# What are these techniques really for?



## sopraisso (Oct 14, 2011)

Hello everyone.

Since when I joined MT I've been willing to talk (discuss and ask, mainly) about many things, most about some kind of deeper understanding of what is practised tkd classes in my dojang. It's been a little hard to start with a straight question, because many of my issues relate to general practice of the art, but well, I had to start somehow. So here I am, dropping things as they show up to my mind.

So I ask you: how much of traditional core taekwondo techniques are really to be used when thinking of a theoretical real fight (or to say, real and effective fight techniques)? Which techniques aren't really? I understand WTF sparring rules (under which I train) are very restrictive (what honestly irritates me) but sometimes I feel they're even closer to a real use of fight techniques than what I usually do when practicing forms and kibon dong jak (attack and defense with upper limbs).

For example: I like practicing the stances, but most of them seem to have very little utility when thinking about real fighting. They seem lacking fluidity, most of them have feet plain on the ground (instead of putting the weight on the ball of feet, what I have already read and been advised to do by some black belts in my dojang), etc. Note that I'm quite a beginner in the art, and I understand that maybe I just don't get the real fighting content in this. In other hand, I believe I've seen consistent criticism about those techniques. There's even in my dojang what we call "gyeorugi jumbi" (I don't know if it's a standard name), which is "fighting stance". It makes me think: "if there's a 'fighting stance', what are the other stances for?".
I don't mean, however, I can't imagine those techniques to be ever used in a fight. But it seems to me to have very little use. I would like to deepen this a little more saying that I usually see full contact sparring videos, and I never see some techniques being used, although they're not even exclusive of taekwondo, but shared by many other martial arts.

So:
1) maybe those techniques don't really fit a real fight, or
2) those techniques are only used to provide correct postures or general body movement control, or
3) they don't really work, and are there just because it's the heart of the martial art, a tradition aspect, or
4) they do work, but are just not very often used today, because they're not in fashion or are not viable for competition sparring for some reason, or
5) they work great, but today no-one normally uses for any other reason (for example, a powerful are maki/montong maki could, say, break someone's striking limb).
6, 7) ...

I believe the main techniques I'm questioning are stances and... blocking. I've read something like "a powerful block is a kind of attack", but honestly I don't see myself being fast enough to block a punch to the face (with a, say, olgul maki) and in the following not being hit by the following punch, with the other hand of my opponent (imagine those turrent of punches we see around). By the way, I never saw anyone block in any kind of taekwondo sparring!

I've already seen some karate sparring (not full contact) where the fighters only use "traditional" stances (even horse stance!). It's beautiful and even seems effective, but I can't assure.

Assuming some techniques aren't for real fighting, *<<<why>>>* do we really train them?

I love taekwondo, but honestly, I like the idea of thinking in the dojang I'm to some extend learning something fighting in the traditional training parts (kibon dong jak, poomsae), even if in a controlled ambient (single opponent, no weapons, etc). Notice I'm not strictly talking self-defense. I understand the differences and, by the way, even if self-defense means no-rules and uncontrolled ambient, I don't think we always need to be killing machines to be able to fight, for example, against some untrained person. Maybe the best ambient to what I'm talking about is nowadays MMA competitive sparring.

My main concern is I practice a lot of kibon dong jak and forms in the dojang, and it'd be very sad I find out that it has nothing to do with fighting.
This has also something to do with other post I'm bringing within a few minutes (I'm gonna start writing right after this).
By the way, I have to appologize I just haven't searched the forum before about this, but I believe it's so good to discuss here, and I'd enjoy so much having your opinions.

Regards,
Sérgio

P.S.: I'm so glad it's weekend!!!


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 14, 2011)

Well I can obviously only comment on how we train, but we really dont do anything that I would say 'wouldnt work in a real fight'. I think even things that sometimes seem to have little meaning do actually have some purpose. I remember when I first started training I was skeptical on the stances (horse stance, front stance etc). I would come home after training in a low horse stance for an hour or two and my upper legs would ache and I would wonder what these stances could possibly have to do with 'real' fighting. Now, years on, I can train for long periods in those stances and have no pain afterwards because years of doing them have strengthened my upper legs. While I wouldnt fight in those stances, the extra leg strength would be very beneficial in a 'real' fight. Horse stance is also used in many self defence moves against wrist grabs, punches, kicks etc, as is front stance. I do come across the odd move in form which may not be overly useable in a real fight, but generally most things we train are applicable to real fighting.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 14, 2011)

sopraisso said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> *Hi *
> 
> ...



Does this offer some Retrospective?
Ultimately, different Dojangs teach different Idealogies.
Theres as good a chance you just have no Interest in that interpritation of TKD.

So try another one.
Or something.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 14, 2011)

Kukkiwon, WTF, sport tkd, whatever you want to call it, is a fantastic 'sport' and great 'sport' for people of all ages and genders but if your focus is 'fighting' and you train in this form then you will be forever questioning such things. Everyone I have met who does this form of tkd gets to to about 1st or 2nd dan and has the revelation that, in real terms, they really are no better at 'fighting' than before they started. If you go into this style of tkd understanding and accepting that you are primarily learning a 'sport' then you never have to come to terms with such things because you know what you've signed up for. If you really enjoy tkd and your main goal is learning to fight, then personally I would steer clear of 'sport' tkd, because there are many other forms that focus on 'fighting'.


----------



## sopraisso (Oct 14, 2011)

Thank you for your responses.

Cyriacus,
I kind of envy you for your experience in your dojang. Unfortunately, althought mine is said to be among the most traditional and non-sport in my city, still I feel it has some kind of personality crisis, so our practice is said to be like "real" fight, but all in all we train basically respecting WTF rules, particularly when sparring.

Anyway, I guess you went a little too much into WTF issue. Maybe I didn't express myself well. I don't refer specifically to WTF or KKW. Actually I'm refering exactly to beyond WTF, coz I'm asking about stances and other moves (like blocks) I've never seen in WTF sparrings. And never seen in any taekwondo sparring video, actually. As I said, I understand self-defense has no rules. It's not what I'm talking about, either.

*I believe, for short, I'm saying is: "do those taekwondo techniques work or not?"*

I have never seen anybody doing "are makki", "montong makki", "olgul makki"!
I have never seen anybody using "dwit kubi". There are more unlikely stances. Not in WTF sparrings. Not in ITF sparrings (in YouTube, I mean  ). Not in any kind of sparring or fight I've ever watched in my life!
I'm asking exactly about techniques that seem to be meant to fight (or self-defense, if you preffer). But I've just never seen such techniques been used in any kind of sparring and I honestly feel they'd be even more unlikely in a no-rules self-defense situation!
But maybe it's just because I've been not teached well yet, but why doesn't anyone do that?
As I said, I think MMA sparrings can give some good examples for my issue for now. Not because I'm specifically talking about MMA sparring, but just because it seems a good example of people using techniques that would need to be effective. I believe most kinds of "makki" are allowed in MMA sparrings. Why doesn't anyone use it? If there were various armed opponents in a no-rule situation such techniques would be more effective than in a MMA sparring? I hardly believe there could be such a difference. Moreover, I don't usually see fighters of any kind using most stances I practice. It can happen? I believe so, but it's unlikely.

*Your video is great, and I thank you for the reference, but it seems to confirm what I said: basically everyone when fighting is using the same stances.* Ok, sometimes they get of them and use... uh... no stance at all! Maybe I didn't notice some or other event, but in general that's it. *More: there's certainly no kind of "blockin" in the video.*
*But here there is maybe some linguistic barrier.* For "blocking" I mean "are makki", "montong makki", "olgul makki" and variations. I don't know yet how they call them in Enlish, but it's the same kind of blocks used in poomsae. Your video doesn't show any. Instead, it shows people assuming "in guard" positions, just like, for exemple, boxing. Just like I seem to see in any kind of fight where people hold guards (haha, not WTF, off course). That doesn't mean such blocks don't work, but sadly I just don't see them happening. =/


*ralphmacpherson*,

If I got what you mean, it's so sad in my city -- and in most of my country -- there's only WTF/KKW taekwondo. I've found some ITF/traditional schools, but they're in other states, far away. Sadly, that means I have no choice here. It has been already some months since I started thinking I'll have to practice by myself if I want a fighting approach. Anyway, I think even in this case the techniques they teach me at my dojang are part of most schools curriculum. I talk about the same stances, same blocks and other even more strange and doubtful movements, such as some we see in many poomsae forms.

I think maybe I should start an individual thread for each of such movements -- as long as I feel you all don't get tired of this!

Thank you again for sharing your experience.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 14, 2011)

sopraisso said:


> *Your video is great, and I thank you for the reference, but it seems to confirm what I said: basically everyone when fighting is using the same stances.* Ok, sometimes they get of them and use... uh... no stance at all! Maybe I didn't notice some or other event, but in general that's it. *More: there's certainly no kind of "blockin" in the video.*
> *But here there is maybe some linguistic barrier.* For "blocking" I mean "are makki", "montong makki", "olgul makki" and variations. I don't know yet how they call them in Enlish, but it's the same kind of blocks used in poomsae. Your video doesn't show any. Instead, it shows people assuming "in guard" positions, just like, for exemple, boxing. Just like I seem to see in any kind of fight where people hold guards (haha, not WTF, off course). That doesn't mean such blocks don't work, but sadly I just don't see them happening. =/


You're not necessarily going to see textbook stances, blocks and techniques when applied outside of textbook scenarios, like one-step sparring exercises where the "attack" is simply a feed to do the "defense" against.  But -- and this is a major issue I have with most training today -- if your fighting doesn't bear a reasonable resemblance to your training and practice, something is off.  Again -- it may not be perfect, but you should be able to find elements done.  I only watched a bit of Cyriacus's video -- but watch it again.  Look for stances.  Look at the structure supporting their techniques.  I even saw some blocks...  (look at 0:48 to 0:55 or so)  And realize that the rules shape some of what they do and how they do it.


----------



## sopraisso (Oct 14, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> You're not necessarily going to see textbook stances, blocks and techniques when applied outside of textbook scenarios, like one-step sparring exercises where the "attack" is simply a feed to do the "defense" against.  But -- and this is a major issue I have with most training today -- if your fighting doesn't bear a reasonable resemblance to your training and practice, something is off.  Again -- it may not be perfect, but you should be able to find elements done.  I only watched a bit of Cyriacus's video -- but watch it again.  Look for stances.  Look at the structure supporting their techniques.  I even saw some blocks...  (look at 0:48 to 0:55 or so)  And realize that the rules shape some of what they do and how they do it.



You've really brought me some light here on this.
From back to beginning:
I even believe there can be some variety of stances in the video, but I must confess its very hard for me to distinguish them from just circumstancial variation of a single stance (what in my dojang we call "gyeorugi jumbi" -- fight stance). I would say the same for blockings. Blockings, actually, feel much more complicated, because of complexity of the motions. I imagine someone making "olgul makki" or anything resembling it. I have to live to see that. Actually, I even think it's something possible and I'm just not searching in the proper place: imagine a single high attack out of a sparring session. Maybe a high block could be efficient in that case, for example.

To be honest, I even believe my fighting could already have a better resemblance with what I train. But unfortunate -- and I know this is a particular case -- in my dojang I'm frequently stimulated to use typical WTF sparring "techniques", and this, I know for sure, distorts the fighting that's teached in classes.

Maybe I should look start a thread about how WTF drives me mad, haha. Honestly: I understand many people want sport tkd, but damn, in some places the popularity of sport tkd just leaves no space for "traditional" "fighting" tkd. I even wonder why such a popularity, once WTF "fights" are so boring! So sad!

Anyway, I apprectiate any others can give me some more opinions on this thread's issue.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 15, 2011)

In short, the vast majority of what is taught should be applicable to a 'real fight'. The roundhouse kick, front kick, side kick, axe kick, hook kick, turning side kick, reverse punch, jab, upper cut, throat strikes, knife hands, elbows, low block, upper cover, x block, outide block, inside block etc, and all variations of these could all be used in 'real' fights. All these are also a large part of tkd curriculum at good schools. So basically, yes, what you are taught can certainly be used for 'real'. I would say where I train that 90% of our training would encompass moves (and variations of the moves) from the list I just mentioned.


----------



## sopraisso (Oct 15, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> In short, the vast majority of what is taught should be applicable to a 'real fight'. The roundhouse kick, front kick, side kick, axe kick, hook kick, turning side kick, reverse punch, jab, upper cut, throat strikes, knife hands, elbows, low block, upper cover, x block, outide block, inside block etc, and all variations of these could all be used in 'real' fights. All these are also a large part of tkd curriculum at good schools. So basically, yes, what you are taught can certainly be used for 'real'. I would say where I train that 90% of our training would encompass moves (and variations of the moves) from the list I just mentioned.



That's interesting. Maybe I've just haven't seen enough applications of techniques yet. I still find it hard to believe some of them can even be really used, but there'll be time for that. I'm still thinking of maybe later ask for some advice in particular uses of techniques. Thank you again.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 15, 2011)

Just so Im on the right track, which of the moves/techs in the list I mentioned do you feel may not be useful in a 'real' fight? I tried to only name moves Ive actually seen used with some degree of success in real fights.


----------



## sopraisso (Oct 15, 2011)

Thanks.
Once you seem ok to give it such good attention, I appreciate it.
I'll look for the English names, and if you really don't get annoyed, I'll start asking individually about each technique.
Actually, the whole text-book thing helped me think about it, and maybe I just haven't really seen enough. I also think WTF sparrings don't help anyway, coz what they show in it is really awful to someone interested in real fighting aspects of the martial art.
You know what? I'm thinking about sharing these thoughts with my sabumnim. You'd probably wonder why I haven't yet. Uh... I just haven't felt comfortable with doing that yet! But I have to. Maybe he could even appreciate it, because I think it seems to have been a long time since he must've seen a student wishing to learn that way.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 15, 2011)

sopraisso said:


> Blockings, actually, feel much more complicated, because of complexity of the motions. I imagine someone making "olgul makki" or anything resembling it. I have to live to see that.



