I'm more or less starting a new topic here but there is another Chinese style that has some proponents asserting that their style is the sole progenitor of Uechi Ryu. Ngo Cho Kun (Five Ancestor Fist) kung fu is a southern-Chinese style (although apparently it is no longer practised in China but is somewhat popular in the Philippines) that has as its core a form called Sam Chien, which is clearly related to Sanchin.
In his 1997 book "Five Ancestor Fist Kung Fu", Ngo Cho (pronounced "go cho") stylist Alexander Co argues that Ngo Cho is the original parent style of karate in general, particularly the styles that practice Sanchin (although if I rmember correctly he claims that all karate styles use to practice Sanchin).
In an otherwise informative article on Ngo Cho in the September/October issue of Kungfu-Qigong magazine, Jose Paman deviates from the focus of the article at one point to briefly mention the corrolary claim that Sanchin is an offshoot of the Ngo Cho Sam Chien: "The sam chien form is so prized in Ngo Cho that some early teachers are said to have taught the form in an incorrect manner. Some sources state that this may have been the case with the sanchin kata of karate that, while it is claimed to have been derived from the Ngo Cho sam chien form and indeed resembles it in many aspects, also differs from it in several important ways." I will note that, as far as I've seen, the only ones who are claiming that Sanchin derived from the Ngo Cho Sam Chien are Ngo Cho practitioners. Is it just me, or does Paman's implying that Sanchin is an incorrect (watered down?) version of Sam Chien sound merely like a "my style is better than your style" type of claim?
There are some important points conveniently neglected in these arguments:
1. The authors state that the founder of Ngo Cho, Chua Giok Beng, was born around 1850 (I forget the exact date). The Shuri Te systems clearly predate his life, and this would make him a contemporary of Kanryo Higashionna and about 30 years older than Kanbun Uechi. While from this time-line it is possible that one of Chua Giok Beng's students could have been the teacher of Kanbun Uechi, such a direct connection has never (to my knowledge) been established, even by the Ngo Cho practitioners.
2. Styles change, including Chinese styles. It's doubtful that the Philippine Ngo Cho and Sam Chien of today is identical to the Chinese Ngo Cho and Sam Chien of a hundred years ago.
3. They also ignore the fundamental differences between the Sanchin brought back from China by Kanryo Higashionna (not counting the changes made to it by Chojin Miyagi) and the one brought back by Kanbun Uechi. Seems likely that there was already diversity in the Sam Chien form practiced in China before either of them arrived in China.
4. So just why would a teacher purposefully teach something incorrectly? I never have bought into that common argument. To my knowledge early Chinese teachers weren't teaching for the money and not that concerned with how many students they had, but they were likely concerned about their reputation as teachers. I suspect one of these "early teachers" would have simply turned away a student to whom he did not want to teach his style, rather than teach him incorrectly...having a bunch of poor students (i.e. fighters) out there that you trained would hardly be beneficial to a teacher.
A much more likely scenario, I think, is that Ngo Cho is closely related to the Okinawan karate styles, particularly Goju Ryu, Ryuei Ryu, and Uechi Ryu, and that they all have similar origins. I doubt we will ever be able to definitively say that one particular current Chinese style is the parent of a particular karate style.
So I throw this out to the digital floor for discussion, if anyone is interested. I've never seen live Ngo Cho Kun, is anyone familiar with this style? Any comments or critiques regarding the above claims of some of its practitioners?
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Moderator: Available
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Nice to see you on here Glenn! 
Well, first I think we should go back as far as we know, Shushiwa. From what I know, Shushiwa was something of an eclectic. Given this piece alone, I don't think we can trace back Uechi to any singular style.
Adam
Finally, not a white belt.
Well, first I think we should go back as far as we know, Shushiwa. From what I know, Shushiwa was something of an eclectic. Given this piece alone, I don't think we can trace back Uechi to any singular style.
Adam
Finally, not a white belt.
-
Rick Wilson
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
"There are also many differences however, what I have found about Uechi-ryu over the past 30 years is that is very "adaptable" and it is up to the individual practitioner to advance his/her understanding of it all." Excellent comment, Gary. I also believe that Uechi Ryu is an extremely adaptable style.
