Internal Martial Arts

**Cullion** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 4:42pm

This is the branch of the CMA that, usually quite deservedly, comes in for the most flack. Tai Chi Chuan in particular is famed for the proportion of its practitioners who are deluded, out of shape new agers who never spar or do anything 'alive', and many would themselves not class what they do as a martial art.

There are people here who do IMA and do condition and do spar/fight/wrestle. This is the thread to talk about it in, including non-CMA people who want to ask about it.

'Why don't you spar' has already been dealt with elsewhere. The answer is 'some of us do, and we're just as bemused about the rarity of that as the rest of you'.

Deeper questions please.

**Mut Sao** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 6:16pm

:XXspam: .... Why don't you IMA guys fight in pro MMA?:new_micro

Sorry Cullion, could not resist the obvious follow up question....

On a more serious note where does Peng fit with your TCC.... is it a "there is TCC without Peng" or a "Peng is only a minor part of TCC" kind of stance?

**ojgsxr6** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 6:24pm

If you can, please explain what the phrase "internal martial art" means and what makes a martial art internal or external?

**Mut Sao** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 6:44pm

..... not that i am an officianado of IMA... but in my basic understanding IMA is more anal in its development of structures eccetera. Also i find at least where i train the concept is (basically) more about hitting through extension rather than contraction. I have found Many EMA tend to be more brutish in thier expression of force, IMA seems more subtle....

not really a good description, but the best i can give rightnow... i am sure others more versed will give a far better description.....

**Bang!** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 10:28pm

The internal/external dichotomy was manufactured by Sun Lu Tang (Sun Style Taijiquan founder) to differentiate what he was doing from some of the other kids out there. Many people view it as an unnecessary and artificial distinction. Why? Because we’re all going to wind up in the same place, provided that we aren’t doing anything seriously wrong.

I also see IMA as being more anal about relatively subtle biomechanics and EMA as placing more emphasis on making techniques stick. After some years, a good IMA guy will still be able to hit hard and a good EMA guy will be able to flow. By that time, the distinction has vanished. It exists only insofar as the initial direction of their training.

I should also mention that the standard name to invoke in this discussion is Tim Cartmell. He is an established IMA guy who also wound up earning his black belt in BJJ. He considers BJJ to be an IMA. I agree with him, although I would clarify by saying that it can be, depending on one’s approach to training.

**dwhomp** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 10:41pm

I dont like internal vs external but more hard vs soft.

A hard art practitioner focuses on making his body speed and force increae through tightening the muscles as much as possible.

A soft art practitioner uses a total body movement that does not rely on tightening the muscles as much as possible.

And no, we are not all fat and lazt thinking we will defeat people with our minds in 20 years.

However, there IS a steeper learning curve then perhaps other arts, but you all love BJJ so much, how long does it take to be very good at it?

I can understand how BJJ can be considered to be internal. Look at the founder...he was not a big man at all. He couldnt brute people around. He used good body mechanics in a specialized way. For you Ground Rollers, how far do you get using strength to muscle folks around? What if he is strong then you? Do you not have to relax?

**Torakaka** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 10:56pm

Originally Posted by dwhomp

I dont like internal vs external but more hard vs soft.

A hard art practitioner focuses on making his body speed and force increae through tightening the muscles as much as possible.

A soft art practitioner uses a total body movement that does not rely on tightening the muscles as much as possible.

Hmm, somehow I doubt this is accurate. I've always been told styles such as muay thai and boxing would be considered external/hard styles, and yet it is VERY well stressed in these arts that relaxation and staying loose (NOT tightening up) is requried to be adequate. The goal is not to be "tight", but just the opposite.

Originally Posted by dwhomp

However, there IS a steeper learning curve then perhaps other arts, but you all love BJJ so much, how long does it take to be very good at it?

it takes about 6 months of regular training for most people to get good enough to pretty easily tap out most people that have no grappling ability. It may take 10 years for most people to get a black belt, but you can get by well enough at white belt.

Originally Posted by dwhomp

I can understand how BJJ can be considered to be internal. Look at the founder...he was not a big man at all. He couldnt brute people around. He used good body mechanics in a specialized way. For you Ground Rollers, how far do you get using strength to muscle folks around? What if he is strong then you? Do you not have to relax?

The same can be said for pretty much any style.

**Bang!** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 11:00pm

I remember buying into the idea of a dramatic difference between IMAs and other styles. And then I read a description of Evander Hollyfield's regimen by one of his coaches. The mechanics he detailed were so similar to the ones I was trying to learn in tai chi that I realized that we're all largely doing the same **** -- there are just different approaches (and breadths) to how we're doing it.

**dwhomp** · Posted On: 2/05/2007 11:44pm

I would agree with this. I dont like to classify at all truth be told.

Watch a man fight/spar/train with good structure and it is very similiar in many ways.

Beter there are always difference methodologies and in this medium, it is very hard to get pasted and understand others as it is a physical activity.

For example Kids, it would be 1000 times easier to be face to face and physcially show the ideas contained. I am sure I sould learn something as as you would.

But ya do the best you can in a forum.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 2/06/2007 4:38am

Originally Posted by Kidspatula

Hmm, somehow I doubt this is accurate. I've always been told styles such as muay thai and boxing would be considered external/hard styles, and yet it is VERY well stressed in these arts that relaxation and staying loose (NOT tightening up) is requried to be adequate. The goal is not to be "tight", but just the opposite.

I agree with Kid here. I don't see a clear distinction between 'Internal/Externa' CMA myself other than some cultural stuff (in the 'foundation legends' most 'external' CMA seem to be associated with Buddhism, in particular Shaolin, whereas 'IMA' legends often relate to Taoism, in particular the Wudang mountains).

The point about Sun Lu Tang is another arbitrary distinction I've heard about before.

Pretty much everything which I used to think of as 'external' I've now seen or heard of being practiced by 'IMA' practitioners, from weight training of various sorts to striking pads/bags for conditioning. The only thing that might be different is that some IMA (in particular Tai Chi Chuan) have a first form which is all slow and relaxed rather than having a first form which is done fast with lots of explosive movement like a karate or 'shaolin' wu shu form. We still wrestled, sparred and hit pads from the get-go though.

And anybody _who wants to be any good_ has to learn how to relax at the appropriate moment and not be stiff all the time, regardless of what style they do.