This is probably a very stupid question, but I'll ask anyway.

[Marnetmar]

With the assumption that Karate evolved in part from CMA, why is it that Karate kata/techniques are generally much more stiff, rigid and "clean" than their counterparts/equivalent movements in Chinese arts? That includes even the hardest Chinese arts like Hung Ga.

Serious question, I'm basically illiterate when it comes to Karate.

 

[KangTsai]

Maybe it has to do with the fact that karate was basically the replacement for carrying swords at the time.

 

[KabutoKouji]

now I do not want to start any emm arguments here ( I came from TKD myself which is full of Shotokan based top body movements) - but I don't know where I heard it but someone said to me that when Chinese were showing stuff to others they didn't completely explain the full movement from the feet up, merely what you could see, so hence the very straight line external stuff of a lot of Karate.

It is probably BS but interesting nonetheless IMO

Another factor possibly is how the belt system and dividing into chunks was brought in might have in someway led to seperation of the elements at lower levels. I always remember my TKD Master saying that the higher black belt tul in ITF started to look more and more like Kung Fu.

 

[Tez3]

What is Traditional Karate? | Iain Abernethy

The Bubishi – Karate’s Most Important Text? | Iain Abernethy

The 10 Precepts of Anko Itosu | Iain Abernethy

The Effects of Japans Assimilation of Culture on Okinawan Karate Kata by Harold R.Wisner | Iain Abernethy

The Importance of Context in Understanding Japanese Martial Art | Iain Abernethy

They aren't all written by Iain by the way but a bit of reading for those interested.

 

[KabutoKouji]

What is Traditional Karate? | Iain Abernethy

The Bubishi – Karate’s Most Important Text? | Iain Abernethy

The 10 Precepts of Anko Itosu | Iain Abernethy

The Effects of Japans Assimilation of Culture on Okinawan Karate Kata by Harold R.Wisner | Iain Abernethy

The Importance of Context in Understanding Japanese Martial Art | Iain Abernethy

They aren't all written by Iain by the way but a bit of reading for those interested.

those all look like proper interesting reads thanks

 

[Tez3]

those all look like proper interesting reads thanks

If you go onto the site Iain has a lot of his writings but as well a lot of articles by knowledgeable martial artists. it's a great resource.

 

[marques]

I guess it is cultural. Japanese adapted what they learnt from the mainland to themselves (possibly). But I ask myself the same (even if Aikido is Japanese).

 

[KabutoKouji]

If you go onto the site Iain has a lot of his writings but as well a lot of articles by knowledgeable martial artists. it's a great resource.

thanks yeah because of his stuff I just bought Bubishi book on Google Play and am going to read it

 

[KabutoKouji]

I guess it is cultural. Japanese adapted what they learnt from the mainland to themselves (possibly). But I ask myself the same (even if Aikido is Japanese).

There is an obsession with lineages in TMAs, but I still find it interesting, I have read conflicting stuff with Aikido people saying it definitely was 'only Japanese' but I remember hearing that AikiJutsu was descendent from Chinese chin na (seize and control) techniques.

 

[Buka]

This is probably a very stupid answer, but I'll answer anyway.

Because people are different. Different in size, experience, physiological make up, physiological make up, they were taught differently, they learn differently, and they teach differently. They have different belief systems, different cultures, different goals, dreams and opportunities.

People who have taught over the centuries have tried to do what they thought was best, be it traditional arts or non traditional arts.

Did they do a good job? Damned if I know.

Think about this for a second. If anyone here on this forum, grew up in some other part of the world, and fell in love with a completely different Martial Art(s) than they have now, and trained just as long and just as hard - think their opinions would be the same as they are? Maybe yes, but probably not, who's to say?

 

[marques]

There is an obsession with lineages in TMAs, but I still find it interesting, I have read conflicting stuff with Aikido people saying it definitely was 'only Japanese' but I remember hearing that AikiJutsu was descendent from Chinese chin na (seize and control) techniques.

I read somewhere (in a book I think) that Ueshiba spent time in China, possibly studying internal CMA, before creating his Aikijutsu / Aikido.
It may be true or not but, since people walk, it is hard to defend the 'unique origin' thing... Especially in the recent centuries.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I read somewhere (in a book I think) that Ueshiba spent time in China, possibly studying internal CMA, before creating his Aikijutsu / Aikido.
It may be true or not but, since people walk, it is hard to defend the 'unique origin' thing... Especially in the recent centuries.

I have some familiarity with Ueshiba's Aikido (as it is taught today, anyway). There's very little in it that couldn't have come directly from his Dait-ryu training. That said, some of his approach to it and which principles he emphasized, could easily have been influenced by CMA.

