# Internal vs. External



## KPM (Nov 29, 2017)

Does anyone have a clear definition of the difference between "internal" and "external" when it comes to martial arts?  This seems to have become a "buzzword" in recent years in Wing Chun circles.  There are often entire discussion on the FB forum about whether someone's Wing Chun is "internal" or not.   A couple of the decades ago the buzzwords were "hard vs. soft."  From the way I have seen people describing "internal" and "external" though, it doesn't really equate to the same thing.   Just curious if anyone has a good clear explanation to share.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 29, 2017)

You know, I really don't.

Over the years I've heard the distinction that internal means the primary focus is on one's own energy or chi while external means the focus is on the opponent, I've also heard that it means hard vs soft. Both distinctions seem fairly meaningless to me.

In the first case, both are important. It seems illogical to choose one and forgo the other. In the second case, likewise..but it is more situational.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 29, 2017)

You know...it doesn't really matter...I use to get into long drawn out discussions/arguments about it, a few here on MT and after years in "internal" arts, and researching Chinese Martial Arts, I came to the conclusion that for the most part they are useless categories (with more than one definition)  that have much more to do (historically) with a protest against the Qing Dynasty by Han people than they have to do with anything all that important as it applies to martial arts

But these days most associate it with a difference in training and application methodologies. Hhowever both (internal/external) end up in the same place if trained correctly. The saying goes...Internal goes to external and external goes to internal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

A "non-MA scholar" invented the term "internal" at the end of the Ming dynasty (about 400 years ago) so people can argue with that term for the next 1000 years.

There is only right and wrong. There is no "internal" and external. if your don't have

- hand coordinate with foot, elbow coordinate with knee, shoulder coordinate with hip,
- all body parts start/stop at the same time,
- body push/pull limb,
- compress and release,
- bottom -> up, back -> front,
- ...

you are wrong whether you train "internal" or external.


----------



## Cephalopod (Nov 29, 2017)

The way I break it down...

External is the elements of movement and position that can be observed from the outside. Structure, angles of attack, speed and the like. As such, external elements can be demonstrated to a crowd or observed from a youtube vid.

Internal is the elements that are more inside the body and brain such as tension, intention, mindfulness, root and the like. You can include qigong if you're into that kinda thing. Internal element can be explained to students but it can quickly end up being a pompous waste of breath. It's really though physical contact in movement that the good stuff is transmitted from teacher to student. The student learns by feeling and testing to develop better proprioception.

It goes without saying that all good WC movement has both external and internal elements.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 29, 2017)

More and more I have come to believe it is a meaningless distinction that is often used by people to imply that they have reached a deeper understanding.  I believe that claim cannot be substantiated.  While some people may actually believe their own spin, I believe it can be a deliberate smokescreen.

Meaning: “my Kung Fu is internal.  Oh, yours isn’t? You don’t understand the internal aspects and practice?  Well your Kung Fu is crap, then.”

I believe that is nonsense.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A "non-MA scholar" invented the term "internal" at the end of the Ming dynasty (about 400 years ago) so people can argue with that term for the next 1000 years.
> 
> There is only right and wrong. There is no "internal" and external. if your don't have
> 
> ...



Internal and External Martial Arts first appeared in 1669 in the Epitaph for "Wang Zhengnan" written by Huang Zhongxi.


----------



## Cephalopod (Nov 29, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> More and more I have come to believe it is a meaningless distinction that is often used by people to imply that they have reached a deeper understanding.  I believe that claim cannot be substantiated.  While some people may actually believe their own spin, I believe it can be a deliberate smokescreen.
> 
> Meaning: “my Kung Fu is internal.  Oh, yours isn’t? You don’t understand the internal aspects and practice?  Well your Kung Fu is crap, then.”
> 
> I believe that is nonsense.



They're just words, descriptors. No need to revere or resent them. Some people can sound douchy no matter what words they choose.

I do think that they are useful catagories in breaking things down for students. For example, a student's tan sao isn't working for her. Is it the external elements, the position of the elbow, the angle with respect to the opponent? Or is it the internal elements, stiffness in the shoulder, lack of forward intention?

That the way my mind works. But it must be said, I usually communicate using words like position and stiffness rather than external and internal. So that I don't sound too douchy.


