Close-Range vs Long-Range MA Styles

[isshinryuronin]

It is said that Northern Chinese styles are longer ranged than the Southern styles. The same comparison can be made regarding karate's Shuri-te (Shorin) vs Naha-te (goju) styles. (Can historical weapons use be the common thread in these differences?

The early Shaolin CMA was spear/polearm based, and the monks fought in wars for the Tangs. They later also had to fight against the Qing army, so much of their early MA required skill in these long-range weapons for military applications. It seems natural that the kinds of techniques and tactics used in weapons combat would later influence their development of unarmed combat, similar to how kenjutsu influenced aikido technique.

I believe Southern China, by contrast, was more insulated from the wars that raged in the North. Also, as time passed, firearms were more common and fewer wars were being fought, and skills in long-range polearms (spear, halberd and staff) that the monks excelled in were of decreasing importance. These factors allowed for a concentration in unarmed short-range combat designed more for personal self-defense.

Those styles that had evolved from the Northern weapons-based MA before the 1600's kept their long-range identity. Those styles that developed in the South and post-1600's did not have a long-range weapon tradition and their unarmed MA developed for closer-range fighting.

Karate developed much later in Okinawa, but perhaps the same situations applied. Shuri was the capitol and was the main home of the upper class. This was the pool the elite fighters, bodyguards and security people, were drawn from. They studied MA in not only South China, but northern as well. Additionally, they were exposed to China's military envoys. Naha was the main port where the more merchant class resided and were exposed to Chinese non-military traders. When they visited China, they were restricted to the Fujian ports and were not exposed to the long-range styles of Northern China.

While there was blending between north and south CMA and between Shuri and Naha TMA, does a weapons tradition explain the development of long vs short MA in China and Okinawa?

 

[Flying Crane]

I would say the answer is no, because a long arm method does not mean it is a long range method, or at least not limited to being long range. And let’s face it, when talking about range in punching methods we are really distinguishing a couple of inches in actual distance.

Long arm is a methodology that uses exaggerated movements as a training tool for learning and developing how to harness the power of the whole body working as a unit. Once that is understood, application can be at any range.

I cannot comment on the methodology of short-arm methods; I trained wing chun for a few years but never really understood that particular part of the method.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I would say the answer is no, because a long arm method does not mean it is a long range method, or at least not limited to being long range. And let’s face it, when talking about range in punching methods we are really distinguishing a couple of inches in actual distance.

I understand your points but take exception to the last part of this quote. The difference in range between an elbow, uppercut or short reverse punch and a fully extended lead punch, especially when the shoulder in turned into it can be up to two feet. The same goes for a front snap kick or stomp to the knee compared to an extended front or side thrust kick. This difference is major, IMO, and calls for a different set of footwork and tactics, even timing and body mechanics concerning power generation - a much different methodology of fighting which can define one style from another.

 

[Flying Crane]

I understand your points but take exception to the last part of this quote. The difference in range between an elbow, uppercut or short reverse punch and a fully extended lead punch, especially when the shoulder in turned into it can be up to two feet. The same goes for a front snap kick or stomp to the knee compared to an extended front or side thrust kick. This difference is major, IMO, and calls for a different set of footwork and tactics, even timing and body mechanics concerning power generation - a much different methodology of fighting which can define one style from another.

What you are talking about is simply variations in application and targeting. When the principles that drive a technique are the focus of training rather than the technique itself, it is easier to recognize these possibilities. The same principles are used regardless of the range, and it is easy to adapt technique to the range. Yes, an elbow is not the same as a fully extended punch. But in a long-arm method, the same principles are used to power both. An appropriate weapon (fist, elbow, etc.) can be chosen based on range and targeting, and applied with the same consistent methodology, and this also applies consistently with Chinese weaponry (sword, spear, staff, etc). It all kinda becomes the same, which is a good thing because consistency in the methodology is important. But a long-arm method, if properly understood, should have no trouble using the punch or the elbow, at a longe(er) or short(er) range.

I don’t know much about Chinese history. I have read a bit about the notion that early martial practices were weapons based because it was the military, and pole-arms were how the masses were armed. Later, empty-handed methods were systematically developed and they would have been influenced by the earlier military methods. The notion seems plausible to me but I doubt it is the complete picture. But I don’t know if that somehow defines the developmental differences between long-arm northern methods and short-arm southern methods. For one thing, I do not believe the distinction is as clear as we would like it to be. For another, people have been fighting each other for as long as people have existed as a species. Shaolin was certainly not the beginning of it, and neither does it represent the majority of Chinese methods. I do not believe that people were ignorant of empty hand methods until long after military pole-arm methods were in use. I do not find that notion believable.

 

[isshinryuronin]

people have been fighting each other for as long as people have existed as a species. Shaolin was certainly not the beginning of it, and neither does it represent the majority of Chinese methods. I do not believe that people were ignorant of empty hand methods until long after military pole-arm methods were in use. I do not find that notion believable.

Never said anything to this effect. Just that the Shaolin monks did not invest much time and effort in developing a well-developed and effective system of empty hand combat until fairly late in their history. Not that they were "ignorant" of it, just not exceptionally good at it.

What you are talking about is simply variations in application and targeting.

It's more than that. Rather than get too deep, here is a simple example: If a goju (hand oriented) fighter met with a TKD (kick oriented) fighter and fought at a long engagement distance, he would likely get his butt kicked. If he got in close however, the TKD fighter would be taken apart. This was accepted fact in open tournament competition, and I have personally experienced it several times. Fighting in close and from a distance are two different things.

It was not just one fighter chose to use different strategy/tools from the other. The difference is inherent in the style's doctrine as passed down over decades. And I assure you that there is a difference in power generation theory between TKD and goju along with many other differences in methodology.