Is "internal" real that important?

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:32 am

John Brown on December 14, 2011 wrote:CZH: It is a level of skill ...

Do we all agree that if "internal" is a level of skill, you still have to develop skill first before you can raise your level.

develop skill -> use "internal" to raise your level

My questions are:

- When you are in skill development stage, what will you do anything different if you are an "internal" guy?
- Can you use external way to raise your level?
Last edited by johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm still allergic to "push".
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9287
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby marvin8 on Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:49 pm

johnwang wrote:
John Brown on December 14, 2011 wrote:CZH: It is a level of skill ...

Do we all agree that if "internal" is a level of skill, you still have to develop skill first before you can raise your level.

Do you agree with CZH and Zhang Yun that merely developing technique and "using fa jin too directly" is a "mistake?" (I would place Yin first or second to "create" opportunity not "wait.")
Zhang Yun wrote:4. Using jin in pushing hands and fighting

One common mistake for many people is that they try to use fa jin too directly. They just want to use their jin to beat their opponents as hard as possible. But in real Taiji Quan skill, throwing jin should never be used alone.
The complete process consists of five steps:
1. Ting – listen: feel or detect what the opponent want to do,
2. Hua – melt or dissolve: neutralize the attacking force,
3. Yin – lure: give the opponent false impressions, making him feel like he can get you, and leading him to go
where you want him to go,
4. Nia - hold or control: get the opponent under your control (usually means keep him off-balanced), and
5. Fa - release a throwing force: attack.

Here the first four skills are nei jin skills, while the last one, fa, can be either nei jin or wai jin. In order to be true Taiji skill, the first four steps must be present.


johnwang wrote:develop skill -> use "internal" to raise your level

My questions are:

- When you are in skill development stage, what will you do anything different if you are an "internal" guy?

Per Zhang Yun, an "internal" guy must develop ting, hua, yin, na and fa, not only technique.

Here one is developing merely technique (with a frozen partner) when training for self-defense, not the other necessary skills. Other skills can give one an advantage in preventing counters:
johnwang wrote:Let's take a look at the 刀钩 Dao Gou training. How much can "internal" play a part in this training? If you are an "internal" guy, what extra will you add in?

Solo training:
https://i.postimg.cc/023njtXz/knife-hook-solo.gif

Partner training:
Image

Equipment training:
https://i.postimg.cc/2836L9sf/single-he ... e-hook.gif


johnwang wrote:- Can you use external way to raise your level?

Yes. External drills that may develop other necessary skills rather than merely technique:
marvin8 wrote:Is it better to include "entering strategy" in drill, instead of only drilling "finish move (technique)?" Here Zhongyi creates reaction (set up) first, then does finish move:
Image

Osoto Gari Judo Throw Counter to Jab Takedown MMA Akiyama:
Image

Christian pushes, sticks, follows and finishes with arm drag in the direction of opponent's resistance:
Image
Last edited by marvin8 on Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby Bob on Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:50 pm

johnwang wrote:
ctjla wrote:why you're wasting your time on an internal arts forum.

Do you think it makes sense for me to go to a Buddhism forum and ask "Why holy father, holy son, and holy ghost are in one?"

I can only ask "internal" question in an "internal" forum. If I ask this question in boxing forum, or Judo forum, nobody will understand what my question is.

Whether I believe in "internal" or not is not important. Whether someone can prove that "internal" can enhance foot sweep, Dao Gou, hip throw, body squeeze, … is what we are discussing right now.

Even if you may not agree with the message. there is no need to attack the messenger. We should stay on the discussion subject and leave individual out of the discussion.

I don't like this discussion will turn into:

A: Is "internal" real …?
B: If you don't believe in "internal", why are you still hanging around here?
C: You need to meet someone such as ….
D: ...

ctjla wrote:Image

Hmmmmm. Make it work on who? And with how much resistance involved?

In this clip, He pushes on his opponent's neck. In that Taiji diagonal fly clip, he pushes on his opponent's chest. You can see the contact points are different. You may need a lot of force to push on your opponent's chest. But you only need very little force to push on your opponent's neck.

IMO, "internal" power generation can be replaced by proper contact points (such as leading leg control, back leg control, neck control, chin control, forehead control, side of the head control, …). You may need 200 lb force to push on the chest to push him back. You may only need 10 lb force to push on your opponent's forehead to take him down.

marvin8 wrote:That's part of the OP question: What difference will "internal" training make when training how to fight? What is the difference between internal and external dao gou, foot sweep, hip throw, diagonal flying, etc.? Attributes were proposed (e.g., non-telegraph, power) but no videos were posted that showed "internal" training makes a difference in a fight (arguably?).

