I’ve gotten several inquiries about this so I want to start responding a bit to those. But the first thing that strikes me is how odd the question is. Why would people who are supposed to be doing an IMA even ask a question like this? Isn’t it bizarre?
Let me respond with a few questions of my own.
What on earth do people think the “I” in IMA (internal martial art) stands for? Is it not there for a reason?
Even better is this: what is Chinese, internal, or artful about your CIMA practice? I see the obsession that most people have with the martial side of the name, but what about those other three words? Are they not there for a reason?
Why do people get involved with something like taiji anyway? Did you really start taijiquan so you could just “kick ass” or fight in the UFC? Why would people do such a thing? It makes no sense to me.
If all people want to do is kick ass then by all means pump weights and do MMA. Spend your life trying to be the baddest ass around. That’s fine if that’s what you want. But I don’t want that and for the life of me, I can’t fathom why anyone would try to learn an art like taijiquan or baguazhang to pursue those goals. I’ve never met n accomplished CIMA teacher that was like that, either.
What attracted you to taijquan or your CIMA in the first place? If it wasn’t something unique about the art, then why bother with it?
Here’s what I think is an important point: if you don’t want something out of your IMA practice that you couldn’t just get from an external practice, then you’d be better off just doing an external art.
People who “just want to fight” should simply look elsewhere IMO.
More later.
23 responses so far ↓
1 neijia // Mar 15, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I don’t “just want to fight”. I’m definitely into qigong and health and so on, but I think taijiquan is good for those “bad ass” goals as well. I for one wasn’t attracted to taijiquan for some unique property of it like probably most people seem to be. That’s because I’ve been around it all my life because my dad and his friends were constantly practicing, so there was never any novelty or uniqueness to it for me. It was just there like basketball might be for some other family. I didn’t start it to kick ass but I always believed it was an effective “ass kicking” art (and still do but 99.9% or more hobbyists won’t get that). It saddens me to see its decline away from the martial, but I agree with you mostly on your point of most people getting enough of the “bad ass” portion from external arts. However my interest is both how “internal” adds to that (for even more “bad ass-ness”) as well as how it gives more of the balanced set of benefits. I agree with what I think you’re really saying - that the ima uniqueness and draw is all of the above, the bad ass stuff and the other stuff.
2 Frank Bellemare // Mar 15, 2008 at 1:51 pm
As always you make good points Dave, but in the end what is it that you consider internal energy/qi to be, and how does it makes you a better fighter?
I love taijiquan for the cultural aspects, the pure beauty of the movements and the introspection and awareness it provides me. Nonetheless, I consider its martial aspect to be at least at important as those other ones.
If I do something called “martial arts” - “internal” or not- for 10 years, I’m hoping I can at least defend myself decently when attacked and not have to say later on my hospital bed “well I’m learning IMA so it’s only normal I got beaten–I would have kicked his ass in push hands, though!”
Anyways, I agree with a lot of what you say, Dave, and I hope you can clarify your ideas regarding Qi and proficiency in fighting, or in IMAs– if you consider the two to be separated.
3 Jay Gischer // Mar 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I think it’s important to expand the definition of “fighting” well beyond a sport, with a well defined ring, rules, a start, and and end. This is what MMA is, and I’m not knocking it, but that’s not what I’m after.
Clausewitz said that war is an extension of politics. I believe fighting is an extension of negotiation. I train to develop qualities that will serve me in the sphere of conflict. Some of these qualities can be called internal, mental, emotional, psychological, or whatever. They aren’t purely physical, but then the mind and the body aren’t really as easy to separate as we might think.
4 pete // Mar 15, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Historically, Dong Hai Chuan and others were bodyguards or involved in other real-fighting situations. The founder of Xingyiquan was a footsoldier.
Our concern is that much of so called Internal Martial Arts has become mere qigong or “taichi dance”–and that is a loss of rich traditional skill.
5 pete // Mar 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Often we here people say that they aren’t interested in real fighting ability. If so, then why not just do moving qigong or dance–you can get sensitivity or qi training this way.
My question is why do people who aren’t interested in fighting ability go for IMA rather than moving qigong?
6 pete // Mar 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sorry to multi-post but…
The premise above seems to be that MMA fighters are superior to authentic internal martial artists. What is your basis for this Dave?
The Taichichuan classics talk about a kind of skill that allows one to overcome mere strength or size with a skill, the metaphor of “when you see an old man beating young thugs” it mentions. Historically, the internal martial arts were developed by people who were already masters of hard martial arts. The historical opinion seems to suggest that internal art was a superior strength… and therefore it makes perfect sense for even someone “just interested in fighting” to study internal arts. You’re really committing the fallacy of begging the question when you start off assuming that outer strength/MMA is superior for fighting. The masters that invented internal arts did so for superior martial skill, not because they “wanted something besides fighting”. Remember, in Chinese culture there already was sitting meditation, qigong, taoist meditation, buddhist meditation… etc.. if people wanted “beauty in movement” there is dance, or “peace of mind” there is meditation… etc.. The historical fact–is that the internal arts were invented as martial arts superior to hard arts. The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
Appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion. And appreciate all opinions, though I clearly don’t agree with some. : )
7 Dave Chesser // Mar 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“The premise above seems to be that MMA fighters are superior to authentic internal martial artists. ”
No, that wasn’t my point.
