AS far as I can tell, internal means one thing only. [Archive]

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 11:28 AM

Efficiency of movement.

B-Banga got me thinking about this with his hilariously sarcastic post in the tourney thread. I don't beleive there's nearly as much "external vs. internal" stuff going on for real as there is in peoples' heads.

If you can hit hard without a big, telegraphing wind-up, that's internal power, right? The harder it hits and the less it moves, the more internal, right?

truewrestler

12-29-2003, 11:33 AM

bullsh!t

...unless a master pianist who is really good and can move his finger fast and push the keys hard uses internal energy

...or me playing computer games and being efficient with my movement and quick and accurate aim when shooting Nazis is using internal power

...I can effortlessly and efficiently pull off combos in Tekken 3 with Lei... is that internal energy?

rubthebuddha

12-29-2003, 11:34 AM

sounds about right. but one problem:

sevenstar is hyoooge. gots arms as big as most dudes' thighs. he doesn't have to move much, but he'll still hit you into tomorrow noon.

i guess then that internal could be a great equalizer -- kinda like a gun for the wee lads who don't have ginormous arms?

Ray Pina

12-29-2003, 11:36 AM

Yes. But you study taiji and make no mention of breath, chi or mind?

Short power is one aspect and an issue of mechanics. That is the arm of the construction crane. You can have a strong arm, but if you have a weak engine it's worthless. Like wise, strong motor but a weak arm, you still aint picking up ****.

Internal is just a word. It's what's behind that word that is priceless. Call what I study TKD, I don't care. It's the information.

Too many "internalists" sign up for class and think that's enough. Too many "externalists" or "southern boxers" believe it is the same but different.

Indestructible

12-29-2003, 11:55 AM

We have girls in our school who are not very muscular but have tremondous striking power. They can't rely on muscling a punch so they have to use proper body mechanics. We usually refer to this as soft power rather than internal, although I don't see a problem with either word. So if someone who is not very muscular can still strike as hard as a very strong individual then something else must be going on.

Royal Dragon

12-29-2003, 12:38 PM

This is really simple,

External is when power is generted by the limbs,

Internal is when it comes form the core body or dantien.

MasterKiller

12-29-2003, 12:41 PM

Didn't lkfmdc post something about the differences between Internal and External being a relatively new concoction? I think his point was that 100 years ago, no one made the distinction.

Golden Arms

12-29-2003, 05:02 PM

I think this is a really good way to put it...from Shenwu.com:

Calling Xing Yi Quan, Tai Ji Quan and Ba Gua Zhang Jnternal arts only began about seventy years ago. This came about because some famous practitioners of these styles in the early part of the Twentieth Century (most notably Sun Lu Tang) cross trained, and subsequently began referring to these arts as belonging to the same family, as they were based upon similar principles. Prior to this time, Xing Yi Quan, Tai Ji Quan, Ba Gua Zhang, the Shaolin arts, Long Fist, etc. were simply categorized as martial arts. What the above mentioned masters were referring to when they chose the label Internal was the underlying principles which were common to the arts they studied. Principles of the arts later named Internal were complete physical relaxation, yielding to force, the use of the power of the whole body under mental control and relying on sensitivity and skill to overcome brute strength. Now here is the problem with such labels. It is not the particular Art itself that is Internal or External, it is the way the art is practiced. There are no Internal or External martial arts, only Internal and External practitioners (if we assume Internal refers to the principles listed above, and external is anything which is outside of these principles). I have seen practitioners of the so-called External arts who were as soft as cotton and who threw their opponents seemingly by magic. I have also seen practitioners of Xing Yi Quan tensing their muscles so much that their arms were shaking with the effort. I often hear other teachers refer to some style as being Internal while another is External out of hand; if questioned, they really have no clear concept of the difference.

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 05:26 PM

Golden Arms - that sounds great to me.

Royal Dragon

12-29-2003, 06:03 PM

No, every art I have seen that calls it self "Internal" Generates power from the torso, or core body out. Without exception, every art labeled as "External" gerates power from the limbs, be it the legs which then travels up the body to the arms, or just the arms.

Internal is more than just efficient use of leverage, and it's more than just a label. It's a specific type of power genration that is not seen in external styles. If you do it in an external style, that style then becomes internal.