----------



## mograph (Nov 29, 2017)

I don't find the distinction that _useful_ in terms of teaching or learning: I think that both terms are too general in an instructional context. 

I do see Cephalopod's point, though: a useful distinction seems to be between what we can see explicitly versus what we can see implicitly. But that distinction refers to internal/external techniques/movements/acts, rather than internal styles, forms, and so on. Useful, that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2017)

Is there any difference between "internal" and external when you train:

- hip throw,
- single leg,
- roundhouse kick,
- side kick,
- shoulder lock,
- elbow lock,
- ...

In another forum, I had asked people to put up clip for "internal" hip throw or "internal" roundhouse kick. It has been over 15 years by now. I still have not seen any of those kind of clips yet.

Also is there any "internal" sword fight vs. external sword fight? When someone uses his sword to cut you, how will you be able to know whether he uses "internal" force or external force?


----------



## DanT (Nov 29, 2017)

There's no difference. It's a label that labels nothing nowadays.

Internal  = arts inside the Wudang Temple
External = arts outside the Wudang Temple

It has NOTHING to do with your Chi, or your Yi, or your relaxation, or your energy, or your techniques, or your footwork, or your breathing. It was a geographical term for practitioners of Bagua, Tai Chi, and Xing Yi.

Nowadays, the Bagua, Tai Chi, and Xing Yi crowd like to call themselves "internal" often to give themselves an excuse to be lazy in their training and move super slowly, not spar, and spend half of their time standing still and talking.

In reality, TRUE training for "internal arts" is the same as external arts: (Sparring, bagwork, partner drills, conditioning, push-ups, etc).


----------



## KPM (Nov 30, 2017)

Do you guys realize there is an entire forum here at Martial Talk entitled "Chinese Internal Arts"?   But I do like DanT's explanation.  I've never heard explained in terms of geography before.  That makes sense.  Not sure how historic it is though. 

Just came across this and thought some of you might enjoy it.  





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=951797491561014


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Do you guys realize there is an entire forum here at Martial Talk entitled "Chinese Internal Arts"?



Yup, because Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, Taijiquan, Yiquan/Dachengquan and Liuhebafa are all listed as internal arts...... And I have trained Taijiquan, Xingyiquan a bit of Baguazhang and a touch of Yiquan/Dachengquan.....but again...it is just a label, that has more than one definition. Wudang vs Shaolin, From inside China vs Outside of China, Taoist vs Buddhist, Han arts vs Qing arts, etc.

I also trained Police Military Sanda a bit of Wing Chun as well as a bit of Jeet Kune Do. And I see similarities and differences between all of them. Actually a lot more between Taiji and Sanda than either side of that equation is willing to admit and a whole lot between Xingyi and JKD that at least one side of that equation is not to comfortable with and to be honest I see similarities between Sun Taijiquan and JKD as well.

As far as the video is concerned, not so much funny as pathetic...but he has succeeded at one thing....he successfully taught his students to fall down on cue.


----------



## APL76 (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is there any difference between "internal" and external when you train:
> 
> - hip throw,
> - single leg,
> ...




Obviously that would b internal force, his sword would be inside your body


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Does anyone have a clear definition of the difference between "internal" and "external" when it comes to martial arts?  This seems to have become a "buzzword" in recent years in Wing Chun circles.  There are often entire discussion on the FB forum about whether someone's Wing Chun is "internal" or not.   A couple of the decades ago the buzzwords were "hard vs. soft."  From the way I have seen people describing "internal" and "external" though, it doesn't really equate to the same thing.   Just curious if anyone has a good clear explanation to share.


I've never found those more than fuzzy distinctions, even finding some arts (outside WC) referred to as both in different contexts.


----------



## Cephalopod (Nov 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Do you guys realize there is an entire forum here at Martial Talk entitled "Chinese Internal Arts"?   But I do like DanT's explanation.  I've never heard explained in terms of geography before.  That makes sense.  Not sure how historic it is though.
> 
> Just came across this and thought some of you might enjoy it.
> 
> ...


Thanks KPM...it always leaves me with a deep existential sadness when I see a vid like that. Do people really waste their lives with these pursuits or are we just being put on by youtube mockumentaries?


