Just curious, is one better than the other?

[Shaolindynasty]

I am curious about the way people feel about this so i want to to ask, Do you feel the internal styles are superior to the external styles. If so why.

Please list

If you feel one is superior, or they are both equal.

Why you feel that way

what style you practice

[DelicateSound]

Any style - in the right hands - can be superior.

[Shaolindynasty]

I suppose I should post my feelings on this. I think they are equal, in fact I don't even like the catagories as they seperate styles that don't really need to be seperated. Both catagories use similar training techniques, I have heard stories of Chen TaiJi stylists doing pushups and running as a part of their training and most external styles do some form of qigong and train structure to minimize the use of muscle while they fight.

If both are trained as a martial art they both spar and hit bags. All styles use different structure and methods of generating power so it would be wrong to say external styles power generating methods lack the same quality as internal methods. Yet if trained as a martial art both methods include both soft and hard training.

I practice Shaolin Longfist and have recently started learning Choy lay Fut.

[Shaolindynasty]

Delecate sound- I agree, as long as it is a sound style (ex. of unsound would be chung mo quan)

I guess i should have said "if you feel one type can give a practitioner the advantage over the other."

[Braden]

SD - Perhaps you should reserve judgement on the nature or lack thereof of internal styles until you have studied one. As far as the original question goes, I think to get any reasonable responses you'll have to define what you mean by 'better.'

[DelicateSound]

Yes, but I bet there are some moves in CMQ that could be made effective in the right hands...... :p

I hate any style Vs. style debate*. Any style can be made effective. Even Karate :D [Peter Consterdine]


As for whether internal or external is better - it depends on your goal. What do you want to achieve. If you wantto kick someone's ass, I wouldn't recommend Tai Chi. But for relaxation and health....




Yes, a style can be anything you wish. I imagine that Mhuy Thai could be good for health [fitness] and Tai Chi can VERY easily be used for combat. However, in most places internal is used for its more traditional purposes.

As always, there are exceptions.



Good thread. :)

[Braden]

DelicateSound - Internal's 'more traditional purposes' ARE martial usage.

[Shaolindynasty]

I don't want to argue about it. What I was hopeing to do is get other peoples opinons on this. I haven't studied both and was curious as to how people who studied internal arts felt about it. My opinon doesnt matter in this, I just find more people will post if you start off your topic by yourself. I want to learn about other peoples experience and discuss it with them, not try to force my opinon on them. I hope this thread can stay in a non confrontational manner.

By better I mean more combat effecient.

[Brad]

But don't most traditional external styles have internal type stuff at higher levals anyway? Kind of a different path to the same goal thing?

[Braden]

Which tastes better, a dill pickel or caramel?

There's got to be at least as many variables affecting combat efficiency as taste. "Which is better?" just isn't a viable question. If all you want is info about internal arts, ask for that. The best discussions I've seen on the topic are simply where people discuss their training methods. Unfortunately, for some reason not alot of people will do that. ;)

Brad - "internal type stuff" is not the same as being of the neijia. Just like a club sandwich isn't a salad just because it has lettuce.

[greendragon]

Styles are mixtures, evolutions. the more you learn the better. When i was young Shaolin was required before you were taught internal styles. How can you know soft without hard? Even Hsing-i and pa kua are taught together. straight and circle.

[DelicateSound]

DelicateSound - Internal's 'more traditional purposes' ARE martial usage

I understand what you are saying - internal force, hard qigong etc. but I feel that in modern times they are less relevant to combat that a basic external system.

Not worse - just different.


Some styles just place an emphasis on certain thinkgs. Aikido on locks and nonresistance, Judo on throws. Both contain a portion of throws and locks and nonresistance. Different weighting.

[Braden]

Greendragon -

"When i was young Shaolin was required before you were taught internal styles."

Required by who?

"How can you know soft without hard?"

By studying only soft techniques, for example.

"Even Hsing-i and pa kua are taught together."

Sometimes. And often they're not.

DelicateSound -

"I understand what you are saying - internal force, hard qigong etc."

I'm not sure if you do. Baguazhang, taijiquan, and xingyiquan (the orthodox internal styles) are complete martial systems with single movement technique practice, sparring drills, energy drills, and everything else.

"but I feel that in modern times they are less relevant to combat that a basic external system."

What has changed?

[DelicateSound]

Time has changed. Before commercialisation it used to be the way that you were accepted into a school and allowed to live there to further your studies.

I know about baguazhang, taijiquan, and xingyiquan being complete systems.

Xingxi in particular I would LOVE to learn.



However IMHO in today's rushed society in terms of Combat efficiency ONLY, over a practical short-term timescale, a more direct and external art is better for self-defence.



I would LOVE to learn XingXi, but I have not the time to cultivate internal skills. I have a Uni course and a part-time job. And a need to defend myself NOW. One day I'd love to.... :(

[Wu-Xing]

"Even Hsing-i and pa kua are taught together. straight and circle."

Greendragon. xingyi is NOT straight.just because the circles are hard to see does not mean they are not their and for a more outward expression of circularity in training,whatabout "pangen"?however, if that is not what you meant then I apologise.

