# Sifu Hsu: internal vs. external (revisited)



## mantis (May 4, 2006)

Here i am going to be quoting sifu Adam Hsu form his book 'The Sowrd Polisher's Record'.  (www.adamhsu.com) Sifu hsu learned about 8 different styles until he got to this conclusion.  Please state what you think about his argument, or what you think about the subject matter from your own experience:

"all martial artists must start with though fundamental training and possess a fair amount of athletic ability.  This is the external part of training.  High-level techniques are possible only when built upon the foundation of strong basics.  Higher levels use less rough power, more mature techniques, and must engage the mind and spirit.  This we call internal Kung Fu.

The truth is that any style can be an internal style but not every practitioner can reach levels high enough to earn the distinction of internal stylist even if they practict taiji, xingyi, or bagua"

your answers will help me and other people understand more the internal/external training.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 5, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> Here i am going to be quoting sifu Adam Hsu form his book 'The Sowrd Polisher's Record'. (www.adamhsu.com) Sifu hsu learned about 8 different styles until he got to this conclusion. Please state what you think about his argument, or what you think about the subject matter from your own experience:
> 
> "all martial artists must start with though fundamental training and possess a fair amount of athletic ability. This is the external part of training. High-level techniques are possible only when built upon the foundation of strong basics. Higher levels use less rough power, more mature techniques, and must engage the mind and spirit. This we call internal Kung Fu.
> 
> ...


 
Never heard of Sifu Adam Hsu, but what he says is 100% true. I liked the saying: The truth is that any style can be an internal style but not every practitioner can reach levels high enough to earn the distinction of internal stylist even if they practict taiji, xingyi, or bagua". Reaching spiritual levels in combat needs a high level of devotion and sincerety. That's why I personally beleive that UFC, K1, Pride fighters are all combatants filled with techniques but not worth a look. They just fight with lacking internal aspects. That's why they are very limited due to the little discipline they got. Those fighters can be top in the ring, but if they fight any internal trained guy, they are going to lose. Some people never beleive what I am saying, because they never saw how Taichi trainers develops power and how they are balanced. The internal terms of combat also gives you a purpose to fight and know when to fight, it mobilizes the human sences to be very patient, kind, and always makes fighting the as the worst solution possible. If someone really owns such values and trains hard, I baleive he would have the chance to overcome any kind of arrogant opponents, no matter how strong they were formed and structured. 

As it is known. "Strong wind breaks stiff trunks easily, but can never break a bamboo branch that has strong roots and a flexible branch".


----------



## green meanie (May 5, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> I liked the saying: The truth is that any style can be an internal style but not every practitioner can reach levels high enough to earn the distinction of internal stylist even if they practict taiji, xingyi, or bagua".


 
I also liked this statement and agree with it as well.



			
				yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Reaching spiritual levels in combat needs a high level of devotion and sincerety. That's why I personally beleive that UFC, K1, Pride fighters are all combatants filled with techniques but not worth a look.


 This I don't agree with. I think all arts have something to offer.



			
				yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> They just fight with lacking internal aspects. That's why they are very limited due to the little discipline they got.


 
I don't believe this is any indication that they lack 'discipline'. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion except to guess that you have no idea what it is involved when training to fight professionally.



			
				yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Those fighters can be top in the ring, but if they fight any internal trained guy, they are going to lose.


 





			
				yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> As it is known. "Strong wind breaks stiff trunks easily, but can never break a bamboo branch that has strong roots and a flexible branch".


 
Yes, but that quote can also apply to the external and doesn't necessarily support your statements about the internal aspect of the arts. In fact this is a saying that I've heard often in Ju Jitsu to describe the yielding, go with the flow, technical aspects of the art; which has held up rather well in the ring don't you think?


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 5, 2006)

green meanie said:
			
		

> Yes, but that quote can also apply to the external and doesn't necessarily support your statements about the internal aspect of the arts. In fact this is a saying that I've heard often in Ju Jitsu to describe the yielding, go with the flow, technical aspects of the art; which has held up rather well in the ring don't you think?


 
OK Jujutsu is different in its aspects, its a martial art we all know of its effectivness, but still is no match for Taichi. Remember that I said that its not the arts that doesn't seek spiritual levels, but it's trainers who if were really disciplined like you said. They wouldn't see them fighting in rings and hurting other people, this exactly opposite to the martial way theory of self-defence where we fight only if neccessary.


----------



## green meanie (May 5, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> OK Jujutsu is different in its aspects, its a martial art we all know of its effectivness, but still is no match for Taichi.


 
How can you make a statement like that? It's ridiculous. There is no superior art, only superior artists. Believe me, I'm not belittling Taichi, I just think it's foolish on your part to make that statement simply because you happen to find fighting in the ring distatesful.



			
				yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Remember that I said that its not the arts that doesn't seek spiritual levels, but it's trainers who if were really disciplined like you said. They wouldn't see them fighting in rings and hurting other people, this exactly opposite to the martial way theory of self-defence where we fight only if neccessary.


 
I think you're disregarding how this thread began. It started with the statement, "all martial artists must start with though fundamental training and possess a fair amount of athletic ability. This is the external part of training. High-level techniques are possible only when built upon the foundation of strong basics. Higher levels use less rough power, more mature techniques, and must engage the mind and spirit. This we call internal Kung Fu. The truth is that any style can be an internal style but not every practitioner can reach levels high enough to earn the distinction of internal stylist even if they practict taiji, xingyi, or bagua"

Again, I think your dislike for MMA-style fighting is blinding you to the possibility that some of these fighters (who possess the fundamental training and the athleticism described) are just as capable as anyone to move into the internal aspects of the arts later in life after their career in the ring is over.

Regards, green meanie
:asian:


----------



## mantis (May 5, 2006)

i cannot speak for  yipman_sifu
but from what the way i read his comments is JJ is no match for taichi in terms of emphasis on internal training at higher levels, and since internal training dramatically improves your performance he came to that conclusion.

I am like yipman_sifu, i never thought MMA practitioners learn to develop any internal skill or at least internal training is not too emphasized, but i could be wrong. i mean i have really little information, so please feel free to talk about MMA's internal training.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 5, 2006)

You may saw some ring fighters with good discipline. I personally never saw a single ring fighter with good intesion or spirit. These fighters are very skilled that's true, but can never be like someone who trained for the sake of the martial way and discipline, and considers fighting as a bad solution. Beleive me that affects the results of the combatic brawls we face. MMA arts fighters are all tough looking, hitting each other for no purpose. Where are the high discipline you are talking about?!. I mean this discipline is the begining of gaining spiritual insight my friend. Did Tank Abbot had any discipline when he fought in the ring. Tell me how such guy might gain spirtual power and internal strength. Do you expect a guy who demeans other martial artists like Bruce Lee or GeneLeBell would be an internal possesed fighter. If the answer was yes. I would like to say where did the martial values went, did they flew over and left humans fight only for fighting. If that it true, then animals fight better than us. These values are the only differences between us and them.


----------



## green meanie (May 5, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> i cannot speak for yipman_sifu
> but from what the way i read his comments is JJ is no match for taichi in terms of emphasis on internal training at higher levels, and since internal training dramatically improves your performance he came to that conclusion.


 
Based on this statement I have to disagree: 


			
				yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> Those fighters can be top in the ring, but if they fight any internal trained guy, they are going to lose.


 


			
				mantis said:
			
		

> I am like yipman_sifu, i never thought MMA practitioners learn to develop any internal skill or at least internal training is not too emphasized, but i could be wrong. i mean i have really little information, so please feel free to talk about MMA's internal training.


 
I seriously doubt there's _ANY_ time spent working on the internal aspects in MMA training. They're focused on the external and there's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that these fighters can't or won't choose to take their training in another direction at some point later on in their life. And while I admit it would be foolish to suggest that they will I think the important thing here is _they could._


----------



## green meanie (May 5, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> You may saw some ring fighters with good discipline. I personally never saw a single ring fighter with good intesion or spirit. These fighters are very skilled that's true, but can never be like someone who trained for the sake of the martial way and discipline, and considers fighting as a bad solution. Beleive me that affects the results of the combatic brawls we face. MMA arts fighters are all tough looking, hitting each other for no purpose. Where are the high discipline you are talking about?!. I mean this discipline is the begining of gaining spiritual insight my friend. Did Tank Abbot had any discipline when he fought in the ring. Tell me how such guy might gain spirtual power and internal strength. Do you expect a guy who demeans other martial artists like Bruce Lee or GeneLeBell would be an internal possesed fighter. If the answer was yes. I would like to say where did the martial values went, did they flew over and left humans fight only for fighting. If that it true, then animals fight better than us. These values are the only differences between us and them.


 
:shrug:

I don't know where to begin. I've never heard anyone in MMA talk trash about Bruce Lee or Gene LeBell. Maybe someone has but I'm not aware of it. Most everyone I know in MMA consider Bruce Lee a pioneer, one of the first to push the limits and encouraged people to cross-train. And Gene LeBell is a MMA god. He is MMA. He's fought in the ring on several occasions and his gym produces several of the up-and-coming MMA hopefuls. Gene LeBell is one of the most kind and generous men I have ever met... as well as one of the most dangerous. Your comments implying that MMA fighters are incapable of having good intentions or spirit are ignorant as well as insulting.

Just out of curiosity, since you have such a dim view of MMA competition, does this opinion carry over into all martial sports or just this one? What is your opinion of Boxing, Wrestling, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and Judo for example?


----------



## Wes Tasker (May 5, 2006)

yipman_sifu - 

Do you equate "internal" as having some dimension beyond just superior mechanics?  Your last post seems to indicate, to me anyway, that you believe one's intent, purpose, values etc. have a large bearing on one's fighting abilities.  If you do believe this, then I can see where you would differ with someone who believes that "internal" just signifies a better mechanical way of doing something, i.e. - peng, fa jing, fa li, etc.  

For the record, I don't agree with your view point.  But if you do believe these things than the debate is not going to go well as you hold differing definitions of the subject at hand....

-wes tasker


----------



## mantis (May 5, 2006)

the argument of Sifu Hsu is that internal is basically more complex, mature techniques that rely less on force. 
so the argument is internal training leads, if not equivalent, to better skill.  

how did that lead you guys to think internal training has much to do with the practitioner's intent, purpose, or values?


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 5, 2006)

green meanie said:
			
		

> :shrug:
> 
> I don't know where to begin. I've never heard anyone in MMA talk trash about Bruce Lee or Gene LeBell. Maybe someone has but I'm not aware of it. Most everyone I know in MMA consider Bruce Lee a pioneer, one of the first to push the limits and encouraged people to cross-train. And Gene LeBell is a MMA god. He is MMA. He's fought in the ring on several occasions and his gym produces several of the up-and-coming MMA hopefuls. Gene LeBell is one of the most kind and generous men I have ever met... as well as one of the most dangerous. Your comments implying that MMA fighters are incapable of having good intentions or spirit are ignorant as well as insulting.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, since you have such a dim view of MMA competition, does this opinion carry over into all martial sports or just this one? What is your opinion of Boxing, Wrestling, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and Judo for example?


