|
|
| Author |
Message |
MatsuShinshii
Black Belt
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: Kentucky
Styles: Machimura Suidi Rokudan, Ryukyu Kenpo, Kobudo, Judo
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
 |
|
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A few things worth considring , different body types are better suited to one style or another. This should be something to taken into consideration when choosing a style. |
Funny, I've heard this argument when it comes to Suidi (Shuri-te) vs. Nafaadi (Naha-te). One is for smaller people and one for larger. I think this is a western ideal and not factual in any sense. I started in the Shuri-te arts because a teacher said that they were for small or skinny guys. At the time I was a runt at only 5' and maybe 90 lbs. Funny thing is I've taken both arts and to be honest, I don't see the difference or why one would best suite one body type over another. Your body grows and adapts over time.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A person's flexibility or lack of can also be a factor. |
I disagree. Again with time and training this ceases to be a factor.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A slow moving person who practices in a fast paced style, isn't going to do as well. |
So your saying a person that is slow can not train in a fast paced style? Then how do you increase your speed? I don't follow this logic at all.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| Yet that same person practicing a style where strength and balance is predominant, they might shine. |
So essentially stay within your comfort zone. Why! I'm quick (maybe not as quick when I was younger) and fast on my feet. I guess I should not have wrestled in JH, or taken Judo.
The arts are about perfection of oneself. Why would anyone put limits on themselves or on a student? If you're slow you should take a fast paced art. If you're weak you should be taking an art that demands strength. Why? Because it develops it.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| As all styles have apparent differences that can work well for some and not others, depending on their body type. |
Again I disagree. The only way you get better is by doing those things that you are not good at. I have taken (I won't say studied) many arts trying to find what works best for me as a young man. I found no art that was best suited for one type of person over another. Yes some arts may have been more of a challenge but there in lies the point. To challenge oneself.
When I took Judo I was told I was going to get destroyed by guys that were much larger than me. Not true at all. Many things fall down to technique. Were they stronger? Yep. Did that help them? Nope. I found that huge guys were top heavy and as long as you executed the technique properly they fell just like anyone else.
Certain arts are equated with strength because the bigger guys dominate that art. All arts come down to proper technique. Yes strength is a factor as well as speed but without proper technique all your really doing is using your strength. In a fight (real) this is a mistake. Strength only gets you so far. Speed only gets you so far. You have to balance the two with proper technique.
I have heard this argument most of my life. If I have a skinny weak student, yes I will teach them how to maximize their strengths but to ignore their weaknesses is folly and not in the best interests of the student. Rather than take the stand point that "I'm weak, so I shouldn't take arts that require strength", why would you not challenge them to take those arts so that they can improve on their weakness? Same goes for any weakness.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| What works for one person doesn't guarantee that it works for everyone. |
I agree that not everything will suite a person. However that is not to say that they should not try everything to find what best works for them and more importantly overcomes their weaknesses.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| Some people cannot fight, no matter the style they choose to practice, karate, Kung Fu and or TKD. |
This could be because their instructor doesn't know how to teach them or that they are teaching them sport based arts. The student nor the art is to blame in this instance. It's their instructor.
On the other hand if the student is the type to roll into a ball at the first hint of danger then the issue is with them. This is a mental thing and not a physical obstacle. Everyone likes to bring size into the picture but it really falls down to mentality. However the instructor in this case shares some of the blame. The instructor should challenge the student and take them outside of their comfort zone. More or less like a DI does to their recruits.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| While others with no formal martial art training can be seriously dangerous contenders. |
True. One of the baddest guys I've ever known grew up on the streets as the wrong ethnicity in the part of town he lived in and grew up fighting every day of his life. He was (since passed about 15 years ago) 5'2" 120 lbs soaking wet and could clean out a bar of bikers without breaking a sweat. He was one person I can honestly say I feared. He absolutely loved to fight and loved pain. He wouldn't hesitate to step to any man no matter size or ability.
He had absolutely no training whatsoever. However he learned by doing and out of shear necessity.
I think this boils down to two factors; how much you have fought in your life time and your mentality.
However this is the exception rather than the rule. We all have some ability to fight and everyone can swing away or wrestle to some degree. However if put up against a trained fighter, other than the rare exception, would get destroyed unless they get a lucky strike on the button.
