Internal vs External.

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
21

Re: Hello all…

Originally posted by black and blue
Count says:
>>>All systems of martial arts are internal at the highest level<<<

How so… do you mean mechanics, alignment, etc… or do you mean soft, flowing etc (there’s just too many floating definitions of the word ‘internal’) :wink:

Well if I had to pick one it would be the mechanics and alignment. My style, baguazhang, might be considered a so called internal style, but there is little soft to speak of. When you first learn anything it is a stuggle at first to maintain your balance, later it requires less muscle and less thought.

Maybe Wing Chun has the best of both worlds and everything else, including Count, sucks eggs!!! :smiley:
Maybe you are right black and blue? Maybe you could add to the discussion on the wing chun forum about how wing chun can beat bagua? I’m especially interested right now in how wing chun handles the issue of grappling and throwing? I’ve only fought a couple of guys who did wing chun and neither of them tried to throw or grapple. BTW, I have fought a couple of Muay Thai guys and they didn’t try to throw me either. I’m not saying these things don’t exist in either of these arts. Just that I havn’t seen it. Just curious, I know it’s somewhat off topic. Or maybe not? You could PM me.

22

It’s a good question…

My Wing Chun is limited, I train three times a week, try and meet friends to train with privately (maybe once a week), and do forms, stepping, punching most days, and have been doing so for about 2 years.

I’ve never seen any throws in Wing Chun, though I’m sure there are people out there who’ll tell you they’ve found them in the forms. :slight_smile: Maybe they have and I’ve just not found them yet.

WC, it seems to me, would rather take someone down in other ways. My Sifu does this by controlling the opponent’s knee (press or stamp), and I’ve seen him do this by locking up their knee with his own leg and taking them down from simple leveage and malipulation of the arms or body. (The most painful methods in the Kwoon is surely locking up legs, grabbing a handful of hair and pulling)

We also train against headlocks, headbutts and grabs etc, and fighting from the floor. Chi Sau helps with this as do the myriad hand and legs attacks found in WC.

Hope that helps a little, my WC knowledge is limited. AndrewS and Yuanfen can, at times, give extremely comprehensive answers on WC questions… check with those guys… they’ve had greater exposure than me.

I’ve never seen any Bagua, but would love to check it out… if anyone knows of any in London… post a weblink or address.

Cheers

23

To be a bit off topic: WC lacks real throws and locks…don’t start to flame me, it’s just not in the style’s requirements, just as high jump kicks are not the requirements of…say…fujian white crane. It’s not a criticism, but a fact…

MT, however, should possess several nasty throws and clinching methods (not only designed to ram you with knees). However this part of the art is slowly being forgotten in the west and most of Thailand :frowning:

24

Greetings..

Surely, those of you that have been at this for a good while, have experienced or seen the evolution of technique.. from thinking your way through the physical motions to the effortless execution of well-practiced movements.. I believe that in most cases some awareness of “internal” evolves in any long-time practicioner.. Sure, they don’t train in the internal arts, but until someone assigned a name to it, no one did.. Though some of us have chosen to train in CIMA, internal energy and its uses are not exclusive to CIMA.. Even my partner who teaches Muay Thai and JKD admits to sensing a “higher energy” as he gains more experience (and i sense it as well when we spar).. practically any movement or technique can be refined to utilize internal energy.. CIMA has simply focused that refinement into its own Art..

Just another perspective from the Far-side.. Be well..

25

The way I see it:

A “complete” system will take you via external to internal and in the end external and internal wil be mixed and used in conjunction.

Even in internal Arts you first learn the external movements and than learn to rrefine them over the years to use internal concepts.

In my Kwoon we reckon 1 ~ 1.5 yrs just to learn the rough movements of the 1st form.
A lot of those come down and are still very similar to Shaolin moves which form part of our roots.
And, yes, those moves can be used already for fighting in limited fashion naturally.

Adam Hsu does NOT say that an external system is lower or less than an internal system.
The “external & internal” split is very recent development and often very misunderstood.

What he sez if you study a system only for a short time, you will only master the external part but not learn the internal Part.

