Efficiency of movement.
B-Banga got me thinking about this with his hilariously sarcastic post in the tourney thread. I don’t beleive there’s nearly as much “external vs. internal” stuff going on for real as there is in peoples’ heads.
If you can hit hard without a big, telegraphing wind-up, that’s internal power, right? The harder it hits and the less it moves, the more internal, right?
bullsh!t
…unless a master pianist who is really good and can move his finger fast and push the keys hard uses internal energy
…or me playing computer games and being efficient with my movement and quick and accurate aim when shooting Nazis is using internal power
…I can effortlessly and efficiently pull off combos in Tekken 3 with Lei… is that internal energy?
sounds about right. but one problem:
sevenstar is hyoooge. gots arms as big as most dudes’ thighs. he doesn’t have to move much, but he’ll still hit you into tomorrow noon.
i guess then that internal could be a great equalizer – kinda like a gun for the wee lads who don’t have ginormous arms?
Yes. But you study taiji and make no mention of breath, chi or mind?
Short power is one aspect and an issue of mechanics. That is the arm of the construction crane. You can have a strong arm, but if you have a weak engine it’s worthless. Like wise, strong motor but a weak arm, you still aint picking up ****.
Internal is just a word. It’s what’s behind that word that is priceless. Call what I study TKD, I don’t care. It’s the information.
Too many “internalists” sign up for class and think that’s enough. Too many “externalists” or “southern boxers” believe it is the same but different.
We have girls in our school who are not very muscular but have tremondous striking power. They can’t rely on muscling a punch so they have to use proper body mechanics. We usually refer to this as soft power rather than internal, although I don’t see a problem with either word. So if someone who is not very muscular can still strike as hard as a very strong individual then something else must be going on.
This is really simple,
External is when power is generted by the limbs,
Internal is when it comes form the core body or dantien.
Didn’t lkfmdc post something about the differences between Internal and External being a relatively new concoction? I think his point was that 100 years ago, no one made the distinction.
I think this is a really good way to put it…from Shenwu.com:
Calling Xing Yi Quan, Tai Ji Quan and Ba Gua Zhang Jnternal arts only began about seventy years ago. This came about because some famous practitioners of these styles in the early part of the Twentieth Century (most notably Sun Lu Tang) cross trained, and subsequently began referring to these arts as belonging to the same family, as they were based upon similar principles. Prior to this time, Xing Yi Quan, Tai Ji Quan, Ba Gua Zhang, the Shaolin arts, Long Fist, etc. were simply categorized as martial arts. What the above mentioned masters were referring to when they chose the label Internal was the underlying principles which were common to the arts they studied. Principles of the arts later named Internal were complete physical relaxation, yielding to force, the use of the power of the whole body under mental control and relying on sensitivity and skill to overcome brute strength. Now here is the problem with such labels. It is not the particular Art itself that is Internal or External, it is the way the art is practiced. There are no Internal or External martial arts, only Internal and External practitioners (if we assume Internal refers to the principles listed above, and external is anything which is outside of these principles). I have seen practitioners of the so-called External arts who were as soft as cotton and who threw their opponents seemingly by magic. I have also seen practitioners of Xing Yi Quan tensing their muscles so much that their arms were shaking with the effort. I often hear other teachers refer to some style as being Internal while another is External out of hand; if questioned, they really have no clear concept of the difference.
Golden Arms - that sounds great to me.
No, every art I have seen that calls it self “Internal” Generates power from the torso, or core body out. Without exception, every art labeled as “External” gerates power from the limbs, be it the legs which then travels up the body to the arms, or just the arms.
Internal is more than just efficient use of leverage, and it’s more than just a label. It’s a specific type of power genration that is not seen in external styles. If you do it in an external style, that style then becomes internal.
RD is correct about this…while the distinction is often misunderstood - there is a trend here - although some arts often not classified as internal such as Bajimen or SanPowChuan (sp) use ‘internal’ mechanics…
But Coach Ross is correct also that this is a recent concoction or distinction - check Adam Hsu’s ‘Sword Polishers Record’ for a great essay on this point…
Originally posted by Royal Dragon
No, every art I have seen that calls it self “Internal” Generates power from the torso, or core body out. Without exception, every art labeled as “External” gerates power from the limbs, be it the legs which then travels up the body to the arms, or just the arms.