MonkeySlap Too

12-29-2003, 06:17 PM

RD is correct about this...while the distinction is often misunderstood - there is a trend here - although some arts often not classified as internal such as Bajimen or SanPowChuan (sp) use 'internal' mechanics...

But Coach Ross is correct also that this is a recent concoction or distinction - check Adam Hsu's 'Sword Polishers Record' for a great essay on this point...

Mr Punch

12-29-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
No, every art I have seen that calls it self "Internal" Generates power from the torso, or core body out. Without exception, every art labeled as "External" gerates power from the limbs, be it the legs which then travels up the body to the arms, or just the arms. I don't often say this on the board but...

This statement appears to me to be very very wrong.

All bodies 'generate' power from stance, footwork and ultimately the ground. If you are talking about where the style places emphasis on visualisation maybe you have a point.

I'm sure some forms of chikung 'generate energy' from simply breathing patterns and no leg movement/stance emphasis, but while they may be of martial benefit they are still breathing techniques and as such, more like yoga than kungfu/taichi in essence.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 07:23 PM

Is it that time of month again already?

Internal and external simply refer to two different traditions of chinese martial arts. This is the same sense as northern and southern, or Japanese and Okinawan, or pukulan and bersilat and so on.

The moniker dates back to 1894 when Cheng Ting Hua, Liu Te Kuan, Li Tsun-I and Liu Wai Hsiang formed an organization uniting the study of xingyiquan, baguazhang, and taijiquan, which they had discovered had some remarkable similarities within the larger family of chinese martial arts. They called this union internal family boxing (neijiquan). See Pa Kua Chang Journal 3:2.

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 07:45 PM

Well, I was actually inspired by B-Banga's post that he doesn't care if his strikes were "external" as long as they are hard.

Nevertheless, if said 3 arts have "remarkable similarities within the larger family of chinese martial arts" that earned them the label internal, then those similarities must be considered the esssence of internality, even if the word internal itself only refers to their seperation from other arts and not some kind of 'power from within' idea.

So what are those similarities, Chris, if they aren't an emphasis on developing a large amount of striking power in a short distance?

Cung-Fu

12-29-2003, 07:53 PM

The only difference in internal v external is in the mind of the practitioner itself.

All arts generate power from the core. Even western combat arts, ie boxing, wrestling....and I would go as far as to say many sport event also.

If any style exclusively uses its limbs only, for striking or throwing, then that would be inheritley inferior.

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 08:03 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was ragging on you.

You're right that there must be technical differences characterizing the internal arts which their pioneers recognized, and then emphasized in the ongoing evolution of the art. I simply find that using these as a definition is misleading as it inevitably creates the usual falacies of, on one hand "there is no difference", or on the other hand "internal means better", and so on.

Understanding them as a distinct cultural transmission is simply the only clear definition available. When you speak of any technical characteristic instead, people get confused. It's like asking what Mexican cooking is. Well, it uses lots of rice. So does Chinese cooking, so where do we go from there? Are they the same? Is one the superior form of the other? Is there no difference between them?

Vash

12-29-2003, 08:08 PM

Golden Arms' quote birthed the correct, put it up for adoption in outer Mongolia, found it 20 years later living on Wheat Thins and old egg salad.

^That sucked^

Royal Dragon

12-29-2003, 08:13 PM

All bodies 'generate' power from stance, footwork and ultimately the ground. If you are talking about where the style places emphasis on visualisation maybe you have a point.

Reply]
Wrong, internal arts only brace off the ground, the power ultimately comes form the core in an expansion, contraction sort of effect. When you see it live, and feel it in person, you understand the difference is quite profound.

The only difference in internal v external is in the mind of the practitioner itself.

Reply]
Wrong, but it does "Start" there.

All arts generate power from the core. Even western combat arts, ie boxing, wrestling....and I would go as far as to say many sport event also.

Reply]
Not so, most arts generate power from the limbs. The core is only a conduit to "Transfer" power.

If any style exclusively uses its limbs only, for striking or throwing, then that would be inheritley inferior.

Reply]
Aggreed. External arts do however use the core body, but it's not a major player in power generation. It's more of a braceing, or reinforcing action. The core responds to the needs of the limbs.

With internal arts, the power STARTS at the core, and radiates outward in an almost explosive manor. The limbs resond to the power radiateing outward form the core, they respond to the needs of the core's direction. The limbs do not lead as in External arts.

