# Martial Art or Theory?



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

Many agree that Yong Chun is conceptual in nature & expressed through it's principals. There are even legends that state it was developed as a concept. This begets the question; Is Yong Chun a true stand alone martial art or is it a method of development and refinement applicable to any martial art? Can it be both & still considered Yong Chun?


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

Both , and it has a same source as some other martial arts , like white crane . Being practicing both I can say that Wing Chun and Zonghe quan are based on identical principles and concepts ,while expression of these concepts and principles is quite  different .


----------



## Kwan Sau (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Both , and it has a same source as some other martial arts , like white crane . Being practicing both I can say that Wing Chun and Zonghe quan are based on identical principles and concepts ,while expression of these concepts and principles is quite  different .



Interesting. Care to provide an example or two?


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

Center line theory \ controlling the space , destruction\control opponent's center of gravity , a lot of sticky hands practice , importance of structure ...if you read any explanation of basic wing chun  concepts and principles all that can be said for zonghe .Expression of these concepts and principles is quite different .

for example , chi sao
*wing chun*






*Zonghe*


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2015)

I also say it is both a method and a set of principles/concepts.   Many people seem to believe that if you are using a few Wing Chun concepts that makes it Wing Chun.  I don't agree with that view.  As Zuti pointed out, White Crane uses many Wing Chun concepts.  That doesn't make it Wing Chun.  Southern Mantis uses many Wing Chun concepts.  That doesn't make it Wing Chun.   Jeet Kune Do uses many Wing Chun concepts.  That doesn't make it Wing Chun.  On the other hand, just going through the motions of Wing Chun without understanding the concepts behind them it just some version of Wu Shu that LOOKS like Wing Chun.  Its a package deal.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

With the wide variety of flavors in various Yong Chun & White Crane branches, aside from descriptive labeling for marketing purposes & emphasis on preferred use of certain principles, can they truly be considered different? Or are they all really just different expressions of the same thing? Same goes for other arts that use the same theory but interpret it differently and call themselves by another name. This brings me back to, is Yong Chun truly a defined art in its own right or simply a concept of how to maximize potential of human movement?


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> I also say it is both a method and a set of principles/concepts.   Many people seem to believe that if you are using a few Wing Chun concepts that makes it Wing Chun.  I don't agree with that view.  As Zuti pointed out, White Crane uses many Wing Chun concepts.  That doesn't make it Wing Chun.  Southern Mantis uses many Wing Chun concepts.  That doesn't make it Wing Chun.   Jeet Kune Do uses many Wing Chun concepts.  That doesn't make it Wing Chun.  On the other hand, just going through the motions of Wing Chun without understanding the concepts behind them it just some version of Wu Shu that LOOKS like Wing Chun.  Its a package deal.



Hi Keith,
I agree to an extent with what you're saying but would also argue that if all the principles are present, instead of just some, even though they are expressed and interpreted differently, is it truly something different? Or just one's understanding of those principles applied to preferred movement & approach to conflict resolution. Again, in Yong Chun alone there is great variety in technique & flavor, to the point many would not recognize them as related.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

I wonder if the original developer(s) meant for the art to be a transformative concept, like a primordial Jeet Kune Do, and like modern Jeet Kune Do it developed into a structured method that adheres religiously to the dogma of the user, thus creating various new styles.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

dlcox said:


> I wonder if the original developer(s) meant for the art to be a transformative concept, like a primordial Jeet Kune Do, and like modern Jeet Kune Do it developed into a structured method that adheres religiously to the dogma of the user, thus creating various new styles.


I am pretty sure they didn't think in these categories , time , place and culture at the moment of creating wing chun \ white crane ,had caused very specific mind set for martial artists .


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

dlcox said:


> With the wide variety of flavors in various Yong Chun & White Crane branches, aside from descriptive labeling for marketing purposes & emphasis on preferred use of certain principles, can they truly be considered different? Or are they all really just different expressions of the same thing? Same goes for other arts that use the same theory but interpret it differently and call themselves by another name. This brings me back to, is Yong Chun truly a defined art in its own right or simply a concept of how to maximize potential of human movement?


I can say that wing chun and zonghe definitely are not same thing , although they share same concepts and principles .


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I can say that wing chun and zonghe definitely are not same thing , although they share same concepts and principles .



Are you sure its not simply aesthetics? Personal preference based upon preferred approaches to the concepts & principles. Is it not just labeling? Or are they truly unique entities? Your assumptions many be limited by your experience and prejudices of what you believe to be representative of Yong Chun. This applies to us all. The concepts & principles of many southern TCMA are the same. To weigh them against Yong Chun as the gold standard of representation of these principles & concepts is biased. Yong Chun is simply one interpretation of these principles & concepts. Can they all not derive from the same theory of refinement? Over the years people affixed labels to categorize others personal expression of these concepts & principles. Which makes us think they are unique and new. Are they really? Or is it all simply personal expression.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

dlcox said:


> Are you sure its not simply aesthetics? Personal preference based upon preferred approaches to the concepts & principles. Is it not just labeling? Or are they truly unique entities? Your assumptions many be limited by your experience and prejudices of what you believe to be representative of Yong Chun. This applies to us all. The concepts & principles of many southern TCMA are the same. To weigh them against Yong Chun as the gold standard of representation of these principles & concepts is biased. Yong Chun is simply one interpretation of these principles & concepts. Can they all not derive from the same theory of refinement? Over the years people affixed labels to categorize others personal expression of these concepts & principles. Which makes us think they are unique and new. Are they really? Or is it all simply personal expression.


Do you think AK 47 and M16 are same ? They basically work on same principle , have same tactical purpose but are they same weapon , just a different design ?


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Do you think AK 47 and M16 are same ? They basically work on same principle , have same tactical purpose but are they same weapon , just a different design ?



Generically, yes. They are both assault rifles. I'm not talking about which is better or more effective, but if they are conceptually the same as defined by the concepts & principles? Does this make them similar enough to say that they are offspring of the same parents, siblings so to speak. If the answer is yes, then we can say that although unique unto themselves they also share the same DNA, which makes them of the same source. If raised in the same household (geographic area) they would even share the same values. The question lies in the genetic source material, though they will evolve and develop along different paths, they are not dissimilar enough to be considered as something new. Like comparing bow & arrow to rifle. More like comparing composite bow to re-curve to compound.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

Many of the southern TCMA arts share a common origin myth. Could they not be called something like, Mantis Yong Chun, Crane Yong Chun, Snake Yong Chun, Tiger Yong Chun, Red Boat Yong Chun, White Brow Yong Chun, Dragon Yong Chun etc. If Yong Chun is considered the foundational concept. These are questions that I ponder, just looking for opinions.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

If we use the analogy that all Wrestling styles are Bows, we have compound bows, composite bows, re-curve bows, long bows and cross bows. We know each is based upon improvements to the technology, all essentially perform the same task, but have a special purpose that the improvements were used to address. So lets say Composite Bow=Boke, Re-curve Bow = Shuai Jiao, Long Bow = Sumo, Composite Bow = Judo and Compound Bow= BJJ. Then we can definitively say that each style thereafter, that focuses on the specific aspects of the principles of compound, composite, re-curve etc. is based upon that particular improvement to the technology and all are based upon that of stick and cord. Wouldn't this analogy hold true for arts like Yong Chun? If Yong Chun is Compound Bow, couldn't all arts that are based upon Compound Bow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently? Even with addition of silencers, sights etc. to improve the use of the technology, do these additions change the basic principles of Compound Bow?


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I am pretty sure they didn't think in these categories , time , place and culture at the moment of creating wing chun \ white crane ,had caused very specific mind set for martial artists .



I agree.  I was about to write the same thing when I saw Zuti's reply!


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I can say that wing chun and zonghe definitely are not same thing , although they share same concepts and principles .



Again.  I agree.  Because I don't think they do share ALL of the same concepts and principles.  IMHO, some of these concepts are actually "physical" concepts in the sense that they say how we are going to move and apply a technique.  Since zonghe isn't moving and applying techniques the same way that Wing Chun does, they don't share ALL concepts and principles.