Many of the classical movements DON'T make sense in a modern sparring context.  It is not surprising that you are confused and skeptical if all the training you've been exposed to previous is all long range and competition-oriented at that.

It seems like 'olgul makki' is the high x-block.  Don't think of it as a x-block.  One of the more violent applications to the motion is a simultaneous trap and clinch of the neck with a forearm strike to the throat.  Of course if you want this to work for you, you have to practice it as such.  I like using a wing chun dummy for this or even a Wavemaster if that's all you've got.  We can train the method in tandem with another person (and eventually should to ramp up resistance with the trapping motion) - just work at half-speed and be very careful.



sopraisso said:


> To be honest, I even believe my fighting could already have a better resemblance with what I train. But unfortunate -- and I know this is a particular case -- in my dojang I'm frequently stimulated to use typical WTF sparring "techniques", and this, I know for sure, distorts the fighting that's teached in classes.
> 
> Maybe I should look start a thread about how WTF drives me mad, haha. Honestly: I understand many people want sport tkd, but damn, in some places the popularity of sport tkd just leaves no space for "traditional" "fighting" tkd. I even wonder why such a popularity, once WTF "fights" are so boring! So sad!
> 
> Anyway, I apprectiate any others can give me some more opinions on this thread's issue.



Nothing wrong with sport training.  It's fun and good exercise in of itself.  It's not exactly the same as training for violent altercations however, as you can see.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 15, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Many of the classical movements DON'T make sense in a modern sparring context.  It is not surprising that you are confused and skeptical if all the training you've been exposed to previous is all long range and competition-oriented at that.
> 
> It seems like 'olgul makki' is the high x-block.  Don't think of it as a x-block.  One of the more violent applications to the motion is a simultaneous trap and clinch of the neck with a forearm strike to the throat.  Of course if you want this to work for you, you have to practice it as such.  I like using a wing chun dummy for this or even a Wavemaster if that's all you've got.  We can train the method in tandem with another person (and eventually should to ramp up resistance with the trapping motion) - just work at half-speed and be very careful.
> 
> ...


Good point about the high x block. It can also be used as it is in palgwe 7 where the high x block can be used  to block a blow to the head from either a weapon or arm, then the left arm grabs the opponents arm or weapon while the right follows through with a punch to the head. I used this in a self defence demo against a pool cue to show the application.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 16, 2011)

sopraisso said:


> That's interesting. Maybe I've just haven't seen enough applications of techniques yet. I still find it hard to believe some of them can even be really used, but there'll be time for that. I'm still thinking of maybe later ask for some advice in particular uses of techniques. Thank you again.



In general, I am not a fan of sport TKD for self defense, but ralphmcpherson is correct.  From what I have observed if sport TKD, due to the rules, certain punches and kicks are preferred for scoring.  That doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful in a real fight.  Since there aren't many rules in a real fight, if you want to stay with sport TKD, but be able to use it in a real fight, you need to teach yourself a mind set that disregards sport rules.  

We tend to do what we train.  You can however, teach/train yourself a separation from sport to real world.  Seeing fights or encounters on TV/movies, or in real life, and deciding how you would better react in non-sport ways can help.  But you must really work on it to get that separation so you don't try real world and break sport rules, or stay with sport rules when you need to be thinking real world.  It can be done.

I don't know if that was anything close to what ralphmcpherson was talking about.  I will let him agree or disagree on his own.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 16, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> In general, I am not a fan of sport TKD for self defense, but ralphmcpherson is correct.  From what I have observed if sport TKD, due to the rules, certain punches and kicks are preferred for scoring.  That doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful in a real fight.  Since there aren't many rules in a real fight, if you want to stay with sport TKD, but be able to use it in a real fight, you need to teach yourself a mind set that disregards sport rules.
> 
> We tend to do what we train.  You can however, teach/train yourself a separation from sport to real world.  Seeing fights or encounters on TV/movies, or in real life, and deciding how you would better react in non-sport ways can help.  But you must really work on it to get that separation so you don't try real world and break sport rules, or stay with sport rules when you need to be thinking real world.  It can be done.
> 
> I don't know if that was anything close to what ralphmcpherson was talking about.  I will let him agree or disagree on his own.


Yeah, I totally  agree, it is a mindset thing. I do know of 'sport' guys I wouldnt want to mess with, but Im sure if defending themselves there would be a big distinction in mindset when applying what they know to a 'real' situation. The trap some people fall into is learning 'sport' tkd but not making the distinction in their own head and thinking what they are learning is automatically applicable to the street. Sport guys are really fast with good footwork and those sort of attributes can certainly translate to a real altercation. It is probably the limited amount of techs they use that seems a disadvantage. It seems that, like all sports, they have worked out what works and what doesnt in the sport side and they obviously stick with what works. To watch olympic sparring it seems every second tech is roundhouse kick and there is just so much more to tkd then the roundhouse kick.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 16, 2011)

If the only goal of training is comvbat self defense, you don't need a martial art. Most of your time and  energy would be wasted. If your only goal of training is MMA sparring, you don't need a martial art. Again, most of your time will be wasted. If your only goal of training is a specific type of sparring, training in anything other than sparring techniques , strategies and conditioning is a waste of time.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 16, 2011)

>>*Cyriacus* 

*. For example, a Low Block can be followed up by a Lunging Punch. Thats what Chun-Ji teaches you.<<<*
*

This is for Cyriaus. Apologies for going slightly OT and for those non Chng Hon People but the relvance will be shown later. 

 Is the application for  ( example) moves #1 & 2 in Chon Ji  for the same opponent or two different opponents?*


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 16, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> If the only goal of training is comvbat self defense, you don't need a martial art. Most of your time and  energy would be wasted. If your only goal of training is MMA sparring, you don't need a martial art. Again, most of your time will be wasted. If your only goal of training is a specific type of sparring, training in anything other than sparring techniques , strategies and conditioning is a waste of time.



Depends on the specific drills practiced within your martial art and in particular your school.  The right teacher can take the exact same material (basics, forms, partner drills, sparring) and focus them towards combat self-defense to a high degree.  At the same time, another teacher can teach the same curriculum as a martial 'art' and another as a martial 'sport'. 

I'm a firm believer that TKD can be as much of a fighting system as we want it to be, regardless of the 'do' written within the name.  And if we want it to be more of a self-improvement vehicle that's more than possible too.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 16, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> >>*Cyriacus*
> 
> *. For example, a Low Block can be followed up by a Lunging Punch. Thats what Chun-Ji teaches you.<<<*
> *
> ...



I hope you don't mind me playing and putting in my two cents worth:  If we take the idea of pattern applications seriously, the two movements are for dealing with a specific threat, most likely from a single attacker, though both the down block and lunge punch need not ultimately be interpreted as a down block and lunge punch.  At the surface level of interpretation, blocking off one attacker without adding a counterattack, as the lunge punch is saved for a second foe, would seem to be a poor tactical decision, as one has not changed the 2 vs. 1 initial dynamic in the scenario.  From my perspective, to be tactically sound, any motion made by the defender must change the terms of the encounter even if it is only to run away.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I hope you don't mind me playing and putting in my two cents worth:  If we take the idea of pattern applications seriously, the two movements are for dealing with a specific threat, most likely from a single attacker, though both the down block and lunge punch need not ultimately be interpreted as a down block and lunge punch.  At the surface level of interpretation, blocking off one attacker without adding a counterattack, as the lunge punch is saved for a second foe, would seem to be a poor tactical decision, as one has not changed the 2 vs. 1 initial dynamic in the scenario.  From my perspective, to be tactically sound, any motion made by the defender must change the terms of the encounter even if it is only to run away.


My Interpritation, is that since Chun-Ji, if Drawn to form its Shape, is Calligraphic for "The Scholar", if im not mistaken;
At its core, its really a Beginners Methodology. A Low Block could optionally be a Preperatory Stance, as oppose to being used as a Block unto itself. Whether or not it deals with a 2VS1 Mechanic is subject to Debate, much like other aspects of various Forms.




Earl Weiss said:


> >>*Cyriacus*
> 
> *. For example, a Low Block can be followed up by a Lunging Punch. Thats what Chun-Ji teaches you.<<<*
> *
> ...


Subjective to Interpritation. When I trained ITF, they claimed it was for Two People, so ill answer with that for Chang Hon.

Low Block to Prepare > Punch Attacker > Spin Around Blocking Attacker > Punch Attacker.

A bit weird, but im just repeating. Personally id never attempt that


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 16, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> My Interpritation, is that since Chun-Ji, if Drawn to form its Shape, is Calligraphic for "The Scholar", if im not mistaken;
> At its core, its really a Beginners Methodology. A Low Block could optionally be a Preperatory Stance, as oppose to being used as a Block unto itself. Whether or not it deals with a 2VS1 Mechanic is subject to Debate, much like other aspects of various Forms.



Absolutely.  Forms can be as meaningful as we want them to be.  The most basic level of training with them is simply as a way of remembering and practicing individual technique (calligraphy as you say).


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Absolutely.  Forms can be as meaningful as we want them to be.  The most basic level of training with them is simply as a way of remembering and practicing individual technique (calligraphy as you say).


More or less.

And of course, a Low Block can be followed up my a Lunge Punch. That just doesnt mean its the only Option.
The answer to the Mysteries of MA are not in Forms, but rather, the Application of Interpritation. And Forms can, to a degree, reflect somebody elses interpritation.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I hope you don't mind me playing and putting in my two cents worth: If we take the idea of pattern applications seriously, the two movements are for dealing with a specific threat, most likely from a single attacker, .



Don't mind, but IMNSHO you would be absolutley wrong (unless we go down the alternate application road but then we would have to cange the stated application which changes all the parameters.) reaon as to why you would be wrong follows at another time. I need to ask a follow up question first.  The answer to that question expalins why you are wrong and why Cyriacus answer about being taught 2 opponnets is correct for the stated application. (Which is not meant to say that all stated applications are exclusive. )


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 16, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Subjective to Interpritation. When I trained ITF, they claimed it was for Two People, so ill answer with that for Chang Hon.



For the Chang Hon  system that would be the correct answer. But, knowing the correct answer without knowing the rationale does not really help much. Do you know why this is the correct answer?  Again, for those who do not know the sysytem, apologies. But the reason this is the right answer applies to all pattern applications, irrespective of system.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 16, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> Don't mind, but IMNSHO you would be absolutley wrong (unless we go down the alternate application road but then we would have to cange the stated application which changes all the parameters.) reaon as to why you would be wrong follows at another time. I need to ask a follow up question first.  The answer to that question expalins why you are wrong and why Cyriacus answer about being taught 2 opponnets is correct for the stated application. (Which is not meant to say that all stated applications are exclusive. )



I await the conversation with great interest.  Are you defining right as what General Choi outlined in his Encyclopedia?


----------



## sopraisso (Oct 16, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Many of the classical movements DON'T make sense in a modern sparring context.  It is not surprising that you are confused and skeptical if all the training you've been exposed to previous is all long range and competition-oriented at that [...].


*Finally!*
Sincerely, I was wondering if I was the only ever feeling skeptical about some of taekwondo techniques. By the way, I believe the same impression would've happened in other MA's contexts.
After the brief time I've been practicing (and also reading about martial arts and trying to learn from wherever I could), I seem to have come to the conclusion that simpler and faster in most of times is better (I don't mean all the times, and I can be wrong nevertheless). Some complex motions of taekwondo just puzzled me. I keep on practicing them as hard as I can, but it's impossible not to wonder: "would I ever be able to use this in a hypothetical real fight?". The issues about blocks lie mainly on this (once they seem to have much complex and long motions to be used in a real fight situation).
But since the beginning of this thread I've been feeling more confident in such techniques (say, most of them). Now I have the impression that most block (low, medium and high) motions maybe could be used mainly depending on where our arms would already be in the moment of the block (assuming our hands can't always stay in guard position). Also, off course, it depends what the attacker is aiming for and what I intend to do as a counter-attack. I still haven't had a great experience of couter-attack after blocking (maybe basic kicks and punchs). Someone now told me about using the backhand after a medium block. To me it seems a great idea. Others have come with many other examples that show a more realistic picture. Anyway, as I had speed concerns, now I consider that not every agressor would necessarily come with a torrent of punches, nor even they would always punch som fast (some, mainly the untrained ones, rely more on strength and reach) -- so in this case I think it'd be a nice idea to use low, medium or high blocks.
Some other achievement was to note that in a real fight the movements don't need to be exactly the way it should be in theory, as the situation may require more fluid and adapted response.
Anyway, I would highly appreciate if someone tells me if there's any wrong assumption on this.



Earl Weiss said:


> If the only goal of training is comvbat self defense, you don't need a martial art. Most of your time and  energy would be wasted. If your only goal of training is MMA sparring, you don't need a martial art. Again, most of your time will be wasted. If your only goal of training is a specific type of sparring, training in anything other than sparring techniques , strategies and conditioning is a waste of time.


*Haha. Yeah. *Anyway, my goal is not an only one, as probably the others don't have a single goal, as well. But along with various goals, those don't exclude the one about learning to fight (in a rather realistic way, if possible). But I'll explain something about in the next thread I'd like to initiate.

*Thank you already for the feedback.*


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 16, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> For the Chang Hon  system that would be the correct answer. But, knowing the correct answer without knowing the rationale does not really help much. Do you know why this is the correct answer?  Again, for those who do not know the sysytem, apologies. But the reason this is the right answer applies to all pattern applications, irrespective of system.