Can someone answer Marvin's questions (also my questions as well)?


How important is the internal for the

1. striking art?
2. throwing art (I'm more interest in this discussion)?


Hmmm - Going Home - Jesus and Buddha as Brothers Thich Nhat Hanh

In this book, Jesus and Buddha share a conversation about prayer and ritual and renewal, and about where such concepts as resurrection and the practice of mindfulness converge. In this unique way, Thich Nhat Hanh shows the brotherhood between Jesus and Buddha-- and in the process shows how we can take their wisdom into the world with us, to "practice in such a way that Buddha is born every moment of our daily life, that Jesus Christ is born every moment of our daily life."

https://www.amazon.com/Going-Home-Jesus ... 1573228303

Pretty interesting discussion

Li Shu Wen line of Bajiquan incorporates Shuai Jiao - Xiao Baji Jia - first form contains Shuai jiao - interestingly that form also trains breath work in stance work with mind (I guess that would be internal?) - Most people see baji as a striking art and, we seldom refer to it as "internal" but many of the training phases and exercises are to reorient the body for storing and releasing energy (xu jin --> fajin).

Many years ago (say 30 almost) sitting around discussing baji and Li Shu Wen we learned that there was staff training in bajiquan as taught by him and everyone wanted to learn the staff form - we were told that there was no form but only single moving postures of sorts - we learned one.

Why we didn't learn more was revealed much later - the staff training was not done with regular staffs but with relatively heavy iron poles and was designated for developing shuai jiao in the system - unfortunately I know of no one who has received such training as it is probably referred to as "secret" training.

However, my personal take (no one else but me) is that the current practice & training of baji is obsessed with developing punching power - part of the mythology (not in the sense of being false) of Li Shu Wen regarding his ability to strike and end the situation - I've heard on occasion why do you need anything else if you can destroy your opponent with one or two blows. Again, my personal take is that this is somewhat of mistake and there are many us previously who wished we had learned some shuai jiao so the baji system would be more complete and resilient.

Again we never referred to this as "internal training" and were never obsessed with qi, however, we weren't opposed to thinking through the "qi framework" - it was just another way of seeing things.

In the end, it seems that "internal training" is a refinement and if you are interested in fighting there is more than one way to "skin a cat".

Some of the most impressive practitioners I met over the years were those who were state wrestling champions and baji just extended their tool box - unfortunately one in particular was excellent but could not continue because he had blown out a knee in his earlier wrestling period and it severely constrained his baji practice.

I don't why the internal/external dilemma is much of concern for those who wish to apply fighting aspects of the art other than the potential for refining one's skills.
Last edited by Bob on Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bob
Great Old One
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 4:28 am
Location: Akron, Ohio

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby dspyrido on Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:35 pm

marvin8 wrote:No duh, not when an exercise was invented or where it's from. Modern methods meaning types of training done today at MMA gyms such as Black Tiger Fight Club - Beijing (Zhang Weili), America's Top Team (Phil Daru), American Kickboxing Academy (Khabib), UFC Performance Institute (Las Vegas, Shanghai), etc.


Oh so modern method = (insert famous) MMA gym. That's a joke. Try correcting the terminology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method

marvin8 wrote:To stay on topic, let's use current MMA fighters that get proper modern day training as mentioned above, regardless of their backgrounds.
....
johnwang specifically said the OP question is only about fighting. However, modern science based MMA training/nutrition also "looks inward" helping with fighting, longevity & balance in life.


Do you do modern science based MMA? Ever been in a modern science based MMA gym and seen how "inward looking" they really are or are you basing it on youtube promo videos? How much modern science nutrition do you think is focused on performance enhancement and effectively cheating the tests? Tests that exist because if they didn't then aside from short term unsportsmanlike gains it will kill the athlete far far earlier?

marvin8 wrote:Good MMA training does not only "develop muscle or cardio." It picks up on what you mentioned as well. However, the dantian area may be used differently depending on which style of IMA.


