# How do you test techniques at your dojang?



## skribs (Feb 2, 2020)

I'm curious what other schools do to test the simple techniques when doing a belt test.  To clarify, by "simple" I mean the technique itself or the technique in a small combination, as opposed to something like a form or a complicated one-step drill.

My memory of my old school is a little bit fuzzy (since it was over 20 years ago that I left), but I believe we would line up and demonstrate the techniques together.  Mostly it would be kicks, and if I remember right we would kick and replace our foot.  I don't even remember if we did that, or if we just did the forms and sparring.

My current school, we have rote-memorized combinations.  For example, our colored belts have 1-8 punching and 1-8 kicking.  So if my Master says "do #4 punching" then everyone knows which punch combo to do, and if he says "do #5 kicking" then everyone knows which kicking combo to do.

Which leads to my questions:

Do you test simple techniques at your school, or do you only test on forms/one-steps/sparring/breaking?
When you test simple techniques, do you just test the individual kick or punch, or do you test them in combinations?
When you test simple techniques, do you test the kicks and punches in place, or do you combine footwork as well?
In regards to #2 and #3, are the combinations prescribed before the test and rote memorized by the students, or are they dynamically called during the test?
If the techniques and combinations are dynamic, how is it handled when a student misunderstands a command?
When you test the simple techniques, do you expect to see students perform them for speed, power, or form?
If there's any thoughts you have that don't relate to my questions, then I'd love to hear them, too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 2, 2020)

*


skribs said:



			"do #4 punching" ... "do #5 kicking"
		
Click to expand...

In my school, every technique or combo has a name such as:

   - Inner hook, scoop
  - Double hooks
  - Neck wiping inner hook
  - Knee strike inner hook
- ...

IMO, to use #1, #2, ... is not a good idea in the long run.

*


----------



## skribs (Feb 2, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *In my school, every technique or combo has a name such as:
> 
> - Inner hook, scoop
> - Double hooks
> ...



Do you do belt tests at your school?


----------



## Danny T (Feb 2, 2020)

We have combinations of movements. Then we have application of those movements with several variations along with empty hand, blunt object, knife, countering variations and re-countering variations. Then we add in multiple opponent's variations


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 2, 2020)

skribs said:


> Do you do belt tests at your school?


Yes!

blue belt - 30 principles of butterfly hands.
1st degree black belt - 30 principles of 4 sides and 2 doors.
2nd degree black belt - tournament record.
3rd degree black belt - entering strategy, finish strategy, counters, and combos.


----------



## skribs (Feb 2, 2020)

Danny T said:


> We have combinations of movements. Then we have application of those movements with several variations along with empty hand, blunt object, knife, countering variations and re-countering variations. Then we add in multiple opponent's variations



How do you test the different variations?  Are students expected to know the specific ones tested before-hand, or do you call out which ones you want to see during the test?


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *IMO, to use #1, #2, ... is not a good idea in the long run.*



I just want to clarify:  I agree.  I understand why my Master does it this way, and for a couple of reasons I do like it.  One of which being that I am very good at memorizing things, so the memory part of the tests is very easy for me.  On a more serious note, it's an easy way for inexperienced instructors to lead warm-ups.  It means there should be no confusion what you have to do on testing day.  It makes it so you don't forget to practice any of the techniques, and it kind of forces you to practice to be ready for the test (since you need to practice it to memorize it).

However, when I become a Master (probably anywhere in the next 6-10 years), I don't know that I want to use the same teaching style as my Master uses.  I disagree with some of his methods and opinions on teaching.  For now, I teach his way, because he's the Master and it's his school, and I'm just an employee working for him.  So I do things his way.  When it's my own, I don't think I want to do it that way.  One of the big changes I want to make is I want to focus a lot less on memorization, and focus more on concepts and application of the techniques.

This is the reason I'm making this thread.  I know how to teach the technique the way I want to.  But I'm not sure how to test it.  I was hoping someone would have some ideas so I didn't have to reinvent the wheel on this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> I know how to teach the technique the way I want to.  But I'm not sure how to test it.  I was hoping someone would have some ideas so I didn't have to reinvent the wheel on this.


1. You teach a technique.
2. You teach how to counter that technique.
3. You teach how to counter the counter of that technique.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 3, 2020)

So in shaolin kempo: There were specific techniques we learnt at each belt. On the tests, we would need to be able to figure out how to adapt those techniques to whatever punch/kick came our way (among a lot of other things).

In nanzan budokan kenpo, the focus was on the attacks: we knew a lot of different defenses to 'attacks', and when certain attacks came during the test we would need to respond to them appropriately.

In pekiti kirsia kali...I honestly don't know. I know that I've randomly been informed i've gotten a new certification, but I don't know what causes that. i know there's specific things to learn at each belt, so I assume its a combination of learning new techniques and improving in sparring. Either way doesn't appear help you, unfortunately.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *In my school, every technique or combo has a name such as:
> 
> - Inner hook, scoop
> - Double hooks
> ...


Why not? As long as everyone is able to recognize the term, it's not a big deal in the long run. In the short run, names are probably easier to associate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2020)

I'm not in TKD, but you know I'm going to post, anyway. 

I'll share how NGA schools - from my limited experience seeing tests at other schools - tend to test strikes. I share it as an example of testing that doesn't have much utility, IMO. Strikes and blocks are done in their simplest form, in the formal stances, etc. only. So a front kick (rear leg kick to the front) is done from a front stance, hands on hips (a formal position designed to keep hands still). Usually 10 kicks at most (just to see that it's done correctly), then change sides. No targeting (all just "air kicks") or power checks involved. Some "snap" is expected as rank increases.

I think this kind of isolation test is okay at early stages (just to see that they can actually do that kick), and might be useful to revisit later (to make sure potential instructors are maintaining good form in the traditional drills). But it doesn't really do much to test development of the kick, nor application of it.

I'm still working on how I want to test things formally. My classes are quite small, so most of the application testing and such happens during drills, rather than during a formal test. But I don't want any student who might decide to teach to misunderstand that as me only testing the formal positions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. You teach a technique.
> 2. You teach how to counter that technique.
> 3. You teach how to counter the counter of that technique.


That's still talking about how to teach it. The OP is about testing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> How do you test the different variations?  Are students expected to know the specific ones tested before-hand, or do you call out which ones you want to see during the test?


Again, some input from outside TKD - I've done this both ways. There's more memorization stress on the student in being expected to remember what they're tested on and produce the results without prompts (pretty standard in the NGAA and most mainline schools, from what I've seen and heard). Having the instructor call them out means they don't have to recall the list in that moment, but don't get to do them in their favorite order. It also gives the option of not actually testing every single technique, while the student still has to prepare every single technique, not knowing what will be called (kind of like an academic test).


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 3, 2020)

e have a requirement sheet for each rank.   People get the first one when they join, and the next  after passing the test. These sheets serve as a type of checkoff to make sure the student is ready to test as well as actual test sheets although students are reuired to know and perform all prior material.   The sheets has sections such as Hand Techniques, Foot techniques, Combinations, Patterns, Ho Sin Sul etc.    New Hand and Foot techniques will be tested individually so we are certain the student knows the name.  Then these same techniques may appear again in the patterns and combinations.


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Why not? As long as everyone is able to recognize the term, it's not a big deal in the long run. In the short run, names are probably easier to associate.



I could be wrong (and re-reading it, maybe I was) but I read his post to mean that focusing on specific combinations could be bad in the long run. 



gpseymour said:


> I'm not in TKD, but you know I'm going to post, anyway.
> 
> I'll share how NGA schools - from my limited experience seeing tests at other schools - tend to test strikes. I share it as an example of testing that doesn't have much utility, IMO. Strikes and blocks are done in their simplest form, in the formal stances, etc. only. So a front kick (rear leg kick to the front) is done from a front stance, hands on hips (a formal position designed to keep hands still). Usually 10 kicks at most (just to see that it's done correctly), then change sides. No targeting (all just "air kicks") or power checks involved. Some "snap" is expected as rank increases.



What I'm trying to figure out is how to test something beyond just the simplest form.  For example, even with just roundhouse kicks, I'm looking for a testing mechanism where I could test things like:

Roundhouse kick into tornado kick
Roundhouse kick, return the leg and tornado kick the other way
Footwork moving forward, backward, or laterally in combination with the kick
I'd be focusing on combinations of 1-3 kicks with various types of footwork in class, and I'm trying to figure out how to translate that into a test.



gpseymour said:


> Again, some input from outside TKD - I've done this both ways. There's more memorization stress on the student in being expected to remember what they're tested on and produce the results without prompts (pretty standard in the NGAA and most mainline schools, from what I've seen and heard). Having the instructor call them out means they don't have to recall the list in that moment, but don't get to do them in their favorite order. It also gives the option of not actually testing every single technique, while the student still has to prepare every single technique, not knowing what will be called (kind of like an academic test).



At my current school, we have that, because my Master has all of the techniques numbered.  Although for the most part, we do ALL of them, just not necessarily in order.  We may not do everything else in the curriculum, though.

