Why to combine internal styles?

[fa_jing]

It seems most serious internal M. artists nowadays practice more than one internal style, with the exception of some TaiJi practioners. We hear often of combining the "big 3" together, yet I believe these were developed as seperate styles. Also one hears that BaiJi and PiGua complement each other, and in some cases are taught simultaneously. Why is this acceptable, in fact the norm? It seems to imply there is some deficiency in the stand-alone style. Coming from a southern art, it is generally considered bad to mix styles. Historically when a master combined two styles, a new style was formed and the original styles lost their distinction, at least within that system. It just doesn't make sense to include two or more moves that accomplish the same purpose tactically. Hsing-Yi, BaGua, and TaiJi were developed independantly, they cannot be completely complimentary. Also, when one is fighting, usually one tries to impose his own style of fighting on the opponent, to "not fight the opponent's game," to be active, not reactive, as much as possible. It doesn't make sense to me, for instance, to visualize a confrontation as follows: "I'll go straight in with Hsing-Yi, and if he steps out of the line of fire, I'll use Ba-Gua to get behind him." Hsing-Yi already has a method to deal with this reaction, because Hsing-Yi is a complete style. I wonder if switching back and forth between styles actually causes one not to fully explore all responses provided by an individual style. Now if you happen to like two styles and want to combine them, do so but the end result is a single style with a single overiding strategy, and a limited number of tactical responses to a given scenario. I guess I'm saying, practice an "E-Chuan," don't practice Hsing-Yi, BaGua, and TaiJi. Another way of putting it: what is it about internal styles that allows one to readily combine the styles, more so than "external" styles?

-FJ

[Water Dragon]

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Taiji teaches you how to not be on the receiving end of aggresive force. Hsing Yi teaches you how to deliver raw force. Shuai Chiao teaches you to put somebody on the ground by manipulating their center. Southern Mantis teaches you how to deliver power rapidly by turning the body into a spring. Eagle Claw teaches you how to grab someone and break their bones.

All of these things exist in all of these arts. Each art tends to specialize in one area. You learn another system to pick up the skill, not the technique;)

You do Wing Chun. Why did you come to a Shuai Chiao seminar. Doesn't Wing Chun have throws? See waht I mean :)

[CD Lee]

James McNeil tells in his book HsingI, that Tung Hai Ch'uan (Bagua) fought Kuo YunShen (Xingyi), and that after three days of fighting, Tung took control of the match and won. Afterwards, they became lifelong friends. McNeil then states that from then on a student trained in hsing-I would also learn paqua and vice versa.

Since he makes no references, I would not take this as scholarly work at all, but it could be true, or who knows? In other words, I have no idea where McNeil got that story.

Our Shifus are adamant about not learning the two Bagua and Xingyi at the same time, as you would become confused. He only recomends it after you have spent many years learning and perfecting one system first.

Plus, on the street, he says you must absolutely have one set of reactions where you do not have to think before acting, otherwise you lose and the applications do not work.

[miscjinx]

I agree with Water Dragon, but I would also like to add that the view point of "I'll go straight in with Hsing-Yi, and if he steps out of the line of fire, I'll use Ba-Gua to get behind him" is wrong. There are only so many ways to move the human body, and the idea is to become formless...as Bruce Lee put it.

By these comments, you appear to be caught up in the forms/styles. For example, something I have been recently learning in Chen style tai chi's cannon fist form looks very much like Ba-Gua...because each have elements of the other and as they are both internal styles - they are both trying to learn how to move internally (they try to move the same way, that is why what internal mechanics I learn in tai chi work in ba-gua, aikido, etc). However, when I am in a fight, I will not be thinking - I want to use the tai chi white crane spreads wings and go to .... and if he does this I will counter with bagua palm change...etc,etc,etc.

Formless is the goal - I like what Bruce Lee writes in this regard. At time what you do will appear to be bagua, or tai chi, or etc...but that is the cross over as the arts are related.

[Water Dragon]

But the only way to achieve formlessness is to do the form (as in single moving posture) thousands of times and then run the application thousands of time. The variations will just "be there" after that.

[Ray Pina]

Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, its all baseball.

