So what is internal WCK?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;925100]I am seriously wanting to know what internal wc is. I have been a WC pratitioner for now on 53 years, and I feel I know pretty much what good WC is. It is possible that we all might be saying the same thing here, but with all the philosophic BS we can not really know.[/QUOTE]

No, it’s not possible and no, you’ll never really know. Period. Now spare yourself and move on before you end up singing cheesy 80’s songs while standing in YJKYM and attached to Hendrik’s heart monitor.

22

Quoted from Application of WCK Pivoting:

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;990139]
Very true. It will also give you added power using Wing Chun’s body unity principles, specially when you use the opponent’s force to hit him back.
[/quote]

I think we may have differing interpretations on use of the opponents force. Could you give an example of this?

True, but according to the way I was taught, your hands will initiate your defense/attack then your body (shifting/pivoting/stepping) will follow immediately, while arriving at the same time, when the move is completed.

This type of timing has to be drilled again and again, so that it can be applied during aggressive chi sao and sparring practice.

Is this what you consider to be internal? What is the rationale/desired result of training this?

If you don’t go back then you have two choices. Either you meet the oncoming attack head on or you shift or pivot.

What about tactical evasion/Sidestepping?

23

Most of these guys here go to some “club” punch the punch bag for half an hour then roll on the ground for another one hour and finally go home feeling like dragons.

When you offer them a “key”, they kick it away!!!

so your saying their is no ‘higher’ level of BJJ or grappling that you know of only striking internal arts of TCMA have this? If you are than how can you say this never having had experience with such things (grappling)?

some mma guy must have really bullied you around in the day. some meathead from some gym or something, that was overtly mean to you, and now you turn into that same mma meathead by trying to use fire against fire. thought you were smarter than that. :frowning:

24

[QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;990184]Quoted from Application of WCK Pivoting:[/quote]
Why bring it here?:confused:

That confusion may arise from the fact that there are many ways of using the opponent’s force.

Ok, the opponent throws a hook with his right hand. You bil da with you left hand, by making a 45 degree forward step to your right and pivot (approx.45 degrees) while (left fist) punching your opponent, using his own force that is coming through the bil sao block and adding force to your pivot and hence your strike.

Did I say anything about the internals?:confused:

I cannot go into all the details here as it is not easily explained. Just think about it a little and some the stuff will be apparent.

Actually, a simple example would be the following scenario. Someone throws a punch at you, within range, but starts the stepping-in process first. That would be easier for you to see his intention and perhaps jam him with a kick or a punch. If he had used his hand to initiate his attack then it would have been more difficult for you to have read his move. I hope that this makes sense as I appreciate that some things are not so easy to explain on internet boards.

Of course, there is more to this methodology but try experimenting on your own. I believe that you have enough TCMA experience to appreciate the logic behind this approach.

You can tactically evade someone by not going back as well. You can accept the opponents forward pressure and “angle” his attack, while you hit him with yours, just as I described it in my earlier example.

As far as side stepping goes then we train that as well, and again, you are not going back and are accepting what comes in. I thought that was included within the definition of “shifting”. Or is it my bad English?

25

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;990336]Why bring it here?[/quote]

Because I didn’t want to clutter up the pivoting thread with potential non-pivoting discussion.

That confusion may arise from the fact that there are many ways of using the opponent’s force.

Ok, the opponent throws a hook with his right hand. You bil da with you left hand, by making a 45 degree forward step to your right and pivot (approx.45 degrees) while (left fist) punching your opponent, using his own force that is coming through the bil sao block and adding force to your pivot and hence your strike.

In my experience, I look to upset my opponent’s balance through the intercepting bridge arm to open them up for a more critical strike. The idea of using an opponent’s force against them is valid, but is often interpreted to mean “absorbing the opponent’s force and transferring/boomeranging it back to them,” when it’s actually more about changing from hard to soft and soft to hard in unexpected ways to gain the upper hand. This requires a stable yet dynamic(rapidly changeable) root.

Did I say anything about the internals?:confuse

No, I was just wondering whether or not you thought that this was an internal idea. Hence the move to this thread.

Actually, a simple example would be the following scenario. Someone throws a punch at you, within range, but starts the stepping-in process first. That would be easier for you to see his intention and perhaps jam him with a kick or a punch. If he had used his hand to initiate his attack then it would have been more difficult for you to have read his move. I hope that this makes sense as I appreciate that some things are not so easy to explain on internet boards.

Sounds to me like you’re talking about Telegraphing - giving away your intention.
While I agree that telegraphing should be minimized, I disagree with the use of this method, if that’s what it’s being used as.

As far as side stepping goes then we train that as well, and again, you are not going back and are accepting what comes in. I thought that was included within the definition of “shifting”. Or is it my bad English?

I don’t include sidestepping into “shifting.” Thanks for clearing that up.

26

[QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;990347]Because I didn’t want to clutter up the pivoting thread with potential non-pivoting discussion.[/quote]
I see.

