chinese striking and japanese grappling

[Octavius]

Want to get your thoughts. I have a friend who is primarily a japanese arts guy while I am primarily a chinese arts guy. We have sparred, compared notes and such and the thing that often comes up as a point of discussion is why there is a preference in JMA for grappling type techniques and in CMA for striking type techniques. This of course doesn't mean that that's all each of them does, but the flavor of it is that JMA usesgrappling alongside with striking, and CMA uses striking alongside with grappling. Hope the distinction is clear enough. Our running pet theory is that much of JMA that survives now were developed for environments where armor needed to be dealt with (battlefields) while CMA developed more as an "urban" art where the people would be in plainclothes. What do you guys think?

[African Tiger]

I don't find your theory too accurate; no disrespect, of course.

Remember the development of the martial arts was centered around countering aggression by a larger or armed opponent. Particularly in the feudal/Empirical periods of China, where the emperor routinely sent armed men to the Shaolin temple for whatever the reason of the day might have been.

CMA was developed to deal with the monk's inability or unwillingness to carry weapons to defend themselves. I'm not the font of information for all things CMA, but I don't think too many will disagree with me.

It would seem that Wing Chun was developed for your so-called urban environments.

[NeedsPractice]

Actually I have heard that some of the japaneses ryus generally speaking were used by the samurai against other armed, and armored samurai so empty hand striking was not preferable, and unarmed combat was usually the last resort when in a battlefield type situation. This is a general statement but tends to fit with the initial post. On the other hand the okinawan karate was more generally used by people not using armor so there is more striking versus grappling, joint locking etc.
Consider if someone is swinging a weapon at you on a battlefiled wearing armor you are not going to try to trade blows with them but quickly immobilize them. Anyway i could be completely wrong, and I have no comments about the chinese arts. Just my humble opinion.

[Octavius]

Well, here's out thinking:

I agree with NP about JMA and grappling/striking/armor/etc. Before the Tokugawa period, there were a great deal of warfare between the various warlords trying to be Shogun. So the Ryus that dveloped during this period will have focused primairly on weapon skills and arts, and unarmed being included as a complete curriculum depending ont he ryu, but not as strongly emphasized as the weapon skills. Now the our thinking is that the unarmed techniques that did develop then were thus dsigned to be used by someone in a battlefield emcumbered with armor ,but having lost his weapon, to deal with other fellows with armor and weapons. So like NP said, striking was there, but it was used to support grappling. Once the Tokugawa period set in, period reigned (no outright civil wars like before) so most of the fighting during this time were NOT geared out pitched battles between armies but smaller groups, skirmishes, bandits, and most importantly, duels. Again, weapon skills were paramount (especially for duels - swords) but the unarmed skills that developed then grew out of the battlefield skills.

As for China, obviously there were masive battles and huge armies and so forth, but _most_ of the arts that have come down to us were not really developed to such environments. Many of the CMA that we see today were taught in a NON-military environment, either in villages or cities, as martial schools separate from the imperial/provincial/local governmental infrastructure. Mind you, of there was cross-pollination between the independents and the government backed martial camps, but there were no massive culture or infrastructure like the Japanese ryus. In fact, AFIK (and correct me if I am wrong), there are only a handfuill of CMA arts today that we can say were documented to have been used by so-and-so Emperor/Provincial Governor/etc in so-and-so province/army/unit/etc. However, the influence from the military is obvious in all the various weapons that CMA studies (especially pronounced for Norther CMA). What what this has lead us to think is that a good chunk of CMA development was done by independents not affiliated with the government and developed by similar independents, and the most probably environment that these folks were to find use for their arts would be in an environment where they and their opponents would be plain clothed or minmially armored (though maximally _armed_). As for the monk theory, the various temples were a tremendous influence, but CMA existed before Shaolin and even independent of it, and you can't attribute all its characteristics to them.

But AT, your input is appreciated, and again, I stress that this is our pet theory. No offense is taken and in fact even more input (either supporting or trashing our idea) would be great. I think that this forum sometimes gets a little too caught up with politics and this art vs. that art or this artist vs. that artist, or that technique v this technique, etc. I mean, we can only write here, and for that kind of medium, I think discussions that talk about history, theory and principles and the like are excellent.

