|
|
| Author |
Message |
Alan Armstrong
Black Belt
Joined: 28 Feb 2016
Posts: 2468
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Errhmkay, well if you like. Of course I can show you a historical text from the ancient greeks that clearly describes a rear-naked choke with the hooks in. The guy doing the choke killed the other guy but lost the match because he actually tapped to a footlock his opponent had on him at the time which actually broke his foot according to the account.
There is egyptian artwork from at LEAST 2000 B.C.E that shows techniques as complex as what we would call uchi-mata.
This stuff is as old as mankind, and likely as widespread. There are many sources for it and trying to link any of them together to a cohesive whole is a lifelong work in and of itself.
That said: Do I believe that Chin-Na practice had some influence on the development of Japanese jujitsu and in turn all of its descendant arts? Why yes, yes I do. So did varrami, silat, and a few others.
The historical record does not support pointing to any one martial art as the direct "parent" of Japanese Jujitsu, but rather more a collection of fighting experiences that are comparable to the development of certain wrestling styles in Europe. I will write more on this later, but I gotta go train now.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatsuShinshii
Black Belt
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: Kentucky
Styles: Machimura Suidi Rokudan, Ryukyu Kenpo, Kobudo, Judo
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tempest,
I have to agree with you. I was researching Muto (Tegumi) and where our throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques come from because I wanted a better answer than Okinawan Sumo or that it came from Jujitsu. I found an art called Jiao Di that was used as a combat form of throwing. It shows the same techniques as ours and I thought I had all of the answers and then one of my friends gave me a book that showed the exact same throws but they were not just Chinese but from many other countries.
Point is there is no historical record of where any of this came from. We can only speculate as to where it came from and how.
I wish I could disagree with you because I have spent years researching to find definitive proof of exact origins for my art and would love to say that I have succeeded in all respects. Some are easily proven and have documented proof others are mere speculation and assumptions and will probably always remain that way until someone produces written proof. I think snow balls will fall in the middle of a 100 degree day before that will happen. It's just not out there.
_________________
The person who succeeds is not the one who holds back, fearing failure, nor the one who never fails-but the one who moves on in spite of failure.
Charles R. Swindoll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatsuShinshii
Black Belt
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: Kentucky
Styles: Machimura Suidi Rokudan, Ryukyu Kenpo, Kobudo, Judo
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alan,
Interesting video. Thanks for the post.
As far as Jujitsu goes, I can not speculate. However, Qin Na (Chin Na) has influenced Tuite and there is some proof to support that.
The problem we have proving anything in this day and age is sifting through what people think vs. documented proof. This unfortunately means written, pictures, photo's, etc.
The information age was not around then and most scrolls or written proof are not available to back up claims.
I think it's really to the individual to sift through the millions of videos, posts, sites, and books and form their own opinion. But that will be all that it is, an opinion.
Most founders of arts did not keep a record that stated that they learned this from an Egyptian, Greek or Chinese teacher. So speculation and opinion are the best you will ever find to support these claims.
_________________
The person who succeeds is not the one who holds back, fearing failure, nor the one who never fails-but the one who moves on in spite of failure.
Charles R. Swindoll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mushybees
Orange Belt
Joined: 16 Nov 2014
Posts: 199
Location: UK
Styles: Wado ryu
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The same way people the world over independently developed the bow and arrow they also developed similar solutions to empty handed combat. We have the same number of arms and legs and they're constructed the same way.
It's possible that chinese and japanese grappling arts both have a shared progenitor and some concepts may have been developed in tandem. So they may be siblings.
Also jujitsu isn't just locking and throwing. The art owes as much a debt to Japan's indigenous armed martial arts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
Tempest,
I have to agree with you. I was researching Muto (Tegumi) and where our throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques come from because I wanted a better answer than Okinawan Sumo or that it came from Jujitsu. I found an art called Jiao Di that was used as a combat form of throwing. It shows the same techniques as ours and I thought I had all of the answers and then one of my friends gave me a book that showed the exact same throws but they were not just Chinese but from many other countries.
Point is there is no historical record of where any of this came from. We can only speculate as to where it came from and how.