Im going to answer retrospectively. My Chang Hon is a bit rusty 

You begin with a Low Block, to Prepare. Perform a Lunging Punch to Hit the First Guy. Spin around with a Middle Inner Forearm Block (Note how this is different to before. Thats because im going into more detail, as per your request), and another Lunging Punch.

The Theory, is that from a Low Block, you can switch to a Raising Block, to block a Punch; Otherwise, the Low Block will deflect a Kick. Circumventing BASIC Attacks. Then, coming around with the Forearm does something similar. Except that you can switch it to a Palm Heel Block.
Then Lunge Punch.

All I was told directly under Chang Hon was that it was for Two People, and that the first movement was more of a Guard than a Block.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 16, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> If the only goal of training is comvbat self defense, you don't need a martial art. Most of your time and  energy would be wasted. If your only goal of training is MMA sparring, you don't need a martial art. Again, most of your time will be wasted. If your only goal of training is a specific type of sparring, training in anything other than sparring techniques , strategies and conditioning is a waste of time.


And what if the Specified Martial Art is highgeared toward Combat and Self Defense? By Definition, a Style designed for Combat is technically a Martial Art.
Unless you go and take Self Defense Classes, which *can* be a slight gamble. But thats another topic.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 17, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> And what if the Specified Martial Art is highgeared toward Combat and Self Defense? By Definition, a Style designed for Combat is technically a Martial Art.
> Unless you go and take Self Defense Classes, which *can* be a slight gamble. But thats another topic.



Then you get into "What is a Martial Art". There is no universaly accepted definition. Years ago, long before Krav MAga was expanded for the mass market I asked an Israeli if he learned "The MArtial Art" of Krav Maga" in the military. he saud "What "Art" there is nothing artistic about kneeing someone in the nuts". Smilarly Peyton quinn of Rocky Mountain Combat Application training who does padded assailant, adrenal stress stufff says he doesn't teach a martial art.  So, i submit that for combat purposes you don't need typical elements of MAs like philosophy, esthetic qualities, competition standards. FWIW, all those things are elements of an MA to be taught and practiced to a greater and lesser extent, and without them you have something that might be better called something other than a Martial art like a martial discipline.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I await the conversation with great interest. Are you defining right as what General Choi outlined in his Encyclopedia?



Depends on perspective. Pattern techniques can be morphed for "Alternate Applications" However when you morph them to a certain degree they no longer resemble the pattern technique. Now it is a principle espoused bu General Choi that "5. You need to become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." This is not a concept unique to general choi. I have heard others like George Dilman say the same or similar things. (OK I know dilman has issues but I agree with some of his stuff.) 

Angle and distance. That is what patterns teach you. How you employ the "Technique" has any number of possibilities so long as angle, distance (and level) are used with practical efficiency. General Choi would make this point while teaching as well. 

Now for #s 1&2 of Chon Ji. It is a common misperception that you block the first attack from person #1 and then step and punch him. You can try this exercise but you must follow the motions as described in the pattern to see if or how they will work.  A common attack "blocked" for move #1 is a front kick to the left lower abdomen (Could be other attack to the left lower abdomen but try this one for now).  Position attacker to the left so that when he kicks and you turn to your left to a left waliking stance low outer forearm block your forearm intercepts his leg in the shin to calf range so it is still far enough away so as to not have hit you, (not so far that you miss) and then  move to #2  without the attacker moving forward, and step forward to #2 Right walking stance punch.  You will be well past where the punch would work properly. So, it cannot be to the original attacker.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I await the conversation with great interest. Are you defining right as what General Choi outlined in his Encyclopedia?



Depends on perspective. Pattern techniques can be morphed for "Alternate Applications" However when you morph them to a certain degree they no longer resemble the pattern technique. Now it is a principle espoused bu General Choi that "5. You need to become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." This is not a concept unique to general choi. I have heard others like George Dilman say the same or similar things. (OK I know dilman has issues but I agree with some of his stuff.) 

Angle and distance. That is what patterns teach you. How you employ the "Technique" has any number of possibilities so long as angle, distance (and level) are used with practical efficiency. General Choi would make this point while teaching as well. 

Now for #s 1&2 of Chon Ji. It is a common misperception that you block the first attack from person #1 and then step and punch him. You can try this exercise but you must follow the motions as described in the pattern to see if or how they will work.  A common attack "blocked" for move #1 is a front kick to the left lower abdomen (Could be other attack to the left lower abdomen but try this one for now).  Position attacker to the left so that when he kicks and you turn to your left to a left waliking stance low outer forearm block your forearm intercepts his leg in the shin to calf range so it is still far enough away so as to not have hit you, (not so far that you miss) and then  move to #2  without the attacker moving forward, and step forward to #2 Right walking stance punch.  You will be well past where the punch would work properly. So, it cannot be to the original attacker.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> Depends on perspective. Pattern techniques can be morphed for "Alternate Applications" However when you morph them to a certain degree they no longer resemble the pattern technique. Now it is a principle espoused bu General Choi that "5. You need to become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." This is not a concept unique to general choi. I have heard others like George Dilman say the same or similar things. (OK I know dilman has issues but I agree with some of his stuff.)
> 
> Angle and distance. That is what patterns teach you. How you employ the "Technique" has any number of possibilities so long as angle, distance (and level) are used with practical efficiency. General Choi would make this point while teaching as well.
> 
> Now for #s 1&2 of Chon Ji. It is a common misperception that you block the first attack from person #1 and then step and punch him. You can try this exercise but you must follow the motions as described in the pattern to see if or how they will work.  A common attack "blocked" for move #1 is a front kick to the left lower abdomen (Could be other attack to the left lower abdomen but try this one for now).  Position attacker to the left so that when he kicks and you turn to your left to a left waliking stance low outer forearm block your forearm intercepts his leg in the shin to calf range so it is still far enough away so as to not have hit you, (not so far that you miss) and then  move to #2  without the attacker moving forward, and step forward to #2 Right walking stance punch.  You will be well past where the punch would work properly. So, it cannot be to the original attacker.




Ah.  We simply come from different frames of references with regard to pattern training.  The fundamental rules about kata interpretation for practical application that I follow include 1 idea that is relevant here so I will state it.  "We should NOT be trapped nor misled by the embusen or kata movement lines."  Following this maxim, the distancing problem you mentioned above doesn't necessarily exist at all.  First, the 90 degree turn to the left doesn't mean that we are turning to face an attack from the side.  Secondly, the down block doesn't necessarily mean we are defending from a kicking attack at long range with the accompanying long stances/strides to make up ground.  One of the applications I teach to Chon-Ji has the attack as right hand midsection punch from straight ahead.  The defender uses a downward sweeping motion to parry the blow away before initiating a clinch and driving an overhand right to the head or midsection himself.

Beyond that I would refer back to the idea of tactical soundness in pattern analysis.  I said above that it is unsound to block one attacker without also counterattacking him before we move onto a second opponent, as we have left unaddressed the initial 2-1 disadvantage.  So it is with that in mind that I generally think of the initial opening 2 movements in Chon-Ji as applying to a SINGLE attacker rather than two, unless we add in a few movements in between to remedy the missing counter.

For myself, I freely admit the TKD I teach is influenced by other arts, notably karate, aikido, and judo, and it is this perspective from which our kata study flows from.  Other people will undoubtedly have different ideas about forms based on their ideological heritage, and hopefully without offending anyone by saying this, I would argue that the native Korean sources in this area are immature at best, nonexistent at worst.


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 17, 2011)

I find the enbusen rule compelling... the idea that direction changes in forms should be considered contrived to fit the activity into a small space, and not a tactical approach to dealing with multiple attackers. To me it does not fit common sense that the very first form studied would approach the issue of multiple opponents. It makes much more sense that the idea is to perform the techniques with both sides of the body to train the brand new student in a balanced way to aid development of coordination.

Carl


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> I find the enbusen rule compelling... the idea that direction changes in forms should be considered contrived to fit the activity into a small space, and not a tactical approach to dealing with multiple attackers. To me it does not fit common sense that the very first form studied would approach the issue of multiple opponents. It makes much more sense that the idea is to perform the techniques with both sides of the body to train the brand new student in a balanced way to aid development of coordination.
> 
> Carl



The rule is a tool to help analyze patterns for possible applications.  It doesn't come into play at all for beginners who are still learning to move, and 'thinking' tools like these were rarely shared by my teacher to any of his students who weren't likewise teachers themselves.  He didn't teach them to me until I came upon a similar passage in a book of Toguchi, Seikichi's and I asked him about the topic.  

So, nope, not a topic for beginners 'traditionally'.  Indeed any pattern, even the dan level ones, could be left at simply the physical level of performance for practicing basics as well as challenging the body for speed, strength, and balance.


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Indeed any pattern, even the dan level ones, could be left at simply the physical level of performance for practicing basics as well as challenging the body for speed, strength, and balance.



Those are certainly worthy of training for just that, but lately I've been reading into applications. There's little written on the Taekwondo side, much more from karate, but I think the karate ideas are relevant to TKD. I do think it's healthy to look at how these movements can be applied, but agree it's not beginner stuff.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> Those are certainly worthy of training for just that, but lately I've been reading into applications. There's little written on the Taekwondo side, much more from karate, but I think the karate ideas are relevant to TKD. I do think it's healthy to look at how these movements can be applied, but agree it's not beginner stuff.



There's a few stray discussions between SahBuhNimRush, Manakaumna (sp) and myself about when it is appropriate to teach pattern applications to beginners if anyone is interested in dredging them up.  We more or less came to a consensus that it needs to happen early on otherwise the students become too engrained in what now passes for traditional TKD/TSD/karate where their idea of combat means standing in long range and exchanging kicks and punches.

If you come across anything interesting from a Korean arts perspective, I'd appreciate a cite or a link.  I've looked into sources like the KKW forms books and General Choi's Encyclopedia and the various old books like GM Duk Son Song's.  Believe it or not the best pattern analysis stuff I've seen comes from that free online TKD magazine Mr. Weiss occasionally contributes to:  Totally TKD.  There's a Brit contributor who uses his judo experience to explain alternate explanations to the movements in the KKW patterns.  The magazine's editor, another Brit, has his own book out that does much the same for the Chang Hon patterns.  I own a copy and I don't completely like everything he does, but it's certainly one of the few resources on the subject, other than one's teachers, and I suspect there is little study there by and large across the TKD world.

Would LOVE to see a good effort from a Korean resource that approaches the problem from a TKD pattern side rather than someone just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> ...
> 
> Beyond that I would refer back to the idea of tactical soundness in pattern analysis. I said above that it is unsound to block one attacker without also counterattacking him before we move onto a second opponent, as we have left unaddressed the initial 2-1 disadvantage. So it is with that in mind that I generally think of the initial opening 2 movements in Chon-Ji as applying to a SINGLE attacker rather than two, unless we add in a few movements in between to remedy the missing counter.
> 
> ...



I don't know the form you are referring to, since my exposure to TKD was only to 8th Green many years ago, but it sounds like the first two moves of our first H-form. Regardless, in regard to saying you must counter attack a first opponent before engaging a second, I was wondering if you had considered that the initial attacker probably needs to recover, and the other attacker may be doing just that, attacking. I think that is a real possibility. In that case, a block and turn to the other attacker for a block while the orginal attacker is recovering his stance. One needs to try and separate multiple attackers, and get them on one's own rhythm rather than theirs.



dancingalone said:


> ...
> 
> Would LOVE to see a good effort from a Korean resource that approaches the problem from a TKD pattern side rather than someone just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung.



Not sure what "... just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung." means. And from a TKD pattern at that? There are many body types, but they mostly all have two arms and legs, a head, neck, and other things that are attackable. There are only so many ways to attack those body parts, granted they may be in the hundreds. Do think the TKD inventers started from scratch sir?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Ah. We simply come from different frames of references with regard to pattern training. The fundamental rules about kata interpretation for practical application that I follow include 1 idea that is relevant here so I will state it. "We should NOT be trapped nor misled by the embusen or kata movement lines." Following this maxim, the distancing problem you mentioned above doesn't necessarily exist at all. .



Our frames of reference are not so different. I am a firm believer in alternate applications. However, beginners have a tough time learning how to do the basic one(s) correctly so the last thing I am going to do is show them any number of variations.  In fact I have some great ones for moves 1-3 In Chon Ji.  (I have Rick Clark's book "75 Down Blocks" Showing 75 applications for the low outer forearm block.) 

That being said, if you are learning a pattern, any pattern with stipulated distance and direction and you think that if you perform it as stipulated the techniques as stipulated will work to impractical distance / directions, then you are wrong. (So, from this perspective "Correct as outlined in the encyclopedia" is the proper frame of reference His patterns, his parameters. )

I think the stipulated distance / direction / angle / level / tool is a method to teach the beginner how to move in  a certain fashion with balance, power, speed, efficiencies, if they can't do it and don't understand what and why they are doing it morphing the stipulated parameters to any number of permutations and combinations, in a fashion which makes the original unrecognizeable will not help.  

So, if you say take this technique and change the angle , level, and distance so you can do this other application will make it work is like saying if we take motorcycle, add the correct wings and put on a propeller detaching power from the wheel and transferring it to a propeller than a motorcycle can fly, is it really still a motorcycle>


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know the form you are referring to, since my exposure to TKD was only to 8th Green many years ago, but it sounds like the first two moves of our first H-form.



Chon-Ji.  The first full hyung as taught by General Choi.  Jhoon Rhee used these Choi forms for a long time with his colored belts. 



oftheherd1 said:


> Regardless, in regard to saying you must counter attack a first opponent before engaging a second, I was wondering if you had considered that the initial attacker probably needs to recover, and the other attacker may be doing just that, attacking. I think that is a real possibility. In that case, a block and turn to the other attacker for a block while the orginal attacker is recovering his stance. One needs to try and separate multiple attackers, and get them on one's own rhythm rather than theirs.



I don't view the pattern as addressing multiple attackers at all.  But if you want to take that assumption, there are survival considerations I would rank far higher in the order of precedence than a down block and then a TURN to face another attacker.  Things such as full blown running for example (two people cannot enclose a person entirely without also using terrain or surrounds to their advantage).  IMO, the lessons taught through exploring a down block, lunge punch sequence are better aligned with goals like closing in quickly to neutralize a single hostile foe, and I would use other opportunities outside of Chon-Ji to work on multiple attacker scenarios.




oftheherd1 said:


> Not sure what "... just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung." means. And from a TKD pattern at that? There are many body types, but they mostly all have two arms and legs, a head, neck, and other things that are attackable. There are only so many ways to attack those body parts, granted they may be in the hundreds. Do think the TKD inventers started from scratch sir?



No, the TKD founders did not start from scratch.  Arts like karate, judo, and even kwon bup all played differing degrees of influence depending on which TKD founder you are talking about.  And yes we all have two arms and two legs, and there are only so many ways you can hurt another person.  Regardless of either point, I'm not referring to either when I made my remark about retrofitting [hapkido] into the hyung.

It means that I would like to see the current leaders of TKD make pattern applications a relevant and harmonious part of their respective systems.  Harmonious in this case means that ideally they would not simply look to other arts for ideas to borrow verbatim, regardless of any historical connection TKD may have to them.  Instead IMO it's far preferable to review their expressions of TKD holistically and invent/create applications that are indelibly TKD in conception and movement.  This approach has the advantage of making the entire system as a whole logical to understand and arguably easier to learn and execute physically.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> Our frames of reference are not so different. I am a firm believer in alternate applications. However, beginners have a tough time learning how to do the basic one(s) correctly so the last thing I am going to do is show them any number of variations.  In fact I have some great ones for moves 1-3 In Chon Ji.  (I have Rick Clark's book "75 Down Blocks" Showing 75 applications for the low outer forearm block.)



Beginners have difficulty with everything, starting with tying their belts.    I believe it's better to expose people to the myriad usages of a discrete movement early on, else their conception of martial arts becomes rigid and they become trapped in the visible appearance of what a motion is.  This type of instruction works best in small class settings where instructors can spend a lot of time individually with each student though.



Earl Weiss said:


> That being said, if you are learning a pattern, any pattern with stipulated distance and direction and you think that if you perform it as stipulated the techniques as stipulated will work to impractical distance / directions, then you are wrong. (So, from this perspective "Correct as outlined in the encyclopedia" is the proper frame of reference His patterns, his parameters. )



General Choi gave his patterns to the world, and from that moment the patterns changed by instructor by instructor.  I definitely understand General Choi left instructions as to how he believed the forms should be performed, perhaps even used.  That said, a host of teachers crossing multinational lines don't feel constrained by them, nor should they.  In the end, martial arts are all personal expressions anyway.



Earl Weiss said:


> I think the stipulated distance / direction / angle / level / tool is a method to teach the beginner how to move in  a certain fashion with balance, power, speed, efficiencies, if they can't do it and don't understand what and why they are doing it morphing the stipulated parameters to any number of permutations and combinations, in a fashion which makes the original unrecognizeable will not help.
> 
> So, if you say take this technique and change the angle , level, and  distance so you can do this other application will make it work is like  saying if we take motorcycle, add the correct wings and put on a  propeller detaching power from the wheel and transferring it to a  propeller than a motorcycle can fly, is it really still a motorcycle



The patterns are merely tools.  People can use tools in different ways with different goals, purposes, and outcomes in mind. 

I personally am not looking to develop Taekwon-Do students.  I hope to teach people useful combat skills using a piece of General Choi's work, suitably modified by myself, as a training methodology.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

sopraisso said:


> . Now I have the impression that most block (low, medium and high) motions maybe could be used mainly depending on where our arms would already be in the moment of the block (assuming our hands can't always stay in guard position). Also, off course, it depends what the attacker is aiming for and what I intend to do as a counter-attack. I still haven't had a great experience of couter-attack after blocking (maybe basic kicks and punchs). Someone now told me about using the backhand after a medium block. To me it seems a great idea. Others have come with many other examples that show a more realistic picture. Anyway, as I had speed concerns, now I consider that not every agressor would necessarily come with a torrent of punches, nor even they would always punch som fast (some, mainly the untrained ones, rely more on strength and reach) -- so in this case I think it'd be a nice idea to use low, medium or high blocks.



IMO, once we shed ourselves of the mental barrier if you will that a block is a block, our expressions of our karate/TKD becomes much more potent.  My teacher believes that blocking is an inefficient endeavor in of itself and I mostly agree with him here.  Of course it is a fundamental part of martial arts for good reason:  if you can't get out of the way of a blow, it is better to block it than be struck.  That said, I prefer other things to the good old solid block, and thus it's natural that I am always looking for other explanations for a discrete motion than the blocking interpretation.


----------



## Manny (Oct 17, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Kukkiwon, WTF, sport tkd, whatever you want to call it, is a fantastic 'sport' and great 'sport' for people of all ages and genders but if your focus is 'fighting' and you train in this form then you will be forever questioning such things. Everyone I have met who does this form of tkd gets to to about 1st or 2nd dan and has the revelation that, in real terms, they really are no better at 'fighting' than before they started. If you go into this style of tkd understanding and accepting that you are primarily learning a 'sport' then you never have to come to terms with such things because you know what you've signed up for. If you really enjoy tkd and your main goal is learning to fight, then personally I would steer clear of 'sport' tkd, because there are many other forms that focus on 'fighting'.



Sad but true. WTF Style TKD can give you stamina to endure in a real fight and as long as you can keep the BG at bay with your kicks maybe you can nail one or two guy and then fly in a hurry but if the things get very close and personal the  kicks won't be a good answer, then  you will need, elbows, knees,some kind of take downs and always try to stay on foot. Because of this I like to try another martial arts, I am returning to kenpo to lear to use more my hands and maybe this coupled with my kicks can give certain edge. The bad guys are not going to send you a blow like doing one steps sparring, the bad guy will chase you delivering a blitz  of fists and one must know how to dodge or parry them while doing counterpunches or grabing and sweeping,etc,etc.

Manny


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Chon-Ji.  The first full hyung as taught by General Choi.  Jhoon Rhee used these Choi forms for a long time with his colored belts.
> 
> *That may well be, I don't know.  Jhoon Rhee called them H forms.  I seem to recall that many other TKD teachers did the same around that time.*
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply.  It was thought provoking.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> IMO, once we shed ourselves of the mental barrier if you will that a block is a block, our expressions of our karate/TKD becomes much more potent.  My teacher believes that blocking is an inefficient endeavor in of itself and I mostly agree with him here.  Of course it is a fundamental part of martial arts for good reason:  if you can't get out of the way of a blow, it is better to block it than be struck.  That said, I prefer other things to the good old solid block, and thus it's natural that I am always looking for other explanations for a discrete motion than the blocking interpretation.



Sorry for my lack of understanding.  I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA.  If a block is not a block, what is it?  And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it?  It sounds fascinating.  Thanks for your reply.


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 17, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry for my lack of understanding. I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA. If a block is not a block, what is it? And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it? It sounds fascinating. Thanks for your reply.



I'll take a shot at a couple of these. What we label a block is a general movement that can be adapted to many uses including strikes, grabs and throws, particularly when coupled with movement of the other arm and the stance it's in. The book '75 Down Blocks' is one author's workup of different techniques that are fundamentally based on the low forearm block (arae makki). Blocking is inefficient because it is defensive, giving up a timing moment doing (usually) minor damage. What's better is making the attack miss by not being there while moving to attack a vital target yourself. Movement, position, and choice of an offensive action is better than just defending, as the attacker can usually continue the attack because you haven't forced him to defend.

Probably the best way to conceive of a block is as a movement that can be a building 'block'--a flexible general tool. Without going too far, consider stances the same way. The entail learning to shift your mass, which can be used to add power to whatever else you do. While you wouldn't fight in a front stance, you might very briefly find yourself moving through one while executing a throw or an angular entry on an opponent. Blocks, strikes, and stances all are tools as you learn to move your body with speed and power. It's good to remember that not all tools must be used according to the directions that came with them, and that skilled artisans often develop new uses for their tools.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no issues with those who might say something like :"I have taken Chon Ji" and modified it to make it my own, so if you go anywhere else do not expect that what you are doing is the accepted standard. 

Sadly, few do this and students often think they are peforming to a widely accepted standard and have a rude awakening.  I also have issues when any number of variations are done and students perform techniques without any clue as to why they are doing something.  Certainly people are free to disagree with any number of reasons people d things a certain way. What is sad is when  people don't have any idea other than we do it this way because that is how I was taught. 

I have met instructors who told me they or their instructor changed this, that or the other thing. I as if this is written down anywhere/ The question is usualy met with a blank stare or a statement like "My students know" . Well guess what, they don't. Have seen those students when the isntructor passes on having to go thru all sortsof meetings and machinations to come to some sort of agreement on what they wer taught or should be teaching, in effect reinventing the wheel. 

 I submit that for the most part patterns changed from instructor to instructor because they had poor instructors or were poor students. They were never taught the aapplicable parameters and never took it upon themselves to ask or look it up. 

Patterns, as a foundation need to be performed to some standard. if the instrutor has their own established standard, so be it. Otherwise how is an instructor observing a student to know if the student: A. Knows the standard and B. Is performing how the student thinks they are performing. 

Example. Patterns have no opponent. In a combat situation technique levels will vary so the student hits the ntended target. In a pattern the level might be stipulated as high, and high is stipulated as the student's eye level.  Now you observe the student doing the "High" punch to their chin level. Do they know it's supposed to be eye level? If so, do they think they are at their eye level when they are not? 

Now, are the standards the best thing out there/ Matter of opinion. I for one teach the standard, that way my students go anywhere in the world and fit right in. BUT I also offer more advnced students my opinion on some stated standards and what i like better.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 17, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry for my lack of understanding.  I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA.  If a block is not a block, what is it?  And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it?  It sounds fascinating.  Thanks for your reply.



To begin with -- a block is a strike at the weapon.  Which means a block can become a strike at a target, too.  Imagine delivering an upward block to someone's chin... or a down block to a groin.  Can a block become a throw?

Then... can strikes become blocks?


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

Earl Weiss said:


> I have no issues with those who might say something like :"I have taken Chon Ji" and modified it to make it my own, so if you go anywhere else do not expect that what you are doing is the accepted standard.
> 
> Sadly, few do this and students often think they are peforming to a widely accepted standard and have a rude awakening.  I also have issues when any number of variations are done and students perform techniques without any clue as to why they are doing something.  Certainly people are free to disagree with any number of reasons people d things a certain way. What is sad is when  people don't have any idea other than we do it this way because that is how I was taught.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying.  You support standards and defined parameters and in particular the ITF/General Choi perspective of how these forms should be done.  Understandably so as someone who had the fortune to study with General Choi.  I respect that viewpoint very much.

I likewise support standards for beginners and intermediates, though not necessarily those defined by General Choi.  When a person becomes advanced in ability and understanding, the system bends to suit their individual strengths and weaknesses.  In other words, know the 'correct' way of doing things and why it is the correct way in the first place, but feel free to change things up to suit your own body and personality later on if you wish.

At this point in time, there are myriad groups and individuals across the world that use the Chang Hon patterns as part of their studies.  I daresay a reasonable amount of them know their own parameters for performing the forms and the rationale behind them even if they don't necessarily align with what General Choi last taught.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 17, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> To begin with -- a block is a strike at the weapon.  Which means a block can become a strike at a target, too.  Imagine delivering an upward block to someone's chin... or a down block to a groin.  Can a block become a throw?
> 
> Then... can strikes become blocks?


The Following is Ridiculous. You have been Warned.


_Groin Form/Pattern/Kata:

Ready Stance > Low Block > REALLY Low Block > Raising Block To Groin > Opposite Arm Inner Forearm Guard to Groin > Front Leg Raise To Groin > X-Block To Groin > Grip X-Block Tightly > Rip X-Block Away > Left Arm Scooping Block To Groin > Right Hand Palm Heel Block To Groin > Ask the Fellow how hes still standing up > Roundhouse Pu...Knuckle Block To Groin > X-Block Groin > Take Down Opponent By Raising Arms Straight Up To THROW HIM > Return To Ready Stance.

It has 16 Movements.
Thats 6-1 = 5. 6+5 = 11. 11+6 - 17. 6x17 = 102. 102-6 = 96. Which is 69 Backwards. So there you bloody have it!
Overhead, the Movements start and finish in the same place, and draws out the Calligraphic Symbol for a Colon (Take that WHICH EVER WAY YOU CHOOSE).