And, as someone else mentioned, Daito-ryu may have some Chin Na influence. My knowledge of the background of the techniques doesn't reach back beyond Daito-ryu.

 

[marques]

I was told that the joint locks I was learning were from jiu-jitsu. (Little interest in history at that time...). Later on I found a Chin Na / QinNa video on Youtube, performed by monks in a temple... And it was very much all the same. If the names are correctly used, there are clear influences or too much coincidence.

 

[Flying Crane]

When it comes to joint locks and manipulations, there are a lot of similarities from one system to another. I'm sure that some of that would be due to independent development of similar techniques in different cultures, and some of it would be due to exchanges and influence of one culture on another, and that would be a two-way street. Cultural influences would go both ways.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

why is it that Karate kata/techniques are generally much more stiff, rigid and "clean" than their counterparts/equivalent movements in Chinese arts?

When you play the drum, you can

- hit hard on each note, that will be the Karate way.
- hit hard on some notes, and hit soft on some notes, that will be the CMA way.

IMO, the Karate Kata and CMA form may be designed in different ways. If a form is designed that

- each and every move are attack. You need to put full power into each moves, that will be the Karate way.
- some moves are attack and some moves are defense. You may put full power in those attacking moves and only put partial power in those defense moves, that will be the CMA way.

It also depends on the individual and not on the style. A Karate guy can do the CMA way, and a CMA guy can do the Karate way. The issue is, it may look funny when you use

- partial power in a Karate attacking move, and
- full power in CMA defense move.

So from the way that a form/Kata is designed, you may not have any choice.

The CMA Baji system is similar to the Karate training that try to put power in each and every move..

 

[KangTsai]

Also alot of old kung fu was for performance purposes. Street kung fu performers weren't rare in ancient China apparently. It's also said that shaolin derived alot of movements from meditative techniques and such.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was told that the joint locks I was learning were from jiu-jitsu. (Little interest in history at that time...). Later on I found a Chin Na / QinNa video on Youtube, performed by monks in a temple... And it was very much all the same. If the names are correctly used, there are clear influences or too much coincidence.

If you can lay your hands on links to some of those videos, I'd love to take a look at some of that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you play the drum, you can

- hit hard on each note, that will be the Karate way.
- hit hard on some notes, and hit soft on some notes, that will be the CMA way.

IMO, the Karate Kata and CMA form may be designed in different ways. If a form is designed that

- each and every move are attack. You need to put full power into each moves, that will be the Karate way.
- some moves are attack and some moves are defense. You may put full power in those attacking moves and only put partial power in those defense moves, that will be the CMA way.

It also depends on the individual and not on the style. A Karate guy can do the CMA way, and a CMA guy can do the Karate way. The issue is, it may look funny when you use

- partial power in a Karate attacking move, and
- full power in CMA defense move.

So from the way that a form/Kata is designed, you may not have any choice.

The CMA Baji system is similar to the Karate training that try to put power in each and every move..

According to Gichin Funakoshi (in his memoirs) Karate on Okinawa originally had two styles. One was harder, more effective, and required more strength, so better suited to bigger men. The other was softer, and a better fit for slighter men. By his estimation, during his lifetime the two merged into a combination, so it may be that Karate at one time was either significantly harder than we currently see or significantly softer.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

According to Gichin Funakoshi (in his memoirs) Karate on Okinawa originally had two styles. One was harder, more effective, and required more strength, so better suited to bigger men. The other was softer, and a better fit for slighter men. By his estimation, during his lifetime the two merged into a combination, so it may be that Karate at one time was either significantly harder than we currently see or significantly softer.

What do you mean "hard"?

Let's look at a punch. When you

- generate force (compress), your body is soft.
- release force, your body is hard.

Since the compress may take 75% of your punch process and the release only take 25% (or less) of your punch process, in general, your punch still look soft and not hard.

Will you call the following clip "hard", or "soft"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you mean "hard"?

Let's look at a punch. When you

- generate force (compress), your body is soft.
- release force, your body is hard.

Since the compress may take 75% of your punch process and the release only take 25% (or less) of your punch process, in general, your punch still look soft and not hard.

Will you call the following clip "hard", or "soft"?

That clip doesn't give me anything to judge it by. His movement has both components. I'd have to see more of what he's doing to place his movement and technique on that continuum.

For me, when we speak of striking arts, the difference between hard and soft (not necessarily the same distinction Funakoshi was making - he didn't clarify it) is a matter of clashing. If you give me a round strike and I block it by dropping my weight and putting up a strong block that stops it dead, that is a "hard" block. If I use footwork to absorb part of the impact and diffuse it over time, or I parry it, that is a "soft" block. The hard block is clashing force against force, whereas the soft block uses other principles to diffuse the impact. With striking, the difference is less clear to me.