dvcochran
Grandmaster
Taeguek 5 and Batsai Dai are similar in that they both have a lot of inside/outside blocks. We do start our blocks from belt level ready hand but we also stop the block past centerline.
Fun thread - if I were to do my kata in your style, how would it look?
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
One thing we used to do was a "lunging sidekick" where you throw a back leg side kick to the opponent's body as your base foot slides forward with the motion of the kick. It's more of a floater than a lunge, but that's what we call it. You can increase the distance of your normal back leg side kick by several inches to several feet. And you have to have good timing to do it.
It's pretty good against anyone who moves straight back away from you because they don't like dealing with your feet (kicks) or against anyone who stays away from you because you're the stronger fighter, or against anyone who likes to circle in a rhythm you can measure. It's really nice against anyone who doesn't kick as well as you.
It's great against boxers with no Martial training. And great against beginners, but that's hardly fair to do to them. It's great against chumps.
In self defense it's great if you do it well and you were using it as a first strike sucker shot against a guy who thinks he's out of reach. You can also use it as more of a push than a kick, and it makes for a really good push. I'm talking ash over tea kettle kind of push. And that push is nice in the dojo if you don't want to really crack em' but you do want to shake em' up a bit. Just beware of windows and floor objects.
One thing we used to do was a "lunging sidekick" where you throw a back leg side kick to the opponent's body as your base foot slides forward with the motion of the kick. It's more of a floater than a lunge, but that's what we call it. You can increase the distance of your normal back leg side kick by several inches to several feet. And you have to have good timing to do it.
It's pretty good against anyone who moves straight back away from you because they don't like dealing with your feet (kicks) or against anyone who stays away from you because you're the stronger fighter, or against anyone who likes to circle in a rhythm you can measure. It's really nice against anyone who doesn't kick as well as you.
It's great against boxers with no Martial training. And great against beginners, but that's hardly fair to do to them. It's great against chumps.
In self defense it's great if you do it well and you were using it as a first strike sucker shot against a guy who thinks he's out of reach. You can also use it as more of a push than a kick, and it makes for a really good push. I'm talking ash over tea kettle kind of push. And that push is nice in the dojo if you don't want to really crack em' but you do want to shake em' up a bit. Just beware of windows and floor objects.
We use a standing sidekick and a skipping side kick.
Also will skip forward and chamber the sidekick and then continue forward with backhand or jab followed by a reverse punch or straight punch.
When you can make both setups look identical it just makes it a guessing game....is it the kick coming to the body or punches coming to the head?
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
- Thread Starter
- #26
One thing we used to do was a "lunging sidekick" where you throw a back leg side kick to the opponent's body as your base foot slides forward with the motion of the kick. It's more of a floater than a lunge, but that's what we call it. You can increase the distance of your normal back leg side kick by several inches to several feet. And you have to have good timing to do it.
It's pretty good against anyone who moves straight back away from you because they don't like dealing with your feet (kicks) or against anyone who stays away from you because you're the stronger fighter, or against anyone who likes to circle in a rhythm you can measure. It's really nice against anyone who doesn't kick as well as you.
It's great against boxers with no Martial training. And great against beginners, but that's hardly fair to do to them. It's great against chumps.
In self defense it's great if you do it well and you were using it as a first strike sucker shot against a guy who thinks he's out of reach. You can also use it as more of a push than a kick, and it makes for a really good push. I'm talking ash over tea kettle kind of push. And that push is nice in the dojo if you don't want to really crack em' but you do want to shake em' up a bit. Just beware of windows and floor objects.
Things like this are part of why I think the rear leg side-kick is valuable to learn.
Plus, it's the same basic footwork as a rear leg front kick, roundhouse kick, or ax kick, which fits perfect with our beginner kicks.
In my style (meaning in the way I teach forms), the major change would be a move away from the "snapshot". I actually discourage pauses, because (as I've learned from the "one-step" Classical forms in our style) those pauses tend to turn into a break in the mechanics of the movement in grappling, and that's hard to fix once it's a habit. So I teach students to choose their pause if they need one, and to vary them. For testing, I expect a smoother flow, pausing only where it actually would make sense in execution (a pause at the end of a kneeling throw makes a bit of sense, so I'll allow it).
You'd also see a wider variety of execution. Sometimes the point is to flow without stop. Sometimes the point is to pause at every balance point. Sometimes it's done in "phrases", flowing from major pivot to major pivot. And if 3 students were practicing at the same time (but not in unison), you could see three different - but correct - executions at once. With multiple students performing in unison, it tends to go back to the technique-pause-technique cadence, because the smoother/more experienced students have to wait for the newest to make the movement and catch up.
I think John's point is that the pauses - those snapshots - are like the square wheel. It has a move-stop-move cadence. Other arts have more of a movethroughtothenexttechnique cadence, where there's no real separation between the individual techniques and one end movement is also the beginning of the next move. This is actually the way I prefer to see the forms I teach.
While I tend to agree that "style" is not a clear delineation and is mostly a construct of our minds, so is the art. We - humans - like to classify. It gives us a shorthand for discussing things. My NGA is very different from many people's, so I gave it a style name. But it's all just NGA to me. When folks ask what I teach, it's NGA. When I'm describing the differences, I refer to Shojin-ryu.
I think the same is basically true of Karate. As people took the art in different directions, people needed an easy way to refer to those directions, so they all ended up with names. (Some of those names came out of marketing and ego, but I'll argue the larger part is our need to classify.)
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,881
- Reaction score
- 541
I would offer that fighting is an instinct, and so is preparation for fighting.
This doesn't mean some arts are purely an exercise in mental construction... in fact i would say a great many are.
Yellow bamboo would be a prime example.
And a few are a blend of mental creation, inspiration, observation and systems of performance tested integration (war and combat application).
classification serves a purpose indeed. its divisive.
It's not always divisive. I know quite a few folks in Karate, for instance, who quite like to discuss the strengths from other styles (besides their own), and try to learn from folks in those other styles. That those other styles are identifiable is helpful to them. If I want to learn the flow common in Goju, then it's helpful that there's a name for that style, so when someone tells me they study Goju, I can ask questions specifically about that. Just knowing someone studies Karate doesn't give me nearly as much information, so I'd need to spend more time digging before I could get to the best questions for me.
Style distinctions can be divisive, but that's because some folks make them that way. They can also be informative, because some folks make them that way.
RTKDCMB
Senior Master
Great for parking on hills.
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,881
- Reaction score
- 541
.. i didnt mean it in that sense ..
What i meant is more like...
categories and boxes... sorting.
Dividing this from that. More divisive in that sense.
Not the "turn one person against another", usage of the word.
Its kind of like the generic and the specialized.
Goju practitioners specialize in a subfield of karate.
Shuri practitioners specialize in a different subfield of the same karate.
Uechi Ryu practitioners specialize in a subfield with a lot of overlap with the Goju subfield. They are both classified as NahaTe.
They are all the same, in essence. But each has distinctives and approaches, the other may not.
The old masters used to talk about the mountain.
They spoke thusly,
Different traditions climb the mountain in different ways or spots, but upon the zenith of the mountaintop, everyones view becomes the same.
But sometimes people just use labels and descriptions that don't actually delineate anything concrete. And that just muddies the water.
Last edited:
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,881
- Reaction score
- 541
One thing we used to do was a "lunging sidekick" where you throw a back leg side kick to the opponent's body as your base foot slides forward with the motion of the kick. It's more of a floater than a lunge, but that's what we call it. You can increase the distance of your normal back leg side kick by several inches to several feet. And you have to have good timing to do it.
It's pretty good against anyone who moves straight back away from you because they don't like dealing with your feet (kicks) or against anyone who stays away from you because you're the stronger fighter, or against anyone who likes to circle in a rhythm you can measure. It's really nice against anyone who doesn't kick as well as you.
It's great against boxers with no Martial training. And great against beginners, but that's hardly fair to do to them. It's great against chumps.
