Doubt! Stepping forward in front stance (KKW)

[andyjeffries]

No offense, but whoever demonstrated that stance either wasn't doing an ITF stance or just had really poor equilibrium in general. It's pretty unlikely that someone who knows what they're doing is going to be pushed backwards as you described. I used to do stance training with my students and push on them quite strongly when they were in a walking stance and they were able to maintain balance.

I don't see how they could resist pushing with a wider stance. From a pure physics point of view it's easier to push something over if it's bases are perpendicular to the pushing force than if they are lined up with it, so surely the closer to in a line you get the harder it is.

Anyway, as I said, I'm sure RobinTKD won't mind me experimenting on him when we catch up in 2013 ;-)

 

[chrispillertkd]

I don't see how they could resist pushing with a wider stance. From a pure physics point of view it's easier to push something over if it's bases are perpendicular to the pushing force than if they are lined up with it, so surely the closer to in a line you get the harder it is.

Then I'd be very intersted in seeing how wide the person in question had their stance. An ITF walking stance is about shoulder width. But it's a shoulder and a half long. You have to take into consideration both the width and the length when determining stability. If you don't see how it's possible you just need to invest time in actually developing a good walking stance. Like I said, we did stance training and my students were able to develop their stability rather well when I pushed against them. It didn't seem to be any great secret, just a bit of regular training.

Pax,

Chris

 

[ETinCYQX]

Thank you for that. That's more or less the same as the Wado Ryu Pinan Nidan give or take a couple of movements, he's stepping into Junzukidachi to start It's one of the Zenkutsudachi (front stances).

The 'half moon' bit I don't get though. In Wado we did it as a straight step, there is a circular type step into a another Zenkutsudachi called Gykazukidachi which has different feet placement but is still a front stance.

It's an "in an out" move with the moving foot. As the back foot passes the front it comes in, then goes back out. Hard to explain.

I don't know a thing about Karate kata, the only reason I know those are taikyoku Shodan and Nidan is because Puunui told me.

 

[K-man]

In Goju Ryu it depends on whether it is the Japanese style or the Okinawan. Japanese Goju as developed by Yamaguchi is very much like the Shotokan stepping, that is pronounced crescent and very deep. The Okinawan step comes in just a little which is only natural to preserve balance and is much shorter. As TKD has the Shotokan connection, I would assume that is the origin of the crescent step into the deep lunging stance.

As to the origin of the crescent step. It comes from Sanchin dachi, or three point stance which is the basic stance of Goju. The application is in close range grappling to facilitate a take down, but that is for another time. :asian:

 

[seasoned]

In the truest sense of most combat arts, while our upper body attacks, (strikes, grabs, redirects, traps) there are other weapons at play. Our lower body while stepping in, is assumed to be attacking at the exact same time. Upon entry our legs are also striking, trapping, sweeping, so as to uproot the opponent, making it a two fold attack on their upper and lower body. (crescent step)

 

[sopraisso]

One interesting thing that just came up to me now is that in my school, while it is not very clear (at least to me) whether we should perform the "half moon" step or the straight line one, most of other stances transitions are not teached to do in a straight line. Instead, our instructor tells us to bring feet together [before turning to another side in another stance] (example: taegeuk il jang from movement 4 to 5 (left ap seogi/mid level punch to left apkubi/arae makki (down block) followed by reverse punch). And now I wonder if that is according to Kukkiwon standards or maybe some kind of "ITF artifact" -- most older Kukkiwon Taekwondo schools in Brazil were originally ITF-filiated and then converted to Kukkiwon style, but a lot of ITF ways has clearly been held by some of those schools.
Under Kukkiwon standards, how should we do other transitions, like the one in the example, then?

Hi everyone!

I love the discussion brought up about the "whys" for perfoming the "crescent step" (this can still be further discussed, I believe), and also about the various ways of front stance as well, but maybe my second question (made later) has passed unseen in the thread. I don't wanna stop the discussion about the reasons on the different options for stances and stepping ways in each style, but what about this other question of mine (quoted above), regarding Kukkiwon standards when performing turns?
I'll reformulate it to make myself clearer:

According to Kukkiwon, when performing a turn (example: taegeuk il jang from movement 4 to 5 (left ap seogi/mid level punch turning 90º left to left apkubi/arae makki (down block) followed by reverse punch), should we:
1) bring the advancing foot in a straight diagonal line or;
2) first bring the advancing foot closer to the pivot foot and only then advance the foot to its regular place of the finishing stance?

