Thread: Internal Martial Arts
2/10/2007 5:25pm, #91
Yes, that is why I call it the "religion" of IMA..
Everyone finds a definition that fits their lifestyle. Neither is right, neither is wrong, lines are drawn, and the strutting begins.
2/11/2007 5:38pm, #92
Originally Posted by Phrost
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji
In this country, not many. But in Asia, nearly all.
In the U.S. you will find that virtually all schools/structures that have been or are connected with the Tang Sho Tao Association through either Hung I Hsiang or Hsu Hong Chi regularly engage in full contact fighting as part of their common training.
Some of us have worked very hard to try and diminish the stigma that is associated with Internal Martial Systems in this country as being "unable to fight effectively".
Alas, much of the effort is swallowed by the tide of the uninformed many who don't have a clue how to apply what they are learning in actual combative scenarios.
Never-the-less, we fighting internal stylists do exist. And I am also not talking about push hands.
2/11/2007 5:45pm, #93
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
2/11/2007 6:39pm, #94Originally Posted by Mike Patterson
Your type of expertise is what we are looking for to explain away some of the differences.
2/11/2007 7:08pm, #95
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Melbourne, AUS
- n/a (ex-Karate)
I'm not entirely sure why the distinction's seen as difficult to understand (it might be my own simplification of the issues).
Typically, internal arts practice as if strength came from an invisible force, which is freed up by slowness, softness, calmness.
Generally, external arts treat strength as a function of muscular power and speed, which is build through hardening muscles, fast movements, and so on.
The former is hidden, unquantifiable and seemingly inexplicable (at least in modern terms), but is seen as more powerful than the latter.
There might be exceptions, but the great bulk of Western practitioners seem to adhere to these ideas.
Am I missing something?Martial Arts and Philosophy: Beating and Nothingness
click here to order on Amazon
2/11/2007 7:13pm, #96
There doesn't seem to be a commonly-accepted definition that doesn't give one side or another the short end of the theoretical stick.
2/11/2007 7:48pm, #97
Commonly accepted by who? Not all opinions are created equal. Not everyone is equally qualified to define terms.
The real problem is that everyone thinks their own personal definition is equally valid but it's not. That's the basic problem with going online for info. There's such a mountain of it and the internet creates this illusion that everyone's opinion is of equal value. There's no decent filters.
I have been pretty verbose but I think DAYoung summed it up pretty concisely by just leaving out the jargon and putting it in simple terms.
I'd love to hear Mr. Patterson's views or how he defines it. As I was just saying that not all opinions are created equal, his is one of those that should be given more weight. He's a recognized professional in the field. I was pretty surprised to see him post here.
Last edited by Omar; 2/11/2007 8:00pm at .
2/12/2007 5:56am, #98
Quoting from a friend of mine who has researched the origins of the term better than mine, it was NOT Sun Lutang who invented the term. He just kind of gave it a stamp of authenticity. Both the older origins I alluded to earlier and the more recent usages are all here in this quote:
History of the Internal/External Model
Usage of the term neijia with respect to martial arts can be traced back as far as the 17th century. Huang Zongxi, a scholar, philosopher and activist (but not a noted martial artist) attributed the origin of internal martial arts to the Taoist immortal Zhang Sanfeng.
Huang explained that the internal martial arts were transmitted to Zhang from the God of War, while Zhang was asleep. (Other contemporary writings suggested that Zhang Sanfeng lived over 200 years and possessed supernatural powers, including the ability to fly.) Huang contrasted Zhangs esoteric arts with the more common pugilism of the Shaolin Temple.
In 1894, masters Cheng Tinghua, Liu Dekuan, Li Cunyi and Liu Weixiang formed a teaching organization for the benefit of their students and the martial arts community. These particular masters were fluent in the arts of Taijiquan, Baguazhang, and Xingyiquan, and their association was variously described as Neijiaquan (internal family boxing), Neigongquan (internal skill boxing), and Wudangquan (Wu Tang boxing).
This concept of internal martial arts was later endorsed by the Taiji expert Sun Lutang, and mentioned in his famous book The Study of Xingyi Boxing.
2/12/2007 1:38pm, #99Originally Posted by Omar
That is why I saidEveryone finds a definition that fits their lifestyle. Neither is right, neither is wrong, lines are drawn, and the strutting begins.
2/19/2007 1:00pm, #100
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- mei tu quan
I tend to agree with Omar(I think).
"Internal" has to do with controlling attention and other mental/neurological/physiological attributes. Western science is in the early stages of monitoring these "internal" events. There is much more to Chinese philosophy than this but it's a start at bridging the traditionally "internal" and "external" aspects Cinese martial arts and making internal ideas accessible to a western paradigm.
Real Scientific Article
An accomplished buddhist monk would be an expert at the internal side of internal martial arts. But you could still probably beat him up if you spar every day and he doesn't practice any sparring.
edit: People fantasizing about "chi balls" are like archaic tribesmen who, upon coming across a television, are apt to believe that birds are somehow carrying images from remote locations (Not to insult "archaic tribesmen"). If people have difficulty understanding the idea of internal arts they should try to open their mind. Consider the possibility that other cultures have made astute observations of their mental states/feelings and documented them for centuries if not millenia. Seriously. Unfortunately there are alot, if not a majority, of chi-ball wizards out there teaching "internal" martial arts. That or they are simply teaching a form of relaxing low impact movement therepy.
Last edited by melvin_peebles; 2/19/2007 1:27pm at .