[SevenStar]

If you examine CMA forms, you will see a lot more grappling than you think. also, there is shuai chiao. I can't say that I agree with your theory. Some styles place a bigger emphasis on grappling than others, obviously, but what you are saying is too broad a generalization, IMHO

[Zantesuken]

i'm not big on JMA but generally JMA is external and relies on muscle to generate power in most situations.

in CMA no matter which kung fu you take you'll develop 'ging'. that's something different from muscular strength. ging is applied through striking primarily so i guess that's why CMA is more focused on striking. there are some styles which have quite a bit of grappling. i study wing chun and it's all hits no grappling. i also study tai chi which i prefer but wing chun's just with friends but in wing chun it's maximum 3 hits and you should go down. that's the ideal they train for so they train lots of power in their hits. and now i've lost my train of thought so i'm going to conclude bottom thing.

all MA have some sort of grappling. where some have less or none they focus on ging not throwing. ging is more powerful than throwing.

[No_Know]

"Remember the development of the martial arts was centered around countering aggression by a larger or armed opponent. Particularly in the feudal/Empirical periods of China, where the emperor routinely sent armed men to the Shaolin temple for whatever the reason of the day might have been. "

So, Shao-lin did punches and grabs because there were armed armored men?

Shuai Chiao seems not Han Chinese. It seems Mongolian before the Mongols took China (?correct history?).

Chinese does seem to have both. Some more than others. That's because Kung-Fu Styles/Systems are Tailor made for specific conditions (even general ones).

In Japan depending on the military involvement among commoners, the military learned ways of fighting more than the commoners did. And the Military might have dealt with other military and Higher society citizens. They all wore clothes. And the military carried very sharp swords. Strikes aren't primary versus Japanese military sword. If you were military or Nobel you deflected a sword if there was a fight and you were alive at the moment, in Japan. So (needle-and-thread), tie up the two handed sword with your weapon use leverage and a free hand of yours to grab...one of the major survival skills of Japan (grab the sword hand to control or grab the clothes to control, violently~). The other three, off-balance (kill~, in that part of a second), distract (kill~, in that part of a second), and be Polite (Death, dishonor or disrespect to the rude, in Japan). Merely a concept~

[NeedsPractice]

Some arts , whether chinese or japanese are more grappling/throws/locks, with some striking. Other arts are more striking than grappling/throws/ locks.
The japanese jujitsu based arts are more throw/lock / grappling orientated than the karate arts which are more strike oriented. ( I have a little experience in both).
With the chinese arts there is no clear line as with the japanese karate vs. jujitsu .(karate to be technical really okinawan?) THe chinese arts tend to be more split along the lines of north vs. south, shaolin vs tao, internal vs external and there is a wide range of things included there in.
AS far as wing chun there is the ability to throw or sweep an opponent if you choose to do so, but wing chun is based more towards striking and trapping than throws. ( I practice wing chun).

I dont claim to be an expert , just my thoughts.

[rogue]

"Our running pet theory is that much of JMA that survives now were developed for environments where armor needed to be dealt with (battlefields)"

The Japanese had stopped wearing armor quite a while back and karate wasn't introduced into Japan until the 1920s(?). Japan was a pretty heavy hitter in the Asian theater around 1900 and was pretty modern. Also contrary to many of our beliefs the main battlefield weapon of the samauri was the bow and arrow, close quarter may not have been a large factor.

I believe that the Japanese just like grappling sports (Sumo, Judo, wrestling), so it may be more a matter of taste then battlefield preference.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Zantesuken


in CMA no matter which kung fu you take you'll develop 'ging'. that's something different from muscular strength. ging is applied through striking primarily so i guess that's why CMA is more focused on striking.

throws can and do have jing...get whipped into the ground by a good shuai chiao player.


there are some styles which have quite a bit of grappling. i study wing chun and it's all hits no grappling. i also study tai chi which i prefer but wing chun's just with friends but in wing chun it's maximum 3 hits and you should go down. that's the ideal they train for so they train lots of power in their hits.

I wonder how often it actually happens tho...

all MA have some sort of grappling. where some have less or none they focus on ging not throwing. ging is more powerful than throwing.

refer to the above. when you jing with the throw it's extremely powerful. also, it may take several punches and kicks before you go down, but one good throw onto a hard surface can easily end a confrontation - especially if your opponent does not know how to fall.