CMAs <---> O/J/KMAs???

[exile]

I know that from one point of view this thread should probably be in the GMAT forum. But I'm trying to get the perspective of CMAists who have had some firsthand familiarity with the Karate-based arts—the Okinawan, Japanese and Korean styles of Karate—to see if anyone has a clear picture of the relationships, both at the strategic and tactical level, between the various CMAs on the one hand and the apparently much more recent Karate-based arts on the other.We have reasonably documentary evidence that chuan fa traditions go back quite a ways in Fukien Province, probably hundreds of years, for example, while the same kind of evidence is very solid on the 19th c. origins of the modern linear karate-based arts in Okinawa.

Patrick McCarthy, Riichard Kim and others have argued that Tode Sakugawa, Bushi Matsumura's teacher, learned White Crane chuan fa from a high ranking MAist and diplomat, Kong Su Kung who took TS on as an apprentice `on loan', as it were, from the noble monk Takahara, TS' first teacher, and whose name was the source of the name of the kusanku kata. What Matsumura, the creative genius behind the Karate-based arts, did was to fuse the White Crane elements of Sakugawa's chuan-fa-based system with the grappling, close-contact-based native Okinawan todi systems using many locks, pins and leverage techs, and added a core technical element—hard linear impact based on maximum striking velocity of the impact surface—to produce the precursor of modern karate.

That's a story, and it might be right, or wrong, or a bit right and a bit wrong. I'm a TKDist, hence a Korean karateka, and have no particular horse in this race. But what I'd very much like is to hear from you CMAists who either practice, or have at least studied, the linear striking systems that go under the general rubric of karate, and to learn what you regard as the essential relationship between the CMAs and the O/J/KMAs—between the Chinese arts and Karate in the most general sense, Not historically, primarily (though that's always interesting) but technically. How are they different, and how are they similar? Do you think they have anything to say to each other in terms of applied self-defense methods?

 

[Makalakumu]

It's alot easier to find the "Chinese Connection" when looking at Naha Te systems. Sanchin, for example, has forms that have direct ancestors in China. In Shuri Te systems, which includes me and you, its really hard to find a lineage. I've yet to see a Naihanchi or Bassai in a kung fu system. I've heard that "Channan" is kung fu, but I've yet to see any demonstration of that. It leads me to wonder if the systems that gave birth to Okinawan Karate are still extant...

 

[exile]

It's alot easier to find the "Chinese Connection" when looking at Naha Te systems. Sanchin, for example, has forms that have direct ancestors in China. In Shuri Te systems, which includes me and you, its really hard to find a lineage. I've yet to see a Naihanchi or Bassai in a kung fu system. I've heard that "Channan" is kung fu, but I've yet to see any demonstration of that. It leads me to wonder if the systems that gave birth to Okinawan Karate are still extant...

You're articulating something that I believe also. The Naha systems probably give a much greater direct Chinese lineage connection than the Shuri-derived systems. You might well be right that the CMA contributors to the latter, whatever they were (and I do believe there were some) may well not have any contemporary representatives...

...but even if they don't... it's hard for me to imagine that there's nothing for a CMAist to say to hardcore Shuri descendents like UpN, me, and the other O/J systems. I don't necessarily mean common elements. I'm more curious about... well, how do you folks see what we're doing in relation to what you're doing. Not value judgments, but the key technical similarities and differences. Everyone talks about `linear' vs. `circular' or `curvilinear', but there's got to be more than that.

I'm thinking of (without, lemme emphasize, unquestioningly accepting) what Bruce Clayton in Shotokan's Secret says about the difference between the technical application of CMAs vs. Okinawan-derived MAs. He notes that

The profound difference between Shuri-te and the previous Chinese styles is that [Bushi] Matsumura changed the rules. Shuri stylists fight in a different moral context than Chinese stylists, and all fo teh subsequent differences in technique, kata selection and bunkai follow from this difference.

The Chinese styles owe a large debt to the Buddhist monks of the Shaolin Temple. These monks learned the martial arts for self-discipline and self-defense. Wandering monks penetrated the worst sorts of neighborhoo and were often attacked by bullies, thieves and thugs. A Buddhist monk under attack had a serious moral dillema to resolve. He wanted to defend himselv, as we all do, but he also had to protect his karma, the future of his spirit...The monk must minimize the damage he does to his opponent because of this karmic backlash. If you are trying to minimize damage to your opponent, you naturally favor submission fighting because it gives the opponent every opportunity to admit defeat without serious injury...

[But[ Matsumura was not a monk... [His and other royal security personnel's] oponents were not lone drunks and robbers. Their opponents were mobs of sailors, armed samurai and sometimes organized military units. In order to protect their king, the Shuri bodyguards had to be absolutely ruthless....

