I've trained in quite a few systems of Asian martial arts -- mainly because I've moved around too much to ever master just one -- and, for all the diffferences, one of the biggest commonalities is that studying martial arts will improve your life, perhaps on levels that you do not even suspect yet. Most of my experience has been in various Chinese 'kung fu' styles, originating in both northern and southern China (there's a traditional, if not hard and fast, geographical division in rthe character of styles from each area). It's really easy, and really commonplace, for someone to claim that their system is better than somebody else's...it's a given, really, and people do exactly the same thing with cars, guns, wine, women, song, and, of course, polical parties. Given that disclaimer, here's what I think...
Another disclaimer: the instructor's quality is vital. A bad teacher will ruin your experience. Look for legitimate lineage, a family-style atmosphere (well, in Chinese martial arts and TKD, for sure), and good teaching skills and patience, and don't sign any ****ing contracts.
I agree with you about TKD. Tae Kwon Do can hurt if it hits you, no doubt, but as it's taught today it's more martial
sport than martial art. TKD stylists tend to develop powerful kicks, including some spectacular jumping kicks, but are typically weak with their hands -- certainly in comparison to the way that a Chinese fighter's hands move and work. Also, because of the heavy emphasis on tournaments, TKD students tend to learn how to fight for the
ring, within a narrowly proscribed set of rules. Nothing wrong with that, but giving the impression that TKD's hallmark moves and strategies will work on the street is doing a dangerous disservice. One infamous example is that of TKD tournament sparrers sidling up to their opponents twisted around so that part of their back is presented. Exposing your back in a real fight is, to put it mildly, Not A Good Idea.
In any discussion about TKD, we should bear in mind that there's not just one TKD system. There's a lot of politics in some sectors of the martial arts (wing chun is perhaps the most infamous from the Chinese side) and TKD is a classic example. The two main divisions within straight TKD are the ITF and WTF -- ITF is basically 'traditional' TKD that's very similar to the original Japanese styles whereas WTF is the newer group that got the Olympic franchise. Partly as a result of the Olympics, many WTF schools nowadays focus almost entirely on sport sparring whereas ITF schools will devote attention to forms, self-defense, etc. One of the more intriguing offshoots of the TKD tree was Choi Kwang Do, a system that seeks to minimize the bodily damage that some of TKD's techniques tend to bring out...don't know what the organization's status is these days.
The TKD that I did was ITF (I also did another, related Korean style for a short time) and by the time I reached green belt I knew that it just was not the style for me. My knees hurt, for one thing, and my mind and heart had become fully captivated by Chinese martial arts. The weird thing about my knees -- I was pretty young and neither then nor now had knee problems -- was weird because all of the kicks that I did in TKD were kicks that I've also done for almost two decades, with no ill effect (barring rare transitory injury) in Chinese styles.
Tae kwon doOne other thing about TKD is that most 'karate' schools in the US will prove to be of Korean, rather than Okinawan or Japanese, origin. In most US cities, actual karate seems pretty scarce, certainly in comparison to the plethora of 'karate' schools that are in reality TKD or Tang Soo Do. TKD's also not especially a Korean style, being based mainly on Shotokan karate (a very popular Japanese style that itself is based on Okinawan styles that have their ultimate origin in China) and only developed in the late '50s. Some will tell you that TKD goes back thousands of years but that's only true if you are referring to its Chinese (via Okinawa and Japan) roots, so it's kind of disingenuous.
TKD schools rule, numbers-wise, in the US and seem to have popped up in every minimall here in SoCal. Many of these schools cater heavily to children -- martial arts can be GREAT for children -- but way too many are 'belt mills' wherein the instructor's prime motivation is to realize a profit and their greed gets in the way of quality instruction. True older Korean arts, or at least arts based on them, are much harder to find -- things like Hwrang Do, Kuk Sul Won, and others. Hapkido's a pretty interesting 'modern' Korean art that incorporates grappling, so would be a far better choice for self-protection.
