Kicking with a punch

[YoungMan]

And that is a mistake. Changing the technique due to your inability only shortchanges you and your students, because bad technique then gets passed along to future generations who are unaware that they are learning a corruption of the original.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen black belts doing incorrect technique because their instructor was doing it wrong and passed it to them. They don't even know it's wrong. Then when you show them correct technique, it's like it's the first time they ever saw it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting though, I have never heard it described as a "punch," but I suppose there are many different ways of doing things. From what I have been taught (and this is just my personal experience - so don't take it as gospel... not that anyone would), it is a backfist technique, and it is not intended to strike anything.

This makes no sense. The esoteric explanation that follows does not negate the fact that the kicker has left themselves wide open to a counter attack with one hand down by the waist and the other extended far out doing nothing. If a person did this to me while we were sparring or in a fight and they missed or I jammed the kick, I'd knock that person's head off.

There are much better ways to kick. Better ways to protect yourself then this.

While we can adapt, and modify these applications for variations of grabbing an opponent's body, blocking other attacks, or striking while kicking, there is no hidden meaning in the Taekwondo Poomsae by specific intent of their creators. It is a side kick, with a reactionary motion of a backfist extended over the leg, and the opposite hand drawn to the hip. Placing the other hand in a guard position is one option for combat, but it is not the move being practiced in Taekwondo Taegeuk (or Palgwe for that matter). Self defense applications of grabbing, or secondary hand strikes are optional add-ons with intermediate and advanced training.

There probably isn't any hidden meaning because the creators didn't know what they were copying. In karate, when you see a hand technique or a kick performed at the same time, this is a powerful self defense sequence with both hands actually performing something important. You are still covered and on guard at all times and you are neatly dispatching your assailent.

There's no point to practicing TKD poomsae (other then as a martial dance) if they are filled with meaningless moves that are actually quite dangerous if attempted for self defense.

There has got to be a better explanation. Something that gives it more meaning.

 

[FearlessFreep]

There has got to be a better explanation. Something that gives it more meaning.

My assumption has become more and more that taeguek forms are not intended as self-defense exercises but rather technical exercises.

Try doing a form with opponents and look at the distances, motions and forces involved and it starts being...odd. Look at Taeguek Il-Jang. High block-Front Kick-Punch. Think about how close someone has to be in order to use a high block as a defense. That's pretty close... so how are you supposed to front kick them from that range? Now think of the other motion pairing... front kick-punch. If the range is appropriate for a front kick than it's already a little far for a punch and the kick is going to force it out even more... So the whole high block-front kick-punch sequence in taeguek il-jang just doesn't really work as a complete sequence. High block-punch-front kick makes more sense as far as distance, force and movement. Try doing it with someone. Try having someone stand in a location where they can actually strike at you in an angle where the high block is an appropriate defense and then go through the motions with the other person responding and moving appropriately for the forces of the strikes.

A similar example from Taeguek Chil-Jang is the backfist-crescent kick combination. If you backfist someone in the face, especially with any sufficient power, their head is going to move in the opposite direction... how are you going to get your hand behind their head in order to brace the head for your crescent kick?

Added to that, the emphasis in the taegueks is square shoulders and square hips, which is really... really a bad idea when fighting someone. I mean look at anyone sparring, in taekwondo especially but any other fighting sport... square shoulders and square hips are a way of say "blast me..I'm wide open", so why do the taegueks stress that body position?

I think that if the taeguek forms are intended to teach self-defense, they have a rather unrealistic viewpoint of what would actually happen.

Which is why I don't think taeguek forms are inherently about self-defense. I believe they are technical exercises for basic techniques, stances, self-control, self-awareness, balance, etc...

So back to the original question, if you view the Taeguek Oh-Jang sequence of "High Block-Sidekick/Punch" as an artistic expression of physical motion and an exercise in balance and technique, it's pretty good. If you look at it as a practical combat sequence, then I think you have to be inventive; you either need to invent some modifications to the technique-as-described to make it useful, or you need to invent some pretty... unrealistic... scenarios to argue the applicability.