To make it even clearer, I'll draw! (Don't know how I hadn't thought of it previously! Would've helped to describe the "crescent step" pattern as well! Ok, today I have more time than usual. )
According to Kukkiwon, should we turn like:

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm not interested in reasons why we should perform one way or another -- I'd love to know the reasons for us to do it either way and everyone should feel free to discuss it --, but I've been also curious about KKW standards recently, and I'd like to know whether my school teaches the KKW standard or not (they teach us to do it the #2 way). It would also be great to know if there are different ways to make that turn in different styles (KKW, ITF, shotokan, wado ryu, etc.).
Thanks in advance!

 

[andyjeffries]

According to the Kukkiwon DVDs it's diagram 1. We tend to teach it more like diagram 2 to lower belts as it's easier for them to grasp. However the difference is if you step in long stance twice, you don't crescent the foot as you step it just moves forward.

 

[Metal]

Hi everyone!

I love the discussion brought up about the "whys" for perfoming the "crescent step" (this can still be further discussed, I believe), and also about the various ways of front stance as well, but maybe my second question (made later) has passed unseen in the thread. I don't wanna stop the discussion about the reasons on the different options for stances and stepping ways in each style, but what about this other question of mine (quoted above), regarding Kukkiwon standards when performing turns?
I'll reformulate it to make myself clearer:

According to Kukkiwon, when performing a turn (example: taegeuk il jang from movement 4 to 5 (left ap seogi/mid level punch turning 90º left to left apkubi/arae makki (down block) followed by reverse punch), should we:
1) bring the advancing foot in a straight diagonal line or;
2) first bring the advancing foot closer to the pivot foot and only then advance the foot to its regular place of the finishing stance?

To make it even clearer, I'll draw! (Don't know how I hadn't thought of it previously! Would've helped to describe the "crescent step" pattern as well! Ok, today I have more time than usual. )
According to Kukkiwon, should we turn like:

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm not interested in reasons why we should perform one way or another -- I'd love to know the reasons for us to do it either way and everyone should feel free to discuss it --, but I've been also curious about KKW standards recently, and I'd like to know whether my school teaches the KKW standard or not (they teach us to do it the #2 way). It would also be great to know if there are different ways to make that turn in different styles (KKW, ITF, shotokan, wado ryu, etc.).
Thanks in advance!

According to current Kukkiwon and WTF standards all turning is done on the ball of the foot. Never on the heel.

Like here turning left from Naranhi Seogi into Ap Seogi in the beginning of Taeguk 1 Jang and Taeguk 2 Jang:

Furthermore the movements from one stance to another are all straight lines, you never do any curved motions or bring the foot that's being lifted to the leg that stays on the ground first.


It's a basic difference between the two kinetics of Hyongs and Poomsae.

Poomsae was designed with straight motions, keeping the head at the same level, having a narrow Ap Gubi (also due to the straight movements) and so on. When some masters were transferring from Hyongs to Poomsae they kept the kinetics of Hyongs, but performed the patterns of Poomsae. At least that's what I think is one of today's problems of people not knowing how to move in Poomsae.

 

[sopraisso]

Metal,
Thank you so much for your response. This is by far the most straitgh-foward and complete answer I believe I could have. Not that I don't enjoy the discussion that came after (I totally do), but I also needed those simple answers -- on KKW standards.

By the way, you just mentioned a great point I hadn't even asked about -- which part of the foot we should pivot on when performing turns in pumsae. And why hadn't I asked about that? Just because I had even lost the hope of finding an answer just like yours! Actually, this was one of the the first questions that came to my mind since the time a began practicing Kukkiwon Taekwondo!
Anyway, why did I put my diagram with turn on the heel instead of ball of foot? Well, first, because I didn't know the KKW standard (thank you so much for telling me), and second because after doing some research I came to the conclusion that both ways of turning (ball of foot or heel) were acceptable, depending on the circumstances and application intended (this time I'm not talking about KKW standards, only about general martial thoughts on body mechanics), and I decided for heel just because it fitted better the application I had in mind (which was, I can't deny, a non-typical KKW one). I understand that turning on heel has disadvantadges anyway, mainly for the lack of stability (maybe this was the reason why KKW has decided the turns should be made on the ball of foot).

-- Once we're talking about KKW standards, and I've been crescently interested on that (and the differences between KKW's choices and other styles'), I'd be very pleasured if you (or other MT members) could point out good sources about those subjects in detail. Maybe the most recent Kukkiwon Textbook (I just haven't purchased it yet) should be the best source? And are there any other good sources? Most I've found just don't go into the details I needed to know, or just are lost amid the change of ways between hyeong and pumsae.

