# Rethinking Basics...



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

I've been thinking about how TSD and many styles of Karate teach their hand techniques.  Often, they teach the classical blocks and a variety of different strikes from various stances in order to teach good mechanics during a form.  

I see the wisdom in this.  Yet, I feel that this is too far removed from actually learning how to block and strike.  Would it make more sense to teach basics in a functional manner, like jab, cross, hook, upper cut, and actual parries and then leave good mechanics for the actual forms?


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 15, 2006)

Up north I can see where you are going with this, everybody has there way of doing there hand strikes and blocks when push comes to shove but during Pommse it should all be done the correct way.
Terry


----------



## TigerWoman (Feb 15, 2006)

Well, jab, cross, hook, backfist and uppercut are punches and need good mechanics as well. We do a straight punch like Kung Fu but TKD horizontal punch in forms. 

We don't use all the traditional blocks from forms.  Some of the blocks just aren't good for women such as inside middle block. Neither do we do the all the strikes from forms in sparring as some are rather lethal.  So we do both,  the traditional in form and line work: down block, step, punch, inside, outside, high, step, kick etc.  Punching we leave for bags, Bob and sparring. TW


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 15, 2006)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Punching we leave for bags, Bob and sparring. TW


Alas, poor Bob........


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

I've been contemplating a radical idea...at least for TSD.  I wonder if my students actual ability to strike and evade will improve if I ditch line drills and some of the classical blocks in favor of the "eight parries" and more functional strikes?  Everytime my students would practice basics, we would do them against pads in order to provide resistence and gauge power.  

It's not that I don't find anything useful in the classical movements...its just that I feel that they lose their meaning once one takes them out of the forms.  We all know that a low block really isn't a low block, but for some reason, we keep practicing it like that.  I'm not sure how practical that is...


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 15, 2006)

Upnorth know one will know until they try, give it a whirl and see what happens. 
Terry


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've been contemplating a radical idea...at least for TSD.  I wonder if my students actual ability to strike and evade will improve if I ditch line drills and some of the classical blocks in favor of the "eight parries" and more functional strikes?  Everytime my students would practice basics, we would do them against pads in order to provide resistence and gauge power.
> 
> It's not that I don't find anything useful in the classical movements...its just that I feel that they lose their meaning once one takes them out of the forms.  We all know that a low block really isn't a low block, but for some reason, we keep practicing it like that.  I'm not sure how practical that is...



John, here's my take on "classical movements" and their application. We all know that you would never execute a low block or an inside-middle block in the street in the same classic manner that you might drill on, or replicate in poomse. Most of the classical movements have exagerrated motions that are highly impractical in application. I look at these classical movements as an excellent way to learn gross motor skills and proper body mechanics when you are first learning a block. Our new students are shown the "classic way" and that's the only way they are allowed to perform the block, initially. As I said, this teaches the gross motor skills, and done properly it forces them to use their hips as a source of power. After proficiency is shown in the classic blocks, we let them participate in line drills defending against an actual strike, so that they can learn to "adapt" the classic motion to a practical, quick, defensive block with power. Typically, that means shortening the motion substantially, but keeping the hips involved so as to not sacrifice power.

My teacher has the best analogy of this process that I've heard:
He compared it to a beginning pilot learning to land on a long runway, way longer than was necessary, just to learn the basics. As the pilot gains experience, he is able to land the plane in a shorter and shorter space. 
A senior MA-ist would be equivalent to a "carrier pilot" able to land in a short space, at night, on a moving surface. 

Something else that I have found success with is to incorporate a series of techniques from a given form into a 2-3 step sparring routine. It's kind of a mini-bunkai lesson, and lets the students see an actual application from a form and practice  it. I do not require "classic form" during this. This is about application, not form. There is a time and a place for both. Obviously, poomse is for form, and sparring is application, but I think they can co-exist without a contradiction in training principles.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil (Feb 15, 2006)

*Greetings to everyone*

John,
The classical techniques of the Karate based systems are all good for real life exchanges, as long as you understand how they were meant to be used by the originators.

I will go over all of them with you when I come up in April and you will gain a completely new understanding of the Tang Soo Do basics.

So far, everyone that I have exposed these principles and philosophies to have come away from our training with a renewed belief in traditional training! 

*Call me to discuss and finalize our plans: 248-561-5700*


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 21, 2006)

Master Jay S. Penfil said:
			
		

> The classical techniques of the Karate based systems are all good for real life exchanges, as long as you understand how they were meant to be used by the originators.


 
One of the questions that I've always had about some of the classical techniques is whether or not they assume a certain amount of fighting skill?  I know that okinawan systems were constructed around the assumption that the fighters were skilled with tegumi.  Is there also an assumption being made regarding basic punching or other techniques?


----------