However, I'm trying to get away from rote memorized numbers.  Using the example above, if I say "roundhouse kick, return and tornado kick", I might be looking for specific footwork, and they might understand it slightly different and do the combo differently.  (This is based on how well people copy our dynamic combos in sparring drills).



Earl Weiss said:


> e have a requirement sheet for each rank.   People get the first one when they join, and the next  after passing the test. These sheets serve as a type of checkoff to make sure the student is ready to test as well as actual test sheets although students are reuired to know and perform all prior material.   The sheets has sections such as Hand Techniques, Foot techniques, Combinations, Patterns, Ho Sin Sul etc.    New Hand and Foot techniques will be tested individually so we are certain the student knows the name.  Then these same techniques may appear again in the patterns and combinations.



This is definitely something I plan to do.  We have these sheets as well.  I'm just trying to figure out how to go from all the stuff in class to making the test itself actually work.


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. You teach a technique.
> 2. You teach how to counter that technique.
> 3. You teach how to counter the counter of that technique.


 Like @gpseymour  said, I'm looking for how to handle this during a test.  At that point I hope the teaching is done!


----------



## Danny T (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> How do you test the different variations?  Are students expected to know the specific ones tested before-hand, or do you call out which ones you want to see during the test?


There are base line applications that are expected to be known depending upon; Age, Level, Ability. As the levels go up there is an expectation greater knowledge of the what and how as well as the when and why.
I teach a combination of movements (techniques) base upon certain principles driving the movements and positions. For each application of the movements there are baseline counters and re-counters to be known. Then I may ask to see a different application for the technique combination. 
So there would be the baseline application, a counter, and a re-counter to be shown. 
Then for example; Show me that same technique vs a stick strike angled from your left to right side. Now get on your back and show me that technique vs a person punching you from either mount or guard.  
Or I may, again depending on the level being tested. Let's see that technique combination with 2 opponents.
I may ask to see a drill we use and ask to take a portion of said drill and show me what is the drill designed to develop and how that development can be utilized in an application.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 3, 2020)

Danny T said:


> There are base line applications that are expected to be known depending upon; Age, Level, Ability. As the levels go up there is an expectation greater knowledge of the what and how as well as the when and why.
> I teach a combination of movements (techniques) base upon certain principles driving the movements and positions. For each application of the movements there are baseline counters and re-counters to be known. Then I may ask to see a different application for the technique combination.
> So there would be the baseline application, a counter, and a re-counter to be shown.
> Then for example; Show me that same technique vs a stick strike angled from your left to right side. Now get on your back and show me that technique vs a person punching you from either mount or guard.
> ...


Very thorough. I like it.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> Do you test simple techniques at your school, or do you only test on forms/one-steps/sparring/breaking?


We do not test simple technique in the finite it sounds like you are reaching for. If teaching and practice has been adequate, 'simple technique' quality will be displayed in the actions of gross skills. We do break down individual techniques into the component parts when teaching them. 



skribs said:


> When you test simple techniques, do you just test the individual kick or punch, or do you test them in combinations?


See above. Are we talking two different things now? I consider a full kick a gross skill. Grouping it into a combination is a different skill set and is weighted differently based on several factors like rank, age, ability, etc... 



skribs said:


> When you test simple techniques, do you test the kicks and punches in place, or do you combine footwork as well?


Both. Footwork is an integral part of most forms but can be singled out if desired. 



skribs said:


> In regards to #2 and #3, are the combinations prescribed before the test and rote memorized by the students, or are they dynamically called during the test?


We do not do rote memorization in the context described. Techniques are displayed on both sides in no particular order.



skribs said:


> If the techniques and combinations are dynamic, how is it handled when a student misunderstands a command?


"Do I again." Is the usual response. Minimal direction is given during testing. 



skribs said:


> When you test the simple techniques, do you expect to see students perform them for speed, power, or form?


All of the above. Form is a very, very subjective component.



skribs said:


> If there's any thoughts you have that don't relate to my questions, then I'd love to hear them, too.


We do Not test someone until it is apparent it should be no more than a formality. Time in grade (heavily weighted by quality time)is the greatest factor. If the practice time/class time is quality the test is, at best, a head game for some people.


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> See above. Are we talking two different things now? I consider a full kick a gross skill. Grouping it into a combination is a different skill set and is weighted differently based on several factors like rank, age, ability, etc...



I think we're talking about two different things.  If you differentiate between "technique" and "gross skill" and consider a full kick to be a "gross skill", do you not consider a kick to be a technique?



dvcochran said:


> Both. Footwork is an integral part of most forms but can be singled out if desired.



The footwork used in most forms is not the type of footwork you would combine with strikes in a real situation.  The footwork in forms gets slightly more power at a huge cost in speed and maneuverability.  The footwork is good for transitioning into a throw, but not for throwing punch and kick combinations.



dvcochran said:


> We do not do rote memorization in the context described. Techniques are displayed on both sides in no particular order.



I think we're talking about two different things here.  For example, our #1 kicking is front kick and 1-2 punch.  We'll do both sides over and over again.  We may not start with #1, we may do a bunch of other ones first.  However, whenever my Master says "Kicking #1", we all have rote memorized what our next 3 techniques are going to be.



dvcochran said:


> "Do I again." Is the usual response. Minimal direction is given during testing.



(Using the example I used of a roundhouse kick followed by a tornado kick).  If you wanted to see me do a kick, replace my foot behind me and tornado kick the other direction, but I did a roundhouse kick, landed in front of me, and did the tornado kick, would you simply say "do it again" until I figured out what you want to see?  Or would you provide feedback "not that direction, the other direction"?

My Master does the former during testing, but we also have rote memorized what our combinations are supposed to be.



dvcochran said:


> All of the above. Form is a very, very subjective component.



What I mean is if the kick is done for speed (i.e. looks like it would be most likely to score a point in point sparring), power (would probably hurt most if hit by it), or form (graceful, precise, controlled).



dvcochran said:


> We do Not test someone until it is apparent it should be no more than a formality. Time in grade (heavily weighted by quality time)is the greatest factor. If the practice time/class time is quality the test is, at best, a head game for some people.



Time in grade is the biggest factor?  Yikes.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 3, 2020)

Maybe turn the question around a little. Instead of asking "How should I test a technique?" Ask: "What kind of Martial Artist am I hoping to train?" "Who am I training?" Answering these questions should help you figure out how to test your students.

Who are you training?
In my opinion, if you are teaching 4-6 year olds... what you teach and what you are expecting them to learn should be different from adults. Therefore, their tests should be different. 9-12 year olds should be trained and tested differently, as should teens, and then adults. This then leads to the first question, of what kind of training are you going for? What are you hoping to teach each of these groups?

What kind of Martial Artist are you training?
If you are training martial artists to go into musical TKD forms contests... then your test should be about the TKD forms, and specifically around the points that bring the high scores in those contests. If you are training TKD point fighting contestants, then your tests should reflect the skills needed to win those fights. If you are teaching full contact, knock down fight contestants... your testing should be different here as well.

Are you teaching hobbyists martial artist? Are you teaching people looking to get into shape? Or someone hoping to fight MMA? I would have different tests for each of these groups... as in they are looking for different things.

You and I frequently collide about how deep we think the TKD forms go and how connected they may be to TKD sparring and real fighting. I tend to think that these forms go very deep, and encompass quite a few things beyond the label. I feel that much of this is for the student to learn and explore, under the teachers guidance. Since I would want students going deep, and exploring for themselves... my tests would reflect that in some way. Have the student show things they have found in the forms. Or have the student apply that part of the form as a punch first, then as a grip escape. You tend to have the view that its all there on the surface, and labelled exactly what it is. If that is the type of martial artists you are hoping to train, then your testing would look very different then my tests, even if they were tests over the same material. (Note: I am not trying to open that argument again... we have plenty of threads on that already... just trying to offer some advice on how to go about constructing your tests, is all)

Once you figure out who you are training, and what type of martial artists you want them to become, you will find a lot of answers about how to go about testing them. Realize that if your school covers a wide range of ages, your tests should be of and equally large range. Just because you want to compete in forms, doesn't mean you won't also compete in sparring. However, knowing how much emphasis you place on form competition verses sparring competition verses MMA competition results, will then modify the amount of time you spend train for each result and will then modify what you want to see in the testing.

Hopefully this helps.


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

@wab25 definitely things to consider.  However, at this point I'm trying to figure out how to make the test work the way I want it to, more than I'm trying to figure out what I want in the test.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think we're talking about two different things. If you differentiate between "technique" and "gross skill" and consider a full kick to be a "gross skill", do you not consider a kick to be a technique?


Yes, but not in the vein of your original question as you seemed to be inquiring about the ability to critique individual components. 



skribs said:


> The footwork used in most forms is not the type of footwork you would combine with strikes in a real situation. The footwork in forms gets slightly more power at a huge cost in speed and maneuverability. The footwork is good for transitioning into a throw, but not for throwing punch and kick combinations.