Now I see those changes of kinectics you mentioned definitely happened in my dojang, and probably in most dojangs around my country (and new instructors were generally teached in the old ways, and have been passing them on). I have no problem with that, but I just wanted to know what was the standard.

I'd like to particularly thank Andy Jeffries who also gave me a very quick and direct answer as well.

-- Do other people have other thoughts (this time pros and cons and how it is in other systems) on all of this? To me this is a very interesting subject that adds value to our teaching (we get to know the standards, the variations, the pros and cons and the process that led to the changes in our system).
Recently my instructor suggested I should take a schedule for a class with my own students in his school (I enjoyed his offer, but unfortunately the only timetable I could get has been recently taken by another instructor, and I have no other options due to my day job). Anyway, I'm still thinking of the possibility of taking the class if I have a new chance in the future, and in that case I'd like to make sure I understand well the standards of the system we claim to teach. Off course I'll need to have a delicate conversation with my teacher first, because I don't plan to teach using standards that he wont't adopt.

 

[Earl Weiss]

For Chang Hon.
1. Ball of foot pivot is stipulated
2. Often stepping is done as in Diagram 2 (Except Ball of foot pivot) reason not stated but it is basicaly a motion / transition thru a neutral or balanced (shoulder width) position then to the stated position. There are stated exceptions sometimes with reasons and sometimes not.

 

[sopraisso]

For Chang Hon.
1. Ball of foot pivot is stipulated
2. Often stepping is done as in Diagram 2 (Except Ball of foot pivot) reason not stated but it is basicaly a motion / transition thru a neutral or balanced (shoulder width) position then to the stated position. There are stated exceptions sometimes with reasons and sometimes not.

Thank you, master Weiss.
Although I train at a Kukkiwon Dojang, as I mentioned previously, we're very influenced by the Chang Hong system, and out head instructor has deep respect for it. I view martial arts as a single thing regardless of style, and it is very important for me to know about the various ways adopted by different systems. As a practitioner of taekwondo/taekwon-do, it is specially important for me to know as much as possible about both ways.

Going back to the issue about pivoting on ball of foot or heel, there's an article I've read recently that I've found very interesting, which provides some good reasons reasons for pivoting on the heel (but absolutely doesn't state it as a mandatory case) and I'd like to share it here: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/a-pivotal-question.html

It would be nice to know of other people's views on this!

 

[Earl Weiss]

: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.br/2012/12/a-pivotal-question.html

It would be nice to know of other people's views on this!

I agree that there are few absolutes and exceptions apply, one of which might be that if you need to pivot during that portion of a step when the heel first touches, there may be no need to wait for the ball of the foot to touch and shift the weight before the pivot.
I disagree with this:
“Now pivot on the heels to the opposite direction and throw another reverse punch.
After you get used to the (rather odd) sensation that you are pivoting on the heels (and once you work out the exact sequence of which foot pivots at which point), you'll quickly see that the weight of your entire body is being thrown behind the punches. The force (what people call "power") is quite considerable and is thrown rather effortlessly. Now try the same thing, but pivot as people usually do – ie. on the balls of the feet. The first thing you'll note is that it feels far less "powerful". Why? It's very simple really: your punch is going one way, and your heels are being pulled back in the opposite direction – ie. away from the punchI'm confident that if you focus on how much of your bodyweight is being thrown into your opponent, you'll have no doubt that the heel pivot is far, far more productive in this exercise than a ball of foot pivot. There is really no comparison”
I believe the premise is flawed, although the observation is correct. We often see this example of what I consider poor technique in for example stationary walking stance punches for those using “Sine Wave” and lifting their rear heel and setting it back down, as they punch. Their body does in fact move rearward as they punch forward. What should happen and can be found if you search some “Closed chain Linking” info is that as the rear heel is raised, that leg’s knee must bend. The bend in the knee is not just important to absorb forward motion as the heel is raised, and therefore negate rearward motion as the knee straightens and the heel drops, but that is what employs the musculature of the legs to help generate power in the punches. Numerous boxing articles address punching power coming from the legs.

 

[Metal]

-- Once we're talking about KKW standards, and I've been crescently interested on that (and the differences between KKW's choices and other styles'), I'd be very pleasured if you (or other MT members) could point out good sources about those subjects in detail. Maybe the most recent Kukkiwon Textbook (I just haven't purchased it yet) should be the best source? And are there any other good sources? Most I've found just don't go into the details I needed to know, or just are lost amid the change of ways between hyeong and pumsae.

