The General Tian Bubishi

[Dudi Nisan]

wanted to share this illustration from the General Tian Bubishi

 

[Dudi Nisan]

The writing on the illustration says:



(on the right) 青龍出抓手勝 qinglong chu zhuashou sheng



Blue Dragon sends out his claws (lit. grabbing hand) and wins



(on the left) 丹鳳朝陽手敗 danfeng zhaoyangshou bai

Cinnabar (=red) Phoenix [uses the] Sun-Facing Hand (=an upwards going attack) and loses



This martial manual, Bubishi, was created by Ryukyuans who trained in Fuzhou City, Fujian, in the late 19th century. “Blue Dragon sends out his claws” and “Cinnabar Phoenix [uses the] Sun-Facing Hand” are names of techniques. Does anybody know of karate styles which still use these names?

 

[Dudi Nisan]

Henning Wittwer informed me of a karate kata called “Pressing the throat” (“nodo-osae” 咽抑).

There are also two videos on YouTube:

and

What do you think?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know of nothing in Okinawan karate which has names like those.

The technique, however, is familiar. It is not terribly different from the practical application of a part of the common naihanchi kata.

Similarities include the manner of entering, stance, the type of attack being countered.

Differences would include the outside grab of the opponent''s right hand (we would tend to use an inside block) and throat attack vice straight punch. However very adaptable, clean technique.

Differs from Funikoshi Soke's in body posture, look closely. Blue dragon is inside red dragons frame. Blue dragon is lower than red dragon. Blue dragon isn't throat punching, he is directing red dragons head, which will control which way he falls.

Note blue dragons interception of red dragons step forward with his right leg. Red dragons foot is stopped in midair, he is about to be thrown. It is a non-braced throw.

 

[KabutoKouji]

I am currently reading Patrick McCarthy's Bubishi book, is this from the same source?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I know of nothing in Okinawan karate which has names like those.

The technique, however, is familiar. It is not terribly different from the practical application of a part of the common naihanchi kata.

Similarities include the manner of entering, stance, the type of attack being countered.

Differences would include the outside grab of the opponent''s right hand (we would tend to use an inside block) and throat attack vice straight punch. However very adaptable, clean technique.

Differs from Funikoshi Soke's in body posture, look closely. Blue dragon is inside red dragons frame. Blue dragon is lower than red dragon. Blue dragon isn't throat punching, he is directing red dragons head, which will control which way he falls.

Note blue dragons interception of red dragons step forward with his right leg. Red dragons foot is stopped in midair, he is about to be thrown. It is a non-braced throw.

Some of those differences may be understandable. The text with original picture makes it seem to me that this might have been a competition or demonstration. When I demonstrate something with the lethal potential of a throat strike, I will almost always modify it for safety. One way to do so is to move against the chin.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I do not believe there is anything accidental or unintentional in the drawing. Everything has significance, from the angle of the feet to the placement of the thumbs.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

To Bill Mattocks: thank you for a detailed explanation.
If I understand you correctly you mean to say that in spite the differences between the Bubishi and Funakoshi’s technique they are essentially one and the same. Is that what you meant?


To Kabutokouji: the colored illustration is form a newly published Bubishi. The black and white illustration is from another edition. There are several differences between those two editions (they include different articles/sections, the first one is colored, the latter is not).

To Dirty Dog: what makes you say that the colored illustration depicts a demonstration?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To Bill Mattocks: thank you for a detailed explanation.
If I understand you correctly you mean to say that in spite the differences between the Bubishi and Funakoshi’s technique they are essentially one and the same. Is that what you meant?

No, I think they have similarities but are unrelated.

I tried the tech shown in the Bubishi in the dojo tonight with a fellow student. Good technique, it works. The hand on the mouth is exactly what it appears to be; you press on the lower lip and teeth to generate distracting pain. The knee strike to inside of opponent''s knee is also correct. Nerve cluster strike. Combined with arm control as shown and this is a throw. Very effective. I had not seen it before, but now I can make it work.

Thanks!

