Chi-na

[Hand Sword]

Originally Posted by Doc

One of the reasons there is this huge misunderstanding about separate arts within arts can be found in the geographical, cultural progression, and evolution of the Chinese Arts which themselves, have always taken a holistic approach.

The volume of the information was so large and encompasses such an incredible amount of information, that as the art spread, individuals and/or cultures usually chose to address and concentrate on singular parts of information instead of focusing on the whole of the Chinese philosophy. In many cases there were simply nationalistic, cultural, philosophical, and physical differences and contradictions.

As an example, initially the Korean migration produced essentially "Tang Soo Do" which included specialized kicking influenced by Korean Culture and a measure of the joint and locking methodology, but it too adjusted to nationalistic mandates. The roots of this Korean Art is reflected in its name which pays homage to the Chinese and its inception concurrent during the "Tang Dynasty" in some historical circles. Much later, you have the sport Tae Kwon Do that eliminated much of the information found even in Tang Soo Do.

The Okinawa version of the Chinese Arts, initially called Okinawan Kempo, and later "te," generally called for concentrating on the Chinese breathing component, shallow stances, and a mild infusion (and misunderstanding) of Chinese "nerve strike" methodology via the "Bubishi." It is from this that most of the Japanese "discipline arts" sprang which de-emphasized application in favor of "style" or the "way" they are executed as a disciplined artistic activity. Thus the word or term "do" attached to most of their arts like “ken-do,” Ju-do,” Aiki-do” etc.

Also previously existing within Japanese Culture was the Samurai Arts, which had previously also “adapted” Chinese Chin Na in conjunction with the Japanese Long and short sword as a part of their methodology. When the samurai were banned and the sword removed they were left with what became "jiu-jitsu," and non "do" arts but missing long range attacks and blocking methodology that was done with the sword. This is the reason, generally, there is no “kicking” in these arts and they are primarily “defensive in application” without the “offensive” tools or weapons to reach and attack.

Modern 20th century "Ken/mpo" evolved through the Okinawa influence with a gradual re-infusion of its Chinese roots depending upon time and lineage, therefore for some the material is more inclusive of the Chinese Holistic approach, whereas others evolved on a more commercial level like Tracy's or Villari. Even within these designations, there are great variances due to individual instructors knowledge and lineages they themselves brought to the table. Al (Tracy) as an example, was unique for simply hiring those who had significant knowledge and skill to work for him for short periods to supplement teaching, and was the first to plunge into the commercial market with any degree of success.

Some misunderstood Mr. Parker who often spoke of "partial arts." Most evolutionary martial arts outside of China are "partial arts" in some way with modern 21st century life forcing the exclusion of many of the Chinese original components out of necessity. Life is no longer built around the martial sciences nor is dependent upon them for survival. Usually the more "commercial" a product is the more that is excluded.

Parker actually had Taijiquan in his original school via Jimmy Woo's (and others) teaching, and actually sought others to more complete his personal knowledge. He began to move back toward the Chinese holistic approach sans cultural baggage after coming to mainland U.S.A. He often spoke of the Japanese "way art" Aikido, and the Japanese "partial fighting art" Jiu-jitsu, how they differed in their applications, and how far they were removed from the Chinese Science methodology. Parker also acknowledge his own art(s) were “partial art(s)” but further emphasized its concentration on aspects necessary for survival, and acknowledged the stripping away of “cultural baggage that did not promote that perspective.

In my own experience I have been taught the concept of "integrated Chin Na" as opposed to attempting a "Chin Na infusion" into previous acquired information, and understand, it's complexity, as well as the necessity for the holistic approach platform necessary to begin to understand. I have friends and associates in the MSU who specialize in and run their own "college" as department heads in Aikido and jujitsu. Professor David Bellman is our jiu-jitsu department head and he is in the DanZan Ryu lineage of Professor Henry Okazaki. In addition, we have Minoru J. Shibata as our Aikido department head. My good friend Mits Yamashita, an Aikido master, and I attended the F.B.I. Defensive Tactics Instructor School together. I only mention these people to give an idea of how Parker integrated Chin Na into his Kenpo and how I continually consult and am scrutinized by peers who although masters in their own art have a less in-depth understanding of human manipulations than I do. This is not because of their capability but because of lineage and cultural limitations of evolution.

Parker also went a step further and removed the cultural aspects of Chin Na as well, and focused on modern street applications that changed it significantly through "street mandates." "Pete" and "clfsean" are quite correct and their effort to recover this information and integrate it is commendable. Few would tackle something as complex as Chin Na, and instead would probably op for modern non-traditional jiu-jitsu known as "sport grappling." A deep bow for you gentlemen is warranted. As for “Handsword,” I peeked at your birthday and had to smile. (Not in condescension by the way, but as an old man looking back to when I was there) Considering your modest time on earth and even shorter in the arts, don’t be so quick to “dig in” on your opinions. Maybe you should communicate with Pete who has spent some significant time actually acquiring information from a teacher on a physical level as opposed to videos and books, as well as others like clfsean. It is not necessary you communicate with me, but all things considered, be a bit more opened minded sir and listen (read) a bit more. I thank you for your indulgence and consideration.

I have received the live training, as I said Chin Na is part of our system, almost from the beginning, as well as the mongolian wrestling. The books and videos I discussed were simply a means for the thread starter to get a quick referrence, since they seemed unfamiliar (perhaps I misjudged the question). That's also why I recommended looking at the Aikido locks, and holds themselves, as that might be more familiar.

P.S.: I'm very open minded, you have to be coming up in Villari's way, and dealing with the "superior" systems mind set. I have always listened and referenced, and trained that way, so as to not be trapped in my sytem. I had a great many disputes with that attitude, beleive me!

[Mark L]

Originally Posted by Doc

...He also dictated that when it was addressed, the manipulations should not be of the "pain compliance" method.

I'm not an AK practioner, so please excuse my ignorance. What method should the manipulations be of, when addressed?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Mark L

I'm not an AK practioner, so please excuse my ignorance. What method should the manipulations be of, when addressed?

Actually the philosophy was born out of my law enforcement experience in conjunction with a project Mr. Parker and I were collaborating on.

Mr. Parker and I in concert determined that "pain compliance" was not a good idea. Mr. Parker felt "Any technique that relied wholly on pain was doomed to eventual failure" due to the varying levels of pain sensitivity between individuals, and even different techniques on the same individual.

Therefore the Control Manipulation component was mandated to be "non pain compliance reliant," with the emphasis placed on understanding "anatomical restrictive body mechnisms" to exercise "control" rather than cause pain. We philosophically agreed that "pain compliance" was an elementary and neanderthal approach to what he was attempting to infuse into techniques at the higher end of the spectrum of Kenpo.

This methodology has historically merit as well, in that in the arts the higher level masters and professors have always been capable of "control" without creating "injury."

Thanks to all that responded to my question.

Doc, Sir, Thank you for the indepth responce. I am new to MA and having someone like yourself (with years of serious study & colaberation with MA leaders) share their knowledge is something I consider a privilage & honor to receive.

Hand Sword thanks for your spirited input. As you have studied in the Villari system, I might ask some future question of you if you don't mind. I am just starting it and I am enjoying myself very much and am very excited to learn this system and then learn more styles that are out there.

Thanks again & I hope as I progress and have question(I'm sure I will have many) I will get the helpful answers as I have received on this thread.

CK