# Kihap



## DArnold (Mar 17, 2008)

If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 17, 2008)

DArnold said:


> If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??


 
Great question, I do not believe it gives more power, I believe it just helps get you mantally ready for battle. I also believe it is a way to help keep the judges from falling a sleep during competition.


----------



## myusername (Mar 17, 2008)

As a guess would it be because to continuously kihap without break would mess up your breathing and lose you power? Surely your quality of Kihap would suffer after a continous assualt on the voice box?

Personally Kihapping is a struggle for me! I'm only a white belt and it always sounds strange and forced when I have to kihap! Though it is far from my intention my kihaps sound slightly sarcastic and fake. I'm probably just too self concious about doing it so it actually messes up my technique a little when I have to. Hopefully that will pass though as I progress.


----------



## tellner (Mar 17, 2008)

There are so many reasons. Here's a few....


It slows you down. It takes time to inhale, pressurize and exhale. If you do that on every move you get slowed down to that pace
It makes you predictable
The yell loses its focusing effect if it's ubiquitous
It loses its surprise and shock value
You lose half of every movement (a discussion for another time)
You get fixated on which movements are for generating and forget that each can also alleviate or receive
Even if it added power, which is open to debate, not every move is supposed to be a power move
It becomes easy to hit you on the inhale because it's blindingly obvious when you are inhaling
It makes it difficult for you to shift gears and hit or block on the inhale


----------



## igillman (Mar 17, 2008)

We were told that you kihap in sparring to let the judges know that you just tried to score a point. I have seen people kihap before they make the move which is amusing as it just lets the other person know that you are about to kick.

With the right type of kihap you can scare the opposition a bit which helps out mentally when sparring.

Other than that I have not found it helpful and sometimes even distracting particularly when you stutter on it before kicking.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 17, 2008)

DArnold said:


> If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??



This is a great teaching opportunity and I can't wait for your own answer to the question, Mr. Arnold.

From my perspective, kihap is a tool to help you focus your energy, kinetic or even the more elusive _ki_, into your target.  I think of it like a manifying lens while might help you capture the sun's rays in order to make a fire.  The sun's energy was always there, now you're just refining it into a smaller target than before which creates the desired output.  It's the same with a kick or a punch when you kihap.  You actually don't need to kihap if you have sufficiently mastered whole body movement and the concept of _intent_, and even for beginners it's probably self-defeating to use on each and every move.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 17, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> This is a great teaching opportunity and I can't wait for your own answer to the question, Mr. Arnold.



Yes, me too!

I can only say this -- if I were to kihap with every single move I would be wore out before too long!


----------



## cflick (Mar 17, 2008)

In hyung applications Ki-happing every move would get really old and annoying quickly. 
I've also seen a few sparring matches where the person would ki-hap everytime they'd kick, and as tellner said the attack was blatantly obvious and very predictable.
And I would imagine the ki-hap'er would exhaust quickly if they did it on every move, as Newguy inferred. I know I put power behind my ki-haps; come from the toes . I would surely exhaust quickly.
And if you yelled with every move soon you wouldn't be able to yell at all. Screaming and yelling will take a heavy toll on the vocal folds 

I don't really see the ki-hap giving more power, but again this is debatable. Aside from the purpose of regular breathing, and by chance inflicting fear into an opponent(similar to the way battle screams were echoed across the battlefield before the battle had started had started).



> Personally Kihapping is a struggle for me! I'm only a white belt and it always sounds strange and forced when I have to kihap! Though it is far from my intention my kihaps sound slightly sarcastic and fake. I'm probably just too self concious about doing it so it actually messes up my technique a little when I have to. Hopefully that will pass though as I progress.


 
I wouldn't worry to much about it.
I've heard blantantly sarcastic ki-haps like "DIEEE" and at a recent torunament "OHHHHHHHHHHH" every time the guy thought he landed a point.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 17, 2008)

I watched one of those "fight science" shows (on Discovery?  or another Sports channel?) where they added power sensors to a stack of bricks and had a guy breaking them with his head.  He did it with and without a kihap and the difference was significant.