This is an inherent flaw in the way Kukki forms are too often taught, or more correctly, the lack of teaching. I find most all footwork techniques are in the forms we teach somewhere. It is true that forms may not be the best tool for drilling a specific move or component on it's own.  



skribs said:


> I think we're talking about two different things here. For example, our #1 kicking is front kick and 1-2 punch. We'll do both sides over and over again. We may not start with #1, we may do a bunch of other ones first. However, whenever my Master says "Kicking #1", we all have rote memorized what our next 3 techniques are going to be.


I think it is the same for most schools/systems. They just do not associate a number to the movement(s). 



skribs said:


> (Using the example I used of a roundhouse kick followed by a tornado kick). If you wanted to see me do a kick, replace my foot behind me and tornado kick the other direction, but I did a roundhouse kick, landed in front of me, and did the tornado kick, would you simply say "do it again" until I figured out what you want to see? Or would you provide feedback "not that direction, the other direction"?
> 
> My Master does the former during testing, but we also have rote memorized what our combinations are supposed to be.


I would not provide feedback during a testing. At least not right away. Hence, the test. Sometimes people just need to noodle a problem out. Seeing the ability to do this on their own has a great value for both instructor and student. If they blank out and cannot move forward, we would then offer suggestions/direction. Most often we would expect them to be able to show an alternate solution using the same tools if they do not follow the first challenge correctly. 


skribs said:


> What I mean is if the kick is done for speed (i.e. looks like it would be most likely to score a point in point sparring), power (would probably hurt most if hit by it), or form (graceful, precise, controlled).


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This is an inherent flaw in the way Kukki forms are too often taught, or more correctly, the lack of teaching. I find most all footwork techniques are in the forms we teach somewhere. It is true that forms may not be the best tool for drilling a specific move or component on it's own.



The style of footwork used in all of the forms I've learned is not at all congruent with the type of footwork used with the kicks in WT sparring, nor the punches in boxing.  Slides and skips are non-existent, it's almost all steps and stance changes.  That's not to say there isn't a place for the footwork in the KKW forms.  I just think there's more footwork in TKD than what the forms teach.  (Kind of like how students learn Social Studies in school, but there's more classes than just Social Studies).



dvcochran said:


> I think it is the same for most schools/systems. They just do not associate a number to the movement(s).



Are you saying most schools have combinations you're expected to *know* before the test?
In this case "know" is that you have it memorized and know specifically which combination will be on the test; not just that the student can do the combination if described.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> However, at this point I'm trying to figure out how to make the test work the way I want it to, more than I'm trying to figure out what I want in the test.


Can you explain this more?

Rereading the 6 questions you asked in the OP, I would answer them differently, depending on what my goals were. If I wanted to make a team form competition team, the test would involve group testing, to see if they could keep in sync and have proper form. If my goals were around individual competition, then individual testing would be better, with even more attention paid to the details. I could have the student pass off the basic techniques before the test, during the classes, then only test the required forms... expecting them to show the proper details in the techniques they have signed off. After running through the forms, I would have them use a heavy bag to look at power and speed.

If I wanted self defense oriented goals instead of form competition... I would be looking for different things. Maybe I have them do defenses from attacks, then a bunch of heavy bag work. Then once they are soaked with sweet and sucking wind, now make them do their longest form. Here the grading is based on application and amount of force. (they should have broke the bag in half) Here I want to see if they can control their breathing, control their body and think straight all while exhausted... where above, I wanted to see perfect precision in the form.

As I see it, what you want to see in your student, helps define how you test them and what you look for in that test. Without defining what "good" looks like, how would you know if the student did "good" on the test?


----------



## skribs (Feb 3, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Can you explain this more?
> 
> Rereading the 6 questions you asked in the OP, I would answer them differently, depending on what my goals were. If I wanted to make a team form competition team, the test would involve group testing, to see if they could keep in sync and have proper form. If my goals were around individual competition, then individual testing would be better, with even more attention paid to the details. I could have the student pass off the basic techniques before the test, during the classes, then only test the required forms... expecting them to show the proper details in the techniques they have signed off. After running through the forms, I would have them use a heavy bag to look at power and speed.
> 
> ...



I'm looking for the mechanism by which to test the techniques.  One where the combinations don't have to be rote memorized, but that I can give the commands without any confusion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> I could be wrong (and re-reading it, maybe I was) but I read his post to mean that focusing on specific combinations could be bad in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have some thoughts for you - I’ll try to remember to reply tomorrow when I’m not on my phone.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 3, 2020)

skribs said:


> The style of footwork used in all of the forms I've learned is not at all congruent with the type of footwork used with the kicks in WT sparring, nor the punches in boxing.  Slides and skips are non-existent, it's almost all steps and stance changes.  That's not to say there isn't a place for the footwork in the KKW forms.  I just think there's more footwork in TKD than what the forms teach.  (Kind of like how students learn Social Studies in school, but there's more classes than just Social Studies).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cannot follow. You said your school numbers your drills/moves. How would you Not know the corresponding movements for a given number if you thought it was part of your testing? To my knowledge, All schools have combinations a person is expected to know before testing, at least to some degree of competency. 
We use the specific name(s) in both English and Korean. The curriculum and teachers let people know what they need to know for their next testing and they are expected to know terminology before testing.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 4, 2020)

Well you can borrow extrapolated terms from the Chang Hon System.    Double - Triple = same kick same leg done multiple times.   Combination = Use one limb then the other.   Consecutive =   Same Limb- Different kicks.  Example     " Right leg back - Combination kick starting with the rear leg.   Front Snap Kick, Side Turning Kick, Side  Piercing kick" = 3 kicks changing legs each time.    Or "Right leg back, kicking with the rear foot, Consecutive kick - advancing Front Snap Kick, Side Turning Kick, Side Piercing kick..  = Right foot doing all 3 kicks without putting it down, then stepping down to the front so the next kick is with the left foot.   Terms like "180" and "360"   denote a jump, not just amount of rotation


----------



## Danny T (Feb 4, 2020)

All of the base punches and elbows are numbered, all knees and kicks are termed for students.
All strike combos are numbered using the base numbers and terms. 

So taking punches only as an example with this particular numbering system
Jab or lunge punch  = 1
Rear Straight or Cross or Reverse Punch = 2
Lead Hook = 3
Rear Upper Cut = 4
Lead Upper Cut = 5
Rear Hook = 6
Lead Overhand = 7
Rear Overhand = 8

A base Combo could be "123" (one twenty three) = Jab-Rear Straight-Lead Hook
or maybe "Level 123" = Level change during the striking. So that could = Jab head-Rear Straight body-Lead Hook Head. 
Or = Jab body-Rear Straight Head-Lead Hook Liver

I have full combo sets which include punches, kicks, knees, elbow, clinching, striking in the clinch, sweeping or tripping in the clinch, getting out of the clinch and following up.
I use terms like "Junk Yard", "Baseball", "Gameplan", "Downtown", each of which are complete templates for: Set up, the actual attack, a contingency if it doesn't work, a follow up, a finish, or a get out of Dodge while still countering attacking.


----------



## skribs (Feb 4, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I cannot follow. You said your school numbers your drills/moves. How would you Not know the corresponding movements for a given number if you thought it was part of your testing? To my knowledge, All schools have combinations a person is expected to know before testing, at least to some degree of competency.
> We use the specific name(s) in both English and Korean. The curriculum and teachers let people know what they need to know for their next testing and they are expected to know terminology before testing.



This is what my current school does.  I'm looking to what I want to do when I'm in charge, which is to focus less on rote memorization.



Earl Weiss said:


> Well you can borrow extrapolated terms from the Chang Hon System.    Double - Triple = same kick same leg done multiple times.   Combination = Use one limb then the other.   Consecutive =   Same Limb- Different kicks.  Example     " Right leg back - Combination kick starting with the rear leg.   Front Snap Kick, Side Turning Kick, Side  Piercing kick" = 3 kicks changing legs each time.    Or "Right leg back, kicking with the rear foot, Consecutive kick - advancing Front Snap Kick, Side Turning Kick, Side Piercing kick..  = Right foot doing all 3 kicks without putting it down, then stepping down to the front so the next kick is with the left foot.   Terms like "180" and "360"   denote a jump, not just amount of rotation



This is something I'm considering.  Another one of my hobbies is gaming (both board games and video games) and one tactic they use to simplify directions is *key words*.  For example, in the game Dominion, any time something says "+1 Buy", that term has been defined in the rules, which makes it easier than putting "you can buy 1 additional card on your buy phase" onto the card.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> I could be wrong (and re-reading it, maybe I was) but I read his post to mean that focusing on specific combinations could be bad in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some thoughts on things you said, mostly in this post. Some of this is stuff I've been thinking about for my own testing.

Firstly, I think testing the most basic form is valid for the beginner (at that technique - someone who only recently learned it). After that, I look to test something more closely approximating application. It's tough to test actual application, since that'd require them managing the technique against someone who knows it's coming - either that person plays compliant, or the technique likely fails. So how do we get closer? With striking, I think that involves adding targets, some of them moving. So, maybe a short set of combos that show they can do the most important strikes (hand and foot) and footwork/level changes for that rank. Those could be tested against focus mitts. If you need to test multiple people at once (I've never had to do that, so I think first of solo testing), then also teach the students the mitt-holding side, so half are doing the combo, while the other half do the mitts. 

A note on testing footwork. If you test their movement, the footwork should be a natural result, if they've been practicing (you've been teaching) using it appropriately. So, if I want to see a specific set of footwork, I simply request a combination that makes it the best choice within their training with me. If they manage to put in different footwork, I have to decide whether that's an adequate alternative demonstration (does their choice still demonstrate the principles I'm looking to test?) or do I ask them to do it with different footwork. My point is that I don't really care about the specific footwork - I care about the effect it has. So, if someone uses a different stance in transition, I'm probably okay with that, if their choices use the principles I'm testing.

I hope some of that shakes some ideas loose for you.


----------



## skribs (Feb 4, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Firstly, I think testing the most basic form is valid for the beginner (at that technique - someone who only recently learned it). After that, I look to test something more closely approximating application. It's tough to test actual application, since that'd require them managing the technique against someone who knows it's coming - either that person plays compliant, or the technique likely fails. So how do we get closer? With striking, I think that involves adding targets, some of them moving. So, maybe a short set of combos that show they can do the most important strikes (hand and foot) and footwork/level changes for that rank. Those could be tested against focus mitts. If you need to test multiple people at once (I've never had to do that, so I think first of solo testing), then also teach the students the mitt-holding side, so half are doing the combo, while the other half do the mitts.



I definitely agree about beginners; also the problem with testing grappling techniques.  Most of my experience as a judge during testing is that test groups often range from 10-30 people at a time.  Every testing week we usually have 60-80 students test, in 5-6 separate tests across 3 or 4 days.  I couldn't imagine doing all of those individually!  (Nor do I imagine having nearly as big a school when I run one).

Holding targets for kicks is a lot different than for punches.  In my experience, it's a lot less intuitive, especially with combination kicks.  We'll have students of most levels hold kicking shields, but there's only a small group of instructors that are comfortable with the paddle targets.

One thing I've thought of is to place a target (such as a standing kicking dummy) and have the student start from a certain point and then execute the technique.



gpseymour said:


> A note on testing footwork. If you test their movement, the footwork should be a natural result, if they've been practicing (you've been teaching) using it appropriately. So, if I want to see a specific set of footwork, I simply request a combination that makes it the best choice within their training with me. If they manage to put in different footwork, I have to decide whether that's an adequate alternative demonstration (does their choice still demonstrate the principles I'm looking to test?) or do I ask them to do it with different footwork. My point is that I don't really care about the specific footwork - I care about the effect it has. So, if someone uses a different stance in transition, I'm probably okay with that, if their choices use the principles I'm testing.



I think that can work for punches, but for the kicks it's a bit different.  _I also think this is a big reason why only staying in orthodox stance like boxing wouldn't work for Taekwondo, and why we have to train both sides, is that through the nature of kicking you're constantly changing from orthodox to southpaw._  For example, if I wanted someone to demonstrate moving backwards and countering with a roundhouse, do I mean:

Slide back with both feet and then roundhouse 
Step backwards and then roundhouse
Pivot backwards and then roundhouse
Pop roundhouse kick while moving backwards
Lean back and lead-leg roundhouse
Maybe the specifics aren't as necessary for the test.  Or maybe I want to test the different methods.  If the group is demonstrating in line together, I don't want one person to take a big slide backwards while the other person just leans back.

---
I'm kind of driving myself crazy thinking about this.  I have ideas for how I want to do things, but I at least want to have this mechanism figured out before I explore it deeper.  And of course, this is all hypothetical at this point.  I may get done going over everything and just decide it's not a good training model and scrap everything.  I may end up not opening my own school.  I don't know.  What I do know is I'd like to at least figure this out and have it on-hand for when I do explore the idea of creating my own curriculum further.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> For example, if I wanted someone to demonstrate moving backwards and countering with a roundhouse, do I mean:
> 
> Slide back with both feet and then roundhouse
> Step backwards and then roundhouse
> ...


Why would you not just give these verbal directives? I assume you do these in organized drills, else how would you know the naming conventions? That said, these are the kind of specifics I look for in someone's sparring. Know the 'why' is much more important than just knowing the 'how' or name of a technique. For example, your list is a perfect example of covering/creating space. It could be a great set of techniques to drill together to teach the differences and when each should be used.


----------



## skribs (Feb 4, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Why would you not just give these verbal directives? I assume you do these in organized drills, else how would you know the naming conventions? That said, these are the kind of specifics I look for in someone's sparring. Know the 'why' is much more important than just knowing the 'how' or name of a technique. For example, your list is a perfect example of covering/creating space. It could be a great set of techniques to drill together to teach the differences and when each should be used.



When doing the drill in class, someone is usually demonstrating it.  Either the instructor is, or the instructor has one person demonstrate so they can say "no, slide this way for this drill".  

I agree it would be something to look for in sparring.  But sometimes things just don't come up in sparring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> I definitely agree about beginners; also the problem with testing grappling techniques.  Most of my experience as a judge during testing is that test groups often range from 10-30 people at a time.  Every testing week we usually have 60-80 students test, in 5-6 separate tests across 3 or 4 days.  I couldn't imagine doing all of those individually!  (Nor do I imagine having nearly as big a school when I run one).
> 
> Holding targets for kicks is a lot different than for punches.  In my experience, it's a lot less intuitive, especially with combination kicks.  We'll have students of most levels hold kicking shields, but there's only a small group of instructors that are comfortable with the paddle targets.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you’re thinking the right things. You’re being overly analytical, but I do that, too - it’s kind of a hobby. You’ll get to the right answer in time. A few things that might help out... First, maybe try out some of your ideas on willing students who have passed a test and are interested in some extra challenge, if your CI is okay with it. And focus on what principles you want to ensure are taught. You can’t test everything, so focusing on the principles will help you limit what physical techniques you need to test.


----------



## skribs (Feb 4, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It sounds like you’re thinking the right things. You’re being overly analytical, but I do that, too - it’s kind of a hobby. You’ll get to the right answer in time. A few things that might help out... First, maybe try out some of your ideas on willing students who have passed a test and are interested in some extra challenge, if your CI is okay with it. And focus on what principles you want to ensure are taught. You can’t test everything, so focusing on the principles will help you limit what physical techniques you need to test.



It's at least 10 years down the road, so I have time to be overly analytical.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's at least 10 years down the road, so I have time to be overly analytical.


I did the same. I think my curriculum was 15 years in the making. Planning testing has taken more than 20 years so far. Maybe someday I’ll have enough students I’ll actually need to make a firm decision.


----------



## skribs (Feb 4, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I did the same. I think my curriculum was 15 years in the making. Planning testing has taken more than 20 years so far. Maybe someday I’ll have enough students I’ll actually need to make a firm decision.



I think I'll either end up with no students or more students than I want.  Ideally I'd have maybe 20-30 students spread between 2 classes.  I'll probably end up either with somewhere around 2 students, or 60+.  I don't think it will be in between.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think I'll either end up with no students or more students than I want.  Ideally I'd have maybe 20-30 students spread between 2 classes.  I'll probably end up either with somewhere around 2 students, or 60+.  I don't think it will be in between.


That's about my ideal, too. I like classes of 15-20 students.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 5, 2020)

What about class arrangement? 
Will you segregate by age and/or rank? 
Have you created/started a written curriculum? 
Home/garage school or retail building? 
Style/lineage? 
Will you stay associated/franchise? 
What/where will the startup capital come from?
How/who/when will belt testing be performed?
What credits/advantages do you have to promote your business venture?
What/how/why will you supplement income?

This list goes on and on. They are not specific to your question but much bigger in perspective. IMHO. The old saying of "looking at things from 10,000 feet" has a lot of merit.


----------



## skribs (Feb 5, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> What about class arrangement?
> Will you segregate by age and/or rank?
> Have you created/started a written curriculum?
> Home/garage school or retail building?
> ...



Good things to think about, but also not super relevant to the question.

First I'll need to see how many people are going to join when I open up
Most likely.
Started on it, but part of it is a Catch 22 that if I'm not sure what's being tested, then I'm not sure what goes into the curriculum.  
At this point, it would have to be retail.  I don't have a garage, and my home is barely able to handle my own training.
Kukkiwon with heavy influence from my Master's teachings
I think I would stay associated with KKW.  Not sure if the school would be associated with my Master when I make my own curriculum.   I have a feeling I will need to be on my own then.
I have a lot of time to figure that out.
Timing would depend on the number of students, the more students I have the more frequent and regular testing would be.  The *how* is what I'm doing here.
Can you explain the question?
At this point my day job would be my priority.  That's why I'd only want to have a couple of classes instead of a full load like my school has right now.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 5, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is something I'm considering. Another one of my hobbies is gaming (both board games and video games) and one tactic they use to simplify directions is *key words*. For example, in the game Dominion, any time something says "+1 Buy", that term has been defined in the rules, which makes it easier than putting "you can buy 1 additional card on your buy phase" onto the card.