 

[Dirty Dog]

To Dirty Dog: what makes you say that the colored illustration depicts a demonstration?

Because you don't "win" with a single technique, except in demonstrations or competitions.
As Bill points out, this combination can be used as an effective takedown. But if it's a fight, it's certainly not going to end it. If it's a demo or competition, then it certainly can, depending on how the rules are set.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Because you don't "win" with a single technique, except in demonstrations or competitions.
As Bill points out, this combination can be used as an effective takedown. But if it's a fight, it's certainly not going to end it. If it's a demo or competition, then it certainly can, depending on how the rules are set.

Agreed. As I understand it, much of the Bubishi is, "if attacker does X, you do Y."

In this case, it is a specific counter to a single type of attack, but it is not a fight ender.

Although, experimenting with the knee strike last night, it can definitely put a little hitch in the attacker''s giddyup.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Agreed. As I understand it, much of the Bubishi is, "if attacker does X, you do Y."

In this case, it is a specific counter to a single type of attack, but it is not a fight ender.

Although, experimenting with the knee strike last night, it can definitely put a little hitch in the attacker''s giddyup.

Oh, absolutely. While it virtually always takes more than one technique or combo or whatever to end a fight, the things shown here are certainly viable parts of winning.

 

[Dudi Nisan]

As I understand it, much of the Bubishi is, "if attacker does X, you do Y."

I see things a little differently. In 20 years of gongfu I never learned even one technique. Not even one. Because there are no techniques in Chinese gongfu, and there are no “scenarios” either. There is movement and interaction. It’s a different way to look at things.

Now, you can move and interact in infinite ways. And furthermore, you can perform the same movement but make it “feel” differently. You can slap like a monkey, a tiger, a crane. But each time the slap, although biomechanically the same, is different. What made it different? Your mindset. Once you slap with a monkey’s mind set, then with a tiger’s and so on and so forth.

Thus, the “Blue Dragon sends out his claws” from the Bubishi’s illustration is not a technique, but a teaching of a mindset. For the Chinese “Blue Dragon sends out his claws” had a similar effect as, say “Man-with-no-name draws his gun” and “Indiana Jones cracks his whip” to a Westerner. The minute you hear “Man-with-no-name draws his gun” it immediately evokes Clint Eastwood drawing his gun. And you go like “oh, I get it. I should perform this movement/technique in this manner. I should convey the same coolness under pressure and speed in drawing the gun, my movement should be small, prompt…” and you can go on and on.

Usually, this imagery would also be accompanied with a specific sound (made by the teacher). The sound of, say, swallowing, spitting, cracking, sticking to something, also helps students in getting the right feel.

We can say that such flower imagery plays a fundamental role in forming a fighter’s martial mindset. It is very important in Chinese gongfu, thus, not surprisingly, each and every one of the Bubishi’s 48 illustrations is accompanied by such flowery instructions.

Nodo-osae, the way I see it, is more like the objective of the technique (“to press the throat”) rather than instructions on how to perform it. In my years of Shotokan and Kyokushin teachers did not use imagery-flowery names either. But it is possible that once they did. And this brings me to the political circumstances we spoke about earlier. It might be that in order to popularize karate on the Japanese mainland Karate pioneers (such as Funakoshi) effected many changes in karate, changes which were meant to make it less disagreeable to the Japanese. One such change might have been the re-naming of techniques and doing away with such Chinese-flavored imagery.



I am a bit surprised that you argue that one technique won’t finish a fight. I finished two fights, each with one Judo techniques. Just one. And, karateka are known for their superhuman punches, so, from the right distance I am sure you could finish a fight with one blow only.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I see things a little differently. In 20 years of gongfu I never learned even one technique. Not even one. Because there are no techniques in Chinese gongfu, and there are no “scenarios” either. There is movement and interaction. It’s a different way to look at things.

It's really not. It's just semantics. Different words, same thing.

