I have a love/hate relationship with the I-shape forms

[SirKicksAlot]

Most of the time, I or the instructor would be demonstrating the technique before the students are expected to execute. Monkey see-monkey do is a very effective communication method. And in the rare cases where there isn't a demonstration first (such as testing), students should be able to figure out from context and from additional clues what exactly I'm looking for.

When you will teach the side kick in your art, will you require everyone to conform to the way you perform the side kick, or will everyone be able to just side kick as they were taught in a previous art? Some may have a rising leg side kick, some a thrusting side kick, some will chamber high at hip aiming at target, some will chamber on opposite inner knee. Will you have a "standard" side kick or will you accept any type of side kick people choose to perform? What I am getting at is if you teach a new student how to do a roundhouse kick, but then some of your transfer students start correcting that student and saying, "back in my old art, we did things this way." It would create a ton of confusion and little conformity. So if you will teach a standard technique, the transfer people would have to learn your way of doing it, so why not just put your own specific name on it? Otherwise it will be a free for all of techniques all with the same name.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Monkey see-monkey do is a very effective communication method.

Effective but since there are 3 types of learners, Visual, Auditory and Tactile, (Although people generally learn all 3 ways some are weaker / stronger in different areas) this only targets visual learners and can provide an issue for auditory learners.
It may be also difficult to - especially for newer students, a student 3 rows back, or someone who just learned a technique differences from what is demonstrate versus what they already now. In the system I practice, there are similar kicks such as Side Piercing / Thrusting, Downward/ Vertical, Reverse hook / turning, Downward / Pick Shape etc.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Much of this problem can be solved the old Okinawan way - Just have fewer kicks:

1. low kick
2. lower kick
3. slightly higher kick

OK, I guess that should wrap things up.

 

[SirKicksAlot]

Much of this problem can be solved the old Okinawan way - Just have fewer kicks:

1. low kick
2. lower kick
3. slightly higher kick

OK, I guess that should wrap things up.

Seriously, I am looking for an art like this. Don't mean to divert the thread, but tell me about kicking in Isshin Ryu. How many kicks, which ones are trained, etc.

 

[skribs]

Effective but since there are 3 types of learners, Visual, Auditory and Tactile, (Although people generally learn all 3 ways some are weaker / stronger in different areas) this only targets visual learners and can provide an issue for auditory learners.
It may be also difficult to - especially for newer students, a student 3 rows back, or someone who just learned a technique differences from what is demonstrate versus what they already now. In the system I practice, there are similar kicks such as Side Piercing / Thrusting, Downward/ Vertical, Reverse hook / turning, Downward / Pick Shape etc.

What I mean is, if someone sees me do a basic front snap kick, they're not going to assume I mean to do a jump spinning hook kick.

At beginner levels, details are less important. Muscle memory with the basic movements is more important, the details can be refined later. At advanced levels, students should be capable of doing a technique close to what I want, and then I give them feedback so they can get closer to what I want.

There will be visual, auditory, and tactile learning involved. I'm just not specifically pattern matching that you have to do it the same way I say it every time. If I do that, then I very quickly limit the amount of people who can teach based on who can memorize specific vocabulary. I'd lose out on instructors with a high degree of conceptual understanding that may not have precise terminology. I'd also get people focused more on memorizing the vocabulary than on improving the technique.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Seriously, I am looking for an art like this. Don't mean to divert the thread, but tell me about kicking in Isshin Ryu. How many kicks, which ones are trained, etc.

The main kicks within the curriculum/doctrine (often done while grabbing the opponent):

front snap kick to groin/bladder
jumping/double front kick
downward thrusting side kick to knee
oblique thrust kick to inside thigh (if opp. is in rt. lead, your rt. sole is the weapon, sort of like a horizontal stomp).
(Can also be used as a stomp to knee or instep when in very close range.)
side snap kick
knee strike

others:

roundhouse kick to body
back kick
inside crescent

There are no flying, spinning or head kicks in the system, although sport competition has altered tactics in modern karate. Use of kicks will vary from school to school.

 

[skribs]

Much of this problem can be solved the old Okinawan way - Just have fewer kicks:

1. low kick
2. lower kick
3. slightly higher kick

OK, I guess that should wrap things up.

This is Taekwondo, and there is a heavy emphasis on kicks. It's easier to have a particular vocabulary if that vocabulary is much smaller in scope. In TKD, you typically have front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick, hook kick, axe kick, and crescent kick. Then there's variations of kicks by the type of kick, combination, or footwork you're doing. I could easily have 40+ terms applied to kicks alone.

 

[SirKicksAlot]

Thanks for the info. Will be doing some more research on Isshin Ryu.

This is Taekwondo

I know you had mentioned kicks, strikes, grappling, throws as part of your art, will you still classify it as a form of TaekwonDo?

 

[skribs]

I know you had mentioned kicks, strikes, grappling, throws as part of your art, will you still classify it as a form of TaekwonDo?

Every Taekwondo school I've been to has had some form of kicks, strikes, and grappling.

Pretty much every Taekwondo school on the planet is going to have some type of kicks and strikes, because at the very least every set of forms has kicks and other strikes in them.

Most TKD schools are going to have some form of grappling, even if it's just basic throws and joint manipulation as part of the self-defense portion of class. I plan to go much more in-depth than any other TKD school I've been a part of, but that doesn't make it less TKD because I'm adding more to it.