This is what makes hard-style karate so different from the soft Chinese styles. Matsumura optimized Shuri-te to inflict maximum injury in minimum time. He was unconcerned about the damage he might cause.​

(pp.50-51). This this not, by any means, the only thing I'm interested in, but it's the kind of thing that I'm intersested in. Those of you who have some well-developed ideas about this&#8212;do you see the major technical difference between the CMAs and the Okinawan-based systems as one that corresponds to a difference in strategic objective? Different means, because the goals are different? And if so, how do the technical differences serve the strategic differences? Or if you disagree, what do you see the differences arising from? Again, I don't mean historically, necessarily, but more, what do you see the differences in tactical payoff as being?

 

[profesormental]

Greetings.

The patterns I've seen by studying and interacting with the various training methods are quite illuminating.

I've trained for months or years in each of the big divisions (chinese, korean, japanese, okinawan, western), and keep good relationships with many. Also, I have a huge book and video library since I am an information junkie and must know...

The greatest and most important factor, is the individual instructor.

I will comment only on their empty hand methods.

That being said, the Korean methods tend to NOT use much of the Kata as a method of transmission... the skills obtained are more drill based and sport oriented... except hapkido, which has a great standing grappling sensitivity, again, developed by drills. Like jujitsu with a more chin na feel to it...

The okinawan training methods favor kata... yet again their skills come from brick and mortar conditioning... I grab you, and hit you. HARD.

The japanese methods gravitate toward jujitsu type skills, so they hit you, grapple, throw and lock.

In the chinese methods... you have all the above and more. Northern styles are more focused on forms that develop conditioning and athleticism. This is separate from the free fighting training. It is now mostly San Da.

Southern styles prefer strong stances for their techniques, less dynamic. Also, they tend to have more partner type drills, leading to free fighting (San Da).

Modern wushu is more athletics and acrobatics.

Most styles have some distribution between shuai jiao (takedowns and wrestling), chin na (seize and control), and strikes.

The biggest relationship between these training methods is how they balance brick and mortar conditioning and athleticism with skillful manipulations, strategies and tactics.

The old Chinese prefer optimal execution and skillful manipulations that may take time to master, yet you virtually never stop getting better...

while relying on athleticism has obvious side effects, including high level wear and tear (remember, some of these methods didn't take into account that you would live over 40!!), unoptimal performance (which causes the wear and tear) and plateaus of skill.

A friend of mine went to an old Chinese Master and saw his training methods. He asked about how could it be used for self defense and fighting.

The guy applied a technique and defended an attack... yet in the eyes of my friend, it was overly complicated.

The Master said "You want to learn to fight... ok we fight." The old Master when they went at it, just simplemindedly blocked and went for my friends balls...

until he got them! OUCH!

The Master said "Learning to simply fight is easy. Not much skill necessary. No challenge. Gong fu is much more."

Hope this helps.

Juan M. Mercado

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that if you really want to see the connection, kata may not be the best way to do it. Especially, if the kata were created by Okinawans instead of being directly transported from China. Bassai, Naihanchi, Pinan, Kusanku, etc were all created by Okinawans. All of these are the backbone kata of shuri based systems.

With that being said, we probably need to look at the way an Okinawan Te practicioner fights. This is a tough one, because that has morphed so drastically in the last 100 years. However, some people still exist that carry on the old Shuri lineage and use it to fight.

Take, for instance, this man.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

He is performing applications from the Okinawan form Ni Sei Shi. Do any CMAists see any similarities to CMAs they could talk about?

 

[clfsean]

I think that if you really want to see the connection, kata may not be the best way to do it. Especially, if the kata were created by Okinawans instead of being directly transported from China. Bassai, Naihanchi, Pinan, Kusanku, etc were all created by Okinawans. All of these are the backbone kata of shuri based systems.

With that being said, we probably need to look at the way an Okinawan Te practicioner fights. This is a tough one, because that has morphed so drastically in the last 100 years. However, some people still exist that carry on the old Shuri lineage and use it to fight.

Take, for instance, this man.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

He is performing applications from the Okinawan form Ni Sei Shi. Do any CMAists see any similarities to CMAs they could talk about?

Eh... it "looks/resembles" Southern shorthand-ish stuff from the Fujian area... White Crane, 5 Ancestors, maybe outwardly at times like some Hakka stuff...

As far as applications, I'm not a short hand player. I've seen it & it looks "kinda" like it, but it's too hard from my experience with it. Southern short hands that I've been around are blending & melding, moving & sticking & hammering with multiple strikes, not just "one shot" stuff. There may ultimately be that, but they all tended to hit more than once & with much gusto per strike.

 

[Steel Tiger]

This is something I have pondered for the longest time. There are influences from China to Okinawa, but it is very difficult to articulsate them.

...but even if they don't... it's hard for me to imagine that there's nothing for a CMAist to say to hardcore Shuri descendents like UpN, me, and the other O/J systems. I don't necessarily mean common elements. I'm more curious about... well, how do you folks see what we're doing in relation to what you're doing. Not value judgments, but the key technical similarities and differences. Everyone talks about `linear' vs. `circular' or `curvilinear', but there's got to be more than that.

I think you are right there is more to what is going on than just a comparison of appearance. Even the comparison of appearance is not that effective, just look at a 5 Ancestors or a Goju practitioner.

