BTDT (1): What is IMA?

[justincasea]

Blank:
I am out

[edededed]

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.

[Ian]

John is right about this. Any taiji practitioner would call these ‘double weight”.

Disagree.

In human anatomy, we all know waist is waist, but in Taiji waist is not where we mean waist in everyday life.

People talk about yao, yao gu, kua, dantian in Chinese, not just yao. They're obviously different things.

[josh]

Perhaps the easiest way to define neijiaquan is the classical definition: taijiquan, baguazhang, or xingyiquan.

That can't be a valid definition since none of these styles existed as such at the time that the term "neijiaquan" was coined.

[klonk]

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.

[Dmitri]

"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.

[Bhassler]

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]

Careful man, he might be one of those "undercover grandmasters" Yusuf is warning everyone about on the other thread... Thou shalt not judge, but listen and absorb -- you know, just in case... (j/k...)

[nianfong]

oh god not another "what is IMA" thread... I appreciate thE BTDT in the title. let's me filter it easier.

[bailewen]

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"?

Actually, I think he was just looking to produce a list of guys to be aware of so that he or anyone who read the thread would know to definitely check them out if they ever had the chance. In fact, considering who started the thread, I don't think he even really cared that much if they were really "internal" per se. He just likes learning from people who are really soft and relaxed and besides that, officially anyways, this is a board devoted to "internal" arts.


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.

[justincasea]

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.

Thank you, Omar. Indeed, Dmitri is surprisingly knowledgeable. Originally I thought we could have a team effort here at this forum to investigate the problem from "technology advancement" perspective ( technology being human body mechanics). I probably expect too much from such a online place.

[justincasea]

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.

I do NOT want to leave out tonbei, LH, YQ, paocui,...etc. They are just as "internal" as the big three. Thanks.

If we understand them by the progression of understanding body mechanics (in modern day terms, it is technology advancement), we can have a spectrum, very much like optics spectrum. One one end is hard nei gong. and soft nei gong on the other end.

[justincasea]

1. Your premise that being double-weighted refers to weight distribution on the feet is at best debatable and at worst outright incorrect.

Read careful or blame my language skill. You did not understand what I said.

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?"

You think so? I did not mean it. I do think his definition of DW is debatable.

3. This is out and out BTDT, no matter how you attempt to frame the question.

I am glad you are so sure. Congratulations to your martial success.

[justincasea]

"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.

if you take the perspective of Wang Zongyue according to his classical "On Taiji", we see another way to look at the distinction of IMA and EMA that is not based on taoist vs. Buddhist or working your body inward or outward. However, Wang did not spell out the term "IMA" - I believe it was Gan who first used the term IMA(?)

[justincasea]

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.

Thank you, Klonk. I am new to this forum ( and soon getting very old ), I am also not familiar with martial terms in English. Can you tell me what "short power" is?