# Rank based on progress vs. merit, and/or when to switch



## skribs (Sep 12, 2020)

Martial arts, like any hobby, seeks to be accessible to anyone.  This means that students come in with a wide range of initial capabilities and overall potential.  Some students intuitively pick up the basics, and then stall out.  Some start slow and steadily progress.  Some will never be coordinated.  Some start fast and turn into metaphorical gods of the sport.

Hopefully they won't all progress through the belts at the same pace.  The students that learn faster *should* rank up faster, but to a point, everyone should rank up.  They should be judged in accordance with their abilities, and rewarded for the gains they have made in their understanding and ability.

With that said, at some point the rank gets high enough that you become qualified to be an instructor, or even higher to where you could be a master (or equivalent in your art).  If a C student becomes a teacher, then their A students will be the equivalent of someone else's C students.  Maybe they have a student or two that can elevate themselves above.  Maybe not.

Is there a point at which rank progression should switch from progress to merit?  What point would that be in your art?

Or should it always be progress, or always be merit?


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 12, 2020)

In Goju-ryu I learned all the material by 3rd-4th dan.  I did not physically test for my last rank.  It's all political and based on growing the art anyway after 3rd or so.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 12, 2020)

Most all style have 'merit' based advancement at the higher Dan levels but the term merit is not used and I think it carries some bad inference. For example, Kukkiwon has pretty clear guidelines stating that advancement above 6th Dan has more to do with growing the art and what a person has done in their community relative to and using their MA. It is much harder to get to theses higher levels without being a school owner or major factor instructor in a school(s). Commonly called 'seeding'. 
My last promotion in MDK was very cool because it was the last promotion that GM Chon, Jae Kyu was in attendance. He has since passed. My time was mostly oral dissertation and a pretty grueling explanation of several forms performed by others. Quite a lot of confirmation/explanation of the alternative use(s) of one-steps. Sitting around talking MA's with the dying head of an organization and several other high ranking Masters was pretty amazing. 

Circling back to the question(s); I see nothing wrong with pure physical prowess causing faster advancement at the lower color belts, within reason. Fewer people are beyond the memorization stage of techniques at that level and the mental components that must be learned to advance in the higher ranks carry a lower weight. I find it is  fairly consistent that the lines of physical and mental acuity converge somewhere close to red belt in more tradition MA school/systems and around 1st or 2nd Dan in systems that promote faster. 
We have all seen red belts that could wipe the floor with some 2nd Dan's at at tourney. They are simply more physically gifted genetically and using their aggression as their driving force. But they almost always fall short somewhere else looking at their MA skills comprehensively. 

So merit has no place in the lower ranks and could easily be seen in the wrong light, looking like favoritism. It could be a hard pill for a person who does a lot in the background for their school. However, depending on the way a school is structured things like this could play a big factor. For example, at the two schools I am involved with students still do all the cleaning. An unwritten rule that plays a positive factor in setting the tone of the school. Does it mean much at the lower ranks in regards to testing? No. In the wholistic and humbling approach that we teach? Yes. Is it considered at the Dan levels? Yes, along with the intent and continuity of the action. It never fails that someone will get really active in the background stuff a few months before they think they are testing. This is noticed because it shows up as not genuine and only thinking for oneself. 

I think your A student/C student analogy says it all. Never should a C level person become an instructor. But you cannot place the 'C' level tag on a person purely based on their outward appearance.


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> Martial arts, like any hobby, seeks to be accessible to anyone.  This means that students come in with a wide range of initial capabilities and overall potential.  Some students intuitively pick up the basics, and then stall out.  Some start slow and steadily progress.  Some will never be coordinated.  Some start fast and turn into metaphorical gods of the sport.
> 
> Hopefully they won't all progress through the belts at the same pace.  The students that learn faster *should* rank up faster, but to a point, everyone should rank up.  They should be judged in accordance with their abilities, and rewarded for the gains they have made in their understanding and ability.
> 
> ...


Two things strike me in your post.  First, that instructor is in there as a seemingly intrinsic step. And two, isn't progress inherently a measure of merit?  I mean, merit can be a mixture of things, but I would think progress is a big one in any evaluation of merit.  What else do you have in mind?


----------



## skribs (Sep 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> Two things strike me in your post.  First, that instructor is in there as a seemingly intrinsic step. And two, isn't progress inherently a measure of merit?  I mean, merit can be a mixture of things, but I would think progress is a big one in any metric.



I think at advanced degrees, there's often an assumption that you're a leader in the art.  I've actually read from people that they won't promote past a certain degree unless the person is going to be a leader.

Progress is a measure of merit relative to yourself.  What I mean by merit (for the purpose of this thread) is a measure of your capabilities against a baseline.

Let's take baseball as an example.  Let's say you can throw a 30 MPH fastball.  You spend a lot of time training the throwing technique and working out in the gym, and after several years of training, you can throw a 65 MPH fastball.  There is no way you're going to qualify as a professional pitcher with that fastball.

I've seen a lot of students continue to make progress, but there are certain details that they've missed or haven't been able to learn.  Or they've learned at one point, but can't remember all of the details of all of the forms and techniques.  They might do 80% of the techniques right, but there are certain things that they don't do well.  They may have a few bad habits that never got ironed out - like bad timing on a certain kick.

If someone is to be an instructor, and they only know 75% of the details in a form, they can only teach 75% of the form.  If there are specific pieces of the stances that they don't understand, then their students will *never* learn the stances properly.  If there are certain basic techniques that they can't do correctly, then that basic technique gets lost.  Yet, there is no denying that these people have continued to train hard and increase their knowledge.  They've progressed from where they were before.  So at what point is progress not enough?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think at advanced degrees, there's often an assumption that you're a leader in the art.  I've actually read from people that they won't promote past a certain degree unless the person is going to be a leader.
> 
> Progress is a measure of merit relative to yourself.  What I mean by merit (for the purpose of this thread) is a measure of your capabilities against a baseline.
> 
> ...


I think you have not crossed into the realm of evaluation on an individual basis. A very good thing. As a teacher/coach, if you helped the person get from a 30 MPH pitch to a 65 MPH you have succeeded. As for the individual, if 65 MPH is the best they can ever do then they have succeeded And reached your maximum.  
Individual evaluation is much better for the student and much harder for the instructor, especially in a large student population. But to get a realistic sense of potential within a person it is the only fair way to measure things like technique, skill, merit, etc... 
I have seen this time and again; two people of the same general build do a front stance. By the numbers, both are technically correct. However, one stance just do not look right. Since both are technically correct, how do you fix it? 
So, I do not think there is a 'color by the numbers' way to measure merit. 
I also feel progress as a measurement only works if you comprehensively know the persons work and merit. If not careful you end up with low value high ranking people. Akin to your 'C' analogy.


----------



## Headhunter (Sep 12, 2020)

Imo skills should determine a belt. And I mean every belt. I don’t care what your age or rank you should be made to test and a good hard test where you leave it sweating and tired. I hate that crap where you’re given a belt. I’ve seen guys promoted by a guy who doesn’t even live in the same country as the guy he’s promoting so he doesn’t actually know what his skills are like. Personally I will never ever accept a belt I haven’t tested for. I want to work for and earn everything I have otherwise what’s the point. Also making high ranks test means they actually have to train and keep their fitness and skills sharp. This helps stop the mass of morbidly obese black belts who get out of breath throwing a jab and can barely remember white belt syllabus but calling themselves grandmaster. To me that rubbish Is what’s destroying traditional martial arts....black belts don’t mean anything anymore. When I tested for my black belt I was training just as hard as I did for a fight camp. I was running 5 miles a day in the morning, hitting the bag 15 3 minute rounds And doing 100 press ups and sit ups then going to training in the evening. I worked by butt off for it and imo that’s how it should be for everyone. Skills should be all that matters. NOT how much you teach (for higher ranks teaching should be an requirement but not the only thing that matters) how many seminars you run how many medals you win, how much butt you kiss or how many beers you buy .


----------



## Steve (Sep 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think at advanced degrees, there's often an assumption that you're a leader in the art.  I've actually read from people that they won't promote past a certain degree unless the person is going to be a leader.


being a leader and being an instructor are not the same thing.  Right?


> Progress is a measure of merit relative to yourself.  What I mean by merit (for the purpose of this thread) is a measure of your capabilities against a baseline.


progress is objective, not subjective.  If you are progressing, by definition you are improving.  I think I need to better understand how you’re defining merit.  Can you explain what you mean?





> Let's take baseball as an example.  Let's say you can throw a 30 MPH fastball.  You spend a lot of time training the throwing technique and working out in the gym, and after several years of training, you can throw a 65 MPH fastball.  There is no way you're going to qualify as a professional pitcher with that fastball.


thats true.  So are you saying this person has stopped progressing?  Is 65 mph their peak?  





> I've seen a lot of students continue to make progress, but there are certain details that they've missed or haven't been able to learn.  Or they've learned at one point, but can't remember all of the details of all of the forms and techniques.  They might do 80% of the techniques right, but there are certain things that they don't do well.  They may have a few bad habits that never got ironed out - like bad timing on a certain kick.


once again, it really seems like you’re misusing the term “progress”.  Progress occurs over time, but you’re using it to describe a snapshot of a person's ability.  Unless you’re saying that they will never get any better,( I.e., that they have progressed this far and no further) you’re talking about something else.   Not sure what.   


> If someone is to be an instructor, and they only know 75% of the details in a form, they can only teach 75% of the form.  If there are specific pieces of the stances that they don't understand, then their students will *never* learn the stances properly.  If there are certain basic techniques that they can't do correctly, then that basic technique gets lost.  Yet, there is no denying that these people have continued to train hard and increase their knowledge.  They've progressed from where they were before.  So at what point is progress not enough?


yeah, How is this functionally different from saying that anyone who isn’t yet qualified to teach isn’t qualified.  It’s a circular statement.  A person who knows only 75% of the system can only teach what they know, which is 25% less than they will need to teach.   I’m getting dizzy.

Is this person stalled out?  Will they never learn that last 25%?  What if their instructor only learned 75% and didn’t even know it?  This person will have learned 100% of the 75%. 

Where does merit come into play?


----------



## Buka (Sep 12, 2020)

Which would you guys prefer.......

Have the ability and knowledge of so and so.....like a Bruce Lee, George St Pierre etc.

Or have a third of their ability and knowledge.....and get to put on that sweet looking Black Belt in your dojo?


----------



## skribs (Sep 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> progress is objective, not subjective. If you are progressing, by definition you are improving. I think I need to better understand how you’re defining merit. Can you explain what you mean?



Understanding and ability.  

That you are progressing is objective.  What is required for progress depends on the person.  For example, let's say you're a B student and I'm a D student.  We both get a C.  I improved, you declined.

Promotion based on progress would mean that if the D student does techniques worthy of a D+ or C-, that's improvement and should be rewarded.

Promotion based on merit would say you need to meet a minimum standard of a B grade in order to continue.



Steve said:


> yeah, How is this functionally different from saying that anyone who isn’t yet qualified to teach isn’t qualified. It’s a circular statement. A person who knows only 75% of the system can only teach what they know, which is 25% less than they will need to teach. I’m getting dizzy.



This is my point.  At what point do you have to stop focusing on personal growth, and start setting hard lines as to whether or not to promote?


----------



## skribs (Sep 12, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I think you have not crossed into the realm of evaluation on an individual basis. A very good thing. As a teacher/coach, if you helped the person get from a 30 MPH pitch to a 65 MPH you have succeeded. As for the individual, if 65 MPH is the best they can ever do then they have succeeded And reached your maximum.
> Individual evaluation is much better for the student and much harder for the instructor, especially in a large student population. But to get a realistic sense of potential within a person it is the only fair way to measure things like technique, skill, merit, etc...
> I have seen this time and again; two people of the same general build do a front stance. By the numbers, both are technically correct. However, one stance just do not look right. Since both are technically correct, how do you fix it?
> So, I do not think there is a 'color by the numbers' way to measure merit.
> I also feel progress as a measurement only works if you comprehensively know the persons work and merit. If not careful you end up with low value high ranking people. Akin to your 'C' analogy.



I agree...to a point.  I can feel proud of the progress my student made.  But let's say I'm the talent scout for a minor league team.  And if they don't have a fastball of at least 88 MPH, I can't recruit them.

And that's the main question - at what point do you stop going "good progress" and start saying "but here's the requirements."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 12, 2020)

dancingalone said:


> In Goju-ryu I learned all the material by 3rd-4th dan.  I did not physically test for my last rank.  It's all political and based on growing the art anyway after 3rd or so.


Within the NGAA, there's a similar approach. Everything beyond 2nd dan is more or less an honorary rank. There's no new curriculum, and rank is mostly tied to actions that further the art (growing a school, promoting good instructors, etc.).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think at advanced degrees, there's often an assumption that you're a leader in the art.  I've actually read from people that they won't promote past a certain degree unless the person is going to be a leader.
> 
> Progress is a measure of merit relative to yourself.  What I mean by merit (for the purpose of this thread) is a measure of your capabilities against a baseline.
> 
> ...


My approach is to separate rank from instructor certificaiton. Obviously, I can't tell folks they can't teach (well, I can, but there's really no way to enforce that), but I can make a point of only giving my stamp of approval to those who seem competent to teach. I have a separate curriculum and approach for training instructors.

In my case, it's mostly moot - it seems unlikely I'll ever get someone to a level where certification would be a question. But I wanted to think it through when I was putting together my curriculum and rank requirements.

I will point out that a C student may be a better instructor than an A student. The ability to do doesn't correlate exactly to the ability to teach. If you want to know if someone can teach, you need to see the result of their teaching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 12, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Personally I will never ever accept a belt I haven’t tested for. I want to work for and earn everything I have otherwise what’s the point.


Does not having a test really mean you haven't worked, though? I've never tested a student for yellow belt (in my own curriculum). They get the belt when they've shown enough progress in class, and have learned the material to a given point. A test is one possible way to establish that, but certainly not the only way.


----------



## skribs (Sep 12, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Does not having a test really mean you haven't worked, though? I've never tested a student for yellow belt (in my own curriculum). They get the belt when they've shown enough progress in class, and have learned the material to a given point. A test is one possible way to establish that, but certainly not the only way.



In most places nowadays, I think the test is just a formality.  You earn the right to test by getting to the point you describe.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2020)

Steve said:


> being a leader and being an instructor are not the same thing.  Right?
> progress is objective, not subjective.  If you are progressing, by definition you are improving.  I think I need to better understand how you’re defining merit.  Can you explain what you mean?thats true.  So are you saying this person has stopped progressing?  Is 65 mph their peak?  once again, it really seems like you’re misusing the term “progress”.  Progress occurs over time, but you’re using it to describe a snapshot of a person's ability.  Unless you’re saying that they will never get any better,( I.e., that they have progressed this far and no further) you’re talking about something else.   Not sure what.
> yeah, How is this functionally different from saying that anyone who isn’t yet qualified to teach isn’t qualified.  It’s a circular statement.  A person who knows only 75% of the system can only teach what they know, which is 25% less than they will need to teach.   I’m getting dizzy.
> 
> ...



At some point you can get rankings for what is basically service to the art rather than martial skill.

So you sort of get ranked in say having massive successful clubs full of badass students or something.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2020)

Buka said:


> Which would you guys prefer.......
> 
> Have the ability and knowledge of so and so.....like a Bruce Lee, George St Pierre etc.
> 
> Or have a third of their ability and knowledge.....and get to put on that sweet looking Black Belt in your dojo?



Definitely better to be good rather than ranked.

They are known here as black belt killers. And quite often, say guys who are red hot MMAers or sub wrestlers. But not ranked super high in BJJ. For whatever reasons they don't get ranked.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 13, 2020)

Buka said:


> Which would you guys prefer.......
> 
> Have the ability and knowledge of so and so.....like a Bruce Lee, George St Pierre etc.
> 
> Or have a third of their ability and knowledge.....and get to put on that sweet looking Black Belt in your dojo?



The majority of the systems I have studied use a belt system, so I don't need to make that choice.  Obviously skill and knowledge trumps mere rank however.  In healthy schools that use a belt system, the two converge.  It would be odd to have someone really good in karate or aikido who has studied for a long time that does not have a black belt belt.  Just like it would be odd in for someone who has legitimate lineage and study time to not have some appreciable skill.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 13, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Imo skills should determine a belt. And I mean every belt. I don’t care what your age or rank you should be made to test and a good hard test where you leave it sweating and tired. I hate that crap where you’re given a belt. I’ve seen guys promoted by a guy who doesn’t even live in the same country as the guy he’s promoting so he doesn’t actually know what his skills are like. Personally I will never ever accept a belt I haven’t tested for. I want to work for and earn everything I have otherwise what’s the point. Also making high ranks test means they actually have to train and keep their fitness and skills sharp. This helps stop the mass of morbidly obese black belts who get out of breath throwing a jab and can barely remember white belt syllabus but calling themselves grandmaster. To me that rubbish Is what’s destroying traditional martial arts....black belts don’t mean anything anymore. When I tested for my black belt I was training just as hard as I did for a fight camp. I was running 5 miles a day in the morning, hitting the bag 15 3 minute rounds And doing 100 press ups and sit ups then going to training in the evening. I worked by butt off for it and imo that’s how it should be for everyone. Skills should be all that matters. NOT how much you teach (for higher ranks teaching should be an requirement but not the only thing that matters) how many seminars you run how many medals you win, how much butt you kiss or how many beers you buy .


Exactly why I said the discussion moved into the individual realm. 
I fully agree Everyone should have a strenuous and technical test. But the test is not where a person learns is it? It is important but in reality it is just a formality. I think everyone has seen people who are super solid at there MA and is shows in testing, as well as people who were barely ready or not ready at all. Do all of the latter pass? I certainly hope not. A big reason that How testing is presented is important. I should never overly be the carrot that people chase to get the next belt. The class, instruction, and environment should be a big part of the equation that keeps a person working out. 
It could be argued that something was missing in your classes if you had to do all the extra-curricular to get ready but I seriously doubt that. I doubt one had a lot to do with the other. Many driven people at the sweet spot in their physical life go above and beyond. A very good thing.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> I agree...to a point.  I can feel proud of the progress my student made.  But let's say I'm the talent scout for a minor league team.  And if they don't have a fastball of at least 88 MPH, I can't recruit them.
> 
> And that's the main question - at what point do you stop going "good progress" and start saying "but here's the requirements."


I think much/most of the requirement should be up front. Or more accurately in stages of progression. As an example: "For 2nd Gup you must know all Kicho forms, Pyong Ahn 1-4 and Palgwe 1-5". A very active student would be expected to know a few Taegueks and would be aware of this. The same would be explained/known for one steps, individual skills (kicks, punches, sweeps, etc...).  As the instructor or testing judge you have to understand that every 20 year old male, even of the same body type are Not going to perform exactly the same. Remember, we are into transformation not conformation. I think it was Headhunter who mentioned doing extra to get ready for testing. Especially when it is done outside of regular class, how does an instructor measure this? More to the point how do they deduct for the person who does not, considering they also meet the requirements? 
So the question becomes do you want inclusivity or exclusivity? Very relevant in society today. 
I used to feel there was exclusivity in belting but I do not any more. When I was really into competition my instructor was not involved nor did he want to be. More of a cultural/philosophical thing for him. By doing the key tournaments and research I learned what/ the competitors at the high(er) levels were doing it. Found a local trainer and strength/conditioning coach and just started. Did I expect everyone to do something similar? Back then, Yes. I guess I was dismissive of people who took more of a casual approach to their training, even some who went to class everyday. In retrospect, given that I knew our class format was very solid, it was not cool for me to think less of the people going every day or the ones that could not but worked really hard. 
After my competition time several years later I took more of a mantle to set the bar in class. Again misguided. I went Hard with everyone and to this day I wonder how many people I ran off. There is a time and place for this and there always should be in every program. But in hindsight I was still being exclusive. It took time for me to reconcile this and learn to push people but not push them away. 
It is a cold, hard fact that not everyone can be a MMA champ or Olympic competitor, and the vast number of people in the MA's are not looking for that. I like using the basic training analogy. Everyone who goes through has to pass but everyone does not have the same time on the obstacle course.
Now a days, if I see a person who is sub-par at something I pull them aside and talk through it and try to help them refine their technique. It has to be an objective observation. More often than not if you show them why their technique will Not work or work well they 'see' much better what needs to change. But it may 'look' different from you idea of perfect. 
I know through your comments you have a large school. This makes it harder to get everyone on the same page. Possibly using the seminar approach where you take a small group (who need extra work), pick someone out to be the Uke and help the group that way. I hope this helps.


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I think much/most of the requirement should be up front. Or more accurately in stages of progression. As an example: "For 2nd Gup you must know all Kicho forms, Pyong Ahn 1-4 and Palgwe 1-5". A very active student would be expected to know a few Taegueks and would be aware of this. The same would be explained/known for one steps, individual skills (kicks, punches, sweeps, etc...).  As the instructor or testing judge you have to understand that every 20 year old male, even of the same body type are Not going to perform exactly the same. Remember, we are into transformation not conformation. I think it was Headhunter who mentioned doing extra to get ready for testing. Especially when it is done outside of regular class, how does an instructor measure this? More to the point how do they deduct for the person who does not, considering they also meet the requirements?
> So the question becomes do you want inclusivity or exclusivity? Very relevant in society today.
> I used to feel there was exclusivity in belting but I do not any more. When I was really into competition my instructor was not involved nor did he want to be. More of a cultural/philosophical thing for him. By doing the key tournaments and research I learned what/ the competitors at the high(er) levels were doing it. Found a local trainer and strength/conditioning coach and just started. Did I expect everyone to do something similar? Back then, Yes. I guess I was dismissive of people who took more of a casual approach to their training, even some who went to class everyday. In retrospect, given that I knew our class format was very solid, it was not cool for me to think less of the people going every day or the ones that could not but worked really hard.
> After my competition time several years later I took more of a mantle to set the bar in class. Again misguided. I went Hard with everyone and to this day I wonder how many people I ran off. There is a time and place for this and there always should be in every program. But in hindsight I was still being exclusive. It took time for me to reconcile this and learn to push people but not push them away.
> ...



At my school, there is a consistent *quantity* of stuff to learn.  That is the same for virtually every test for the same rank.  There are a few differences based on age group, but for the most part you are expected to know the requirements on the test.  All kids purple belts need to know Basic Forms 1-3, Kicks 1-5, Jumping Kicks 1-3, and Punch Defense 1-5.  If you don't know these things, you wait to test until you do know them.  

However, how *well* you do those things is where the "progress" comes in.  Our basic form (KIbon #1) is essentially just down blocks, punches, and simple turns and steps.  For a 4-year-old yellow belt who's been training for 8 months, it may be that simply moving in the right direction is enough to pass, even if half the time they turn wrong or end up on the wrong hand.  Whereas older students we'll expect to know at least the basic movements to 100% accuracy.  They may not have the best stances or techniques yet, but they at least have some semblance of what the stances and techniques are supposed to look like, and they should be able to execute the steps and turns properly.

Let's say a student comes in, and they consistently learn the requirements, and they consistently improve.  However, that improvement is very small steps over a long period of time.  Let's say the average time to get 4th Dan is 12 years.  It could be 3 years for 1st Dan, another 2 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, and 4 for 4th - longer than the minimum requirements, but a typical progression.  This student has been training for 20 years.  They've learned all the forms and other testing requirements for 4th dan.  But their coordination isn't there.  Their stances are still only 90% the definition of a proper stance.  Their movements are stiff and disjointed.  They never learned how to do their techniques with rhythm or flow.  

If you were to take your average blue belt (maybe 1.5 years of training) and this guy, have them practice in street clothes (no belts), people would look at them and assume they're peers.  That they are a similar level with a similar amount of training.  He's made personal progress, but he started way behind in coordination, and the progress was slow.

If this student becomes a teacher, he may be able to teach better than he can do.  But if he never figured out how to do a lot of the stuff properly, then he probably can't teach how to do it properly.  It could simply be that his teaching won't be very effective.  It could even be that he teaches the wrong way to do things, because the right way is something he never quite caught onto.

Should this student continue to be promoted to higher levels of black belt?  Especially considering that the higher you go, the more influence you have?  Or at some point should the Master say "you need to be able to meet these metrics for height, speed, proper stances, and so on before you can get promoted."


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> If this student becomes a teacher, he may be able to teach better than he can do.  But if he never figured out how to do a lot of the stuff properly, then he probably can't teach how to do it properly.  It could simply be that his teaching won't be very effective.  It could even be that he teaches the wrong way to do things, because the right way is something he never quite caught onto.
> 
> Should this student continue to be promoted to higher levels of black belt?  Especially considering that the higher you go, the more influence you have?  Or at some point should the Master say "you need to be able to meet these metrics for height, speed, proper stances, and so on before you can get promoted."



It's a good question.  On a practical level does this come up often or at all.  I find myself over the course of my MA career that people weed themselves out because they are innately respectful of the arts and the merit-based nature of the belt system.  I have a student that has been with me for over 15 years.  He is respectable for the time he spends training but he has missed his window probably for ever becoming elite due to age and family requirements.  He told me he didn't want to test anymore until something drastically changes in his life situation because he doesn't feel right about it.  I more or less concur.  He is still a valued student and relative senior in my dojo.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 13, 2020)

dancingalone said:


> It's a good question.  On a practical level does this come up often or at all.  I find myself over the course of my MA career that people weed themselves out because they are innately respectful of the arts and the merit-based nature of the belt system.  I have a student that has been with me for over 15 years.  He is respectable for the time he spends training but he has missed his window probably for ever becoming elite due to age and family requirements.  He told me he didn't want to test anymore until something drastically changes in his life situation because he doesn't feel right about it.  I more or less concur.  He is still a valued student and relative senior in my dojo.


I like this.  

I think there can be an attitude that if people are to train, then they must advance in rank.  I disagree with that attitude.

I think value needs to be placed on the activity itself, for its own sake, rank-be-damned.  People can get tremendous value from training and coming to class, even if they never test or gain further rank.  There should be nothing wrong with that, from anyone’s point of view.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> At my school, there is a consistent *quantity* of stuff to learn.  That is the same for virtually every test for the same rank.  There are a few differences based on age group, but for the most part you are expected to know the requirements on the test.  All kids purple belts need to know Basic Forms 1-3, Kicks 1-5, Jumping Kicks 1-3, and Punch Defense 1-5.  If you don't know these things, you wait to test until you do know them.
> 
> However, how *well* you do those things is where the "progress" comes in.  Our basic form (KIbon #1) is essentially just down blocks, punches, and simple turns and steps.  For a 4-year-old yellow belt who's been training for 8 months, it may be that simply moving in the right direction is enough to pass, even if half the time they turn wrong or end up on the wrong hand.  Whereas older students we'll expect to know at least the basic movements to 100% accuracy.  They may not have the best stances or techniques yet, but they at least have some semblance of what the stances and techniques are supposed to look like, and they should be able to execute the steps and turns properly.
> 
> ...



I hoped I had answered this question  before. IF the 4th Dan does not know the techniques, forms, drills. etc... they should have never promoted to 4th Dan. Based on what you have said they certainly are not qualified to teach. That is a separate issue from how well they can physically do said techniques, etc... This is the individual component I was talking about. In your description the 4th Dan is lacking in mental or physical coordination. Assuming the training they have received is of good quality And the person is giving it their all it is hard to hold the deficiencies against them cart blanche. Should both the student and instructor identify any short comings and work to minimize them? You bet. This is a classic area that is harder to judge and survey as the instructor. Everyone has to understand they are working to find their own best. 
There are always going to be physical prodigies like your blue belt that 'just get it' quicker/better than others. All too often these are the one's that quit early because of the lack of challenge. 
Being honest, I feel like I am in the same category as the 4th Dan. I used to whole heartedly agree with the old saying "those who can't, teach". I think I better understand the saying now. I know the material very well and know how it is supposed to be done and more importantly I understand the why and when. But physically there is SO much I can no longer do. It frustrated me for a long time, still does sometimes. That said, I have a good body of work that shows I am a good teacher.
So I would ask, can you look at the 4th Dan's body of work and give it a passing grade?


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Sep 13, 2020)

Well my opinion as a Martial Artist you have to make progress 1st and see how student progress to see there ability if they can pass the test or the requirement then give them the merit thats how student progress you cant just give the merit and they are not progressing

In my Martial arts school some progress fast some quit and some takes time to progress so each student have their difference of progress

Yes there this family in my karate class they are treated like Metaphoric gods because they progress fast and their all black belts from Uncle aunty cousins so yea but their good peoples


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

> There are always going to be physical prodigies like your blue belt that 'just get it' quicker/better than others. All too often these are the one's that quit early because of the lack of challenge.



That wasn't a prodigy.  That was an average blue belt.  I have some students that started in their late 30s/early 40s, and have been training hard for several years, and have barely any coordination.  Whereas I'm assuming you used to have more coordination than you do now (I'm assuming due to age), these students have never had it.  



dvcochran said:


> I hoped I had answered this question  before. IF the 4th Dan does not know the techniques, forms, drills. etc... they should have never promoted to 4th Dan. Based on what you have said they certainly are not qualified to teach. That is a separate issue from how well they can physically do said techniques, etc... This is the individual component I was talking about. In your description the 4th Dan is lacking in mental or physical coordination. Assuming the training they have received is of good quality And the person is giving it their all it is hard to hold the deficiencies against them cart blanche. Should both the student and instructor identify any short comings and work to minimize them? You bet. This is a classic area that is harder to judge and survey as the instructor. Everyone has to understand they are working to find their own best.
> There are always going to be physical prodigies like your blue belt that 'just get it' quicker/better than others. All too often these are the one's that quit early because of the lack of challenge.
> Being honest, I feel like I am in the same category as the 4th Dan. I used to whole heartedly agree with the old saying "those who can't, teach". I think I better understand the saying now. I know the material very well and know how it is supposed to be done and more importantly I understand the why and when. But physically there is SO much I can no longer do. It frustrated me for a long time, still does sometimes. That said, I have a good body of work that shows I am a good teacher.
> So I would ask, can you look at the 4th Dan's body of work and give it a passing grade?



Let me put it this way.  There are tons of details that go into every technique.  These details include:

Position of each hand, elbow, and shoulder during chamber (6)
Specific path of the hands and elbows during execution (4)
Position of each hand, elbow, and shoulder at completion (6)
Shape of each hand at chamber and completion (4)
Posture, Eye Contact, Breathing (3)
Angle and Orientation of each knee (4)
Direction of each foot (2)
Width and Length of Stance (2)
Orientation of Hips (2)
Timing of Technique (1)
That right there is 34 pieces of information to do any individual technique correctly.  More come in when you start adding footwork or combinations, such as the pace of the combination, the path of the foot, etc.  There may also be some details I missed; these are just off the top of my head.  But let's just take these for now.  34 details to know for every technique.  Now take a form that has 20 techniques.  That one form now has 680 details to know.  If you have 11 forms required to get your 4th Dan (Kukkiwon minimum), that's 7,480 details that you need to know on those forms.  Some of them repeat, yes.  The double knife-hand block is the same in Taegeuk #4 as it is in Koryo.  But even if they repeat, it's that many details to know and do correctly.

