A discussion on a different thread led me to start this one. It seems there is a big differing of ideas in the CMA community as to what is or is not "internal" or "external" training or kung fu. I would like to focus on defining what makes a style or system internal or external. There are many ideas about this here are a few:
"Taijiquan, baguazhang, and xingyiquan were all clasified as the popular internal styles. The credability of this was, and still is, upheld by conveniently pointing to ancient and highly esteemed religious and moral philosophies that shared similar terminology bet were unrelated to martial arts in any other way."
"In Chinese, the words used for external and internal are wai and nei respectively. Chinese people never would willingly like to be refered to as wai hang or men wai hang, which means an outsider, amateurish, unskilled. Because of these connotations, everyone naturally wanted to be considered nei or internal. It was allways the other people who were wai, external, outside."
So it appears he feels the seperations or divisions of these styles was never meant to be or was brought about incorrectly. So, what do you think? Can any style be internal and/or external according to the practitioners understanding and skill? If so, what are the definitions of "internal" and "external" in kung fu? What about fighting? Since CMA is really based around fighting, are the principles of fighting different from internal to external systems? Do they share any similarities at all? Is internal training as different from external training as CMA is from JMA? Can the two work together or are they opposing ideas?
7sm
- Styles with Buddhist roots are external because Buddhism originated outside of China. Styles with Taoist roots are internal because Taoism originated within China.
- Hard or fast movements are external while soft or slow movements are internal.
- Overpowering or destroying an opponent with technique and application is external while using the opponents own force agains them is internal.
- Lots of movements or big movements (circles) is external while simpler smaller movements is internal.
- Using force or generating power from the waist is external while yielding to force or generating power with the whole body is internal.
"Taijiquan, baguazhang, and xingyiquan were all clasified as the popular internal styles. The credability of this was, and still is, upheld by conveniently pointing to ancient and highly esteemed religious and moral philosophies that shared similar terminology bet were unrelated to martial arts in any other way."
"In Chinese, the words used for external and internal are wai and nei respectively. Chinese people never would willingly like to be refered to as wai hang or men wai hang, which means an outsider, amateurish, unskilled. Because of these connotations, everyone naturally wanted to be considered nei or internal. It was allways the other people who were wai, external, outside."
So it appears he feels the seperations or divisions of these styles was never meant to be or was brought about incorrectly. So, what do you think? Can any style be internal and/or external according to the practitioners understanding and skill? If so, what are the definitions of "internal" and "external" in kung fu? What about fighting? Since CMA is really based around fighting, are the principles of fighting different from internal to external systems? Do they share any similarities at all? Is internal training as different from external training as CMA is from JMA? Can the two work together or are they opposing ideas?
7sm