Soft style or hard style...?

[medic06]

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."

I apologize, I omitted the fact that there really are no pure soft or hard styles. In my opinion the whole hard/soft internal/external is really a man made separation, just like the whole grappling/striking thing. You can't have a complete art without emcompassing all aspects. Fighting is fighting, winning is the goal right?

[medic06]

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

A rose by any other name. . . . . . . . . .

[Uke]

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."

Those arts that you asked about are not soft arts, Mike. Medic06 had it right.

There are no pure soft styles as every system of fighting needs strikes. But there are some that come close by mixing the soft with internal power. The movements aren't as obvious and the power is hidden. Boxing and muay thai are external and hard styles. In nearly every hard style, there is some form of boxing. Even in modern day karate there is boxing. Boxing is acknowledged as the most fluid, hard styled form of pugilism. But you won't find the techniques in internal styles resembling boxing. There's no need for it. Just like in Chinese styles of kung fu where the styles are soft but external, they made up for the lack of power by using poison hand. Wing Chun is not a soft style. The reason so many come to this conclusion is because of chi sao, a sensitivity drill. But the use of chi sao is always executed in a hard fashion. Many of the top practitioners seek to become softer in their execution and take up tai chi, but wing chun itself isn't soft or internal.

Pre-war Jujitsu is a hard style in that it uses strength to dislocate, break and maim limbs. Judo became a softer art because it introduced to the world, but did not invent or pioneer the use of kuzushi and leverage. Judo is a softer, less lethal version on pre-war jujitsu. Pre-war Aikijitsu was also an art that directly engaged an opponent's attack instead of borrowing an opponent's strength and momentum. It was a brutal art and Ueshiba knew this. He was proficient at it. He came to a religious awakening in his lifetime and still wished to teach, but not how to cripple or kill anymore as his original art was a wartime one. He created Aikido, possibly the softest external art known to Western man. Aikido is the mastering of motion and upsetting the direction but not the continuity of movement. In the beginning, a man's movements are large and his lack of refined technique is compensated for using muscle strength. As he spends time improving his craft, his movements become much smaller and much less conspicuous. There are no hard blocks which stop the motion of the strike, but only movements that guide and redirect strikes into positions that an Aikido practitioner can then take advantage of.

Soft not only implies the circle motion, it also implies not relying on muscle in the execution of techniques. The circle represents not engaging force head on, which nearly every external art does, except for boxing in the case of slipping which is regarded as the most difficult skill in boxing to become proficient at. Most boxers can slip here and there, but only a select few are masterful at it. And even then slipping doesn't approach the level of skill that mastering motion does.

Goju means both hard and soft. The strikes and even blocks are mostly hard. But the crescent stepping movements and the theory and practice of dynamic tension add to the softness of the style. A good, solid Goju man doesn't block hard. He blocks soft and makes his way in to deliver the hard. I was fortunate enough to learn from an older man who made me understand that he could not make people the best tournament fighters, but he could make people the best dirty fighters I could be using the soft then hard approach. Older men are forced to learn and develop methods that they can still use despite not having the youth that they once had. Its their softness that doesn't present resistance that allows them to redirect an opponent's energy.

[kingoftheforest]

Soft style

I believe what Uke is getting at is in a soft style you rely more on the movement itself, than you do on using muscles to power through that movement.

Hard styles use the force generated by the muscle power while soft styles rely on the actual movement being performed.

[medic06]

I re-read your last post, Uke, and I think I understand what you're getting at, but it's statements like this one that throw me -



First of all, from the purely obvious standpoint, muscle is responsible for all human movement, so there's a degree of "muscle reliance" in any style. Second, the goal of any style (including boxing) is to make the technique do most of the work so that physicality is less important. Why do you think boxers put so much emphasis on relaxing and getting their techniques down to such a fine degree of precision? It's not so they can get in the ring and rely on muscle, I can tell you that for a fact. People like to say that arts like Aikido and BJJ don't rely on strength while boxing and kickboxing do, but if you'll pardon my saying so, that's a wholly ignorant point of view. Any boxer worth his gloves will tell you that relaxing and letting the tools do what they were designed to do is a key ingredient in becomeing great. I believe that's true in all althletic endeavors, or there would be no need for technique at all! People wouldn't worry about it and all the focus would be on developing srength and power. But that's hardly the case in boxing, is it?

I asked for clarification on this because BoarSpear thought I was being unfair in my characterization of "soft arts." But so far, with the possible exception of the focus on developing internal energy (which would make an art "internal" rather than "soft" I'm told), all of the same things apply to the ideal levels of all arts - or so it would seem. Please direct me as to where that's inaccurate.

Bingo!!!! To paraphrase several high ranking martial artist from several different styles, it all looks the same after 20-25 years if you train it right. Or as my teacher used to say "it's all boxing and wrestling. . ."

[Uke]

I re-read your last post, Uke, and I think I understand what you're getting at, but it's statements like this one that throw me -



First of all, from the purely obvious standpoint, muscle is responsible for all human movement, so there's a degree of "muscle reliance" in any style. Second, the goal of any style (including boxing) is to make the technique do most of the work so that physicality is less important. Why do you think boxers put so much emphasis on relaxing and getting their techniques down to such a fine degree of precision? It's not so they can get in the ring and rely on muscle, I can tell you that for a fact. People like to say that arts like Aikido and BJJ don't rely on strength while boxing and kickboxing do, but if you'll pardon my saying so, that's a wholly ignorant point of view. Any boxer worth his gloves will tell you that relaxing and letting the tools do what they were designed to do is a key ingredient in becomeing great. I believe that's true in all althletic endeavors, or there would be no need for technique at all! People wouldn't worry about it and all the focus would be on developing srength and power. But that's hardly the case in boxing, is it?

I asked for clarification on this because BoarSpear thought I was being unfair in my characterization of "soft arts." But so far, with the possible exception of the focus on developing internal energy (which would make an art "internal" rather than "soft" I'm told), all of the same things apply to the ideal levels of all arts - or so it would seem. Please direct me as to where that's inaccurate.

Hard and soft are how a practitioner engages and deals with motion or energy. Soft would be to redirect, unbalance and control. Hard would be to block, trap, smother or stuff.

Internal and external have to do with with the process in which a practitioners produces energy. Chi/ki development/breathing, correct body alignment and calibration in movements are all methods of internal. Weight lifting, calisthenics, striking repetition, limb conditioning and isometrics are all external methods. External has to do with how much velocity you can get on your strike. Internal has to do with generating power through structured movements and calibration that begins from the foot and ends in the target. Boxing had adopted many principles from Chinese boxing. The low stances and sitting on strikes are just a couple of principles that boxing borrowed from Chinese boxing in order to make western boxing. For centuries boxing wasn't the science that it is today and boxers were arm punching before the new concepts and methods were implemented.

If you haven't figured it out by now, hard and soft are terms that apply to defense and your method of dealing with aggression.

Internal and external have to do with offense and the method one uses to produce power in their offense.

The best way I can help someone who doesn't understand hard and soft is to suggest the following:

Go out and buy one of the gyroballs/Dynaflex gadgets that is meant to exercise and condition your wrists, forearm and shoulder. When you first start out using the gyroball, your initial way of keeping it going will be wild, wide circular motions using mostly muscle strength. As you play with it more, soon you won't be as wild, but you'll still use wide movements requiring muscle. But if you keep and it and develop the necessary muscles involved, your understanding will grow as well. With practice, you'll get such a feel for it that you won't have to move your arm an longer to keep it going. You can use subtle, small movements and actually be more effective at keeping it going than if you were to use the big, wide arm movements. You can basically make it go even faster than before just by controlling the motion with your wrists.

This is the essence of mastering motion. You have to practice and play with a motion before you can master it, but once you gain insight into the nature of the motion, your movements will become much smaller and less demonstrative. In martial arts, its a little different because you must attain this understanding and skill while also maintaining and controlling your own balance and center of gravity.

But once you understand the principle that I've written above, you're on your way because even though gadgets like the gyroball/dynoflex are only toys in the scope of things, all forms of motion and contact are related. You'll just have to learn how to apply your understanding of the motion of the ball to your own training while maintaining your own balance.

Its no coincidence that the circle is revered in combat systems all over the world, from ancient times to present day.

Last, just because boxers are relaxed doesn't mean that they are soft. Relaxation is a requisite in creating a soft method, but boxers are hard in their execution of nearly every technique, relaxed or not. Its a science predicated on punching and taking a punch. Every block, should roll, smother/stuff, and using the elbows to punish an incoming punch is a hard technique.

The two advanced qualities of boxing are slipping, which is the most advanced and difficult to master, and kinesiology which is how a boxer generates superior power in his strikes. He first sits, then pivots from the toe to the ankle to the knee to the hip to the lower back to the shoulders to the arm to the fist and THROUGH the target. This is as close as I've ever seen any sport come to trying to produce internal power. The calibration of the body when a boxer like Mike Tyson threw a hook or uppercut is a beautiful thing. Each body part aligning to allow the next to perform its own function in a sequence that releases a knockout amount of kinetic energy. Beautiful thing.

Boxing is as close to achieving internal power as the West has come, but its still falls short because of the muscle strength it takes to deliver the power blows. And while boxers may be relaxed, their approach to engaging physical energy in the form of aggression is still a hard one.

First of all, from the purely obvious standpoint, muscle is responsible for all human movement, so there's a degree of "muscle reliance" in any style.

I agree with you Mike, but when talking in terms of soft and hard, saying "using little to no muscle" implies "not muscling through" something rather than the total lack of a role that muscles will play. Picture this:

"There's a door. Mike Brewer has to get through it. He pushes it, but it won't move. He kicks it, but it won't budge. He puts all of his weight behind him and rams it, but it still won't give. Mike Brewer is now tired and frustrated. Right then, a woman nonchalantly walks up from behind him, pulls the door open and walks out and continues to go about her business."

Many of you will say that the difference was a simple lack of common sense, and I agree wholeheartedly. But that same lack of common sense applies to some approaches to combat. In that scenario, Mike Brewer's dire need to get through that door represents a man's dire need to win or survive in a fight or altercation. A lot of people will attack strength and continue to do so until they get the result that they're looking for or they exhaust themselves first because this is what they've been trained to do. But most skilled, older and wiser men realize that finesse goes a much longer way. They tend to make the best teachers hands down.

I said it before and I'll say it again ...

IN REALITY THE GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO FIGHT SMARTER, NOT HARDER.

[BoarSpear]

Great posts Uke, But you KNOW explaining these differences to people with zero experience in them is impossible...add the desire to prove they are right and it makes it a waste of time...this is an attempt to get you/us to explain so they can claim thats what the MMA DOES as evidenced by Mike trying to call boxing soft from your explanation

You can't possibly explain Softness and hardness when internal and external, evident and inevident aren't even understood by those who you're trying to explain it to. Especially when they are determined to show you these qualities in boxing.

Unless they have trained and experienced "sung" you're basically explaining how to drive a vehicle to someone who has never even seen a wheel.

[jubaji]

Uke, you seem to have this awful hang-up about "hard" arts being nothing but brute force

And everyone knows why he has said hang-up...

[jubaji]

Great posts Uke, But you KNOW explaining these differences to people is impossible....

The convenient fall back position of people unprepared to logically and reasonably defend their position...

[BoarSpear]

Boar, you can demean me and say that I'm incapable of understanding this, but I have trained for more than a week or so, and with a lot of people from both sides of this discussion. I know it's more comfortable for you to shit all over someone's curiosity than to offer up an explanation (after all, it was you who had problems with my definition to begin with, so it makes sense you'd try and correct it), but that doesn't change the fact that I'm asking honestly for education. If you don't think it's possible to explain it, then I can't understand why you'd have a problem with my "classic explanation" of them in any event. I'd like to suggest that if all you're going to do is piss and moan about how all of us are too stupid to understand your arts, then kindly bow out and allow Uke to keep trying. He's getting somewhere, and he's being civil about it. If you're not willing to be helpful, just go away and let the grown-ups talk about this one, okay?

