Internal vs. External (Again0

[miked]

Hello all,

I started a new thread due to the length of the previous one and the fact that some individuals have complained that their PC's can't handle threads that contain too many postings.

Now, to the matter at hand. The individual that stirs up controversy on this and other forums has never once answered two questions I have posed to him on several occassions.

To wit:

Does it really make a difference it to the YBSSDOH (yellow bellied scum sucking dreg of humanity) or Mr. Gang Banger whether the power used to crush his ribs, smash his limbs and destroy his facial structure was generated internally or externally?

Should it really matter to the Martial Artist, who has effectively defended his family from a violent encounter from the YBSSDOH or Mr. Gang Banger, whether the power was generated internally or externally?

Sensei Glasheen was nice enough to explain that exploration of process was important to him as well as ultimate results. This does make sense to me but it appears that the individual in question has an agenda that promotes his own self-interest.

Breathlessly (or is that vainly?)awaiting
a cogent, rational and well-thought response to my questions from the internal adherents.

Mike

[Rick Wilson]

Mike:

You ask a very good question. To many they generate all the power they feel that they need, and therefore may search no more. If that power drops the gangbanger, then they may never need any more. If a person has always successfully defended himself with just swinging his arm then why learn to put any body into the strike? We know he will strike harder, but if he doesn't feel he needs it, then so what?

So to some the answer may well be that they need to look no further. And if they are effective, then may be they don't need to.

I like to search for the most effective way. Right now that means looking into what I call internal. I don't know if others would agree to whether or not I am looking into internal. (Sometimes a discussion of this nature is very hard because people are using one word that they think they agree on a definition for. Later when it becomes clear that they really don't, and you try to define what you are thinking for the purposes of clarity, you can end up be accused of changing the definition. When really you had changed nothing.)

So why am I searching the internal side? Because I have already found it to be more effective that what I (I repeat "I") was doing. I have found that there are many levels of striking and just as many levels of effectiveness. And if that gangbanger is pumped up on the chemical cocktail or drugs, then I want all the effectiveness that I can get.

While not the person originally addressed by this question, that is my thinking on it.

Rick

[miked]

To Sensei Wilson,

Thank you! You have given me an answer that makes total sense and was, quite frankly, right under my nose. I just couldn't see it.

IMHO, learning anything that can enhance greater effectiveness and power is definitely worth studying.

So now this leads to other questions for internal adherents.

My understanding of Sanchin is that it has been practiced in some form or fashion for hundreds (thousands?) of years in China. The so called "internal systems" practiced in China are very much inter-related and share common roots. The logical conclusion from this prelude is that Sanchin and PanGaiNoon had the same common roots as the "internal" Chinese systems systems. Asssuming that the preceding statements are true, then it only makes sense that the practice of Sanchin is ultimately an "internal" practice.

Of course, IMHO, it would be impossible to understand and efffectively master the "internal" aspect of Sanchin in just a few years. Apparently, the controversial author, who shall remain nameless, admittedly only studied with the Kenyukai group for a couple of years and therefore, would never have been able to fully develop the internal aspect of the Sanchin form.

Did not Uechi Kanbun state that "All is in in Sanchin"? Would this statement not imply that all of the internal and external aspects of Martial Arts were incorporated in the practice of Sanchin? Or is it the case that Uechi Kanbun, Uechi Kanei, Tomoyose O'Sensei, Shinjo O'Sensei, Uehara O'Sensei and all the other Uechi "greats" were ignorant of internal aspects and therefore didn't incorporate these concepts into the practice of our art? You be the judge!

I believe that the beauty of Sanchin lies in its seeming simplicity and its underlying complexity. Sanchin takes a short time to learn and a lifetime to master. To suggest that those who have spent a lifetime mastering Sanchin and Uechi-ryu have not developed both the internal and external components of our art, is the height of arrogance.

Sincerely,

Mike DeDonato

[JOHN THURSTON]

MIKE SAN:

OH NO NOT INTERNAL VS. EXERNAL AGAIN!!!

The answers to your questions are, of course, no and no.

As pointed out by Sensei Wilson, one portion of the idea of labeling something "internal" is, apparently, to develop maximum efficiency in a technique through maximum connection of your body to itself and the earth.

Sanchin is an internal form. (OH GOD I"M GONNA BE IN TROUBLE AGAIN) It is possibly a Chi Gung aimed which improves efficiency by
(well YOU lnow how).

Chinese lineage Masters and instructors a loath to allow this label to be attached to Sanchin for several reason (maybe) a. It does not appear complex enough b. they feel the label of instructor of internal arts is theirs c. it contains some techniques that might be called, under a narrower definition "external"

That's fine. Tai Chi claims and probably is a valid internal art with a primary emphasis of developing techniques that generate their power WITH AS LITTLE MUSCULAR TENSION AND IMVOLVEMENT AS POSSIBLE. Sanchin also does this, but, to a somewhat lesser extent. Neverthelss, Tai Chi contains techniques whie could be labed "external" (or at least less internal=it's kicks). Conversely at every point where an instructor of Sanchin teaches you to "connect through to the ground" on your strike" and be "circuluar and connected" on your wa uke" he is teaching you internal body structure and alignment to maximixe the effectiveness of a particluar motion.

As J.D. quite rightly pointed out, beyond this it is how you "label" your approach to matters as much as anything else which presently if inaccurately defines "internal vs. external" beyond the walls of this reality/forum. It is also a matter of degree and teaching emphasis.

Tai Chi in its teaching regimen appears to place more emphasis on "internal and ground connections of the tendons bones and ligamaents" for its techniques. Does this mean that this focus is totally lacking in Sanchin-NO. Is it more obvious when working with a Tai Chi Instructor IMOHO yes.

JOHN T

------------------

[JOHN THURSTON]

P.S.-

I apologize for repeating myself, however, the question keeps repeating itself as well.

The Athenians said "We allow Alexander to call himself a god, if he wishes"

This hit on something that J.D. said, I believe, probably echoed by others ie: when Tai Chi, Hsing-I , Ba Gua and perhaps Ba Fa were initially touted as 'internal arts', it stuck. To some extent because it is at least partially true and, unlike Alexander, there is no discernible likelihood that these arts will die in the immediate future, thus disproving the proposition.

Also, to repeat myself, Sanchin claims and has positive health benefits from its practice. The Chinese Masters and/or those who write for them are inlikely to willingly admit this as they simply want to hang on to the label for themselves.

From their point of view this is sound business, and, from their perspective, truthful behaviour.

Their pride in what they feel a 'their' particular heritage may also be at stake.

Would you, if you were a Chines Master, say the following: "Oh yeah, that Japanese evolved Sanchin is a pretty good internal art too."

Maybe next year. Even if they did they would be at pains to point out, correctly,its roots.

Maybe some Chinese Masters or writers actually do admit it, but that will not equate to an admission that Sanchin might be as good as their internal arts.

Honestly, in some ways they would be right, and in some ways they would be wrong.

JOHN T



------------------

[Bill Glasheen]

Note: This post relates to MIKED's original post on this thread. I just called Bill at home (He only accesses the web at his office and therefore would not be able to clarify this post until then.) I knew that Bill was not referring to any recent posts and would not want people to misunderstand his motives. He promises to clarify things on Monday. He did ask me to apologize to John T. for any misunderstanding. GEM

Gentlemen

It would be disingenuous of me to not point something out. It seems that there are limits to the rights of free speech. You may call the president of the U.S. a fool, but you may not yell fire in a movie theatre.

While I am the most tolerant of speech among all the forums, there are limits. Most of us are putting a lot of gratis work into this web page and forum. Some of us tolerate the insufferable more than others. But none of us need to be in a position to be the victim of lawsuits because certain individuals are threatening others publically or privately, directly or indirectly. After consultation with counsel, a decision was made to exercise a blocking feature where it was felt that to do otherwise was negligent. The decision was made at a level above me, at the advice of counsel.

You may contact the unnamed person directly if you wish. However I think Mr. Thurston and Mr. Wilson are already generating more light than heat, more ji than hot air. Don't waste your time with the socially challenged.

Bill

[This message has been edited by gmattson (edited 04-03-99).]

[JOHN THURSTON]

Bill Sensei:

OK.

If I did or said something wrong, just let me know and it will not reoccur.

JOHN T

------------------

[gmattson]

Please read the note I added to Bill's post.

------------------
GEM

[JOHN THURSTON]

GEM SENSEI:

Thank you for your prompt response. I was quite confused.

I enjoy the forums so very much that it would SERIOUSLY upset me if I said or did any inappropriate.

Thank you.

JOHN T.

------------------

[JOHN THURSTON]

Excuse me:

"Anything" inappropriate.

Hopefully I will get to met Bill Sensei this Summer. (and a lot of other new friends)

JOHN T

------------------

[Bill Glasheen]

John

You were worth the trip tonight.

Sorry.

There was activity on this forum in the past. It reached a level of inappropriate behavior. As a result, two individuals were blocked from the forum. One of those individuals tried to post again (long after the block was put in) and discovered the barrier. I was asked to be the messenger. No thank you.