I look at Karate kata and what I see is a series of short, sharp elements. When I do my own forms (palms changes excluded, they are just way out there and have no equivalent is Japan) there appears to be more flow. Now that is just my point of view, it may not be a truth. Why is that?

I'm thinking of (without, lemme emphasize, unquestioningly accepting) what Bruce Clayton in Shotokan's Secret says about the difference between the technical application of CMAs vs. Okinawan-derived MAs. He notes that

The profound difference between Shuri-te and the previous Chinese styles is that [Bushi] Matsumura changed the rules. Shuri stylists fight in a different moral context than Chinese stylists, and all fo teh subsequent differences in technique, kata selection and bunkai follow from this difference.​

The Chinese styles owe a large debt to the Buddhist monks of the Shaolin Temple. These monks learned the martial arts for self-discipline and self-defense. Wandering monks penetrated the worst sorts of neighborhoo and were often attacked by bullies, thieves and thugs. A Buddhist monk under attack had a serious moral dillema to resolve. He wanted to defend himselv, as we all do, but he also had to protect his karma, the future of his spirit...The monk must minimize the damage he does to his opponent because of this karmic backlash. If you are trying to minimize damage to your opponent, you naturally favor submission fighting because it gives the opponent every opportunity to admit defeat without serious injury...​

[But[ Matsumura was not a monk... [His and other royal security personnel's] oponents were not lone drunks and robbers. Their opponents were mobs of sailors, armed samurai and sometimes organized military units. In order to protect their king, the Shuri bodyguards had to be absolutely ruthless....​

This is what makes hard-style karate so different from the soft Chinese styles. Matsumura optimized Shuri-te to inflict maximum injury in minimum time. He was unconcerned about the damage he might cause.​

I think that Bruce Clayton is perpetuating some very wrong ideas about CMAs. The idea that all CMAs derive from health programs for Buddhist monks is extremely misleading. Martial arts influence in Okinawa is a three phase transition. The first, about the 7th century, was carried out by monks, and that spawned the original Te. The latter two influences, 14th and 17th centuries, came from merchants and diplomats. These people would not have been using arts developed at Shaolin. It is much more likely that the arts that these men brought were family styles, which are much more numerous, designed for fighting, not simply defending oneself with minimum damage to an opponent.

I think one of the best examples is the 5 Ancestor Fist from Fujian (I think). A family style that looks a lot like Karate. There was, for a long time, a living to be made as a professional fighter in China and many of the styles we know were developed to service that community.

So Matsumura was probably not that much different to the people who brought the later Chinese influences to Okinawa.

This this not, by any means, the only thing I'm interested in, but it's the kind of thing that I'm intersested in. Those of you who have some well-developed ideas about this—do you see the major technical difference between the CMAs and the Okinawan-based systems as one that corresponds to a difference in strategic objective? Different means, because the goals are different? And if so, how do the technical differences serve the strategic differences? Or if you disagree, what do you see the differences arising from? Again, I don't mean historically, necessarily, but more, what do you see the differences in tactical payoff as being?

I feel that there has been an interesting shift for JMAs in the last two hundred years or so. It is, I believe, associated with move from "-jutsu" to "-do". There has been a change in the way the arts have been viewed and consequently taught, learned, and understood. Matsumura's and Itosu's brutal effectiveness driven by necessity has fallen by the wayside in favour of a more peaceful, self-exploratory method. Kobujutsu becomes kobudo. The arts go from being a tool to being a way of life. Perhaps the relatively peaceful times of the Tokugawa shogunate had an influence on this, perhaps not.

In China this did not happen. Martial arts fell into two very broad groups. Those developed by religious/philosophical schools (Buddhism, Taoism) and those developed by individual families. Many of the famous fighters of Chinese folklore like Wong Fei Hong and Huo Yuanjia were not practitioners of religious school arts. They were fighters who were regularly called upon to defend themselves and there reputations. In effect they were professionals. This continued into the twentieth century. There was no philosophical shift in emphasis.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Exile

2 problems with this question for me; One I do not understand the terminology being used about the Japanese styles, sorry. I trained JMA and TKD but it was a while ago and I remember little of the terminology. Second I feel you are asking a rather large question and yet trying to filter it to relation to Okinawa and Fujian and there is a hell of a lot when it comes to CMA and there is division with in CMA styles as to there approach to fighting. Shaolin is not CMA it is just a part of CMA.

Linear and circular; Almost all CMA styles have circular applications or tend to be rather circular in movement. So far as far as I know the only CMA to be considered Linear is Xingyiquan and possible xinyi. But if you fight a Xingyi person thinking it is only linear you will get hurt. There is a lot of circular movement within a Xingyi form and it is pretty good at turning on a dime.

Basically it sounds, at least to me, like you are asking a Japanese stylist his or her take on Chinese martial arts.

The Chinese styles owe a large debt to the Buddhist monks of the Shaolin Temple. These monks learned the martial arts for self-discipline and self-defense. Wandering monks penetrated the worst sorts of neighborhoo and were often attacked by bullies, thieves and thugs. A Buddhist monk under attack had a serious moral dillema to resolve. He wanted to defend himselv, as we all do, but he also had to protect his karma, the future of his spirit...The monk must minimize the damage he does to his opponent because of this karmic backlash. If you are trying to minimize damage to your opponent, you naturally favor submission fighting because it gives the opponent every opportunity to admit defeat without serious injury...

