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."

 

[isshinryuronin]

You asked about long-arm in Chinese systems

This, again, is something I did not say. I was only talking about long-range styles, Shaolin specifically, with their more extended arm techniques and kicks (don't know if this is "long arm") and contrasting this with Southern styles that were less kick and long range oriented and possible reasons for the stylistic differences.

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,”

I have no doubt that your style uses a single method of power generation for all techniques. Such things are an inherent part of a style. There are several ways to generate power: whip or wave, explosively quick, stronger and penetrating, etc., all with a unique set of biomechanics. A question to this point is whether a method developed for one combat type is effective for all combat types. Seldom does one size fit all.

A method evolves around a certain combat doctrine to respond to a preferred situation that becomes inherent in a style. A 50-caliber sniper rifle is good for what it's designed to do, shooting a target a thousand yards away, but it's not very good in a close quarters gun fight against multiple opponents. Not only does this require a different tool, but the methodology, physical and mental, is different as well when using a sniper rifle as opposed to an automatic pistol or shotgun. The "style" of shooting is not the same for long and short-range guns.

But you feel that a goju fellow has nothing in his arsenal to deal with kicks?

Goju doctrine is close in self-defense so most time is spent working up close and personal. TKD doctrine is based on powerful thrust kicks and so trains mostly from a longer fighting distance. Sure, each can have elements of the other, but each style has its own personality and comfort zone. In such a match, the goju guy would try to get in close and the TKD guy would tend to keep more distance in order to best utilize their skills and style doctrine.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was only talking about long-range styles,

The long-range style and short-range style are easy to distinguish. When you punch, the

- long range style requires you to have your punching fist, punching shoulder, chest, and back shoulder to line up in a perfect straight line.
- short range style does have that requirement.

Long range style punch:

 

[isshinryuronin]

he long-range style and short-range style are easy to distinguish. When you punch, the

- long range style requires you to have your punching fist, punching shoulder, chest, and back shoulder to line up in a perfect straight line.

Yes, I mentioned this in my second post, and it significantly increases the range:

a fully extended lead punch, especially when the shoulder in turned into it

Methods and mechanics often differ between short- and long-range techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

This, again, is something I did not say. I was only talking about long-range styles, Shaolin specifically, with their more extended arm techniques and kicks (don't know if this is "long arm") and contrasting this with Southern styles that were less kick and long range oriented and possible reasons for the stylistic differences.

What you are talking about is the “long-arm” methods like Shaolin Long fist, Tibetan crane, Choy Lay Fut (a southern style actually, but with Northern Long Fist as one of the foundation styles in its development as a distinct style itself). These are long fist methods, they are not “long range” styles. “Long range” styles do not exist; they are long-arm/long fist, which indicates a specific training methodology using large, even exaggerated movement, as a tool for understanding full-body connection. It seems to me you are making an inaccurate assumption. That is why I spoke up, to clarify that point for you: a long fist method is not a long range style. It does not dictate a range in which you must fight, but rather is a training methodology that creates skills that can be used at any range. I believe most people are confused about this point, including a whole lot of people who train long fist methods. It is my belief that short fist methods (wing chun, Fujian crane, southern dragon, by way of examples) are likewise not limited to a certain range. They should also have solutions to problems at any range and an ability to engage at any range. But my experience with short fist methods is much more limited so I am reluctant to say much about them.

When one focuses on techniques as the method, they often see limitations that are artificial. “A technique must look like this which limits my reach and range…if my enemy is just a little farther away I must use a different technique…”. When one focuses on the principles upon which the method is built, and technique is seen as an expression and an example of those principles, then limitations melt away. The technique represents only one possible solution, among many and any technique can be adjusted to fit something like a range difference. And when the practice of big movements (fundamental to a long-arm or long fist method) is the standard, that movement can become smaller and shorter while retaining the original long arm power. The technique can be applied at any range. This can be applied to any technique, or to any movement that isn’t even a “proper” technique.

I have no doubt that your style uses a single method of power generation for all techniques. Such things are an inherent part of a style. There are several ways to generate power: whip or wave, explosively quick, stronger and penetrating, etc., all with a unique set of biomechanics. A question to this point is whether a method developed for one combat type is effective for all combat types. Seldom does one size fit all.

I don’t have any interest in debating that, or which is better or whatever. Different approaches to training appeal to different people, who ought to follow what holds their interest. My intent, as I stated above, was to clarify what I suspect is a misunderstanding that you have, about Chinese long-arm methods.

Goju doctrine is close in self-defense so most time is spent working up close and personal. TKD doctrine is based on powerful thrust kicks and so trains mostly from a longer fighting distance. Sure, each can have elements of the other, but each style has its own personality and comfort zone. In such a match, the goju guy would try to get in close and the TKD guy would tend to keep more distance in order to best utilize their skills and style doctrine.

People have different reach with different weapons (body parts). Legs are longer than arms and often one can reach a more distant target with a kick than with a punch, assuming their skills are up to the task. There is no mystery there. But anyone can choose an appropriate weapon to deal with a problem. There should not be anything about a style that inherently prevents one from finding solutions. But as I said in an earlier post, I’ve not studied TKD nor Goju, so I really have no business commenting on them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It is my belief that short fist methods (wing chun, Fujian crane, southern dragon, by way of examples) are likewise not limited to a certain range.

The footwork also defines long range and short range. Short range style doesn't train footwork like this.

 

[Flying Crane]

The footwork also defines long range and short range. Short range style doesn't train footwork like this.

This is true, but the short fist methods can move in very meaningful ways where it counts. They are different approaches. I don’t have much interest in short fist methods, but to each his own. Again, my purpose here is not to compare the methods, only to clarify what I perceive as a misunderstanding.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

but the short fist methods can move in very meaningful ways where it counts. They are different approaches.

If a short range system doesn't train footwork, how can it cover long range?

I have never seen any short range system that train footwork like the long range footwork training as showing in this video.

Without footwork, there will be no dynamic punch. Without dynamic punch, there will be no long range cover.

 

[Flying Crane]

If a short range system doesn't train footwork, how can it cover long range?

I have never seen any short range system that train footwork like the long range footwork training as showing in this video.

Without footwork, there will be no dynamic punch. Without dynamic punch, there will be no long range cover.

Different strokes for different folks. I have no interest in debating them.

 

[Holmejr]

Going back to Flying Crane’s take on ranges and exaggerated movement as a learning, tool.

Not hip to CMA history, but in FMA students typically start with a 24-28 rattan stick to learn footwork, angles, etc. and as the student progresses, the weapon gets shorter to empty hand. Hopefully, the student moves through ranges and is more or less comfortable working within each range. Long, medium and close.