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2015)

dlcox said:


> If Yong Chun is Compound Bow, couldn't all arts that are based upon Compound Bow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently? Even with addition of silencers, sights etc. to improve the use of the technology, do these additions change the basic principles of Compound Bow?



Well, sure.  But where do you draw the line?  I mean in the end aren't ALL martial arts really just variations on the same intent....to fight?  If fighting in general is the basic Recurve Bow, couldn't ALL martial arts that are based upon Bow and Arrow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently?  Couldn't they just be called something like Japanese Martial Arts, Korean Martial Arts, Chinese Martial Arts, etc.  ;-)  My point is you can generalized or particularize as much as you want.  What does it really mean in the end?   Maybe there are some versions of Wing Chun that are very similar to White Crane and the two may just look like variations of the same thing.  But I don't think that is true of the version of Wing Chun that I practice!  Maybe 150 years ago White Crane and Wing Chun were variations on a theme.  But both have evolved in their own directions.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> Well, sure.  But where do you draw the line?  I mean in the end aren't ALL martial arts really just variations on the same intent....to fight?  If fighting in general is the basic Recurve Bow, couldn't ALL martial arts that are based upon Bow and Arrow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently?  Couldn't they just be called something like Japanese Martial Arts, Korean Martial Arts, Chinese Martial Arts, etc.  ;-)  My point is you can generalized or particularize as much as you want.  What does it really mean in the end?   Maybe there are some versions of Wing Chun that are very similar to White Crane and the two may just look like variations of the same thing.  But I don't think that is true of the version of Wing Chun that I practice!  Maybe 150 years ago White Crane and Wing Chun were variations on a theme.  But both have evolved in their own directions.


I agree, though I wouldn't give it such a gross over generalization. Technology does advance and upgrades to overall concepts do evolve as a result. But in the end aren't arts that have even 75% of their principles, concepts & techniques, regardless of emphasis and application, truly just variations on a theme? Personally I think so. This isn't to say that they are equal in terms of usability or functionality, we all interpret based upon preferences, we are biased. There are many branches of Yong Chun, some familiar some not. Some branches have an outward appearance that look like Crane, Snake or even Mantis. Some write them off as blended methods, but they aren't generally contested as not being Yong Chun. Which goes back to my original question, was Yong Chun originally just a concept for refinement and improvement?


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> I agree.  I was about to write the same thing when I saw Zuti's reply!


To be fair this is slightly out of context. I simply referenced Jeet Kune Do as an example of a conceptual art. I should have been more clear.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

KPM said:


> Well, sure.  But where do you draw the line?  I mean in the end aren't ALL martial arts really just variations on the same intent....to fight?  If fighting in general is the basic Recurve Bow, couldn't ALL martial arts that are based upon Bow and Arrow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently?  Couldn't they just be called something like Japanese Martial Arts, Korean Martial Arts, Chinese Martial Arts, etc.  ;-)  My point is you can generalized or particularize as much as you want.  What does it really mean in the end?   Maybe there are some versions of Wing Chun that are very similar to White Crane and the two may just look like variations of the same thing.  But I don't think that is true of the version of Wing Chun that I practice!  Maybe 150 years ago White Crane and Wing Chun were variations on a theme.  But both have evolved in their own directions.


The point is if style x is based on throwing, style y is based on locking and style z is based on kicking. Wouldn't it be fair to say that style d which is based on throwing be similar to style x? Now if we determine that style x & style d share 75% of their principles, concepts & theory, couldn't we presume that they are related and most likely of shared ancestry. If during the course of their evolution the fundamental technology is not changed only the aesthetics is it any different than it's relative. Take the example of a compound bow. One is plain with no adornments, is red and uses target arrows, it is also used exclusively for target practice. The other is decked out in camouflage, has silencers, a sight and uses hunting arrows. Are they fundamentally different? No, they are both compound bows, they are simply used differently. It is not a comparison of hunting rifle to hunting bow. Though used for the same purpose, the technology used is not the same. So we cannot use the generalization that all boxing styles are the same, we must look at their technological make up to determine its classification.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Center line theory \ controlling the space , destruction\control opponent's center of gravity , a lot of sticky hands practice , importance of structure ...if you read any explanation of basic wing chun  concepts and principles all that can be said for zonghe .Expression of these concepts and principles is quite different .
> 
> for example , chi sao
> *wing chun*
> ...


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 25, 2015)

In the examples provided- the principles are actually different IMO. Although the same principles can also have different applications.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> In the examples provided- the principles are actually different IMO. Although the same principles can also have different applications.


Principals are the same , applications are different, I am practicing both arts and explanation why is something done are pretty much the same. How it is done is what is different


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Principals are the same , applications are different, I am practicing both arts and explanation why is something done are pretty much the same. How it is done is what is different


-------------------------
Ok for you if you say so


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------
> Ok for you if you say so


I am interested in one thing , on what bases you build your opinion and knowledge about White Crane, specifically Zonghe quan , which is quite specific and different from other Crane styles . Did you spent any time practicing it , so you have first hand experience and knowledge gained from a legitimate teacher or your knowledge  \opinion is based on something else ?


----------



## geezer (Apr 25, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I am interested in one thing , on what bases you build your opinion and knowledge about White Crane, specifically Zonghe quan , which is quite specific and different from other Crane styles . Did you spent any time practicing it , so you have first hand experience and knowledge gained from a legitimate teacher or your knowledge  \opinion is based on something else ?



Zuti, maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Some people have a more narrow definition of what is WC than others. For example there are plenty of people from _some_ branches of the Yip man lineage don't even recognize _other_ branches of the same lineage as worthy of being called WC. As far as I'm concerned, I see WC qualities in many other arts, some historically linked to ours, others totally unrelated. And I really don't care what people call it._ A rose by any other name,_ if you catch my drift.

Now could you explain a bit more about how Zonghe Quan expresses WC concepts. I'm fascinated.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 25, 2015)

This is the same for Zonghe , the difference is , Zonghe structure allows that practitioner does not have to face the opponent all the time . In a situation where opponent is on , let use TWC terminology on our blind side and have a bridge , in wing chun practitioner has to recover his center ad regain a control of the space . In Zonghe, structure allows to break opponents structure without facing him and eventually come to the position where center will be regained and controlled by diagonal moving and force  projection . I will continue after lunch


----------



## dlcox (Apr 25, 2015)

geezer said:


> Zuti, maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Some people have a more narrow definition of what is WC than others. For example there are plenty of people from _some_ branches of the Yip man lineage don't even recognize _other_ branches of the same lineage as worthy of being called WC. As far as I'm concerned, I see WC qualities in many other arts, some historically linked to ours, others totally unrelated. And I really don't care what people call it._ A rose by any other name,_ if you catch my drift.
> 
> Now could you explain a bit more about how Zonghe Quan expresses WC concepts. I'm fascinated.


Good point IMO. It's good to discuss things with open minded individuals even though opinions may differ. There will always be value in the kind of discussion that makes one re-evaluate & think even if the original view doesn't change.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Apr 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> This is the same for Zonghe , the difference is , Zonghe structure allows that practitioner does not have to face the opponent all the time



???
Neither does WC


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> ???
> Neither does WC


Sorry , I don't understand, neither does WC what ?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Apr 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Sorry , I don't understand, neither does WC what ?



Oops...sorry Zuti. Let me explain more.
Your comment about facing is what I meant. You seem to be saying that WC must face 100% of the time...or did I misunderstand you? 
Anyway, I was just commenting that WC does not always have to face, hence the myriad footwork found in the system.
Thanks Z!


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> Oops...sorry Zuti. Let me explain more.
> Your comment about facing is what I meant. You seem to be saying that WC must face 100% of the time...or did I misunderstand you?
> Anyway, I was just commenting that WC does not always have to face, hence the myriad footwork found in the system.
> Thanks Z!