Isn’t that easier if you are in a forward or angularly forward motion (ie. Not going back)?

Agreed and this is also part of WC training, at least within my lineage.

Personally, I would not refer to this as specifically internal even though I trained Wing Chun in an internal way.

There is more to than not telegraphing your moves but it is not that easy to explain in a written manner. However, this methodology was taught to me by my Wing Chun sifu. I would still advise you to try out some attacking and defensive moves using this approach. Things may become clearer once you try out some moves.

Sorry, it was a case of my English not coming up to standards.

27

[QUOTE=Hendrik;925112]Great!

different people have different taste, in your own language,

please share with us/ enlightent us your 53 years of experience

on how to cultivate Shock jin or speed Jin or Chuk Keng or Keng Keng?

and how is your SLT/SNT lead you to cultivate the Chuk Keng?

and also what is the feeling like when one has a proper YJKYM?

Thanks in advance![/QUOTE]

No.  I have already told you what it is a number of times, but you only say I am wrong and never actually say anything that can be decyphered.   You started the thread, so you tell us.  Better yet, have someone that can use common English to do it for you so we can all understand.  Ok? I am not trying to cut you down on your use of the language, but Hendrik, I simply do not follow you with all the stuff you say.
28

As far as I know there are only three “internal” systems or arts in CMA.. Wing Chun, VT, WT, etc, is not one of them…

As far as internal elements in the art… I’d need a clear definition of what that is, different folks seem to have different definitions, and evidence of it to make any further determinations re WCK.

29

[QUOTE=YungChun;990419]As far as I know there are only three “internal” systems or arts in CMA.. Wing Chun, VT, WT, etc, is not one of them…

As far as internal elements in the art… I’d need a clear definition of what that is, different folks seem to have different definitions, and evidence of it to make any further determinations re WCK.[/QUOTE]

To my knowledge all Kung fu styles have internal elements embedded within their methodology. Their Yang is balanced by Yin. Of course, some styles will emphasis the external and others will emphasis the Internals.

Wing Chun can be a very Internal art. The clue is in the SNT form and depending on the lineage, other supplementary qigong exercises will be practiced.

There are more than 3 Internal styles. Some lineages of Wu Zhu Kuan (Ngo Cho or Five Ancestor Fist), Chow Gar, White Crane and Dragon, to name some, are very Internal.

30

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;990405]
Isn’t that easier if you are in a forward or angularly forward motion (ie. Not going back)?[/quote]

Wait, I’m confused… is this particular action you’re describing a “going back” action? Otherwise, the forward pressuring/angling using what you call Bil Da is very expressible against said hook punch.

Personally, I would not refer to this as specifically internal even though I trained Wing Chun in an internal way.

Along those lines, what internal aspects set your WCK apart from external WCK?
I have my own definition of internal which may not be the same as yours, but what the hey, forums are for sharing.

There is more to than not telegraphing your moves but it is not that easy to explain in a written manner. However, this methodology was taught to me by my Wing Chun sifu. I would still advise you to try out some attacking and defensive moves using this approach. Things may become clearer once you try out some moves.

The action you describe is actually one I usually express as a recovery action.

31

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;990428]To my knowledge all Kung fu styles have internal elements embedded within their methodology. Their Yang is balanced by Yin. Of course, some styles will emphasis the external and others will emphasis the Internals.

Wing Chun can be a very Internal art. The clue is in the SNT form and depending on the lineage, other supplementary qigong exercises will be practiced.

There are more than 3 Internal styles. Some lineages of Wu Zhu Kuan (Ngo Cho or Five Ancestor Fist), Chow Gar, White Crane and Dragon, to name some, are very Internal.[/QUOTE]

WCK is classified as an external style.. Not aware of the others connection..

Nèi ja (, lit. “internal family”) is a term in Chinese martial arts, grouping those styles that practice nèi jìng (, lit. “internal strength”), usually translated as internal martial arts, occupied with spiritual, mental or qi-related aspects, as opposed to an “external” ( wài) approach focussed on physiological aspects. The distinction dates to the 17th century, but its modern application is due to publications by Sun Lutang, dating to the period of 1915 to 1928. Nèi jìng is developed by using “nèigng” (), or “internal exercises,” as opposed to “wài gng” (), “external exercises.”

The nèijiquán or “internal family of martial arts” is specifically identified with the so-called Wdngquán styles, named for their association with the Taoist monasteries of Wudangshan range, Hubei Province in Chinese popular legend. These styles are enumerated by Sun Lutang as Tàijíquán, Xíngyìquán and Bguàzhng. Some other Chinese arts, not in the Wudangquan group, such as Liuhebafa, Bak Mei Pai, Bok Foo Pai and Yiquan are frequently classified (or classify themselves) as “internal”.