I was making it clear to those who might like to engage in a discussion with this individual (that was likely to be fruitless) that it wasn't going to happen on this forum. I also made it clear that the block was serendipitous. It seems that a few mere "guppies" shed more light - without controversy - than would have transpired had another stepped into the discussion with his admitted (and I can quote) pleasure at creating controversy.

Once again, no need to give attention to someone who doesn't warrant it. I have not mentioned any names. Sorry if anyone misunderstood the direction of my unkind words.

Now...back to the more-productive discussion.

-- The management

[JOHN THURSTON]

Bill Sensei:

I appreciate any trip you made or might ever make on my behalf.

Thank you.

JOHN T

------------------

[Joe Bellone]

Hi Anthony,

You know what's interesting, in Hsing-I Chuan there's a lot of two man sparring drills. In fact, there's a lot of similarity between Dan Kumite and some of these drills. The Hebei styles of Hsing-I have more of the Dan Kumite "flavor." Shan Xi styles of Hsing-I are more "slippery" in nature. (This is the flavor, I practice) The Honan styles (the oldest of the Hsing-I flavors) are explosive and don't "look" internal.

Bagua Zhang has a lot of two man drills. Gao style is loaded with them. Sun (my flavor of choice) has some, although not as complex as Gao and has a lot of Hsing-I influence.

Yang Tai Chi Chuan has two man drill. Gin Soon Chu in Boston's Chinatown teaches a really cool looking one.

Now if you're talking about free sparring, I can only comment about Hsing-I and Bagua. The answer is yes. At least at Tim Cartmell's school. I'm sure some of the better schools like Tom Bisio and Vince Blacks rock 'n roll also. It involves what I call from "soup to nuts." Take downs, grab and strike, elbows, whatever it takes. It can get pretty nasty and a lot of "new age" folks don't do it, because they'd loose students. Besides, "feeling your energy" is much less stressful. That's why pushhands is the "end all" in a lot of bad internal arts.

People forget that a lot of these bad ass internal old Chinese guys were fierce fighters. They trained hard and trained for fighting. It's too bad that a lot of internal guys don't train the same way.

Joe

[maurice richard libby]

Anthony,

In Wu Style Taijiquan there are two kinds of two person drills: Push Hands, and another that I never learned the name of. By the way, don't be fooled by push hands practice, when two advanced students go at it, push hands can be pretty brutal. They also do application drills. Furthermore, they also do kumite in the sense of free fighting. some people, I am told, never join the advanced classes because they are afraid to spar full-contact. When I studied Wu Style, they thought Shotokan-ka were kind of wussy because they did point sparring instead of full-contact. There are now tournaments where taijquan people fight.

In Hong Kong, for years there was a kind of open fighting contest where people from all the different styles would test themselves, both internal and external. When I was told about it, the man who was undefeated for many years was an ancient taiji guy. That was many years ago, like maybe the mid-eighties.

Mike: the reason for caring whether your power is generated externally or internally is related to age. the theory is that internal power generation (this has nothing to do with Ch'i. by the way) is that external generation of power decreases as you age, but internal power, because it uses muscles more efficiently and is less dependant on sheer muscle mass, can still be generated at a very advanced age. In other words, whether the power is generated internally or externally is of more concern to the generator than the recipient.

Even before you get old, the advantage, so they say, of internal power is that it uses less energy (being more efficient), and that in itself is advantageous.

To all: i was just lookimng over some stuff I downloaded from the "Articles" page and rediscovered one of the best descriptions about the difference between internal and external power. It is by joe Bellone, and is well worth a look.

------------------
maurice richard libby
toronto/moose jaw
Ronin at large

[JOHN THURSTON]

Anthony and Joe San:

The Yang Tai Chi I do has two man moving sets, but these appear to be more in the nature of perpetual motion "push hands" than a Kumite.

Stylists do maintain that "push hands" is a Tai Chi "free sparring". Well, I don't know if I buy into that completely, but it can get pretty rough. Sort of like Indian Wrestling.

I can only assume that Master Yang Cheng Fu was not called Yang the "Invicible" for nothing, as Joe pointed out.

Three legends in connection with him are of some interest; but absolutely not verifiable, 1. He was never beaten 2. He never actually killed anyone in his single combats, and, as the strory has it, saved one opponent from falling to his death from a city wall, after having (immediately after) defeating him 3. He may have "detoxified" his personal brand of Chuan after being literally pressed into service to teach the Emporer's Guard, thus leading to the thought that the systems we see today are not "complete".


Since we hear the same thing about every system, including "our own", I suppose this should not come as a surprise.

JOHN T

------------------