Chinese - Japanese - Korean Styles

GSantaniello · Post by **GSantaniello** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 3:04 am

I would like to open a discussion as to some of the "Simularities" as well as some "Differences" in the influences and the fundemantals of these various arts.

Possibly some who have been around awhile have had enough exposure to various arts as to be able to share their perspectives on the subject.

As i myself have been in Uechi Ryu for about 30 years while having also studied some T.K.D., Aikido, and Jujitsu. I do have some opinion on the subject.

However, without putting my views out on the subject, as of yet, i would like some comparisons from you folks.

Respectfuly,

------------------

Gary S.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 2:55 pm

That's a pretty broad subject, Gary. Frankly if you look within one country, you'd see so much variety that you'd have a difficult time distinguishing between the ethnic tendencies. The only thing we know for sure is that many of the Koreans like to kick, and taequondo - for better or for worse - dominates Korean martial arts. Beyond that, we see hard vs. soft, grappling vs. striking, contemporary vs. traditional, power vs. precision, sport vs. combat, etc. Some are mostly one (shotokan is hard, aikido is soft). Some are a little of this, and a little of that (Uechi and Goju).

And of course with every country and any group of people, personalities and money become issues.

- Bill

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 3:19 pm

I think its a lot easier to concentrate on similaritys than differences , then we come down to techniques , if we reduce that further we get principles , we relate that to the situation we get strategy , we relate strategy of course to the opponent that brings us to anatomical structure, and the ways of damgaing and impeding motor function .

A kick is a kick a punch a punch , Id be curious to add to this discussion by posing another question , What styles and techniques does anyone think are incompatable ?

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 4:05 pm

Well on the incompatibility front, I've found taiji to be a royal pain in the *** on the foot thing. They like to pivot on their heels. I prefer staying on my toes and balls of feet. Mobility is a highly underrated skill in fighting. It was a major reason I discarded taiji years ago, and instead studied aikido to enhance the soft side of my training.

- Bill

GSantaniello · Post by **GSantaniello** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:13 am

That's a pretty broad subject, Gary.

Yes Bill, i agree that it is a broad subject. I presented it that way so that people may run with it in various directions.

The only thing we know for sure is that many of the Koreans like to kick, and taequondo - for better or for worse - dominates Korean martial arts.

I have heard this also and to my experience, agree. However, i have met some whom claim to have studied T.K.D. and
stated that "they" were taught hand usage much more than the average T.K.D. school.

Beyond that, we see hard vs. soft,

Yes, but to go a little deeper, is it the "style" that is intented to be "hard" or "soft" ? Is it the instructors preception and influence that plays a key role ?

Having studied Uechi Ryu Karate for many years, i must admit, my earlier years were more "hard" in concept with banging away and power orientated. Briuses, limping, ocassional black eyes and or cut lips or eyes. Yes, we banged hard and prided ourselves on such.

Standing one's ground toe to toe. Not so much yielding and deflecting as i do now.
Not because of any other reason other than it makes more sense.

Aikido exposure gave me the insight to circle in or circle out. Side step and deflect ones energy. Now i have learned how to bridge some of that into my Uechi.

Sensei Mattson has helped me to understand how "deflecting" power of an opponent and moving ones body is effective and wiser than to stand and fight power vs. power.
The stonger will win in most cases.

Exposure to some Japanese practioners have indicated to me that they are more evolved around the "hard" concept's of meeting power in a competetive manor rather than utilizing and yielding. Linier blocks of force vs. intercepting and deflecting.

I have seen Uechi Ryu go in either direction. I have also applied and practiced it with "Hard and "Soft" influences. Knowing that it can contain both, I am somewhat curious how others may feel towords some other systems that are not Uechi. Or how they view there Uechi training.

In Aikido, the group that i studied with was all deflection and circles and throws. For none, including their black belts were trained to deal with incoming, straight down the middle punches and kicks. Simply because they were not taught as part of their training.

Yet i have been told by others that they studied with strikes (atemi) as distractions to set up there throws.

Jujitsu using many same principles, yet using more stikes and locking of joints and finish up techniques. As Aikido was the soft taken from Jujitsu. that was known as a "fighting" art.

Grappling vs. striking, contemporary vs. traditional, power vs. precision, sport vs. combat, etc. Some are mostly one (shotokan is hard, aikido is soft). Some are a little of this, and a little of that (Uechi and Goju).
And of course with every country and any group of people, personalities and money become issues.

Points are well taken.

I think its a lot easier to concentrate on similaritys than differences ,

What "simularities" do you see in other style's ? Having a instuctor friend in Kenpo who also teaches Tai Chi, he has showed me many simularities in "hands on" of his techniques and movements to Uechi. I found to be very interesting.

Kyusho has opened my eyes much to the "target" areas of many open hands techniques that are in kata whom many feel are useless movements.

Focusing more on "accuracy" of shokens, and bushiekens. hamerblows and finger tip strikes all have more meaning with "target" areas being worked with in a diferent manor of light sparring and total control of power.

Then we come down to techniques , if we reduce that further we get principles , we relate that to the situation we get strategy , we relate strategy of course to the opponent that brings us to anatomical structure, and the ways of damgaing and impeding motor function .

Yes, techniques, principles and strategy are good things to point out. Are they all basicaly the same "but different" ? Or is there a substancial difference ?

Grappler's are more inclined to take one down and choke out or lock up an opponent. More so than to kick and puch, with exception to people like Joe Sullivan who are few.

Judo looks to use one's strength and energy against them by throwing and unbalancing. Not actually a striker's art.

A kick is a kick a punch a punch ,

Very true. Although some are used differently. Ball vs, toe. Straight in vs, rising (floating) kicks.

Id be curious to add to this discussion by posing another question , What styles and techniques does anyone think are incompatable ?

I think that a "good" practicioner can find ways to compliment one's training with taking from other systems what works for them and "fits" their own personal understanding.

Well on the incompatibility front, I've found taiji to be a royal pain in the *** on the foot thing. They like to pivot on their heels. I prefer staying on my toes and balls of feet. Mobility is a highly underrated skill in fighting. It was a major reason I discarded taiji years ago, and instead studied aikido to enhance the soft side of my training.

I am unfamilier with "Taiji". However, the things that you point out are a couple of "differences". Could you expand a little on Taiji ? Wha contains or does not ? Kata's, pre-arranged drills, free sparring etc ? Any simularities ?

Other opinions and/or views ?

Respectfuly,

------------------

Gary S.

hoshin · Post by **hoshin** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:23 am

hi Gary;
i would like to start with a question are we discusing karate or martial arts? i think a general martial arts question would be easier then what a particular style does with their elbows on a particular movement.
saying that....to my knowledge....

chinese gung-fu developed as a unarmed boxing type system with joint locks and throws included. full advantage was taken on the bodys week spots.

indiginous japanese arts were developed by samurai who were in armor and armed. these systems are refered to as KORYU arts. there were virtually no simularities between the two. although i am sure the chinese influence was there, punching a man in armor was just down right silly and pressure points were just not there. thus throwing a man so he died on impact( 100 pounds of armor) or so you could use your knife on him was the most common practice. there was striking but it was blunt force type strikes to the break joints and bones.

korean martial arts were varied in the begining but the government steped in and regulated them so they all became the state run "tae-kwon-do" later on japanese arts like Aikido joined and became Hapkido.. Judo became Judo ( however pronouced yu-do) and shotokan became tang-so-do (aka.. so-bak-do)

Bruce lee said "i dont really belive in styles anymore. untill we start to grow three arms and three legs. only then will there be another style. but we arew all human so we all do the human style"

hope i didnt hack his words to much

Hoshin
~~~~~~~

GSantaniello · Post by **GSantaniello** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:33 am

Hoshin,

Thank you for your input. To answer your question, we are referring to "Martial Arts" more so.

As many of us know, Uechi Ryu was originated from China. Made up of few styles of "Kung fu" that were later transformed into Karate. Meaning, Open Hands.

I could demonstrate "Sanseiryu" which is the highest kata in Uechi Ryu in such a way of flowing and smoothness that it would appear very "Chinese" with continuation of movements ressemblimg a stepped up appearence of "Ta Chi".

Yet, this same kata could also be demonstarted with much strength and power into the strikes and blocks with hesitation between movements. Reflecting Japanese influence.

One who does not know the kata would judge it as being Chinese or Japanese based on it's presentation.

A lot of Japanese styles are in Okinawa.
Yet Uechi did originate in China. Therefore, it is concievable that the influence, was more of the Karate style that are Japanese based in Okinawa.

Creating some contraversy to some.

------------------

Gary S.

dominiuno · Post by **dominiuno** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 5:03 am

Hoshin,
I'm pretty sure Koryu means old (or something similar) Like the Koryu kata in Iaido are the original katas that the seitei katas are made from, the koryu are the original and the setei are new ones, just sort of there to introduce the student to Iaido technique.
Are you saying that koryu martial arts are ones developed by the samurai? From my understanding koryu martial arts would just be old martial arts or original martial arts (in that region of the globe).
I may be wrong, and if I am could someone correct me? Thanks.

-David

sunsu8 · Post by **sunsu8** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 6:31 am

This is a very broad and open topic that has already seemed to take different directions.

As for similarities and differences, any person who has been around enough will understand what works well with what and then the techniques that clash and are not effective against certain styles. Among the people in your dojo (for those who have med. sized dojos and participate) , if you have been there long enough, you have seen many varieties of jiyu kumite or just different types. (ie People who fight like they want to kill someone, those who fight with their chin pointed to the sun, and those who lay back adn wait for the opportunity to arise so they CAN strike when and where they so choose.) With that said, if there are so many differences and variations among the SAME style in ONE dojo, then imagine the vast change over generations and generations in styles. Different teachers work different things and like GSantaniella said, he could make Sanseiryu appear hard OR soft and anyone who did not know better, would think that was the 'way' to preform it.

So if you were new to a style let's say 20 years ago, your instructor taught things slightly different from how he learned because he modified everything for himself (herself if they are a female) and the kata is slightly changed a small bit, but taught different none-the-less. The student knows no better than to think his/her SENSEI is perfect so why not just mimic himher adn become JUST like him/her and that is how everything becomes different. Eventually a punch becomes a snap-punch and the retraction is mistaken for a block, which is in turn mistaken for a backfist which is thought to be a grab and so on. Your reverse punch then becomes a grab- the kata has changed drastically. Everyone on here knows this so I am basically talkign to myself here. But change comes!

As far as teachers go, I believe they DO effect the "hard" or "soft" the style is and they teach leaning more towards one than the other.All people have a preference whether they acknoqledge it or not.

I think that everything can be "hard" or "soft" and it depends on the type person you are and how you interpret it. You may see a soft block, others may see a backfist to a nerve. HARD -vs- SOFT. I believe that everything that is hard CAN be soft and vis-a-vis.

Matial arts is interpretation adn opinion. "I think this - The bunkai is like this- I prefer this" - and so on so you end up with an altered _______(whatever) and it changes and changes and changes.

Time comes, things change ,and eventually their are differences. As far as differeces between styles, I would like to learn about that hopefully on this post and also amongst the entire forum. Good topic.
sunsu

hoshin · Post by **hoshin** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 3:46 am

hi Dave;
you are correct in all your statements. koryu does mean "old style". KO-ryu .. and were developed by samurai over time(between 1100 and 1500AD). it is understood in Japan that only martial arts that were originated before the Tokugawa era are considered koryu. that meaning judo, aikido and most jiu-jitsu found today are not koryu or old systems. there are only a small handfull left.

Hoshin
~~~~~~~

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 7:41 pm

I have studied many styles over the years,and with hindsight have come to a realisation of how the martial arts have developed. Much of it is down to fashion and making money, and little of it to combat efficiency.The first style that I studied was jiu jitsu and at the time I didn't think anything of the fact that we were defending against haymaker punches, but later realised that the style had obviously changed to accomodate western boxing practise.
I later studied Aikido, and here again there are a great many changes from the original Daito-Ryu...but also remember that Daito-Ryu
was a proper bona fide style, that had probably developed in peacetime...their knowledge base is just so vast, and pure combat styles, developed in wartime are very economical...but here, the emphasis would be against typical Japanese attacks..such as trying to grab your hands ( so you cannot draw your sword, or so that somebody can stab you whilst restrained) and these were the things modified by Ueshiba....as an example, the wrist throw kote-gaesh...in Aikdo, it is a gentle circular throw...in Daito-Ryu its a quick wrist break...the throw is incidental to Daito-Ryu but is the basis of Aikido..there are many other throws
that are modified or changed completely to fit in with Ueshiba's ideas and philosophy.Aikido is further refined in the sport aspect..with variations developing and being practised as a seperate independent system. Daito-Ryu spread to korea( whose own indiginous systems seem to have been totally repressed by the Japanese) were it was mixed with the karate that had also been imported and became hapkido,kook sul won,hwarangdo etc
some styles in Korea haven't even bothered to change the Japanese names so you have Kumdo and Yudo.
there are very few places were you can actually practise a traditional martial art( I mean by tradition, something that has remained unchanged for a coupla hundred years)..and in a sense thats good, because just because it's old doesn't mean its good...you wouldn't want a musket to fight an uzi...so that now we are seeing oriental arts coming up against western martial arts...and having to be constantly modified and changed to be more effective..or at least hold their own...the problem that we face is knowing what to change and what to keep.