This shows a rather large lack of understanding of Chinese martial arts and its history

I think that Bruce Clayton is perpetuating some very wrong ideas about CMAs. The idea that all CMAs derive from health programs for Buddhist monks is extremely misleading. Martial arts influence in Okinawa is a three phase transition. The first, about the 7th century, was carried out by monks, and that spawned the original Te. The latter two influences, 14th and 17th centuries, came from merchants and diplomats. These people would not have been using arts developed at Shaolin. It is much more likely that the arts that these men brought were family styles, which are much more numerous, designed for fighting, not simply defending oneself with minimum damage to an opponent. .

Agreed

It is also a possibility that Ueshiba spent some time at least studying CMA styles, much like Bruce Lee studied other styles, before he came up with Aikido. There are also People in Japan today that studied Yiquan and now they are developing their own style.

In China this did not happen. Martial arts fell into two very broad groups. Those developed by religious/philosophical schools (Buddhism, Taoism) and those developed by individual families. Many of the famous fighters of Chinese folklore like Wong Fei Hong and Huo Yuanjia were not practitioners of religious school arts. They were fighters who were regularly called upon to defend themselves and there reputations. In effect they were professionals. This continued into the twentieth century. There was no philosophical shift in emphasis.

Actually CMA has several broad categories
North/South
Internal/External
Buddhist/Taoist/Muslim
There are others but I can&#8217;t think of them at the moment

Greetings.


In the chinese methods... you have all the above and more. Northern styles are more focused on forms that develop conditioning and athleticism. This is separate from the free fighting training. It is now mostly San Da.

Southern styles prefer strong stances for their techniques, less dynamic. Also, they tend to have more partner type drills, leading to free fighting (San Da).

Modern wushu is more athletics and acrobatics.

Most styles have some distribution between shuai jiao (takedowns and wrestling), chin na (seize and control), and strikes.

The biggest relationship between these training methods is how they balance brick and mortar conditioning and athleticism with skillful manipulations, strategies and tactics.

The old Chinese prefer optimal execution and skillful manipulations that may take time to master, yet you virtually never stop getting better...

while relying on athleticism has obvious side effects, including high level wear and tear (remember, some of these methods didn't take into account that you would live over 40!!), unoptimal performance (which causes the wear and tear) and plateaus of skill.

I agree with some of this but Northern systems include Xingyiquan, Baguazhang and Taijiquan all of which do not fit your description that you have given of CMA or Northern styles

 

[Rabu]

The history of specific Chinese martial arts are hard to follow. Just look for discussions on the subject and you will find heated and sometimes outright violent discussions.

Where cultural interchange may have played a role, allow for the possibility that Japan, Okinawa and Korea...all had their own development of indiginous arts.

Attempting to be specific causes some real problems. A great deal of information in circulation appears to be of the 'they said so on the TEE and VEE' variety.

"it all originated in Shaolin" shows the researcher simply did not perform due dilligence. Almost every detail of the shaolin origin myth has been completely debunked since the early 1900's. (see Brian Kennedy's book and Tung Hao's writings if you can, from 1929 and earlier)

There is an apparent tradition of giving credit to earlier sources for the innovations and traditions which have been passed down. This obscures the timelines and creates problems for researchers trying to tie down the specifics in order to understand origins of arts and kata/taolu/juru...et al.

As for connections in general...Yes...validated historical sources show that wealthy upper class Japanese and Okinawans hired Chinese scholars to teach calligraphy and classics to their children. This doesnt suddenly prove a direct connection, only shows that exchange of knowledge took place.

I also have heard the stories of Monks from China going to Okinawa or sitting on Japanese mountainsides just waiting for a disciple to pounce on. I am unsure of whether they have any voracity, but they certainly make entertaining reading.

None of the Japanese forms I have seen or learned in the past look like Chinese forms to me. Maybe psuedo resembling Hakka and 'southern' sets, but really, its hard to tell which came first in the modern day.

It is my opinion that most martial arts would have a hard time breaking late 1800's with validated historical and reality based tracking. Too much change and too many oral histories, contested transmissions and outright fabrications.

I sincerely believe the answer given above regarding the influence of the specific instructor is probably the best clue as to whether the art you are studying right now from the person who is living and you can see and interact with has Chinese influence.

Best regards,

Rob

 

[exile]

Folks—I very much appreciate the care and detail of your responses to my original query!

First off, I want to shed some light on my OP, in relations to XS' post:

Second I feel you are asking a rather large question and yet trying to filter it to relation to Okinawa and Fujian and there is a hell of a lot when it comes to CMA and there is division with in CMA styles as to there approach to fighting. Shaolin is not CMA it is just a part of CMA.