 
Man. GeneLeBell was offensed by people from the UFC "no need to mention names". Bruce Lee was offended by this Tank Abbot. I really mentioned his name because he is a real disgrace to any competition.
Regarding other matches. Jujitsu is not bad, because it's really nice and no bad physical insults. Regarding wrestling. I like Greco Roman (very nice). Boxing is the most effective in making injuries. I don't prefer it (Mike Tyson was enough). 
Man. What I really don't like about those media martial artist is boasting. Most of them are arrogant and they show-off muscles and say "come on, I will crush you today". these words identify how they understand the martial way in its wrong path. External power + *motivation* is the key to victory in battle. Internal trainers reaches high level of discipline. some of them don't drink, never makes relation with girls, all the fun stuff are prohibited from their life, and of course training hard and devote their time to it. I wish you got my point friend.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 5, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> the argument of Sifu Hsu is that internal is basically more complex, mature techniques that rely less on force.
> so the argument is internal training leads, if not equivalent, to better skill.
> 
> how did that lead you guys to think internal training has much to do with the practitioner's intent, purpose, or values?


 
If it were just about simplifying the skills mantis. Animals learn how to hunt their preys with less energy as they hunt more. They know that this way of catching prey B will be easier that the caught prey A that were yesterday's meal. 

I mean that if the martial arts were just learning skills without a purpose, why the hell I am learning martial arts?. Someone will come to you and ask you this question. What would be your answer?. Don't tell me that for self-defence, because it's *EXTREMELY* rare to get hit in the streets except if you are a problem maker, and if you are, you don't deserve to learn martial arts, because you are going to use it in the bad way.
Martial arts gives the ability for developing a way of discipline with the skill. Martial arts gives the ability to be relaxed and self-confident, not exposed to tension and feel that you can solve the problem without using any effort. That's the martial purpose in my opinion. If am saying something wrong, tell me how?.


----------



## mantis (May 5, 2006)

yipman_sifu said:
			
		

> If it were just about simplifying the skills mantis. Animals learn how to hunt their preys with less energy as they hunt more. They know that this way of catching prey B will be easier that the caught prey A that were yesterday's meal.
> 
> I mean that if the martial arts were just learning skills without a purpose, why the hell I am learning martial arts?. Someone will come to you and ask you this question. What would be your answer?. Don't tell me that for self-defence, because it's *EXTREMELY* rare to get hit in the streets except if you are a problem maker, and if you are, you don't deserve to learn martial arts, because you are going to use it in the bad way.
> Martial arts gives the ability for developing a way of discipline with the skill. Martial arts gives the ability to be relaxed and self-confident, not exposed to tension and feel that you can solve the problem without using any effort. That's the martial purpose in my opinion. If am saying something wrong, tell me how?.



ah, so we have an addition to the definition of internal training.  
you are saying for a practitioner to practice internally he has to have a purpose, and this purpose has to be positive in terms of its morality.
that's what i understood, in short, from your posts.  you do bring up a good point. agreed


----------



## Andrew Green (May 5, 2006)

Internal training comes from pushing yourself beyond where you are capbale.  Finding the will too push on when your body wants to quit.  The biggest recent example would be that Bonnar vs Griffin fight, can you honestly watch those two push their limits as hard and as far as they could, to keep coming out with everything when anyone else would have just lied down?

You mention Tank Abott, he was not a top fighter at any point, he beat a bunch of other wannabe tough guys and put on a good show.  But he can't compete with any modern fighters, he tried making that comeback, didn't last.

Not to mention bad examples can be found in any sport / art.  

Now you also mention Bruce Lee and Gene Lebell, two people that I'm quite sure would agree in the benefit of getting in their and going hard, seeing what you got.  Bruce based a style around it, Gene was famous because of his ability to win.

"That's why they are very limited due to the little discipline they got."

You're right, training that hard, everyday, sticking to a strict diet, pushing you body that hard.  What a bunch of slackers....

"but if they fight any internal trained guy, they are going to lose."

That's quite a leap of faith.  Lot's of Kung Fu guys have tried fighting, and come away rather humbled.  Guess none of them where any good then right?

This is pure speculation, until someone does step up and demonstrate that Tai Chi or whatever your choice is will win this is pure speculation that has absolutely no credibility.  Everyone that has tried failed, and anyone that does try is "not a true master, cause a true master would never do this".

It's like me saying I could give you a death stare and kill you instantly if I wanted, but I'm not that sort of person so your lucky.


----------



## yipman_sifu (May 6, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "but if they fight any internal trained guy, they are going to lose."
> 
> That's quite a leap of faith. Lot's of Kung Fu guys have tried fighting, and come away rather humbled. Guess none of them where any good then right?
> 
> ...


 
I didn't got exactly your point, can explain it again if you don't mind.


----------



## Gaoguy (May 6, 2006)

"Internal training comes from pushing yourself beyond where you are capbale."
No it doesn't. It's a particular body method. BTW In Taiwan, where Adam Xu is from you'd refer to him as Laoshi Xu (or Xu laoshi), not Sifu. Sifu is the head cook.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 6, 2006)

I agree, many misunderstand "internal" training or hear too much hocus posuc about it and ignore it. IT is however not simply pushing yourself beyond what you think you can do, that is heart and drive.

7sm


----------



## mantis (May 6, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> "Internal training comes from pushing yourself beyond where you are capbale."
> No it doesn't. It's a particular body method. BTW In Taiwan, where Adam Xu is from you'd refer to him as Laoshi Xu (or Xu laoshi), not Sifu. Sifu is the head cook.



so why dont you tell us more about internal vs. external, or did you have any comment on Adam Hsu's quote?
and we certainly do not want to call him head cook, at least not in this context, but that's what he calls himself on his website. thanks for that tip tho.


----------



## green meanie (May 6, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree, many misunderstand "internal" training or hear too much hocus posuc about it and ignore it. IT is however not simply pushing yourself beyond what you think you can do, that is heart and drive. 7sm


 
It's not the product of 'clean living' either and I don't particularly care for the sentiment that internal training = 'kind, considerate, good people' and external training = 'arrogrant thugs, bullies, bad people'. Maybe it's just me but the way I interpreted Sifu Hsu's quote was that you need to build a solid base in external training before any progress in internal training can be achieved. Am I looking at this the wrong way?


----------



## mantis (May 6, 2006)

green meanie said:
			
		

> It's not the product of 'clean living' either and I don't particularly care for sentiment that internal training = 'kind, considerate, good people' and external training = 'arrogrant thugs, bullies, bad people'. Maybe it's just me but, the way I interpreted Sifu Hsu's quote was that you need to build a solid base in external training before any progress in internal training can be achieved. Am I looking at this the wrong way?



yeah i have to agree with you. i do not know where that moral argument came from.  i think Hsu sifu was trying to say you get a point of control and complexity in your techniques where you can deliver enough energy without using force.  it's funny but i am coming to think that in this entire forum no one really understands what external/internal means.  which is fine because we're all students and we're here to discuss/learn things. maybe this is a weak point that we all have and maybe we should do more research/practice on it.


----------



## green meanie (May 6, 2006)

:asian:


----------



## Wes Tasker (May 6, 2006)

> it's funny but i am coming to think that in this entire forum no one really understands what external/internal means.


 
Where do you get that idea?  I think Buddy (Gaoguy) but it best in his albeit haiku-like fashion.  I think there are plenty of people here who know the difference between "internal" and "external".  It's not that complicated.  Doing things "internaly" though is a whole other ballgame.  It gets messy when people have their own personal and/or stylistic definitions of "internal" and "external".  But let's not forget that this distinction using these terms is not very old...

-wes tasker


----------



## Gaoguy (May 7, 2006)

Haiku-like, thank you Wes. I wasn't trying to be deliberately obscure but as many of you may know this is a subject that has been done to death. My own experience is that within particular areas of northern China there seems to be more common training methods that develop a particular body movement that seems to be less prevelant in other areas style. Xu Laoshi's teacher had a saying-"Northern Chinese Martial Arts are all Sons of the same Mother" Liu Yun Qiao. 
While I don't always see this body method in all of the long armed styles (Chaquan, etc) you can find many similarities to xingyi, taiji, bagua, in baji. pigua, tongbei.


----------



## green meanie (May 7, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> Haiku-like, thank you Wes. I wasn't trying to be deliberately obscure but as many of you may know this is a subject that has been done to death. My own experience is that within particular areas of northern China there seems to be more common training methods that develop a particular body movement that seems to be less prevelant in other areas style. Xu Laoshi's teacher had a saying-"Northern Chinese Martial Arts are all Sons of the same Mother" Liu Yun Qiao.
> While I don't always see this body method in all of the long armed styles (Chaquan, etc) you can find many similarities to xingyi, taiji, bagua, in baji. pigua, tongbei.


 
You seem to really know your stuff! Thanks for the info. :asian:


----------



## Gaoguy (May 7, 2006)

Nah, I just read a lot of magazines.:supcool:


----------



## 7starmantis (May 7, 2006)

green meanie said:
			
		

> It's not the product of 'clean living' either and I don't particularly care for the sentiment that internal training = 'kind, considerate, good people' and external training = 'arrogrant thugs, bullies, bad people'. Maybe it's just me but the way I interpreted Sifu Hsu's quote was that you need to build a solid base in external training before any progress in internal training can be achieved. Am I looking at this the wrong way?



I agree 100%, it is a certain type of body mechanics or methods. Training doesn't change a persons personality or makeup regardless of what kind of training it is. I think you took Sifu Hsu's quote the correct way. I believe that myself. I just think there are many misconceptions as to what "internal" training is. I think they exist partly because of the label itself. Many times "internal" is used to explain "soft" or relaxed mechanics, ie yielding, moving, centered, low stances, etc. Many times its viewed as hard vs soft. I think there is quite a bit to internal training but I do believe it requires external as well. Its not a mindset or drive to achieve, it is specific body mechanics that are much different than "external" mechanics. I do think they work together quite nicely though.