You can memorize the gross movement of the form and the basic structure of the stances, and yet get virtually 0 of these details correct.  This is incredibly common in the lower belts, especially for younger students.  Barely any chamber, no snap power during execution, sloppy completion, poor posture, holding their breath, they do the whole form in the WT sparring stance instead of a KKW front stance (except they slightly bend their front knee).  Yet, as bad as this sounds, this is actually a high bar for some of our students...at least, for the basic forms, when they're just a yellow belt.  Being able to at least step in the right direction and remember what type of block or punch to do is a big step for them.

For other students, we expect more.  A student who memorizes the form easily, I'll be looking for the other habits I've talked to them about in class.  Maybe their off-hand is typically across their stomach instead of chambered.  Maybe they have a tendency to "bounce" their stance (i.e. get their front stance for a split second, and then straighten their leg before moving to the next step).  I'll be looking for them to have eliminated bad habits, and/or learned and applied more of the details to their form.

For the more advanced student, it's quite possible they don't have all 34 pieces of information.  Sometimes this is habit that takes time to excise.  In some cases, I think it's coordination that will never be met.  Sometimes it's information they learned and forgot (or worse: misremembered).  There may also be things that they do and don't know, for example their feet might point the correct direction, but they don't know that's actually correct, it's just how they've naturally done it.  

This is the question.  At what point do you stop looking for those improvements (increased knowledge, reduced bad habits), and start saying: "there are 34 details for every technique.  If you can't properly demonstrate (or at least explain) a minimum of 28 of them, then you cannot be promoted."  That could be a brick wall in front of a student who has made slow, steady progress for a long time.  Those students tend not to test as fast as some of the other students, but they won't be too far behind.  For example, an average student at my school takes around 3-4 years to get their black belt, around 2-3 years for 1st Dan, and 2-3 years for 3rd Dan.  (Not that 3rd Dan is faster, just the people who get 3rd Dan tend to be faster).  So far, we haven't had a 4th Dan; I'm hoping to be one of the first two next year.  

If we started putting in strict expectations at 3rd Dan, instead of simply learning the required rote memorized pieces of the curriculum and continuing to improve your skills, then I could see a few of our red belts or 1st degree black belts that would get stuck at 2nd Dan for several years - if not forever.  Is there a point that this should be done, where the rank should be gate-kept for only those that are worthy?  Or should their improvement continue to be rewarded, even if their improvement doesn't bring them up to par on their understanding of those 34 details for every technique?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> That wasn't a prodigy.  That was an average blue belt.  I have some students that started in their late 30s/early 40s, and have been training hard for several years, and have barely any coordination.  Whereas I'm assuming you used to have more coordination than you do now (I'm assuming due to age), these students have never had it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think for most people who practice regularly some if not many of the 34 individual components morph and become engrained to the point of being involuntary, regardless of technique performed. I would expect that mostly through repetition this happens. But again, anatomically not everyone is going to look the same, nor should we expect them to be lemmings. That said, it is paramount for people to learn Why each of the 34 components have value and are important. For example how sonnal momtong makki can be a block or a strike and the value of the ready hand. 
You timeline for belting I would say is commensurate with most TKD dojangs. But if a person has trained for 3-4 years and only came to class once a week the effects of regular practice will not be there for many folks. So overall timeframe is less important than real practice time. What does you GM say about some of the concerns you have? It is important to be concerned about reputation, for both you and your school but you have to remember everyone is there of their own free will and some are just not going to make the commitment that others will. A more common reality in a larger school. 

Congrats on being the first 4th Dan in you dojang. I hope you can get to a place where you can focus on your performance and not the other guys. It will make moving forward a hell of a lot easier.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> At my school, there is a consistent *quantity* of stuff to learn.  That is the same for virtually every test for the same rank.  There are a few differences based on age group, but for the most part you are expected to know the requirements on the test.  All kids purple belts need to know Basic Forms 1-3, Kicks 1-5, Jumping Kicks 1-3, and Punch Defense 1-5.  If you don't know these things, you wait to test until you do know them.
> 
> However, how *well* you do those things is where the "progress" comes in.  Our basic form (KIbon #1) is essentially just down blocks, punches, and simple turns and steps.  For a 4-year-old yellow belt who's been training for 8 months, it may be that simply moving in the right direction is enough to pass, even if half the time they turn wrong or end up on the wrong hand.  Whereas older students we'll expect to know at least the basic movements to 100% accuracy.  They may not have the best stances or techniques yet, but they at least have some semblance of what the stances and techniques are supposed to look like, and they should be able to execute the steps and turns properly.
> 
> ...


The problem with physical metrics for higher levels is that they favor younger (and usually less experienced) folks. After a certain age (it differs by individual), no amount of training is going to make up for what age takes away - and certainly isn't going to create an increase in athleticism. So, if we had a higher physical requirement at each successive rank, we'd reach a point where only gifted athletes or extremely fast learners would be able to progress, rather than gifted instructors. I don't know what the right answer is, nor where to create the break between physical testing and other criteria, but if a style has higher ranks that are meant for instructors, those shouldn't be based on physical ability. Technical skill (with physical limitations taken in mind) would be reasonable to test at every level, but it needn't increase if the rank is meant for an instructor.


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I think for most people who practice regularly some if not many of the 34 individual components morph and become engrained to the point of being involuntary, regardless of technique performed. I would expect that mostly through repetition this happens. But again, anatomically not everyone is going to look the same, nor should we expect them to be lemmings. That said, it is paramount for people to learn Why each of the 34 components have value and are important. For example how sonnal momtong makki can be a block or a strike and the value of the ready hand.
> You timeline for belting I would say is commensurate with most TKD dojangs. But if a person has trained for 3-4 years and only came to class once a week the effects of regular practice will not be there for many folks. So overall timeframe is less important than real practice time. What does you GM say about some of the concerns you have? It is important to be concerned about reputation, for both you and your school but you have to remember everyone is there of their own free will and some are just not going to make the commitment that others will. A more common reality in a larger school.



Minimum of 2 days a week.  I honestly haven't talked to any GM.  Everything is through the master at my school.  I'm not saying that we have people at 3rd Dan that don't deserve it.  We've had relatively few make it to 3rd Dan at all (during my 7 years here, where we've consistently had around 250 students until COVID hit, we've only had around 12 make it, and they've all definitely had the skill.  I'm more looking at some of our advanced students (red belts, 1st degree) and wondering when the switch is from progress-based to benchmarks.



> Congrats on being the first 4th Dan in you dojang. I hope you can get to a place where you can focus on your performance and not the other guys. It will make moving forward a hell of a lot easier.



As an instructor, my *job* is to focus on the performance of the other guys.  When I become a Master of a school, my ability to run an effective school will be based on the performance of my instructors, and myself and all of the instructors should focus on the performance of the other guys.  I really don't understand why I shouldn't focus on other people, especially as I get more and more responsibility for other people.


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> The problem with physical metrics for higher levels is that they favor younger (and usually less experienced) folks. After a certain age (it differs by individual), no amount of training is going to make up for what age takes away - and certainly isn't going to create an increase in athleticism. So, if we had a higher physical requirement at each successive rank, we'd reach a point where only gifted athletes or extremely fast learners would be able to progress, rather than gifted instructors. I don't know what the right answer is, nor where to create the break between physical testing and other criteria, but if a style has higher ranks that are meant for instructors, those shouldn't be based on physical ability. Technical skill (with physical limitations taken in mind) would be reasonable to test at every level, but it needn't increase if the rank is meant for an instructor.



A lot of the metrics I talk about (such as the list in post #26) are going to be doable by the majority of folk, especially those who train hard.  For example, on a down block in front stance:

Chamber your blocking hand on top of your shoulder, other hand under your arm.  Shoulders square, elbows forward.
Blocking hand travels diagonally down into blocking position with extension of the elbow, other hand twists back and elbow travels straight back.  The motion should be sharp; it should start and stop suddenly with no "wind-up" or overswing.
Blocking arm is slightly bent, fist over your knee.  Other hand is tight at your hip, just above your belt, elbow straight back.  Shoulders still square.
Each hand is a tight, proper fist from start to finish of the technique
Eyes face forward.  Back straight, head up.  Sharp exhale on execution.
Front knee bent over your foot, facing front.  Back knee straight, also pointing front.
Both feet pointing straight
Feet slightly more than shoulder width apart, and double that long
Hips facing forward
The vast majority of these can be done by anyone.  Especially things like the orientation of your feet, hips and shoulders, the timing of the technique, and the proper motion.  You may not be able to have as long or deep a stance, or you may not be able to execute a snap motion, or get the full range of motion in your arms.  But barring something extreme, I think it's reasonable to expect that most people are *capable* of meeting at least 90% of these metrics, so long as they learn them and commit them to habit.  

On the other hand, if someone is chambering with only one hand, or their stance is too narrow, or their rear foot is pointed to the side (resulting in their hips and shoulders not being properly aligned), that's more likely due to them either not knowing the proper mechanics, or else not having trained them enough to ingrain them.  

It takes different people a different amount of time for a mechanic to "click" where they understand it, and another different amount of time for that to become habit.  This is, of course, assuming that the particular detail is something they're even working on yet.  If someone is struggling with 8 details, then how can they manage 10?  And this is just for one technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I think for most people who practice regularly some if not many of the 34 individual components morph and become engrained to the point of being involuntary, regardless of technique performed. I would expect that mostly through repetition this happens. But again, anatomically not everyone is going to look the same, nor should we expect them to be lemmings. That said, it is paramount for people to learn Why each of the 34 components have value and are important. For example how sonnal momtong makki can be a block or a strike and the value of the ready hand.
> You timeline for belting I would say is commensurate with most TKD dojangs. But if a person has trained for 3-4 years and only came to class once a week the effects of regular practice will not be there for many folks. So overall timeframe is less important than real practice time. What does you GM say about some of the concerns you have? It is important to be concerned about reputation, for both you and your school but you have to remember everyone is there of their own free will and some are just not going to make the commitment that others will. A more common reality in a larger school.
> 
> Congrats on being the first 4th Dan in you dojang. I hope you can get to a place where you can focus on your performance and not the other guys. It will make moving forward a hell of a lot easier.


I'll go further. Almost nobody ever thinks of more than a few of those 34 things for any given technique, though which few will vary by person and their individual progression. Ask a student to name out those 34 things, and they'll probably instantly find they can no longer do the technique as well, because they're too busy with the data points. The concepts are what the student eventually learns. They have to be told certain points for a while ("get that hand higher in chamber"), but eventually they have a concept for the chanber position (that concept covering several of the bits of information in a single idea), they have a concept for the movement (which includes the path and the mechanics for covering it), and they have a concept for the finish. Those specific divisions may not apply for a given student, but that kind of chunking by concept will always apply. If they aren't thinking of it in those conceptual chunks, they don't actually know the technique yet - just a set of data points they're trying to replicate without understanding (which is where most of us start techniques).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> A lot of the metrics I talk about (such as the list in post #26) are going to be doable by the majority of folk, especially those who train hard.  For example, on a down block in front stance:
> 
> Chamber your blocking hand on top of your shoulder, other hand under your arm.  Shoulders square, elbows forward.
> Blocking hand travels diagonally down into blocking position with extension of the elbow, other hand twists back and elbow travels straight back.  The motion should be sharp; it should start and stop suddenly with no "wind-up" or overswing.
> ...


Agreed. My point was that a given technique can only go so far. By some point (3rd dan, perhaps, in your system), the technical requirement for a given technique has gone as far as it can. There's really nowhere further to go for the next grade. If we try to keep upping the requirements each grade, we end up with requirements that favor younger folks. This is why every system I've seen eventually either goes to technical testing (meaning no performance requirement like sparring) or drops physical testing, entirerly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> In most places nowadays, I think the test is just a formality.  You earn the right to test by getting to the point you describe.


Where I did most of my training, the test wasn't a formality, but it wasn't as physically demanding as the training, if you were training hard.


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My point was that a given technique can only go so far. By some point (3rd dan, perhaps, in your system), the technical requirement for a given technique has gone as far as it can. There's really nowhere further to go for the next grade.


For some people, yes.  For most people with all of the techniques?  No.


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 14, 2020)

Nothing further to add that hasn't been said, but I just really admire your passion and love for your art @skribs . It oozes out in everything you say, and it's so refreshing and nice to see.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> Martial arts, like any hobby, seeks to be accessible to anyone.  This means that students come in with a wide range of initial capabilities and overall potential.  Some students intuitively pick up the basics, and then stall out.  Some start slow and steadily progress.  Some will never be coordinated.  Some start fast and turn into metaphorical gods of the sport.
> 
> Hopefully they won't all progress through the belts at the same pace.  The students that learn faster *should* rank up faster, but to a point, everyone should rank up.  They should be judged in accordance with their abilities, and rewarded for the gains they have made in their understanding and ability.
> 
> ...



How are you differentiating the two? As you progress, you reach a point where you merit promotion.
As rank goes up, what you do to merit that promotion also changes, and at some point it becomes more about service to the art (or org) than anything else. In our system, that would be 7th Dan.


----------



## skribs (Sep 14, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> How are you differentiating the two? As you progress, you reach a point where you merit promotion.
> As rank goes up, what you do to merit that promotion also changes, and at some point it becomes more about service to the art (or org) than anything else. In our system, that would be 7th Dan.



Progress is improvement relative to yourself, merit is meeting a minimum baseline standard.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> Minimum of 2 days a week.  I honestly haven't talked to any GM.  Everything is through the master at my school.  I'm not saying that we have people at 3rd Dan that don't deserve it.  We've had relatively few make it to 3rd Dan at all (during my 7 years here, where we've consistently had around 250 students until COVID hit, we've only had around 12 make it, and they've all definitely had the skill.  I'm more looking at some of our advanced students (red belts, 1st degree) and wondering when the switch is from progress-based to benchmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> As an instructor, my *job* is to focus on the performance of the other guys.  When I become a Master of a school, my ability to run an effective school will be based on the performance of my instructors, and myself and all of the instructors should focus on the performance of the other guys.  I really don't understand why I shouldn't focus on other people, especially as I get more and more responsibility for other people.


So then, have you voiced your concerns with your Master? Yes, I agree it is quite natural for people who both train And teach to be concerned about their students. Not everyone has that desire but it is an admirable one. 250 is a big school by any standard and I certainly see the need for some kind of organizational hierarchy. You mention a legitimate excuse (it that is a thing) that the virus has changed somethings for everyone out there. Especially with kids who are dependent on someone else just to move around, and disposable income taking a Huge hit right now, training has definitely taken a hit for almost everyone. 
When you say 2 days a week minimum, if this for you or a school rule? With the retention rate of many kids 2 days would be deficient I think. This is assuming the kid is doing little to no practice on his own outside of class.  



skribs said:


> I'm more looking at some of our advanced students (red belts, 1st degree) and wondering when the switch is from progress-based to benchmarks.



Traditionally, progress based (as I understand your definition of it) ends with the color belt progression. 1st Dan would start the benchmark part of the journey. It is important for the individual to understand that They have to carve the journey out for themselves going forward. 
Certainly you can see that belt progression is shifting en masse from an organizational viewpoint. WT/Kukkiwon, ITF, ATA and many JMA's all have shifted the methodology of progression. We all know student retention is the number one challenge both in the business side and teaching/learning side of any MA school/system/style in terms of staying solvent. Stretching the format to make the higher Dan level's more attainable is a byproduct of many factors but it is a reality. Is this controversial? Yes, definitely. Can/does it introduce a higher probability of higher Dan holders of lower value? Yes. But as long as rank is the carrot used for retention this will always happen regardless of style. I am certain if you could look at the percentages of 'bad' BB's in say 1970 versus today the percentage would be about the same. Of course the sample would be much larger.  
From where I see it, this 'stretch' is factored out by 2nd Dan. Largely because of the much longer times between advancement. Even in the higher density curriculum's, nearly everything is covered and comprehended by 2nd Dan. Not always fully refined but the base of knowledge is there. 
Am I giving a mediocre 1st or 2nd Dan a pass? Hell no. And they will know this. And yes, I understand this can be pretty subjective. It is not fair for me to measure someone based on my own MA history. The large majority of people practicing have no desire to chase the sport side of it. If I based everyone on physical performance only there would be very few BB's as we all understand the model. Period. Thankfully, it is still Very esoteric but there is Much more to a BB in a good program. 
But I know from years of experience that they did the best they could to get to their rank in our organization. That is all I am capable of worrying about. So we have came full circle back to the individuality of practicing a MA. I have often it is the coolest individual activity that you do as a group. A very cool thing 
Is sounds like your dojang is at a very cool time in terms of progression/expansion. There is nothing better than having a bunch of red and black belts to knock around with and get close to like family. Great times. 
But lets be real. Of the total crap 11th Dan instructors you hear/see out there, what is their background or lineage? Usually there is absolutely no substance to them at all. We as informed, knowledgeable martial artist Must understand this and completely factor this kind of crap out of our own school/style/system ranking. It has zero bearing and means absolutely nothing in our own personal picture. Corporately, we all have to work together do debunk such crap.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> The problem with physical metrics for higher levels is that they favor younger (and usually less experienced) folks. After a certain age (it differs by individual), no amount of training is going to make up for what age takes away - and certainly isn't going to create an increase in athleticism. So, if we had a higher physical requirement at each successive rank, we'd reach a point where only gifted athletes or extremely fast learners would be able to progress, rather than gifted instructors. I don't know what the right answer is, nor where to create the break between physical testing and other criteria, but if a style has higher ranks that are meant for instructors, those shouldn't be based on physical ability. Technical skill (with physical limitations taken in mind) would be reasonable to test at every level, but it needn't increase if the rank is meant for an instructor.


Very good points. You see this in virtually every activity which require physicality. How many 40 year old's track and field people do see out there for example? A fraction of what you see compared to the teens and 20's. 
One of the very cool things about the MA's is you Can still practice, improve, and progress at 40 years old.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> Progress is improvement relative to yourself, merit is meeting a minimum baseline standard.


Measuring progress against a well defined standard is objective.  Honestly, while interesting, I think the thread boils down to a choice between A and A.

And don't get me wrong, A is the right choice, because the alternative is choice B, a subjective  or non-merot based evaluation of progress


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2020)

Just to add a little more to what I was saying before, I like the discussion about various ways to objectively measure progress.  But that's essentially what we're doing, whether we evaluate one's progress objectively based on purely on physical ability or on other things.  I think there are a couple of things to consider:

1:  Objective standards are still arbitrary.  What I mean is, even if they are objective, they are still made up by someone.  If the standard is that someone can do 36 elements of one technique perfectly in a demonstration (or 360 different techniques).  I can observe you doing these things, and if you do them all correctly, you warrant promotion.  That's one perfectly valid way to evaluate progress.  Another is based on performance, where technique is less of a priority than whether you can perform well against other people who are at a certain level (i.e., a BJJ blue belt who performs consistently well with BJJ purple belts).  Some of those people are better at things than others, but over time, the belt levels are calibrated in several different ways that are not just technical.  OR a combination of the above... or something else.  The point is, if progress is measured in some way that is not specific to an individual, is not shrouded in mystery, and is observable, it's perfectly valid. 

2:  Merit is simply progress based on the standards described above.  If the standard is that you have to train for at least 6 months and attend 100 classes before you can be promoted to Teal Belt, and you do that, you are being promoted based on merit.  You have earned that promotion by meeting the standard.  

So, when I say, this is a discussion about whether to choose Option A or Option A, it's just that.  What it really seems like is that the OP is unclear about what the standards are for upper belts in his system.

Personally, I don't think there's any problem with any standards, provided they are not subjective.  If you give people black belts for showing up to at least 1 class per week for 12 months, regardless of how well you perform.  The standard is clear and objective.  

On another note, from an inclusion stand point, I applaud schools and systems that have examined their standards and pared them back to what really matters.  As we do in business where employees have impairments of various kinds, there are often ways to accommodate a physical or mental impairment without compromising the essential elements of a task or activity.  I think this is particularly true in something like a martial art, where the vast majority of folks aren't looking to become professionals or elite athletes.  Point being, if you put undue emphasis on element on pointing a toe the correct direction, you may lose sight of the fact that someone is delivering an effective side kick.  Happens all the time in grappling, where someone may have a bum shoulder, and so executes a technique a little differently.  Think about it like this. If you're saying that someone with an impairment will never attain a particular rank in your organization, I'd recommend making sure that the thing they cannot do actually matters.  Whether one's feet are straight or one's hand is chambered at the exact right spot, as a disqualifying standard, seems a little unreasonable to me.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Very good points. You see this in virtually every activity which require physicality. How many 40 year old's track and field people do see out there for example? A fraction of what you see compared to the teens and 20's.
> One of the very cool things about the MA's is you Can still practice, improve, and progress at 40 years old.


Well, not according to the OP.  You may be able to practice and improve, but your progress in the art would stop because your knees are wonky and you can't point your toes in a particular direction.  At least, this far into the thread, this is what I'm getting from his description of "merit."


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Well, not according to the OP.  You may be able to practice and improve, but your progress in the art would stop because your knees are wonky and you can't point your toes in a particular direction.  At least, this far into the thread, this is what I'm getting from his description of "merit."





skribs said:


> Martial arts, like any hobby, seeks to be accessible to anyone.



This is the first sentence in the OP. Seems pretty far from what you are saying.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This is the first sentence in the OP. Seems pretty far from what you are saying.


Quoting a sentence out of context is dishonest.

We have a lot of context over almost 2 pages of posts.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just to add a little more to what I was saying before, I like the discussion about various ways to objectively measure progress.  But that's essentially what we're doing, whether we evaluate one's progress objectively based on purely on physical ability or on other things.  I think there are a couple of things to consider:
> 
> 1:  Objective standards are still arbitrary.  What I mean is, even if they are objective, they are still made up by someone.  If the standard is that someone can do 36 elements of one technique perfectly in a demonstration (or 360 different techniques).  I can observe you doing these things, and if you do them all correctly, you warrant promotion.  That's one perfectly valid way to evaluate progress.  Another is based on performance, where technique is less of a priority than whether you can perform well against other people who are at a certain level (i.e., a BJJ blue belt who performs consistently well with BJJ purple belts).  Some of those people are better at things than others, but over time, the belt levels are calibrated in several different ways that are not just technical.  OR a combination of the above... or something else.  The point is, if progress is measured in some way that is not specific to an individual, is not shrouded in mystery, and is observable, it's perfectly valid.
> 
> ...



I read the OP and subsequent posts more as concern about his own performance and the upper belts around him. It bordered on comparison that is counter productive to me. I like to think any of us who have worked a certain style for a long time can recognize good, effective form/technique. And as you said,  without getting hung up on where their toe is pointed every time.
To your point #2; I do not know of any school that promotes purely on time or number of classes. That would grossly show up during a legitimate testing. I suppose there are McDojo's that do it but hopefully most people have realized that dynamic just does not work. Time/classes is often a required element, and a good one to me, but not the sole component necessary. Definitely more of a commercial gym/class approach. 

I feel subjectivity based on one's experience has it's place. Most often in the more elite groups. Any swinging dxxk can have a bunch of certificates on the office wall. But does that necessarily mean they have done much? Sadly, no. I think this is a common reason for the differences in makeup of different schools. Some schools really cater to kids, some schools do not accept kids. That and the way some styles have been promoted over the years.

We have two schools and have never separated age groups at large. We do separate at times within a class. But it is made imminently clear that first class is geared more for kids and second class is geared more for adults. We also have sparring only classes each week and senior belt classes 2-3 times/month. So the intent and tempo of classes will be very different. If someone comes in really out of shape we usually suggest they start out in the first class. 
For adult green belts and beyond, it is expected that you attend as many second classes as your schedule will allow. We have a quite a lot of industry in the two towns where our schools are and a lot of people work 2nd and 3rd shifts so some just cannot make second class. They get extra work in first class. So we have circled back to the personal efforts of both student and instructor.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Quoting a sentence out of context is dishonest.
> 
> We have a lot of context over almost 2 pages of posts.


Dishonest? I have no idea what you mean. That is literally his first sentence. And the following train of thought follows that comment. From there the comments have scattered as they usually do.
Are you sure you have read the whole post?


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I read the OP and subsequent posts more as concern about his own performance and the upper belts around him. It bordered on comparison that is counter productive to me. I like to think any of us who have worked a certain style for a long time can recognize good, effective form/technique. And as you said,  without getting hung up on where their toe is pointed every time.
> To your point #2; I do not know of any school that promotes purely on time or number of classes. That would grossly show up during a legitimate testing. I suppose there are McDojo's that do it but hopefully most people have realized that dynamic just does not work. Time/classes is often a required element, and a good one to me, but not the sole component necessary. Definitely more of a commercial gym/class approach.


 I'm not getting into a qualitative discussion about the merits. My point is that, regardless of the specific criteria fo promotion, if a person meets it, their promotion is based on merit.  If a person is promoted who does not meet the criterion, they are not promoted on merit.  


> I feel subjectivity based on one's experience has it's place. Most often in the more elite groups. Any swinging dxxk can have a bunch of certificates on the office wall. But does that necessarily mean they have done much?


  that's fine but it's a different topic altogether.  



> Sadly, no. I think this is a common reason for the differences in makeup of different schools. Some schools really cater to kids, some schools do not accept kids. That and the way some styles have been promoted over the years.
> 
> We have two schools and have never separated age groups at large. We do separate at times within a class. But it is made imminently clear that first class is geared more for kids and second class is geared more for adults. We also have sparring only classes each week and senior belt classes 2-3 times/month. So the intent and tempo of classes will be very different. If someone comes in really out of shape we usually suggest they start out in the first class.
> For adult green belts and beyond, it is expected that you attend as many second classes as your schedule will allow. We have a quite a lot of industry in the two towns where our schools are and a lot of people work 2nd and 3rd shifts so some just cannot make second class. They get extra work in first class. So we have circled back to the personal efforts of both student and instructor.


All of the above reads to me like commentary on what you value, and again, this is fine.  But that's your merit system.  Other people value different things, and so their merit system reflects different priorities.  This isn't a situation where one is better than the other.   Your values in this case aren't better or worse than a person who promoted based on attendance.


----------



## skribs (Sep 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> So then, have you voiced your concerns with your Master? Yes, I agree it is quite natural for people who both train And teach to be concerned about their students. Not everyone has that desire but it is an admirable one.



He won't change.  His style is very much about learning by doing.  There are sometimes I wish we would slow down on a few things and go over them in more detail, but he's more concerned with students burning out.  This is one of the reasons I ask a lot of these questions here.  It's also why I would like to start my own school soon, so I can do things my way.  I've made suggestions in the past and they never took.



dvcochran said:


> When you say 2 days a week minimum, if this for you or a school rule? With the retention rate of many kids 2 days would be deficient I think. This is assuming the kid is doing little to no practice on his own outside of class.



2 days a week minimum.  Before COVID, some students were doing 3-4 days per week.  We sustained around 200-250 students for the entire time I've been there (except for COVID).  We're sustaining probably around 100 right now.  I think the model is keeping students.



dvcochran said:


> Traditionally, progress based (as I understand your definition of it) ends with the color belt progression. 1st Dan would start the benchmark part of the journey. It is important for the individual to understand that They have to carve the journey out for themselves going forward.



This is the question I was asking.  To clarify, are you saying the switch happens *to get* your black belt, or *after *black belt?  I think at my school, if there is a switch, it's after 2nd Dan...although there are a few things we learn at 3rd Dan that I wish I'd known sooner.



dvcochran said:


> Even in the higher density curriculum's, nearly everything is covered and comprehended by 2nd Dan. Not always fully refined but the base of knowledge is there.



Our curriculum is probably one of the densest there is.  It's denser than anyone else's that I talked to.  One of my fellow students had bounced around a lot due to his military service.  He'd been at other schools, then our school (before my time), then bounced around again, and he's back again.  He said that our school has more stuff on the tests than any other school he's been to.  He also said when he did one of his dan tests, the GM told him afterwards that our Master has us do a lot of stuff.

We have gup tests at our school, intermediate between dan ranks.  I'm going to be going for 4th dan, so I have to get 4 gups between 3rd and 4th Dan (I'm testing for my 3rd Gup next month; or as I call it: Black Belt v3.3.)  There's new stuff on every gup test.  For this test, I need a new form (a variant on Pyongwon), and 7 new one-steps.  This is in addition to everything else...



dvcochran said:


> But I know from years of experience that they did the best they could to get to their rank in our organization.



There are some things that "did their best" is not the quality of work you want to hear.  For example, "they did their best when they made this parachute."  "They did their best to make sure this bridge is safe."  When parents sign their kids up for martial arts, I'm sure they want some qualification other than "this instructor did their best."


----------



## skribs (Sep 14, 2020)

Steve said:


> Measuring progress against a well defined standard is objective.  Honestly, while interesting, I think the thread boils down to a choice between A and A.
> 
> And don't get me wrong, A is the right choice, because the alternative is choice B, a subjective  or non-merot based evaluation of progress



I'm learning guitar right now.  I'm pretty terrible at it.  I'm somewhere between beginner and intermediate on a good day.  I don't know many songs or riffs.  I'm not that quick.  I have a lot of issues with my fundamentals (I tend to deaden notes way too early).  When I'm learning a new song, I usually have to learn it at quarter-speed.  Then after a week, I can do it at 1/3 speed.  After another week, I can do it at half speed.  Another week after that, maybe 75% speed.  Then I start to plateau.  It takes longer and longer for me to make progress.  In this case, I've made progress relative to myself.

Let's say the song is at 120 BPM.  I may start playing it at 30 BPM.  Then the next week at 45.  Then 60.  Then 75.  Then 90.  I'm making progress relative to myself.  But I can't play along to the song, because I'm just not good enough yet.

If I were to try out for a band, and I couldn't play that song at 120 BPM, I wouldn't get the gig.  If someone wanted me to teach them the song, and I couldn't play the song correctly, then why would they want to learn from me?  I've done my best.  I've worked hard to learn the song.  But it's too fast for me to play.  I understand it, but I can't do it properly.

