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



## Marnetmar (Dec 14, 2016)

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 (Dec 14, 2016)

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


----------



## KabutoKouji (Dec 15, 2016)

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 (Dec 15, 2016)

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 (Dec 15, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> What is Traditional Karate? | Iain Abernethy
> 
> The Bubishi – Karate’s Most Important Text? | Iain Abernethy
> 
> ...



those all look like proper interesting reads thanks


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 15, 2016)

KabutoKouji said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2016)

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 (Dec 15, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2016)

marques said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2016)

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 (Dec 15, 2016)

KabutoKouji said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2016)

marques said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2016)

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 (Dec 15, 2016)

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 (Dec 15, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2016)

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 (Dec 16, 2016)

marques said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you mean "hard"?
> 
> Let's look at a punch. When you
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2016)

Buka said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


That's about the same answer I have.  Everyone believes that something should be done harder or softer, or that someone should be tough like a tank instead of bending like a tree.  Philosophies on fighting will shape how the techniques are done.


----------



## marques (Dec 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


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


You're lucky. It was really easy to find. Now, get a coffee or something.  It is long.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2016)

KabutoKouji said:


> There is an obsession with lineages in TMAs



I've not found that here, a well respected American poster (Exile) here some years ago suggested it was something that was prevalent in the USA more than anywhere else because Americans are more interested in their roots than Europeans etc. I've noticed myself on Wikipedia when they have something on an American they always put what country his parent's descendants come from, something you don't find on articles about people outside the US.  Lineage of all sorts seems more important for Americans.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

marques said:


> You're lucky. It was really easy to find. Now, get a coffee or something.  It is long.


You're right, there's a lot of commonality between those and what's in Daito-ryu/Aikido/NGA. A very different approach to them in some cases, but still quite similar from a technical perspective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I've not found that here, a well respected American poster (Exile) here some years ago suggested it was something that was prevalent in the USA more than anywhere else because Americans are more interested in their roots than Europeans etc. I've noticed myself on Wikipedia when they have something on an American they always put what country his parent's descendants come from, something you don't find on articles about people outside the US.  Lineage of all sorts seems more important for Americans.


It's also more prevalent in some arts than others. I suspect it's more prevalent in older arts, where "lineage" is a longer track, but that might be just where I've experienced it. My primary art is a fairly closed group (only in the US since 1962, and fairly small), so lineage is a matter of who your primary instructor is, for the most part.


----------



## KabutoKouji (Dec 16, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I've not found that here, a well respected American poster (Exile) here some years ago suggested it was something that was prevalent in the USA more than anywhere else because Americans are more interested in their roots than Europeans etc. I've noticed myself on Wikipedia when they have something on an American they always put what country his parent's descendants come from, something you don't find on articles about people outside the US.  Lineage of all sorts seems more important for Americans.



yeah that might be something to do with it deffo


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> 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.


So the way that you define hard or soft is by it's "hard block" or "soft block" and not by it's punch.

I'm always interested to know why people may call a style "hard" or "soft". IMO, it's up to the individual and not up to the style. I can train a soft style (such as Taiji) the hard way. I can also train a style (such as Karate) the soft way.

Will you call this style hard or soft?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So the way that you define hard or soft is by it's "hard block" or "soft block" and not by it's punch.
> 
> I'm always interested to know why people may call a style "hard" or "soft". IMO, it's up to the individual and not up to the style. I can train a soft style (such as Taiji) the hard way. I can also train a style (such as Karate) the soft way.
> 
> Will you call this style hard or soft?


[/QUOTE]
It's got both.  I see both hard and soft styles.   I can see where yielding occurs and when brute force occurs.   What's with the stomping though?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's got both.  I see both hard and soft styles.   I can see where yielding occurs and when brute force occurs.   What's with the stomping though?


Is there any MA style that only has "hard block" and no "soft block"?

Baji has 3 different power generation:

- cross (horizontal) power,
- dropping (vertical) power,
- spiral power.

