What I'm after here is discussion of the bodily factors involved in martial arts and such, to get some ideas for something I'm writing.

A bit of background. In the navy we learnt to fight and kill. We learnt to hurt people, make them stop talking, damage them, kill them, et cetera. Our unarmed combat was about doing real damage. Then I got out of the navy, and later went to look at some civilian martial arts schools. What I saw was a sport, in every case, in every school. Martial means combat, fighting. These people were playing sports. Not a single thing I saw would work in a real fight against, for example, a military chap. They didn't train with the purpose of hurting and killing, only to follow forms and pass grading exams. So far I have not seen any civilian "martial" art which comes close to actually being martial.

That is my background behind all this.

It seems to me that there is a difference betweem a big burly lad punching you and a small wiry lad punching you. Let's use two examples, a heavyweight weighin 100kg and a lightweight weighing 60kg. Say they each manage to put thirty per cent of their mass into the blow, as an example. If the small lad hits at 10m/s and the big lad hits at only 8m/s, the big lad is still imparting more kinetic energy. So obviously strength is a matter of muscle mass and size (considering they had near equal physical training).

Now, what I am interested in is:

1) Can anyone give me details of muscle density differences between genders?

2) Can anyone give me details of action and reaction speed differences between genders?

Any other factors of bodily motion and make-up (meaning the make-up of the human body, tissue density and such) I need to consider?

I to was trained in the forces, and when i left i joined the civilian martial art forms,and you are wrong in saying that none of the forms that are taught to the civilians are deadly as the ones that i got taught by my civilian teacher where very close to the forms that i already knew, it does not matter what size you are if you do the moves right then down goes the enemy, the oly differenc between the forces martial art is you are trained to kill, the civilian teaching is to protect yourself, you have to know where to draw the line from eather, dont kill if you dont have to.

I seem to remember that males have an average of 20% more muscle density.

Here:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/vol25/table.htm

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/gender.htm

A set of links - http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ed_fn635/female/refgender.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2733081&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

Hope that helps a bit.

Funny, when I was taking martial arts classes I somtimes wondered how well I would do in a real fight against some of my partners.

I don't know about training to pass exams....moving up in class was never really my goal. But I did not train to learn how to kill either.

I know a chap, a little slavic Macedonian, who has been into various Asian styles of martial arts for about 15 years. He was in a half-contact tournament and easily beat a little Chinese chap from the Shaolin academy in China (as in the academy). Now this chap is quite good with forms and flips and all. No doubt he could whip most untrained civilians. But in practice, he can't touch me; or if he does, I barely feel it. He can not match my size and strength, nor my ability, even though he has been training a lot longer than me.

Nice links, thanks.

Good point. It would seem that size does matter.

Then again, the only real fight I have been in was with a man quite a bit stronger than I was and with better training. I won.

However, I think that my ability to stay rational had more to do with it than my training. That is one thing the civilian martial arts help teach....

*Sigh*

If only they helped with discipline. I should be studying. :D

I guess another thing is that the individual involved does matter. I know that even among my fellows in the navy, there was a HUGE difference in who could do what. Many of them I'm sure would be dead meat against that civilian chap I mentioned. This is what I'm trying to figure out: the key elements of the matter.

It is not to learn to fight or kill,it is not to pass a class and to grade or wear a different colour belt, the main thing is to understand the culture and the art, i study the arts and i also study the culture,it is to bring both mind and body together,once you have done that you still have not finished you have to bring your spirit together with your mind and boby, chi kung is a form of martial art, so is the art of learning there ways eating there way living there way in some ways, i have a japanese garden complete with japanese bonsai trees, orniments water falls into a pond full of koi carp my garden is my own kind of temple, in summer i practice my martial art there.

Studying culture and art through one small aspect of what that culture has produced (a fighting or sport style) is not martial arts. Martial means combat/fighting. If you are not studying combat/fighting, then you are not studying a martial art. There is a big difference between actual martial arts and gymnastic sports forms such as that used by Jet Li and the Beijing opera.