My apologies to , I was not completely accurate . You have to face the opponent in the moment of exchange . I was talking about this situation . Crane structure allows to direct full power diagonally through the hand that was controlled into the center of the opponent and brake the control , also various punches can follow .No footwork , or any recovery technique is needed  Also , even without punches or pushes simple step diagonally toward opponent;s center will brake his control and force him to retreat . 




If you find your self in this situation , what will you do ?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Apr 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> My apologies to , I was not completely accurate . You have to face the opponent in the moment of exchange . I was talking about this situation .



Thx Z...


----------



## Danny T (Apr 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> If you find your self in this situation , what will you do ?


What is the left hand of Chung doing? Holding, pressing, pulling? Is he punching with body structure or is he stepping forward and pressuring with his body as well? Is he redirecting yet yeilding due to the pressure applied by Oram? All will change how one will respond?


----------



## KPM (Apr 26, 2015)

The point is if style x is based on throwing, style y is based on locking and style z is based on kicking. Wouldn't it be fair to say that style d which is based on throwing be similar to style x? Now if we determine that style x & style d share 75% of their principles, concepts & theory, couldn't we presume that they are related and most likely of shared ancestry.

---Not necessarily!  Take for example Savate & Tae Kwon Do.   Savate evolved in Europe due to an environment where it was illegal and highly penalized to strike with a fist.  So they learned to strike with a foot. Then it evolves to what it is today due to use in sport.  Contrast to TKD, which started as Karate blended with an indigenous kicking style in Korea and evolved to what it is today due to use in sport.   So Savate & TKD will  seem very similar and  share similar principles and even techniques, but not because of shared ancestry. 


 So we cannot use the generalization that all boxing styles are the same, we must look at their technological make up to determine its classification.

---I agree.  Looking at historical connections is interesting.  But in the end, what is really gained?


----------



## dlcox (Apr 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> The point is if style x is based on throwing, style y is based on locking and style z is based on kicking. Wouldn't it be fair to say that style d which is based on throwing be similar to style x? Now if we determine that style x & style d share 75% of their principles, concepts & theory, couldn't we presume that they are related and most likely of shared ancestry.
> 
> ---Not necessarily!  Take for example Savate & Tae Kwon Do.   Savate evolved in Europe due to an environment where it was illegal and highly penalized to strike with a fist.  So they learned to strike with a foot. Then it evolves to what it is today due to use in sport.  Contrast to TKD, which started as Karate blended with an indigenous kicking style in Korea and evolved to what it is today due to use in sport.   So Savate & TKD will  seem very similar and  share similar principles and even techniques, but not because of shared ancestry.



Both Savate & Zapote have versions of their histories that state the art was brought back from Asia by French sailors. This is just me being nitpicky but I think you can see where I'm going with this. Tae Kwan Do is based on Tae Kyeon, it's not impossible that Tae Kyeon was practiced by Manchu soldiers. Archeologists & Anthropologist have proven that many ancient cultures were not as isolated as once thought. Circumpolar Shamanism is one such prominent theory. Yes I agree that things evolve, but nothing exist in a vacuum. There is always the possibility of a legitimate connection. Maybe sometimes it is just wishful thinking for a connection and it is just coincidence, sometimes it is not. We will never know if we don't try to figure out origins. One of man's greatest questions is "Where did we come from?", this question can be applied to many different areas.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 26, 2015)

dlcox said:


> Both Savate & Zapote have versions of their histories that state the art was brought back from Asia by French sailors. This is just me being nitpicky but I think you can see where I'm going with this. Tae Kwan Do is based on Tae Kyeon, it's not impossible that Tae Kyeon was practiced by Manchu soldiers. Archeologists & Anthropologist have proven that many ancient cultures were not as isolated as once thought. Circumpolar Shamanism is one such prominent theory. Yes I agree that things evolve, but nothing exist in a vacuum. There is always the possibility of a legitimate connection. Maybe sometimes it is just wishful thinking for a connection and it is just coincidence, sometimes it is not. We will never know if we don't try to figure out origins. One of man's greatest questions is "Where did we come from?", this question can be applied to many different areas.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 26, 2015)

On TKD-a  Korean general (Choi??) went to japan and brought Karate to Korea, changed some things including turning on the ball of the foot  for kicking and presto TKD was born, it seems.
Some overlapping in threads:
BTW- Ip Man did not repeatedly tell a Leung Bik story- a magazine interview, and a .few  chit chats with top students. His legitimacy was in his skills.

He didn't "forget" to list Leung Bik in his history outline. Traditionally(Confucian influence) the first sifu remains the sifu- Chan Wa Shun.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> On TKD-a  Korean general (Choi??) went to japan and brought Karate to Korea, changed some things including turning on the ball of the foot  for kicking and presto TKD was born, it seems.


Yes, TKD didn't exist prior to WWII . Now , Korean historians are trying to give TKD pure Korean and very old historical background , but they are trying to do that with a lot of things, for example they claim Sun Tzu was Korean as well as almost any important figure from Chinese history ,also they claim they invented writing and a lot of other things .


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

Danny T said:


> What is the left hand of Chung doing? Holding, pressing, pulling? Is he punching with body structure or is he stepping forward and pressuring with his body as well? Is he redirecting yet yeilding due to the pressure applied by Oram? All will change how one will respond?


Pushing most probably . I have never heard about any body structure concept in TWC and I did practicing it for a lot of time . He is redirecting but not  yielding


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

During history , people who had same problems often had found similar or identical solution . It is possible that in particular time period , martial arts on south of china evolved in similar manner and developed pretty much the same concepts . On the other hand , matching concepts between white crane and wing chun are more than coincidence . I believe that wing chun started as substyle of white crane and later evolved in what we have today . Today , we cannot say they are the same art , but i am not sure that was a case 150 years ago .


----------



## geezer (Apr 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> During history , people who had same problems often had found similar or identical solution . It is possible that in particular time period , martial arts on south of china evolved in similar manner and developed pretty much the same concepts . On the other hand , matching concepts between white crane and wing chun are more than coincidence . I believe that wing chun started as substyle of white crane and later evolved in what we have today . Today , we cannot say they are the same art , but i am not sure that was a case 150 years ago .



This is as good or better a theory than anything I've seen posted by certain "researchers" who frequent these forums. Essentially it is what I tell my students. Namely that before the era of Leung Jan, nothing is certain. There is the instructive "legendary history" of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun, and the more plausible, if less romantic "probable history" which remains somewhat speculative due to the paucity of factual evidence.

IMO the "probable history" is that Wing Chun _began_ as a southern offshoot of Yongchun Bai He, with influences from other southern short-bridge systems such as the Hakka methods. But since the time of Leung Jan, WC has developed a unique character to become a very distinct group of systems. As I practice a branch of the Yip Man lineage, I also emphasize the contributions made by this great grandmaster, as well as the distinct flavor of my old sifu's "WT" branch.

Anyway, it's reassuring to hear that an individual who actually has experience in Crane Boxing shares this view.

Another thing... Since Okinawan Te also has roots in Chinese crane boxing, and Te gave rise to Japanese Karate, which in turn provide the core of TKD, most of us are distant cousins in the same family. Maybe that's why we all bicker so much???


----------



## dlcox (Apr 26, 2015)

zuti car said:


> During history , people who had same problems often had found similar or identical solution . It is possible that in particular time period , martial arts on south of china evolved in similar manner and developed pretty much the same concepts . On the other hand , matching concepts between white crane and wing chun are more than coincidence . I believe that wing chun started as substyle of white crane and later evolved in what we have today . Today , we cannot say they are the same art , but i am not sure that was a case 150 years ago .


Very true Zuti. I would also add that the "evolution" of styles is sometimes directly linked with trends. Trends that have nothing to do with martial upgrades or efficiency, but rather the want of popularity, misinterpretation of usage or both. Sometimes evolution is a misperception that is in reality degradation.