My primary art is Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. This is a Japanese based system of jujitsu. However, Okazaki (the founder of the art) chose to use different, non-traditional names. For most Japanese based systems, Kote Gaeshi looks something like this:





If you ask a DZR guy, if we study Kote Gaeshi, he will say yes. But when he demonstrates it, it will look something like this: (Kote Gaeshi is done twice, once by each person, starting at 46 seconds in)





Note, they are completely different things. This leads to a little confusion when training with other Japanese systems, for obvious reasons. I bring this up, as you seem to trying to come up with some kind of key word, coding system for the techniques. My suggestion would be to use the TKD Korean terms. That way your TKD students will be compatible with other schools. 

At first, it may sound like a way to keep your students from drifting over to other schools. But, it also keep other TKD students from drifting over to your school. Further, when TKD Grand Master WhatsHisFace comes out to teach a seminar to your students, you have to spend half the time translating your terms into his terms. 

Using the common TKD terms for the techniques would be a better approach in the long run. Then you can call out the Korean term and they perform it. You can add modifiers, "left side forward, step back, TKD term,"  "left side forward, slide step, TKD term."


----------



## skribs (Feb 5, 2020)

wab25 said:


> My primary art is Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. This is a Japanese based system of jujitsu. However, Okazaki (the founder of the art) chose to use different, non-traditional names. For most Japanese based systems, Kote Gaeshi looks something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For one thing, most TKD schools don't actually use the Korean words.  Some do, but most use the native language of the country it's being taught in.  It's something that I *believe* is a suggestion by KKW, to make TKD more accessible to students around the world.  I think using the source language is most common in Japanese arts, hence my post I made a few months ago: Why do Japanese arts use the Japanese language?

(And the simple fact that I don't know the Korean terms for all of the details I want to look at).

For another, there is no standardized terminology for Taekwondo.  At different schools, the following may be used to refer to the same kick:

Tornado Kick
360 Roundhouse Kick
360 Turning Kick
Spinning Roundhouse Kick
Turning Roundhouse Kick
And like you said, the same word can mean different things in different Japanese schools.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 5, 2020)

skribs said:


> Good things to think about, but also not super relevant to the question.
> 
> First I'll need to see how many people are going to join when I open up
> Most likely.
> ...


#9.
Why would someone workout with you rather than the school down the street? What can you 'hang your hat on'? What separates you from the thousands of other KKW schools? How do you sell yourself? Credentials/accomplishments?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 5, 2020)

wab25 said:


> My primary art is Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. This is a Japanese based system of jujitsu. However, Okazaki (the founder of the art) chose to use different, non-traditional names. For most Japanese based systems, Kote Gaeshi looks something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good points. Also, using the terms you learned by means it’s easier to stay consistent in the early years.


----------



## skribs (Feb 5, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> #9.
> Why would someone workout with you rather than the school down the street? What can you 'hang your hat on'? What separates you from the thousands of other KKW schools? How do you sell yourself? Credentials/accomplishments?



Ah, gotcha.  Great question.

I'm still working on a lot of that.  Both how to answer the question, and on gaining the credentials that will help.  Right now I'm a 3rd degree black belt in TKD and a red belt in HKD.  By the time I open my own school, I will be 5th degree in TKD and somewhere between 3rd and 5th degree in HKD.  I also don't know if I would just stick with those, or if I want to take some other martial arts on the way in (BJJ, boxing, and Wing Chun really catch my eye).

I imagine some students would follow me to my new school.  I think the number of students who prefer my Master to me is much higher than the number that prefer me to my Master, but I also know there are at least a few that prefer me.  I know when my Master opened his own dojang, a lot of students followed him from his old school.  I don't think he advertises much, but relies mostly on word-of-mouth and people googling "martial arts near me", and we have never been starved for students in the time I've been there.  I don't think I'd have as much of a draw as he does (because he's got much better credentials than I'll ever have), but I imagine I'll be able to fill classes.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 6, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> #9.
> What separates you from the thousands of other KKW schools? How do you sell yourself? Credentials/accomplishments?


IMO you don't have to.   For the most part the general public is clueless. They go to the most convenient place based upon location and class availability.   If there is a choice they will pick what they think is cheapest and not find out about up charges and extras until after they are involved.   They walk in the door and see a bunch of people dancing in their pajamas and, certificates on the wall, trophies in the window and are impressed.   The other 1% may be looking for you because of their prior experience or recommendations from people who know you or what you teach vis a vis the system they are looking for.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Feb 6, 2020)

There’s a lot going on here. 

IMO, when determining your curriculum, start with the “end” in mind. What do you want a 1st dan to look like? What do you want them to know? That should inform your decision on what to include in your curriculum. 

Once you know what you need to include, you have to plan on how you will deliver your curriculum. How will you schedule your classes? Will you use a set curriculum for each rank? Will you use a rotating curriculum? Some combination of each?

As for testing, I prefer to have a specific cycle so that everyone knows when the next opportunity to test is approaching. For us, it’s an 8 week cycle. This cycle gives students and instructors a sense of urgency and gives direction to daily class planning, in my opinion. 

When it comes to testing individual skills, I find that being consistent in terminology and approach in class eliminates most confusion at the test. If I’m going to test combinations, for example, students have several cues that they are familiar with from class: names of techniques, name of footwork (we use a number system for this so no explanation is needed), and the way the targets are held. Very little direction is needed if consistency is maintained. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 6, 2020)

Earl Weiss said:


> IMO you don't have to.   For the most part the general public is clueless. They go to the most convenient place based upon location and class availability.   If there is a choice they will pick what they think is cheapest and not find out about up charges and extras until after they are involved.   They walk in the door and see a bunch of people dancing in their pajamas and, certificates on the wall, trophies in the window and are impressed.   The other 1% may be looking for you because of their prior experience or recommendations from people who know you or what you teach vis a vis the system they are looking for.


By in large, I agree. The people you describe are typical of the majority of people who walk in the doors. They are also, by in large, the people who walk right back out or shortly thereafter. That said, the population at-large is more informed and have at least some idea of how they want to at least start class. I do not intend it to sound inappropriate but there is a 'sell factor' to consider. I like looking at the 'whole pie' when I think if this. 
I am not sure if you saw post #43. The post was a rather comprehensive response to the OP. IMHO, #9 is lower in order of importance for the average person (& kids) coming in. More so, it is a component part of the whole product.
I am not implying a new instructor/school has to have some incredible fighter record to make a go of it. There are several other things a person can present as credible that have marketing/student value. Community service, specialty programs, professional organization services and affiliation, LEO/EMS/DHS and school system affiliation, etc... It is an ever growing list.
The Martial Art model is evolving. I try very hard Not the change the original teachings and concepts but possibly the way they are presented. I am always looking to see others ideas.

Back to your post; in regards to the 'average Joe' who walks in with little to zero forethought, what do you see as average %'s for signup and retainage? Is there a 'wow' factor you use/have when someone comes in to talk about classes?


----------



## advfhorn (Feb 6, 2020)

Goju Ryu dojo:
Our CI (Renshi) picks a night (or several nights at higher belts) and you will feel him "watching you". I have seen him test the skills in different ways but most common are "man in the middle":  
- self defense (strike to loosen, break the hold, create space) - higher belts he wants to NOT see the same techniques over and over again, this can also include throws and sweeps at higher belts
- strike/kicks - either go in a circle person to person or work it across combos on each person's pad
- rolls and falls are usually tested separate
- sparring - brown belt and higher is 2 or 3 on one person for 3-5 mins ish
- ground work - at the higher belts you will be taken down and expected to get up or tie them up
- fitness - pushups, situps, planking
- kata - usually tested when you are mentally and physically exhausted, arms and legs already shaking and can hardly think straight

I have only been in my Shorin Ryu dojo 3 months - he has a 'testing day" but I can tell you he is ALWAYS watching ...... and that man does NOT EVER miss a thing ... EVER!!!!  I can tell there are nights he is watching me to see where I am at.  You have to sign up to be tested and there is a fee and being he orders the belts ahead of time I am guessing he already knows if you are ready   He does have set "partner drills" and kumite drills you have to learn and he is watching, and kata and bunkai again he is always watching.


----------



## skribs (Feb 6, 2020)

Jaeimseu said:


> IMO, when determining your curriculum, start with the “end” in mind. What do you want a 1st dan to look like? What do you want them to know? That should inform your decision on what to include in your curriculum.



Way ahead of you on this 



> Once you know what you need to include, you have to plan on how you will deliver your curriculum. How will you schedule your classes? Will you use a set curriculum for each rank? Will you use a rotating curriculum? Some combination of each?



I would most likely use a set curriculum for each rank.  For the most part, things in Taekwondo increase in difficulty as you rank up.  I don't think it would make much sense for white belts to learn spin hook kicks and advanced forms before they learn roundhouse kick and the basic forms.  