I wish I could disagree with you because I have spent years researching to find definitive proof of exact origins for my art and would love to say that I have succeeded in all respects. Some are easily proven and have documented proof others are mere speculation and assumptions and will probably always remain that way until someone produces written proof. I think snow balls will fall in the middle of a 100 degree day before that will happen. It's just not out there. |
Well, the thing is Matsu, a LOT of these moves are based on various types of wrestling combined with weapons work.
Now, here is an interesting bit of MA history you can feel free to check for yourself if you wish:
Every culture and people on the planet that is old enough to be relevant to this discussion has developed a martial art of one form or another. They tend to develop along one of 2 MAIN lines, although there are some hybrids and exceptions.
First, and actually most common, are those arts derived from the training of military personnel engaged in the practice and profession of arms. Interestingly, although they tend to be, in original form, "Complete" arts, the emphasis tends toward grappling for the unarmed arts and weapons work tends to be prominent. Particularly the sword for all the arts for which we documentation over the last, say 700 years or so, including Japanese, Chinese, and all of the European arts.
Second, and though less common, also quite prominent are the arts that develop from civilian self defense and dueling systems. Interestingly enough this is where most kicking and punching arts tend to come from, for example, both Western boxing and Thai boxing are heavily based on unarmed civilian dueling cultures in place during their early development. You can find similar cultures in place in parts of China as well.
Now, Japan had a strange cultural oddity in that it never really developed such a culture. Almost ALL of the native martial arts of Japan are derived from it's military heritage. Including sumo, which was originally based on armored wrestling training and then became entertainment for emperors.
Now, you can check that a lot of what I said holds true for Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, all of Europe and a lot of pre-US North America. I am not as familiar with Okinawan martial history, but I do know that a lot of the development of Japanese karate was about turning Okinawa's native fighting art in to... you guessed it, a civilian dueling art to compete with Western and Thai boxing.
Perhaps this will give you some more places to look for clues in your historical research.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatsuShinshii
Black Belt
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: Kentucky
Styles: Machimura Suidi Rokudan, Ryukyu Kenpo, Kobudo, Judo
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tempest wrote: |
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
Tempest,
I have to agree with you. I was researching Muto (Tegumi) and where our throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques come from because I wanted a better answer than Okinawan Sumo or that it came from Jujitsu. I found an art called Jiao Di that was used as a combat form of throwing. It shows the same techniques as ours and I thought I had all of the answers and then one of my friends gave me a book that showed the exact same throws but they were not just Chinese but from many other countries.
Point is there is no historical record of where any of this came from. We can only speculate as to where it came from and how.
I wish I could disagree with you because I have spent years researching to find definitive proof of exact origins for my art and would love to say that I have succeeded in all respects. Some are easily proven and have documented proof others are mere speculation and assumptions and will probably always remain that way until someone produces written proof. I think snow balls will fall in the middle of a 100 degree day before that will happen. It's just not out there. |
Well, the thing is Matsu, a LOT of these moves are based on various types of wrestling combined with weapons work.
Now, here is an interesting bit of MA history you can feel free to check for yourself if you wish:
Every culture and people on the planet that is old enough to be relevant to this discussion has developed a martial art of one form or another. They tend to develop along one of 2 MAIN lines, although there are some hybrids and exceptions.
First, and actually most common, are those arts derived from the training of military personnel engaged in the practice and profession of arms. Interestingly, although they tend to be, in original form, "Complete" arts, the emphasis tends toward grappling for the unarmed arts and weapons work tends to be prominent. Particularly the sword for all the arts for which we documentation over the last, say 700 years or so, including Japanese, Chinese, and all of the European arts.
Second, and though less common, also quite prominent are the arts that develop from civilian self defense and dueling systems. Interestingly enough this is where most kicking and punching arts tend to come from, for example, both Western boxing and Thai boxing are heavily based on unarmed civilian dueling cultures in place during their early development. You can find similar cultures in place in parts of China as well.
Now, Japan had a strange cultural oddity in that it never really developed such a culture. Almost ALL of the native martial arts of Japan are derived from it's military heritage. Including sumo, which was originally based on armored wrestling training and then became entertainment for emperors.