[Justa Man]

Plus, on the street, he says you must absolutely have one set of reactions where you do not have to think before acting, otherwise you lose and the applications do not work.

that's why i too think it's better to study one and one only. i agree too that one should strive for the ultimate goal...formlessness. so i could have a boxer's stance and hands and still be using ba gua. or i could circle appearing like a thai fighter but still be using ba gua.

what is it about internal styles that allows one to readily combine the styles, more so than "external" styles?

it's not the styles at all, i think it's lack of dicipline on the student's end to really study and break down just ONE of the internal arts, and it's teachers who think it's a more complete approach to internal skill if one combines 2 or more of them.

[fa_jing]

WaterDragon wrote:

"You learn another system to pick up the skill, not the technique."

100% correct, I see your point. And in fact, studying another style will always help your Kung Fu, in fact studying basketball will help your Kung Fu. It will help your reaction, your deceptiveness, even quickness with the legs and jumping ability. But, would you ever get down into a defensive basketball stance when your fighting? No. So let me rephrase the question as, is it virtuous to combine internal styles in application, more so than external styles? It certainly seems to be more common.


"All of these things exist in all of these arts. "

I was going to bring that up. Because AFAIK, Hsing-Yi can receive force, or has a tactic to deal with incoming force. TaiJi can deliver raw power. So I think we all agree that it is not absolutely necessary to study more than one style.

"You do Wing Chun. Why did you come to a Shuai Chiao seminar. Doesn't Wing Chun have throws? "

Very good question ;) . I'll have to give you multiple answers. One is, I might have to wait a long time to learn some throws in Wing Chun that I might learn right away in a Shuai Chiao class. Two, I came to the seminar to practise throwing but actually did some Wing Chun footwork during some of the drills. Three, I am not a strict Wing Chun practioner, I am modifying it for my own preferences and basically creating my own variation. One of the features of my variation is that I like to use a low horse some of the time, which lends itself to certain throws and tactics that are not part of Wing Chun. I need to get info from sources other than my Sifu because he has his own modified wing chun style, influenced by JKD, boxing, and some mixed-bag grappeling, that happens not to coincide in every respect with where I am going. To really combine pure Wing Chun and Shaui Chiao would be slapdash and haphazard, because the stances are too different.

So, I've revealed myself as a style combiner and modifier and re-inventor. I might as well have phrased the question, "According to some tradionalists" which I am not. I do believe in cross-training and a "JKD" approach. I'm just curious what is it about certain internal styles that make people say, "Here's two great tastes that taste great together." Is it a similarity in stances, or is it that one has a deficiency that another makes up for, or is it just coincedence or tradition? You don't hear, for instance, of a BaGua - BaiJi connection or anyone that has combined the styles.

I'm thinking also of a mentality such as that expressed by the Praying Mantis master at our kwoon. He said that cross-training in different styles is good and encourages it, but believes in strict Praying Mantis fighting when it comes to action time. You won't catch him cross training in anything himself. Of course, 7* Praying Mantis is a much more complex and full-featured system than Wing Chun, so you might not need anything else. Another example: I attended an Augustine Fong seminar, and he was against cross-training entirely, his attitude was "Wing Chun is all you need." So, I think there is some difference in the attitudes of external or family style masters vs. internal masters nowadays.

-FJ

[Water Dragon]

1. If you re-read your last post, I think you'll find that you have already answered all of your questions. You answered them correctly as well :)

2. Don't think so dam.n much!!!!

[fa_jing]

I've got too much, time on my hands
its ticking away with my sanity
I've got too much, time on my hands
It's hard to believe such a calamity
I've got too much time on my hands (at work)
And it's ticking away, ticking away from me.

:D

TGIF!!!

-FJ

[fa_jing]

Seriously, it's good to sound off, get some feedback, then re-organize your original thoughts with a better understanding.

-FJ

[CD Lee]

Could it also be that over time, you may want to learn less direct methods of combat as you age, and strive evade more?

I am attracted to Xingyi, because I am younger, strong and fast, plus I am mentally aggresive. However, I want to move into less linear, less direct arts such as Tai Chi or Bagua later maybe. Also, if the prinicples of power generation and force control are similar in the internals, then they already have some things in common that make transition easier.

[Daredevil]

Good points said already.

It's all training and developing kungfu. Folks should be mindful of not taking on too much at the same time, though. We can only stretch so far.