Example: Xing Yi it was used to train soldiers, but not many of them due to circumstances managed to learn the full system.

Hence we also got those misconeptions that XY = linear, PK = circular, etc.
Each complete system needs to contain hard, soft, circular, straight, different fighting ranges, etc.

External & Internal are not really that different, just different levels of understanding of your style.
Suited to the practicioner at different stages of his study & life

Just my thoughts..

26
  • abort- - abort- this place smells like patchouli! eject!
27

Adam Hsu? why do some people here dislike him?

doesnt he teach mizong?

28

Mizong_kid.

Yes, he does among other styles:

STYLES & WEAPONS

Chang Quan: Long Fist Style
Tai Chi Chuan: Grand Ultimate Style
Ba Gua Zhang: Eight Trigram Style
Ba Ji Quan: Eight Infinite Style
Pi Gua Zhang: Splitting Deflecting Style
Mizong Quan: Lost Track Style
Xing-I Quan: Mind Intent Style
Tang Lang Quan: Praying Mantis Style

Sword, Sabre, Spear, Staff

Here is his Web-Site:
Adam Hsu

29

Well Merryprankster, sounds like you already have your mind made up. And ShaolinTiger00, you’re just an arrogant pr!ck, but I’ve said that before! :rolleyes:

It’s hardly worth trying to explain because you people are completely stuck in your own paradigm. Plus, at the first mention of chi you’re going to start puffing and blowing and you’ll retreat back into your paradigm. I could try to explain without the word ‘chi’, because there are various other ways to explain the same thing.

So you tell me; is it really worth trying to explain or are you happy believing you already know it all?

30

It seems as though YOU already have your mind made up about ME Serpent.

At the risk of trying to nail jello to a tree, explain to me how external and internal are different (I ask again, since you didn’t answer the first time). If chi is unnecessary to the explanation, as you insinuate, then it occurs to me that the “difference,” between the two–is just a difference in understanding and execution of that understanding. Which suggests that external and internal are useless distinctions when discussing personal growth in use of an art.

Can non-CMA’s be internal?

It must be nice to have all the answers like you though, so I could KNOW for certain I had it right.

Laughing Cow–what you say may be true about Mr. Hsu’s intent. But that’s not what it sounds like from the excerpt given.

FWIW, I’ve met Shaolin. The only thing he’s arrogant about is insisting on a real answer. No fluff, no semantics. That’s what happens when you’re bluntly honest about your opinions and comments.

31

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Can non-CMA’s be internal?

Yes, it is my belief that they can be.

For me the difference between internal & external is more on the emphasis of certain aspects of training at different stages.

Kinda like the beginning and advanced stages being reversed. Too put it simple.

But that the end-result should be the same.

Just my opinion naturally.

32

Laughing Cow,

If in fact, what you say is true, then internal is just a convention used among CMA’s to distinguish a certain level of development, OR an approach to training, possibly both. Kinda like Judoka talk about Seio Nage, and wrestlers talk about flying mares.

At least, that is my understanding of what you are saying.

Is that accurate? Or am I missing something?

How does one classify an internal art?

33

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Laughing Cow,
If in fact, what you say is true, then internal is just a convention used among CMA’s to distinguish a certain level of development, OR an approach to training, possibly both.

Yes, that is the way I see. Many “internal” Arts kinda pre-date the external/internal classification.
The earliest references to neijia are around the end of the 17th Century (3 Articles)
Hsing Yi, Neijia Quan & Chen TJQ trace their origins earlier than that.
Not too sure since when internal concepts were trained at Shaolin Temple thought, but I think they also date earlier.

The actual internal/external bit step came in 1892 when a few Masters of the 3 Internal Arts decided to call their arts as “Neijia”.

I see it as a way to promote their art over others.


Kinda like Judoka talk about Seio Nage, and wrestlers talk about flying mares.
At least, that is my understanding of what you are saying.
Is that accurate? Or am I missing something?

Yes, that is correct.


How does one classify an internal art?

To be honest I don’t think it is possible to do so beyond any doubt..