Now, you can check that a lot of what I said holds true for Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, all of Europe and a lot of pre-US North America. I am not as familiar with Okinawan martial history, but I do know that a lot of the development of Japanese karate was about turning Okinawa's native fighting art in to... you guessed it, a civilian dueling art to compete with Western and Thai boxing.
Perhaps this will give you some more places to look for clues in your historical research. |
I appreciate the info Tempest.
One thing I have to clarify (actually two but they are related) is that the Okinawan's indigenous art of Ti or Ti'gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which was the combative predecessor of Muay Thai. I agree that Muay Thai is more civilianized as it is the sport form of Muay Boran.
My understanding of Muay Boran and Okinawan arts is that they as well as most combative forms were practiced/derived along with the use of weapons. Most arts were.
I actually have a theory that goes hand in hand with your statements above. Most grappling arts were used/developed (mostly but not all) by warriors that wore armor. Striking arts were used/developed by warriors that did not wear armor.
The reason I have this theory is that if you look at Jujitsu it was developed by the Samurai who wore armor. If you look at Muay Boran or Ti or Toudi (Karate) they were developed by warriors that did not wear heavy armor.
You would not punch a man wearing armor as you would injure yourself. However by throwing your opponent to the ground he becomes vulnerable. However I do have to point out that even striking arts utilize grappling. Ti when hand in hand with Tegumi , Quan Fa (Gung Fu) went hand in hand with Jiao Di and Qin Na. I'm sure the list goes on and on. However the difference is that they did not wear armor and striking techniques are much more effective.
Again just a personal theory but more or less goes hand and hand with your's.
_________________
The person who succeeds is not the one who holds back, fearing failure, nor the one who never fails-but the one who moves on in spite of failure.
Charles R. Swindoll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
| Tempest wrote: |
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
Tempest,
I have to agree with you. I was researching Muto (Tegumi) and where our throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques come from because I wanted a better answer than Okinawan Sumo or that it came from Jujitsu. I found an art called Jiao Di that was used as a combat form of throwing. It shows the same techniques as ours and I thought I had all of the answers and then one of my friends gave me a book that showed the exact same throws but they were not just Chinese but from many other countries.
Point is there is no historical record of where any of this came from. We can only speculate as to where it came from and how.
I wish I could disagree with you because I have spent years researching to find definitive proof of exact origins for my art and would love to say that I have succeeded in all respects. Some are easily proven and have documented proof others are mere speculation and assumptions and will probably always remain that way until someone produces written proof. I think snow balls will fall in the middle of a 100 degree day before that will happen. It's just not out there. |
Well, the thing is Matsu, a LOT of these moves are based on various types of wrestling combined with weapons work.
Now, here is an interesting bit of MA history you can feel free to check for yourself if you wish:
Every culture and people on the planet that is old enough to be relevant to this discussion has developed a martial art of one form or another. They tend to develop along one of 2 MAIN lines, although there are some hybrids and exceptions.
First, and actually most common, are those arts derived from the training of military personnel engaged in the practice and profession of arms. Interestingly, although they tend to be, in original form, "Complete" arts, the emphasis tends toward grappling for the unarmed arts and weapons work tends to be prominent. Particularly the sword for all the arts for which we documentation over the last, say 700 years or so, including Japanese, Chinese, and all of the European arts.
Second, and though less common, also quite prominent are the arts that develop from civilian self defense and dueling systems. Interestingly enough this is where most kicking and punching arts tend to come from, for example, both Western boxing and Thai boxing are heavily based on unarmed civilian dueling cultures in place during their early development. You can find similar cultures in place in parts of China as well.
Now, Japan had a strange cultural oddity in that it never really developed such a culture. Almost ALL of the native martial arts of Japan are derived from it's military heritage. Including sumo, which was originally based on armored wrestling training and then became entertainment for emperors.
Now, you can check that a lot of what I said holds true for Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, all of Europe and a lot of pre-US North America. I am not as familiar with Okinawan martial history, but I do know that a lot of the development of Japanese karate was about turning Okinawa's native fighting art in to... you guessed it, a civilian dueling art to compete with Western and Thai boxing.
Perhaps this will give you some more places to look for clues in your historical research. |
I appreciate the info Tempest.
