Application of Taegeuk Sa Jang; steps 10B and 12B

[dvcochran]

To strike can mean to to bring into forceful contact or to collide with something.
Blocking as you are showing can be a forceful contact of or colliding with something.
When one is performing a inside or outside 'block' are you not in some instances colliding with or forcefully contacting something?

Totally agree. He cannot seem to understand subtle adjustments done on the fly, or the differences between blocks and punches and how they intersect.
Give it up @Danny T ; it is a pointless argument with @skribs. He has crossed over into the "paralysis by analysis" realm.

 

[skribs]

Totally agree. He cannot seem to understand subtle adjustments done on the fly, or the differences between blocks and punches and how they intersect.
Give it up @Danny T ; it is a pointless argument with @skribs. He has crossed over into the "paralysis by analysis" realm.

I have no idea how you can say that I don't understand these differences, when this is exactly what I've been saying.

I'm not stuck in analysis. I do these analyses when I am not training (i.e. during downtime at work). I don't get stuck in these when I am practicing. In fact, the "analysis" was resolved on Page 1, by people who actually discussed the question at hand instead of getting all high-and-mighty about how little they think I know.

 

[skribs]

To strike can mean to to bring into forceful contact or to collide with something.
Blocking as you are showing can be a forceful contact of or colliding with something.
When one is performing a inside or outside 'block' are you not in some instances colliding with or forcefully contacting something?

There is a big difference between the two. A strike is designed to concentrate your force onto as small a point of contact as possible in order to inflict the most damage. A block is designed to cover as wide of an area as possible in order to prevent something from getting in.

It's the difference between the area covered by the shield and the tip of the spear. The difference between the area covered by a bullet proof vest, and a bullet. Between shields and phasers in Star Trek.

If your blocks and strikes are the exact same, then either your blocks are going to have a small margin for error where your opponent can slip a blow past your defense, or your strikes are going to have a greater surface area and reduce the amount of damage they can inflict (or worse, spread the impact around a soft target, like the ribs protecting the solar plexus or the shoulder protecting the neck).

If, however, you tailor your strikes to hit as small a surface as possible, and tailor your blocks to provide as wide a defense as possible, then we're in agreement there's a difference.

 

[Danny T]

Can a strike be as small concentrated area as you state but it can also encompass a larger area.
Let's take a look at a inward moving hammer fist striking movement. (inside block movement)
In my training and thought process the movements are the same. Identical even. Contact is made with the little finger side of the fist to the opponent's head due to the proximity of the opponent's head within the arc of the hammer fist movement. (Got that strike in)
Now within this same time frame of the that exact same movement the opponent's or my movement has changed the distance just enough to close the distance and the opponent is now in the arc of the movement that the contact is with my wrist or even forearm against the head or may upper part of the neck. Strike?
In this next example using exactly the same movement the opponent moves his outside of the arc of the movement throwing a punch as well. Within the exact same movement my wrist or forearm now collides with the opponent's punching arm. Strike or Block? Both?

 

[skribs]

Can a strike be as small concentrated area as you state but it can also encompass a larger area.
Let's take a look at a inward moving hammer fist striking movement. (inside block movement)
In my training and thought process the movements are the same. Identical even. Contact is made with the little finger side of the fist to the opponent's head due to the proximity of the opponent's head within the arc of the hammer fist movement. (Got that strike in)
Now within this same time frame of the that exact same movement the opponent's or my movement has changed the distance just enough to close the distance and the opponent is now in the arc of the movement that the contact is with my wrist or even forearm against the head or may upper part of the neck. Strike?
In this next example using exactly the same movement the opponent moves his outside of the arc of the movement throwing a punch as well. Within the exact same movement my wrist or forearm now collides with the opponent's punching arm. Strike or Block? Both?

• If your opponent is too close, that motion is likely to be blocked by his shoulder before your wrist or forearm get there. If he's in an open stance, then you're likely to hit his face instead of the side of his head. In either case, I'd argue that a hook punch would be a better strike. Or at the very least, an inside chop. I've never been a fan of the inside hammerfist. I feel it tenses too many muscles and holds itself back.
• If you throw a strike, your opponent dodges and counters, and you happen to block his counter, that's a happy coincidence.