8 Hermann // Mar 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm
In contrast to other martial arts IMA especially TJQ have various aspects not provided by any qigong or dance or external arts; if you didn’t get it, you missed as much as those who don’t know how to fight.
9 neijia // Mar 15, 2008 at 10:13 pm
There’s something special about these arts. No doubt that’s why we’re so interested, probably in different facets of them (since they are very multi-faceted). However at times I think we (maybe not the other people on the thread, but at least much of the community including myself) are like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant, getting bits of it right but sort of comedically when you step back and look at ourselves. Oh well. I don’t dare say I understand “the Dao” of it all yet but the bits are so cool and give enough of a glimpse one has to keep going…
10 Steve // Mar 15, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I have had 15 years of Chinese Martial arts experience.
My motivation for martial arts training was self-defense, exercise, and enjoyment of an ancient art.
I started with Shaolin Kenpo for four years and have spent the rest studying CCK Tai Chi Praying Mantis. I tried tai chi because I was told it would help me develop internal energy and make my external practice better.
I spent about four years studying taichi and I did not like it. I my opinion it was just okay, I did not love it they way I love external kung fu.
I like external training, external kung fu, lifting weights, but I am not a fan of MMA.
I think it is a form of entertainment not a martial art.
I have seen may masters that have great martial prowess and are tai chi masters but it is not for me.
I would be much more interested in iron body, iron palm or training like hung gar’s iron wire set.
There is definitely types of training that do not involve speed or power like taichi but every martial art should be Martial.
The students should train for fighting. If this is not the case then the school should advertise taichi as “taichi for health” and not the martial art taichi chuan.
I have seen so many people perform taichi that have a horse stance that looks like they are standing waiting at a bus stop.
I believe that even if you practice non martial tai chi one needs to have good fundamental stances. I believe that it is a demonstration of self respect and respect for your sifu.
There are also many people that when they learn that taichi has weapons training that they are horror struck and believe that it is evil.
Internal martial arts are not for every one but they should still be practiced for what they are a martial art.
11 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // Mar 15, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Labels and False Advertising
Just because one practices a style called Tai chi chuan, Baqua or Hsing-I, does not mean the guy is actually producting internal martial arts.
I have seen too many guys who are using “external” muscular/disconnected movements and calling it internal martial arts.
The practical result, always speaks for itself. The name internal martial art states explicitly that the nature is “martial”. All those who are not practicising for “fighting” are falsely advertising not only to their audience but, are also fooling themselves.
A true internal martial arts adept can “wipe out” any guy who challenges him. It is practical. His internal energy speaks for itself as he disposes of his opponents. This is the metric for proving whether or not you are doing internal martial arts.
And… usually, the adept is an old guy who did external martial arts and now finds himself doing internal martial arts to keep beating the young guy!
12 taijiquestion // Mar 16, 2008 at 2:26 am
quote: “…one needs to have good fundamental stances. I believe that it is a demonstration of self respect and respect for your sifu.”
Yes! There’s no point in applying for the school’s Debating team, if you haven’t passed English 101.
The point about self respect is a good one. It’s easy enough to see that we should respect sifu (or depart the class). But first and foremost, we shouldn’t kid ourselves any more than we have to.
Some of the comments reminded me of a point made to me by a kung fu teacher, regarding the view that taijiquan, to the extent that it was purposely “created”, was originally to address some weaknesses of the Shaolin Long Fist systems (which are of course themselves, tremendously formidible as demonstrated by the masters).
13 Fei Li // Mar 16, 2008 at 6:47 am
Internal without external is incomplete and goes against the basic principle of Yin and Yang.
Both have the opposite in it.
You have to have both to reach the highest level in your respective art, let it be a style of Gong Fu, Taiji, Xing Yi or whatever…
The way is different but all use internal and external
to perfection their art:
The whole Internal/external differentiation
makes no sense.
Last but not least all those Martial Arts where first and foremost invented for fighting.
They have all the other mentioned qualities - but its original sense was defense and nothing else.
14 wayne hansen // Mar 16, 2008 at 8:45 am
if you do not practice your art for combat what is your yardstick for correct movement.
chuan, chuan chuan.
tai chi without chuan is a concept of philosophy not a moving art.
lets be honest we all started to be bruce lee.
by that i mean we all wanted to feel safe and able to protect ourselves physically,mentally or spiritually.
do not think that the external is any less internal it is just a different way of moving.
look to someone like dan innosanto external to the max,but can you find a more internal martial artist than him.
any thinking external practicioner becomes internal with mastery and time.
and some that wear the internal cloak will never reach internal development.
and how long do internal masters have to prove that it works in combat before it becomes fact.
