Sifu Hsu: internal vs. external (revisited)

[chessman71]

I agree with that, body mechanics is different from style to style. What I was refering to is your statement about "climbing a different mountain". The quote from Adam Hsu made refrence to the differences but said we should be looking at the same goal, you disagreed. What is so different about the goal of a northern or southern CMAist? See, I believe the pure core principels are (or should be) the same. I'm talking of yielding to force, controling the center, etc. Those things are not different from Northern to Southern CMA and really shouldn't be different from JMA to CMA, but all too often are.

All analogies have their limits and we may have run our course with this one.

Let's try it this way. There are two general approaches: people who want to be good fighters and people who want to master the principles of their art (fighting for them may be a small part of the picture).

For people in the first group (regardless of style), their goal is largely the same (i.e. the same "mountain") so what you're saying holds for them.

Now, at first glance, the "mastery" mountain seems the same. But if the principles and methods of those arts are very different then, then mastering those principles implies different goals or "mountains."

I realize that some people see mastery of their style through fighting as the goal. So the "mastery camp" may have two branches. What I'm suggesting is that some people see mastery as being beyond fighting. The style itself become the goal.

A good example of this would be the people who follow the "internal strength" approach. People like Mike Sigman, for example. They aren't concerned really with fighting but with mastering the way internal strength can be built and used through the body. Gaining those abilities is then the goal, actually beating someone with them may not even be a consideration.

Ok, moving according to a style specification is most assuredly going to be different from one style to the next, but what of the core principles?

The problem in this discussion is that you're emphasizing what the styles have in common and I'm emphasizing what they do not have in common.

Let's use a sports analogy. Swimmers and baseball players are all atheletes who want to win. They have that in common. And yet they have very different goals in mind. Also, the actions and training are very different. But no matter how hard they try, swimmers will never be baseball players through swimming or vice versa. Mastery of those sports are exclusive.

Thats just incorrect. IMO I would view that kind of mentality as naive when it comes to fighting. This is a huge mistake that is all too common in martial arts. Efficient does not mean lazy, slow, easy, inferior, or any of the things you would apply to "less of a robust workout".

You misunderstood. I never said that efficient means lazy, easy or inferior or any of that. If you use muscle tension to power to techniques then that method will burn more calories than trying to relax as much as possible. That's what i meant. I wasn't referring to fighting at all.

I also dont like to use absolutes when dealing with martial arts, to define a fighter by his style is a mistake, its not the style that makes the fighter but the individual.

We disagree again. The style will dictate which skill sets a person works with, fighter or not.

Again, you seem to base all your beliefs on personal biases. Because you have met better fighters in souther styles than norther means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you should get out and meet more northern fighters?

I didn't say I have met better fighters from southern styles. Actually, the opposite is true. I said that I have met MORE fighters from southern styles because I think that approach may lead to quicker results.

No, you didn't come across as arrogant yet, I was trying to say that using words like "some of you" might be taken as arrogant by people reading your posts. Ie this statement: Thats all I was saying.

And I stand by what I said. Someone who has never trained in authentic IMA can't really participate in this discussion because they won't have the necessary background to do so. They won't know what I'm talking about because they haven't experienced it. I'm not saying that this applies to you or anyone else on this board.

The whole reason I'm here is to share info with others, but like everyone else, there may be things we can't discuss because we don't have a common frame of reference.

Dave C.

 

[Gaoguy]

To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.

 

[mantis]

To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.

it would be a good idea to elaborate and give examples. disagreement without justification is easy, right?

 

[dmax999]

My 2 cents.

Many arguments about internal/external here, but lets look at some specific styles known for each and compare the BIG differences to get better understanding.

Karate [external] - You punch and kick, fairly simple.

Tai Chi [internal] - Still punching and kicking, just different methods of doing it. Biggest difference is shown in push hands training which Karate lacks.

To me this means, internal MA is the ability to "control" the fight because it allows you to "sense" opponents movements through contact and know their attacks before you can possibly see them. Internal relies more on feel and external more on sight and reaction time. I would say an internal style perfers to maintain contact throughout the fight because it provides better ability to control the opponent. This is also true in the differences between a beginning kung-fu student and an advanced kung-fu student (As the Adam Hsu quote stated)

An internal guy that can't maintain contact has no advantage over an external guy.

