Who do you mean by everyone else? Is it only you that understands the entity of Chinese Chi work? Is that more or less likely then you have misunderstood something about the subject?
Great gymnasts would be great at chi, yes. Just because something is objective doesn't mean it's widely known. What are you talking about? A lot of objective facts aren't common knowledge. There's a planet in the universe that rains molten glass. Does the fact that not a lot of people know that mean the planet doesn't exist? Because the use of chi is so widely applicable that there's no one way to train it. It depends on what you're doing also. The body adapts to the demands you put on it. Muscle memory and whatnot. Chi Kung training.. by that fact.. is a load of horse. You train chi by learning to do a particular physical activity with the most ease as possible. Full stop. I'm saying I'm not taking him on faith.
If chi was just used as a chinese term for "good body mechanics and efficient movement" then I'm pretty sure no one would have an issue with it. I wouldn't. But we all know, as this thread has shown, that is categorically not how how it is used and not how it is widely understood. If chi only means "good body mechanics" it would have no place in acupuncture or reiki right? How can Feng shui practitioners manipulate chi if chi only means "good body mechanics and efficient movement"!?
Ah...so the word chi doesn't JUST apply to "efficient movement" then? It's a term that is used metaphorically in multiple ways?
How about you describe the point you are trying to make here? Rather than saying "go look at a video." If you can't describe your point here, how can you claim to know what you say so many others get wrong?
So when certain chi masters are knocking down students without touching them they simply have remarkable body mechanics going on And when they then get knocked out by MMA fighters their mechanics have failed them?
If it's objectively true, the people with the most experience will know about it, so astro physicists (and a lot more people really) will know about planets with raining glass. So chi is real, but chi Kung isn't, even though the majority (all?) Of the chi training experts say chi Kung is real? Is it more likely your misunderstanding this, or that they are? Re YouTube personalities, cool, what is he unboxing today? Re training efficiency, yep that's how you get good at anything, training efficiently, and then doing supllimentary training on top when you can. Not taking people on faith? But that's what your asking people here to do with your claims.
If that MMA fighter has better chi, then an MMA fighter should challenge the Chi MMA fighter, so see who has the best Chi, like a fighting championship, but with Chi, a grand ultimate fighting championship fist if you will! I wonder what we could call it?
That's not how this works. This isn't an honorable verbal duel or whatever.. this is me trying to educate you. Meaning if I tell you to watch a video, you don't mental gymnastic your way out of it with "bro just tell us yourself instead of pointing us to people who explain it better," it means you drop your ego and watch the damn video.
I'm not repeating my point about the planet that rains glass to you. The difference is that the people I'm pointing you to have experience and proof of it. The OP is a random guy.
And, who exactly are you? What is your experience in the martial arts? What is your experience in the so-called "internal arts"? What makes you an authority that should be listened to?
So MMA training is better at developing chi than 100's of years of chinese martial arts and chi-kung?
Someone who's done actual research as opposed to.. oh I don't know.. watched a bunch of no-touch knockout videos and disregarded the concept entirely because that's the socially correct thing to do.