Hard vs Soft Martial Arts

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,587
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_martial_art

I've always been bothered by these terms and it seems to me that people that actually use these terms tend to be the "nerdy" martial artists or martial arts fans. It makes no sense to me.

Muay Thai doesn't meet force with force, most of the time. Judo doesn't redirect force, most of the time. I know, I've trained quite a bit in both arts. Both arts train people to do what is appropriate for each situation.

Are these terms just a left-over of nonsense mysticism associated with martial arts? I think.........yes.
 
As I recall, it was the Chinese that separated systems into "internal" (Tai Chi, Hsing-I, etc.) and "external" (most of the other systems.)
The internal were supposed to harness the power of one's "chi" whereas the external were supposed to rely on strength and speed....
Even though they often crossed over regarding techniques.

I would imagine that's the origin of the hard/soft thing... Though now it's come to mean something rather different.
 
I have a certificate from Dong Ping's Correspondence Dojo, and I will teach you the ultimate secrets of martial arts for only 59.99$ a month.
 
Bikewer said:
As I recall, it was the Chinese that separated systems into "internal" (Tai Chi, Hsing-I, etc.) and "external" (most of the other systems.)
The internal were supposed to harness the power of one's "chi" whereas the external were supposed to rely on strength and speed....
Even though they often crossed over regarding techniques.

I would imagine that's the origin of the hard/soft thing... Though now it's come to mean something rather different.
Click to expand...

I think that's more or less right. The terms are still very popular in Eastern popular culture, like comics, movies and computer games. But they really don't accurately represent a principle that still applies to martial arts today. Most likely they never did; to my knowledge, back when Taijiquan, for example, was applied to real combat, most of it's techniques were quite "hard", and I've never heard of a martial art where "force is met with force" all the time.
 
If you don't have any real skill or training, the easiest way to seem like you do is to use a bunch of jargon. Hence why these terms are around.

I mean have you ever met someone who actually does have a decent degree of skill go on about these kind of minutia? ( not directed at the op, but the people the op is talking about. )

Martial arts are like sex, the people going on about it all the time are seldomly people with skill in it.
 
As someone who posted for at least a few years over on Bullshido, TBK, I suspect you're doing a good-natured troll here; you already know the answer to the question.

The Japanese framed it in this way just to explain a simple concept: sometimes it's better to use overwhelming force (straight-up punching as hard as you can, even if the guy's got his guard up), sometimes it's better to use a more "yielding" technique like "let the bigger guy's strength and momentum work against him so you can plant his head on the ground with a simple trip".

But as with anything related to the Martial Arts, especially because they were popularized in the West as "mysterious oriental hidden knowledge", simple, practical concepts devolved into mystical nonsense.

Sometimes it's best to use finesse, sometimes you just need to hit someone really hard. Applying Occam's Katana simplifies pretty much any discussion on the subject.
 
I agree with Sadhatter and Phrost. If you spend enough time yammering about philosphies and concepts, you might be able to avoid the hard work and ego crushing effort of actually making your technique work, and when it doesn't, you can attribute that to some mystical nonesense.

Training is training. Shut up and get on the mat. (general)
 
"Yielding" ("Jiu" in Japanese) would be a much more appropriate term than "soft".

"Soft" is what you feel when you punch an Aikidoka in the stomach.
 
Crossbow said:
So would a 'Pillow Fight' be considered a "soft martial art"?

;)
Click to expand...


"Soft" and "pillow fight" does not compute.
pervert.gif
 
Phrost said:
"Yielding" ("Jiu" in Japanese) would be a much more appropriate term than "soft".

"Soft" is what you feel when you punch an Aikidoka in the stomach.
Click to expand...

Ju, not jiu. Japanese friends tell me flexible is the most appropriate translation.

"'Jiu-jitsu' is actually an old and mistaken way to represent the Japanese characters. 'Jujutsu,' or perhaps 'jujitsu' is the correct version. However, 'jiu-jitsu' is the traditional spelling in 'Brazilian jiu-jitsu' so we have retained it." ~~John Banaher, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Theory and Practice
 
Last edited:
Are "soft" and "hard" martial arts related to the silly terms "internal" and "external" martial arts? I have the feeling that the nerds who use these terms interchange internal with soft and external with hard.....and then start introducing such nonsense as "chi energy."
 
thaiboxerken said:
Are "soft" and "hard" martial arts related to the silly terms "internal" and "external" martial arts? I have the feeling that the nerds who use these terms interchange internal with soft and external with hard.....and then start introducing such nonsense as "chi energy."
Click to expand...

Commonly but not necessarily - Xing-Yi is an internal style but is towards the hard end. But the same sort of person who cops out on working up a sweat by saying he's being "soft" also often cops out by saying he's doing "internal" stuff. And "chi energy" always denotes someone who understands neither word. And baji, I am told, can be done both internal and external style and is a hard style.
 
Which is it when someone hits you in the face with a pint glass full of Theakston's Old Peculier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom