Karate vs Kungfu

[Glenn]

There is an interesting article in the September issue of Inside Kung-Fu entitled "The Bubishi", discussing the book (using Patrick McCarthy's translation) and the relationship of karate to kungfu. I might start a different thread on their coverage of the Bubishi, however the introduction to the article contains the authors' (Rick Osbourne and Dr. Richard Chin) perceptions of the differences between karate and kungfu and I thought it might be worth discussion for this thread:

Karate fighters are not usually prone to theoretical discussions of their styles. In the best Japanese tradition they believe the less said, the better. Proof of effectiveness is something proven on the dojo floor or in tournaments. There's a lot to be said in favor of this approach.

If you ask them about secrets, they'll often say they're not interested in secrets, just hard work. They likewise will usually admit to knowing nothing about qi, surprisingly little about the comparative history of their own styles, and even less about the deeper meanings of martial arts. But they do know about conditioning, effort, sweat equity, and about how inexperienced kung-fu fighters with their heads clouded by dreams of unbeatable qi and flying spinning kicks are ripe for the plucking.

This truth tracks clearly with the differences between karate and kung-fu: karate is very Japanese, very highly engineered, very straight lined, very geared for results, very no-nonsense and non-mystical. Kung-fu, on the other hand, is very Chinese, very intuitive, very circular, and geared for results that have nothing to do with cheap trophies of the tournament circuit.

Which leads to the following conclusion: if you have only a few years to study, and need to toughen your tournament persona as soon as possible, hit the karate dojo. If, however, you have at least 20 years to study, have no great need to win any tournament matches soon, and want to delve into the mysteries of things eastern and mystical, find a kung-fu master. He'll specialize in frustrating you - looking at your forms once a month and shaking his head sadly at your clumsiness, for ten years or so. But, after 20 years, if you hang in there, few of the karate guys will be able to touch you. And when you hit them, they might die.

Now clearly there are the usual traps of over-generalization, and I think their approach is much better in the first 3 paragraphs above compared to the fourth paragraph, but that aside is their overall perception of general differences between karate and kung-fu accurate? And where does Uechi Ryu fall in this spectrum?

[MikeK]

Kung-fu, on the other hand, is very Chinese, very intuitive, very circular, and geared for results that have nothing to do with cheap trophies of the tournament circuit.

They're totally ignoring Sanda, which is Chinese and kicks arse. They obviously see Kung Fu as some morally higher order of art.

But, after 20 years, if you hang in there, few of the karate guys will be able to touch you. And when you hit them, they might die.

Somebody is selling snakeoil. Think these guys have ever crossed hands with a John Bluming?

[diegoz_ar]

I am agree with this statement:

Karate fighters are not usually prone to theoretical discussions of their styles. In the best Japanese tradition they believe the less said, the better. Proof of effectiveness is something proven on the dojo floor or in tournaments. There's a lot to be said in favor of this approach.

...but for not japanese students, like us, we always get into theoretical discussions (for example the breathing issue)

If you ask them about secrets, they'll often say they're not interested in secrets, just hard work.

I like the secrets, but I do not like the BS secrets. Also I like hard work.

They likewise will usually admit to knowing nothing about qi, surprisingly little about the comparative history of their own styles, and even less about the deeper meanings of martial arts.

I am not agree with this statement (the part in bold).

This truth tracks clearly with the differences between karate and kung-fu: karate is very Japanese

But our Uechi-ryu is Okinawan with Chinese roots. Uechi it is different than the japanese styles.

[/b]

[benzocaine]

(snip) is their overall perception of general differences between karate and kung-fu accurate? And where does Uechi Ryu fall in this spectrum?

I'd have to say that Uechi ryu has the characteristics of both the karate and kung fu decribed in the posted article.. Clearly the kata seisan could capture both sides of this statement:"karate is very Japanese, very highly engineered, very straight lined, very geared for results, very no-nonsense and non-mystical. Kung-fu, on the other hand, is very Chinese, very intuitive, very circular, and geared for results that have nothing to do with cheap trophies of the tournament circuit. " Many elements of the kata, as experienced in the bunkai take the fight right to the bad guy, or rather attack the attack. But of course there are the circular movements within the kata as well. A good example is the first defence(or offence if you prefer
) is a circle on the horizontal plane.

Of course many of us are aware that Uechi (real Uechi) very intuitive, very circular, and geared for results that have nothing to do with cheap trophies of the tournament circuit. Also we don't waste time with elaborate animal stances or high flashy kicks.
[/quote]

[Bill Glasheen]

I wish Patrick McCarthy was in the forum room with us. I just spent a weekend with him, and we talked at length about many subjects.

Patrick likes to tell a story about an experiment he would run. He'd have a BJJ guy, a WC guy, a Shorin guy, etc., etc. hit some poor blindfolded sap upside the head. After it all, the target is asked to qualify the hits, as if sampling a find wine and looking for taste color, texture, aroma, and persistence. The moral of the story? A good hit is a good hit is a good hit.