The foot stomping is used to develop both the dropping power and also the cross power (to coordinate front foot landing and punch ending at the same time).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2016)

KabutoKouji said:


> There is an obsession with lineages in TMAs


This perception probably comes from the WC crowd who will bust a person in their head for getting it wrong lol.   Most TMAs use their lineages as a reference point which helps them to better understand what is being taught.  For example, Jow Ga has one main root from 1 of 5 brothers.   Everyone (most people ) who does Jow Ga has learned it from one of the lineage of the 4 brothers.  How Jow Ga is performed and the application of the techniques being used will vary depending on which lineage a person comes from.   Now fast forward to modern times.  This still holds true but each Sifu adds their own personality to the system where it's possible to tell which Jow Ga School you learned Jow Ga from.   If there is ever any concern about the legitimacy of a school, it will be easy to verify  through lineage in being that someone from an earlier lineage will be able to vouch for you.

Here's a real life example.  A guy does Jow Ga and calls himself Sifu.  He wins trophies and competitions and is recognized by outside organizations.  If you want to find out if he is legitimate then you simply ask for his lineage and someone from that lineage will be able to verify.  If his Sifu is still alive then his Sifu can verify directly.  This is exactly what happened in this case.  Someone asked this guy's sifu and the Sifu said that he never promoted the student to the title of Sifu and never made him an instructor.  

You can do the same with me, and not only will my Sifu approve of me as instructor, but his Sifu would approve as well. So if you train under me, you would know that I'm not just making stuff up. Without lineage, you wouldn't have anyone to ask.  It's not a perfect system but it does work from time to time.  And you'll know right away if someone is lying simply by doing the research.   Just a few months ago, someone did similar research on a TKD guy who made claims about his tkd rank.

Keep in mind that every system will not function the same.  Some systems are really touchy about their lineage.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is there any MA style that only has "hard block" and no "soft block"?


  No but there are styles that lean more towards hard than soft.  Jow Ga has both hard and soft techniques, but for the most part a lot of what we do is hard techniques where we smash at every opportunity.  There are also techniques that can be done either soft or hard where we can guide or strike using he same technique.  Our big punches do not have a soft application for them. We have some smaller circular techniques that do use soft applications to guide or to flow so as to not slow our ability to generate power for the following technique.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The foot stomping is used to develop both the dropping power and also the cross power (to coordinate front foot landing and punch ending at the same time).


Thanks. I didn't understand that. I train the dropping power as well but not in that manner.  For Jow Ga we "sink" power downward which is different from the stomping.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> This perception probably comes from the WC crowd who will bust a person in their head for getting it wrong lol. Most TMAs use their lineages as a reference point which helps them to better understand what is being taught. For example, Jow Ga has one main root from 1 of 5 brothers.


As far as Shuai Chiao, there are styles such as Baoding, Beijing, Tiejing, Mongolian, Xingsi, Yi. As far as I know, I have not heard any Shuai Chiao style claims that it's superior that others.

As far as long fist, there are styles such as Tsa, Hwa, Hong, Tang, Pao. Also nobody ever claims his style is superior than others.

The style of WC is quite "unique".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As far as Shuai Chiao, there are styles such as Baoding, Beijing, Tiejing, Mongolian, Xingsi, Yi. As far as I know, I have not heard any Shuai Chiao style claims that it's superior that others.
> 
> As far as long fist, there are styles such as Tsa, Hwa, Hong, Tang, Pao. Also nobody ever claims his style is superior than others.
> 
> The style of WC is quite "unique".


I don't think lineages classify who is better. It just helps students to better understand the teachings.  Wing Chun also has different styles and certain lineages do things a different way that other lineages. I don't think WC is unique, some of the same techniques used in Wing Chun can be found in other systems as well.  I can easily show similar techniques used in Jow Ga for some of the stuff here.  Technique at 2:33 is Hung Ga Tiger


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think WC is unique, ...


I say "WC is unique" as only WC guys like to put down other WC guys. You just don't hear one Judo guy who tells other Judo guys, "You guys are all doing Judo wrong".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I say "WC is unique" as only WC guys like to put down other WC guys. You just don't hear one Judo guy who tells other Judo guys, "You guys are all doing Judo wrong".


Oh sorry for the misunderstanding.  I agree completely with you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So the way that you define hard or soft is by it's "hard block" or "soft block" and not by it's punch.
> 
> I'm always interested to know why people may call a style "hard" or "soft". IMO, it's up to the individual and not up to the style. I can train a soft style (such as Taiji) the hard way. I can also train a style (such as Karate) the soft way.
> 
> Will you call this style hard or soft?


Again, can't say without seeing it in use. Hard, to me, is a matter of clashing - force-on-force for maximum impact. That's not something that will show completely in a one-man form.

And, no, it's not just the block. The block is just where this clash shows most easily, and has the clearest distinction.

EDIT: And I agree that it's not necessarily about the style. There are some styles that are inherently harder or softer. There are also people who tend toward the harder or softer end of a style. And there are styles that reach well toward both the hard and soft ends of the spectrum within that single style.


----------



## Buka (Dec 17, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I've not found that here, a well respected American poster (Exile) here some years ago suggested it was something that was prevalent in the USA more than anywhere else because Americans are more interested in their roots than Europeans etc. I've noticed myself on Wikipedia when they have something on an American they always put what country his parent's descendants come from, something you don't find on articles about people outside the US.  Lineage of all sorts seems more important for Americans.



I don't know. It might be more prevalent in TMAs, but I don't know many who much care about it, outside of their direct Instructor. And I know a whole lot of American Martial artists. I mean a **** load.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2016)

Buka said:


> I don't know. It might be more prevalent in TMAs, but I don't know many who much care about it, outside of their direct Instructor. And I know a whole lot of American Martial artists. I mean a **** load.


That has been mostly my experience. I've met a few who were deeply into lineage, but most I know only care about it as a matter of curiosity - a sort of "that's cool" discussion - or for practical reasons, where lineage splits would predict different approaches and even different use of terms.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2016)

Buka said:


> I don't know. It might be more prevalent in TMAs, but I don't know many who much care about it, outside of their direct Instructor. And I know a whole lot of American Martial artists. I mean a **** load.




As I said though it was Exile's thought rather than mine, I've never noticed many bothering with actual lineages here much.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 19, 2016)

I think those who know that their lineage is solid, don't feel much need to bicker and argue about it.

While it is far from perfect, it does act as something of a quality control in TMA when the instructional lineage is known.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 19, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I think those who know that their lineage is solid, don't feel much need to bicker and argue about it.
> 
> While it is far from perfect, it does act as something of a quality control in TMA when the instructional lineage is known.


If I'm teaching Jow Ga and I tell you that my teacher was Ip Ching but I can't do any WC, then right there red flags should go up.  The first red flag should be from me not mentioning a Jow Ga Sifu and the second one should be for not knowing Wing Chun.  

I had prospective student contact me yesterday and I gave my lineage so that he could verify that we were a legitimate school.  Sort of like "don't believe me?" Go ask my sifu and my sifu's sifu.  "Still don't believe me? "  then go check with the main school in Maryland.    When that lineage isn't there like the guy starting his FTF organization, then you are pretty much at the mercy of what he's telling you in terms of FTF, especially if the person is new to martial arts and fighting.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> 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.



I am familiar with the quote.  IMO and the opinion of other scholars, this quote was basically just sniping at the Naha based styles.  He was basically saying that their karate was unrefined and required brute force, while their karate was more refined and required more skill and finesse.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 20, 2016)

As to the original topic.  One key thing is that the Okinawans changed and adapted what they liked with kung fu they had seen and turned it into their own cultural art with their own way of doing things.  They liked certain aspects and emphasized those things and made it into a completely different art form.  It was either Chojun Miyagi or Kanryo Higaonna who went on record saying that they changed the open hands to closed hands because of the okinawan preference for punching.  There were also influences from other countries that they traded with like Siam in okinawan karate.

It doesn't look like kung fu, because it isn't.  But, you can see certain movement patterns and those influences in there still.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> I am familiar with the quote.  IMO and the opinion of other scholars, this quote was basically just sniping at the Naha based styles.  He was basically saying that their karate was unrefined and required brute force, while their karate was more refined and required more skill and finesse.


Interesting. That wasn't actually the impression I got when reading it. He seemed to have an appreciation for the style he referred to as being better for bigger men, and actually refers to it as more effective.


----------