Now, you can move and interact in infinite ways. And furthermore, you can perform the same movement but make it “feel” differently. You can slap like a monkey, a tiger, a crane. But each time the slap, although biomechanically the same, is different. What made it different? Your mindset. Once you slap with a monkey’s mind set, then with a tiger’s and so on and so forth.

It's only different in your mind. On the receiving end, if it's the same, it's the same, regardless of what's going on in your mind.

I am a bit surprised that you argue that one technique won’t finish a fight. I finished two fights, each with one Judo techniques. Just one.

So you rendered them incapable of continuing to fight with one technique? You do know that would require them to be dead, crippled, or at least unconscious, right?
And the context of the comment is, clearly, that of two trained and experienced martial artists (as in the drawing). Knocking down some yahoo may make them stop attacking you, but it's not at all the same.
Tell us exactly what you did and exactly how it prevented them from continuing to fight.

And, karateka are known for their superhuman punches, so, from the right distance I am sure you could finish a fight with one blow only.

No, they're not. Except in Hollywood. And in the minds of people like George Dillman.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I see things a little differently. In 20 years of gongfu I never learned even one technique. Not even one. Because there are no techniques in Chinese gongfu, and there are no “scenarios” either. There is movement and interaction. It’s a different way to look at things.

Now, you can move and interact in infinite ways. And furthermore, you can perform the same movement but make it “feel” differently. You can slap like a monkey, a tiger, a crane. But each time the slap, although biomechanically the same, is different. What made it different? Your mindset. Once you slap with a monkey’s mind set, then with a tiger’s and so on and so forth.

Thus, the “Blue Dragon sends out his claws” from the Bubishi’s illustration is not a technique, but a teaching of a mindset. For the Chinese “Blue Dragon sends out his claws” had a similar effect as, say “Man-with-no-name draws his gun” and “Indiana Jones cracks his whip” to a Westerner. The minute you hear “Man-with-no-name draws his gun” it immediately evokes Clint Eastwood drawing his gun. And you go like “oh, I get it. I should perform this movement/technique in this manner. I should convey the same coolness under pressure and speed in drawing the gun, my movement should be small, prompt…” and you can go on and on.

Usually, this imagery would also be accompanied with a specific sound (made by the teacher). The sound of, say, swallowing, spitting, cracking, sticking to something, also helps students in getting the right feel.

We can say that such flower imagery plays a fundamental role in forming a fighter’s martial mindset. It is very important in Chinese gongfu, thus, not surprisingly, each and every one of the Bubishi’s 48 illustrations is accompanied by such flowery instructions.

Nodo-osae, the way I see it, is more like the objective of the technique (“to press the throat”) rather than instructions on how to perform it. In my years of Shotokan and Kyokushin teachers did not use imagery-flowery names either. But it is possible that once they did. And this brings me to the political circumstances we spoke about earlier. It might be that in order to popularize karate on the Japanese mainland Karate pioneers (such as Funakoshi) effected many changes in karate, changes which were meant to make it less disagreeable to the Japanese. One such change might have been the re-naming of techniques and doing away with such Chinese-flavored imagery.



I am a bit surprised that you argue that one technique won’t finish a fight. I finished two fights, each with one Judo techniques. Just one. And, karateka are known for their superhuman punches, so, from the right distance I am sure you could finish a fight with one blow only.

I believe the argument of technique vs. no-technique is semantics. In NGA, I teach techniques. Those are just sequences of movements that produce a result. Once they are mastered, the movements begin to blend, and we work in what I call the "grey areas between techniques". The techniques themselves start to blur, because the principles of the art take over.

From watching other arts, this seems to eventually apply to all of them. All teach by sequences early on, and become "greyer" later. All have techniques as I define the term, though some don't use that term (and some actually dislike the term, and prefer things like "structure" or "model").

As for the comment about finishing with one technique, my read on that is that you will nearly always use more than one. I may block or blend to avoid the attack (first "technique"), deliver a quick strike to distract them (second "technique"), and then control their arm into a lock (third "technique") that finishes the encounter. If I count the block or blend as a technique, it's hard to imagine any finish that doesn't have at least two, unless I'm either using an intercepting strike (strike that stifles the incoming strike) or a pre-emptive strike, and either must be one-strike KO to count.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am a bit surprised that you argue that one technique won’t finish a fight. I finished two fights, each with one Judo techniques. Just one. And, karateka are known for their superhuman punches, so, from the right distance I am sure you could finish a fight with one blow only.