I'm not saying you can't use the same motions. I'm also not saying that you should analyze these while you're in the middle of a fight. But you should recognize the difference between a strike and a block in terms of what will effectively meet the goal of causing damage vs. protecting yourself. You should also be able to apply those principles to different situations (for example, too close or too far away). If my opponent is closer, I would rather adjust my striking motion than use my blocking motion.

I personally don't have any problem with people thinking about a strike and saying "if this is the scenario, I could do a block." However, what I have issue with is one of two things, which seem to be a theme in these threads:

1. The implication that by doing 1 motion, you're practicing 5 motions. Most egregious in the "your step in a form can actually be a knee strike or a kick". If you want to practice kicks you have to kick! You can't just do step-and-punch 10x and say "I just did 10 kicks, 10 knee strikes, and 10 leg sweeps". Because you've built 0 muscle memory for those techniques.
2. Taking away from the original technique. I don't mind analysis that you could use a similar motion for a strike instead of a block. What I get tired of hearing is that it isn't actually a block. Or that it isn't a block...but could be a block. As Freud said, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. And sometimes a block is just a block. When I ask the question of how a certain block works, and I get "it isn't a block", I get the feeling that the person answering the question doesn't actually know the answer. That's why the answer shifts. Once that question is answered, as to how you would block with that attack, then I'm fine discussing what other applications you can find for the technique. But that's in addition to what the technique is, not a replacement of it.

 

[Danny T]

In your OP you were asking about an 'application' of a 'move'.

 

[wab25]

In your OP you were asking about an 'application' of a 'move'.

He also gave the answer in his OP.

It's in the horizontal set furthest to the front of your starting position: the inside block with the rear hand in a back stance.

(I bolded the answer for you.) For him, because its called a block, it is always and only, a block. When he asks about the application of a move, he already knows the application... the application is the name his instructor used to teach him that motion. What he is looking for, is a real world situation where you can do the movements of the form, as done in the form exactly, that results in the block being a block. Thats it. He is just having trouble seeing the real world set up, for using the block, as a block with that particular foot work.

I was tempted to respond to his first post: The application of that move is a block to a punch. But, I am on his ignore list, so he wouldn't read it anyway. I did watch this thread, waiting with baited breath, for the declaration that a block in a kata/form is only ever a block, because of the name. Didn't take long...

 

[skribs]

In your OP you were asking about an 'application' of a 'move'.

The question has been answered and the thread has evolved.

 

[Danny T]

He also gave the answer in his OP.
(I bolded the answer for you.) For him, because its called a block, it is always and only, a block. When he asks about the application of a move, he already knows the application... the application is the name his instructor used to teach him that motion. What he is looking for, is a real world situation where you can do the movements of the form, as done in the form exactly, that results in the block being a block. Thats it. He is just having trouble seeing the real world set up, for using the block, as a block with that particular foot work.

I was tempted to respond to his first post: The application of that move is a block to a punch. But, I am on his ignore list, so he wouldn't read it anyway. I did watch this thread, waiting with baited breath, for the declaration that a block in a kata/form is only ever a block, because of the name. Didn't take long...

But...
What if in the move just prior he grabs and pulls with the left and strikes with the 'Block' movement. Just as in the form.
Oh wait he's not wanting a possible application of the move he looking for a specific 'Block' action to apply his block term move to and that's is all he wants.

The question has been answered and the thread has evolved.

And the same principle of understanding the movement has multiple applications. It really depends on where the opponent is and where the attack is coming from in relation to you. Is the attacker directly in front of you or is the person to your right or somewhere between directly in from or directly to the side?

 

[skribs]

Oh wait he's not wanting a possible application of the move he looking for a specific 'Block' action to apply his block term move to and that's is all he wants.

No, that's not all I want. But that's where I want to start.

However, as we progress from there and look at ways in which that motion can be used in other ways, we also have to acknowledge the differences in how you do them, in order to meet the other application.