----------



## geezer (Apr 26, 2015)

dlcox said:


> Very true Zuti. I would also add that the "evolution" of styles is sometimes directly linked with trends. Trends that have nothing to do with martial upgrades or efficiency, but rather the want of popularity, misinterpretation of usage or both. Sometimes evolution is a misperception that is in reality degradation.



This may be true if you mean a "degradation" of practical fighting skills. Evolution through natural selection leads to greater adaptation to a given environment. If the environment doesn't require actual fighting, then you can't expect to evolve superior fighting skills.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 26, 2015)

Cultural, societal and social pressures can have a great influence on how a martial art is approached and utilized. These factors aren't always a positive influence on the actual "combat" efficiency of an art.


----------



## dlcox (Apr 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> This may be true if you mean a "degradation" of practical fighting skills. Evolution through natural selection leads to greater adaptation to a given environment. If the environment doesn't require actual fighting, then you can't expect to evolve superior fighting skills.


Correct that is what I was referring to.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> This is as good or better a theory than anything I've seen posted by certain "researchers" who frequent these forums. Essentially it is what I tell my students. Namely that before the era of Leung Jan, nothing is certain. There is the instructive "legendary history" of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun, and the more plausible, if less romantic "probable history" which remains somewhat speculative due to the paucity of factual evidence.
> 
> IMO the "probable history" is that Wing Chun _began_ as a southern offshoot of Yongchun Bai He, with influences from other southern short-bridge systems such as the Hakka methods. But since the time of Leung Jan, WC has developed a unique character to become a very distinct group of systems. As I practice a branch of the Yip Man lineage, I also emphasize the contributions made by this great grandmaster, as well as the distinct flavor of my old sifu's "WT" branch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 26, 2015)

You mention the Hakkas. I wonder about their role in wing chun. I know that they influenced some versions of southern mantis. The puzzle is that true hakka practitioners were very secretive and insular about sharing info with
most south china people.
A now deceased friend was a protégé of the best mantis master in he US was back east  but has been in Minnesota for many years. The master kept things to himself. The friend share his jows with me. Hakkas migrate a lot often have restaurants. My home town Kolkata has many Hakkas.A liitle Hakka art is there but not any good wing chun. If I was interested in money I could have done the chain store thing in India.I get requests to teach there from time to time.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 26, 2015)

I was referring to Gin Foon mark in Minn-- NOT Haywood( I bought something from him) or Poo Yee( I have met him)


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> Another thing... Since Okinawan Te also has roots in Chinese crane boxing, and Te gave rise to Japanese Karate, which in turn provide the core of TKD, most of us are distant cousins in the same family. Maybe that's why we all bicker so much???


Actually , Okinawian arts have their roots in Wuzu quan , not White Crane , but that is another story . I don't see any Crane in any karate stile .


----------



## zuti car (Apr 26, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> You mention the Hakkas. I wonder about their role in wing chun. I know that they influenced some versions of southern mantis. The puzzle is that true hakka practitioners were very secretive and insular about sharing info with
> most south china people.
> A now deceased friend was a protégé of the best mantis master in he US was back east  but has been in Minnesota for many years. The master kept things to himself. The friend share his jows with me. Hakkas migrate a lot often have restaurants. My home town Kolkata has many Hakkas.A liitle Hakka art is there but not any good wing chun. If I was interested in money I could have done the chain store thing in India.I get requests to teach there from time to time.


I am not sure about their role in Wing Chun creation , but Hakka people have significant role in almost every war , rebellion , political turmoil in China , often leading people in thous events . It is also important to say that White Crane is also considered as Hakka art . There are a lot of Hakka people on Taiwan , but they never open martial schools and keep their MA for them self


----------



## dlcox (Apr 27, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Actually , Okinawian arts have their roots in Wuzu quan , not White Crane , but that is another story . I don't see any Crane in any karate stile .


The hand work of Wuzu Quan is based on White Crane. It only accounts for 1/5 of Wuzu but is an important element. Many styles of Wuzu are actually referred to as Yongchun Wuzu, there is even He Yang Wuzu. He Yang's method is based on Crane as is Liu's. But I can see where you are coming from, many Karate styles have more emphasis on the Taizu aspects of Wuzu Quan than Crane. Another interesting tidbit is that prior to Taijiquan being introduced to the south, many Crane styles had a harder approach. Only within the last 100 - 125 years or so has Crane become soft and short hand based. Older Fujian crane methods like Fei He Quan are considered harder and long limbed methods. This holds true to He Yang as well, which was an old name for Xiajia Quan ( Hop Gar).


----------



## zuti car (Apr 27, 2015)

dlcox said:


> The hand work of Wuzu Quan is based on White Crane. It only accounts for 1/5 of Wuzu but is an important element. Many styles of Wuzu are actually referred to as Yongchun Wuzu, there is even He Yang Wuzu. He Yang's method is based on Crane as is Liu's. But I can see where you are coming from, many Karate styles have more emphasis on the Taizu aspects of Wuzu Quan than Crane. Another interesting tidbit is that prior to Taijiquan being introduced to the south, many Crane styles had a harder approach. Only within the last 100 - 125 years or so has Crane become soft and short hand based. Older Fujian crane methods like Fei He Quan are considered harder and long limbed methods. This holds true to He Yang as well, which was an old name for Xiajia Quan ( Hop Gar).


There are a lot of older versions of White Crane on Taiwan and they are harder and have " long hands" . Again , these styles have very little similarities with karate


----------



## dlcox (Apr 27, 2015)

zuti car said:


> There are a lot of older versions of White Crane on Taiwan and they are harder and have " long hands" . Again , these styles have very little similarities with karate


Agree, Though there may be some Crane influence in certain branches of Karate I would not consider it a major one overall. Too many other influences that have changed the dynamics. I also think it interesting that many of the old Taiwanese Crane methods are hard & long limbed methods. IMO this lends credence to the legend that what Fang Qi Niang taught was Sanshi based and was used to refine and elevate long fist methods into something new.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 27, 2015)

dlcox said:


> Agree, Though there may be some Crane influence in certain branches of Karate I would not consider it a major one overall. Too many other influences that have changed the dynamics. I also think it interesting that many of the old Taiwanese Crane methods are hard & long limbed methods. IMO this lends credence to the legend that what Fang Qi Niang taught was Sanshi based and was used to refine and elevate long fist methods into something new.


I don't believe in Fang Qi Niang story . Long fist methods are natural consequence of military technology and tactics of the time . We have to aware that martial arts was reserved for military , and military used heavy armors for the most part of the history . It is very hard to use short fist method if you wear a heavy armor . Also , training was focused on weapons , not empty hands . We have "explosion" of empty hands , short bridge methods only in the second half of 19th century when heavy armors became obsolete . Of course , new methods were based in older martial styles and White Crane have its root is some old long fist method .


----------



## dlcox (Apr 27, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I don't believe in Fang Qi Niang story . Long fist methods are natural consequence of military technology and tactics of the time . We have to aware that martial arts was reserved for military , and military used heavy armors for the most part of the history . It is very hard to use short fist method if you wear a heavy armor . Also , training was focused on weapons , not empty hands . We have "explosion" of empty hands , short bridge methods only in the second half of 19th century when heavy armors became obsolete . Of course , new methods were based in older martial styles and White Crane have its root is some old long fist method .


Very true, I can relate to what you are saying though I would disagree with your view on Fang Qi Niang. Personally I don't put her as early in time as she is most often attributed to. I think the legend is much newer and occurred in early 19th century & that she only laid a foundation. I believe her husband actually is the one who "developed" the art. To me this makes more sense as it was right before the height of unrest and there was a ban on martial arts ordered by the Qing. They would have to have focused on boxing because to get caught with a weapon would be punishable by death. It would also make sense why they would have practiced in a temple, less eyes looking at them. Plus the Qing had a had time enforcing laws in the rebellious south. But these are just stories and cannot be verified. Makes more sense to focus on facts of times than to make assumptions of what could have been. Every legend has a kernel of truth, had part is knowing what kernel is the truthful one. So stories are told to fill in gaps.