"I am beginning to wonder if this might not be a matter of different levels of understanding of the same material." Bill this is a very astute comment. The more I train and learn the more I can see. This last trip from David Mott Sensei opened a new door in my understanding of the use of the Tan Tein. I cannot say that I understand it but there has been a door open. Now when I watch someone does their karate I am beginning to see if they use their Tan Tein or not. The same thing happens every time I begin to learn something new. The change is in my understanding. I agree that the same thing may be going on. When one learns a circle "block" that is the level of your understanding. If you choose never to look beyond that understand then that is where you will stay. Then something opens your eyes and you can no longer look at things as you did before. Discussion over the "circle thingy" can be very disjointed when the perspectives or understandings are so different.
For instance, "Dragon's" comment: "I actually think that uechi was created as an external form of xingyichuan." I think Uechi Ryu should be done as an Internal art, so I have to disagree with this statement. I am not saying that many interpretation of Uechi Ryu are not external (or wrong), just expressing where I am heading in my training.
Glenn I have heard of the implied connection between Uechi and Five Ancestors before, but I agree with "Dragon's" comment "Of course, there are a lot of similarities, between any martial art, even those developed independently of the others." This does not negate what can be learned from connected or similar styles (I am not implying that is what "Dragon" was saying).
The comment "The sam chien form is so prized in Ngo Cho that some early teachers are said to have taught the form in an incorrect manner ... Is it just me, or does Paman's implying that Sanchin is an incorrect (watered down?) version of Sam Chien sound merely like a "my style is better than your style" type of claim?" You've got my vote.
I think the thing that touched me about Xing I more than the physical similarities (and the fact that I came across it on my journey towards the internal) was the martial attitude. "Form and Will Boxing" by Lin Jianhua:
"Once you make a move, you hit the enemy."
"You can defeat your opponent either by taking the initiative in launching the offensive, or by attacking only after the opponent has struck the blow but hitting him before his blow reaches you."
"Be motionless like a stone, or be vigorous like a tiger."
You see I have read many times that Uechi Ryu is a "defensive style" but I just don't see it. According to more recent information, the style was learned while Kanbun Uechi Sensei was a member of the Pangainoon (In the Hakka dialect: "Strike hard, retreat quickly") sub-sect of the White Lotus Society whose purpose was to drive the foreign investors from China. So what did he do wait until the foreign investors attacked? The style to me is anything but "defensive" in the common usage of the term. Did I just start a new topic, or speak heresy? This deosn't mean we all go out and beat people up but "Once you make a move, you hit the enemy."
Sorry I hit on so many items, but I was in posting withdrawal after being without my Internet.
Rick
"I am beginning to wonder if this might not be a matter of different levels of understanding of the same material." Bill this is a very astute comment. The more I train and learn the more I can see. This last trip from David Mott Sensei opened a new door in my understanding of the use of the Tan Tein. I cannot say that I understand it but there has been a door open. Now when I watch someone does their karate I am beginning to see if they use their Tan Tein or not. The same thing happens every time I begin to learn something new. The change is in my understanding. I agree that the same thing may be going on. When one learns a circle "block" that is the level of your understanding. If you choose never to look beyond that understand then that is where you will stay. Then something opens your eyes and you can no longer look at things as you did before. Discussion over the "circle thingy" can be very disjointed when the perspectives or understandings are so different.
For instance, "Dragon's" comment: "I actually think that uechi was created as an external form of xingyichuan." I think Uechi Ryu should be done as an Internal art, so I have to disagree with this statement. I am not saying that many interpretation of Uechi Ryu are not external (or wrong), just expressing where I am heading in my training.
Glenn I have heard of the implied connection between Uechi and Five Ancestors before, but I agree with "Dragon's" comment "Of course, there are a lot of similarities, between any martial art, even those developed independently of the others." This does not negate what can be learned from connected or similar styles (I am not implying that is what "Dragon" was saying).
The comment "The sam chien form is so prized in Ngo Cho that some early teachers are said to have taught the form in an incorrect manner ... Is it just me, or does Paman's implying that Sanchin is an incorrect (watered down?) version of Sam Chien sound merely like a "my style is better than your style" type of claim?" You've got my vote.