These folks start with McCarthy's bubishi to make a point that Patrick would never make himself. Patrick instead focuses on habitual acts of violence (HAOV), and intelligent (time tested) responses to them. He then hopes students will have these BFOs (Blinding Flashes of the Obvious), where they see the moves in their own forms, and see them in ways they never thought of before.

The problem with the tournament fighter is that (s)he will always be measuring performance with respect to the sport yardstick. Give 10 different stylists about 5 years to prepare for a certain sport format, and pretty soon you'll see the following: 1) they all pretty much will be doing the same thing (or else losing), and 2) their techniques will begin to part from their traditional kata.

Silimar things can be said about kung fu masters who are concerned about forms competitions, or forms ascribing to a certain arbitrary benchmark of athleticism.

Meanwhile...

If you practice traditional forms that are time tested - meaning they were likely choreographed by people familiar with the HAOV - then you are in possession of the reference book you need. The differences between one TMA and the next are 1) what is the goal of your practice (sport, health, fitness, self defense), and 2) how familiar are you with principles contained within the core of your traditional style.

If dealing with HAOV, and looking for evidence-based methods, sooner or later we'll all start speaking the same language. Yes, I can tell that Patrick was born in Toronto; I kid him about it when he starts talking about all styles being the same at the end of the day. But if we all are looking to be measured against the same outcomes, then we will eventually be speaking the same language - accent permitted.

The difference between Patrick (myself, George, etc.) and the next guy is that we see evidence-based methods within our traditional styles, and can separate it from the schlock going on around us. You don't need to copy bad training, and you don't need to throw the baby (the traditional art) out with the bath water.

And you certainly aren't very well served by generalizations such as the ones inappropriately made in that Inside Kung Fu article.

I'm going to send the url of this thread to Patrick. If he gets around to responding, I'm sure he'd agree. Meanwhile, did I about get that right Mike? Dana?

- Bill

[Glenn]

And you certainly aren't very well served by generalizations such as the ones inappropriately made in that Inside Kung Fu article.
- Bill

Generalizations or simple stereotypes? When I was reading the article it seemed to me that they were relying on the stereotypes that are common to perceptions of "karate vs kung-fu". I have to wonder how much breadth and depth the authors have with experiencing karate.

I asked at the beginning of this thread where Uechi Ryu falls in the spectrum, but in truth they are putting forth a well-defined dichotomy (something statisticians would use discriminate analysis and related techniques to analyze) rather than a spectrum. Does/can any karate or kung-fu style truly fall fully within one side of the dichotomy they use?

[MikeK]

Bill, It's Habitual Acts of Physical Violence, but other than that minor ding you're right on the money.

HAPV also stands for "hamster polyomavirus" which may be as close to PM's ideas that the authors of the article got.

One thing that I'm learning is that some people make martial arts more difficult than they really are by trying to be unique. It's a trap I find myself falling into from time to time. I

[Bill Glasheen]

And I read Patrick's translation of The Bubishi!

- Bill

[Glenn]

I've read McCarthy's translation as well. Has anybody read George Alexander's translation? How do the two compare?

[MikeK]

I wonder how the authors would respond to the links on the Roots of Uechi thread. Think they could handle Westerners knowing these techniques and with better art work?

[MikeK]

I bought Inside Kung Fu which was a big mistake as it's just a few self promoting articles and more ads than anything.
The "article" about the Bubishi had very little about the Bubishi and was more about how karate masters look up to Dr Chin. All said and done the mag was a waste of paper and I wasted 5 bucks.

"The Bubishi is as fascinating to the kung-fu student as it is incomprehensible to most karatega,...."

"They (the karate masters) made it clear that they knew everything there was to know from karate, and that the secrets to moving on to higher levels was in the softer styles like tai chi."

[Victor]

Hi,

If I may I'd like to offer some comments. "How does one compare the Patrick McCarthy Bubishi (Tuttle) to the Alexander Bubishi."

I've been doing various research into the Bubishi for the past 8 or so years.

The Tuttle version of the McCarthy Bubishi (one of any number of versions he's made, the others being self published, is very different from the Alexander Bubishi.

First George Alexander did not translate it, Ken Penland did, and I suspect Alexander's contribution was in helping have it published.

The McCarthy Tuttle Bubishi has been re-structured with a great amount of additional material added, to make it a good beginning reference on the Bubishi.

The Alexander/Penland Bubishi is not restructured and is closer to the original Bubishi presentation.

With the exception of the original Mabuni publication, every other Bubishi has been re-drawn. In this the Alexander/Penland one is very, very close to what Mabuni originally published (but I feel Mabuni's version has even more detail).

The McCarthy drawings are more modern. And of course it's difficult to compare the works because the drawing renditions are very different. For example one drawing from Mabuni/Alexander shows a clear single finger strike to the Thorasic Long Nerve of Bell ( anatomy courtesy of Dr. Harper FACS, and any mispelling couresty of Victor Smith, to lazy to check it out), where the similar McCarthy drawing shows a single finger strike into the ribs more towards the front.

Not knowing if they were both usind the same Bubishi, or different renditions, makes it difficult to say which is the more accurate depiction, but the difference might be real in application.

