Sifu Hsu: internal vs. external (revisited)
- Thread starter mantis
- Start date
Of course.Gaoguy 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.
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:
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.chessman71 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
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
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
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.
Good post.
7sm
7sm
chessman71
Yellow Belt
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.7starmantis said:
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:
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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...chessman71 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...Gaoguy said:
pete
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.chessman71 said:
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.
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:
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?pete said:
7sm
For easier discussion allow me to collect the questions I feel are unasnwered:
7sm
- 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?
7sm
pete said:
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
Yellow Belt
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
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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
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
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?chessman71 said:
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:
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:
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.Gaoguy said:
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
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.Gaoguy said:
7sm
