From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Hsing I Kung Fu
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:16:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov10.221724.16929@srg.srg.af.mil> schan@birch.srg.af.mil (Stephen Chan x4485) writes:
>	The internal stuff in Chinese MA always seems like it's supposed to
>be built on top of the external stuff. I know that this is true in Southern
>styles, but I've heard the same sentiment expressed by nominally Northern
>stylists.

This certainly agrees with the way that we study in the system
taught by Sin The'. It also makes a great deal of sense to me,
but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the only way to get good
at martial arts. I've met one or two internal-only people who
seemed to be pretty good. At any rate, we start with very hard
external material and, as we progress, add more and more internal
material, and shift the emphasis of the external material in
a more internal direction. The course of study, however, 
always presumes that you have first established a strong
external foundation.

>	From talking to Duck Cohen, I get the impression that (in ONE Chinese
>system at least), the broadsword forms are external, while the straightsword
>forms are internal. Normally, as soldiers rose through the ranks, they used
>broadsword, and then, when they became officers, they used the straightsword.

We learn both internal and external forms for both broadsword
and straight sword. For example, "Skewer the Sun Sword" is
distinctly external in character, though very much concerned with
finesse and fine movements. The Tai Chi sword form, on the other
hand, is distinctly internal in character.

>	From what I understand about how "internal" styles were taught, it was
>pretty similar to training in "external" systems: lots of stance training,
>practicing a lot basics, all kinds of physical conditioning (Chen Fake did lots
>of exercises to strengthen his hand/forearm strength). In the beginning, you
>had to use muscle, because you didn't know any better.

As we are learning the external basics, our instructors are constantly
telling us "relax, relax, relax" even as we are running through
endless strength and endurance conditioning. Each time we pass a
test on some set of basic balance and coordination skills, they then
add another set to learn which is incrementally more subtle and
difficult. Eventually, by our brown belt level, they are
ready to introduce Tai Chi. At that point they begin to talk more
earnestly about generating chi, deep relaxation in our movements,
wavelike whole-body power, listening energy, and so on.

>	Is anything lost by not studying an "external" system before going to
>an internal style? Or is it just a matter of putting off fighting ability, and
>possibly getting rid of bad habits before they get started?

I remember when I spent several years in Shin Shin Toitsu Aikido,
which is very soft indeed, the perfection of movement was one of
the best aspects of the training. At the same time, I did feel
that I spent a long time training for relatively little practical
advantage in self defense. I wouldn't try to generalize for
everyone, but I find that I prefer the external-to-internal approach.
I found it easier to learn the gross fighting movements and then refine
them than to begin with subtleties and then try to deduce their
application.

>	It seems that, since folks don't have time to study MA as previous
>generations of professional fighters did, segments of full curricula have been
>cut out of older systems, which were then marketted as being complete
>(or, as some of my old professors might say "necessary and sufficient").
>Leaving folks in later generations to try and put them back together again -
>hey, how many Taiji places practice a full art which includes stance
>training, forms, tui shou, da liu, san shou, and weapons? How many Aikidoka
>don't know how to apply effective atemi?

Well, in defense of the external-to-internal, comprehensive-system
approach, I'll say that years of stance training, conditioning,
free sparring, and learning forms, helped me a lot when it came
time to begin learning the Tai Chi solo sets. The fine-movement
aspects of Tai Chi then greatly benefited both my sparring and my
forms practice in material I had learned previously. In addition,
the experience in free sparring contributed positively to my
understanding of the practical meaning of movements in tui shou,
and, conversely, progress in tui shou translated directly into
improvement in my general sparring.