Boxing an Internal art--an intellectual exercise

[Merryprankster]

Shadowdragon posted the following on a different thread:




Internal vs. External
Internal External
Blending with an attack Stopping an attack
Yielding Struggling
Power comes from within Power comes from outside
Relaxed Tense
Fluid Defined
Slow forms Fast kata
Finesse Power
Indirect Direct
Circular Linear
Accepting what is Fighting against it
Acknowledging the
limitations of the self Denying any vulnerabilities
Winning without
fighting is best Destroying your opponent




Before anybody gets their panties in a wad, note the complete title of the thread--it's an intellectual exercise, not a threatening challenge to internal artists or boxers :)

Now, I realize the above is not necessarily a comprehensive breakdown, but it seems to me that based on those qualities, boxing shares far more in common with "internal," vs. "external."

Let's examine the first issue--blending with an attack. In boxing, active hard blocking does not play a prominent role. Passive blocking does in the sense that you'll take it on your forearms instead of your face if you have to, but ideally, you'd rather redirect with a parry or slip it or a combination of the two. Some people DO block--but rarely will you see it considered "good" to throw a hard block out there.

Yeilding--Boxers roll with the punches. If they get hit they might use that momentum as the first part of a big slip to avoid the rest of an incoming flurry. They might also use that momentum to get their whole body moving, taking the sting out of the shot, and setting up for a counter of some kind.

Power comes from within- Nobody has yet provided me with a reasonable explanation of this. Does this mean that power is channeled through your center? If so, then Boxing accomplishes this. There is no punch in boxing that does not derive the great bulk of its power through proper structure and torso movement. Arm punching is discouraged and also, next to useless :)

Relaxed--a tight boxer is a bad boxer. Next.

Fluid-- Boxers are always moving, but rarely straight forward or back. Punches must flow from one into the next. Movement must flow from the punches and vice versa. If you aren't fluid and relaxed you get hit and can't hit back. Footwork is dynamic, well balanced, and almost constant. Bouncy is bad.

Slow Forms--While boxing does not have forms as such, shadow boxing at slow speeds is often encouraged, as is slow repetition on a bag to ingrain certain body movements--speed can be added, but NEVER at the cost of fluidity.

Finesse--Accuracy and counterpunching, coupled with movement, make a true "boxer." Mike Tyson, in his early years was a fantastic "boxer." He moved in and out easily, slipped most shots, and had uncanny accuracy with hands that happenned to be made out of sledgehammers. Ali was another very good "boxer," when he wanted to be. Watch Roy Jones Jr. sometime. Sure, he's got power, but he finesses his way into setting up that power.

Indirect- Boxers are ALWAYS taking angles--boxers are ALWAYS trying to draw the other guy out of stance and unbalance the opponent to take advantage with an unexpected attack from an angle that the opponent has a hard time countering in time, rather than battering through defenses to reach the body.

Circular-- Boxers circle to facilitate indirect attacks. Even if the boxer is moving in or out in a relatively straight line, they will be slipping in a circular manner as they step, to set up angles and avoid getting hit.

Acknowledging the limitations of the self--I've never met a boxer that really LOVED to just weather a storm of punches. Slipping, weaving, elusive footwork, parrying, etc. All are ways in which it is acknowledged that you, as a boxer, are vulnerable and human and have limits. "Take the pain," isn't very popular. It's nice if you can, but boxers would rather work on how NOT to take the pain, while understanding that they WILL sometimes get hit. Practice is to improve your skill, not to make you into some uninjurable superhuman.

Winning without fighting--well, you got me here-- :) It's a duel, so you HAVE to fight. But that's the nature of sportive combat--I don't see people who do San Shou with a Tai Chi background just running away the whole time. So, if we look at it from "self-defense," perspective, then boxing coaches almost always tell you to run, rather than use your skills.

Thoughts?

[NorthernMantis]

First of all before anyone begins the internal vs external argument I'd like to point out that no kung fu style is too internal or external. They have both concepts but the thing is that they tend lean towards another more.

Well as for boxing being internal..if you can box slowly then it might make it internal.j/k:p

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Thoughts?

Yeah, you think too much.

[Merryprankster]

Now now, Water--don't misinterpret lots of free time as thinking too much there, grumpybutt :)

Did somebody steal your lunch? :D

[BeiKongHui]

Having been hit by both boxers and "internal artists" I can tell you for sure boxing is not internal. Boxers punches push through and give you some small relief by knocking you away. Internal punches don't push the body at all and are far more penetrating.

I really don't know how to explain what the difference is other than (to me) it is a lot harder to take an internal strike. I would just recommend trying the two yourself. I wasn't a believer personally until I felt it- just don't do what I did and let the boxer hit you repeatedly in an attempt to generate the same type of power.:)

As a side note is there really any art that urges it players to be tense?

[DelicateSound]

Of course MPS. Just 'cause it ain't called "internal" means nothing.

"Internal" is a bunch of letters arranged to make a "word". That word however has been twisted, sinuously morphing into something else.

I think of it as music. Take the "Fifth Chord". I know it as a fifth chord as there is no third. Hence it is neither major or minor. It is used in many styles if music, originally in Jazz.

Most people know a 5th chord [or a type of one] as a "Power Chord" present in metal.

Same thing different name.

Like you once said MPS "We're all learning the same thing". I agree.

See my signature :D




Winning without fighting

[Read in Mr.Miyagi style hushed tone]

The day you realise that whether you "win" in the ring or not, you have "won" by merely turning up, by putting in 110% and bettering yourself, then you have understood the above phrase.



:D

[Merryprankster]

DS--here's another name for it--the open fifth :)

BeiKongHui--I think there are some people here who've done a bit of Kung Fu and boxing that would disagree with what you've said, although I do respect your opinion. A good punch in boxing has a great deal of "penetrating power," which you can feel when you do it right on the heavy bag. It's just DIFFERENT. Instead of pushing the bag around, in lands on it with this beautiful crushing thud and the bag stays put. Lovely.

[MightyB]

Boxing will truly become internal when the boxers replace sparring and actual matches with shadow boxing and deep thoughts about what it would be like to be in a fight. Oh yeah, they have to make excuses for being out of shape like, "my gut is no reflection on my internal power, and weight training slows you down, yada yada yada..."