If you ever get a chance to study the Taiji Ruler from the internal Tai Tzu style, you will clearly see the difference.

truewrestler

12-29-2003, 08:20 PM

Wow, this is getting interesting. Any internal stylists compete in San Shou?

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 08:23 PM

Yes. There's some clips posted in the 'xingyi fighting clip' thread.

It's always funny in these threads watching people who don't train in the internal arts telling us what they are. Only in martial arts... and politics and religion, I guess.

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 08:32 PM

Chris -

I'm only interested in labels to the extent that when they are clearly defined and widely understood they aid in our communication. I'm pretty sure you could do a better job of distinguishing mexican and chinese cuisines than by saying "they both use rice" and I'm also pretty sure you can do the same for internal and external.

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 08:32 PM

... no, it's not the same, in China they leave the rice soaking overnight to make it extra soft.

You poor, deluded sinophile! You can get it just as soft much quicker by steaming it!

Yes, steaming it makes it soft, but it's not the same kind of softness, trust me.

How will you ever know if it takes all night to get soft!? That's just what your teachers tell you to make you sit around staring at warm water all day while they pocket your tuition!

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 08:35 PM

Anyway, they both use lots of pork, too.

...but carnitas are superior.

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 08:38 PM

Black bean soup would choke out Pancho Villa!

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 08:42 PM

Sushi vs. Ceviche SMACKDOWN!

Live on Pay Per View.

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 08:51 PM

Anyway, yes we could define them better than that. But I think ultimately the only people who would get what we're saying are the people who've experienced it, and they already knew the difference before we pointed it out. So all we'd have won is alienating all the people who haven't experienced it.

Like if I agreed with you that the internal arts were about powerful, short range strikes, and I do - what would a boxer think reading this? That boxing doesn't develop powerful strikes, even powerful short range ones? Well no, that's not quite right. So are they the same then? No - they're a bit different. How? Boxing uses the limbs and internals use the torso? Well no, that's not quite right either; boxers know very well that they're using their torso. Well, ok... it's not just using the torso, but using it a certain way. But what way, a boxer would ask; are you sure you're not just being elitist? No, no... it's not about elitism, you see, we have these exercises where we open and close the dantians... Oh oh! Chinese mystical nonsense! You chi-huggers!!! No, no... it's not like that, it's like this movement of the scapula with the chest kind of hung... Yeah, us boxers do that too! Well, yeah, you do... but it's not quite the same.

Ultimately the guy who's never experienced it isn't going to figure it out until he does; and the guy who has experienced it isn't going to benefit from this verbal acrobats. And this isn't something special about the internal arts, it's equally true about wrestling or BJJ or boxing (just look at the silly misconceptions people here have about those!)

Skip all that nonsense, call it a cultural transmission with its own distinct character, and you'd be 100% understood and correct. Then invite them to train with you.

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 08:56 PM

That's where we differ - and maybe it's just my lack of experience talking here - I'm not convinced there's much, if any difference except in vocab. That's where clear labelling becomes so important.

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 09:03 PM

Well, in a sense there's no difference. If I roll with a BJJ guy, I'm using position, base, space and pressure just like they are - even if I've never trained in BJJ. (I'm just probably not using them very well)

Same deal elsewhere. Someone who has never trained in the internals is still using peng; probably just not very well.

The difference is in the training. A BJJ guy has drills and concepts that develop certain skills in those areas, whereas someone else doesn't (or perhaps has different ones).

Same deal elsewhere. The internals have drills and concepts that develops certain skills in peng, for instance.

Vash

12-29-2003, 09:05 PM

Words ultimately suck @$$. They are easily confused, what with all the multiple meanings and such, and lack the ability to really make one experience the described noun.

From the description, internal power is the same as the power generation which we use in karate. But, as it's been said, I've not experienced it, so I cannot discern a difference.

It's the dang nouns which fudge us up, when it's the verbs that get the sh!t done.

Chang Style Novice

12-29-2003, 09:15 PM

If I was a part of speech, I'd be a prefix, 'cuz I'm always startin' **** I just can't finish.:p

Christopher M

12-29-2003, 09:16 PM

Now this is just the sort of foolishness up with which we should not put.

Vash

12-29-2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M
Now this is just the sort of foolishness up with which we should not put.

Who ya referencing there?

Cung-Fu

12-30-2003, 05:26 AM

Royal Dragon-

Not so, most arts generate power from the limbs. The core is only a conduit to "Transfer" power.

Wrong, read up on athletic training principles. ALL power is generated from the core. Even in western training methods.

How could the torso "transfer" power anyway; that doesn't even makes sense, whether you look at it from a western anatomical view or a CMA view.

In fact olympic runner Mary Decker (if memory correct) improved her running time by strengthing core muscles.

With internal arts, the power STARTS at the core, and radiates outward in an almost explosive manor. The limbs resond to the power radiateing outward form the core, they respond to the needs of the core's direction. The limbs do not lead as in External arts.

If this visualization helps you generate more power great. But, I could easily take out the word "internal art" and tell that to a boxer, wrestler, judoka, hung ga....and they would respond by saying "physiology 101"

If you ever get a chance to study the Taiji Ruler from the internal Tai Tzu style, you will clearly see the difference.

Your assuming CMA, in particular Taiji, has a monopoly on body mechanics and power performance. If that is the case then every other art, training method, etc...would be weak in comparison.

Royal Dragon

12-30-2003, 12:53 PM

Your assuming CMA, in particular Taiji, has a monopoly on body mechanics and power performance.

Reply]
Nope, just thier specific type.

norther practitioner

12-30-2003, 01:18 PM

RD,
Can you expand on that a bit.. I think I know what you are saying, but I'm not sure.

SevenStar

12-30-2003, 04:14 PM

why would you think that with external styles striking is lead by the limbs?

Royal Dragon

12-30-2003, 04:40 PM

Because thats what I see happeneing.

Shaolindynasty

12-30-2003, 06:36 PM

"Because thats what I see happeneing"

It sure in the **** shouldn't be

CrippledAvenger

12-30-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Because thats what I see happeneing.

Go to Windy City (4401 West Ogden for you Chicagoites *plug*) and tell them that. :rolleyes:

Shaolindynasty

12-30-2003, 06:51 PM

Windy City? What to they train there?

Shaolindynasty

12-30-2003, 06:53 PM

Internal to me is hitting someone so hard that on the inside they know not to fuk with you again.

Chang Style Novice

12-30-2003, 07:53 PM

Okay, just in case there's any confusion about what I think (assuming anyone cares) -

ANY art can be done in an 'internal' fashion if relaxation, rooting, body structure, and efficiency of movement is present.

Possibly only Xingyi, Taiji and Pakua deserve the historical designation 'internal' because of their shared background of specifically emphasizing the above principals and the collaboration of relatively early masters of those arts in developing them together.

Thus, 'internal' can be both a historical designation and a methodological designation, and when used, the person speaking should be clear about which they mean.

FatherDog

12-30-2003, 11:05 PM

I can't necessarily speak for other arts designated as 'external', but if Royal Dragon thinks boxers are generating power with the limbs, he's a ****ing idiot.

Then again, this is not news.

Chang Style Novice

12-30-2003, 11:33 PM

I nominate FatherDog as "Diplomat of the Year." :D

CrippledAvenger

12-30-2003, 11:45 PM

Windy City is arguably the best boxing gym in the city. They regularly send boxers to the golden gloves and beyond. Awesome trainers, and most of the fighters are pretty chill to boot.

Check 'em out if you're at all curious. They're on the Southwest side.

scotty1

12-31-2003, 02:52 AM

Lets go down to the Windy City
The Windy City is mighty pretty
But they ain't got what we got
I'm telling you boys!

"Internal to me is hitting someone so hard that on the inside they know not to fuk with you again"

Brilliant. :)

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 05:39 AM

I can't necessarily speak for other arts designated as 'external', but if Royal Dragon thinks boxers are generating power with the limbs, he's a ****ing idiot.

Reply]
You guys need to go see Wai Lun Choi, I obviously can't explain the difference in the writen word, it's beyond my abilities. Theres a whole accordian like, expansion - contraction thing going on in internal arts that is just not seen in external arts like Boxing. I don't know how to describe it so you understand here.

Boxers are external. If they are not generating power with the limbs, than why do they need to lift so many weights?

Also, there are other arts that are internal besides the big three.

Christopher M

12-31-2003, 06:02 AM

You trained with Wai Lun Choi?

Vash

12-31-2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
I can't necessarily speak for other arts designated as 'external', but if Royal Dragon thinks boxers are generating power with the limbs, he's a ****ing idiot.

[Reply]
Boxers are external. If they are not generating power with the limbs, than why do they need to lift so many weights?

Oh Sweet Goodness. :rolleyes:

scotty1

12-31-2003, 08:26 AM

Well, New YEars break for me, but I wish I could stick around and lmao.

Happy New Year everyone. :)

FatherDog

12-31-2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Boxers are external. If they are not generating power with the limbs, than why do they need to lift so many weights?

Yeah, because internal martial arts don't ever include stone locks, water bucket carrying, rock pole, and monk spade work in their training. Idiot.

FD, diplomat extraordinaire.

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 09:33 AM

You trained with Wai Lun Choi?

Reply]
No, but it's a goal after seeing him move.

Yeah, because internal martial arts don't ever include stone locks, water bucket carrying, rock pole, and monk spade work in their training. Idiot.

Reply]
Hmmm, sounds predominalty external Shaolin to me. Internal is much lighter.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 09:34 AM

For the record, I have seen Wai Lun Choi, and while I freely admit his skill, you still have no idea about boxing. None whatsoever.

I've tasted good SPM, Xingyi, Taiji, and boxing. Have you?

Vash

12-31-2003, 09:37 AM

The petty bickering over external v internal is, well, petty. And quite pointless.

We all know Royce would choke them both out.

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 09:37 AM

I've seen enough of all of it to see it moves quite differently and uniquely.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 09:43 AM

Nothing like sticking your fingers in your ears and hollering to make for a good discussion, eh RD? :rolleyes:

There's differences in training methodology, but there's also striking similarities between the "internal" and good boxing, e.g. opening and closing the qua on punches, keeping arms relaxed and loose.

As FatherDog has said, you know NOTHING of boxing if you don't even know that all punches come from the torso. Boxing and BJJ are all in the hips.

Chang Style Novice

12-31-2003, 09:48 AM

As FatherDog has said, you know NOTHING of boxing if you don't even know that all punches come from the torso.

I thought that certain jabs were an exception to this, since they aren't really used for whomping, but rather for measuring distance and finding openings.

Still, that's a pretty trivial quibble, even if it is true.

Vash

12-31-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Vash
The petty bickering over external v internal is, well, petty. And quite pointless.

We all know Royce would choke them both out.

SevenStar

12-31-2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Because thats what I see happeneing.

perhaps you should open your eyes...

rubthebuddha

12-31-2003, 10:00 AM

last time i checked, (kick)boxing uses the hips and lower core for most of the power generation on: hooks, elbows, crosses, push kicks/foot jabs, short knees, long knees, round kicks, backfists and ... just about everything else.

is what makes a tkd round kick, which is leg-based, second in power comparsion to a thai round kick, which is a whole-lotta-hip.

SevenStar

12-31-2003, 10:00 AM

MasterKiller

12-31-2003, 10:04 AM

Wouldn't using the hip with a jab make it straight punch, and not necessarily a jab? Or am I being too anal about the definition?

SevenStar

12-31-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon

Reply]
You guys need to go see Wai Lun Choi, I obviously can't explain the difference in the writen word, it's beyond my abilities. Theres a whole accordian like, expansion - contraction thing going on in internal arts that is just not seen in external arts like Boxing. I don't know how to describe it so you understand here.

I know what you're talking about - the whipping of the spine and such. lack of spine whipping in no means indicates that a person is punching with the limbs...the mechanics of the punch may be different, but it's not a limb punch.

Boxers are external. If they are not generating power with the limbs, than why do they need to lift so many weights?

I'm not gonna reply to that in hopes that it's not a serious question.

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 10:10 AM

On Boxing

Hips are driven by the legs - Last time I looked, legs are limbs.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice

I thought that certain jabs were an exception to this, since they aren't really used for whomping, but rather for measuring distance and finding openings.

Still, that's a pretty trivial quibble, even if it is true.

Depends on the trainer, actually. I was taught to drop-step and use the hips on my jab, so it's pretty stiff. I can walk you all over the room if I want with a jab (and you're not really hitting me back :D ). In fact, for those of you who do Xing-Yi, a drop-step jab and a chicken-step beng are remarkably similar.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 10:22 AM

Nope. See opening and closing the qua. Or don't you know what that is either, RD?

edit: that was a little too petulant. What I mean is that it's very possible to drive your hips without using your legs, and many boxing trainers do in fact teach you how to do that. If you've ever gone to a boxing gym you'd know that, hence my earlier point.

Shaolindynasty

12-31-2003, 10:24 AM

Ok, the windy city boxing gym. I know what you are talking about that place is pretty legendary.

RD, physical training for the body is common in tachi. I read an article on Chen style training in Chen village and it mentioned the taichi guys getting up in the morning and running doing pushups etc.

Isn't internal fajing power a combo of Li(muscular force) and song(relaxation). I read a book(don't remeber which one might have been "KF elements"). Where they said the more muscular force you have the more potential you have to turn it into apllicable power to the martial arts. Makes sense to me especially if you put it in an equation

fajing=song+Li

Vash

12-31-2003, 10:29 AM

Everyone who is "in the know" knows it's not the muscles which provides movement to the skeletal structure, but the tendons and ligaments.

Oh, RD. Just by standing up, you're pushing against the ground with the legs, right?

SevenStar

12-31-2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Wouldn't using the hip with a jab make it straight punch, and not necessarily a jab? Or am I being too anal about the definition?

too anal.:o :p :D

Chang Style Novice

12-31-2003, 10:32 AM

Thanks for the jab stuff, guys - that's why I hedged my bets by saying SOME jabs don't have that core/root power in 'em. Why you're throwing a jab would determine how you throw it, which come to think of it is probably true for any technique.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 10:34 AM

A lot of it comes down to your genetic make-up and natural gifts too. Some people (Shane Mosely) come to mind who just have phenomenal handspeed and thus use their jab differently than I do mine. I'm more of an infighter so I want to use it to batter your defense down and close the gap to either throw, clinch, or pound the snot out of you.

Little things like that color how you use the jab (like any technique).

Shaolindynasty

12-31-2003, 10:34 AM

"Everyone who is "in the know" knows it's not the muscles which provides movement to the skeletal structure, but the tendons and ligaments"

I group all thins under muscular force since when I do strength training such as lifting weights you train the muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones etc.

Vash

12-31-2003, 10:40 AM

I group all thins under muscular force since when I do strength training such as lifting weights you train the muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones etc.

:eek: Weight training is of the devil . . . !:eek:

Water Dragon

12-31-2003, 10:40 AM

Boxing is rooted in the foot, launched by the legs, directed by the waist, urged by the shoulder and expressed through the fingers.

-The Taiji Classics

So by RD's definition, Taiji must be an external art.

Shaolindynasty

12-31-2003, 10:46 AM

weight training is of the gods. bodybuilding is of the devil

Shaolindynasty

12-31-2003, 10:47 AM

"So by RD's definition, Taiji must be an external art."

Checkmate!!!

Chang Style Novice

12-31-2003, 10:49 AM

Dogtraining is of the dogs.

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 10:53 AM

Except Taiji is suposed to start at the Dantien, and radiate out, not at the feet and move up.

The Classics are lying.

Water Dragon

12-31-2003, 10:56 AM

Please break down the differnce then.

Here's a video to help you (http://emptyflower.stanford.edu/video/wailunchoi_xingyi.mpg)

FatherDog

12-31-2003, 11:05 AM

I think this discussion would be aided by a summary of people's positions.

SUMMARY OF ROYAL DRAGON'S POSITION:

Everyone who studies boxing is wrong about what boxing does. Royal Dragon (who hasn't) is right.

Everyone else who has seen Wai Lun Choi is wrong about what he does. Royal Dragon is right.

Crippled, who's studied Xing yi, taiji, and boxing, is wrong about what xing yi, taiji, and boxing do. Royal Dragon, who has studied none of these, except taiji, by videotape, is right.

The Taiji Classics are wrong. Royal Dragon is right.

SUMMARY OF EVERYONE ELSE'S POSITION:

Royal Dragon is wrong.

SUMMARY OF FATHERDOG'S POSITION:

Royal Dragon is a tool.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 11:24 AM

For the record, I've never studied in depth XingYi, SPM, and Taiji. I've tasted them and I know some fundamental movements. I've been hit by them and I know a little about how they hit.

I have no wish to be an internet expert, but at least I was commenting on something I've seen first hand.

Vash

12-31-2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Except Taiji is suposed to start at the Dantien, and radiate out, not at the feet and move up.

The Classics are lying.

:p

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 11:29 AM

think this discussion would be aided by a summary of people's positions.

SUMMARY OF ROYAL DRAGON'S POSITION:

Everyone who studies boxing is wrong about what boxing does. Royal Dragon (who hasn't) is right.

Reply]
No, I'm saying it's not internal, it's external.

Everyone else who has seen Wai Lun Choi is wrong about what he does. Royal Dragon is right.

Reply]
No, I never said that. I said, go look at him, as I can't seem to explain what I'm talking about, but he can, and demonstraite it as well.

Crippled, who's studied Xing yi, taiji, and boxing, is wrong about what xing yi, taiji, and boxing do. Royal Dragon, who has studied none of these, except taiji, by videotape, is right.

Reply]
Never said he was wrong, that's you trying to provoke a fight. He said drop steps are similar to Hsing I, I didn't even respond.

The Taiji Classics are wrong. Royal Dragon is right.

Reply]
Exactly, it's about time someone realises that! :D

SUMMARY OF EVERYONE ELSE'S POSITION:

Royal Dragon is wrong.

Reply]
No, noone is getting what I'm saying, except Monkey Slapp who agreed with me early on.

SUMMARY OF FATHERDOG'S POSITION:

Royal Dragon is a tool.

Royal Dragon's position, Father Dog is an ass

Ralphie

12-31-2003, 11:34 AM

The following translation is in regards to Ba Gua directly from my teacher's teacher...

"Hand and feet must follow each other
Power will be a little if the foot steps down
After the hand reaches out
Without the waist, even the hand and foot reaching out
Together lacks power"

Hmmmm.

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 11:52 AM

RD, the point that MonkeySlap was agreeing with you on was that there definitely ARE internal mechanics. I agree with that as well, but in a much more guarded fashion. There is also some overlap with body mechanics between what are usually considered "internal" and "external" arts.

What you don't seem to be able to do is define those internal mechanics, nor do you seem to realize how little you truly understand of the mechanics of the arts you're discussing on. That is my beef with you. So far in this thread, you've demonstrated nothing regarding an understanding of body mechanics, yet you persist on passing judgement?

:rolleyes:

Water Dragon

12-31-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
No, noone is getting what I'm saying, except Monkey Slapp who agreed with me early on.
s

A parrot will repeat most anything it hears. This does not imply that the bird has any understanding of what it says, even if the Correct has been spoken.

Vash

12-31-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
No one is getting what I'm saying.

Yes, we are. It's just that you're wrong.

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 12:50 PM

yenhoi

12-31-2003, 12:54 PM

Something about a picnic table giving advice to a living tree.

:(

CrippledAvenger

12-31-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon

That is the point I was originally trying to make, before it went all wrong.

As for the overlap, yes that is true as well.

As I recall, that had a lot to do with the fact that you kept spouting incorrect assumptions even after proven wrong.

Speaking of internal arts, I was wondering if anyone would agree that grappling arts (besides Taiji) are internal?

MasterKiller

12-31-2003, 01:07 PM

Based on the principle of yielding, I would say they could be considered internal. However, there are probably power-house grapplers that use more external force. It's all in how you play it.

Vash

12-31-2003, 01:09 PM

I wouldn't think so.

Cung-Fu

12-31-2003, 01:13 PM

I have seen the Wai Lun Choi video and he doens't look any more explosive than a good choy li fut, hung fut, wushu, pak mei, guy( actually some would consider pak mei internal ).

Nevertheless, this idea of whipping with the spine, dantien,...it is just visualization to help you with the proper body mechanics.

Choy li fut, derives whipping power of waist, and so does all these other arts.

Internal people like to visualize, qi coming out of the dantien and shooting out of the limbs...

External people like to visualize power derived from proper body mechanics derived from qi...

But in reality what is happening?

Same thing, using muscles, correct body mechanics, which involve core muscles, etc...

norther practitioner

12-31-2003, 01:46 PM

In trying to explain some of this to someone.. I realised, that telling them to twist there waist was producing too much movement in there hips.... so I told them to turn there shoulders (which means the whole torso thereafter) and stop when the hips moved..... This is the problem in communicating this stuff... people think they are doing it right, and can talk about it, but I'm sure someone is going to tell me that twisting at the waist, and telling some to twist there shoulders isn't the same.

