VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:27:32 01/10/03 Fri
Author: OneDragons
Subject: Kiai + Japanese history
In reply to: Goktimus Prime 's message, "A brief comparison of CMAs and JMAs" on 17:20:19 10/03/01 Wed

>
>I am aware of this intent, but I fail to understand
>how a loud exhale/shout can channel kinetic energy
>into your fist. There doesn't seem to be any
>logical/scientific correlation.

I have always been of the opinion that the use of kiai does have a scientific basis, though not in the way it often explained i.e. channeling this misterious ki energy.

At the moment of contact the attacker is trying to tense the whole body behind the punch in a way to both accelerate the punch/kick and provide maximum suport for the reaction force upon impact (equal and opposite forces) in addition to the opponents body inertia (which wants to stay where it is). A lot of this is generated through twisting the torso and tensing the stomach (if you bend backwards you would be acting like a giant shock absorber). When you do this its not easy to breath so you resign yourself to not breathing at the moment of impact (try it yourself) but since this is not held for a long time, it doesn't really matter (it does matter if you want an uninterupted breathing pattern).

If however you do this at full intensity with a lungfull of air you are placing undue stress on your ribcage, lungs and surrounding tissues. In addition if you also get punched in or near the solar plexus, the shockwave going through your diaphram will take you out of the game for quite a while. So if you accept the premis that it is benificial to tense these areas of your body upon impact, then it is logical to also accept that breathing out is benificial. I am not saying that this is the ultimate method, but there is good scientific reasoning behind the method.

It all depends what your goals are, using the Kiai method will probably end a fight more swiftly (increased power), if it does not you may be too tired from going all out to continue the fight over an extended period of time and ultimately lose, perhaps a balance needs to be struck.

The highly audible screaming side of the kiai I have always seen as more of an after thought; your trying to be mean and scary and look hard in front of your opponent.
The logic behind it being, if you are going to breath out hard (time span involved between muscle recoil and impact) then you might as well do something with the breath. In addition screaming and shouting also helps psyc. you up to be aggressive by increasing your adrenaline production, which in a CONTROLED manner can be a very usefull and powerfull emotion. As an example cast your mind back to almost any war film, programme or otherwise you have seen (I'm assuming you have never actually been to war); assuming you are not using stealth and at least one of the two opposing forces are advancing, then they will be screaming blue murder. The reason is not to do with breathing dynamics, gaseous exchange or energy conservation, its purely psycological.


>>One more quick note... karate vs kung fu....
>>
>>As my good friend and I always debate (me coming from
>a karate background
>>and him spending a lifetime in kung fu), trying to
>compare karate and kung
>>fu can't be done (or shouldn't be done). That's like
>comparing a doctor to
>>a first aid attendant. One is a 1,000 day program
>and the other a 100 day
>>program. To become a good doctor takes many many
>years of study and
>>dedication and may mean that if I needed help from
>that person before
>>completing his studies as a doctor, he would be
>limited in his abilities to
>>do anything. The first aid attendant on the other
>hand could help me
>>almost immediately within the bounds of what he has
>learned.
>>However, the
>>first student, provided they are able to stay with
>the program and become a
>>doctor will far surpass the capabilities of the
>second student, the first
>>aid attendant.
>
>Actually, a medical doctor is fully capable of
>administering all forms of first aid.
>

You seem to be repeating in escence the previous point and then arguing it, again. They basically said training a doctor takes a long time and because of the depth of information they deal with, it takes longer to get to a level of practicallity (most of the early training is theory). The first aider learns mainly practical application only and straight away, therefore takes less time to train to become usefull but ultimately can not do all the things a doctor can, on the other hand a doctor will be able to do all the things a first aider can and more, but the point being is it takes longer to train a doctor to get to a usefull point.

There Ive argued the same point again! Did I really need to? NO and neither did you!

The following 5 lines I left as I think it is a very good statement. Each art has there own 'thing' depending on what your goals are should dictate what art you study.

>>Hence... you can't compare a 1,000 day program with
>a 100
>>day Program. Each has their advantages and
>disavantages. It just depends
>>on what you want to achieve.
>>
>
>A truly interesting analogy, but I fail to see how it
>relates to martial arts, presuming that both Wushu and
>Karate have the same ultimate objective: to defeat
>(re: kill) the opponent. I realise that many schools
>of karate have commercialised themselves as
>competition sports, but the intent of traditional
>Karatedo was ultimately to destroy the opponent.

Its not such a bad analogy, a doctor and a first aider both want to make a sick person better, but they are not directly comparable to each other. Different martial arts want to be able to effectively win a fight, but do it in different ways.