I could see using rotating curriculum for more of the RBSD types of things.  For example, at my school right now, white belts learn hand grab techniques, and red belts learn body grab techniques.  I don't think the body grabs are much harder/more complicated than the hand grabs.  However, if I tested them, I'd probably want a set curriculum, so it would be easier to maintain consistency in testing.  It's a good thought.



> As for testing, I prefer to have a specific cycle so that everyone knows when the next opportunity to test is approaching. For us, it’s an 8 week cycle. This cycle gives students and instructors a sense of urgency and gives direction to daily class planning, in my opinion.



My current school tests every 2 months.  I'd have to wait and see what my numbers are and how my curriculum works.  If I have 20 people, and it ends up being 6 months between tests for most people, then having a whole week to dedicate to testing every 2 months is probably overkill.  If I have 80 people, and people pick up on the curriculum quickly, then it will make more sense.

Our Hapkido class usually has 4-8 people total, so our tests in there are just done during class time. 



> When it comes to testing individual skills, I find that being consistent in terminology and approach in class eliminates most confusion at the test. If I’m going to test combinations, for example, students have several cues that they are familiar with from class: names of techniques, name of footwork (we use a number system for this so no explanation is needed), and the way the targets are held. Very little direction is needed if consistency is maintained.



Are you holding targets during testing?  Our tests are more formal, with the judges sitting at a table and the students lined up in front of us.

Can you give me an example of the number system you use for footwork?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Feb 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> Way ahead of you on this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. I rotate my self defense and sparring curriculum so that everyone in the same class does the same material. I used to divide all curriculum by rank, but as the only instructor, it gets tough once you have a few ranks in class. 

2. I’d recommend breaking up your curriculum into small enough pieces that it can be taught in whatever period of time you choose. I’d add ranks in, if necessary. Getting a new belt gives at least the illusion of progress until real progress is made. 

3. My tests are set up as formal events with no regular classes on test day. I sit behind a table and the students are in full uniform. I get up to hold targets or boards if necessary, though these days I usually have an assistant. 

4. I’ll try to describe it. 

#1	Forward-No Stance Change
#2	Backward-No Stance Change
#3	Forward Step-Stance Change
#4	Backward Step- Stance Change
#5	Forward Step-turning the back
#6	Backward Step-turning the back
#7	Side Step-No Stance Change open side
#8	Side Step-No Stance Change closed side
#9	Side Step-Stance Change
#10	Switch Stance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka (Feb 6, 2020)

I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days, but I'm at a loss for words. Not in the traditional sense, but rather in the complexities of how every place is different. Even the same place with be somewhat different than it was ten years before, or ten years afterwards.

I test techniques differently for different students. Say I was going to cover/test a jump spin kick, any jump spin kick. There's going to be some students that just can't throw them in any realistic, applicable way. So, with them, I'd test how they would defend against it vs one of their dojo mates who was a hell kicker.

Would they avoid, if so how? Would they jam it? Would they always try to out-position so the kicker never had the opportunity to throw it?

While it doesn't have any obvious benefits for self defense - because there more than likely won't be jump spin kicks thrown at you in a self defense situation, what it does do is teach a person how to tactically think and handle somebody who might be more physically gifted.

If there are more experienced students in your dojo, better fighters, better grapplers, better athletes - those are the folks you always want to spar/roll with. Yeah, it's tough at first, but down the road, you'll be glad you did.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 6, 2020)

Buka said:


> I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days, but I'm at a loss for words. Not in the traditional sense, but rather in the complexities of how every place is different. Even the same place with be somewhat different than it was ten years before, or ten years afterwards.
> 
> I test techniques differently for different students. Say I was going to cover/test a jump spin kick, any jump spin kick. There's going to be some students that just can't throw them in any realistic, applicable way. So, with them, I'd test how they would defend against it vs one of their dojo mates who was a hell kicker.
> 
> ...


Excellent, excellent teaching methodology.


----------



## skribs (Feb 6, 2020)

Buka said:


> but I'm at a loss for words.



There's a first


----------



## skribs (Feb 6, 2020)

Buka said:


> I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days, but I'm at a loss for words. Not in the traditional sense, but rather in the complexities of how every place is different. Even the same place with be somewhat different than it was ten years before, or ten years afterwards.
> 
> I test techniques differently for different students. Say I was going to cover/test a jump spin kick, any jump spin kick. There's going to be some students that just can't throw them in any realistic, applicable way. So, with them, I'd test how they would defend against it vs one of their dojo mates who was a hell kicker.
> 
> ...



My opinion is that even if someone can't do it themselves, I want to know that they can teach it to someone else if they were teaching class, or someone came to them for advice.  They might not be able to do the jump spin kick at a practical level, but if they can demonstrate the component parts enough that someone can learn from them, then I'd want to see that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> My opinion is that even if someone can't do it themselves, I want to know that they can teach it to someone else if they were teaching class, or someone came to them for advice.  They might not be able to do the jump spin kick at a practical level, but if they can demonstrate the component parts enough that someone can learn from them, then I'd want to see that.


That would be my approach at higher ranks, but at early ranks, I wouldn’t expect them to be able to teach it. Personally, if someone is unsuited to a technique, I’ll test (and teach) something to fill the same spot, tactically and functionally. So, if a person is too tight for a specific kick, I’ll teach what I can of that, plus what they can substitute for it in practice, use, and testing.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 6, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That would be my approach at higher ranks, but at early ranks, I wouldn’t expect them to be able to teach it. Personally, if someone is unsuited to a technique, I’ll test (and teach) something to fill the same spot, tactically and functionally. So, if a person is too tight for a specific kick, I’ll teach what I can of that, plus what they can substitute for it in practice, use, and testing.


Agree. We teach incremental skills/drills to help a person learn the mechanics of advanced techniques (jump spinning kicks in this case). They may never be able to perform the kick at a high level but they will understand the mechanics. Finding each persons individual best is the most satisfying end game.
Over time, this will allow them to see and explain the kick to another person. 
I do think it is hard(er) for a lesser skilled person to teach advanced techniques. It is not always natural for them to 'draw' ability out of other, more naturally gifted people. The exception would be people who are very mentally driven.


----------



## skribs (Feb 6, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That would be my approach at higher ranks, but at early ranks, I wouldn’t expect them to be able to teach it. Personally, if someone is unsuited to a technique, I’ll test (and teach) something to fill the same spot, tactically and functionally. So, if a person is too tight for a specific kick, I’ll teach what I can of that, plus what they can substitute for it in practice, use, and testing.





dvcochran said:


> Agree. We teach incremental skills/drills to help a person learn the mechanics of advanced techniques (jump spinning kicks in this case). They may never be able to perform the kick at a high level but they will understand the mechanics. Finding each persons individual best is the most satisfying end game.
> Over time, this will allow them to see and explain the kick to another person.
> I do think it is hard(er) for a lesser skilled person to teach advanced techniques. It is not always natural for them to 'draw' ability out of other, more naturally gifted people. The exception would be people who are very mentally driven.



That's why I said earlier that TKD has a set curriculum for each belt instead of a rotating curriculum.  For example:

Our white and yellow belts learn front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick, and axe kick.  The first three kicks we expect to be around waist high (although we take into account the person's condition if they can't), and we expect them to be done slowly, weakly, and with mediocre form.  Axe kicks we expect to be a stretching kick (not a true axe kick).
Purple and orange belts learn back kick, and learn basic footwork combined with the front kick, roundhouse kick, and side kick.  At this point, we expect good form and mediocre speed and power from the basic kicks.  Back kicks are usually slow, weak, and have bad form (we're more happy if they spin the right way and kick with the right foot).  Axe kicks actually become downward kicks now.
Green belts start learning tornado kick, hook kick, and spin hook kick.  We expect the tornado kick to be done step-by-step, the hook kick to be decent, and the spin hook kick is just atrocious.  Basic kicks should be done with good speed and power, and at this point should have great form. We introduce more advanced footwork like skipping kicks, repeating kicks on the same leg, and double kicks.
Blue belts don't really have any new kicks, but we expect the tornado kick to be done well, and the spin hook kick to be done smoothly.  Basic kicks are done in longer, more difficult combinations.
Red belts are expected to really perfect the functional kicks (black belts get more into the fancy show-off kicks).  This is when we make the spin hook look good, for example.
So a beginner isn't going to have to worry about a spin hook kick, because we don't even teach it until green belt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I do think it is hard(er) for a lesser skilled person to teach advanced techniques. It is not always natural for them to 'draw' ability out of other, more naturally gifted people. The exception would be people who are very mentally driven.


Unless you and I mean different things by "mentally driven", it has not been my experience that driven folks are actually better at drawing ability out of folks. They're more visible when they do because they naturally connect with others who are similarly driven, but they're as likely as any other personality style (perhaps more likely) to deliver the instruction in a way that other styles don't follow well.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 7, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Back to your post; in regards to the 'average Joe' who walks in with little to zero forethought, what do you see as average %'s for signup and retainage? Is there a 'wow' factor you use/have when someone comes in to talk about classes?