I think the thing that touched me about Xing I more than the physical similarities (and the fact that I came across it on my journey towards the internal) was the martial attitude. "Form and Will Boxing" by Lin Jianhua:
"Once you make a move, you hit the enemy."
"You can defeat your opponent either by taking the initiative in launching the offensive, or by attacking only after the opponent has struck the blow but hitting him before his blow reaches you."
"Be motionless like a stone, or be vigorous like a tiger."
You see I have read many times that Uechi Ryu is a "defensive style" but I just don't see it. According to more recent information, the style was learned while Kanbun Uechi Sensei was a member of the Pangainoon (In the Hakka dialect: "Strike hard, retreat quickly") sub-sect of the White Lotus Society whose purpose was to drive the foreign investors from China. So what did he do wait until the foreign investors attacked? The style to me is anything but "defensive" in the common usage of the term. Did I just start a new topic, or speak heresy? This deosn't mean we all go out and beat people up but "Once you make a move, you hit the enemy."
Sorry I hit on so many items, but I was in posting withdrawal after being without my Internet.
Rick
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
XingYi Dragon
You wrote <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Believe it or not, one very influential book in my martial arts training was Photography and the art of seeing. The book teaches you to view the world around you - the same world you and I see as mundane - with a perspective different from the obvious. From that perspective comes the award-winning photographs that only the masters can create. And so it is with martial arts. I am beginning to wonder if this might not be a matter of different levels of understanding of the same material. It is true that many half-baked martial arts schools work this way and rarely get farther. But Uechi ryu in particular is famous (from my interpretation) for two things - simultaneous block/attack and movements having multiple meanings.
In the beginning form Sanchin, there are circular movements in the end. One of the most unfortunate things about the wording of that movement is - I believe - of Okinawan and not necessarily Chinese origin. They use the Japanese phrase wa-uke or circle block to describe the movement. But actually that basic movement is the source of both blocks and attacks in the system. Instead of circle block, I wish they called it circle thingie, or just plain circle. People are all over the map in how they apply it in various classroom drills. It can be all the things people want to make it (mostly blocks). Some are adamant about doing the movement as if you are going to rip someone's arm off. Basic applications from Seisan kata have you believe that an arm swinging motion followed by a circle is a groin shot (to the back) followed by a turn and release. But my favorite application is a whack (to the front) of the person's groin followed by swinging the arm around and on to the back of the person's neck when they bend over (in pain, or to avoid the initial groin shot).
There's an arm conditioning sequence (kote-kitae) where many people view the first lateral movement as a block. Not me... I like to parry the fist with my hand and hit (attack) the arm (with much better precision) with the movement most view as a block. Of course I have to change it back when working with others on a test but...
Another favorite twist of mine is a knee thrust followed by three one-knuckle shots done down and forward. In a similar Fuzhou suparinpei form, they have a double knee thrust followed by four of these shoken shots down and forward. Or are they really down and forward shots? It seems that the suparinpei form has head movements before the sequence that lead you to believe you are surrounded by at least three people. The Uechi seisan has you do three very abstract nukite thrusts in three directions after the sequence, hinting that you are surrounded by bad guys. It suddenly occurred to me one day that those multiple shots forward and down in such a situation may be as much about the chambering (elbow to the back) as it is about the thrusting (hand forwards). Yes, sometimes you get a bad guy on your back, and an elbow thrust back is one of the simplest answers.
There are also several sequences in sanseiryu where one is doing at least three different things at the same time (one leg and two hands, each doing something different). The applications of these movements aren't usually exactly the same thing as what you do in the form. At least the intra-body timing changes if you are going to do all at once. But doing them together and with good balance is - in my book - a way to teach you something much more difficult than what you have to do when you actually apply it (when your ability is compromised by stress).
So...is it the style, or do you just have a great teacher? Does Mr. Galeone find such a comfortable home in Xing Yi because it had something unique, or because it opened his eyes to what he was already doing (and was easy on his arthritic joints)? Why did he find it so compelling to go back to a Uechi ryu regional to share his views?