A lot of people just yell when the kihap and it's just coming from the throat and it can intimidate I guess but it doesn't add and practical value.  I good kihap is really just a good breath... and maybe you are loud on it as a mental reminder, but it should come from your diaghram, not your throat, and when it does that it tightens your core muscles which adds stability (and therefore power) to your strike.

I think the volume of a kihap is partially just a training tool to remember to coordinate your strike impact with your breathing (as my instructor says "It let's me know you're still awake" : ) but I've trained with some good fighters who just exhale and if you're close you'll hear the hiss of breath.

Bu tI suppose you can't kihap on every move because you can't breath that fast    A mean, do you kihap on the jab or the reverse punch?


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 17, 2008)

I find that usually in a form, the Kihap is some type of finishing technique or the last in a sequence.  If done properly, it can increase energy delivered.

the point about it being used to alert the judges of a point I'm not so sure about.....First off, the judges should be paying attention anyway.  Second, it seems to me like a lot of people use it as more of a diversionary tactic.  To trick the judges into thinking it was a point or make a technique look and sound more powerful.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 17, 2008)

When you watch an XMA exhibition, and the participant kiups on every move, what does does that do to the effectiveness of the demonstration or of the technique? To me, it makes the kiup as mundane as the technique, and it quickly loses effectiveness.
The kiup is supposed to be placed around the technique that, theoretically, is supposed to finish the job, and therefore requires the most power and element of surprise.
A good kiup requires a lot of energy, and kiuping everytime, in addition to removing the element of surprise and power, would quickly tire you out.
The only exception I can think of when we do this in our class is doing yup chin (knife hand strike-reverse punch) where we kiup on every punch.


----------



## cflick (Mar 17, 2008)

> To trick the judges into thinking it was a point or make a technique look and sound more powerful.


 
Exactly! 
It's not so much to let them know you scored but instead to "convince" the judge you score.
This shouldn't fool a seasoned judge!


----------



## Laurentkd (Mar 17, 2008)

cflick said:


> Exactly!
> It's not so much to let them know you scored but instead to "convince" the judge you score.
> This shouldn't fool a seasoned judge!


 

You would think not- but if I recall correctly it seems this self-cheering got big because of seeing fighters do it in the Olympics!


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 18, 2008)

A good judge is no more fooled by a kiup placed around inferior technique than he would be by someone waving their hands and arms kung fu-style. It's all psychological.


----------



## tellner (Mar 18, 2008)

A stomp can throw off a novice fencer. Some fencers stomp on every advance. It doesn't do any good except with the noobs.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 18, 2008)

When we free fought, we sometimes lunged forward a little bit before a sliding side kick to mentally throw our opponent off balance. We only did this after we established that we could knock them back, and only once in a while. 
If you do it every time, they understand it and it won't work. The kiup is the same way. Do it too often and the opponent isn't startled anymore.


----------



## DArnold (Mar 18, 2008)

myusername said:


> As a guess would it be because to continuously kihap without break would mess up your breathing and lose you power? Surely your quality of Kihap would suffer after a continous assualt on the voice box?
> 
> Personally Kihapping is a struggle for me! I'm only a white belt and it always sounds strange and forced when I have to kihap! Though it is far from my intention my kihaps sound slightly sarcastic and fake. I'm probably just too self concious about doing it so it actually messes up my technique a little when I have to. Hopefully that will pass though as I progress.


 
Not really as the idea you state and tellners guesses are off the mark.
I studied Kendo for 2 years and they Kihap on every move.

Every white belt struggles with Kihapping (the self concious thing is the number one reason)

You should think of it as a technique that needs to be practiced.  It is no differnt than a punch or a kick.  I teach my students that by blue belt they need to be able to stop someone with a Kihap!