Dude, you spent many post giving me shit and allowed thousands more ignorant useless trolling comments when I tried MANY times to discuss these very topics in the CMA forums...You have ZERO problem allowing jubaji smartass comments...Uke hasn't accomplished explaining it either, you took his explanation and applied it to BOXING...The simple fact is these things need to be experienced to be understood. You cant explain love, people have to experience it for themselves, until that time they actually find it many other emotions seem to be love and fool the inexperienced...Same with the internal arts until you have felt the power the strikes and movements generate you're left comparing it to to the things you have felt... And Boxing is as far from soft as it gets, so as long as thats the ruler by which you're trying to compare you're doing more damage than good...Funny how you never chased a single troll out of the CMA threads over this, but you're targeting me....someones got issues. You keep trying to show boxing is soft and you're telling ME to "let the adults discuss it"

If you spent one percent of this much time giving Jubaji shit for his posts in the CMA forums, they would be full of people talking and you wouldn't have this discussion in the first place because this would have been explained already....instead his 5000 plus BS post are fine...my last 50 you find unacceptable to defend standards though...thats funny they fit in better than the first ones I made with content trying to be helpful that got NOTHING but trolling replies...but thats okay because it's an MMA fan doing the heckling huh?

[Uke]

Boar is kind of right, Mike.

[jubaji]

If you spent one percent of this much time giving Jubaji shit for his posts in the CMA forums, they would be full of people talking and you wouldn't have this discussion in the first place because this would have been explained already....instead his 5000 plus BS post are fine...my last 50 you find unacceptable to defend standards though...thats funny they fit in better than the first ones I made with content trying to be helpful that got NOTHING but trolling replies...but thats okay because it's an MMA fan doing the heckling huh?

First he's got his 'scared to talk to' list, and now he's crying like a bitch for mommy 'cause its all so unfair!


I don't recall crying for help all the times boring insulted me before he decided he was being humiliated too much to even talk to me. Hell, he's welcome to insult me again whenever he can gather the courage to actually speak to me.

And Mike, feel free to let me know when I've gone too far on CMA or any other forum. I won't cry.

However, it should be noted that, unlike boring and his little companion pUke with their anti-MMA neurosis, I do not, have not, and will not put down CMA. The only thing I ever took issue with was boring's ridiculous comic-book boy exaggerations regarding it, which are in fact a serious detriment to CMA.

[IPON]

Mike I have been trying to help explain these concepts as well, but I certainly don't appreciate being called ignorant when you are the one that does not understand. I think part of the problem is that you are trying to qualify these terms as "good or bad” when UKE and I have not qualified them, just explained the differences. Internal and external styles have their positive and negatives like anything else. Boxing is a sport so is wrestling and it can obviously have application outside the ring/mat but "IF" you had to put them in a category they are external styles which does not equal bad or wrong. I have been trying to present these concepts (which books are written) very briefly so you can understand the overall distinctions and differences. Boar is 100% correct you truly cannot understand the internal styles without being involved (and sometime even then people don’t get it). It is not simply semantics as Medico stated the distinctions are there for a reason.

Again, let’s get back. I made the distinction only to help the original poster out with these questions. I don’t expect someone to without internal training to be able to fully grasp the concepts (that would be silly). But instead of acknowledging that you just don’t know you call me ignorant. In summation: I understand boxing and I understand ithe distinction between nternal and external styles and soft/hard techniques. YOU understand Boxing and maybe some external styles. And you call me ignorant. Ironic you say, yes I think we agree.

As an aside I have to say that I have been posting on the board for a few years. I would like to think people know my character, I try not to insult and have done so rarely. I will be the first to acknowledge and error or misconception on my part. But you speak of the bias that Uke toward “hard styles”, against MMA or just something that is different from your concept. You can’t agree to disagree? If I say Boxing is an external style you say it can’t be. If I told you there was a cure for cancer and had the proof for it. You would say “no impossible” where you are not involved in medical research to have that opinion. So who is really bias here? Thai Bri has very rigid opinions on certain topics but I could always end a conversation with we agree to disagree. This is not "I'MRIGHTALWAYS.NET", but I feel it is Mike’s way or no way, eventhough you dsay you want to learn - complete hypocrisy. Why is that? I do have respect for things that you have posted. I don’t care that you don’t like or agree with anything I post (its just discussion we can agree to disagree) but don’t respond if you don’t understand or better yet respond to understand.

So I will let Uke finish the explanations. But I would appreciate the same respect that I give you.

[BoarSpear]

Sorry. This part needed to be said again.



It may get us off topic, but it seems no one is interested in explaning what I was here to learn anymore anyway. So I'll just say this and be done with it. Boar, you're constantly talking about how our leaders, our government, and our nation needs to hold itself to a higher standard and act with the kind of honor that our enemies won't. When someone talks about Iraqis torturing prisoners and then draws a comparison to US soldiers at Abu Ghrahib, you throw coniptions and say that we are different from our enemies and we need to stand on higher moral ground. It's that kind of inconsistency in values and statements that makes me even more curious as to why you'd choose to justify your own insulting and demeaning behavior by citing someone else's that you disagree with. If you think jubaji's behavior is so reprehensible, why is he your constant example of why your own behavior should be seen as acceptable? Is it possible you're just looking to take anything I say here and turn it into a fight? Boar, I really am glad you're back becausea lot of people here find your input valuable. But please, man. Quit with the stupid and juvenile attempts at raising conflict. I'm over whatever comments you made about me, and I've apologized for anything I said to offend you. And in case the previous dozen apologies weren't enough, here's another one. I'm sorry. I mean it. I really am. So with that behind us, can you please stop chasing topics around and trying to turn even honest inquiries into personal battles? It's gotten truly tiresome, and I really am here to learn and share - not fight with you.

Thanks.

When I see you moderate this forum like an actual moderator and not like the kid whose opinion is most important because he is moderator then I'll be happy to act like an adult, till then I'm acting like everyone else including you on this forum. I tried it the other way....YOU, Jubaji, Treelizard, and numbers hounded my every post...You let people with no idea what they are talking about run the forum...Jubaji sets this forum's standard for intolerant, stupid trolling and by allowing it you get the forum you have...cause and effect.

It isnt his knowledge that keeps him here, it's the fact you find him funny, so since this forum OBVIOUSLY prefers idiots and trolls being a smartass over posts with content about the arts I decided to be a pain in the ass too...apparently you only like it when the hecklers agree with you though.

As for my having him on ignore, You're damn right, but I shouldnt have to, you ought to do your job of keeping people with nothing to contribute out... instead you have a hard on for me because I don't buy the MMA you're selling...Jubaji on the other hand is your biggest supporter.

[knifethrower]

I don't recall crying for help all the times boring insulted me before he decided he was being humiliated too much to even talk to me. Hell, he's welcome to insult me again whenever he can gather the courage to actually speak to me.

Dude, you know I love ya but, you fucked up the cma forums. Now the only thing anybody can talk about over there is the next Kung Fu movie. Before I even met Boar, (physically) he was teaching me over there. He was teaching me internal stuff…the shit that Mike is trying to understand right now…HOW FUCKING COOL IS THAT!! That time for me was a fucking blast, but you had to go too far and fuk it up. Well,
congratu-fucking-lations. I know, I know…if you were here sitting next to me…well, we’d just get drunk and laugh about it but, it still fucked up the cma forum.

P.S. The only reason you don’t need help is because you never post enough info for people to attack you….fuk, man it’s too easy…it’s what I do

Besides, I don't know what jubaji's posts have to do with your insults and condescending remarks toward me here anyway.

He’s pist cuz you didn’t do anything in the cma forums…you should have done something but, no…you just fought him on some mma thread and never helped him out on any other thread…hell, I even PMed you about it…

Does jubaji's past comments somehow make it okay for you to talk down to others? Because he's been a prick to you in other forums (that I usually don't even read, by the way)…

You shoulda read some of those threads dude and I’da helped ya and so would Boar…but I don’t know about now…

Mike, dude…me and you talked on the phone and you know I think you’re a cool guy and all so don’t take this the wrong way but, lets face it; The CMA threads are fucked and it’s cuz Boar don’t post….I won’t ….Stabby won’t…King won’t…

Damn, that shit use to be fun but it went too far. I thought it was cool at first (jubaji is a funny motherfucker) but, it went TOO far…I’m thinking it can’t be fixed anyway…

Oh well…I guess I can always go make a fuckin post about the next Jet Li movie