As for MMA fighters, a few actually practice Tai Chi. In addition their ground fighting completely relies on controling your opponent. While they don't practice Chi Gong they share many similar aspects to internal CMAs. Good western fencers are the same way just through a fencing foil instead.

Internal martial arts have no magical "I win the fight" technique. Its also silly to think that other great fighters of different styles can't possibly figure out similar techniques useable in their styles. Example: There is no difference between a correct fa-jing strike and a professional boxer's powerful strike.

The whole point of internal MA training is it gives anyone the ability to become a great fighter. MMA, boxing, or anthing else only the "natural" fighters figure out the "tricks". Internal MAs have a series of steps for learning and document them better then other styles.

 

[mantis]

My 2 cents.

Many arguments about internal/external here, but lets look at some specific styles known for each and compare the BIG differences to get better understanding.

Karate [external] - You punch and kick, fairly simple.

Tai Chi [internal] - Still punching and kicking, just different methods of doing it. Biggest difference is shown in push hands training which Karate lacks.

To me this means, internal MA is the ability to "control" the fight because it allows you to "sense" opponents movements through contact and know their attacks before you can possibly see them. Internal relies more on feel and external more on sight and reaction time. I would say an internal style perfers to maintain contact throughout the fight because it provides better ability to control the opponent. This is also true in the differences between a beginning kung-fu student and an advanced kung-fu student (As the Adam Hsu quote stated)

An internal guy that can't maintain contact has no advantage over an external guy.

As for MMA fighters, a few actually practice Tai Chi. In addition their ground fighting completely relies on controling your opponent. While they don't practice Chi Gong they share many similar aspects to internal CMAs. Good western fencers are the same way just through a fencing foil instead.

Internal martial arts have no magical "I win the fight" technique. Its also silly to think that other great fighters of different styles can't possibly figure out similar techniques useable in their styles. Example: There is no difference between a correct fa-jing strike and a professional boxer's powerful strike.

The whole point of internal MA training is it gives anyone the ability to become a great fighter. MMA, boxing, or anthing else only the "natural" fighters figure out the "tricks". Internal MAs have a series of steps for learning and document them better then other styles.

hmm.. that's an interesting argument. I have to disagree with you. Take this example. Mantis kung fu relies heavily on sticking and sensing. We do keep in contact at all times, but we are still an external art. None of 7 star PM is internal. You probably meant soft vs. hard more than internal vs. external.

There's another thread i started that has some sci resources on internal. My understanding so far is it has to do with the energy flow inside your body and having to make that energy 'exit' your body through your hands or head.. etc. feel free to search for the post titled 'more on internal' or something along the lines. the thread is here

feel free to read that and re-post your opinion on IMA if it changes

 

[chessman71]

My various responses to the points raised above:

To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.

Exactly and very succinctly put. I need to learn to make my points like that. Maybe that will save me time on the computer!

it would be a good idea to elaborate and give examples. disagreement without justification is easy, right?

I already listed many of the differences in my posts above and I even responded to your request for info on hung gar in a way that used that art as an example of what we are discussing.

Many arguments about internal/external here, but lets look at some specific styles known for each and compare the BIG differences to get better understanding.

Karate [external] - You punch and kick, fairly simple.

Tai Chi [internal] - Still punching and kicking, just different methods of doing it. Biggest difference is shown in push hands training which Karate lacks.

The biggest difference is how karate and taiji power the movements. That's COMPETELY different and no matter how long someone practices karate, it will never become taiji.

An example is a semi-famous karate sensei that i know that came to Taiwan to study XYQ. Problem is, he tenses up everytime he punches in beng quan, etc. I tried to explain to him that karate power comes from the muscles, but xingyi power comes from the bones (structure) and showed him numerous times how to relax throughout the movements and yet have power. He just couldn't get it because that was outside his experience.

None of 7 star PM is internal.