Anyone know why they Kihop on every move in Kendo?


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 18, 2008)

My guess is because every strike is supposed to represent a killing strike. Same in Tae Kwon Do-we kiup on the techniques that are supposed to be the finishing off or power techniques.


----------



## DArnold (Mar 18, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> My guess is because every strike is supposed to represent a killing strike. Same in Tae Kwon Do-we kiup on the techniques that are supposed to be the finishing off or power techniques.


 
Is not the phylosophy of TKD - One Kick, one punch finish?
Should not every move be able to finish an opponent?


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 18, 2008)

DArnold said:


> Is not the phylosophy of TKD - One Kick, one punch finish?
> Should not every move be able to finish an opponent?



Surely this is not true as stated -- if it WERE true, then in all one-steps, there would be only the block (or parry, or avoid), and then only a SINGLE counterstrike.  This is certainly not the case, though.

In my mind, TKD techniques can levy GREAT power, but as in American Kenpo thinking -- not every strike is a "major" strike.  There are "minor" strikes as well -- strikes that do not seek to end it, right now.

Please do not let this thread die until the question is answered.   My interest is piqued.


----------



## DArnold (Mar 18, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Surely this is not true as stated -- if it WERE true, then in all one-steps, there would be only the block (or parry, or avoid), and then only a SINGLE counterstrike. This is certainly not the case, though.
> 
> In my mind, TKD techniques can levy GREAT power, but as in American Kenpo thinking -- not every strike is a "major" strike. There are "minor" strikes as well -- strikes that do not seek to end it, right now.
> 
> Please do not let this thread die until the question is answered. My interest is piqued.


 
Yes, you are correct as there are things such as hooking blocks, pressing blocks... but the phylosophy of TaeKwon-Do is, "One punch, one kick finish"

Depending on my focal point I can vary what the result of the technique is based on my brain.

Has anyone ever told you that your techniques are tooooo powerful?


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 18, 2008)

DArnold said:


> Yes, you are correct as there are things such as hooking blocks, pressing blocks... but the phylosophy of TaeKwon-Do is, "One punch, one kick finish"
> 
> Depending on my focal point I can vary what the result of the technique is based on my brain.



Sir, but, we have the one-step techniques which show:
1) We block
2) Then strike with the fist -- two punches
3) THEN KICK!  --> Sidekick ---> BAM!  That is it, the opponent will most likely stay down.

How can this sequence be taught if EVERY single strike was meant to be the final strike?  The one-step sequence should terminate after the initial counterstrike, should it not?  But it does not.  This implies to me that the first two strikes "for lack of better jargon" --> "minor" strikes -- to set up for the final, most devastating impulse.



DArnold said:


> Has anyone ever told you that your techniques are tooooo powerful?


Regrettably, this has not happened yet.  I have been told that I am too tense, to loosen up -- I must remain soft and not tensed until RIGHT at the end!  But that of course, is not the same.  

For what its worth (not to get off topic, I think it may add something) -- I was taught by an American Kenpo Instructor that many of their combinations are mean to be multiple strikes delivered NOT at full power.  This idea was very strange to me.  They will strike the opponent with less than full power, and in exchange, they have more rapid motion.  

It seems to me that TKD has the CAPACITY to deliver strikes which end it.  I have seen this, of course, there is no doubt in my mind.  But, also, it seems that sometimes one must go back and forth until that opening is there.  I have practiced with some who can seem to break the arms if you block their kick, they do not care if you block, you will get the broken arm if they kick full power!  But those are not common TKD players, they are adept.


----------



## cflick (Mar 18, 2008)

If every movement were a "finishing" movement then why are the forms as long as they are?

I don't believe that every movement is meant to stop a fight, sure all the movements in the bigger picture are. 
But there are movements that are meant to draw off the opponents guard by "attacking" else where. 
And there are also moves used to stun the opponent so you can better perform a "finishing" move.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Mar 18, 2008)

DArnold said:


> If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??



