Can anyone tell me specifically? So much looks so similar. There are a few key things that scream Akido, but nothing that I see to separate Chin Na from it.
Aikido has a little Tai Chi incorporated in it by way of transferring momentum/energy or redirection of.
Tai Chi comes from Tai Tzu & Hong Quan, so all that is in Chin Na too..especially when you realize that Taiji is a lot of Chin Na.
as one who has had training in aikido i would say the difference is style and philosophy. During Ueshiba Morihei’s early travels in Manchuria he most likely learned bagua forms an chin na from the people he traveled with. He was already skilled in Aiki-jitsu and kendo was a Soldier. he created aikido well after those brutal times and it became an excersise in movement and harmony of oneself through life. most people Bash aikido because the actual fighting ability of most aikido practitioners is not that great. it takes years to master the techniques and even then Aikido STILL does nothing but choreographed routines that in my opinion lead to nowhere. I learned to fall and to recieve and bind an attack so that i could have a chance of countering with something more aggressive. as for chin na, those techniques are what i feel to be the Base and fundamentals of aikido as well as aikido being a japanese version of Bagua(in a sense) both are circular in nature and both rely on grappling and manipulating the joints and take downs with emphasis on hyper extending those joints to the point of tearing ligaments right off the bone.
i feel that aikido is a beautiful expression but as a really good way of defending oneself? well it can help but should not souley be relied upon.
Peace,TWS
Sometimes when we are drilling something and a student points out,- “hey, this is just like what I learned in such and such style”. Our sifu always has the same reply, he nods his head and says,- " thats because good fighting is good fighting".
Earlier this year there was a pit fight at a local bar, very ruff and bloody game there. One of the fighters won his match with a stone cold K.O., he used what we in crane world call clear and fist hook. The fighter has never stepped foot in or probably never even heard of a TWC classroom, yet there he is using one of our signature favorites.
Good fighting is good fighting.
The chin na I learned had more resistance training and more chin na specific strength training rather than just relying on what you have already. Most of the akido I’ve seen seems to be entirely based on using your own opponents strength again him. You’ll never just flat out overpower someone (at least from what I’ve seen… never taken a class myself).
I suppose akido is one way of practicing chin na. My teacher wouldn’t say it’s not “chin na” just because it’s from another country. It’s just a Chinese word for a type of application.
I think there are fundamental usage differences, I just don’t know what they are.
happy to be of service
Oh, I know this one! They’re different martial arts!
More accurately, one is a japanese martial art, and one is a category of techniques in the chinese martial arts.
Gee, THAT narrows it down to somthing visibly identifiable!!
I wonder why i couldn’t figure THAT out for myself!! :rolleyes:
I know! I was quite surprised too! (But I didn’t want to say anything; you know, for appearance’s sake.)
LOL!!!
--------------------------------------------> Sell March 08 Cocoa
This may not make any sense to most folks but the difference is actually quite simple.
Aikido, somewhat like Korean YU SOOL is based on Newtonian Physics, including manipulation of velocity, angle/vectors, mass, power, timing and so forth.
CHNI NA, like Korean HAPKIYUSOOL is based on impacting the neuro-muscular system.
Now here is where the problem comes in and the clarity goes out the window. Each of the arts I have mentioned is not exclusive to the other arts meaning each art has aspects of the other arts involved. This is why the minute you make a gneral statement about, say, Aikido, someone is bound to make a comment like “but we do that other stuff, too!”
So what it comes down to is a matter of emphasis and also where one grabs the art in its development. Early Ueyshiba Aikido and Early Choi Hapkido are pretty nasty stuff and based almost exclusively on Physics. In time Ueyshiba became very “cosmic” in his teaching and suddenly Aikido became a “love fest”. Hapkido has likewise loosened-up quite a bit to make it a greater commercial success. CHIN NA has not lost its edge, but I imagine its just a matter of time. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
The difference between akido and chin-na?
Only one of them exists.
[QUOTE=xcakid;803771]Aikido has a little Tai Chi incorporated in it by way of transferring momentum/energy or redirection of.[/QUOTE]Nope. They do both work on ‘transferring momentum/energy or redirection of’, but that doesn’t mean that aikido ‘incorporates’ tai chi: they have proven different origins and different ways of ‘transferring momentum/energy or redirection of’.