[Braden]

"Before commercialisation it used to be the way that you were accepted into a school and allowed to live there to further your studies."

I don't believe that is historically accurate, at least pertaining to internal schools in China. But other than that aside, what you said certainly makes sense.

[DelicateSound]

Cool. A lot of internal guys don't see it that way.

[greendragon]

Braden, i was only referecing to my specific school requiring shaolin before hsing-i and pa-kua. I still think it is recommended so beginners are not totally lost about power through relaxed unity, etc. also a lot of stance and basic training overlaps. I am not saying it should be done or not. the other side of the coin is that some things must be unlearned. But that teaches change. I have never heard of a Hsing-i master who did not also study PaKua or vice-versa since the dual in the 1800s that ended in a draw. The 2 are so complimentary i will be surprised if you tell me your school only teaches one. Maybe it is some new developement that has passed me by. Wu Xing, a straight line becomes a circle, a line leaving a circle is straight, the two are like ying and yang. Hsing is is linear. Just look at Lin Wan Wu Hsing, straight down the line and back.

[Braden]

"I have never heard of a Hsing-i master who did not also study PaKua or vice-versa"

Really? Off the top of my head, let me consider famous north american bagua teachers who have not studied xingyi. We have most of Liu Yun Qiao's group (Adam Hsu, James Guo, Tony Yang, Glen Gurman, Su Yu Chang, Kurt Wong, Jason Tsuo, etc), Park Bok Nam, Xie Peiqi and He Jinbao, Yang Guotai, Victor Fu, Liang Qiang Ya... Outside of North America, we have Erle Montaigue, Ma Chuanxu, Liu Jingru... Historically we have such big names as Yin Fu, Gong Baotian, Liang Zhenpu... I don't have my books with me, so this is just off the top of my head.

Maybe I'm mistaken about one or two of these names, but really I'm surprised you believe this.

[Wu-Xing]

greendragon.i disagree with you again, xingyi is not linear.just how much xingyi have you done in your thirty years of internal experience? think of a spring.does energy transfer through that in a straight line? or does it spiral through it ?i hate to use it but does qi travel in a straight line?no.it spirals.even at a far simplier level to understand.Does beng quan travel through the opponent in a straight line(as is the way it looks)?or is there more to it?things that are not so obvious?and im not talking about qi or anything like that.

[Former castleva]

I´ll add some ingredients to mess up the soup a bit more.
Here are only the things I have not seen noticed yet,or completely talked out.
External styles use qi,but as they do have a heavy emphasis on "external" things like hardening tendons,muscles-I think it is called "local qi" (may someone with more knowledge explain it further)
I´ve also got the idea that no style is whole internal or external,hard or soft.
Hard arts like karate (in general) or kempo can be straightforward and tough,but even with considering it linear,there still are some circular or soft movements in it.
Even though I think they do have the right to remain external,nothing wrong with that.
There´s also a saying in internal kung-fu called "from internal to external" (hope I got that right,I think I did) Meaning it travels around or something.
Could it be that with external too?
I guess that´s part what ying/yang is of.

[NorthernMantis]

Like I said before no kung fu style is too external or internal they both share the same aspects but justlean more to one side.

[Gabriel]

Braden, talking about caramel and dill pickles and club sandwiches and such made me hungry...Chocalate pudding!! :)

Anyway, I was told that Internal styles start within and work their way out, whereas external stylists start without and work their way in. So the end result is the same methinks. A virtual badass of both internal and external aspects. Of course, ya gotta put the time and training in to get to that level...

Lol..now what about me, who takes internal (Tai Chi) and external (Mantis) at same time? I am one confused individual... :P

Gabriel the 'Witness' ;)

[NorthernMantis]

Anyway, I was told that Internal styles start within and work their way out, whereas external stylists start without and work their way in. So the end result is the same methinks.

Very well put Gabriel.

[Braden]

Out of curiosity, do you guys believe training hard in eagle claw will also give you all the benefits of judo, or is this peculiar phenomenon limited to taiji, bagua, and xingyi?

[Shaolindynasty]

There are quite a few styles that I think you can get some benifits of Judo. For instance longfist styles are very general in nature so they include Ti, Da, Shuai, Na,=leg attacks, arm attacks, chinese wrestleing, joint locks. So the technique is there but I think you mean somthing else. If the sensitivity is what you mean lots of schools use some form of sensitivity training. Certain styles just may be more developed in other areas due to preference of the practitioners, speacialty of the style etc.

Could you expand on that question a little? (this may get interesting yet!)

[scotty1]

I think Braden was being facetious. :)

I don't think he wants to know about Judo, just saying that the three orthocox internal styles are not interchangeable.

I think.

[Shaolindynasty]

I'm lost then:(

[Royal Dragon]

Simple, Eagle claw has throws in it, but a Judo practitioner specialises in it, and thearfore would be better at it.

Each internal art expreses similar mechanics, but each specialises in a perticular aspect. Only learning all three will allow you to be versed in all three. Mastery may be in one art, depending on which you put the most time on, or you can be a master of none but highly skilled in all.

[Shaolindynasty]

Eagle claw specializes in chin na. Yet even in the same "catagory" there is a difference in the technique is exectued. Compare Shuai jiao to judo, even though they both throw they are very different in structure. Yet they both acheive the same goal is done properly, it just may be done differently.

[Braden]

In short, I would put forth the extreme proposition that you get better at what you train at, and not at what you don't train at.

It was directed specifically at the pervasive concept that not training at neijia somehow does give you neijia skill, so long as you don't train at it long and hard enough.

As discussed, this same flaw of logic is also common in a variety of other situations, such as in the example of considering whether longfist will give you the same benefits of judo, simply because it contains shuai.

And as discussed, the meaningfullness of calling things same and different should come from how, not why - as there really aren't alot of whys in the martial arts, so going this route would inevitably result in everything being the same; which is meaningless.

[Gabriel]

Braden you sneaky devious person! :D

I had to read over that post a couple of times before I could get a working idea of what exactly you are talking about (I think I know..:confused: ) You're stipulating that an Internalist thats been "in it" long enough develops no external aspects? Or that an Externalist who has virtually mastered his art, then does not turn inward? IMHO, I think the mistake in this thinking is you are assigning external and internal to different styles. While it can be true in a broader sense that a style "teaches" either internal or external, I believe once a person reaches a certain level, they then make the art their own, in a truly individual way. So, in short, I wasn't referring to internal and external in a stylistic way, but in an angle of aspect. I never said that a Bagua Student who masters his art would conversely become an expert in Karate, or that a BJJ student who masters his art would have revelations about Praying Mantis... :rolleyes:
To assume that I meant it in a stylistic way is silly, imho.

G.

[Braden]

"You're stipulating that an Internalist thats been 'in it' long enough develops no external aspects?"

No, I'm not stipulating that at all. The orthodox chinese internal arts teach 'external aspects' from the very first minute of the very first class.

[Gabriel]

Phooey. And I thought I knew what you were talking about. Even gave myself a cookie as a reward....Oh well.


G.











:D






ps. what the sam hill ARE you talking about then?

ps2- I still think you're sneaky :p

[Braden]

I am sneaky in my straightforwardness. I am talking about "Anyway, I was told that Internal styles start within and work their way out, whereas external stylists start without and work their way in. So the end result is the same methinks."

Let's put it this way. There's a thing which philosophers call a 'category mistake.' The example I was given was if you were given the job of showing a visitor around your university campus and you showed him the gym, then the residences, then the student center, then the lecture and lab halls. Finally, after the thorough tour, the visitor remarks, "Yes, but where it the university?" This is a category mistake because the visitor is applying logic across categories which is only consistent within a category. The university is all those buildings, it's not one of them.

When people treat 'external' and 'internal' styles as 'yang' and 'yin' explicitly, they are making a category mistake. When someone decided to call their martial art 'taiji,' it was not because he felt his art was yin and every other art was yang.

[Royal Dragon]

That ummmm..........wellllllllllll...........ur.......n ever mind, I do't get it.

Seriously, internal arts generate power from the core body which multiplys power genrated by the limbs.

External arts just generate power from the limbs. See, simple:D

Catagories are irrelevant, it's more like the internal arts ADD internal power to an external foundation.

There are a number of stylistic differences between typical internal and external styles, but in a nutshell it's the use or lack of use of the core body during power generation or health development.

You really need both to be truley God like as each focuses on an opposing aspect of the body's strenght building.

[Braden]

Sorry, I must have read No_Know or Turiyan once too many times.

"External arts just generate power from the limbs."

I can think of some external stylists which would disagree strongly with this statement.

"You really need both to be truley God like as each focuses on an opposing aspect of the body's strenght building."

I maintain that thinking of them along these lines is incorrect. They are different ways of doing things. Things can be different without being opposites, and certainly without being complimentary. For instance, if you train to root and pivot off the ball of your foot long enough, do you suddenly start doing it off the heel instead? Vice-versa? If you spend alot of time learning to root and pivot of the ball, and then alot of time off the heel, do these abilities sum up to create a new and better kind of rooting and pivoting?

[Crimson Phoenix]

Why does it have to be so manichean, so dualist? I thought many masters said that in the end, external and internal unite...external to internal, internal to external, but in the end, it's unity...

[Braden]

If that was directed at me, I have said both explicitly and alegorically over and over again that it's not a dualism. Things can be different without being a dualism.

Alot of internal stylists have spoken about uniting internal and external, but they weren't talking about kinds of styles or training.

[Fred Sanford]

why is it that external stylists, particularly those that have never seen or experienced an internal art are convinced that there is no difference? Hmmm, something to ponder.

Internal or External it's just 2 different methods for accomplishing the same thing. At the end of the day getting knocked the f*ck out, is getting knocked the f*ck out. Don't matter if it was by a shotokan punch or a tai chee punch if you are on the receiving end.

BJJ is superior.

[Royal Dragon]

I guess a blending of internal and external would require you to choose which is best, pivot on heel or ball and stick to that one specific choice. Then again, diffeent situations call for different moves, right?

As for limbs vs core body, I submit that if an "External" styleist is routinely useing core body mechanics more commonly found in internal styles, then they are DOING AN INTERNAL STYLE!!

Maybe we should start by listing all the things that make internal, well internal.

