What is Internal, What is External?

[yilisifu]

Actually, the terms "hard style" and "soft style" were coined by American martial arts magazines back in the 60's and 70's. I remember it.

When I was in China, the teachers there refer to the internal arts as "neijia" rather than "soft." They don't understand why Americans call it "soft" because it isn't...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by yilisifu
Actually, the terms "hard style" and "soft style" were coined by American martial arts magazines back in the 60's and 70's. I remember it.

When I was in China, the teachers there refer to the internal arts as "neijia" rather than "soft." They don't understand why Americans call it "soft" because it isn't...

I think the term soft and hard came about on how people saw the defensive blocking techniques.

Just bare with me for a moment please.

If your block is a 180 degree opposite direct of the attack and it is meant to be as offensive as the attack, this is hard. The impact is hard between the two opponents.

If the Block is a parry/slip or redirection of the opponents force then it is perceived to be soft. There is nor harsh meeting of the forces.

This leads to the description of Hard Styles and Soft Styles and those that are also Hard/Soft.

Just my own idea of how I have seen Americans describe systems.
:asian:

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by yilisifu
When I was in China, the teachers there refer to the internal arts as "neijia" rather than "soft."

What is the literal translation of neijia?

 

[lhommedieu]

"Neijia" may be loosely translated as "internal family" is sometimes used by practitioners of Xing Yi, Ba Gua, and Tai Ji to refer to their similar approach to training.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[yilisifu]

I believe it was Sun Lutang who coined that term "neijia" when referring to the arts of Taiji, Xingyi, and Bagua. He passed away in 1936, so the term was coined fairly recently. Prior to that, the Chinese really didn't have a general term for these arts as a whole.

 

[Arthur]

I wrote a little piece related to this subject for a friend a few years ago. I never got around to writing the second half of it, but what I have I think might contribute to the discussion.

Here it is:

What is an Internal Art?
Arthur Sennott Copyright 2000

The word “internal” is probably responsible for more misunderstandings and arguments in martial arts circles than anything else. In a group of people who all have the same idea and definition of what internal means, the words use can be a quick easy way of delineating certain things. However, as soon as people, who hold different definitions of that term, try to communicate with it, all hell usually breaks loose.

The prevalent use of the word “internal” in popular martial art culture comes from Chinese martial arts. It has become popular in recent years for people in almost any martial art to speak of the internal vs. the external. It is spoken of, as though it is a regular component of whichever martial art has chosen to co-opt the term. In reality of course they are borrowing the term and then attempting to “superimpose it upon whatever practices already exist within their art.

It should be noted that virtually everyone, who chooses to speak of the distinction between internal and external, manages to categorize their own art as either “internal” or “half external and half internal”. No one ever seems to bother to make that distinction, and then proudly proclaim their art as being external.

So before we can understand the reasoning behind misguided “borrowings” of the term, we first need to look at what the term means to Chinese martial arts.

In current Chinese Martial arts circles, their are generally 4 widely circulated theories of what this means.

Theory 1)
Internal systems place an emphasis on the cultivation and/or manipulation of Qi (energy), as being of primary (or at least high) concern. While external systems do not have this emphasis.

Theory 2)
Internal arts place an emphasis on a certain kind of coordinated, whole body power. This power is generated through specific types of body alignments and mechanics that are inherent to the individual art, and common across all internal arts. This type of movement is not inherent in external arts, though individual practitioners of a particular external art, may come to move that way.

Theory 3)
The idea of “internal-ness” refers to a specific mind set and attention to ones self in practice and performance. Internal arts are practiced with a hyper awareness of every nuance of ones motion. A reflection of this can be seen in the fact that most internal arts include slow motion performance, as part of their curriculum. One should only move as quickly, as one can move correctly, is a major thought in this theory.

Theory 4)
The word internal refers to arts whose creation is solely from “inside” China. External referring to arts whose origin is external to the borders of China. As the Shaolin styles are based on Buddhism (which comes from outside China), and as they are rumored to be based on movements that Damo brought from India, we can see why an extremely ethnocentric country like China, would call them external.

Theory 5)
Well, not so much a theory, as it related historical and documented background. The regular use of the term internal being used in a way that refers to what we now know as internal arts, was a custom started in the early 20th century. The term Nei jia (Internal Family) was propagated by Sun Lu Tang and a group of his peers. History suggests that this may have been an early “marketing ploy”, to which we all now, put way to much investment in.

Of these different theories, come most peoples ideas of what the word “internal” means in Chinese martial arts. Different “camps” of practitioners will tend to agree on one or a specific combination of more than one of the theories. Generally any given camp will tend to think of a “camp” that subscribes to a different theory, as being hugely uninformed and deluded.