Well we agree on one thing but let me make it simple - have you ever done 10,000 shadow boxing punches and compared it with say 1000 piquan (or a mix of 5 element)? Or if you're a TC guy 1000 repulse the monkey? Do they feel the same?
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby dspyrido on Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:51 pm

johnwang wrote:Do we all agree that if "internal" is a level of skill, you still have to develop skill first before you can raise your level.

develop skill -> use "internal" to raise your level

My questions are:

- When you are in skill development stage, what will you do anything different if you are an "internal" guy?
- Can you use external way to raise your level?


Seems when too many points are made they get lost but as mentioned before - standing posture. Let's make this even more specific and only talk about the effect on the legs and discuss it's relevance to a foot sweep. NOTE: it does go a lot broader than this.

As a training method you seem to hate it. For good reason because some seem to see it as a reason to avoid doing any physical work.

I think standing postures is a great excercise and aside from the low horse stance is not normal found in the external schools and not usually trained the same way.

External schools will do squats to build leg muscle. I'm 100% with that.

The internal addition of holding a posture is not to build the muscle but apply the mind over the muscle and remove tension blocks.

Done right and nothing seems to change externally. The thighs will hardly gain size or structure like a squat. But when doing a foot sweep I have found the weight sinks down better, I telegraph less and movement is smoother.

Can I get the same results just repeating the technique? I'm not running a closed scientific experiment but I feel that the results are better when I mix in the technique training (external/internal) with strength training (external) with mind over body training (internal).

Result - Internal refines the technique.
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby marvin8 on Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:06 pm

dspyrido wrote:
marvin8 wrote:No duh, not when an exercise was invented or where it's from. Modern methods meaning types of training done today at MMA gyms such as Black Tiger Fight Club - Beijing (Zhang Weili), America's Top Team (Phil Daru), American Kickboxing Academy (Khabib), UFC Performance Institute (Las Vegas, Shanghai), etc.


Oh so modern method = (insert famous) MMA gym. That's a joke. Try correcting the terminology.

Yes. The definition in the context of the OP and how top ranked MMA fighters train.

I posted the videos of modern training to give a more accurate picture for comparison. Because at first, you said external training is "heavy weights few repetitions with exhaustion, practising a move 20 times intensely vs 1000 carefully, etc." After I posted them, your comment is "Lol - 95% of those exercises can be found in many ye ol wrestling, yoga, combat arts etc etc. manuals. ... Hell Zhang's clip you posted is packed full of shuaijiow, sanda & "kung-fu" equipment basics." Which one is it?


dspyrido wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method

marvin8 wrote:To stay on topic, let's use current MMA fighters that get proper modern day training as mentioned above, regardless of their backgrounds.
....
johnwang specifically said the OP question is only about fighting. However, modern science based MMA training/nutrition also "looks inward" helping with fighting, longevity & balance in life.


Do you do modern science based MMA? Ever been in a modern science based MMA gym and seen how "inward looking" they really are or are you basing it on youtube promo videos? How much modern science nutrition do you think is focused on performance enhancement and effectively cheating the tests? Tests that exist because if they didn't then aside from short term unsportsmanlike gains it will kill the athlete far far earlier?

marvin8 wrote:Good MMA training does not only "develop muscle or cardio." It picks up on what you mentioned as well. However, the dantian area may be used differently depending on which style of IMA.


Well we agree on one thing but let me make it simple - have you ever done 10,000 shadow boxing punches and compared it with say 1000 piquan (or a mix of 5 element)? Or if you're a TC guy 1000 repulse the monkey? Do they feel the same?

If you have an argument against what was documented in the training videos or proof of PEDs, please present it. Otherwise, you may want to start your own thread asking your own questions, I might reply.

Again to stay on the OP topic, If you can give more clear specifics or "prove that 'internal' can enhance foot sweep, Dao Gou, hip throw, body squeeze," please provide them as that is what the OP is asking.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby marvin8 on Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:32 pm

dspyrido wrote:
johnwang wrote:Do we all agree that if "internal" is a level of skill, you still have to develop skill first before you can raise your level.

develop skill -> use "internal" to raise your level

My questions are:

- When you are in skill development stage, what will you do anything different if you are an "internal" guy?
- Can you use external way to raise your level?


Seems when too many points are made they get lost but as mentioned before - standing posture. Let's make this even more specific and only talk about the effect on the legs and discuss it's relevance to a foot sweep. NOTE: it does go a lot broader than this.

As a training method you seem to hate it. For good reason because some seem to see it as a reason to avoid doing any physical work.