What is so different? It's got to be much more than going slow, as my Taiji form is done fast and powerful at the upper levels.

[crumble]

If you feel one is superior, or they are both equal.

I believe it depends on what the teacher knows, not what the style is.

Why you feel that way

When it all comes down to it, the reason I am practicing with my teacher is so that I don't waste time. Wasting time is learning techniques that require muscling. If I'm muscling things, I'm not delivering maximum power or using maximum leverage.

Time well spent is learning techniques that maximize the use of leverage, momentum, and positioning. These things are not found in a style. (By that I mean they do not exist in the abstract. You know, lik there isn't "Bagua" flying around in space, independent of a human body.) Leverage, momentum, position are to be figured out for MY body. And a teacher that has figured it out for THEIR body is going to be a better facilitator for helping me find these things.

So not all teachers are equal.

Not all arts are equal, either.

So-called internal arts start from this premise: that you need to find the most effective, least effort-ful technique to dominate the situation. But unless the teacher has discovered how to manifest this premise, learning from him or her is just a waste of time.

So-called external arts can sometimes cover up flaws in techniques because they use more force, however just because you are studying an external style, it doesn't mean that you have to rely on force. A good technique is a good technique.

From my observations, external arts tend to carry around more flawed techniques, because they haven't been weeded out yet. Internal arts have better techniques, but fewer good teachers. Have I mentioned that the teacher is the most important thing?

what style you practice

hsing i and liu ho ba fa


A note to Shaolindynasty: It seems like you are wondering if you are wasting your time by studying shaolin instead of some internal art and it seems like you have been kicking the idea around for a few months.

You need to decide whether there is enough flexibility in your schedule to study someplace different that where you are at now. If not: let the debate end, you can't change your situation even if you want to! It happens a lot. Also, situations change and maybe you can change things in the future.

But if you CAN consider changing schools, what I would recommend is that you spend some time TALKING with choi, ask him your questions, and showing him your favorite techniques and asking him to critique them. I have seen local wing chun guys come in with honest questions, choi showing various techniques' flaws, and then about half stay with their old school and half start to train with him. He is one of the most approachable people in the world. He talks to idiots all the time, so he probably wouldn't mind talking to someone dedicated. Just know what you want, ask it, and don't waste his time. (If you want advice on how to approach him, I can give advice.)

Sorry if I missed the mark, I made a lot of assumptions about you when I wrote this... and I know I don't know your situation. It's in good faith,

-crumble

[Crimson Phoenix]

Braden, no, that wasn't directed at you.
I don't want to discuss dialectics, but for me the case of internal vs external is indeed a pure form of dualism, not differences.
What I want to say is this: we have all heard that saying of internal then external and reciprocally. It comes from practicionners of old, who we cannot compare to. We are like mice next to an elephant when we compare our martial curriculum (except if any of you thinks he's better than Guo Yun Shen).
I jump to the point: as someone stated it brilliantly, we should be able to clearly define what is internal first...most of us can't...I have yet never come across a solid definition of something that is purely internal and that external doesn't have...needless to say, nothing comes in mind...Qi? Well, I read interviews of Taiwanese master of southern boxing (who some consider the epitome of external, ie "muscular", methods) stress the importance of qi in their practice...relaxation? Everyone will tell you that being tensed is definitely not the best way to move or strike, even in external styles. What then, structure and body alignment? External have that too, if an external stylist lacks these, it just means he has a low level.
I was speaking of Guo Yun Shen, and it wasn't innocent. Guo was a warrior, and he was a master of a rough style of xingyi who is said by many that it is "almost external"...yet, his level was extremely high. he was so iconoclastic that he mentionned "if you think about the five elements when you fight, you're dead" (which for xingyi, is quite a shocker). For him, the five elements were something that happened to fit to xingyi, instead of being the root from which it was born. My point is that discussing endlessly external vs internal means that we somehow agree that there is a separation (dualism everyone?). What is there was none? As many stated here before, much more documented and knowledgeable than me, this distinction wasn't made prior to Sun Lu Tang. It simply didn't exist, styles were NEVER classified like that...back in these days, masters were not scholars, they were warriors...there was no internal, no external...there was high gong fu, and lame gong fu, period. What if Sun Lu Tang, an acknowledged scholar, indeed applied this distinction (some even CREATED it) to classify gong fu styles? Surely, it won't change the styles per se in the way they were practiced...so should we really take this distinction for Truth? When we say "legs north, fist south", we all know it "kinda" fits, then we have many many counter-examples coming into mind, until the point we agree that the saying is a generalization too overly gross to be serious and even functional...it helps give a big picture, but we have to get rid of that paradigm when we enter into things deeper...what if "internal vs external" was of the same order, that is as little credible as legs north, fist south? What if when we go deeper into things we start to acknowledge that maybe internal vs external is not really a good question?
When you read every songs of Xingyi or even Bagua (the 36 songs of bagua, the 8 songs of xingyi, and many many more depending on the different currents), they all stress at one point or another (or even constantly) the unification of the external and the internal, or of the shape (external) and the mind (internal) (shape-mind: xing yi), or the 6 coordinations,or the 6 harmonies. And these paramount points are also stressed in styles considered as external...external without internal and internal without external would then be like pure yin or pure yang to a chinese mind, ie a highly unproductive if not dangerous situation.
I'm quite personally convinced that people having reached a high gong fu have grasped the same tricks, have understood the same key points and put them in practice, regardless whether they started the external or internal way. High gong fu is simply reaching "the unification of internal and external" in the case we believe that there is an internal, and there is an external. It just doesn't matter where you started, if you have travelled only one portion of the road, you haven't seen it all.

[crumble]

I think Braden and Crimson Phoenix are saying the same thing, except Braden is talking changing "external to internal" from within the study of an "internal" martial art.

(Note two uses of "internal": Internal in the first case applies to body mechanics specifically, internal in the second case applies to a martial art style, regardless of how you approach learning it.)

Crimson Phoenix seems to be saying the same thing, because mostly he is using internal artists as examples, but it seems like he wants to also leave open the possibility that an external stylist could manifest internal movement principles.

Am I following?

-c

[Shaolindynasty]

crumble- Well a few months ago I wanted to find somthing more "advanced" not nessacarly a style but a better teacher(no disrespect to my first sifu). I chose a school about 3 months ago not due to convinence but because I was very impressed by Sifu Sam Ng. I am happy with my current choice, as you listed in your reasons why, he is an excellent teacher. I learnd allot about proper structure of movements since I started training there.

Just curious about this topic that's all, RD made me curious he has some kind of strange faith that internal styles make you invincible against "external" ones. I probally will visit Choi somtime in the near future, not really looking for a new school but I always like to learn about nd see other methods. Hence my interest in this topic

[scotty1]

Good post Crimson Phoenix, I think.:)

As for someone saying that externalists use limbs to generate power, that's true as far as you push from the ground using your legs, but we're told (in KICKBOXING for chrissakes) not to use our arms to strike, to use our hips and legs and shoulders.

So far, all I've got is - internal and external, different power generation methods. Please tell em if that's way off.

[crumble]

Ugh... Even though I thought I might be wrong when I tried to predict your situation, I hate being wrong! :D

A while ago I wrote about how sword fighters (fencers) in both the West and the East realized that a small sword was faster and more deadly than a heavy sword. All you have to do is get past the guy's defences (which easy to do if you can move quickly) then you can cut him apart.

With good internal arts, it's like that. Your movements are small and very direct, your leverage allows you feel gentle, being gentle allows you to change quickly, and using whole body power allows you to hit without relying on swinging the mass of your arm.

The advantage people like to talk about with internals comes from being trained to use the resistance of the other guy to your advantage. If he resists, he's like a lever and you can move him around.

(But it's not enough to just study an internal art, you have to GET IT. Maybe I will, till then I'll just keep typing :) )

If you are curious, there's a lot to see in the internals!

-c

p.s. Sifu Ng looks like a very solid school!

[Royal Dragon]

"RD made me curious he has some kind of strange faith that internal styles make you invincible against "external" ones. "

Reply]

What?? When did I say THAT?? What I SAY is that the Internal styles are a "Higher" form of martial arts, analogis to going from High School to Colledge (Best expalnation I have ever seen). You can't just skip High School and go stright to College, can you?

Would you or would you not agree that a college graduate has a FAR suprior education to a High school only graduate?

In application:
The internal arts have more sophistcated power generation methods that use a compression, expansion action of the torso in ADDITION to the legs hips and shoulders. It has a mulitpiying effect that allows the player to express lots of power with minimal effort. This ability opens up a large variety of possiblitys not avaliable to the external practioner.

In training:
The internal arts move slowly and deliberately and spend a tremendous amount of time developing these specialized "Mechanics". The health benifits the internal arts are known for come from this.

As for Chi:
External arts invgorate chi through muscular exertion and stimulate it aggressively, with a certian amount of development of the Chi.

Internal arts allow the Chi to flow on it's own accord and gentily "Direct" it's flow through concious thought. Internal style build a tremendous amounts of Chi through a state of great relaxation.

[scotty1]

Interesting post RD.

[Royal Dragon]

Does it make sense? I figued it out all by myself :D

[Gabriel]

Ok. Lots of good thoughts here.

Braden.


"When people treat 'external' and 'internal' styles as 'yang' and 'yin' explicitly, they are making a category mistake. When someone decided to call their martial art 'taiji,' it was not because he felt his art was yin and every other art was yang."

And guess what? I agree. I don't think the definitions are as Cut and Dry/Black and White as some make them out to be. So now I guess Im unclear as to what specifically you are disagreeing with me about...