----------



## K-man (Apr 27, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Actually , Okinawian arts have their roots in Wuzu quan , not White Crane , but that is another story . I don't see any Crane in any karate stile .


And there is the theory that Wuzu itself only developed in the 1800s.


----------



## geezer (Apr 27, 2015)

K-man said:


> And there is the theory that Wuzu itself only developed in the 1800s.




That seems more likely to me than the much earlier dates sometimes given. Since _Wuzu Quan _or _Ngo Cho Kuen_ uses crane hands, it logically has to have developed after the emergence of White Crane. And, although I admit ignorance, when I watch youtube clips of Ngo Cho, it's hand techs. seem to look a lot like some of the Crane clips out there.

And as far as Zuti's comments about not seeing any crane in karate, I agree. Nor do I see a dog's paws on a seal. But in each case they do have a common ancestor.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 27, 2015)

K-man said:


> And there is the theory that Wuzu itself only developed in the 1800s.


That is true and karate is no older than 1880's no mater what okinawian katare people may say . At the time , end of 19th and beginning of 20th century , okinawian people went to work to Fujian , much like many Philippines Thay and Indonesian people are going to Taiwan or Hong Kong today . There they learned arts they could afford to pay and would be accepted in schools . White Crane was pretty much out of their social and financial level , reserved for rich people . What they had learned they brought back and combine it among them self and adapting it to their own needs and perspective .


----------



## K-man (Apr 28, 2015)

zuti car said:


> That is true and karate is no older than 1880's no mater what okinawian katare people may say . At the time , end of 19th and beginning of 20th century , okinawian people went to work to Fujian , much like many Philippines Thay and Indonesian people are going to Taiwan or Hong Kong today . There they learned arts they could afford to pay and would be accepted in schools . White Crane was pretty much out of their social and financial level , reserved for rich people . What they had learned they brought back and combine it among them self and adapting it to their own needs and perspective .


I think you'll find it goes back 30 or 40 years before that to Bushi Matsumora. With his relationship to the Okinawan King he certainly had the connections to train in China where he studied for many years before returning to Okinawa about 1840 or before. Okinawan Te was certainly around before that so I'm not sure what you are basing your date of 1880 on. There were others before Matsumora but they didn't have the same mass following. I doubt many Okinawans learned Kung fu while working in China. That would be at odds with my understanding of how the martial arts were taught in China. The ones who actually put Karate on the map were guys like Matsumora, Higaonna and Uechi. All of them went to China specifically to learn the martial art. Then in Fukien the Crane styles were dominant so it makes sense that they would have been learned and incorporated.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 28, 2015)

K-man said:


> I think you'll find it goes back 30 or 40 years before that to Bushi Matsumora. With his relationship to the Okinawan King he certainly had the connections to train in China where he studied for many years before returning to Okinawa about 1840 or before. Okinawan Te was certainly around before that so I'm not sure what you are basing your date of 1880 on. There were others before Matsumora but they didn't have the same mass following. I doubt many Okinawans learned Kung fu while working in China. That would be at odds with my understanding of how the martial arts were taught in China. The ones who actually put Karate on the map were guys like Matsumora, Higaonna and Uechi. All of them went to China specifically to learn the martial art. Then in Fukien the Crane styles were dominant so it makes sense that they would have been learned and incorporated.


I was actually polite and wanted to give more credit to okinawian karate than it really has. The truth is , karate as we know it today  was formed in the 20th century . What ever Chinese martial arts were sporadically practiced on Okinawa before 1900's could not be called karate , it was just Chinese kung fu . In 1880"started migration of okinawian workers to Fujian and that may be the starting point of karate , but if we want to be honest that was not karate , that was kung fu . Before that time , sporadically some people practiced some Chinese or whatever arts they could find, but that was not karate and these people were rare individuals who could afford it. Great majority of the people on Okinawa were farmers and lived very poorly . Anyone who lived and worked some time on the farm ( I did) knows that after whole day of work in the field there is no way to practice any martial art . these people struggle to survive , to provide the most basic needs , martial arts were the last thing on their list of priorities . Only after a great number of people went to China and then returned ,bringing whatever they manage to learn there , karate started to form. This economical migration  started at the end of 19th century and , despite what okinavian karate people may say , their ancestors went to China to serach job oportunities not to learn martial arts . Thous who have , they brought it back , combine it among them self  and form karate . This happened somewhere between 1900"s and 1930"s. It is common thing in the east to move creation date of the art further in the past to give it more "face" but in a case of karate things are pretty obvious .


----------



## geezer (Apr 28, 2015)

zuti car said:


> *It is common thing in the east to move creation date of the art further in the past* to give it more "face" but in a case of karate things are pretty obvious .


 
Yeah. We do this in the West too. On the other hand, of late I've seen _a trend the other way_ among folks that like to present themselves as some kind of "hard-boiled realists". For example Ben Judkins position that the bong-tan rolling platform for Chi Sau began in the mid 20th Century with Yip Man when other branches that split off half a century earlier use the same format.

 OK, Ben Judkins may be a social science professor, but just because you are an academic doesn't make you right! Just ask Joy. He made a distinguished career in academia, and over the years, I'll bet he met a fair number of colleagues who got things majorly wrong!


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 28, 2015)

geezer said:


> Yeah. We do this in the West too. On the other hand, of late I've seen _a trend the other way_ among folks that like to present themselves as some kind of "hard-boiled realists". For example Ben Judkins position that the bong-tan rolling platform for Chi Sau began in the mid 20th Century with Yip Man when other branches that split off half a century earlier use the same format.
> 
> OK, Ben Judkins may be a social science professor, but just because you are an academic doesn't make you right! Just ask Joy. He made a distinguished career in academia, and over the years, I'll bet he met a fair number of colleagues who got things majorly wrong!


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 28, 2015)

True


----------



## zuti car (Apr 28, 2015)

geezer said:


> Yeah. We do this in the West too. On the other hand, of late I've seen _a trend the other way_ among folks that like to present themselves as some kind of "hard-boiled realists". For example Ben Judkins position that the bong-tan rolling platform for Chi Sau began in the mid 20th Century with Yip Man when other branches that split off half a century earlier use the same format.
> 
> OK, Ben Judkins may be a social science professor, but just because you are an academic doesn't make you right! Just ask Joy. He made a distinguished career in academia, and over the years, I'll bet he met a fair number of colleagues who got things majorly wrong!


Depends on what someone is basing his opinion . Just because someone has high education doesn't mean he can't be wrong . I could be wrong to , but for now evidence go in my favor .


----------



## K-man (Apr 28, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I was actually polite and wanted to give more credit to okinawian karate than it really has.


That's mighty generous.



zuti car said:


> The truth is , karate as we know it today  was formed in the 20th century.


Agreed. Before that it was known as Te and I'll agree that it was only after Higaonna returned from China that karate began to develop its character.



zuti car said:


> What ever Chinese martial arts were sporadically practiced on Okinawa before 1900's could not be called karate , it was just Chinese kung fu.


No, I beg to disagree. There was an accumulation of martial arts that manifested as Tegumi or Okinawan wrestling that was practised and it was not much like Kung fu at all.




zuti car said:


> In 1880"started migration of okinawian workers to Fujian and that may be the starting point of karate , but if we want to be honest that was not karate , that was kung fu.


Hmm. Okinawans had been going backwards and forwards to China for centuries. Before its invasion in 1609 by the Satsuma, Okinawa was an independent kingdom trading with China, Japan and many other countries in the region including Vietnam, Korea and Thailand. It was formally annexed to Japan in 1879. Your 'migration of Okinawan workers' was most likely an exodus of Chinese people who did not want to live under the rule of Japan. The economic exodus began about 20 years later and was to Hawaii, not China.

