Sam, the karate guy you are talking about could be Kanazawa… Apparently very good. But i’m suire there’s more than a few karate/taiji hybrid guys…
EvolutionFist, you are on the right track. In T’ai Chi, we are learning not to over-extend ourselves. Energy comes at us, we neutralize that energy. That could mean yielding, but it could mean many other things as well. We do whatever we need to do in order to neutralize that energy whether its move up, down, left right, forward, back etc.
For instance, take the law for instance which states that in a self-defense situation you are legally allowed to do whatever is necessary to neutralize your attacker but nothing beyond that. That “idea” does not only apply to legal laws, but also universal laws, as once we have neutralized oncoming force, anything else done would be us adding energy to the situation.
Example: If someone decides to attack you, and you neutralize the attack without causing serious harm and they run away, if you chase them to “teach them a lesson” that would be going against the tai chi principles. Although jokingly one might say you are sticking and following 
As for your teachers motto, I agree with that completely. T’ai chi is like an elephant. It is precise and exact and if you make a mistake it stomps you, and you pay the price. So internalists are relaxed for the most part, why? Because they are comfortable dealing with oncoming force, because thats all it is. The fighting as I stated earlier is an illusion, it is simply a matter of energy coming in your direction.
- Nexus
Interesting recent points, guys. I, too, do not train people for sport/tournament/NHB purposes. I tell them up front that I don’t offer uniforms, rank, or trophies. I jokingly mention that that scares off a lot of folks, which it then ironically does. For me, while I’d prefer my students not use my training to compete in a sports genre, it’s far more important that they not use it to engage in REAL fights in unnecessary situations. As such, I include regular Socratic forum sessions, in which we discuss specific scenarios, how different circumstances create specific moral dilemnas, and discuss/train the psychology/physiology of hostile encounters. We also discuss specific ways to defuse potentially hostile situations. Still, it takes two to argue, but it only takes one to decide it’s a fight.
Chris
I saw a 55 year old tai chi practitioner beat the hell out of a 31 year old 3rd dan Kyokushinkai fighter. Some months after that he became my teacher and I have been with him since 1989. The funny thing is, he doesn’t know himself how to ‘make it work’. And he is bombastic and he does have a very inflated sense of his own self importance. I’ve also watched him dismantle taekwondo and shotokan people and a choy li fut person (me). I wish he could explain himself better than he does though - when I ask him how/what/where etc he just shrugs and tells me to practise more pushing hands.
I’m not looking for any ‘secrets’ from him - I just enjoy is company and I like the way I feel from practising tai chi. I must be one of those hippy types someone refered to earlier!
Inflated sense of his self importance? Sounds like he’s actually a man.
internal and external
Internal cannot exist without external and vice versa. The one that knows how to manipulate the internal and external dynamically will achieve what needs to be achieved. Instead of emphasising external or internal, why not use simple terms or ideas that are easier to understand like coordination or efficient way of moving.
Because those terms don’t really describe what is actually being done. 
They describe things on a level that would work for most people but after a point there are no other words that I have found that would express it.
I think it would be like talking with a high level physicist, asking them to describe a common occurrence. One explanation would be the one you could understand at your level the other you could only understand after much training.
Many come up with words or concepts based on today’s science, when I read most of them while they can describe what is happing biomechanical they say for the most part the same things that have been described using the Chinese models many years ago.
In some cases they have no explanation because it’s not explored, used or even accepted as in the concept of chi.
Chris:
Do you feel that a Martial Art which was originally Buddhist in nature incorporate Taoist principles and therefore incorporate internal aspects?
I don’t feel that the two need to be mutually exclusive.
Thoughts?
“Do you feel that a Martial Art which was originally Buddhist in nature incorporate Taoist principles and therefore incorporate internal aspects?”
Good point, Isn’t that pretty much what Tai Chi Chuan is?
Also why does the system have to incorperate Taoist principles to be internal?
There’s more to internal than slow movement and certain body mechanics. There’s different ways to do everything including “internal” exercise. All movement should be a combination of internal and external. Also every style has a different way of developing and useing power even styles that are in the same classification.