_Now, assuming you were wise enough to skip the afore;
Ive knocked People down to the Ground with Blocks.
So yeah, they can be used as a Strike.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> *That may well be, I don't know.  Jhoon Rhee called them H forms.  I  seem to recall that many other TKD teachers did the same around that  time.*



Jhoon Rhee was a Chung Do Kwan man before later learning the Chang Hon patterns, which includes Chon-Ji, in what I understand was a matter of days.  Any number of the Chung Do Kwan (karate forms such as the Taikyoku or even the Heian/Pyung Ahn series) hyung could likewise be called 'h forms'.  It would be interesting if you could look up examples of Chon Ji and Taikyoku Shodan and Heian Shodan on Youtube and let us know which of them you learned.  Certainly, in my TKD lineage we learned the Choi forms rather than the Chung Do Kwan forms.



oftheherd1 said:


> *The I guess we just have to disagree.  Mind you, I am not saying  every move in all the forms are multiple attacker defenses.  I don't  know enough about the forms to say that.  But many I have seen seem to  be along those lines.  I know that some of the forms contain obscure  movements that are really like techniques I learned in Hapkido.*



I don't believe pattern applications, much less multiple attack scenarios, were much of a consideration when any of the Korean TKD pattern sets were put together.  The evidence for this is the dearth of applications training within TKD regardless of whatever affiliation taekwondoin come from.  Recently, there has been an increasing interest in adding bunkai, to use the karate term, to TKD patterns, but this movement seems to come from younger, more junior practitioners rather than those at the top of the hierarchies in the various organizations.

Furthermore, from an Okinawan karate perspective in which pattern application IS generally of high interest, there's really not a lot of bunkai which addresses multiple attackers either, even in sequences where there are turns, and even within the higher level kata.  My opinion comes from studying Matsubayashi-ryu and Goju-ryu to dan ranks, and I have also shared information over the years with other karate people from a good handful of other karate styles.




oftheherd1 said:


> *I don't really know, but I suspect wherever they came from, TKD may  have had some joint locks, and other Hapkido-like moves.  Some of the  things we used to in one and three step sparring was to pull the striker  forward and down by his striking wrist, then do windmill sudo strikes  to the back, back of the neck, and front of the face.  Not particularly a  TKD move at the time.*



TKD has always had links to other arts.  General Choi reported brought in a hapkidoin to create a hoshinsul curriculum within the ITF.  I've never claimed that TKD is a 'pure' system.  Far from it.  It owes a lot to other martial arts like karate, but arguably has evolved more and more over the interceding decades, especially if we look at KKW TKD.



oftheherd1 said:


> *Given that TKD, like many other Korean MA, including Hapkido, are  new, and that most if not all current moves have probably been known for  centuries, how would you propose they do that?*



I am not proposing that TKD leaders create anything 'new'.  I am saying they should rejuvenate the study of patterns within their groups to include the idea of realistic applications and make forms a viable form of pedagogy for combat skills rather than just something done for 'art' or for basics practice or for competition.

But how to innovate in a logical fashion?  You don't just simply copy something from another art and import it as is.  As an aikido-ka, I am constantly tempted to add more and more locks and throws into the TKD class I teach, but not everything imports well, particular the ones that are small-circled in nature.  By and large, people from linear striking systems don't understand them in an expeditious fashion.  It takes a lot of work to get them up to speed and by the time you've spent that much time, you might as well be teaching an aikido class rather than a TKD class.  So we pick techniques and tactics that resonate with taekwondoin, those that fit in with much of what they do already.  One example would be a tani otoshi throw taught in judo where the defender remains on his feet rather than also going to the ground with his attacker.  Most of my TKD students pick this one up easily because the footwork is not so different from how they shuffle step already.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 17, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry for my lack of understanding.  I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA.  If a block is not a block, what is it?  And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it?  It sounds fascinating.  Thanks for your reply.



Movement is not immutable.  The same open-handed sweep to the side with my left arm could be a block or a grab or a parry or a strike or a part of something else such a throw or a combination technique.  The only difference is the actual part of the arm I make contact with, what part of my opponent I am touching, and the speed and desired effect I am imparting.  Yet to the casual observer, any one of those things looks the same practiced in the air without a visible partner or target to work with.  Adjunct to that, most people probably see a 'block' with in a pattern as a block, and this has been compounded by decades of teachers teaching the same phenomenon, likely stemming from the whole Itosu/Funakoshi youth/karate popularization effort.

As for why blocking is inefficient... Some thoughts below.  

First, you do hapkido correct?  Is the path of least resistance to block or is it only a last resort?  Certainly in the aikido I study we don't generally want to solidify ourselves and push back at force with our own force, even if we can do so more intelligently by taking a different angle to avoid the brunt of the attacker's strength.  Instead we seek to blend with our attacker (or is it to gather him into our hara?) and in so doing we neutralize him.

Second, blocking represents an opportunity cost of sorts.  When you commit yourself to making a block, you are undeniably choosing to do this over another alternative.  What if you could move in such a fashion as to avoid the attack while simultaneously counterattacking yourself?  Is that not better tactically?

For example, if someone throws a side kick at you, what do you do?  1) Do you try to block a side kick with a down block or a side block standing roughly where you are already?  Hmm, good luck with that.  2) Do you step back or to an angle to avoid the kick before countering with your own kick as is taught in a sport sparring match?  Better I suppose, but I think acquiring closer range is imperative to ending a true fight.  You don't want to drag things out and exchange shots at each other.   3) Do we step to the side to avoid the kick while covering up with a block before truncating with a series of counterstrikes as is frequently taught in many one and three step sparring sets?  Also better than option 1, but there's still that opportunity cost taken up.  4) Do we move in such a fashion that we avoid the attack and in same movement counter effective.  IMO this is best.  An example would be angling one's torso to let the kick slip by while immediately attacking the kicker's jawline with a ridgehand that converts into reverse hip toss once we have entered in behind the strike.  

Now do we always have four options like I presented here.  Well, no.  But, the more you train the more options you have and I'd rather train for alternatives like #4.

Third, say we just like blocking.  It makes sense to us, we think we can do it successfully, so why not block, yada, yada.  Well, the main reason is that most people don't condition their arms like they should if they really want blocking to work for them.  I mean in the destroy your attacker's arm sense.  That's real blocking.  The old Hung Gar people go crazy with all the arm banging they do to build up bone density.  So do the hardcore Goju-ryu karate people with their kotikitae.  Respectfully, just as the spear hand strike is an 'archaic' remnant from the days when martial artists conditioned their fingers, so too is blocking an artifact of times past when arm conditioning was a lot more prevalent.  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that blocking can't work if we don't condition our arms.  It can, but I would suspect that instead of blocking and destroying the attacker's capacity to hurt us, we now really mean blocking and absorbing force, which is less than optimal IMO.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 18, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Movement is not immutable.  The same open-handed sweep to the side with my left arm could be a block or a grab or a parry or a strike or a part of something else such a throw or a combination technique.  The only difference is the actual part of the arm I make contact with, what part of my opponent I am touching, and the speed and desired effect I am imparting.  Yet to the casual observer, any one of those things looks the same practiced in the air without a visible partner or target to work with.  Adjunct to that, most people probably see a 'block' with in a pattern as a block, and this has been compounded by decades of teachers teaching the same phenomenon, likely stemming from the whole Itosu/Funakoshi youth/karate popularization effort.
> 
> As for why blocking is inefficient... Some thoughts below.
> 
> ...



Im specifically addressing the Highlighted Text, since this isnt my Debate.

Step Forward > Low Palm Heel Block > Back Knuckle Strike/Back Elbow Strike/Back Kick/Front Leg Stamp Kick to Knee/Horizontal Backfist/Left Straight Punch/Etc.

Blocking can be used to create Opportunities.
Youve just gotta be able to determine when theyre best used.
Repositioning CAN work, up to a point. But People arent just going to blunderbuss you. They can redirect themselves. Pivot. Turn. Realign their Arms for the Strikes. It doesnt always work out. Blocking works more often. BUT, at the expense of how many things you can do from that point. Dodging/Evading doesnt work nearly as often, but puts you in a better Position from which to proceed.
Your Third Option is considered to be the stupidest thing you can possibly do by some People ive talked to - Since one you start going back, and good Fighter can move FORWARD. And I capitolise that, to emphasise Forward. Try jogging backward, have someone run up and shove you, and try to stop at the moment the Shove comes in without having faulted balance. Then replace those Shoves with an armory of Strikes.
Number Four is Subjective. Evading and Countering at the same time can be efficient, certainly. But it can also put you into some awkward places. Perhaps not from Perspective, but ill use your example. You state allowing a Kick to slip by, then performing a Ridge Hand>Hip Throw. The issue is the Power Arc. IF it works, its great. But this is the issue with Evasion. It forces you to be in a position from which your Initial Counter must be efficient, lest you be right in your Opponents Power Arc. Say your Ridgehand was prevented by, say; (Does some quick stationary thinking as to ones position during a Side Kick. Really, this took me about 5 minutes. If I had someone to try it with it wouldnt have taken as long. Incidentally, I just need to filter information myself for now);
Palm Heel Block to the Bicep. Would Destabilise the Attack*. And this is where Blocking can be useful. Due to your Proximity, there isnt much Technical Application that can occur. You cannot plan for what the Uke (I cant think of a better word right now) will do from there, now how you would react, besides Re-Countering as he Counters your Counter. Which turns an opportunity into a cluster**** of hitting each other and hoping for the best.

I suppose My point, is that there is a Time and Place for everything.
Disregarding one because you prefer another is foolish.
Favoring one over the other, without outright not using the other as a matter of some kind of Principle, is fine.

Lastly, Blocks can be Redirections. Not necessarily Absorbsions.

*-Whichever hand you use for the Ridge Hand, if the Bicep is blocked, your Opponents hands will be up. If you try to follow with the other hand, when he does the same, he is now in a position from which to grab you around the neck. Or Strike your neck, for that matter.
Optionally, Clinching. Or a sharp Elbow, if the guys good.
Or a Shove.
Either way, it forces an uncontrolled engagement.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 18, 2011)

Thanks StudentCarl.  I think I understand part of what you are saying.  I guess I always look at things through a Hapkido lens.  We use blocks a lot.  We have to as we tend to move into an attack.  You can't just let the strike or kick come in and hit you.  As we block, we may sometimes use a block that continues into a strike.  More likely, we will block the attack as we move into our own attack.  

But to me a block is just what we usually understand; an interruption of a strike or kick, by deflecting the opponent's movement.   It may be a strike or kick at the striking limb, but it will stop or deflect the blow.  We may move to one side as we block.  The block may cause pain itself, and/or it may move into a grab to the opponent.  But first we will usually block.  The block may just cause the blow to miss by a little bit, it doesn't have to move a blow a long way away.  But it has to prevent the blow from landing.  

If we block and continue an attack, I guess that is what you refer to as a building block?  But my understanding is that we have blocked first, whatever we then did.  That is the way the Hapkido I learned was taught.  We first learned how to block, then we learned how to use those blocks to allow us to attack ourselves.  So the first thing I learned in striking defense was several blocks.  Same with kick defense.  First the block, then the continuing of the technique into a strike, kick, throw, or lock.  But as I said, first, there is a block to avoid the opponent's attack, then moving into my own attack.  Does that describe what you are talking about?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 18, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> To begin with -- a block is a strike at the weapon. Which means a block can become a strike at a target, too. Imagine delivering an upward block to someone's chin... or a down block to a groin. Can a block become a throw?
> 
> Then... can strikes become blocks?



Certainly a block may be a strike at the weapon; hand, foot, or whatever.  However, a block's purpose is to block/deflect.  Can you use the same or a similar movement as a strike?  Yes.  But then it is no longer a block, it is a strike.  Blocks and strikes are fundamentally used for different reasons.  As you explain it, I just don't see it.

But thanks for your reply.


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 18, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> But as I said, first, there is a block to avoid the opponent's attack, then moving into my own attack. Does that describe what you are talking about?


I don't think there is only one right answer, but let me put a fight into rhythm with beats. Each movement is a beat, so a block takes up a beat. Assuming you and your opponent move at the same time, let's say your opponent strikes and you block. Unless you have done damage, destroyed his balance, or gained a controlling grip (which your hapkido block often becomes), your opponent can continue his attack. Blocking by itself is definitely better than getting hit, but if you can move to attack in that first beat in a way that avoids his attack, you can defeat him sooner and hopefully with less contact. If you only block and do not improve your situation, the second beat will see the attacker continue his attack, leaving you again only defending on the second beat. It's also good to remember that blocking can result in injury to the blocker. I broke an arm blocking a kick I should have sidestepped when I was a new yellow belt. 

To go to your hapkido world, if your block results in control of a limb and upsetting your opponent's balance, then you are in position to win on the second beat. Your block was as much to stop and grab a limb as to stop an attack. So I would say that your 'block' was not completely defensive but also the first step of your attack.

Carl


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 18, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I don't believe pattern applications, much less multiple attack scenarios, were much of a consideration when any of the Korean TKD pattern sets were put together. The evidence for this is the dearth of applications training within TKD regardless of whatever affiliation taekwondoin come from. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in adding bunkai, to use the karate term, to TKD patterns, but this movement seems to come from younger, more junior practitioners rather than those at the top of the hierarchies in the various organizations.



As a junior black belt I'm reading and studying the bunkai literature to deepen my study of forms. I think there is value in thinking about movement in a more flexible way and finding applications. At the very least I think it would be incredibly narrow-minded as a martial artist to think of a movement as only one thing with only one use. It's possible that the seniors who designed the Taekwondo patterns were more concerned with carving an independent Korean identity than passing along an intact fighting system such as those contained in some of the karate forms I've read about, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm doing.

I agree with what I've read from Iain Abernethy and others suggesting that it's actually "traditional martial art" to cross-train, shamelessly take things that work well from elsewhere--in short to find what works best. The discovery and testing is fun and deepens my understanding. I believe that the 'old masters' were the original 'mixed martial artists'.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 18, 2011)

Thanks for your reply. See my comments inside the quotes.



dancingalone said:


> Movement is not immutable. The same open-handed sweep to the side with my left arm could be a block or a grab or a parry or a strike or a part of something else such a throw or a combination technique. The only difference is the actual part of the arm I make contact with, what part of my opponent I am touching, and the speed and desired effect I am imparting. Yet to the casual observer, any one of those things looks the same practiced in the air without a visible partner or target to work with. Adjunct to that, most people probably see a 'block' with in a pattern as a block, and this has been compounded by decades of teachers teaching the same phenomenon, likely stemming from the whole Itosu/Funakoshi youth/karate popularization effort.
> 
> *I can't disagree with that. It would appear that many things that are actually techniques that I would use in Hapkido, or you would use in Aikido, specific to a particular attack, have been modified to an extent, to fit the TKD thought process of block, then attack. Probably when first included in the forms, the teachers knew, and told their students, what was going on. A lot of that seems to have been lost from the teaching process.
> 
> ...



