Chi-na

Villari teachs Chi-na. Is this part of Kempo or a different art? What are it's orgins?

Thanks

CKC

[Doc]

Originally Posted by CKC

Villari teachs Chi-na. Is this part of Kempo or a different art? What are it's orgins?

Thanks

CKC

It is generally accepted that "Chin Na" is the manipulation component found in all original Chinese Fighting Arts, and is the ultimate origin of traditional Japanese Jiu-jitsu (the original fighting art of Japan), which is what was left after the Samurai and the sword were banned. It is the reason why there are no defined blocks or long range attacks in jiu-jitsu. They were originally handled by the long Sword.

It is indeed a part of some Kenpo interpretations, however it is specifically and intentionally NOT a part of Motion Kenpo. That doesn't mean that there are not innovative instructors who attempt to move beyond the superficial fourth range of "Contact Manipulation" found in Motion kenpo to the more difficult and true grappling control range of "Control Manipulation."

Because American Kenpo as I understand it is Chinese in origin, Chin na can be a part of its curriculum if the instructor was taught that way. Others still go to grappling arts and bring back their experience to "add to" their Kenpo. My problem is people tend to gravitate to the "sport" grapping to suppliment their Kenpo as opposed to more traditional grappling disciplines like Chin na or traditional jiu-jitsu which can intergrate better with Kenpo techniques. Still I commend all who would attempt to "fill holes" in their education with available material, as long as they leave the suggestion that "Kenpo has holes" behind. Some teachers are better than others, and some have more "holes" than others. But remember the "holes" belong to the instructor, not to Ed Parker's kenpo.

Mr. Parker dictated that manipulations are a large part of the curriculum as I understand it. In fact if one were to look at the base curriculum of technique attacks, two-thirds to three-quarters are some type of push, pull, hugging, tackling, grappling type assault, so clearly it was meant to be addressed. Unfortunately he only gave a hint of it in motion kenpo. He also dictated that when it was addressed, the manipulations should not be of the "pain compliance" method.

[Hand Sword]

Originally Posted by CKC

Villari teachs Chi-na. Is this part of Kempo or a different art? What are it's orgins?

Thanks

CKC

Chin Na is a system that can be studied separately, however, it is part of Grand Master Villari's Shaolin Kempo system, as is Mongolian Wrestling. They are blended with Karate, and Kempo, and are usually seen in the more advanced levels. Chin Na is of Chinese origin, translating to seize, and control, I beleive. There are plenty of books and videos available for a quick reference on Chin Na if you wanted a quick view. It's basically like Aikido holds and locks if your more familiar with that.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Hand Sword

Chin Na is a system that can be studied separately,

Real Chin Na can not be studied as a separate art. It's foundation is a part of the basic methodology of the Chinese Arts. Its much like "breathing." in the Chinese Arts breathing is just a part of the art, and unlike some arts, its not studied separately from its applications and basics.

There are plenty of books and videos available for a quick reference on Chin Na if you wanted a quick view. It's basically like Aikido holds and locks if your more familiar with that.

Lots of books and tapes and none of them explain true Chin Na. Much like everything else its about making a quick buck. Chin na is nothing like Aikido, either physically or philosophically.
Sorry.

[Brother John]

Originally Posted by Doc

I commend all who would attempt to "fill holes" in their education with available material, as long as they leave the suggestion that "Kenpo has holes" behind. Some teachers are better than others, and some have more "holes" than others. But remember the "holes" belong to the instructor, not to Ed Parker's kenpo.

I really like this way of looking at it! No "Holes", but places where a knowledgeable/informed/trained person can build from.

Isn't it true, sir, that you were taught Chin-na (amonst other things) from Mr. Ark Yuey Wong, and that that's where you met (or at least through whom you met) Mr. Parker???
I could have this backwards, but I thought this was the case.

Your Brother
John

[pete]

Dr Yang, Jwing-Ming is probably the world's foremost authority on Chin Na (Qinna), bar none. He has published several books and videos of the highest quality, and has produced several highly skilled instructors. see www.ymaa.com.