BSH,
Perhaps on another thread. On this one, I’m more interested in answers to the question as I’ve asked it for now. It’s a worthwhile question of itself, and I think deserves its own thread.
Shaolindynasty,
RE: " Good point, Isn’t that pretty much what Tai Chi Chuan is?". Not necessarily. Perhaps you are referring to Chen Gar and its original Shaolin roots, or the Luohan Chuan similarities to Baguazhang.
RE: “Also why does the system have to incorperate Taoist principles to be internal?”. Because that’s how I’ve chosen to define them for the question I’ve asked. If you don’t agree with such an assertion, start your own thread on that very question. The question I’ve asked has been defined with the parameters I’ve used because those are the arts I am inquiring about, pure and simple.
I always remember this one article in KFQ about Bak Mei. In it they talk about fighting tournamnents on Emei Mountain. The Bak Mei fighters would win most of the time against the internal styles because it is more aggressive. It was the issue with the a hundred weapons…
Once again we are dealing with stereotypes. Not all internal styles are passive. Like I’ve stated before, Hsing-Yi is internal, but is also considered very aggresive, even by external standards.
If you understand the internal mechanics, then you can make any movement internal. The posture itself does not make a movement internal or external.
about Bak Mei practitioners beating the internal arts…
Would you classify Bak Mei as internal or external? In popular Chinese stories Bak Mei reached legendary status after becoming a Taoist and adopting “internal” or “Taoist” martial arts. He had a background in “external” or “Shaolin” martial arts. I have even seen portraits of the white eyebrow (Bak Mei) taoist in a taoist temple as he is considered a sage by some. However Bak Mei was also considered one of the 5 elders of Shaolin in the stories who became a traitor. This point about Bak Mei style having both Buddhist and Taoist principles is used by some as a marketing tool in promoting the art.
Bak Mei is superior.
Paul
hehehehe
Of course Bai Mei Dao Ren is superior as he is the sage with no vulnerable spot, well almost. Seriously, in some taoist traditions Bai Mei personified someone who had attained Taoist realization and had no weaknesses because there is no sense of self. Just like an infant who remains unafraid of fierce beasts as quoted in the Dao De Jing.
I was referring to the style Bak Mei, not the priest!!
Internal arts don’t necessarily take any longer to learn than external ones. They’re just TAUGHT slower. many teachers like to make the process as slow as possible and teach only the inner secrets to those who dedicated like two decades of their lives to it…
even so-called external arts such as Hung Ga Kuen…taught slowly on purpose
Tai Chi can be learned alot faster in terms of being able to use internal chi and being able to fight, but sifus just don’t like to teach such things fast…mostly through reasons such as more money and withholding “secrets”
Claiming that Taiji came from Shaolin is speculation I believe. Who can really say? Who was there? No one can say where Taiji was originated, though there are many theories.
Same with Bak Mei. Was he even real? The book I’m writing is about his legend, but with a different twist. I’ll be done in a few months and I think you guys will enjoy it.
As for the style, the more I’m learning from my master, the more I realize whoever inveneted the style had internal training. Chik Pu’s foot work is Chicken Step the entire way. The whole form, front and back, is done from the San Ti. Now, is that coinsidence or did two people just realize its importance? Who knows.
But there are other simularities. The only difference is that Bak Mei’s strikes are in the forms, where as some of the internal, say like Taiji, assumes one reaching that level already knows those things, so the focus is on how to do it better, an upgrade, internal.
My two cents
~Internal Martial Artists have tremendous lethal fighting ability. The problem is finding a teacher worth their salt to teach you. unfortunately the internal arts suffer from the affliction of a bunch of stary eyed new age hippy types that want to become one with their belly button or some crap like that. (I meditated on my belly button once, all I found was lint…)
~Most the hippy type teachers cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
~If a person looks hard though they can find a real internal stylist to learn from. They will learn to fight, to heal and to be healthy. All at once! What a concept…
Peace,
Sin Loi
yi beng, kan xue