Adam it seem that you can not grasp the concept of martial art it seems that you are trapped inside the navy all you want to do is kill, leave the navy behind and learn, to live, you dont have to turn an art into a killing tool, it already is, you have not opened your mind to it yet be maybe in ten more years then you might start to look at the art in the way it is ment to be looked at, if you do martial art right then you have the choice you can kill, or not, example if you hit a man in the nose you smash it, if you hit it upwards hard enough you will send the bone into the brain, if that is not killing someone then tell me what is.

I grasp the concept. The word "martial" means fighting/combat. That's what the word means. My own preferences don't change that. And no, I do not like violence. If a sport is not about fighting/combat, then it is not a martial art, by definition. Shooting with a rifle is a martial art. Learning to shoot missiles at other ships is a martial art. Perfecting your backflip style is a sport. My own ideas about combat and violence and such are irrelevent to the fact that "martial" means fighting/combat.

any prick can fire a rifle, any prick can push a button to shoot a missile or drop a bomb, but to see two people fight in the ancient style of martial art is breath taking, the speed the perfection the order, can be fantastic, it is two people hand to hand with no weapons, perfection in it's own right.

Yes, anyone can use a gun. But that doesn't make it any less a martial art. If it is a method of fighting and killing, it is a martial art by definition. Speed and precision do not make something any less a sport. You have seen Formula One car racing? Amazing speed and precision, no weapons. And it is a sport.

Hmm, I'd say that the individual is paramount, the factors being

1: Size, somtimes simply being larger is enough to win a fight
2: Strength, of course
3: Mentality, the ability to stay calm and controlled

As for the purpose of martial art, it is to learn how to fight, and by extension, to kill. If perfecting ones style serves that purpose, it is part of the martial arts....if not, it is more like gymnastics.

It goes back to my musings on who I could beat in a fight. Many of my classmates, who were better than me on the mat, would have probably lost in a fight with me. And there were several people who I was better than on the mat, who would have beat me in a fight simply based on size and strength.

And of course, a true fight involves weapons. I wonder how many blackbelts know how to fire a gun without being hurt by the slide? I've known a couple who I am fairly sure could not.

Edit to respond to Blastoff:

No not exactly. It takes training to be, say, a sniper. And even using a handgun takes more than the ability to 'point and shoot'. And, not any prick can fly a B-52. That takes training.

Guns look easy to use. But it takes a bit of skill to aim, to steel yourself against the kick, and to avoid being cut by the retraction of the slide.

(And then, there is disposing of the bodies. That takes skill as well. :D)

Size, somtimes simply being larger is enough to win a fight
It could be true that bigger the size, the more impact of your punch, but it could be a disadvantage too. I have watched ancient Chinese martial arts on TV, smaller the size also mean more flexible, and obviously, the more flexible you are, the quicker for you reactions to an action. size does matter, but the technique matter the almost. There are many different branches in Chinese martial arts, and each shows some difference and some is designed specially to use against a certain technique. I heard that many is lost through time, but many is still there for people to learn.
Chi Kung is the bases for all ancient martial arts in China. Nowaday, people learnt martial arts without learning Chi Kung, so the full potential of martial arts cannot be clearly seen. So if you want to be the master, do learn it, and please do note, it's not the size but the technique.

Hevene/ i have studied the art of chi kung, and the art of martial art and i know my potential, my master was called ho wan, he was black belt 4 dan, a master of many forms of the arts, he was only four foot two, but i have seen him throw six footers around like soft balls, he taught me the arts and i now teach my children, and my wife has just started to learn from me, they will be as good as myself.