15 Scott // Mar 17, 2008 at 4:52 am
Wow, I just don’t get it! How can Pete, especially, claim that dance is not part of martial arts? It is absolutely integrated into the Chinese tradition at all levels. The people above who claim pure bodyguard and martial origins for the arts are simply not familiar with history. I know there are “historians” who make such claims but their evidence does not hold up to scrutiny, their sources were not free thinkers.
Qigong did not exist, not the way we think of it today. Trance dance yes, daoyin for religious reasons yes, even a little muscle tendon lengthening dedicated to your family sure, but all these things were also mixed with gongfu.
The inner gongfu idea was invented to cover these roots.
Internal means to separate jing and qi– the physical from what animates it. A weird idea if I ever heard one, and connected to martial arts only if you let it happen. The separation of jing and qi is related to the quest for all types of power and can worm it’s way into any action.
16 Scott // Mar 17, 2008 at 4:57 am
Wayne, I don’t think I started because I wanted to protect myself. I think I started because I had major aggression and wanted a safe way to fully explore and express it without having to worry that I was really going to hurt people. I wanted partners and teachers who could defend themselves from ME!
17 Weakness With a Twist » Self Defense (Not)! // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:53 am
[…] Hat tip: This came up because I was ranting over at formosaneijia […]
18 wayne hansen // Mar 17, 2008 at 7:16 am
my own teacher took up cma to curb his agression.
but you miss my point ,this is self defence on a mental or spiritual level.
give me the agressive student everytime over the student on a spiritual path because he will learn much quicker.
all spiritual quests follow the three levels of
earth/man /heaven
body/mind/spirit.
19 BL // Mar 17, 2008 at 9:44 am
intenal, external neither one has anything to do about fighting.
they are lables of methods or approches. If one feels that there is no differnce then i would humble suggest that maybe one has not really met anyone how can do it. It is quite clear after meeting such a person the what and why is it named as such.
Its about distinctions, not that one is better then the other but more about directions in practice ability and usage. Once developed the how or what one uses it for is up to themselves.
For my group the term internal refers to the training of the qi, jing and shen, the term external refers to the gu, pi, jin. Bone, skin, tendons. Different practices enhance either one. It is vital to be very clear about what one is working on.
we practice to be able to neisanhe 3 inner powers combined. as apposed to waisanhe 3 outer powers combined
both are very different practices, depending on degree practice very incompatible.
While the mind must function through the body, in external arts the primary concern is to reach the mind through the body, while we could say the internal ones deal with the mind directly. In order to do this one must first understand what is it, and how it functions with in ones own body. Later one will learn to feel it in another’s body, and much later to use this feeling directly.
There are arts where this idea is combined, and others where this idea is very separate and the usage depends directly on this ability. In my own taiji its really a very sepreate idea. much time is spent making distinctions to enable one to understand and train useing this approch. To gain this ability takes a long time and a very different path.
While in china it was common to hear people talking remarking that some one was very strong but had no inner power. Which for this group is what the main focus it.
Many videos on Utube show different masters demonstrating this, oddly these are the ones that get laughed at the most, while the ones demonstrating commonly understood body methods are held up as being indicative of what IMA is.
A matter of degree really. Even among taiji stylists and styles very few reach a point where what there practicing can really be said to be internal.
I think each person has to come to a point in their training where they really acknowledge what their doing is not quite in line with much of what is written of past taiji masters skills.
20 Meow // Apr 11, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I still do martial art to be the most strategic fighter, there isnt really much difference when you talk about the strategies they use other than the expression (btw, i think chi is bullshit, movement (i.e. force) requires muscles and mind, always)
21 Eric C // Apr 12, 2008 at 1:42 am
Meow, your flamebait is annoying. I suggest you take ‘chi is bullshit’ to another topic where it is more relevant. I would love to see how you came to the conclusion that the strategies are the same; that is not my experience. At best it is an oversimplification (all you have to do is hit the other guy before he hits you, right?).
22 meow // Apr 13, 2008 at 9:44 am
eric, settle down
simultaneous attack and defense, controlling angles, from blind spots or hidden strikes, these strategies are in many martial arts, but like i said, the expression is different.
Kind of like how all! m.a. will use the whole body and its weight to generate power, lots of different methods of doing so, but that is fundamental (just like the less effort the better (relying more on bodyweight to generate momentum, thus conserving energy, and allowing you to fight longer.)
23 meow // Apr 13, 2008 at 9:45 am
if you think differently, please explain why, although i use harsh language and bash chi
youll find im pretty open minded
Leave a Comment