External vs internal martial arts

[Ironbear24]

A pure internal martial artist thinks very differently. Take for example myself. I do not learn any set moves

So then, how the hell do you fight?

Perhaps do a google search?

Or since you are so knowledgeable on the subject, maybe you can just tell him? You made the thread after all, you should be willing to answer people's questions about your thread.

 

[Tez3]

No really, why are you on my thread about external vs internal when all you do is make offensive posts?

I think you need to look at how you write things then because you are and have been before quite offensive in what you write.

 

[Zeny]

For those offense skills and defense skills, does "internal" martial artist "develop" it through "partner drills" the same way as the external martial artist does (such as to repeat a partner drill for 10,000 times)?

For me i do practise partner drills, but no set techniques. Of course it is fair to say that with only two arms and two legs, there are only so many moves a person can do. But what i mean is there is no technique that has its own name, like the wing chun sun punch or tan sau. I may touch your upper arm with my 5th finger, and that is done with a purpose, but you can't actually call that a technique. Again i speak for myself and not all internalists.

 

[Zeny]

I think you need to look at how you write things then because you are and have been before quite offensive in what you write.

Fair enough, but same goes for you, what you wrote was not especially pleasant either. I also don't go out of my way to write in such a way as to be especially polite in order to please internet strangers. If you don't like my posts, please just ignore them, no need to get so worked up over it.

 

[Zeny]

So then, how the hell do you fight?



Or since you are so knowledgeable on the subject, maybe you can just tell him? You made the thread after all, you should be willing to answer people's questions about your thread.

I'm not an authority on the subject and i'm not here to teach. I am a student and not a teacher. I share my views and listen to other people's views. i don't owe it to anyone to explain further anything i wrote.

 

[Tez3]

Fair enough, but same goes for you, what you wrote was not especially pleasant either. I also don't go out of my way to write in such a way as to be especially polite in order to please internet strangers. If you don't like my posts, please just ignore them, no need to get so worked up over it.

Actually I don't get worked up about them, the fact that you think I do means your perception on what people write on here is skewed. I pass comment which is what this place is for. This place isn't for 'strangers' by the way, many of us are paying supporting members which means we pay to keep it going, you don't. This is also advertised as a friendly place not a place for you to exhibit your ego, I didn't write anything unpleasant at all if you actually read what I said and your posts, you've been quite rude to people on here.

 

[Zeny]

Was all that to say you believe in gi, chi, or whatever you wish to call it? Or are you talking about something else?

I dunno, but i feel this post wasn't especially pleasant, so i don't feel inclined to respond to him. Thus the subsequent google comment.

Actually I don't get worked up about them, the fact that you think I do means your perception on what people write on here is skewed. I pass comment which is what this place is for. This place isn't for 'strangers' by the way, many of us are paying supporting members which means we pay to keep it going, you don't. This is also advertised as a friendly place not a place for you to exhibit your ego, I didn't write anything unpleasant at all if you actually read what I said and your posts, you've been quite rude to people on here.

Is my OP an unwelcome exhibition of ego? Please enlighten me, so i know what to post and what not to post.

 

[Tez3]

The OP itself is fine, you ask questions then get a miff on when people answer you.

Is that a serious question?

Serious question, why are you on this thread if you have nothing interesting to contribute?

You have already stated your opinion that one needs not care about external or internal. Point taken. Now why are you on this thread again?

I find that there is really no point for me personally to spend time typing answers to your questions. If you don't agree with or don't understand what i say or don't think i understand what i say, that's fine, please move on.

No really, why are you on my thread about external vs internal when all you do is make offensive posts?

Two simple answers then:

1) No. Bill Mattocks did some empty mind thing for his karate. Does it mean his karate is an internal art? I don't know why you see things completely in black and white.

2) it depends on how you do it

Satisfied?

 

[Zeny]

I might be mistaken but i don't see any exhibition of ego in the above posts you quoted. Rude to Xue Sheng and you, yes, but you two have not been very pleasant either from the beginning.

In my experience serious students of martial art should not waste time on such silly notions and know internal and external are false categories that show up in 1669 (in the the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan) more as a protest against the Qing Dynasty by Han people than anything else, and there was no mention ot Taiji, Xingyi or Bagua in it at all. And prior to that there was no such delineation, because it did not matter.

Also Chen Fake (1887–1957) never thought about internal vs external, he just trained and taught his family style, what we now call Chen Taijiquan. And last there is an old CMA saying...internal goes to external and external goes to internal. This means that if trained properly, they end up in the same place.

To me, a guy who once argued for these ridiculous categories, such categories are at best elitist or at worst an excuse. I'm a taiji guy I use to be a Xingyiquan guy, that is all.... and speaking as a xingyi guy on the topic of internal and external (and I am betting you would get this from many Xingyiquan people)..... who cares..shut up and train.

Oh boy. I think you have missed the meaning of the question, he is not asking for an explanation of what internal arts are, he knows but what he and the rest of us don't know is what you think it means, this is because what you are saying doesn't gel with what others understand it to mean nor actually the explanations given when you do look up Google therefore you must mean something different by 'internal arts'.

If you aren't interested in debate what are you posting for? This isn't a university site where you post up a lecture and your thoughts and we all go, gosh thank you.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Two simple answers then:

1) No. Bill Mattocks did some empty mind thing for his karate. Does it mean his karate is an internal art? I don't know why you see things completely in black and white.

2) it depends on how you do it

Satisfied?

No, no I m not, those did not answer either question, but I do suppose they could qualify as simple if in fact those are your answers.

 

[DaveB]

As a total outsider to this discussion I thought Zeny's opening post explained his view of an internal martial art.

