Are Things Outdated??

[Makalakumu]

When you attempt a throw and wind up on the floor, usally means you are caught off balance and helped to the floor.

When performing many throws, the stance that one uses maintains balance and root as one flows into it. We call this stance kyo cha rip jaseh. Your uke's balance and root should be attacked and defeated by good kazushi. As the uke's balance and root is attack, the tori's should grow. If this occurs, nothing can stop the tori from throwing the uke.

Unfortunatly to try a throw you need to step in and commit yourself-hard to attack and reamin rooted.

It's not hard at all once you truly understand what one is doing. Rooting is not static like a tree stuck to the ground. Root can be fluid...yin and yang. The concept deals with ones center of gravity and making sure that it remains in the channel. The physics of rootedness combine Newton's laws with laws concerning torque and laws concerning center of gravity.

The premise behind tai Chi and Aikido is to get out of the way is it not? Again hard to be rooted and move at the same time

Not necessarily.

Kicking which is done with only one leg on the floor by its very nature compromises your balance.

One's center of gravity needs to be "rooted" in order to throw a decent kick.

 

[The Kai]

When performing many throws, the stance that one uses maintains balance and root as one flows into it. We call this stance kyo cha rip jaseh. Your uke's balance and root should be attacked and defeated by good kazushi. As the uke's balance and root is attack, the tori's should grow. If this occurs, nothing can stop the tori from throwing the uke.

When you breal an opponent's balance, your are basically using your body as a weapon to hit, unbalance the attacker. The push before you enter for a hip throw, the hip bump used to disrupt the attacker. if you attempt to unbalance and the attacker is ready, he will counter your opening

It's not hard at all once you truly understand what one is doing. Rooting is not static like a tree stuck to the ground. Root can be fluid...yin and yang. The concept deals with ones center of gravity and making sure that it remains in the channel. The physics of rootedness combine Newton's laws with laws concerning torque and laws concerning center of gravity.

If you are rooted you are rooted, if you are moving or standing still with your balance shifting, obviously you are not rooted but in a state of movement. If you step away to avoid an attack, you are in movement-you would root yourself at the moment you commence your counter attack.
When you kick you pivot your supporting foot, that is movement. If you catch someone with one leg in the air thay can be thrown. For most kicks you are trying to tranfere your center or weight into the attacker, for the most effect-unless your are just throwing the leg out there without anything behind it

You can say "Imagine that your are rooted, to give a student a image of correct posture or spinal alignment" Physiacally tho they are unrooted if they are moving

 

[Phoenix44]

If you are rooted you are rooted, if you are moving or standing still with your balance shifting, obviously you are not rooted but in a state of movement.

Well, I don't want to get into a semantic tug of war, but when martial artists refer to being "rooted," it doesn't mean "sessile," like non-moving and pasted to the ground. It implies a certain grounding, firmness, or relationship to the ground. And in this sense, you can absolutely be "rooted" while your balance is shifting.

I'm sorry you've vowed never to take a class in tai chi. My training has been in kenpo and jujutsu. More recently, I tried a tai chi class at a martial arts conference, and I immediately knew it was something that would add to my abilities. I still train primarily in jujutsu. And I've added tai chi.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Tai Chi has many movements that can transfer into almost any other form of Martial art. I find that it is easy to do a tai chi drill and find a place in what I do simular to the movement. It takes being able to allow new thought into some of my old ways but it expands what I see also

 

[arnisador]

But when Okinawan Karateka talk about rootedness, they do mean a prett stationary and strong Sanchin-based position, no?

 

[Adept]

Often times we hear people say that certain things in a given art would not be effective against the way people fight today. Things such as a step thru punch, which we see in many arts, people will say that nobody punches like that anymore. Another thing to look at is weapon defenses. Many times we'll see the attack done in a static fashion, with little to no resistance, while the defender goes through a series of moves, not taking into consideration that the attacker, in real life, is not going to just stand there.

My question is: Is there anything in your art that you feel could be or needs to be improved upon?

Mike

I don't think anyone ever used step through punches. I also think a lot of traditional arts (by this I refer to non-competitive arts such as Karate, TKD or Kung Fu, as opposed to styles like Muay Thai or Boxing, where the entire aim of training is to compete) use heavily abstracted techniques in their training.

Personally, I don't adhere to a single art. So things I feel need to be improved on appear on a case-by-case basis. For example, right now I need to work on my submissions, endurance, and small joint manipulation.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I don't think anyone ever used step through punches.

Interestingly, my instructor taught me a self-defense move based on a step through punch and I remember much later coming back and saying "well, no one really punches like that so this wouldn't really work" and he showed me how the same technique would work even if the person didn't step through. Taught me a lot about using a 'technique' as an example of body mechanics and movement and how to break down a technique into a more basic understanding of how to work against an opponent in unknown situations or situations in which I hadn't trained a particular response.

I suppose one place you may see a 'step through' is if someone is moving from a difference in which the punch comes as they are moving toward you

 

[MJS]

I don't think anyone ever used step through punches. I also think a lot of traditional arts (by this I refer to non-competitive arts such as Karate, TKD or Kung Fu, as opposed to styles like Muay Thai or Boxing, where the entire aim of training is to compete) use heavily abstracted techniques in their training.