Most 7 star mantis branches that I know of at least have the five elements of XYQ in the forms. They have to be "dug out" a bit, if you see what I mean, but they are usually there.

There's another thread i started that has some sci resources on internal. My understanding so far is it has to do with the energy flow inside your body and having to make that energy 'exit' your body through your hands or head.. etc.

This is the main problem on message boards. We can't really discuss IMA by relying on documents alone. This stuff IS NOT intellectually or physically comphrehensible outside of a practice context. It just isn't.

Dave C.

 

[mantis]

yes 7 star mantis does have 'soft' principles, but it is still considered an external art.
i wanted more examples on southern vs. northern styles. i was quoting another post, not yours.

your example of karate and tai chi is inescapably clear, good example in fact.

thanks

 

[Gaoguy]

The problem about discussing the method of power generation in IMA is very difficult. It can be demonstrated quite readily. I have discussed bagua's shen fa with, for example, Uechi-ryu practitioners, and they invariably say, "oh we have that, too." And they simply do not. All I can say is when you see (feel) it, you'll know it. I've been down this road too many times, it generally leads nowhere. The body method is entirely different.

 

[7starmantis]

To say that southern and northern style will lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge of body method. Some northern system share similar power training methods as the IMA, but certainly not all. Southern systems use a different body method entirely.

Yes because body method is most assuredly the "end" all martial artist are striving for.
I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct? We have differing opinions and that seems to be where it will have to end. However allow me to clarify one more time my point.

Body method is not the goal or "mountain" of CMAs. Body method is simply that, a method of reaching a certain goal or performing a certain technique. The problem is when people start defining CMAs by techniques rather than principles. Thats a common issue seen from people with surface understanding of CMAs in general. I mean lets look at the root of the issue. What exactly is "internal" kung fu. What exactly is "external" kung fu. Lets address it this way. Lay out a list of what characterises and makes something "internal" and lay out a list for external as well. It cannot be done effectively because they intertwine too much. There was never a seperation until people who did not truly understand and where not truly skilled began spreading their misconceptions and lack of skill as qualified kung fu practitioners. So far in this thread we see these as descriptions for what actually is "internal" or "External" training:

• Body Mechanics
• Pushing yourself beyond what you are capable
• Similarities to known "internal" arts. ie. Tai Chi
• More efficient movement
• Less movement
• Moving according to stylistic charateristics
• Not "tensing up"
• Fighting vs non fighting motives

Clear so far? Do you see a pattern here? Those are all characteristics. Thats like defining mantis kung fu by saying , "It uses the dil sau" or "they use low stances"....see what I mean, charateristics of principles are not the principles. We teach principles to beginners by using drills of techniques, but its a bad mistake (and a common one) to asign a principle to a technique or charateristic, or body movement. This is hard to understand by reading or even hearing, it must be learned through feeling and doing. Take for example the post by mantis earlier in this thread where he states that 7* mantis has no internal ellements. I disagree and while our training differs a bit we are in the same family lineage. Why the disagreement? We see it differently, 3 or 4 years ago I would have sworn up and down the same thing he is saying, but having experienced things a bit more I see the picture differently. I say now that we have alot of internal training in mantis including qi gong and such. I think the problem with this thread is we all view "internal" differently, but we must remember as someone allready stated, that word has only been used for a relatively short period of time in kung fu.

So while body method may be different that does not contain or define the principles of CMA.

The biggest difference is how karate and taiji power the movements. That's COMPETELY different and no matter how long someone practices karate, it will never become taiji.

An example is a semi-famous karate sensei that i know that came to Taiwan to study XYQ. Problem is, he tenses up everytime he punches in beng quan, etc. I tried to explain to him that karate power comes from the muscles, but xingyi power comes from the bones (structure) and showed him numerous times how to relax throughout the movements and yet have power. He just couldn't get it because that was outside his experience.