Kihap doesn't add power...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 18, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Kihap doesn't add power...



Actually, it does, if done right.  As I mentioned, you can measure the difference quantitatively.

That assumes tha a 'kihap' is just a loud breath exhalation from the diaphragm (meaning you don't need to be loud to get the same result.. that part can just be a mental help for yourself).

My understanding of the mechanics, from the offensive side, is that the exhalation of breath, from the gut, will help to tighten the core muscles.  This provides better stability to the core of the body.  Nnow if you think about striking something with an object, the stiffer the object, the more force will go into the target as opposed to reflected back through the object doing the striking.    The mechanical linking goes all through the body, so a stiff, rigid core will allow less of the force to go back into your body, and therefor more force goes into the target.  Which is coincidentally why core (ab) work is so important for generating striking power, the strong and stiffer your core, the more force into the target.  The 'kihup' is just intended to tighten up your core at the point of impact.


If by 'kihap' you just mean "scream like an idiot" well... no... it doesn't help power : )


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 18, 2008)

I would think that in any system, there are stunning strikes and killing strikes.  The "one-strike, one-kill" philosophy is more that you have a single opportunity to deliver the killing the strike, and must commit in that manner than the idea that each and every strike should be a killing shot.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 18, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I would think that in any system, there are stunning strikes and killing strikes.  The "one-strike, one-kill" philosophy is more that you have a single opportunity to deliver the killing the strike, and must commit in that manner than the idea that each and every strike should be a killing shot.


To deliver the "ending strike" one has to focus entirely on that strike, no?  At the expense of leaving open some area?  

Surely one would not say that such a commitment would need to be made on every strike.  What am I missing?  I am not the only one here who feels this way.


----------



## DArnold (Mar 18, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> To deliver the "ending strike" one has to focus entirely on that strike, no? At the expense of leaving open some area?
> 
> Surely one would not say that such a commitment would need to be made on every strike. What am I missing? I am not the only one here who feels this way.


 
To further this along, in Kendo, if you did not Kihap on every move you are considered a coward.  You may never show weakness to your opponent.  You should fight with the ferocity of a Tiger and use all your weapons. (This is why they paint the inside of the headgear bright red or orange, so that when you are pale your face would not show fatigue... least your enemy be emboldend. And the above is but one reason!).  

Another way they look at it is from the perspective of the Samurai you must give 100% all the time.  Why on earth would you only give 80%... when that would mean certain death?

As for you comment on 100% focus on the strike, yes, that is correct.  How good would you feel with 50% focus on your strike (Which is what you have if you focus on one other thing at the same time)

This was the phylosophy of Myumoto Musashi -Kensi - or Sword saint.  
The only thing is the cut! Everything else is irrelivant.

And everyone knows that any time you attack you open up!

But what is the difference between a block and a strike but a state of mind?


----------



## cy1982 (Mar 19, 2008)

to me kihap is conditioning for exhaling in general.

Some people who has been doing Taekwondo for a longtime, might recall at one point in the past that also taking a hit and giving a kihap with a exhaling to reduce a hit damage to the core. 

Try keeping your breath in and get kicked.
than try it with normal breathing.
than exale right on the mark when you get hit.(obviously flexing the muscle on all 3 tests)

you dont have to kihap, but exhaling will increase power, just like weight lifter who also need to exhale(which give a special "kihap").

If you lift weights tell me if you remmeber this scenario.
Your doing your 3 or 4 sets, and your on your last set of 8(or whatever you do) reps, and your so tired, but so determined to finish that last dumbell bicep curl, it just wont go up you try and start to grind your teeth and what to do you do? you problably GRUNT\ARGH or EEEEEH, and voila you made itor you made it more than before that grunt).


----------



## myusername (Mar 19, 2008)

DArnold said:


> Every white belt struggles with Kihapping (the self concious thing is the number one reason)
> 
> You should think of it as a technique that needs to be practiced.  It is no differnt than a punch or a kick.  I teach my students that by blue belt they need to be able to stop someone with a Kihap!



Thank you DArnold, I think it is probably the self conscious thing inhibiting me. I'm not a loud person and kihapping feels weird! I'll try changing my perception of it as you suggest and train it like I would any other technique as I'm sure if I don't get it sounding less false then it will become a problem in gradings! The last thing I want is for my instructor or examiners thinking I'm being disrespectful!


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

DArnold said:


> Why on earth would you only give 80%... when that would mean certain death?



To give the combination -- I maintain the base well -- one, two,... at the ending strike, if TRULY going for full power (in the dynamic -- in the "freesparring") -- it is quite possible to overcommit, to lose the base, is it not?  

So, say, with the first two (or some other number, to lead up), one, two... these are fast motions, maybe I can unsettle the opponent, if I can make them go back on their heels or lose their base, this is good... then, we have -- BAM!  Some powerful motion, hopefully to kick them out of the area, displace them.   I wish to make them MOVE now, I endow them with energy with a turn-back-side-kick, perhaps.

I must be misunderstanding something.  It seems very plain to me, you can give some smaller strikes from time to time, not full power, because you do not wish to chance overcommitment.  You wish to strike and then recover VERY FAST as you advance, where to commit FULLY to any one strike would take more time to recover the guard. 

But, no one has answered the question -- why is the yell not given on each strike.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

To give some VERY BIG motion at the beginning can be dangerous.  If this motion is quite overt, then the COUNTERATTACK can be the ending strike, it can be very strong.  

So, I feel leary to give a very big motion from the initial position, when the exchange starts.  

Say, if we -- She-Shack!  Start!  And I then give one VERY BIG roundhouse kick, thinking only -- I will finish this now -- I will give a knock out NOW!  Then, maybe yes, maybe no.  The opponent may give a very good counter attack.  What if he does jump spinning side kick and gives it to me good in the solar plexus.  I might not get up so fast!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 19, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> To give some VERY BIG motion at the beginning can be dangerous.  If this motion is quite overt, then the COUNTERATTACK can be the ending strike, it can be very strong.
> 
> So, I feel leary to give a very big motion from the initial position, when the exchange starts.
> 
> Say, if we -- She-Shack!  Start!  And I then give one VERY BIG roundhouse kick, thinking only -- I will finish this now -- I will give a knock out NOW!  Then, maybe yes, maybe no.  The opponent may give a very good counter attack.  What if he does jump spinning side kick and gives it to me good in the solar plexus.  I might not get up so fast!




perhaps it would help to define terms?  Is a 'strike' equal to a 'technique'?  Or is a 'strike' equal to an 'exchange', if you will?

For example, there are some front side techniques (both with hands and feet) that I can see doing with 100% force that I have no illusion that they would end the fight (although it would be nice if they did : ), but when part of a sequence of techniques together (an exchange), the goal and intention is to end it.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 19, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> perhaps it would help to define terms?  Is a 'strike' equal to a 'technique'?  Or is a 'strike' equal to an 'exchange', if you will?
> 
> For example, there are some front side techniques (both with hands and feet) that I can see doing with 100% force that I have no illusion that they would end the fight (although it would be nice if they did : ), but when part of a sequence of techniques together (an exchange), the goal and intention is to end it.



You can tell me.  I do not know.

I take it that "one strike, one kill" means there is not a combination of strikes.  Who needs the combination if one strike (one punch, one kick) gives the knock out?  It is over.


----------



## DArnold (Mar 19, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> You can tell me. I do not know.
> 
> I take it that "one strike, one kill" means there is not a combination of strikes. Who needs the combination if one strike (one punch, one kick) gives the knock out? It is over.


 
You talked about multiple strikes above but made the assumption that the last strike was the finishing blow.

