Soft style or hard style...?

[BoarSpear]

Hehe ... at least you started out admitting that you were working off you own ideas of what it meant. But as far as bullshitting jobs go, that was as articulate and eloquent as I ever seen. All the terms I expected were there though. Internal. Tai Chi. Qigong.

Gotta love ya, Mike

Well said.

[IPON]

Mike - Thank you for providing your definition. Regarding the the topic change, it is a change. Not to argue, but eventhough this forum is for urban combatives your example was of actual combat in war (which I am not sure I agree when you say "soft" are at a disadvantage). The original poster was only refirring to what (emtpy hand) style to take and made no mention of his intenion (SD, recreation sport) in truth this thread is probably in the wrong forum.

[knifethrower]

Gotta luv it

----------------- yeah, baby! This place is starting to make me laugh again













.

[BoarSpear]

So you enjoy shooting little kids with your bb gun huh?

----------------- yeah, baby! This place is starting to make me laugh again













.

[Sagacious Lu]

Is qi gong even a martial art? Granted my experience is limited to a few seminars but my understanding is that it's a mediation; I've never heard of anyone trying to fight with it.

[Blue Wave Gym]

no

Is qi gong even a martial art? Granted my experience is limited to a few seminars but my understanding is that it's a mediation; I've never heard of anyone trying to fight with it.

It's not we went over that in my college tai chi class

[Jiu-fu fighter]

Overall i just want to be a well rounded fighter, I do boxing but I don't get as much personal gain from that as when i do a more softer flowing style (my defintion more spiritual and also softer styles tend to deflect punches and not just stop them)

I guess I just hate it when people say that a good kung fu or wing chun guy stands no chance against a good boxer or muay thai man...etc...

styles such as kung fu, wing chun, aikido, jiu jitsu are what I think I would enjoy doing more in a martial art than the more aggressive arts, but so far I have heard that these are almost useless against harder arts...

ah well, its my choice

[Tom Yum]

Overall i just want to be a well rounded fighter, I do boxing but I don't get as much personal gain from that as when i do a more softer flowing style (my defintion more spiritual and also softer styles tend to deflect punches and not just stop them)

I guess I just hate it when people say that a good kung fu or wing chun guy stands no chance against a good boxer or muay thai man...etc...

styles such as kung fu, wing chun, aikido, jiu jitsu are what I think I would enjoy doing more in a martial art than the more aggressive arts, but so far I have heard that these are almost useless against harder arts...

ah well, its my choice

Traditional arts like the one's you've mentioned can and do work in self-defense. I posted a thread called Traditional martial arts can work. There are youtube vids of guys using their traditional training in real life.

I'll try to keep it updated.

[fleetgunz]

jujitsu is not aggressive???? the watered down mcdojo stuff maynot be but the historic jujitsu can be very aggresive i.e. hand to hand of the samuri the warrior class of japan..the jujitsu studied by Applegate Fairbairn Skyes ect. or the bjj type is not aggressive?? many of the traditional "martial arts" were not realy martial (martial implies military use) many of them were from peasant backgrounds. there aren't a lot of striking in the "martial" styles because the practioners wore armour and helmets. (a punch to the solar plexus on a guy wearing a breast plate is not effective.however low kicks, foot sweeps and trips are. locks and throws are effective at getting an enemy down. it doesnt matter if you are talking the martial forms of kung fu...
jujitsu or the western syles noted in the resurfacing flectbuchen. and as writen in mauluk and ottoman manuals (though very few are translated from arabic)

[Yu Law]

However if you watch such soft fighters like the ones who study in kung fu styles as wing chun, a guy will throw a punch , and with blinding speed they can block the punch and follow with dozens of hits that the guy is overwhelmed by, could not a good wing chung man win against a good boxer
, this is what I am torn by, I have seen both good hard and soft fighters.

and it seems there is much less skill to hard style fighters,

Wing Chun i snot a soft style. It is both hard and soft and I would say that it gears more toward the "Hard" genre than soft. I've seen wing chun work in MMA, while it was inadvertant by the fighter usign it, it still worked.

Oscar De la Hoya ate a pretty good punch from an inadvertant wing chun tech. as well, it was his fight after Hopkins i think.