_________________
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 |
|
 |
Alan Armstrong
Black Belt
Joined: 28 Feb 2016
Posts: 2468
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A few things worth considring , different body types are better suited to one style or another. This should be something to taken into consideration when choosing a style. |
Funny, I've heard this argument when it comes to Suidi (Shuri-te) vs. Nafaadi (Naha-te). One is for smaller people and one for larger. I think this is a western ideal and not factual in any sense. I started in the Shuri-te arts because a teacher said that they were for small or skinny guys. At the time I was a runt at only 5' and maybe 90 lbs. Funny thing is I've taken both arts and to be honest, I don't see the difference or why one would best suite one body type over another. Your body grows and adapts over time.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A person's flexibility or lack of can also be a factor. |
I disagree. Again with time and training this ceases to be a factor.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A slow moving person who practices in a fast paced style, isn't going to do as well. |
So your saying a person that is slow can not train in a fast paced style? Then how do you increase your speed? I don't follow this logic at all.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| Yet that same person practicing a style where strength and balance is predominant, they might shine. |
So essentially stay within your comfort zone. Why! I'm quick (maybe not as quick when I was younger) and fast on my feet. I guess I should not have wrestled in JH, or taken Judo.
The arts are about perfection of oneself. Why would anyone put limits on themselves or on a student? If you're slow you should take a fast paced art. If you're weak you should be taking an art that demands strength. Why? Because it develops it.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| As all styles have apparent differences that can work well for some and not others, depending on their body type. |
Again I disagree. The only way you get better is by doing those things that you are not good at. I have taken (I won't say studied) many arts trying to find what works best for me as a young man. I found no art that was best suited for one type of person over another. Yes some arts may have been more of a challenge but there in lies the point. To challenge oneself.
When I took Judo I was told I was going to get destroyed by guys that were much larger than me. Not true at all. Many things fall down to technique. Were they stronger? Yep. Did that help them? Nope. I found that huge guys were top heavy and as long as you executed the technique properly they fell just like anyone else.
Certain arts are equated with strength because the bigger guys dominate that art. All arts come down to proper technique. Yes strength is a factor as well as speed but without proper technique all your really doing is using your strength. In a fight (real) this is a mistake. Strength only gets you so far. Speed only gets you so far. You have to balance the two with proper technique.
I have heard this argument most of my life. If I have a skinny weak student, yes I will teach them how to maximize their strengths but to ignore their weaknesses is folly and not in the best interests of the student. Rather than take the stand point that "I'm weak, so I shouldn't take arts that require strength", why would you not challenge them to take those arts so that they can improve on their weakness? Same goes for any weakness.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| What works for one person doesn't guarantee that it works for everyone. |
I agree that not everything will suite a person. However that is not to say that they should not try everything to find what best works for them and more importantly overcomes their weaknesses.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| Some people cannot fight, no matter the style they choose to practice, karate, Kung Fu and or TKD. |
This could be because their instructor doesn't know how to teach them or that they are teaching them sport based arts. The student nor the art is to blame in this instance. It's their instructor.
On the other hand if the student is the type to roll into a ball at the first hint of danger then the issue is with them. This is a mental thing and not a physical obstacle. Everyone likes to bring size into the picture but it really falls down to mentality. However the instructor in this case shares some of the blame. The instructor should challenge the student and take them outside of their comfort zone. More or less like a DI does to their recruits.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| While others with no formal martial art training can be seriously dangerous contenders. |
True. One of the baddest guys I've ever known grew up on the streets as the wrong ethnicity in the part of town he lived in and grew up fighting every day of his life. He was (since passed about 15 years ago) 5'2" 120 lbs soaking wet and could clean out a bar of bikers without breaking a sweat. He was one person I can honestly say I feared. He absolutely loved to fight and loved pain. He wouldn't hesitate to step to any man no matter size or ability.
He had absolutely no training whatsoever. However he learned by doing and out of shear necessity.
I think this boils down to two factors; how much you have fought in your life time and your mentality.
However this is the exception rather than the rule. We all have some ability to fight and everyone can swing away or wrestle to some degree. However if put up against a trained fighter, other than the rare exception, would get destroyed unless they get a lucky strike on the button. |
My way of reasoning comes from a lifetime of experience, first hand knowledge, my experience and not yours, therefore I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me, this is all relative to each individual.
Belonging to gangs was a way of life, growing up in an urban concrete jungle, fighting as a teenager was entertainment.
