination strikes and takedowns in body-contact range.

Jim

[James Y]

Bruce Leung Dead at 77 / 20 Short Videos, a Chilling Comment - Why Was His Death Hidden for 4 Days?



Bruce Leung was the real deal. He was truly a legitimate hard-core, old-school martial artist. I was aware of his passing, but had not been aware that there were possibly suspicious circumstances surrounding his passing.

Jim

[Scandi Grind]

Regarding "internal power," or "internal energy development," my CLF sifu, as well as Master Chan Yong-Fa of Australia (whom Alan Yee mentions in the interview, and who held a 3-day workshop here at the invitation of my sifu back in 2001), both possess very high internal development, even though most people consider Choy Lee Fut as strictly an "external" system. TBH, they both possessed more "internal development" than I've seen in some practitioners of "internal" styles, like some teachers of Xingyi, Tai Chi/Taiji, etc. In reality, CLF contains both internal and external practices. My point in bringing it up here is that a highly advanced practitioner of virtually ANY martial art can possess "internal development," if Qigong of any kind is a part of the curriculum.

I've noticed this, and after understanding the nature of internal power it didn't seem odd that supposed "external" practitioners could demonstrate high levels of internal skill. As people we actually can't get away without using internal power, and most people who are well versed in a physical art will, if nothing else, inadvertently develop their internal power. Internal martial arts are not all that different than external ones in practical execution, the biggest difference tends to be where the stress is placed.

Their are a few reasons that I ended up attracted to internal arts for my own practice. The biggest thing was that I am not healthy, so I was looking for something that could maximize the effect of what limited energy I have available to me. Another thing I like about them is that they make the practitioner very aware of their internal state. I heard a teacher of an internal art describe how he did not want to teach someone a skill if he didn't also teach that person how to use it maturely. Mastery of a physical skill such as fighting for a person who is easily angered can be a disastrous combination. Internal mastery is very much in line with many beneficial behaviors in both life and potentially dangerous situations. Calmness, patience, humility, fearlessness, decisiveness, these are actually things you can train. Many people don't realize you can actually practice getting better at these things, they feel like they are bound to whatever "personality" or traits they already have. Internal arts makes a point to train these things and I found that highly usefull in light of my physical limitations.

On the flip side, not everyone does well with the idea of internal power. Sometimes it's confusing, distracting, or they just don't like the idea regardless of how real it may be. Some people do much better by thinking about the external and letting their body figure out the internal without much conscious focus on the matter. They will still be learning the internal, and some pointers here and there concerning mental skills probably will help too, but structuring your practice around an internal first method isn't the most productive for everyone. Even internal practitioners have to learn to feel the internal power through physical practice, otherwise they will not be able to exhibit that power in their motions, so the practice of either can be quite similar. I think the easiest way I have found to describe the distinction between the two is that internal arts start with the internal, then build up the external, while external arts start with the external and this gives rise to the increase of the internal.

[Naperville]

I cannot do gymnastics. I signed up for a college level gymnastics class and their seemed to be little to no training, so I dropped the course.

If I could find a flexibility and balance class that would be great.

At 65 I am interested in keeping active physically and mentally so I am going to try something. I have to.

I am definitely going to do Tai Chi. 100%.

I may try pilates again. The instructors were not that great, and they do not teach or call out the activity that followed loudly enough. (I think that I may get a hearing aid to help.) I need to get an excellent instructor and place myself near them so that they show me what to do.

I will try some escrima/ arnis / kali.

The problem is I have to take a lot of supplements and pain killers before any activity because my flexibility is ZERO after sitting for 30 minutes. I'm not knocking the disabled. I move like one if I sit for too long.

Wishing you all the best in your health and training.

Tai Chi would be a good exercise. There are different forms of Tai Chi (Taiji Quan):

Yang style is the most common; and simplified Yang style is probably the one most taught to seniors.

Wu style is one I don’t know much about, even though I very briefly learned a bit back in the ‘80s.

Chen style, which is the oldest form of Tai Chi, incorporates more “martial” aspects, as well as more “fa jing” (power generation for martial purposes). It is more physically demanding than the other Tai Chi styles.

There are some others, variations probably, but I think those are the main ones. You would probably really have to search to find someone who legitimately teaches the Chen style. Yang style is the easiest to find, but it may only be taught as an exercise. Some Yang (and probably Wu) stylists might understand the martial aspects.

