Main differences between Chinese MAs and Karate?

[Emei89]

Your right in saying that my statement was a generalization but to say that what you see now makes you think that it didn't derive from white crane style or any other style is wierd. Obviously it wouldn't look now as it did when it was first being formed becuase if it did it would probably just be refered to as white crane or whatever style it did genrate from. Karate has evolved into it's own style and I'm giving it that credit, having never infact called it "merely" a derivitive and am not mocking it as a cheap, and muscle-bound imitation of gung fu as you seem to think I am.

 

"Okinawan karate is not like what you say at all, Emei89."

 

You could be right as I have only seen the exterior dimensions of Karate and do not know the inner philosophies having barely studied it myself and having been only a witness in a majority of my encouters with it. As I stated these are simply things I have observed and heard from students of both presuasions.

[Shorin Ryuu]

I never said that it didn't derive from White Crane style. On the contrary, I said it did. However, I was merely pointing out that it has had enough influences from things like indigenous Okinawan arts to attain enough of it's own separate standing. (For that matter, I find a label as broad as Chinese martial arts equally amusing). I wasn't seeing your post as belittling its level of development.

 

In your defense, I too have found a lot of "karate" that is like you describe. Much of this is Japanese, although there have been many practitioners of Okinawan styles that misunderstand it all as well. But in terms of a discussion of "styles" or "systems" as a whole (instead of individual organizations or even individual schools), there is a profound difference between Okinawan and Japanese karate. The Okinawan styles are much closer to their Chinese origins, but like I said, incorporate other things to separate them in my opinion. In some cases, the indigenous arts are even softer than many Chinese schools.

 

In the end, I think its a matter of semantics. The word karate has been tossed around to describe anything nowadays. The word itself has only been officially meant to describe Okinawan arts since 1936 anyway. I'm just trying to dispel the common misconception many people have about what I consider "true karate", which isn't "hard" and "Force against force".

 

Cheers.

[KF Dude]

The main differences I see between K & KF are: Simultaneous block & strike techniques, use of fa jing & internal training. The Karateka friends I know(all black belt levels) seem to always use block then strike techniques. No matter how fast they move, there's always a split second pause before the strike is thrown. None can strike at real close range, they must push into the opponent to create enough space to strike. Internal training is just unknown to them. I always get curious skeptical looks when I practice qi gong around them. These are differences I see. Is one better than the other - no. Overall, I see more similarities than differences.

[Emei89]

Ya know i was just watching return of the dragon in which Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris (who IS trey) have the final showdown and what i saw was that while Chuck's moves were very power yet seperated Bruce's were almosty equally as powerful but more flowing. It looked as though Chuck was cutting and pasting moves,so to speak, to form a combo, while Bruce seemed to link them naturally. Now that may simply be ability, but in other instances i've viewed karate it seemed that way. No doubt even though Bruce won in the end he still got his * kicked around. Does anyone remember what movie Chuck Norris fought David Carradine?

[Shorin Ryuu]

I will admit, I've seen many karateka, even within my style who are guilty of this separation in movement and the lack of double or triple simultaneous techniques. Most of these are lower ranking though.

 

Once again, to toot the horn of more traditional Okinawan styles, there are also many that have more of the "Chinese" bent to them where things are blocked, broken and struck all at the same time. As I heard a Shotokan instructor say once "In Japanese karate we block, in Okinawan karate they break." I've also had numerous instructors say "There are no blocks in karate." This is all meaning that all the blocks are in fact strikes. I think part of the reason some of this was lost was when Okinawan karate began to be mass-produced in terms of teaching, they simplified many of its outward appearances because it was being taught in large numbers to schoolchildren or people they didn't necessarily have a deeper trust in.

 

Taking this a step further, and perhaps more towards where you were addressing, the use of two handed techniques (where one hand blocks/strikes/parries/controls and the other hand strikes) is also found in the more traditional styles. The same goes for the two handed techniques in conjunction with leg techniques, all at the same time.

 

I feel the more a style of karate is closer to its Okinawan and Chinese roots (with heavy grappling and close in-fighting), the more it will have these characteristics.

 

But yes, I will concede the point that there are many karateka who do not do this, and this holds truer for lower ranking members than higher. But, if they want to do good karate, they should. I certainly want to.

 

As far as striking at close distances, I am a bit surprised to hear that your karate acquaintances are poor at this. What style do they take (you can just pm me if you don't want to offend people)? Good karateka I've met in more Okinawan systems (okay, you can groan again) and even some Japanese systems have all been able to do this. I was trying to think of a modest way to say this, but I gave up. I certainly don't have a problem at hitting in close distances.

 

A lot of what this boils down to is that there are a lot of poor quality karateka out there. I'm sad to say, I do not have the highest opinion of quite a few karate systems as a WHOLE (individual dojo quality can affect this). I don't want criticism to rain down on me, so they will go unnamed.

 

There are a lot of good quality as well, but I think there are so many poor ones that it is not surprising to run into poor quality. I do it quite often, in fact. I'm certainly not the best, nor close to it at all, but I can recognize quality if I see it.

 

Anyway, this large post can be boiled down to a single sentence: I feel most (not all) of the significant differences mentioned above between Chinese martial arts and karate are usually due to the observed karateka for whatever reason not "staying true" to what is truly meant by traditional Okinawan karate, which has had a heavy Chinese influence.