When having outgrown all that street fighting, then entering the work a day world, a change was needed, otherwise the only option available, would have been a life of crime, not wanting that, I moved deeper in to martial arts and now half a century later, still learning, developing and experiencing.
My statements are just that "statements" and "generalizations" as (young fat boys don't usually join a ballet class whereas young skinny girls do) which are not absolute as there will always be exemptions (with which nature likes to make) as with birds that have wings that don't fly, while some fish that don't have wings can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatsuShinshii
Black Belt
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: Kentucky
Styles: Machimura Suidi Rokudan, Ryukyu Kenpo, Kobudo, Judo
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A few things worth considring , different body types are better suited to one style or another. This should be something to taken into consideration when choosing a style. |
Funny, I've heard this argument when it comes to Suidi (Shuri-te) vs. Nafaadi (Naha-te). One is for smaller people and one for larger. I think this is a western ideal and not factual in any sense. I started in the Shuri-te arts because a teacher said that they were for small or skinny guys. At the time I was a runt at only 5' and maybe 90 lbs. Funny thing is I've taken both arts and to be honest, I don't see the difference or why one would best suite one body type over another. Your body grows and adapts over time.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A person's flexibility or lack of can also be a factor. |
I disagree. Again with time and training this ceases to be a factor.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| A slow moving person who practices in a fast paced style, isn't going to do as well. |
So your saying a person that is slow can not train in a fast paced style? Then how do you increase your speed? I don't follow this logic at all.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| Yet that same person practicing a style where strength and balance is predominant, they might shine. |
So essentially stay within your comfort zone. Why! I'm quick (maybe not as quick when I was younger) and fast on my feet. I guess I should not have wrestled in JH, or taken Judo.
The arts are about perfection of oneself. Why would anyone put limits on themselves or on a student? If you're slow you should take a fast paced art. If you're weak you should be taking an art that demands strength. Why? Because it develops it.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| As all styles have apparent differences that can work well for some and not others, depending on their body type. |
Again I disagree. The only way you get better is by doing those things that you are not good at. I have taken (I won't say studied) many arts trying to find what works best for me as a young man. I found no art that was best suited for one type of person over another. Yes some arts may have been more of a challenge but there in lies the point. To challenge oneself.
When I took Judo I was told I was going to get destroyed by guys that were much larger than me. Not true at all. Many things fall down to technique. Were they stronger? Yep. Did that help them? Nope. I found that huge guys were top heavy and as long as you executed the technique properly they fell just like anyone else.
Certain arts are equated with strength because the bigger guys dominate that art. All arts come down to proper technique. Yes strength is a factor as well as speed but without proper technique all your really doing is using your strength. In a fight (real) this is a mistake. Strength only gets you so far. Speed only gets you so far. You have to balance the two with proper technique.
I have heard this argument most of my life. If I have a skinny weak student, yes I will teach them how to maximize their strengths but to ignore their weaknesses is folly and not in the best interests of the student. Rather than take the stand point that "I'm weak, so I shouldn't take arts that require strength", why would you not challenge them to take those arts so that they can improve on their weakness? Same goes for any weakness.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| What works for one person doesn't guarantee that it works for everyone. |
I agree that not everything will suite a person. However that is not to say that they should not try everything to find what best works for them and more importantly overcomes their weaknesses.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| Some people cannot fight, no matter the style they choose to practice, karate, Kung Fu and or TKD. |
This could be because their instructor doesn't know how to teach them or that they are teaching them sport based arts. The student nor the art is to blame in this instance. It's their instructor.
On the other hand if the student is the type to roll into a ball at the first hint of danger then the issue is with them. This is a mental thing and not a physical obstacle. Everyone likes to bring size into the picture but it really falls down to mentality. However the instructor in this case shares some of the blame. The instructor should challenge the student and take them outside of their comfort zone. More or less like a DI does to their recruits.
| Alan Armstrong wrote: |
| While others with no formal martial art training can be seriously dangerous contenders. |
True. One of the baddest guys I've ever known grew up on the streets as the wrong ethnicity in the part of town he lived in and grew up fighting every day of his life. He was (since passed about 15 years ago) 5'2" 120 lbs soaking wet and could clean out a bar of bikers without breaking a sweat. He was one person I can honestly say I feared. He absolutely loved to fight and loved pain. He wouldn't hesitate to step to any man no matter size or ability.
He had absolutely no training whatsoever. However he learned by doing and out of shear necessity.