I think standing postures is a great excercise and aside from the low horse stance is not normal found in the external schools and not usually trained the same way.

External schools will do squats to build leg muscle. I'm 100% with that.

The internal addition of holding a posture is not to build the muscle but apply the mind over the muscle and remove tension blocks.

Done right and nothing seems to change externally. The thighs will hardly gain size or structure like a squat. But when doing a foot sweep I have found the weight sinks down better, I telegraph less and movement is smoother.

Can I get the same results just repeating the technique? I'm not running a closed scientific experiment but I feel that the results are better when I mix in the technique training (external/internal) with strength training (external) with mind over body training (internal).

Result - Internal refines the technique.

Again, your statements on external training may be inaccurate. Zhang Weili also does standing posture training in the video I posted:

Image
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:20 pm

marvin8 wrote:1. Ting – listen: feel or detect what the opponent want to do,
2. Hua – melt or dissolve: neutralize the attacking force,
3. Yin – lure: give the opponent false impressions, making him feel like he can get you, and leading him to go
where you want him to go,
4. Nia - hold or control: get the opponent under your control (usually means keep him off-balanced), and
5. Fa - release a throwing force: attack.

All those principles are used in SC.

1. Ting - pull your opponent, when he resists (listen), you then push.
2. Hua - use stealing step to move yourself out of your opponent's attacking path.
3. Yin - use reverse arm guiding to guide his arm under your arm.
4. Nia - put your hand behind your opponent's neck and pull his head toward you.
5. Fa - use quick Fajin to generate a shocking force (different from bulldozer force).

Hua and Fa are shown in this clip.

Image

marvin8 wrote:Again to stay on the OP topic, If you can give more clear specifics or "prove that 'internal' can enhance foot sweep, Dao Gou, hip throw, body squeeze," please provide them as that is what the OP is asking.

Agree!

Can we concentrate on this discussion only until we can get some agreement (or disagreement)?
Last edited by johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm still allergic to "push".
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9287
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:40 pm

Trick wrote:Nah, all his posts are just ShuaiJiao promotion...it’s as if an agenda

People in this forum think that "internal" is superior than external. I try to defend for the external.

A: You Chinese are yellow low level human being.
B: Chinese has 5000 years ancient history. Compass, dynamite, and printing were invented by Chinese.
A: Are you saying that Chinese is superior than others?
B: Chinese invented compass, dynamite, and printing does not imply others are stupid.
Last edited by johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm still allergic to "push".
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9287
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby johnwang on Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:26 pm

I don't believe in "mind over body". I believe in "無意識的本能 unconscious instincts". This way, even when you are drunk, you still can defend yourself.
I'm still allergic to "push".
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9287
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby ctjla on Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:20 pm

johnwang wrote:
Trick wrote:Nah, all his posts are just ShuaiJiao promotion...it’s as if an agenda

People in this forum think that "internal" is superior than external. I try to defend for the external.

A: You Chinese are yellow low level human being.
B: Chinese has 5000 years ancient history. Compass, dynamite, and printing were invented by Chinese.
A: Are you saying that Chinese is superior than others?
B: Chinese invented compass, dynamite, and printing does not imply others are stupid.



I'm not certain you have to defend the external.

Many high level internal practitioners, that are reputed to be able to actually use it -- started with the a more external focus. For example, noted Wu stylist Wang Peisheng started off with a combination of basic external martial arts and acrobatics. More recently Aunkai founder Minoru Akuzawa was an active Sanda and gymnastics competitor, his real exposure to high quality internals came later. Sun Lu Tang began his training with Shaolin.

It would be difficult to assert that their previous external & high level physical training didn't contribute to their eventual success. Personally, I've never met a purely internal practitioner with no hard physical training somewhere in their background that could really scrap.

I don't know if anyone is really taking an opposing position.
ctjla
Santi
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:54 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby Trick on Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:49 am

johnwang wrote:
Trick wrote:Nah, all his posts are just ShuaiJiao promotion...it’s as if an agenda

People in this forum think that "internal" is superior than external. I try to defend for the external.

A: You Chinese are yellow low level human being.
B: Chinese has 5000 years ancient history. Compass, dynamite, and printing were invented by Chinese.
A: Are you saying that Chinese is superior than others?
B: Chinese invented compass, dynamite, and printing does not imply others are stupid.

