Your opinions: Internal & External

[joedoe]

I know this has probably been debated numerous times, but I was hoping to get some opinions on some questions and observations I have been mulling over lately.

1) What classifies a style as internal or external? Is it the power generation techniques, and if so what specifically is it that distinguishes them?

2) Is it just my perception, or do some internal stylists seem to have a superiority complex?

To qualify my second question, I once went to visit a kung fu brother in New Zealand and was introduced to a friend of his who taught a style of Tai Chi. We were discussing the two arts, and he proceeded to tell me that "Tai Chi was similar to my kung fu, but more refined". I barely managed to hold my tongue.

Anyway, flame away. :)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe

1) What classifies a style as internal or external? Is it the power generation techniques, and if so what specifically is it that distinguishes them?


Personally, I don't like the internal/external split that much.

As I see it as an attempt by a few masters to raise their art above the rest.



2) Is it just my perception, or do some internal stylists seem to have a superiority complex?

To qualify my second question, I once went to visit a kung fu brother in New Zealand and was introduced to a friend of his who taught a style of Tai Chi. We were discussing the two arts, and he proceeded to tell me that "Tai Chi was similar to my kung fu, but more refined". I barely managed to hold my tongue.


Many do consider the internal arts to be some form of "higher" kung fu and thus feel they got something special.

Like the internal/external classification I think it is a fairly modern concept and distracting from real deal.

If you get caught too much on labels like internal/external, styles, different executions of forms and lineages it will only distract you and thus have negative effects on your training.

Just how I feel about the subject.

[joedoe]

LC, I agree with you - and I guess that is what has prompted me to post the questions ;) As far as I am concerned, different styles are simply different paths to the same goal. In the end, if you have practised dilligently you will be a good MA and the stylistic differences kind of fade into the background.

[Oso]

Incense.

[joedoe]

So you are saying that the difference between internal & external is incense? :D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by joedoe
1) What classifies a style as internal or external? Is it the power generation techniques, and if so what specifically is it that distinguishes them?

Alot of different things. The "internal" arts are a "culture", in the same way that Japanese or Korean or Indonesian or Phillipino martial arts constitute a certain "culture," associated with their historical association internally. So you might compare Japanese and Indonesian arts and find that they have a different sort of "quality of movement" to them, a different pedagogy, different cultural aspects, and so on. The internal arts are the same. And just as with these other martial cultures, there is alot of variation between practitioners: some very much espouse the stereotypical qualities of the culture, others less so.


2) Is it just my perception, or do some internal stylists seem to have a superiority complex?

Yes. Just like any other group.

[Oso]

yep, you know you are in an internal school if they don't clean and burn incense to block the moldy odor.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Alot of different things. The "internal" arts are a "culture", in the same way that Japanese or Korean or Indonesian or Phillipino martial arts constitute a certain "culture," associated with their historical association internally. So you might compare Japanese and Indonesian arts and find that they have a different sort of "quality of movement" to them, a different pedagogy, different cultural aspects, and so on. The internal arts are the same. And just as with these other martial cultures, there is alot of variation between practitioners: some very much espouse the stereotypical qualities of the culture, others less so.



Yes. Just like any other group.

So are you saying that the distinction is cultural? How does that apply to the fact that CMA are divided between internal and external? Or have I misunderstood you?

[Christopher M]

Sorry; I meant like pseudo-cultural, as in the culture of punk rockers or the culture of vegetarians. Not literally cultural in the sense of genetics/geographics.

[Shaolinlueb]

when i think internali think tai chi, slow movement and controlled breathing. when i think external I think normal kung fu with lots of fighting and such. but kung fu also has the internal and tai chi also has the contact (push hands) and when the tai chi is pout to application you can see the power behind it. so really i dont like classifying a style if i dont have to.

[Xebsball]

internal and external are 2 families of styles
thast all

cos you cant claim that the external part is not used on "internal" styles, you still always need bones and muscles to move - and to say those are not used on the "internal" style as much as on the "external" styles is a fallacy (spell?)

[Okami]

Honestly I didn't read all the posts, so if I am repeating anything I apologize in advance.

I have come to the conclusion that the difference between internal and external arts is the order in which the "total person" is developed.

In an external art the body is developed, then the spirit/mind/soul/chi/you know what I mean.

In an internal art, it is the reverse.

I may be wrong, but all styles attempt to develop both aspects of a person, but it seems like they do it in a different order.

Let the comments flood in :)

[Shuul Vis]

Internal styles generally confuse opponents with secrets or bore them with extremely slow movements. Whereas external stylists tend to hide behind "closed doors" and target thier attackers' family lineage.

[Yung Apprentice]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!:D

[Merryprankster]

Internal styles-whatever you do.

External styles--that's what the other guy does.

[ZIM]

In one respect at least, MP got it. The term originated, IIRC, from some epitaph [forget the proper name] stele. It was a kind of eulogy/political statement talking about foriegn influences and how internal styles were taoist- from China, and external styles were buddhist- from India, IOW.