I train @ Taekwon-Do (ITF). Till the red belt (just before the black)it really is a sport, but then it gets more interesting. It was developed especially for Korean military. So it has many deadly punches, kicks and grabs. But they are fully taught only after you receive the black belt, because you need to control yourself (humans are very fragile and some hits in some special places take no really big strenght to kill someone.
By physics if you increase mass 3times (by a non-changing speed) your power of hit increases 3times.
But if you increase speed 3 times (by a non-changing mass) your power increases 9 times.
P=SMVV
(P-power, S-distance, M-mass, V-speed).


Yes, I don't have a really good chance against a 2m bully who has the same training as I have had, but if tht bully lives on beer and chips- I can beat him (I'm fast and hit hard;) )

any prick can fire a rifle

Not quite. In my years I have seen those, who through lack of co-ordination or ability could literally fall over theirselves in the process of trying to load a gun, much less use it. I have seen those who could not hit the side of a house.

I have been around guns since I was little. I used to pratice shooting pinecones out of pine trees. Always had extra ammo at the firing range. I would use my extra rounds to help those next to me hit theirs. With pistols, when we went to sight in, I would be shoot the stakes that held up the targets, cutting the target down. They thought I was just wasn't good with a pistol, eh eh.
Never told them different.

I know no martial art forms, other than those that were taught for military. Not something you want to use on the block unless you are in life threatening situtation. I do not encourage to use of force. To many people die as it is from stupid stuff.

If you are good at what you do, no matter what it is, to the observer it looks easy. That can be anything from computers to horse riding to fighting. Usually that takes training and use to gain that ability to make it look easy.

I understand what Adam is getting at. He is looking at it in the sense of his defination of what Martial Arts are. I wish you good luck Adam, not everything is so clear cut in its defination.

Thanks, but it's not really a matter of how I define these things. It's just the English language.

martial at Wordsmyth.com (http://www.wordsmyth.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi?submit=Define+it%21&matchent=martial&matchtype=exact)

martial at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=martial)

-----------------------

From http://www.m-w.com


Main Entry: mar·tial
Pronunciation: 'mär-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin martialis of Mars, from Mart-, Mars
Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war : WARLIKE

So several millions or billions agree with your defination. That does not change that is indeed your defination.:D

I remember how often Bruce Lee quoted "Kung Fu or any other Martial art is an art because it teaches you self control,it is art of fighting without actually fighting(ie,applying force).those who apply tremendous force in their fights,die or worn out early during their fights.

I started out with Karate at an early,when i reached yellow belt,i realised the stuff was not my cup of tea.(I was the only one in the class who did Wrong Katas;))so i quit.But since then i have kept track of my fellow class mates.45% left after getting orange belt.

some of them at green(i think,may be it was blue;)) and only one got upto Brown belt.he too gave it up,on the account of his studies.

I have heard that Kung Fu is even harder to learn...

Gee...


bye!

"It seems to me that there is a difference betweem a big
burly lad punching you and a small wiry lad punching you."

True ... That's why I prefer Danzan-Ryu Jujitsu, no 'punching'.

Take care ;)

Added: Or kicking for that matter (for those not familiar with the form).

I got one question.
What is the muzzle velocity of a fist? ;)

Peace.

Well, you'd need a really big gun to find out...

But I believe it can be anything from 7 or 8 m/s (beginners) to around 13 to 15 m/s (pro boxers).

When a big guy is in motion, he is very easy to be tripped off by a weaker guy who knows martial art. Let one fights with himself is just one of many strategies employed by martial art. Also, once "Chi Kung" is applied to Kung Fu, size really doesn't matter. I know one of the trainning courses in China Marine Corp. is to chop bricks with bear hands.

Also, there's also Qing Kung, I don't know if there's a translation for that, but basically, once applied, it can make you very light and you can walk on papers. Not many people knows this, but people who learnt Kung Fu in ancient times are more likely to learn this and Chi Kung together.

Qing Kung? Isn't that where you act like a giant gorilla and terrorise New York?

