judo... the gelntle way....

[lklawson]

I stated in a post not too long ago on the TKD forum that I believe what is taught as traditional blocking to be inefficient at best. Try me, I'll probably share many of the same perspectives.

The modern TKD/Karate block is misunderstood. It is a 2-part motion, a parry and repost. The "chambering" motion of the block is the actual block/parry. The part of the "block" where the arm swings back out from Tori's body is a counter attack, usually a back fist or hammer fist. Where modern TKD/Karate teaches the block as two moves with one goal: 1) Chamber back to the body 2) extend the arm and forcefully block. In reality it is two separate moves chained together 2) parry inward 2) backfist the sucker.

Jack Dempsey teaches a similar set in his book Championship Fighting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[dancingalone]

The modern TKD/Karate block is misunderstood. It is a 2-part motion, a parry and repost. The "chambering" motion of the block is the actual block/parry. The part of the "block" where the arm swings back out from Tori's body is a counter attack, usually a back fist or hammer fist. Where modern TKD/Karate teaches the block as two moves with one goal: 1) Chamber back to the body 2) extend the arm and forcefully block. In reality it is two separate moves chained together 2) parry inward 2) backfist the sucker.

Jack Dempsey teaches a similar set in his book Championship Fighting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

That's certainly one likely interpretation. The Okinawan Kempo people who follow from Motubu Choki Sensei lineage teach that one in their style. You may know that Motobu Sensei gained some infamy from his fight with a boxer which was written about in the twenties and would have been around Dempsey's peak years.

http://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Dtimes/Pages/articlec.htm

 

[lklawson]

That's certainly one likely interpretation. The Okinawan Kempo people who follow from Motubu Choki Sensei lineage teach that one in their style. You may know that Motobu Sensei gained some infamy from his fight with a boxer which was written about in the twenties and would have been around Dempsey's peak years.

It shows up earlier than that, late 19th C. is the earliest I've found, but Dempsey is the most famous.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Tani Otoshi is the "Valley Drop" in Judo. I think you're referring to Obi Otoshi.

I teach a pre-MoQ boxing version called the "Side Fall" where the throwing arm goes either behind Uke's back and grasps his opposite shoulder or comes across in front at the collar or neck. [edit: I'll try to post up a pic tonight]

Here. Hip and Shoulder throw from "Teacher of Sparring," Edwin Shaw, 1886

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[SPX]

That's a fine position to take, but, you realize of course, that it means you're tacitly agreeing with SPX? In effect, you're saying, "the horse stance as it is taught almost everywhere is wrong and you're right that it doesn't work in the context that most instructors claim it does."

In essence what it tells me is that no one REALLY knows. If we don't have a historical record that this technique was used in this way, or stances were used in that way, etc. then we really are just theorizing and trying to determine these things just by observing the system, applying logic, and drawing conclusions.

The other option is to believe that there is some handful of teachers who have had the "true knowledge of Karate" (or whatever martial art) passed down through an unbroken chain from the founder to instructors who are active today.

I remember when I first heard about Iain Abernethy, I thought what he is doing for Karate is quite interesting, but again, my first question was how is he getting his information? Is he pulling it from some historical record or just inferring it by examining the kata? If it's the latter, as it appears to be, then he's just guessing. He doesn't REALLY know. But with that said, don't take that to mean that I don't think that what he is doing is good. I think it's very interesting and useful, in fact.

 

[lklawson]

I remember when I first heard about Iain Abernethy

I've interacted with him a bit. Nice fella.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Cyriacus]

It is starting to consume more and more time to reply to these, so forgive Me if I seem less enthusiastic.

Round these parts, most martial arts are taught how to defend against a similar attacker. TKD vs TKD, karate vs karate, judo vs judo. Partially becuase in competition that is what you are going up against, another practicioner of the same or similar art. Rare is any club that focuses on how to defend against an different style of fighting. Teaching kick defense against a grappler?

Is judo the be all and end all? No, but as an art that focuses on off balancing an opponent before throwing, locking or submitting them, it makes for pretty effective defense against other styles. Yes, the puncher can try to still punch at a judoka after he has been grabbed, but there wont be a lot of time before they hit the floor, and most strikes are not that effective if you dont have a solid base to strike from. The concept of kuzushi is a wonderful thing.

Much in the same way, could a good Puncher not out-Punch the Opponent from His Position, much like how a Judoka can continue to Grapple?