What are you talking about, do forum members here go to boxing wrestling mma forums to talk down on them ???
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby LaoDan on Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:16 pm

johnwang wrote:I started my Taiji training when I was 7. Taiji was my 1st CMA style. After this many years, there are some "internal" principles that I just don't agree with:

1. Formless - I don't believe this can be achieved. You left arm/leg has to be as good as your right arm/leg which is not realistic.
2. If you don't move, I won't move - I believe give first and take afterward.
3. Power generation is solution for all - I believe there is right key for the right lock.
4. Double weighted - If you have to lift an heavy object off the ground, double weighted is a must.
5. Sticky - hook is much stronger than glue.
6. Technique is not important - I believe technique is very important.
7. Leg skill can affect your own balance - I believe leg skill can also affect my opponent's balance.
8. Push - I don't believe in push. I believe in throw and control.
9. …

Many "internal" principles that I do agree with:

1. Body coordination.
2. Body unification.
3. Borrow force.
4. Use mini effort to achieve maximum result.
5. ...

1. Yet TJQ obviously also has techniques (as learned in forms, drills, applications, fighting, etc.). The thing is that the principles underlying those techniques should be present in all the various techniques/movements; therefore the principles are “formless” (not dependant on a specific form or application), although they should be applied to all techniques. I sometimes use the art of BGZ to illustrate this since Dong taught each of his students somewhat differently based on their individual backgrounds, physiques, etc. with wrestlers taught “differently” than strikers...; but all utilize the “formless” principles in their various styles of BGZ and in the forms and applications that come from each style. One could also say that the principles apply to all styles of TJQ (although each may emphasize different things) regardless of the form differences between them (i.e., the principles applied to the various TJQ styles is “formless”, and it is these “formless” principles that unites them all as being variations of TJQ). Or one could say that the “formless” characteristics are what lead to TJQ, BGZ and XYQ being grouped together into the “internal” styles, despite the differences seen in these three different arts.
For me, the TJQ principle is striving for the quality that a ball (or a gearbox, or positive and negative rotations, or however else one’s tradition describes it) has in interacting with incoming forces...
http://slantedflying.com/be-the-ball/
The problem is that the classic writing for TJQ are vague enough that they are open to numerous divergent interpretations. To me it is pretty much just overlaying the taiji (yin+yang) principles as the “formless” principle applied to whatever one’s fighting encompasses (regardless of the emphasis on shuaijiao, or striking, or pushing...).
http://slantedflying.com/hitting-taijiquans-sweet-spot/
The taiji (yin+yang) principle is formless, regardless of what forms it is applied to. But differing interpretations of how to do that, as well as personal preferences..., is what lead to different styles (or interpretations) of TJQ.
2. Yea, I sort of agree with you here (although perhaps for different reasons):
http://slantedflying.com/taking-the-initiative-in-taijiquan/
3. I sort of agree with you here as well. For me the “internal” practice is in generating the power in a manner that produces a balance and coordination through one’s body such that both yin and yang are simultaneously produced and one does not separate the actions such that practitioners are “incorrectly” only committing to one or the other energy at a time. This is also about the quality of the ball (and six direction forces, or however else one’s tradition explains it).
http://slantedflying.com/six-direction-force-in-taijiquan/
4. A lever can lift a heavy weight off of the ground without being “double weighted” can’t it? A lever can be used to illustrate TJQ principles (yin+yang, or the two ends of the lever, united around the center, or the fulcrum of the lever...).
5. Of course hooking and grabbing are also a part of TJQ (e.g., caijin). What the stickiness allows (when emphasized) is the qualities of the ball when interacting with the opponent (i.e., not letting the ball’s energy separate from the opponent). For striking (or cutting when using a weapon...) one can certainly separate from the opponent, but when emphasizing controlling them, then it is better to maintain the contact point (i.e., being sticky).
6. See the answer to #1.
7. I also agree here, but if the quality of the ball (yin+yang, or “gearbox”, or six direction force...) is maintained, then one will not sacrifice one’s own balance when using the legs to affect the opponent’s balance. I practice to maintain my own canter while disrupting the opponent’s canter.
8. Push is a safe way to train, and push and pull (and other energies) are typically used to set up “finishing moves” and only infrequently are the finishing move itself. You use push energy (though usually combined with a simultaneous pull, i.e. liejin) when you throw and control. If you prefer techniques that use leijin, then that is fine (it is certainly included as a part of TJQ), but others may prefer to emphasize techniques that use other energies (which is also fine, and is still TJQ, including anjin).
9... Perhaps these are just differences in the interpretation of the principles?

