justincasea wrote:John is right about this. Any taiji practitioner would call these ‘double weight”.
In human anatomy, we all know waist is waist, but in Taiji waist is not where we mean waist in everyday life.
edededed wrote:Perhaps the easiest way to define neijiaquan is the classical definition: taijiquan, baguazhang, or xingyiquan.
justincasea wrote:Recently a thread of " best internal guy alive today?" has caught a lot of attention and received a lot of responses. "Best" or not depends on whom one has met, seen, heard about, ...I guess the person who started the thread was not looking for a consensus. But a more fundamental question should be answered:
what capacity can one be qualified as an "internal guy"?
Omar (bailewen) wrote:justincasea wrote:
As to the definition, I tend to go with something like Dmitri's explanation. I could add a little detail but basically just what he said.
edededed wrote:That is sort of true for taijiquan, not quite true for baguazhang or xingyiquan. (Quite specifically, in xingyiquan, huajing is the last of three levels, after all.)
Perhaps the easiest way to define neijiaquan is the classical definition: taijiquan, baguazhang, or xingyiquan.
Bhassler wrote:
1. Your premise that being double-weighted refers to weight distribution on the feet is at best debatable and at worst outright incorrect.
2. The entire latter half of your post was dedicated to not so indirectly slamming CXW, and did very little to examine the question of "what is IMA?"
3. This is out and out BTDT, no matter how you attempt to frame the question.
Dmitri wrote:"internal" is when the main focus of one's training is oriented inwards, i.e. mind "leading" body, "know yourself (then) know your opponent"
"external" is when the main emphasis of one's training is oriented "outwards", i.e. perfecting technique (usually by a lot of repetition/drills) without "listening" to oneself in the process
Then again, looking from a completely different perspective (which is also the original meaning, I guess?), there's that whole Taoist vs. Buddhist thing re. origination of IMA vs. non-IMA...
But that effectively rules out, for example, any Shaolin-based training as possibly being able to be called "internal", so that's a very different sense/meaning for these terms.
klonk wrote:I like something C.J. Wang said on another thread. Where you see rooting, neutralizing and short power all in use together, you're looking at IMA. What's neat about this definition is it looks at the what not the how. Discussions of how, of course, become scrambled up in confusion pretty quickly. We see that often enough.
Return to Been There Done That
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests