All Styles

[7starmantis]

I don't know, maybe I haven't seen enough true sparring with muay thai, and military tkd, but I just don't see the similarities between tkd and say 7*pm kung fu. yes we both use punches, but thats a very weak link to say we are similar. I'm not saying one is better, just completely different. Even jkd uses straight fist punches where most Kung Fu uses flat fist. I don't use as much power in my punch as a muya thai would because I'm also pulling my opponant into my fist, and if I feel the slightest resistance, I can change and bring in a completely different attack.

Originally posted by sweeper

forgot to respond to this. "So would jumping and flying be the same thing? Both are breakin the laws of gravity, jumping far shorter than flying, but both are breaking it." neither nessisaraly breaks any law of physics.

Both are, the law is not, "what goes up, must come down". Thats just a saying we have developed. The true laws of physics say we can't fly. We may be using something to make us stay up there, but then again, thats my point.


7sm

 

[fissure]

Lets take one movement, the roundhouse kick.Some styles use the instep, others the shin, still more the ball of the foot.Some generate power primarily from the hips, some from the knee.In one instance the joints of the body line up when this tech. is executed.In another the hips are "left out" of the allignment.There different to some extent, but basically the same.

Various styles teach various methods.However, even within a single class you can often see variations.Young athletic people can do whatever they are instructed to do, but some people have certain physical limitations, they can only do a tech a particular way.Does this meen they are no longer practicing that art?

I remember a prominant English Shotokan instructor from my childhood.His name was Bon Poynton, a 5th or 6th Dan.He was very accomplished at that time, however he could'nt do a traditonal side kick.He would basicaly throw a front kick out to the side of his body because of his hips.His side kick was completly "wrong" by JKA standards, yet he was one of the most respected British sensei of that time.
Whos to say that the old Masters who laid down the law for their system didn't just tweek things to fit their own bodies?A broken knuckle as a child=lots of open hand strikes.Dropped an anvil on his foot=round kick with the shin.Played to much ancient Chinese tennis and his elbows hurt=vertical punches.

 

[sweeper]

Originally posted by 7starmantis

Both are, the law is not, "what goes up, must come down". Thats just a saying we have developed. The true laws of physics say we can't fly. We may be using something to make us stay up there, but then again, thats my point.


7sm

Nope. there is no law of physics which states that something can't "fly" it states that it won't without sufficient motovating force to overcome gravity, and than there are helper laws that take care of things like wings of fins where the resistance of the body of fluid or gas alows for free motion, essentialy what jumping is is rapid acceleration (brought about by your muscles contraction), enertia carrying you off the ground whial you de-accelerate based on the rate of the gravitational pull (32ft per second per second?) taking into account air resistance and posably wind resistance. I don't see how the laws of physics don't alow for this, I think you are gona have to spell this one out for me.

as to the simularities between 7spm and mauy thai, as I said I have never seen your art practiced so I can't comment on it specificly, however if everyone has the same anatomy, there arnet going to be many variations on movement when trying to acomplish a certain goal (applying maximum force on a cetain vector for example). The only variations are based on perosn preference, tactical evaluation and your strategic planning. (I'm not going to lead with a thai kick because it's relativly easy to block or avoid as a lead weapon simply because it is telegraphed so much. If I lead with it I do so to draw movement from them, otherwise I will lead with something a little quicker on the same angle, say a JKd hok kick for example.). As to JKD using a vertical fist, that's one technique, we use all kinds of hand configurations, those (vertical fists) also apear in mauy thai, western boxing and kick boxing, but I think the vertical straight punch in JKD comes from wing chun or a western boxing/wing chun synthasis. But kenisiologcly speaking a vertical punch and a horisantal punch are very simular, so simular that you could take someone with virtualy no horisantal punching experience but alot of vertical punching experience, tell them to punch all horisantal, throw them into a ring and have them do fine (provided they had the ability to win with vertical punches). The point of all this is, if you were to start taking say JKD lessons, all those punching and kicking drills that you do in 7sM wouldprobably pay off, it wouldn't be like learning to walk all over again, after a couple of weeks to get used to the minor diffrences you would be back in the swing of things, of course somethings might not be emphasised as much and you would of course be learning new things so that isn't to say that JKD and 7sm are the same, just if you are doing 1 MA that has elements simular to another (say you both kick or you both punch) it isn't like starting from scratch when you go to the new school.

 

[7starmantis]

That is exactly my point. I was waiting for someone to say it. We are not breaking any of the laws, yet there is a major difference between flying and jumping. THat is the same differences between styles. While you are not working with different physical laws, you are using them differently. While both are putting you in the air, I think everyone would agree that not exactly the same way. We all use punches and kicks and there are only so many variations to those punches and kicks, however, the strength, timing, speed, process, contact point, everythign is different between styles. I just don't see how saying, "well, you both still fighting", can link styles as different as Kung Fu to TKD. Its the same as saying, rain or snow, its the same because they are both precipitation.


JMHO
7sm :asian:

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by 7starmantis

That is exactly my point. I was waiting for someone to say it. We are not breaking any of the laws, yet there is a major difference between flying and jumping. THat is the same differences between styles. While you are not working with different physical laws, you are using them differently. While both are putting you in the air, I think everyone would agree that not exactly the same way. We all use punches and kicks and there are only so many variations to those punches and kicks, however, the strength, timing, speed, process, contact point, everythign is different between styles. I just don't see how saying, "well, you both still fighting", can link styles as different as Kung Fu to TKD. Its the same as saying, rain or snow, its the same because they are both precipitation.


JMHO
7sm :asian:

It is different, but that's in a very technical sense.

Have you ever seen a military/hardcore version of a martial art not put their legs and hips into the punch? Or a kick? How about grappling, using the hands for pushing, or shooting for wrestling. Do they teach you to shoot high, or to shoot low? You can't grapple high and be very successful against a professional who plays low.

We are all restriced to the laws of motion/physics. Look at a boxing punch and a wing chun punch. A wing chun punch adds a little movement in the wrist right before contact while in boxing, you really don't do that. It's different in that sense although there is no better. You can get more power with the added wrist motion, but you can hurt your wrist easier. It's different. But nobody (good instructor) teaches you to punch from the shoulder/tricep without any other movement.

For striking point, timing, speed, power, etc., they are different between styles, but they are also different within styles. I've seen sport TKD people who throw roundhouses like a muay thai boxer would throw his round kick and visa versa.

With the essence of timing, it depends on your purpose. The best timing is when it's open and "correct" in a sense. Different people may have different views on when exactly to attack, but I'm betting all of you can tell when an opening is there, regardless of style. There's all one common point in time where we would all agree would be good timing. It's like a vendiagram. There is one central point. No, not even a vendiagram, something more specific. Like a line graph. One person may have a broader sense of what good timing is than another person who is more specific and is more precise. But no matter the difference between the length of the two lines, I won't doubt that they share some segment.

 

[sweeper]

the only thing that is diffrent between rain and snow is the temprature.. that's what I'm saying, the environment makes limitations and that is where the diffrences come from, ring mau thai looks like it does because of the rules, throw anyone else in that ring and they are gona look 90% the same (if they had time to optimise their style for the situation. now it doesn't always work the same going in the other direction, you can't always take someone with a more specialised style of fighting and make them less sepcialised (like take a ring fighter and tell them to teach a war art) but if you practice an art that didn't develop under special restrictions than it's probably gona look like other arts that developed simularly. But about the biomechanics, I still think there isn't all to much diffrence in people's methods of sttacking/deffending, if you could post a link to some videos of diffrences maybe that would help..

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by sweeper

the only thing that is diffrent between rain and snow is the temprature.. that's what I'm saying, the environment makes limitations and that is where the diffrences come from, ring mau thai looks like it does because of the rules, throw anyone else in that ring and they are gona look 90% the same (if they had time to optimise their style for the situation. now it doesn't always work the same going in the other direction, you can't always take someone with a more specialised style of fighting and make them less sepcialised (like take a ring fighter and tell them to teach a war art) but if you practice an art that didn't develop under special restrictions than it's probably gona look like other arts that developed simularly. But about the biomechanics, I still think there isn't all to much diffrence in people's methods of sttacking/deffending, if you could post a link to some videos of diffrences maybe that would help..

Exactly, they are going to develop in a very similiar sense, even if the arts didn't influence other ones. You hit using the same tools, using the same locks and such. Is there an art that emphasizes locking the pinky? Not that I have come across. They deal with the middle finger and the thumb. Have control of either finger depending on the grip, and you will be able to pry hugs and the like.

But disregard all ring versions of the martial arts, like ring muay thai. Just take in the military/full-contact versions. Are they the same? No. Are they alike? Most definetly yes. You can fight differently, but fighting is fighting, and fighting will be viewed differently. A wrestler would view a fight different from how a boxer would view a fight like Lee said. Just look past that.

 

[Bod]

Firstly, if you haven't done a form of traditional kung fu then you won't understand what 7sm is saying.

As far as I know a kick is a kick (unless it is a hooking kick), but a strike is definitely not a strike. Kung fu striking, done at an advanced level, is essentially different to all other forms of striking I've seen (or felt). Mechanically it is totally different.

I don't mean Bruce Lee's 'one inch punch' either, which is mechanically similar to karate and boxing, and little more than a stage trick.

Secondly, the 'military style' is not the definitive anadulterated art. Military styles are primarily designed to be easily learned and to teach people to be aggresive so that they will shoot better.

One styles philosophy and background will make it fundamentally different from anothers. Contrast the broadsword skills designed for a gunless battlefield and the duellists rapier fencing which was designed around the murder laws of the time.