Just to make sure I don't misrepresent anyone, Bob Galeone is one of the nicest guys you'll ever want to meet. He very much appreciates good martial arts, and isn't fixed about anything. But he has a penchant for saying shocking, controversial things when teaching (like some others I know
) just to get people to think a bit.
- Bill
You wrote <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I would love to hear other multi-style practitioners like Evan or Raffi speak to this with respect to their own styles (non-Uechi) that they practice. I'll let them speak for themselves.In most martial arts you learn block, then strike, then block followed by strike, then both at the same time. Xing Yi, teaches do both at the same time from the beginning, and when you do that we’re going to teach you punch kick and block all at the same time. You learn to do that, while still being stable. All blocks are strikes, and all strikes are blocks.
Believe it or not, one very influential book in my martial arts training was Photography and the art of seeing. The book teaches you to view the world around you - the same world you and I see as mundane - with a perspective different from the obvious. From that perspective comes the award-winning photographs that only the masters can create. And so it is with martial arts. I am beginning to wonder if this might not be a matter of different levels of understanding of the same material. It is true that many half-baked martial arts schools work this way and rarely get farther. But Uechi ryu in particular is famous (from my interpretation) for two things - simultaneous block/attack and movements having multiple meanings.
In the beginning form Sanchin, there are circular movements in the end. One of the most unfortunate things about the wording of that movement is - I believe - of Okinawan and not necessarily Chinese origin. They use the Japanese phrase wa-uke or circle block to describe the movement. But actually that basic movement is the source of both blocks and attacks in the system. Instead of circle block, I wish they called it circle thingie, or just plain circle. People are all over the map in how they apply it in various classroom drills. It can be all the things people want to make it (mostly blocks). Some are adamant about doing the movement as if you are going to rip someone's arm off. Basic applications from Seisan kata have you believe that an arm swinging motion followed by a circle is a groin shot (to the back) followed by a turn and release. But my favorite application is a whack (to the front) of the person's groin followed by swinging the arm around and on to the back of the person's neck when they bend over (in pain, or to avoid the initial groin shot).
There's an arm conditioning sequence (kote-kitae) where many people view the first lateral movement as a block. Not me... I like to parry the fist with my hand and hit (attack) the arm (with much better precision) with the movement most view as a block. Of course I have to change it back when working with others on a test but...
Another favorite twist of mine is a knee thrust followed by three one-knuckle shots done down and forward. In a similar Fuzhou suparinpei form, they have a double knee thrust followed by four of these shoken shots down and forward. Or are they really down and forward shots? It seems that the suparinpei form has head movements before the sequence that lead you to believe you are surrounded by at least three people. The Uechi seisan has you do three very abstract nukite thrusts in three directions after the sequence, hinting that you are surrounded by bad guys. It suddenly occurred to me one day that those multiple shots forward and down in such a situation may be as much about the chambering (elbow to the back) as it is about the thrusting (hand forwards). Yes, sometimes you get a bad guy on your back, and an elbow thrust back is one of the simplest answers.
There are also several sequences in sanseiryu where one is doing at least three different things at the same time (one leg and two hands, each doing something different). The applications of these movements aren't usually exactly the same thing as what you do in the form. At least the intra-body timing changes if you are going to do all at once. But doing them together and with good balance is - in my book - a way to teach you something much more difficult than what you have to do when you actually apply it (when your ability is compromised by stress).
So...is it the style, or do you just have a great teacher? Does Mr. Galeone find such a comfortable home in Xing Yi because it had something unique, or because it opened his eyes to what he was already doing (and was easy on his arthritic joints)? Why did he find it so compelling to go back to a Uechi ryu regional to share his views?
Just to make sure I don't misrepresent anyone, Bob Galeone is one of the nicest guys you'll ever want to meet. He very much appreciates good martial arts, and isn't fixed about anything. But he has a penchant for saying shocking, controversial things when teaching (like some others I know
) just to get people to think a bit.- Bill
-
Rick Wilson
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
I should also point out that along with the similarities that I see, I also see MANY differences.
Rick
Rick
-
GSantaniello
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Randolph, Ma. U.S.A.
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Rick,
Always a pleasure to read your comments. As i have been off line for about one year but recall many topics involving you in the past.