In self defense it's great if you do it well and you were using it as a first strike sucker shot against a guy who thinks he's out of reach. You can also use it as more of a push than a kick, and it makes for a really good push. I'm talking ash over tea kettle kind of push. And that push is nice in the dojo if you don't want to really crack em' but you do want to shake em' up a bit. Just beware of windows and floor objects.
Its exactly what some of us call an entering technique. Against an unsuspecting opponent a good clean entering technique (such as a sliding sidekick) should and could end the fight.
The other entry that, i think is preferable: the leaping, spinning back kick... with a backfist telegraph.
Its a long game move, but it doesn't have to be.
Bruce Lee would call it #4 Progressive Indirect Attack in his 5 methods of attack.
Throw a number of spinning backfists. It doesnt matter if they connect or not.
Get to outside distance, setup like your intent is to throw another spinning backfist.. but when you leap in/step across the backkick slides right under their guard which is expecting a backfist.
This has worked 97% over 30 years. But it has very low replay value against the same sparring partner.
Unless, they have short attention spans, or easily distracted. lol.
Last edited:
dvcochran
Grandmaster
I was about to write a similar post. I like the rear leg side kick either as an entry like you said or a follow up kick.One thing we used to do was a "lunging sidekick" where you throw a back leg side kick to the opponent's body as your base foot slides forward with the motion of the kick. It's more of a floater than a lunge, but that's what we call it. You can increase the distance of your normal back leg side kick by several inches to several feet. And you have to have good timing to do it.
It's pretty good against anyone who moves straight back away from you because they don't like dealing with your feet (kicks) or against anyone who stays away from you because you're the stronger fighter, or against anyone who likes to circle in a rhythm you can measure. It's really nice against anyone who doesn't kick as well as you.
It's great against boxers with no Martial training. And great against beginners, but that's hardly fair to do to them. It's great against chumps.
In self defense it's great if you do it well and you were using it as a first strike sucker shot against a guy who thinks he's out of reach. You can also use it as more of a push than a kick, and it makes for a really good push. I'm talking ash over tea kettle kind of push. And that push is nice in the dojo if you don't want to really crack em' but you do want to shake em' up a bit. Just beware of windows and floor objects.
Often I can throw it just to get their arms down and then continue with the same leg to the head with a hook or roundhouse.
I also use it as a second kick after an entry with the lead leg, usually doing the opposite and getting their arms high for a body shot with the side kick.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
I an not sure what you mean about the footwork being the same. The mechanics of a side kick is very different from the ones you mentioned.
This would describe my advanced forms. My beginning ones, as most martial arts, have repeating movements. My advanced forms focus on the techniques taught at that particular rank (not previous ranks), with a series of movements being performed once and then on to another set of completely different movements.
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
- Thread Starter
- #38
Front kick - pick up rear leg, do front kick, land with that leg in front of you.
Roundhouse kick - pick up rear leg, do roundhouse kick, land with that leg in front of you.
Side kick - pick up rear leg, do side kick, land with that leg in front of you.
Ax kick - pick up rear leg, do ax kick, land with that leg in front of you.
At the intermediate level we throw in step-behind side kick, which is a lot more practical. But at that point we're introducing more complicated footwork, like turning side kick (we call it back kick then, and later smooth out the edges to separate turning side kick from back kick), jumping kicks, and using steps to set up the kick.
Star Dragon
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 39
Thought-provoking topic!
I have been studying the 108-movement form of Old Yang style Taiji for quite awhile by now, which is essentially comprised by a singular continuous (full body) movement from beginning to end, including footwork and stances, which are also done in a rather fluid manner with constant shifting.
This is of course way different from what I was taught in Shotokan (when I started walking the martial path), whose forms are rather reminiscent of the TKD approach shown above (and indeed had a strong influence on the latter, of course).
These days my principal art is Parker Kenpo, a style that (as some of you surely know) allows for endless variations in pretty much any of its aspects, but that generally emphasizes circular and continuous motion much more than Japanese styles of Karate. And this holds true especially for my own preferred way of performing the art (including its forms), which is strongly influenced by my Taiji studies.
Still, my Kenpo forms look different from Taiji: Stances are more distinct, even though there are plenty of transitional ones. Hand techniques are typically done in fluid combinations, although I do make sure that each is delivered with adequate focus and power. Even linear techniques tend to be rounded off.
So if you were to do above form in my way, most of all the arm techniques would not be locked out as much; they would have more of a 'springy' quality to them, and with smoother transitions from one to the next.
The individual techniques would look a bit different too. Most notably, the stances wouldn't be quite as low.
I don't emphasize very high kicks, as I don't consider them practical for self-defence situations, although I have seen real-world examples of them being used to great effect. A typical Kenpoist's comment would be: "Sure we kick to the head... Once the adversary is lying on the ground!"
However, I integrate plenty of Karate-like kicks at least to the mid-section in my personal interpretation of Kenpo, and I generally believe in having a great variety of skills at one's disposal, therefore I would have no particular problem with you kicking King Kong's head of.
Also, done in a Kenpo way, some of the blocks would be prefixed by transitional blocks and covers respectively. Optionally, slaps to the performer's own body and stomps (both employed as power generating mechanisms) could be added.
I have been studying the 108-movement form of Old Yang style Taiji for quite awhile by now, which is essentially comprised by a singular continuous (full body) movement from beginning to end, including footwork and stances, which are also done in a rather fluid manner with constant shifting.
This is of course way different from what I was taught in Shotokan (when I started walking the martial path), whose forms are rather reminiscent of the TKD approach shown above (and indeed had a strong influence on the latter, of course).
These days my principal art is Parker Kenpo, a style that (as some of you surely know) allows for endless variations in pretty much any of its aspects, but that generally emphasizes circular and continuous motion much more than Japanese styles of Karate. And this holds true especially for my own preferred way of performing the art (including its forms), which is strongly influenced by my Taiji studies.
Still, my Kenpo forms look different from Taiji: Stances are more distinct, even though there are plenty of transitional ones. Hand techniques are typically done in fluid combinations, although I do make sure that each is delivered with adequate focus and power. Even linear techniques tend to be rounded off.
So if you were to do above form in my way, most of all the arm techniques would not be locked out as much; they would have more of a 'springy' quality to them, and with smoother transitions from one to the next.
The individual techniques would look a bit different too. Most notably, the stances wouldn't be quite as low.
I don't emphasize very high kicks, as I don't consider them practical for self-defence situations, although I have seen real-world examples of them being used to great effect. A typical Kenpoist's comment would be: "Sure we kick to the head... Once the adversary is lying on the ground!"
However, I integrate plenty of Karate-like kicks at least to the mid-section in my personal interpretation of Kenpo, and I generally believe in having a great variety of skills at one's disposal, therefore I would have no particular problem with you kicking King Kong's head of.
Also, done in a Kenpo way, some of the blocks would be prefixed by transitional blocks and covers respectively. Optionally, slaps to the performer's own body and stomps (both employed as power generating mechanisms) could be added.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
To answer the OP, if his kata were done according to Tibetan White Crane principles, hand techniques would show much more emphasis on rotation of the torso with more exaggerated withdrawal of the other hand. Kicks would more likely be front kicks. See my recent video posts to get an idea of what it would look like.
Regarding some of the debate on whether or not there is a true distinction between one style and another, the way I see it is that fighting is fighting. But what makes one style different from another is the methods used to drill and practice the principles and the techniques. Techniques may be the same, kata may be the same, principles and concepts may be the same, but the specific way that people go about practicing them distinguishes one style from another.
Honestly I feel that our methodology could be overlaid on top of most curricula and it could largely work and be functional. The specific codified curriculum is less important and isn’t what makes the distinction.
Regarding some of the debate on whether or not there is a true distinction between one style and another, the way I see it is that fighting is fighting. But what makes one style different from another is the methods used to drill and practice the principles and the techniques. Techniques may be the same, kata may be the same, principles and concepts may be the same, but the specific way that people go about practicing them distinguishes one style from another.
Honestly I feel that our methodology could be overlaid on top of most curricula and it could largely work and be functional. The specific codified curriculum is less important and isn’t what makes the distinction.
Similar threads