Here is mine
Waijia (external):
Arts use your current potential and enlarge it, later on than re-train you to use your Body more efficiently..

Neijia(internal):
Train your Body to use the optimum method naturally and than enlarge that one at a higher level.

Of course I am neither an expert nor does my opinion matter in the greater scheme of things.

34

Originally posted by Merryprankster
If in fact, what you say is true, then internal is just a convention used among CMA’s to distinguish a certain level of development, OR an approach to training, possibly both. Kinda like Judoka talk about Seio Nage, and wrestlers talk about flying mares.

At least, that is my understanding of what you are saying.

Is that accurate? Or am I missing something?

How does one classify an internal art?

Ummm, I think you just did. Again, as I said before, Re-read Adam’s comments and this will be your conclusion instead of a question. And again, it may be generally true for all arts, as you say, but I think Adam is speaking historically about the evolution of Chinese martial arts. But the best indicator of whether you have been able to “internalize” your own style is, can you do it the same when you are 70 years old? :cool:

35

Based only upon the excerpt, I draw the conclusion that he’s advocating a certain thing as being high-level and another as low-level.

IF he defines internal and external as high-level understanding and execution, vs low-level understanding and execution, then Mr. Hsu and I are essentially in agreement.

IF he defines internal and external as “some styles are internal and some are external and those that are internal are high-level, and those external ones are low-level,” then I think he’s wrong.

My point is one is a semantics argument–a discussion about terminology. "You say high level of understanding and execution, I say internal, but we’re discussing the same thing. The other is a “this is better than that argument because it’s just higher level.” That, I don’t agree with.

Tai Chi is not “higher level,” than Thai Boxing. It’s different. But it’s not “Higher level.” People are high or low level. Not arts.

36

———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Internal and external do not represent different styles or kinds of kung-fu, but rather different levels.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————

Tai Chi is not “higher level,” than Thai Boxing. It’s different. But it’s not “Higher level.”
People are high or low level. Not arts.

I agree, however I believe that grappling is a higher level than punching and kicking.

37

These are not the droids you are looking for.

38

I’ve done both. I feel there is a certain magic in each. Different, but amazing when you feel a high level practicioner do it to you.

I realize you were quoting Mr. Hsu, but you also didn’t follow up with the part where he says some systems are external now. I’m curious which ones, and how he reached that conclusion.

39

LOL @ Braden!

40

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I realize you were quoting Mr. Hsu, but you also didn’t follow up with the part where he says some systems are external now. I’m curious which ones, and how he reached that conclusion.

I didn’t see that and I don’t have a copy of the original book in front of me. However, I don’t think this part says anything about a system being external specifically.

He said “Since some instructors were unable to complete the entire training in their particular styles, many systems today are incomplete and never go beyond the external level.”

Doesn’t mean the level doesn’t exist in the system.

Look, if you read my posts throughout, you will see I have said I don’t necessarily agree with everything Adam Hsu says. I’m not here to defend him or to explain his words. But the man has done more to spread accurate information about Chinese martial arts than anyone else I can think of. When I first got interested in Kung Fu back in the 70’s, people only thought of kung fu by what Bruce Lee did in the movies. I read Adam’s articles, The Sword Polishers Record, in Inside Kung Fu Magazine. When I met him the word was he was strict, arrogant, demanding, critical, holds back the real stuff. I found this to be far from the truth. Even though I was only a beginner, he gave me plenty of hands on attention and was extremely nice and helpful. When I asked him what books to read about kung fu, he only said, “go to the mountain” He didn’t try and force his ideas or products like books on me at all. Some people said some pretty harsh things in this thread about him.

a fifteen year old iconoclast railing at everything.

it’s an arrogantly written piece of drivel from an elitist who likes to think that what he does is “the best.”

He’s a 60 year old gentleman who spent a lifetime of personal research and practice who has shared what he has learned freely in classes, seminars and writing. I have some pretty harsh things to say about him too, but for different reasons. People should be more open minded about what he writes. It’s not a personal attack but an historical record. True, it’s based on his perspective, but if you know his background at all, you’ll agree it’s a valid perspective whether you agree or not.