Royal Dragon


"Seriously, internal arts generate power from the core body which multiplys power genrated by the limbs. "

Ok, I truly do wish to understand where you are coming from here. Ill use an example from what I know to outline my thoughts on this. Lets take Praying Mantis for instance. In PM, we use alot of dropping, twisting of the hips, yielding, redirection of force, and Chin Na. The dropping accentuates the power of our strikes by adding a downward push. As Im sure you know, a slight dropping of your center of gravity is beneficial while striking. We in PM just take it a bit further, hence the very low stance work. Ok. We twist our hips alot, circuiting force from one limb to another, putting our body into "eet". Yielding, instead of meeting force with force, ie. punch, block, many times we yield to the attacker. Let them follow through with their movement, then we attack. Sticking comes into play here as well. Redirection of force is a natural follow up to yielding. We use the attackers force against him, and add a bit of our own in as well. :D Add Chin Na to this. Im sure most of you already know, but Na can be translated to mean seize and control. Generally, we have 5 different methods of Na. Scus my pinyin here.. Fen Jin (dividing the muscle/tendon, Cuo Gu (misplacing the bone), Bi Qi (Sealing the breath), Dian Mai (pressing a vein/artery), and Dian Xue (cavity press). That about sums up PM in a simplified way. My whole reason for this list is this: many of the aspects here would be considered "internal" would they not? Yielding, redirection of force, using the "core" of our body, ect. However, PM is considered an external art, compared to things like Tai Chi, Bagua, ect. So, IMHO, you are separating them into two camps, when most styles have aspects of internal and external, more or less.


"External arts just generate power from the limbs. See, simple"

Similarly, I would have to disagree with this as well. In a friendly way. Im not picking on you or anything. Ok. Ill use boxing here. Not too long ago, it was my assumption from watching heavyweight fights that boxers issued their strength from cheifly their limbs, or arms. But, on another thread I was relieved of this notion by MP, Ap and others. Good boxing uses the entire body , so they said, and after watching non heavy weight fights,I tend to agree. Heck, even Karate doesn't just use the limbs. Step into a right forward stance, issuing a reverse punch. You are using the weight of your body in the strike, one. Also, your chambering your left fist, circuiting the force in the pullback to propell your right fist harder and faster. If done right, you're also sinking your center of gravity a bit. This is using the hips to connect the two limbs in their pull thrust motion. Err.. same conclusion as above... :D

Crimson Phoenix

Er..uh....well...yeah!

My statement...


"Anyway, I was told that Internal styles start within and work their way out, whereas external stylists start without and work their way in. So the end result is the same methinks"

Yours.


" I thought many masters said that in the end, external and internal unite...external to internal, internal to external, but in the end, it's unity..."

Similar, no? :p

Ah well, you know what they say, great minds think alike! :cool:

G.

[Royal Dragon]

Is you power generated by the Torso?? or is the torso just connecting the hips and shoulders?

If you are actually generating power from the Torso itself, and not just relying on a wieght drop of the hips, then what you are doing is internal, regaurdless of what label your teacher or others place on your art.

BUT, if you are doing all the above as you described, but the Torso itself is not actively produceing a majority of the power, and just bracing or connecting the hips and shoulders, then what you are doing is external. Or more correctly said "Purely external" as Internal movement contains much of rthe same as external, but external is missing alot that is contained in the internal, namely the use of the core body in power generation.

It's not just a matter of useing the whole body, it's ~HOW~ you are useing the whole body.

A good example, My Taiji Quan according to my definition is only internal on occasion when I manage to get it to all come together right. The rest of the time it's just external going slow. It's a matter of practice, I know what I should do, and I know when I'm doing it, but when I'm not I often don't know what I'm doing wrong as it is really a "Feel" kind of thing. Sometimes I can spend 30 minutes adjusting my movent, timing, postioning and mechanics before I get it to be truely internal. Once I do though, I really feel it and it is all very clear.

[Braden]

Royal Dragon

"As for limbs vs core body, I submit that if an 'External' styleist is routinely useing core body mechanics."

I really thing this is a red herring, unless you mean something very specific by 'core body mechanics.' No [decent] martial artist uses just limb power, it's simply not strong enough. Look at a boxer, watch the lat and shoulder movement; heck watch the abdominal movement. Kickboxer, muay thai-ist, anything - watch the rotation.

Crimson Pheonix

"Guo was a warrior, and he was a master of a rough style of xingyi who is said by many that it is 'almost external'"

Really? Who said this?

"if you think about the five elements when you fight, you're dead' (which for xingyi, is quite a shocker)"

Why do you say this is a shocker?

"we somehow agree that there is a separation (dualism everyone?)."

Seperation doesn't mean dualism. Dogs are seperate from the quality of roughness, yet the two don't define a dualism. Even dogs and cats don't define a dualism.

"this distinction wasn't made prior to Sun Lu Tang"

Really? From Neijia-waijia: Blood brothers or distant cousins? by Zhang Yun, see internal martial arts magazine, six harmonies press: "The earliest written records differentiating the Neijia and Waijia distinction are believed to be found in three articles written close in time and in nearby locations. These three articles are: (1) 'The Tombstone Inscription of Mr. Wang Zhengnan' by Huang Lizhou (1669). (2) 'Neijia Quan' ('Internal Fist') by Huang Baijia (1676). (3) 'The Biography of Zhang Songxi' in 'The Government Records and Annals of Ningbo City' (1683 version?)."

"they all stress at one point or another (or even constantly) the unification of the external and the internal"

Yes, they do. And once again - they were very clearly NOT talking about the unification of two different kinds of training methods - what you might call internal and external styles. The point is made simply, as I said - taijiquan was NOT so-named because it's practitioners saw only yin in their art and only yang in other arts. Applying a taoist duality meant for a taoist art as a duality between the taoist art and a non-taoist art is a category mistake.