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (May 10, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree 100%, it is a certain type of body mechanics or methods. Training doesn't change a persons personality or makeup regardless of what kind of training it is. I think you took Sifu Hsu's quote the correct way. I believe that myself. I just think there are many misconceptions as to what "internal" training is. I think they exist partly because of the label itself. Many times "internal" is used to explain "soft" or relaxed mechanics, ie yielding, moving, centered, low stances, etc. Many times its viewed as hard vs soft. I think there is quite a bit to internal training but I do believe it requires external as well. Its not a mindset or drive to achieve, it is specific body mechanics that are much different than "external" mechanics. I do think they work together quite nicely though.
> 
> 7sm


 

1.EXternal mechanics are different from internal mechanics
2. While practicing any art over time you will get more efficient at using it I dont think it will necessarily become "internal" ,meaning you may become more efficient using but still not use internal mechanics....
3. A given art can be yielding yet still not be internal, so hard/ soft is not necessarily a good distinction
4. Adam hsus quote is pretty good
5. I think often people want to claim/ believe that time will make what they do internal but its not just a time factor there is also the factor of what and how you do things, 
6.A good fighter is a good fighter period, whatever you use it should be accurate and on point to stop the other guy


----------



## mantis (May 10, 2006)

brothershaw said:
			
		

> 1.EXternal mechanics are different from internal mechanics
> 2. While practicing any art over time you will get more efficient at using it I dont think it will necessarily become "internal" ,meaning you may become more efficient using but still not use internal mechanics....
> 3. A given art can be yielding yet still not be internal, so hard/ soft is not necessarily a good distinction
> 4. Adam hsus quote is pretty good
> ...



with all due respect to all those who posted answers, i still do not understand what internal vs. external is. at least not clearly or explicitly.  everybody is good at negating what's being said.  
given what adam hsu said, or what you know from experience how is 'internal' training achieved?
how do you define 'internal' training?

i understand if none of us has a clear answer because not a lot of us have enough experience probably.


----------



## Gaoguy (May 11, 2006)

" with all due respect to all those who posted answers, i still do not understand what internal vs. external is. at least not clearly or explicitly."

So the fault lies in others? It's very difficult to understand without feeling it.

"given what adam hsu said, or what you know from experience how is 'internal' training achieved? how do you define 'internal' training?

It has to be shown.

" i understand if none of us has a clear answer because not a lot of us have enough experience probably."

See above. How's twenty years?


----------



## brothershaw (May 11, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> with all due respect to all those who posted answers, i still do not understand what internal vs. external is. at least not clearly or explicitly. everybody is good at negating what's being said.
> given what adam hsu said, or what you know from experience how is 'internal' training achieved?
> how do you define 'internal' training?
> 
> i understand if none of us has a clear answer because not a lot of us have enough experience probably.


 


In an external style you actually start out using your body/structure LESS than internal styles, then over time you get better at the external style and then move even less than when you started because you became more efficient with your external style (nothing wrong with that)
Internal you have to learn to use your body/muscles/ alignment/ stance MORE which is alot of stuff to coordinate then when you have the coordination of everything you beigin to move LESS on the surface but still with the same coordination of everything internal.
 From a fighting perspective external ways of moving  work very good
so unless you experience internal methods first hand it is hard to visualize a different way its like someone saying they have come up with a new wheel but to the eye of someone who doesnt know where to look it looks like the same old wheel.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 11, 2006)

Very good post. I view it as a neccessity to build your external so as to have a good base for internal. Basically its like strengthening and conditioning your body to make it a good strong "vessel" to perform the internal.

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (May 11, 2006)

Yes!!


----------



## chessman71 (May 11, 2006)

Adam Hsu can get away with a quote like that because all his stuff is northern CMA so it all has the same root. However, the quote is too broad considering that many people do non-northern CMA styles. To imply that "all roads lead to the top of the mountain," as the quote does, is to ignore the fact that most people are actually climbing different mountains in the first place.

I'm sure that Adam Hsu would agree if you asked him if the taekwondo school down the street from his school here in Taipei was on the same "path" that he is. 

Unfortunately, those of you who have never trained an authentic IMA will never understand what it is from reading about it. I read obsessively about IMA for years before I actually got to learn one and none of what i had read accurately described the movement. You have to experience it.

Dave C.


----------



## mantis (May 11, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> Adam Hsu can get away with a quote like that because all his stuff is northern CMA so it all has the same root. However, the quote is too broad considering that many people do non-northern CMA styles. To imply that "all roads lead to the top of the mountain," as the quote does, is to ignore the fact that most people are actually climbing different mountains in the first place.
> 
> I'm sure that Adam Hsu would agree if you asked him if the taekwondo school down the street from his school here in Taipei was on the same "path" that he is.
> 
> ...


which IMA are you learning/have you learned?


----------



## 7starmantis (May 11, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> Adam Hsu can get away with a quote like that because all his stuff is northern CMA so it all has the same root. However, the quote is too broad considering that many people do non-northern CMA styles. To imply that "all roads lead to the top of the mountain," as the quote does, is to ignore the fact that most people are actually climbing different mountains in the first place.
> 
> I'm sure that Adam Hsu would agree if you asked him if the taekwondo school down the street from his school here in Taipei was on the same "path" that he is.


 I dont think he was speaking only of what he does, ie northern kung fu. I dont see what different mountains northern and southern would be climbing. We should all be climbing the same mountain regardless of CMA orientation. To add to that, we should all be climbing the same mountain regardless of style and that includes your TKD example. Now, how many TKD schools are on the same path I'm on? I dont know, but all martial arts should lead to the same place. The problem is too many people have learned just pieces of styles and began teaching pieces of styles, so many things have been lost years ago. I would be interested to hear what you see as "different mountains" we would be climbing from TKD to CMA and from Northern to Southern CMA.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, those of you who have never trained an authentic IMA will never understand what it is from reading about it. I read obsessively about IMA for years before I actually got to learn one and none of what i had read accurately described the movement. You have to experience it.
> 
> Dave C.


 I wouldn't be so quick to point out those who have not trained IMA, you might just come off as arrogant.

7sm


----------



## chessman71 (May 11, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont think he was speaking only of what he does, ie northern kung fu. I dont see what different mountains northern and southern would be climbing. We should all be climbing the same mountain regardless of CMA orientation. To add to that, we should all be climbing the same mountain regardless of style and that includes your TKD example. Now, how many TKD schools are on the same path I'm on? I dont know, but all martial arts should lead to the same place. The problem is too many people have learned just pieces of styles and began teaching pieces of styles, so many things have been lost years ago. I would be interested to hear what you see as "different mountains" we would be climbing from TKD to CMA and from Northern to Southern CMA.
> 
> I wouldn't be so quick to point out those who have not trained IMA, you might just come off as arrogant.
> 
> 7sm


 
My "external" CMA training mainly came from bak sing choy lay fut, wing chun, and hung gar. My primary CIMA training has been in XYQ and BGZ under a few different teachers, as well as some training in piguazhang. I also did tangsoodo and karate for many years, as well as iaido in Japan. But I don't "count" those last few arts.

I consider myself as primarily a CIMA specialist but I still train in long fist because I find it useful.

Having trained all this stuff, I can say that I see a real difference in body mechanics between northern and southern CMA, and then the derivative arts that evolved from them (karate, etc.).

Several things come to mind: having "peng" structure in movements, moving according to the "liu he" or six harmonies, NOT tensing up at the moment of impact, not using muscle tension to make the technique work, much fewer overt "blocking" movements, no independent arm movement (body should move, not the arm), etc.

These things are trained by almost all of the nothern systems that I have studied and almost all of them are broken (generally speaking) by the southern arts and their Japanese counterparts that I trained. I trained in those arts enough to know that it isn't that instructors have "parts of the system" but that their whole approach tends to be technically different.

Three caveats: 1. some of the things I mentioned are occasionally found in southern systems. The choy lay fut that I trained was bak sing, meaning northern-influenced. So it actually had quite a few of the northern characteristics that I mentioned. But then, that's what made it different from the other two hung sing branches. Bak sing power generation was different.

2. The northern characteristics that I listed don't necessarily imply superiority, IMO. I do believe that they build economy of movement and can generate a lot of relaxed power. HOWEVER, let's just say that relaxed efficient movement isn't always the best for health because it doesn't give enough of a robust workout.

The healthiest, strongest individual I know is a 70-year-old FuJian monkey stylist who has the body of a 30-year-old athelete. His art is extremely tense and he would blow through any taiji stylist that i know. While I feel his stuff is worth learning, it isn't the same as the IMA I know. Both are useful, but THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

3. None of this really implies more fighting prowess on the northern side of the fence. I have noticed a tendency of northern stylists to get "wrapped up" in northern style mechanics to the extent that they never get around to fighting. I also have met more southern stylists who could fight than northern. Hung gar in particular produces great fighters.

So, sorry if I'm coming across as arrogant. If people feel that way, then so be it. I've trained these styles and I know the difference. I do think that the northern/southern branches each have their specialties and those should be respected. *But that does not mean that they are the exact same thing. And saying that shouldn't make me arrogant.*


----------



## mantis (May 11, 2006)

nice resume
it's too long to quote here!
I did not think your answer was arrogant, but i have to say that humility is a manner harder to achieve than any other training.  
btw, what's Hung Gar like?


----------



## chessman71 (May 12, 2006)

Hung gar is an interesting system. It's southern in nature and practiced a lot in Hong Kong. Depending on your branch, it's mix of five elements, five animals, and lau gar family style. It's often called "tiger crane" because those two animals get emphasized more than dragon, leopard, and snake. 

There are a couple of cool, unique features to the art. One is the emphasis on bridge hand/arm training. Hung gar stylists like to train their forearms to "bridge" and connect with the opponent. They stress grip strength and conditioning the forearms to take blows.

Second is the iron wire form -- their version of internal or "chi" training. This form uses tension to move the "chi" and seems to be one of the power builders of the style. I never actually learned it but I saw it a few times and I thought it looked interesting. Hung gar people are the only ones I know that do it.

What i didn't like about the style has to do with the topic at hand. One of the first forms I learned (I did the Taiwan version called hong quan) was the tiger form and it used lots of tension throughout the form. The hands were in the claw position throughout the form and in most moves, we were expected to really contract the muscles in order to make the moves work. I think this was developmental in nature, the form was done that way to build power. 

Problem is, when you do your fighting form like that, it reinforces using raw muscle power to do the moves, the very opposite of the IMA. I noticed that the same tension started showing up in my XYQ and BGZ and I didn't like that. When I asked my teacher what to do about that, he said stop practicing XYQ and BGZ and just do hong quan. No way was I gonna do that so I quit.

That's one of the reasons that I said this stuff is not all the same.

Dave C.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 12, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> Having trained all this stuff, I can say that I see a real difference in body mechanics between northern and southern CMA, and then the derivative arts that evolved from them (karate, etc.).