----------



## geezer (Nov 30, 2017)

To a lesser degree many people come to the martial arts with ideas that are nearly as far fetched.

This may have been worse in decades past. I know when I first began training a so-called CMA in the 70's, there was a lot of magical thinking. Just look back at the old movie and TV representations of martial arts.

I remember one time we had one guy come in the door and address my teacher saying "Master, I haven't got any money to pay for lessons, but I want to be your disciple. You know _Quai Chang Kane_ on TV? I want to live my life like that!"


----------



## Cephalopod (Nov 30, 2017)

geezer said:


> ...
> I remember one time we had one guy come in the door and address my teacher saying "Master, I haven't got any money to pay for lessons, but I want to be your disciple. You know _Quai Chang Kane_ on TV? I want to live my life like that!"


You missed an opportunity, Geez.
You too could have had a legion of addle-minded followers. Think of the possibilities!
An army of martial minions on some island fortress with a big laser cannon popping out the top...
...oh...wait...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 30, 2017)

geezer said:


> To a lesser degree many people come to the martial arts with ideas that are nearly as far fetched.
> 
> This may have been worse in decades past. I know when I first began training a so-called CMA in the 70's, there was a lot of magical thinking. Just look back at the old movie and TV representations of martial arts.
> 
> I remember one time we had one guy come in the door and address my teacher saying "Master, I haven't got any money to pay for lessons, but I want to be your disciple. You know _Quai Chang Kane_ on TV? I want to live my life like that!"


 
Wait...are you saying this isn't real


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 30, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> You missed an opportunity, Geez.
> You too could have had a legion of addle-minded followers. Think of the possibilities!
> An army of martial minions on some island fortress with a big laser cannon popping out the top...
> ...oh...wait...


All I wanted was a friggin shark with a friggin laser on his head...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 30, 2017)

DanT said:


> Internal  = arts inside the Wudang Temple
> External = arts outside the Wudang Temple


There is also another saying that said:

- Buddhism monk stay inside the temple, it's called "internal".
- Tao's monk travel outside, it's called external.

In other words, everybody want to be "internal". Nobody want to be external.

Every year in the Dallas Taiji Legacy tournament.

- All the "internal" judges stand in the front line (with proud on their face - they train high level MA).
- All the external judges stand on the 2nd line (with shame on their face - they train low level MA).
- All the Sanda judges stand on the 3rd line (they all bend their heads down - they train the lowest level MA).


----------



## DanT (Nov 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is also another saying that said:
> 
> - Buddhism monk stay inside the temple, it's called "internal".
> - Tao's monk travel outside, it's called external.
> ...


Yeah and the funny thing is most of the so called "internal" practitioners are terrible fighters. Too much time doing the 24 Yang form and not enough time Sparring or hitting a bag.


----------



## KPM (Dec 1, 2017)

A little bit of "internal Wing Chun"





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1501873313215743


----------



## geezer (Dec 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> A little bit of "internal Wing Chun"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is one of Sergio's guys. Sergio apparently has moved far beyond Leung Ting's "soft" and yielding concepts to some really extreme beliefs IMHO. Must be a market for it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> A little bit of "internal Wing Chun"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does "internal" just mean "push" to you? This is very sad indeed. "Internal" guys don't like kick, punch, lock, throw, ground work. They like to "push".

If you add in "inner hook" or "scoop", a push can be a throw.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 1, 2017)

So going by that last video internal means refined technical details. The kind of thing you just can't do while experiencing any kind of adrenalin response.

Not sure how it would apply to Wing chun, but a guy who believed in the geographical explanation for the terminology gave this explanation of the difference between internal and external arts:

He said the internal were based on the principle of conservation of momentum, so all the yielding of Taichi and spinning of bagua and rushing drop steps of hsing-i exist to keep you moving non stop with the aim of always impacting with your full body weight in motion.

Using that definition I found an internal Shotokan karate kata.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 1, 2017)

DaveB said:


> He said the internal were based on the principle of conservation of momentum, so all the yielding of Taichi and spinning of bagua and rushing drop steps of hsing-i exist to keep you moving non stop with the aim of always impacting with your full body weight in motion.


Ok, but these are elements of many systems, not just those identified or labeled as internal.


----------