Now, this is where I agree with you. Karate and Taiji use different ways to power the movement. I dont believe however that it has always been so. But, nevertheless, are the goals so different? The way power is generated may be different, but are they not both attempting to control the opponent? Now, grant it there are many systems of karate and CMA as well that are simply carbon copies of copies of their former systems. They have been so long watered down that they contain almost nothing of the original style, this also makes for a hard time understanding why there are so many differences. However, in CMA as a whole, the principles or "mountian" remains the same from northern to southern, or at least should. For a person to study CMA and leave out fighting is in my opinion only learning a portion or surface understnading of the style itself. There are people who do it, and I'm fine with that, people study for many reasons, but a CMA fighter is going to have a different understanding and application of principles from a person studying simply for forms and something to do.

7sm

 

[Gaoguy]

"I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct?"

I am. I started studying CMA...let's see, right. The year you were born. It was Babu Tanglang with Jason Tsou. You don't see the difference, that's fine with me. It's not my job to help you see it. I've been down this dead end too many times. I thought that both what I've written and what Dave has written have been very clear. That it isn't to you tells me it's a waste of typing to continue.

 

[mantis]

"I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct?"

I am. I started studying CMA...let's see, right. The year you were born. It was Babu Tanglang with Jason Tsou. You don't see the difference, that's fine with me. It's not my job to help you see it. I've been down this dead end too many times. I thought that both what I've written and what Dave has written have been very clear. That it isn't to you tells me it's a waste of typing to continue.

the thing is the way you put your arguments makes us have to trust you with what you say and take it for granted. so basically what you say is based on your own experience. you have to understand it's difficult to us to agree or disagree just because you say "i've been doing this the year you were born".

thanks for wasting some typing here

 

[7starmantis]

"I would say that to say northern and southern styles do not lead to the same end shows a lack of knowledge or skill in advanced principles of CMA. Now, who is correct?"

I am. I started studying CMA...let's see, right. The year you were born. It was Babu Tanglang with Jason Tsou. You don't see the difference, that's fine with me. It's not my job to help you see it. I've been down this dead end too many times. I thought that both what I've written and what Dave has written have been very clear. That it isn't to you tells me it's a waste of typing to continue.

No, you are very clear. VERY clear. Your statement that you have studied for a long time so you are right is faulty logic at its best. So, you have made yourself clear and refuse to listen to anyone who couldn't possibly be as skilled and knowledgeable as yourself

You have been clear, just incorrect. You have yet to offer any type of proof of your belief aside from the "I started studying the year you were born" crap. You haven't even clearly defined what you are so adamant about. The "you can't say it, you must feel it" has been done to death and is just plain incorrect. I'm sorry you feel your time spent on a message board designed to discuss things has been wasted discussing. Why exactly did you start posting here then? You came refusing to answer questions, just to amaze by your awesome knowledge of CMA? I'm not impressed.

By the way, this type of attitude and ego is exactly what is destroying the future of good CMA.

Good luck in your training,
7sm

 

[chessman71]

Again, various responses to points made:

The problem is when people start defining CMAs by techniques rather than principles. Thats a common issue seen from people with surface understanding of CMAs in general. I mean lets look at the root of the issue. What exactly is "internal" kung fu.

No offense, but I don't think you're seeing what you're actually saying. Yeah, the principles are important. But how people define the words in the principles differs very widely according to the style they practice. You mention that very point when you talk about defining "internal gung fu." Lots of people think that the arts are all the same because they all use the same language but the definitions are not the same.
Shaolin-do, Cuong Nhu, and Shaolin Kempo all supposedly have "internal" training. Karate practicioners may read the taiji classics and come to the conclusion that they practice the same art because karate is "relaxed" too. But the definitions of "internal" and "relaxed," etc. are completely different from what IMA practicioners, in general, would agree to.

Now, grant it there are many systems of karate and CMA as well that are simply carbon copies of copies of their former systems. They have been so long watered down that they contain almost nothing of the original style, this also makes for a hard time understanding why there are so many differences.

No. The Okinawan styles of karate show a lot of similarity to the FuJian white crane practiced here in Taiwan and, obviously, in Mainland China. FuJian (southern) arts, in general, show VERY DIFFERENT body methods from northern styles and it's very clear when you've seen them, to understand how karate evolved from the FuJian arts. Again, the FuJian arts use muscle tension in ways that northern arts, in general, DO NOT and that is the main difference. The FuJian arts are much "harder" than northern arts.

so basically what you say is based on your own experience.