 

[SirKicksAlot]

Almost every single TaekwonDo school I have trained at or visited only had patterns, one-steps, self-defense, breaking, and free sparring. Maybe I am just older or live in a different part of the country. The grappling in TaekwonDo would seem like a new addition by instructors realizing how inadequate TaekwonDo is for self-protection. There are some books by Richard Chun from the 70s/80s with some grappling and the Kukkiwon is putting together some new grappling stuff, but I have never seen it in a dojang. Now, I have seen grappling in Hapkido. There is a great Hapkido school I trained at that taught Hapkido and Judo. The hapkido program incorporated Judo throws and grappling, not so much all the small joint locks common in other hapkidos. along with TaekwonDo strikes/kicks.

 

[HighKick]

What I mean is, if someone sees me do a basic front snap kick, they're not going to assume I mean to do a jump spinning hook kick.

At beginner levels, details are less important. Muscle memory with the basic movements is more important, the details can be refined later. At advanced levels, students should be capable of doing a technique close to what I want, and then I give them feedback so they can get closer to what I want.

There will be visual, auditory, and tactile learning involved. I'm just not specifically pattern matching that you have to do it the same way I say it every time. If I do that, then I very quickly limit the amount of people who can teach based on who can memorize specific vocabulary. I'd lose out on instructors with a high degree of conceptual understanding that may not have precise terminology. I'd also get people focused more on memorizing the vocabulary than on improving the technique.

I agree in part. Trying to include excessive details early on can be a hinderance for most people, but there are fundamentals that should never be ignored. There is nothing worse than trying to teach someone how to relearn a technique that they have already engrained incorrectly.

Learning is never going to be uniform in a classroom full of people, so an instructor should expect to teach every person different, at least at times. Yes, we can drill together but this is Much more than an instructor barking numbers. And this is a Great gauge to measure an instructor's teaching abilities. If all they do is count and seldom correct or get frustrated when they correct, OR correct poorly, these are bad signs.

At the end of the day, you can call a kick whatever you want I suppose, as long as you are consistent with your naming convention. But there is already a fairly standard naming convention for most all styles, so I don't know why someone would try to reinvent the wheel. Tweak it? Sure.

 

[skribs]

When you will teach the side kick in your art, will you require everyone to conform to the way you perform the side kick, or will everyone be able to just side kick as they were taught in a previous art? Some may have a rising leg side kick, some a thrusting side kick, some will chamber high at hip aiming at target, some will chamber on opposite inner knee. Will you have a "standard" side kick or will you accept any type of side kick people choose to perform? What I am getting at is if you teach a new student how to do a roundhouse kick, but then some of your transfer students start correcting that student and saying, "back in my old art, we did things this way." It would create a ton of confusion and little conformity. So if you will teach a standard technique, the transfer people would have to learn your way of doing it, so why not just put your own specific name on it? Otherwise it will be a free for all of techniques all with the same name.

I missed this earlier, and now that I see it I want to comment on it.

I believe there are a few different factors that can affect whether a technique is "right" or "wrong".

1. Based on the specified details in the form or kata.
2. Based on the drill that's being performed.
3. Based on the rules that you are operating under.
4. Based on objective improvements of what works and what doesn't.
5. Based on the pros and cons of the current read.
6. Based on the individual, such as their rank, ability, etc.

Depending on what you're doing at the moment, one or more of the above will apply. Let's take that side kick.

If we are doing a side kick in a form (which I do have a few in my forms), then the details of the side kick will be specified in the form. I will also have more details expected of a black belt than a blue belt, of a 3rd degree black belt than a regular black belt. If someone comes in from outside, learns my form well enough to teach the steps to the students, and then I see him teaching the "wrong" side kick, it's an easy fix. Talk to him, tell him the details I expect for this form, and then we can correct the students down the road. Most of them probably aren't going to do it exactly his way or my way anyway, so it's a pretty easy fix.

If we are doing a drill where a certain version of side kick is best, that's the version we'll use. Some are faster, some are stronger. Some pierce more, some push more. If an instructor has a particular version they use, they should be able to explain why they use that version and for what situation it's better. If they say, "You shouldn't use the footblade, you should use the heel, because at my old school we used the heel", that's not an acceptable correction, and I will talk to them about it. If they say, "Footblade is good for breaking boards, looking good in forms, or for targeting specific areas like the throat, but the heel is better for digging into the solar plexus which is what we're doing right now", that is good.

In my experience in BJJ, coaches are constantly saying things like:

• Professor does this X way, but I do it Y way, because it works better for me, because of Z.
• I do this way, some people do that way. Try both and see which works better for you.
• This is the best way of doing it, but if you're not flexible here's a modification.

Nobody gets confused when they do this. In fact, it helps out. My professor is 6'3, and there are some things that my 5'5 self can't do the way he does. But I partner with a woman who's 5'4 and she has versions of the technique that work a lot better for me.

Sometimes it's about the read. Let's change to a spinning side kick (where you turn the hips over) or a back kick (mule kick). In many TKD schools, one of these is "correct" where the other is "incorrect". To me, it's about reads. The spinning side kick has longer range and hits angled targets better. The mule kick is better in short range and on squared targets. To only teach one as "correct" means the other one because "bad" and people feel bad for using it, when it is in fact a great version of the kick in the right scenario.

There are times where things are objectively wrong or bad, and could be improved. For example, if you side kick with your toes. At the white belt level, things like this are more important than where exactly the foot is placed during the chamber.