[red5angel]

I think this internal-external thing has gone way too far. I think both rely on alot of the same thing. It seems to me that internal is just an expression of greater skill in an art then anything else. For instance BeiKongHui states that aninternal art seems to penetrate you without moving you, while MP has often said that that is a sign of good skill in boxing, when you can hit the bag on it doesnt move or rock.

[Merryprankster]

Red--Hey, it's just an intellectual exercise :) I tend to agree with your statement, however.

[Water Dragon]

I have a question. When I hit the bag, it's not a dead stop but the swing is only about 1 inch or so. Can anyone tell me approximately how hard I'm hitting from this? I get a slight dent but no folding yet. (Well, I can fold it with an elbow but who can't? LOL)

[yenhoi]

This is the best thread for this:

internal vs external is bs.

Very thoughtful and informative thread merry, but: you mention "boxing" as sportative combat - dont you think this imposes limits on how "boxing" is applied in a non-sportative context?

Of course thats up to the 'stylist' not the 'style' and is subject to the environment, situation, etc etc at the time (of the fight/duel).

I understand that your particular focus is in the sportative combat arena (no pun:D ) but do you believe that the limitations imposed by training with a sportative combat mindset/environment/training methods will have "bad" consequences when it comes to non-sportative combat?

I agree that the techniques should not change either way, and that boxing has a very 'hardcore' and 'realistic' training approach. Just wondering, 'specially since I said internal vs external is a joke.

:rolleyes:

[Paul]

Well, it must be nice to have all the answers about everything. maybe one day I can be as knowledgeable as you.

[red5angel]

MP - sorry if it seemed I was trying to kill the thread, didnt mean it to sound that way. I just feel that internal vs external can sometimes be a matter of what your beliefs are. You have made a lot of comments that make a lot of sense about the martial arts from a very practical very 'western' point of view and I can respect that. My beliefs often time run somewhere in between, but on this many of the comments you have made on boxing make a lot of sense towards arguing that thin line between "internal" and "external".
I think that people often attack sportive type arts for thier 'non-realistic' applications. what I have come to realize, with your help as well as apoweyn and a few others is that, they are sportive type things and that does not make them any less then any other combative art, just a different side of uh, er, something really multisided!

[Merryprankster]

Yenhoi--I phrased it that way because when you learn to box at a boxing gym, you learn within the context of sport. Does that make sense? Now, hand boxing tools to a person more interested in self defense and you'll probably get some adjustments made.

Do I think they will have bad consequences? Yes and no. I believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. That's almost a completely different thread.

Water--it depends on the weight of the bag, I would think. But I'm no expert :)

Paul--I don't have all the answers. I made a case for boxing being an internal art that may or may not be true. If you have some other ideas share them--but don't be such a little punk :)

[crumble]

I think that the best I can give you (merryP) is that boxing >might< be internal, but in only one direction. So if you got boxing down (pushing away) now all you got to do is learn the fine art of pulling.

:D

-crumble

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
.

Water--it depends on the weight of the bag, I would think. But I'm no expert :)



Ooops, I have a 90 pounder. Does that help? :)

[BeiKongHui]

They can disagree if they want but I've done both also, although I have more experience in boxing than any internal arts. Boxers ALWAYS have the exact same argument as you stated as did I but the penetrating power of a boxers punch is nothing like the penetrating power of a good internal strike.

I've seen people get the knocked "the f**k" out by a good right cross but I've also seen a tiny little man give what appeared to be a light little surface punch to a guys stomach and seen the force cause a fist sized bubble of something (I don't know what) to pop out of the guys back like he was made out of rubber or that the fist went through him. That "energy" (or what ever you want to call it) is real and it is NOT the same as a boxers punch it takes a lot more work to cultivate and you won't get it training in western boxing methods.

Why does this subject seem to bother boxers so bad? I don't know. To me it's no different than anything else-because the goal is the same doesn't mean the method is.

Try this: stack a couple of bricks up and break the bottom without breaking the top with any boxers strike-now I don't do breaking so maybe it's a gimmick-but I've seen people who call themselves "internal artists" do it.


BTW-Hitting a bag is not a good way to feel if the strike penetrates you need to actually be hit by both guys to FEEL the difference.

[Braden]

Check out my replies to the original thread. The listed definitions are simply not founded in reality.

"Blending with an attack Stopping an attack
Yielding Struggling
Fluid Defined
Slow forms Fast kata
Finesse Power
Indirect Direct
Circular Linear
Acknowledging the
limitations of the self Denying any vulnerabilities
Winning without
fighting is best Destroying your opponent"

Are all nonsense, and to define them along internal-external shows no knowledge of the methods of internal arts.

"Power comes from within Power comes from outside
Relaxed Tense
Accepting what is Fighting against it"

Are reasonable.

It's worth noting, with respect to THIS thread, that many 'thinkers' in the internal arts suggest that western boxing has much more in common, in terms of strategy, with their arts than do many 'external' chinese or japanese styles.

Nothernmantis says:

"First of all before anyone begins the internal vs external argument I'd like to point out that no kung fu style is too internal or external."

yenhoi says:

"internal vs external is bs."

I couldn't disagree more.

BeiKongHui says:

"As a side note is there really any art that urges it players to be tense?"

There are certainly arts whose training methods including high levels of intentional tension; and who advocate tension as part of both power generation and absorbtion. Also, among arts that claim to emphasize relaxation, there is a wide scope of what they consider 'relaxed.'

[DelicateSound]

BeiKongHui: Open 5th then. Theory is boring to me really, The more you know in the head, the less you play by the heart. Hendrix STYLE!!!! :D :p


Rest of you. Internal/External is BS. It's all just body mechanics and neurokinetics anyway. Call it what you like many styles can do "it".


Don't listen to 'em MPS, these CMA guys are just overprotective...