As to these people bring martial art knowledge back to Okinawa I have seen no evidence at all.



zuti car said:


> Before that time , sporadically some people practiced some Chinese or whatever arts they could find, but that was not karate and these people were rare individuals who could afford it. Great majority of the people on Okinawa were farmers and lived very poorly . Anyone who lived and worked some time on the farm ( I did) knows that after whole day of work in the field there is no way to practice any martial art . these people struggle to survive , to provide the most basic needs , martial arts were the last thing on their list of priorities.


Which ties in with what has already been stated that certain individuals went to Fuzhou specifically to learn the local martial art, which of course was Kung fu.



zuti car said:


> Only after a great number of people went to China and then returned ,bringing whatever they manage to learn there , karate started to form.


I think you need to provide evidence for this statement. I have never seen that theory put anywhere before.



zuti car said:


> This economical migration  started at the end of 19th century and , despite what okinavian karate people may say , their ancestors went to China to serach job oportunities not to learn martial arts.


Again, I can find no evidence to back this. Up to 20,000 Okinawans went to Hawaii and the Hawaiian Government passed legislation to prevent further immigration.



zuti car said:


> Thous who have , they brought it back , combine it among them self  and form karate.


No evidence of that at all. There were basically three schools teaching Tomari-Te, Shuri-Te and Naha-Te. These were an amalgamation of the local martial art and Kung fu. Later Kanbun Uechi brought back Pangainoon which was pure Kung fu as he had learned it and taught it in China. The big change in the teaching of Karate occurred when it was introduced to the schools. Mind you, the guys that brought the martial arts back from China did so over a 50 to 60 year period. There is no evidence of them getting together to produce 'karate'.



zuti car said:


> This happened somewhere between 1900"s and 1930"s. It is common thing in the east to move creation date of the art further in the past to give it more "face" but in a case of karate things are pretty obvious .


No one is doubting that Karate was developed in the early 1900s and that its name was changed from 'Chinese Hand' to 'Empty Hand' about 1920 but it had been known as karate for years before that.

So let's look at what the common understanding is ...

*Bushi Matsumora *
Matsumura Sōkon was born in Yamagawa Village, Shuri, Okinawa. Matsumura began the study of karate under the guidance of Sakukawa Kanga. Sakukawa was an old man at the time and reluctant to teach the young Matsumura, who was regarded as something of a troublemaker. However, Sakukawa had promised Matsumura Sōfuku, Matsumura Sōkon’s father, that he would teach the boy, and thus he did. Matsumura spent five years studying under Sakukawa. As a young man, Matsumura had already garnered a reputation as an expert in the martial arts.

Matsumura was recruited into the service of the Shō family, the royal family of the Ryukyua Kingdom in 1816 and received the title Shikudon (also Chikudun Pechin), a gentry rank. He began his career by serving the 17th King of Ryūkyū's second Shō dynasty, King Sho Ko. In 1818 he married Yonamine Chiru, who was a martial arts expert as well. Matsumura eventually became the chief martial arts instructor and bodyguard for the Okinawan King Shō Kō. He subsequently served in this capacity for the last two Okinawan kings, Shō Iku and Sho Tai. Matsumura traveled on behalf of the royal government to Fuzhow and Satsuma. He studied Chuan Fa in China as well as other martial arts  and brought what he learned back to Okinawa.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsumura_Sōkon

He went to China well before 1880, most likely in the 1820s or 1830s.
*
Higaonna Kanryo *was a Ryukyuan martial artist who founded a fighting style known at the time as Naha-te. He is recognized as one of the first students of Fujian White Crane Kung Fu masters, namely Ryu Ryu Ko, in the Fuzhou region of China who returned with those skills to Okinawa.  His student, Chojun Miyagi, would later found Goju Ryu Karate.

In 1867, Higaonna began to study Monk Fist Boxing (Luohan Quan) from  Aragaki Tsuji Pechin Seisho who was a fluent Chinese speaker and interpreter for the Ryūkyūan court. At that time the word _karate_ was not in common use, and the martial arts were often referred to simply as _Ti_ ("hand"), sometimes prefaced by the area of origin, as Nafaa-ti, Shui-ti , or simply Uchinaa-ti.

In September 1870, with the help of Yoshimura Udun Chomei (an Aji or prince), Higaonna gained the travel permit necessary to travel to Fuzhou, on the pretext of going to Beijing as a translator for Okinawan officials. There are records which show that in March 1873 he sailed to Fuzhou in the Fukien province of China, although this may have been a later trip to Fuzhou because accounts passed on by Chojun Miyagi refer to an earlier year of departure in 1870.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higaonna_Kanryō

He went to China in 1870 and returned sometime in the 1880s.

*Kanbun Uechi *was the founder of Uechi-Ryu, one of the primary karate styles of Okinawa.

Japan began a program of universal male conscription in Okinawa in the late 1800s. In 1897 at the age of 19, Kanbun fled to Fuzhou in Fukien Province, China both to escape Japanese military conscription and to fulfill his dreams of studying martial arts with Chinese masters.

Upon arrival in China, Uechi initially took up the study of Kojo Ryū, but dojo management mocked him for a speech impediment and the offended Uechi sought training elsewhere.

Uechi next took up the study of herbalism and a Kung Fu system called 'Pangainoon-noon' (or Pangainun), under a Chinese master named Shushiwa. Uechi received a certificate of mastery in 1904, and he later opened his own dojo in Nansoye, China.

After returning to Okinawa in February 1910, Uechi moved to Wakayama  City, in the Wakayama Prefecture of mainland Japan, where in 1925, he married as well as established the Institute of "Pangainun-ryu (half-hard and soft) Todi-jutsu", and began the process of launching his own dojo. Uechi continued to teach in Wakayama until 1948.

The style he taught was renamed in 1940 to "Uechi-Ryu" Karate in his honor, and is one of the four major styles of Okinawan Karate. It was greatly systematized by Uechi's son, Kanei. Uechi-Ryū has students and dojos around the world, and it is particularly popular in the Northeastern United States (along with one of its variants, Shorei-Ryu).
Kanbun Uechi - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you might tell us what part of this history you disagree with and why.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 29, 2015)

K-man said:


> That's mighty generous.
> 
> Agreed. Before that it was known as Te and I'll agree that it was only after Higaonna returned from China that karate began to develop its character.
> 
> ...


I have one question for you, are you karate practitioner ?
I will not argue with you , just recommend to find your sources outside of martial arts literature , for real research real literature is needed. I don't know much about other two guys , but I know quite a lot about Kambun Uechi . His history changed over the last 30 years several times . Now , some facts about him. He was from a poor peasant family , he had not go to China to learn martial arts , he went to find a job .He couldn't afford to study herbal medicine and kung fu at the same time, prices were astronomical and even for rich social level that was not an easy thing to do . What he actually trained in China nobody knows , his supposed teacher had other students and their descendants have schools in China today, nothing even remotely resembles to uechi ryu .
Long time ago , uechi people claimed that most of their art , especially san jin form came from :Feeding crane" style , Now there is an interesting fact , at the time , no one knew how feeding crane looked like , because everyone thought it was lost . Actually , feeding crane survived in Taiwan and today is one of the most popular crane styles. Guess what , no feeding crane in uechi ryu what so ever . In older histories  , Kmabun uechi never had an official school , only taught a group of his fellow okinavians .He also never taught his art professionally.  Style got his name after his death , and in older histories he died from malnutrition . Even the year of his death is changed , in older histories it was 1949. Wikipedia in not good source of information because anybody can write there . Now , you look in style and manner of these wiki articles , you can see they are just rewritten from some karate book which is written for people who do not question anything and believe in everything , just because it is in the book . 
Now , about martial arts style's popularity . That is no matter of martial skill but more matter of social skill , social position and connections , marketing and luck . People from Uechi karate had luck to be discovered by foreign people and was smart enough to use that opportunity to the maximum . Many people from okinawa learnt kung fu in china but most of them never even tried to open the school , some did but failed ,and some were lucky and smart and today we have several popular styles with pretty histories ( like uechi ) , ancestors with greatest possible skills , ect. I was interested in Uechi long time ago ,fortunately I never start to practice it , so I know how much their history changed . Same thing happened with wing chun . Without bruce lee , wing chun , especially Yip Man's version would never be so popular . It was a matter of luck , not some technical superiority . 
To finish this , you said on okinawa people practiced some wrestling and some other atrs and these are predecessors of karate. In my home town , people practice wrestling and boxing for at least 300 years ,now , can I say these arts are  predecessors of my wing chun or white crane if I mix it a little and give them other names ?


