Describing other Martial Arts

[James Burroughs]

I've heard Sifu and others use words like hard style/soft style and internal style/external style(the ones i remember from class friday). I was wondering what other terms would you use to describe other styles?

[Will Hooper]

James,

All of the distinctions, although we usually present them as dualities (hard vs soft, inner vs. outer) are really continuums instead (it would be more accurate to refer to things as 'harder vs softer', since it's all relative anyway, and no art is really just 'hard' or just 'soft.')

That said, there are a number of phrases you may hear thrown around:

hard vs soft
internal vs external
high vs low
rooted vs mobile
aggressive vs defensive
sport/competition oriented vs combat oriented
hand vs foot (or punching vs kicking)
upright vs ground
long range vs short range
yin vs yang

again, though - it's always good to keep in mind that no style or art is really one versus the other. Instead, we're really talking about tendencies, or generalizations, or simplifications. :-)

[Luke Anthony]

Traditional vs. modern is one that gets thrown around a lot, too.

[Will Hooper]

Ah! Yes!

And related to that, you hear discussions like

forms/kata--centered vs sparring-centered
taught for health vs taught for self-defense

[Hood Mullican]

Maybe some less practically useful, but some still sort of interesting ways would be:

By historic ethnic or national associations: a few Chinese examples being Hakka praying mantis (Hakka people), tan tui (Chinese Muslims)

By religious or philosophical tradition: Buddhism (Shaolin martial arts), Daoism (Wudang martial arts, Baguazhang, Xingyiquan, Taijiquan), etc.

By Geographical region: "Northern" vs. "Southern"

Granted, these distinctions are more academic, and maybe don't hold a lot of water after centuries of migrations and sharing. Plus, from what I've heard, these sort of generalizations also carry practical connotations. "Shaolin" arts and their derivatives are thought to be "hard," while Daoist or Wudang martial arts are thought to be "soft," Northern Chinese martial arts are thought to leap and kick more, Southern Chinese martial arts are thought to be more rooted and use more complicated hand forms. 

Also, my examples are China-specific, but I guarantee you see similar sorts of distinctions in any country with a continuous martial tradition. Look at traditional Muay Thai in Thailand, Kalari in India, etc.

[Will Hooper]

Good points, Hood!

That bubbles another one up in my mind - distinctions made referencing historical events. For example:

Before vs After Marquis of Queensbury rules (Western boxing and brawling arts)
Pre vs Post Maoist takeover in Chinese martial arts

Like you said with cultural and geographical distinctions, these can sometimes be mostly of interest in a specialist or scholarly discussion, but can sometimes provide useful quick insight into what someone is interested in.

[Luke Anthony]

Another distinction is how old the martial art is. You've got ancient (since I hesitate to say prehistoric; Pencak Silat traces its roots back a couple thousand years), pre-modern (arts like jujutsu, which the samurai used in the 1600's), modern (like boxing, which in its present form at least, wasn't found until the Queensbury rules were established in the 1800's, and was honed in the past 100 years), and new (like Krav Maga or Jeet Kune Do, which came about in the 30's and the 60's, respectively - barely tykes, in the grand scheme of things!). When an art was established - and how closely its instructors adhere to tradition - can say a lot about the culture in which is was formed. And btw, I'm not using terms like "pre-modern" and "new" technically; they're just the best descriptive terms I can come up with.

Hybrid, traditional, self defense, cardio, and meditative are all terms that get bandied about, too.