FatherDog

12-31-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Everyone who studies boxing is wrong about what boxing does. Royal Dragon (who hasn't) is right.

Reply]
No, I'm saying it's not internal, it's external.

You're saying it generates power with the limbs, not the torso. You're wrong.

Crippled, who's studied Xing yi, taiji, and boxing, is wrong about what xing yi, taiji, and boxing do. Royal Dragon, who has studied none of these, except taiji, by videotape, is right.

Reply]
Never said he was wrong

He said flat out that you were wrong, and you denied it.

The Taiji Classics are wrong. Royal Dragon is right.

Reply]
Exactly, it's about time someone realises that! :D

:rolleyes:

Royal Dragon's position, Father Dog is an ass

Quite true! But I'm an ass who has a clue what he's talking about, which puts me one up on you, since you're just an ass.

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 02:20 PM

He said flat out that you were wrong, and you denied it.

Reply]
Where?

Royal Dragon

12-31-2003, 02:25 PM

Quite true! But I'm an ass who has a clue what he's talking about, which puts me one up on you, since you're just an ass.

Reply]
I thought I was a tool?

Christopher M

12-31-2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
You trained with Wai Lun Choi?

Reply]
No, but it's a goal after seeing him move.

That's certainly good. But interest and experience in martial arts are two entirely different things. The former you can get by watching someone, but the latter you can only get by training. You've got interest, that's great; but you're making claims here, based on interest, which can only reasonably be made based on experience. I think it is clear that there is some problematic issue arising in this thread (and many others, eg elsewhere where I posed the same question to you about training in xingyi), and I believe that this is it.

Ralphie

12-31-2003, 02:44 PM

NP, I agree with you. I would suggest that most of what is discussed here regarding internal/external is just a part of the whole as well. Body mechanics/structure (I would lump in nutrition as well) is part of internal and external. Being properly hydrated, and fine tuning your instincts is another part. Another is proper breathing, and emotional states. A different part would be the mental aspect. Last is maximizing all these things, then putting them together.
The first 3 is where sport oriented arts/schools with intense competition have been better than the McDojo/hippy Tai Chi/form collecting schools. They work to at least make the mechanics/structure work if not perfect, as well as pay close attention to diet. Being hit *hard* or being in fear to some capacity (see choke) will train your instincts properly (being more alert, staying out of danger, etc.).
Most arts teach breathing techniques in some shape or form...internal arts may teach them in greater detail, as the way in which you breathe can alter your emotional state or control it. Of course, increasing breathing capacity simply provides your body with a type of fuel component. Advanced training in this could benefit the previous two items, and this is one area where internal arts may be better. Many find this difficult to practice or apply.
Mental aspect has to do with impressions, and there are different meditations to aid in this. Again, so called external arts have these to some extent, but not as an extended complimentary training regimen.
The result of all these things is a creative expression. Unfortunately, many in martial arts don't even try in the first few things, or create illusions about how to get better at these things. The degrees of *skill* are small, especially as you get better. Internal arts just give you tools to maximize your whole self, while I would say external arts emphasize maximizing mainly the body, and only some degrees of the rest. I would also say most so called internalists don't even get to that point, and have only met a few that are able to put it all together.

FatherDog

12-31-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
He said flat out that you were wrong, and you denied it.

Reply]
Where?

Originally posted by CrippledAvenger
Nothing like sticking your fingers in your ears and hollering to make for a good discussion, eh RD? :rolleyes:

There's differences in training methodology, but there's also striking similarities between the "internal" and good boxing, e.g. opening and closing the qua on punches, keeping arms relaxed and loose.

As FatherDog has said, you know NOTHING of boxing if you don't even know that all punches come from the torso. Boxing and BJJ are all in the hips.

Originally posted by CrippledAvenger
Nope. See opening and closing the qua. Or don't you know what that is either, RD?

edit: that was a little too petulant. What I mean is that it's very possible to drive your hips without using your legs, and many boxing trainers do in fact teach you how to do that. If you've ever gone to a boxing gym you'd know that, hence my earlier point.

Christ, you're ****ing dense.