What if it is only the first strike that gets in but alas... because you do not practice with the theory I stated (One kick, one punch, finish) then the entire series you started would be a waste of energy.

This is why every technique is thrown/practiced as a finishing technique (unless you could guarantee that the third one will always land - :ultracool)

The only difference in fighting a master and a white belt is focus... nothing else. Otherwise you are wasting time.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 20, 2008)

DArnold said:


> The only difference in fighting a master and a white belt is focus... nothing else. Otherwise you are wasting time.



I only have this power that I have, and my focus only, which is not the focus of a Master Instructor.  I know very well that I cannot strike with the fist one time and surely make the opponent stop and give up.

It is possible for me to do, if I land the punch right on the solar plexus and it is in the "ideal phase", but this is not something that I can bet on, no.  Also, when I think in my brain, or "without thinking, but doing it":

Left-right punch (combination)
Side kick (right foot)

I consider left-punch to be a punch, but even if it is blocked, it can "make noise" -- this is at least as "good" as a feint -- I can also "fake" this.  Right hand punch is more strong.  I commit more, because I also do not distinguish so much the punch and the kick, the motion will blend.

The motion of the waist turning a little for the side kick is already commenced with the right punch -- they are not so seperate.

The side kick -- this can be seen as the BIG motion -- it is not a joke if it lands. 

This is my way of seeing this -- I do not seek to interact with the opponent with only one motion.  I am not a Master Instructor, and would not think, "I will give only one motion".  Instead, I wish to do three, but as one, with the BIG one counting more.  I hope to land the kick more than the punches, of course.  If the opponent is in the punching range, I hope to make him move BACK -- into the kicking range.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 20, 2008)

DArnold said:


> If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??



I hope that we have some kind of agreement on this.  I am confident that NOT all motions are meant to "end the fight" in the hyung.


----------



## cflick (Mar 20, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> I hope that we have some kind of agreement on this. I am confident that NOT all motions are meant to "end the fight" in the hyung.


 
Of course otherwise they'd be more like one steps!


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 20, 2008)

Kihap is not shouting.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 20, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Kihap is not shouting.


Do you mean by this that you exhale powerfully on each motion, but silently, instead?  And by that, you, in essence kihap on each move, but only silently?

My idea of the kihap includes an audible sound.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 20, 2008)

The term gihap has nothing to do with shouting.  That's basically an elementary school usage of the term.

&#27683;&#21512;/&#44592;&#54633;/gihap means to coordinate breathing and mental focus with physical motion into a decisive overt action.

The militant shouting taught in forms is a left over from the early days of Taegwondo's formation and Japanization of Okinawan karate.

Shouting while attacking could be used as an attempt to bring that clarity of thought and action together, but ideally, it wouldn't matter if you shouted or not.  Arguments about which move in a given form one should shout on completely miss the point.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 20, 2008)

Well how about that?  Thank you, Errant108, thank you for explaining this term and bringing this to light.  So very plain to see, then, right?  

We DO gihap on each motion, though it is not audible except on some!


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 20, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> The term gihap has nothing to do with shouting.  That's basically an elementary school usage of the term.
> 
> &#27683;&#21512;/&#44592;&#54633;/gihap means to coordinate breathing and mental focus with physical motion into a decisive overt action.
> 
> ...




Thanks, Errant108.  I was beginning to think no one here shared my thoughts on the matter (see post #6).


----------



## DArnold (Mar 20, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> Thanks, Errant108. I was beginning to think no one here shared my thoughts on the matter (see post #6).


 
Nope, you are absolutely correct. It is the culmination of the spiritual and physical.


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 21, 2008)

Technically, the Korean language definition of "Kihap" has nothing to do with either yelling or breathing.