[jon]

Im not really qualified to judge boxing as i cant say ive ever trained formaly in it.
Still from what i can see i honestly believe boxing uses MANY internal mechanics and mindsets.
My sifu actualy only this week whilst i was at his house asked me to watch a fight. Expecting to see some footage of an old master i was instead sat down infront of his tv and informed i would be watching a boxing match.
This boxer my instructor insured me WAS fighting internaly, he was never taking force with force, he was totaly relaxed and his punches came from his body and not simply his sholder or elbow.
Couldnt be i thought, i had seen many good boxers but not one i would really class as 'internal'.
Then he fired in the tape and i recognised the fighter strait away from adds on tv... Prince Nassem.
My sifu was very right in my humble opinion, this man is a true internalist. His style is VERY relaxed and focusses around timing and finesee rather than brute force. His power is relaxed and whips, he also uses his body superbly and definately uses his hips and spine to generate his power. Still the most impressive thing was his ablity to slip in around and inside the opponents attacks. He would use his opponets attacks as a means for getting himself a better blow which again is a trademark of the internal arts. The match i saw he wiped the floor with a boxer clearly much more powerfull and even much faster.
This was a real eye opener for me and i had no idea that boxing had reached this kind of level.
So yeah Prince Naseem i would class as an 'internal' boxer.
Kyota Tzu is darn close.
Mike Tysons hook punches are definately internal in nature as well.

Still im sure someone will disagree with me, after all none of them are actualy trained by Chinese so how could this be:p

[scotty1]

Merryprankster - I think you're right in as much as the case you make doesn't seem to contain any flaws.

BeiKongHui isn't saying that boxers don't possess penetrating power. Actually, he did, but I think he would now accept otherwise. What he's saying is that although both punches penetrate, the internal punch is more damaging, internally.

He bases that on personal experience of being struck by both and seeing strikes by both on other people. And we can all theorise as much as we want but can't refute that, because he's seen it, and felt it.

Until I've felt an internal strike I don't feel like I can say its as powerful or not as powerful as any other strike.

Sorry I've just re-read the above and I don't mean it to sound patronising, but I can't be arsed to change it.

Paul - is your boat rocking slightly? Sit in the middle and hold the sides, it'll stop.

:)

[Kaitain(UK)]

I don't see many internal stylists arguing that it's all the same - everyone else seems insistent though :) either we're conceited and (falsely) believe we have a secret that nooneknows - OR non-internalists don't get what we're talking about (largely because we can't explain it properly)...

Core to Taiji is the principle of Song - which isn't just being relaxed. It's taken me 3 years to develop even rudimentary. The structure that my body possesses is not achievable in an external style - you have to spend hours deliberately and consciously developing it. Hours of consciously not using muscle strength - strengthening tendons/sinew (and not just through QiGong). It is a kind of conditioning I suppose - it takes time.

Then there's the pushing hands training - it's completely different to WC pushing hands (although the WC guys I know who learn it are able to take some of the principles and apply it to their own). Again, it's hard to explain the relaxation thing here - it is not simply the absence of tension that external arts work at.

If it was just striking mechanics it wouldn't take a decade to develop true internal skill - but I can't give you a definition that makes much sense. Largely because I've only trained TJQ for three years - consequently I've experienced a lot of things that I can barely achieve with a cooperative partner, some things I can't explain how I did (and can't replicate) - and some things my instructors have done that seem unattainable to me at the moment. I could go on about sticking, adhering and so on but I barely understand the differences (in practice), so I'd just be regurgitating theory that yopu can find anywhere.

I don't look down on external arts - but they are different. I've seen elements of internal training present in external styles - but not many of them.

If you've been hit with an internal hit you know how different it feels - I can only describe it as feeling like I'd been kicked in the balls (you know that delay between being hit and feeling it? like a handgrenade going off inside). That's the key difference - an external hit hurts at the surface and goes in a certain depth dependent on power - an internal hit doesn't hurt when it lands, the impact seems to travel in before it hurts. Sorry - I can't think of the right words to explain it.

Not better - just different.

[scotty1]

That was a good post Kaitan. Explained a lot, thanks.

Following from that though, there is no way that boxing is an internal art. Although from external descriptions you can make it fit the category, sounds to me like there is a certain X factor missing from boxing that would make it internal.

[Braden]

Very good post from Kaiten.

[red5angel]

Kaitan - I practice wingchun which is controversially either external/internal or both. I see all the evidence for both arguments in wing chun, soft penetrating power, strong structural trapping. That list MP started out with describes wingchun very well. It may not be as "internal" as Taiji, but my opinion is based on the fact that in wingchun, we recognize that our older kungfu brothers seemed to have gone past the physical aspects and seem to transcend to a higher understanding, a more internal way of doing things. That to me is just evidence that internal is practically synonymous with experience and skill.

[Kaitain(UK)]

As Braden said - most of that list are external principles found in any good MA repetoire:

Blending with an attack - Stopping an attack
These are present in both

Yielding Struggling
Only a chump struggles

Fluid Defined
A good MA is fluid in his movement

Slow forms Fast kata
Taiji Fast Form, Sanshin in Karate - this is irrelevant

Finesse Power
Again - a good MA possesses both

Indirect Direct
Hsing-I is about as direct as it gets.

Circular Linear
Both are present in every style of MA - even the 'linear' ones use circular motion somewhere to generate power

Acknowledging the
limitations of the self Denying any vulnerabilities
I know plenty of internal MA's who are guilty of the latter - probably about the same number of external guys who are aware of their limitations

Winning without fighting is best Destroying your opponent
I don't see that the former statement has anything to do with MA. If you can avoid a fight then you should. If you have to fight then it should be over with before it starts. True of any style.

To me, Wing Chun is an external style in my book. It's not like it's a demeaning thing to say is it? Wing Chun works techniques and shape and allows the internal to develop on it's own. I've trained with experienced (ish - 4-7 years training) WC people from a few different schools and it all felt the same. There is a different 'connection' than compared to an internalist.

Internal skill is not something you reach through being skilled and experienced at an external style (although it is supposed to make the journey possible/quicker). It is a deliberate cultivation.

To be honest this ends up as such a confusing discussion - noone can define internal properly, noone can define soft/hard properly. Consequently we all tell each other how wrong they are without understanding the argument of the other.