I think this boils down to two factors; how much you have fought in your life time and your mentality.
However this is the exception rather than the rule. We all have some ability to fight and everyone can swing away or wrestle to some degree. However if put up against a trained fighter, other than the rare exception, would get destroyed unless they get a lucky strike on the button. |
My way of reasoning comes from a lifetime of experience, first hand knowledge, my experience and not yours, therefore I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me, this is all relative to each individual.
Belonging to gangs was a way of life, growing up in an urban concrete jungle, fighting as a teenager was entertainment.
When having outgrown all that street fighting, then entering the work a day world, a change was needed, otherwise the only option available, would have been a life of crime, not wanting that, I moved deeper in to martial arts and now half a century later, still learning, developing and experiencing.
My statements are just that "statements" and "generalizations" as (young fat boys don't usually join a ballet class whereas young skinny girls do) which are not absolute as there will always be exemptions (with which nature likes to make) as with birds that have wings that don't fly, while some fish that don't have wings can. |
Understood. Sorry if my post came off as directed towards you. It was more directed at the mentality of <if your this you must do this>. It struck a cord with me.
I was a late bloomer as a kid and as a result was told I couldn't do certain things or I would get hurt, or your not big enough to participate in this sport or that. The one place I never felt outed was the MA. It's a personal journey and as such only you can determine what is right or wrong for you. Size, strength, speed, etc. doesn't matter. It can all be learned with time.
Funny thing is when I shot up in less than half a year and put on 70 lbs the same people that told me no were begging me to do what they said I could not do before.
_________________
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 |
|
|
lukasz
White Belt
Joined: 16 Jan 2018
Posts: 4
Styles: Shorin-Ryu, Suikendo, Kobudo
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
|
|
| Prototype wrote: |
I am aware of the circular principles of a lot of Kung Fu styles and the emphasis of flow and coherency but beyond this, has Kung Fu training in your experience been a major difference (for better or worse) from the kicking and punching learned in Karate and Taekwondo?
Common criticism of Karate and Taekwondo is that the forms don't relate to the sparring, in that the patterns are sequences of moves intendent for self defence against a novice, wheras free sparring is the true test, since the Karateka faces a somewhat knowledgable opponent, albeit under major rule restrictions. |
not sure where you heard that karate doesn't have a good application. I have empirical experience of it being effective. I know all forms of Martial Arts have application and that is ultimately the goal is to be able to apply. Personally I like Karate the best after training in Kung Fu, Aikido and Taekwondo. I mostly like Shorin Ryu because it took Shaolin and hyper-refined it into a new style that seems more effective (at least when I spar with Kung Fu guys). But I know Kung Fu can be effective too! Just depends on how you train.
_________________
Shorin-Ryu, Suikendo, Kobudo
I run a slack channel for Martial artists, join up! http://martialarts.chat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RW
Green Belt
Joined: 07 Mar 2009
Posts: 426
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
|
|
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
| Prototype wrote: |
| I am aware of the circular principles of a lot of Kung Fu styles and the emphasis of flow and coherency but beyond this, has Kung Fu training in your experience been a major difference (for better or worse) from the kicking and punching learned in Karate and Taekwondo? |
Yes and no. I started my study of the arts in a style called Fu Jow Pai when I was a young lad so that experience was and was not a contrast to the styles of Karate that I took later. In some instances the differences were huge. The, what I call Japanized, Karate styles are very linear starting out and much more rigid. However some, what I call old school arts, are very similar in that they practice and teach the same concepts. This is due to the fact that they were influenced by the Chinese arts and that influence was still present.
| Prototype wrote: |
| Common criticism of Karate and Taekwondo is that the forms don't relate to the sparring, in that the patterns are sequences of moves intendent for self defence against a novice, wheras free sparring is the true test, since the Karateka faces a somewhat knowledgable opponent, albeit under major rule restrictions. |
The Kata are not related to sparring in terms of the meaning today. However it is very much related to fighting if taught as it was originally passed down.
The postures (not all but many) come from Quan Fa and represent combative/fighting applications. If one teaches the Kata with emphasis on the applications you will see that Quan Fa (Kung Fu/Gung Fu) and Todi (Karate) are not that different.
Now there are obvious differences in the way the techniques and applications are executed. This is due to the fact that Okinawan's are not Chinese and where first influenced by the indigenous art of Tii and Tegumi and also by Muay Boran.
