Hard Style or Soft, Which is Better?

Hard Style or Soft Style of Martial Arts, which works better for you and why?

 

Hard I associate with grappling and groundfighting and fighting in general. I know I am probably wrong but hey, thats how I interpret it.

I like Shotokan for basics and kata - thats why I do it. When performing a kata properly i.e. Hangetsu..how is that considered? I have no idea I haven't done it yet!

What's your interpretation of hard and soft styles Thomas?

 

I prefer hard styles, mainly because they tend to be easier to use effectively with less practice. I also dislike a lot of the metaphysics that often comes with soft styles but that's just personal preference.

 

You'll have to be more specific in what you term hard and soft, Thomas. What one person might consider hard, the next person might consider soft.

 

I don't think its a case of being hard or soft, but really knowing when to yield and to strike. Goju Ryu is an excellent example, as the name means hard/soft.

Thanx

 

What's the difference?

Really, when talking about hard vs. soft styles, I don't know the difference any more. Should we be talking about the way in which the most advanced practitioners of a "hard" or "soft" style perform their art, or the way in which beginners are taught?

My feeling is that we should talk about the advanced practitioners, since that's what we all strive to emulate.


Given that, what's the difference between the "hard" and "soft" styles. My opinion is, where the rubber meets the road, there isn't any difference. Instead, what the difference appears to be is in pedagogical approach to teaching.

For example, when I examine the mechanical aspects of the tai chi or Hsing-i punch, (what the body actually does) there are no differences between those and the karate punch as I know and do it. The Tai Chi and Hsing-I guys talk about not "blocking" a technique, but deflecting it instead. Well, when I watch the most advanced karate practitioners (and also the way I do things) we don't "block", but deflect or evade. The limbs move as a result of the movement of the waist, and not independantly of the waist, in Tai Chi, Hsing-i and Karate. So, I've not seen any demonstrable difference in the way that the advanced practitioners perform, outside of the basic techniques.

As far as I can see, the distinction between hard and soft, internal and external are artificial ones.


Rob

 

Actually the main difference is in teaching, advanced practitioners of any art will move and react in pretty similar ways since there are optimum ways to perform techniques.

 

To Silver:
It is purely subjective, tell me what you think the difference is if any, and why you prefer one to the other if you have preferance at all.

 

Grappling is a very soft art. You can really see this when a new person comes in and grapples for the first time. They are using all thier strength and power trying to move the other person around. The good grappler will be soft and yeilding and either ride out the storm until the opponent gets tired or he will use the other guys strength against him. Many times I will ride out my opponents first wave of what we call "spazzing out" and when he's all tired out I will look at him and say "All tired out? Good, now it's my turn to do some work." And I smile and start working on finishing them off.

I think in almost every art, the advanced practitioners are "soft". This is what happens when your are technically efficient. Also, you conserve your conditioning in soft arts.

Take for example kickboxing. I'm not that great a kickboxer so I tend to use too much strength, but my friends are so technicall efficient that they look effortless and they tell me it feels effortless when they are striking. They want to be soft to encourage speed and thus increase power.

 

Ooops - I was wrong then! Thanks mmafiter - I do see your point

 

Grappling 'looks' hard but its not really. People forget that grappling (especially jacketed wrestling) has sensitivity exersices in them to. If a person is to tense you can feel what there about to do just before they do it giving you more reaction time (at least thats the theory, I'm just gettting good enough now to do things like this).

Thanx

 

Hard cannot exist without soft, I feel we should have balance. Do you believe that soft techniques are delivered in specific ways or vice versa for example use that statement that "most hard movements or techniques are executed from a wide stance that is low and stable", tell me what your interpretation of this is.
We are headed somewhere, it is already getting interesting.

 

What I would term as 'hard' is where you focus your own strength and power (coupled with technique of course) to deliver a strike/throw.

Soft is where you use the minimal amount of your own energy just redirect your opponents, such as Aikido projection techniques.

Thats my interp!

 

So, a soft style is one that involves throwing?

Judo and Ju Jitsu would be soft styles? They have throws within their arsenal that do the same thing.

But a karate technique wherein the opponent impales himself on your fist or foot isn't ? So karate isn't a soft style?

What about Hsing-I Chuan? (I'm thinking of the elements "wood" or "Fire") those forms are as hard as anything in karate. So, is Hsing I a hard style?

What about "step up parry and punch" in Yang style Tai Chi?
the mechanics of that is identical to a lot of stuff I've done in karate.
Is Tai Chi a hard style?

So, someone enlighten me.


Rob

 

No style is entirely hard or soft, there's always elements of each other.

 

Internal may not be synonomous with soft, likewise external and hard. I've even heard internal defined as the arts that started within China (internally) like Tai Chi, Xingyi, Bagua, Mei hua, etc. And External as those that bodidharma reputedly brought with him from India, coming from the 18 lohan hands.
Regardless, I'd have to at least call Xingyi internal and hard.

 

Sorry folks - how do you pronounce Xingyi? - purely out of interest

 

With great, great difficulty.

 

Errrmmm...

i think its pronounced "Jing yee"....and i'd have to agree it is hard and internal. It is simple but devasting. I would liken it as being the "Wing Chun" of the internal arts.

 

FreeForm you wrote:
"What I would term as 'hard' is where you focus your own strength and power (coupled with technique of course) to deliver a strike/throw.
Soft is where you use the minimal amount of your own energy just redirect your opponents, such as Aikido projection techniques."

Do we not focus our energy and power when we parry? Even if we blend to the attackers motions do we not seek to put them in a specific place in a pace where we can counter? If so does not hard exist within soft and soft exist withn hard. It is like the breath which is drawn in and then exhaled based upon our activities. The breath can be drawn inward quickly (hard) and then when the right amount of oxygen is acheived ph blood levels the breathing becomes smooth and even.

Yet most of us know that controlling this ph balance can effect the technique and it's power as applied through execution of physical prowess. Most men are far to consumed with their own physical prowess and mental superiority, and this can get in the way of our learning process. I learn something new everyday!

Yet there is a major focus of every art for the most part, and that is either hard or soft. Which is yours? Or better yet, which are you? I have often said that if I am ever attacked I will be ruthless and hard, yet in almost every situation I did not see it coming, and so initailly reacted softly by getting out of the way. The follow up was hard!

The soft cannot break, the hard cannot yield, and so each must have both in order to become supreme.

Those are my words.... I cannot change them.