[old jong]

There are sluggers and there are technicians. Some relies on mucles and some on positions and finesse. Some are thinkers and some are just brawlers. But at the end...A punch on the nose is a punch on the nose!...It can hurt whatever the type of guy throwing it.
In kung fu,it is the same. You can train hard (external) or soft (internal)the key is both methods can produce a good punch on the nose. ;)

[red5angel]

Kaitan, I woudl agree with you to some extent. I believe it is external as well, because I do not believe in internal. there is no magical force that propels energy through someones body to strike another without having to hit them in my opinion. I have felt the differences in quite a few wing chun people. I was at a seminar once and Carl Dechiara was able to make me feel his power on through to my spine, just by "twitching" his fist against my arms. Was this some magical qi energy? I dont think so, I think it is more mastery of his body and the control he has to get his entire body behind even the smallest movements. It might seem like magic, but that is the difference. When you attain a high level of skill in any art you may be able to do things the average practitioner cant, and it may seem like some supernatural understanding of the "force"

"Internal skill is not something you reach through being skilled and experienced at an external style (although it is supposed to make the journey possible/quicker). It is a deliberate cultivation. "

I just disagree with this, although I too believe it is a delibverate cultivation, of skill period. those guys and gals who reach true kung fu can do things that seem strange and seem to be coming from some other place, but really I believe it is just an attainment of true understanding and control over your body.

"To be honest this ends up as such a confusing discussion - noone can define internal properly, noone can define soft/hard properly. Consequently we all tell each other how wrong they are without understanding the argument of the other."

I agree. That is why I believe what I believe, it is hard to define a line that isnt there. I have a psycological experiment that sort of explains how I feel about this. Tell a freind, the more gullible the better, that if you go to a public place, like a mall or an airport, and concentrate on these words "I know you are here, just give me a sign" and then procede to look for a sign while repeating this line in your head, eventually you will see a sign, sent to you by aliens letting you know they got your message. What is that sign? Who knows, could be someone coughing hysterically, or laughing loudly. Could be a loud unexplainable bang. Could be anything, because if you look for something long enough and hard enough, you will find it.This I believe is the problem with the idea of internal vs external. there is no real dividing line there. If you lived in a supersticious time for instance, and you saw a guy who just stood in an odd position for hours at a time. When approached he would ask you to push him over, but you cant! Biologically we can look at it and say that if you work any muscle it will get stronger. And if you constantly do something you often gain skillfulness in this, like staying on your feet when pushed. But back then, how else do you explain it? The guys says he is talking to spiritual advisors and doing what they tell him to cultivate his spiritual energy and he has "proof" so why not?

[BeiKongHui]

BeiKongHui: Open 5th then. Theory is boring to me really, The more you know in the head, the less you play by the heart. Hendrix STYLE!!!!

Hendrix drowned in his own puke didn't he?


The only people who think internal/ external are the same are those with only external training.

[Merryprankster]

EASY Lenny :)

I was simply applying a set of criteria that somebody else developed, to boxing. Is it internal? I pretty much doubt it, but I happen not to "believe," in "internal and external." I'm sure one of these days, I'll get hit by an internal practitioner and change my mind ;) but the case was reasonably made--if you start with the idea that the assumptions (ie, the criteria) are true. If they aren't, then they aren't, but that's a completely different issue

It's clear, however, that there is disagreement even among internal practicioners, about what internal means. Heck Liokault doesn't even believe in chi, and he's a Tai Chi man.

Now, Kaitan-- I appreciate what you are saying--I really do. However, you've discussed that it took you 3 years to develop a rudimentary understanding of "Song."

I promise I am not trying to be rude or start an argument, but rather discussion in what I say next:

Given the extreme amount of time it has taken you to become familiar with "Song," does the fault lie in the training methods? Is there a way to improve the training so that it doesn't take as long? I don't need comparisons to the dark and light side of the force :) I think it's a legitimate question.

Now--about the "internal strike," thing. BKH, if you say there is a difference in what you have felt, I have no basis for comparison, but I do offer this:

There is, in boxing, something called a "delayed knockout." A guy takes a body shot that doesn't look that bad--hard, but not that bad, continues fighting for a few seconds, then keels over like somebody done tore up his insides and can't get up. I've seen it twice.

Does this bear any relationship? If not, why not? It sounds like the effects are similar.

Water--a 90 lbs bag shouldn't move at all when you whack it. It should fold and tremble like the force dispersed inside it when you hit it with a "knockout" shot. Keep trying :)

[Kaitain(UK)]

no offense at all :)

to me Song is about relaxed tendon strength and conditioning - I'm pretty strong with it now. Rudimentary in comparison with my instructor, but strong enough that my structure is solid in any direction. Without that you've just got noodle arms.

It's built up through standing post QiGong and Peng pushing (two guys pushing as hard as they can without using muscle, just structure and the floor - when I started I couldn't hold my partner for more than about 10 seconds, now I've become the original 'immovable object' :)).

If you were looking to build up your muscles then you'd be looking at years of training right? Well it's the same for tendons. edit - please don't take this to mean "internal arts develop tendons, external arts develop muscle" - this is just one component.

I was waiting for someone to raise the body blow reference - I've been hit with a few and it's not the same (you knew I'd say that didn't you? :P). The body shot goes in and you feel it and you know you've got until you draw your next breath to knock the other guy out - because when you let that breath out it's curtains :) The strikes I've been hit with by my instructors were sickening - the impact feels like a poke, then half a second later a grenade goes off and you feel queasy and completely without strength. I tell you - body shots hurt a lot, but those things are agonising. As I said - imagine that 'kicked in the nuts' feeling.

[Merryprankster]

Kaitan--the "Song" you describe might be attributed to appropriate structure and sensitivity as well :). No offense, I'm simply offering alternatives. The truth is that studies would have to be done--and I think we can both admit that.

As far as the body shot thing--I think what you are describing w/regards to the shot, and the delayed knockout are two totally different issues. One hurts, this is true, the other is "drag you out on a stretcher incapacitating," since that's what they had to do to both the guys I saw drop that way. I think that qualifies as a big difference.

Again--I'm not doubting the difference between what you've felt from your seniors and a body shot, but I wonder if the "delayed knockout," and what you are describing have a common basis.

[red5angel]

Kaitan - do you see where your view and my view converge? Some of what you are saying about attaining internal power is to me the same as attaining skill. Just years of practice woith structure and skill in applying what you know.

MP - Isnt Rich Mooneys research enough for you man? the guy has done extensive research into this subject ;)

[Kaitain(UK)]

They could well do - I'm certainly not claiming that internal and external are exclusive - just sufficiently different to merit distinction (try saying that when you're drunk :))

I think 'Song' is used because there isn't a word in English that adequately defines it. You're relaxed with only enough muscle useage to keep your shape - when receiving or issuing from this structure you can absorb and issue huge force with little effort. There are definite symmetries with structure - but the actual delivery is different. An external strike is driven from the foot and through the structure using a cascade of muscle and bone to accelerate the force. Internally I can only describe it as falling into the floor and allowing the recoil to travel the same path to the strike.

