YOUR opinion of the internal arts' fighting ability pt. 2 (not fighting)..

[shaolinboxer]

Which group do you think is better at NOT fighting, internal or external?

;)

[shaolinboxer]

The point I'm trying to make is this.

Can internal and external arts (if there is such a thing) be classified by passive or agressive?

Is this an imporatant qualifier when considering the differences between arts?

If you drill and drill and drill your reactions so that when someone attacks you you instinctually damage them so that they cannot retaliate, is that a good thing? Is that not the danger of the goal of attaining instinctual and precise reaction?

Do the internal arts really offer an alternative? Is that one of the benefits of styles that require long periods of study....patience and perhaps more precise control?

[red5angel]

Hey shaolinboxer, for my part, I never got the impression that internal and external were synonemous with passive and aggressive. For example, I practice Wing Chun. Now, almost anyone will tell you good wing chun is aggressive, but no one can decide if it is internal, external or a little of both!
For me, it would seem that internal is just more focus on developing the you, health wise, as well as focusing that internal energy on fighting.

[bamboo_ leaf]

“Do the internal arts really offer an alternative?"


I think they do, qualified by it probably depends on the IMA in question and teachers ability to demonstrate real IMA skills. For me IMA skills means the ability to influence a persons balance or movement using their intent or physical action in such a way that none of your own force is used. Everything is dependent on the actions of the other.

Other IMA arts from what I have read and the few people that I have met seem to do things a little more directly.

This idea of passive or aggressive.

I don’t know if these terms really have any place in what happens. Having either one would be bad in my thinking. They are signs of an extreme and so are unbalanced. Being unbalanced they can not support themselves and rely on others for their existence, passive or aggressive are both defined in terms refreanced to something else.

For me what TC dose is to provide the other way, the middle point. If you can keep this then passive or aggressive have nowhere to cling to and tend to dissolve away.

some call it treading the knifes edge :)

[No_Know]

The automaticness that was mentioned is tempered by perception. The externalist could react automatically yet stop short of unnecessary actions. Internalists~are similar yet perhaps better at it.

Internalist-ish do have Power and Health.

People want it all too soon, so we see people who do less work (even though for them they feel they are working very hard), yet expect more recognition/acclaim. The material contains the stuff of greatness. Some people actually can't mentally or matureistically handle some things. People tire of games they finish and want to move on. They don't care what level the games is set to. They count a win as a win. They can get through a form, but there's more and they don't understand that.

When the sky at night is not much revealedThat there are many stars seems refuteable. Yet there are billions. And tens can be seen on clear nights after a cool day.

Belief should not be limited to the visible~. -ish

[Fu-Pow]

Excellent question.

Most "internal arts" are "stick and follow"type martial arts. That means they have the main goal of sticking and following the opponent until an opportunity arises.

This gives the "internal" artist more control in a fighting situation and which I guess is the main advantage that they have.

External arts are primarily striking arts (at least a the lower levels). In order to be effective they must use force that is in a bit of excess of what is actually needed. This means that they also give up some control in the process.

Here's a couple examples of what I mean.

In external arts the legs push and pull to accelerate the body's mass and generate force
.
In an internal art the legs are used in an entirely different way than in the external arts, although visually they may look very similar. The legs are not used to "push" or "pull" because once you do your opponent can use your pushing and pulling against you and add to your energy throwing you off balance. Instead they act more like springs which absorb spiral energy and then release it like a spring. This way the opponent is essentially fighting against himself. The harder he pushes the harder he is "bounced" away.

Similarily in a joint locking type application in an external art the practitioner would work against a joint and use his body weight and muscular strength to manipulate it. In internal they would lead the opponent into a lock and let the opponent tie themselves up. The harder the opponent tried to push out of the lock the more damage they would do to themselves.

Internal arts practice opening, closing, storing, issuing, etc. They are essentially "self-stretching" arts. Stretching the tendons and joints of the body, including the spine. Where as external arts are more concerned with concentric strengthening of the bodies muscles combined with an efficient use of the bodies mass.

The differences are subtle at first. The shapes of movements may look similar if you close your eyes half way. That is because the human body can only defend itself in so many ways. However, as you begin to study both you will discover that the stuff going on inside the body is very different.

[No_Know]

He who depends on others who don't understand, might try to impart understanding to them.

[Nexus]

Nice descriptions Fu-Pow.

As for mindsets, it's based on an individuals insecurities/securities and ability to stay relaxed.

As it is clear to most internalists that fighting is actually an illusion based on fear, when in fact a fight is just energy coming at you from different directions. In this sense, a "fight" is simply how one responds to the energy directed at them, which is not a "passive" or "agressive" way of action, but rather being able to be fierce and in control when the time comes to deal with that oncoming force.

[Ray Pina]

I would consider myself agressive. However, at the same time, as a fighter, I am patient.

I have always been this way no matter the style I have studied and this hasn't changed so far after 13 months of internal training -- all focused on combat.


Good question though. I think it depends on the person. A lot of martial artists are gun shy, and that to me is not being unagressive, but uncomited to the deed that needs to get done. One has to realize that it is a fight, and its going to take place if you participate fully or not, so when it is time to respond, it must be done with that inner spirit, like a raging bull -- but controlled, calm.

[Yung Apprentice]

It's kinda silly thinking internal styles as "passive", isn't Hsing-Yi considered really aggresive, even by external standards?

[red_fists]

Just my 2 Yen worth.

I think "Internal" Arts need to express both aggresive & passive aswell as
fighting/non-fighting.
This is what the Tao requires, both sides need to be there.

No Yin without Yang and vice versa.

But it is my belief that "Internal" arts might be a bit better at "not fighting".
Simply has to do with the mindset that we are supposed to be training for.

Uphold the balance, and no action can overcome action.

Whereas a lot of external Stylists I met seem to have a mindset of combat and winning.

Again, just my little humble Opinion.

[Yung Apprentice]

But once again we're just dealing with stereotypes.

[Shooter]

Well, if Tai Chi falls under the banner of so-called internal martial art, I would say that it is the embracing, and expression of Grand Terminus in all things. Not just combatives. Sticking to, and following the neutral axis/Middle-way...

In terms of combative Tai Chi, even at the ming level, the principle of Grand Terminus is what separates Tai Chi's ideas from those of other systems. It's about levels ( ming, an, hua ) and sub levels which overlap between the main three. It's also about change and evolution. Aggression and passivity in appropriate measure.