As you and Bill refer to the different levels of uderstanding, there can be no doubt as to the validity to it all.
As so many young bucks (no offence to anyone) are just breaking the surface of understanding and so many others have dropped out of their study in early Dan ranks thinking they have grasped it all.
I believe that is why it s called "The Way" ?
By the way, "Happy Holidays" to all !
------------------
Gary S.
Always a pleasure to read your comments. As i have been off line for about one year but recall many topics involving you in the past.
As you and Bill refer to the different levels of uderstanding, there can be no doubt as to the validity to it all.
As so many young bucks (no offence to anyone) are just breaking the surface of understanding and so many others have dropped out of their study in early Dan ranks thinking they have grasped it all.
I believe that is why it s called "The Way" ?
By the way, "Happy Holidays" to all !
------------------
Gary S.
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
I think what we are seeing is something akin to natural order biodiversity.
[Kingom Phylum Class Order Genus Species]
Kingdom: Martial Arts
Phylum: Southern Chinese
Class: Fukien Province
Order: Hakka Family of Styles
Genus: Hsing-I, Pakua, Bagua, Fukien White Crane, Southern Mantis, Five Fist Ancestor, Wing Chung, Pangainoon [aka Uechi-ryu and/or Goju-ryu,] and perhaps others as well.
Species: (I reserve for the various family/master interpretations)
Same/Different
Same/Same
Dana
[Kingom Phylum Class Order Genus Species]
Kingdom: Martial Arts
Phylum: Southern Chinese
Class: Fukien Province
Order: Hakka Family of Styles
Genus: Hsing-I, Pakua, Bagua, Fukien White Crane, Southern Mantis, Five Fist Ancestor, Wing Chung, Pangainoon [aka Uechi-ryu and/or Goju-ryu,] and perhaps others as well.
Species: (I reserve for the various family/master interpretations)
Same/Different
Same/Same
Dana
-
Rick Wilson
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Gary, thank you and very good to see you back posting as well.
Dana, excellent comments.
I've enjoyed this thread. I wonder if there is anywhere left to take it? Thank you to all contributors.
Dragon, for a look at Seisan check out the videos available from George Sensei.
Rick
Dana, excellent comments.
I've enjoyed this thread. I wonder if there is anywhere left to take it? Thank you to all contributors.
Dragon, for a look at Seisan check out the videos available from George Sensei.
Rick
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Hi Dr. Glasheen. Lurking is what I do best. I've been spending too much time on CyberDojo and its related kobudo list, and decided I should become more active on these Uechi-focused lists. If you can give Dave some grief when you call him, all the better. :-)
Hi Adam. Congrats! Sorry you had to miss the holiday party though.
Getting back to the relatedness/diversity topic, something that is often overlooked is that cross-training seems to have been quite common in Chinese (and Okinawan) martial arts during the 1800s and early 1900s. Many Chinese masters of old are described as having trained under multiple teachers, usually by means of mastering what one teacher taught, then moving on to train under another teacher, and so on. In the process the master-in-training blended all his training together to create something that worked for him, and usually something that was inherently unique to him. The notion of cookie-cutter styles seems to have been largely absent at that time. Zhou Zi He (Shushiwa) for example is described as having trained under at least two teachers (Alan Dollar mentions four in his book), each of whom seems to have taught a different system. What Zi He taught Kanbun would likely have been an amalgamation of what he learned from all these teachers. In theory at least, it also means that Zi He could have learned each of the forms that he taught from a different teacher (i.e., Sanchin from one, Seisan from another, etc), and that when he learned them they may not have been as closely related or as similar as they seem now. I think it would be fascinating to find out more about Zi He's training, his teachers, and his martial arts heritage in general.
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
Hi Adam. Congrats! Sorry you had to miss the holiday party though.