My suggestion to anyone interested in MA raining whether at my school or anyone else is to watch a few classes and then decide if this is what they want to do.   Also ask about ALL   fees involved. Not just the monthly tuition. No one should be swayed by some "Wow" factor with regard to what they are told. 
Having said that my wow factor consists of several photos on the wall of events I trained at and who I trained with as opposed to certificates from whatever / wherever.    This allows those who have some insight as to my educational experience with acknowledged leaders in their field.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Feb 7, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I am not sure if you saw post #43. The post was a rather comprehensive response to the OP. IMHO, #9 is lower in order of importance for the average person (& kids) coming in. More so, it is a component part of the whole product.


Items listed in post 42/43 that the prospective / new student are interested in are in my "Student Handbook"  This is given to any interested person before signup if they are interested and all new students. Since I have Park district programs, more often than not people sign up before I ever see them.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 7, 2020)

Earl Weiss said:


> My suggestion to anyone interested in MA raining whether at my school or anyone else is to watch a few classes and then decide if this is what they want to do.   Also ask about ALL   fees involved. Not just the monthly tuition. No one should be swayed by some "Wow" factor with regard to what they are told.
> Having said that my wow factor consists of several photos on the wall of events I trained at and who I trained with as opposed to certificates from whatever / wherever.    This allows those who have some insight as to my educational experience with acknowledged leaders in their field.


Agree. I remember when I first opened our first dojang I was very involved in the Olympic circuit level of competition, and had a pretty big ego. I traded out classes to have a display built for trophies and medals that spanned the whole storefront windows and was 3 levels high. I thought it  made some sense at the time; Martial Arts was riding a huge wave of popularity in the 80's. Trophies/medals were seen as a more "reliable" indicator of quality back then compared to now where everyone gets a participation trophy. 
My competitive drive mellowed over the next few years and the display and it's 300 plus shiny things were converted into a visitor/parent seating area. I found there was much more satisfaction in developing relationships with our local LEO & EMS. We developed programs with DHS, our school systems, and several professional organizations. Over time I hung articles about things I have done within my community and such on my office walls that made Others feel good. This would usually resonate with potential new signups.
I held on to several of the medals from my highest accomplishments but I believe I trashed all the trophies. Great memories from the past but, in the end, memories are all the should be.


----------



## Buka (Feb 7, 2020)

skribs said:


> My opinion is that even if someone can't do it themselves, I want to know that they can teach it to someone else if they were teaching class, or someone came to them for advice.  They might not be able to do the jump spin kick at a practical level, but if they can demonstrate the component parts enough that someone can learn from them, then I'd want to see that.



There's actually a way to do that with jump spinning kicks.


----------



## skribs (Feb 7, 2020)

Buka said:


> There's actually a way to do that with jump spinning kicks.



I'm not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2020)

wab25 said:


> My primary art is Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. This is a Japanese based system of jujitsu. However, Okazaki (the founder of the art) chose to use different, non-traditional names. For most Japanese based systems, Kote Gaeshi looks something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, didn't look at your video before.  Now that I have,I enjoyed them.  Lots of moves I have learned in Hapkido.  What I was particularly intrigued about was in the first video, just past 1:32 there was a slight use of the index finger of the hand as the hand is used to grasp the opponent's hand/wrist.  If you look at the patch of the Korean Hapkido Association you will see there is a predominate use of the index finger.  Also, just past that, there is a movement of the use of the index finger as if it were going to be used some other way but then it is used in the grasp.  Is that something actually used in your art?

Also, once the opponent is on the ground, there is a grasp of the elbow.  Is that a use of a pressure point there?


----------



## wab25 (Feb 24, 2020)

oftheherd1 said:


> What I was particularly intrigued about was in the first video, just past 1:32 there was a slight use of the index finger of the hand as the hand is used to grasp the opponent's hand/wrist. If you look at the patch of the Korean Hapkido Association you will see there is a predominate use of the index finger. Also, just past that, there is a movement of the use of the index finger as if it were going to be used some other way but then it is used in the grasp. Is that something actually used in your art?


That demonstration is by "another" art, so I can't really comment on what they are doing. In Danzan Ryu, we teach it very differently, than demonstrated. In fact, I have a few problems with the way that was done... but then I was using it as an example of how most Japanese systems do the art of that name.

The biggest thing I would change, is that tori (the guy doing the art) wraps the fingers of both his hands around the wrist itself. When I grab, I stay off the wrist itself. By grabbing the wrist joint, you are supporting the wrist that you are trying to lock. If you grab just the hand, you give no support at all to the wrist, and the lock comes on a lot sooner and tighter.

The second thing I don't like is all the contact between the arms. He specifically says to use your elbow on uke's elbow. The issue here is that uke can then push against your elbow to relieve pressure on the wrist. I want to isolate the wrist and the lock it, giving him no support at all and nothing to use to relieve pressure.

The finger that we use, is actually the pinky finger of the hand that grabs around the thumb. You pull that finger in, the same way Japanese sword work, uses that pinky on the bottom to generate power. We would actually relax the index finger and use only the three lower fingers.



oftheherd1 said:


> Also, once the opponent is on the ground, there is a grasp of the elbow. Is that a use of a pressure point there?


When I have done that turnover, (its not one of my better ones) the initial elbow grip, is done to bend the elbow and apply torque to the shoulder. As uke rolls over, it becomes a bar. And yes there is a pressure point in there as well. However, I always teach to get the mechanical advantage of the shoulder pressure to arm bar first and most important. That works "every time." The pressure point can get some pain compliance, but you must be accurate and different people have different amounts of reaction to it. So for me, the mechanical advantage part is the key, and the pressure point is there to make uke give me that smile 

I hope I answered your questions.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 24, 2020)

wab25 said:


> That demonstration is by "another" art, so I can't really comment on what they are doing. In Danzan Ryu, we teach it very differently, than demonstrated. In fact, I have a few problems with the way that was done... but then I was using it as an example of how most Japanese systems do the art of that name.
> 
> The biggest thing I would change, is that tori (the guy doing the art) wraps the fingers of both his hands around the wrist itself. When I grab, I stay off the wrist itself. By grabbing the wrist joint, you are supporting the wrist that you are trying to lock. If you grab just the hand, you give no support at all to the wrist, and the lock comes on a lot sooner and tighter.
> 
> ...



I had also wondered about the elbow grip. I think most of the 'compliance' is going to come from the wrist lock and the persons natural desire to alleviate pain will make straightening the elbow (in a prone position) easier. 
I agree that the mechanics at that point are more important than the pressure point. Even if you simply open hand the outside of the elbow to help crank it over I feel the result would be the same. I would definitely do this if in meant keeping control of the hand.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I think most of the 'compliance' is going to come from the wrist lock and the persons natural desire to alleviate pain will make straightening the elbow (in a prone position) easier.


I think we are in agreement here, but just wanted to touch a few points. That turnover will work, purely by mechanical advantage. The bend in the elbow give tori a really good lever to effect the shoulder joint, causing the turn to start, which then changes into an arm bar. The wrist lock is great for pain compliance. If using the grip that we have in Danzan Ryu, breaking the wrist during the turnover or after is still an option. However, there is also another pressure point along the humorous that hand on the elbow can find. If you get the placement right, it can really light people up. This is the one I thought that oftheherd1 was asking about. Whats nice about this turnover, is that you end up with a wrist lock, arm bar and pressure point just above the elbow, all at the same time... it's great for everyone but uke.


----------



## skribs (Feb 24, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I think we are in agreement here, but just wanted to touch a few points. That turnover will work, purely by mechanical advantage. The bend in the elbow give tori a really good lever to effect the shoulder joint, causing the turn to start, which then changes into an arm bar. The wrist lock is great for pain compliance. If using the grip that we have in Danzan Ryu, breaking the wrist during the turnover or after is still an option. However, there is also another pressure point along the humorous that hand on the elbow can find. If you get the placement right, it can really light people up. This is the one I thought that oftheherd1 was asking about. Whats nice about this turnover, is that you end up with a wrist lock, arm bar and pressure point just above the elbow, all at the same time... it's great for everyone but uke.



There's a lot of other options as well.  

Instead of turning the uke over, he could swing his left leg back and use his right shin as the fulcrum for an armbar that side.  
If you feel him flexing against that first option, do a similar motion, but position your knee just past the elbow instead of just before it, and you have a really good shoulder lock
Sink the right leg down, put the left leg over the neck and go into the more well-known version of an armbar that you see in MMA
Wrap up the arm next to the head and twist the wrist outside, this is a *really* painful lock that doesn't take much effort once you've learned it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2020)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, didn't look at your video before.  Now that I have,I enjoyed them.  Lots of moves I have learned in Hapkido.  What I was particularly intrigued about was in the first video, just past 1:32 there was a slight use of the index finger of the hand as the hand is used to grasp the opponent's hand/wrist.  If you look at the patch of the Korean Hapkido Association you will see there is a predominate use of the index finger.  Also, just past that, there is a movement of the use of the index finger as if it were going to be used some other way but then it is used in the grasp.  Is that something actually used in your art?
> 
> Also, once the opponent is on the ground, there is a grasp of the elbow.  Is that a use of a pressure point there?


I'll toss in a thought on that index finger. We teach to use it less (really, to depend upon it less, by habit) to make sure the rest of the hand has room to grip. If you grab something and loosen with your index finger, you lose a small amount of grip (and some control/leverage). If you loosen with the pinky, it also loosens the next finger, and your grip becomes significantly weaker. So, to ensure we always get that side of the grip in, we train to leave room by applying the index last (if there's room). In many cases, we teach to simply exclude it from the grip, when it's likely to be a problem.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 24, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'll toss in a thought on that index finger. We teach to use it less (really, to depend upon it less, by habit) to make sure the rest of the hand has room to grip. If you grab something and loosen with your index finger, you lose a small amount of grip (and some control/leverage). If you loosen with the pinky, it also loosens the next finger, and your grip becomes significantly weaker. So, to ensure we always get that side of the grip in, we train to leave room by applying the index last (if there's room). In many cases, we teach to simply exclude it from the grip, when it's likely to be a problem.


I am glad you mentioned the index finger. We do not use it much in grip either. If it becomes a must for grip strength/control we work on 'folding' the hand slightly to use the blade or even the heel of the hand for leverage. Something I knew but learned much better in Kali.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 25, 2020)

Gerry, can you expound on this? I am wondering if we are on the same page and would love to hear more about the ideology.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Gerry, can you expound on this? I am wondering if we are on the same page and would love to hear more about the ideology.


What are you looking for him to expound on here? i feel like you explained it perfectly-the pinky is the most important followed by each finger leading to the index.

Obviously not Gerry, but the only exception I can think of for this is situations where you are only gripping with your index and thumb.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 25, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> What are you looking for him to expound on here? i feel like you explained it perfectly-the pinky is the most important followed by each finger leading to the index.
> 
> Obviously not Gerry, but the only exception I can think of for this is situations where you are only gripping with your index and thumb.


Nothing in particular. Just ideas and confirmation of the concept which, like you said, he covered pretty well. 
I was wondering if anyone else works on using the blade or heel of the hand or is this a derivative of a weapon holding concept.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Nothing in particular. Just ideas and confirmation of the concept which, like you said, he covered pretty well.
> I was wondering if anyone else works on using the blade or heel of the hand or is this a derivative of a weapon holding concept.


I was trying to work out what you mean by that. Can you describe more?

As for the index finger, it's mostly pretty straightforward in the way I approach it. There is also some circular pressure in several techniques that pulls in with the pinky edge of the hand, pushing down with the thumb side.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 25, 2020)

I found a video that shows our hand position pretty well. He is demonstrating "our katate tori" in combination. But you can see how he grips uke's hand, leaving the wrist clear. (10 seconds to 11 seconds) You can also see how he is pulling with the pinky and pushing with the thumb. (23-25 seconds)







skribs said:


> Instead of turning the uke over, he could swing his left leg back and use his right shin as the fulcrum for an armbar that side.


Is this what you mean, at the end of the combination starting at 2:23? (they are putting in a lot of extra, looks cool stuff, as this is a "kata contest." some of it is over the top fluff...)


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 25, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I was trying to work out what you mean by that. Can you describe more?
> 
> As for the index finger, it's mostly pretty straightforward in the way I approach it. There is also some circular pressure in several techniques that pulls in with the pinky edge of the hand, pushing down with the thumb side.


It is part of our natural grip that you touched on I feel. By using the outer three finger (pinky, ring, bird) we have a stronger grip naturally. That is how we learned to grip a blade or baton in Kali.
I think we are saying the same thing when you say pinky edge and I say blade of the hand.


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I found a video that shows our hand position pretty well. He is demonstrating "our katate tori" in combination. But you can see how he grips uke's hand, leaving the wrist clear. (10 seconds to 11 seconds) You can also see how he is pulling with the pinky and pushing with the thumb. (23-25 seconds)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, that's not it.


----------



## skribs (Feb 25, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I found a video that shows our hand position pretty well. He is demonstrating "our katate tori" in combination. But you can see how he grips uke's hand, leaving the wrist clear. (10 seconds to 11 seconds) You can also see how he is pulling with the pinky and pushing with the thumb. (23-25 seconds)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I apologize for the horrendous pictures.  I couldn't find the techniques I'm describing, so I made my own.  At home, alone, with a dummy I made involving a hoodie, a pillow, and a few other things.  But I hope it at least conveys what I'm talking about.






This is what I would try to do first in most cases with the V-Lock.  Shin into the armpit, pull back until the elbow hyperextends against my shin.  This is best if their arm is more straight than bent when they land.





This is my variant if the arm is flexed.  I will go above the elbow and torque the shoulder.




This is if their arm is very bent, especially if I'm closer to their head.  It's a bad picture, because I'd have both arms snaked in there, and I'd pull on the wrist to pop the wrist.

Like I said, horrible pictures, but just a quick and dirty way for me to show what I mean.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 26, 2020)

I think I understand what I am seeing. The only thing I noticed different is the use of the shin to 'trap' the shoulder. In the prone position, we teach putting your foot in the 'web' of the armpit for more downward control/force if necessary. On the way down you may have to use the shin (technique dependent) but I like to have as much body control as possible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> It is part of our natural grip that you touched on I feel. By using the outer three finger (pinky, ring, bird) we have a stronger grip naturally. That is how we learned to grip a blade or baton in Kali.
> I think we are saying the same thing when you say pinky edge and I say blade of the hand.


Yes, but I don't think it's a "natural" grip to use for a lot of folks. I'm still amused at how often I see people doing quite the opposite (leaving pinky out to make room for index) in drills, exercises, and everyday practices. I actually spend a bit of time, from time to time, examining which grips benefit more from the index than the pinky. There are few, but it seems to be the default adjustment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2020)

skribs said:


> I apologize for the horrendous pictures.  I couldn't find the techniques I'm describing, so I made my own.  At home, alone, with a dummy I made involving a hoodie, a pillow, and a few other things.  But I hope it at least conveys what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you get a chance to take pictures with a human, I'd like to see them. I'm curious about some fine points that won't show up without the actual joints present.


----------



## skribs (Feb 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> If you get a chance to take pictures with a human, I'd like to see them. I'm curious about some fine points that won't show up without the actual joints present.



Does it at least show what I'm talking about?


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but I don't think it's a "natural" grip to use for a lot of folks. I'm still amused at how often I see people doing quite the opposite (leaving pinky out to make room for index) in drills, exercises, and everyday practices. I actually spend a bit of time, from time to time, examining which grips benefit more from the index than the pinky. There are few, but it seems to be the default adjustment.


I can see that. Probably years of my gripping in that manner. The index finger and thumb are more tactile in use.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 27, 2020)

skribs said:


> Does it at least show what I'm talking about?


The bent-arm one isn't clear to me, but that may be more because of the terminology. What I think I see doesn't match what I think I'm reading. The other I knew without the pictures, and the picture agrees with what I'd read.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 27, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I can see that. Probably years of my gripping in that manner. The index finger and thumb are more tactile in use.


I also think jars may have something to do with it. When opening a jar lid, the index finger is more important (you can "use" the pinky while it's not on the lid, so you don't lose the strength in the other fingers). That may form a habit for folks that's hard to change.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 27, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I think we are in agreement here, but just wanted to touch a few points. That turnover will work, purely by mechanical advantage. The bend in the elbow give tori a really good lever to effect the shoulder joint, causing the turn to start, which then changes into an arm bar. The wrist lock is great for pain compliance. If using the grip that we have in Danzan Ryu, breaking the wrist during the turnover or after is still an option. However, there is also another pressure point along the humorous that hand on the elbow can find. If you get the placement right, it can really light people up. This is the one I thought that oftheherd1 was asking about. Whats nice about this turnover, is that you end up with a wrist lock, arm bar and pressure point just above the elbow, all at the same time... it's great for everyone but uke.



Yes on what you say except I would say the elbow pressure point is more at the upper end of the elbow and properly applied is excruciating.  It feels like someone has stuck a knife in at that point. I wasn't usually getting it right on practice opponents so I asked my GM exactly how it was to be done.  He applied it and asked if I got it.  Yes Sir!  Without warning he applied it again and asked the same question and I gave the same answer.  That repeated once more.  I was very careful what and how I asked my GM after that.  I learned lots of things from my GM.  

As to the muscle strike, we do that in the Hapkido I learned, but not on that technique.  Done properly it is very painful and therefor distracting and disabling in the middle of another body point attack. That said, it is not a thing we do much.  

There are many variations that can be used for one reason or another.  We would usually use all four fingers as well.  We might grab the opponent's hand with both of ours or grab the wrist with the opposite hand as the opponent's hand we are grabbing, the grab or push on the back of the opponent's hand with the other and use a quick push pull against the wrist and back of the hand.


----------