Personally, I don't adhere to a single art. So things I feel need to be improved on appear on a case-by-case basis. For example, right now I need to work on my submissions, endurance, and small joint manipulation.

Actually, there are many that still do. As FF stated, its also important to be able to make the techniques work when the person does not step.

Mike

 

[MJS]

So, there has been alot of discussion on stances and weapons. That being said, how should stances be modified, if at all? Does the weapon aspect of your given art need to be updated or is it fine the way it is?

Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

On one hand, I absolutely agree with Kai. Why do the step through to punch if all one is doing is punching? What purpose does the step through serve? Why not just punch realistically, or perhaps like a boxer?

In my dojang, we never ever use step through "punches" for punching. We'll throw a stand-up punch realistically, slow for beginners, faster with experience.

As I said above, the step through "punch" is something totally different. To call it a "punch" at all, is sort of a misconception. And I think that it is indicative of why people think certain techniques are out dated.

 

[Makalakumu]

But when Okinawan Karateka talk about rootedness, they do mean a prett stationary and strong Sanchin-based position, no?

I think that this is a basic understanding of the concept. As one learns to balance their bodies and move their center of gravity, the concept changes.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, there has been alot of discussion on stances and weapons. That being said, how should stances be modified, if at all? Does the weapon aspect of your given art need to be updated or is it fine the way it is?

Mike

I think that stances should be modified after one understands their purpose. Stances represent footwork, balance, and power mechanics. Each one has a different focus and each one is useful in fighting.

 

[Flying Crane]

Why do the step through to punch if all one is doing is punching? What purpose does the step through serve?

Personally, I think the step-thru punch packs tremendous power, if done correctly. I think the way many people do it is incorrect. The upright, stiff, stepping forward into a bow stance and throwing the punch with your other hand chambered at your hip method is, in my opinion, not effective. However, if you are more fluid and step thru and drop into a side horse stance while throwing the punch, it can hit really hard. The fluidity is really important. It makes the technique come alive.

the step is also useful for bridging the distance between yourself and the opponent.

I also think the step can be used in the mix of the engagement, instead of as a broadcast technique that is easy to see and therefor stop. But the point is, get away from the old rigid way of doing it and figure out how to be fluid, use the momentum for the power that it generates, and make the movement more subtle and less exaggerated. I'm not exactly sure how to explain what I am thinking, but perhaps this is a start.

 

[Adept]

Actually, there are many that still do. As FF stated, its also important to be able to make the techniques work when the person does not step.

Mike

I know people still train the step-through, what I meant was that in an actual confrontation, you'll never (or at least rarely) see someone use a step-through punch.

Freep is definately correct in his point though, training your techniques against a step-through gives you the mechanics to adapt to 'regular' punches. However, I would argue that the same techniques can be trained against those regular punches in the first place without any loss in effectiveness.

With regards to weapons and stances: These days, almost all weapons training is completely artificial. You are never going to be carrying your Sai, or Jo staff down the street as a self defense weapon. As such, I can't really see much point in changing it. It no longer needs to be effective, so it can be trained purely for aesthetic, fun, and competition purposes.

Stances are a bit trickier. I work almost entirely from a boxing/JKD set of stances because I've found them to work the best for me. In my experience, a lot of traditional schools stick with deep, widely spaced stances which I would find less practical. But, if it works for the student, why change it?

 

[Makalakumu]

Personally, I think the step-thru punch packs tremendous power, if done correctly.

In karate, so much of what it means to do it "correct" is based on the context of the hyung. Sometimes it will have lots of power and sometimes it will be much more subtle. If the application is seizing and smashing, then the technique will have lots of power, if the application is entering and unbalancing, then the focus of power is not on the fist but elsewhere.

I think the way many people do it is incorrect. The upright, stiff, stepping forward into a bow stance and throwing the punch with your other hand chambered at your hip method is, in my opinion, not effective.

I agree. "Punching" like this is not effective. However, consider a few moves in Gi Cho Hyung Ill Boo (Basic Form Number One - Taikyoku Shodan - etc). Low block, front punch, turn. The context of this form is telling one to parry inside, strike with the off hand, hammerfist with the parrying hand and "step in" with a hand to throw ogoshi with the turn.

This technique isn't a separate stand alone technique like it is presented when one does basics. When one is doing a front punch line drill, they aren't necessarily learning to punch. They are learning to do other things.

However, if you are more fluid and step thru and drop into a side horse stance while throwing the punch, it can hit really hard. The fluidity is really important. It makes the technique come alive.

The side punch is still not an effective way to punch. Assuming a hard low stance when it is appropriate to be punching is never a good idea. Stepping into a horse stance completely changes this technique, though. While I agree that one can really generate alot of torque, the focus of that torque is not meant to generate power as a punch.

Think of the context in which you see this technique. I technique preceeds it and that usually contains your striking applications. When this technique appears, the tori snatches the uki's arm and snaps into the bar/break the arm over the extended bicep. If the grab misses, the technique turns into suquee nage.

On a side note, practicing weapons has really helped me with this technique, particularly the chinese longsword. One of the forms contains a high parry followed by a step through, tight spin and an extended stab that requires the exact same torque one uses with the side punch.

The step is also useful for bridging the distance between yourself and the opponent.

Yes, in a number of ways.

I also think the step can be used in the mix of the engagement, instead of as a broadcast technique that is easy to see and therefor stop. But the point is, get away from the old rigid way of doing it and figure out how to be fluid, use the momentum for the power that it generates, and make the movement more subtle and less exaggerated. I'm not exactly sure how to explain what I am thinking, but perhaps this is a start.

I think, perhaps the best thing we can do is stop comparing it to a boxers punch. These are two entirely different animals and the word "punch" does nothing to describe the difference. Just as the word "love" has many meanings and connotations, so too does a punch.

 

[Flying Crane]

In karate, so much of what it means to do it "correct" is based on the context of the hyung. Sometimes it will have lots of power and sometimes it will be much more subtle. If the application is seizing and smashing, then the technique will have lots of power, if the application is entering and unbalancing, then the focus of power is not on the fist but elsewhere.



I agree. "Punching" like this is not effective. However, consider a few moves in Gi Cho Hyung Ill Boo (Basic Form Number One - Taikyoku Shodan - etc). Low block, front punch, turn. The context of this form is telling one to parry inside, strike with the off hand, hammerfist with the parrying hand and "step in" with a hand to throw ogoshi with the turn.

This technique isn't a separate stand alone technique like it is presented when one does basics. When one is doing a front punch line drill, they aren't necessarily learning to punch. They are learning to do other things.



The side punch is still not an effective way to punch. Assuming a hard low stance when it is appropriate to be punching is never a good idea. Stepping into a horse stance completely changes this technique, though. While I agree that one can really generate alot of torque, the focus of that torque is not meant to generate power as a punch.

Think of the context in which you see this technique. I technique preceeds it and that usually contains your striking applications. When this technique appears, the tori snatches the uki's arm and snaps into the bar/break the arm over the extended bicep. If the grab misses, the technique turns into suquee nage.

On a side note, practicing weapons has really helped me with this technique, particularly the chinese longsword. One of the forms contains a high parry followed by a step through, tight spin and an extended stab that requires the exact same torque one uses with the side punch.



Yes, in a number of ways.



I think, perhaps the best thing we can do is stop comparing it to a boxers punch. These are two entirely different animals and the word "punch" does nothing to describe the difference. Just as the word "love" has many meanings and connotations, so too does a punch.

It is difficult for me to comment on much of what you say, because as a non-Tang So Do person I do not know the references and examples you are using to illustrate your point. I do, however, disagree with your position that the side punch is not an effective technique. If you use your non-punching hand and preface the punch with a clearing move to eliminate your opponent's defenses as you step thru and into the punch, it can drill him pretty hard. This movement comes directly from one of the Tibetan White Crane sets. Try it on the heavy bag a bit, you might see what I mean. Keep it relaxed, fluid and quick. Nothing should be rigid or stiff. It is a bit of a "committment" move, so it is probably best used for finishing, but it works pretty well.

Meantime, how's the weather up in northern Wisconsin? I grew up in southwest Wisconsin (Grant County), and that was plenty cold enough for me.

 

[Makalakumu]

It is difficult for me to comment on much of what you say, because as a non-Tang So Do person I do not know the references and examples you are using to illustrate your point.

That's one of the problems with discussing this stuff on the net. It's so much easier to show someone. Oh well, we do our best.

I do, however, disagree with your position that the side punch is not an effective technique. If you use your non-punching hand and preface the punch with a clearing move to eliminate your opponent's defenses as you step thru and into the punch, it can drill him pretty hard. This movement comes directly from one of the Tibetan White Crane sets. Try it on the heavy bag a bit, you might see what I mean. Keep it relaxed, fluid and quick. Nothing should be rigid or stiff. It is a bit of a "committment" move, so it is probably best used for finishing, but it works pretty well.

I can see that application and I can certainly imagine that one could use the rotational force for striking. In fact, many masters in Tang Soo Do teach that application. I, personally, do not like to end up in a position that makes it harder for me to move after striking. I've whacked a few people with some good strikes only to have them come back at me and whack me back.

Meantime, how's the weather up in northern Wisconsin? I grew up in southwest Wisconsin (Grant County), and that was plenty cold enough for me.

It's COLD. But you knew that. We're seeing the sun for the first time in a couple of days. I hope we get some more snow soon. Gotta get out skiing. The cold is good for the lakes though. I'll be popping some holes in the ice soon enough.

 

[MJS]

I think that stances should be modified after one understands their purpose. Stances represent footwork, balance, and power mechanics. Each one has a different focus and each one is useful in fighting.

Good point and I agree. Actually, that can be said for everything. Everyone will learn differently and need to adapt the material to fit his/her own individual needs. Learn it the way its taught and then make any changes you see fit.

Mike