One technique can end a fight. I would argue that the one pictured in the first post would not, as the end result is the attacker being thrown to the ground. Useful but not a fight-stopper.

 

[Juany118]

I believe the argument of technique vs. no-technique is semantics. In NGA, I teach techniques. Those are just sequences of movements that produce a result. Once they are mastered, the movements begin to blend, and we work in what I call the "grey areas between techniques". The techniques themselves start to blur, because the principles of the art take over.

From watching other arts, this seems to eventually apply to all of them. All teach by sequences early on, and become "greyer" later. All have techniques as I define the term, though some don't use that term (and some actually dislike the term, and prefer things like "structure" or "model").

As for the comment about finishing with one technique, my read on that is that you will nearly always use more than one. I may block or blend to avoid the attack (first "technique"), deliver a quick strike to distract them (second "technique"), and then control their arm into a lock (third "technique") that finishes the encounter. If I count the block or blend as a technique, it's hard to imagine any finish that doesn't have at least two, unless I'm either using an intercepting strike (strike that stifles the incoming strike) or a pre-emptive strike, and either must be one-strike KO to count.

I agree with the technique vs no-technique being semantics myself. All to often I will hear someone say we don't use techniques we use skills. What is the definition of technique?

tech·nique
tekˈnēk/
noun
a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.

1. skill or ability in a particular field.
"he has excellent technique"
synonyms: skill, ability, proficiency, expertise, mastery, talent, genius, artistry, craftsmanship; More
2. a skillful or efficient way of doing or achieving something.
"tape recording is a good technique for evaluating our own communications"
synonyms: method, approach, procedure, system, modus operandi, MO, way;

It's all the same really. It might sound a little Zen Koanesque but I look at it this way. As you learn your body stumbles through the technique but you gain the mindset. The mindset then helps steady you and you build the skill, then you tie the other skills you once stumbled towards into a greater whole.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm sorry, I can't play that semantic game. No offense, but of course there is technique.

Otherwise, we would stand around in the dojo. "What do we do?" "I don't care, just do something."

If you say "Here is a punch," that is a technique. I don't care if you call it a zen koan or a dog biscuit, it's a technique. It is the instruction on how to do something.

When my dad taught me how to hammer a nail, he showed me how to grip the hammer and how to strike the nail, including the movement of the wrist. Technique.

When I show a student how to receive an incoming punch, technique.

"We have no techniques." OK, so either you're mistaken and you have techniques, or your students are punching bags.

 

[Juany118]

I'm sorry, I can't play that semantic game. No offense, but of course there is technique.

Otherwise, we would stand around in the dojo. "What do we do?" "I don't care, just do something."

If you say "Here is a punch," that is a technique. I don't care if you call it a zen koan or a dog biscuit, it's a technique. It is the instruction on how to do something.

When my dad taught me how to hammer a nail, he showed me how to grip the hammer and how to strike the nail, including the movement of the wrist. Technique.

When I show a student how to receive an incoming punch, technique.

"We have no techniques." OK, so either you're mistaken and you have techniques, or your students are punching bags.

I think somehow people think boil down martial arts to individual techniques that you put together somehow minimizes the discipline. Unlike more modern fighting systems many TMAs sell themselves as a "greater whole" not only a physical fighting method but each tries to sell itself as having its own unique philosophy as well that often tries to stretche beyond the "mere" action of fighting.

It's all a bit pretentious really but a few centuries or more of existence tends to produce that.

 

[Dirty Dog]

One technique can end a fight. I would argue that the one pictured in the first post would not, as the end result is the attacker being thrown to the ground. Useful but not a fight-stopper.

It can, but it is extremely unlikely, especially between two trained individuals.