Where does the power come from in a fajing strike/ an internal power strike?

Why is fa jin a dead end? It's just a word used to describe something. If it's a dead end, so are the words "dead end".

 

Fa Jin training is harmful to the body , and a skill which if acquired can ( it seems ) put a ceiling on how far you progress , so I choose to call it a dead end for ease of translation.
As taught to me it was called ' not useful '
I have no idea if the term dead end is a dead end lol ... I suppose it would be odd if it wasn't
Dakang

 

Also , any good training system will change your vision, your hearing and what you ' see' ,
So tell me what else you know

 

I'd be really interested in which of your teachers told you that...

They might improve your awareness, but they will not 'change' your vision, hearing etc..

Why should we tell you anything, when you're happy to give cryptic responses to us?

 

Yes, it simply means releasing power or issuing power and however you need to use it. After that it becomes about "how" and that can be style specific in terms of body mechanics.

In my opinion a lot/ most styles in the world use "the whip" model, but I think there is a different model evident in tai chi/IMA I would term "the bow" which is a bit different.

Often the whip is described as sequential but that can give the wrong idea. the whole whip moves together (whole body) but the kinetic chain running through the whip inside is sequential - think of the way a whip generates it's "snap".

The (whole body) bow gathers/releases at once, rather than have that internal kinetic chain. The bow model used the 5 main bows of the body in a stretch and release action - 2 arms, 2 legs, spine which combines with the actions/descriptions of opening and closing.

Issuing power can be on the open/ stretch or the close/ release of "the bow".
On the "bows". Imagine each end is like a fixed point and the central part creates movement and tension against those points in either direction. TCC people should be very familiar with the analogy as it is all over the classics.

There are other body mechanic elements such as training the core and inguinal crease area that also come into things. But this is basically how my own training has transpired to include both these basic models of power generation. Both models are good and useful in their own way to me, we have just one and the same body at the end of the day.

 

Maybe it was Chen Yuen San.

About fajin training being damaging, It really depends which type. Some things in CMA are probably not that healthy. White Crane in Taiwan for example has led to more than a few people going bat crazy with their vibrating qigong and that kind of thing. His teacher is from Taiwan so maybe that influences the thinking.

Mostly though, it's safe as long as you stay away from some "weird stuff".

 

I know your responses are unhelpful and unclear and that this typically indicates a lack of any actual ability.

Cryptic responses have little to no place on a discussion board, especially if they are discussing a technical topic. Now of course I cannot stop you using them, but I can point out how silly they make you appear and hope this makes you contribute more to what is a fascinating subject

 

Is that the cause or is it "Helter Skelter" on Charles Manson?

 

It seems like I have seen this debate before!, internal or external?, it will ussally go no where, only pit one person against another, and **** everyone off.

 

Watched the first video and all it seems like to me is a guy throwing a right cross at a focus mitt... Nothing very CMA looking about it at all. See it all the time though, generating power as we all know is important but in my mind I have yet to understand why people chase the mystic teachings of certain martial arts when its far easier to chase the unrefined teachings of Guss the boxing coach...lols.

 

Essentially, yes - I'm throwing a right cross at a focus mitt.

Just because I didn't adopt the Flying Mongoose posture immediately before striking, and land in the Contemplative Badger pose afterwards, doesn't make it "not CMA".

 

If you quote "the classics" - like you did some years ago here, you would be advised to quote which classic text, which translator and which passage.

 

It only annoys those who maintain there is a marked difference between the two

There isnt

 

I think you have that backwards, it annoys people who don't know there is a difference.

 

2.5 years ago, you were not capable of explaining 'the difference' beyond some vague references to 'read the classics' - which you refused to elaborate upon with any tangible point of reference. Furthermore, it looks like rhetorical reversals is still your sole instrument, oh brother Loxley.

Maybe now that have attained mastery of ICMA - you have told us zero about your training, but we can pass on that, and assume that your wisdom came out of the cornflakes packet - maybe you can elaborate and explicitly express with clarity, what the 'difference' is?

 

Ahhhh the firm conviction of the inexperienced.....I remember those days

You are wrong by the way