[knifehand]

Aggression is paramount in an altercation so i would have to say stay away from the flashy stuff like wing chun.....street fighting is HARD and BRUTAL......i think the first thing to remember is that you wont be calm.....once adrenaline is introduced youll be stiff , shaky and running out of breath so be aggressive and do whatever it is your gonna do in the first 20 seconds and do it HARD........heres a great article you should read ....http://www.dojoweb.com/articles.asp?articleid=4932

when you train learn a few things that work well for you as an individual not a lot.....a lot will be too many to remember when the adrenaline hits.......know your targets before an altercation and train to DESTROY them ....eyes, throat, balls, knees.......when you train , train like your in a fight ....train stiff and shaky and out of breath .....train in your street clothes and leave the gi for the "artists" .....learn how to PROPERLY throw a punch and no im not talking about a reverse punch.....learn the very basics of boxing .....LIFT WEIGHTS , more fights in the history of mankind have been won by brute strength alone......read up on some ww2 combatives and also read the forums here.....lots of individuals names are mentioned here to which we all have been influenced by.........
also heres some more excellent reading......http://www.geoffthompson.com/detailArticles.asp?id=21
.........http://www.realfighting.com/1102/McCannART.html.........http://www.gutterfighting.org/
...and if there is one word that will sum who will win an altercation it is INTENT.....if someone intends to harm you then what will you intend to do?......ALWAYS BE AGGRESSIVE.....so go hard, you just might be fighting for your life ......and theres nothing soft about that.

[Jiu-fu fighter]

I really appreciate having looked at that article

thanks

[medic06]

Is that definition flawed? Sorry if it offends, but wasn't the term "soft style" coined to describe arts like Tai Chi and qigong?

Nothing I said alluded to the idea that soft styles are not effective, mind you. Why is it that when I say something you don't like, I'm bullshitting? Isn't it possible that I genuinely believe the opinion I posted?

P.S.
IPON, I didn't say soft arts are at a disadvantage in warfighting. I said they've never been successful. That could just as easily be because no one has ever bothered to train troops en masse in soft arts. It does not mean the arts themselves are flawed. I also said that the broad application of arts in war doesn't neccesarily carry over to individual fighting.

Yes, your definition is a bit flawed. You seem to have internal/external mixed up with soft/hard.

Hard styles are typically more linear and focus more on destroying the opponents weapons. Soft styles are usually more circular and aim to redirect an opponents force to off balance and put the opponent out of position.

Internal styles focus more on the mental aspects (mind controls body)
External styles typically start with the physical and then move on to the mental.

[WildWest.]

Thanks for posting Knifehand.

[IPON]

Thanks for the clarification. Can I ask, though, since you're making the distinction based on straight (linear) and circular (curved) lines, where does boxing stand? What about Muay Thai? They do both, and focus heavily on both. I could use some further explanation, since it is at the very forefront of a boxer's mind to use his opponent's energy against him (that's what a counter attack, a stop-hit, and a time hit are). It is also at the forefront of a fencer's mind, as well as many other striking disciplines and weapon arts such as knife fighting styles.

I can understand the difference between internal and external (and thanks for that, by the way) but I'm still confused about "soft" styles. It seems everything you said about them easily and accurately applies to most of the styles people consider "hard."

Mike - Let me add from the perspective of training, internal styles (Taijiquan, paqua, will focus on the development of Qi (Chi or Ki) Yi Jin Jing and Qigong, while not a MA, are very goods examples of this. Breathing, relaxation mental control is all aspects in the control Qi. External styles (Jujutsu, Judo, Karate etc) focus on the muscular strength to develop power. While there is overlap (External arts use meditation and breathing) it is not to the same goal. The development of muscular power is easy to develop and results are generally faster than internal styles, this is the one of reasons Karate dojos are on every corner. As an illustration Bruce Lee (discussing training and kung fu specifically Wing Chun vs karate in general) stated “getting hit by a Karate man would be like getting hit by a crow bar while getting hit from kung fu would be like getting hit with a ball and chain”. This is a perfect illustration of external power vs internal power. I have used the term “Hard” generically, for example to describe the jujutsu I studied when more accurately I should say extremely external but I don’t always want to explain the differences. I only made the statements on this post because understanding the distinction would help the poster arrive at an answer to the original question

Medico what you describe as Hard and soft are not styles they are aspects of external and internal styles. Linear movement are appropriate for external styles while the circular motion is the manipulation of the energy trained for in internal styles

Both styles use “Soft” and “Hard” blocks and strikes to varying degrees based on the style. Soft strikes and blocks redirect energy while “hard” blocks/strikes/kicks meet for with force with force. External styles have soft blocks and strikes and vice versa.

Regarding your question, it is easy to answer and less confusing when you understand Internal vs External styles. Both Boxing and from what I know (viewed and read) or MT they are both external styles, boxing is for sure. Wresting is external as well. As a wrestler engery manipulation is used a lot push/pull (almost can see the resemblance to push hands) but the training is 100% external.

Added 2 links which will probably explain better than I am. The first link separates the definition of internal vs external power VS internal vs external styles. IMHO it is still the same thing and I maintain my explanation, but I can put both sides out there and we can discuss maybe start and new thread. The other is from Wikipedia.

In any case I hope this helpful

http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/neijing.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_martial_arts