Some use this to make the argument that there is a difference between the arts and that they are not related or where never influenced by the Chinese arts. I hear this a lot when it comes to Bai He Quan or White Crane.
However if a person studies (pick and art) for 20 years and then studies another art will the first art that they studied not influence the way that they execute the second art?
The argument in terms of modern Karate and Kata is valid. They are not taught in terms of actual fighting so there is no connection. However this is not indicative or factual of ALL Okinawan arts.
Sparring as you put it, in terms of today's standards is not IMHO a true test of fighting skills. In fact I think the Kata of modern arts have more in common with fighting than sparring. It develops bad habits. It is utilized at long distance instead of where 99% of all fights happen at close range. It teaches one to pull strikes and therefore ingrains muscle memory not conducive to ending fights or causing any damage. Etc, etc, etc.
Kumite (sparring) in today's terms is little more than a game of patty cakes.
I have never taken TKD so I can not speak to contrasts between it and Kung Fu. |
I mean, you're right. But isn't kata even worse in that regard? So is ippon kumite.
Say the first move in your kata is a shuto uke in the horse stance, followed by a zen kutsu dachi oi tsuki, with all that it implies (zen kutzudachi position, chambering the other hand on your side, etc).
The horse stance is an open invitation for a kick to the groin, while the zen kutshu dachi would never fly in a real fight, and chambering your punch is screaming to get punched in the face.
The above would all be bad habits? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singularity6
Pre-Black Belt
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 958
Location: Michigan
Styles: Jidokwan Taekwondo and Hapkido, Yoshokai Aikido, ZNIR Iaido, Kendo
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:52 am Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
|
|
| RW wrote: |
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
| Prototype wrote: |
| I am aware of the circular principles of a lot of Kung Fu styles and the emphasis of flow and coherency but beyond this, has Kung Fu training in your experience been a major difference (for better or worse) from the kicking and punching learned in Karate and Taekwondo? |
Yes and no. I started my study of the arts in a style called Fu Jow Pai when I was a young lad so that experience was and was not a contrast to the styles of Karate that I took later. In some instances the differences were huge. The, what I call Japanized, Karate styles are very linear starting out and much more rigid. However some, what I call old school arts, are very similar in that they practice and teach the same concepts. This is due to the fact that they were influenced by the Chinese arts and that influence was still present.
| Prototype wrote: |
| Common criticism of Karate and Taekwondo is that the forms don't relate to the sparring, in that the patterns are sequences of moves intendent for self defence against a novice, wheras free sparring is the true test, since the Karateka faces a somewhat knowledgable opponent, albeit under major rule restrictions. |
The Kata are not related to sparring in terms of the meaning today. However it is very much related to fighting if taught as it was originally passed down.
The postures (not all but many) come from Quan Fa and represent combative/fighting applications. If one teaches the Kata with emphasis on the applications you will see that Quan Fa (Kung Fu/Gung Fu) and Todi (Karate) are not that different.
Now there are obvious differences in the way the techniques and applications are executed. This is due to the fact that Okinawan's are not Chinese and where first influenced by the indigenous art of Tii and Tegumi and also by Muay Boran.
Some use this to make the argument that there is a difference between the arts and that they are not related or where never influenced by the Chinese arts. I hear this a lot when it comes to Bai He Quan or White Crane.
However if a person studies (pick and art) for 20 years and then studies another art will the first art that they studied not influence the way that they execute the second art?
The argument in terms of modern Karate and Kata is valid. They are not taught in terms of actual fighting so there is no connection. However this is not indicative or factual of ALL Okinawan arts.
Sparring as you put it, in terms of today's standards is not IMHO a true test of fighting skills. In fact I think the Kata of modern arts have more in common with fighting than sparring. It develops bad habits. It is utilized at long distance instead of where 99% of all fights happen at close range. It teaches one to pull strikes and therefore ingrains muscle memory not conducive to ending fights or causing any damage. Etc, etc, etc.
Kumite (sparring) in today's terms is little more than a game of patty cakes.
I have never taken TKD so I can not speak to contrasts between it and Kung Fu. |
I mean, you're right. But isn't kata even worse in that regard? So is ippon kumite.
Say the first move in your kata is a shuto uke in the horse stance, followed by a zen kutsu dachi oi tsuki, with all that it implies (zen kutzudachi position, chambering the other hand on your side, etc).