I do however agree in some respects. Few arts are so advanced compared to others to make a rival art seem like 'a first aid attendant' comared to there 'doctor' skills. As you said yourself Goktimus, Kung fu and karate schools tend to be very good in certain areas, these areas of expertise may not necessarily be the same so where one is deficient the other is strong.

>
>If anything, we ought to examine the REASONS behind
>why any martial art has developed certain
>characteristics, be they considered as advantages or
>disadvantages (which, as you said, depends on what you
>want to achieve). There are historical reasons why
>martial arts such as Karate has developed distinct
>differences from Wushu.
>
Now this I wholey agree with and reinforces my previous comment.


>Just a few brief examples:
>1. It was the Samurai who took away the use of the
>shoulders in Japanese martial arts, as they considered
>raising the shoulders to be "unbecoming." Hence why
>Japanese martial arts never use the shoulders and
>maintain a very "square on" stance in some styles.
>This is very noticeable in Samurai arts such as
>Taemshigiri Iaijutsu. Okinawante on the other hand
>still retains the use of the shoulders.
>

Really? well to be honest I never really thought of the use of shoulders in different styles before. I thank you for enlightening me, do you have any more info. on this topic?

>2. Japanese martial arts, particularly karate, has
>often been abused as a political tool by various
>Japanese governments. And often when a martial art
>becomes a political vehicle (e.g.: Xiandai Wushu --
>just to show that it happens in China as well as
>Japan), it often loses most of its use as a true
>fighting style. It was the politicisation of Karate
>which made it lose a lot of its fluidity that the
>Okinawans had taken from Wushu. The Imperial
>government has made a lot of significant changes
>within the last century, such as the introduction of
>military ranking (since it became adopted by the
>Japanese army) thus the introduction of the coloured
>"belt" system. Many Japanese purists will argue that
>there shouldn't be any other colour in a Karateka's
>uniform except for white, which symbolises the martial
>spirit in Japanese martial culture, thus Japanese
>martial art purists argue that the use of other
>colours is a corruption of the symbolism of the
>martial spirit (but what if you're colour blind?).
>Another example is the notion of "one hit one kill" as
>an initial move in many Japanese martial arts (e.g.:
>Toyamaryu Kenjutsu). I have yet to see any traditional
>(re: pre-WWII) texts which mention the use of "one hit
>one kill" as an _initial_ move. Traditional karate
>texts speak of "one hit one kill" as a _finishing_
>move, yet we see many Japanese martial arts today
>using it as an initial move. Historical evidence tells
>us that this was actually a notion devised by the son
>of Funakoshi, who, during the war, was asked by the
>Japanese military to help them modify karate to help
>them better use it as a brainwashing tool. One thing
>they were concerned about was conditioning the
>soldiers to become suicidal in battle -- especially
>midget submarine and kamikaze bomber pilots. As I'm
>sure you're aware, the whole concept of blindly kiling
>yourself in battle was NOT part of traditional
>Bushido. As famous tales such as the story of the 40
>ronin of Ako tells us, the Samurai had to repay all
>their debts before they could take their own lives if
>they had been disgraced. This ideology was not really
>compatible with the 20th Century imperial notion of
>just killing yourself in battle. Thus Karate was given
>the notion of "one hit one kill" as an initial strike
>- which directly correlates to the mentality behind a
>kamikaze or midget submarine attack (since you EXPLODE
>upon impact -- the concept of one hit one kill as an
>initial attack would work for karate the human body
>could spontaneously combust upon impact).
>

As for the 'one hit one kill' phylosophy, I have never really been able to understand it from a purely martial art point of view so was not surprised when I learned it was generated by government influence. The same happened in Judo, Jigaro Kano's original plan for Judo competitions was a 'best of three' contest. Then the Japanese government stepped in and insisted on a single point system (1 ippon= victory), reinforcing the one strike one kill mentality.

I have also heard an alternative root for this notion from a karate background. When the Okinawan villagers were learning/developing early karate they had to overcome the problem of fighting an armoured opponent (Japanese troops/police(broad term)). Since the armour worn was bamboo or some wood variant, it was possible to smash through. This gave rise to the extensive body conditioning present in Karate, especially hand strengthening e.g. makiwara boards enabling such a blow to be made. Since in this scenario, the armoured opponent would no doubt be armed (sword) and the peasent unarmed (though poss. armed with native weapon) the peasant would have to take out his opponent very quickly, largely with the aid of this armour breaking fist they had developed (which was no good for anything else due to calluses and scarring).

I was told that this was the seed which allowed the one strike one kill phylosophy to take hold within the Japanese martial arts. Has anybody else heard this or any other explaination of early karate Vs. modern karate?

OneDragons

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.