Getting back to the relatedness/diversity topic, something that is often overlooked is that cross-training seems to have been quite common in Chinese (and Okinawan) martial arts during the 1800s and early 1900s. Many Chinese masters of old are described as having trained under multiple teachers, usually by means of mastering what one teacher taught, then moving on to train under another teacher, and so on. In the process the master-in-training blended all his training together to create something that worked for him, and usually something that was inherently unique to him. The notion of cookie-cutter styles seems to have been largely absent at that time. Zhou Zi He (Shushiwa) for example is described as having trained under at least two teachers (Alan Dollar mentions four in his book), each of whom seems to have taught a different system. What Zi He taught Kanbun would likely have been an amalgamation of what he learned from all these teachers. In theory at least, it also means that Zi He could have learned each of the forms that he taught from a different teacher (i.e., Sanchin from one, Seisan from another, etc), and that when he learned them they may not have been as closely related or as similar as they seem now. I think it would be fascinating to find out more about Zi He's training, his teachers, and his martial arts heritage in general.
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
A generalization I have heard in terms of long term development of practitioners:
Hard styles are outside in and soft styles are inside out.
------------------
ted
"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke
Hard styles are outside in and soft styles are inside out.
------------------
ted
"I learn by going where I have to go." - Theodore Roethke
-
J. Bellone
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 6:01 am
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Hello Everyone,
Good discussion. I'd like to clarify a couple of things (my opinions).
Xing Yi Chuan isn't from Fukien. The oldest flavor of Xing Yi is the Honan style. It consists of 10 Animal line forms. An offshoot of Honan was ShanXi (from that province) and finally Hebei style, which is the most popular style taught. Very direct and looks very similar to Karate if done in that manner.
While Xing Yi can have the flavor of Uechi-ryu (and vice versa) the 'feeling' is different. Principles stressed in Xing Yi are not unlike Uechi-ryu but in most Uechi-ryu dojo's are not taught, effectively.
Dai Long Bong's 6 Harmony treatise written in 1750 accounts the use of full body use, and often times power is segmented in Uechi-ryu. (Doesn't have to be, but it often is, my opinion)
I agree with Glenn when he states that Ngo Cho and Uechi-ryu are more similar in style and approach. I had dinner with Mark Wiley a couple of years ago (Mark was living in Boston for a short time) and we discussed this very topic. These two styles are more 'sister' in nature than Xing Yi and Uechi-ryu. Also, he hit the nail on the head when he states that any good martial artist of old cross-trained. Look at any famous Xing Yi guy, they all cross-trained in Bagua and vice versa. Chogun Miyagi did, Ueshiba did and even Shushiwa did. It was something that was very common and necessary.
Again, these are my personal opinions and I'm not trying to flame anyone. I've done a lot of Uechi-ryu and in recent years a lot of internal. In most cases, Uechi-ryu isn't internal by what I understand what makes a style internal. At least, it's not taught in that manner. And for the record, there are other styles considered internal on the mainland. As long as the system adheres to what consists of internal principles, it can be considered internal. Let's remember that Sun Lu Tang was the guy at the turn of the last century the term 'internal' in his 1917 text on Bagua Zhang. He referred to the 3 sister arts (Bagua, Xing Yi and Tai Ji) but these are the arts that HE was familiar with.
good training,
Joe
Good discussion. I'd like to clarify a couple of things (my opinions).
Xing Yi Chuan isn't from Fukien. The oldest flavor of Xing Yi is the Honan style. It consists of 10 Animal line forms. An offshoot of Honan was ShanXi (from that province) and finally Hebei style, which is the most popular style taught. Very direct and looks very similar to Karate if done in that manner.
While Xing Yi can have the flavor of Uechi-ryu (and vice versa) the 'feeling' is different. Principles stressed in Xing Yi are not unlike Uechi-ryu but in most Uechi-ryu dojo's are not taught, effectively.
Dai Long Bong's 6 Harmony treatise written in 1750 accounts the use of full body use, and often times power is segmented in Uechi-ryu. (Doesn't have to be, but it often is, my opinion)
I agree with Glenn when he states that Ngo Cho and Uechi-ryu are more similar in style and approach. I had dinner with Mark Wiley a couple of years ago (Mark was living in Boston for a short time) and we discussed this very topic. These two styles are more 'sister' in nature than Xing Yi and Uechi-ryu. Also, he hit the nail on the head when he states that any good martial artist of old cross-trained. Look at any famous Xing Yi guy, they all cross-trained in Bagua and vice versa. Chogun Miyagi did, Ueshiba did and even Shushiwa did. It was something that was very common and necessary.