It can't be any other way! Since we are talking about a physical practice, we must talk from our own experience. What should we do instead? Make reference to what someone wrote? Did the writer have experience with what he/she wrote about? In the end, we have to fall back on experience as the guide. People have either had the experince or they haven't. It's that simple.

Dave C.

 

[Gaoguy]

See Dave is much more diplomatic than I with this stuff. My position (and I've done this countless times) is of course I'm basing it on my experience. I don't know what else to say to you. I don't know what more you want. If you're not going to trust my years of experience (and yes that means since you were born) what more can I tell you? To dismiss the idea that it has to be shown to you (because you clearly don't understand it) is cutting off your nose to spite your face! Read over again what Dave or I have written, it's all spelled out there but you don't want to see it. You think I'm just being arrogant, but come to Plymouth MA and I will be happy to show you. Then you can report back. Go to Empty Flower and ask about me. Ask them if I'm full of ****. It doesn't matter to me if you understand it or believe me or anything. If you practice the nanquan shen fa, you will never get to the shen fa of the IMA, period.

"By the way, this type of attitude and ego is exactly what is destroying the future of good CMA." Kettle, you're black.

 

[7starmantis]

No offense, but I don't think you're seeing what you're actually saying. Yeah, the principles are important. But how people define the words in the principles differs very widely according to the style they practice. You mention that very point when you talk about defining "internal gung fu." Lots of people think that the arts are all the same because they all use the same language but the definitions are not the same.
Shaolin-do, Cuong Nhu, and Shaolin Kempo all supposedly have "internal" training. Karate practicioners may read the taiji classics and come to the conclusion that they practice the same art because karate is "relaxed" too. But the definitions of "internal" and "relaxed," etc. are completely different from what IMA practicioners, in general, would agree to.

I appologize I didn't make myself more clear. I dont mean to say I think all styles are the same, I dont believe that at all. I understand the margin of error for defining words in principles but does that mean that the principle doesn't truly mean one thing? Does the principle not have a static meaning simply because many people can't agree on its definition? I dont by any means mean to say that all arts are the same or even that northern and southern arts are the same, what I meant to say is that northern and southern styles, while different in intent, application, method, and focus; still all journey towards the same goal. What I dont understand is the adamant support of seperating CMAs based on newly assigned words that (as you agree) no one can agree on a meaning of. The lines between northern and southern, internal and external are quite distinct in the beginning however they begin to blur later on.

I agree with your later statements about a karate practitioner reading taiji classics, but I'm not refering to what a karate practitioner may read and believe but I'm refering to the base core principles of the original systems. for the sake of this discussion I'll stay within northern and southern CMA. I have yet to see an answer to what the goal is for these differing arts. This whole discussion came from the statement that northern and southern arts were "climbing different mountains". Ok, can you explain to me what goal or intent, or "mountain" is different from the use of "internal" to the use of "external" techniques? You see, it seems everyone is defining and trying to explain this from a individual motive idea. While you may use different body methods, different muscle tensions, etc what is different about what you are attempting to accomplish?

No. The Okinawan styles of karate show a lot of similarity to the FuJian white crane practiced here in Taiwan and, obviously, in Mainland China. FuJian (southern) arts, in general, show VERY DIFFERENT body methods from northern styles and it's very clear when you've seen them, to understand how karate evolved from the FuJian arts. Again, the FuJian arts use muscle tension in ways that northern arts, in general, DO NOT and that is the main difference. The FuJian arts are much "harder" than northern arts.

I agree, its very clear when seeing said arts to see how they developed. My point is that many developed incompletely. For example, take a lifelong american karate practitioner and explain to them "peng". Would that not equate to muscle tension to them? It has in my experience. So watching a southern "hard" stylist may seem like they are relying on strength to make their techniques work. Surely your not suggesting that southern arts are relient on muscluar strength to apply their techniques are you? The use of muscle tension in CMA is not (or should not be) to rely on overpowering the opponent. I agree that these arts are much "harder" than some northern arts, but why? What are they attempting to do with that "hardness"? I simply want people to look past the mere charateristics of a system and see differences. Look at these differences and see why they exist. What are they attempting to do differently? In CMA we should all understand that a mere observation is not wise to base anything on. What is the difference in intent between one "hard" technique and one "soft" technique? Answer me that and we will have a discussion, until that happens we are all simply going back and forth with the old "I'm right, your wrong" discussion.