I'm not particularly good at it :) - if you stand still in front of me I can do it. In a live situation I just use normal external technique - it works.

[Merryprankster]

Kaitan--it's funny you should describe an external punch that way.

I've found that my best punches are different from that concept. You COULD say they start in the foot, but I don't really think of it, or feel it that way. It's like "BOOM," there's the punch, but it hits hard because of the structure behind it. That is, I'm just trying to get my fist out there as relaxed and loose as possible, but the end point is a something that is structurally sound. It happens to be a boxing structure because that is what I do, but...

Dear lord, I sound like an idiot.

[Kaitain(UK)]

wouldn't you say that's an example of improvement through skill and experience? That generally seems to be how people think of 'internalising' a technique - if you broke it down into component parts it would follow that path - but taken as a whole movement it is far more refined

Just thinking aloud

ps. you do sound like an idiot :P

[Merryprankster]

Absolutely--it's not something I did on day one.

Ok--I'm stumped. How does this relate to Internal vice External. Is that Red5's concept peeking through?

Are you trying to get across that internal and external is a training methodology issue?

[Kaitain(UK)]

I'm not sure what I'm trying to get across - but I would say PART of the difference is in training methodology.

Mostly that internalising technique is not the same as training an internal martial art - and i think that the confusion comes because the two issues get confused.

imo the natural progression of technique through skill and experience does not take you to the same place as internal technique. A very accomplished Karateka can appear to be effortless to his peers, his techniques can be relaxed and fluid - yet if you got him to touch hands with a Taiji guy I don't think he'd realise what he was doing. He might knock the **** out of him :D but he wouldn't get what was being done to him before.

[Merryprankster]

Ok. You're drawing a distinction--good idea. I'm big into sematics--it helps us figure out what we're talking about :)

[Kaitain(UK)]

sorry to be a drag - but I've gotta leave work to make training. If this is still alive tomorrow I'll try and get some more down.

It's been good talking this out - when I started I didn't really have a definition of internal/external. I still don't, but I feel better for talking about it :)

[Merryprankster]

I don't think anybody really does Kaitan. It seems to be a rather ill-defined little beast that even internalists can't agree upon.

Cheers! :)

[Black Jack]

Since I am also not a believer in the internal vrs the external debate, to me every fighting method has elements of softness and hardness to it, I would like to give out some information for those who are interested.

You are all speaking about modern boxing and its elements to a defined description, but IMHO to get the meat of where it came from you have to go back to its root art, old bare knuckle pugilism.

The old style of scientific boxing had a somewhat different take on training than what we see our current sport boxers training in. The best example is the training equipment used, of which there were four main pieces, of that period.

1. The heavy bag-The heavy bag of the mid 19th century was not what you see today, the bag used then was only around 20-30 lbs, there were no giant heavy bags of that period, not like what we use today. Those of the past were filled with either sand or a mixture of oats, hay and horse hair, covered by a chamois skin.

They needed the bag to be very mobile, it required nimble footwork and swift body movement to chase it around while hitting it, the main goal was never to hit it while it was motionless but always moving, using angles to strike the bag.

The heavy bag was also not very popular at that time.

2. Punching Ball-This is what we know today as the Speed Ball and it was the main training tool of the time for pugilists, not the heavy bag. It was a round covered canvas football, swinging from the ceiling, again a very mobile piece of training equipment and they used it to make a man a "two handed hitter".

3. Double End Ball- Same as the speed bag but witha rope tied to its bottom surface-these were inflated with air.

4. Wall Pad-Asain systems are very familiar to this tool, it was a simple canvas bag attached to a wall, about 5 feet 3 inches off the ground that was filled with beans or metal pellets, used to help condition the hands, afterward a simple brine or weak tannic solution might be used, though only for a short period of time, like Jao.

Don't know if it helped with your internal vrs external debate, but I thought it might add something, I use both the old tools and the new tools.

[BeiKongHui]

It is different than the delayed knockout for sure. I really can't explain the difference in how they feel to you because as I said I am not anywhere near an expert on Internal power. The best I can do is to say that if (for example) I hold a leather Thai pad over my chest and it is hit with a boxing strike it feels just like you'd expect it to but when my friend that does Hung Ga hit's the pad it feels like a nail being driven through my chest and out my back even though I know he doesn't possess the physical strength my boxing buddies do. Mind you, I don't believe there is some kind of mysterious energy or that "the Force" is giving you some sort of extra strength it (to me) is just about cultivating certain attributes over a long period of time. I don't know if it is better or worse than any other type of strike but it is most definetly different.

[Merryprankster]

Hey, thanks for the info.

There are some lighter bags at my gym that I like to use for exactly the same thing--footwork, slipping, chasing it down etc.

The double end bag and the heavy bag are my two favorite pieces of equipment though.

If I'm on a light piece of equipment, I like to chase it and vice versa. If I'm on a heavy piece of equipment, I like to beat the crap out of it :)

[Braden]

red5angel

"I practice wingchun which is controversially either external/internal or both"

Controversial to who though?

"That list MP started out with describes wingchun very well."

And, as pointed out, that list has nothing to do with internal/external.

"we recognize that our older kungfu brothers seemed to have gone past the physical aspects and seem to transcend to a higher understanding, a more internal way of doing things."

We have to get over the idea that 'internal' is another word for 'better.' This whole line of reasoning is flawed.

"there is no magical force"

We also have to get over the idea that 'internal' is another word for 'magic force.' THIS whole line of reasoning is also flawed.

"When you attain a high level of skill in any art you may be able to do things the average practitioner cant"

Yes. Which doesn't mean it's internal. A high level skill in one thing doesn't turn it into something else.

BlackJack

"I am also not a believer in the internal vrs the external debate, to me every fighting method has elements of softness and hardness to it"

We have to get over this idea that 'internal/external' means 'soft/hard.' Again, this too is not the case.

Merryprankster

"if you start with the idea that the assumptions (ie, the criteria) are true. If they aren't, then they aren't, but that's a completely different issue."

Well, it's a very germane issue to the question/point you brought up. ;) And they're not true. It's not a matter of opinion, but simple fact. For example internal styles have fast forms, that's just a simple and observable fact from reality. Same with linear, direct, stopping attacks, etc.

"It's clear, however, that there is disagreement even among internal practicioners, about what internal means. Heck Liokault doesn't even believe in chi, and he's a Tai Chi man."

And there's a disagreement among physicists about what gravity is, and yet they can all readily distinguish it from friction. Which is to say that 'disagreement about some parameters of a thing' is not significant to conclude 'inability to distinguish said thing from another thing.'

"the 'Song' you describe might be attributed to appropriate structure and sensitivity as well . No offense, I'm simply offering alternatives. The truth is that studies would have to be done--and I think we can both admit that."

Similarly, studies don't have to be done to be able to distinguish it from something else. When Kaitain spoke about tendon strength and relaxation, I believe he was simply trying to convey what it felt like in his own body, rather than trying to offer the physiological answer as to what the difference was.

"does the fault lie in the training methods?"

It takes a long time. For some reason the people trained in external styles conclude this to mean it is more sophisticated (ie. better) and thus attribute us with arrogance to suggest they do not achieve the same things. It's an important, if seemingly obvious, insight to note that this is not, in fact, a good thing.

MerryP - if you were throwing a dedicated strike at someone, and somehow they teleported instantaneously and without your knowledge, and connected with your punch at 25% of it's trajectory; or perhaps there was an invisible man standing nearby, and without your knowledge, at 25% of the trajectory of your punch he reached out and pushed your striking arm towards your body - would the striking arm have the same connection to the floor as it would at 'resolved striking distance' along the trajectory, or would it be much easier jam and close off your structure in this case?

[Black Jack]

Braden,

I am all for that, labels blow. It can sometimes be so ingrained to a person though that they have a hard time taking it out of the vocab.

Kinda like when a person sneezes and I say bless you, then I sit there, shake my head and go what the f%, I'm a atheist:D

Just ingrained.

[Merryprankster]

My stance and structure would keep me from getting knocked over, and would keep me in a fighting position, but the punch itself would be jammed. How's that for an utterly non-committal, but reasonably accurate answer. :D

I also agree that certainly, the list is in all likelihood, flawed :)

As far as the gravity analogy, fair enough: The effect is agreed upon, the mode of delivery is not.

[DelicateSound]

Hendrix drowned in his own puke didn't he?

The only people who think internal/ external are the same are those with only external training.



Yes he did. A rather nasty drugs overdose. Doesn't change the fact that he was the most influencial guitarist of the 20th century. Probably the most technical too.

As for internal/external - I have had experience in both. I'm no expert, but I refuse to believe that there is a mystical energy force that cannot be explained by modern day science. Internal energy I believe in. I believe it is VERY different from external. I have felt it in others. [Not in myself :(]

However, the idea of an "exclusive" branch of styles, that are the only ones to "unlock" the key to "Chi" power is ridiculous. The concept of Chi is very old. The Chinese were VERY clever to realise it. However, it is explainable by conventional science.

I'm not disputing it's use/power. Just trying to remove the shroud. A lot of people like to feel all powerful and exclusive through training in an internal art, as if they know something that no-one else does. "Jedi" mentality.

[Merryprankster]

Oh hey, Braden--I'm in the same category--the labels are kind of silly-- Like I said--intellectual exercise :)

[Braden]

MerryPrankster

"My stance and structure would keep me from getting knocked over, and would keep me in a fighting position, but the punch itself would be jammed. How's that for an utterly non-committal, but reasonably accurate answer."

Perfectly reasonable. ;) Tangentally, I would suggest that if I could jam your punch, I could also close off your structure (eg. shorten the angle made by your upper arm and lat enough to critically impair your ability to exert power at that location) which would be step one of knocking you over or putting you out of position. However, regardless of this tangent, this is a good example of the difference between a good boxing and a good bagua strike; in the latter, the line of force should be kept throughout the movement. Which isn't to say that it's superior; there are obvious 'pros' to the boxing approach. Maybe Kaitain can clarify as to whether or not the same idea exists in taiji.

DelicateSound

"I refuse to believe that there is a mystical energy force that cannot be explained by modern day science."

Again, one of the things we should try to dissociate from the definition of 'internal.'

"However, the idea of an 'exclusive' branch of styles, that are the only ones to 'unlock' the key to 'Chi' power is ridiculous."

I agree.

"A lot of people like to feel all powerful and exclusive through training in an internal art, as if they know something that no-one else does."

I agree that this is inappropriate.

MerryP - When you move, where is the swivel point on your foot? If you were to shift your weight onto the forward foot (ie. bow stance), where would the rear foot press into the ground?

[Merryprankster]

Braden-- I KNEW you'd say that :) Just told Ap you would a second ago. But that's what uppercuts are for :D

I'm not sure what you mean by the weight shifting stuff--can you try to clarify it a bit? Weight is 'always' on the balls of your feet in boxing (supposed to be anyway.) You aren't supposed to be flat footed. So my contact points wouldn't change, just the distribution of my weight.

[DelicateSound]

You know - this board is a real fusion of opposites. On the one hand we have threads like this, where we discuss stuff well, then we have the Machine May thread......... :rolleyes:

[Braden]

Heh... maybe that's why I love uppercuts. ;p

"Weight is 'always' on the balls of your feet in boxing"

In bagua, and I believe the other internals, the weight is generally focused on a spot on the front side of the heel. Just more distinctions to watch for.

Look at the chinese man in black standing in the middle of this picture http://www.geocities.com/chenworkshop/ottawa.jpg or the first man on the left of the front row in the white t-shirt and black pants. Now look at the men in this picture http://www.willyworries.com/migswithadifference1NET.jpg. Can you pick out some differences in how they stand? In the former picture, note particularly (and contrast with the latter picture) the way the shoulders are held, the way the neck is held, how the feet are positioned (relative to hips and shoulders), and also how with both men they are very subtley weighted into their left feet.

Er... that first picture should show up if you just type in that address manually. Dunno why it won't load up clicking on the link.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--you're pointing out some technical differences, and I agree they exist. I won't go so far as to discuss fundamental body mechanics when comparing apples to apples, because I'm not sure that's particularly productive--or germaine, to this argument.