The truth is there are considerable differences, and assuming everyone was doing their level best, it is likely there were differences in the source.

The differences really seem felt in the herbs and medical references.

The art the Bubishi seems to represent is much more than just strikign someone. There are large sections on herbs, cures to counter the vital point strikes the Bubishi also goes into great detail on.

For anyone not bored to death, my intial assessment of the differences can be found on my website www.funkydragon.com/bushi

What I have learned is there is little interest in sustained Bubishi discussion and much of my later studies I've kept close, including a translation of Habsetzer's work on the Bubishi in French I made, and shared with Mr. McCarthy who provided the source material.

Along with Habsetzer's work, most of the other Japanese texts seem to concentrate on how the Bubishi applications would relate to modern karate usage.

One of the more interesting studies I made occured when I did a small clinic with Ernest Rothrocks Kung Fu students in Pittsburgh. (I studied a bit of various systems form with him over the past several decades, in addition to Yang and Wu tai chi chaun). He felt his students would find an Okinawan text from a Chinese system interesting to discuss.

When I tried to show how the techniques could be applied, he then proceeded to match them from the basics of the Northern Eagle Claw system he teaches. [Eagle Claw actually begins with 10 forms from the Jing Mo Association comprising techniques from a number of systems, prior to Eagle Claw study.]

Where I was trying to interpret them from an Okinawan point of view, it was very different seeing them from a Chinese point of view. Thankfully he videotaped it for me. His own point of understanding is the Bubishi technique represent basic studies in any number of kung fu systems.

And FYI, he holds that a system like Hsing I, is closer to karate energy release than most other Chinese systems. Of course that's just his opinion.

I hope this adds some dimension to Bubishi discussion.

Pleasantly,

[JimHawkins]

Article is an overgeneralization bunch of BS if you ask me...

I do feel that the Chinese styles are in general better connected to their roots, they did not undergo 'japanification' etc.

To say that kung fu is this or that wrt concepts and strategy is to say that a rainbow favors a particular color...

The Chinese arts cover the entire range of concepts and strategies, there are hundreds if not thousands of styles and they gave rise to those styles which came later in Japan.

A couple of things I see missing from many of the Japanese styles is flow and energy issuing. While not all Chinese styles are 'circular' they do all emphasize a natural flow from one move to the next, always, and this translates into continuity of attack, something especially newer karateka often suffer from a lack of in my experience.

Energy issuing also comes from flow and results in energy from your body being used to pressure and challenge the balance of the opponent as your attack develops, something which again assists in continuity of attack.

As a young karateka I was looking for concepts and strategies that I could use to become better in sparring. This was something I found lacking in most of the 'karate schools' that I visited, where they would show you a few sparring 'tricks' and then have you go fight, er, I mean get your butt kicked.....

Some folks still look at me when I say this and say...well what other way is there? Well in the Chinese styles there are often a myriad of very useful training ‘devices’ or tools used to build reactions and ingrain system specific concepts and flavor, something also often missing from the Japanese variants.

When I used to meet up with guys from the Chinese styles they would show me some moves and say how would you counter that? And on just about every occasion I could see the brilliance of the movements, wow I thought, that is really clever, they were combative, they flowed, they often worked too. I rarely got to see moves or concepts in the dojos I had visited as a young karateka that impressed me or made me think…WOW I could really use that move or moves/concepts to whoop ass…in sparring! I saw more depth in CMA and that is why I converted..

And hard sparring IMO is what most of the karate schools had going for them. In my old karate school blood on gi’s in sparring was common and this hard contact and as a result hard mindsetting is what they had mainly going for them…

Though some CMA schools also use hard sparring it was more common to the karate schools and that was their advantage..and sometimes that alone can make the difference. IMO But to have both or some combo is the best IMO.


There is a tale that addresses part of this issue:

A Chinese teacher will show the student three corners of the room and will expect the student to then find the last corner.

A Japanese teacher will show the student a single corner of the room and expect the student to then find the last three corners on their own…

[Stryke]

Karate and Kung fu as such broad terms it`s ridiculous to compare them


the articvle takes generalisations and presents them as a common stereotype , and then reaches a ridiculous conclusion .


I agree mostly with Jims post .

I actually think there so closely tied it`s ridiculous to try and seperate them .

Both contain the other if you dig far enough .

[Glenn]

I bought Inside Kung Fu which was a big mistake as it's just a few self promoting articles and more ads than anything.
The "article" about the Bubishi had very little about the Bubishi and was more about how karate masters look up to Dr Chin. All said and done the mag was a waste of paper and I wasted 5 bucks.

I think that sums up most of the popular martial arts mags/articles, with notible exceptions like Dragon Times/Classical Fighting Arts but it has more limited circulation. Occassionally IKF and even Black Belt have a worthwhile article though. Kungfu/Qigong is a little better at times, as far as the large-circulation MA mags go, but it still can be hit-or-miss.

"They (the karate masters) made it clear that they knew everything there was to know from karate, and that the secrets to moving on to higher levels was in the softer styles like tai chi."

Imagine that, what with Dr. Chin being a Tai Chi instructor.