 I agree with that, body mechanics is different from style to style. What I was refering to is your statement about "climbing a different mountain". The quote from Adam Hsu made refrence to the differences but said we should be looking at the same goal, you disagreed. What is so different about the goal of a northern or southern CMAist? See, I believe the pure core principels are (or should be) the same. I'm talking of yielding to force, controling the center, etc. Those things are not different from Northern to Southern CMA and really shouldn't be different from JMA to CMA, but all too often are.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> Several things come to mind: having "peng" structure in movements, moving according to the "liu he" or six harmonies, NOT tensing up at the moment of impact, not using muscle tension to make the technique work, much fewer overt "blocking" movements, no independent arm movement (body should move, not the arm), etc.


 Ok, moving according to a style specification is most assuredly going to be different from one style to the next, but what of the core principles? Your listing those different approaches. The way of controling the center of your opponent may be independent arm movement or total body alignment, but the intent is still to control the center. Is one way of achieving that better than the next? Thats a whole different discussion, but the intent should be the same. Fewer blockign motions is simply a stylistic approach to fighting, but I still have seen nothing that supports "we are climbing different mountains". 



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> These things are trained by almost all of the nothern systems that I have studied and almost all of them are broken (generally speaking) by the southern arts and their Japanese counterparts that I trained. I trained in those arts enough to know that it isn't that instructors have "parts of the system" but that their whole approach tends to be technically different.


 Ok, there has been great loss in many systems over the years, thats just fact. I would say in all systems. But your still listing approaches, which I agree will be different. But what you need to ask is, "Approahes to what"? That answer should be the same across the board.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> 2. The northern characteristics that I listed don't necessarily imply superiority, IMO. I do believe that they build economy of movement and can generate a lot of relaxed power. HOWEVER, let's just say that relaxed efficient movement isn't always the best for health because it doesn't give enough of a robust workout.


 Thats just incorrect. IMO I would view that kind of mentality as naive when it comes to fighting. This is a huge mistake that is all too common in martial arts. Efficient does not mean lazy, slow, easy, inferior, or any of the things you would apply to "less of a robust workout". Ok, let me try to explain myself. A workout is a workout. Practicing a style that teaches efficient movement in fighting doesn't lessen a workout. Thats absurd. Many people misunderstand "relaxed" and dont realize that your body can be both "hard" and "soft" at the same time. Its called disconnection, your right arm may be hard (peng) while your left arm may be soft (jim). Its the ability to manipulate back and forth and the correct time that is effective. To say, "I would rather not train in a system that teaches efficient movement because I want a good workout" is absolutely absurd. We workout harder than most I've seen, northern, southern, CMA, JAM, FMA, etc. Its not the style that sets your workout, but the individual and teacher. Plus, I think your southern stylist would take a stand against them not using efficient movement.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> The healthiest, strongest individual I know is a 70-year-old FuJian monkey stylist who has the body of a 30-year-old athelete. His art is extremely tense and he would blow through any taiji stylist that i know. While I feel his stuff is worth learning, it isn't the same as the IMA I know. Both are useful, but THEY ARE DIFFERENT.


 Thast great, but that is just your own observations. He may be the healthiest person you know, but that doesn't imply his style produces healthier people. I also dont like to use absolutes when dealing with martial arts, to define a fighter by his style is a mistake, its not the style that makes the fighter but the individual. You'll see that trend all over the place.
Your correct, they are different in approach. It just takes a while to really see to similarities. Plus, I'm not refering to the people you know specifically, I'm talking abotu the system itself, the goals "should" be the same, if they aren't you might want to ask why.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> 3. None of this really implies more fighting prowess on the northern side of the fence. I have noticed a tendency of northern stylists to get "wrapped up" in northern style mechanics to the extent that they never get around to fighting. I also have met more southern stylists who could fight than northern. Hung gar in particular produces great fighters.


 Again, you seem to base all your beliefs on personal biases. Because you have met better fighters in souther styles than norther means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you should get out and meet more northern fighters? I dont disagree that hung gar produces great fighters. What we are actually discussing is that hung gar's fighters and northern mantis fighters should be focused on the same intent, although reaching it in different ways.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> So, sorry if I'm coming across as arrogant. If people feel that way, then so be it. I've trained these styles and I know the difference. I do think that the northern/southern branches each have their specialties and those should be respected. *But that does not mean that they are the exact same thing. And saying that shouldn't make me arrogant.*


 No, you didn't come across as arrogant yet, I was trying to say that using words like "some of you" might be taken as arrogant by people reading your posts. Ie this statement: 





			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, those of you who have never trained an authentic IMA will never understand what it is from reading about it.


 Thats all I was saying. 
Yes, I agree that northern and southern have their own specialties, but they are simply different methods of reaching the same goal, no? 
What goal or "mountain" is so different from northern to southern CMA?

7sm


----------



## chessman71 (May 12, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree with that, body mechanics is different from style to style. What I was refering to is your statement about "climbing a different mountain". The quote from Adam Hsu made refrence to the differences but said we should be looking at the same goal, you disagreed. What is so different about the goal of a northern or southern CMAist? See, I believe the pure core principels are (or should be) the same. I'm talking of yielding to force, controling the center, etc. Those things are not different from Northern to Southern CMA and really shouldn't be different from JMA to CMA, but all too often are.


All analogies have their limits and we may have run our course with this one.

Let's try it this way. There are two general approaches: people who want to be good fighters and people who want to master the principles of their art (fighting for them may be a small part of the picture).

For people in the first group (regardless of style), their goal is largely the same (i.e. the same "mountain") so what you're saying holds for them. 

Now, at first glance, the "mastery" mountain seems the same. But if the principles and methods of those arts are very different then, then mastering those principles implies different goals or "mountains." 

I realize that some people see mastery of their style through fighting as the goal. So the "mastery camp" may have two branches. What I'm suggesting is that some people see mastery as being beyond fighting. The style itself become the goal. 

A good example of this would be the people who follow the "internal strength" approach. People like Mike Sigman, for example. They aren't concerned really with fighting but with mastering the way internal strength can be built and used through the body. Gaining those abilities is then the goal, actually beating someone with them may not even be a consideration.



> Ok, moving according to a style specification is most assuredly going to be different from one style to the next, but what of the core principles?


 
The problem in this discussion is that you're emphasizing what the styles have in common and I'm emphasizing what they do not have in common.

Let's use a sports analogy. Swimmers and baseball players are all atheletes who want to win. They have that in common. And yet they have very different goals in mind. Also, the actions and training are very different. But no matter how hard they try, swimmers will never be baseball players through swimming or vice versa. Mastery of those sports are exclusive.




> Thats just incorrect. IMO I would view that kind of mentality as naive when it comes to fighting. This is a huge mistake that is all too common in martial arts. Efficient does not mean lazy, slow, easy, inferior, or any of the things you would apply to "less of a robust workout".


You misunderstood. I never said that efficient means lazy, easy or inferior or any of that. If you use muscle tension to power to techniques then that method will burn more calories than trying to relax as much as possible. That's what i meant. I wasn't referring to fighting at all. 



> I also dont like to use absolutes when dealing with martial arts, to define a fighter by his style is a mistake, its not the style that makes the fighter but the individual.


We disagree again. The style will dictate which skill sets a person works with, fighter or not.



> Again, you seem to base all your beliefs on personal biases. Because you have met better fighters in souther styles than norther means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you should get out and meet more northern fighters?


I didn't say I have met better fighters from southern styles. Actually, the opposite is true. I said that I have met MORE fighters from southern styles because I think that approach may lead to quicker results. 



> No, you didn't come across as arrogant yet, I was trying to say that using words like "some of you" might be taken as arrogant by people reading your posts. Ie this statement: Thats all I was saying.


 
And I stand by what I said. Someone who has never trained in authentic IMA can't really participate in this discussion because they won't have the necessary background to do so. They won't know what I'm talking about because they haven't experienced it. I'm not saying that this applies to you or anyone else on this board. 

The whole reason I'm here is to share info with others, but like everyone else, there may be things we can't discuss because we don't have a common frame of reference. 

Dave C.


----------



## Gaoguy (May 13, 2006)

To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.


----------



## mantis (May 13, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.


it would be a good idea to elaborate and give examples.  disagreement without justification is easy, right?


----------



## dmax999 (May 13, 2006)

My 2 cents.

Many arguments about internal/external here, but lets look at some specific styles known for each and compare the BIG differences to get better understanding.

Karate [external] - You punch and kick, fairly simple.

Tai Chi [internal] - Still punching and kicking, just different methods of doing it. Biggest difference is shown in push hands training which Karate lacks.

To me this means, internal MA is the ability to "control" the fight because it allows you to "sense" opponents movements through contact and know their attacks before you can possibly see them. Internal relies more on feel and external more on sight and reaction time. I would say an internal style perfers to maintain contact throughout the fight because it provides better ability to control the opponent. This is also true in the differences between a beginning kung-fu student and an advanced kung-fu student (As the Adam Hsu quote stated)

An internal guy that can't maintain contact has no advantage over an external guy.

As for MMA fighters, a few actually practice Tai Chi. In addition their ground fighting completely relies on controling your opponent. While they don't practice Chi Gong they share many similar aspects to internal CMAs. Good western fencers are the same way just through a fencing foil instead.

Internal martial arts have no magical "I win the fight" technique. Its also silly to think that other great fighters of different styles can't possibly figure out similar techniques useable in their styles. Example: There is no difference between a correct fa-jing strike and a professional boxer's powerful strike.

The whole point of internal MA training is it gives anyone the ability to become a great fighter. MMA, boxing, or anthing else only the "natural" fighters figure out the "tricks". Internal MAs have a series of steps for learning and document them better then other styles.


----------



## mantis (May 13, 2006)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> My 2 cents.
> 
> Many arguments about internal/external here, but lets look at some specific styles known for each and compare the BIG differences to get better understanding.
> 
> ...


hmm.. that's an interesting argument.  I have to disagree with you.  Take this example. Mantis kung fu relies heavily on sticking and sensing.  We do keep in contact at all times, but we are still an external art.  None of 7 star PM is internal.  You probably meant soft vs. hard more than internal vs. external. 

There's another thread i started that has some sci resources on internal.  My understanding so far is it has to do with the energy flow inside your body and having to make that energy 'exit' your body through your hands or head.. etc.  feel free to search for the post titled 'more on internal' or something along the lines.  the thread is here

feel free to read that and re-post your opinion on IMA if it changes


----------



## chessman71 (May 13, 2006)

My various responses to the points raised above:


> To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.


Exactly and very succinctly put. I need to learn to make my points like that. Maybe that will save me time on the computer!



> it would be a good idea to elaborate and give examples. disagreement without justification is easy, right?



I already listed many of the differences in my posts above and I even responded to your request for info on hung gar in a way that used that art as an example of what we are discussing.



