IMO your article does not address "internal" vs. "external", it addresses "high skill" vs. "low skill".

You didn't classify any particular arts as "external" in your article. Why not, if you stand behind your theory?

Chris,
Nice home site, and welcome to the board. I'm sure if you search through some recent posts, you'll get a better sense of the high value the more sensible posters (most of us) put on training, drilling, and sparring over labelling and style. See how the distinction between the internal and external is sometimes fine, in some cases of a "high skill" artist and sometimes broad, as Tim illustrates. If you are prompting Tim to pick one of the three, orthodox, internal arts for its inherent, theoretical superiority to a likewise, specific, external style, it ain't gonna happen. Concluding his lucid exposition, Tim says that the value of _any_ art - internal, external, whatever - is in the skill and understanding of the user. Reading and thinking critically is also an art.

Chris M,
Exactly. I never classify arts as "internal" and "external" based on "styles."

If you are interested, read my interview in the new book "Nei Jia Quan." I talk in great length about how I define MA, based on principles and not names.

Tim,
You say in you article, "the factors that classify an art as either internal or external are clear-cut and concrete. This classification of an art as either internal or external is based solely on adherence in practice and use to a specific set of principles, and not on particular forms or posturing." And when you "talk about similarities and differences among the three orthodox internal styles and external martial arts", clearly you submit those three styles to classify as "internal". Though you never so identify an "external" style, what do you mean when you say, "I never classify arts as 'internal' and 'external' based on 'styles'"? Do you mean that the terms, "internal" and "external" are applicable to form but not so much to function? Are there sufficient external characteristics in application of the three orthodox internal styles as to blurr internal / external distinctions? Is the point of your article to minimize the internal / external classifications as you so clearly define those classifications?

I'd prefer not to use terms such as "internal" and "external" at all, to go back to pre-Twentieth Century terminology when all styles were referred to as "martial arts."

The labels are so commonplace now, their use is unavoidable. So I use the terms as I understand the originators of the terms used them.

In brief, styles commonly referred to as Internal are based on common principles, primarily the principles including not using force directly against force and using the power of the whole body against the weaknesses of the opponent (either structural or positional). If these principles are used, it doesn't matter what you label an art, it would be considered "Internal."

External styles will often condition one part of the body to be used as a primary weapon, and will base their defense on the ability to absorb attacks while attacking directly into oncoming force.

By extension, there are also principles of body use that will develop the attributes necessary to deliver techniques based on your overall strategy.

Great article, Tim!

Thanks!

Thanks Backarcher.

Great article Tim!

I look forward to reading more about "feeling" in the martial arts.

Please comment about the aspect of feeling vs thinking vs knowing. Would you consider knowing a combination of thinking and feeling?

Tim,

Most excellent read! Really appreicate the time/effort it took to synthesize that.

Thanks,

Hey Ken, hope all is well with you.

hello tim,

i have a question, here is a quote from your article,

For example, many external martial arts strike using the power of the waist and upper body from the base of a stable stance, the blow would be relaxed during delivery, then tightened for an instant at impact This type of strike is capable of generating a great amount of power, with the force being produced mainly by the waist and striking limb. This whipping of a limb and tensing at impact is referred to as "sectional power" ju bu li) and differs from the whole body power of internal martial arts.

can you please explain how the force from full body power(jengjing) is generated, in a similar fashion?

thank you, much respect, rob.

p.s. does a one inch punch utilize jengjing?

The majority of the strikes in IMA are done with the entire body mass moving forward into the target, usually with a more mobile base.

IMA do not use an "action/reaction" type of power generation where one side of the body is pulled back while the other side strikes forward.

"p.s. does a one inch punch utilize jengjing?"

It can.

thanks tim,

much respect, rob

Hi Tim and all,

First, I'm a HUGE fan of your Effortless Combat Throws book. The principles and appendix essays are the most lucid explanations I've read to date on taijiquan and the other "internal" arts. I've trained mainly in taiji and traditional standup jiu jitsu so far, and your explanations crystallize a lot of the movement principles I've been trying to grasp/intuit through practice. It really does help so much to have a better mental model. When I practice, I'm now thinking more concretely about what I'm trying to do. Eventually hopefully I'll internalize these principles completely. Thank you.

Just a few comments. I've read elsewhere (but cannot remember where) that "internal" originally referred to originating within China vs. "external" as originating outside, as in the supposed Shaolin Bodhidharma origins. It later took on the meanings mentioned here. I'm no scholar. It seems plausible to me as an ordinary learner given history and the China-centric worldview in the old days. I wonder if this is true at all.

I also love the Virtual Academy videos. I've never encountered a synthesis of Internal Chinese arts and BJJ. Brilliant! I'd love to train with you in California or in your seminars. Unfortunately I live on the East coast so don't know when this would even be possible. Will be checking your schedule on your site. Hopefully you will post how to inquire about inviting you to teach a seminar.

Thanks very much. You are an inspiration for internal Chinese arts practice, scholarship, MMA and MA period.

Sincerely,
Anonymous Fan

Thanks Fan. Your comments are appreciated.

Tim, Great article!. The breakdown of "sectional movement" and "whole body movement" is very thought provoking. Thank you for sharing! I have always considered the difference between internal and external to be strength vs. wisdom. The external requires strength and strength can fail. The internal utilizes wisdom in movement and everyone from a little girl to an old man can use it. AND at the base of this thinking is "sectional" vs. "whole body". Talk about breaking something down to its fundamental aspects- Tim, you alchemist you!

"strength vs. wisdom"

One time I was in class with Jimmy Woo and he was talking about how his understanding of using force had matured over the years.

He said "when I was young, I had to be the strongest guy around. If someone picked up a big rock, I had to pick up a bigger rock. Now that I am older, if I want to pick up a big rock, I get someone else to do it."

That's Jimmy H. Woo. If you do not remeber this requeat ssk your Ted Sias if our beloved street fighter turned humanitarian Lau Sifu did not request us to use his middle initial so he would not be confused with others named Jimmy Woo.

I would not bother to correct anyone who had not spent such time and profess such afection. Please idulge my correction.

He also did not want to be confused with Jimmy WooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Mr T faggin,

a frickin ha, a brilliant peanut gallery remark from a quire admirer.

I ran Marc Duncest off this board cause you nit wits don't have the written will to lambast, nor the wit, sarcasm or moxy to shiska bob the lame and deliver the quire from evil. Am I rockin Robinhood or the lonefricin Ranger. You pick prick.

Tea baggin, Is the Mr T bagin you ass? Pucker up pooch, here the colassal one eyed cumin your way. Bare it and grin butty.

And you wouldn't want to be confused with yourself. There's a double negative.