As long as it's not "force against force", it can be "internal". Does your hard external style has any
Depends....on what the practice is based on....
Trying to pull off a Kenji Yamaki, huh?
Matsuoka and Yamaki: The Power of Cross-Training – Aikido JournalHmm ah okay interesting... thanks KFW.As long as it's not "force against force", it can be "internal". Does your hard external style has any
- throwing art in it? All throwing art utilize the internal principles such as borrow, yield, sink, sticky, follow, ...
- block/grab/pull? All block/grab/pull also utilize the internal principles such as jam, guide, tuck, ...
First of all, AMAZING article, and I had no idea Kenji Yamaki Sensei changed his trajectory like that! His 100 man kumite is amazing haha.. but yeah honestly that mirrors my journey alot! From Kyokushin to training with karate infused with aiki principles and Goju Kensha. It's definitely where my journey has evolved..Trying to pull off a Kenji Yamaki, huh?
Although we have different backgrounds, my hunch is similar to yours. Aikido was originally an internal art (the daito ryu curriculum is actually divided into jujutsu, internals and jujutsu-with-internals) and the techniques were specifically selected to be a vehicle for the type of spiraling movement found in Asian internal arts (like taijiquan, baguazhang, bajiquan, xingyiquan, yiquan/taikiken and a bunch of koryu). We even have exercises designed to isolate or reproduce internal skills in a more understandable way and these are supposed to be the core of our practice. However, the overwhelming majority of aikidoka I've touched (a couple of them were very highly ranked) used regular muscle strength. They might be efficient and powerful but, even after decades, they just have strong jujutsu and they don't feel much different from other people I've touched who do kickboxing, muay thai, MMA, taekwondo, etc.
Among the people I've met or that I know of, inside and outside of aikido, the only ones who have demonstrated the type of unusual heaviness and soft strength which is associated with internal arts had done specific training. In other words, I know of no person in history who had internal skills and hadn't spent hours working on intent and body connection (e.g. by doing zhan zhuang / ritsu zen, and knowing what he's doing).
I think the phrase "training in external/internal leads to the same place" was either misinterpreted or coined by someone who had no idea about internal arts. Perhaps someone from internal arts who had no clue and was trying to reassure his students that, even though they suck now, they'll eventually fight like the "external" guys. Or, more likely, an external guy who watched/touched internal practitioners and found that they had nothing special.
My friend Ling likens this to two paths up the same mountain, both leading to the summit.
I think either I'm missing something or we are discussing different things entirely. Could you (and others with similar views) please elaborate on this? What is the difference between the two and how, in your opinion, do they eventually rejoin?
They join at the end. For example if my goal is to punch your face, Then it ends at my fist. If my goal is to throw you then they bother end at the throw.
Fair question.
I like that.
I read your entire post in Sir Bedevere the Wise's voice.Fair question.
Keeping in mind, my earlier post, "all models are wrong, but some are useful ..."
Assumptions of this model:
- the name of each path (internal vs. external), is derived from the first slope the student encounters while climbing the mountain.
- external "arts" follow a gentle slope first, then steep slope, but internal "arts" follow a steep slope first, then a gentle slope.
- conceptually speaking, the internal segment is more difficult to grasp and practice to a point of utility. It's not better or worse, just less aligned with our daily experiences and expectations of a martial art. So the internal path is steep at first (hard to "get") then easier later on as the student applies the internal learnings to external actions that are easier to grasp conceptually. (You do zhan zhuang before punching, for example.) While the external slope is conceptually more gentle, these methods still take a lot of effort and sweat.
- Conversely, the external segment (gentle slope) is easier to understand: we can see it (usually), and success and failure is more apparent. However, to get to the top, the external student needs to learn internal methods later in the training (punch first, then do zhan zhuang). It's possible that external arts always included an internal segment, but students didn't get it (or it was boring, or hard to evaluate), so it dropped off many "external" curricula.
- This model assumes that if a martial artist sticks it out long enough to become a master, they will pass through both internal and external methods, or segments, no matter the art, no matter the path up the mountain.
The best place to really understand the differences (which are incidental but interesting) is to train an art that contains both wei gong and nei gong traditions. Basically, some of the big names in CMA history already looked into this and combined internal and external training methods into singular systems.
I think Shahar has a good chapter on the intermixing of wei and nei gong in and around the epicenters of various arts, including the Wudangquan, and how Buddhist monks would share with layman, layman would train with Neijia scholars, bring stuff back to Shaolin etc (which by that time has already been developing weapon forms for a thousand years). I'll dig up some quotes later if I have some time.
Great post. It took me 10 years to start to REALLY feel the supple listening touch. It took my gung fu practice to new heights once the soft clicked in. My teachers were expert in teaching me something without me knowing consciously what was being taught. I had to surrender to the process in order to let it happen. Over the years I have had some epiphany regarding things I didn’t realize I already knew. I found some things during hard training, others I found during spar or pressure testing. I hope this reads the way I intend. (The bottom moves the top, the back moves the front, the inside moves the outside).
Recruiting more muscles, and aligning/distributing effort over more of the structure, I suppose. Being more aware of pushing from the ground. Being more aware of the finer functioning of my body: refining interoception.
Balance, posture, coordination, expansion, extension, transportation, explosion. That is creating the structure, then moving it in virtuous harmony.
Yes. Unity and harmony.
Also, the art of stacking and folding.