Again, these are my personal opinions and I'm not trying to flame anyone. I've done a lot of Uechi-ryu and in recent years a lot of internal. In most cases, Uechi-ryu isn't internal by what I understand what makes a style internal. At least, it's not taught in that manner. And for the record, there are other styles considered internal on the mainland. As long as the system adheres to what consists of internal principles, it can be considered internal. Let's remember that Sun Lu Tang was the guy at the turn of the last century the term 'internal' in his 1917 text on Bagua Zhang. He referred to the 3 sister arts (Bagua, Xing Yi and Tai Ji) but these are the arts that HE was familiar with.
good training,
Joe
-
XingYi Dragon
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Woodhaven Mi, USA
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
I think i need to make a clarification here, to my comment that i see uechi-ryu as created externally from xingyi, because no martial art has to remain external. XingYi Taiji and Pakua are the three "orthodox" internal styles, but the principals can be applied universally. In my younger years i worked in a greenhouse, and learned how to apply the basics to shoveling dirt, opening doors, throwing paving blocks, and hoisting trees. In the case of Uechi-ryu as a martial art, the similarities that i see make it even easier to translate the internal aspect back in.
-
J. Bellone
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 6:01 am
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
I believe a lot of people get hung up on the words internal and external. This has been discussed before, but many styles will never be 'internal' based upon the nature of how they use alignment and body mechanics. Many people get confused/defensive when they classify their respective art into a catagory. Often times the 'internal/external' label has elitest connotations associated with it. Also, whether the art is 'internal/external' has no bearing on its effectiveness, nor its ability to provide prolonged health benefits. A very true cliche is, 'the man makes the art, not the art that makes the man.'
Physical similarities can be seen in just about every martial art practiced. After all, it's martial arts. I've seen Bagua and Xing Yi practiced 'externally' many times. Segmentation, no alignment, etc. (Just try teaching it) Just because they are labelled 'internal' doesn't mean that the practitioner is applying proper alignment, weight distribution, whole body movement, etc.
The labels are just words. Is Xing Yi similar to Uechi-ryu? I don't think so. Is Uechi-ryu similar to Goju-ryu, Aikido, Wing Chun, Western Boxing, Muay Thai? (rhetorical)
good training,
Joe
Physical similarities can be seen in just about every martial art practiced. After all, it's martial arts. I've seen Bagua and Xing Yi practiced 'externally' many times. Segmentation, no alignment, etc. (Just try teaching it) Just because they are labelled 'internal' doesn't mean that the practitioner is applying proper alignment, weight distribution, whole body movement, etc.
The labels are just words. Is Xing Yi similar to Uechi-ryu? I don't think so. Is Uechi-ryu similar to Goju-ryu, Aikido, Wing Chun, Western Boxing, Muay Thai? (rhetorical)
good training,
Joe
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Dana
Excellent analogy. However I must respectfully remind you that it goes like such:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Don't ask me why I still remember that...
Otherwise I like the thinking. What I find interesting in the discussion is the articulation of various features (internal/external, segmented vs. whole, geographic region, teaching lineage, etc.) that have been used in this discussion. Biologists often use the study of such features and statistical classification methods to identify living beings as being part of the same or different "lines" based on the classification system you brought up (KPCOFGS). These are useful both in the general classification of living beings as well as the study of the origin of species.
In case you were wondering, I use these statistical tools all the time. It's just that I have a different end in mind (such as finding out which people in a population need clinical intervention, and by whom).
- Bill
Excellent analogy. However I must respectfully remind you that it goes like such:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Don't ask me why I still remember that...
Otherwise I like the thinking. What I find interesting in the discussion is the articulation of various features (internal/external, segmented vs. whole, geographic region, teaching lineage, etc.) that have been used in this discussion. Biologists often use the study of such features and statistical classification methods to identify living beings as being part of the same or different "lines" based on the classification system you brought up (KPCOFGS). These are useful both in the general classification of living beings as well as the study of the origin of species.
In case you were wondering, I use these statistical tools all the time. It's just that I have a different end in mind (such as finding out which people in a population need clinical intervention, and by whom).