The main influence in many modern styles is what looks good on screen, because if you don't teach it then students will go somewhere else. You will have a totally different art to one which is based around current or historical needs of self defence or battle, or around a religious philosophy, or around competition rules, .... the list goes on.

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Bod

Firstly, if you haven't done a form of traditional kung fu then you won't understand what 7sm is saying.

As far as I know a kick is a kick (unless it is a hooking kick), but a strike is definitely not a strike. Kung fu striking, done at an advanced level, is essentially different to all other forms of striking I've seen (or felt). Mechanically it is totally different.

I don't mean Bruce Lee's 'one inch punch' either, which is mechanically similar to karate and boxing, and little more than a stage trick.

Secondly, the 'military style' is not the definitive anadulterated art. Military styles are primarily designed to be easily learned and to teach people to be aggresive so that they will shoot better.

One styles philosophy and background will make it fundamentally different from anothers. Contrast the broadsword skills designed for a gunless battlefield and the duellists rapier fencing which was designed around the murder laws of the time.

The main influence in many modern styles is what looks good on screen, because if you don't teach it then students will go somewhere else. You will have a totally different art to one which is based around current or historical needs of self defence or battle, or around a religious philosophy, or around competition rules, .... the list goes on.

I have already talked about this. Striking is striking. Mechanically, it may be different but it's using the same tools that we have. The mechnical EXTRAS may not be found in other arts, but it is essentially the same attack. For instance, an attack from drunken choy li fut is different from a boxing straight. Different hand formation, but it is basically a punch. If you claim an art is totally different from the other, then the art must have people hitting with the back of the tricep while standing on your head.

I think that you got the definition of 'military versions' all wrong. The military version is not really for the armed forces. It is labeled 'military' because it is militant in nature. For instance, military TKD doesn't mean the military practices it.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by MartialArtist


I have already talked about this. Striking is striking. Mechanically, it may be different but it's using the same tools that we have. The mechnical EXTRAS may not be found in other arts, but it is essentially the same attack. For instance, an attack from drunken choy li fut is different from a boxing straight. Different hand formation, but it is basically a punch. If you claim an art is totally different from the other, then the art must have people hitting with the back of the tricep while standing on your head.

I think that you got the definition of 'military versions' all wrong. The military version is not really for the armed forces. It is labeled 'military' because it is militant in nature. For instance, military TKD doesn't mean the military practices it.

I think this is becoming a little petty. We are not going to change anyones mind here, and going back and forth saying, "yes it is", "no its not", "yes it is", "no its not", ect is not going to get us anywhere. I think you understand where I am coming from, because you sadi it in your post, "Mechanically, it is different". I understand where you are coming from, "...but its using the same tools...". You are saying the similarities in MA are that we all kick with our feet, and punch with our hands, and I'm saying the differences are that the use different techniques, lures, traps, blocks, ect.


7sm

 

[sweeper]

well though I would like to be of more use I realy havn't practiced any forms of kung fu, so I realy don't know what you are talking about

Actualy I dont' think we are realy opposing each other just saying diffrent things, it seems you are speaking of the diffrences in the methods of fighting where as I'm pointing out the simularities, most arts will have minor diffrences and minor simularities to most other arts. so obviously there is nothing to disprove, I could explain it better if I actualy new how kung fu punches were executed, but my point was simply, ultimatly the goal of a punch is to direct force in a given direction to a given target through a given focus/weapon. All the rest is just detail.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by sweeper

well though I would like to be of more use I realy havn't practiced any forms of kung fu, so I realy don't know what you are talking about

Actualy I dont' think we are realy opposing each other just saying diffrent things, it seems you are speaking of the diffrences in the methods of fighting where as I'm pointing out the simularities, most arts will have minor diffrences and minor simularities to most other arts. so obviously there is nothing to disprove, I could explain it better if I actualy new how kung fu punches were executed, but my point was simply, ultimatly the goal of a punch is to direct force in a given direction to a given target through a given focus/weapon. All the rest is just detail.

Agreed. "All the rest is just detail". :asian:

 

[Bod]

I think the argument so far has been

'There are differences.'

'No there are similarities.'

'No there are differences.'

Some of us find the differences more interesting, some find the similarities more interesting.

I personally respect the differences. I want to find out why things are different, and learn from that. The similarities are less interesting to me.

For instance:

Thumb wrestling as a martial art.

We can learn a lot about martial arts, distance, timing, softness, hardness, psychology and so on from the ancient, some would say 'Sport' (damn their eyes) art of thumb wrestling. These are similarities.

However if you are going to take this art to the street, you really need to know the differences, as compared to other arts, because that is where you will lack. If you know, you can compensate, and use your training to much better effect.

Another example:

Boxing.

If you box you need to know why other arts don't do as you do. If you find out, you'll do much better on the street, than if you had said 'A strike is a strike'. You might not break your hand for instance, because you are aware of the danger. You'll then be able to really use your strengths to your advantage, rather than suffering from the disadvantages of your weaknesses.