The horse stance is an open invitation for a kick to the groin, while the zen kutshu dachi would never fly in a real fight, and chambering your punch is screaming to get punched in the face.
The above would all be bad habits? |
I don't think anyone would be using "proper stances" in a fight. When using any martial art in a real-life situation, one is more likely to be in a relatively natural stance. One's foot placement will probably somewhat reflect the proper stances, but only enough to get the proper motions going (putting hips into punches and so forth.)
_________________
5th Geup Jidokwan Tae Kwon Do/Hap Ki Do
(Never officially tested in aikido, iaido or kendo) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatsuShinshii
Black Belt
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 1423
Location: Kentucky
Styles: Machimura Suidi Rokudan, Ryukyu Kenpo, Kobudo, Judo
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
|
|
| RW wrote: |
| MatsuShinshii wrote: |
| Prototype wrote: |
| I am aware of the circular principles of a lot of Kung Fu styles and the emphasis of flow and coherency but beyond this, has Kung Fu training in your experience been a major difference (for better or worse) from the kicking and punching learned in Karate and Taekwondo? |
Yes and no. I started my study of the arts in a style called Fu Jow Pai when I was a young lad so that experience was and was not a contrast to the styles of Karate that I took later. In some instances the differences were huge. The, what I call Japanized, Karate styles are very linear starting out and much more rigid. However some, what I call old school arts, are very similar in that they practice and teach the same concepts. This is due to the fact that they were influenced by the Chinese arts and that influence was still present.
| Prototype wrote: |
| Common criticism of Karate and Taekwondo is that the forms don't relate to the sparring, in that the patterns are sequences of moves intendent for self defence against a novice, wheras free sparring is the true test, since the Karateka faces a somewhat knowledgable opponent, albeit under major rule restrictions. |
The Kata are not related to sparring in terms of the meaning today. However it is very much related to fighting if taught as it was originally passed down.
The postures (not all but many) come from Quan Fa and represent combative/fighting applications. If one teaches the Kata with emphasis on the applications you will see that Quan Fa (Kung Fu/Gung Fu) and Todi (Karate) are not that different.
Now there are obvious differences in the way the techniques and applications are executed. This is due to the fact that Okinawan's are not Chinese and where first influenced by the indigenous art of Tii and Tegumi and also by Muay Boran.
Some use this to make the argument that there is a difference between the arts and that they are not related or where never influenced by the Chinese arts. I hear this a lot when it comes to Bai He Quan or White Crane.
However if a person studies (pick and art) for 20 years and then studies another art will the first art that they studied not influence the way that they execute the second art?
The argument in terms of modern Karate and Kata is valid. They are not taught in terms of actual fighting so there is no connection. However this is not indicative or factual of ALL Okinawan arts.
Sparring as you put it, in terms of today's standards is not IMHO a true test of fighting skills. In fact I think the Kata of modern arts have more in common with fighting than sparring. It develops bad habits. It is utilized at long distance instead of where 99% of all fights happen at close range. It teaches one to pull strikes and therefore ingrains muscle memory not conducive to ending fights or causing any damage. Etc, etc, etc.
Kumite (sparring) in today's terms is little more than a game of patty cakes.
I have never taken TKD so I can not speak to contrasts between it and Kung Fu. |
I mean, you're right. But isn't kata even worse in that regard? So is ippon kumite.
Say the first move in your kata is a shuto uke in the horse stance, followed by a zen kutsu dachi oi tsuki, with all that it implies (zen kutzudachi position, chambering the other hand on your side, etc).
The horse stance is an open invitation for a kick to the groin, while the zen kutshu dachi would never fly in a real fight, and chambering your punch is screaming to get punched in the face.
The above would all be bad habits? |
From most students understanding of the Kata, yes I would agree with you.
But that is the point. If you do not understand the meaning of the Kata then all you see if a horse stance or a forward leaning stance or a chambered hand.
Not to get on one of my novel posts again. Lets take the chambered hand for instance. You see this as a hand at the waste which in turn leaves the body or head open to attack. I see this as a arm being pulled back and held while I execute a counter.
Not everything is what it seems and most make the mistake of taking the sequencing of the Kata as literal translation.
Every movement in the Kata has meaning. Every posture in the Kata represents an application.
In layman's terms one posture may or may not have anything to do with the next. Just because on the surface it appears to represent one thing does not mean that it doesn't represent something else.