I'm going to jump back to a different example that's been used on this subject, because I think it would be easier to explain what I mean with this concept: the idea that a step-and-punch can also be a knee-strike and punch, a kick and punch, or a sweep and shove. Conceptually, yes, you could take the form and do that. But you also have to acknowledge that the different application requires a different motion. It is quite obvious that a step forward, a knee strike, and a kick are 3 distinct motions. The fact that you do the form and think "I could put in a knee strike or a kick here" doesn't change the fact that the motion you are doing is a step.

Similarly, if I'm going to do a sweep, most sweeps I would do from that direction would have a different leverage point and power direction.

So if I want to practice a step-and-punch, a knee strike and punch, a kick and punch, and a sweep, I'm going to practice in 4 different ways. I can throw in other techniques like a palm strike instead of a punch, a punch to a different target, use my free hand in a guard or trap position while I punch, or any number of things I can do. But those are all different motions and require me to practice a different motion just to be able to apply them.

The reason I went away from say a block and a strike looking the same, is we don't get hung up on whether or not the motions are exactly the same or slight variances of each other. I wanted to magnify the issue and look at it. But I see the same thing when I think about a block vs. a strike. There are minor details I would change in a chop vs. a block. In my mind, if I'm performing a form and the focus is on a chop, I'm focused on delivering my hand onto the right point. If I'm doing a block, I'm focused on my arm covering the right point. If I were to practice both, I would need to practice each separately, because my mind is focusing on something different during each application. Where am I hitting, vs. where am I covering.

 

[dvcochran]

He also gave the answer in his OP.
(I bolded the answer for you.) For him, because its called a block, it is always and only, a block. When he asks about the application of a move, he already knows the application... the application is the name his instructor used to teach him that motion. What he is looking for, is a real world situation where you can do the movements of the form, as done in the form exactly, that results in the block being a block. Thats it. He is just having trouble seeing the real world set up, for using the block, as a block with that particular foot work.

I was tempted to respond to his first post: The application of that move is a block to a punch. But, I am on his ignore list, so he wouldn't read it anyway. I did watch this thread, waiting with baited breath, for the declaration that a block in a kata/form is only ever a block, because of the name. Didn't take long...

Nice!

 

[dvcochran]

• If your opponent is too close, that motion is likely to be blocked by his shoulder before your wrist or forearm get there. If he's in an open stance, then you're likely to hit his face instead of the side of his head. In either case, I'd argue that a hook punch would be a better strike. Or at the very least, an inside chop. I've never been a fan of the inside hammerfist. I feel it tenses too many muscles and holds itself back.
• If you throw a strike, your opponent dodges and counters, and you happen to block his counter, that's a happy coincidence.

I'm not saying you can't use the same motions. I'm also not saying that you should analyze these while you're in the middle of a fight. But you should recognize the difference between a strike and a block in terms of what will effectively meet the goal of causing damage vs. protecting yourself. You should also be able to apply those principles to different situations (for example, too close or too far away). If my opponent is closer, I would rather adjust my striking motion than use my blocking motion.

I personally don't have any problem with people thinking about a strike and saying "if this is the scenario, I could do a block." However, what I have issue with is one of two things, which seem to be a theme in these threads:

1. The implication that by doing 1 motion, you're practicing 5 motions. Most egregious in the "your step in a form can actually be a knee strike or a kick". If you want to practice kicks you have to kick! You can't just do step-and-punch 10x and say "I just did 10 kicks, 10 knee strikes, and 10 leg sweeps". Because you've built 0 muscle memory for those techniques.
2. Taking away from the original technique. I don't mind analysis that you could use a similar motion for a strike instead of a block. What I get tired of hearing is that it isn't actually a block. Or that it isn't a block...but could be a block. As Freud said, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. And sometimes a block is just a block. When I ask the question of how a certain block works, and I get "it isn't a block", I get the feeling that the person answering the question doesn't actually know the answer. That's why the answer shifts. Once that question is answered, as to how you would block with that attack, then I'm fine discussing what other applications you can find for the technique. But that's in addition to what the technique is, not a replacement of it.

Did you grow up with wealthy parents?