It can't be any other way! Since we are talking about a physical practice, we must talk from our own experience. What should we do instead? Make reference to what someone wrote? Did the writer have experience with what he/she wrote about? In the end, we have to fall back on experience as the guide. People have either had the experince or they haven't. It's that simple.

Now that I agree with. However, there are those who have had much more experience than I and I am willing to trust them on these experiences. My sigung has had over 45 years of experience in mantis kung fu, I would tend to listen to him over my own observations, that is how we learn. If its all personal observation and experience its going to take quite a while to learn just a little bit, thats why teachers share thier experiences. While we must all make our own experiences, our teachers can lead us to them much quicker than stumbling around blind waiting to happen on an experience worth remembering.

No offense taken or meant, I enjoy these types of discussions.

See Dave is much more diplomatic than I with this stuff. My position (and I've done this countless times) is of course I'm basing it on my experience. I don't know what else to say to you. I don't know what more you want. If you're not going to trust my years of experience (and yes that means since you were born) what more can I tell you? To dismiss the idea that it has to be shown to you (because you clearly don't understand it) is cutting off your nose to spite your face! Read over again what Dave or I have written, it's all spelled out there but you don't want to see it. You think I'm just being arrogant, but come to Plymouth MA and I will be happy to show you. Then you can report back. Go to Empty Flower and ask about me. Ask them if I'm full of ****. It doesn't matter to me if you understand it or believe me or anything. If you practice the nanquan shen fa, you will never get to the shen fa of the IMA, period.

Diplomacy isn't the difference here. Why should I trust your supposed (and I say supposed because I've never met you or seen your kugn fu) experience over my sifu's 27 or so years, his sifu's 40+ years, his sifu's experience and so on? I didn't dismiss anything like that, I said using that as an excuse to not describe your point or arguement is tired. You come to a discussion board via the internet and expect to discuss using only the basis that "you must see or feel it to understand" and expect to be taken seriously? I have felt and seen it, thats why I discuss and attempt to explain what I have experienced. Obviously I'm not as clear as I think I am but I continue to try.

There is no need to take things so personal and really no need for personal challenges. We can disagree and I'll be just fine wont loose a bit of sleep, but I do enjoy reading about others experiences if they will attempt to describe them honestly. I'm not concerned with your reputation or "checking you out" that really has no bearing or consequence in my opinion to this discussion. You simply repeat your self screaming "I am right, I've studied longer than you have been alive" and yet refuse to answer specific questions or explain or describe your beliefs. I dont believe that time studying a system automatically equals knowledge or skill. I've asked both of you to explain to me the difference in intent or simply the differences in why one would use a "hard" technique (southern) instead of a "soft" technique (northern). You refuse to answer stating that I should "trust your years of experience. Not gonna happen on an internet board when I have years of expierience at my fingertips through my sifu, his many kung fu brothers, and their sifu. I may however understand your point better if you explained it here in words.

"By the way, this type of attitude and ego is exactly what is destroying the future of good CMA." Kettle, you're black.

Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense.

7sm

 

[Gaoguy]

No, it's not a defence, it's simply giving you back your own words. I have no need to defend my postion. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not you believe me or take me seriously. I did however offer a forum where you might go to ask others whether or not I'm talking out of my ***. I wasn't issuing a challenge but rather offering you the opportunity to feel what I'm saying rather than merely reading my words. Since you are unable to do this you can go to Empty Flower and ask. I have no interest in whether you lose sleep or not. I'm not taking this personally, I have no stake in your progress. As you say,"what you think about me is none of my business."

"For example, take a lifelong american karate practitioner and explain to them "peng". Would that not equate to muscle tension to them?"

Good example. Tell me what chocolate tastes like. You can give me all sorts of analogies, adjectives...whatever. All would fall short of my understanding the taste of chocolate. I could never understand by any description. But to experience it would give me instant understanding. I could readily show a karateka pengjin. And I could show them fairly readily how to feel it and develop it.

"What is the difference in intent between one "hard" technique and one "soft" technique?"

The difference isn't between hard and soft, nor technique. It's about entirely different methods of power generation.

 

[mantis]

Good example. Tell me what chocolate tastes like. You can give me all sorts of analogies, adjectives...whatever. All would fall short of my understanding the taste of chocolate. I could never understand by any description. But to experience it would give me instant understanding. I could readily show a karateka pengjin. And I could show them fairly readily how to feel it and develop it.

that's a "good example"?
no, but you say mix butter with coco or something and that's how it tastes like.
that's exactly the answer we'd expect here!
like for example you would say: practice tai chi and try to move your hips for example along with letting out of your breath. eventually this will develop something...

 

[7starmantis]

Good example. Tell me what chocolate tastes like. You can give me all sorts of analogies, adjectives...whatever. All would fall short of my understanding the taste of chocolate. I could never understand by any description. But to experience it would give me instant understanding. I could readily show a karateka pengjin. And I could show them fairly readily how to feel it and develop it.

Ok, but what are you proving? It seems your taking my statement out of context. I'm not arguing about how to understand something and I certainly dont think everyone learns their own version of it so it could be different from one to the next. There is a right and wrong way of doing things in CMA, even in internal training. Just because you taste the chocolate doesn't mean you could bake me a chocolate cake.

And I disagree. I dont think feeling equals understanding, I think doing brings about understanding. To a person who only knows muscular tension a technique involving peng would feel like muscular tension. This is how many systems have lost their more internal aspects.

The difference isn't between hard and soft, nor technique. It's about entirely different methods of power generation.

Um...ok....so what is the difference between these "entirely different methods of power generation"? What makes them "different mountains"? What makes the intent of each different? For the record I disagree that northern and southern CMAs use "entirely different methods of power generation". But so be it, I'm looking more for the principles past that physical characteristic. Are you saying that the different "mountains" if you will, are simply the different methods of power generation? If so I think that is cool, but a gross oversimplification of internal training. So called internal training encompasses alot more than mere power generation, but then again the word "internal" is as of yet undefined so we could use it to mean whatever we want. My attempts to get a definition of "internal" even for this one thread have all failed, what does that tell you? If no one can define these so called seperating factors in CMA, why are so many peopel so adamant about enforcing or upholding them, especially when they dont even agree from one to the next?

Mantis has a good point, on a discussion board we would expect an explination of a point, not just a "you just dont understand" argument.

7sm

 

[Gaoguy]

"To a person who only knows muscular tension a technique involving peng would feel like muscular tension. This is how many systems have lost their more internal aspects."

If you press my frame and I am exhibiting pengjin, you would not mistake it for tension.

"For the record I disagree that northern and southern CMAs use "entirely different methods of power generation". But so be it, I'm looking more for the principles past that physical characteristic. Are you saying that the different "mountains" if you will, are simply the different methods of power generation?"

What can I say? If you think that the way someone in Jook Lum or Hung Gar generates power and the way a Bagua guy generates power we have an impasse. They're not the same. I don't know what you mean by different mountain, it's not a phrase I used.

 

[7starmantis]

If you press my frame and I am exhibiting pengjin, you would not mistake it for tension.

Of course not, I understand peng. If you seriously think that you performing something on someone is going to make them understand it and be able to perform it themselves your naive.

What can I say? If you think that the way someone in Jook Lum or Hung Gar generates power and the way a Bagua guy generates power we have an impasse. They're not the same. I don't know what you mean by different mountain, it's not a phrase I used.

We are at an impasse, it seems you can't read my post without coloring it and bending it to what you allready believe is my point. I didn't say they were the same thing, I said I disagreed that they were "entirely different". You would understand what I meant if you read just far enough back as page 3. It was from the original quote by Adam Hsu and I started discussing in response to a post by Chessman regarding that phrase. Regardless of that word, you could still answer the other questions, no?

7sm