John, You seem intent on questioning “is this technique internal” rather than “is this technique being done in such a way that it incorporates (various) internal principles” - e.g., while a punch is a punch (technique), a karate practitioner will likely know that their straight punch is improved if the non-punching fist is drawn back to the opposite hip in coordination with the outgoing fist (incorporating one “internal” dynamic), and they may also realize that the outgoing fist rotating/drilling as it hits the target is better (incorporating another “internal dynamic”)... So is the punch internal? [Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on the principles used to deliver that punch.] Others have tried to point this out to you, but you do not seem to be hearing them. Can someone who has not trained “internally” deliver an “internal” punch? Possibly, but the more one trains internally the greater should be their chances of incorporating more and more internal principles on a more and more consistent basis. Is a karate punch “internal”? It does incorporate some “internal” principles, but lacks others, e.g., the punch needs to be cocked and comes to an abrupt ending vs. the “circularity” (or continuity, non-ending delivery mechanism) that I associate with being “internal”. So, is a punch just a punch, or is it no longer just a punch...?

I view “external” vs. “internal” as a continuum rather than a duality. Since my current emphasis/understanding leans towards the continuity of potential actions (i.e., no technique coming to a dead stop that needs some recovery movement prior to changing to another technique...), then I would view a typical karate punch to be on the “external” end of the spectrum [when evaluating it on that particular criterion] (although it would not be ALL “external” since it contains some “internal” characteristics). I want my punch to retain the potential for other actions, such as smoothly changing to a grab and pull if/when the punch is blocked, or changing from a straight punch to a hook, etc., as appropriate for the specific situation (i.e., “formlessness”). I want any specific technique to retain the potential to change into other techniques in a smooth and continuous action that does not require stopping in order to make the change. While that is my current focus, there are numerous other valid “internal” characteristics that other practitioners could focus on (e.g., effortlessness, like your post illustrating the benefit of contact to the head rather than the chest...).

There are certainly different approaches that a practitioner can take in learning to incorporate the “formless” “internal” principles into their art. One can focus on learning the principles first such that they become a part of how one moves, and then learn specific techniques using those principles. One could instead learn techniques first and then try to relearn them in a way that incorporates more and more of the “internal” principles. Most practitioners are probably somewhere along the spectrum connecting those approaches. I do not know which approach would be better. The first takes a long time because it is difficult to incorporate those principles consistently in all the techniques that one uses. Conversely, the second approach gives techniques that can be use fairly quickly, but probably of a lower quality, that would need to be modified over a lengthy period in order to incorporate the desired principles. It is often difficult for some people to modify old habits, and we ideally want the principles to be universally applicable, not just this way for this technique, and then relearning “another” way for a different technique. I prefer striving for a universal key (i.e., the “master key” concept, although my understanding of what this “master key” is may differ from what others think, and my understanding could change with further progress in my art), rather than having a large collection of different keys. Each technique [door] would be different, but the principles [key(s)] used for each are unified into one

But there are many paths to the top of the mountain. I am nowhere near the top of the mountain, so I am probably not qualified to evaluate different approaches used by different traditions or individuals on their way up. But my teaching has taught me that everyone is unique, and each person would probably benefit if a teacher had the ability to create a training program that was ideally and specifically suited to each individual student. As it is, I just muddle through (especially when teaching group classes) trying to do at least a satisfactory job that all students can progress with at least to some variable degree.
LaoDan
Huajing
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:51 am

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby johnwang on Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:17 pm

LaoDan wrote:John, You seem intent on questioning “is this technique internal” rather than “is this technique being done in such a way that it incorporates (various) internal principles” - e.g.,

I don't see any difference between

1. is this technique internal vs.
2. is this technique being done in such a way that it incorporates (various) internal principles.

This is why I try to stay away from abstract discussion.
Last edited by johnwang on Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm still allergic to "push".
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9287
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Is "internal" real that important?

Postby dspyrido on Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:20 pm

marvin8 wrote:
dspyrido wrote:Result - Internal refines the technique.

Again, your statements on external training may be inaccurate. Zhang Weili also does standing posture training in the video I posted:

Image


Pitiful attempt. Was that all you wanted to get out of my post ::)

Anyway... no. Pretty clear you don't do these practises to understand them.

Btw being in China Zheng of all fighters would have access to more "internal" instructors.
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests