View Full Version : Japanese x Chinese

11/02/2003 10:03am,

How accurate would it be to state that Japanese martial arts show their chinese influences but tended to discard much of the eye candy and distill it to pure technique?

All the Bagua I've seen, looks very similar to things in taijutsu training, albeit more flowery. But it has been offered that this has been exaggerated in Japanese arts to the point of becoming blocky and stiff—the soft, relaxed feeling of the Chinese arts *should* be retained (and hence its power) within the, shall we say, austere aesthetic of these derivative styles.

Should it be of any suprise that you see what could be "osoto gari" in a different system? If it works well it is probably there. They did that in Europe too. I think all that "fluff" is there to make a point during training that one should be relaxed and flexible to be powerful (and just because that usually goes out the window doesn't mean it doesn't hold true, its just few people trust it and/or know how to apply it).


I have practiced both japanese and chinese arts and I tend to agree 100% with this opinion.

Do you think that the chinese approach is valid or is it better to teach techniques and its application in a straight forward (japanese) way ?

11/02/2003 10:20am,
I know almost nothing of Chinese arts, but Kajukenbo and Kyokushin systems both have an idea about learning hard fighting style until first dan, then learn the soft. Oyama said the circle is superior to the line.

11/02/2003 11:35am,
i think as long as you have realistic sparring, you can learn how to use the techniques. that way you can use the criterion of usefulness to discover the truth in martial arts. that's why i think san shou is an essential development for the CMAs. i would love to see more MMAs over there too.

Xuanlong Xian
11/02/2003 12:03pm,
I myself train in internal CMA, and have never been taught 'flowery' or excessively elaborate techniques. Maybe it's because the instructor has plenty of real-life fight experience...but I think that any art, trained well, would stress simple techniques.

As to Chinese vs. Japanese...I think *any* verdict would be premature. My own Japanese experience is with a very rigid style (Shotokan), and so I tend to think of J styles as excessively formalistic and stiff. But wouldn't a *good* fighter/practitioner in Shotokan abandon stiffness and move toward a relaxed and natural dynamic closer to the archetypcal ICMA?

11/03/2003 1:48am,
Originally posted by patfromlogan
Oyama said the circle is superior to the line.

Oyama had some influence from Tai-Chi from stories i've read.


^^ good article on that.

11/03/2003 8:54am,
It is very hard to put ANY style into a category like hard and soft or cirular and linear, most styles have both, some may start a certain way then change, Goju for example, starts hard and goes soft, Taiji, starts soft and goes hard.
On an average, most chinese styles are more "flowing" as oppose to the almost militaristic stly of the japanese arts. Most chinese systems advocate a "relaxed" teaching method, while most japanese are more strict.
But the styles per se... that is very hard to lump them into one catgory or they other.