32

[QUOTE=YungChun;990432]WCK is classified as an external style..[/QUOTE]

Hi YungChun,

I’m generally of the mind that the whole internal/external dichotomy is just silly. First established by Sun Lu Tang, it’s become all weird, with people claiming to do one thing actually claiming to do another. I know a lot of internal MArtists who actually practice primarily according to external methods thinking it’s internal, and external stylists who practice internally, thinking it’s external (less common though.)

Here’s my take:

To me, external arts focus on tool development first. Each tool is given very specific ranges and applications, which are trained second. Forms can be a large component of training, but not necessarily. There is often an “If A then B” method of training which is, in some styles, stupendously detailed. Finally, the developed tools and applications are matched to intent through real usage (fighting.)

Internal arts, on the other hand, focus on the Yi, or intent, first. Tools mean nothing; expedient means (thanks Scott) mean everything. For example, it’s about first training the intent to simply “defend and disrupt” as opposed to “If your opponent attacks your face with a right hook, then intend to pivot X amount to the left, perform a left Bil Da to the inside of the arm, and throw a right straight punch to Acupuncture point ST5.” Once intent, or “field sense” as I now like to call it in this context, is developed, then the tools can be refined and little efficiencies, such as this angle or that target, are added here and there.

What becomes immediately obvious is that there are very few, if any, martial arts which can be said to exist solely in one or the other of the definitions. Wing Chun has field sense drills; Xing Yi has form; Bagua has tool development, and Shaolin has fight concepts, etc. Even MMA has lots of intent training.

Wing Chun in particular is a mix and a half. I think part of the problem lies in people’s attempts to associate it with strictly internal, or strictly external. Yes, I’ve trained Wing Chun that was incredibly external. I’ve also trained a more balanced version, imo, which included the simpler internal intents prior to the external details. The same thing could be said of any style; too lopsided, and there’s a problem!

Ironically, this all ties in to what some of us have been saying in regards to having plenty of opportunity to make mistakes. The vaguer the rules to achieve the goal, the more creatively one is able to play the game; the quicker one is able to learn what works and what doesn’t; and the faster one develops appropriate intent.

Some people may have differing views on internal/external, and that’s cool. This is just my POV.

33

OK well…

Do you mean hard and soft?

The internal as far as I understand is synonymous with training nèigng qigng..and other neato stuff like that..

Having done Yip’s Wing Chun I am unfamiliar with this kind of ‘training’ as Yip, to the best of my knowledge took a more western scientific approach to training, eg, position, energy, timing, mechanics, etc.. I am not familiar with nèigng and/or qigng and I have not trained it in conjunction with WCK or otherwise.

I leave the labels to those who classify these arts, like the governing body in China, I think they classify all the arts… Means nothing to me and has nothing IMO to do with “hard” and “soft”..

34

Not so much hard or soft… more like internal is about training our deep primal predator/prey instincts first (including taking a hit) then giving us tools to use with those instincts (hardwiring neuropathways second); external is more about punching the bag 1000 times or learning “techniques” or “combos” over and over again (hardwiring neuromotor pathways first) before finally applying them in real settings.

No one I know does just one or the other, though.

35

[QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;990442]Not so much hard or soft… more like internal is about training our deep primal predator/prey instincts first (including taking a hit) then giving us tools to use with those instincts (hardwiring neuropathways second); external is more about punching the bag 1000 times or learning “techniques” or “combos” over and over again (hardwiring neuromotor pathways first) before finally applying them in real settings.

No one I know does just one or the other, though.[/QUOTE]

Means nothing to me.. As I said I have no experience with it.. Not saying it’s not real or no good, (I’ll leave that to T) …

We know there is high road and low road.. The objective should be the same for anyone doing complex motor skills, which some of WCK is, to stay high road.. Primal brain response relates to gross motor; higher brain relates to fine motor.. If the idea was to train the brain to stay high road, then if possible, that would be useful.. Still, we see little evidence of these alternative training methods “working” or even seeing this used against plain old fighters..

36

[QUOTE=YungChun;990444]Means nothing to me.. As I said I have no experience with it.. Not saying it’s not real or no good, (I’ll leave that to T) …

We know there is high road and low road.. The objective should be the same for anyone doing complex motor skills, which some of WCK is, to stay high road.. Primal brain response relates to gross motor; higher brain relates to fine motor.. If the idea was to train the brain to stay high road, then if possible, that would be useful.. Still, we see little evidence of these alternative training methods “working” or even seeing this used against plain old fighters..[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess another way to split it would be for external arts to be shapes based, and internal arts to be “energies” based, which says the same thing in different words, really. And like I said, I’ve never seen an art do JUST one or the other, although I’ve seen varying levels of emphasis, even in WCK.

37

The thing to do would be to have 2 guys, one using external Wing Chun and the other using internal Wing Chun, get together and fight like they mean it. That way we could see which one works best.

38

to the death??? :slight_smile:
gladiator style???:stuck_out_tongue: