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

I used to think that you had to teach it perfect from the start.
I submit there is a difference between Teaching something perfectly and expecting it to be done perfectly.

I do agree that even a thirst man can't drink from a fire hose and that the most essential elements be communicated first with finer details to follow.
 
I submit there is a difference between Teaching something perfectly and expecting it to be done perfectly.

I do agree that even a thirst man can't drink from a fire hose and that the most essential elements be communicated first with finer details to follow.
But what is perfect? Which version of the technique, and why? Does the status of one version being perfect make the others less desirable, even in the situations in which they would be better?

I can vary my kicks for speed, power, or form. For the height or range I'm kicking. For how my opponent deploys their defenses. One thing that's been very clear in my training is that in a fight, searching for the perfect technique often leaves you with missed opportunities to have taken a "good enough" technique.

I don't agree that there is a perfect version of the technique for me to pick, which would then be a requirement for my students. I believe I can teach what's right for the given situation. And if that situation is that they are a white belt, there's not much to worry about.
 
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.
Can you elaborate on these? I am not certain I understand.

1.) Seems reasonable, but poomsae/kata are a bit more static in movement.
2.) Are we talking line drilling or sparring drills, etc...?
3.) This takes the conversation in a different direction, and a good one IMHO. Kicks do change in a dynamic environment, and person to person as well.
4.) This gets to the point of the matter to me. There is an objective standard for every kick A model. However, from person to person, nearly every kick may 'look' different. We are not identical lemmings.
5. Please clarify.
6. Please clarify.
 
Can you elaborate on these? I am not certain I understand.

1.) Seems reasonable, but poomsae/kata are a bit more static in movement.
2.) Are we talking line drilling or sparring drills, etc...?
3.) This takes the conversation in a different direction, and a good one IMHO. Kicks do change in a dynamic environment, and person to person as well.
4.) This gets to the point of the matter to me. There is an objective standard for every kick A model. However, from person to person, nearly every kick may 'look' different. We are not identical lemmings.
5. Please clarify.
6. Please clarify.
1 - Based on the specified details in the form or kata.
As you said, pretty self-explanatory. Not much information needed here. It's usually spelled out in a kata the details of a technique. For example, if you watch the Kukkiwon videos, they'll tell you how many fist lengths your hands should be from your belt in a number of techniques. That's a detail that matters primarily for the form.

2 - Based on the drill that's being performed.
Either. Or both. For example, if we're doing a double-tap kick of side kick - hook kick, which is designed to check the body and strike the head. The side kick needs to be a check or a quick snap with little follow-through. You can't do the Bruce Lee launch-a-guy-20-feet pushing side kick and then follow up with a head kick in the same motion. So the pushing side kick is wrong in this drill, even if it's a good technique in other contexts.

3 - Based on the rules that you are operating under.
I do mean a few things by this:
  • In TKD, a kick with the shin is often not allowed (or if allowed, doesn't score) where a kick with the instep is a scoring kick. So kicking with the instep is better in TKD, even if the shin is better or more correct in other arts (Muay Thai, MMA).
  • In TKD, our opponent isn't going to punch or elbow us in the face. The aggressive style of footwork and general lack of a high guard that's common in TKD works because we're mostly dealing with kicks. The same type of footwork and handwork can be very problematic in Muay Thai, where folks stand their ground to check kicks, and can throw short range attacks with relative ease.
4 - Based on objective improvements of what works and what doesn't.
As I said in a previous post, there are a lot of "right" kicks depending on the current situation. Let's take a roundhouse kick. Some are more of a chamber, some more of a swing. Some travel more diagonal, some go up and across. Some even come up and then down.

It's going to be generally bad to kick with your toes (unless you're wearing hard boots). It's going to be generally bad to do a roundhouse kick with the ridge of your foot or your calf. It's going to be generally bad to swing a straight leg, or to just let your foot freefall after executing the kick.

I can spell the word "color" or "colour", but I can't spell it "kulur". I'm not going to get wrapped up in if I teach "color" and my other instructor teaches "colour", but I will if they teach "kaewhtgrulllajaeghrrr".

If my instructor were to teach that you start a roundhouse kick by bringing your foot up straight behind you, and then swinging your leg in a wide circle to hit with the inside of your knee, that would be wrong just because it's bad technique. If my instructor were teaching a roundhouse kick with the ball of the foot, that's different than what I do, but not necessarily incorrect.

5 - Based on the pros and cons of the current read.
A simple example is the back kick (which travels straight back) vs. the turning side kick (which comes around at an angle). If my opponent is square to me, then kicking straight back works better. If my opponent is in a bladed stance, kicking at a slight angle (turning side kick) works better. It works better with the angles of the armor.

It can also be for things like what range they're at, where their guard is, what direction they're moving. If people do a high guard to block head kicks, I will do a roundhouse kick that starts angled high (to get their hands up) and then turns sharply in (to hit the ribs). It's not as fast or as strong as a dedicated body kick, but it's a lot more effective than a "correct" body kick that just hits the arm.

6 - Based on the individual, such as their rank, ability, etc.
Some folks just aren't going to do head kicks. So there isn't a version of a head kick that is going to be "correct" for them. But as part of a Taekwondo curriculum, they at least need to know the theory of how to do them, so that they can teach others.

Generally there are different levels of execution that are considered appropriate at different belt levels. For example, in my system:
  • A solid belt must be able to demonstrate the move step-by-step.
  • A white-striped belt must be able to demonstrate the move comfortably.
  • A black-striped belt must be able to demonstrate the move with speed, power, and precision.
Another example is forms, where the difference in a front stance is:
  • White belt - long stance, front knee bent, back leg straight, don't cross your feet
  • Blue belt - long stance, front knee bent directly over the foot, back leg straight, hips pointing forward, feet shoulder width apart
  • Black belt - feet shoulder width apart and double shoulder width long, front knee bent over the front foot, knee and foot pointed forward, back foot pointed 30 degrees, back knee straight, hips and shoulders at a 15 degree angle, shoulders relaxed, chin at a neutral level.
It's like clay. Start with the general shape, and then refine the details as you get closer to a finished product.
 
But what is perfect? Which version of the technique, and why? Does the status of one version being perfect make the others less desirable, even in the situations in which they would be better?
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
 
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
"Perfect" may be subjective, based on the observer's criteria (whether well-informed or not). A more combat oriented objective view of it may be:

1. Proper form, which leads to...
2. Proper biomechanics, which lead to...
3. Proper power, speed and overall execution, which lead to:
4. Combat efficacy of the technique for the intended purpose.

Expectations for #1 in some schools do not necessarily lead to #2. While this may be aesthetically "perfect" and require skill, IMO is not relevant in an MA context, placing form over function. It depends on the style's or school's particular goals in teaching the art.
 
IMO this is a non issue. To answer the "Which"? The perfect technique is the one done according to whatever is specified for that technique in the system practiced. To answer the "Why"? Hopefully there is some rationale behind the specification. (Also see item 3 below).

Now, I think most that follow this concept understand that specifications may not be achievable by all individuals, and situations may call for a variation. This specification serves several purposes. 1. It provides a metric for the student to learn and achieve. 2. It provides the observer / instructor a way to observe if the Metric has been learned and is achieved. 3. It may in fact also provide a really good point from which the technique can be morphed to suit any number of applications / situations.
My solution is anything with a metric goes in a form. If it's not in a form, it's not worth being as specific at the curriculum level. A big reason I want to create my own forms, and why I'm agonizing over how they're done.
 
Back
Top