Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
actually, I think that one can look at so-called "internal" in one of two ways: training and outcome / effect

if we use training medthodology (the path up the mountain) as the yardstick by which we measure the relative "internalicity" of a given system, of course we can't say that boxing or wrestling are "internal" in the same way that something like taiji or even some of the hakka systems (e.g. - SPM, Chow Ga) are; that is because the focus, priorities, cultural context, etc. are very different from one to the other;

however, if we look at outcome / effect (the "top" of the mountain), we can see that (good) wrestlers develop what essentially is the equivalent of "teng ging" (listening skill), "pang ging" (uprooting), "gan" (rootedness) etc. to the point of being essentially indistinguishable from a skilled taiji player; and boxers, in my estimation, tend to be pretty good at delivering "fa jing" (power issuance) when they strike using pretty much the same mechanics as a xing yi or taiji guy does; similarly, boxing footwork is an excellent example of "hin gung" or lightness skill (in the realistic sesnse, not in the "run up a wall" artifact)

so the question is - if someone trains a so-called "interal" system and is not able to produce the results that a boxer / wrestler produces, who is ultimately manifesting "internal" principles?
Well said and well put Christov.
Fact is that the whole internal/external thing are just terms, no more no less, just because certain MA don't use them doesn't mean they don't have the same skills.