Now I see those changes of kinectics you mentioned definitely happened in my dojang, and probably in most dojangs around my country (and new instructors were generally teached in the old ways, and have been passing them on). I have no problem with that, but I just wanted to know what was the standard.

Well, I would go for the Kukkiwon Poomsae DVD set, eventhough it's been around for a couple of years and therefore isn't up to date with the latest WTF-Poomsae-Competition keypoints. The basics are still the same though.

All those are on the Kukkiwon Education website http://taekwonedu.kr/ , too. The videos can be watched for free there.
Maybe you already ran across them on YouTube since several users uploaded them:

Furthermore there's an iPhone/iPad app of those videos. As an in-app purchase each Poomsae video is $0.99:

https://itunes.apple.com/app/kukkiwon-taekwondo-poomsae/id515217449?mt=8


There's also an official WTF app for the iPhone which includes free videos.


Books are nice to learn the stances, diagrams and names of the techniques. For the right kinetics the only way is to watch the details of Poomsae and practise them with an instructor.

 

[sopraisso]

I agree that there are few absolutes and exceptions apply, one of which might be that if you need to pivot during that portion of a step when the heel first touches, there may be no need to wait for the ball of the foot to touch and shift the weight before the pivot.
I disagree with this:
“Now pivot on the heels to the opposite direction and throw another reverse punch.
After you get used to the (rather odd) sensation that you are pivoting on the heels (and once you work out the exact sequence of which foot pivots at which point), you'll quickly see that the weight of your entire body is being thrown behind the punches. The force (what people call "power") is quite considerable and is thrown rather effortlessly. Now try the same thing, but pivot as people usually do – ie. on the balls of the feet. The first thing you'll note is that it feels far less "powerful". Why? It's very simple really: your punch is going one way, and your heels are being pulled back in the opposite direction – ie. away from the punchI'm confident that if you focus on how much of your bodyweight is being thrown into your opponent, you'll have no doubt that the heel pivot is far, far more productive in this exercise than a ball of foot pivot. There is really no comparison”
I believe the premise is flawed, although the observation is correct. We often see this example of what I consider poor technique in for example stationary walking stance punches for those using “Sine Wave” and lifting their rear heel and setting it back down, as they punch. Their body does in fact move rearward as they punch forward. What should happen and can be found if you search some “Closed chain Linking” info is that as the rear heel is raised, that leg’s knee must bend. The bend in the knee is not just important to absorb forward motion as the heel is raised, and therefore negate rearward motion as the knee straightens and the heel drops, but that is what employs the musculature of the legs to help generate power in the punches. Numerous boxing articles address punching power coming from the legs.

Master Weiss, I completely agree on the importance of legs in generating power for punches highlighted by you (and not mentioned in the referred article, from what I remember), although I'm not completely sure if I understood fully your explanation (the sine wave part mainly, as I'm not used to that motion). It seems you point out that the reverse punch given in the example, when performed with good technique, should receive power from the extension of kness (previously bent), and this would work optimally if the turn was on the ball of foot instead of heel, right? This is definitely a very interesting view, and opens another window of thought in my mind on this particular subject -- that in my opinion is very thought-provoking and deserves a lot of attention of martial artists. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, and please give me some feedback if I didn't understand well your point.

Well, I would go for the Kukkiwon Poomsae DVD set, eventhough it's been around for a couple of years and therefore isn't up to date with the latest WTF-Poomsae-Competition keypoints. The basics are still the same though.

All those are on the Kukkiwon Education website http://taekwonedu.kr/ , too. The videos can be watched for free there.
Maybe you already ran across them on YouTube since several users uploaded them:

Furthermore there's an iPhone/iPad app of those videos. As an in-app purchase each Poomsae video is $0.99:

https://itunes.apple.com/app/kukkiwon-taekwondo-poomsae/id515217449?mt=8


There's also an official WTF app for the iPhone which includes free videos.


Books are nice to learn the stances, diagrams and names of the techniques. For the right kinetics the only way is to watch the details of Poomsae and practise them with an instructor.

Thank you so much, Metal.
Yeah, I've seen the videos on YouTube, indeed...
As for practicing with an instructor, I'm afraid I won't have that opportunity for some time, once the instructors here still use basically the pre-poomsae methods previously mentioned. But the info the folks here provided me have already been highly valuable. Anyway, doesn't Kukkiwon Textbook go any deeper on the kinectics part, or at least answering my original questions (on performing the crescent step instead of straight one, and on the turning/pivot issues)? If it doesn't, I really don't think I should purchase the book.
As for the videos of poomsae, I'll look carefully at the website you provided -- maybe there could be something that I haven't seen yet, and maybe I might buy the DVDs.