----------



## K-man (Apr 29, 2015)

zuti car said:


> I have one question for you, are you karate practitioner ?


My primary art is Okinawan Goju Karate and I have spent many years researching it.



zuti car said:


> I will not argue with you , just recommend to find your sources outside of martial arts literature , for real research real literature is needed.


Interesting comment. I have a fair amount of martial art literature. I would have thought that that might have been the most logical source of information on martial arts. What exactly is 'real literature'? Guys like Patrick McCarthy have spent a lifetime researching karate. With all due respect to you, I will take Patrick's research first any day.



zuti car said:


> I don't know much about other two guys , but I know quite a lot about Kambun Uechi . His history changed over the last 30 years several times . Now , some facts about him. He was from a poor peasant family , he had not go to China to learn martial arts , he went to find a job .He couldn't afford to study herbal medicine and kung fu at the same time, prices were astronomical and even for rich social level that was not an easy thing to do . What he actually trained in China nobody knows , his supposed teacher had other students and their descendants have schools in China today, nothing even remotely resembles to uechi ryu .
> Long time ago , uechi people claimed that most of their art , especially san jin form came from :Feeding crane" style , Now there is an interesting fact , at the time , no one knew how feeding crane looked like , because everyone thought it was lost . Actually , feeding crane survived in Taiwan and today is one of the most popular crane styles. Guess what , no feeding crane in uechi ryu what so ever . In older histories  , Kmabun uechi never had an official school , only taught a group of his fellow okinavians .He also never taught his art professionally.  Style got his name after his death , and in older histories he died from malnutrition . Even the year of his death is changed , in older histories it was 1949. Wikipedia in not good source of information because anybody can write there . Now , you look in style and manner of these wiki articles , you can see they are just rewritten from some karate book which is written for people who do not question anything and believe in everything , just because it is in the book .


Now I haven't much interest in Uechi either apart from the fact that he studied in China, taught in China and brought his style to Okinawa where he taught it in its original form.

What intrigues me is that you are making claims about karate that fly in the face of all karate history and you don't know much about two of the most famous and important founders of karate.



zuti car said:


> Now , about martial arts style's popularity . That is no matter of martial skill but more matter of social skill , social position and connections , marketing and luck . People from Uechi karate had luck to be discovered by foreign people and was smart enough to use that opportunity to the maximum .


I think you are way off the mark. Of all forms of karate, Uechi-Ryu would be on of the smaller styles of karate, miniscule compared to the Japanese karate styles of Shotokan, Goju Kai and Kyokushin.



zuti car said:


> Many people from okinawa learnt kung fu in china but most of them never even tried to open the school , some did but failed ,and some were lucky and smart and today we have several popular styles with pretty histories ( like uechi ) , ancestors with greatest possible skills , ect. I was interested in Uechi long time ago ,fortunately I never start to practice it , so I know how much their history changed . Same thing happened with wing chun . Without bruce lee , wing chun , especially Yip Man's version would never be so popular . It was a matter of luck , not some technical superiority .


Perhaps you could show something to back up your claim. I would have thought very few Okinawans would have learned Kung fu in China for any number of reasons.



zuti car said:


> To finish this , you said on okinawa people practiced some wrestling and some other atrs and these are predecessors of karate. In my home town , people practice wrestling and boxing for at least 300 years ,now , can I say these arts are  predecessors of my wing chun or white crane if I mix it a little and give them other names ?


This is a ridiculous question. To answer it simply, yes. If you took your Wing Chun and blended it with wrestling and boxing and called it Tainan-Te you would have a new martial art and it would have its roots in Wing Chun, boxing and wrestling. It would not be a predecessor of Wing Chun because your new art, although having much in common with Wing Chun is no longer Wing Chun, just as karate is no longer Kung fu.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 29, 2015)

K-man said:


> My primary art is Okinawan Goju Karate and I have spent many years researching it.
> 
> .


At this point I have realized there is no point to continue .It is very important  karate is older than 1900"s isn't it ?


----------



## K-man (Apr 29, 2015)

zuti car said:


> At this point I have realized there is no point to continue .It is very important  karate is older than 1900"s isn't it ?


Not at all ... and you are technically quite correct in the age of karate. It was mainly developed in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and you are quite right in saying what the original masters learned in China was Kung fu. Okinawan Goju karate still has many elements of Kung fu, but that is not what I am concerned with. Japanese karate is younger again and has lost much of the original style of training.

I also agree with you that Wikipaedia is not a totally reliable source of information but it does tend to have a more readily concise supply of information than trying to do the research yourself.

You made some sweeping generalisations that are totally at odds with the written history and I am interested in knowing where you got your information. For example, your assertion that what was practised in Okinawa in the pre-karate era was Kung fu is at odds with the history that talks about Okinawan wresting or Tegumi as being the local fighting system.


----------



## zuti car (Apr 29, 2015)

K-man said:


> You made some sweeping generalisations that are totally at odds with the written history and I am interested in knowing where you got your information. For example, your assertion that what was practised in Okinawa in the pre-karate era was Kung fu is at odds with the history that talks about Okinawan wresting or Tegumi as being the local fighting system.


Martial history is complete ******** , Chinese MA , Japanese , Korean MA. These stories cannot be called histories by any standard . Martial "histories" are mixture of desires , legends , folk stories , sometimes politics but they do not have almost any truth in them. You said the best way to study martial history is to research martial literature and that is completely wrong. People on the east write :histories: to promote their arts , to inspire young students , sometimes to present desired ethics within the style . Presentation of the facts , true facts of the past events ,what history is on the west and that is how we understand that term, is usually the last priority on the east and again , portion of the truth is MA "history" can be measured on , 0,001 scale .
One more important thing is , no one ever did real scientific research in the field of martial arts , what we have are old people's stories , nothing else.
If you want to research martial history you have to research , social , political, cultural and all other aspect of the specific society ( in case of karate , Okinawan and Chinese as well) . When you understand how these people lived , how did they think, what cultural and social boundaries the, had and you put that in correlation with major historical events you will know what may happened and what is a pure fiction . Also , if you look carefully you can find a lot of inconsistencies and illogical things in these "histories" ( like kambun uechi learnt herbal medicine , if he did , why he didn't work as a doctor, that was one of the best payed jobs at the time . If he did , how could he afford it ? That kind of training was extremely expensive ?From whom did  learnt , it is not likely that some chinese doctor would teach him that stuff and creaet a competition , in thous days any kind of trade and knowledge would stay in a family , outsiders were taught only if they come from higher social level and couldn't be refused and of course for serious amount of money . What was the purpose if he planed to go back to Okinawa where plant life if totally different from Fujian .ect) . One more thing "pokes the eye " , how it is possible that all styles founders of any given styles had such a personalty that they can be used as moral and ethical etalons , they were perfect in every way . How is that possible ? MA history is a field that requires some serious, professional research or we will stuck with these stories which are nothing more than simple marketing .


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 29, 2015)

The two handed chi sao of Ip Man is a fairly unique development. Sum Nung people also do a version of two handed chi sao.
The single dahn  chi sao is pretty important and IP man emphasized it as well. Other wing chun families tended to  use a more side ti side motion.