 

[bluekey88]

The highblock/kick/punch combo from Taeguk Il-Jang can work. The best interpretation I've seen involves this sequence as a defence against some sort of lapel or front shoulder grab.

The High block is a forearm strike to the neck or below the chin, driving the head up and back. The kick is not towards the midesction (too close at this range) but rather a low front kick aimed at the knees. This furthere destabilizes the opponent. As the forearm strik retract to chamber it wraps the head and the punch is then delivered to an exposed solar plexus (as the opponenet will probably face-up at this point) although could be done to the neck or spine if the opponent is face-down.

Peace,
Erik

 

[bluekey88]

One more thing I forgot to add. The chamber position for the high block (arms covering torso) is also a part of the technique. The top arm (the one that will chamber with the high block) can be use to break the release of the lapel grab (done as a quiick strike forcing the grip in the direction of the knuckles...very effective clothing grab release). This then clears the way for the high block to gain some momentum for the strike.

Peace,
Erik

 

[FearlessFreep]

One more thing I forgot to add. The chamber position for the high block (arms covering torso) is also a part of the technique. The top arm (the one that will chamber with the high block) can be use to break the release of the lapel grab (done as a quiick strike forcing the grip in the direction of the knuckles...very effective clothing grab release). This then clears the way for the high block to gain some momentum for the strike.

Peace,
Erik

Yeah, I was showing some similar uses of the preparation as parts of grab escapes to some other students last weekend. It also works for a same-side wrist grab

 

[exile]

My assumption has become more and more that taeguek forms are not intended as self-defense exercises but rather technical exercises.


I think that if the taeguek forms are intended to teach self-defense, they have a rather unrealistic viewpoint of what would actually happen.

Which is why I don't think taeguek forms are inherently about self-defense. I believe they are technical exercises for basic techniques, stances, self-control, self-awareness, balance, etc...

Bluekey has made some nice observations in this regard, and I think the jury should remain out till Simon O'Neil's forthcoming book on combat-effective bunkai for the Taegeuks comes out this spring, which (as I understand it) is the plan. O'Neil's Combat TKD newletters, and his 2006 article in Taekondo Times (absolutely the best article I've ever read there) are really about applications inherent in the taegeuks, and his analyses are both plausible and scarily effective/realistic. I don't recall him discussing the actual combat intentions behind the simultaneous punch/kick movements there, but something about that may well be in the book when it appears.

One big problem is that it's not completely clear just what the combat interpretation of the kick part of some of these movements is supposed to be. I've mentioned elsewhere that in the SMK version of Eunbi, derived from Empi, the full-extension mid/high front snap kicks correspond to knee strikes in Empi, whose realistic bunkai indicate that such knee strikes are setups for a hold+groin-targeted punch combination (ouch!!:uhohh. If you turn them into high front snap kicks, the whole interpretation has to change along with the revision. This is one reason why I've felt for a long time that to get 'clean' applications for many of the kicking moves in the TKD forms, we need to get a better picture of the original karate sequences which supplied the 'prototype' for these sequences in the Korean forms (as is the case with almost everything in the Palgwes, and quite a bit of the Taegeuks, as O'Neil takes some pains to demonstrate). Seeing just what the 'source' movements were, in connection with the kicking techs, would give us a better idea of how much was driven by clear combat intention, and how much by a kind of stylistic 'über-rule', as in the Empi ---> Eunbi development. Upnorth's view of things is fairly bleak on the degree to which a coherent combat scenario was involved, and I'm personally inclined to go with his take on this, in spite of the fact that, e.g., foot2face has produced some very interesting 'reverse-engineered' bunkai for some of these sequences.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that the answer to the OP question may well be that if the coordinated kick/punch movement represents the result of what I've called a J-to-K 'translation' rule based strictly on certain stylistic requirements ('all leg techs are kicks, and all kicks are mid-to-high'), there is no well-thought-out rationale for the simultaneous kick/punch movement...