"I'm quite personally convinced that people having reached a high gong fu have grasped the same tricks"

And I am quite personally convinced that you will get good at what you do and not what you don't do. Which conviction seems more plausible to you?

"What if..."

Your various 'what if' statements are only useful in determining whether or not there is a 'logical possibility' that what you are saying is true. A logical possibility is simply something that could exist, in any kind of universe. I'll grant the logical possibility of what you are suggesting. That doesn't lend it any credence for actually being true though.

"What if when we go deeper into things we start to acknowledge that maybe internal vs external is not really a good question?"

If the picture you are painting is that everything is simply different - I'll be happy to agree to this. However, this suggestion means you've still got to toss out this 'internal external unification' thing. Combining two simply different things won't result in a holistic picture. Combining a cat and a dog won't result in some kind of uberanimal - they are simply different, and it would result in nothing more than an intellectual curiosity.

"It just doesn't matter where you started, if you have travelled only one portion of the road, you haven't seen it all."

No one will ever see it all.

But let's make things concrete. I study bagua. If I wanted the skills of wing chun, I would go study wing chun. I'm not going to develop them by not doing anything similar to them. For some reason people refuse to apply this logic to the internal skill - a skill which internal stylists spend alot of time (in down to earth, physical, real training methods!) developing. Discussing old philosophical concepts like 'unification of internal and external' is an interesting distraction from work, but it shouldn't be proof against this very simple truth! You get good at what you do.

[Royal Dragon]

Internal mechanics are rather specific. Open - Close - Coiling

Just twisting and turning is not enough, all arts do that. BUT internal mechanics have a power multiplying effect that is hard to describe unless you have both done and seen it live inperson.

I HAVE, and I still ahve troubles getting it. My internal teacher does it so naturally, he does not even think about it anymore, it just happens for him.

[Braden]

I'm loving how RD's reply applies equally to both the first and last statements of my post.

[Royal Dragon]

Aint I a stinker??

[Gabriel]

Royal Dragon

Ok. So you've clarified that its not just putting the whole body into it, but really how you put the whole body into it that is important. And you have settled my argumnent about external styles doing more than generating from the limbs, because you mean it in such a way that twisting and dropping are still utilized. I saw that you said a weight drop, or twisting of the torso is not internal but external. The words I got for internal, I may have borrowed from your more recent post as well: open, close, coiling, power generated from the torso. Also you mentioned that to understand, one must really have experienced and seen it IRL. I can appreciate this. There are many things that have to be seen, and experienced, before once can truly understand. Now, I take Tai Chi (don't call it Taiji yet, as it seems to me only the experienced can call it that) in addition to PM, so I am familiar with some basic internal concepts and excercises. Right now, I am mainly working on my form, however. One excercise we do that may follow this torso idea, is what teacher calls the alignment exercise. This is excercised with alot of slow graceful arms sweeps. One thing that is stressed to us is that we never "lead" the torso with the arms, but do the reverse. We move our torso, and the limbs should naturally follow. Is this what you are getting at? an alignment issue? I get the impression that you are talking about something different, though. Or is what you are talking about more qiistic (just made that word up :D) in form? If so, it takes me awhile to build up any "feel" of qi itself. So, having it handy for combat application is something that is yet beyond me.

Gabriel

[Crimson Phoenix]