 

[Danny T]

• If your opponent is too close, that motion is likely to be blocked by his shoulder before your wrist or forearm get there. If he's in an open stance, then you're likely to hit his face instead of the side of his head. In either case, I'd argue that a hook punch would be a better strike. Or at the very least, an inside chop. I've never been a fan of the inside hammerfist. I feel it tenses too many muscles and holds itself back.
• If you throw a strike, your opponent dodges and counters, and you happen to block his counter, that's a happy coincidence.

Again it depends on where the opponent is in relation to you. I don't look at all application is with the opponent directly in front of me.

I'm not saying you can't use the same motions. I'm also not saying that you should analyze these while you're in the middle of a fight. But you should recognize the difference between a strike and a block in terms of what will effectively meet the goal of causing damage vs. protecting yourself. You should also be able to apply those principles to different situations (for example, too close or too far away). If my opponent is closer, I would rather adjust my striking motion than use my blocking motion.

Agreed

I personally don't have any problem with people thinking about a strike and saying "if this is the scenario, I could do a block." However, what I have issue with is one of two things, which seem to be a theme in these threads:

1. The implication that by doing 1 motion, you're practicing 5 motions. Most egregious in the "your step in a form can actually be a knee strike or a kick". If you want to practice kicks you have to kick! You can't just do step-and-punch 10x and say "I just did 10 kicks, 10 knee strikes, and 10 leg sweeps". Because you've built 0 muscle memory for those techniques.

1. I not implying that in a form you are 'practicing' 5 motions. In form you are 'referencing' different things. The reference is that a step is a knee or kick, a knee or kick is a step. It isn't that in form you are practicing a kick when stepping. That has to be done in drills specific for that. And not in the air. Just as you cannot practice proper kicking range in form.
   
   
   
   

   [*]Taking away from the original technique. I don't mind analysis that you could use a similar motion for a strike instead of a block. What I get tired of hearing is that it isn't actually a block. Or that it isn't a block...but could be a block. As Freud said, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. And sometimes a block is just a block. When I ask the question of how a certain block works, and I get "it isn't a block", I get the feeling that the person answering the question doesn't actually know the answer. That's why the answer shifts. Once that question is answered, as to how you would block with that attack, then I'm fine discussing what other applications you can find for the technique. But that's in addition to what the technique is, not a replacement of it.

I can agree with this as well to a point. In order to know how the movement and positioning can be used as a block I still need to know what is being blocked and from what angle is the thing being blocked presented within the line of the block movement and at what range are we working. That is one of the concerns with just doing form in the air against nothing but the air. This will certainly be important as to how any move is to be utilized whether it is a block move or a strike move.

 

[skribs]

I can agree with this as well to a point. In order to know how the movement and positioning can be used as a block I still need to know what is being blocked and from what angle is the thing being blocked presented within the line of the block movement and at what range are we working. That is one of the concerns with just doing form in the air against nothing but the air. This will certainly be important as to how any move is to be utilized whether it is a block move or a strike move.

And I think you can practice this in the air (to an extent) by imagining those subtle differences. That's what I'm talking about. At least it would be better than doing the same exact motion and just referencing "it can also be X".

Did you grow up with wealthy parents?

What about my post made you assume that?

 

[Danny T]

And I think you can practice this in the air (to an extent) by imagining those subtle differences. That's what I'm talking about. At least it would be better than doing the same exact motion and just referencing "it can also be X".

"to an extent"
Sure you can practice punching and kicking the air and become a great air fighter. Shadow boxing is an important component to smoothing out one's movements. If you are going to do such then absolutely work all aspects of what the movements represent. Then drill it with a partner increasing the pressure and resistance as you get better and spar it.

 

[dvcochran]

And I think you can practice this in the air (to an extent) by imagining those subtle differences. That's what I'm talking about. At least it would be better than doing the same exact motion and just referencing "it can also be X".



What about my post made you assume that?

Did not assume, I asked the question.

 

[skribs]

Did not assume, I asked the question.

Then what about my post made you ask the question?

 

[dvcochran]

Then what about my post made you ask the question?

The way you answer questions. Why don't you answer the question?

 

[skribs]

The way you answer questions. Why don't you answer the question?

Because, quite frankly, it's none of your business.

 

[dvcochran]

Because, quite frankly, it's none of your business.

True enough. Still not a reason not to answer the question. Wait, I think you already have.