In the movie "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", where a guy and a lady standing on top of bamboos, or making long jumps on top of roofs, those are the more artistic view of "Qing Kung". If put in American way, it's spiderman without using the webs.

Adam,

It depends on which martial art are you talking about.

If it's Tai Chi Chuan, for example, the muscle tension is very low and ultimatly none.

If it's karate, for example, the muscle tension seems huge (I never practice it, I don't know... it seems big).
;)

No differences in gender. Not at all. The biggest difference in concern to exercises and muscle tension is the past time of practice. If you practice since you are young, the tension will be lower to someone who practice since... 30 years old, for example.

Also, if you exercise in a regular basis, your bdy gets used to it, and it might create tension if you suddenly stop working on it.

Hope have helped. :)

Love,
Nelson

Chi Gung is similar to Tai Chi.

But in Chi Gung, we are usually stopped holding a position. You oly move when you do the position. There is a movement to make the position but the position, itself, is mostly holded.

If you practice well, you tension will be very low or none, relazed.
If you don't practice well, you will have much more tension.

Martial arts is all about the power of relaxation. ;)

Love,
Nelson

I think Tai Chi is a subbranch of Kung Fu, simililarly with Qing Gong. This is clearly seen in Chinese that they have so many sub-branches that is almost countless (well, not really), but with Shao Ling, they have such a huge collection which made them basically the head of Kung Fu in China. For people who learnt Kung Fu, they almost all learn Qing Gong, ie. in ancient times, nowaday, it seems impossible to do so with all the socialising going on.

Tai Chi is different to Qing Gong, as it teaches us to manage the energy within the body, and basically go with the flow which can ve used to attack your enermies. While Qing Gong, teaches you to lighten your body, for example, exhale when jumping up to minimise the amount of ait inside your body, which in turn lightens you and makes you jump higher, but I don't think it's to the extend that you "fly", like shown in the movie. But jumping down from the roof of a house is definately possible (it's not that high).

Tai Chi ... sub-branch?

I was under the impression that Tai Chi Chuan was series of
movements, exercises so to speak, to prepare one physically and
mentally, that had its origins in the Taoist monk's exercises and
later became a sort of 'warm-up' exercise.

Am I mistaken?

Tai Chi Chuan is just one of the combinations of moves that comes under the "big" title, "Kung Fu". In many cases, people invent movements to defend oneself againest another combination of movements or to reach the ultimate realm, if I might call that. Similarly with Tai Chi, it is invented by one of the Toaist monks at the time of one intrustion, and he is one of the most important person in the history of Kung Fu. Nowaday, it is only used to make a person healthy, but if you combine with Chi Gung, it can be very powerful as it is one combination that follows the natural vibration of the universe and uses your enemy againest your enemy (if you know what I mean).

I believe I do.

But isn't that what Danzan-Ryu Jujitsu is all about?

So to speak, redirecting the energy of one's opponent and thereby
avoiding the moral dilemma of using force to protect one's self?

Take care :(

Moral dilemma? What is this , star trek? The redirection of an opponent's force thing is simply a matter of most effective use of energy. It is easier to turn a blow and use their momentum against them than it is to stop the blow and respond with your own. That's all there is to it.

"If you are not studying combat/fighting, then you are not studying a martial art."

"Moral dilemma? What is this , star trek?"

"... and respond with your own."

In Danzan-Ryu Jujitsu the only thing you respond to is the attack,
not the attacker ... no kicks, no punches ... It is defensive, not
combat/fighting.

Thirty-eight years in Corrections and the closest anyone came to
intentionally making physical contact with me was a punch that lightly
grazed the left side of my neck when I was momentarily distracted
by an Officer not doing what he was supposed to do.

Yeah, I was the type of guy that even as a Supervisor got in on the
action ... All 5'8", 154 lb. +/- 2 lb. of me.