Anyone ever hear of Hapkido? &#54633;&#44592;&#46020;

&#54633; = Hap - meaning coordinated as in merger; mutual; fusion; union

&#44592; = Ki - meaning high spirits; energy; vitality


*&#54633;&#44592; (Hapki) = Coordinated energy*​ 
*&#44592;&#54633; (Kihap) = Energy that is coordinated or focused*​ 
It is a coordination of mental focus and physical energy. It is defined in Dong-A's Korean/English dictionary as "will power."

In this context, "Kihap" is a noun - - the "will power" or "focused energy" that you possess at any giving time. You can increase it, or decrease it at will depending on your mental focus. Thus, any Taekwondo technique can be performed with "Kihap" (a blend of intense spiritual energy/will power with physical action), and never make a sound. To increase physical assertion and power, proper breathing is naturally one of the many methods, therefore breathing or breath control is often associated with the moment of intense focus, or "Kihap," but by original definition, it refers neither to breathing nor yelling.

On the other hand, in the context of Taekwondo, as a "yell" or "shout with energy," the term Kihap is being used as a verb. This might not be a common language usage throughout Korea, but it is a well established alternate definition as used in the Korean Martial Art community. Professional jargon is often adopted by people who define terms according to a specific field or skill. Personally, I wouldn't refer to Kihap (meaning a yell) as being an elementary school definition, since it has been used for decades by adult Taekwondo Masters conveying a concept to adult students. Countless times, I have heard native born Korean speaking Grandmaster say, "Let me hear you KIHAP!" or "Kihap louder." Not only does this imply an action verb rather than a noun, it specifically refers to making a sound.

If a term like "noogie" was commonly used to refer to a childish playground activity of putting someone in a headlock, and rubbing their head with your knuckles, then that's one definition. If Professional Wrestlers, or even combat fighters, started using the same term as another name for a "pile-driver" where you turn a person upside-down and drive their head into the ground, potentially causing serious head injury, broken neck, and death, then I would say that the nature of the term "noogie" would change, and would no longer be an elementary school one.  I believe that the term "Kihap" as yell has been used by skilled adults and professional instructors who have a clear understanding of the language, and its meaning so as to validate this as a legitimate adult definition for modern usage.

Can we perform successful, powerful strikes without an audible "Kihap?" Yes. Does a louder Kihap help to increase the power of a strike? This might be debatable in some people's minds, but not in my mind. Why do power lifters make such an audible yell when lifting heavy weights. Have you ever seen one of them win an Olympic Gold, or break a world record while lifting silently? Women giving natural childbirth don't just "push" quietly. Some of the yell off-sets the pain, perhaps helps to release natural endorphins and adrenaline, but the more intense contraction of internal organs is facilitated by the yell. In addition, it helps to keep us from NOT breathing correctly. Military soldiers chant when they run to encourage proper breathing. A weight lifter who does not breathe during a bench press, might just turn a few shades of red, then pass-out.

I agree with DArnold and the others who say that the power of "Kihap" (as a noun) comes from a coordination of physical and spiritual (or even mental focus), and while this type of focused "Kihap" can be used on every technique, I would reserve the maximum Kihap "yell" (as a verb) for finishing maneuvers, or those times that I wish to distract or destroy my opponent without a touch. In my own personal experience and belief, the audible Kihap does increase power significantly and if I am seeking maximum damage to a target, I will use it.  Of course, this is just my personal opinion!


----------



## Carol (Mar 21, 2008)

That's not the question that was asked though....

"If a Kihap adds power to every move then why not Kihap on every _move_"

Because it is most advantageous for a Kihap to add power to a _strike_. 

All strikes are moves, but not all moves are strikes.

There are other moves...something as simple as getting out of range.  Or more complex moves such as grappling....successful execution of these are dependent on leverage, proper body mechanics, and the awareness of one's surroundings...but not power.


----------



## foot2face (Mar 21, 2008)

DArnold said:


> If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??