> Many arguments about internal/external here, but lets look at some specific styles known for each and compare the BIG differences to get better understanding.
> 
> Karate [external] - You punch and kick, fairly simple.
> 
> Tai Chi [internal] - Still punching and kicking, just different methods of doing it. Biggest difference is shown in push hands training which Karate lacks.


The biggest difference is how karate and taiji power the movements. That's COMPETELY different and no matter how long someone practices karate, it will never become taiji.

An example is a semi-famous karate sensei that i know that came to Taiwan to study XYQ. Problem is, he tenses up everytime he punches in beng quan, etc. I tried to explain to him that *karate power comes from the muscles, but xingyi power comes from the bones (structure)* and showed him numerous times how to relax throughout the movements and yet have power. He just couldn't get it because that was outside his experience.



> None of 7 star PM is internal.


 Most 7 star mantis branches that I know of at least have the five elements of XYQ in the forms. They have to be "dug out" a bit, if you see what I mean, but they are usually there.



> There's another thread i started that has some sci resources on internal. My understanding so far is it has to do with the energy flow inside your body and having to make that energy 'exit' your body through your hands or head.. etc.


This is the main problem on message boards. We can't really discuss IMA by relying on documents alone. This stuff IS NOT intellectually or physically comphrehensible outside of a practice context. It just isn't. 

Dave C.


----------



## mantis (May 13, 2006)

yes 7 star mantis does have 'soft' principles, but it is still considered an external art.  
i wanted more examples on southern vs. northern styles.  i was quoting another post, not yours.

your example of karate and tai chi is inescapably clear, good example in fact.

thanks


----------



## Gaoguy (May 14, 2006)

The problem about discussing the method of power generation in IMA is very difficult. It can be demonstrated quite readily. I have discussed bagua's shen fa with, for example, Uechi-ryu practitioners, and they invariably say, "oh we have that, too." And they simply do not. All I can say is when you see (feel) it, you'll know it. I've been down this road too many times, it generally leads  nowhere. The body method is entirely different.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 14, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.


Yes because body method is most assuredly the "end" all martial artist are striving for. 
I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct? We have differing opinions and that seems to be where it will have to end. However allow me to clarify one more time my point. 

Body method is not the goal or "mountain" of CMAs. Body method is simply that, a method of reaching a certain goal or performing a certain technique. The problem is when people start defining CMAs by techniques rather than principles. Thats a common issue seen from people with surface understanding of CMAs in general. I mean lets look at the root of the issue. What exactly is "internal" kung fu. What exactly is "external" kung fu. Lets address it this way. Lay out a list of what characterises and makes something "internal" and lay out a list for external as well. It cannot be done effectively because they intertwine too much. There was never a seperation until people who did not truly understand and where not truly skilled began spreading their misconceptions and lack of skill as qualified kung fu practitioners. So far in this thread we see these as descriptions for what actually is "internal" or "External" training:
Body Mechanics
Pushing yourself beyond what you are capable
Similarities to known "internal" arts. ie. Tai Chi
More efficient movement
Less movement
Moving according to stylistic charateristics
Not "tensing up"
Fighting vs non fighting motives
Clear so far? Do you see a pattern here? Those are all *characteristics*. Thats like defining mantis kung fu by saying , "It uses the dil sau" or "they use low stances"....see what I mean, charateristics of principles are not the principles. We teach principles to beginners by using drills of techniques, but its a bad mistake (and a common one) to asign a principle to a technique or charateristic, or body movement. This is hard to understand by reading or even hearing, it must be learned through feeling and doing. Take for example the post by mantis earlier in this thread where he states that 7* mantis has no internal ellements. I disagree and while our training differs a bit we are in the same family lineage. Why the disagreement? We see it differently, 3 or 4 years ago I would have sworn up and down the same thing he is saying, but having experienced things a bit more I see the picture differently. I say now that we have alot of internal training in mantis including qi gong and such. I think the problem with this thread is we all view "internal" differently, but we must remember as someone allready stated, that word has only been used for a relatively short period of time in kung fu.

So while body method may be different that does not contain or define the principles of CMA. 



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> The biggest difference is how karate and taiji power the movements. That's COMPETELY different and no matter how long someone practices karate, it will never become taiji.
> 
> An example is a semi-famous karate sensei that i know that came to Taiwan to study XYQ. Problem is, he tenses up everytime he punches in beng quan, etc. I tried to explain to him that *karate power comes from the muscles, but xingyi power comes from the bones (structure)* and showed him numerous times how to relax throughout the movements and yet have power. He just couldn't get it because that was outside his experience.


 Now, this is where I agree with you. Karate and Taiji use different ways to power the movement. I dont believe however that it has always been so. But, nevertheless, are the goals so different? The way power is generated may be different, but are they not both attempting to control the opponent? Now, grant it there are many systems of karate and CMA as well that are simply carbon copies of copies of their former systems. They have been so long watered down that they contain almost nothing of the original style, this also makes for a hard time understanding why there are so many differences. However, in CMA as a whole, the principles or "mountian" remains the same from northern to southern, or at least should. For a person to study CMA and leave out fighting is in my opinion only learning a portion or surface understnading of the style itself. There are people who do it, and I'm fine with that, people study for many reasons, but a CMA fighter is going to have a different understanding and application of principles from a person studying simply for forms and something to do. 

7sm


----------



## Gaoguy (May 14, 2006)

"I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct?"

I am. I started studying CMA...let's see, right. The year you were born. It was Babu Tanglang with Jason Tsou. You don't see the difference, that's fine with me. It's not my job to help you see it. I've been down this dead end too many times. I thought that both what I've written and what Dave has written have been very clear. That it isn't to you tells me it's a waste of typing to continue.


----------



## mantis (May 14, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> "I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct?"
> 
> I am. I started studying CMA...let's see, right. The year you were born. It was Babu Tanglang with Jason Tsou. You don't see the difference, that's fine with me. It's not my job to help you see it. I've been down this dead end too many times. I thought that both what I've written and what Dave has written have been very clear. That it isn't to you tells me it's a waste of typing to continue.


the thing is the way you put your arguments makes us have to trust you with what you say and take it for granted.  so basically what you say is based on your own experience. you have to understand it's difficult to us to agree or disagree just because you say "i've been doing this the year you were born".

thanks for wasting some typing here


----------



## 7starmantis (May 14, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> "I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct?"
> 
> I am. I started studying CMA...let's see, right. The year you were born. It was Babu Tanglang with Jason Tsou. You don't see the difference, that's fine with me. It's not my job to help you see it. I've been down this dead end too many times. I thought that both what I've written and what Dave has written have been very clear. That it isn't to you tells me it's a waste of typing to continue.


No, you are very clear. VERY clear. Your statement that you have studied for a long time so you are right is faulty logic at its best. So, you have made yourself clear and refuse to listen to anyone who couldn't possibly be as skilled and knowledgeable as yourself 

You have been clear, just incorrect. You have yet to offer any type of proof of your belief aside from the "I started studying the year you were born" crap. You haven't even clearly defined what you are so adamant about. The "you can't say it, you must feel it" has been done to death and is just plain incorrect. I'm sorry you feel your time spent on a message board designed to discuss things has been wasted discussing. Why exactly did you start posting here then? You came refusing to answer questions, just to amaze by your awesome knowledge of CMA? I'm not impressed. 

By the way, this type of attitude and ego is exactly what is destroying the future of good CMA.

Good luck in your training,
 7sm


----------



## chessman71 (May 14, 2006)

Again, various responses to points made:


> The problem is when people start defining CMAs by techniques rather than principles. Thats a common issue seen from people with surface understanding of CMAs in general. I mean lets look at the root of the issue. What exactly is "internal" kung fu.


No offense, but I don't think you're seeing what you're actually saying. Yeah, the principles are important. *But how people define the words in the principles differs very widely according to the style they practice. *You mention that very point when you talk about defining "internal gung fu." Lots of people think that the arts are all the same because they all use the same language but the definitions are not the same. 
Shaolin-do, Cuong Nhu, and Shaolin Kempo all supposedly have "internal" training. Karate practicioners may read the taiji classics and come to the conclusion that they practice the same art because karate is "relaxed" too. But the definitions of "internal" and "relaxed," etc. are completely different from what IMA practicioners, in general, would agree to.



> Now, grant it there are many systems of karate and CMA as well that are simply carbon copies of copies of their former systems. They have been so long watered down that they contain almost nothing of the original style, this also makes for a hard time understanding why there are so many differences.


 
No. The Okinawan styles of karate show a lot of similarity to the FuJian white crane practiced here in Taiwan and, obviously, in Mainland China. FuJian (southern) arts, in general, show VERY DIFFERENT body methods from northern styles and it's very clear when you've seen them, to understand how karate evolved from the FuJian arts. Again, the FuJian arts use muscle tension in ways that northern arts, in general, DO NOT and that is the main difference. The FuJian arts are much "harder" than northern arts.



> so basically what you say is based on your own experience.


It can't be any other way! Since we are talking about a physical practice, we must talk from our own experience. What should we do instead? Make reference to what someone wrote? Did the writer have experience with what he/she wrote about? In the end, we have to fall back on experience as the guide. People have either had the experince or they haven't. It's that simple.

Dave C.


----------



## Gaoguy (May 15, 2006)

See Dave is much more diplomatic than I with this stuff. My position (and I've done this countless times) is of course I'm basing it on my experience. I don't know what else to say to you. I don't know what more you want. If you're not going to trust my years of experience (and yes that means since you were born) what more can I tell you? To dismiss the idea that it has to be shown to you (because you clearly don't understand it) is cutting off your nose to spite your face! Read over again what Dave or I have written, it's all spelled out there but you don't want to see it. You think I'm just being arrogant, but come to Plymouth MA and I will be happy to show you. Then you can report back. Go to Empty Flower and ask about me. Ask them if I'm full of ****. It doesn't matter to me if you understand it or believe me or anything. If you practice the nanquan shen fa, you will never get to the shen fa of the IMA, period.

"By the way, this type of attitude and ego is exactly what is destroying the future of good CMA."   Kettle, you're black.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 15, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> No offense, but I don't think you're seeing what you're actually saying. Yeah, the principles are important. *But how people define the words in the principles differs very widely according to the style they practice. *You mention that very point when you talk about defining "internal gung fu." Lots of people think that the arts are all the same because they all use the same language but the definitions are not the same.
> Shaolin-do, Cuong Nhu, and Shaolin Kempo all supposedly have "internal" training. Karate practicioners may read the taiji classics and come to the conclusion that they practice the same art because karate is "relaxed" too. But the definitions of "internal" and "relaxed," etc. are completely different from what IMA practicioners, in general, would agree to.


 I appologize I didn't make myself more clear. I dont mean to say I think all styles are the same, I dont believe that at all. I understand the margin of error for defining words in principles but does that mean that the principle doesn't truly mean one thing? Does the principle not have a static meaning simply because many people can't agree on its definition? I dont by any means mean to say that all arts are the same or even that northern and southern arts are the same, what I meant to say is that northern and southern styles, while different in intent, application, method, and focus; still all journey towards the same goal. What I dont understand is the adamant support of seperating CMAs based on newly assigned words that (as you agree) no one can agree on a meaning of. The lines between northern and southern, internal and external are quite distinct in the beginning however they begin to blur later on. 

I agree with your later statements about a karate practitioner reading taiji classics, but I'm not refering to what a karate practitioner may read and believe but I'm refering to the base core principles of the original systems. for the sake of this discussion I'll stay within northern and southern CMA. I have yet to see an answer to what the goal is for these differing arts. This whole discussion came from the statement that northern and southern arts were "climbing different mountains". Ok, can you explain to me what goal or intent, or "mountain" is different from the use of "internal" to the use of "external" techniques? You see, it seems everyone is defining and trying to explain this from a individual motive idea. While you may use different body methods, different muscle tensions, etc what is different about what you are attempting to accomplish?



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> No. The Okinawan styles of karate show a lot of similarity to the FuJian white crane practiced here in Taiwan and, obviously, in Mainland China. FuJian (southern) arts, in general, show VERY DIFFERENT body methods from northern styles and it's very clear when you've seen them, to understand how karate evolved from the FuJian arts. Again, the FuJian arts use muscle tension in ways that northern arts, in general, DO NOT and that is the main difference. The FuJian arts are much "harder" than northern arts.


 I agree, its very clear when seeing said arts to see how they developed. My point is that many developed incompletely. For example, take a lifelong american karate practitioner and explain to them "peng". Would that not equate to muscle tension to them? It has in my experience. So watching a southern "hard" stylist may seem like they are relying on strength to make their techniques work. Surely your not suggesting that southern arts are relient on muscluar strength to apply their techniques are you? The use of muscle tension in CMA is not (or should not be) to rely on overpowering the opponent. I agree that these arts are much "harder" than some northern arts, but why? What are they attempting to do with that "hardness"? I simply want people to look past the mere charateristics of a system and see differences. Look at these differences and see why they exist. What are they attempting to do differently? In CMA we should all understand that a mere observation is not wise to base anything on. What is the difference in intent between one "hard" technique and one "soft" technique? Answer me that and we will have a discussion, until that happens we are all simply going back and forth with the old "I'm right, your wrong" discussion.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> It can't be any other way! Since we are talking about a physical practice, we must talk from our own experience. What should we do instead? Make reference to what someone wrote? Did the writer have experience with what he/she wrote about? In the end, we have to fall back on experience as the guide. People have either had the experince or they haven't. It's that simple.


 Now that I agree with. However, there are those who have had much more experience than I and I am willing to trust them on these experiences. My sigung has had over 45 years of experience in mantis kung fu, I would tend to listen to him over my own observations, that is how we learn. If its all personal observation and experience its going to take quite a while to learn just a little bit, thats why teachers share thier experiences. While we must all make our own experiences, our teachers can lead us to them much quicker than stumbling around blind waiting to happen on an experience worth remembering. 

No offense taken or meant, I enjoy these types of discussions.



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> See Dave is much more diplomatic than I with this stuff. My position (and I've done this countless times) is of course I'm basing it on my experience. I don't know what else to say to you. I don't know what more you want. If you're not going to trust my years of experience (and yes that means since you were born) what more can I tell you? To dismiss the idea that it has to be shown to you (because you clearly don't understand it) is cutting off your nose to spite your face! Read over again what Dave or I have written, it's all spelled out there but you don't want to see it. You think I'm just being arrogant, but come to Plymouth MA and I will be happy to show you. Then you can report back. Go to Empty Flower and ask about me. Ask them if I'm full of ****. It doesn't matter to me if you understand it or believe me or anything. If you practice the nanquan shen fa, you will never get to the shen fa of the IMA, period.


 Diplomacy isn't the difference here. Why should I trust your supposed (and I say supposed because I've never met you or seen your kugn fu) experience over my sifu's 27 or so years, his sifu's 40+ years, his sifu's experience and so on? I didn't dismiss anything like that, I said using that as an excuse to not describe your point or arguement is tired. You come to a discussion board via the internet and expect to discuss using only the basis that "you must see or feel it to understand" and expect to be taken seriously? I have felt and seen it, thats why I discuss and attempt to explain what I have experienced. Obviously I'm not as clear as I think I am but I continue to try.

There is no need to take things so personal and really no need for personal challenges. We can disagree and I'll be just fine wont loose a bit of sleep, but I do enjoy reading about others experiences if they will attempt to describe them honestly. I'm not concerned with your reputation or "checking you out" that really has no bearing or consequence in my opinion to this discussion. You simply repeat your self screaming "I am right, I've studied longer than you have been alive" and yet refuse to answer specific questions or explain or describe your beliefs. I dont believe that time studying a system automatically equals knowledge or skill. I've asked both of you to explain to me the difference in intent or simply the differences in why one would use a "hard" technique (southern) instead of a "soft" technique (northern). You refuse to answer stating that I should "trust your years of experience. Not gonna happen on an internet board when I have years of expierience at my fingertips through my sifu, his many kung fu brothers, and their sifu. I may however understand your point better if you explained it here in words.



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> "By the way, this type of attitude and ego is exactly what is destroying the future of good CMA." Kettle, you're black.


 Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense. 

7sm


----------



## Gaoguy (May 15, 2006)

No, it's not a defence, it's simply giving you back your own words. I have no need to defend my postion. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not you believe me or take me seriously. I did however offer a forum where you might go to ask others whether or not I'm talking out of my ***. I wasn't issuing a challenge but rather offering you the opportunity to feel what I'm saying rather than merely reading my words. Since you are unable to do this you can go to Empty Flower and ask. I have no interest in whether you lose sleep or not. I'm not taking this personally, I have no stake in your progress. As you say,"what you think about me is none of my business."

"For example, take a lifelong american karate practitioner and explain to them "peng". Would that not equate to muscle tension to them?"

Good example. Tell me what chocolate tastes like. You can give me all sorts of analogies, adjectives...whatever. All would fall short of my understanding the taste of chocolate. I could never understand by any description. But to experience it would give me instant understanding. I could readily show a karateka pengjin. And I could show them fairly readily how to feel it and develop it.

"What is the difference in intent between one "hard" technique and one "soft" technique?"

The difference isn't between hard and soft, nor technique. It's about entirely different methods of power generation.


----------



## mantis (May 15, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> Good example. Tell me what chocolate tastes like. You can give me all sorts of analogies, adjectives...whatever. All would fall short of my understanding the taste of chocolate. I could never understand by any description. But to experience it would give me instant understanding. I could readily show a karateka pengjin. And I could show them fairly readily how to feel it and develop it.


that's a "good example"?
no, but you say mix butter with coco or something and that's how it tastes like. 
that's exactly the answer we'd expect here!
like for example you would say: practice tai chi and try to move your hips for example along with letting out of your breath.  eventually this will develop something...


----------



## 7starmantis (May 15, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> Good example. Tell me what chocolate tastes like. You can give me all sorts of analogies, adjectives...whatever. All would fall short of my understanding the taste of chocolate. I could never understand by any description. But to experience it would give me instant understanding. I could readily show a karateka pengjin. And I could show them fairly readily how to feel it and develop it.


 Ok, but what are you proving? It seems your taking my statement out of context. I'm not arguing about how to understand something and I certainly dont think everyone learns their own version of it so it could be different from one to the next. There is a right and wrong way of doing things in CMA, even in internal training. *Just because you taste the chocolate doesn't mean you could bake me a chocolate cake.*

And I disagree. I dont think feeling equals understanding, I think doing brings about understanding. To a person who only knows muscular tension a technique involving peng would feel like muscular tension. This is how many systems have lost their more internal aspects. 



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> The difference isn't between hard and soft, nor technique. It's about entirely different methods of power generation.


 Um...ok....so what is the difference between these "entirely different methods of power generation"? What makes them "different mountains"? What makes the intent of each different? For the record I disagree that northern and southern CMAs use "entirely different methods of power generation". But so be it, I'm looking more for the principles past that physical characteristic. Are you saying that the different "mountains" if you will, are simply the different methods of power generation? If so I think that is cool, but a gross oversimplification of internal training. So called internal training encompasses alot more than mere power generation, but then again the word "internal" is as of yet undefined so we could use it to mean whatever we want. My attempts to get a definition of "internal" even for this one thread have all failed, what does that tell you? If no one can define these so called seperating factors in CMA, why are so many peopel so adamant about enforcing or upholding them, especially when they dont even agree from one to the next?

Mantis has a good point, on a discussion board we would expect an explination of a point, not just a "you just dont understand" argument.

7sm


----------



## Gaoguy (May 15, 2006)

"To a person who only knows muscular tension a technique involving peng would feel like muscular tension. This is how many systems have lost their more internal aspects."

If you press my frame and I am exhibiting pengjin, you would not mistake it for tension.

"For the record I disagree that northern and southern CMAs use "entirely different methods of power generation". But so be it, I'm looking more for the principles past that physical characteristic. Are you saying that the different "mountains" if you will, are simply the different methods of power generation?"

What can I say? If you think that the way someone in Jook Lum or Hung Gar generates power and the way a Bagua guy generates power we have an impasse. They're not the same. I don't know what you mean by different mountain, it's not a phrase I used.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 15, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> If you press my frame and I am exhibiting pengjin, you would not mistake it for tension.


 Of course not, I understand peng. If you seriously think that you performing something on someone is going to make them understand it and be able to perform it themselves your naive.



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> What can I say? If you think that the way someone in Jook Lum or Hung Gar generates power and the way a Bagua guy generates power we have an impasse. They're not the same. I don't know what you mean by different mountain, it's not a phrase I used.


We are at an impasse, it seems you can't read my post without coloring it and bending it to what you allready believe is my point. I didn't say they were the same thing, I said I disagreed that they were "entirely different". You would understand what I meant if you read just far enough back as page 3. It was from the original quote by Adam Hsu and I started discussing in response to a post by Chessman regarding that phrase. Regardless of that word, you could still answer the other questions, no?

7sm


----------



## Gaoguy (May 16, 2006)

No, I'm done. I have nothing more to offer you.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 16, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> No, I'm done. I have nothing more to offer you.


 Of course.

See, this is my main argument in these types of discussions. Its sad that too many people blindly hold to some ideological belief about CMAs and yet are unable to defend their position or effectively communicate why they believe what they believe. This crosses into physical training way too often and creates people who fool themselves into thinking they are training for fighting and lack the skill and experience when it comes time for it. 