According to Dr Yang, ALL Chinese Martial arts are comprised of (1) Striking, (2) Wrestling, and (3) Chin Na. ALL 3 components must be present, otherwise it is not a complete CMA. additionally, there are qigong, meditative, and healing components as well.

For those of us in Kenpo, a 'hole' may exist due to the reasons Doc has posted, and these have been discussed to death on these forums. If this hole is a reality for you, I HIGHLY recommend the materials from Dr Yang. However, these materials are not enough to truly develop the feeling for applying the techniques... to use your whole body to control his whole body... or to learn the anti-chin na counters.

Dr Yang has a series of 3 day seminars that are offered at his training center in Boston, and around the country at affiliated studios where the subtleties can be learned. I've attended 3 thus far, and will attend 4th next weekend. we also stay in touch with fellow students and train as study groups between seminars. This is where the books and videos have value, in working through the details after learning them... we know when something just isn't right~

The beauty of this series is that while Dr Yang's primary style is Southern White Crane, the material is presented in such a way that can be adapted to your style, whether it be kenpo, or otherwise. Adapting it to kenpo does take effort and practice, its not automatic, and you need to have a good handle on the base chin na first.

And from what I've seen thus far, Doc is right on the money regarding its comparison to Aikido. I've never trained in it myself, but Aikido practitioners seem to have greater difficulty applying the Chin Na because of conflicting principles.

pete

[Hand Sword]

I respect you doc, but, with all due respect, your wrong on this one, Chin Na is a system by itself. The whole art of seizing and controlling an opponent is a separate study unto itself, taking years of practice. As far as the comparison of Aikido, I was talking about the actual locks and holds, the same ones are found in both systems, how you go about applying them physically, or philosophically (I.E. : who's style is better?) is another debate for another time. Ultimately, upon the actual implementation of the lock or hold, there are only so many ways to accomplish this. With all due respect, EPAK has nothing to do with this, we are talking about Fred Villari's Kempo, and that evolved along a different line from your kempo.
With respect!
Hand Sword

[clfsean]

I don't practice Kenpo, but as a TCMA player, I gotta chime in.

Doc is right about about it being integral to ALL CMA's, but it is not a "style" or "system" unto itself. It's part of a larger whole & can not be practiced effectively without the rest of it.

Pete posted about Dr Yang's view/definition of CMA consisting of 3 major pieces. Qin na is a piece of the puzzle again, not a whole.

I can you nothing but Qin na & you will learn some nifty locks/manipulations/escapes/counters & such. The first time you try to use them you will probably get your butt handed to you. Why? Not because of what I taught, but you will only have part of the puzzle & therefore incomplete & inconsistant knowledge. You'll be missing the footwork, the striking, rooting, power generation etc... that is part of the larger whole that makes qin na work.

Dr Yang's books work on the assumption you already have some training & can figure this out. He shows footwork in pics but you can only get so much from a 2D single angle example. His seminars again barely touch what's required to really grasp the intracies of Qin na found in TCMA.

Take from it what you will, but IMHO & experience, it's a part, not a sum.

[Hand Sword]

Originally Posted by pete

Dr Yang, Jwing-Ming is probably the world's foremost authority on Chin Na (Qinna), bar none. He has published several books and videos of the highest quality, and has produced several highly skilled instructors. see www.ymaa.com.

According to Dr Yang, ALL Chinese Martial arts are comprised of (1) Striking, (2) Wrestling, and (3) Chin Na. ALL 3 components must be present, otherwise it is not a complete CMA. additionally, there are qigong, meditative, and healing components as well.

For those of us in Kenpo, a 'hole' may exist due to the reasons Doc has posted, and these have been discussed to death on these forums. If this hole is a reality for you, I HIGHLY recommend the materials from Dr Yang. However, these materials are not enough to truly develop the feeling for applying the techniques... to use your whole body to control his whole body... or to learn the anti-chin na counters.

Dr Yang has a series of 3 day seminars that are offered at his training center in Boston, and around the country at affiliated studios where the subtleties can be learned. I've attended 3 thus far, and will attend 4th next weekend. we also stay in touch with fellow students and train as study groups between seminars. This is where the books and videos have value, in working through the details after learning them... we know when something just isn't right~

The beauty of this series is that while Dr Yang's primary style is Southern White Crane, the material is presented in such a way that can be adapted to your style, whether it be kenpo, or otherwise. Adapting it to kenpo does take effort and practice, its not automatic, and you need to have a good handle on the base chin na first.

