Chin Na

[ajs1976]

does anyone have any exeprience with Chin Na? How does it compare to Hapkido?

[Bruce W Sims]

Hi, Andy.

There are four major schools of Chuan Fa associated regularly with Korean MA. Each of them has a Chin Na component. In Hyuk Suh is rumored to have examined such material closely before organizing his KUK SOOL martial art.

I think the single best source for this information here in the States is Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming. His books are everywhere. There are two lesser known sources but regardless of the source, Chin Na compare quite favorably with Hapkido material. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Bruce W Sims]

Just a follow-up:

I have been revisiting David Chow's KUNG FU - HISTORY PHILOSOPHY AND TECHNIQUE to gleen any possible further information on his teacher, TUNG TSUNG NEE. Going back over the principles beginning on page 80 ("David Chow speaks to his students") and the techniques beginning on pg 92 there are a host of parallels. Discounting for culture and times the material could easily have been out of any Hapkido class. Could be a good resource for comparing thoughts on footwork as well as alternate applications.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Bruce W Sims]

For people looking for yet another 'must have" for their Hapkido library:

Put this right there next to Myung, Kimm, Lee and Suh.

PRACTICAL CHIN NA by Zhao Da Yuan and translated to English by Tim Cartmell. ISBN 1-883175-02-X. There are also two VCR tapes that can be had as companion pieces. Best $15-20USD you will spend.

[Stuart Rosenberg]

Greetings,

What very interesting to me is that, Chin Na is NOT a seperate system unto itself as many mistakenly think.

CN techs. are important parts of many styles of Kung Fu like Eagle Claw, Praying Mantis, etc. Even Okinanwan Karate has CN as part of thier system albeit many applications and know how on executing these techniques have fallen away or the knowledge not passed on.

Dr. Yang did an amazing job of cataloging the techs. known as Chin Na and I agree they could easily be HKD techs.

I also like the Willie Lim two small books on Chin Na, they are much simplier than Dr Yangs material but techs. are praticle and easy to learn IMO.

[Kong Soo Do]

This is an old thread, but it caught my eye as I was browsing. I've been 'unofficially' studying Chin Na since 1995. By unofficially I mean that I don't have a specific Chin Na instructor, rather I've purchased the books listed above by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming and Zhao Da Yuan as well as a DVD by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming and one by Tim Cartmell whom I've spoken with via email in the past. I've taken this and compared/blended it with my own studies in Hapkido and Aikijujutsu (all of which I now simply call Kong Soo Do). It is an excellent fit of course as it is original source material as it were.

In my nearly twenty years working in a maximum security correctional facility I've had hundreds of uses-of-force. On occasion I've had to punch, knife hand strike (edge-of-hand) and knee spike violent felons who were attacking me, other staff or other inmates. And interestingly enough, I can't recall ever kicking anyone. But of the majority of these UOF, I've used locking techniques. By far I'd say that Chin Na style techniques (or Hapkido or Aikijujutsu or Kong Soo Do if those labels are preferred) were needed more often, and with almost 100% effectiveness. Only very rarely did I encounter someone with which these techniques failed to produce the result needed. And this was usually an individual who was a trusty in modern chemistry who felt no pain. Let me clarify this, the lock or locks worked as far as limiting or immobilizing part of the body, and I could have gone farther to destroy the joint if needed, but the pain tolerance was not a factor in and of itself due to the drugs in the system. So the lock or locks worked as far as what they were designed to limit or immobilize, just not useful as a pain compliance tool.

What very interesting to me is that, Chin Na is NOT a seperate system unto itself as many mistakenly think.

I am not disagreeing with you on this point, but it caught my eye as I am revisiting Zhao Da Yuan's book. He makes an interesting comment on page 1 of chapter one where he states, "Within the greater development of the martial arts in general, the techniques of Chin Na slowly evolved into an independent style." He goes on to discuss that the other elements of kicking, striking, throwing etc have been combined into it. Whether this is/was a move towards making it an independent style or not is unclear, and it is a translation so that needs to be factored into it.

does anyone have any exeprience with Chin Na? How does it compare to Hapkido?

A generalized lineage would look like this; Chinese Chin Na (through various different styles of Gong Fu) to Japanese Aikijujutsu (which has other founding elements as well) to Hapkido. So from a general perspective it is a branch of the same tree. Just as Chin Na started out as purely a 'Seizing and Controlling' methodology and later had additional elements added in, so has Hapkido had additional elements added in by its 'founders' over the years.

This needs to be viewed as a positive. In realistic self defense one cannot rely solely upon punching or kicking or grappling or locking. One may be fortunate to be successful in only one aspect if violent encounters are rare or non-existent. But a totality of the arts needs to be known if violent encounters are (unfortunately) common place. As I mentioned above, I most often used locks...but I've had to occasionally strike, spike or throw an attacker as well. And sometimes multiple aspects of the arts are required in a single altercation. My goal as a Deputy isn't to 'beat down' the badguy (despite what Hollywood portrays), it is to stop the attack and then gain control then restraint devices. On the street is a bit different of course, but a totality of knowledge is still crucial.

Just some thoughts.

[karronte]

I have to say that I have never really explored Chinese arts as I dislike the often flashy overt notions they proposed but this seems like a very interesting style . How representative this is if commonly taught Chin NA ? I saw other videos with much older instructors and I really disliked the techniques and questions their efficiency base on the same applications some times found in many hapkido schools but this seemed to be particularly different that the other videos. Is this a representation of Modern Chin Na or maybe something along the lines of Combat Chin Na ? it looks Jett Lee/ish some how.