Linear and circular; Almost all CMA styles have circular applications or tend to be rather circular in movement. So far as far as I know the only CMA to be considered Linear is Xingyiquan and possible xinyi. But if you fight a Xingyi person thinking it is only linear you will get hurt. There is a lot of circular movement within a Xingyi form and it is pretty good at turning on a dime.

Basically it sounds, at least to me, like you are asking a Japanese stylist his or her take on Chinese martial arts.

It's true, I am specifically interested in the relation between the CMAs on the one hand and the Okinawan derived arts on the other. And I was using Clayton's comments as a point of departure for the discussion: but notice that I qualified my citation of his stuff fairly heavily, knowing as I do that a lot of people have found a lot to disagree with in much of his book. I really only brought in those passages from Shaolin's Secret to give an indication of the kind of technical connections between CMAs and the Okinawan systems that I'm curious about (again, the history is less important to me than the similarities and differences between (various) CMA styles on the one hand and the Okinawan-based styles on the other. I have no stake or commitment to any particular aspect of Clayton's story, but I am interested in getting at some kind of plausible story about the technical relationship between the Chinese and Okinawan-based arts.

And I'm much more interested in how you CMA people see the Okinawan-based arts than vice versa. Have watched Chinese practitioners in various formats—firsthand (there is biweekly class at the same place where I train TKD), at demos and exhbitions, and on video, and having read a bit about the Chinese systems, I have this sense that there is a profound difference in strategic thinking between the two approaches. I guess, if I had to get more specific, I'm especially interested in the way practitioners of what Steel_Tiger calls the 'family systems', which show up in so many variants, approach self-defense. The purpose of these systems, I suspect, was particularly similar to the Shuri styles: hard fast responses to threats to onesself, family or friends in ordinary daily-life contexts. And I've certainly heard that there were plenty of hard-fist systems amongst these family styles. But I have the sneaking suspicion that there were at least a few basically different assumptions in these Chinese family styles from what the Okinawan-based systems are doing.

For example, if you as a CMA practitioner observe me in a self-defense situation, you'll see a certain basic strategic doctrine: immobilize the attacker, preventing him from moving freely; use the immobilization to bring high-value targets within range; try to incapacitate him in the fewest number of moves—one strike, one kill sort of thing (`kill' of course being interpreted rather broadly!) To that end, I will deflect incoming strikes and convert the deflections into traps, anchor the assailant with locks or pins that I can project my weight into to force his head into an exposed position; strike with maximum force at weak upper body points (throat, temple, carotid sinuses, collarbone) with elbows, forearms, knifehands or hammerfists; and use muchimi (striking-to-gripping use of the hands) to follow up a hard strike with another, in which the former striking hand now helps secure the already damaged assailant so that a follow-up, and if all goes well terminal, strike can be delivered. Most of the technical applications I study, practice and seek out in the bunkai for hyungs and kata I train conform to this scenario, with a very wide variety of tactical implementations possible to a few basic scenarios of this sort.

Now what I really want to know is, how do you folks see the overall strategy for defense against an attack, compared with what I've just outlined? Yes, every fight is different—but every military battle is also different. That doesn't mean that there aren't broad strategic plans, and specific tactical implementations of those plans, that successful military leaders visualize clearly and attempt to bring to fruition. Do you see a fight unfolding along lines similar to what I've described as my (and a lot of Okinawan-based MAists' general) take on the optimal approach to a fight?

My guess is that you don't see things quite the same way (though I could be wrong; it happens with monotonous frequency, so if I am it'll just be more of the same...) I'm not thinking of San Da here, I appreciate the difference that some of you have pointed out between San Da style training and the traditional family styles themselves. But those styles were created, I'm fairly certain, for very practical defensive purposes. They embody a view of how a fight should proceed. What I'm really asking is, how does that view—or those views; I know there's a great variety amongst these family styles—compare with the one I've outlined a couple of paragraphs ago?

 

[Xue Sheng]

First off, I want to shed some light on my OP, in relations to XS' post:

I get the feeling my post upset you in some way and that was not my intention. I am also fully aware that you qualified the quote you posted but qualifications aside it shows a gross lack of understanding of Chinese martial arts and the history of Chinese Martial Arts by the author, Bruce Clayton, not you.

What I am trying to say is that you are asking for specific comparisons like how are Okinawan stylists, styles and strategy is viewed by CMA people based on strategy and tactics. Good question but here is what you are running up against. There are multiple strategies and tactics within various CMA styles that may or may not agree with what is Okinawan strategy and tactics,

This is my problem with the question posted and why I am saying it is a very big question. Example and this is only a partial list,

Bafaquan
Baguazhang
Bajiquan
Bak Mei
Black Tiger Kung Fu
Chaquan
Changquan
Chuo Jiao
Chow Gar
Chi Hsuan Men
Choy Gar
Choy Lee Fut
Dachengquan aka Yiquan
Ditangquan
Do Pi Kung Fu
Dragon Kung Fu
Duan Quan
Emeiquan
Fanziquan
Feng Shou
Five Ancestors
Five Animals
Fujian White Crane
Fut Gar
Gouquan
Hong Cha
Hop Gar
Houquan
Drunken Monkey
Huaquan
Hung Fut
Hung Gar
I Liq Chuan
Jing Wu Men
Jing Quan Do
Jow-Ga Kung Fu
Lau Gar
Lai-Ga-Sau
Leopard Kung Fu
Li Family style
Liuhe Bafa
Luohan Quan
Mei Hua Quan
Mizongyi
Mok Gar
Nam Pai Chuan
Nan Quan
Northern Praying Mantis
Northern Shaolin
Paochui
Piguaquan
Shaolin Nam Pai Chuan
Shaolin Quan
Shen Lung Kung Fu
Shuai Chiao aka Shuaijiao
Shequan
Shou Shu
Southern Praying Mantis
Tai Chi Chuan - Chen, Zhaobao, Yang, Wu, Wu/hao, Sun
Tantui
Tibetan White Crane
Tien Shan Pai
Tongbeiquan
Wing Chun aka Yong Chun
Wudangquan
Xingyiquan
Xinyiquan
Yau Kung Mun
Yingzhaoquan
Yuejiaquan
Zui Quan

Pick one to compare Okinawan to because they will not all agree. (Also I intentionally did not include Sanda, I like Sanda but I am first and foremost a traditional Chinese Martial Arts person)

Taijiquan&#8217;s view is to wait for the opening and then attack, Xingyiquan view is attack and defense is attack, Wing Chun is a close in fighting style Changquan tends to be long range, Bagua likes things very circular Xingyi tends towards linear all have very different approaches to fighting different tactics and different strategies, and all will not agree on Okinawan styles way of fighting. You will hear It is to hard (meaning uses to much force), it is too soft, it is to close it does not flow, it is great, the answers based on CMA style are going to very greatly. And many CMA styles do not agree with each other so any view of another style is going to be different depending on what CMA style the person being ask trains.

What all CMA styles share is a punch is not just a punch and a kick is not just a kick. If I miss with a punch it can become an elbow strike if I miss with the elbow it can become a shoulder strike or it could have become a lock or a block. A kick is a kick, block, and sweep. Qinna can become a strike the idea is to be able to flow from one thing to the next without thinking. Not

I will deflect incoming strikes and convert the deflections into traps, anchor the assailant with locks or pins that I can project my weight into to force his head into an exposed position; strike with maximum force at weak upper body points&#8230;.

This also may be why it takes so long to become effective in any given CMA style based on how it was meant to be used. Taiji about 6 years to begin to understand, Xingyi about 2 years to be able to actually understand it well enough to use it as Xingyi is suppose to be used, Wing Chun 1 year and you can use it to defend yourself but you are still far from truly understanding Wing Chun.

For my opinion based on Taiji and Xingyi; Okinawan styles although effective I feel are too hard and use way too much strength and are to dependant on the opponent&#8217;s cooperation. But this is the opinion of a guy that never trained an Okinawan style a day in his life so it means little. If I do decided look at it from a Sanda perspective it does not have a well balanced mix of Kicking and Punching, Qinna, and Shuaijiao, again this is the opinion of a guy that never trained an Okinawan style a day in his life so it again means little. I am commenting based on observation with not much understanding of any Okinawan style. But I still have a high respect for any Okinawa stylist, they train hard to learn their style and it appears rather effective. It is just not a style I want to learn, but then I do not want to learn a lot of CMA styles either

However &#8220;kicking and Punching, Qinna and Shuaijiao (Chinese Wrestling) these 3 things also tend to be in all CMA styles to varying degrees but all 3 are there.

I am not trying to offend, upset or argue I am trying to say this is a great question but the scope, at least in my opinion, is way too broad if you are just saying CMA or Family styles within CMA. Hell North/South couldn&#8217;t even speak to each other many years ago so they did not share a whole lot of ideas on CMA. North is cold and tended to have more open space and the people tend to be taller than the south were it is rather hot and crowded this to effects strategy and tactics greatly. What am I saying about to Okinawa and its martial arts if I am responding based on CMA styles that vary greatly?

It is my understanding that Okinawan styles have there root in Shaolin which may be a better comparison to look for. This brings up another division within CMA; Shaolin vs. Wudang they would not agree on tactics, strategy or training method.

And finally many Southern styles tend to have a route in Shaolin at least more than styles indigenous to the North and asking about Southern styles or Shaolin is a good way to shut me up since I have little experience with them, but I have trained a bit of Shaolin and a bit of Wing Chun so I make no promises :uhyeah:

 

[Steel Tiger]

For example, if you as a CMA practitioner observe me in a self-defense situation, you'll see a certain basic strategic doctrine: immobilize the attacker, preventing him from moving freely; use the immobilization to bring high-value targets within range; try to incapacitate him in the fewest number of moves—one strike, one kill sort of thing (`kill' of course being interpreted rather broadly!) To that end, I will deflect incoming strikes and convert the deflections into traps, anchor the assailant with locks or pins that I can project my weight into to force his head into an exposed position; strike with maximum force at weak upper body points (throat, temple, carotid sinuses, collarbone) with elbows, forearms, knifehands or hammerfists; and use muchimi (striking-to-gripping use of the hands) to follow up a hard strike with another, in which the former striking hand now helps secure the already damaged assailant so that a follow-up, and if all goes well terminal, strike can be delivered. Most of the technical applications I study, practice and seek out in the bunkai for hyungs and kata I train conform to this scenario, with a very wide variety of tactical implementations possible to a few basic scenarios of this sort.