One thing I have to clarify (actually two but they are related) is that the Okinawan's indigenous art of Ti or Ti'gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which was the combative predecessor of Muay Thai. I agree that Muay Thai is more civilianized as it is the sport form of Muay Boran.
My understanding of Muay Boran and Okinawan arts is that they as well as most combative forms were practiced/derived along with the use of weapons. Most arts were.
I actually have a theory that goes hand in hand with your statements above. Most grappling arts were used/developed (mostly but not all) by warriors that wore armor. Striking arts were used/developed by warriors that did not wear armor.
The reason I have this theory is that if you look at Jujitsu it was developed by the Samurai who wore armor. If you look at Muay Boran or Ti or Toudi (Karate) they were developed by warriors that did not wear heavy armor.
You would not punch a man wearing armor as you would injure yourself. However by throwing your opponent to the ground he becomes vulnerable. However I do have to point out that even striking arts utilize grappling. Ti when hand in hand with Tegumi , Quan Fa (Gung Fu) went hand in hand with Jiao Di and Qin Na. I'm sure the list goes on and on. However the difference is that they did not wear armor and striking techniques are much more effective.
Again just a personal theory but more or less goes hand and hand with your's. |
Certainly a good companion theory to my own. There are, however, a couple of points that I would like to make.
1. Those warriors that did not wear armor were, generally speaking, not always, but usually, some type of civilian group, or were VERY poor. People that can get armor, usually get armor. Armor is good. It works REALLY well.
2. Muay Boran particularly includes a LOT more grappling and takedowns than Muay Thai does, and if you go back even further along that developmental chain to the Cambodian native art of Pradal Serey, you get even MORE grappling and more weapons work.
My theory holds that the more an art is used in a civilian dueling context, the more weapons work is replaced by unarmed striking in the arts development because if you are an armed warrior, WHY would you hit someone with your hand or foot when you have a perfectly good weapon to hand.
And for those arts that are about "What if I don't have my weapon?" Well then, you DEFINITELY will need to be grappling as your first order of business will be disarming someone else and taking THEIR weapon. Strikes would be simple and direct and generally delivered AFTER your opponent is in no position to defend them effectively.
To see an example of this, look at the striking in Jiu-Jitsu. We actually teach striking, in some schools fairly early on, in others later, but it is almost NEVER taught as a comprehensive system the way boxing and Muay Thai are. No ring control footwork, no subtle combinations, very little head movement. Just put your opponent in a position they cant defend and then hit them. And even then, you are generally only hitting them to stop them defending something else you are doing that will actually end the encounter.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Armstrong
Black Belt
Joined: 28 Feb 2016
Posts: 2468
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there room for grappling Chinese martial arts or are they stereotyped as everything but grapplers?
Because there is a joke that, Chinese martial artists don't do grappling, because they never fall down in a fight, not for hundreds of years.
As the Chinese government have promoted martial arts in a health and exercise capacity for many years, the combative arts have been set aside for the police and military use.
It is alot healthier for the Chinese aging population to be practicing Tai Chi in the park than BJJ on the beach.
If comparing the Japanese grappling disciplines with Chinese Chin Na, better to look at their police and military for reference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
Is there room for grappling Chinese martial arts or are they stereotyped as everything but grapplers?
Because there is a joke that, Chinese martial artists don't do grappling, because they never fall down in a fight, not for hundreds of years.
As the Chinese government have promoted martial arts in a health and exercise capacity for many years, the combative arts have been set aside for the police and military use.
It is alot healthier for the Chinese aging population to be practicing Tai Chi in the park than BJJ on the beach.
If comparing the Japanese grappling disciplines with Chinese Chin Na, better to look at their police and military for reference. |
Perhaps. It depends on the training methodology. See, the thing that more than any other factor that has lead to the dominance of certain grappling systems over others is simply the fact that we practice at full speed against intelligently resisting opponents.
Simply that. It is more important to be able to perform a technique under the duress of full speed sparring and/or competition than it is to "know" a "deadlier" or "more dangerous" technique. What you know is useless in a fight compared to what you can do. And what you can do is determined not by mindset or meditation, but by what you HAVE done under as close to realistic conditions as possible and your physical condition.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
on the post.
