This is a good topic, Peter.
What about this: The three mental factors, Present, Formless and Neutral and the Feel of Suchness are the necessary conditions for a fight. If one is in the state of the above factors, there is no place for anything else. No thoughts, no forms. A style is also a form. It is an opinion of someone on fighting. How can one manifest a style if he is supposed to be formless? He wouldn't be formless if he did. He also wouldn't be present and neutral.

Sifu often refers to a "melting pot" in course of his seminars. I understood that he means by this also a certain "de-stilization" and "de-personification" as a necessary conditions for learning.

I think that I Liq Chuan, despite not being technique driven, would be more recognizable in a street fight than in a sporting event where there are rules, restrictions and protective equipment.

Hi， Ashe！ Yes， of course i'll translate as soon as thhere is anything new at the russian part of the topic.

[QUOTE=Bmeeks0;4057]my opinion is that for an art that isn't technique based its much harder to "see" it unless the practitioner has much more skill than the opponent.[/QUOTE]

but the thing about that is, even if someone can do a certain posture in real time, from an ILC perspective, that's still "rubbish". (IMO)

there's two reasons;
[LIST=1]
[*]using a specific technique is based on intent, or another way of saying is that the person intends for their move to look a specific way, and that's not the same as just harmonizing with the conditions to perform the APPROPRIATE action.
[*]even if you have a high level of ability to flow and feed, and so you can manipulate the opponent into a position the you can execute a given technique, that's still not the ILC way, which is the "art of offense". when the opening is there you just take it. you don't need to do anything fancy, which might take a few moves to "set up".
[/LIST]

[QUOTE=ashe;4058]but the thing about that is, even if someone can do a certain posture in real time, from an ILC perspective, that's still "rubbish". (IMO)

there's two reasons;
[LIST=1]
[*]using a specific technique is based on intent, or another way of saying is that the person intends for their move to look a specific way, and that's not the same as just harmonizing with the conditions to perform the APPROPRIATE action.
[*]even if you have a high level of ability to flow and feed, and so you can manipulate the opponent into a position the you can execute a given technique, that's still not the ILC way, which is the "art of offense". when the opening is there you just take it. you don't need to do anything fancy, which might take a few moves to "set up".
[/LIST][/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to say that a person should do a move from the form or whatever. I meant "see it" meaning the... flavor... of it. Does that make sense? I would never do a tai chi form move no matter how much more skilled I am than my opponent. I would be able to act without creating resistance or force between myself and the opponent. And that would have Tai Chi-ishness to it. Same as what you say, when the opportunity presents itself you act on it.

[QUOTE=ashe;4061]

Let's say I have three bowls of broth, ones pork, ones chicken and the other is beef. Could you tell which is which just by looking at them? Probably not, since broth all looks the same pretty much. You won't know until you make contact with it, that is, put it in your mouth and taste it, and then you can tell the flavor.
[/QUOTE]
Well... Being a cook I could argue but I agree ith your point. :p

[QUOTE=ashe]
So what I'm saying is, if we throw out 'signature moves', then how can we say what any flavor should look like? The only way to really tell is by contact.[/QUOTE]

I agree. We shouldn't assign a look to an art. It is what it is. Thats why I brought up quality of movement.

IME, when a person is good at manifesting principles in thier work they don't necessarally get a "look" but a quality to what they do. You can't always put your finger on it(without actually putting your finger on them). It doesn't necessaraly have a given look.

You can't really know it without feeling it. Thats why I like "flavor". You can see ingredients in a dish but you won't know how it tastes until it touches the toung.

this is the post from this [URL=http://www.budo-forums.ru/index.php?showtopic=17253&st=40]forum[/URL], Dasha explains her [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEAGh1oVV2s&feature=related]fight[/URL] on Martial Arts Olympics.
Question:
What features of the style used in the fight can you point out?

Answer:
Let's divide it into 2 parts:
1. Things which common observer can easily see - the external part.
2. Things, which are very hard to see on the video, but which are obviously felt when used against you - the internal part. This also can be seen by a high-experienced practicioner of internal martial arts.

Some things which can be easily seen:

- Open frontal stance, inviting the opponent to attack, arms at the far distance;
- Power is generated by the 1st (wrist) section. That gives an opportunity to prevail when capturing the space, to deal with punches without using the close distance;
- There is no "switching" of the legs' muscles during the movement. The movement does not stop;
- Off-balancing the opponent on contact when striking or defending;
- Permanent attack;
- Jamming opponent's structure;
- No specific technics for offense or defense (If it is sanshou rules - it looks like sanshou, if muai-thai - like muai-thai, if tuishou - so you see tuishou, etc.)
- flowing the opponent;
- Offense or defense genereting the power from the feet, absorbing the energy of the strike using the hands;
- Split when striking;
- Body structure: opened back, condenced sturnum, shoulders, legament and bone structure.

2. The peculiarities of the style in the contact point, which are hard seen for the unexperienced observer:

- offense and defense is the one, there are no separate offensive or defensive movements;
- effecting centers of mass on strike, clintch, on any contact.
- strike goes through the whole structure of the opponent, no matter. what part of the body is in contact, at the same time of-balancing him.
- The opponent can not run away from the contact point and is stuck to it, because of 5 qualities in the point of contact. This does not allow him to continue attacking.

- you are formless, so you can not be caught on your reflex, habit, etc.
- The movement is circular, so the movement in your body and your strike do not not stop, you do not waste time on 'switching' from strike to strike.
- heep roll allows you to chang directions freely without stop.
- the power is generated by all the body joints;
- you use the unified force of the whole body.
etc.

we can write a lot on it, but it is not necessary. I tried to explain it in plain words using simple exaples. But that is the combination of everything which was mantioned, what does not allow the opponent to apply his technics. That is not because of his low level, or smth else.
And please, don't read this post through your past experience. Most of what i wrote about probably was not in your experience.

Thanks for posting those comments.

[QUOTE=ashe;4080]
we need better smilies...[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't complain. :)

ILC is the western boxing of Chinese IMA.
:box:

[QUOTE=Peter;4429]I found this comment at [url]http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=216[/url]

While Chin Family I Liq Chuan contains elements of each of the basic martial arts systems (force meets force/grappling/avoidance), to me, it appears primarily to be an avoidance art in the context of the above classification.

Peter[/QUOTE]

i'm not sure it's so cut and dried like that. just look at mohammed ali's footwork and you'll see plenty of avoidance,

Peter Wrote:
On the other hand, the expression 'complete system' frequently refers to training for strikes as well as grappling and wrestling. Since to my knowledge ILC doesn't have a wrestling component or mat training, I guess I wouldn't consider it a 'complete art' in the classical sense.

Peter, wrestling is just playing at the third section.  So ILC still has a standup wrestling component, just no ground fighting.

wheter or not you view it as complete would then have a lot to do with whether or not you consider ground fighting necessary.

Peter,

why don't you simply try to bring me to the ground tomorrow in the class?

Then, the day after tomorrow I can tell more:-)

In generall, I agree with someone here, who said if you are aware of timing and spacing there is no way to bring you down to the ground.

Additionally, people go the ground because they seem to follow instead of to flow. If you allow your opponent to bring you outside of your limits, then only he can use it against you. He can either attack you directly or throw you on the ground first in order to fight where he thinks is stronger than you. He might be right or not. 

It might be more intelligent to invest time in the training of awareness to avoid fighting on the ground than to invest time in strategies how to repair mistakes which could have been avoided much easier. Maybe this efficiency oriented point of view can be undestood as a sign of "completeness" of a martial art style.