Now what I really want to know is, how do you folks see the overall strategy for defense against an attack, compared with what I've just outlined? Yes, every fight is different—but every military battle is also different. That doesn't mean that there aren't broad strategic plans, and specific tactical implementations of those plans, that successful military leaders visualize clearly and attempt to bring to fruition. Do you see a fight unfolding along lines similar to what I've described as my (and a lot of Okinawan-based MAists' general) take on the optimal approach to a fight?

I am going to try to give you an answer, but it is going to be from a particular point of view, an internal art perspective.

In a self-defence situation I am looking to counterattack with the intention of destroying my opponents weapons (arms and legs) either through a technique called 'mousing' or immobilisation (qinna). That might be the end of the situation right there. If not I will seek to inflict the maximum amount of harm with the minimum amount of effort. Now from my perspective this will involve either qinna, specifically joint destruction, muscle tearing, or sealing techniques, or striking which, because of the nature of my art, will target qi point and meridians (which are usually very sensible locations to hit).

Mousing techniques are those that involve a defense that is also an attack, hence the defence should not only deflect the attack but also incapacitate the attacking weapon. Just thought I should clear that up.

The point, though, from an internal perspective is to minimise your own effort, turning your opponent against himself, while maximising the effect.

From a specifically bagua point of view, I am looking to be in constant motion, seeking to confuse my opponent and thereby open up avenues to attack.

This is not complete, but I hope it is of some value.

 

[Steel Tiger]

That's a story, and it might be right, or wrong, or a bit right and a bit wrong. I'm a TKDist, hence a Korean karateka, and have no particular horse in this race. But what I'd very much like is to hear from you CMAists who either practice, or have at least studied, the linear striking systems that go under the general rubric of karate, and to learn what you regard as the essential relationship between the CMAs and the O/J/KMAs—between the Chinese arts and Karate in the most general sense, Not historically, primarily (though that's always interesting) but technically. How are they different, and how are they similar? Do you think they have anything to say to each other in terms of applied self-defense methods?

Ex, you various questions have had me thinking for a while about this. It led me to have a look at the various Okinawan styles, of which there appears to be maybe a dozen, and some of the Chinese arts from southern China.

The thing that keeps popping into my head is the greater variety of developmental influences in China, whether it be an animal, a philosophy, a fist shape or a stance. These all contribute to creating different approaches to the problem of defending ones self.

These influences don't seem to be present in the Okinawan arts. What appears to have happened is that they have been given a limited set of influences which have been refined rather than added to.

This is, of course, my own perspective and that is of a person immersed in CMAs with no training in Okinawan arts.


There are a few things about this whole subject that I have been pondering.

For instance, one of the supposed influences for Shuri-ryu is Xingyi. This raises the question of other influences from northern systems

With the move of Karate from Okinawa I can actually see another avenue for Chinese influence on the development of the art. It is rather tenuous though. In the late 3rd century AD the queendom of Himiko on Kyushu had significant connections to China. Given the activities of diplomats and merchants, or rather their bodyguards, in Okinawa I would be surprised if similar influences did not come through at this earlier time.

It doesn't really mean much but it is interesting. It just means there is a pattern of continual influence, and it is probably a back and forth flow.

 

[exile]

XS and ST, thanks for your great replies&#8212;I'm doing `hit and run' posting, I mean to come back and respond to your very well-thought-out posts, but there are a bunch of things I'm having to do which have been forcing me to post in between real-life stuff. More soon&#8212;but I just want to say, Xue, no, you didn't offend or upset me in the least! Really&#8212;I just wasn't sure I had expressed myself clearly enough (I know from bitter experience that sometimes I think I'm being totally clear and transparent while the reality is that no one can figure out what the hell I was going on about; my wife is very helpful in pointing out to me just when this happens at various get-togethers with friends ) I appreciate your comments fully and am very impressed by the signficant differences you refer to amongst the Chinese styles themselves, and I understand what you're getting at&#8212;there's not going to be a unitary view from the Chinese side of the Okinawan-based arts simply because there are so many very different views on the Chinese side. This makes great sense to me; I've known for a long time that there were many family styles there, but I didn't really appreciate just how much serious difference in strategic and tactical approach there is... so maybe it's the case that my question doesn't really make sense, in that no single answer is going to work for all the possible CMAs that could be taken as the designated point of view for assessing the karate-based arts. If so, I wouldn't actually be disappointed: it would tell me something about the vast magnitude of the CMA `palette' of combat systems which is extremely interesting... along the lines of, anything you could imagine is represented somewhere in that long list of arts. I would be totally cool with that!

More soon; I gotta get some sleep, if only for form's sake! I mean, human beings are supposed to sleep at night, so...