I'll comment on the pigua-baji connection though. Probably (I say probably since as it with all things pertaining to martial art history, can we really be sure?), the two were originally one style which split into two due to the turns of history. On a more practical or tactical level, they are quite complementary as well.

[Sam Wiley]

I don't know about others, but I practice several different internal arts because I feel they are different facets of the same gem. Each of the internal arts is like someone took this one art and focused on specific aspects of it to evolve it. So to me, it's like practicing this one art, and taking these more evolved parts and adding them to what was already whole in order to enhance it, to broaden its scope and function.

[miscjinx]

I look at other internal arts because my preferred art is tai chi. Tai Chi is in a sorry state at present in the US, and as a partner of mine says, "Minnesota is an internal martial arts dead zone." There really are not many internal martial artists here...at least that I can find.

So I look at other internal arts to fill in the gaps and holes in my own training. For example, a partner of mine is studying pa kua...I like to hear what he does because I have used (with slight modificaiton) training techniques he has done for my tai chi that have proven very illuminating.

Each has a different viewpoint or way of training the internal mechanics...but it is the same mechanics. Picking up the skills, not the technique - I guess.

[Ka]

IMA are usually the same power dynamics expressed differently.
I feel that the goal in combat is not to be a copy of your teacher but to express your energy embracing those principles.You are not to become a mirror image of your teacher but once the principles of power and movement are inside you,it becomes your task to release them in the way your mind/body dictates.You take on the art and create an expression of your own.
No technique set in stone just unique variation upon variation of fluid dynamic movement created by respones to a situation.

[bamboo_ leaf]

Tried writing this 3 times now.

I have no nice or neat words to express my views on this except it’s not a way I would follow.

At one time I used to use TC to supplement some of the other arts that I did. As some point I woke up and really followed what I felt to be the correct way for me, that being TC.

It didn’t make sense any more to keep practicing something that for me was really based on something else.

Even now I am trying to forget my TC in order to work on it more directly.

among TC styles there are those that don’t appeal to me. I can’t express it in words but I know they can’t help my own practice nor do I feel they can take me to the place that I want to go.
others might find it differnt. ;) in this i think we walk alone.

I have read formless many times in this discussion, meeting and working with some people who I think really are, I find it very scary and different.

We seem to want a way, a little box with a label on it. In my own training now, when a point is attained, I forget it and move on to something else.

Continually emptying my own box. some day i hope to burn the box. :)

Less is more

[Chris McKinley]

Another reason that the neijia arts are more often blended with one another than with waijia is that the principles are more or less the same within them. They are all Taoist-based arts as well.

For me personally, I like the variety. Although there are other reasons why I train in both Taijiquan and Baguazhang, part of it is that I like the different flavors each art has. And yes, it's true that after a while, much of it blends together. I often have a hard time telling you if what I just used was from Bagua or Taiji. Sometimes there are literal parallels between expressions of each art. For instance, was that projection I just did Slant Flying from Taijiquan or Taiji Heaven Palms done linearly from Baguazhang? Who knows? Some of it would depend on the observer's interpretations. To me, it just seemed like the appropriate thing to do which welled up out of the void and then went right back into it.

[Leimeng]