If you study the Kata and it's applications you find that 99% of its techniques are executed at close range. You also find out that striking is NOT the only element contained within your art.
_________________
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 |
|
|
sensei8
KF Sensei
Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Posts: 16430
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Styles: Shindokan Saitou-ryu [Shuri-te/Okinawa-te based]
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
|
|
| singularity6 wrote: |
| I don't think anyone would be using "proper stances" in a fight. When using any martial art in a real-life situation, one is more likely to be in a relatively natural stance. One's foot placement will probably somewhat reflect the proper stances, but only enough to get the proper motions going (putting hips into punches and so forth.) |
Muscle memory is hard to ignore. After 53 years, I believe my stance would be just that...proper Shindokan stances, whether I wanted to or not.
_________________
**Proof is on the floor!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singularity6
Pre-Black Belt
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 958
Location: Michigan
Styles: Jidokwan Taekwondo and Hapkido, Yoshokai Aikido, ZNIR Iaido, Kendo
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:14 am Post subject: Re: Pros and cons of Kung Fu visavi Karate and Taekwondo? |
|
|
| sensei8 wrote: |
| singularity6 wrote: |
| I don't think anyone would be using "proper stances" in a fight. When using any martial art in a real-life situation, one is more likely to be in a relatively natural stance. One's foot placement will probably somewhat reflect the proper stances, but only enough to get the proper motions going (putting hips into punches and so forth.) |
Muscle memory is hard to ignore. After 53 years, I believe my stance would be just that...proper Shindokan stances, whether I wanted to or not.
|
That's reasonable.
_________________
5th Geup Jidokwan Tae Kwon Do/Hap Ki Do
(Never officially tested in aikido, iaido or kendo) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneKickWonder
Purple Belt
Joined: 17 Feb 2018
Posts: 513
Styles: Tang soo do
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I studied wado (karate) and separately tai chi in its combat version more or less concurrently years ago. More recently my chosen style is tang soo do.
Here's my observations.
At first, like at beginner level, TSD and wado look almost identical. The only major difference in found when I started TSD was that the fighting stance is much more like cat stance as found in kung fu, whereas wado's fighting stance was closer to a front stance, pretty much identical to 'snake' stance from tai chi.
Other than that, TSD starts out looking very much like how wado looks at the beginner level.
At the beginner level, tai chi and wado seem quite different. Tai chi is more circular, as more open hand techniques, and the punches are a bit more like jabs than 'thrusts' of karate.
That's beginner level sort of done.
As you advance, you start seeing more open handed stuff in TSD whereas wado is pretty much about fists, but then you see something from wado that is core to its power sneaking into TSD, most notably, what the Japanese call tai sabaki. We make better use of redirection and angles as we move up through the grades.
Similarly, in wado, the slow but powerful linear 'thrusts' that differentiate it from tai chi start to give way to jabs and that most awesome of techniques, uraken or back fist. It starts to look more like tai chi.
Tai chi, when practiced as a martial art, places a lot of emphasis on physical conditioning tight from the start. It was certainly the toughest training I ever did. Far tougher physically than either wado or TSD. But as you progress, it becomes obvious that this is to prepare you for the more linear and powerful moves found in styles like karate.
So what conclusion can we draw? That's upto the individual. But one of my conclusions is that they're all pretty much the same thing, just taught in different ways. The tai chi kung fu folks seem to focus on mind and body first, so that you are well equipped to learn the powerful combat moves. The karate and TSD folks train technique first and assume mind and body will be refined through repetition of technique. In essence, I think all styles cover largely the same things, but not necessarily in the same order.
Just on the point that kata are often criticised as not flowing or not being relevant. That depends on two things in my opinion. How they are taught, and how they are practised. It's that simple. Some people seem to want to try to replicate a series of stoll photos or sketches. Some people want to use them as moving meditation. Some look for the flow and try to visualise the fight. Maybe some people want to learn to dance I don't know. But kata/hyung/forms all have the flow. The all teach the principles of combat. Not competition fighting but staying alive at any cost kind of fighting. It's anything but just punches and kicks. There's neck cranks in them, throws, arm locks and breaks, chokes, take downs, escapes, and of course an unhealthy dose of gonad ripping. In schools that teach the flow these things present themselves quite freely. In schools that teach the series of stills, perhaps it is harder to see. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's one of the reasons the tai chi folks start hyung slowly, so you have time to spot things. But the very same flow, when taught properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
on the post.