There are other CMAs  that use their own unique touch/timing drills.Taiji has its tui shou.


zuti car said:


> Martial history is complete ******** , Chinese MA , Japanese , Korean MA. These stories cannot be called histories by any standard . Martial "histories" are mixture of desires , legends , folk stories , sometimes politics but they do not have almost any truth in them. You said the best way to study martial history is to research martial literature and that is completely wrong. People on the east write :histories: to promote their arts , to inspire young students , sometimes to present desired ethics within the style . Presentation of the facts , true facts of the past events ,what history is on the west and that is how we understand that term, is usually the last priority on the east and again , portion of the truth is MA "history" can be measured on , 0,001 scale .
> One more important thing is , no one ever did real scientific research in the field of martial arts , what we have are old people's stories , nothing else.
> If you want to research martial history you have to research , social , political, cultural and all other aspect of the specific society ( in case of karate , Okinawan and Chinese as well) . When you understand how these people lived , how did they think, what cultural and social boundaries the, had and you put that in correlation with major historical events you will know what may happened and what is a pure fiction . Also , if you look carefully you can find a lot of inconsistencies and illogical things in these "histories" ( like kambun uechi learnt herbal medicine , if he did , why he didn't work as a doctor, that was one of the best payed jobs at the time . If he did , how could he afford it ? That kind of training was extremely expensive ?From whom did  learnt , it is not likely that some chinese doctor would teach him that stuff and creaet a competition , in thous days any kind of trade and knowledge would stay in a family , outsiders were taught only if they come from higher social level and couldn't be refused and of course for serious amount of money . What was the purpose if he planed to go back to Okinawa where plant life if totally different from Fujian .ect) . One more thing "pokes the eye " , how it is possible that all styles founders of any given styles had such a personalty that they can be used as moral and ethical etalons , they were perfect in every way . How is that possible ? MA history is a field that requires some serious, professional research or we will stuck with these stories which are nothing more than simple marketing .


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 29, 2015)

Odd that you think only eastern martial stories are full of xxxx


----------



## Minghe (Apr 29, 2015)

Patrick McCarthy interpreted Karate History. There is a great difference between interpretation and research and all History is interpretation influenced by the view of its researcher!


----------



## zuti car (Apr 29, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Odd that you think only eastern martial stories are full of xxxx


I don't have any interest in Ma history of western or other arts , so i really don't know. I believe it is same everywhere


----------



## K-man (Apr 29, 2015)

Minghe said:


> Patrick McCarthy interpreted Karate History. There is a great difference between interpretation and research and all History is interpretation influenced by the view of its researcher!


Have you read the Bubishi? Do you know what Patrick McCarthy did in his research to enable the translation?


----------



## K-man (Apr 29, 2015)

zuti car said:


> Martial history is complete ******** , Chinese MA , Japanese , Korean MA. These stories cannot be called histories by any standard .


That would be your opinion. Have you ever visited Dr Tetsuhiro Hokama in Naha? You might be surprised by the material he has available and yes he really is a  PhD doctor.



zuti car said:


> Martial "histories" are mixture of desires , legends , folk stories , sometimes politics but they do not have almost any truth in them. You said the best way to study martial history is to research martial literature and that is completely wrong.


If we are talking about the origins of the Chinese martial arts over the past 1000 years I can agree with you but once the East was opened up for trade with Europe the recording of history is much more complete and accurate. When we get to the past hundred to two hundred years it is even more complete.



zuti car said:


> People on the east write :histories: to promote their arts , to inspire young students , sometimes to present desired ethics within the style . Presentation of the facts , true facts of the past events ,what history is on the west and that is how we understand that term, is usually the last priority on the east and again , portion of the truth is MA "history" can be measured on , 0,001 scale .


In modern times we have books and documents from many masters who have written first hand accounts. Unfortunately a lot of historical items in Okinawa were lost with the destruction during WWII when there was barely one stone left standing on another. I am sure that many histories have been embellished but to state that all the history is flawed is implausible.



zuti car said:


> One more important thing is , no one ever did real scientific research in the field of martial arts , what we have are old people's stories , nothing else.


Have you seen any of Patrick McCarthy's research? If not sure you can have 'scientific' research in the area of history. I would more go for the term rigorous or thorough research and I'm sure that is what McCarthy has provided.



zuti car said:


> If you want to research martial history you have to research , social , political, cultural and all other aspect of the specific society ( in case of karate , Okinawan and Chinese as well) . When you understand how these people lived , how did they think, what cultural and social boundaries the, had and you put that in correlation with major historical events you will know what may happened and what is a pure fiction .


And that I believe is covered above.



zuti car said:


> Also , if you look carefully you can find a lot of inconsistencies and illogical things in these "histories" ( like kambun uechi learnt herbal medicine , if he did , why he didn't work as a doctor, that was one of the best payed jobs at the time . If he did , how could he afford it ? That kind of training was extremely expensive ?From whom did  learnt , it is not likely that some chinese doctor would teach him that stuff and creaet a competition , in thous days any kind of trade and knowledge would stay in a family , outsiders were taught only if they come from higher social level and couldn't be refused and of course for serious amount of money . What was the purpose if he planed to go back to Okinawa where plant life if totally different from Fujian .ect) .


I'm not particularly interested in Kanbun Uechi and what he did or did not do. However there is a lot of medical advice including herbal medicine in the Bubishi. Obviously as that had been handed down and copied from one generation to another it shows at least that type of understanding extends back at least 150 years or more and that covers the time in which karate was developed.



zuti car said:


> One more thing "pokes the eye " , how it is possible that all styles founders of any given styles had such a personalty that they can be used as moral and ethical etalons , they were perfect in every way . How is that possible ? MA history is a field that requires some serious, professional research or we will stuck with these stories which are nothing more than simple marketing .


I'm not sure anyone has put up the different 'founders' of styles as 'moral and ethical etalons' or that they were perfect in every way. (BTW. Interesting use of the word _etalon_.) However, to understand these guys. I think probably none of them set out to found anything. They had students who wished to learn from them and for those who were successful, their students established the styles. Remember, we are only talking about a handful of people here, not even dozens.

Now again you have made numerous statements that fly in the face of all the available information and literature. Do you have anything to back up your position or is it just a case of 'everyone knows'?


----------



## zuti car (Apr 29, 2015)

Simply , you believe in first had written accounts of the masters , I don't.  People have agendas , they change stuff for a number of reasons ( money, prestige , status in a community ...), when Kambun's son who is making a living fro his father's karate write a beautiful and romantic story and call it hisitory , i don't believe it . When Goju ryu people make claims about their founder , I don't believe it , there is no evidence to support any of these stories , most of the people from"china" cannot be found anywhere , like leung bik story in wing chun , and even if they are really existed there is no profe these karate people actually ever met them .It is a pure marketing . About karate its self, it it obvious that it has chinese roots but it is also obvious that people who brought it to Okinawa had insufficient training ( like many of karate people say, they cut out the unnecessary things   )  Material evidence is something that not lies , some accounts by third parties that can be verified from other sources . Martial arts history is a secret no matter what time frame we are talking about , 50 years ago or 2000 years ago . I live among Chinese for quite some time , I know their culture pretty well and when we talk about martial history , I know how and why are things the way they are . About my sources, I have to disappoint you, my literature is back in my country , I couldn't afford to bring all that stuff , there is more 300 kg of history books ( although I miss my LP record collection more ) , Maybe next time when I go to my hometown I can make a list of books , but that will not be any time soon . At this point I am stopping to talk about karate , it is not my area of interest and there is no point to continue , you have your opinion I have mine , you believe you are right and I have no problem with that , you may believe in any history version you like or find most probable by your standards .


----------



## Minghe (Apr 30, 2015)

> Have you read the Bubishi? Do you know what Patrick McCarthy did in his research to enable the translation?



Have you K-Man? 

To answer very simply ... Yes I have read it all four version he published including the first two which were private publications. i have read Alexander's as well as well as several others ........ all written by Karate Stylist's interpreting a Fuzhou Chinese art Text from a modern day perspective and viewpoint of the arts which in itself is interesting since the text is is in an older Chinese hanzi and with meanings pertaining to the time it was written and not the present day.

In addition I have several copies of my own:


----------