Arthur

 

[arnisador]

Yes, everyone seems to think their art is half-and-half!

I see you note that it is a distinction for Chinese arts only, but how would you classify Systema as fas as this goes? I've heard it described often as internal.

 

[Matt Stone]

In my experience (limited though it has been), the entire Internal vs. External debate has been mostly confined to the Chinese arts.

It seems that practitioners of all arts are fascinated with labeling and identifying their arts as something separate from everyone else's art... Everyone wants to believe, deep in their heart, that their art is the ultimate fighting system. Too bad there is no such animal.

Karate has what appear to be the hallmarks of "internal" training in many of the original Okinawan styles. Not surprising given their Chinese origins. However, Daito-ryu and Aikido are very "internal" in their approach (though I have seen some "external" aikido demonstrated and it still worked just fine...).

Bottom line, Internal and External are labels that really should be simply done away with completely. Getting rid of labeling methods like that would go a long way toward educating people more appropriately about what the arts can do, what they are all about, and how they should be practiced properly.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Arthur]

I see you note that it is a distinction for Chinese arts only, but how would you classify Systema as fas as this goes? I've heard it described often as internal.

I think that the true origin of the Chinese distinction revolves around theory 4 and the Sun Lu Tang issue. the rest of the theories are fun, but are really more of a way of making ourselves feel special than a useful distinction. Notice that only theory 4 has distinctions which can be arrived at solely on fact.

The others all fall under the "yeah we do that too" category.

A a Systema guy, I don't really feel the need to categorize what we do, however for fun I'll play along

Everybodies Systema is different, so I can only speak for myself. I know that the things that the main purveyors of the other theories consider to be core principles that define their outlook on the matter, I can do. they are a part of what I do. However, I lso advocate using physical raw, localized power if that's the most efficient thing for your survival. Those cases may be rare, but you need to be flexible enough mentally to not restrict your art based on the theoretical.

When fighting underwater for instance... a lot of the rules for Ground Strength vectors and the like go out the window. And while you may never need your martial art in the Ocean... if you do you'll need it more than ever. Quite a few murders have taken place at the bare hands of one man, while the object being fought over was a single life preserver.

So to us (at least me) its important that our operating System not be confined in application to ideal theoreticals.

Some Systema practioners emphasize different things as well, so it can be a bit tricky to get a read. I'm nt sure if I really said anything. Sorry if I didn't. Its a tough subject

Arthur

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Arthur
I'm nt sure if I really said anything. Sorry if I didn't. Its a tough subject

I'm not sure you answered the question but it was an interesting read anyway! I think you addressed it as well as it probably could be addressed given that it's a Chinese idea--the question was wrong in the first place.

 

[arnisador]

This page doesn't mince words on its style (Lau Gar Kung Fu):
http://www.stafford-lau-gar.co.uk/association/lg-classification.html

 

[Arthur]

Man I've got to get a new keyboard! Sorry about all those typos.

Thanks Arnisador

Arthur

 

[GaryM]

Originally posted by Arthur
I think that the true origin of the Chinese distinction revolves around theory 4 and the Sun Lu Tang issue. the rest of the theories are fun, but are really more of a way of making ourselves feel special than a useful distinction. Notice that only theory 4 has distinctions which can be arrived at solely on fact.

The others all fall under the "yeah we do that too" category.

A a Systema guy, I don't really feel the need to categorize what we do, however for fun I'll play along

Everybodies Systema is different, so I can only speak for myself. I know that the things that the main purveyors of the other theories consider to be core principles that define their outlook on the matter, I can do. they are a part of what I do. However, I lso advocate using physical raw, localized power if that's the most efficient thing for your survival. Those cases may be rare, but you need to be flexible enough mentally to not restrict your art based on the theoretical.

When fighting underwater for instance... a lot of the rules for Ground Strength vectors and the like go out the window. And while you may never need your martial art in the Ocean... if you do you'll need it more than ever. Quite a few murders have taken place at the bare hands of one man, while the object being fought over was a single life preserver.

So to us (at least me) its important that our operating System not be confined in application to ideal theoreticals.

Some Systema practioners emphasize different things as well, so it can be a bit tricky to get a read. I'm nt sure if I really said anything. Sorry if I didn't. Its a tough subject

Arthur

No one (that I know of) practices or teaches The Systema here in Utah, however I acquired the tapes about 3-4 years ago and was quite impressed and have tried to incorporate much into my Kenpo. I feel that ultimatly it is based on taijquan. The stance is the same and the movements are very similar. The breathing is the same and both turn on the heels. Plus the training for much of the systema is in 'slow motion'. The manner of striking is also very similar (I.E. loose and whipping.) In the intro to the tapes it is stated that the Russians had to defend against invaders from China (which Russia borders).

