To ponder in your grey mush.
In old china would western boxing…aka the sweet science…be considered a internal martial art?
Discuss
I know a lot of Hsing Yi people find western boxing when done correctly has many if not all of the same body mechanics, and William CC Chen says he finds a strong link between it and tai chi…
I still don’t really know what the hell ‘internal’ is supposed to mean anyway.
And I’m a taiji hippy.
internal?
I’ve seen some quite good “internal” over the years and my estimation is that it is simply the study of how to most efficiently use the body to generate force and complete tasks, nothing mystical about it at all…
the chi freaks just ruin it for everyone 
Im a super freak! Super freak! Im super freaky…
wheras meatshake ruins it for everybody.
~study of how to most efficiently use the body to generate force and complete tasks~
As oppose to which style of TCMA ??
PRC wushu
some would say all kung fu is internal, all kung fu is external, but of course you’d have to be talking about real kung fu…
an interesting read is Tim Cartmell’s intro to Sun Lu Tang’s Hsing Yi book where he talks about where the term “Nei Jia” or “internal” came from and how it is basicly a fraud
there, that should add some controversy to what is an extremely mild post for me 
I can’t speak from old China but it seems to me that it’s training methods and practitioners that are internal or external and arts is a subjective term. So in my opinion even if there are some similarities in some of the mechanics and power generation, boxing would not be considered internal martial arts. Some boxers may fight with internal qualities but I doubt the training that got them there can be considered internal.
Black Jack, being that ‘internal’ is a relatively recent designation for certain methodologies, and everyone has a different set of criteria for what constitutes an internal MA, boxing would be ‘judged’ on its training methods rather than its practicality. JMO of course.
Personally, I’d make the comparison between boxing and my understanding of TCC.
1)-Does the training start the beginner with standing postures?
2)-Does it have an integrated breath-work component?
3)-Do its tactical theories and ideas carry over to everdyday life?
4)-Are its tactical and strategic applications predicated off of the opponent’s intent?
5)-How readily does its fighting method move from the ring to the real in addressing a wider range of attacks and situations?
i think
Some boxers may fight with internal qualities but I doubt the training that got them there can be considered internal.
what about the ends and the means and all that? i mean, how you got there is more important to defining how you fight as opposed to where you got?
personally i try not to mess with the internal/external labeling, but i sure do like the way my wudan and boxing flows togeather.
Originally posted by lkfmdc
[B]some would say all kung fu is internal, all kung fu is external, but of course you’d have to be talking about real kung fu…
an interesting read is Tim Cartmell’s intro to Sun Lu Tang’s Hsing Yi book where he talks about where the term “Nei Jia” or “internal” came from and how it is basicly a fraud
there, that should add some controversy to what is an extremely mild post for me [/B]
I think the concept “internal” was ruined for me when I saw Chen Xiao Wang doing a move almost exactly like “Mummy steals the corpse” from Hung Gar in the latest edition of “Journal of Asian Martial Arts.” There are distinctions between “internal” and “external” but they are not as disparate as people make them out to be.
Originally posted by GunnedDownAtrocity
i think
what about the ends and the means and all that? i mean, how you got there is more important to defining how you fight as opposed to where you got?
personally i try not to mess with the internal/external labeling, but i sure do like the way my wudan and boxing flows togeather.
Don’t worry about the ends GDA, I’m sure your sometimes morbid curiosity has already led you to the conclusion that the end are the same for all of us. Some of us face a messier one though.
Boxing blends with any fighting art. Good sport too.
internal and so on
In my small experience it seems like Boxing is a sport not a martial art.
Both are concerned with fighting, but it’s apples and oranges. You eat both but you can’t have a taste test really. It’s not much use to compare baseball versus basketball.
Whether boxing uses some of the same movement principles as IMA is another question. I think they do share a lot of things. The mindset is worlds apart.
One thing they share is using small movements to produce big results.
Another thing is that they both train one’s reactions to be very natural and immediate.
-Jess O
Some of us face a messier one though.
the lucky ones.
:mad:
In my small experience it seems like Boxing is a sport not a martial art.
ill get you a fire extinguisher buddy.
Boxing is a tradition, and an often misunderstood one at that. Aside from the big business of boxing, we need to look at its history, where the men who boxed also fenced (ie swords), used canes, wrestled and taught physical education. I suggest you read something like Elliott Gorn’s book the Manly Art or Poliakoff book on ancient greek combat sports…
Interesting and gentle replys to the playfull topic gents.
I have heard a number of past references from reading and different teachers of the comparison between hsing-I and old bare knuckle boxing mechanics and I know a chen tai chi player and boxer who made me think of this post topic.
To me I am a simple man, call it what you will as long as it can help me train to produce well-executed movements under stress, and give my short part irish/part german/part french/part american indian arse some condition of readiness in a world gone mad with killer cyborg ninja warriors and undead judoka.