Origins of CMA

[7starmantis]

Anothe debate that lingers on in CMA is the debate over its origins. Within these debates lie legends and myths. There is the legend/myth/tale of shaolin and its contribution to cma or even its being the birthplace. There are tales of Bohdidharma, or Ta Mo and his being the grandfather of kung fu.
What are the truths? What is real and what is legend? What do you believe is the origins of cma, not just your specific style, but kung fu in general? How long ago was it created?

7sm

 

[clfsean]

CMA origins?? Easy....

Dude "A" got PO'd at Dude "B" & hammered him... it just so happens that they both lived in & around the Huang He, so that means it was CMA at its origins!!!

hehehehehehe....

Seriously... CMA had been around well before the Shaolin Temple legends. There were all sorts of bandit groups, military factions, local family groups, etc... that had devised some form of fighting skills in a systematic fashion. Even if they only contained a handful of techniques.

There's a system purportedly devised Qin Shi Huandgi called Jiao Di that shuai jiao is supposed to trace its roots to. Qin Shi Huangdi came WAY before Shaolin Si.

 

[7starmantis]

I agree, shaolin is oftentimes considered the birthplace of kung fu, where it may have just been a resting place. What about Ta Mo and these legends, you think there is any truth in them at all?

7sm

 

[Darksoul]

-Da Mo probably existed and disseminated his exercises through out the land. Humans and animals alike have been fighting since early on, whether it be for food/territory, or a general hatred towards another, etc. There are many different ways, different styles, and many cultures across the world developed fighting ways. My guess is it started with a need, like food. Find food, held by another perhaps, fight, strongest survives. Over time it builds up as civilzations developed. One person gets an idea, and it grows, reaching out to include others. Watching animals fight. Babbling, I know, but does it matter if we know the origins? Good question though.


A---)

 

[7starmantis]

No, I honestly dont think it really matters if we know the origins, just curious to hear everyone's opinions on it.

7sm

 

[rox]

I believe it has begun almost like the Filipino MA; probably the leader of one village would teach basic fighting skills to everyone so that they could fight other villages, both offensively or for protection. It would also explain the use of the spear as the mother weapon, because it is a simple weapon to make and doesn't need a very proficient user like staffs do, for instance.

 

[7starmantis]

I've heard that said before - mother of weapons - why do you consider the spear the mother of all weapons?

7sm

 

[rox]

I don't, actually I have no weapons training at all BUT I've read that several times and if you look at the methods, defense and atack of every weapon is based on the spear. I used to think that the staff(gun) was the root weapon, but I've read that the spear is so, a thousand of times. Still can't figure out why, though.

 

[Dronak]

You know, I think I've heard the same thing. But IIRC, it was grouped a bit more -- I think we were told that the spear is the king of long weapons, not necessarily every weapon. I believe straight sword was supposed to the be king of that class of weapons (short?). Our teacher did say that there are lots of combat/sparring forms that fight against the spear. I think that was his quick justification at the time. If I had to speculate on why spear is the king, I would guess that it includes all of the basic techniques of long weapons. Maybe whatever techniques the spear uses can be found in other weapons, like the staff, but the reverse isn't true. If so, perhaps that's an indication that the spear is the fundamental weapon, additional techniques on other weapons are designed for those weapons specifically and may not be applicable to other weapons. But the spear would have all the basics, useable by any other long weapon. As I said, this is speculation on my part, but it would seem to be a logical reason for the label.

 

[dmax999]

Spear is king of weapons because of how often it was used. If you think of Medevil Europe you think of everyone using swords of some type or other. In China the common soldier used a spear.

In addition it is difficult to defeat a spear with other weapons. It has great reach, is fast, leathal, and can be used to block very well. Broad sword was the common battle sword. Straight sword was not used in wars, or very infrequently. It is similar to the Europian rapier, also not generally used in wartimes. It was considered a scholar's sword and was used in duels of skill. I think the belief was that a broad sword could easily overpower straight swords which made the straight sword of dubious value in their eyes.

 

[clfsean]

Stick -- Gun / Gwun

• The Grandfather of Weapons
• The Dragon
• Minimum 100 Days to Master

Broadsword -- Dao / Do

• The Father of Weapons
• The Tiger
• Minimum 1,000 Days to Master

Spear -- Qiang / Cheurng

• The King of Weapons
• The Dragon
• Minimum 1,000 Days to Master

Double Edge Sword -- Jian / Gim

• The Mother of Weapons
• The Phoenix
• Minimum 10,000 Days to Master

.... according to my schools legends & lore....

 

[Dronak]

I do remember there being four basic classes of weapons, each with one that epitomizes it. I don't remember hearing those specific titles for them (grandfather, father, king, mother), animals, or "days to master" part, so that's interesting. I was just doing some web searching to see if I can find similar titles. It looks like at least two sites are using the same weapons, but with slightly different titles for them:

The Staff - The Father of All Weapons
The Broad Sword - The Marshall of All Weapons
The Spear - The King of All Weapons
The Straight Sword - The Gentleman of all Weapons

http://chinese-weapons.gungfu.com/ and http://www.shaolin.com.au/weapon.html both say this and have descriptions of the weapons and classes. They also say that weapons can generally be traced back to five tools: the knife, the stick, the spear, the rope/vine, and the hammer/stone.

dmax999, you may have a point about the spear being difficult to defeat and in common use. But wouldn't staves have been similarly common and useable in the same manner? Our teacher noted that you could use a staff like a spear, for example by thrusting the tip forward in an attack. You're just lacking the spearhead on one end. I haven't trained with both, just the staff, but I've seen our teacher do some moves with the spear. I'm sure they're not identical, but they do seem so alike to me that I have difficulty seeing where the real distinction between them lies.

 

[dmax999]

The staff and spear are close, but the forms for each tend to put focus on differences between weapons. Staff forms tend to have a lot of "swinging" type strikes with a few stabbing like strikes. Spear is opposite in that it has mostly stabbing type strikes with a few swinging type strikes. As far as I know all manuvers done with one are valid for the other, its just the emphysis is placed differently.

As for staff being as effective as spear is not true. You don't learn techniques to stab an opponent in the heart between ribs using a staff, although the staff equivalent move would still hurt a bunch it just won't kill someone.

In addition a wall of guys angling spears upwards with the butt end on the ground against their foot formed an effective footman's defense against horsemen. The other weapons couldn't do this.

 

[Crom]

Broad sword was the common battle sword. Straight sword was not used in wars, or very infrequently. It is similar to the Europian rapier, also not generally used in wartimes. It was considered a scholar's sword and was used in duels of skill. I think the belief was that a broad sword could easily overpower straight swords which made the straight sword of dubious value in their eyes.

Also in wartime trying to cleave armour with a straight sword would've been quite a task, the broadsword seems much better suited to this task.

Back on topic i agree with rox on the origins, some stone age tribes bashing each other over the head over territory. Some people would be naturally better and so develop more advanced techniques of bashing which they'd teach to their village. Eventually with the foundation of larger states/kingdoms armies (including men who for the first time had no other job than to defend the land and so could spend far more time on it) would further refine the techniques. I'm not entirely sure of how they were transfered to temples, i'm sure someone on these forums said that Bohdidharma's a 19th century literary creation but i don't remember there being any reference given so take it with a pich of salt.