 

[Arthur]

GaryM,

There is a guy named Joe Maredisch who use to teach in Utah. Officially he's not listed anymore, but he might still be teaching privately if you can track him down.

I know another guy who is sometimes in Utah, and while not an official teacher, can certainly teach someone plenty. there are also teachers in most tof the states bordering you. Feel free to send me a PM if you'd like more info.

For the record, Systema is not based on Taiji Quan. Systema has a nature that tends to allow it to "look like" anything people are already familiar with. Taiji people see Taiji, Silat people see Silat, Ju jutsu people see Ju jutsu. It is however very much its own art.

While it has things that are in common with each of thearts above, as well as many others.... it also has many characteristics that those arts would find to be "the opposite" of the way they think things should be done.

At any rate what Systema seems like from watching it, and what it feels like from feeling it are two totally different things. even if you don't plan on studying it, you should make an attempt to get to feel it some time. It's an interesting experience.

Arthur
PS to my eyes I see reflections of Ba gua, Yanagi Ryu Aiki Ju Jutsu and Roppokai Aiki no Jutsu... but its all systema

 

[Nightingale]

some cool info in this thread...

 

[arnisador]

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[Kempo Guy]

Here's some of my thoughts on the Internal - External "debate" (I posted this on another forum):

"I was taught that Internal has nothing to do with whether an art is soft, uses Qi or what not. It has to do with how you manifest your 'jing', i.e. the issuance of whole-body power using proper biomechanics and being in a state of dynamic relaxation. IMA's (internal martial arts) also seek to develop the feel of a "united body" over strength, and uniting your mind and body to direct your "jing". One of the requirements during the issuance of force in IMA is using a unified body.

External MA then uses sectional power, meaning the body is not united in it's issuance of force. An external artist may strike using a lot of rotational power from the hip which generates a whip like motion to the fist (as an example). While the external practitioner may be relaxed during the strike (until the final moment of impact), the issuance of power differs from the 'whole-body power' used in IMA.

Of course one of the GENERAL differences in characteristics between IMA and EMA imho is the difference in it's application.
IMA's characteristics are to never issue force until you are in an advantageous position by trying to 'borrow the opponents energy'; sticking and following the incoming force vector; and lastly avoidance of direct contact (never meet power with power).

These principles hold true for most biomechanically efficient styles.
Just some thoughts from the cheapseats...

Also in regards to Qi/Ki, I believe it means 'life force', nothing more nothing less. Hence, without ki we would be unable to live. Everybody/thing has ki some stronger, some weaker."

Here's an addendum to the above in the same thread:

"I want to make myself a little clearer so there’s no confusion.

An external martial artists may shift his ‘whole body’ to engage a strike, but often uses compartmentalized power to generate force. When looking at issuing power there are definitely a couple of distinct ways it cam be issued. As discussed there are what I have come to call "sectional" and "whole body" power. When struck, you would very much be able to tell the difference between the two types of force.

Having a long Karate (Kyokushinkai and Kempo) background I can certainly relate to the 'sectional power' theory. For instance, many Karate and Kung Fu styles will harden their fist (ala iron fist, iron palm training). Now this is never seen in IMA as the focus is never on the striking weapon but on the connection of mind, body and the ground to generate the force. The fist/leg or what not just happens to be there to be used.

As many of you know, different arts have different training methodologies. However, how you issue power is quite congruous between most external styles, the same can be said of internal styles... (since we're using these labels for the sake of this topic). There definitely are commonalities when you break down the biomechanics of each 'branch' (i.e. internal vs. external).

As I mentioned, I don't like using the labels... but I look at the styles as biomechanically efficient vs. not. BTW, this by no means mean that one is more effective than another… perhaps less efficient?
Also, another thing I've observed is that most styles that fall within the biomechanically efficient systems (internal) are the focus on teaching principles over techniques, which may be the case of some Kenpo styles. Some of the internal systems may teach forms but most teach sequences of movement (kinetic chains) in order to program your neuromuscular system as opposed to external systems were they use rote memorization of techniques."

KG

 

[arnisador]

I definitely have the impression that many people think the internal arts are more "biomechanically efficient" than external ones.

 

[liangzhicheng]

Kempo guy-

I think that's a pretty good description of the differences between internal and external

 

[Pat]

I believe to understand the real differences between the internal and external systems, you have to train in an external and an internal style to a certain skill level in each. As in most cases, experience is the best teacher. Words do fall short at times, verbal explanations do help though. :drinkbeer: