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: 18:05:01 01/12/03 Sun
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: Re: Kiai + Japanese history
In reply to: OneDragons 's message, "Kiai + Japanese history" on 09:27:32 01/10/03 Fri

I agree that psychology plays a large part of fighting. Last May my friends and I were at a shopping centre when we saw a large group of guys abusing these girls (girlfriends?) -- even pushing one through a shopping trolley. One of my friends approached from the right shouting "Hey! What's going on?!" and I simply approached one of the more dominant members of the pack from the left -- I stared directly at his eyes and he stared back. I didn't really say anything. Just stood there giving him a very disapproving look and letting him know that I felt fully confident and in control of the situation. Naturally I did feel some fear and apprehension, as is natural, but I didn't let it show. The bully on the other hand soon became insecure and became more verbally aggressive -- simply keeping his eyes on me (though I could see fear in them) and going, "What? What?" -- and as the pack of guys left down an escalator, they looked back at me and I kept my eyes on them.

So effectively I had diffused a hostile situation without lifting a finger. That personal experience demonstrated to me how important psychological factors are in a fight or potential fight -- my friends and I were easily outnumbered three to one, but the difference was that we exuded far more confidence. And of course, women-bashers tend to have low self esteem anyway, which is why they go around bashing women to make themselves feel better.

>
>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.
>

I don't see why "ki" (or qi) energy has to be "mysterious."
If we continue to view it as being mysterious, then we can never equate a scientific reason to it. I believe that ki can be explained scientifically.

As for the defensive notion that kiai can be used to tense the stomach muscles up to intercept an oncoming strike, I have two comments:

(1) Stomach muscles can be tensed without yelling. Although I can understand the need for a sharp exhale upon impact.
(2) This logic presumes that you have already noticed the incoming strike, which begs me to wonder why one would not have already thwarted or avoided that strike. You could argue that the strike has only been noticed at a stage where it is already too late to thwart or avoid the hit - but at that stage (where the fist or foot would only be a few centimetres away), would you have time to fully inhale and exhale for a full Kiai? Again, I think that simple endurance training is sufficient enough for this. And I've never seen Kiai being used for this purpose when I've trained with Karateka. I remember one time I was training at a Gojuryu Karate Dojo in Japan, and one guy wanted me to test his body endurance with my Kung Fu punches. So he basically inhaled and stood there while I continuously pummelled his gut with a melee of straight punches. Not once did he utter a single sound. From what I have observed, Kiai is primarily used in attack, not defence -- where the primary advantage that I can see is to induce fear into the opponent. However, this still does not address the issue of efficient gas exchange. Also, there are many other ways of demoralising an opponent other than just yelling at them -- an opponent who is used to the Kiai (such as a Karateka) may not be scared by it. Something such as the loss of control of a part of the body through basic grappling, or even the inability to score a direct hit, can be far more demoralising than simply being yelled at.

>
>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.
>

And some styles are simply more efficient than others, overall. For example, ITF Taekwondo (the original combat version, not the Olympic Sport version) is a reasonably good martial art. It equips the combatant with the basic skills of fighting and most ITF TKD practitioners have reasonable street fighting abilities and would most likely annihilate a person who is not a trained fighter. However, pitted against most other trained martial artists -- particularly against most traditional forms of Kung Fu, and ITF TKD begins to falter. Compared to most other traditional forms of martial arts, ITF TKD is at best, fairly mediocre.

And as I pointed out in my previous post, Yongchun Kung Fu doesn't employ endurance training, but their strength lies in their ability to break down and penetrate their opponent's defences in order to annihilate them.

>
>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?
>

Not much beyond what I've already stated. But it is a shame that Japanese styles have lost of the use of the shoulder for the sake of maintaining a more "honourable" looking posture. (square and front on -- often exposing the chest)

>
>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?
>

I have NEVER seen any text predating WWII mention anything regarding the one-hit-one-kill principle. And it is my personal opinion that the breaking of makiwari boards is part of the American commercialisation of Karate, rather than traditional practice. Why would Okinawan peasants go around breaking perfectly good wood? That's a waste (and wastage is considered to be sinful according to Zen Buddhism). I like the scene in Karate Kid 2 where Daniel watched some people break boards and he asked Mr Miyagi if he could do that, and his reply was something along the lines of, "Don't know... never been attacked by tree." And there was also a scene in the first movie where Miyagi breaks some bottles to scare away some louts, and Daniel is amazed and says, "I didn't know you could do that!" and Miyagi replied with, "neither did I!" (or something like that)

I've heard that their more rigid/jarring forms of punching was able to generate enough force to penetrate samurai armour. But when I think about it, how often would an Okinawan peasant have to fight against an armoured samurai? Samurai only wore armour during battle... otherwise he was just adorned in regular clothing (gi, hakama et al.). And the fact that Okinawa has never regained its sovereignty since it was invaded by the Japanese kinda suggests that there was never any successful mass uprisings from peasants -- I suspect that Te was mainly used for personal defence against each other and against unscrupulous samurai. Don't forget that many samurai were fairly benevolent and nice towards the under classes -- after all, the Bushido ideal of being a samurai is to serve the people, not to oppress them -- although this code was not always followed by all samurai -- but I digress...

Actually, while I'm digressing, everyone remember that incident a few years back of the US serviceman who raped a 12 year old Okinawan girl and, despite protest from the Japanese government, was extradited back to the US? I thought that was a load of bollocks -- if a person breaks a law in another country, then that person should stand trial in the courts of that country. That's International Law, and I personally get irritated when Americans think that they can rise above international laws... particularly in the military. Should soldiers be exempted from international laws? I don't think they should.

All the more reason why the United Nations needs to establish an International Court to trial criminals of war and servicemen posted overseas. The US is the primary voice that is blockading the UN proposal for an International Court, and the only reason I can see for them to do this is to protect US servicemen like the bastard who raped the 12 year old girl in Okinawa.

What would happen if, say, a Latvian officer stationed in the US were to rape a 12 year old American girl? Somehow I don't think the US would allow that soldier to be extradited back to Latvia.

Weee... I'm digressing lots...

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