But is Bagua technically different than Tai Chi? If so, then demonstrating technical differences doesn't translate to internal or external--which, as we both talked about, are somewhat loaded terms. I think you'd agree that even though the weighting is similar in Tai Chi and Bagua, that doesn't define internal.

If you're just trying to point out that Bagua and Boxing aren't exactly the same, well, I believe that. :)

How would YOU define internal Braden? Or is it just a label?

BTW--Definitely a difference in how they are standing. However, I've never known a boxer to be concerned with how they stand outside the ring. :) If Bagua produces good posture, that's a nice benefit :D

[red5angel]

"Controversial to who though? "

Generally wing chun people, but also to those on the 'outside' if they hear the arguments that go on. Imagine that wing chun people arguing about something!



"And, as pointed out, that list has nothing to do with internal/external. "

Actually, yes it does, in that someone listed those as attributes to an internal art and MPs argument was that it sounds alot like external arts as well.

"We have to get over the idea that 'internal' is another word for 'better.' This whole line of reasoning is flawed. "

You are correct, and maybe I wasnt clear enough. To imply that you practice an internal art is to imply that your art is better. what I am saying is that maybe a high level of skill gives the appearence of something more then just a high level of skill.


"We also have to get over the idea that 'internal' is another word for 'magic force.' THIS whole line of reasoning is also flawed. "

I agree, and that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Many CMA guys want to call it Qi, but my ideas on Qi have more to do with developing athletic ability, fine tuning and mastering bodily control, etc...not a connection to some energy that flows through us all. I enjoy star wars as much if not more then the next guy but there is no real force in my view.


"Yes. Which doesn't mean it's internal. A high level skill in one thing doesn't turn it into something else. "

Again, agreed, I see it as a different path to focus on. For example in wingchun yo9u can be a small guy, use your structure and your rooting to defend yourself against larger opponents. You can also be a larger guy and use your weight, height, and arm length as an advantage. If you choose to go with weight, strength, etc.. you may or may not develope the fine body control I think "internal" represents. If you are smaller and rely on that structure and root, you may develope something that seems out of place, a generation of power that may seem disproportionate to your size and strength. Neither is a bad way to go, just two different ways, and I am not saying it could go either way.

[Merryprankster]

BTW---

Braden--I just wanted to say that you are probably one of the better folks, from a rhetorical perspective on this board. I'm not too shabby at this, but I think you're better.

D@mnit

[Braden]

MerryPrankster

"But is Bagua technically different than Tai Chi?"

Yes. Differences and similarities. Just like with either art and boxing. However, how are they different and similar? Can you pick out the peculiar ways those two chinese gentlemen stand? Do you remember when Kaitain called the internal arts a kind of conditioning? What you see in these men is one result of this conditioning. I think it's very appropriate to call it conditioning. Just like if someone lifts alot of weights, you see changes in their body. It's the same thing here. Are taiji and bagua different? Yes. But they both result in this kind of conditioning. Good practitioners of both arts tend to exhibit the characteristics seen in these men. Tell a boxer he should box flat-footed. He'll look at you like you're an idiot. Tell an internalist (bagua OR taiji) he should box on the balls of his feet. He'll look at you like you're an idiot. You can't say one camp is wrong and the other is right. You CAN say every art is different. And you can ALSO say that there's a group of arts that, despite their differences, all emphasize and result in a few common peculiar things. And you could make up a name for this group. The name might be internal. Yes, this is a VERY loaded label. It would be alot easier to call them "group A" and "group B." Or even skip the whole group thing and say "arts with X" like "arts with guntings" or "arts that use a heavy bag." That would be alot easier to discuss, and probably alot more accurate. But for better or worse, history has stuck us with this loaded term. I'm trying to unload it. It's just a term, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.

"I think you'd agree that even though the weighting is similar in Tai Chi and Bagua, that doesn't define internal."

I would agree. I'm trying to demonstrate not that these are sufficient characteristics to define a group, but rather that they are easily observable byproducts of an underlying concept of how to go about things, which is shared by the group and differs from the concepts found in other training methods.

"However, I've never known a boxer to be concerned with how they stand outside the ring."

There's a couple ways to address this.

First of all, the idea of conditioning. The exercises in internal arts change the body, like weightlifting. The changes have an effect on martial ability, like weightlifting. In some ways, like weightlifting, these changes can be observed - there they are.

How someone stands inside the ring is related to how they stand outside the ring. Especially when the going gets rough, you revert to what is natural. Thus, conclusions can be drawn about one from the other. This is not just speculation. I could post pictures from IN the ring which show how the differences, rather than disappearing, in fact become further exaggerated. I'm pretty sure you'd agree allready though.

Finally, one of the ideas in the internal arts is that the way you happen to stand IS martially important. This comes down to ideas about self-defense. When you are attacked in the context of self-defense, it will not likely be in a moment when you have prepared yourself. Thus, habitually maintaining appropriate lines of force in your body is considered a highly admirable trait.

[Merryprankster]

Rather like the Judo "neutral" posture, vice the wrestler's crouch. I agree--that makes a lot of sense from a self-defense fighting viewpoint.

Maybe that's why I'm comfortable fighting from a crouch--I have to concentrate to keep good posture myself.

But as far as definitions, you are saying that internal arts are simply a category of arts that share certain specific emphases, yeah?

[Braden]

red5angel

"For example in wingchun you can be a small guy, use your structure and your rooting to defend yourself against larger opponents. You can also be a larger guy and use your weight, height, and arm length as an advantage. If you choose to go with weight, strength, etc.. you may or may not develope the fine body control I think 'internal' represents."

What I am saying is that I do not believe what you are calling 'internal' here has anything to do with what 'internal' happens to be. I would replace the word 'internal' in this quote simply with the word 'skill.'

This exact same phenomenon exists in all martial arts. In the 'classically defined' internal arts, we see it all the time. I cannot count the number of times I have heard my teacher say 'that might work, but only because you are stronger/bigger/heavier' or 'you are relying on your strength/size/weight.' It's something we wrestle with constantly; to use the SKILL of our art rather than our conditioning. And it's one of the ways training differs from usage. In training you are trying to develop skill, so you try to cut everything else out of the equation. That's one of the things that is meant be the infamous and poorly named 'cooperative' training. However, in usage, you'll still have all that skill you developed in training, and all you'll be concerned about is pounding the crap out of the guy trying to hurt you, however you can! Again, I think Kaitain aluded to this in one of his posts.

