Japanese martial arts VS Chinese martial arts

Trolling just for me . I'm really touched that I'm that important to you, but I'm a bit busy at the moment so you'll have to run along and play.

 

You're right, we shall see no more of that

 

W-O-W

That . . . that was great. There is not a smiley to show the smile that is on my face right now, or that can show the quality of the laugh that brought.

 

There are countless similarities between these two huge groups of arts: the main one being that people with a couple of years' experience in one of the the thousands of variations from one of the countries suddenly decide they are qualified to talk about all the rest, and make generalisations based on one TV show, or a couple of weeks' training, or a geezer they met down the pub.

Some people from either field even feel qualified to write pieces on the net about it, eg:

As someone with over ten years in aiki-based arts and wing chun I feel this to be a particularly pointless and incorrect observation.

Is jujutsu straight or circular? Sumo seems ever so slightly curvy... is that only the shape of its fighters? Wado ryu karate, hsing i, hung gar... what shape are they?

'Kara' meant 'Chinese' and is a direct reading of the Okinawan 'Tou', which also meant Chinese. It is also worth noting that anything foreign or foreign-influenced used to be called Chinese in the Japanese language. Even the famous (Japanese) geisha who was duty-bound to look after Commander Perry who 'opened' Japan and then was outcast until she died in poverty because of that was called 'the Chinese'! So no-one knows where the Okinawans got their systems from... and there were almost certainly native arts anyway.It was later changed to empty by Japanese people wanting to claim it as their own... although it's usually spelt in katakana anyway, a writing system exclusively for foreign words.

I could go on... and on...

but the conclusion is, it's the way they train. A high level aikidoka/shotokan karate guy or whatever will be just as loose and fluid as a high level tai chi/kungfu geezer half the time... the only difference is the way they get there.

 

Are you sure? It would be all the way round and 20 years is good enough to understand what Taiji really means. Maybe with another 20 you could get the gist of it.

Taiji is not simply a IMA. It's spiritual training.


BTW, Japanese arts are inferior to Chinese as Wushu (plus all the complexity and underlying philosophy) was born in China and not Japan.


DC.

 

Most of the philosophies are based on buddhism and it's possible that kung fu at the Shaolin monastry evolved out of Yoga and Indian martial arts. Following your logic I guess that that means that Indian martial arts must be the d33dli3st.

 

Clarify, please...

If you're saying T'ai Chi has no martial application, you're utterly wrong.

If you're saying T'ai Chi is about more than fighting, I'll agree with that.

I think it's #2, but I'd like for you to explain before I comment further.

 

Wow, this thread is a poop magnet.

Incorrect generalizations about different arts. Check.
References to dodgy/questionable martial arts "masters." Check.
Inane, wrong accounts of the history of martial arts. Check.
Equating soft arts to yoga. Check.
People who think martial arts are not about fighting. Check.
People who think martial arts are ONLY about fighting. Check.
Ouch

He didn't really learn Tai Chi than did he?

You obviously don't have a very good understanding of soft/internal arts.

No, it is a martial art that has principles that will help you understand the universe.

STOP! PLEASE! I'm going to have a fricking aneurism.

 

I know that Bil is trying to make a point, but I need to once again note that there is a large amount of evidence that Martial Arts predate Shaolin in China by centuries. So while there is most likely a link between India and China in the development of CMA, they didn't simply come from India as many people suggest. In much the same way, there is little question that the people of Okinawa and Japan also had indegenous fighting systems that were transformed through cultural trade. Put a different way: there is no single root art. Anyone who claims that there is, is wrong.

Bull. Bull on so many counts that I can't even begin to explain why. Especially considering that the Aiki arts have a separate root that don't draw from China.

- Matt

 

BK francis has a lot to answer for, most of what he writes are his opinions, it is a mistake to assume that everyting he writes is fact,

quite simply it isn't

 

whats spiritual about hurting people ?

thats a good one, Chinese Martial Artists do tend to excel as martial arts snobs

 

I am too tired to reply one by one. So here we go:

1. Taiji is not only a martial art but also moving Qigong. Chinese translation for Taiji is Supreme Ultimate Fist. It's the ultimate and most difficult art to master.

2. Come on don't compare Taiji, Bagua or Xingyi with Aikido. It's like comparing a Rolls Royce with a Citroen. In addition Aikido has its roots in Ancient Chinese culture:

http://www.aikidoaus.com.au/dojo/docs/aikitao.htm


Bill Gee, your logic is flawed because India does not have the Wushu tradition that China/Taiwan have. Martial Arts are nurtured in these two countries and not in India. BTW Taoist arts were not originated in India. Not at all.


DC.

 

I would like to meet you in person so you could check if I am a snoob.



DC.

 

martial arts are about hurting people, you might as well say that firing a gun is spiritual.

and BJJ beats them all

 

The Supreme (or Grand) Ultimate Fist comes from it's fighting potential. Like Ba Gua, the general concesous is that any Chi Gong aspects were added to the fighting forms in the teaching generations that came later.

One link does not a history make. This is the first time I've read anything about O-Sensei learning the Nine Chinese Classsics. However, considering that essay draws from "The Boddivista Warriors", a book that has been completely discreditied in the Martial Arts Scholar community, I don't put much confidence in it. Further the fact that the essay propigagtes the Damo legend as fact undercuts its authority too.

It you wanted to draw a technique linkage to Aikido, you'd do much better referencing the time that O' Sensei spent in China. However, even there it's tough to draw much of a linkage.

Not quite. India cultivated martial arts as military arts. The arguement can be made that Martial arts didn't make as much of transition to civilian arts as they did in China. However, India does have a rich Martial Arts history (kalarippayat being the best example).

- Matt

 

Tai chi is no more or less difficult to master than any other chinese art that is taught properly and completely!

There are numorous aikijutsu and jujutsu styles that teach almost identical techniques to Shuai Chiao and various shuai/chin na oriented styles such as bagua. there are also numerous aikijutsu and jujutsu styles with little to nothing in common with any Chinese art I know of. Aiki is a principle many styles are based on but not all of those styles come from the same root.

That page is full of martial myths and sterotypes and not really a good source for research or backing up your statements!

 

It was your logic that I was using, go back and read the post, I also referred to buddhism not taoism.

Anyway congratulations on working out where martial arts really evolved. How did you manage to get round the difficulties that the experts in this field have in terms of the lack of accurate historical records?

 

Damn skippy!

 

I don't know if anyone else has said this as I'm just viewing this thread for the first time. In regards to BK Francis, he's dreaming. In regards to your comment, you have to explain how you believe that Tai Chi is only for exercise and self improvement.

 

Ninja please...

What?

You have got to be kidding me...