Does any of that sound like what you have learned in Aikido? And can you see what I mean by a block first and continuation for a counter? I really think we may be closer in understanding and application, just using terms a little differently.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 18, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> I don't think there is only one right answer, but let me put a fight into rhythm with beats. Each movement is a beat, so a block takes up a beat. Assuming you and your opponent move at the same time, let's say your opponent strikes and you block. Unless you have done damage, destroyed his balance, or gained a controlling grip (which your hapkido block often becomes), your opponent can continue his attack. Blocking by itself is definitely better than getting hit, but if you can move to attack in that first beat in a way that avoids his attack, you can defeat him sooner and hopefully with less contact. If you only block and do not improve your situation, the second beat will see the attacker continue his attack, leaving you again only defending on the second beat. It's also good to remember that blocking can result in injury to the blocker. I broke an arm blocking a kick I should have sidestepped when I was a new yellow belt.
> 
> To go to your hapkido world, if your block results in control of a limb and upsetting your opponent's balance, then you are in position to win on the second beat. Your block was as much to stop and grab a limb as to stop an attack. So I would say that your 'block' was not completely defensive but also the first step of your attack.
> 
> Carl



Explained that way, by beats, yes, there is an ability for further attacks. Some times even with a simultaneous block and attact there may be a danger. But in the Hapkido I learned, we usually tried to avoid that by moving out of the way, or grabbing in such a way that the opponent is unable to strike or kick anyway, such as the manipulation of a joint to put the opponent off balance and/or out of stance and unable to deliver a blow. Or, we delivred a counter as we blocked. But you are right, it is always something to be aware of and protect against.

EDIT: I think that as I mentioned before, the first teachers/adopters of forms, probably knew in a fight, you weren't probably going by beats, or that you needed faster speed.  But since the forms were a teaching method, it made sense to sometimes to "do it by the numbers."  I don'e really know that, but it seems to make sense just for the reason you bring up.


----------



## puunui (Oct 18, 2011)

What these techniques are for are to improve one's health and physical fitness. According to Shaolin legend, the monk Bodhidharma travelled from India to China's Shaolin Temple. When he arrived he found the monks to be in too poor shape for the practice of Buddhism's chanting and mediation. So he taught them 18 techniques to designed to improve their health and physical fitness. From those 18 techniques, which I believe were yoga poses, sprang the Shaolin martial arts. 

The Chung Do Kwan's founder, GM LEE Won Kuk, believed that the martial arts was primarily for improving one's health. He wrote a calligraphy, Hwal In Taekwondo, meaning Life Giving Taekwondo or Taekwondo for long life, which was the basis of his philosophy. So the martial arts aren't for beating people up or for "self defense" or "war" or whatever. It is to lengthen your life and improve your physical, mental and spiritual health.


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 18, 2011)

puunui said:


> So the martial arts aren't for beating people up or for "self defense" or "war" or whatever. It is to lengthen your life and improve your physical, mental and spiritual health.



That's the best thing of all, a daily benefit. I get fitter and happier, get to train, coach and compete in a fun sport, and meet great people. If I should find practical defense skills that I hope to never need again, that's good too. What's not to like? I'm guessing the Shaolin monks also found practical skills in their fitness activity, or we'd only see them running fitness programs. Apparently GM LEE Won Kuk also felt "primarily", not exclusively.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 19, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> I don't think there is only one right answer, but let me put a fight into rhythm with beats. Each movement is a beat, so a block takes up a beat. Assuming you and your opponent move at the same time, let's say your opponent strikes and you block. Unless you have done damage, destroyed his balance, or gained a controlling grip (which your hapkido block often becomes), your opponent can continue his attack. Blocking by itself is definitely better than getting hit, but if you can move to attack in that first beat in a way that avoids his attack, you can defeat him sooner and hopefully with less contact. If you only block and do not improve your situation, the second beat will see the attacker continue his attack, leaving you again only defending on the second beat. It's also good to remember that blocking can result in injury to the blocker. I broke an arm blocking a kick I should have sidestepped when I was a new yellow belt.



Well said.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 19, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> As a junior black belt I'm reading and studying the bunkai literature to deepen my study of forms. I think there is value in thinking about movement in a more flexible way and finding applications. At the very least I think it would be incredibly narrow-minded as a martial artist to think of a movement as only one thing with only one use. It's possible that the seniors who designed the Taekwondo patterns were more concerned with carving an independent Korean identity than passing along an intact fighting system such as those contained in some of the karate forms I've read about, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm doing.



As a kid I disliked practicing forms.  It seemed pointless to me, and the way they were taught to me as static artful dances, indeed they were.  I think I would have felt differently if someone had taught me the information to unlock their usages to me then.  It's unfortunate but lots of traditional striking based arts that have forms have similar issues.  Kung fu, karate... Plenty of students being taught how to perform patterns, but not the combat usages behind them.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 19, 2011)

puunui said:


> The Chung Do Kwan's founder, GM LEE Won Kuk, believed that the martial arts was primarily for improving one's health. He wrote a calligraphy, Hwal In Taekwondo, meaning Life Giving Taekwondo or Taekwondo for long life, which was the basis of his philosophy. So the martial arts aren't for beating people up or for "self defense" or "war" or whatever. It is to lengthen your life and improve your physical, mental and spiritual health.



The masters of the past had varying ideas about the primary purpose of martial arts.  Itosu, Anko, the teacher of Funakoshi, Gichin noted in his 10 Precepts that individuals must decide whether karate was for health or to 'aid your duty'.    

It's a personal choice in one chooses to focus upon, whether that is health, competition, combat usage, or whatever else.


----------



## puunui (Oct 19, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> That's the best thing of all, a daily benefit. I get fitter and happier, get to train, coach and compete in a fun sport, and meet great people. If I should find practical defense skills that I hope to never need again, that's good too. What's not to like? I'm guessing the Shaolin monks also found practical skills in their fitness activity, or we'd only see them running fitness programs. Apparently GM LEE Won Kuk also felt "primarily", not exclusively.




I'm just answering the original question or the topic, which is what are these techniques really for? Answer: Health and long life, for reasons I already stated. If people want to use the techniques for other things, like self defense, competition, etc., then they are free to do so. But that doesn't mean these other uses are what the techniques are really for.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 19, 2011)

seems funny that they would come up with a random set of moves designed for "health and long life" and they all seem to be ways to attack and defend, punches, kicks, elbows, knees, throat strikes, blocks etc. You would think if someone came up with exercises soley for the purpose of health and long life it would look more like aerobics. But I guess you learn something new everyday.


----------



## puunui (Oct 19, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> The masters of the past had varying ideas about the primary purpose of martial arts.  Itosu, Anko, the teacher of Funakoshi, Gichin noted in his 10 Precepts that individuals must decide whether karate was for health or to 'aid your duty'.




Itosu Sensei came several hundred years later. But the original purpose was for health. It wasn't until I studied yoga did the connection between it and the martial arts hit me. The yoga connection also is evident in the Kukkiwon poomsae, where it was explained to me at the Kukkiwon Instructor Course was that certain postures and poses, especially those that involved twisting the torso, were health related. However, if you didn't do the poomsae correctly, keeping shoulders square on blocks for example, then you wouldn't be able to see it and would miss it completely. 

I don't have any problem with people hunting around forms for applications. I also don't have any issue with people practicing forms or the martial arts for that matter primarily for self defense purposes. The issue I have is when those types of practitioners look down their noses at practitioners who are in it for non self defense purposes and think that somehow they are not "real" martial artists or real practitioners. This includes the majority of students at most commercial dojang, who are there for some exercise, to lose weight, to gain some self confidence and improve their concentration for studies, which to me sound exactly like what Bodhidarma was attempting to instill in the Shaolin monks with the 18 exercises. 

Put another way, the seven year old student at a commercial dojang isn't thinking negative thoughts about the self defense crowd, so why should the self defense crowd think negatively of the seven year old commercial dojang student? Both types of practitioners deserve to be respected for what they are doing. Same for those who train to compete. They should also be equally respected for what they are trying to sincerely achieve.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> Itosu Sensei came several hundred years later. But the original purpose was for health. It wasn't until I studied yoga did the connection between it and the martial arts hit me. The yoga connection also is evident in the Kukkiwon poomsae, where it was explained to me at the Kukkiwon Instructor Course was that certain postures and poses, especially those that involved twisting the torso, were health related. However, if you didn't do the poomsae correctly, keeping shoulders square on blocks for example, then you wouldn't be able to see it and would miss it completely.
> 
> I don't have any problem with people hunting around forms for applications. I also don't have any issue with people practicing forms or the martial arts for that matter primarily for self defense purposes. The issue I have is when those types of practitioners look down their noses at practitioners who are in it for non self defense purposes and think that somehow they are not "real" martial artists or real practitioners. This includes the majority of students at most commercial dojang, who are there for some exercise, to lose weight, to gain some self confidence and improve their concentration for studies, which to me sound exactly like what Bodhidarma was attempting to instill in the Shaolin monks with the 18 exercises.
> 
> Put another way, the seven year old student at a commercial dojang isn't thinking negative thoughts about the self defense crowd, so why should the self defense crowd think negatively of the seven year old commercial dojang student? Both types of practitioners deserve to be respected for what they are doing. Same for those who train to compete. They should also be equally respected for what they are trying to sincerely achieve.


I couldnt agree more. The 3 reasons I originally started tkd were cardio fitness, flexibility and core strength. I had friends who did tkd and I thought the self defence aspect would be worth a try also. If their sole purpose for creating the art was for finess and health however, then they could have thought it through a bit better. I worked for many years in the health and fitness industry and I am a qualified personal trainer and if the 'sole' goal for someone is health, fitness etc then there are much better things to do with your time than tkd.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 20, 2011)

If you just want Fitness and Health, Jog.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 20, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> If you just want Fitness and Health, Jog.


Exactly right. Any form of running, with some interval training and even some light weights and stretching will achieve far more than tkd if fitness and health is the goal. Diet would also play a major role in achieving these things also. In fact, the thought of a whole heap of 'elders' sitting around a table and designing something purely for personal health and fitness that involve a series of forms utilizing attacks and defences plus timber breaking and fighting other students and learning defences against wrist grabs, punches etc, all rounded off by wearing a karate uniform with a series of belts and gradings reminds me of something you'd see on a monty python film. As you say, if you want to get fit, go on a jog


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 20, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Exactly right. Any form of running, with some interval training and even some light weights and stretching will achieve far more than tkd if fitness and health is the goal. Diet would also play a major role in achieving these things also. In fact, the thought of a whole heap of 'elders' sitting around a table and designing something purely for personal health and fitness that involve a series of forms utilizing attacks and defences plus timber breaking and fighting other students and learning defences against wrist grabs, punches etc, all rounded off by wearing a karate uniform with a series of belts and gradings reminds me of something you'd see on a monty python film. As you say, if you want to get fit, go on a jog


Yeah.
Today, I felt really Healthy when I put my Partner into a Chokehold and took him down over my Hip.
Or when I was Kicked in the Ribs - Yeah, my Fitness really felt like it was on the up and up!
It all makes sense, really.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 20, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Yeah.
> Today, I felt really Healthy when I put my Partner into a Chokehold and took him down over my Hip.
> Or when I was Kicked in the Ribs - Yeah, my Fitness really felt like it was on the up and up!
> It all makes sense, really.


not to mention the countless tkdists you meet with knee problems


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 20, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> not to mention the countless tkdists you meet with knee problems


To be fair, its the same with Hip issues.

Tis what you get for not Strengthening those Bones properly.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> Put another way, the seven year old student at a commercial dojang isn't thinking negative thoughts about the self defense crowd, so why should the self defense crowd think negatively of the seven year old commercial dojang student? Both types of practitioners deserve to be respected for what they are doing. Same for those who train to compete. They should also be equally respected for what they are trying to sincerely achieve.



I submit it is far different to do something for health reasons or self defense and have that activity target that which you are trying to achieve and a naive 7 year old whose activity may result in health and fitness but be leading to really bad self defense strategies and techniques while that 7 year old (and their parents)  thinks they are learning self defense.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> To be fair, its the same with Hip issues.
> 
> Tis what you get for not Strengthening those Bones properly.



You can have this happen from any number of other issues like gender, genetics, and conditions you may be born with (forgot the word) not related to gender or genetics.  (Remember now "Congenital")


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Exactly right. Any form of running, with some interval training and even some light weights and stretching will achieve far more than tkd if fitness and health is the goal.



These things are all good but do not provide strength over range of motion like a 4 limb and torso motion activity.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> Itosu Sensei came several hundred years later. But the original purpose was for health. .



Hmmm  "original" would be an interesting detailed discussion. 

Anyway, maybe both? "TKD- The mental training of unarmed combat for self defense aswell as health......"