My whole point was to get people to think about why they believe so strongly in these seperations between "internal and external" kung fu. What we see is people who cannot define why they believe a certain way and get upset, make personal remarks and leave saying their experience is too great to be understood by someone so stupid to believe something so opposite to thier supierior knowlwedge and understanding of CMAs. 

I've aksed one main questions and have as of yet not received a response. What is so different in intent from "internal" to "External" systems? Chessman made the statement:


			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> To imply that "all roads lead to the top of the mountain," as the quote does, is to ignore the fact that most people are actually climbing different mountains in the first place.


 Within CMAs what does this statement mean? I asked if it was refering to power generation which was a major point on that side of the discussion, I got no response. I asked if it was this "hardness" they were found of speaking of, again no response. 

All I'm asking is that if all roads do not lead to the top of the mountain, where do the differing roads lead? As of yet I've had no takers at answering that one. I guess I wont have any.

7sm


----------



## mantis (May 16, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> All I'm asking is that if all roads do not lead to the top of the mountain, where do the differing roads lead? As of yet I've had no takers at answering that one. I guess I wont have any.
> 
> 7sm


mountains are different in CMA
there's the mountain where you want to takedown someone using a sweep
and there's a mountain where you want to takedown someone with a chi ball.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 16, 2006)

And they both lead to taking someone down 

Its sad so many people are willing to stand up for things they have no idea about. I didn't mean to sound like I think all styles are the same, that defeats the use of the word "styles". What I do think is that the principels should all be the same when it comes to fighting. The principles, not the techniques or methods. Now, that being said, not all are alike I can see that with my own eyes, I have admited that. What I am saying is that while there are those who do not understand or apply the principles, they are still there and should be trained by northern or southern practitioners alike.

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (May 16, 2006)

I found an excerpt that I will print here, that might be interesting food for thought.  I don't know enough about it to say if it is all true, but I think it might be interesting for this discussion.

This is from the book _Nei Jia Quan, Internal Martial Arts_, edited by Jess O'Brien, published by North Atlantic Books.  This book is a collection of pieces written from interviews with accomplished practitioners of Internal Martial Arts.  This exerpt is from the interview with Tim Cartmell of Southern California, who spent a number of years studying in Taiwan and China, as well as having experience in Brazillian Jujitsu and full contact competitions.

_"The term Nei Jia Quan, 'internal martial arts,' only came into vogue in the early twentieth century.  Before that it was all just martial arts.  Sun Lu Tang, Zhang Zhao Dong, Cheng Ting Hua, and some of those guys at the time got together and they came up with this idea.  We can trace this back mostly to Sun Lu Tang, who did Xing Yi and Ba Gua before he learned Tai Ji.  Since those were the three that he did, and that term was coming into vogue, those became the trinity of internal martial arts.  If you go to China they always include Tong Bei Quan (White Ape), Liu He Ba Fa (Six Harmonies, Eight Methods), and a number of others along with the three main internal styles._

_"Because Sun Lu Tang wrote about the Biggest, most popular three, they say those are the three internal styles.  I talk about it like that too because everybody else does, but it's not strictly true.  The reason that they coined that term - what Sun Lu Tang recognized - was that certain martial arts are based on certain principles of body use and application.  What he called 'internal' was a convenient label for one kind of martial arts, not only those three martial arts in particular._

_"You could theoreticaly take any martial art, modiy it along the lines of those principles, and then it would have to be internal.  Many people that you see doing Xing Yi, for example, are not really internal, in terms of the way it was designed.  So there's only this set of principles; we'll call them internal.  There really is no internal style.  There's style you do, it's how you do it.  Now, granted, the styles that we call internal were based on those principles.  But that doesn't mean that people are all going to do them that way.  Just like what we call external - using force against force, a bit more tension, or whatever - if you modify those styles they would be as internal as Tai Ji.  I really don't like those terms, but it's unavoidable now, you have to use them because everybody does._

_"It's like anything based on theory and principle, it's open to interpretation to a certain extent.  I can say that one thing is correct body use, but somebody else who does Tai Ji might say, 'No, that's incorrect.'  There's no ultimate authority that's goingt to come out and say that one or the other is right.  Even the famous masters had different ideas."_

Anyway, hope this adds something of value to the discussion.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 16, 2006)

Good post.

7sm


----------



## chessman71 (May 16, 2006)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> See, this is my main argument in these types of discussions. Its sad that too many people blindly hold to some ideological belief about CMAs and yet are unable to defend their position or effectively communicate why they believe what they believe. This crosses into physical training way too often and creates people who fool themselves into thinking they are training for fighting and lack the skill and experience when it comes time for it.
> 
> My whole point was to get people to think about why they believe so strongly in these seperations between "internal and external" kung fu. What we see is people who cannot define why they believe a certain way and get upset, make personal remarks and leave saying their experience is too great to be understood by someone so stupid to believe something so opposite to thier supierior knowlwedge and understanding of CMAs.


Now, that's not really very fair, is it? You're caricaturing what Buddy wrote and then ranting against it. That's not communication, either.

No one said people are "too stupid" to get this or that they necessarily have superior knowledge. You yourself noted the difference between yourself and your sifu. You said that he had superior EXPERIENCE, right? That's why you trust him, right? Do you think that only applies to your little group? Are their not others out there, possibly with more experience in the subject at hand? 

Some (most?) of this stuff MUST BE EXPERIENCED. If it isn't, then no conversation can take place. Yes, I know that seems arrogant. I used to think so too and I didn't like being excluded from conversations, either. But now I know better and I can spot someone without the experience, like most (not all) of the people commenting on this thread. 

When talking about internal vs. external arts, the people discussing the subject better have extensive knowledge (from actually practicing those arts) of the two or there won't be much discussion. Same goes for northern vs. southern CMA. If someone doesn't have actual experience in those fields, then all they have to draw from is their "knowledge" gained from books, magazines, what they've heard, and videos. So then you get comments like this one:



> mountains are different in CMA
> there's the mountain where you want to takedown someone using a sweep
> and there's a mountain where you want to takedown someone with a chi ball.


 
Mantis, you seemed like a nice enough guy before, but this really goes to show that you don't have a clue what we're talking about. You fall back on a caricature to make your joke at our expense in an effort to mask your own ignorance. If you think we're trying to develop "chi balls" then you really have a lot to learn.



> All I'm asking is that if all roads do not lead to the top of the mountain, where do the differing roads lead? As of yet I've had no takers at answering that one. I guess I wont have any.


 
Last comment on this, the fact they everyone is trying to reach the top of their RESPECTIVE mountains doesn't then mean that everyone is on the same mountain. You won't see that until you train other systems with a different perspective from your group. And until then, you don't have much to offer on this topic.

Dave C.


----------



## pete (May 17, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> ...the fact they everyone is trying to reach the top of their RESPECTIVE mountains doesn't then mean that everyone is on the same mountain. You won't see that until you train other systems with a different perspective from your group. And until then, you don't have much to offer on this topic.
> 
> Dave C.


 dude, i've been down the same rabbit hole with this guy a few months ago.  got blasted with a bunch of 'negative rep' while his buddies loaded his reputation points up, so now it looks like he has some kind of credibility.  best to just let him wallow in his own mire... 


			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> ... I'm done. I have nothing more to offer you.


its a shame a moderator would have this affect on polite conversation, i enjoyed reading your posts and felt i would get insight into my art through your words...

pete


----------



## 7starmantis (May 17, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> Now, that's not really very fair, is it? You're caricaturing what Buddy wrote and then ranting against it. That's not communication, either.
> 
> No one said people are "too stupid" to get this or that they necessarily have superior knowledge. You yourself noted the difference between yourself and your sifu. You said that he had superior EXPERIENCE, right? That's why you trust him, right? Do you think that only applies to your little group? Are their not others out there, possibly with more experience in the subject at hand?


 Ok, its obvious you guys are buddies and want to protect and support each others post online, but your not contributing to the thread or original topic by doing so. No, I didn't "caricature" anything, I took his post at face value. Since we obviously aren't understanding each other I would consider statements like: "your little group", you have nothign to offer the discussion", "traiing since, right the year you were born" and the like to be not only impolite but really logical falicies since they are used to prove ones point. I said it before and it looks like I should repeat it, I'm not going to take anyones word on their supieror experience over an internet forum especially when their posts are just arrogant enough to make me question them. If your experience is so superior why can't you simply answer a question or two? All this beating around the bush and getting personal and yet no attempt at honest discussion by answering questions. You could take the opportunity to let your superior experience shine through and explain your point and belief instead of just standing aside and demanding everyone respect your experience and just believe you because you said so. This is off topic, lets get back to the topic at hand, shall we?



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> Some (most?) of this stuff MUST BE EXPERIENCED. If it isn't, then no conversation can take place. Yes, I know that seems arrogant. I used to think so too and I didn't like being excluded from conversations, either. But now I know better and I can spot someone without the experience, like most (not all) of the people commenting on this thread.


 I agree with you, however you and your "buddy" came here and began posting with the idea and belief that I have no experience in any of these things. After which you didn't really read my post you just assumed I didn't know what I was talking about. Thats all fine and good, but you have missed defining and explaining your own point. I dont think thats arrogant, I've explained what parts of your posts I thought seemed arrogant, they had nothing to do with the subject matter. You can exclude anyone you want from your conversations, but simply excluding those who disagree with you is close minded and will never be honest dicussion. 



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> When talking about internal vs. external arts, the people discussing the subject better have extensive knowledge (from actually practicing those arts) of the two or there won't be much discussion. Same goes for northern vs. southern CMA. If someone doesn't have actual experience in those fields, then all they have to draw from is their "knowledge" gained from books, magazines, what they've heard, and videos. So then you get comments like this one:


 I agree, I have been studying CMAs for 22 years both "internal" and "external". I have settled on one style that I will be training for the rest of my life and that includes training in Taiji (Yang and Chen). I have studied both northern and southern CMAs as well and continue to have exposure to both. I agree there are comments on this thread that aren't from expeirience but excluding everyone that you dont feel meets your experience quota is also unfair and will never help them to learn. Why I used the term arrogance is because refusing to answer questions or define your point on the basis that it falls on ear that just couldn't understand it because of their lack of experience seems a tad arrogant, just my opinions.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> Mantis, you seemed like a nice enough guy before, but this really goes to show that you don't have a clue what we're talking about. You fall back on a caricature to make your joke at our expense in an effort to mask your own ignorance. If you think we're trying to develop "chi balls" then you really have a lot to learn.


 I'll let mantis defend himself, but it is clear he has more knowledge to gain and experience to handle, but dont we all? When we get to the point where we think we dont, thats when you stop learning. I also think his post was for comedic effect.



			
				chessman71 said:
			
		

> Last comment on this, the fact they everyone is trying to reach the top of their RESPECTIVE mountains doesn't then mean that everyone is on the same mountain. You won't see that until you train other systems with a different perspective from your group. And until then, you don't have much to offer on this topic.


 Again, you show your assumptions with this post. You dont know anyting about my training and thus dont realize I do train with people outside "my little group" from many different CMA styles and MA styles and training methods. You still have made lengthy posts that all avoid answering anything specific on your point. What are the "respective mountains"? The whole discussion is from a non defined term "mountain". Your using it on a technique level while I'm refering to a principled level. Just shows our difference in training and experience I guess. I dont know why but I'll post one more question to go unanswered: Explain to me just one principle of a northern system (ie mantis) that is opposite of a principle from a southern system (ie hung gar). Just one. Then simply explain to me with your obviously superior experience how that makes northern and southern styles reaching different goals.
Thats it, thats all I want....and yet it has so far been too much to ask.
Dont come here and start talking down to people telling them they have too litle experience to hold discussions with you while refusing to support your own point....makes you look like you have no clue what your talking about. Also, while we are disagreing it would be nice if we could at least be polite and respectfull of each other.



			
				pete said:
			
		

> dude, i've been down the same rabbit hole with this guy a few months ago. got blasted with a bunch of 'negative rep' while his buddies loaded his reputation points up, so now it looks like he has some kind of credibility. best to just let him wallow in his own mire...


 Why Pete, thats not nice. I assume your talkingabout me, but I have no recolection of us having this same discussion or anything close. Your complaint about rep should be taken up with an administraor so we can look into possible abuse if you suspect that, I dont personally recall every having given you rep, positive or negative and certainly can't remember a time I have had "buddies" positive rep me for any one post. That is a completely different discussion however since we have gotten way off topic here. If you judge credability on internet forums by reputation points then maybe you should look into reading posts and judging them by content. I sincerely appologize if I have offended you on a different thread, but lets let by gones be by gones and ralize that not everyone will agree with you and thats ok. This is a discussion forum where people discuss things, if that offends you maybe you should rethink your reasons for reading message boards online. 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> its a shame a moderator would have this affect on polite conversation, i enjoyed reading your posts and felt i would get insight into my art through your words...


 First and foremost, I'm also a member here at MartialTalk and being so I post my opinions and discuss things. Me being a moderator has no bearing on threads I'm involved with as I hand off mod duties to others in threads I'm invovled in, we all do. I also would probably define "polite conversation" in a different way then you, but thats ok. I have simply asked a couple questiosn which of yet have not been answered. I have brought that to the attention of this thread and asked for them to be answered. If that is the "affect" I have on polite conversation then I'm ok with that. Why dont you take a crack at answering some of my questions from this thread and maybe we will all learn something, loose our distaste for one another and have some good honest discussions, I'm up for that, what do you say? 

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (May 17, 2006)

For easier discussion allow me to collect the questions I feel are unasnwered:

What are these "different mountains" or goals between N&S styles?   
What are the different intents or goals of these systems?   
What are the opposite principles that make these systems so different?
 Thats it, just 3 little quesitons.....anybody? I completely understand their differences as I have trained in them, I'm asking about their similarities.

7sm


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 17, 2006)

pete said:
			
		

> dude, i've been down the same rabbit hole with this guy a few months ago. got blasted with a bunch of 'negative rep' while his buddies loaded his reputation points up, so now it looks like he has some kind of credibility. best to just let him wallow in his own mire...
> 
> its a shame a moderator would have this affect on polite conversation, i enjoyed reading your posts and felt i would get insight into my art through your words...
> 
> pete


 
*

Pete et al,

If anyone believes that there has been an abuse of the Reputation system please report such via PM or e-mail to any one of the Admin(s) on this site.

Also, if there is a complaint about a moderator, then also let the Admin Team know as well. If it is a post then use the little Triangle with the "!" in it to report the post. Or you can send a PM and / or e-mail to any of the Admin(s) on this site and they will also investigate. 

When you send a message please give specifc's and names/tags of those involved. 

Thank you

Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Adminsitrator *


----------



## chessman71 (May 17, 2006)

7 Star mantis,
I'm sorry, but this thread is getting embarassing. For the record, Buddy never said people are "too stupid" to get this stuff and saying that he did is a caricature. 
Saying


> Just shows our difference in training and experience I guess.


 while calling me arrogant for saying something similar (but not the same) is a little hypocritical, isn't it?

And finally, I understand you're banking on the principles. But I've already shown you that people define those principles differently based on their background derived from the style they do. 

Now the admin is involved. I'm off this thread. Have a good time, gents.

Dave C.


----------



## Gaoguy (May 17, 2006)

For the record the name on my birth certificate is Buddy, please don't put it in quotes. 
"its obvious you guys are buddies and want to protect and support each others post online, but your not contributing to the thread or original topic by doing so."

Obvious? What is obvious is that you have an agenda and have to stick by it. That's ok, I was like that once. Actually Dave and I have been at odds in the past, so your characterization in the previous statement is not only erroneous but proves my point. What we have in common is an experiential understanding of the Chinese internal martial arts.

"I completely understand their differences as I have trained in them, I'm asking about their similarities."

Completely? I wonder. You won't accept someone's experience who has been doing CMA as long as you have been alive. I have given you ample opportunity to research my background and opinions and yet you do not do so. Dave is living in Taiwan now studying and researching and you won't take his word. Both of us have given you the information (other than how are nanquan and beiquan similar, and who cares? a punch is a punch, how it is powered is another matter) but you can't see the forest for the trees. You see what you want to see. That's fine, I'm not your teacher and don't care about your progress.

"...just standing aside and demanding everyone respect your experience and just believe you because you said so."

Quote where that ever happened. Respect from you is not on my short list. Your pompous and arrogant demanding is enough to leave you hanging. Sorry you don't get a spoon full of sugar to make the truth go down easier.

"it looks like I should repeat it, I'm not going to take anyones word on their supieror experience over an internet forum especially when their posts are just arrogant enough to make me question them."

Again, I don't care what you accept or not. More than once someone has written me  to say we argued about this a few years ago and I was right. Will you be one? Probably not, your cup is already full. Either way it causes no ripple in my pond.

"If your experience is so superior why can't you simply answer a question or two?"

Questions were answered, you just can't see the answers for whatever reason.

"You can exclude anyone you want from your conversations, but simply excluding those who disagree with you is close minded and will never be honest dicussion."

Sorry, you got what you wanted, you just didn't want it when you got it. No one is excluded. You just don't seem to have the capacity to hear. It always hard to listen when your still talking.

"I have settled on one style that I will be training for the rest of my life and that includes training in Taiji (Yang and Chen)."

OK you're studying tanglang. I'm not certain what training in taiji means but certainly the body method different between tanglang and IMA. Xu Laoshi studied tanglang (since this thread is about him) but couldn't find the power, so he had to study Chen taiji. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he doesn't have your depth of understanding.


"Why I used the term arrogance is because refusing to answer questions or define your point on the basis that it falls on ear that just couldn't understand it because of their lack of experience seems a tad arrogant, just my opinions."

By everything you've written I'd say it's not arrogance, it's just fact. I don't expect you to accept that but come to Empty Flower where there are far more people experienced in IMA than perhaps you've been exposed to. But you won't.

"Also, while we are disagreing it would be nice if we could at least be polite and respectfull of each other."

You mean things like "... Its sad so many people are willing to stand up for things they have no idea about." You think that's a polite thing to say to your elder in not only life but martial arts? So far you just come across as a petulant and mannerless young man. I'm always available to be shown "what I have no idea about."

Odd how only your sycophants write to agree with you.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 17, 2006)

ok folks

MOD WARNING
Keep the discussion respectable and keep the private war of words out of the thread
Return to the subject of the thread 
If you want a thread on your respective learnings start one
use the ignor button if you so not like a persons posting

shelon bedell
mt mod


----------



## 7starmantis (May 17, 2006)

chessman71 said:
			
		

> And finally, I understand you're banking on the principles. But I've already shown you that people define those principles differently based on their background derived from the style they do.


I understand that and I think you have a point, I just dont think that people can defien a principle any wya they want it and its still correct. I believe there is a right and wrong way to define a principle. A principle is a principle regardless of anyone definition of it. What I find interesting is that I went over to "empty Flower (I didn't know what it was, I googled it) and read about the principles you guys define as "internal". Now, I practice matnis kung fu which is considered external yet our fighting principels match your own almost verbatum in some cases. If our systems are so different in intent and goals, why do our principles match so well?



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> Questions were answered, you just can't see the answers for whatever reason.


 Would you be so kind as to list the answers for any of my questions? Maybe it is my inexperience but I have yet to see an honest attempt at answering any of the 3 questions I listed a few post up. What about the aparent similarities between what you study and my own tonglong training? Why are our principles so similar if our goals or "mountains" are so different? I'm seriously interested in your response.



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> OK you're studying tanglang. I'm not certain what training in taiji means but certainly the body method different between tanglang and IMA. Xu Laoshi studied tanglang (since this thread is about him) but couldn't find the power, so he had to study Chen taiji. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he doesn't have your depth of understanding.


 Yes, 7 star to be specific. I'm confused about your comment on not knowing what training in taiji means. I got lost in that sentence somewhere. The body methods from my training in 7* and Chen Taiji are exactly the same. Now, grant it most 7* schools dont focus on the principels we do in such depth, but it certainly causes a chink in your statement about the mbeing very different. Perhaps he didn't have the depth of understanding of my sifu and sigung, or probably more truthfully maybe that was the road he needed to take for his personal journey. I study both Chen Taiji and mantis from the same teacher.



			
				Gaoguy said:
			
		

> I'm always available to be shown "what I have no idea about."


 For the record that wasn't neccesarily aimed at you. I do wish you luck in your training and if you are ever in the East Texas area, please look me up, I would be honored to train with you and exchange our experiences on a more convinient medium.

As to my sycophants, I dont know anyone on this site personally, I have never met any of them in real life nor trained with any of them. IF any here respects my opinions its from theri own decision from reading my post alone.

7sm


----------



## mantis (May 17, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> ok folks
> 
> MOD WARNING
> Keep the discussion respectable and keep the private war of words out of the thread
> ...


i know!
im almost regretting putting that nice quote there!
i thought i was gonna learn something i dont know about internal training, but it seems i was wrong.


----------



## Gaoguy (May 18, 2006)

My apologies to the board and to all for my recent outburst.


----------



## 7starmantis (May 18, 2006)

Gaoguy said:
			
		

> My apologies to the board and to all for my recent outburst.


Would it be possible for us to continue a less heated version of this discussion on internal and external systems? I am interested to know your opinions on my external training's principles being the same as your internal training's principles.

7sm


----------