I don’t often say this on the board but…
This statement appears to me to be very very wrong.
All bodies ‘generate’ power from stance, footwork and ultimately the ground. If you are talking about where the style places emphasis on visualisation maybe you have a point.
I’m sure some forms of chikung ‘generate energy’ from simply breathing patterns and no leg movement/stance emphasis, but while they may be of martial benefit they are still breathing techniques and as such, more like yoga than kungfu/taichi in essence.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Is it that time of month again already?
Internal and external simply refer to two different traditions of chinese martial arts. This is the same sense as northern and southern, or Japanese and Okinawan, or pukulan and bersilat and so on.
The moniker dates back to 1894 when Cheng Ting Hua, Liu Te Kuan, Li Tsun-I and Liu Wai Hsiang formed an organization uniting the study of xingyiquan, baguazhang, and taijiquan, which they had discovered had some remarkable similarities within the larger family of chinese martial arts. They called this union internal family boxing (neijiquan). See Pa Kua Chang Journal 3:2.
Well, I was actually inspired by B-Banga’s post that he doesn’t care if his strikes were “external” as long as they are hard.
Nevertheless, if said 3 arts have “remarkable similarities within the larger family of chinese martial arts” that earned them the label internal, then those similarities must be considered the esssence of internality, even if the word internal itself only refers to their seperation from other arts and not some kind of ‘power from within’ idea.
So what are those similarities, Chris, if they aren’t an emphasis on developing a large amount of striking power in a short distance?
The only difference in internal v external is in the mind of the practitioner itself.
All arts generate power from the core. Even western combat arts, ie boxing, wrestling…and I would go as far as to say many sport event also.
If any style exclusively uses its limbs only, for striking or throwing, then that would be inheritley inferior.
Sorry, didn’t mean to sound like I was ragging on you.
You’re right that there must be technical differences characterizing the internal arts which their pioneers recognized, and then emphasized in the ongoing evolution of the art. I simply find that using these as a definition is misleading as it inevitably creates the usual falacies of, on one hand “there is no difference”, or on the other hand “internal means better”, and so on.
Understanding them as a distinct cultural transmission is simply the only clear definition available. When you speak of any technical characteristic instead, people get confused. It’s like asking what Mexican cooking is. Well, it uses lots of rice. So does Chinese cooking, so where do we go from there? Are they the same? Is one the superior form of the other? Is there no difference between them?
Golden Arms’ quote birthed the correct, put it up for adoption in outer Mongolia, found it 20 years later living on Wheat Thins and old egg salad.
^That sucked^
All bodies ‘generate’ power from stance, footwork and ultimately the ground. If you are talking about where the style places emphasis on visualisation maybe you have a point.
Reply]
Wrong, internal arts only brace off the ground, the power ultimately comes form the core in an expansion, contraction sort of effect. When you see it live, and feel it in person, you understand the difference is quite profound.
The only difference in internal v external is in the mind of the practitioner itself.
Reply]
Wrong, but it does “Start” there.
All arts generate power from the core. Even western combat arts, ie boxing, wrestling…and I would go as far as to say many sport event also.
Reply]
Not so, most arts generate power from the limbs. The core is only a conduit to “Transfer” power.
If any style exclusively uses its limbs only, for striking or throwing, then that would be inheritley inferior.
Reply]
Aggreed. External arts do however use the core body, but it’s not a major player in power generation. It’s more of a braceing, or reinforcing action. The core responds to the needs of the limbs.
With internal arts, the power STARTS at the core, and radiates outward in an almost explosive manor. The limbs resond to the power radiateing outward form the core, they respond to the needs of the core’s direction. The limbs do not lead as in External arts.
If you ever get a chance to study the Taiji Ruler from the internal Tai Tzu style, you will clearly see the difference.
Wow, this is getting interesting. Any internal stylists compete in San Shou?
Yes. There’s some clips posted in the ‘xingyi fighting clip’ thread.
It’s always funny in these threads watching people who don’t train in the internal arts telling us what they are. Only in martial arts… and politics and religion, I guess.