I kind of do.  I guess I'm what most would probably consider a noisy fighter. Pretty much every attack is synchronized with an exhalation and every exhalation is executed with an angry sounding "sAh", "Aht", "sAht" or "Ahsaht" with extra emphasis on particularly powerful strikes. At this point I can't help it, they just come out. It doesn't tire me out though. I feel like it actually helps me breath by preventing me from holding my breath during certain movements, something I've seen others do, which could be a real liability during the stress and physical exertion of an actual fight.


----------



## DArnold (Mar 21, 2008)

foot2face said:


> I kind of do. I guess I'm what most would probably consider a noisy fighter. Pretty much every attack is synchronized with an exhalation and every exhalation is executed with an angry sounding "sAh", "Aht", "sAht" or "Ahsaht" with extra emphasis on particularly powerful strikes. At this point I can't help it, they just come out. It doesn't tire me out though. I feel like it actually helps me breath by preventing me from holding my breath during certain movements, something I've seen others do, which could be a real liability during the stress and physical exertion of an actual fight.


 
If making a sound does increase your Ki/Chi... 
(as it can be mearly a subset of Kihaping that helps teach juniors)

and a Kihap is more than just yelling...

then how were you taught/how do you teach the meaning of Kihap if you do not use this theory (with juniors), as all know the holding of the breath is a junior problem along with 100% commitment (self consciousness).


----------



## DArnold (Mar 21, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Surely this is not true as stated -- if it WERE true, then in all one-steps, there would be only the block (or parry, or avoid), and then only a SINGLE counterstrike. This is certainly not the case, though.


 
Why is this not the case?
If you were judging one steps what would you like to see? 
One very leathal strike with incredible focus...
or someone dancing around, throwning multiple strikes with bad focus?

Which is more impressive, the perfection of one technique or the imperfection of multiple techniques?

What do you think the purpose of advancing from three step to two step to one step is?


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 21, 2008)

DArnold said:


> Why is this not the case?
> If you were judging one steps what would you like to see?
> One very leathal strike with incredible focus...
> or someone dancing around, throwning multiple strikes with bad focus?


The first one.  Bad focus is horrible.



DArnold said:


> Which is more impressive, the perfection of one technique or the imperfection of multiple techniques?


It would be better to know few techniques very well, than many not so good.  Hopefully, one knows more than one of course.

*"I would rather have 10 techniques that work for me than 100 that work against me"  -- Ed Parker*




DArnold said:


> What do you think the purpose of advancing from three step to two step to one step is?



I was told that though an old man who practices this might not have the stamina that a younger tkd person has, The older person can focus energy more densely, they can put more power into one single strike, because they have practiced for a longer time.


----------



## tkd1964 (Mar 24, 2008)

There has been talk in the ITF-C camp on bringing back the Kiaps in the patterns. At some of the seminars that master Choi has taught they have been reintroduced. This subject was brought up on the ITF admin site and Master Rai posted this:

" I can shed some light on this topic. The Ki-haps were spoken about in great detail at recent seminars and meetings. Master Choi informed me that Gen. Choi always liked the ki-haps. The problem became when students started to do different types of Ki-haps. What I mean by that was that they started to sound different. The Ki-haps should come from the stumach and should be short and explosive. For some reason they lost their pupose and Gen. Choi decided to take them out. Master Choi indicated that Gen. Choialways spoke about them and wished for them to return. We have decided to place them in movements that gen. Choi had them in. They are being introduced at seminars. Master Choi is not only adding the Ki-haps but will also be talking about them and how they should sound. This is very important. I know we did them in Holland last year and they sounded great. I remember teaching and it brought energy to the gym. they will be reintroduced but it will take time to teach everyone. Right now it is acceptable to use the Ki-haps if they have been taught by the instructors Master Choi has authorized to teach them. "

Taekwon
Master Rai


----------



## granfire (Mar 24, 2008)

Interesting read.

I was reminded of the importance of the ki-hap working with a youngster literally holding his breath. it's a bit difficult to teach it properly when you have to talk right through the move that calls for it...


----------