For whatever reason, Tai Chi has never appealed to me. As I mentioned, I learned a little bit of Wu style back in the early ‘80s, but didn’t stick with it. Much later in 2004, I learned a tiny bit of Yang style, because it was a course requirement when I was going through massage therapy school, to teach therapists proper body mechanics. I barely practiced it, because I already had the body mechanics down from having trained so long in Chinese martial arts, both northern and southern systems (Tanglang Quan, Chang Quan, and Choy Lee Fut. When doing the Tai Chi form, my body mechanics were actually more sound and “Tai Chi-like” than the teacher’s, so that part of the requirements was easy for me. But as soon as that was no longer a requirement for me, I just stopped doing the Tai Chi. IMO, Tai Chi is an excellent practice; but I guess that it just never appealed to me, personally, for some reason.

Jim

You are one of the best to chat with regarding martial arts.

I am in contact with my Kali martial arts nstructor. I hope that he can train me 5+ hours per week. I will try to keep you in the loop.

[James Y]

Regarding "internal power," or "internal energy development," my CLF sifu, as well as Master Chan Yong-Fa of Australia (whom Alan Yee mentions in the interview, and who held a 3-day workshop here at the invitation of my sifu back in 2001), both possess very high internal development, even though most people consider Choy Lee Fut as strictly an "external" system. TBH, they both possessed more "internal development" than I've seen in some practitioners of "internal" styles, like some teachers of Xingyi, Tai Chi/Taiji, etc. In reality, CLF contains both internal and external practices. My point in bringing it up here is that a highly advanced practitioner of virtually ANY martial art can possess "internal development," if Qigong of any kind is a part of the curriculum.

I've noticed this, and after understanding the nature of internal power it didn't seem odd that supposed "external" practitioners could demonstrate high levels of internal skill. As people we actually can't get away without using internal power, and most people who are well versed in a physical art will, if nothing else, inadvertently develop their internal power. Internal martial arts are not all that different than external ones in practical execution, the biggest difference tends to be where the stress is placed.

Their are a few reasons that I ended up attracted to internal arts for my own practice. The biggest thing was that I am not healthy, so I was looking for something that could maximize the effect of what limited energy I have available to me. Another thing I like about them is that they make the practitioner very aware of their internal state. I heard a teacher of an internal art describe how he did not want to teach someone a skill if he didn't also teach that person how to use it maturely. Mastery of a physical skill such as fighting for a person who is easily angered can be a disastrous combination. Internal mastery is very much in line with many beneficial behaviors in both life and potentially dangerous situations. Calmness, patience, humility, fearlessness, decisiveness, these are actually things you can train. Many people don't realize you can actually practice getting better at these things, they feel like they are bound to whatever "personality" or traits they already have. Internal arts makes a point to train these things and I found that highly usefull in light of my physical limitations.

On the flip side, not everyone does well with the idea of internal power. Sometimes it's confusing, distracting, or they just don't like the idea regardless of how real it may be. Some people do much better by thinking about the external and letting their body figure out the internal without much conscious focus on the matter. They will still be learning the internal, and some pointers here and there concerning mental skills probably will help too, but structuring your practice around an internal first method isn't the most productive for everyone. Even internal practitioners have to learn to feel the internal power through physical practice, otherwise they will not be able to exhibit that power in their motions, so the practice of either can be quite similar. I think the easiest way I have found to describe the distinction between the two is that internal arts start with the internal, then build up the external, while external arts start with the external and this gives rise to the increase of the internal.

Great post! Thank you for sharing. You make many great points here.

Oddly enough, there are actually quite a few "religious fundamentalist" types who view Asian martial arts, especially if they discuss anything related to Qi, as 'demonic'. When in truth, Qi is simply life force. But such people would certainly have a big problem with even the concept of Qi, much less 'developing' it.

Jim

[James Y]

I cannot do gymnastics. I signed up for a college level gymnastics class and their seemed to be little to no training, so I dropped the course.

If I could find a flexibility and balance class that would be great.

At 65 I am interested in keeping active physically and mentally so I am going to try something. I have to.

I am definitely going to do Tai Chi. 100%.

I may try pilates again. The instructors were not that great, and they do not teach or call out the activity that followed loudly enough. (I think that I may get a hearing aid to help.) I need to get an excellent instructor and place myself near them so that they show me what to do.

I will try some escrima/ arnis / kali.

The problem is I have to take a lot of supplements and pain killers before any activity because my flexibility is ZERO after sitting for 30 minutes. I'm not knocking the disabled. I move like one if I sit for too long.

Wishing you all the best in your health and training.

Tai Chi would be a good exercise. There are different forms of Tai Chi (Taiji Quan):

Yang style is the most common; and simplified Yang style is probably the one most taught to seniors.

Wu style is one I don’t know much about, even though I very briefly learned a bit back in the ‘80s.

Chen style, which is the oldest form of Tai Chi, incorporates more “martial” aspects, as well as more “fa jing” (power generation for martial purposes). It is more physically demanding than the other Tai Chi styles.

There are some others, variations probably, but I think those are the main ones. You would probably really have to search to find someone who legitimately teaches the Chen style. Yang style is the easiest to find, but it may only be taught as an exercise. Some Yang (and probably Wu) stylists might understand the martial aspects.

For whatever reason, Tai Chi has never appealed to me. As I mentioned, I learned a little bit of Wu style back in the early ‘80s, but didn’t stick with it. Much later in 2004, I learned a tiny bit of Yang style, because it was a course requirement when I was going through massage therapy school, to teach therapists proper body mechanics. I barely practiced it, because I already had the body mechanics down from having trained so long in Chinese martial arts, both northern and southern systems (Tanglang Quan, Chang Quan, and Choy Lee Fut. When doing the Tai Chi form, my body mechanics were actually more sound and “Tai Chi-like” than the teacher’s, so that part of the requirements was easy for me. But as soon as that was no longer a requirement for me, I just stopped doing the Tai Chi. IMO, Tai Chi is an excellent practice; but I guess that it just never appealed to me, personally, for some reason.

Jim

You are one of the best to chat with regarding martial arts.

I am in contact with my Kali martial arts nstructor. I hope that he can train me 5+ hours per week. I will try to keep you in the loop.

Thank you. Good to hear that you got in contact with your teacher.

Jim

[James Y]

"Palm Striking vs Punching in a Street Fight ... What's Better?"



"What's better" is going to depend on you. Some people are very effective with punching, and prefer it, so they should use that. I've used both effectively in real fights, but had more dramatically effective results on the two occasions I used open-handed strikes, with far less risk of hand injury than with punching.

When I use straight palm heel strikes, my fingers are like his fingers are held in his thumbnail pic; fingers are together and bent, almost in a half-fist position. When I palm heel hook, my fingers are still together and bent, but not as bent as in a half-fist. It's up to each person to find what works for them.

I NEVER have my fingers straight, and/or splayed apart, like a lot of combatives / self-defense instructors demonstrate in their videos.

One thing I do in all of my palm heel strikes is, instead of having my hand bent back to extend the palm heel for the entire distance of the strike, like most people demonstrate, I rock my palm heel forward a split-instant before my strike makes contact. This amplifies the force of the strike, and also provides a little element of added safety for the wrist, if something should happen to block it, or get in the way before the strike lands.

Many people mistakenly say that palm-heel striking is exactly the same as boxing, but with open hands. This is incorrect. There are differences, some subtle and others not so subtle. Distancing, hand, arm, and body positioning relative to the opponent and the target; all are important differences between boxing and palm heel striking. They are both methods of striking with the hands, but they are different skill sets.

Another big misconception is that palm heel strikes require very little training, and are better for people who don't know how to fight, or how to punch. This is not true. Those who say that have probably not actually trained palm heel striking extensively. To really be effective, palm heel striking requires every bit as much training as punching; perhaps even more. Especially for most males, whose natural inclination is to throw closed fists in fights, even if they have no boxing or martial arts training.

As he shows, palm heel striking can also be combined with other skills, like grabbing, pulling, raking, etc. But it's also important to be aware that whether your initial palm strike lands or not, the opponent is going to move. He won't remain stationary, so any combination that follows has to take that into account.

Personally, I believe in putting maximum power and intention into every strike, especially that first strike. There are a few other demonstrators on YouTube that show pitter-patter palm strike combinations that require the recipient to stand completely stationary for several strikes. I prefer combinations that do not exceed 2 strikes, 3 at the very most. Because what follows is going to depend on the opponent's reactions and altered positioning.

Just my 2 cents' worth

Jim