HapkidoAs for karate schools, here you start to get into a bit of variety, and you're also one (or two) steps closer to the Chinese origin of most extant Asian fighting systems. In general, karate tends to be more 'hard' and linear than the Chinese styles from which they derived. They also have nowhere near as many forms and certainly took a beating in translating weapons forms, though a few weapons endemic to Okinawa tend to be widely practiced by karateka. Also in general, Japanese systems tend to be that much harder and linear than do the Okinawan. Generalizations, but they seem to largely bear out in my experience.
As a Chinese stylist, my view is that most karate systems represent subsets of the more vast parent Chinese schools (much of Japanese culture was borrowed from China, with appropriate filtering). On a practical level, what that means is that a kung fu fighter might have a huge arsenal of techniques and concepts at hand whereas a karate fighter is more likely to keep it very simple...many karate schools just largely drill a few very basic techniques and combinations (
e.g., front kick, reverse punch, and blocks to the three basic 'gates') to the point of exhaustion. The end result is that a kung fu fighter might tend to be more agile (both literally and in terms of options available, hopefully without thought) whereas a karateka might just stand his or her ground or move in predictable, linear patterns, but it'll REALLY hurt if one of those painfully-perfected techniques actually hits.
Many kung fu systems emphasize speed over sheer power -- my own preference is to develop power through speed, speed also having a significant shock value -- and use stinging attacks to set up an opening for a real power strike or a minimal-muscular-power nerve or 'cavity' attack. Karate styles tend to exert a lot more 'hard' energy into attacks that are slower, but if they catch you at the right point you're going to be suffering. I favor one approach over the other, because it fits me better and I find it more of a challenge, but both approaches work. That old question of who would win, of a kung fu and karate master, is meaningless...it'd depend on so much more than mere specifics of style, and in the end it could just be a matter of who happened to win on that particular day.
And if you want to talk about a
really incomplete martial system -- one that grows less complete very day -- TKD exponents also tend to drill a relatively limited number of techniques (even ITF students don't use their hands as much as karate students, and certainly nowhere near as much as kung fu students) and if you ever catch a TKD black belt's kick you'll know you've been kicked. I've been launched into the air repeatedly by side kicks to a kicking shield that I was holding, and I am not a slight person.
All this is generalization, of course. I'm not very familiar with some of the styles, but in some of the Okinawan systems the influence of southern Chinese white crane and even northern systems like eagle claw are very apparent. Uechi-ryu is an interesting style that looks very much like the lethal white eyebrow and southern mantis Chinese systems, and very unlike other karate styles (except for advanced kata in some systems). Some goju schools are also pretty soft (as opposed to rigid) and Chinese-y...isshin-ryu, too?
Uechi-ryu karateTo add to the fun, in many (most?) karate schools the advanced forms begin to get more complex and softer, and more circular, sometimes very strongly resembling kung fu forms. On top of this, styles morph and split into substyles , declared or not. For example, I know a teacher of shotokan -- a typically rigid Japanese style -- whose tournament experience and background in northern Shaolin kung fu led him to teach a version of Shotokan that, though true in its forms, looks entirely different than the original, especially in fighting (faster, with more continual follow-through, angling, and body looseness). By the way, karate didn't exist in Japan until the early 20th Century (if I recall correctly); it was an Okinawan thing, imported basically as a sport and as a good physical regimen.
Shotokan karateOne really interesting Japanese system that's the antithesis of most traditional Japanese karate's rigidity is aikido. Aikido is another modern style, derived from earlier Japanese (samurai) variants on jujitsu. Judo has basically the same kind of lineage and is also very 'Chinese' in its use of the opponent's energy against themselves. I think that aikido's just great, and if I were going to practice a japanese style this'd be the one. I've never done it, or been on the receiving end of it, but it looks like some others of DU's warrior-gentleperson squad have already enlightened you.
AikidoJujitsu seems all the rage now because of the whole Gracie Brazilian jujitsu thing. Those boys sure know how to self-promote and, to avoid making this any longer, let's just say that I don't find their attitude or the attitude of other no-holds-barred and 'mixed-martial-arts' fighters, to be admirable. Asian martial arts are constantly endangered in terms of translating to an American context because vital tenets of traditional martial practice -- humility is a big one -- are scarce in this counry, and even seen as maladaptive. When Muhammed Ali put down hs opponents it was funny; when a supposed martial artist brags and threatens it's obnoxious. I never bought in to the whole UFC spectacle because the attitudes involved, alone, disgusted me. They're
fighters -- brawlers, often -- and not martial artists, at least as they represent themselves in that arena. That's my perspective as a traditional martial artist, anyway.
Having said that, jujitsu could be a devastating system to have handy, though not lending itself well to competition (hence judo, developed as a kind of 'safety jujitsu'). The origins of jujitsu are unknown but it seems to have spun off the samurai martial regimen and was likely formed from or influenced by Chinese systems that were and are heavy on grappling, such as eagle claw. Professor Wally Jay founded 'small circle' jujitsu, a pretty amazing thing to behold. Definitely consider jujitsu if your prime goal is self-defense.
Jujitsu (Wally Jay)I saved kung fu for last because it's the most complex and because it's ultimately the root for everything (or nearly so) described above. It's also not right to refer to kung fu as 'it,' because the Chinese martial arts include a totally discombobulating number and variety of distinct styles. I could never list them all, even if I knew more than the tiny fraction that I've heard of or practiced. China's a big, diverse place, with a lot of martial history and at least 4000 years of it involving what we'd recognize as 'kung fu' to one degree or another. 'Kung fu,' by the way, is a misnomer, meaning simply "hard work," "time and effort," or similar.
Most Chinese styles, especially those that are most widely known, either have their origins in one of the Shaolin temples or passed through their at some point in their evolution. Northern styles tend to be suited to taller people and wide-open terrain and are typically focused a lot on longer-range fighting and a lot of acrobatic jumps, kicks, rolls, etc. Lots of going from a very low to a very high stance (or jump), too, or vice-versa...very hard on the legs. It's not all long-range fighting, though, because systems like eagle claw and praying mantis specialize in a lot of grappling and close-range locks and nerve attacks. Some of the more common northern systems include various just called 'northern Shaolin,' several schools of praying mantis (seven star is the biggest), eagle claw, and chang chu'an or 'long fist' and tam-tui.
Northern Shaolin kung fuSouthern styles tend to be suited to shorter people and typically aren't as mobile as northern styles, have lower stances, tend to place more emphasis on strength power than speed power, and were developed for use in more uneven, more congested environments and even on boats. Southern styles that you're more likely to see here include wing chun, choy li fut, hung gar, five-animals, southern mantis, and white crane. Some of these, such as Fukien white crane and choy li fut, seem quite 'northern.'
Hung gar kung fuBy the way, kenpo is typically strongly Chinese -- usually southern Chinese -- in origin. There are a variety of names and schools, but Ed Parker's American kenpo karate is typical and far less karate than kung fu. In Japan Shorinji-ryu kenpo has the origin right in the title (Shorin = Shaolin).
American kenpo...wait a minute...I know this guy (Elvis with Ed Parker)My bias is, as admitted above, toward Chinese systems. Chinese styles are typified by a lot of empty-hand forms, a lot of weapons forms (usually starting with staff, broadsword, and spear), and a vast glossary of techniques that utilize all parts of the body as well as a very confusing (at first) emphasis on angling and movement during combat. Very dynamic, and typically difficult to 'get' at first.
Most systems also include extensive work on nerve strikes and the like, especially at higher levels, and some systems are particularly strong in 'chin na' (grappling). I find chin na a challenge, because there are literally endless possibilities that can in turn be countered in endless ways, but I've come to believe that if you can gain competence in chin na then the straight kicking and punching becomes almost obsolete -- chin na is just so much more energy efficient and (even more a consideration in term of running afoul of the law these days) looks infinitely less aggressive. Seizing and holding, and nerve and other attacks can also keep your opponent right where you want them and can quickly pacify them (kill them for that matter), and if you can control your opponent without breaking a sweat you've already won a major psychological victory over them. Although kung fu fighters compete in tournaments, including in those dominated by karate schools, most styles' strengths are not brought out in such sparring under restrictive rules. With potentially-lethal (and rather unfriendly groin, knee, eye, etc) attacks and nerve and blood vessel targeting being a staple of most styles, as well as chin na and similar exercises in pain, kung fu's basically what I think of as Chinese dirty-fighting.
Wing chun, mentione din this thread, is a popular and interesting style that's pretty atypical of Chinese systems. For a start, it's only got three (I think) hand forms and two (I think) weapons forms. Also, though not surprising for a souther style, most schools never teach kicking above the waist (in practice, even northern Shaolin practitioners kick low, high kicks largely being reserved to train strength and flexibility). Wing chun is excellent for developing sensitivity to an opponent's intent, probably only behind white crane and tai chi in this respect. It's an extremely close-range style and, as traditionally practiced, usually is not very mobile in the big picture although hand movements are extremely rapid. It was ideal for young Bruce Lee, who was terribly short-sighted. Their infighting blocks and strikes are great -- I've done some wing chun and, as a large man, that's very much to my advantage because my natural strength is at long and medium range whereas my close-range ability will be naturally hampered when fighting a shorter opponent. If you can get all the ranges covered, you're set.
So wing chun is an incomplete system in many ways (forms, weapons, and a few other doodads), but as a fighting style it can be pretty phenomenal and would be an especially good choice for shorter or weaker people (the founder was allegedly a Shaolin nun) and, because of its limited catalog of techniques and forms, is far faster to learn and improve at than is true of most other Chinese styles. I tend to favor other northern and southern schools, but I think that a bit of time learning elements of wing chun could profit anyone interested in sparring.
Wing chun kung fuFInally, tai chi. Yeah, that slo-mo stuff that old people do in the park. Tai chi means "grand ultimate" and tai chi chu'an (or 'taijiquan') really
is the grand ultimate martial art. It's of Taoist origin (based on Shaolin kung fu, a Buddhist tradition...things get mixed up in China) and represents the 'internal' side of martial arts, as opposed to the 'external' of karate and what most of us would call 'kung fu.' In reality, at high levels most 'external' systems that are complete begin to resemble tai chi and at high levels tai chi begins to get more boisterous and look more 'external.' In the end, everything gets to the same point. Further, many styles of kung fu (and some of karate) combine hard and soft internal and external elements in a kind of mosaic right from beginning levels. The difference, though, is that to use karate or kung fu in a fight might require only two or three years of training whereas to properly apply tai chi could take decades. In some ways it's like quick and nasty versus slow and quality. Tai chi is arguably better for its students, in terms of overall health and vitality, but the more 'external' arts are quicker to learn some useful basics of.
I won't go any more into tai chi here, because I'm sure that someone here has more experience learning it than I do and this thing's already long enough. Suffice it to say, though, that I was definitely not faking it when I first tried to move a tai chi teacher...despite a fair bit of kung fu experience that had me sensitive to intent at some level, I just couldn't anticipate or counter anything and a slender Chinese man ended up effortlessly hurling me a good ten feet in the air, my trajectory stopped by a handily-placed wall. Amazing stuff. Tai chi is good for everybody, of any age (seniors can particularly benefit and it may save their life with regard to hip injury), and offers benefits far beyond the martial. Indeed, many tai chi teachers do not know the martial aspects -- again, it takes a long time to learn and appreciate those -- and teach it purely as a form of moving meditation or stretching and conditioning. It works on those levels, but if you're interested in it as a martial art and find yourself a qualified instructor of legitimate lineage, you'll be amazed by the power within those same moves. I've never felt as helpless in sparring as I do against even moderately-skilled tai chi people.
Tai chiOh -- almost forgot -- check out Thai boxing (devastating kicks) for pure mayhem and, yes, krav maga is definItely worth a look if you're interested in self-defense (done a bIt of it...basically along the lines of Special Forces training, totally combat oriented without the trimmings of forms, etc...easy to learn, a sort of 'best of' of martial arts for defense).
Krav maga
Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