A few simple reasons to combine internal styles.
~~~XingYi teaches the internal body mechanics much quicker than Bagua or Taichi~ thus has quicker practicality and expression of power. Teach this first and it reduces the learning curve of the others significantly!
~~~The combined affect of learning two or three internal arts together is vastly greater than the sum of learning just one of them.
~~~Variety is the spice of life.

Peace

Sinloi

yi beng kan xue

[swmngdragn]

Hi y'all, :)

Perhaps it's because I came to the internals by accident with no preconceived notions nor any idea of what the internal arts were, but when I started out it was more of a way to build up more of a relationship with my eldest daughter. I looked at the building/core concepts/exercises, and the combinations rather than the individual stylistic differences. When my daughter dropped out due to scholastic/timing reasons my education in the arts went into overdrive. I was more interested in how to fight, and defend myself in a better manner than with the different styles. My teacher insisted that I train in the chi gung class, the Hsing-I class, as well as the Liu Ho Pa Fa class. I didn't question him. I just did it. Later I can look back, and see what his reasonings were. Hsing-I to get a better idea of the "explode power", chi gung to get a "feel/leg up" in what this/these arts are meant to accomplish as far as chi development. I never asked. I never do. I just do/did. Made my progression move along at a fairly rapid pace. My body awareness progressed more rapidly as well. If I hadn't participated in Hsing-I my Liu Ho Pa Fa would have become nothing more than a dance/wushu/performance piece. By combining trainings everything became clearer, and more readily available for use.

[TaiChiBob]

It seems that there is, at last, some well deserved agreement.. i especially like the analogy.. "


"Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, its all baseball"

i think we choose a style that reflects our personalities.. we test and try other perspectives but, ultimately.. we choose a main focus according to suitability.. as it should be.. Goals and philosophies differ, so why shouldn't there be differing styles to express those same "internal" qualities..

Is one better or worse than another, i don't think so.. (that doesn't make me right, just opiniated).. i also agree that "we learn so we can forget".. whenever we have internalized the art, the practice becomes the life we live. The Art is no longer distinguishable from "who we are", it has become "formless"..

is it right/wrong.. good/bad.. to cross-train.. i don't have a clear sense of those concepts, but.. i am pretty clear on "consequences", and unless we let prejudice or someone else's values interfere with sound judgment, we will determine those consequences through our "intentions".. i, personally, cannot cast stones or praises at another style (not that i would cast stones) until i have given it an honest try..

I get a sense of unity in this thread (respectful bows to ALL).. and sincerely hope this is a contagious virtue of epidemic proportions..

Be well..

[Justa Man]

i can understand some of the points made on combining arts. like swimmingdragon said about learning hsing-i to get the explosive power, and how that helped his liu ho ba fa. but i think you could still gain all of these qualities that you study seperate arts for if you concentrate on one and learn it deep enough. these arts all contain explosive power, for example. they all contain chi gung, for example. the question is, are you willing to bore yourself to death practicing just one art to discover all it offers?
leiming, you said something i'd like to discuss;

The combined affect of learning two or three internal arts together is vastly greater than the sum of learning just one of them.
i think that's mad incorrect. i've heard of people who learn only one thing for years and years. all they practice is this one thing, let's call it a "technique". doing only this technique for hours and hours, they eventually learn how to use the technique for offense AND defense. they soon discover that this technique can be applied to not only punches but to kicks too. this offense/defense capability is common is alot of the things we learn in internal arts. it's like mike patterson. ever see his video clips? he can take one hsing i element and show you defense/attacks verse punches, and kicks, can use it to lock, to throw, use it with heavy power (more pushing) or shocking power (more penetrating), etc.

so think of all the "techniques" you've learned thus far. if you have been practicing for a while then that's quite a few no? now, if you were to slice that number in half and only practice those, but still practice the same amount of time, then you'd learn so much deeper about those, simply because you'd practice them so much more. in the end, you have greater skill becase instead of knowing 3 internal arts at a lavel of 5, you know one at level of 15. LESS is more when you do the math. and they all contain the same mechanics, so it seems to me to only make perfect sense to stick with one. sure variety is the spice of life, but no one said the internal arts should be spicy. one thing is meant to be drilled until it becomes the most boring assemblance of moving body parts known to man. dull, boring=bland taste, not spicy.


"Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, its all baseball"

no doubt. but the best teams have some things in common. they all have good players that have been on the team for a good number of years. for ex, the yankees...team of the decade. jeter, bernie, mariano, petitte, and posada have all been on the team for at least 5 years...some more, and they all want to stay yankees. soriano, hensen and johnson will (hopefully :D ) stay with the team for a while too, which further ensures their strength. they all know that they gel as a team and that a team that has played with each other for a while is a great ball team.
when good players stick on one team, they gel, start whoopin a$$ consistently and become dynasties.
the analogy to the internal arts is that when you have a good system with sound principles and methods (any internal for example) and you STICK with that one art, you begin to gel with it, it becomes second nature and you start whoopin a$$! if you go from this art to that one...sure, it's all baseball, but how well to you get to know the team you are playing with before you bounce to the next?

[Chris McKinley]

To become dogmatic about purism OR eclecticism is to miss the point. The arts serve us, we don't serve them. They are human constructs. This thread has presented a variety of reasons why one might choose to tease out the depths of a single art and why one might also choose to study more than one. It's a personal choice at the end of the day, one based on the individual reasons why a given person is training. One choice might be more useful or less useful for that person depending on what they're wanting to achieve, but a choice can be correct for one person and not the optimal for another.