Take care ;)

One of the chaps I passed through basic training with was a former prison guard. This guy was shorter than me, only about 5'10", but about three times my weight, and none of it fat. A big lad. He took it upon himself to become my personal fitness trainer, whether I wanted it or not. Along the lines of "If you stop running/doing push-ups/whatever, I'll hit you." I was often woken at early hours by this freak and his friends, dragged out of bed and out for a run or such. He ended up going into the Clearance Divers, our version of the SEALs.

But to the point...



It is defensive, not combat/fighting.

"Defensive" does not mean "not combative". Half of any combat situation is defence.

When both are attacking.

Take care ;)

Originally posted by Adam
A bit of background. In the navy we learnt to fight and kill. We learnt to hurt people, make them stop talking, damage them, kill them, et cetera. Our unarmed combat was about doing real damage. Then I got out of the navy, and later went to look at some civilian martial arts schools. What I saw was a sport, in every case, in every school. Martial means combat, fighting. These people were playing sports. Not a single thing I saw would work in a real fight against, for example, a military chap. They didn't train with the purpose of hurting and killing, only to follow forms and pass grading exams. So far I have not seen any civilian "martial" art which comes close to actually being martial.



First off, ever heard of Jeet Kune Do? Bruce Lee was the creator of the system that has developed into quite a violent means of street self defense taught by some.

Also ever heard of Grappling? how about a guy named Royce Gracie? Could decimate all your navy training easily.

Yes, heard of them both. Lee's art I consider very nifty, but only in the hands of someone very capable. Most people don't have the will/guts to really fight to their full capabilities.

As for Gracie, I have heard him discussed by a few punks I know who like to watch downloaded episodes of Ulitmate Fighting and them go and practice on each other in the back yard. So I know he and his style are respected by some dumb hillbillies I know. That's all I know about it. I've never seen this Gracie myself. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Well first don't let hillbilies dissuade you. Royce Gracie is a master of Gracie ju-jitsu, a form of brazilian ju-jitsu found by his father Helio Gracie. (Though I feel his brother Rorion is better-side thought) Royce is respected throughout the martial arts community and is considered this age's Bruce Lee. He has never lost in the Ultimate Fighting championships (when he competed, around in '95) and beyond that his only person that battled with him to a draw was Ken Shamrock an equally respected person whom I believe is probabaly the best current Martial Artist. You see a skilled grappaler always beats a skilled striker (punch, kick, knee only person) making it the superior idealogy, however a good mix of both and an extensive knowledge of ground fighting is the only way to truely be succesful

Grappling Arts (I study all, but primarily Sambo): Sambo, Shoot Fighting, Brazilian Ju-jitsu and some people consider Judo and Wrestling.

For more information on grappling and Mixed Martial Arts (where different martial styles compete against each other) go to:

www.mma.tv


P.S. I feel this about injuring someone, if your just in a fight to prove your self (say at school) I apply a submission hold and the pain causes the person to tap or concede I'm the better man. In a real life confrontation I would apply a submission hold to either render the peson uncounciess (bad speller) or break/pop capsules in a joint. This makes it so I am capable of escape. Martial Arts teaches as a whole not to kill, but to damage just so escape is possible. I am quite capable of killing but only in a life or death situation would I do so.

Thanx, Cactus

Reminded me of the following:

"Avoid rather than check, check rather than hurt, hurt rather
than maim, maim rather than kill. For All Life Is of Value."

- Yukiyoshi Takamura -

Take care ;)

That's a good quote.

Just something to add to this discussion as a whole: My quote. Bruce Lee abhored styles and ranks. "A green belt in one style could beat a black belt in another" is one of his quotes. My quote is talking about how you shouldn't have a "set style" and that you should adapt to whatever situation that you are presented with in a fight, adapt to the attacker. His Ultimate philosophy was "I do not hit, it hits all by its self" referring to his fist, it means a state in which instinct adapts to attacker and instead of thinking you land the blow where it needs to be.

Big hobby of mine obviously. Anyone intereseted in more Read "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do"

~ Cactus

Adam, you're right about the definition of martial. However, what it seems to me that you've missed, is about is the meaning of a martial art, as opposed to a martial skill, such as firing a rifle or a missile. Much of martial art is about learning to control your mind and your body, where things such as focus and projection come into play. The art of martial art is involved with non-physical manipulation, of your opponent, and also of yourself. You seem to have recognised the physical aspect of martial arts but not the mental. This suggests that the hand-to-hand combat that they teach in the Navy was more a martial skill than a martial art.

You seem quite a logical and rationally-minded person. This has lots of advantages, but often it can restrict people to just seeing what is obvious, with clearly-defined rules and bounds. Art is generally not of this nature. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying but I challenge you to at least consider it.

Originally posted by Michaelw
Adam, you're right about the definition of martial. However, what it seems to me that you've missed, is about is the meaning of a martial art, as opposed to a martial skill, such as firing a rifle or a missile. Much of martial art is about learning to control your mind and your body, where things such as focus and projection come into play. The art of martial art is involved with non-physical manipulation, of your opponent, and also of yourself. You seem to have recognised the physical aspect of martial arts but not the mental. This suggests that the hand-to-hand combat that they teach in the Navy was more a martial skill than a martial art.

You seem quite a logical and rationally-minded person. This has lots of advantages, but often it can restrict people to just seeing what is obvious, with clearly-defined rules and bounds. Art is generally not of this nature. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying but I challenge you to at least consider it.
Very, good. you stole my post :D

next point:
daktaklakpak mentions this above, when talking about how an increase in strength isn't always a good thing. You have to not forget about the increase in inertia which comes along for the ride. a bigger person may hit harder, but for that exact reason they are easier to take off balance. They have to use more energy to divert their own movement, so a little push here or there at the right moment can send a big guy flying, where a little guy would barely notice. Strength can overcome speed if properly channeled, and likewise, speed can conquer strength if aimed properly. Strength is certainly important, but there is a balance between speed and strength which has to be found. The most important step? low weight, high rep work outs. high weight increases size, and short-term burst strength, but you also require more energy to change direction. Low weight gives you smaller, denser muscle which doesn't tire as easily, allowing you to fight the entire fight strong. You also then get the physiological advantage of surprise when you start kicking a really big guy's ass around. you can win a fight in three strikes, with out hurting the guy, simply by scaring the crap out of him by moving so fast he doesn't know what hit him. *bam*ba-*bam*-m* "What the hellll was that!!???" this works esp well when the opponent is drunk. I once one a fight w/o even touching the guy. I did a lot of fast punches, stopping short of his face. He got so sick from the fast movement, that he threw up, and forgot all about fighting. [shrug]

Qi Gung (qi gung, ki kung, qi kung, all the same thing) is an ancient doaist practice which is designed to move energy and breath internally to help find one's center. Once you have found your own center, throwing that big guy I mention above is much easier. Also, not being thrown is much easier. THe actual origins of Qi Gung are not fully known in the West.

Taiji (Tai Chi) also has a muddled history, though it seems that the general consensus is this:
A Chinese doctor (advanced in acupuncture and qi meridian medicine) wanted to know more about Qi pathways in the body, and how they reacted to physical trauma. So he bribed his way into the local jail, and practiced on the prisoners, recording everything that occurred while he was striking the individuals. He over time developed Dim Mak, a very deadly art which is designed around fairly soft, precise strikes which interrupt qi flow and can disable and even kill opponents. (any one who doubts this should find a guy who has studied Dim Mak and ask him/her to strike your right knee, inside left wrist, and below the right jaw line. He should know what will happen before he does it (if he doesn't don't have him perform this experiment on you, he may do it wrong and injure you.) My doubting ichthyology professor had a guy strike those three points, and my prof collapsed. the scientific explanation has been shown to be that you are tricking the body into thinking that it has suffered massive trauma, and it goes into shock.)
The problem was that during this time (1300's), there was still a lot of inter-family fighting, and he didn't want Dim Mak to be used against him or his family. so he hid the motions in a slow style of "medicinal" martial arts, mixed with some Qi Gung and some DimMak reversal techniques, and taught that to his family. This was not, however, known as Taiji! It, over time, evolved into what is today the Chen Style of Taiji (though it is not exactly the same), but at the time, it was simply a martial art which base based on internal qi motion. The Yang Style, which is a slower version of Taiji based on more of the medicinal aspects of moving chi flow through you own body, is today the most popular form of Taijiquan (fist style of Taiji). IIRC, it was created in the early 1900's by the son or brother of the guy who revitalized the practice. Lau Chan or something, I forget his name.
The Chan family, historically know as the founders of Taiji, disagree with this history, saying that Taiji was a style practiced on the mountain of Wudan by their ancestors. however, there is evidence to support the first version above, there is no evidence of Taijiquan being practice in Wudan until much later than the Chan family claims.

As for the differences in sexes:
1)men's muscles mass is denser than women's, as mentioned
2)men have more upper body mass, on average
3)while women tend to survey the scene better then men (who tend to focus), they have a harder time finding openings in their opponent, because they don't focus on one item as much.
4)a women's center of gravity is higher than a mans, a distinct problem when learning how to kick. Most kicking practice methods are based on male anatomy.
5)due to the above, women tend to be able strike a more precise area, but with less force. Softer styles which rely on technique to pass energy from attacker to opponent tend to fit women better.

keep in mind that the above is a generalization, and does not fit all women. it fits *most* women, however, based on basic anatomy.

Also, women in general tend not to be as fascinated with the art of martial arts as men, and this does seem to be largely hormone based. Women who were subjected to high levels of testosterone in the womb tend to be more interested in physical activity, while women with less testosterone tend to be interested in the basic utility (how do I kick an attacker in the crotch?), and then they loose interest.

someone mentioned Taiji vs Karate in terms of "tension" you hit the nail on the head as to the difference between internal and external style of martial arts. the three main internal styles are Qi Gung, Taiji, and Ba Gua. I also tend to place Yoga in there, because it covers pretty much the same topics and has the same goals. it is not for fighting an opponent, but it certainly helps in that endeavor. it also helps in breathing, flexibility, muscle density, balance, and metabolism control, all which are major point of the above internal styles.

if anyone is interested in learning Ba Gua, and is in the Phily area, contact
Lingshu@aol.com
------ ------- -----
Internal Arts Seminar with Master Luo De Xiu
Philadelphia Area Seminar- July 26 + 27

Seminar attendees will receive instruction in Gao style Bagua Zhang and Hebei Xingyi Quan. Theory, training methods, forms and combat applications will be emphasized.

Master Luo received his fundamental training from Chang Chun Feng's student, Hung I Hsiang. Hung opened one of the largest and most successful schools in Taiwan and taught for many decades. Master Luo went on to study with many of Chang Chun Feng's other students and Sun Xi Kun's student Liu Qian.

cost: $200 w/ preregistration $225 at the door
e-mail lingshu@aol.com for more information.
----- -------- ------

External styles are very useful for finding the basics, and learning how to fight (American Kempo is a very good style for learning how to disable an attacker quickly. it is a sport still, but each belt ranking requires that you learn different self defense techniques, almost all of which are pretty dang useful. testicle rips, eye gouges, face rakes, knee buckles, enemy joint control, etc...).
Internal style while take your external motions, and magnify them 10 fold. Fill a balloon with water, then hit someone with it. that is the external style. Do the same thing, but add cement mix, and let the balloon sit for a week. then hit someone with it. That minor addition of lime and sand creates something more than it's constituent parts, because you dealt with the adding of those parts in a certain way.
The way is taught by external style, the *certain* way is taught by the internal. both are useful together. Neither are very useful apart.

edit:spelling