- Bill
Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing
Dr. Glasheen,
You remember it because it was drilled into you in those biology classes. I remember quite a bit of reciting the levels of biological classification in a rythmic fashion until it was engrained, and I still revert back to reciting the whole list when I need to remember part of it. I had noticed Dana left out "family", but I couldn't think of another meaningful level that would enable Family to be included in the martial-arts classification presented. Running a statistical classification analysis on martial arts could prove interesting, but it would have to be the old-fashioned phenotype analysis...very low-tech. Although I suppose running a genetic data analysis on martial artists could prove interesting too, but getting the blood samples might be a pain! :-)
Last night I was re-reading through some parts of Mark Bishop's book "Okinawan Karate" (2nd edition) for something else I'm working on and came across two interesting statements related to this discussion:
1. In the section on Kobayashi Shorin Ryu, Bishop describes an interview with a Kobayashi Shorin Ryu teacher named Yuchoku Higa. When discussing Higa's teachers, he states "From Seiyei Miyahara, Higa learned the Shuri-te version of the katas Seisan ans Sanchin.. Unfortunately, he has forgotten most of the moves of the Sanchin kata, but remembers that it had circular blocks with open-handed, straight (i.e. not corkscrewing) strikes and was practised at normal speed with natural breathing." (p96). I wonder if the Shuri-te version of Sanchin is still practised by anyone anymore. It certainly doesn't seem to have been continued on by any of the current Shuri-te based styles, like Shotokan and the major Shorin Ryu styles.
2. In the section on Matayoshi kobudo, Bishop describes the training of Shinko Matayoshi (the founder of Matayoshi Ryu) and includes: "Matayoshi next travelled to Shanghai where he learned suruchinjutsu, nunteijutsu, tinbeijutsu, herbal medicine, acupuncture and a form of Shaolin Temple boxing known as Kingai-noon that is considered to be a sister style of Kanbun Uechi's Pangai-noon, as they both have the same Sesan kata and differ in name only by the first Chinese character." (p. 126). Does anyone have any information on this "Kingai-noon" style?
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
You remember it because it was drilled into you in those biology classes. I remember quite a bit of reciting the levels of biological classification in a rythmic fashion until it was engrained, and I still revert back to reciting the whole list when I need to remember part of it. I had noticed Dana left out "family", but I couldn't think of another meaningful level that would enable Family to be included in the martial-arts classification presented. Running a statistical classification analysis on martial arts could prove interesting, but it would have to be the old-fashioned phenotype analysis...very low-tech. Although I suppose running a genetic data analysis on martial artists could prove interesting too, but getting the blood samples might be a pain! :-)
Last night I was re-reading through some parts of Mark Bishop's book "Okinawan Karate" (2nd edition) for something else I'm working on and came across two interesting statements related to this discussion:
1. In the section on Kobayashi Shorin Ryu, Bishop describes an interview with a Kobayashi Shorin Ryu teacher named Yuchoku Higa. When discussing Higa's teachers, he states "From Seiyei Miyahara, Higa learned the Shuri-te version of the katas Seisan ans Sanchin.. Unfortunately, he has forgotten most of the moves of the Sanchin kata, but remembers that it had circular blocks with open-handed, straight (i.e. not corkscrewing) strikes and was practised at normal speed with natural breathing." (p96). I wonder if the Shuri-te version of Sanchin is still practised by anyone anymore. It certainly doesn't seem to have been continued on by any of the current Shuri-te based styles, like Shotokan and the major Shorin Ryu styles.
2. In the section on Matayoshi kobudo, Bishop describes the training of Shinko Matayoshi (the founder of Matayoshi Ryu) and includes: "Matayoshi next travelled to Shanghai where he learned suruchinjutsu, nunteijutsu, tinbeijutsu, herbal medicine, acupuncture and a form of Shaolin Temple boxing known as Kingai-noon that is considered to be a sister style of Kanbun Uechi's Pangai-noon, as they both have the same Sesan kata and differ in name only by the first Chinese character." (p. 126). Does anyone have any information on this "Kingai-noon" style?
------------------
Glenn Humphress
Lincoln, NE