GSantaniello · Post by **GSantaniello** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 10:20 pm

My concept and that of many whom i have discussed with regarding "Chinese" styles is that they tend to be more "softer" in meaning that they tend to work less hard in blocking strikes or kicks by using "deflection" and "re-routing" of the opponents strength and energy.

Arts such as Wing Chung, Tai Chi, Kung-Fu etc. However, i do question the origins of Aikido taken from "Aikijitsu". I belive that these arts, Jujitsu, Aikido, Aikijitsu, were "Japanese" in origin ?

Possibly someone can clearify these things for me and others ?

"Japanese" arts such as Karate, tend to folow a "Hard" path. Meaning, more linear in blocking, meeting force more so "directly" with force ? Focus on strength and power with less yeilding within ?

These arts i refer to are more of, Goju Ryu, Shoyin Ryu, Shotokan etc.

The "Korean" follow more of the spinning, jumping and high wheel type kicking. My belief is that many of these people were short in hight ? Many of them who study these styles are talented in ability to get up high and do some damage.

However, most Americans that i see studying such arts, primarily T.K.D. are generaly tall, thin and light as compared to others.

Do we know of any "Chinese" systems that appear to follow more of the "Japanese" outline ? Or Japanese, that follow Chinese" or "Korean" or visa versa ?

For i am sure that many do not know such information. Possibly it also, is opinionated ?

Although soft vs. hard can be projected by one demonstration and view, i am sure that these styles from geographical locations have some fundemental basis ?

I have also heard it said that "Karate" transformed from Kung-Fu (Gung-fu)

Respectfuly

------------------

Gary S.

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 12:38 am

"The "Korean" follow more of the spinning, jumping and high wheel type kicking. My belief is that many of these people were short in hight ? Many of them who study these styles are talented in ability to get up high and do some damage."

I don't think modern sport TKD is very representative of what Korean martial arts looked like at the time they were 'needed'. TSD doesn't look very much like TKD despite
the close ties, supposedly due to Soo Bahk Do. TANG Soo Do also has a very obvious chinese connection, which I'm sure was a big factor in early Korean martial arts.

Also, in many years of exposure to TKD, and now a TKD practitioner myself, I've never seen a school that focused on spinning or jumping. Those are for demos. Jumping during TKD sparring is a BIG no-no. Spinning is used in extreme moderation for sparring.

hoshin · Post by **hoshin** » Tue Jul 23, 2002 3:21 am

hi all;
just wanted to add some history here on the Japanese arts. Aikido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba who studied spear and bayonett fighting while in the sevice. the 4 foot staff (jo)system Shinto-muso-ryu. Most aikido seniors say the swordsmanship comes from Yagyu-ryu and the Shinkage-ryu but according to the 64th head master Koichiro Yoshikawa of Kashima shinto-ryu, Ueshiba studied this system and even has his name and "blood oath" in the student records to prove it. Kashima shinto-ryu is the oldest surving martial tradition in japan. with a continuous succession dating back more then 600 years. most prodominent however was Ueshiba's practice of Daito-ryu aiki-jujitsu. Ueshiba's teacher was Sogaku Takeda who claimed that his art was the family system dating back to the famous Takeda Shingen. (only after Shingen's death was found out did Nobunaga Oda even Attempt to forcfully unify Japan.) anyways

historians have no proof of this and feel the name and system "as such" started with Sogaku himself since there is no documented history. Aikido was created by Ueshiba combining his studies of martial arts and his spiritual practice that he followed , Omoto-kyo founded by Deguchi Onisaburo which belived in "chin kon kishin" communication with the divine spirit.

i was going to add some about jiujitsu and koryu systems but it seems i have been to long winded already

Hoshin
~~~~~~~

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 23, 2002 10:36 pm

Hoshin

Do continue.

I always thought there was a strong connection between jujitsu and akido, with the former being the antecedent of the latter.

- Bill