----------



## StudentCarl (Oct 20, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> Any form of running, with some interval training and even some light weights and stretching will achieve far more than tkd if fitness and health is the goal.  As you say, if you want to get fit, go on a jog



Maybe our training is completely different from yours, but I disagree. Our training is both aerobic and anaerobic, including flexibility, agility and body-weight work with upper and lower body, and extensive core work. I know many people who find running and weight work boring compared to taekwondo class, with it's progressive athletic challenges and focus on continued improvement in a structured and somewhat social setting. I suppose you could do similar things with a personal trainer, but can't agree that you will "achieve far more." Please explain if I'm missing something.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> Itosu Sensei came several hundred years later. But the original purpose was for health. It wasn't until I studied yoga did the connection between it and the martial arts hit me. The yoga connection also is evident in the Kukkiwon poomsae, where it was explained to me at the Kukkiwon Instructor Course was that certain postures and poses, especially those that involved twisting the torso, were health related. However, if you didn't do the poomsae correctly, keeping shoulders square on blocks for example, then you wouldn't be able to see it and would miss it completely.



I do Ashtanga yoga myself, and there are some similarities but IMO at the core the two activities are different.  In yoga, we don't strive for violent acceleration of the limbs with the body mass braced behind them.  We also don't tension our core muscles at the key delivery moment as is done in karate or tae kwon do.

While clearly martial arts can be performed for exercise, there are more efficient, probably more safe methods to become fit if that is our primary goal.   



puunui said:


> I don't have any problem with people hunting around forms for applications. I also don't have any issue with people practicing forms or the martial arts for that matter primarily for self defense purposes. The issue I have is when those types of practitioners look down their noses at practitioners who are in it for non self defense purposes and think that somehow they are not "real" martial artists or real practitioners. This includes the majority of students at most commercial dojang, who are there for some exercise, to lose weight, to gain some self confidence and improve their concentration for studies, which to me sound exactly like what Bodhidarma was attempting to instill in the Shaolin monks with the 18 exercises.
> 
> Put another way, the seven year old student at a commercial dojang isn't thinking negative thoughts about the self defense crowd, so why should the self defense crowd think negatively of the seven year old commercial dojang student? Both types of practitioners deserve to be respected for what they are doing. Same for those who train to compete. They should also be equally respected for what they are trying to sincerely achieve.



I understand your rebuke but try as I might I'm not in a place yet where I can live and let live about such things.  And sometimes I'm not sure that I would be wrong to feel that way either.

I dislike the image traditional martial arts has acquired recently, and to be frank I am not pleased about a lot of the trappings of commercial dojang or dojo.  It's not enough to say as some might that we should only worry about our own schools and our own students.  Like it or not, we're all lumped into the same mind space by the general public.  What happens in the strip mall dojang a few blocks away inevitably has carriage to me as well.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 20, 2011)

As an Offnote, I started Training for Self Defense.
Then it became about being a more Effective Practitioner, Combatives Wise.
Not too much Difference.
But I also appreciate the other Benefits im getting along the way, and dont mind if other People are in it for different reasons.
Just dont expect Me to change My reasons.
Different People Learn for Different Reasons, and different Varieties of the same thing cater for that.

But you cannot generalise People who Train for SD or Combatives simply because some of them look down at less... Im not even sure of a good word for it. Less Volatile, I guess, Forms. Because not all of them do.
Some Less Volatile Practitioners think People who Train for SD or Combatives are *******s.
Theyre just as bad as each other.

Live And Let Live.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

StudentCarl said:


> Maybe our training is completely different from yours, but I disagree. Our training is both aerobic and anaerobic, including flexibility, agility and body-weight work with upper and lower body, and extensive core work. I know many people who find running and weight work boring compared to taekwondo class, with it's progressive athletic challenges and focus on continued improvement in a structured and somewhat social setting. I suppose you could do similar things with a personal trainer, but can't agree that you will "achieve far more." Please explain if I'm missing something.



You generally don't build strength in your core or in your back from strictly doing tae kwon do (basics and forms).  The legs, yes, from the varied types of kicks along with sufficient stance training.  It sounds to me that you are adding bodyweight exercises to supplement the physical training, and while I love it and do it myself, it's not martial arts - it's physical conditioning.  The bulk of clubs in my area don't have this for their students at all.  They stretch statically at the beginning of class and do a little bit of movement to warm up before jumping straight into something like basics or forms.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> _*As to your comment that a block could be a grab or a parry or a strike, I would answer that first it must be a block. You first have to block/parry it so it doesn't hit you. Then, and as a continuation of the move, you most certainly may grab or strike some other part of the attacker's person.
> *_



I see it as a hierarchy of learning.  Certainly the first level of understanding has hard-style blocks as a key component.  People can stay here and do very well for themselves, working primarily on power and striking precision for retaliation as long as they also toughen their bodies for blocking, hitting, and being able to take a hit themselves.  IMO moving on requires development of other characteristics, both physical and mental.



oftheherd1 said:


> _* As I was taught, we would block as we move in, a counter-attack being part of the entire movement. We have very few counters to a punch or kick where we would not first block, or block as part of the counter.
> *_



Not knowing your particular form of hapkido, I can't comment directly on what you've been taught specifically, but in the arts I've studied it is understood that the various defenses only serve as a starting place.  Advanced students perform them different than beginners - often the various actions are so compressed that one or more of the components of defense (move -> block -> enter -> strike -> control) are combined so that they may appear to be missing altogether.  The by-the-number directions are there to serve as a fundamental guide, but as one grows in his skill, his movement is more and more subtle.  The likes of O'Sensei could avoid direct attacks by entering the space of his assailants and then counter to great effect with a mere expression from his center.  To the uninitiated, it looked like he was doing nothing at all, yet one way or another an adept of his skill can accomplish all the fundamental steps of defense at once.

... No time at present to write a longer exposition.  I will try to respond to your other comments later.


----------



## puunui (Oct 20, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> If you just want Fitness and Health, Jog.




If you just want self defense, buy a gun. Or take Peyton Quinn's weekend course.


----------



## puunui (Oct 20, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I do Ashtanga yoga myself, and there are some similarities but IMO at the core the two activities are different.  In yoga, we don't strive for violent acceleration of the limbs with the body mass braced behind them.  We also don't tension our core muscles at the key delivery moment as is done in karate or tae kwon do.



Who says that you have to strive for violent acceleration of the limbs or tense your core muscles at the key delivery moment when practicing the martial arts? 




dancingalone said:


> While clearly martial arts can be performed for exercise, there are more efficient, probably more safe methods to become fit if that is our primary goal.



Are there? When I was younger, I did things the way you describe, especially with a violent knee snap on my kicks. When I got older, I went through everything and reached a point where I do not need to overly emphasize violent knee snap to generate power. Instead I overly emphasize hip turn and body weight momentum shifting into my roundhouse kick and other kicks. The end result is a safe training method which greatly reduces the possibility of injury and yet still being able to generate the type of speed and power in kicks that the korean martial arts are known for. 




dancingalone said:


> I understand your rebuke but try as I might I'm not in a place yet where I can live and let live about such things.



Give it time. You can only fight the current and swim upstream for so long. I speak to my friends about their dojang and some cannot remember the last time any prospective student inquired about self defense.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> Who says that you have to strive for violent acceleration of the limbs or tense your core muscles at the key delivery moment when practicing the martial arts?
> 
> ....
> 
> Are there? When I was younger, I did things the way you describe, especially with a violent knee snap on my kicks. When I got older, I went through everything and reached a point where I do not need to overly emphasize violent knee snap to generate power. Instead I overly emphasize hip turn and body weight momentum shifting into my roundhouse kick and other kicks. The end result is a safe training method which greatly reduces the possibility of injury and yet still being able to generate the type of speed and power in kicks that the korean martial arts are known for.



Both the acceleration and core muscle tension are part of the requirements for creating what Okinawans call chinkuchi.  This practice is the reason why I can have an uke hold a thick yellow pages directory against their abdomen for a shield yet I can still drop him with a punch to the gut.  It is because my strike penetrates through.

<shrugs>  You can still punch relatively hard without using this method... Just not as hard nor as effectively since the same penetrating force isn't present.  Without chinkuchi if a person punches another person with a yellow pages as a barrier, a push would likely be produced rather than a crumpling strike.


----------



## puunui (Oct 20, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> YIt sounds to me that you are adding bodyweight exercises to supplement the physical training, and while I love it and do it myself, it's not martial arts - it's physical conditioning.




I don't see how you can separate physical conditioning exercises from martial arts training. For example, is makiwara training physical conditioning or martial arts training? What about other hojo undo?


----------



## puunui (Oct 20, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Both the acceleration and core muscle tension are part of the requirements for creating what Okinawans call chinkuchi.  This practice is the reason why I can have an uke hold a thick yellow pages directory against their abdomen for a shield yet I can still drop him with a punch to the gut.  It is because my strike penetrates through.
> 
> <shrugs>  You can still punch relatively hard without using this method... Just not as hard nor as effectively since the same penetrating force isn't present.  Without chinkuchi if a person punches another person with a yellow pages as a barrier, a push would likely be produced rather than a crumpling strike.



What if your purpose is something other than dropping someone with a punch to the gut?


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> I don't see how you can separate physical conditioning exercises from martial arts training. For example, is makiwara training physical conditioning or martial arts training? What about other hojo undo?



I would consider makiwara striking martial arts training as you are building focus and technique primarily with this exercise.  The knuckle conditioning is a nice added bonus.  On the other hand, hojo undo is indelibly liked with Naha-te, but ultimately it's physical conditioning in nature.  

Splitting hairs?  Maybe, maybe not.  I think the real question that decides it is whether a particular system exists without whatever we are talking about.  Is tae kwon do practiced without core strength exercises?  Yes, definitely so, and by a lot of people at that.  So, it follows that these core strengthening exercises are NOT a part of tae kwon do, although they can be a great complement to it.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> What if your purpose is something other than dropping someone with a punch to the gut?



I don't understand what you are asking.


----------



## puunui (Oct 20, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I would consider makiwara striking martial arts training as you are building focus and technique primarily with this exercise.  The knuckle conditioning is a nice added bonus.




I was taught that the knuckle conditioning is not the really a concern when doing makiwara training, that in fact it is better to use a soft surface to strike (a small piece of puzzle mat for example). Instead, the focus on makiwara training is the development of the muscles, tendons and ligaments. It is the okinawan version of solo flex. It is the same with any other physical conditioning exercise, where you are building both focus and technique.


----------



## puunui (Oct 20, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I don't understand what you are asking.



What if your purpose is something other than dropping someone with a punch to the gut? Do you still need to perform such that explosive speed and power are the necessary end result when doing the martial arts? Or can you do kata for example with less intensity? And in doing so, with less intensity, does that somehow turn it into something less than the martial arts? Is taichi for example, a martial art?


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> What if your purpose is something other than dropping someone with a punch to the gut? Do you still need to perform such that explosive speed and power are the necessary end result when doing the martial arts? Or can you do kata for example with less intensity? And in doing so, with less intensity, does that somehow turn it into something less than the martial arts? Is taichi for example, a martial art?



If you don't need to destroy someone, then strike with less intensity.  Regardless, it's nice to have options, and even if we never need the ability in these peaceful times, there is still something to be said for reaching for the highest level in your chosen endeavor.  I will never be as effortless as O'Sensei in my movement yet I still strive to get better with every practice.  If we are content to reach for something else, that is fine, but I think some things aren't relativistic or ambiguous - if we are aiming to practice the highest levels of striking (at least in the karate arena), then there are clear physical signposts of how to reach them. 

Incidentally, tai chi is deceptively soft as you likely know.  They have their own form of stunning force, even though the vast majority of practitioners never come close to achieving it.  And to answer your question directly, it is readily apparent that most people don't practice tai chi as a martial art if they don't push hands or if they don't try to issue faijin.  Perhaps moving mediation or joint & breath rejuvenation exercise would be a better description for those people.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 20, 2011)

puunui said:


> If you just want self defense, buy a gun. Or take Peyton Quinn's weekend course.


That is quite possibly one of the silliest things ive ever heard. No Offense, really. But you make it sound like I was using my Previous Comment as some kind of Criticism.


Its clear youre Biased here - But take into account that not everyone will share your View on this. (Fitness, I mean. Not Guns. Read on.)
Now, your first thought is going to be the same thing back.
Fitness =/= Self Defense. Very Different. They are not one in the same.


Guns do not make you impervious to Harm.
Guns, if sighted by your attacker, who isnt going to sit there and have a chat with you about how he plans to accost you, will fight you all the harder. Because to Him, now its Survival. Not just Assault. He NEEDS to Overwhelm you to Survive, now. And People arent stupid.
Guns need to be produced in order to be fired. Assuming it was already Loaded and Chambered and the Safety was Off, youd still need to Point and Fire. All whilst more than likely several People are assaulting you, also likely with Weapons.
But incase youd rather not hear such things from Me;
http://takingcareofourselves.blogspot.com/2009/02/get-facts-guns-dont-protect-you-by.html
Different People Operate Differently. Some People carry Knives. Sticks. Brass Knuckles. Guns.
Other People so happen to prefer being Unarmed.




puunui said:


> Who says that you have to strive for violent acceleration of the limbs or tense your core muscles at the key delivery moment when practicing the martial arts?
> 
> 
> Are there? When I was younger, I did things the way you describe, especially with a violent knee snap on my kicks. When I got older, I went through everything and reached a point where I do not need to overly emphasize violent knee snap to generate power. Instead I overly emphasize hip turn and body weight momentum shifting into my roundhouse kick and other kicks. The end result is a safe training method which greatly reduces the possibility of injury and yet still being able to generate the type of speed and power in kicks that the korean martial arts are known for.
> ...


Because you wont make it past White Belt if you dont Tense when its proper.


Good for you, Mate. Now if you did Both, perhaps youd have More Power.