That said I find it bafflingly childish to come on to a discussion forum and proclaim you don't want to debate. I think the fear of having ideas challenged is one of the saddest and scariest trends I have observed recently: as if there is something noble about shying away from intellectual reasoning or from being open to having your mind changed because of the holes in your logic.

And IMO the only rude poster thus far has been the op. Summarily dismissing folks because they dared to ask for clarification is pretty poor.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I might be mistaken but i don't see any exhibition of ego in the above posts you quoted. Rude to Xue Sheng and you, yes, but you two have not been very pleasant either from the beginning.

Zeny

I see the problem as; Your ego has been threatened so you got angry. Sorry, but my years of training make me doubt and question many of the things you post. I want people to understand what Taijiquan really is, not the magic, mysticism and elitism that many seem to expound about and get defensive of when meant with the reality of it.

What I see is that we did not bow down to "Grand Master" Zeny and take everything you say as absolute truth. We dare question what you say and therefore your ego was threatened. Sorry, but I am not impressed by "Grand Master" Zeny and I will also not sit idly by while you post things that I believe hurt taiji than help it

 

[Zeny]

As a total outsider to this discussion I thought Zeny's opening post explained his view of an internal martial art.

That said I find it bafflingly childish to come on to a discussion forum and proclaim you don't want to debate. I think the fear of having ideas challenged is one of the saddest and scariest trends I have observed recently: as if there is something noble about shying away from intellectual reasoning or from being open to having your mind changed because of the holes in your logic.

And IMO the only rude poster thus far has been the op. Summarily dismissing folks because they dared to ask for clarification is pretty poor.

Fair enough on the rude point. I disagree but i respect your view.

However on the debate point i disagree. It is pretty pointless to debate with someone if their mind is already made up. I also have no desire whatsoever to persuade anyone to agree with me.

 

[Zeny]

Zeny

I see the problem as; Your ego has been threatened so you got angry. Sorry, but my years of training make me doubt and question many of the things you post. I want people to understand what Taijiquan really is, not the magic, mysticism and elitism that many seem to expound about and get defensive of when meant with the reality of it.

What I see is that we did not bow down to "Grand Master" Zeny and take everything you say as absolute truth. We dare question what you say and therefore your ego was threatened. Sorry, but I am not impressed by "Grand Master" Zeny and I will also not sit idly by while you post things that I believe hurt taiji than help it

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Why on earth would i want to exhibit my ego on an internet forum to total strangers? You have 20 years in taijiquan and i only have 6 years, and if we were to meet up to cross hands i would most probably lose. I seriously don't know why you think i want people to take what i say as the absolute truth.

At the same time i also don't think you know everything about taijiquan to allow you to become the 'guardian of true taijiquan' and judge what other people think and believe about their taijiquan and make sure everyone conforms to what you think is the 'true taijiquan'. We don't even practise the same style of taijiquan, and who gave you the right to say what i practise in my style is not taijiquan. Talking about a big ego, sheesh.

The true taijiquan masters are out there, teaching many students across many countries, not debating on an internet forum.

 

[DaveB]

1. That anyone's mind is made up is an assumption about people you don't know.

2. The purpose of debate is not to persuade but to find the truth through reasoning. A bit like how scientists deduce from data and then let other scientists try to rip their theory apart. Only that which stands up to examination can be hoped to be reliable.

If what you bring to the discussion is faith then that is personal to you and not really worth discussing as it requires no basis beyond you liking the idea.
However you don't appear to be presenting a faith, but a fact as you see it.
You should be interested in understanding the truth of that fact for your own self, but even if you're not you can't expect others to not be.

 

[DaveB]

On the topic of internal v external ma, the best description I encountered of IMA, was arts internal to the wudan family of arts, I.e. more of a cultural idea.

However the person I heard that from did describe a common factor, which was that the IMA all work to conserve momentum, suggesting that whether you are hitting or receiving force you never just stop and reset. Rather you move in such a way as to redirect and continue the flow of energy/weight/momentum.

This kind of simple mechanical explanation makes a lot of sense to me and even a brief exploration of what it might entail gave me a great appreciation of the level of complexity and refinement required to work in that way.

It also lead me to believe that there is an Internal Shotokan kata...

 

[Zeny]

1. That anyone's mind is made up is an assumption about people you don't know.

2. The purpose of debate is not to persuade but to find the truth through reasoning. A bit like how scientists deduce from data and then let other scientists try to rip their theory apart. Only that which stands up to examination can be hoped to be reliable.

If what you bring to the discussion is faith then that is personal to you and not really worth discussing as it requires no basis beyond you liking the idea.
However you don't appear to be presenting a faith, but a fact as you see it.
You should be interested in understanding the truth of that fact for your own self, but even if you're not you can't expect others to not be.

It's not an assumption. Xue Sheng has admitted it, see his post above. I said i did not wish to debate with Xue Sheng.

There is really no point to debate martial arts. It can only be tested by actual fighting, and in actual fighting, people get hurt. I really don't see why you think it is beneficial to debate martial arts to find out what is the 'absolute truth', if there really is one. What works for one person may not work for another. No one size fits all.

 

[Tez3]

The purpose of debate is not to persuade but to find the truth through reasoning.

An argument is to find out who is right, a debate finds out what is right.

 

[Zeny]

An argument is to find out who is right, a debate finds out what is right.

What is right for 'whom'? Do we even eat the same food?

 

[Tez3]

What is right for 'whom'? Do we even eat the same food?

That's why we debate...to find out what is right for each of us. There is no 'right' as there is in law ie 'right to free speech' or the 'right to drive sheep through the centre of London' . We debate to pick the bones out of something to see what works and what doesn't, how it works and why it doesn't.