Braden, you can call dualism two different faces of the same coin...separation doesn't mean dualism, unless this separation apply totwo aspects that could be unified into a higher reality that transcends them both...your examples are not well chosen: dogs and rough are not of the same coin, roughness can be an attribute of the dog, nothing more. And who knows, maybe a muchmore deeper mind could unite these realities. Haven't you read the classics? They all say that as soon as you discuss dialectically, there is dualism...Zen koans sound so stupid for that reason...if you try to find a logical explanation, or any intellectual explanation that your intellect perceive, you already create dualism. For a simple, non dualist mind, cats and dogs could (for example, both could be perceived as living things with no differences: remember, the complexity of OUR minds create the differences, but since you are fan of what could exist in the universe, you'll havee to acknowledge tha our ways of seeing the world are NOT an ultimate scale of value). When you think about uniting a dog and a cat, you say it would end up in an abberation. True, but you stay on the same level: you're not transcending, you're MIXING. Can you unite a circle and a rectangle...hardly if you stay in 2D, but if you jump in 3D, you can have a nice cylinder. Same thing with internal and external: uniting them DOESN'T mean mixing them, it requires transcending them both, and forgetting about them.
Here's the big difference between your points and mine: I do not claim anything, I'm just reporting the theories and saying of knowledgeable masters of the past, because I personally know nothing, I can't speak, I mastered neither the external, nor the internal...have you? If not, then, are you in the position to claim anything? No, just like me. I don't mind being proved wrong, actually, it's yummie. But the big difference is that all I said regarding this topic came not from me (who am I to talk?), but from famous masters...
You wanna know, I don't like namee dropping but check this: about xingyi? the words of Chu Gui Ting, that my sifu heard himself...and reported words from Wang Xiang Zhai.
The five elements? Many traditional masters reported to have said so, and once again some that my sifu heard, meaning that nearly 100 years after what Guo said some chinese masters still regarded him as an iconoclast (but he could talk, since he proved he could fight).
About your references on neijia, that's a great point...but also, the existence of these two terms doesn't mean they were perceived as two different things...have you seen Neijia practiced? I came across the wudang songxi neijia, and a boxing called neijia (which has similarities with the other, I guess that my sifu got from Jiang Rong Qiao, himslef taking him from Li Jing Lin). So I have seen it practiced, and at first you really can't tell if it's internal or not...it has violent phases that look **** external, even more than Chen taiji. My sifu himself says "you can practice it 100% "internally", but it's true nature seems somewhere else".
Speaking of taiji, I'm sure you have seen old Chen style...and even better, the pao quan sequence...does it look pretty much internal all the time? Surely not, but also it's never external...it has a different taste, which to me tastes like something on another level: not internal, not external ,whole gongfu.
By that, Taiji doesn't refer to yin or yang, but to taiji which is the unity from which divide yin and yang. Yin and yang are already dualistic compared to taiji.
As for "you will get good at what you do and not what you don't", surely. but the truth seems more complex than that. It depends of what you do...do you add things all the time and reach a complexity, or do you strip layers after layers to just find the roots? Martial stories of old time, even european ones, are quite enlightening. Some well recorded duels here in France were reported to be "free in the choice of weapons"...any weapon, blade, chain, staff, double or single, everyting except of course firearms...both opponent didn't see where was the problem...does it mean that they knew all the weapons? Surely not, as a master of arm said "you know all the weapons, when you have grasped the roots of armed combat". You want names again? Count Jarnac, who, after his famous secret strike that now bears his name was asked "how could you defeat a master of sword with a dagger, since you train only the staff??"...he replied nonchalantly "when I practice the staff I don't just train the staff: I train all weapons". I'm quite convinced that when you reach a high enough level, your techniques dissolve, you are only left with the roots...that is my conviction: when you hav reached high gong fu, no technique of a fixed style can be attributed to you, you just move the right way for combat, turn when you have to, advance when you have to, and strike the way you should strike, rough when needed, soft when needed...there's no taiji, bagua, or white crane, or mizong anymore, just high gong fu. Of course, you can always get back in the mold to teach and demonstrate, because a mold is needed in these cases...
My "what if" statements are just here for one thing: open possibilities, instead of closing them by a "it is so"...since I do not have the level of practicionners who I quote, and since I myself have mastered nothing, all I can say is "what if", in an attempt to keep my mind open, and not fall into any certainty that I am not in position to verify or prove.
In an ignorant mind (ie, mine), a "what" if is a much wiser and surer thing than a "it is that way".
Many people say nowadays tha "internal arts are superior", or the contrary, and that external and internal are different...I heard second hand many famous masters doubt that, so I am just thinking that there might be some truth here. To me (ie, the take of an ignorant mind on the subject), internal arts and external arts are just two pathsto the top of the mountain, running each on a different side of it. If you take the right path and not get lost in all the little side ways and cul de sacs, you'll eventually have the same view wherever you arrived from.
But that's just a personal credo...

[Crimson Phoenix]

I come back to cats and dogs again: you are too centered on YOUR way of thinking...it's not a criticism, we are all like this...for example, did you know that some eskimau ethnies have SEVEN different concepts for snow? it's not even like for us "hard snow, soft snow" or whatever, for their minds, it's seven DIFFERENT THINGS...we talk only about snow, with attributes, but still it's snow. For them, it's seven different realities. So it could really be possible that cats and dogs could be perceived by someone as two realities, with just minor attributes that differ, where we perceive two separate concepts "cats" and "dogs".
Our intellectual minds often fool us, and we too often consier it to be the unique scale of value to what things are judged correct or not.
As I said in the end of my message, "what if" is often wiser than "it is"
I do not try to say "internal and external ARE the same" (even if I'm quite convinced that at a higher level it is so, but it's just a mere personal conviction), I just try to say "what if it the answer was not so clear? what if, even, the question itself was not so adequate?"...
And what if I'm talking too much and I should shut up instead?? :D

[scotty1]

Crimson Phoenix makes a good argument.

I especially like his use of the word 'yummy'.

[crumble]

It's probably true that if we had an infinite lifetime, our training would eventually lead us to a reflexive response that balances hard and soft, external and internal.

But there isn't infinite time. That's why some training methods are indeed better than others.

The classics may talk about external becoming internal, but that is within the context of learning a so-called internal art. The classics are not saying any art is as good as another.

They say:

It is said, "Missing it by a little will lead many miles astray."

and

If you do not study in this manner,
then you will waste your time and sigh with regret.

My guess the reason they say that is because external movement is natural (look at a toddler hitting another toddler). Internal movement is not. So the quickest path is to start working on internal movement. While you are learning internal movement, you are going to find yourself reverting to external. (You never lose external, but you work on gaining internal.) The whole point is to become more and more internal so that both are balanced.

You see what I'm saying? If you need to swim upstream and downstream, it is easier to start swiming upstream when your body is fresh (young) and then just float downstream. If you tire yourself swimming downstream, you might not make it back upstream.

-crumble