It also doesn't really matter, *for the sake of this song*, whether I can do it at 120, 150, or 5000 BPM.  The song is at 120, so as long as I'm capable of meeting that benchmark, I've met that benchmark.  The same in martial arts.  Your stances can only get so correct.  A front stance with proper length, width, depth; alignment of feet, hips, shoulders; and proper posture can't be *more* correct.  It can be easier.  It can have more muscle memory.  But the requirements have been met.  

I feel that a lot of my students in TKD are the same as I am with guitar.  A white belt's kicks may be the skill level equivalent of me missing a bunch of notes while playing at 30 BPM.  When that white belt can then improve their skill level, it's compared to themselves.  But if they haven't yet reached that 120 BPM, does that mean they know it?

Now, this is kind of a bad example, because as @dvcochran and @gpseymour have said, physicality has its limits, especially with age.  (Or as @Dirty Dog  says in his signature).  But let's take a specific issue I've seen with a couple of students at my school.  Both of them have bad timing on their tornado kicks.  A proper roundhouse-tornado kick combo is right roundhouse kick, step down, pivot to the left, turn with the left knee up, and then jumping roundhouse kick with the right leg (or mirror for a left leg).  However, they will do the right roundhouse kick, *hop* down, and then continue.  This habit has stuck with them.  It results in the kick being slower and less powerful, as well as harder to do.

I've personally tried to break them of it, and they haven't understood it. There's a guy that started before me, that I passed.  The other person is my mother.  They are both black belts, although not as high as I am.  They learned the forms and the curriculum.  They do most of the stuff pretty well.  This is just one thing that stands out.  So here's the question: how can they teach people the proper tornado kick, if they don't know it themselves?  This isn't a matter of their physicality.  If anything, they're adding more physicality to it by doing the extra jump.  It's simply a matter of improper technique.

This is where the question of measuring progress against themselves vs. against a standard.  They do make progress in their knowledge and correctness of technique (overall).  However, there are a few techniques that have lagged behind.  So at what point do you stop looking at overall progress, and start saying things like:

For this belt, everyone must have the proper timing on a tornado kick
For this belt, everyone must meet these metrics in your stances (most of the metrics are about correctness, not flexibility or strength)
For this belt, you must not have any of this list of bad habits
In other words, when does the line to beat be compared to your previous self, vs. compared to a set benchmark that everyone must meet in order to qualify?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> For some people, yes.  For most people with all of the techniques?  No.


I don't understand that statement - literally, I can't parse it into what you meant it to communicate. Can you restate it for me?


----------



## skribs (Sep 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I don't understand that statement - literally, I can't parse it into what you meant it to communicate. Can you restate it for me?



Some people have mastered every detail of the techniques by 3rd dan.  For most of the people who have reached 3rd dan, there are at least a few techniques that they are missing some big details on, and/or a lot of techniques that they are missing some minor details on.

We have a lot of techniques.  Depending on how you break it down, I'd say we have around 25+ different kicks, 20+ different punches, and over a dozen blocks.  That's *not* including the specific techniques in the forms that I haven't really found a viable real-world application for.  That's *not* including the grappling techniques or weapon techniques we use.  Right there, that's 45 different techniques to master.  As I mentioned above, there can easily be 30+ details for each technique.  Some of these techniques have multiple steps, such as a 360 hook kick.  That adds more details to the technique in order to do it 100% correctly.

In order to master all of those techniques (and not including the others), there are over 1500 details you need to commit to habit.  If someone has 1400 of those details, that means they've still got room to grow.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> I'm learning guitar right now.  I'm pretty terrible at it.  I'm somewhere between beginner and intermediate on a good day.  I don't know many songs or riffs.  I'm not that quick.  I have a lot of issues with my fundamentals (I tend to deaden notes way too early).  When I'm learning a new song, I usually have to learn it at quarter-speed.  Then after a week, I can do it at 1/3 speed.  After another week, I can do it at half speed.  Another week after that, maybe 75% speed.  Then I start to plateau.  It takes longer and longer for me to make progress.  In this case, I've made progress relative to myself.
> 
> Let's say the song is at 120 BPM.  I may start playing it at 30 BPM.  Then the next week at 45.  Then 60.  Then 75.  Then 90.  I'm making progress relative to myself.  But I can't play along to the song, because I'm just not good enough yet.
> 
> ...


Does TKD not have objective standards for the lower belts?

If you're learning to play the guitar, there may be songs you'll never learn.  You may not even have the manual dexterity to play more than rhythm.  And so what?  It's a hobby and there is literally no standard you're trying to meet.  But if you want to get a job, you'll have to earn it.  The standards of the job are completely arbitrary, set by the person doing the hiring, and you'll either meet that standard or you will not.  Your level of improvement over some amount of time is your progress.  Your ability to meet a standard at a given time is a snapshot of your progress in that moment.

Now, when we talk merit, only way that really enters into the discussion is if you are saying some folks in your system are being promoted who do not meet the standard.  If true, those folks have not been promoted based on merit.  The only other real possibility is if you're saying that at a certain point, there is no standard.  And based on your posts, that seems to be what you're suggesting... that at lower belts, there really isn't any standard and everyone is just gifted their belt at some point.

In your example above, if the song is a hard standard, and you cannot play the song but get hired anyway, you did not get the gig based on merit.  Maybe the lead singer is your brother.  If you can play the song and get the gig, you earned the position based on merit.  I don't think any band would hire a guitar player based on such a standard, but that's okay.

One key distinction here is that in a school, we're talking about a standard that applies to many.  In a band, you're talking about hiring a single person, many of whom could be fully qualified and hired based on merit.  So, not quite apples to apples.  In a hiring, at some point (presuming you have a pool of qualified applicants), you'll make a final decision based on something very subjective out of a group of people who all fully meet the standards.

So, all of that to say, your questions aren't progress vs merit.  That's the same thing, or more accurately, there is a causal relationship.  If you progress far enough, you meet the standard are are promoted based on merit.   But to your point about *what *standards to apply, I'd say you're thinking way too small.  The standards should all logically lead to the betterment of the school and the style... whatever that means to the style.  Would you not promote someone who is a good technician, a good teacher, and a good person because they can't do a tornado kick?  Maybe so.  But if that is your standard, and you promote this guy anyway, he didn't actually earn his promotion... and now you've got real problems.  Your standards are not clear, and you are promoting folks without merit.

And as I said before, I'm not a huge fan of standards that are so rigid as to say, "One must execute this technique perfectly before being promoted."  Unless that's truly a deal breaker and in some way betters the art and promotes what you are trying to promote (whether that's growth of a school, sharing the style with a broader group, promoting diversity within the ranks... whatever it is).  It is usually, unnecessarily exclusive.


----------



## skribs (Sep 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Does TKD not have objective standards for the lower belts?
> 
> If you're learning to play the guitar, there may be songs you'll never learn.  You may not even have the manual dexterity to play more than rhythm.  And so what?  It's a hobby and there is literally no standard you're trying to meet.  But if you want to get a job, you'll have to earn it.  The standards of the job are completely arbitrary, set by the person doing the hiring, and you'll either meet that standard or you will not.  Your level of improvement over some amount of time is your progress.  Your ability to meet a standard at a given time is a snapshot of your progress in that moment.
> 
> ...


If we had objective standards for lower belts, then some people would spend several years at white belt.

We have a minimum amount of techniques and forms to learn.  But for the most part, at the lower belts we're more concerned about the gross movements than every detail.  Those get cleaned up over time.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> If we had objective standards for lower belts, then some people would spend several years at white belt.
> 
> We have a minimum amount of techniques and forms to learn.  But for the most part, at the lower belts we're more concerned about the gross movements than every detail.  Those get cleaned up over time.


Minimum number of techniques is an objective standard. Standards don't have to be draconian to be objective.


----------



## skribs (Sep 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Minimum number of techniques is an objective standard. Standards don't have to be draconian to be objective.



Then I'm talking about a standard of the execution of those techniques. At what point do you go from improving the techniques, to a minimum standard for each technique?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> Some people have mastered every detail of the techniques by 3rd dan.  For most of the people who have reached 3rd dan, there are at least a few techniques that they are missing some big details on, and/or a lot of techniques that they are missing some minor details on.
> 
> We have a lot of techniques.  Depending on how you break it down, I'd say we have around 25+ different kicks, 20+ different punches, and over a dozen blocks.  That's *not* including the specific techniques in the forms that I haven't really found a viable real-world application for.  That's *not* including the grappling techniques or weapon techniques we use.  Right there, that's 45 different techniques to master.  As I mentioned above, there can easily be 30+ details for each technique.  Some of these techniques have multiple steps, such as a 360 hook kick.  That adds more details to the technique in order to do it 100% correctly.
> 
> In order to master all of those techniques (and not including the others), there are over 1500 details you need to commit to habit.  If someone has 1400 of those details, that means they've still got room to grow.


Ah. I see what you mean. The 3rd dan was a guess. My point was that there's a point at which the requirement for promotion on a given technique has gone as far as it can. There's simply not a way to keep notching a technical requirement up infinitely. While individuals may be able to progress that particular technique a bit further, they've met the last reasonable requirement. I'm speaking to testing/grading requirements, not the ability to develop.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Does TKD not have objective standards for the lower belts?
> 
> If you're learning to play the guitar, there may be songs you'll never learn.  You may not even have the manual dexterity to play more than rhythm.  And so what?  It's a hobby and there is literally no standard you're trying to meet.  But if you want to get a job, you'll have to earn it.  The standards of the job are completely arbitrary, set by the person doing the hiring, and you'll either meet that standard or you will not.  Your level of improvement over some amount of time is your progress.  Your ability to meet a standard at a given time is a snapshot of your progress in that moment.
> 
> ...


I will say that I find some of the things I test for to be difficult (or perhaps impossible) to turn into objective standards. For instance, I require students to get the principles of a technique correct. Simply doing the movements in a way that looks right isn't sufficient. And I'm not sure I could delineate what exactly I'm looking for with that. My students understand the requirement conceptually, because it matches the way I teach. I can say there has to be structure-breaking, but where's the line between breaking structure and not breaking structure?


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> Then I'm talking about a standard of the execution of those techniques. At what point do you go from improving the techniques, to a minimum standard for each technique?


Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

I would say always and never.  You should always have minimum technical standards, and honestly, it sounds like you do even for the lower ranks.  But standards should be measurable, consistent for everyone, and also reflective of the values of the organization.  Is your martial art a fighting art?  If so, the standards should include some way to measure fighting skill. 

And as I said before, if you focus too much on where a foot is pointed or where a fist is chambered, you risk losing the forest for the trees.  Technique, in my opinion, is like the pirate code...  more of a guideline, really.  I may not execute an armbar from guard exactly as it was taught to me, but if I can get from point a to point b reliably and consistently, where my toes are pointed isn't the main thing.  (this is my opinion)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> Then I'm talking about a standard of the execution of those techniques. At what point do you go from improving the techniques, to a minimum standard for each technique?


I have a minimum standard at each test. It's just a low bar in the early tests. I'll use the standard I used at my instructor's dojo (because the timelines are closer to what you're familiar with). For yellow belt (almost always less than 18 weeks in - can be as quick as 6 weeks, but that's rare), they had to do the movements that the technique called for (approximate stances, arms doing roughly the right thing to their partner, etc.). For blue (a few months later), they had to actually activate the technique.

These sound odd in writing, because they're based on the 2-person "forms" that are part of the classical approach. That sequence leads them through memorizing, then understanding the Classical Techniques. (There was a whole segment of the curriculum that was not part of the formal testing, which was approached differently.)


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I will say that I find some of the things I test for to be difficult (or perhaps impossible) to turn into objective standards. For instance, I require students to get the principles of a technique correct. Simply doing the movements in a way that looks right isn't sufficient. And I'm not sure I could delineate what exactly I'm looking for with that. My students understand the requirement conceptually, because it matches the way I teach. I can say there has to be structure-breaking, but where's the line between breaking structure and not breaking structure?


Sure.  My first reaction to this is that this is where application comes in handy.  If you have a clear path to execution, then the proof is in the proverbial pudding.  Simply put, you may not be able to see what you're referring to with your eyes... but you should be able to measure it based on results.  If you execute an armbar from guard well, the other guy won't be able to keep you from doing it and will tap.  It's not about, I noticed you didn't break his posture down.  Rather, it's about, I noticed that you compensated for not breaking his posture down by really elevating your hips.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 15, 2020)

So, this type of conversation comes up a lot. We always participate in these discussions about who did what to earn what rank... but we always participate "knowing" that the way we did it was the "right" way and everyone doing it different is either "wrong" or just "no so much right." Have you ever turned the question around and asked: Why do I have the rank I have?

Did I get this rank because I can go out into a street brawl and start kicking butt and taking names?
Did I get this rank because I did well in full contact sport fighting?
Did I get this rank because I did well in "adult tag" competition?
Did I get this rank because I memorized an exact pattern and can repeat it, even if I may not understand it?
Did I get this rank because I showed up every week and put in the time, and eventually got it for my effort?
Did I get this rank because I understand what I am doing?

Another fun question is: Okay, I have this certain rank... what are realistic expectations of my actual abilities in a home invasion? street fight? sporting competition? performance event? or teaching situation?

After being honest with yourself about these questions... Do you make any changes? And what would those changes be? 

After making black belt, I looked at what I really did, what I was really capable of and found that what I thought I was... I wasn't. Now what? Do I abandon what I studied? How do I fix it? What exactly was wrong with my training? What are my expectations? 

Personally, I started training at a boxing gym, to learn how to punch and what is was like to be punched. I spent a couple years training BJJ and MMA to see where I stood and to get more experience. During all that... I continued training my first art. Through all this training and butt whooping (that would be my butt being whooped) I learned a lot. First I learned where my real martial abilities stood, and where my fitness was. After some time, I could see where my first art actually did have a lot of worth and did teach and prepare me better than I had originally thought, in many ways. I started adding things to my art... and sharing with my sensei... who was very patient, about showing me where those things were in my own art, and where I had over looked them. After all that... the most important thing I have is a realistic picture of my abilities in those different types of situations... as well as a decent idea of what it would take to improve in the areas I lack. I think you learn a lot of things, taking your first art and testing it out... with folks who have no problem whooping your butt. It doesn't mean your first art is bad.... it means you made erroneous assumptions about what your art was giving you and teaching you. To truly see how well a martial art does in a martial situation, you need to make sure you are testing the martial art and not your erroneous assumptions about what the art is.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I will say that I find some of the things I test for to be difficult (or perhaps impossible) to turn into objective standards. For instance, I require students to get the principles of a technique correct. Simply doing the movements in a way that looks right isn't sufficient. And I'm not sure I could delineate what exactly I'm looking for with that. My students understand the requirement conceptually, because it matches the way I teach. I can say there has to be structure-breaking, but where's the line between breaking structure and not breaking structure?


Agree. I feel this is the individual component I have mentioned. I think even in Skribs breakdown of a technique and the individual components he mentions they can and will look different from person to person. AND some people simply find a way that works better for them. As long as all the bases are covered I do not sweat this too much. If I can prove to them that their way has deficiencies (rest assured we try) then we force a change. But to use Steve's phrasing, it is not draconian in nature.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> He won't change.  His style is very much about learning by doing.  There are sometimes I wish we would slow down on a few things and go over them in more detail, but he's more concerned with students burning out.  This is one of the reasons I ask a lot of these questions here.  It's also why I would like to start my own school soon, so I can do things my way.  I've made suggestions in the past and they never took.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





skribs said:


> This is the question I was asking. To clarify, are you saying the switch happens *to get* your black belt, or *after *black belt?


After black belt.



skribs said:


> There are some things that "did their best" is not the quality of work you want to hear. For example, "they did their best when they made this parachute." "They did their best to make sure this bridge is safe." When parents sign their kids up for martial arts, I'm sure they want some qualification other than "this instructor did their best."


Ah, but what if the parachute and bridge makers followed the instructions and every rule by the book? At the end of the day that really did not matter did it?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Does TKD not have objective standards for the lower belts?



Sure. I'm pretty comfortable saying I'd bet a reasonable amount of money that every school has objective standards. But I'd also qualify that by adding "sort of."
Saying 'you need to learn X,Y & Z techniques and form W for belt A' is, I think we can agree, an objective standard. But it's subjective at the same time. When the student performs that form, how close to the theoretical ideal is it? I'd guess that purely objective standards are fairly uncommon.


----------



## skribs (Sep 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I will say that I find some of the things I test for to be difficult (or perhaps impossible) to turn into objective standards. For instance, I require students to get the principles of a technique correct. Simply doing the movements in a way that looks right isn't sufficient. And I'm not sure I could delineate what exactly I'm looking for with that. My students understand the requirement conceptually, because it matches the way I teach. I can say there has to be structure-breaking, but where's the line between breaking structure and not breaking structure?





gpseymour said:


> I have a minimum standard at each test. It's just a low bar in the early tests. I'll use the standard I used at my instructor's dojo (because the timelines are closer to what you're familiar with). For yellow belt (almost always less than 18 weeks in - can be as quick as 6 weeks, but that's rare), they had to do the movements that the technique called for (approximate stances, arms doing roughly the right thing to their partner, etc.). For blue (a few months later), they had to actually activate the technique.
> 
> These sound odd in writing, because they're based on the 2-person "forms" that are part of the classical approach. That sequence leads them through memorizing, then understanding the Classical Techniques. (There was a whole segment of the curriculum that was not part of the formal testing, which was approached differently.)



In Taekwondo, we kind of have 4 different groups of techniques we train:

Traditional Techniques
Forms
Sparring Techniques
Self-Defense Techniques
Traditional techniques are things like punches, kicks, blocks, and combinations.  At my school, these are typically trained in rote combinations that are tested.  These may vary some from person to person, where some do a more applicable version of the techniques, while others do a form that more resembles the aesthetic style of the forms.  

The forms are very specific.  They should be done as exactly as possible.  They have the most details that *should* match the instructor when done correctly.

Sparring techniques are the kicks and footwork we use in WT sparring.  These are not really tested (except that we spar during the test).  While there are right and wrong ways to do the techniques (i.e. a roundhouse kick with the ridge of your foot instead of your instep is wrong 100% of the time), there is also a lot of adapting to your partner.

Self-defense techniques are the one-steps (probably the most similar to your classical forms).  You may have to adjust a little bit for your opponent's body, but as far as the test goes, you're expected to perform these rote.  In our Hapkido class, you're expected to show more understanding of the application.  (And for what it's worth, that's more how I'd like to approach self-defense when I run my own school).

The different categories have varying levels of exactness, ranging from sparring at the adaptable end, to forms at the exactness end.


----------



## skribs (Sep 15, 2020)

wab25 said:


> So, this type of conversation comes up a lot. We always participate in these discussions about who did what to earn what rank... but we always participate "knowing" that the way we did it was the "right" way and everyone doing it different is either "wrong" or just "no so much right." Have you ever turned the question around and asked: Why do I have the rank I have?
> 
> Did I get this rank because I can go out into a street brawl and start kicking butt and taking names?
> Did I get this rank because I did well in full contact sport fighting?
> ...



I am constantly working to improve my techniques.  I'd spend more time at the gym (if they weren't closed because of COVID).  I don't have much time to train outside of my dojang.  That's something I might change after 4th dan.



Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. I'm pretty comfortable saying I'd bet a reasonable amount of money that every school has objective standards. But I'd also qualify that by adding "sort of."
> Saying 'you need to learn X,Y & Z techniques and form W for belt A' is, I think we can agree, an objective standard. But it's subjective at the same time. When the student performs that form, how close to the theoretical ideal is it? I'd guess that purely objective standards are fairly uncommon.



And, how close is it to theoretical ideal of what the student is capable of?  There's a big difference between a student being sloppy because they're uncoordinated, and a student being sloppy because they just aren't paying attention.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. I'm pretty comfortable saying I'd bet a reasonable amount of money that every school has objective standards. But I'd also qualify that by adding "sort of."
> Saying 'you need to learn X,Y & Z techniques and form W for belt A' is, I think we can agree, an objective standard. But it's subjective at the same time. When the student performs that form, how close to the theoretical ideal is it? I'd guess that purely objective standards are fairly uncommon.


Two quick things. First, it's still an objective standard provided you're applying the same standard to everyone.   So, if you don't hold some students to a higher standard, or allow other students to promote even when they don't meet the standards it's fine.   If you're winging it, that's different.

Second, and this happens a lot around here, when someone takes the time to write like five paragraphs and you cherry pick one sentence, that seems super shifty to me.


----------



## skribs (Sep 15, 2020)

Steve said:


> Two quick things. First, it's still an objective standard provided you're applying the same standard to everyone. So, if you don't hold some students to a higher standard, or allow other students to promote even when they don't meet the standards it's fine. If you're winging it, that's different.



Let's say you have 2 kids.  Their assignment is to read a book.  One of them is reading at a 2nd grade reading level, and reads a kids book that is 30 pages long.  Another is reading at a 7th grade reading level, and reads a chapter book that is 100 pages long.  This would be appropriate for both of them.  They both "read a book", but the book that one read is different.

If the second kid read the kids book, then he's not meeting his subjective expectations.  If you expect the first kid to read the chapter book, there's simply no way that's going to happen (for now).  You have to have subjective expectations for each.  But you can have an objective requirement (read a book) and then subjective requirements (the difficulty of that book).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Two quick things. First, it's still an objective standard provided you're applying the same standard to everyone.   So, if you don't hold some students to a higher standard, or allow other students to promote even when they don't meet the standards it's fine.   If you're winging it, that's different.



Ok. I still think there will inevitably be some degree of subjectivity, because humans. But it's splitting hairs pretty fine, and not worth arguing about. 



> Second, and this happens a lot around here, when someone takes the time to write like five paragraphs and you cherry pick one sentence, that seems super shifty to me.



You write a bunch. You make multiple points, or write a lot of stuff in support of a single point. There's one small part that I disagree with or want clarification about. Why would I quote a lot of text that has nothing to do with what I'm questioning? That's sort of why the system allows editing... If you think it's "shifty" then that's fine, but I'm still not going to quote extraneous stuff.
Now, if you can show me where I've ever changed the meaning of what I quoted by removing the fluff, that would be totally different.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> Let's say you have 2 kids.  Their assignment is to read a book.  One of them is reading at a 2nd grade reading level, and reads a kids book that is 30 pages long.  Another is reading at a 7th grade reading level, and reads a chapter book that is 100 pages long.  This would be appropriate for both of them.  They both "read a book", but the book that one read is different.
> 
> If the second kid read the kids book, then he's not meeting his subjective expectations.  If you expect the first kid to read the chapter book, there's simply no way that's going to happen (for now).  You have to have subjective expectations for each.  But you can have an objective requirement (read a book) and then subjective requirements (the difficulty of that book).


Ah, I think I get it.  So, look at it like this.  If the subjective standard for 7th graders is that they should be reading at a 7th grade level, the evaluation of progress is objective.  The criteria may be subjective, but if it's based on something that is explainable and reasonable.  And to be clear, this is true for literally every objective standard.  The criteria is always subjective.  

Then you start getting into the arena of layering standards.  Here are the standards for the specific subject... here are the standards for being promoted from one grade to another... and here are the standards that really matter: graduation.  So, in this analogy, if the standard is that a 7th grader should be reading at a 7th grade level, and he/she isn't... that kid isn't meeting the standard.  So, then you start to get into what is the promotion criteria from 7th to 8th grade.  Can a kid who reads at the 5th grade level (for example) be promoted into the 8th grade?   Maybe... maybe not, but what's the actual standard for graduation?  That's the reading standard that actually matters with regards to ceremonial adequacy.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Ok. I still think there will inevitably be some degree of subjectivity, because humans. But it's splitting hairs pretty fine, and not worth arguing about.


Yeah, I think it's actually the opposite. The criteria is always subjective for the rank (you must know 10 techniques, 2 kata, and be able to say the alphabet backwards in under 30 seconds).  But the evaluation of success or failure against that criteria can be objective or arbitrary.  The latter happens when you either don't promote someone who has merited that promotion by meeting the criteria, or you promote someone who does not merit it because they do not meet the criteria.


> You write a bunch. You make multiple points, or write a lot of stuff in support of a single point. There's one small part that I disagree with or want clarification about. Why would I quote a lot of text that has nothing to do with what I'm questioning? That's sort of why the system allows editing... If you think it's "shifty" then that's fine, but I'm still not going to quote extraneous stuff.
> Now, if you can show me where I've ever changed the meaning of what I quoted by removing the fluff, that would be totally different.


I was just being crabby.  But, come on.  I'm pretty darn sure I can find several examples where you quoted out of context and changed the meaning.  I actually laughed out loud when I read that.


----------



## skribs (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Ah, I think I get it.  So, look at it like this.  If the subjective standard for 7th graders is that they should be reading at a 7th grade level, the evaluation of progress is objective.  The criteria may be subjective, but if it's based on something that is explainable and reasonable.  And to be clear, this is true for literally every objective standard.  The criteria is always subjective.
> 
> Then you start getting into the arena of layering standards.  Here are the standards for the specific subject... here are the standards for being promoted from one grade to another... and here are the standards that really matter: graduation.  So, in this analogy, if the standard is that a 7th grader should be reading at a 7th grade level, and he/she isn't... that kid isn't meeting the standard.  So, then you start to get into what is the promotion criteria from 7th to 8th grade.  Can a kid who reads at the 5th grade level (for example) be promoted into the 8th grade?   Maybe... maybe not, but what's the actual standard for graduation?  That's the reading standard that actually matters with regards to ceremonial adequacy.



And what if that kid wants to be a teacher? Should someone with a 4th grade reading level be a teacher?


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> And what if that kid wants to be a teacher? Should someone with a 4th grade reading level be a teacher?


What's the standard?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> Let's say you have 2 kids.  Their assignment is to read a book.  One of them is reading at a 2nd grade reading level, and reads a kids book that is 30 pages long.  Another is reading at a 7th grade reading level, and reads a chapter book that is 100 pages long.  This would be appropriate for both of them.  They both "read a book", but the book that one read is different.
> 
> If the second kid read the kids book, then he's not meeting his subjective expectations.  If you expect the first kid to read the chapter book, there's simply no way that's going to happen (for now).  You have to have subjective expectations for each.  But you can have an objective requirement (read a book) and then subjective requirements (the difficulty of that book).


That is a spot on analogy.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> And what if that kid wants to be a teacher? Should someone with a 4th grade reading level be a teacher?


Just to add a little more to this.  What if games are sometimes fun to play.  So, let's say "what if" this kid wants to be a teacher?  That kid will have two challenges ahead of them.  First, they need to meet the standard.  Second, they need to be competent to teach at that level.  But what are we actually talking about.  Comprehension?  If so, do you think this kid will need to read at a level commensurate with an advanced degree?  I mean, are we talking doctorate level academic papers, scientific studies, etc?  What about vocabulary?  Or is there an acknowledgement that, in order to teach elementary school kids, the person must meet a standard somewhere in between?  Because when you outlined your standards earlier in the thread, they seemed... a little extreme. 

Would it surprise you to learn that the average literacy rate in the USA is about 7th or 8th grade?  So, if you're reading above that level, you're reading at a higher level than most other Americans.  More importantly, if you're writing at above that level, a lot of people won't be able to understand what you mean. Only about 2% of the US population can "Integrate information across multiple dense texts; construct syntheses, ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments."   More than half of the US population cannot do any more than "find information that may require low-level paraphrasing and drawing low-level inferences."  And that's the most.  About 1 in 5 adults can't even read that well.  

So, all of that to say, if the kid wants to be a teacher, he or she will need to read well enough to meet the standards to become ceremonially adequate.  And practically speaking, he or she will need to read better than the kids he or she is teaching.  The standard is somewhere between doctoral level reading ability and 4th grade reading ability.  

Getting back to your points.  If the idea is that to teach, one must be perfectly technical, I disagree.  I think that's unrealistic.  No one, not even you, can meet that standard.  And if you create unrealistic standards, the standards become meaningless and lack integrity.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That is a spot on analogy.


Really?  Could you explain it to me, then?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just to add a little more to this.  What if games are sometimes fun to play.  So, let's say "what if" this kid wants to be a teacher?  That kid will have two challenges ahead of them.  First, they need to meet the standard.  Second, they need to be competent to teach at that level.  But what are we actually talking about.  Comprehension?  If so, do you think this kid will need to read at a level commensurate with an advanced degree?  I mean, are we talking doctorate level academic papers, scientific studies, etc?  What about vocabulary?  Or is there an acknowledgement that, in order to teach elementary school kids, the person must meet a standard somewhere in between?  Because when you outlined your standards earlier in the thread, they seemed... a little extreme.
> 
> Would it surprise you to learn that the average literacy rate in the USA is about 7th or 8th grade?  So, if you're reading above that level, you're reading at a higher level than most other Americans.  More importantly, if you're writing at above that level, a lot of people won't be able to understand what you mean. Only about 2% of the US population can "Integrate information across multiple dense texts; construct syntheses, ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments."   More than half of the US population cannot do any more than "find information that may require low-level paraphrasing and drawing low-level inferences."  And that's the most.  About 1 in 5 adults can't even read that well.
> 
> ...


I have mentioned this on several occasions; 'what if' is the working world I live in. What you are doing with a 'what if' scenario is virtually useless. You have to have enough understanding about what you are trying to accomplish to understand what/when the 'what ifs' have no value. So you have went outside the realm of usefulness. 

The rest of your post is futile and inaccurate comments about the US education system. For the life of me I do not understand why you do this with a very large percentage of your posts.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 16, 2020)

AceVentura said:


> Please explain to everyone what Goju-Ryu is.



It is a popular style of karate with roots as recently as the late 1800s in southern Chinese arts.  There are lots of videos on YouTube if anyone is wondering about the art.  Look up sanchin kata, kote kitae training, kakie drills for examples of primary activities in many traditional dojo.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I have mentioned this on several occasions; 'what if' is the working world I live in. What you are doing with a 'what if' scenario is virtually useless. You have to have enough understanding about what you are trying to accomplish to understand what/when the 'what ifs' have no value. So you have went outside the realm of usefulness.
> 
> The rest of your post is futile and inaccurate comments about the US education system. For the life of me I do not understand why you do this with a very large percentage of your posts.


Futile and inaccurate?  How so?  Prove me wrong.  Oh, that's right.  You make statements, but take some kind of principled stand against supporting your statements with actual information.

"What if" can be fun and useful.  It can also be a way to muddle a point.

So, what if a kid wants to be a teacher?  Well, we see kids become teachers all the time.  What's the actual question?  how well does that teacher need to read?  The answer to that is easily available...  one need only look at the requirements for a teaching certificate.

What I was trying to do was get to what I think the actual question is, which is how well SHOULD one be able to read?  I don't honestly think you or @skribs have really thought that through.  How well do you think?


----------



## skribs (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just to add a little more to this.  What if games are sometimes fun to play.  So, let's say "what if" this kid wants to be a teacher?  That kid will have two challenges ahead of them.  First, they need to meet the standard.  Second, they need to be competent to teach at that level.  But what are we actually talking about.  Comprehension?  If so, do you think this kid will need to read at a level commensurate with an advanced degree?  I mean, are we talking doctorate level academic papers, scientific studies, etc?  What about vocabulary?  Or is there an acknowledgement that, in order to teach elementary school kids, the person must meet a standard somewhere in between?  Because when you outlined your standards earlier in the thread, they seemed... a little extreme.
> 
> Would it surprise you to learn that the average literacy rate in the USA is about 7th or 8th grade?  So, if you're reading above that level, you're reading at a higher level than most other Americans.  More importantly, if you're writing at above that level, a lot of people won't be able to understand what you mean. Only about 2% of the US population can "Integrate information across multiple dense texts; construct syntheses, ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments."   More than half of the US population cannot do any more than "find information that may require low-level paraphrasing and drawing low-level inferences."  And that's the most.  About 1 in 5 adults can't even read that well.
> 
> ...


The "what if the kid wants to be a teacher" was not an arbitrary question, but very specific to this thread.  Most advanced black belt ranks qualify you as a teacher of the art.

There are many reasons to promote a kid to the next grade in school, even if he's behind in reading.  He might be good in every other area, or it might be social (i.e. you don't want an 11 year-old 2nd grader to hang out with all the 7 year-olds).

The point at which that student will hit a wall is probably college.  At that point, there are stricfer entry requirements. It's a lot harder for a C student to get into college than an A student.  However, this is a little bit different than martial arts, where you typically stay at the same school.  I went to 2 different elementary schools, and then a new middle school, new high school, a college, and a university. Yet, my TKD career from white belt to 3rd dan has all been the same school.  I didn't have to apply to a new school after getting my black belt, 2nd dan, 3rd dan, etc.  There is no barrier for entry of the application process, other than internal validation in the form of testing.

That application process tends to reset progress based rank, and focus instead on your skills and qualifications. And if a school wants their advanced ranks to meet those standards, then at some point they need to simulate that application process.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> The point at which that student will hit a wall is probably college.  At that point, there are stricfer entry requirements. It's a lot harder for a C student to get into college than an A student.  However, this is a little bit different than martial arts, where you typically stay at the same school.  I went to 2 different elementary schools, and then a new middle school, new high school, a college, and a university. Yet, my TKD career from white belt to 3rd dan has all been the same school.  I didn't have to apply to a new school after getting my black belt, 2nd dan, 3rd dan, etc.  There is no barrier for entry of the application process, other than internal validation in the form of testing.
> 
> That application process tends to reset progress based rank, and focus instead on your skills and qualifications. And if a school wants their advanced ranks to meet those standards, then at some point they need to simulate that application process.



This quality control process is met to an extent with examinations being conducted by a governing body, association, or affiliated group of master level instructors.  I've been in multiple martial arts for decades at this point.  I really don't recall ever seeing anyone make it to 3rd dan that didn't possess considerable skill or demonstrate his fitness for the rank.  This is in karate, aikido, and taekwondo.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> The "what if the kid wants to be a teacher" was not an arbitrary question, but very specific to this thread.  Most advanced black belt ranks qualify you as a teacher of the art.
> 
> There are many reasons to promote a kid to the next grade in school, even if he's behind in reading.  He might be good in every other area, or it might be social (i.e. you don't want an 11 year-old 2nd grader to hang out with all the 7 year-olds).
> 
> ...


I think you've done a nice job of articulating the issues with your analogy.  How strong of a reader does someone need to be?  It depends on what he or she is trying to do.  Graduate from high school?  Get into college?  Get a BA in philosophy?  Get an advanced degree in biochemistry?

If the question is, what does someone need to know in order to teach TKD, the answer is,"it depends."  Whatever standards the school owner chooses is one answer.  Who is he or she teaching?  What is he or she trying to do?  

Look, I'll try to bring this back to my main points I shared earlier.  All of the standards are subjective.  The evaluation of progress against those standards can/should be objective.  And if you objectively meet a standard for promotion and are promoted, you earned that promotion based on merit.

What are your standards?  I generally don't care.  If you want to promote someone to black belt for being over 6ft tall, go for it.  Provided you don't promote any short people to black belt, your system has integrity.  If you want to promote people based on their ability to defend themselves, and they can actually do that in a measurable and observable way, great.  I don't think that's the case in most self defense schools, but if people meet that standard, awesome.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

Quick aside... in TKD, my impression is that colored belts will often teach classes.  Is that true?


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I have mentioned this on several occasions; 'what if' is the working world I live in. What you are doing with a 'what if' scenario is virtually useless. You have to have enough understanding about what you are trying to accomplish to understand what/when the 'what ifs' have no value. So you have went outside the realm of usefulness.


Also, as I have said several times, I have no opinion about what the standards are.  So far, I have two real opinions about this thread.  First, that there is no meaningful distinction between promoting based on progress toward a standard and promoting based on merit.  They are functionally the same.  In my opinion, if the standards are clear and measurable, you are either promoting people who meet the standards or you're compromising your standards by promoting people who do not meet them, or not promoting people who do.

Second, perfection is an unreasonable standard.  In my opinion, it is better to focus on the non-negotiable standards that reflect the goals of the organization than to get caught up in the minutiae that will disqualify people who would be terrific for the role.  For example, I think it would be a shame (and counterproductive) to have someone who is an excellent teacher, a great role model, a sound technician, and a real asset to the school.. but you won't promote him or her to black belt because he has had a hip replacement and can't execute some techniques exactly right.  This is an opinion, to be clear.  While I think that it's unnecessarily exclusive and counterproductive, if that's your standard, and you apply it consistently, no one else's opinion really matters.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Quick aside... in TKD, my impression is that colored belts will often teach classes.  Is that true?



Not in my experience.  In small schools you might have a senior color belt assisting in children's classes or you might see a senior color belt paired with a relative beginner in pair exercises.  Or some schools have a teaching program and you might see some student instructors who are enrolled in such things.

It's very possible to promote to first degree BB in TKD in 3 years.  A school would have to be very small or very new to be in a position to need to use colored belts extensively for regular instruction.


----------



## skribs (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Quick aside... in TKD, my impression is that colored belts will often teach classes.  Is that true?



Not at all in my experience.  I started teaching at blue belt, but I was definitely an exception.  I had 4 years experience before starting over at white belt at my school, and I had previous tutoring experience. 

Black belt is usually 2-3 years.  There's no shortage of black belts.  Even 1st Dan isn't enough to do much teaching.

You may help a partner out, but that's different from leading a class. Colored belts may lead stretching, or help keep kids focused, but not actually teach a class.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

Thanks, @skribs and @dancingalone .  Two other relevant questions.  At what belt level is someone required to have perfect technique?  Does anyone lower than that belt level teach?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is the question. At what point do you stop looking for those improvements (increased knowledge, reduced bad habits), and start saying: "there are 34 details for every technique. If you can't properly demonstrate (or at least explain) a minimum of 28 of them, then you cannot be promoted." That could be a brick wall in front of a student who has made slow, steady progress for a long time. Those students tend not to test as fast as some of the other students, but they won't be too far behind. For example, an average student at my school takes around 3-4 years to get their black belt, around 2-3 years for 1st Dan, and 2-3 years for 3rd Dan. (Not that 3rd Dan is faster, just the people who get 3rd Dan tend to be faster). So far, we haven't had a 4th Dan; I'm hoping to be one of the first two next year.
> 
> If we started putting in strict expectations at 3rd Dan, instead of simply learning the required rote memorized pieces of the curriculum and continuing to improve your skills, then I could see a few of our red belts or 1st degree black belts that would get stuck at 2nd Dan for several years - if not forever. Is there a point that this should be done, where the rank should be gate-kept for only those that are worthy? Or should their improvement continue to be rewarded, even if their improvement doesn't bring them up to par on their understanding of those 34 details for every technique?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get from this and some points in your other posts is that you think there comes a point of technical development where some students will just not be able to progress beyond based on natural ability and talent.

I'm not sure that this is correct, except in the specific cases of certain techniques requiring a high degree of athleticism or students dealing with a major disability. 

Looking at my own experience, my natural athleticism/coordination/mental toughness started out somewhere around the bottom 5% of the general population. The only people I've seen starting out significantly worse are those with a serious disability like muscular dystrophy or Down's syndrome. I earned my BJJ black belt at age 50 after about 15 years of training in that art (and 33 years of martial arts training in general). That rank represents the demonstrated ability to effectively use a large number of techniques with precise skill in sparring against a wide variety of tough, skilled opponents and also the ability to teach in a detailed technical manner. If I can get to that point, then probably 95+% of the general population can do the same with sufficient time and motivation.

For those who can't (due to disability, advanced age, or whatever other reason) or don't have the time and motivation, there's nothing preventing them from still enjoying the art and gaining benefits. I have friends who have practiced BJJ for 20 years and haven't made it past purple belt.

I will concede that certain techniques exist which require athleticism beyond what many people will be able to accomplish. I practiced Capoeira for a while. I can still execute some of the flashy high kicks, but I'm no longer working on the moves which require balancing on your hands because my wrists are too arthritic and have bone spurs. If I had started 20-30 years earlier I probably would have been able to master those. If rank in your system requires mastering these kind of moves then some people will be excluded from that rank.



skribs said:


> Let me put it this way. There are tons of details that go into every technique. These details include:
> 
> Position of each hand, elbow, and shoulder during chamber (6)
> Specific path of the hands and elbows during execution (4)
> ...



I tell my students that this sort of thinking will get in the way. There are just too many details for too many techniques. I can teach hundreds of techniques and depending on how granular you want to get I could teach dozens of small details for each technique. If you try to memorize them all your brain will get overloaded quickly. Adding to the confusion, if I teach a technique and two other instructors from my gym teach the same technique we may each demonstrate those details somewhat differently. Trying to remember all those details in a fight would be impossible.

I do teach details (although not 34 at once), but I try to drum in the idea that these details are just situational applications of a relatively small number of general principles. (This explains why I might show the technique a little differently from another instructor - we're demonstrating the technique for a different context or making different technical trade-offs as part of a larger strategy.) You learn the details as a guide to understanding the principles, then you can forget the details and just apply the underlying concepts as the context demands.


----------



## skribs (Sep 16, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I tell my students that this sort of thinking will get in the way. There are just too many details for too many techniques.



Except this is precisely how TKD forms are learned.


----------



## dancingalone (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Thanks, @skribs and @dancingalone .  Two other relevant questions.  At what belt level is someone required to have perfect technique?  Does anyone lower than that belt level teach?



No one is perfect, right?  With that said, you do have to be good and knowledgeable subjectively and objectively to advance in the dan ranks in all the arts I have studied.  I haven't ran into any 3rd dan or above that didn't deserve their rank.  If they aged or quit training, fine, but credible groups don't award higher dan ranks to unqualified people.  Teaching by extension follows that standard.  I would not hire or place someone into a instructor position if they are not technically proficient.  It is not good business for starters....


----------



## wab25 (Sep 16, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I do teach details (although not 34 at once), but I try to drum in the idea that these details are just situational applications of a relatively small number of general principles. (This explains why I might show the technique a little differently from another instructor - we're demonstrating the technique for a different context or making different technical trade-offs as part of a larger strategy.) You learn the details as a guide to understanding the principles, then you can forget the details and just apply the underlying concepts as the context demands.


I really like the way you put this. It applies to all arts... even those with kata / forms. 

In my experience, if you get the principles down, you will produce those details during a situation without thinking about the details. There are a ton of details that go into slipping a punch, or cutting an angle or landing a kick. There is even a time to address these details. But, if you learn the principles and understand the principles, those details should show up without having to consciously think about the details. Instead you focus on the principles and let your training provide the correct details at the correct time.


----------



## skribs (Sep 16, 2020)

At some point, you have to have learned those details.  It takes time to get them all and get them all into muscle memory.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Also, as I have said several times, I have no opinion about what the standards are.  So far, I have two real opinions about this thread.  First, that there is no meaningful distinction between promoting based on progress toward a standard and promoting based on merit.  They are functionally the same.  In my opinion, if the standards are clear and measurable, you are either promoting people who meet the standards or you're compromising your standards by promoting people who do not meet them, or not promoting people who do.
> 
> Second, perfection is an unreasonable standard.  In my opinion, it is better to focus on the non-negotiable standards that reflect the goals of the organization than to get caught up in the minutiae that will disqualify people who would be terrific for the role.  For example, I think it would be a shame (and counterproductive) to have someone who is an excellent teacher, a great role model, a sound technician, and a real asset to the school.. but you won't promote him or her to black belt because he has had a hip replacement and can't execute some techniques exactly right.  This is an opinion, to be clear.  While I think that it's unnecessarily exclusive and counterproductive, if that's your standard, and you apply it consistently, no one else's opinion really matters.


Agree; it seems to me the majority of this thread has been saying this very thing. You can put whatever tag you want but the qualifications will always have some exceptions and subjectivity. Even the 'hard standards' were created by an individual(s), so what came before the standard? There had to be something to start with.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> It can also be a way to muddle a point.



This a better way so describe you post rather than futile, but either works. 
I am not going to make your circular argument on proof of statements. You just quoted stats with zero source of proof. 



Steve said:


> So, what if a kid wants to be a teacher? Well, we see kids become teachers all the time. What's the actual question? how well does that teacher need to read? The answer to that is easily available... one need only look at the requirements for a teaching certificate.
> 
> What I was trying to do was get to what I think the actual question is, which is how well SHOULD one be able to read? I don't honestly think you or @skribs have really thought that through. How well do you think?



I can't say I have seen a kid teaching a reading class but I can roll with the analogy. Especially in that situation where age is a factor, it would be more important that the kid is a really good teacher, much more than being a really good reader. They are not synonymous. And that has nothing to do with whether the kid has a certificate and/or meets the objective requirements.

It is worth mentioning that a person does not have to be an eloquent oral reader to fully understand what they are reading. Same can be said for MA. Again, this point has been mentioned several times in this thread.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This a better way so describe you post rather than futile, but either works.
> I am not going to make your circular argument on proof of statements. You just quoted stats with zero source of proof.


this doesn’t make as much sense as you may think.





> I can't say I have seen a kid teaching a reading class but I can roll with the analogy. Especially in that situation where age is a factor, it would be more important that the kid is a really good teacher, much more than being a really good reader. They are not synonymous. And that has nothing to do with whether the kid has a certificate and/or meets the objective requirements.
> 
> It is worth mentioning that a person does not have to be an eloquent oral reader to fully understand what they are reading. Same can be said for MA. Again, this point has been mentioned several times in this thread.


i think reading for comprehension is way more important than being able to read out loud.  Something you might consider working on.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree; it seems to me the majority of this thread has been saying this very thing. You can put whatever tag you want but the qualifications will always have some exceptions and subjectivity. Even the 'hard standards' were created by an individual(s), so what came before the standard? There had to be something to start with.


I never said anything about exceptions, and I’ve tried to be super clear about the subjective nature of standards vs objective evaluation of those standards. 

Regarding exceptions, those can be very harmful to any ranking structure.  If Harvard started giving away degrees to folks who fail to meet their standards, the value of that degree will suffer. How much is a ninjutsu black belt worth outside of the bujinkan?  Better all the way around to build flexibility into the standards with an emphasis on meaningful criteria.  

The dog brothers have a pretty well established standard.  So, how does one become a named dog brother?   Not by demonstrations of impeccable technique in choreographed kata, two person sinawali, or light contact sparring.  It’s a great example of a clear ranking system consistently applied that doesn’t get caught up in minutiae.  If they started making exceptions or applying the standard subjectively, how long do you think it would take for the system to break down entirely?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Quick aside... in TKD, my impression is that colored belts will often teach classes.  Is that true?



In general, no. It's not uncommon for, say, a 3rd geup to help a 5th geup learning a new form. It's not uncommon to have a student run the class through a drill under supervision. That's one way to help them learn to be a teacher. But I don't think it would be common practice to have a geup rank student teaching on their own.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> Except this is precisely how TKD forms are learned.


I have to agree with Tony Dismukes on teaching styles, not all TKD teaches forms the way you are describing. Semantics is the word that comes to mind.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> For example, I think it would be a shame (and counterproductive) to have someone who is an excellent teacher, a great role model, a sound technician, and a real asset to the school.. but you won't promote him or her to black belt because he has had a hip replacement and can't execute some techniques exactly right. This is an opinion, to be clear. While I think that it's unnecessarily exclusive and counterproductive, if that's your standard, and you apply it consistently, no one else's opinion really matters.



These are your words. This is the kind of exception I am talking about.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> These are your words. This is the kind of exception I am talking about.


It's not an exception if the standards are well considered.  You've managed to miss the point entirely.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's not an exception if the standards are well considered.  You've managed to miss the point entirely.


Nope. Just pointing out your contradiction, and the fact that you are being completely circular and adding nothing to the OP.


----------



## skribs (Sep 16, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> In general, no. It's not uncommon for, say, a 3rd geup to help a 5th geup learning a new form. It's not uncommon to have a student run the class through a drill under supervision. That's one way to help them learn to be a teacher. But I don't think it would be common practice to have a geup rank student teaching on their own.


There's also a difference between one on one help, and teaching a class.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Nope. Just pointing out your contradiction, and the fact that you are being completely circular and adding nothing to the OP.


LOL.  Okay.   I encourage you to reread what you quoted.  I assure you, you missed the point completely. 

Here's a hint.  My post was about not needing to make exceptions.  Try reading it again with that in mind, and see if it makes more sense.  And let me know if you need me to explain it to you in simple terms.  I'm happy to do so.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> At some point, you have to have learned those details.  It takes time to get them all and get them all into muscle memory.


One does not need to first memorize the entire unabridged english dictionary before writing a book or essay. While every detail in the dictionary is indeed, important.... there have been many people who have written very successful pieces literature, without having learned the entire dictionary first. In fact, I would say some still have not yet memorized the entire dictionary. 

In my opinion, it better to teach people a subset of the words in the dictionary, along with the principles of how to use the words together to form different ideas. If you can teach the student the principles of grammar, and sentence structure.... at some point, you don't have to have them memorizing long lists of words, in order to expand their vocabulary. They will be able to add new words to their vocabulary as they encounter other people using them in context. In fact, if the students learn the principles correctly, they can search out the words from the dictionary that they want to add to their vocabulary. Some can even do this without the english master directing them to do so or without him providing the list to look up.

In my opinion, there are schools and people out there that put way to much emphasis on memorizing more words, just because they are in the dictionary and not nearly enough time on learning what to do with words once you can spell them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's not an exception if the standards are well considered.  You've managed to miss the point entirely.


Sometimes the way the standards are spelled out is very specific, but should be used as a guideline. One of the kicks in NGA that is required for green belt (mid-colored ranks) has a standard of the leg getting parallel to the floor. For anyone who is physcally capable of that, that's what should be required. I had a training partner whose hips simply woudn't move that far, so an exception was made, and he eventually ranked to black belt. This is far more likely to be an issue with technical requirements than functional ones. It's part of the "classical" approach (my term) found in many Japanese-derived arts to have these technical specifications.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Except this is precisely how TKD forms are learned.


But do they have to be?

You're asking these questions with an eye towards how you will teach once you become a head instructor, right? When you get to that point, there's nothing stopping you from teaching the way I described. Show the details, but also show how they are just manifestations of a small number of underlying concepts. Once your students understand those concepts it will be much easier for them to naturally get the details right without it being just a huge memorization test.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

wab25 said:


> One does not need to first memorize the entire unabridged english dictionary before writing a book or essay. While every detail in the dictionary is indeed, important.... there have been many people who have written very successful pieces literature, without having learned the entire dictionary first. In fact, I would say some still have not yet memorized the entire dictionary.
> 
> In my opinion, it better to teach people a subset of the words in the dictionary, along with the principles of how to use the words together to form different ideas. If you can teach the student the principles of grammar, and sentence structure.... at some point, you don't have to have them memorizing long lists of words, in order to expand their vocabulary. They will be able to add new words to their vocabulary as they encounter other people using them in context. In fact, if the students learn the principles correctly, they can search out the words from the dictionary that they want to add to their vocabulary. Some can even do this without the english master directing them to do so or without him providing the list to look up.
> 
> In my opinion, there are schools and people out there that put way to much emphasis on memorizing more words, just because they are in the dictionary and not nearly enough time on learning what to do with words once you can spell them.



This is an issue I seek to address in my curriculum. I feel my Master puts too much emphasis on memorization.  With that said, there will always be memorization if there are forms, and always some minimum standard of how to do the techniques if there are belts. So the question remains. 



gpseymour said:


> Sometimes the way the standards are spelled out is very specific, but should be used as a guideline. One of the kicks in NGA that is required for green belt (mid-colored ranks) has a standard of the leg getting parallel to the floor. For anyone who is physcally capable of that, that's what should be required. I had a training partner whose hips simply woudn't move that far, so an exception was made, and he eventually ranked to black belt. This is far more likely to be an issue with technical requirements than functional ones. It's part of the "classical" approach (my term) found in many Japanese-derived arts to have these technical specifications.



But that person can get most of the other mechanics of the kick correct, I assume? They also know the requirement and how to help others meet it?



Tony Dismukes said:


> But do they have to be?
> 
> You're asking these questions with an eye towards how you will teach once you become a head instructor, right? When you get to that point, there's nothing stopping you from teaching the way I described. Show the details, but also show how they are just manifestations of a small number of underlying concepts. Once your students understand those concepts it will be much easier for them to naturally get the details right without it being just a huge memorization test.



The TKD forms don't really lend themselves to any other type of training.  I find the majority of the techniques in the higher forms are not practical, they're mainly for coordination and anesthetics.  To lose out on the details loses out on both of these benefits, as well as not meeting the KKW standards for the forms.  These are pretty much the only requirement from KKW, so they need to be done right.

If I were to take the forms to less detail, that would lessen the quality of my instruction and my students.  At that point, I should stop teaching TKD and drop the forms entirely. 

I may be able to open that up as a Hapkido class, but I have much less rank in Hapkido.  Maybe I could call it my own art.  But either of those have significantly less market appeal.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is an issue I seek to address in my curriculum. I feel my Master puts too much emphasis on memorization.  With that said, there will always be memorization if there are forms, and always some minimum standard of how to do the techniques if there are belts. So the question remains.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I may not have been clear about how I teach. I am a detail-oriented teacher and I spend lots of time correcting small nuances in my students' movement. What I don't do is expect them to memorize thousands upon thousands of individual details. As I correct a given detail, I show and explain how that detail is just another expression of the same underlying concept as another detail I was showing them in the previous technique and so on. Eventually they do get the details right, but more because they understand the reasons behind them rather than because they've memorized them. 

I don't see why that approach wouldn't work for forms in TKD or any other art. Obviously the student still has to memorize the basic choreography of each form, but that's relatively trivial. Getting the actual execution of the stances, steps, strikes, etc within that choreography sufficiently polished and correct doesn't have to be a matter of rote memorization.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I may not have been clear about how I teach. I am a detail-oriented teacher and I spend lots of time correcting small nuances in my students' movement. What I don't do is expect them to memorize thousands upon thousands of individual details. As I correct a given detail, I show and explain how that detail is just another expression of the same underlying concept as another detail I was showing them in the previous technique and so on. Eventually they do get the details right, but more because they understand the reasons behind them rather than because they've memorized them.
> 
> I don't see why that approach wouldn't work for forms in TKD or any other art. Obviously the student still has to memorize the basic choreography of each form, but that's relatively trivial. Getting the actual execution of the stances, steps, strikes, etc within that choreography sufficiently polished and correct doesn't have to be a matter of rote memorization.



Would you like me to start telling you how BJJ training should work and how your understanding of BJJ is all wrong, based on how we do things in TKD?

Normally I agree with most of what you say, but you're way out of your element on this one.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Would you like me to start telling you how BJJ training should work and how your understanding of BJJ is all wrong, based on how we do things in TKD?
> 
> Normally I agree with most of what you say, but you're way out of your element on this one.


I'm just saying that when you are the head instructor, you have choices about how you teach.

This isn't just how I teach BJJ. It's how I teach any art - Muay Thai, stick fighting, whatever. It's also how I've been taught in a number of other arts.

I'll freely admit that my TKD training is minimal (less than 6 months). I suppose there could be something intrinsic to the nature of TKD which makes it necessary to approach details as a matter of strict memorization rather than understanding principles. However I notice that @dvcochran (an experienced TKD instructor) seems to think that my approach might be reasonable for TKD, so maybe it's not impossible that there's something to it?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Would you like me to start telling you how BJJ training should work and how your understanding of BJJ is all wrong, based on how we do things in TKD?
> 
> Normally I agree with most of what you say, but you're way out of your element on this one.


To be fair, @Tony Dismukes is offering you a different perspective based on his 40+(?) years of training, because you brought up the topic.  You brought it up in a way that makes it seem to us (me, at least) that you are finding it problematic.  So Tony is offering a different perspective, a different approach that might work.

Your response to his suggestion seems a little strong, in my opinion.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> To be fair, @Tony Dismukes is offering you a different perspective based on his 40+(?) years of training, because you brought up the topic.  You brought it up in a way that makes it seem to us (me, at least) that you are finding it problematic.  So Tony is offering a different perspective, a different approach that might work.
> 
> Your response to his suggestion seems a little strong, in my opinion.


Let's not exaggerate. It's only 39 & 1/2 years of training so far.

As a side question, how do you think my proposed approach could work for CMA in your experience?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 17, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Let's not exaggerate. It's only 39 & 1/2 years of training so far.
> 
> As a side question, how do you think my proposed approach could work for CMA in your experience?


I think it's dead on the bullseye.  the CMA experience that I have had, the stuff that makes the most sense to me, is heavily based on understanding principles.  One of our foundational principles is knowns as "waist turning" which is a particular engagement that we use to create a full-body engagement to give power to our techniques.  We also have a saying, "if you know waist turning, then you can do a thousand things".  this simply means, if you understand and are good with your waist turning, if you have skill with creating that full-body engagement, then you can do anything you want with it.  It can be applied to anything and everything, and makes all of it powerful.  Everything we do is built on top of that.

There is certainly detail in the approach.  There is a lot that can get wrong or the timing is missing or whatever.  So the details matter.  We are always getting corrected.  But it is kind of intuitive because the purpose of the corrections, in adjusting those details, is clear and obvious.  It improves your structure and ultimately your performance.  And we have never, to my knowledge, made a list of every detail of every technique.  Doing that would have never occurred to me.

I've done some teaching over the years.  Not a whole lot, but enough to feel like I have a knack for it, and enough to feel comfortable looking to begin a small training group in my area.  And my Sifu has given me the go-ahead.  But when I teach I always put it in the context of why we are doing what we are doing.  It isn't just details to be memorized.  And I don't pile on the details in the beginning.  It takes time for a student to get smooth and comfortable with a technique, so I give the gross movements and then give them time to build some comfort with it.  Gradually, as I feel they are able to be receptive to it, I begin to help them fine-tune what they are doing.  But again, it is in the context of understanding how these adjustments make it better, and never just to memorize details.  The context always matters and always needs to be part of the discussion.

Example:  when we do our waist turning, the feet need to stay parallel and rotate back and forth from 45 degree angle to the other side, 45 degree angle.  (this won't make any visual sense to anyone who isn't familiar with our specific methods, but I'm just using at a discussion example).  often I find that students will not quite keep the feet parallel, and one foot will either over-rotate or under-rotate and not hit that 45.  The rear foot often under-rotates, and I point that out all the time:  check your feet, make sure they are parallel and on 45, look at your rear foot, it needs to rotate a bit more BECAUSE if it lags behind then you are unable to effectively turn your body as far as it needs to turn, for strong technique.  I always give they WHY of it, that context, and help them to feel the difference, so that they aren't just memorizing 45 degrees without a clear notion of why and what difference it makes.

Hope that helps.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm just saying that when you are the head instructor, you have choices about how you teach.
> 
> This isn't just how I teach BJJ. It's how I teach any art - Muay Thai, stick fighting, whatever. It's also how I've been taught in a number of other arts.
> 
> I'll freely admit that my TKD training is minimal (less than 6 months). I suppose there could be something intrinsic to the nature of TKD which makes it necessary to approach details as a matter of strict memorization rather than understanding principles. However I notice that @dvcochran (an experienced TKD instructor) seems to think that my approach might be reasonable for TKD, so maybe it's not impossible that there's something to it?



For one, even though I may be the head instructor of my own school (in the future) I am still subject to a higher organization and competition committee.  If I don't teach the forms to their standards, my students won't fair well in competition, nor would their performances be considered correct by the governing body.  If I'm not going to teach the forms correctly, then why bother teaching them?

As to DV, he and I have widely different interpretations of the forms.  I find his thoughts on the forms to be romanticized, even fantastical. It's something we've argued with at length in the past. If he says your ideas can work for TKD forms, that's all the more reason I think they wouldn't.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> For one, even though I may be the head instructor of my own school (in the future) I am still subject to a higher organization and competition committee.  If I don't teach the forms to their standards, my students won't fair well in competition, nor would their performances be considered correct by the governing body.  If I'm not going to teach the forms correctly, then why bother teaching them?
> 
> As to DV, he and I have widely different interpretations of the forms.  I find his thoughts on the forms to be romanticized, even fantastical. It's something we've argued with at length in the past. If he says your ideas can work for TKD forms, that's all the more reason I think they wouldn't.


would it be possible to approach your teaching style in a way similar to what Tony is suggesting, but ultimately your students would get to the point where they are accurate on all the details?  I don't think Tony is advocating just throwing away the details, as long as the details have a reason.  I mean give the students the time to develop it, give the context and meaning in the details so that they make sense and aren't just arbitrary details, and don't try to do them all at once.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect a student to be exactly perfect on anything they do, including forms, for a long time anyways.  It's always a work in progress anyways.  So just give them bites that they can handle and make sure the context is included.  Eventually they will get there.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 17, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> As a side question, how do you think my proposed approach could work for CMA in your experience?


I know you didn't ask me... and I don't have much CMA experience... But, the Shotokan school I train at teaches the way you proposed, as do many of the schools we cross train with. I have trained with many folks, from many different arts, including TKD, that have been taught that way, and do teach that way. I strive to teach Danzan Ryu that way.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> For one, even though I may be the head instructor of my own school (in the future) I am still subject to a higher organization and competition committee. If I don't teach the forms to their standards, my students won't fair well in competition, nor would their performances be considered correct by the governing body. If I'm not going to teach the forms correctly, then why bother teaching them?


For one, let me reiterate, no one here has said anything about not teaching the forms to the standards. In fact, what they have proposed is a way to teach to the standard, in such a way that the students understand what they are doing and what they are studying. Their form can then be more than just a memorized pattern of angles and hand positions.



skribs said:


> If I'm not going to teach the forms correctly, then why bother teaching them?


I would ask: Can someone teach the forms correctly, if they don't understand the underlying principles being taught by the form? If they can't identify the core principles and express those same principles in another context, I don't believe they have yet gone past rote memorization of angles and hand positions. "Because it looks good" is not one of the underlying principles. "Random coordination" is not one of the underlying principles. If it is teaching coordination, what is being coordinated? How is it being coordinated? Why is it being coordinated?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I may not have been clear about how I teach. I am a detail-oriented teacher and I spend lots of time correcting small nuances in my students' movement. What I don't do is expect them to memorize thousands upon thousands of individual details. As I correct a given detail, I show and explain how that detail is just another expression of the same underlying concept as another detail I was showing them in the previous technique and so on. Eventually they do get the details right, but more because they understand the reasons behind them rather than because they've memorized them.
> 
> I don't see why that approach wouldn't work for forms in TKD or any other art. Obviously the student still has to memorize the basic choreography of each form, but that's relatively trivial. Getting the actual execution of the stances, steps, strikes, etc within that choreography sufficiently polished and correct doesn't have to be a matter of rote memorization.



It does. That's pretty much how I teach, and not just forms. Learn the gross movement, then start refining the details and looking at variants.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

wab25 said:


> For one, let me reiterate, no one here has said anything about not teaching the forms to the standards. In fact, what they have proposed is a way to teach to the standard, in such a way that the students understand what they are doing and what they are studying. Their form can then be more than just a memorized pattern of angles and hand positions.



I don't have issue woth teaching both. I have issue with only teaching the concepts, and not the details.  The details ARE the form, at least as far as the governing organizations are concerned.  If the details are wrong, then the form is wrong.  It will score less in competition, and it will not reflect well on the school.

It would be like if a book had good themes and characterization, but the author misspelled a bunch of words.  That book would not be accepted by a publisher without being edited, because of those details (even though the concepts were good).



wab25 said:


> I would ask: Can someone teach the forms correctly, if they don't understand the underlying principles being taught by the form? If they can't identify the core principles and express those same principles in another context, I don't believe they have yet gone past rote memorization of angles and hand positions. "Because it looks good" is not one of the underlying principles. "Random coordination" is not one of the underlying principles. If it is teaching coordination, what is being coordinated? How is it being coordinated? Why is it being coordinated?



I spent 5 years trying to find these answers, and came to the conclusion they weren't there.  I've argued at length with plenty of people, including you.  I've searched for deeper meaning for the techniques, and have been unable to find anything other than aesthetics and coordination. Unless you stop doing the forms correctly in order to adjust the movements, at which point you are doing them incorrect by KKW standards. Many explanations for the techniques that do exist have no realistic purpose in a real-world fight.  I've had people tell me they've used all of the techniques, but when I ask specifically how, they're strangely silent and accuse me of not asking good questions. The only conclusion I can draw is that these techniques were either never meant to be practical, or if they were, then the person who thought they were practical had no idea how to actually fight.

I believe I came to the same conclusion with you as I did with Dismukes. You're an outsider.  Who are you to tell me how Taekwondo forms work?  You're a Karate guy. Different art, different teaching style, different forms, different culture.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> It does. That's pretty much how I teach, and not just forms. Learn the gross movement, then start refining the details and looking at variants.



That's how I teach techniques that aren't forms.  I skip the variants part of the forms.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I don't have issue woth teaching both. I have issue with only teaching the concepts, and not the details.


No one here has even suggested teaching the concepts and not the details. They have suggested that by teaching the concepts, it becomes easier to get the details right. 



skribs said:


> I spent 5 years trying to find these answers, and came to the conclusion they weren't there.


I find it odd that everyone else has found those answers. Could it be that literally every other martial artist on the planet has it wrong? Just because I am not a TKD student, does not mean I that I have not trained with very accomplished TKD students, it does not mean I have not had long conversations with them about martial arts and it does not mean that I have not learned anything from them. I have learned quite a bit from TKD folks. Including the fact that there are underlying principles for the things done in the forms. But, after 5 years, you assert that they are all wrong, along with the many experienced TKD guys on this forum? I find that interesting.



skribs said:


> You're a Karate guy.


No, I am a Danzan Ryu Jujitsu guy. But I am actively cross training in Karate.

And all those people you have argued with here, when looking for those answers... they have all been honestly trying to help you find those answers. They take the time to read and consider your questions and post up thoughtful responses. Even though we repeatedly get the "dislike" or "disagree" from you and told how wrong we are for daring to try to answer your questions and give you our perspective. No one here has bashed you, your art or your master. They have tried to learn from you and share what they have learned with you... and at times gotten frustrated at the cold response they have received.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> But that person can get most of the other mechanics of the kick correct, I assume? They also know the requirement and how to help others meet it?


Exactly. That's one good way to recognize the need for an exception.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Would you like me to start telling you how BJJ training should work and how your understanding of BJJ is all wrong, based on how we do things in TKD?
> 
> Normally I agree with most of what you say, but you're way out of your element on this one.


He's not telling you how TKD should be taught - he's suggesting an approach. It's much the same approach I use with NGA, even with forms. I'm certain it wouldn't translate directly to TKD, but the concept seems to hold across styles.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> If I were to take the forms to less detail, that would lessen the quality of my instruction and my students. At that point, I should stop teaching TKD and drop the forms entirely.



I think I get what you are saying but that is rather irrational thinking to what pretty much everyone has been saying on this thread. No one is saying ignore or never learn the details, much the opposite. What most are saying is that there is more than one way to get there. The various different ways work better for some than others. It sounds like all you have ever learned is rote memorization but sense there is more, or other ways. That is a good thing. So why are you rebuking what people are saying regarding this?   



skribs said:


> As to DV, he and I have widely different interpretations of the forms. I find his thoughts on the forms to be romanticized, even fantastical. It's something we've argued with at length in the past. If he says your ideas can work for TKD forms, that's all the more reason I think they wouldn't.



Again, you are asking and seeking, but you are not hearing and learning. If you think that is cheesy, so be it.  
I do have a romance with TKD, closer would be a love affair. It has been a big part of my life and my income. 
There is SO much more to poomsae (even KKW poomsae) than you want to acknowledge. I truly hope you get there someday. 
It is a bit offensive when you make wholistic comments regarding TKD. There are several different variants of TKD and you have no base or authority to make such inclusive comments. None of us do. You are making statements based on your experience with one dojang. You ask for information, and you are given the information. But you apparently do not understand the information.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I don't have issue woth teaching both. I have issue with only teaching the concepts, and not the details.



Ah, this seems to be the confusion. I never suggested not teaching the details. As I mentioned before, I'm a detail-oriented instructor and I spend a lot of time correcting details in my students movement.

What I'm talking about is _how_ you teach the details. Do you present them as just an endless list of arbitrary tidbits to be memorized by rote or do you present them as the logical result of a relatively small number of fundamental concepts? In my experience the latter approach produces better results.

I think that applies whether you're talking about developing fighting skills, performance art skills (as I think you regard TKD forms), or even academic subjects like chemistry or computer programming.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I find it odd that everyone else has found those answers.



Not everyone else.  I've spoken to plenty of others who share my views.  Not so many on this site, but more on r/Taekwondo (the Taekwondo reddit site) and a lot in person.  In my experience, most people who have "found the answers" are either drinking the koolaid, or else they're putting the koolaid out because they've staked their reputation on those forms being practical.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> What I'm talking about is _how_ you teach the details. Do you present them as just an endless list of arbitrary tidbits to be memorized by rote or do you present them as the logical result of a relatively small number of fundamental concepts? In my experience the latter approach produces better results.



Some yes, some no.  More would be yes if I could teach the forms my way (knowledge first) instead of my Master's way (focus on repetitions).  I explain the reason for the stance width is for balance, the reason for your foot/hip/shoulder alignment is to be aggressive or defensive, etc.  Also how some details go together, i.e. in certain techniques, your arms should make a square (i.e. grab the head, pull into an elbow strike), instead of a parallelogram or rhombus.

Many details are also the same for many techniques, such as the chamber position of your other hand when doing most techniques.  Learning the couple of details that go along with that can help for most of the techniques.  However, it doesn't get applied correctly all of the time.  For example, they may have a proper fist in their off-hand after a punch, but they will have a loose hand after a chop.  It's easier to teach the proper off-hand position for a chop if it's the same as a punch, but even though it's the same, they still need to be taught/reminded.

There are a few things that are either arbitrary, or were just chosen for aesthetics.  These things may be chosen for one reason or another, and they just kind of have to be memorized.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Not everyone else. I've spoken to plenty of others who share my views. Not so many on this site, but more on r/Taekwondo (the Taekwondo reddit site) and a lot in person. In my experience, most people who have "found the answers" are either drinking the koolaid, or else they're putting the koolaid out because they've staked their reputation on those forms being practical.



Yea; I get on reddit regularly. I would have given you more credit than to glean information from a bunch of tweeners and MMA biased folks. You are looking to create confirmation bias. When you did not find it on this forum you moved on. Not the smartest thing you have ever done. 
So, if we are "drinking the koolaid", why did you even ask? I have no real sense of what you are looking for, or even asking at this point. Can you clear that up?



skribs said:


> Some yes, some no. More would be yes if I could teach the forms my way (knowledge first) instead of my Master's way (focus on repetitions). I explain the reason for the stance width is for balance, the reason for your foot/hip/shoulder alignment is to be aggressive or defensive, etc. Also how some details go together, i.e. in certain techniques, your arms should make a square (i.e. grab the head, pull into an elbow strike), instead of a parallelogram or rhombus.
> 
> Many details are also the same for many techniques, such as the chamber position of your other hand when doing most techniques. Learning the couple of details that go along with that can help for most of the techniques. However, it doesn't get applied correctly all of the time. For example, they may have a proper fist in their off-hand after a punch, but they will have a loose hand after a chop. It's easier to teach the proper off-hand position for a chop if it's the same as a punch, but even though it's the same, they still need to be taught/reminded.
> 
> There are a few things that are either arbitrary, or were just chosen for aesthetics. These things may be chosen for one reason or another, and they just kind of have to be memorized.



Ok, I know this will blow your top but I am going to say it. There are literally centuries of knowledge on this forum and these sources have given their time to try and answer your questions. You mentioned your Master and have done so often in the past. As I understand it, that is your only source of applicable information. Maybe that is where the problem lies? It certainly seems that way when you ask, get multiple answers, then fully ignore them based on your 'experience'. I have also said this before and you will not like it; 5 years in the grand scheme it not much at all. No, your childhood experience does not count for much. BUT, with the proper teachings, most people will have at least the idea there is more to ferret out. 
The best thing you can do for yourself and the questions you have it to cross train OUTSIDE you current school. And no, your rank should NOT be the first thing you mention at another gym. 

I apologize. I know this offends but it seems to be the only way you will hear what is said. I hope this helps somehow.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yea; I get on reddit regularly. I would have given you more credit than to glean information from a bunch of tweeners and MMA biased folks. You are looking to create confirmation bias. When you did not find it on this forum you moved on. Not the smartest thing you have ever done.
> So, if we are "drinking the koolaid", why did you even ask? I have no real sense of what you are looking for, or even asking at this point. Can you clear that up?
> 
> 
> ...


R/martialarts is MMA biased. R/Taekwondo is mostly TKD folk. 

I moved on because I did not find the answers I was looking for.  It offends you that I didn't just blindly accept what you had to say.  This was always a sticking point for you, that I didn't drink your koolaid.  Apparently it still is.  Get over yourself.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> You are looking to create confirmation bias. When you did not find it on this forum you moved on. Not the smartest thing you have ever done.



To be very clear, I am not looking for confirmation bias.  I am looking for answers.  When we spoke about them on this forum, I did not receive satisfactory answers.  For example, I asked you specifically if you had used specific techniques from the forms in sparring.  You told me you had.  When I asked for specific examples of how the motion in the form was used in sparring, you never even replied.  You provided no evidence to back your claim.  I'm not asking for videos and detailed statistics.  But just a specific example of how that motion was used, and you were unable to come up with that.  Instead you'd start ranting and raving about how I don't listen or how I ask bad questions.  I was listening, but you had nothing to say to back up what you were saying.

I'm still open to changing my opinion.  However, I still have the same standards:

The technique must be done as in the form (otherwise the form would need to teach the variants to be practical)
The application must make sense (otherwise the form is a detriment if used as a fighting blueprint)
Since I never received answers that met that *very simple* guideline, I concluded that aesthetics and coordination are the primary purposes of the forms.  Because if they're meant to teach application, it isn't there.  Some of the ones I've asked about before include:

Double Knife-Hand Block (Taegeuk 4)
Low Block to one side, Outside Block to another (Taegeuk 8)
Crane Stance, Low Block + High Block (Keumgang)
Double Mountain Block (Keumgang)
Scissor Block (Taegeuk 7)
I asked before if you've used the motions, *as they are in the forms*, and you said yes to everything.  Maybe there was one you said you hadn't.  But then you never provided examples of how you used those techniques.  If you want to go back and tell me how these have been used in real sparring, real competitions, or real fights, then that's great.  I'll adjust my opinions.  But if you can't, then I'm inclined to continue to believe you're just selling Koolaid.

One last thing, regarding confirmation bias: you could argue that you do the same thing by posting here instead of on r/martialarts.  If I don't find people that agree with me, then "nobody thinks that way."  If I do find people that agree with me, then "I'm looking for confirmation bias."  I'm merely showing I'm not the only one that thinks that way.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

One last thing. I actually wanted the answers. I wanted there to be a practical application when I started searching.  I believed the hype that those applications existed.  If anything, my search shows the opposite of confirmation bias.  I went in with the hypothesis that applications existed.  The data I was able to find proved otherwise, and I had a different conclusion than my original hypothesis.


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Some yes, some no.  More would be yes if I could teach the forms my way (knowledge first) instead of my Master's way (focus on repetitions).  I explain the reason for the stance width is for balance, the reason for your foot/hip/shoulder alignment is to be aggressive or defensive, etc.  Also how some details go together, i.e. in certain techniques, your arms should make a square (i.e. grab the head, pull into an elbow strike), instead of a parallelogram or rhombus.
> 
> Many details are also the same for many techniques, such as the chamber position of your other hand when doing most techniques.  Learning the couple of details that go along with that can help for most of the techniques.  However, it doesn't get applied correctly all of the time.  For example, they may have a proper fist in their off-hand after a punch, but they will have a loose hand after a chop.  It's easier to teach the proper off-hand position for a chop if it's the same as a punch, but even though it's the same, they still need to be taught/reminded.
> 
> There are a few things that are either arbitrary, or were just chosen for aesthetics.  These things may be chosen for one reason or another, and they just kind of have to be memorized.


There's a progression that people make, and the most effective way to teach them should respect their current skill level.  Beginners need enough structure to get them going, but should be taken to application as quickly as possible.  If that's learning a form, they need to be doing the form.  Where they will actually learn the details is through the coaching that should be occurring while they are applying the skill.  

The faster you get to application, the faster they will build enough skill to be able to understand and remember the details.  

"Knowledge first" is about the worst way to teach anyone to do anything.  Details without context are meaningless and almost never retained.  It's wasted energy on your part.  And this isn't just my opinion.  This is both the professional consensus of the instructional design community and also intuitively understood by coaches in just about every sport and physical profession ever.  Sorry, man, but in this area, if your goal is to teach your students to do something well, you need to listen to your instructor.  Sounds like you have some things left to learn.


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> To be very clear, I am not looking for confirmation bias.  I am looking for answers.  When we spoke about them on this forum, I did not receive satisfactory answers.  For example, I asked you specifically if you had used specific techniques from the forms in sparring.  You told me you had.  When I asked for specific examples of how the motion in the form was used in sparring, you never even replied.  You provided no evidence to back your claim.  I'm not asking for videos and detailed statistics.  But just a specific example of how that motion was used, and you were unable to come up with that.  Instead you'd start ranting and raving about how I don't listen or how I ask bad questions.  I was listening, but you had nothing to say to back up what you were saying.
> 
> I'm still open to changing my opinion.  However, I still have the same standards:
> 
> ...


I have a question.  Is your technique perfect?  Do you meet your own standards? (okay, two questions)


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Steve said:


> I have a question.  Is your technique perfect?  Do you meet your own standards? (okay, two questions)



Fair questions.  I don't think I'm perfect. I am working towards that.  In those points where I am not perfect, a lot of the times I know what I need to do to get there, it's just going to take practice.

However, I am miles above some of my peers in my class.  I think a lot of that is the way we teach at my school, where it's more about reps going through the form to build muscle memory than anything else.  I've been doing a lot of my own research, which I feel is why I am so far ahead.  Then my Master puts me on a pedestal because I'm the one who knows all of this well enough to teach it.  (This is a big part of why I don't have time to crosstrain).

This is a big reason why I want to change the approach when I open my school.  I believe that with the proper guidance, many of my fellow students could be up to my level of understanding. I just don't think my Master transitions well from the lower ranks to the higher ranks to cultivate future leaders.  It's mostly just the same training style with a higher degree of difficulty.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 18, 2020)

For what it’s worth, I agree with Tony that Taekwondo can (and should) be taught in the manner he suggested. I suppose some of us might be talking around each other, but not sure about that. 

What I am sure of is that too much detail too soon (or at one time) will ensure that a student doesn’t “get it.” There are a lot of variables that determine how much detail is needed: individual performance, stage of development, age, time in training, etc. Teaching concepts or principles goes a long way toward ironing out details without needing to lecture endlessly about details. 

The whole “minimum standard” thing is another animal. Who decides the minimum standard for each level? Is it an objective standard? Is it subjective based on a student’s personal development? For me, the standard is very subjective at the beginner level and gradually becomes somewhat more objective the longer a student trains. But even so, I’m never expecting “perfect” technique, whatever that means. Even my own technique is in a constant state of development, progression, and regression. And I’m certainly not setting myself as the minimum standard. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Steve said:


> There's a progression that people make, and the most effective way to teach them should respect their current skill level.  Beginners need enough structure to get them going, but should be taken to application as quickly as possible.  If that's learning a form, they need to be doing the form.  Where they will actually learn the details is through the coaching that should be occurring while they are applying the skill.
> 
> The faster you get to application, the faster they will build enough skill to be able to understand and remember the details.
> 
> "Knowledge first" is about the worst way to teach anyone to do anything.  Details without context are meaningless and almost never retained.  It's wasted energy on your part.  And this isn't just my opinion.  This is both the professional consensus of the instructional design community and also intuitively understood by coaches in just about every sport and physical profession ever.  Sorry, man, but in this area, if your goal is to teach your students to do something well, you need to listen to your instructor.  Sounds like you have some things left to learn.



Let me explain what I mean in a couple of examples. 

First, the front stance.  My first school taught it as a stance with your feet shoulder width apart for balance, and twice as long.  Your front knee should be bent directly over your foot.  Your feet, hips, and shoulders should point straight.  It's an aggressive stance that puts your weight toward the enemy.

My current school teaches that your front knee is bent, back leg is straight, and to make a long stance.  It's less detail to worry about, but so many students have poor balance (because their stance is too narrow), or they have their body turned to the side instead of facing front.  These errors are common even into blue and red belt.  And I mean common.  

Or, let's look at forms.  My Master does every form all the way through 99% of the time.  Most schools, I believe, break the forms into parts at least 75% of the time until those parts are learned.  That way, instead of trying to learn the whole form at once, they get 4x the reps on the first quarter of the form.   They get the knowledge of the first quarter of the form, instead of the movement of the entire form.

Last, let's use self-defense techniques.  My old school would teach you the targets you should aim for.  Most of my students have no idea what a solar plexus is, or where their punches and kicks are supposed to aim.  Just general high, middle, and low.

I think the details are easier to learn if you understand why you're doing them, or what it is you're supposed to do. I think longer forms are easier to remember piece by piece.  My Master wants us to get used to the motion and then understand it.  But I find myself and others have an easier time doing the motion if we know what it is we are doing.

This is actually why I wanted there to be a practical application for the forms. Itbwould make it easier to do.  Failing to find that, I decided to find the best way to train them: for the physical benefits and the aesthetics.  That realization made it easier for me to train the forms, instead of wondering what it is I'm supposed to be doing.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> One last thing. I actually wanted the answers.


If you still want to find the answers... they are still there to be found. If you are still open to finding something in the forms, besides aesthetics... there are some ways to go about finding those answers. If you don't want to find the answers any more... you could skip the rest of this post....

If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same result. You have been asking the same questions, in the same framework and you keep finding the same answers. The first step, would be to change your framework... think outside your box. Lets start here:


skribs said:


> The technique must be done as in the form (otherwise the form would need to teach the variants to be practical)
> 
> The application must make sense (otherwise the form is a detriment if *used as a fighting blueprint*)


 (not sure why it changed your numbers to bullets...)
The first change is the idea that forms are to be "used as a fighting blueprint." They are not to be used as a fighting blueprint. They are a form of training. Boxers train by jumping rope. Jumping rope is not a blueprint for fighting. The technique for jumping rope is never seen in a fight done exactly as it is done when training. BJJ guys lay on their back and shrimp across the mat... they go left side, right side left side moving linearly down the mat. You will never see this done in a BJJ match or MMA fight. It is also not a blueprint for fighting. While the shrimping technique will be seen in fights, it is rarely if ever done exactly as it is done at the beginning of class. All these things are training tools. They teach skills, and principles and ideas that can be used in fighting. The better you understand the principles, the more ways you can use the principles and skills in a fight.

Lets look at some form stuff. In the forms, we find lots of times where you step forward into front stance while punching. The back leg is straight with the heel down. Exactly how people fighting, hardly ever do. Picking the heel up, bending the knee and driving through the punch is very effective at creating power. However, there is more than one way to develop power. When stepping forward, you are moving your center forward. This creates a bunch of momentum. Done right, if you can harness that momentum and put that into a punch, you can get a pretty powerful punch, without a lot of muscle energy. As you drop down into the front stance, you are lowering your body... again another way to generate power, if you can harness it. Another thing going on is the rotation of the body, generating power. To deliver this power, there must be a root on one side (that rear leg with the heel down). In doing that form version of the punch, you are learning to generate and harvest the power of your momentum, your weight dropping and the rotation. In application, pick the heel up and drive with the back leg... adding in the weight drop, the body momentum and the rotation together. 

Looking further at the forms... when we step forward into front stance, we do a number of different things. Lunge punch, reverse punch, down block, up block, mid block inside out and outside in. We also have "composure" moves where you are slowly pressing forward. This allows us to practice generating power quickly and explosively (punches and blocks) and slowly over time ("composure" moves). The punches can go low, middle high. The power can be delivered straight, up to down, down to up, with either hand, and inside out or outside in. Now, there are slight differences in how you harness and transmit that power for each of these... which is why they are included. This then becomes a study of how to generate, harness and transmit the energy. Most of the work is internal. Your legs and pelvis make a very good solid structure. Your shoulders and rib cage make a very solid structure. The two are not very well connected. The spine is the only bone connecting them and it moves in every direction. We also have soft squishy stuff and muscle. Learning to use which muscles, when and how, to connect the upper structure to the lower structure all happens inside. The better you can do that, the better you can generate, harness and deliver power. The is actually a lot going on in these simple and easy to do techniques. 

Then you can look at the order and find things in the order. Our first kata starts out: 90 degree left turn, stepping forward into down block, step forward into front stance with lunge punch, 180 degree right turn, step forward into front stance, down block, step forward into front stance with lunge punch, 90 degree left turn, stepping forward with down block, the 3 lunge punches each stepping into front stance. Why that particular order? What can be learned from that pattern of moves? Close distance after you block. (note how I am even using a block as a block here) The best time to close distance, is after they have thrown an attack and before they have recovered. We are drilling in the idea that you close distance quickly (with the lunge punch) but you don't do it blindly, you close behind a technique that keeps the other guy occupied. Blocking their attack and moving behind is a pretty good one to start with. It gets better if that block, can be an attack or take their balance. Many people have to really over come some things, in order to move towards their attacker. Then there is the idea that you set a pattern (down block, punch... down block, punch) and then break the pattern (down block, punch-punch-punch). These are all ideas that can be studied here, while also working on the power issues from above. These ideas and concepts can then show up in any number of places. Just like the power generated can be used in a bunch of different ways.

If you look at the forms, and get rid of the idea that it is for aesthetics... You can look and see what things you can learn. Look closely at the details... but not just those details but the effect of those details. Could those details be over emphasizing and effect elsewhere in your body? Can that effect be used in fighting? Can you learn to take the effect produced by the details in the form, and use that effect?

Look, if you want to just memorize details and conclude that forms are not a blueprint for fighting... thats fine. It won't effect my training at all. But, if you want to appreciate what is in the forms and see what it could do... you are going to have to take a different approach than the one you have been taking... or you will continue to get the same results.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> If you still want to find the answers... they are still there to be found. If you are still open to finding something in the forms, besides aesthetics... there are some ways to go about finding those answers. If you don't want to find the answers any more... you could skip the rest of this post....
> 
> If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same result. You have been asking the same questions, in the same framework and you keep finding the same answers. The first step, would be to change your framework... think outside your box. Lets start here:
> (not sure why it changed your numbers to bullets...)
> ...



What you are describing is my understanding of how the forms work.  Those are the physical benefits, but not a direct application.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> If you still want to find the answers... they are still there to be found. If you are still open to finding something in the forms, besides aesthetics... there are some ways to go about finding those answers. If you don't want to find the answers any more... you could skip the rest of this post....
> 
> If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same result. You have been asking the same questions, in the same framework and you keep finding the same answers. The first step, would be to change your framework... think outside your box. Lets start here:
> (not sure why it changed your numbers to bullets...)
> ...



Let me put it this way. Skipping rope.  To you and me, it's mainly for cardio, maybe a bit of toning for the calves.

But what if I were to tell you it's actually a technique for fighting 3 opponents?  Where you are performing circular wrist locks on two opponents on the sides, while rapidly stomping on a 3rd, downed opponent.

Most people would say "no, it's for cardio.  What you're talking about is a fantasy. "

I get the benefits of the forms.  The details help you get the most out of those benefits.  If your back foot is sideways in a front stance, then you're not driving forward with that foot as effectively as you could.

Skipping rope has no direct martial application.  If someone does nothing but skip rope, they may have insane cardio, but won't have a clue how to fight.  That doesn't mean skipping rope is bad or useless.  It's just not teaching martial skill.  That's how I use the forms now.  Useful, but not directly applicable.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

To be honest I am a little confused here... 

First, you say there is no direct application:


skribs said:


> What you are describing is my understanding of how the forms work. Those are the physical benefits, but not a direct application.



Then you explain a direct application:


skribs said:


> I get the benefits of the forms. The details help you get the most out of those benefits. If your back foot is sideways in a front stance, then you're not driving forward with that foot as effectively as you could.


I have found that there is plenty of direct application to driving forward in a fight. I may be driving my opponent back into the cage wall, driving myself away from the cage wall or trying to drive the intruder out the door of my house. Having my feet set to drive forward is a direct application, being used in combat.

You talked about hitting targets... in my experience, hitting a target is good, hitting a target harder is better. Often in combat, the target you want to hit is moving and the path to reach the target changes. Getting more efficient at generating more power, very quickly, taking a number of different paths to the target, is a direct application applying momentum, rooting, structure, rotation and weight drop to use for striking a target. 

Closing distance, behind the other guys attack is a direct application. I guess whats hanging you up, is that the application, in combat is not textbook form technique, in the exact combination found in your form. The thing is, you are the only one with that specific requirement. You might as well strike pad work, heavy bag work and drills off your list as well... because no one uses those techniques, copied exactly down the degree of angle on each joint, when in combat either. They take the concepts and ideas and skills, and apply them in real time to the situation... which means some part of it has been changed.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> To be honest I am a little confused here...
> 
> First, you say there is no direct application:
> 
> ...



What I mean is a direct, practical application of the movements.

If the movement is teaching you body mechanics instead of legitimate fighting techniques, then it's not a direct application of the movement.  The movement serves as a sort of physical parable.

You may use the concepts in body mechanics, but you're not doing that movement in a fight.  There's this romanticized version of martial arts that you are acting out a fight when you do kata, which is what I'm arguing against.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> To be honest I am a little confused here...
> 
> First, you say there is no direct application:
> 
> ...



When I do a punch on a heavy bag, I may do it differently in a real fight, but I may also do it the same.  I will never do a double knife hand block in a real fight in any way that closely resembles that of our forms.

When I do a kick in our forms, or with the basic mechanics, it might be different in a fight.  It might be the same.  I cannot ever see myself doing a crane stance and block at the same time, nor doing a down block and high block at the same time, and especially not both together.  

If you look at a boxer throwing combos on pads, you can imagine those combos in a real match and see the effect it would have on the opponent.  I cannot see the techniques in the advanced forms being used in a real fight, at least without a lot of changes to make them useful.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> There's this romanticized version of martial arts that you are acting out a fight when you do kata, which is what I'm arguing against.



I cannot speak to TKD forms,  but in my experience with a few different systems, all of which used forms, this is not always true.  In some cases this description could be reasonably accurate.  In others, not at all.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I cannot speak to TKD forms,  but in my experience with a few different systems, all of which used forms, this is not always true.  In some cases this description could be reasonably accurate.  In others, not at all.



To be clear, do you mean that the forms are not romanticized, or that the forms are actually acting out a fight?


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> If the movement is teaching you body mechanics instead of legitimate fighting techniques, then it's not a direct application of the movement. The movement serves as a sort of physical parable.


If you are stuck on being that exact... you will need to add pad work, heavy bag work, speed bag work, drills, partner drills, shadow boxing... and literally everything else that is not actual fighting to the death, to that list. Even sparring... because if you do not intend to kill the other guy, you are doing something different, you are making changes in how you do things. Therefore, its all useless and has no application.



skribs said:


> If you look at a boxer throwing combos on pads, you can imagine those combos in a real match and see the effect it would have on the opponent.


Unless you have a boxing opponent that is willing to stand still, and not move... you will have to make changes to your combos. You will not be able to perform them with the exactness that you did when working the heavy bag or doing pad work.



skribs said:


> I will never do a double knife hand block in a real fight in any way that closely resembles that of our forms.


That is your choice. Others may choose differently.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> I cannot ever see myself doing a crane stance and block at the same time, nor doing a down block and high block at the same time, and especially not both together.


Interestingly, I find myself using a crane stance a lot.  The context is in lightsaber sparring with my son (age 6).  I realize this is just play, but it has been interesting to explore how much of my Chinese sword technique actually translates.  He is much shorter than I am.  He attacks my legs and ankles a lot.  I use a crane stance to remove my foot from the line of attack, while simultaneously deflecting his attack with my lightsaber.  The crane stance is quick and not held for any length of time.  Foot is up to avoid the attack, then put down again.  It is brief and fleeting.  But it is definitely there and it is useful. 

It’s interesting where you find these things.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> To be clear, do you mean that the forms are not romanticized, or that the forms are actually acting out a fight?


Some forms could be described as acting out a fight, or at least segments of them could be described as such.  They may be a linked series of such segments.  In my opinion, these are less beneficial.

Other forms in other systems take a different approach.  You can definitely find direct practical applications in them, they are in there.  But you should not view these forms as acting out a battle.  Instead, they are filled with techniques as a vehicle for reinforcing fundamental principles in a variety of ways.  Through movement and positional changes, it becomes more difficult to maintain the structure and the principles, and so the practice of the forms raises the skill level.  And at the same time short combinations can be interpreted as applications.  But it is always understood as a baseline application, meaning the big idea makes sense, but in a real fight the chaos and unpredictability will usually dictate that it be modified somewhat in order to fit the situation.  In addition, mindful practice of this stuff should act to broaden your view of what is possible.  This give you the ability to spontaneously respond with your own solutions, and not necessarily rely on any textbook technique, whether from a form or from some other portion of the curriculum.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> If you are stuck on being that exact... you will need to add pad work, heavy bag work, speed bag work, drills, partner drills, shadow boxing... and literally everything else that is not actual fighting to the death, to that list. Even sparring... because if you do not intend to kill the other guy, you are doing something different, you are making changes in how you do things. Therefore, its all useless and has no application.
> 
> Unless you have a boxing opponent that is willing to stand still, and not move... you will have to make changes to your combos. You will not be able to perform them with the exactness that you did when working the heavy bag or doing pad work.
> 
> That is your choice. Others may choose differently.



But when a boxer is doing those techniques, those techniques are a practical baseline from which they can modify it to work.

The techniques in the forms are an impractical framework, which you must leave in order for them to work. Unless you can tell me how those complicated movements can be used practically (which you even said the basic movements aren't how people fight, let alone the advanced movements).  

A target shooter will zero their rifle on a target for a certain range.  They may have to hold over, under, or left or right to hit other targets, based on range, wind, etc.  If the target is moving, they have to adjust for it.  But it's all based on that zero.

If that shooter were to just randomly turn the elevation and windage knobs, they would have to take a shot, and then see how far off that shot is, and then in addition to the range and wind, they will have to hold an additional amount based on how far off of zero they are.

This is how I see the forms.  A boxer hitting a bag is zeroing his punch, so that he may have a proper framework within which to deliver his punch.

The TKD guy doing forms has no zero.  His techniques are more arbitrary in nature.  If he does the techniques as they are in the forms, he's at a disadvantage. If the boxer throws punches like he did on the heavy bag, those punches are going to be technically competent.

To equate doing a crane stance diamond low block to slugging on a heavy bag is such an absurd comparison, it took me a while to even figure out how to respond to it.

People can choose to do that block, but it doesn't make it any good.  I have not ever seen a reason why using that block as it is in the forms makes sense.  I have seen plenty of reasons why doing a cross as a boxer does on a heavy bag makes sense.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Some forms could be described as acting out a fight, or at least segments of them could be described as such.  They may be a linked series of such segments.  In my opinion, these are less beneficial.
> 
> Other forms in other systems take a different approach.  You can definitely find direct practical applications in them, they are in there.  But you should not view these forms as acting out a battle.  Instead, they are filled with techniques as a vehicle for reinforcing fundamental principles in a variety of ways.  Through movement and positional changes, it becomes more difficult to maintain the structure and the principles, and so the practice of the forms raises the skill level.  And at the same time short combinations can be interpreted as applications.  But it is always understood as a baseline application, meaning the big idea makes sense, but in a real fight the chaos and unpredictability will usually dictate that it be modified somewhat in order to fit the situation.  In addition, mindful practice of this stuff should act to broaden your view of what is possible.  This give you the ability to spontaneously respond with your own solutions, and not necessarily rely on any textbook technique, whether from a form or from some other portion of the curriculum.



I do wish that we had more of those practical segments.

Most of the techniques in the advanced forms, I don't even feel they have a baseline that makes sense.  If there isn't a strong baseline, then how can you vary it?


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> But when a boxer is doing those techniques, those techniques are a practical baseline from which they can modify it to work.


The same goes for kata and forms. They are a baseline from which you modify, in order to make it work. For boxing, you allow this modifier... for some reason, you will not allow that same modifier for TKD.



skribs said:


> The techniques in the forms are an impractical framework, which you must leave in order for them to work.


I would say that you must understand them, for them to work.



skribs said:


> Unless you can tell me how those complicated movements can be used practically


Apparently, no one can tell you how those movements can be used. You have already decided that you will not accept a use that is practical. 



skribs said:


> This is how I see the forms. A boxer hitting a bag is zeroing his punch, so that he may have a proper framework within which to deliver his punch.
> 
> The TKD guy doing forms has no zero. His techniques are more arbitrary in nature. If he does the techniques as they are in the forms, he's at a disadvantage.


I am glad I am not a TKD guy... I might take this as a slam against my art. Even as a Jujitsu guy, I have a little more respect for TKD than this. I certainly would not paint all TKD guys like this... I certainly have not met TKD guys that match this description. Is this how the people at your school train? If so, I would suggest a different school.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> The same goes for kata and forms. They are a baseline from which you modify, in order to make it work. For boxing, you allow this modifier... for some reason, you will not allow that same modifier for TKD.
> 
> 
> I would say that you must understand them, for them to work.
> ...



I will accept answers that make sense.  I'm not accepting snake oil.

The fact people can't come up with acceptable answers is not my fault.

Keep in mind, my original search was to find these answers.  They weren't there.  All I got was snake oil.  

I then adjusted my conclusion based on the facts.  I upset a lot of people whose reputation is staked on that snake oil.  They said I was wrong.  I asked for proof.  I got character assassination instead of proof.  Maybe I struck a nerve, because what I am saying is true?

I'm happy to be proven wrong, because I wojld love for those techniques to work.  I spent a lot of time drilling them.  If fhey work, that's even better.  That's why I keep bringing up problematic techniques.  But instead of answers, I get more character assassination.  Which tells me there's no answers behind fhe snake oil.  Am I wrong? Then prove it.  But I'm not going to lower my standards so your snake oil sells better.

It's not an insult to TKD.  It's an hobest assessment.  The same thing I expect of anyone regarding their art.  It is a limitation of TKD.  Being a TKD guy, I'm in a good position to recognize our limitations.  I'm not selling snake oil.  I'm honest about what we do.  I'm not going to say the double knifehand block is a good technique in a real fight unless I believe it.  And thus far, nobody has given me reason to believe it is.  I would love for it to be.  But I'm not going to lower my standards based on my wishes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> I do wish that we had more of those practical segments.
> 
> Most of the techniques in the advanced forms, I don't even feel they have a baseline that makes sense.  If there isn't a strong baseline, then how can you vary it?


Well, I’ve never studied TKD and am not familiar with your forms.  Furthermore, I’ve not witnessed the kind of training you’ve received and I dont know your instructor.  So admittedly it is difficult for me to give you specific advice.  Instead, I’m trying to use examples that I am familiar with, in hopes that something there might resonate.  

I will say that my experience with the forms that try to be more like an enactment of a fight, are less useful.  Those that I learned were so specific in their choreography that the interpretation of the application was only very narrowly useful.  In addition, they felt to me like they made a lot of questionable assumptions about how a fight would progress and unfold, and so the very material felt like a bad idea.  Transitions from one combat segment to another were odd and awkward and were something that I felt would never be useful; one would simply never step or move or put oneself into that kind of position.  They were clearly done to simply reposition for the next segment, and felt un-useful, perhaps even detrimental to training.  

I felt the other forms as I described in my earlier post, were a better approach to what a form ought to be and how they ought to be designed and structured.  The more loosely defined applications are actually more useful in the long run.  

I am of the opinion that some forms are poorly designed, and are therefor not beneficial to training.  Where your forms would fit on this continuum is something that I cannot judge.  But I’m just trying to give you a broader perspective to consider.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> To equate doing a crane stance diamond low block to slugging on a heavy bag is such an absurd comparison, it took me a while to even figure out how to respond to it.


Ive got an idea here, but could you clarify what you mean by “diamond low block”?  A description or a picture?


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 18, 2020)

I always find these conversations interesting. I am learning more and more, how bunkai has been left out of training.

I was watching a video by Sensei Seth ( a shotokan guy) and he stated that his training consisted of forms, and sparring, but no applications. I was surprised by this statement as he is very popular.

A quick question for the Karate guys, with the Pinans...do any of you do the two man exercises from this set of Kata?


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I’ve never studied TKD and am not familiar with your forms.  Furthermore, I’ve not witnessed the kind of training you’ve received and I dont know your instructor.  So admittedly it is difficult for me to give you specific advice.  Instead, I’m trying to use examples that I am familiar with, in hopes that something there might resonate.
> 
> I will say that my experience with the forms that try to be more like an enactment of a fight, are less useful.  Those that I learned were so specific in their choreography that the interpretation of the application was only very narrowly useful.  In addition, they felt to me like they made a lot of questionable assumptions about how a fight would progress and unfold, and so the very material felt like a bad idea.  Transitions from one combat segment to another were odd and awkward and were something that I felt would never be useful; one would simply never step or move or put oneself into that kind of position.  They were clearly done to simply reposition for the next segment, and felt un-useful, perhaps even detrimental to training.
> 
> ...



This is my assessment of the TKD forms if used to teach application. It is also my assessment of the same forms if used as you describe.  They work well for body mechanics.  They make horrible assumptions if it is supposed to be a real fight.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Ive got an idea here, but could you clarify what you mean by “diamond low block”?  A description or a picture?



Down block to one side, high block to the other.  Look up the video for Keumgang, it's the block used in crane stance.  Unfortunately for you, it's a standing crane, not a flying one.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Down block to one side, high block to the other.  Look up the video for Keumgang, it's the block used in crane stance.  Unfortunately for you, it's a standing crane, not a flying one.



I have been looking through the thread, trying to find the questions you are asking. No luck, what are they.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> I'm not going to say the double knifehand block is a good technique in a real fight unless I believe it. And thus far, nobody has given me reason to believe it is.


First you would have to allow TKD the same variability that you allow boxing. You allow a boxer to practice a combo on a heavy bag, and then use something similar to that combo in the ring. However, a heavy bag and a person to not react the same when being hit, and one hits back. When the boxer adjusts his combo to how his opponent moves... you allow that much variability to say its the same combo, even if he had to take additional steps, or vary his punches higher or lower than he did on the bag. Yet, adding a single step to a TKD form, raising or lowering the hands, even an inch, is not allowed by you.

Second, you would have to get past this: "double knifehand *block.*" Three on the TKD founders studied Karate under Funakoshi, one taught Shotokan Karate in his own dojo, in Japan. Funakoshi taught these blocks as throws and joint manipulations. The first forms in TKD were Shotokan forms. First they were given Korean names, and then newer Korean forms were made, that kept many of the same techniques. However, the men that started TKD and introduced the first sets of forms, with these moves, were taught them as throws and joint manipulations. "Block" is a simple description to help english speaking people do the right motion, not a definition of what the motion is. (Funakoshi taught these uke as strikes to vital points on the body, as the last and 8th definition of what uke were. An alternate use to the 8th definition the uke, was to knock aside an incoming strike. That was no where near the main definition of that technique, when the founders of TKD were taught it.)

But, you really really, need it to be a block, using only the hands. Forearms, elbows, shoulders are all right out. Lucky for you, there is a very simple application... where both of those hands can be used to "block," as in knock aside an incoming attack, simultaneously. Question, before I give you the answer... Would it still be a valid application, if this application of both knife hand blocks, using the knife edges of the hand to knock aside incoming attacks... but the ending stance, even though it matches exactly the TKD form, left you in position to grapple? Again, this application starts exactly as in the TKD forms, uses both hands to "block" incoming attacks with the knife edge of each hand, has the user ending up in the same ending position as the TKD form, but one of the options to continue is a grapple. (from a really good position I would add) Would that count?


----------



## Buka (Sep 18, 2020)

I've never seen a fight, or been in one, that resembles a Kata. Nor would I expect to.

I've never seen a fight, or been in one, that resembles jumping rope, doing bag work, stretching, doing road work, pushups, doing kick combos, chin ups, drilling etc etc.

It's all good. And most of the time, it's all fun. At least if you like Martial training.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> First you would have to allow TKD the same variability that you allow boxing. You allow a boxer to practice a combo on a heavy bag, and then use something similar to that combo in the ring. However, a heavy bag and a person to not react the same when being hit, and one hits back. When the boxer adjusts his combo to how his opponent moves... you allow that much variability to say its the same combo, even if he had to take additional steps, or vary his punches higher or lower than he did on the bag. Yet, adding a single step to a TKD form, raising or lowering the hands, even an inch, is not allowed by you.
> 
> Second, you would have to get past this: "double knifehand *block.*" Three on the TKD founders studied Karate under Funakoshi, one taught Shotokan Karate in his own dojo, in Japan. Funakoshi taught these blocks as throws and joint manipulations. The first forms in TKD were Shotokan forms. First they were given Korean names, and then newer Korean forms were made, that kept many of the same techniques. However, the men that started TKD and introduced the first sets of forms, with these moves, were taught them as throws and joint manipulations. "Block" is a simple description to help english speaking people do the right motion, not a definition of what the motion is. (Funakoshi taught these uke as strikes to vital points on the body, as the last and 8th definition of what uke were. An alternate use to the 8th definition the uke, was to knock aside an incoming strike. That was no where near the main definition of that technique, when the founders of TKD were taught it.)
> 
> But, you really really, need it to be a block, using only the hands. Forearms, elbows, shoulders are all right out. Lucky for you, there is a very simple application... where both of those hands can be used to "block," as in knock aside an incoming attack, simultaneously. Question, before I give you the answer... Would it still be a valid application, if this application of both knife hand blocks, using the knife edges of the hand to knock aside incoming attacks... but the ending stance, even though it matches exactly the TKD form, left you in position to grapple? Again, this application starts exactly as in the TKD forms, uses both hands to "block" incoming attacks with the knife edge of each hand, has the user ending up in the same ending position as the TKD form, but one of the options to continue is a grapple. (from a really good position I would add) Would that count?



Actually, the boxing videos I watch suggest you train against the bag as you would against an opponent.  Keep yohr hands up, mix in headwork to practice avoiding potential counter-attacks.  

Pads can move, because the person holding pads can move them.

As to the double knife-hand block, even if I did get over calling it a block (which I won't), that motion doesn't make sense for any grappling or striking techniques I know.  In fact, it makes less sense as a strike than a block.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Down block to one side, high block to the other.  Look up the video for Keumgang, it's the block used in crane stance.  Unfortunately for you, it's a standing crane, not a flying one.


Ok, it’s what I thought.  Firstly, the crane stance would be used  to avoid a sweep.  Think of it as a standing sweep, not one of those sweeps where the sweeper drops down low.  Rather from an upright position he tries to hook behind your ankle with his right foot (against your left) and pull your foot out from under you.  So you rise into crane stance.  It’s quick and brief and fleeting, you don’t hold the foot up because that would leave you vulnerable.  But you lift to avoid his hooking sweep and then put it back down once his foot has passed under you.  But simultaneously the low block could be reinterpreted as a jamming move to his upper thigh, meant to disrupt his sweep.  You’d could even do that as a two-handed move to make it stronger.  So what the upper block would be, I’m not sure off the top of my head, but I just interpreted a useful function of most of that posture from that form.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 18, 2020)

Tap, tap...is this mic on?


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> .
> .  There's this romanticized version of martial arts that you are acting out a fight when you do kata, which is what I'm arguing against.


It's true you are not acting out an entire choreographed fight in kata, but rather acting out individual snippets of a fight/potential fights, strung together to practice them.  A 2-5 move series may represent one scenario (say, defending a double hi grab with a counter) while another series may be an unrelated scenario (like a simple punch defense incorporating a parry, counter strike and takedown.)



skribs said:


> nor doing a down block and high block at the same time, and especially not both together.


These moves may look like 2 blocks, but perhaps consider they represent something else.  Could it be a type of arm lock? Or maybe a high block (could grab afterwards) and the "low block" is actually a low strike to bladder or groin?  You can't always tell a book by it cover.



skribs said:


> I cannot see the techniques in the advanced forms being used in a real fight,


As stated above, there may be practical applications to the form's techniques beyond what they appear to be.  IMO, about half of these movements are usable in real situations.  Of course, when practising these individual short series of moves, one must visualize the "real" meaning of the moves and use a partner to insure they work as originally intended, before they became "performances" or simple basic drilling, instead of combat training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is my assessment of the TKD forms if used to teach application. It is also my assessment of the same forms if used as you describe.  They work well for body mechanics.  They make horrible assumptions if it is supposed to be a real fight.


Fair enough and your assessment could be correct.  They could be mostly useful to reinforce fundamental principles as expressed in foundation techniques.  However, I suggest that fundamentals and straight-forward, non-complicated techniques are the most useful.  That is your bread and butter, they give you the most mileage.  So those forms then become useful for application, because you have used them to hone your bread and butter material.  Don’t get all twisted up looking for complex applications.  Sometimes what you need is just a straight, powerful punch to the face.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

You do realize, you have given me every single "dislike" I have on this forum... for trying to answer questions that you asked.... Oh well, live and learn....


skribs said:


> Actually, the boxing videos I watch suggest you train against the bag as you would against an opponent. Keep yohr hands up, mix in headwork to practice avoiding potential counter-attacks.


A heavy bag won't fall back out of range as a person can when hit. When a person is hit in the head, their head moves away further than their legs do. With a heavy bag, if you hit it in the head, the feet move further than the head. If you are throwing a combo to the head, on a heavy bag, you don't have to move as far as you would, when hitting a person in the head. Heavy bags also don't double over from body blows. They don't bob, weave, block, turn, or hit back. All of these actions would cause "changes" to the form you practiced on the bag.



skribs said:


> Pads can move, because the person holding pads can move them.


The person you are boxing, will move differently than the pads. You and a pad holder can work out amazing pad drills, that you will never see in the ring. See Pacquiao and Roach...



skribs said:


> As to the double knife-hand block, even if I did get over calling it a block (which I won't), that motion doesn't make sense for any grappling or striking techniques* I know.*


There is your problem, you are restricting everything by what you know. Actually, this application you will be familiar with the attack. You probably have another defense for it. But, this one would work just as well... maybe better in some respects. And there are no changes in form or label needed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Actually, the boxing videos I watch suggest you train against the bag as you would against an opponent.  Keep yohr hands up, mix in headwork to practice avoiding potential counter-attacks.
> 
> Pads can move, because the person holding pads can move them.
> 
> As to the double knife-hand block, even if I did get over calling it a block (which I won't), that motion doesn't make sense for any grappling or striking techniques I know.  In fact, it makes less sense as a strike than a block.


Personally I don’t spar against a heavy bag.  I do work some combos, but mostly I work my fundamental techniques, over and over to just drill in my mechanics and get comfortable hitting something hard.  I cycle through my hand strikes and kicks and some elbows and such, but mostly one tech at a time, with some amount of combos.

That’s my approach, anyways.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> You do realize, you have given me every single "dislike" I have on this forum... for trying to answer questions that you asked.... Oh well, live and learn....
> 
> A heavy bag won't fall back out of range as a person can when hit. When a person is hit in the head, their head moves away further than their legs do. With a heavy bag, if you hit it in the head, the feet move further than the head. If you are throwing a combo to the head, on a heavy bag, you don't have to move as far as you would, when hitting a person in the head. Heavy bags also don't double over from body blows. They don't bob, weave, block, turn, or hit back. All of these actions would cause "changes" to the form you practiced on the bag.
> 
> ...



If the problem is that I don't know the application, what does that say about how well the form teaches the application? You're kind of proving my point.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, it’s what I thought.  Firstly, the crane stance would be used  to avoid a sweep.  Think of it as a standing sweep, not one of those sweeps where the sweeper drops down low.  Rather from an upright position he tries to hook behind your ankle with his right foot (against your left) and pull your foot out from under you.  So you rise into crane stance.  It’s quick and brief and fleeting, you don’t hold the foot up because that would leave you vulnerable.  But you lift to avoid his hooking sweep and then put it back down once his foot has passed under you.  But simultaneously the low block could be reinterpreted as a jamming move to his upper thigh, meant to disrupt his sweep.  You’d could even do that as a two-handed move to make it stronger.  So what the upper block would be, I’m not sure off the top of my head, but I just interpreted a useful function of most of that posture from that form.



And that's where my issue is. Each of those pieces of the technique make sense.  Put 2 or 3 of them together, and it gets harder to explain.  Other than that it's good for balance, or that it looks cool, of course.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 18, 2020)

This crane stance, with the upper and lower blocks, is a bunkai from the Nohai/rohai  kata in Kwon Bup.

Attacker- left punch to head
Defender- circles the left hand over the strike and down, closing the left arm across the body and then a left side kick to the attackers body.

That is one application for this move in Kwon Bup.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> If the problem is that I don't know the application, what does that say about how well the form teaches the application? You're kind of proving my point.


Since I (not being a TKD guy) could look at the form and find the application... the form seems to be doing its job just fine. This one is not complicated at all.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> And that's where my issue is. Each of those pieces of the technique make sense.  Put 2 or 3 of them together, and it gets harder to explain.  Other than that it's good for balance, or that it looks cool, of course.


Well, In my experience the forms that reinforce principles more than reenact a fight, often contain that kind of thing.  Every part of the sequence may not apply to every useful application.  But a different interpretation with some portion of that sequence might include that part that was left out.  

I guess the thing is being willing to let go of the notion that every piece has to be included exactly as it is found in the form.  If you can’t do that, then you are in for a lot of frustration.  If you can do that, then you start to find a lot of useful stuff.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, In my experience the forms that reinforce principles more than reenact a fight, often contain that kind of thing.  Every part of the sequence may not apply to every useful application.  But a different interpretation with some portion of that sequence might include that part that was left out.
> 
> I guess the thing is being willing to let go of the notion that every piece has to be included exactly as it is found in the form.  If you can’t do that, then you are in for a lot of frustration.  If you can do that, then you start to find a lot of useful stuff.



And that's what I did. If I can't find a use for it, I deemed it impractical.  I ruffled a lot of feathers by doing so...


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Since I (not being a TKD guy) could look at the form and find the application... the form seems to be doing its job just fine. This one is not complicated at all.



I'd love to hear an actual application that isn't snake oil. Do you have one like that? Or just more snake oil?

It's like if I go into a car dealership and say I want a red sports car.  And the dealer shows me a red minivan, and a blue sports car, and is flabbergasted that I don't want either of them.  He showed me a red car. He showed me a sport car.  But somehow it's my fault for not liking the cars he showed me.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> To be very clear, I am not looking for confirmation bias.  I am looking for answers.  When we spoke about them on this forum, I did not receive satisfactory answers.  For example, I asked you specifically if you had used specific techniques from the forms in sparring.  You told me you had.  When I asked for specific examples of how the motion in the form was used in sparring, you never even replied.  You provided no evidence to back your claim.  I'm not asking for videos and detailed statistics.  But just a specific example of how that motion was used, and you were unable to come up with that.  Instead you'd start ranting and raving about how I don't listen or how I ask bad questions.  I was listening, but you had nothing to say to back up what you were saying.
> 
> I'm still open to changing my opinion.  However, I still have the same standards:
> 
> ...



Responding somewhat in reverse but why do you think I do not respond on reddit? I just have a different screen name. 

I honestly do not remember you asking the questions. That is on me. 
I think you will not buy this but down, inside, outside, & high blocks are used constantly in sparring. And certainly, a classic jab and reverse punch, in classic form style. No, the blocks are usually not executed as dramatic or fully as in forms. That is why we do them that way in forms; so we have the mechanics. I agree that this is not stressed nearly enough in a full on KKW curriculum. Someone mentioned this earlier, a competition only curriculum is going to be geared that way and will not include other things like self defense and philosophy. So think about this; if given the opportunity would you not do a full block? To rephrase, when I want to punish someone with a block or the stakes are higher (SD vs. competition) I am going to use as much of the form mechanics as possible.  

To your specific blocks:

Double Knife-Hand Block (Taegeuk 4) - Yes in sparring. Think of a front guard and a mid level kick block. 
Low Block to one side, Outside Block to another (Taegeuk 8) - Probably, but not that I can remember off hand. But it does not get much more basic than that does it?
Crane Stance, Low Block + High Block (Keumgang) - Yes in sparring multiples outside of KKW/WT rules. Avoiding a leg check/sweep and then stepping back and blocking high. Not quite the same but the application is there. 
Double Mountain Block (Keumgang) - No. I agree this has a good amount of expression to it. But they are high blocks (or outside blocks, whichever way you view them) in essence are they not?
Scissor Block (Taegeuk 7)  - Yes. Great disarming tool.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2020)

wab25 said:


> If you still want to find the answers... they are still there to be found. If you are still open to finding something in the forms, besides aesthetics... there are some ways to go about finding those answers. If you don't want to find the answers any more... you could skip the rest of this post....
> 
> If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same result. You have been asking the same questions, in the same framework and you keep finding the same answers. The first step, would be to change your framework... think outside your box. Lets start here:
> (not sure why it changed your numbers to bullets...)
> ...


Excellent post. Simply excellent.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> I'd love to hear an actual application that isn't snake oil.


I will explain this with you standing in a natural stance at the start for simplicity. The attack is a double lapel grab. Some guy is going to grab both of your lapels at the same time to shove you up against a wall or do some throw. Your left hand comes up to your right ear, which goes between his two arms, the right hand goes back to the right as you start to shift into a back stance. This back stance turns you 90 degrees to your left, putting the attacker on your right side and putting you off his center line. The more you drop down into the back stance, the harder it will make his throw, should he get your lapels. Now, when you execute the double knife hand block, your left hand blocks his right hand from grabbing your lapel, your right hand blocks his left hand from grabbing your other lapel. Done with force (which is why the draw back is so emphasized) this should turn and off balance the other guy... he should be turned towards his right. This puts your slightly behind his left shoulder. That right hand block is coming down to cover your solar plexus, which blocks the attackers left arm down and out of the way. From here you could continue, by stepping your right foot behind him, and using your left arm to initiate a rear naked choke. Because your right hand blocked his left arm down, on its route to the solar plexus, your left arm can easily go across his neck for the choke, as you step behind. (the step behind and choke are extra, but it gives reasons for why the right hand comes across and down, it clears the way for the choke right after...)

If you will allow "blocks" to be "strikes" or "open hands" to be "grabs" and "throws" or "locks"... or even the back swing to be used... things get more fun.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> What I mean is a direct, practical application of the movements.
> 
> If the movement is teaching you body mechanics instead of legitimate fighting techniques, then it's not a direct application of the movement.  The movement serves as a sort of physical parable.
> 
> You may use the concepts in body mechanics, but you're not doing that movement in a fight.  There's this romanticized version of martial arts that you are acting out a fight when you do kata, which is what I'm arguing against.


A Whole lot to learn in parables.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> R/martialarts is MMA biased. R/Taekwondo is mostly TKD folk.
> 
> I moved on because I did not find the answers I was looking for.  It offends you that I didn't just blindly accept what you had to say.  This was always a sticking point for you, that I didn't drink your koolaid.  Apparently it still is.  Get over yourself.


Also exactly why I said tweeners and MMA.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> And that's what I did. If I can't find a use for it, I deemed it impractical.  I ruffled a lot of feathers by doing so...


Ok i watched the video clip again that I found of that form, with the crane stance.  The upper block movement, it is a rising/clearing block across the front, defending the face.  You don’t need to attach it to the crane stance and the rest of it.  You can view it simply on its own, defending the front and the face.  

Where you insert it in your own use is up to you.  It doesn’t need to be complex.  In fact it’s better if it is not complex.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Responding somewhat in reverse but why do you think I do not respond on reddit? I just have a different screen name.
> 
> I honestly do not remember you asking the questions. That is on me.
> I think you will not buy this but down, inside, outside, & high blocks are used constantly in sparring. And certainly, a classic jab and reverse punch, in classic form style. No, the blocks are usually not executed as dramatic or fully as in forms. That is why we do them that way in forms; so we have the mechanics. I agree that this is not stressed nearly enough in a full on KKW curriculum. Someone mentioned this earlier, a competition only curriculum is going to be geared that way and will not include other things like self defense and philosophy. So think about this; if given the opportunity would you not do a full block? To rephrase, when I want to punish someone with a block or the stakes are higher (SD vs. competition) I am going to use as much of the form mechanics as possible.



Those blocks I have no problem with.  Where I start to have issue is at the advanced form.  I've heard a lot of times that the advanced level is where you stop learning techniques, and start learning application.  But my experience with Taekwondo is at the advanced level, you keep learning techniques, they're just more complicated techniques with less practical application.



> Double Knife-Hand Block (Taegeuk 4) - Yes in sparring. Think of a front guard and a mid level kick block.



Why is your support hand palm-up in this case?  Why is it touching your solar plexus instead of away from your body to prevent the kick from landing?



> Low Block to one side, Outside Block to another (Taegeuk 8) - Probably, but not that I can remember off hand. But it does not get much more basic than that does it?



Uh...how is that "basic?"  You're blocking two attacks on complete opposite corners.  It makes 0 sense to me in a real-world setting.  The explanation I usually hear is "blocking 2 attacks from 2 enemies", which leads me into my 2nd requirement - that the application make sense.



> Crane Stance, Low Block + High Block (Keumgang) - Yes in sparring multiples outside of KKW/WT rules. Avoiding a leg check/sweep and then stepping back and blocking high. Not quite the same but the application is there.



I can easily see the application for *each *of those moves.  But the timing in the form suggests they should be done all at once.  If my opponent goes for a leg kick, body kick, head punch combo, then crane stance, down block, high block is an effective dodging/blocking strategy.  But done all at once, as in the form, it makes no sense.



> Double Mountain Block (Keumgang) - No. I agree this has a good amount of expression to it. But they are high blocks (or outside blocks, whichever way you view them) in essence are they not?



We use a block that moves in a similar direction, but the mechanics are different.  We start both arms at the shoulder (instead of one at the hip), and our hands stay within about 6 inches from each other (instead of all the way across).  If we did the block as in the form, one of our hands would be nowhere near the block.  I can also see a similar motion for a block and hammerfist combination, but then the angle of the hammerfist is wrong (your elbow would get in the way).  



> Scissor Block (Taegeuk 7)  - Yes. Great disarming tool.



I'll agree that scissor motions are great for disarms.  However, in my experience it's usually a rolling motion instead of a crossing motion (i.e. block, hook, roll instead of crossing).  The times we use a scissor motion for a disarm it's a scissor with the hands, instead of the arms.

I also see similar principles in the scissors block as in one of our blocks at blue belt.  It doesn't have a name in our school, but I call it the side cross block.  One arm protects your ribs and side, the other arm protects your face and neck.  It's useful against roundhouse kicks.  You can also snap your hands shut like an alligator's mouth and catch the leg real easy (if you go outside the realm of KKW sparring).  Where I see similarity between the scissor block is in lining up the elbows between the down block and the higher block.  But it's a completely different motion.

I say this to say that I see how the principles can be learned.  I just don't see how the exact technique can be used.



wab25 said:


> I will explain this with you standing in a natural stance at the start for simplicity. The attack is a double lapel grab. Some guy is going to grab both of your lapels at the same time to shove you up against a wall or do some throw. Your left hand comes up to your right ear, which goes between his two arms, the right hand goes back to the right as you start to shift into a back stance. This back stance turns you 90 degrees to your left, putting the attacker on your right side and putting you off his center line. The more you drop down into the back stance, the harder it will make his throw, should he get your lapels. Now, when you execute the double knife hand block, your left hand blocks his right hand from grabbing your lapel, your right hand blocks his left hand from grabbing your other lapel. Done with force (which is why the draw back is so emphasized) this should turn and off balance the other guy... he should be turned towards his right. This puts your slightly behind his left shoulder. That right hand block is coming down to cover your solar plexus, which blocks the attackers left arm down and out of the way. From here you could continue, by stepping your right foot behind him, and using your left arm to initiate a rear naked choke. Because your right hand blocked his left arm down, on its route to the solar plexus, your left arm can easily go across his neck for the choke, as you step behind. (the step behind and choke are extra, but it gives reasons for why the right hand comes across and down, it clears the way for the choke right after...)
> 
> If you will allow "blocks" to be "strikes" or "open hands" to be "grabs" and "throws" or "locks"... or even the back swing to be used... things get more fun.



Three problems with this:

The double-knife hand block, as done in TKD forms, is a lateral movement.  The right hand block isn't coming down.  It's coming straight in.
If I'm going to trap their hand down, I'll either want my palm facing in (to trap against my body) or down (to help feel his movement and zone him out).  I don't see any reason to do that with the palm up, as the form would suggest.
Your right arm is going to get in your own way if you're going for that RNC.  If you get your right arm out of the way, then you've lost control over their arm.
This is what I mean by the boxer's punch on a heavy bag makes sense, where the techniques in the forms don't.  A boxer will have to adjust to hit his opponent, but other than adjustments to his aim, the technique on a heavy bag is solid.  The techniques as done in the form need to be adjusted just to make proper use of the body mechanics to apply them to the application you see.



dvcochran said:


> A Whole lot to learn in parables.



Exactly my point.  I'm not at all saying that forms are bad.  I'm saying the techniques, *as done in the forms* are done for aesthetics and body mechanics.  The body mechanics are certainly useful.  But to do the techniques *as they are in the forms *is folly.

Now, here is my understanding of those techniques mentioned above, with this idea in mind:

Double Knife-Hand Block (Taegeuk 4) - helps teach moving your upper body momentum to one side of the stance (as opposed to a regular knife-hand block, where your upper body remains neutral, as one arm goes out to the block, and the other hand goes back to the chamber position)
Low Block to one side, Outside Block to another (Taegeuk 8) - Off the top of my head, I equate this as the martial arts version of rubbing your tummy and patting your head.
Crane Stance, Low Block + High Block (Keumgang) - the crane stance is a balance exercise.  The blocks are mainly to do something with your hands while balancing, and they look pretty cool.
Double Mountain Block (Keumgang) - Similar mechanics as the double knife-hand block, except you're turning in with the step instead of turning out with the step.
Scissor Block (Taegeuk 7) - Helps with scissor motions (which can be disarms, or scissor sweeps), as well as controlling the levels of your blocks (matching the elbow of your down block to the elbow of your outside block).
I can see a *purpose* for these.  Just not a direct application.



dvcochran said:


> Also exactly why I said tweeners and MMA.



Except that's r/MMA, not r/Taekwondo.  Except for one guy on r/Taekwondo, but nobody likes him because all he does is put down TKD.



Flying Crane said:


> Ok i watched the video clip again that I found of that form, with the crane stance.  The upper block movement, it is a rising/clearing block across the front, defending the face.  You don’t need to attach it to the crane stance and the rest of it.  You can view it simply on its own, defending the front and the face.
> 
> Where you insert it in your own use is up to you.  It doesn’t need to be complex.  In fact it’s better if it is not complex.



But you *do *need to attach it when you're doing Keumgang.  The suggestion in the form is that they are together.  It's impossible to view it on its own when watching someone do Keumgang, unless you only see them from the shoulder up.  Otherwise, you see the down block as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> But you *do *need to attach it when you're doing Keumgang.  The suggestion in the form is that they are together.  It's impossible to view it on its own when watching someone do Keumgang, unless you only see them from the shoulder up.  Otherwise, you see the down block as well.


I don’t believe that you do.  But that’s my take on it.

So I don’t know what else to say.  I and some others have tried to give you some perspective to work with, but it seems they aren’t sitting well with you.  

So there are some other possibilities.  One is that a method that uses forms is just not a good match for you and you ought to train in a different system.  I say that all the time: any given system isn’t a good match for every person. 

Another possibility is that TKD forms are garbage and not worth practicing.  

Another possibility is that you received poor instruction.  

Another possibility is that you haven’t worked hard enough and applied yourself to the training.

I can’t pass judgement and determine which of these, or something else, it may be.   It may be that you ought to think about this part of the issue:  you aren't satisfied with the answers you're getting, and this is a theme that has been going on for a while, so what do you do about it?  Do you keep doing what you have been doing, in spite of the fact that it is unsatisfying?  Do you look for a way to change?  Do you have some possibly tough discussions with your teacher?  Do you look for a new teacher and/or a new system?

For what it is worth, I have abandoned more than one system that I had dedicated years to, when I realize they weren’t the right thing for me.

Think it over.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t believe that you do. But that’s my take on it.



If you don't, then you'll lose points in a competition, or fail your belt test.  



Flying Crane said:


> Another possibility is that TKD forms are garbage and not worth practicing.
> 
> Another possibility is that you received poor instruction.
> 
> Another possibility is that you haven’t worked hard enough and applied yourself to the training.



As I said, I don't have any problem with the forms themselves.  I see their use.  I just don't see their use as a direct 1-to-1 from form to fighting.  That doesn't mean they're useless.  However, if they are being taught as a fighting template, that's when I have an issue.


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 19, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> I always find these conversations interesting. I am learning more and more, how bunkai has been left out of training.
> 
> I was watching a video by Sensei Seth ( a shotokan guy) and he stated that his training consisted of forms, and sparring, but no applications. I was surprised by this statement as he is very popular.
> 
> A quick question for the Karate guys, with the Pinans...do any of you do the two man exercises from this set of Kata?



No we never did the two man exercises for the Pinans, Graywalker. Then again we never/rarely did bunkai XD


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2020)

skribs said:


> Those blocks I have no problem with. Where I start to have issue is at the advanced form. I've heard a lot of times that the advanced level is where you stop learning techniques, and start learning application. But my experience with Taekwondo is at the advanced level, you keep learning techniques, they're just more complicated techniques with less practical application.


I cannot speak to what you have 'heard'. Like I said earlier, I hope you have been given the correct information and continue to process it into something meaningful. It seems that right now you are looking at everything through a very narrow lens. Maybe a little too broad for you but there is Everything you need in forms, unless you are looking for pure competition.



skribs said:


> Uh...how is that "basic?" You're blocking two attacks on complete opposite corners. It makes 0 sense to me in a real-world setting. The explanation I usually hear is "blocking 2 attacks from 2 enemies", which leads me into my 2nd requirement - that the application make sense.


Again, I guess you could put this in the 'what if' category but what if you Do have to fight two people? Been there, done that.



skribs said:


> I can easily see the application for *each *of those moves. But the timing in the form suggests they should be done all at once. If my opponent goes for a leg kick, body kick, head punch combo, then crane stance, down block, high block is an effective dodging/blocking strategy. But done all at once, as in the form, it makes no sense.


I have always thought of it as being attacked by two people.



skribs said:


> I'll agree that scissor motions are great for disarms. However, in my experience it's usually a rolling motion instead of a crossing motion (i.e. block, hook, roll instead of crossing). The times we use a scissor motion for a disarm it's a scissor with the hands, instead of the arms.
> 
> I also see similar principles in the scissors block as in one of our blocks at blue belt. It doesn't have a name in our school, but I call it the side cross block. One arm protects your ribs and side, the other arm protects your face and neck. It's useful against roundhouse kicks. You can also snap your hands shut like an alligator's mouth and catch the leg real easy (if you go outside the realm of KKW sparring). Where I see similarity between the scissor block is in lining up the elbows between the down block and the higher block. But it's a completely different motion.
> 
> I say this to say that I see how the principles can be learned. I just don't see how the exact technique can be used.



You may not be taught this way but an effective scissors block/disarm is a square motion where left fist meets right bicep and vice/versa. A snapping motion using the wrist/lower forearm for the break/disarm. Would I do it with my feet together? Probably not. But great for coordination and balance. 



skribs said:


> Three problems with this:
> 
> The double-knife hand block, as done in TKD forms, is a lateral movement. The right hand block isn't coming down. It's coming straight in.
> If I'm going to trap their hand down, I'll either want my palm facing in (to trap against my body) or down (to help feel his movement and zone him out). I don't see any reason to do that with the palm up, as the form would suggest.
> Your right arm is going to get in your own way if you're going for that RNC. If you get your right arm out of the way, then you've lost control over their arm.



I think there is a difference in learning here. What is the trajectory of the arms when you do this block? In JMA and Okinawan styles it is a very linear motion. In most TKD and CMA I have seen it is much more circular. The thought is that the circular motion of the bent arm will 'catch' more in its path. This makes sense to me. Remember the two arms work in unison (there is no yin/yang here) so the inside arm (stomach) is positioned perfectly to trap a hand/foot OR push a punch/kick up. This is why the hand is up.   



skribs said:


> Exactly my point. I'm not at all saying that forms are bad. I'm saying the techniques, *as done in the forms* are done for aesthetics and body mechanics. The body mechanics are certainly useful. But to do the techniques *as they are in the forms *is folly.



My suggestion it to try to Not look at a form as individual components and absolutes. Like Wab25 said, they are a training tool, many created a long time ago so people could train on their own. Have we moved ahead and have better training tools and ways to train? Yes, some of us. Regardless, if you do one without the other there will always be gaps in the training.
There is a Lot of beautiful and cool stuff in forms. You want to call me a romantic go ahead, I am good with that. I suspect one day you will be in the same place.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2020)

skribs said:


> If you don't, then you'll lose points in a competition, or fail your belt test.



That is moot for me, I don’t compete, we don’t use belts, and my only interest is how I might apply it.  So my interpretation of the movement is all that matters.



> As I said, I don't have any problem with the forms themselves.  I see their use.  I just don't see their use as a direct 1-to-1 from form to fighting.  That doesn't mean they're useless.  However, if they are being taught as a fighting template, that's when I have an issue.


Well, mileage may differ for different people.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 19, 2020)

Still amazed that folks think there are n


_Simon_ said:


> No we never did the two man exercises for the Pinans, Graywalker. Then again we never/rarely did bunkai XD


Yeah, from what it looks like, not many understand their use. Sad state of affairs for Karate Ka.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> That is moot for me, I don’t compete, we don’t use belts, and my only interest is how I might apply it. So my interpretation of the movement is all that matters.



That's not the story for TKD.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Again, I guess you could put this in the 'what if' category but what if you Do have to fight two people? Been there, done that.



This is where it satisfies my first requirement (that it has an application), but not the second (the application should make sense).  This implies that you are between two opponents, with one of them attacking from behind.  That's the absolute worst spot you can be in a 2-on-1 encounter.  It would be much better to use your feet to put distance between you and one of the opponents, so you only have to block the one.



dvcochran said:


> I have always thought of it as being attacked by two people.



This has the same issue as above (standing between two opponents), but has the added problem that now you're blocking a low and a high attack while standing on one leg.  Seems it would be quite easy for those attacks to topple you over.



dvcochran said:


> I think there is a difference in learning here. What is the trajectory of the arms when you do this block? In JMA and Okinawan styles it is a very linear motion. In most TKD and CMA I have seen it is much more circular. The thought is that the circular motion of the bent arm will 'catch' more in its path. This makes sense to me. Remember the two arms work in unison (there is no yin/yang here) so the inside arm (stomach) is positioned perfectly to trap a hand/foot OR push a punch/kick up. This is why the hand is up.



In both of the KKW schools I've been to, it's been a linear motion.  Same with every video I've watched for the Taegeuks or Koryo.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2020)

skribs said:


> That's not the story for TKD.


Clearly that is true for a lot of people in TKD.  But it doesn’t have to be that way if you don’t want it to be, at least for yourself.  

If you love TKD but want to follow a different path with it, there are schools out there that can take you down that road.  Not all TKD is about competition and being part of a big organization.  There are still schools that focus on the older combative methods, don’t bother with Olympic style competition, and either belong to a smaller org or none at all.  Those schools would be more likely to have a bead on the application interpretation of TKD poomsae.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 19, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> No we never did the two man exercises for the Pinans, Graywalker. Then again we never/rarely did bunkai XD


Take a look at this video, this is back in 86-87, this is the 2 man application for Pinan Shodan. Well, the first 2 drills, there is a third.






Wrong vid but Nifanchi is another good example.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is where it satisfies my first requirement (that it has an application), but not the second (the application should make sense). This implies that you are between two opponents, with one of them attacking from behind. That's the absolute worst spot you can be in a 2-on-1 encounter. It would be much better to use your feet to put distance between you and one of the opponents, so you only have to block the one.





skribs said:


> This has the same issue as above (standing between two opponents), but has the added problem that now you're blocking a low and a high attack while standing on one leg. Seems it would be quite easy for those attacks to topple you over.



Oh, I fully agree, it is a sucky position to be in. You can say 'it should not happen' but sheet happens in the real world. I have been in it twice, once by my own cocky fault and once by the attackers design. I came really, really close to being stabbed the second time. But it is a reality and something worth being prepared for. 



skribs said:


> In both of the KKW schools I've been to, it's been a linear motion. Same with every video I've watched for the Taegeuks or Koryo.



This is why I said a difference in teaching. Believe it or not but all KKW schools do Not teach the same. Hell I have been to sanctioned tournaments where the licensed Korean judges were arguing about what was correct. Actually attended a drummed up back room meeting during an active tournament where to Korean Masters locked up. A most bizarre thing. When it was over (essentially a submission) both of them returned to the tournament as if nothing had happened. But you could not ignore the juicy swollen eye one of them had. 
And the majority of schools I think still have some other background influence. In my case MDK. There are quite a few TKD derivatives I have always felt you underestimate or at least do not acknowledge. And remember, KKW is an attempt at an amalgamation of the major styles.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2020)

skribs said:


> As I said, I don't have any problem with the forms themselves. I see their use. I just don't see their use as a direct 1-to-1 from form to fighting. That doesn't mean they're useless. However, if they are being taught as a fighting template, that's when I have an issue.


Have you actually had people tell you there is a 1 to 1 relationship. If so I would say that is some koolaid. BUT I fully believe the old saying is true; someone good at fighting will not necessarily be good at forms and some good at forms will be good at fighting. Do not mistake the generic term 'fighting' for only KKW sparring.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> If you love TKD but want to follow a different path with it, there are schools out there that can take you down that road. Not all TKD is about competition and being part of a big organization. There are still schools that focus on the older combative methods, don’t bother with Olympic style competition, and either belong to a smaller org or none at all. Those schools would be more likely to have a bead on the application interpretation of TKD poomsae.



I've considered that.  But to be perfectly honest, if I'm going to do that, I'd just get rid of the forms entirely.  And I'd change my sparring rules (and training) to be more generalist than focus on WT sparring.  At that point, 2/3 of what I teach would be thrown out the window, and what's left is basically kickboxing (without any kickboxing experience) and some hapkido.  By this point, I should be 1st Dan in Hapkido...not really master level.

So if I do decide to drop TKD, I'm going to have to start something else and become proficient in that before I open my own school.  I have strongly considered this.  I've also considered learning something else before opening my TKD school (so I have more perspectives first).  I've also considered never opening a school; maybe I find a school in another art that suits my teaching style better, and I just work under the owner of that school.

A lot of unknowns for me at this point.



dvcochran said:


> Have you actually had people tell you there is a 1 to 1 relationship. If so I would say that is some koolaid. BUT I fully believe the old saying is true; someone good at fighting will not necessarily be good at forms and some good at forms will be good at fighting. Do not mistake the generic term 'fighting' for only KKW sparring.



I've had you tell me before that you've used the techniques exactly as in the forms.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2020)

skribs said:


> I've had you tell me before that you've used the techniques exactly as in the forms.


And as I have said, and as many others have said, we have and do. That is so very far away for a 1 to 1 relationship it is astonishing. It is times like these you make me wonder if you really will get there or just be another statistic. I do not know anyone who has tried to force it and rush it like you are doing that ever get there. I sincerely hope you look back on these times one day and have a good laugh at yourself. 

It is funny how you avoid a direct question and then freely offer up the answers to others later in a post. I have directly asked you about your school and teacher a number of times and you are always very aloof. Like there is some 'ancient Chinese secrest' you have to hide, then turn around and call BS on others for things you do not understand. That is being a bit of a bigot. 

Look man, I don't care how much you like me if at all, but surely you understand I am just trying to help. Has your MA journey with your Master always been warm and fuzzy? Gosh I hope not. I push, pull, I do whatever I have to in an effort to help someone move forward. That is what instructors do. It is not about counting the loudest and holding people to ridiculous minute criteria every minute of every class. It is NOT do as I say, not as I do. It is NOT about looking the most accomplished all the time. It is about not being too big to be intimate with each and every student and learning how they tick. Learning what makes their heart beat faster and why. And learning within yourself how to use that information to help them get better. 
It is not for everyone and I will tell you straight up, right now I think your intentions are misguided. You are in it for the glamor or perceived rank and for being an instructor/school owner. I suspect this isn't all your fault. I suspect your school/organization has programmed you toward these inclinations somewhat. They dangling carrot.  
But you are a smart guy and have dipped your toe outside these parameters just enough to understand there is more to it. It is a big reason why some of my answers to you are vague. I am not going to spoon feed you, which you seem to want most of the time. So my best suggestion to you is to either get in or get out. If your school/instructor has any character at he/she will understand if you seek and workout elsewhere while still training there. Else you have the answers to many of your questions. If you are not certain you want to face the answers then stay and get deeply root where you are and enjoy the ride. 

And I will add this; wouldn't it make All of your training work much better if you started looking for how it all compliments each other instead of how everything is very separated and disjointed? This is advanced thinking I feel at your rank you should be realizing. Oops, I guess I just spoon fed you.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That is so very far away for a 1 to 1 relationship it is astonishing.



Do you not understand what the word "exactly" means?

If it's "exact" it's 1-to-1.  If it's not exact, then it's not 1-to-1.



> It is funny how you avoid a direct question and then freely offer up the answers to others later in a post. I have directly asked you about your school and teacher a number of times and you are always very aloof.



That's rich, coming from you.

I'm not giving out personal information over the internet.  Especially when there are plenty of unstable people on this forum.  (You're one of them).  

I also don't answer every question you post, because I have you on ignore.  This site has a lovely feature that let's you view ignored content, which is how I manage to get dragged back into arguments with people that my better judgment has said to just ignore.



dvcochran said:


> And I will add this; wouldn't it make All of your training work much better if you started looking for how it all compliments each other instead of how everything is very separated and disjointed?



Jee, what a brilliant idea!  I wish I'd have thought of that!  I wish I'd have thought "how to practically use the double knife-hand block?"  That would have been a great question to ask several years ago!  I wish I'd have thought "how do the forms translate to fighting?"  That would have been a great question to ask several years ago!  I wish I'd asked questions on multiple forums, watched videos, read books, and done everything in my power to uncover this connectiveness you speak of.  That would have been a good idea to have done several years ago.  It would have been a good idea to try some of the things out and see how they work.  Man, I wish I'd have thought of that years ago.

Oh.

Wait.

I did.

What I did is follow the scientific method.

Question - How to use these techniques effectively?
Background - I know the forms.  I know Karate does Bunkai (even though TKD does not).  I know many practical applications of martial arts moves.
Hypothesis - There is a connection between the techniques and the practical application that I'm not seeing.
Gather Data - asked questions online in general forums, through PMs, and to high-ranking people I train with.  Watched videos from TKD and Karate guys doing practical explanation.  Watched videos and read articles from KKW guys (and other TKD/Karate guys) attempting to answer this question.  Read books such as The Taegeuk Cipher.
Analyze Data - Data shows there is not a 1-to-1 match of the poomsae to useful technique.  In almost every case, the technique has to be de-stylized or have a lot of other pieces added for the proposed application to make sense.  As a teaching method, the kata are superfluous, because you can teach the techniques themselves without the kata.  
New Hypothesis - There is a purpose that I am missing from the forms.
Gather New Data - Ask the question again "what is the purpose of forms?"  Post my opinions on Taekwondo forms and see what kind of responses I get - does anyone challenge my opinion that they are not practical, and offer sufficient argument to make me change my mind?  Talk with people in person.  Watch videos of the forms with explanation, such as excerpts from the KKW master class, or going to another art and watching Jesse Enkamp dissect Karate kata and explain why things are done the way they are done.  Reflect on my own training, and what I enjoy about the forms.
New Analysis - The forms are stylized.  They are useful for training, in that they really work your legs (if you're doing proper stances), and they teach the body mechanics of how to move and transfer weight in different ways.  I personally prefer the stances and shifts in the Palgwe forms to the Taegeuk forms (unfortunately the Taegeuks are what's required).  Ironically, I more often see the footwork in the forms useful than the hand techniques.  I also see them as a way to practice attention-to-detail, an important skill for kids to learn, and for older adults to maintain their memory.
This is where I'm at with it right now.  You ask the question "wouldn't it be nice if it connected together?"  Well, yes.  But it doesn't.  I spent 5 years trying to find those connections, and they simply *are not there.*  I am open to corrections.  But those corrections need to be convincing enough to make me change my mind.  And when the person "correcting" me thinks that "exact" and "1-to-1" are two completely different things, I have a hard time accepting that opinion.

You say you don't want to spoonfeed me.  I'm not asking to be spoonfed.  I've done tons of legwork and come to a conclusion.  If you actually want to convince me that you're right, I'll need facts to prove me wrong.  Providing facts to support your argument is not "spoon-feeding."  It's debate.  Either you have those facts and you refuse to give them (which would suggest you're not helpful, as you claim to be), or you don't have the facts, because they don't exist.

This is why I say people who make the claims you make are selling snake oil.  What you suggest sounds nice, but there's no evidence to back it up.  And when I ask for evidence, you say I have to find it on my own, and chastise me for not looking.  You make it about my character, instead of about the evidence.  You call me a bigot and claim you're trying to help.  Are you?  Are you really?  Or are you just trying to silence my voice, because you feel offended that I dare say anything against Taekwondo?


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 20, 2020)

I know he want engage (skribs) but I am not sure what his question is.

Kata, are basically a manual of techniques, is he asking how to use the individual techniques or the Kata as a whole? Or is he just a person that thinks its supposed to be done the exact way, in combat?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2020)

skribs said:


> Do you not understand what the word "exactly" means?
> 
> If it's "exact" it's 1-to-1. If it's not exact, then it's not 1-to-1.



You took a very small piece  or sample of the whole and claimed 'all of it is not 1 to 1'. It just does not work that way. 



skribs said:


> That's rich, coming from you.
> 
> I'm not giving out personal information over the internet. Especially when there are plenty of unstable people on this forum. (You're one of them).
> 
> I also don't answer every question you post, because I have you on ignore. This site has a lovely feature that let's you view ignored content, which is how I manage to get dragged back into arguments with people that my better judgment has said to just ignore.



Then I suggest you put me back on ignore. 
No one is asking for your address and social security number here. Everyone in a sound program freely shares their general information; you being an exception. 

As far as the rest of your post, it is just as I said; you want everything in fast forward but you cannot digest the information. No one should want it that way and I know of no one who is going to freely give it to you that way. 

Man, I really want you to get there.


----------



## Graywalker (Sep 20, 2020)

Ok well...ignore the 4 horsemen.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Or is he just a person that thinks its supposed to be done the exact way, in combat?


This is the gist of it. He just doesn't understand the marriage of forms and fighting.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This is the gist of it. He just doesn't understand the marriage of forms and fighting.



It wasn't a healthy marriage, so they got divorced.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2020)

skribs said:


> Do you not understand what the word "exactly" means?
> 
> If it's "exact" it's 1-to-1.  If it's not exact, then it's not 1-to-1.
> 
> ...



I hesitated replying to this post but here it is. If you are convinced in your theory why don't you make your grievance to KKW? It could be valuable information. 
I am truly sorry you think some of us are selling snake oil; I imagine more than just me feels there are major inadequacies in what you are being taught or at the least in what you are digesting. This is purely based on what we hear from you. I have zero information on your school or no factual proof that you even attend a physical school. 
I have said this over and over; a school that is only teaching KKW forms and WT sparring leaves a Lot to be desired. And an instructor who follows that directive is the same. A Ton is missing. I am sorry but that is just the way it is. You cannot work your way out of that no matter what rank you achieve, especially in the same environment.
You are a big school. I get it. How certain are you that you are not the one in the McDojo? You leave tons of evidence to think this.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I hesitated replying to this post but here it is. If you are convinced in your theory why don't you make your grievance to KKW? It could be valuable information.



You're assuming I have a grievance.  I don't.  I used to, until I figured out the real purpose of the forms.  Now, I have accepted what they are and find value in them.



> I am truly sorry you think some of us are selling snake oil; I imagine more than just me feels there are major inadequacies in what you are being taught or at the least in what you are digesting. This is purely based on what we hear from you. I have zero information on your school or no factual proof that you even attend a physical school.



Continuing to press me for personal information is incredibly creepy.  Especially since we're arguing with each other.  How do I know you're not trying to find out where I train so you can show up outside my school and run me over in the parking lot?  I don't know you.  What I do know of you tells me I shouldn't tell you anything personal about me, lest I suffer in person the anger I've seen from you online.



> I have said this over and over; a school that is only teaching KKW forms and WT sparring leaves a Lot to be desired. And an instructor who follows that directive is the same. A Ton is missing. I am sorry but that is just the way it is. You cannot work your way out of that no matter what rank you achieve, especially in the same environment.
> You are a big school. I get it. How certain are you that you are not the one in the McDojo? You leave tons of evidence to think this.



Where have I ever said that all we do is KKW forms and WT sparring?  We do plenty of applicable techniques.  Just not as part of the poomsae.  A typical class includes:

Stretching
Warm-ups (punching and/or kicking combos)
Poomsae
WT Kicking drills
Self-defense, usually involving throws, sweeps, or joint locks in response to a punch, kick, or grab.
WT sparring
Jump kicks
We do the poomsae and the WT sparring, but that's not all we do.  I can't ever recall having said that's all we do.  In fact, I've been in plenty of arguments on this forum with others that should pretty much *prove* that's not all we do, based on the techniques that I describe (which aren't in the poomsae and would be banned in WT sparring).


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2020)

skribs said:


> Continuing to press me for personal information is incredibly creepy. Especially since we're arguing with each other. How do I know you're not trying to find out where I train so you can show up outside my school and run me over in the parking lot? I don't know you. What I do know of you tells me I shouldn't tell you anything personal about me, lest I suffer in person the anger I've seen from you online.


Wow. Paranoid much? I did not ask to disclose anything in my last post. Just stated general facts. We are on opposite sides of the country. Trust me, I am Way too busy to worry that much about you.
If you are so settled with the forms why do you keep railing on about them?


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Wow. Paranoid much? I did not ask to disclose anything in my last post. Just stated general facts. We are on opposite sides of the country. Trust me, I am Way too busy to worry that much about you.



You're continuing to insult me for valuing my privacy.  I don't care where you are now.  I have negative trust for you.  You've over-reacted out of anger online. I have no reason to give you any chance of repeating that in person.

Even if you are trustworthy, you're not the only person on this forum.  We've had people on here (who have been banned) who were asking everyone for their phone number so they could talk in person.  We've had people banned repeatedly because their posts are psychotic.  I don't want any of them to be able to find me, either.



> If you are so settled with the forms why do you keep railing on about them?



Because it came up in the conversation.  People had suggestions for me on how I should use the forms.  Those suggestions don't really make sense with the function of the forms, or the techniques in them.  In order to make those suggestions work, I'd have to change the forms.  And at that point, I wouldn't really need them, since simply teaching the application in a partner drill is a much more effective way of teaching application, anyway.

What am I supposed to do?  Every time forms are mentioned, not say anything because I've found my peace with their purpose?  No.  I'll respond honestly with my opinion.

Other people are getting thrown into a tizzy because their opinions differ from mine.  They think I don't like the forms.  I do.  I just don't think they're directly applicable to fighting.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2020)

skribs said:


> You're continuing to insult me for valuing my privacy.  I don't care where you are now.  I have negative trust for you.  You've over-reacted out of anger online. I have no reason to give you any chance of repeating that in person.
> 
> Even if you are trustworthy, you're not the only person on this forum.  We've had people on here (who have been banned) who were asking everyone for their phone number so they could talk in person.  We've had people banned repeatedly because their posts are psychotic.  I don't want any of them to be able to find me, either.
> 
> ...


If you want to live your life in paranoia go for it. I am sorry you feel that way.
I am glad you figured all that out in 5-6 years. There is a mountain if evidence against your conclusions. But roll with it if you want to.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> If you want to live your life in paranoia go for it. I am sorry you feel that way.



Quit being a creep.



dvcochran said:


> I am glad you figured all that out in 5-6 years. There is a mountain if evidence against your conclusions. But roll with it if you want to.