And from what I've seen thus far, Doc is right on the money regarding its comparison to Aikido. I've never trained in it myself, but Aikido practitioners seem to have greater difficulty applying the Chin Na because of conflicting principles.

pete

I agree with you about Dr. Yang Jwing Ming, he is incredible! Your response proves the point when said that true CM are made up of 3 components, one being Chin na. And, since each one must be studied separately, until enough skill is aquired to make them work together, Chin Na is a separate system within a style. Your admission of your lack of study in Aikido is puzzling as to what those practioners would have trouble with. I have studied aikido, and grew up in the Shaolin Kempo sytem, being lucky enough to be taught by some of it's highest ranking students. Believe me, a wrist lock is a wristlock, an arm bar is an arm bar. The same locks and hols are in both systems, how you get to them is another story and debate.

[Hand Sword]

Originally Posted by clfsean

I don't practice Kenpo, but as a TCMA player, I gotta chime in.

Doc is right about about it being integral to ALL CMA's, but it is not a "style" or "system" unto itself. It's part of a larger whole & can not be practiced effectively without the rest of it.

Pete posted about Dr Yang's view/definition of CMA consisting of 3 major pieces. Qin na is a piece of the puzzle again, not a whole.

I can you nothing but Qin na & you will learn some nifty locks/manipulations/escapes/counters & such. The first time you try to use them you will probably get your butt handed to you. Why? Not because of what I taught, but you will only have part of the puzzle & therefore incomplete & inconsistant knowledge. You'll be missing the footwork, the striking, rooting, power generation etc... that is part of the larger whole that makes qin na work.

Dr Yang's books work on the assumption you already have some training & can figure this out. He shows footwork in pics but you can only get so much from a 2D single angle example. His seminars again barely touch what's required to really grasp the intracies of Qin na found in TCMA.

Take from it what you will, but IMHO & experience, it's a part, not a sum.

Yes, agreed, As are all the ranges of combat. Each piece must be paid separate attention, and training time to make a go of the whole thing. Unless you practice the actual lock, until you have skill doing it, you'll just be holding on to an opponent, until they wiggle out, or break free, then, as you said, hand you your ass.

[Hand Sword]

Consider an example of all of our training. In the beginning we block, strike, and kick, training each area separately, from a horse stance. We then train to stand in different stances, eventually putting it all together, to flow. As we advanced we learned to seize and control the opponent with arm bars, wrist locks, etc.. Did we just add them in and go along, no! Our partners stood still, with an exposed limb, and we practiced the hold, or lock. Where our hands went, where to apply the pressure, what angle to exploit, etc....It is by this that I call it a separate study, if it must be isolated and focussed on independently, It Is Separate. There is no debate that the area in question is a piece of the larger picture, if your goal is to be as complete a fighter as possible. However, kicking arts, striking arts, and grappling arts can stand alone-Ju Jutsu, boxing, etc.. Chin Na is the art of seizing and controlling, it was added to our system and individual skills at some point-- Therefore classifying it as a separate piece.
With Respect!

[pete]

the further i progress with Chin Na, the more it becomes apparent that a joint lock is not just a joint lock... there is locking the joint vs. controlling the spine through the lock thereby controlling their center. They may look the same but the feel very different. to use your hands to control their arm is incomplete. to use your body to control their arm is still incomplete. you must use your entire body to control their entire body to do it right.

sorry, but AK has everything to do with this... since i understand it to be Doc's point that Chin Na IS part of the Ed Parker's Kenpo system, but may not be taught or understood to the same degree by all instructors... (sorry to paraphrase, but i know you'll let me know if i am incorrect~)

so to classify Chin Na, i'd go with it being a skill... not a style or a system within a style. if you are fortunate, your kenpo instructor will teach that skill within the framework of kenpo... if not, and it is a skill you are looking to develop, you'll have to go 'outside' and bring it back in to enhance your kenpo. since doing so, it seems that movements in our forms have new meaning to me and found opportunities within our techniques to control rather than destroy.