Good for you again. If you and your Friends arent in it for Self Defense, thats your call. It doesnt make it a Rule of Thumb. I say again - Different People Train with Different Intentions. Accept the other intentions or youre just as bad as the People who Train for SD who you claim look down their Noses at less Volatile Practitioners.




puunui said:


> I was taught that the knuckle conditioning is not the really a concern when doing makiwara training, that in fact it is better to use a soft surface to strike (a small piece of puzzle mat for example). Instead, the focus on makiwara training is the development of the muscles, tendons and ligaments. It is the okinawan version of solo flex. It is the same with any other physical conditioning exercise, where you are building both focus and technique.


Well, at least youre not one of the sorts who think your hand will collapse in like a twig as soon as you punch something.
On the other hand, the Knuckles can be Damaged by Force. Try Punching a Brick Wall or Concrete Post. A Forehead is not a Soft Surface. Not is a Breastplate. Just some food for thought.




puunui said:


> What if your purpose is something other than dropping someone with a punch to the gut? Do you still need to perform such that explosive speed and power are the necessary end result when doing the martial arts? Or can you do kata for example with less intensity? And in doing so, with less intensity, does that somehow turn it into something less than the martial arts? Is taichi for example, a martial art?


Firstly, Tai Chi is, actually, a Martial Art. There are Combative Types of Tai Chi.


As for Power and Intensity, that is up to the Individual. But id rather know I can hit with Explosive Power and take out someone Triple my Size, than know that I can be all laid back.
It isnt hard to take the Power out of something.








The Bottom Line, is that some People really actually do Train for the Combative. And the Power. And the Application.
Theres a factor of Personal Choice.
Some People choose to Learn a Sport.
Some People want Fitness.
I can live with them existing.


But I AM Learning a Combative. And so are Hundreds of others that I know of, within this Organisation.
Not all Self Defense can be solved with a Gun, or any Weapon.
Escrimadors (I think I spelt that Right) even learn Unarmed Techniques, despite being a Stick Art.
Judo has Punches.
Aikido has Kicks.
Because all of them are aware that you need a wider range of capabilities than their Primary Focus.
Then you have various Karate, Taekwondo, and whatever else, which come in so many Flavors its quite remarkable, and which Encompass all possible Applications (Hands, Elbows, Shoulders, Head, Knees, Legs, Arms, Feet, Grappling, Striking, Weapons, Etc etc etc. All Encompassing, in other words.)
Everyone is catered for here.
But consider this;
People DO Jog for Fitness and Health. It isnt just something im ploying here. People do it. And it works for them.
Martial Arts may work for others, but whether they like it or not, along the way, theyre learning Methodologies designed to inflict Bodily Harm.


As such, I can more than Justify My Choice to Practitioner a Martial Art for Combative and Self Defense Purposes.
You are free to view MA in a different Light. And I am more than willing to accept your Personal Preference. But lets not forget why there are so many Forms to begin with.
And if your Primary Aim is Fitness, Good for You. Im glad youre getting what You want out of your Training.
Im learning a Combative. Are you Happy for Me?

Note: I rarely, rarely state My Opinion here. This is mostly Retrospective Information. Im not here to try and Communicate anything more than My Viewpoint. Not so much trying to Debate Opinionation.


----------



## puunui (Oct 21, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> If you don't need to destroy someone, then strike with less intensity.



Or don't strike at all, other than air. There are people who train like that, kata only. Are they martial artists?


----------



## puunui (Oct 21, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> That is quite possibly one of the silliest things ive ever heard. No Offense, really. But you make it sound like I was using my Previous Comment as some kind of Criticism.



I could say the same thing about your jogging suggestion. 




Cyriacus said:


> Its clear youre Biased here - But take into account that not everyone will share your View on this. (Fitness, I mean. Not Guns. Read on.)
> Now, your first thought is going to be the same thing back.
> Fitness =/= Self Defense. Very Different. They are not one in the same.



I never said they were the same. 




Cyriacus said:


> Guns do not make you impervious to Harm.



Never said it did. I don't see why you get so upset when I give you an alternate suggestion for "self defense" but then feel that it is perfectly ok for you to give me a suggestion about health. 




Cyriacus said:


> Guns, if sighted by your attacker, who isnt going to sit there and have a chat with you about how he plans to accost you, will fight you all the harder. Because to Him, now its Survival. Not just Assault. He NEEDS to Overwhelm you to Survive, now. And People arent stupid.
> Guns need to be produced in order to be fired. Assuming it was already Loaded and Chambered and the Safety was Off, youd still need to Point and Fire. All whilst more than likely several People are assaulting you, also likely with Weapons.
> But incase youd rather not hear such things from Me;
> http://takingcareofourselves.blogspot.com/2009/02/get-facts-guns-dont-protect-you-by.html
> ...



I've actually had the barrel of a loaded 38 placed in my ear. I've also stared down the barrel of a shotgun pointed at my face. How about you? 





Cyriacus said:


> Because you wont make it past White Belt if you dont Tense when its proper.



Some people don't care about rank. 




Cyriacus said:


> Good for you, Mate. Now if you did Both, perhaps youd have More Power.



Some people don't care about having more power. 




Cyriacus said:


> Good for you again. If you and your Friends arent in it for Self Defense, thats your call.



I was talking about my friends who teach at their own dojang not remembering the last time a prospective student coming in and asking about self defense. It's not so much that they are not into it but rather today's potential student isn't into it.


It doesnt make it a Rule of Thumb. I say again - Different People Train with Different Intentions. Accept the other intentions or youre just as bad as the People who Train for SD who you claim look down their Noses at less Volatile Practitioners.





Cyriacus said:


> Well, at least youre not one of the sorts who think your hand will collapse in like a twig as soon as you punch something.
> On the other hand, the Knuckles can be Damaged by Force. Try Punching a Brick Wall or Concrete Post. A Forehead is not a Soft Surface. Not is a Breastplate. Just some food for thought.



I think it is stupid to punch an immovable object like a brick wall or concrete post. And I generally would aim my punch for either your nose, tip of your chin,or under your chin, or at your tmj joint, not the forehead or breastplate. 




Cyriacus said:


> Firstly, Tai Chi is, actually, a Martial Art. There are Combative Types of Tai Chi.



I know and don't disagree with you. What I am wondering is why you think that I do. 




Cyriacus said:


> As for Power and Intensity, that is up to the Individual. But id rather know I can hit with Explosive Power and take out someone Triple my Size, than know that I can be all laid back. It isnt hard to take the Power out of something.



Do you think I disagree with you?




Cyriacus said:


> The Bottom Line, is that some People really actually do Train for the Combative. And the Power. And the Application.
> Theres a factor of Personal Choice.
> Some People choose to Learn a Sport.
> Some People want Fitness.
> I can live with them existing.



Which is my point exactly. 




Cyriacus said:


> But I AM Learning a Combative. And so are Hundreds of others that I know of, within this Organisation.
> Not all Self Defense can be solved with a Gun, or any Weapon.
> Escrimadors (I think I spelt that Right) even learn Unarmed Techniques, despite being a Stick Art.
> Judo has Punches.
> ...



People use guns for self defense as well, in case you didn't know that. 




Cyriacus said:


> As such, I can more than Justify My Choice to Practitioner a Martial Art for Combative and Self Defense Purposes.
> You are free to view MA in a different Light. And I am more than willing to accept your Personal Preference. But lets not forget why there are so many Forms to begin with.
> And if your Primary Aim is Fitness, Good for You. Im glad youre getting what You want out of your Training.
> Im learning a Combative. Are you Happy for Me?



Actually yes I am happy that you're happy. And frankly, I am still trying to figure out why you think I would not be. Whatever reason you choose to practice is fine, just as long as you believe that others also have the right to practice for their own reasons, without being looked down upon by others. 




Cyriacus said:


> Note: I rarely, rarely state My Opinion here. This is mostly Retrospective Information. Im not here to try and Communicate anything more than My Viewpoint. Not so much trying to Debate Opinionation.



ok.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 21, 2011)

puunui said:


> I could say the same thing about your jogging suggestion.
> 
> *I said youd say that  "Now, your first thought is going to be the same thing back." -But that was a lack of clarification on My part.*
> 
> ...



I think were saying the same things in different ways, and that these ways are prone to being misinterpreted as a Result, due to the way that we are Reading these Replies.
Ill clarify quickly that I refrain from Argueing - I dont have Time for it, really. I could link you to a Thread thats a good example of Me not Argueing, when it could have been justified, as an example. Im mainly Debating - Presenting Facts against Facts to draw Conclusions, possibly Mutual.

My Conclusion is that we seem to Agree, here. And that any disagreement is purely subject to Misinterpretation of the Intention behind certain Comments.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Oct 21, 2011)

puunui said:


> If you just want self defense, buy a gun. Or take Peyton Quinn's weekend course.



Sadly, I live in the only state without concealed carry. Peyton Quinn's RMCAT course is good, but I think it is a good starting point.  I would also have liked the opportunity to go up against the Bulletmen more frequently but the structure of the course did not have the resources for it.


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 21, 2011)

puunui said:


> Or don't strike at all, other than air. There are people who train like that, kata only. Are they martial artists?



If they practice *martially*.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 21, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I see it as a hierarchy of learning. Certainly the first level of understanding has hard-style blocks as a key component. People can stay here and do very well for themselves, working primarily on power and striking precision for retaliation as long as they also toughen their bodies for blocking, hitting, and being able to take a hit themselves. IMO moving on requires development of other characteristics, both physical and mental.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, as I said, I think we are saying the same things but in a different way.  And maybe from different perspectings so it seems different.  As to my style of Hapkido, it is Soong Moo Kwan.  But I think most (though not all) Hapkido styles have more in common than not.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 21, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> If you just want Fitness and Health, Jog.


Why?  Is it such a bad thing to take up martial arts strictly for fitness and health instead of jogging, which I dislike, but view it as a necessary evil in my training.

If you dislike something you are not going to be motivated to doing simply because you know it is good for you.  This is why you don't see everybody jogging or swimming or walking for that manner.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 21, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> not to mention the countless tkdists you meet with knee problems


True...joggers never have any leg or knee problems.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Oct 21, 2011)

sopraisso said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> Since when I joined MT I've been willing to talk (discuss and ask, mainly) about many things, most about some kind of deeper understanding of what is practised tkd classes in my dojang. It's been a little hard to start with a straight question, because many of my issues relate to general practice of the art, but well, I had to start somehow. So here I am, dropping things as they show up to my mind.
> 
> ...




As a 5th dan in tkd,I can energetically say the same thing I've been saying when remonstrating with my kenpo brethren (I hold a 5th in kenpo too) and that is: it's all about functional training.  Just this morning literally not 2 hours ago I was working out and teaching at the park and this question was put to me:"What's the use of the stances and the blocks?" I pointed out that there isn't a stance tech or block that doesn't have direct combat application,you just have to be blessed with a knowledgeable enough instructor to demonstrate the difference.

Power blocks aren't meant to be used for fast attacks,like jabs.But I've used the "X" block in a fight before,both as a deflection of an attack and as a choke escape.I've used the X-Block to escape the MT Clinch before.It was pretty funny,too. (I'm a MT coach too).The ancient Korean teaching methods aren't reflective of modern day functional training,but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not only must you recognize that there is yoga deeply embedded into almost every form and stance and movement of old skool Asian martial arts which all of us can benefit from to this very day,recognize that when you functionalize all of your defenses attacks and counters for modern day fighting reality? All you've done is simply change the delivery of your techs,NOT their viability. It's your fighting platform,delivery and entrances which will change. I remember when I recently popped and dropped a 230 pound MT guy with thee ole knife hand to the neck. I did it again to his tricep,the inside of his knee as he raised his leg to fend off what he thought would be a kick,and twice to the temples of other guys. Then...to make my point...not only did I revert to kicking combinations and only kicks while sparring vs MT kicks in the gym,when we practiced clinch work? I combined my blocks with my basic stances...exactly as I was shown 33 years ago as a white belt...and proceeded to drop and mop the floor with these guys.A few times I got slung around too,but my point was made: these techs work.

Like the saying in my sig goes: "IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN..."


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 21, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Why?  Is it such a bad thing to take up martial arts strictly for fitness and health instead of jogging, which I dislike, but view it as a necessary evil in my training.
> 
> If you dislike something you are not going to be motivated to doing simply because you know it is good for you.  This is why you don't see everybody jogging or swimming or walking for that manner.



You misunderstand my intention behind that statement.

If you Learn a MA, you are learning Methodologies to Inflict Harm. And you get nice and Fit along the way. Im just saying that if Fitness is what you want, perhaps more so than the Inflicting Harm, there are other ways of doing that. Like Gym. Running is just the example I shot up there.

When I think "I wanna get fit", my Options dont start with "Fighting Forms".
Is all im saying.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 24, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> You misunderstand my intention behind that statement.
> 
> If you Learn a MA, you are learning Methodologies to Inflict Harm. And you get nice and Fit along the way. Im just saying that if Fitness is what you want, perhaps more so than the Inflicting Harm, there are other ways of doing that. Like Gym. Running is just the example I shot up there.
> 
> ...


Thank you for clearing that up.  From my experience those who have joined martial arts with the sole purpose of getting fit, have done it for one or two reasons, the first being that they just want to do something different than an aerobic class or jogging.  The second is they have physical limitations that prohibits them from weight lifting or other types of activities.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 24, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Thank you for clearing that up.  From my experience those who have joined martial arts with the sole purpose of getting fit, have done it for one or two reasons, the first being that they just want to do something different than an aerobic class or jogging.  The second is they have physical limitations that prohibits them from weight lifting or other types of activities.


Wasnt there a Kid with No Legs doing Karate?


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 24, 2011)

Yes...which is why he never became a long distance runner and took up martial arts instead.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 24, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> Yes...which is why he never became a long distance runner and took up martial arts instead.


You make a good Counterpoint - Well Played


----------

