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.

 

[Flying Crane]

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.

I do not know if this is historically accurate or not. I am not well versed in. Chinese history.

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.

An accepted fact? I wouldn’t know as I was never much interested in the tournaments. But you feel that a goju fellow has nothing in his arsenal to deal with kicks? I find that hard to believe. Maybe those who accepted it as fact simply gave up to what they felt was inevitable. Their own perception dictated the outcome. I suspect goju has solutions within its method for dealing with kicks, but I’ve never studied it so maybe I’m wrong.

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.

Having never trained goju or TKD, I wouldn’t know. As I mentioned earlier, I spent a few years with wing chun and the short-arm power was never clear to me. I relate much better to long-arm method, so that is what I stick with.

You asked about long-arm in Chinese systems, and that is what I train. I am telling you, the same power generation can be used at any range that is within your reach. We are not limited to one “range,” however that may even be defined, which seems arbitrary to me.

 

[windwalker099]

You asked about long-arm in Chinese systems, and that is what I train. I am telling you, the same power generation can be used at any range that is within your reach. We are not limited to one “range,” however that may even be defined, which seems arbitrary to me.

Very true

Used to spar with a lot of Army guys who either did box or thought they could box....found out the hard way, one could not "box" a boxer, the long arm filled a range that stylistically they could not deal with due to the long arm, type of horse, and foot work used. I would agree not to kick, since they did not know how to kick and could not kick, it made things a lot simpler with less to worry about.


They didn’t realize at the time, statistically, I had the advantage
due to the "long arm" and foot work that made it work.


some thoughts from one of my old teachers


" Mike Staples

And Yes, you do have to look at differing "ranges" with regard to long arm/short hand moves.
Kicks were effective at the most distant range. short hand is the closest.

But it seemed to me that most non long-arm styles had a kind of dead spot
between those two ranges that the long-arm filled.

So White Crane had three different ranges -- One for kicks, one for long-arm, one for short hand. If someone was at the longest range... then kick him. If they were at a closer range, then hit him with the long-arm, and if he was close by, use the short-hand.

And of course the footwork (always the footwork) helped to make adjustments in those ranges by not only opening up unique angles, but placing the opponent into the best range. White Crane, as I saw it, was 3 dimensional on many levels, intricate and thought provoking.

Like Mr. Long use to say... "Pretty sophisticate."