regarding aikido, again i am not a student of that art, but have trained with some who are. they tend to have excellent form in applying a lock, but great difficulty in using it as a control mechanism. it seems that they have a tendency to release or ease-up on the lock with an intent to throw the opponent, from what i am told it is out of mercy for the attacker... as opposed to Chin Na that Dr Yang teaches to lock to the point of total submission or to set up for a killing.

pete

[Hand Sword]

Originally Posted by pete

the further i progress with Chin Na, the more it becomes apparent that a joint lock is not just a joint lock... there is locking the joint vs. controlling the spine through the lock thereby controlling their center. They may look the same but the feel very different. to use your hands to control their arm is incomplete. to use your body to control their arm is still incomplete. you must use your entire body to control their entire body to do it right.

sorry, but AK has everything to do with this... since i understand it to be Doc's point that Chin Na IS part of the Ed Parker's Kenpo system, but may not be taught or understood to the same degree by all instructors... (sorry to paraphrase, but i know you'll let me know if i am incorrect~)

so to classify Chin Na, i'd go with it being a skill... not a style or a system within a style. if you are fortunate, your kenpo instructor will teach that skill within the framework of kenpo... if not, and it is a skill you are looking to develop, you'll have to go 'outside' and bring it back in to enhance your kenpo. since doing so, it seems that movements in our forms have new meaning to me and found opportunities within our techniques to control rather than destroy.

regarding aikido, again i am not a student of that art, but have trained with some who are. they tend to have excellent form in applying a lock, but great difficulty in using it as a control mechanism. it seems that they have a tendency to release or ease-up on the lock with an intent to throw the opponent, from what i am told it is out of mercy for the attacker... as opposed to Chin Na that Dr Yang teaches to lock to the point of total submission or to set up for a killing.

pete

Not rue about EPAK, the thread was in regard to FRED VILLARI's KEMPO, and since I grew up in it with some of the best instructors I am better versed about it than the EPAK people. It's two different lineages, that evolved differently, "checking" is not the same as locking and holding. With regard to the Aikido comparison, again how and why, and feelings are not the issue. I was referring to the actual locks and holds themselves. Beleive me, Aikido people can severely damage you if they wanted to, and keep you from moving, or moving you how they want to (that IS what they do-redirection and control) if the intent is there. But, again that is not being debated.

[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.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Brother John

I really like this way of looking at it! No "Holes", but places where a knowledgeable/informed/trained person can build from.

Isn't it true, sir, that you were taught Chin-na (amonst other things) from Mr. Ark Yuey Wong, and that that's where you met (or at least through whom you met) Mr. Parker???
I could have this backwards, but I thought this was the case.

Your Brother
John

You sir are the first person to ever simply ask me that question. I was introduced to Ark Wong by his nephew and my schoolmate Douglas Wong. We began studying with him as kids, and for me into my teens until I met Mr. Parker. Chin na was intergrated into everything. Jimmy Woo, who also spent a lot of time there and Ark Wong would always say, "All Chinese (arts) are the same, only training and specialties differ." People like Danny Inosanto were also there, which seems to explain why he ended up with Parker and then later with Bruce Lee.

I met Ed Parker independent of my Ark Wong experience at a local tournament in Santa Monica at the Civic Auditorium where he was present. Parker was already a local legend among martial arts people ( this is pre IKC) and he actually walked up and introduced himself to me during the intermission. (Yeah, they had intermissions then )

It was only much later that I heard the stories about He, Ark Wong, and Haumea Lefiti and took a sense of pride we had both been at the same place even if at different times. Of course because of my age and experience (or lack of) much of what I learned at Sifu Yuey Wong's was pretty abstract to me. The language barrier didn't help either. Yuey Wong spoke broken English andmuch was interpreted first by Doug and later by Sifu lefiti. It was only when I met Parker and he began to explain things I had learned did it begin to become intellectually clear. I still draw on those experiences and, more importantly, Parker's indepth explanations today to make sense of its complexity.

Funny how no one ever asked that before sir. Thanks for asking, it helps to jog the memory of an old man.