I'm not exactly a fan of TKD but, that said, aware of any TKD schools that teach a horse stance for sparring or one-steps. However, I have seen TKD sparring which teaches the students to keep their hands way, way down, not guard the head at all, and focus on kicking. I assume this is the sort of thing you're thinking of.

Reminds me of the early "Striking vs. Grappling" debates. Unless the other guy is a really good puncher and the Judoka is either exceptionally bad or very unlucky, the one or two punches he's likely to absorb closing range are not likely going to stop him most of the time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You pretty much described Sport TKD. And as for Horse Riding Stance in 1-Steps, thats their problem, if theyre going to do something that absurd in the manner suggested.

You wouldn't.

Huh? The commonly accepted conventional line of thought now has it that the Horse Stance is intended for training leg strength and endurance. Regardless, even in a confined space at close range, a Horse Stance is stupid. The only time it makes sense as a "Fighting Stance" is when you are turning your side to your opponent and moving linearly along the imaginary line connecting your feet. In the firearms world this is called "Blading the body" and in the Olympic Fencing community a modified version is used as the standard basic starting point. The goal is to minimize target area on the body and move central organs out of the opponents path but at the expense of forcing linear movement (front and back). Some old Kata have it as implied fighting "back against a wall" but I'm suspicious of that interpretation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

It is for Strengthening if its done alone. Done in Sparring, its meant to be a Side Stance or a Short Stance. And even then, its only for a singular attack. For example, were You to Knee Your Opponent, since Traditional TKD is based on Linear, Forward Movement, instead of moving back, You move into a Horse Riding Stance, then move into a better Stance.

I think what I'm saying is that there's a general disconnect in TMAs between how people train and how they actually fight. In training, a TDKist might use things like a deep front stance or reverse punches, but in actual fighting (or sparring) these same practitioners will resort to boxing-style handwork and a kickboxing-style stance and movement. You don't see any of that in judo. So that's my point about a more direct translation into practical application.

In Training, Deep Stances and Reverse Hip Punches are used in Drills to improve Body Mechanics. Then You Train Punching from the Shoulder, in a manner quite similar to Boxing. Youre looking at it as though Reverse Punch is the main rear hand punch, when in fact, its more of a drill for Shoulder Punching. Or as a Knockout Punch.

Hell, even KKW WTF TKD has a Fighting Stance that You just dont see in the Olympics, and that everyone therefore assumes isnt even there because they arent aware of it.

You see, this is another issue. With the TMAs many practitioners tend to take problem techniques and interpret them in a personal way, rather than their being a universal interpretation. Like yourself, I've heard the "leg strengthening" interpretation, but this is the first I've heard of the "close distance striking in confined space" interpretation. And I've been through a fair number of TKD and Karate schools throughout my life.

Furthermore, I've also never heard of the reverse punch interpreted specifically as a finishing move. In all the TMA classes that I've been in, it was just the way you're taught to punch.

Unlike Your examples, were getting these interpritations from the Head of the entire Organisation, who was one of the Original Founders of TKD. If an Instructor Misquotes His System, theyre corrected in a very timely manner. This is not My Interpritation. This is how an entire Organisation Trains throughout the Country.

And its unfortunate You didnt learn more about the Idealogy behind Reverse Punches.




*nods*

 

[dancingalone]

In essence what it tells me is that no one REALLY knows. If we don't have a historical record that this technique was used in this way, or stances were used in that way, etc. then we really are just theorizing and trying to determine these things just by observing the system, applying logic, and drawing conclusions.

Certainly. Even the historical information about karate (who taught whom, where things like dan ranks and do-gi came from, etc.) is only verifiable from about the early part of the 1900s or so. Beyond that it is all oral history if not outright mythology. As for the technical aspects of what was physically taught... well forget even that as karate was never a homogeneous thing to begin with and there's just not a lot of material written down by its practitioners.

The best we can do is to start recording our own training recollections/methodology down right now as best as we can remember it if this interests us. It is what it is.

The other option is to believe that there is some handful of teachers who have had the "true knowledge of Karate" (or whatever martial art) passed down through an unbroken chain from the founder to instructors who are active today.

That's really not the case either. Karate only began to be standardized into 'styles' in the last century. Given that understanding, it would be futile to start with an assumption that there is such a thing as 'true knowledge of karate'. And true to life, karate is an organic thing. Knowledge is constantly lost and added with each generation of student as students can never really understand everything to the same extent that their teacher did, and at the same it's entirely possible that a student may surpass their teacher is some fashion or in some facet. The idea of neatly packaging up everything you know and doling it out to one's students is appealing, but I believe this rarely comes to pass.