But I do not believe this has anything to do with 'internal.' I believe it is a difficult concern that practitioners of EVERY art try to balance.

MerryPrankster

Don't let any skill I may have for eloquence trick you into thinking I know what I'm talking about, let alone that I'm any good at actually doing it. ;p

"How would YOU define internal Braden?"

"But as far as definitions, you are saying that internal arts are simply a category of arts that share certain specific emphases, yeah?"

That definitely works.

[Merryprankster]

Ah good---I feel much less like your b!tch since you've defined internal that way :) I agree 100%.

[Braden]

Remember a thread a while back where you asked why the hell people would stand around in static postures?

You comment, "Maybe that's why I'm comfortable fighting from a crouch--I have to concentrate to keep good posture myself."

Imagine a conditioning exercise which actually changes your body to naturally conform to 'good posture.' This is basically what I tried to convey on that thread, what I'm trying to convey here, and some of the overt results of which you can see in the pic I posted.

It's worth noting with respect to external/internal differences, that all practitioners of classically defined external styles which responded to your question told you I was wrong and it was for strong legs. Probably highly related; it's worth noting that their stance holding practice varies from 'ours' in several ways - such as the level of tension involved, and whether or not the 'stance' means just the legs, or various requirements for the whole body.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--I can understand that--no problem. I notice that my posture breaks down when I am tired, but when I "train myself," to maintain good posture, it's much less of an issue :)

[red5angel]

"What I am saying is that I do not believe what you are calling 'internal' here has anything to do with what 'internal' happens to be. I would replace the word 'internal' in this quote simply with the word 'skill.' "

Thats fine, I am just stating what I believe to be 'internal' power, or how it is defined. The labels are the problem, I dont think there is a huge difference between the two. I dont really even think that there is two types, really.

" This exact same phenomenon exists in all martial arts. In the 'classically defined' internal arts, we see it all the time. I cannot count the number of times I have heard my teacher say 'that might work, but only because you are stronger/bigger/heavier' or 'you are relying on your strength/size/weight.' It's something we wrestle with constantly; to use the SKILL of our art rather than our conditioning. And it's one of the ways training differs from usage. In training you are trying to develop skill, so you try to cut everything else out of the equation. That's one of the things that is meant be the infamous and poorly named 'cooperative' training. However, in usage, you'll still have all that skill you developed in training, and all you'll be concerned about is pounding the crap out of the guy trying to hurt you, however you can! Again, I think Kaitain aluded to this in one of his posts. "

I agree and meant to make that point but skipped over it. I do not really believe in 'internal' power as a seperate thing from external power. All arts can have it, but not all people can attain it.

"But I do not believe this has anything to do with 'internal.' I believe it is a difficult concern that practitioners of EVERY art try to balance. "

Ultimately, I dont believe that there is a disparity between internal and external that is most often implied. I get the impression, and of course this is limited to my experience, taht most people when talking about internal power are referring to some strange energy that they learn to harness. To me it is more down to earth and explainable then that.

[red5angel]

Hey MP - going along with why you would stand in static postures, I do a sort of static meditation where I basically just stand there. The only reason I do it is to reinforce "quietness" in my foundation.

[Merryprankster]

The thread he was referring to was one on holding horse stance forever and a day. I was asking what sort of benefit this created :)

[Braden]

MerryPrankster

"I notice that my posture breaks down when I am tired, but when I 'train myself,' to maintain good posture, it's much less of an issue"

Now, spend half an hour every morning and every evening for the next three months just standing there stretching and relaxing your body into good posture, and see if that improvement continues. ;) Ok, probably not your idea of a good time - which is maybe why everyone who sticks with the internal arts also happen to be half-nutty. ;p

[red5angel]

Gotcha. I jst wanted to drop my 2 cents in about that because I aksed that very same question a month ago, got the answer I gave you, have been doing it since then and it does help. Braden is right, not exactly the typical idea of a good time but lets face it sometimes martial training just goes in a direction that isnt always 'fun' :)

[Merryprankster]

Braden---

No.


But thanks for the suggestion :) I can't sit still for 5 minutes.

[PaulLin]

....still reading all the above....need more time to read.

[PaulLin]

I wouldn't say that the mind and Qi are only in Internal and applications and hardcore styles are External. Actually, they all will be existed in all styles little or less. Some has these different in ratio as the level moves up.

I would just say if you think that Qi and mind existed for application, then you are the External catagory.

If you think that the applications are existed form further mind and Qi developments, I would think you are the Internal catagory.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Paul
Well, it must be nice to have all the answers about everything. maybe one day I can be as knowledgeable as you.


that's it, paul. eyes on the prize. :rolleyes:


stuart b.

[PaulLin]

It feels really weird that some one called out Paul and it is not me. Maybe I should modified my name:(

[Paul]

that's it, paul. eyes on the prize.

Talk about dwelling on the past I made that post about 6 days ago. Get over it all ready.

Are you MP's knight in shining armour, here to defend his virtue?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:D

[apoweyn]

something like that. i'm also bogged down in work. but as it turns out, your post was just as needlessly hostile yesterday as it was on the day you posted it. unless you've had a change of heart?

rest assured that merryprankster doesn't need me to defend him. i'm just getting fed up with such fascinating and insightful comments as this. if you disagree with his point, how about elucidating a bit rather than leaving a flaming bag of sarcasm on the doorstep and running off?


stuart b.

[dragontounge2]

Originally posted by DelicateSound
Of course MPS. Just 'cause it ain't called "internal" means nothing.

"Internal" is a bunch of letters arranged to make a "word". That word however has been twisted, sinuously morphing into something else.

I think of it as music. Take the "Fifth Chord". I know it as a fifth chord as there is no third. Hence it is neither major or minor. It is used in many styles if music, originally in Jazz.

Most people know a 5th chord [or a type of one] as a "Power Chord" present in metal.

Same thing different name.

Like you once said MPS "We're all learning the same thing". I agree.

See my signature :D





[Read in Mr.Miyagi style hushed tone]

The day you realise that whether you "win" in the ring or not, you have "won" by merely turning up, by putting in 110% and bettering yourself, then you have understood the above phrase.



:D



NO it was first an octave chord a power chord is a cut bar chord