I've seen a mountain of evidence.  It supports my conclusion.  Including pretty much everything you've said on the subject.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 21, 2020)

skribs said:


> Three problems with this:
> 
> The double-knife hand block, as done in TKD forms, is a lateral movement. The right hand block isn't coming down. It's coming straight in.
> If I'm going to trap their hand down, I'll either want my palm facing in (to trap against my body) or down (to help feel his movement and zone him out). I don't see any reason to do that with the palm up, as the form would suggest.
> Your right arm is going to get in your own way if you're going for that RNC. If you get your right arm out of the way, then you've lost control over their arm.


1. The videos I watched from TKD double knife hand block, showed the right rear hand at shoulder level or slightly higher, then ending at the solar plexus. The last time I checked, my solar plexus is below my shoulders. Therefore, there would be some component of down in the linear motion. However, if your school is different, and the rear hand is at solar plexus level, and moves exactly parallel to the ground... the application I mentioned still works... you still block both hands, in the same direction, torquing the guys guys body, to expose his back. A little down component would make it slightly more effective.

2. You are not trapping the hand. You are knocking it aside. Remember, by your definition, if it grabs, or traps or has any contact whatsoever, outside of the knife edge of the two hands, it is disqualified as an application. (thats a very silly definition, but it is your definition that you choose to work with.) When the hand starts palm out, and ends palm up, it had to rotate to get that way. That rotation adds to the block, helping to send the other guys hand away further. (it adds rotational energy to the linear energy) In the application I shared, its not that the hand ends palm up... its the rotation of the hand through the motion that is important.

3. If the right hand went past your center line, you might be correct. But, since the hand goes to your center line (unless your solar plexus is located somewhere else...) it is in an excellent position to slide in for the rear naked choke. One way to get to the rear naked choke when standing that is often taught, is to grab the others guys left elbow, with your right hand... pull his elbow to your center and down, turning his shoulder... this gives you access to his back... and you right hand ends up on your center line. The control offered in my application comes entirely from the block. (remember, any other control or contact, would disqualify the application) You block hard and fast, torquing his body, and arms out of the away, and are prepared to immediately take his back afterwards, before he can recover.

But, here is what your response really says... It says that you have already made up your mind. The TKD forms have no martial value at all, and in this case, the double knife hand block has no application at all. Therefore the case is closed.... while you may claim that you are open... you are not open at all. Your vast years of training and experience have taught you better. So, why are you asking these questions on a forum? Is it just fun to prove to everyone how right you are and how wrong they are? I guess that could be fun.

Really step back and look at what happened here. You asked for an example of an application, where the movements had to be exact. The hand positions had to be exact. The contact had to be made only for a brief second, by very specific parts of the hand and the contact had to meet the definition of a block. (note that had the other guy already grabbed your shirt with both hands, the same application works with the exception that it is no longer a "block" but an "escape" therefore disqualifying the application) Your argument is that you might have to change the start or end of one of the hands, by an inch or so... The same inch or so that you allow a boxer to change from his pad work to an opponent. Whats unbelievable is that you left out the most important fault of all with my application. The tongue. In the TKD form, the tongue is held in the middle of the mouth during the double knife hand block. In my application, the tongue would move to the side of the mouth... naturally cancelling out the chi energy flowing to the fingertips. The  tongue in the side of the mouth, instead of the center, would redirect the chi elsewhere nullifying the entire effect.

I know when I have been beaten. I admit, you are the better man. I have much to learn from you. You are correct... in *your* version of TKD, the forms have no martial application at all. You are not waving your hands around willy nilly... but you are waving your arms around in precise willy nilly, as defined by some book... because it looks good. Also, it helps your memorization skills, which are imperative to good fighting...

Maybe you can educate me here... why is it that when I watch ballet, jazz, hip hop, ballroom, tap or any other type of dance... I never see the movements from TKD? Or even the positions? If those movements are being chosen because they "look good" why would dance not use those moves as well? Do they not know what looks good?


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2020)

wab25 said:


> 1. The videos I watched from TKD double knife hand block, showed the right rear hand at shoulder level or slightly higher, then ending at the solar plexus. The last time I checked, my solar plexus is below my shoulders. Therefore, there would be some component of down in the linear motion. However, if your school is different, and the rear hand is at solar plexus level, and moves exactly parallel to the ground... the application I mentioned still works... you still block both hands, in the same direction, torquing the guys guys body, to expose his back. A little down component would make it slightly more effective.
> 
> 2. You are not trapping the hand. You are knocking it aside. Remember, by your definition, if it grabs, or traps or has any contact whatsoever, outside of the knife edge of the two hands, it is disqualified as an application. (thats a very silly definition, but it is your definition that you choose to work with.) When the hand starts palm out, and ends palm up, it had to rotate to get that way. That rotation adds to the block, helping to send the other guys hand away further. (it adds rotational energy to the linear energy) In the application I shared, its not that the hand ends palm up... its the rotation of the hand through the motion that is important.
> 
> ...


----------



## wab25 (Sep 21, 2020)

You hosed the format, so I can't quote properly...


> Most of the downward travel is done before your hand reaches your body. From your ribs to the solar plexus it moves maybe an inch downward.


Like I said, you don't need a lot of down, or any down to make it work. Again, you allow the boxer to make more adjustment than this to his combo on the bag verses the same combo on an opponent.



> It's possible, but rotation can take away force just as easy as add force. Over-rotation can result in a glancing blow instead of a straight, penetrating hit.


Which is a really good reason to practice it a lot, to get it right. This kind of rotation shows up in most martial arts, and has a ton of uses.



> You're pushing the hand out of the way, rotating with the back of your hand, and then the hand is supposed to be right next your palm in order to grab? This is becoming a choreographed fight with continuity errors.


Guess I will have to explain how a rear naked choke works. If you have blocked both grabbing hands, to your left, torquing his body... you ending up in classic double knife hand block pose. Your left hand would then go across his throat, so that your elbow ends up in the center of his throat. (this means moving closer to him, and to his back) Your right hand would extend across his upper back, and shoulder area, so that the left hand can grasp your right bicep. You will have to rotate your right hand to be palm up while doing this, for the most efficient choke... oh wait, the double knife hand block already left the hand palm up...  Then you fold your right hand up and over the back of his head.

Even if you can't grasp the rear naked choke, after the double knife hand block blocked the double lapel  grab... you have yet to argue that it would not block the double lapel grab. I guess you are the only one to realize that you are arguing with the move after, but have yet to argue that the double knife hand block, would nicely block both hands reaching for your lapel. By failing to even argue that the blocks would not prevent the grab... by only going after what could happen after... are you admitting that the block part would work? Feel free to follow up with a kick, since you can't find a rear naked choke in your TKD forms.


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2020)

wab25 said:


> You hosed the format, so I can't quote properly...
> 
> Like I said, you don't need a lot of down, or any down to make it work. Again, you allow the boxer to make more adjustment than this to his combo on the bag verses the same combo on an opponent.
> 
> ...



For the RNC you describe, you need your right arm to go around their body.  If you have just done the double knifehand block as you describe, his body is in the way.  You then have to reach around his body to apply it.  Unless you think that you have enough force blocking their arms to turn them 180, in which case that would likely only work if they are drunk or compliant.

I thought you were talking about getting their left hand in a chicken wing, although now I think of it, that would turn them the wrong way.

The funny thing is how condescending you are when you describe this, like I'm an idiot for not understanding.  That rudeness weakens your argument.  It's like you're trying to bully me into accepting your argument.


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 21, 2020)

Admin's Note:

Folks, if you don't like what someone regularly says to you, then feel free to use the Ignore feature that is part of the Xenforo software.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 21, 2020)

wab25 said:


> From here you could continue, *by stepping your right foot behind him,* and using your left arm to initiate a rear naked choke.





wab25 said:


> (*this means moving closer to him, and to his back*)





skribs said:


> For the RNC you describe, you need your right arm to go around their body. If you have just done the double knifehand block as you describe, his body is in the way. You then have to reach around his body to apply it. Unless you think that you have enough force blocking their arms to turn them 180, in which case that would likely only work if they are drunk or compliant.


As I mentioned, you do have to move your feet to close the distance, to step behind him. That does not take away the fact that the "blocks" done by the "knife hands" worked. You have many follow up opportunities, as you have turned your opponent a bit and have his side and possibly back open, while you are off his center line. Throw a left round kick to his belly instead of the choke. Either way the "block" worked. By your definition, it must be simple and practical. Two hand reach in to grab, two hands get knocked aside, and an opening is presented. Double knife hand block succeeds in blocking both hands.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 21, 2020)

skribs said:


> Is there a point at which rank progression should switch from progress to merit?  What point would that be in your art?
> 
> Or should it always be progress, or always be merit?


In ATA, we test for all ranks.  There are no merit promotions.  

The closest one comes to merit is when you make 6th Degree, at which point you are considered a Master Nominee.   You begin a year of extra training.  In addition, there are certain guidelines for Mastership that have to be met; if you meet them, you are invited to join the next Master's class as a Master Candidate.  At the end of the year of training, you are then inducted as a Master Instructor.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2020)

Balrog said:


> In ATA, we test for all ranks.  There are no merit promotions.
> 
> The closest one comes to merit is when you make 6th Degree, at which point you are considered a Master Nominee.   You begin a year of extra training.  In addition, there are certain guidelines for Mastership that have to be met; if you meet them, you are invited to join the next Master's class as a Master Candidate.  At the end of the year of training, you are then inducted as a Master Instructor.


You don't promote anyone based on merit?


----------



## Buka (Sep 21, 2020)

Grenadier said:


> Admin's Note:
> 
> Folks, if you don't like what someone regularly says to you, then feel free to use the Ignore feature that is part of the Xenforo software.



I second this motion. I've put everybody temporarily on ignore at one time or another, just so I wouldn't get sucked into certain conversations. (I tend to get sucked in easily) Couple days later, I take em off ignore. Seems to work pretty well.

As for personal info, yeah, probably not a good idea to do that anywhere on-line.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 21, 2020)

skribs said:


> I also don't answer every question you post, because I have you on ignore.  This site has a lovely feature that let's you view ignored content, which is how I manage to get dragged back into arguments with people that my better judgment has said to just ignore.



I suggest you need to change how you handle this.  In my opinion, don’t put someone on ignore if you intend, or are tempted, to keep reading what they post.  If you decide to put someone on ignore, it ought to be complete and final.  

That has worked well for me.  Ignore is a good option, but it won’t do you any good if you don’t really use it.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2020)

wab25 said:


> As I mentioned, you do have to move your feet to close the distance, to step behind him. That does not take away the fact that the "blocks" done by the "knife hands" worked. You have many follow up opportunities, as you have turned your opponent a bit and have his side and possibly back open, while you are off his center line. Throw a left round kick to his belly instead of the choke. Either way the "block" worked. By your definition, it must be simple and practical. Two hand reach in to grab, two hands get knocked aside, and an opening is presented. Double knife hand block succeeds in blocking both hands.


Fully agree. I think skribs missed my 'punish them' comment when it comes to blocks. You can certain move a body with a block.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2020)

Buka said:


> I second this motion. I've put everybody temporarily on ignore at one time or another, just so I wouldn't get sucked into certain conversations. (I tend to get sucked in easily) Couple days later, I take em off ignore. Seems to work pretty well.
> 
> As for personal info, yeah, probably not a good idea to do that anywhere on-line.


Yeah, I could learn from that thinking. I am a consumate 'fixer', to a fault. That combined with being a direct *** most of the time doesn't always work well.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 21, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yeah, I could learn from that thinking. I am a consumate 'fixer', to a fault. That combined with being a direct *** most of the time doesn't always work well.


Here is great advice (paraphrased) from renown karate fighter Choki Motobu (the original "bad boy" of karate) -

"It's OK to take 2 steps, but not 3 steps in the same kamae (fighting stance/attitude).  One must change position."

To apply this to recent posts above:

It's OK to go back and forth a couple of times while defending or challenging positions, but after that, time to re-evaluate your 
stance.  Maybe redirection or disengagement.  Right or wrong, sometimes it's best to turn away and fight a more worthy battle another day.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yeah, I could learn from that thinking. I am a consumate 'fixer', to a fault. That combined with being a direct *** most of the time doesn't always work well.


Hold on.  You think you're direct?  Now that's funny.  Dude.  I really don't think that's your problem.


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2020)

Buka said:


> I second this motion. I've put everybody temporarily on ignore at one time or another, just so I wouldn't get sucked into certain conversations. (I tend to get sucked in easily) Couple days later, I take em off ignore. Seems to work pretty well.
> 
> As for personal info, yeah, probably not a good idea to do that anywhere on-line.


I do this, usually about 10 or so posts too late.


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2020)

@wab25 @dvcochran 

I decided to give this question another go somewhere else.  Somewhere where it wouldn't end up with me just arguing with you two again.  So I posted it here:
The double knife-hand block : taekwondo

I'll sum up the conversation I had with a few of the commenters:
*Them:* It's a guarding block, except you use the other hand to help bring your upper body momentum into it.
*Me:* But what about the off-hand position at the end?  Why palm up?
*Them:* As a chamber for your next strike.

Would you look at that?  Their answer was concise and to the point.  When I questioned the specifics of their answer, they were able to follow up with specific answers.  Those answers met all 3 of my criteria: the 2 primary ones I've asked for here, and the third I've asked in previous threads:

It uses the technique as done in the form (main hand is a knife-hand block, off-hand comes from outside-in, and ends palm up).
It makes sense (the main hand makes sense as a block, the off-hand makes sense as to why it's moving in the direction it does, and why it ends in the exact position it does)
It uses the technique as described in the form (as a block).  This was a secondary requirement in my post, the other two were "musts" and were met.
Now, this doesn't 100% change my opinion on the forms.  However, it's opening me up to gathering more data and seeing if I can change my mind on my analysis.  I still think the forms don't teach it very well, especially since you guys seem to have missed this, and half of the comments on the thread I linked missed it as well.  I'm also skeptical of some of the later techniques, especially half of Keumgang.  But I'll do one a day or one a week, and go through the different moves in the poomsae.

I think you guys (and most of the others that I've watched/read) have really overthunk the double knife-hand block.  I'll see how people feel about some of the other techniques I mentioned above.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 22, 2020)

skribs said:


> I decided to give this question another go somewhere else. Somewhere where it wouldn't end up with me just arguing with you two again. So I posted it here:
> The double knife-hand block : taekwondo
> 
> I'll sum up the conversation I had with a few of the commenters:
> ...


I am happy for you. Really I am. This shows progress, it shows you are learning and progressing. Thats what this is all about. Its not about you accepting my answer... its about you finding the answer that you accept.

I just want to illustrate the progress shown here.



skribs said:


> My question is this - what is the purpose of covering your solar plexus with the other hand in the manner depicted in the double knife-hand block? Here is why I ask:
> 
> 
> Typically if a hand isn't busy, it's either protecting our chin, or tight at our side.
> ...


You may have gotten the same answer here, except that you had listed that answer as a possibility that you would not accept. 


skribs said:


> All other applications, all other similar motions, are irrelevant to the question of why your other hand is held at your solar plexus in a knife-hand *block* instead of in a guard position in front of you (i.e. next to your other hand's elbow) or tight at your side (like the single knife-hand block).
> 
> Everything else is irrelevant to why I asked this question. I am not saying it can only be a block. I am saying, for the purpose of this question, I am only focusing on the technique as it is named - the block. This is my problem with all of the meta-discussion. It's extra information that is irrelevant to what I am specifically seeking to learn. I am not saying that this cannot be used for grappling. I am saying I specifically want to look at it as a block, for now, for this very question, so I can understand it's application as a block, as it is described in the forms and manuals.



Its great to see the progress that you are making. 


skribs said:


> Now, this doesn't 100% change my opinion on the forms. However, it's opening me up to gathering more data and seeing if I can change my mind on my analysis.


This is one of the great things about these forms and kata... one of the ideas is to always keep looking. There is more than one answer.



skribs said:


> I still think the forms don't teach it very well, especially since you guys seem to have missed this, and half of the comments on the thread I linked missed it as well.


I don't think we missed it. I think we believed you when you said you would not accept it as being in chamber because of the word "block."

The bigger point here is that the forms don't do the teaching... thats the teachers job. The forms are the body of work to be studied. A good teacher should not only point out specific things with in the body, but should also teach the student how to find things on their own with in the body of work being studied. 

I hope you continue your progression here. Its not about you getting the same answer that I have. In fact, I hope that you don't. Its about you finding answers that work for you. The forms and kata are not empty, they are not too look good.... they have things in them. It is very possible, and in fact highly likely, that you will find different things in there than I will. Through discussion, I may learn from your view... I may accept your view and change mine, or I may add your view to mine or I may not agree with your view, but at least I will look at things from your viewpoint and learn something I had not known before.


----------



## skribs (Sep 22, 2020)

wab25 said:


> You may have gotten the same answer here, except that you had listed that answer as a possibility that you would not accept.



I don't remember that (and I have a pretty good memory).  I remember every time I tried asking specific answers, I'd get the runaround.



wab25 said:


> I don't think we missed it. I think we believed you when you said you would not accept it as being in chamber because of the word "block."



I remember you were too busy trying to explain that the main hand didn't have to be a block, that it could be a strike.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 22, 2020)

skribs said:


> I don't remember that (and I have a pretty good memory).


I did actually quote you above... saying that in your first post to kick off the thread about the double knife hand block. I even bolded the bullet point where you explain why it can't be a chamber. (you have to expand the 2nd quote from you in the above post.) I also quoted you saying it had to be a "block" and could not be anything else... (a chamber would be not a block) 

I also found in that thread right on the first page, where Danny I believe suggested that it would block a double lapel grab.


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2020)

skribs said:


> I don't remember that (and I have a pretty good memory).  I remember every time I tried asking specific answers, I'd get the runaround.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember you were too busy trying to explain that the main hand didn't have to be a block, that it could be a strike.


Whew... memory.  Not directly relevant to this topic, so I'll just say, @skribs I highly recommend looking into the fallibility of memory.  It's fascinating.  If you have 1 1/2 hours or so to listen to a couple of podcasts, it will get you started.  Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell, season 3, episodes 3 and 4.  Great stories, and particularly in episode 4, it gets into memory, and how often they are entirely wrong.  I don't trust my memory for much.  I mean, I do, but if I post a fact on this forum, you can be pretty sure I double checked it to make sure I wasn't misremembering.


----------



## skribs (Sep 22, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I did actually quote you above... saying that in your first post to kick off the thread about the double knife hand block. I even bolded the bullet point where you explain why it can't be a chamber. (you have to expand the 2nd quote from you in the above post.) I also quoted you saying it had to be a "block" and could not be anything else... (a chamber would be not a block)
> 
> I also found in that thread right on the first page, where Danny I believe suggested that it would block a double lapel grab.



Maybe I thought you meant the whole thing was a chamber.  Might have been a miscommunication.

EDIT: guard position and a block with a chamber are two different things.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 22, 2020)

wab25 said:


> I am happy for you. Really I am. This shows progress, it shows you are learning and progressing. Thats what this is all about. Its not about you accepting my answer... its about you finding the answer that you accept.
> 
> I just want to illustrate the progress shown here.
> 
> ...


You know, this is a Great post. And is begs the question why din’t Skribs just go ask his instructor?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 22, 2020)

skribs said:


> @wab25 @dvcochran
> 
> I decided to give this question another go somewhere else.  Somewhere where it wouldn't end up with me just arguing with you two again.  So I posted it here:
> The double knife-hand block : taekwondo
> ...



You genuinely did not know it was a ready hand? The is a rather basic answer isn’t it. Regardless, if that satisfies you I am happy for you.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> You genuinely did not know it was a ready hand? The is a rather basic answer isn’t it. Regardless, if that satisfies you I am happy for you.



As far as I can tell, you didn't know either, because you failed to mention it.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> @wab25 @dvcochran
> 
> I decided to give this question another go somewhere else.  Somewhere where it wouldn't end up with me just arguing with you two again.  So I posted it here:
> The double knife-hand block : taekwondo
> ...



In all serious Skribs, we all know this has been a long and drawn out thread. You are 3rd or 4th Dan (I forget at the moment). When you ask questions like the one you asked or at least the one the thread centered on (again I forget at the moment) it is a real head scratcher. I made what now seems to be an incorrect assumption that you were looking for more or deeper into the block. Preface that with your near immediate rant to bash the forms and say again that they are not what everyone else says they are and understandably you get what you get. Wab25 done a very commendable job of explaining a good bit but no matter what the reply was you had already dismissed it and started bashing. Compound all of this with the fact that there were several others who attempted to give answers or at least flesh out the question that you dismissed and well, there you go. To you recent reply:



skribs said:


> I'll sum up the conversation I had with a few of the commenters:
> *Them:* It's a guarding block, except you use the other hand to help bring your upper body momentum into it.
> *Me:* But what about the off-hand position at the end? Why palm up?
> *Them:* As a chamber for your next strike.



I was baling hay when I read the post, subsequent answers and your reply and frankly got pissed off enough to have to stop the tractor & baler and get out and walk around for a minute. Frankly, the fact that theses COLOR belt level answers satisfied your questions offends me to a point I don't even understand. Especially since you claim to be a mid level BB in a style I love and vehemently defend. It makes me question if you even really are a BB. You don't understand upper level answer, you are satisfied by very basic answers, you play all the cloak and dagger crap with your instructor and school, deflect and call me a stalker every time your school or instructor are mentioned, and have made many incorrect inferences about forms, techniques, styles, and federation. That is a good bit of evidence stacked up against you. 
Look, I don't care if you as an individual want to go around making claims you cannot and consistently do not back up, but when you make claims against TKD as a whole, we have a problem. 
But what I surmise is that you are just in such a big of a rush to jump ranks; that you are missing the ride, and missing out on a Lot of learning. If two answers so basic that most people on a MA specific site skipped over it changed the Very hard stance you have taken for some time on forms, that says a Lot.
My Kali teacher used to always say anyone can parry; babies come out of the womb kicking, flailing and parrying. This is what you did with the answers you were given here. Several times you were given answers but did not hear them or did not understand them. When this happens you start parrying, making all kind of silly excuses. Several times people were fishing for what you thought the answers were but you were too busy deflecting.
My TKD GM often talks about sine wave but not in the way you may think. He uses it to explain how we must live and control our emotions. We will get high, high and low, low. That is a part of life. But we must strive to find the parity and stay as close to it as possible. And we must learn how to handle and use the highs and lows to our benefit and not as a deterrent or an excuse. Adversity is the best tool there is if viewed as an opportunity and not an excuse. Don't get so mad at yourself and others that you cannot stop, reflect and ask the 5 W's.
Keep asking questions. That is a Very good thing. But don't have the answer so pre-framed that you do not hear the answers you get. 
I usually enjoy our give and take. I will be the first one to admit this last exchange went too far on my part. It would have been better and easier for me to just walk away and ignore the blather. But that is not who I am; never have been, never will be.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> In all serious Skribs, we all know this has been a long and drawn out thread. You are 3rd or 4th Dan (I forget at the moment). When you ask questions like the one you asked or at least the one the thread centered on (again I forget at the moment) it is a real head scratcher. I made what now seems to be an incorrect assumption that you were looking for more or deeper into the block. Preface that with your near immediate rant to bash the forms and say again that they are not what everyone else says they are and understandably you get what you get. Wab25 done a very commendable job of explaining a good bit but no matter what the reply was you had already dismissed it and started bashing. Compound all of this with the fact that there were several others who attempted to give answers or at least flesh out the question that you dismissed and well, there you go. To you recent reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've said in several of these posts that I'm looking for the direct application first, and then the deep dive after that.

It is not at all my fault that you overcomplicated this.  I asked a specific question, looking for a specific answer.  You were too busy in the clouds to answer my question.

Keep in mind, when I first asked the question, I was probably either a color belt or a 1st Dan.  But you didn't have the answers then, either.

This whole rant from you because the answer I sought was too basic?  And this upsets you? Give me a break. Sometimes the answer is basics. Sometimes what is obvious to you isn't obvious to someone else.  I would think someone who wanted to mentor people would know that.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> You genuinely did not know it was a ready hand? The is a rather basic answer isn’t it. Regardless, if that satisfies you I am happy for you.



At the time I started searching, every single form I used it in, it was not used as the chamber.  Sometimes we go into a kick (Koryo). Sometimes our next technique is with our blocking hand (usually a downward palm) and the offhand goes into a proper chamber.  Sometimes we use that hand next, but there's a different chamber (such as chambering at the ear for an inside block).

We didn't start the Taegeuks until much later.  I see a little how it's used in 4, and a little more in 8.  But the forms I had experience with didn't use it as a chamber.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> At the time I started searching, every single form I used it in, it was not used as the chamber.  Sometimes we go into a kick (Koryo). Sometimes our next technique is with our blocking hand (usually a downward palm) and the offhand goes into a proper chamber.  Sometimes we use that hand next, but there's a different chamber (such as chambering at the ear for an inside block).
> 
> We didn't start the Taegeuks until much later.  I see a little how it's used in 4, and a little more in 8.  But the forms I had experience with didn't use it as a chamber.


I can't say I have ever heard of the close hand (at the mid-section) call anything other than the ready hand. I have heard several uses for the ready hand explained though.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I can't say I have ever heard of the close hand (at the mid-section) call anything other than the ready hand. I have heard several uses for the ready hand explained though.



Then your dojang uses different terminology than mine.  We usually just say "left hand" or "right hand" depending on which side is blocking.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> I asked a specific question, looking for a specific answer. You were too busy in the clouds to answer my question.


You have now repeatedly accused people of either not knowing the basic answer or of being to high in the clouds to give you the basic answer. The truth is, we that we read your first post when you started the thread. You specifically discounted and did not accept the very same answer that you now accept. That answer was not given to you, as you already had that answer and already ruled it out, wanting something different.



skribs said:


> *We do not have any techniques that chamber at our solar plexus, for the other hand to be used in the next technique. Even in forms, we move our hand from the solar plexus to chamber the next motion.*
> 
> In hapkido, our guard is similar to this position, but our other hand is held a little in front of our body instead of tight to our solar plexus, and it is held palm-down



You then clarified in post 23 of that thread, that you specifically wanted it to be used as a "block."


skribs said:


> I am saying *I specifically want to look at it as a block*, for now, for this very question, so *I can understand it's application as a block*, as it is described in the forms and manuals.


I believe Danny had already given you the answer of "blocking" a double lapel grab. You discounted that when he mentioned it. You discount it now when I mention it. (I would have referenced Danny when I brought it up, but had forgotten that he had already brought it up.)

People have been trying to answer your questions. And they get a little frustrated with the response. You get very critical of people when they try to answer, even when they try to answer your very specific question about using both hands as blocks. Then, when you finally accept the answer, the one that you first did not accept, and told us that you would not accept (see your quote above) you go on accusing people of not knowing it or jumping to far beyond it. They were merely trying not to give you the answer you had already clearly looked at and refused. 

These threads really shouldn't be about "I am right, and you are wrong." That usually leads to people getting frustrated. These threads should really have the tone of a discussion. "I see it like this," "I don't see it that way, I focus on this aspect differently and thus see it like this." Now, both sides can communicate and learn from each other. But, accusing people of being wrong, selling snake oil, things being worthless for anything other than how I see it... gets people riled up. I think we could all step back, quit accusing each other, and get back to discussing. If you want to be right or if you want me to be wrong... you are in luck. Skribs, you are right and I am wrong. As correct as that statement is, neither of us learned anything from it. But, if that is what you want, you have it now, feel free to quote it at any time.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2020)

wab25 said:


> The truth is, we that we read your first post when you started the thread. You specifically discounted and did not accept the very same answer that you now accept. That answer was not given to you, as you already had that answer and already ruled it out, wanting something different.



No, it wasn't.  It never was.



wab25 said:


> You then clarified in post 23 of that thread, that you specifically wanted it to be used as a "block."




Both hands never had to be a block.  The technique as a whole had to be a block.  I was looking for why you would use that motion for the off-hand while the main-hand was blocking.  Later on (in this thread) I dropped that specific requirement.  And yet...
The application that was put forth in the thread, which I agreed DOES have it as a block.

For what it's worth, I am *now* ready to move on from considering it a block.  But *only* because I now see how it can be used effectively as a block.  I am ready to move on to similar movements, because now I see how this movement can be effective.

It's not that I think the only way to do it is as in the form.  It's that the way in the form has to make sense.  From there, variation in technique and scenario are fine.  Although at this point, I don't know that I will.  But now it's by choice instead of necessity.



> You have now repeatedly accused people of either not knowing the basic answer or of being to high in the clouds to give you the basic answer.



You're still doing so, even after the question was answered.  It's almost like you're jealous someone else was able to answer.  Maybe you knew the answer, and just lacked the communication skills to effectively understand what I was asking, or to effectively answer said question.  Whatever the case, you weren't able to answer my question.

To be *very clear*: a guard position and a chamber are two completely different things.  Your hand chambered at your hip is *not* an effective guard.  I'd argue that the hand chambered at the solar plexus is not very effective as a guard, either.  Those are chambers, ready to strike.  When I discounted it being a guard position, and accepted it being a chambered position, that's because guard and chamber are different things.  In a lot of cases, they're both (especially in the boxing guard).  But in some cases, *especially in TMA forms*, there is a chamber that is not effective as a guard.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> *We do not have any techniques that chamber at our solar plexus*, for the other hand to be used in the next technique. Even in forms, we move our hand from the solar plexus to chamber the next motion.





skribs said:


> When I discounted it being a guard position, and *accepted it being a chambered position*, that's because guard and chamber are different things.


Quote is a fun button....
I am just going to say progress. First "we do not have any techniques that chamber at out solar plexus," now: we do have at least one technique that chambers at the solar plexus.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Quote is a fun button....
> I am just going to say progress. First "we do not have any techniques that chamber at out solar plexus," now: we do have at least one technique that chambers at the solar plexus.



That is correct.  One technique.  The point is, I couldn't draw from other similar techniques, because there aren't any others in the forms that chamber there.

And as I said, in our forms (at least until we started using the Taegeuks very recently), there was never anything coming out of that chamber.

I'm merely explaining why the answer isn't as "obvious" as it's being claimed to be.  A different context might have madenit more obvious, but it wasn't from my forms.  Hence my complaint about my forms.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> Then your dojang uses different terminology than mine.  We usually just say "left hand" or "right hand" depending on which side is blocking.


Agree. Usually it is wen sonnal momtong makki or oreun sonnal momtong makki so which hand is ready hand is implied. Does your school talk any about the variants of the ready hand? ie, what else you can use it for?


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. Usually it is wen sonnal momtong makki or oreun sonnal momtong makki so which hand is ready hand is implied. Does your school talk any about the variants of the ready hand? ie, what else you can use it for?



Not really.


----------