Incidentally, boxing could be described as ‘transferring momentum/energy or redirection of’: if I punch you in the face I am transferring my momentum/energy into your face; if I parry your jab I am ‘redirection of’!
Chris nailed it..chin-na is not a style, it is a catagory of technique. Plain and simple, it is seizing and twisting, but has sub-catagories such as sealing the breath, and vital point striking. So Aikido has Chin-na,Hapkido has chin-na,jiu-jutsu has chin-na, and wrestling has chin-na. Your Mom grabbed your wrist and squeezed it hard saying,“NO!” making you drop it,when you picked up something that you shouldn’t, that was chin-na. Translate it into English and you don’t have to try to figure it out. You will realise how ridiculous this conversation is:
“What’s the difference between Aikido and siezing and twisting?”
Now, of course you might want to delve deeper and ask, "What is the difference between Aikido’s locking techniques and TWC’s locking techniques?"or, Shuai Jiao’s, or Hapkido’s,etc., and down the list.
What is the difference between Akido, and Long Fist, Taiji, Eagle claw and Bagua Chin Na?
[QUOTE=The Willow Sword;803775]During Ueshiba Morihei’s early travels in Manchuria he most likely learned bagua forms an chin na from the people he traveled with. [/quote]Where DOES this crap come from? I hear this unsubstantiated and completely unfounded nonsense in a lot of places. WTF makes you think in your wildest imaginings, thata Chinese MA master (notoriously cagey about teaching to foreigners even now) would accept a member of a foreign invading, occupying and notoriously brutal enemy army into their little teaching circles?
I learned to fall and to recieve and bind an attack so that i could have a chance of countering with something more aggressive.
I think you learned crap aiki. That’s not a personal attack - there’s a lot of it about.
As far as aggression is concerned: every aiki move starts with a strike, and many of them incorporate strikes on the way to further disrupt the body structure and balance of the opponent. The whole ideal of handling someone without damaging them is supposed to be the highest level and is widely recognised as just that: an ideal.
And although the wrsit grab and other unrealistic grabs are slated in aiki, they should only be practiced until the student has grasped the basic movements. My sensei always said, “If you can lock them great, but if they let go, just hit them!” In the old days, if soemone grabbed your sword hand, your sword hand would initiate the lock but the ulitmate aim was to cut through your opponent: the locks rarely came off - they were mostly releases so you could strike into your opponent and get the kuzushi (or get the kuzushi in the process of the release).
as for chin na, those techniques are what i feel to be the Base and fundamentals of aikido as well as aikido being a japanese version of Bagua(in a sense) both are circular in nature and both rely on grappling and manipulating the joints and take downs with emphasis on hyper extending those joints to the point of tearing ligaments right off the bone.
Utter bollocks.
- Chin-na, as just stated by Ten Tigers and others is not form one source and there are very different chin-na across very different arts.
- NO chin-na is part of the base/fundamentals of aikido, which along with its sister art jujutsu is the most provenly original Japanese art with references going back to the 6th century with the single exception of sumai.
- Aikido is not the Japanese version of bagua, or any other Chinese martial art in historical terms.
- The little chin-na I’ve been shown in wing chun is very very straight - the delivery is the abject opposite of aikido. Sure if your art is more circular there will be more similarities. But even then: a lot of tai chi is circular but a lot is also direct.
[QUOTE=Bruce W Sims;803960]This may not make any sense to most folks but the difference is actually quite simple.[/quote]Translation: I made this up, and you might not agree, but if you don’t that’s because there is something deficient in you. 
Aikido, somewhat like Korean YU SOOL is based on Newtonian Physics, including manipulation of velocity, angle/vectors, mass, power, timing and so forth.
This is a specious comment. All MA are based on Newtonian physics. Unless you’re watching ‘The Matrix’!
Philosophically, it doesn’t have anything to do with physics: Ueshiba was a martial artist in the literal sense of the word (i.e. a soldier who supposedly used his arts in battle - certainly his yari/juukendo upon which all of aikido’s core body movement is based, and possibly his kenjutsu, upon which most of aikido’s techniques are based) and then more into metaphysics than he ever was into physics.
The physics is purely your interpretation, as is the ‘impacting the neuro-muscular system’.
Do we have to go through this again?
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;803996]What is the difference between Akido, and Long Fist, Taiji, Eagle claw and Bagua Chin Na?[/QUOTE]There’s no such thing as ‘akido’.