There are many other possible definitions, too. Internal may refer to: 'inside the family' versus 'outside the family' [somewhat like 'they just don't get it'], a sequence of learning, an emphasis on linked body structure to perform any given movement, etc.

The rest has been covered quite well, I think.

[shadow]

The ultimate goal of any CMA is to achieve a state of Wuchi, in which there is no external/internal, The only difference is the training to achieve the state of wuchi. In my opinion you guys are right on the money with this one.

[Xebsball]

for you maybe

for me its just fighting, the health stuff comes along

[Ray Pina]

Internal style: teaches one the formula

extrenal: teaches one the result

[mantis108]

Internal styles generally confuse opponents with secrets or bore them with extremely slow movements. Whereas external stylists tend to hide behind "closed doors" and target thier attackers' family lineage.

Me like this defination but me confused. :confused: What if the externals have a "coming out" party? Then what ...? :D:p

Mantis108

[Judge Pen]

http://www.hsing-i.com/hsing-i/IntvsExt.html

This seems to imply that the difference is simply the geographic origin of the style. What do you all think?

[Laughing Cow]

Not sure, I have heard quiet a few variations:

Wudang vs Shaolin
Inside China/Outside China
Inside Family/Outside Family
and so on.

Definition seems to change with time.

[Shaolin-Do]

...
Its all the same... just different paths up the mountain.
You take the high road and Ill take the low road, and well meet up together at the top.

External builds from body to mind, internal from mind to body. Or so we are told.
Watered down tai chi hippies.
:D

I dont see the big debate anyways, most people I know practice one external and 1 or more internal forms...

[Christopher M]

It's possible that responses coming from people who've never trained in the internal arts might not be accurate.

It's also possible that how/what you train will have an effect in what you learn, invalidating relativist remarks of the form "all the same ultimately."

Regarding "most people I know practice one external and 1 or more internal forms...", it should be kept in mind that the form is only one part, and typically not a large one, of training; and it's value is as a pedagogy to study a certain quality of movement - so simply doing it or "knowing" it is itself fairly meaningless.

It's really a shame these families have become known by words that have alot of "meaning baggage" allready associated with them, rather than words which would have been previously meaningless. It's caused an awful lot of misunderstanding.

[Taomonkey]

I dont know if I would make art distinctions as one being internal or one external, I believe all arts have some internal aspect some level of a tai chi (not the forms but the concept). I see internal as coordination of movement and breath, different arts have different methods of breath. Some would say it lies into where the chi is stregnthened, external styles would have more surface and external, and internal styles develope internal chi. If you believe in all the mumbo jumbo. Is one superior? Who cares! they all have their beauty.

[Fred Sanford]

from what i've seen internal/ external are different. one is not better than the other, just different. studying an external art for x number of years will not give you skill in an internal art. There are specific principles and body mechanics that you are learning. If you have never studied one of the so called internal arts in some capacity then you really aren't qualified to comment, you are just guessing.

[jon]

Just a personal opinion on an age old debate, please dont take this as anything more.


IMHO the distinction refers mainly to the contexts under which the styles developed. This however is i believe mainly geographical.
Most so called 'internal' styles all underwent the major part of there development within each others eyes. In other words they all had the chance to mix and share ideas and to compare methodologys and theorys.
This is quite similar to the way which many southern shaolin systems are closely related or how Hakka arts often have various similaritys to one another.

XingYi, Taiji, Bagua where all practiced and popular within the same geographic region and as such a lot of cross polination has occured and the methods are frequently mixed with each other.

Its well known that many of the old masters of Xingyi Taiji and Bagua used to train together and even live togther. They also of course shared knowledge and shared students. It would be silly to think that such periods would not have an effect on the arts and in my opinion this 'effect' has been that they are now very closely related.

They are all certainly distinct systems in there own right but the fact remains they have also shared a *lot* in terms of codevelopment.


I think another fairly easy place to lay blame is on the very respectable Master Sun Lu Tang. Who in one of his early books in an effort to discribe the relationship between the 'internal' arts discribed them all as members of the Nei Ja family.



The internal systems are not 'special', they are not 'high level' or 'refined' any further than any other system. They are of course imo excerlent methods of combat and extrodinary training systems in there own right but to try and pretend have they have some kind of 'secret' that other arts dont have is blatantly rediculous and elitist.
They may have there own special focusses and methods but what art doesnt?

These same methods however help to define them as styles and its these same methods which are commen to the 'internals'.
Its becouse of this that the internals often use a similar method of moving the body and a similar useage for the various shaps which they choose to imploy.


Anyway im by no means trying to say this is what internal 'is' as to be honest its kind of futile in many ways. Ive met pleanty of very good Taiji players who excel in using hard power and ive also met pleanty of so called 'externalists' who where clearly using more than just muscle to generate force.

In the end a fighting system is just that, no point trying to put in a box and label it.