 

[profesormental]

I agree with some of this but Northern systems include Xingyiquan, Baguazhang and Taijiquan all of which do not fit your description that you have given of CMA or Northern styles

Greetings.

Notice that you are referring to internal styles. I was referring to northern external styles.

As noted earlier, Internal styles are in a category of their own.

They do fit the description of what old Chinese masters like though...

Juan M. Mercado

 

[clfsean]

Internal / External is a Western idea that the Chinese picked up & used. In China when you MA talking about say taiji, they put it in the same category as praying mantis.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Internal / External is a Western idea that the Chinese picked up & used. In China when you MA talking about say taiji, they put it in the same category as praying mantis.

Actually that depends on who you talk to in China as to what they put it in categories of internal and external. But they do put taiji in the category of martial arts.

Internal and external are concepts that were developed on mainland china but they were developed later in the development of martial arts in China.

There has been some discussion that it might be an invention of literate students of illiterate Sifu’s in China. And that the term "Internal" was invented in order to give the author a feeling of superiority over other martial artist to make up for the authors "Personal" lack of skill. Not that the newly labeled Internal style was lacking but the authors skill was lacking in the martial art he was writing about for his Sifu.

There have been a few famous students of rather famous Sifu’s that have changed what was said by their Sifu in order to make themselves look better and since the Sifu could not read or was dead by the time the books came out they are with us today. And no I will not name names I and not interested in a fire fight on MT.

But the terminology Internal/External does come form China it was not a later invention by Westerners. However the term for internal in China is Neijia, you can get that whole leson form the Chen family as well about Neijia

Sun Lutang actually gave a list of criteria for an internal martial art:

- The use of the mind to move energy through the relaxed body as opposed to the use of brute strength.

- The internal development, of qi for the circulation of qì.

- The application qigong and neigong for external movement.

(as far as I know Sun Lutang did not pick up this idea from the West – Also Sun Lutang was HIGHLY skilled at 3 Internal Martial Arts as well as literate. So I tend to believe what I read from Sun Lutang)

You can also go to China and talk about Wushu and all martial arts are categorized as Wushu, both real and performance.

 

[clfsean]

When I was in China, it was all Wushu. Modern, traditional, internal, external. When I got to know a teacher from Hangzhou here in Atlanta, it was all wushu.

I'm not talking qualities of techniques or styles because depending on perspective & application experience, there are more internal than external.

There's always been a differentiation with neijia & weijia but not so much as a deliniation. That's the Western idea. Neijia & weijia more than anything just said this does it this way & this does it that way. The western idea segregated External from Internal.

The longer I'm in, the more I see internal than external.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Greetings.

Notice that you are referring to internal styles. I was referring to northern external styles.

As noted earlier, Internal styles are in a category of their own.

They do fit the description of what old Chinese masters like though...

Juan M. Mercado

True but they train fighting and I could have just as easily thrown in Tongbeiquan or any number of other Northern systems which would also not fit your description of Northern styles. All are very interested in a strong stance (Stance Training) much like Southern systems and all have partner drills as well that lead to free fighting. Basically not all martial arts fighting in the North is Sanda although I will admit it is pretty popular there.

Also it is possible that shuaijiao origins are more Northern too, It all depends on which part of the Zhou Dynasty’s territory it’s ancestor was developed in.

 

[Xue Sheng]

When I was in China, it was all Wushu. Modern, traditional, internal, external. When I got to know a teacher from Hangzhou here in Atlanta, it was all wushu.

I'm not talking qualities of techniques or styles because depending on perspective & application experience, there are more internal than external.

There's always been a differentiation with neijia & weijia but not so much as a deliniation. That's the Western idea. Neijia & weijia more than anything just said this does it this way & this does it that way. The western idea segregated External from Internal.

The longer I'm in, the more I see internal than external.

I am not disputing the focus on the delineation between internal and external is greater in the West than in China but I am disputing your original statement that you made

Internal / External is a Western idea that the Chinese picked up & used

Since Sun Lutang wrote about it and my Sifu's Sifu (tung Ying Jie) used the terminology as well as did and do the Chen family therefore I do not agree that it was an idea from the west that moved east. It was an idea from the East that moved west and was changed however.

We are MUCH more focused on it here in the West than they appeared to be in China. And much of that focus, in my opinion, is that the people practicing things like Taiji light (and sadly I am now seeing Bagua light) want to justify their lack of actual training and give themsselves a since of superiority to what they label as external MA and thereby justify their lack of training and fool themselves into believing they can actually defend themselves.

What is said about internal and external in China is that if trained properly

Internal leads to external and external leads to internal.

The problem that occurs is that one focus to much on one and not the other.

And when I was in China I saw a lot of Contemporary Wushu and Wushu (they are not the same) but it was not all Contemporary Wushu. Go to the parks and you will find the real deal, which by many Chinese is called Wushu, in China or at least in the north Wushu is martial arts there are just different types of it.

It is a translation and meaning issue that changes things here in the west.

Contemporary Wushu is, at least by my definition, acrobatic sport type stuff with little Martial training.