Kihap

[DArnold]

Surely this is not true as stated -- if it WERE true, then in all one-steps, there would be only the block (or parry, or avoid), and then only a SINGLE counterstrike. This is certainly not the case, though.

In my mind, TKD techniques can levy GREAT power, but as in American Kenpo thinking -- not every strike is a "major" strike. There are "minor" strikes as well -- strikes that do not seek to end it, right now.

Please do not let this thread die until the question is answered. My interest is piqued.

Yes, you are correct as there are things such as hooking blocks, pressing blocks... but the phylosophy of TaeKwon-Do is, "One punch, one kick finish"

Depending on my focal point I can vary what the result of the technique is based on my brain.

Has anyone ever told you that your techniques are tooooo powerful?

 

[newGuy12]

Yes, you are correct as there are things such as hooking blocks, pressing blocks... but the phylosophy of TaeKwon-Do is, "One punch, one kick finish"

Depending on my focal point I can vary what the result of the technique is based on my brain.

Sir, but, we have the one-step techniques which show:
1) We block
2) Then strike with the fist -- two punches
3) THEN KICK! --> Sidekick ---> BAM! That is it, the opponent will most likely stay down.

How can this sequence be taught if EVERY single strike was meant to be the final strike? The one-step sequence should terminate after the initial counterstrike, should it not? But it does not. This implies to me that the first two strikes "for lack of better jargon" --> "minor" strikes -- to set up for the final, most devastating impulse.

Has anyone ever told you that your techniques are tooooo powerful?

Regrettably, this has not happened yet. I have been told that I am too tense, to loosen up -- I must remain soft and not tensed until RIGHT at the end! But that of course, is not the same.

For what its worth (not to get off topic, I think it may add something) -- I was taught by an American Kenpo Instructor that many of their combinations are mean to be multiple strikes delivered NOT at full power. This idea was very strange to me. They will strike the opponent with less than full power, and in exchange, they have more rapid motion.

It seems to me that TKD has the CAPACITY to deliver strikes which end it. I have seen this, of course, there is no doubt in my mind. But, also, it seems that sometimes one must go back and forth until that opening is there. I have practiced with some who can seem to break the arms if you block their kick, they do not care if you block, you will get the broken arm if they kick full power! But those are not common TKD players, they are adept.

 

[cflick]

If every movement were a "finishing" movement then why are the forms as long as they are?

I don't believe that every movement is meant to stop a fight, sure all the movements in the bigger picture are.
But there are movements that are meant to draw off the opponents guard by "attacking" else where.
And there are also moves used to stun the opponent so you can better perform a "finishing" move.

 

[Bodhisattva]

If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??

Kihap doesn't add power...

 

[FearlessFreep]

Kihap doesn't add power...

Actually, it does, if done right. As I mentioned, you can measure the difference quantitatively.

That assumes tha a 'kihap' is just a loud breath exhalation from the diaphragm (meaning you don't need to be loud to get the same result.. that part can just be a mental help for yourself).

My understanding of the mechanics, from the offensive side, is that the exhalation of breath, from the gut, will help to tighten the core muscles. This provides better stability to the core of the body. Nnow if you think about striking something with an object, the stiffer the object, the more force will go into the target as opposed to reflected back through the object doing the striking. The mechanical linking goes all through the body, so a stiff, rigid core will allow less of the force to go back into your body, and therefor more force goes into the target. Which is coincidentally why core (ab) work is so important for generating striking power, the strong and stiffer your core, the more force into the target. The 'kihup' is just intended to tighten up your core at the point of impact.


If by 'kihap' you just mean "scream like an idiot" well... no... it doesn't help power : )

 

[jks9199]

I would think that in any system, there are stunning strikes and killing strikes. The "one-strike, one-kill" philosophy is more that you have a single opportunity to deliver the killing the strike, and must commit in that manner than the idea that each and every strike should be a killing shot.

 

[newGuy12]

I would think that in any system, there are stunning strikes and killing strikes. The "one-strike, one-kill" philosophy is more that you have a single opportunity to deliver the killing the strike, and must commit in that manner than the idea that each and every strike should be a killing shot.

To deliver the "ending strike" one has to focus entirely on that strike, no? At the expense of leaving open some area?

Surely one would not say that such a commitment would need to be made on every strike. What am I missing? I am not the only one here who feels this way.

 

[DArnold]

To deliver the "ending strike" one has to focus entirely on that strike, no? At the expense of leaving open some area?

Surely one would not say that such a commitment would need to be made on every strike. What am I missing? I am not the only one here who feels this way.

To further this along, in Kendo, if you did not Kihap on every move you are considered a coward. You may never show weakness to your opponent. You should fight with the ferocity of a Tiger and use all your weapons. (This is why they paint the inside of the headgear bright red or orange, so that when you are pale your face would not show fatigue... least your enemy be emboldend. And the above is but one reason!).

Another way they look at it is from the perspective of the Samurai you must give 100% all the time. Why on earth would you only give 80%... when that would mean certain death?

As for you comment on 100% focus on the strike, yes, that is correct. How good would you feel with 50% focus on your strike (Which is what you have if you focus on one other thing at the same time)

This was the phylosophy of Myumoto Musashi -Kensi - or Sword saint.
The only thing is the cut! Everything else is irrelivant.

And everyone knows that any time you attack you open up!

But what is the difference between a block and a strike but a state of mind?

 

[cy1982]

to me kihap is conditioning for exhaling in general.

Some people who has been doing Taekwondo for a longtime, might recall at one point in the past that also taking a hit and giving a kihap with a exhaling to reduce a hit damage to the core.

Try keeping your breath in and get kicked.
than try it with normal breathing.
than exale right on the mark when you get hit.(obviously flexing the muscle on all 3 tests)

you dont have to kihap, but exhaling will increase power, just like weight lifter who also need to exhale(which give a special "kihap").

If you lift weights tell me if you remmeber this scenario.
Your doing your 3 or 4 sets, and your on your last set of 8(or whatever you do) reps, and your so tired, but so determined to finish that last dumbell bicep curl, it just wont go up you try and start to grind your teeth and what to do you do? you problably GRUNT\ARGH or EEEEEH, and voila you made itor you made it more than before that grunt).

 

[myusername]

Every white belt struggles with Kihapping (the self concious thing is the number one reason)

You should think of it as a technique that needs to be practiced. It is no differnt than a punch or a kick. I teach my students that by blue belt they need to be able to stop someone with a Kihap!

Thank you DArnold, I think it is probably the self conscious thing inhibiting me. I'm not a loud person and kihapping feels weird! I'll try changing my perception of it as you suggest and train it like I would any other technique as I'm sure if I don't get it sounding less false then it will become a problem in gradings! The last thing I want is for my instructor or examiners thinking I'm being disrespectful!

 

[newGuy12]

Why on earth would you only give 80%... when that would mean certain death?

To give the combination -- I maintain the base well -- one, two,... at the ending strike, if TRULY going for full power (in the dynamic -- in the "freesparring") -- it is quite possible to overcommit, to lose the base, is it not?

So, say, with the first two (or some other number, to lead up), one, two... these are fast motions, maybe I can unsettle the opponent, if I can make them go back on their heels or lose their base, this is good... then, we have -- BAM! Some powerful motion, hopefully to kick them out of the area, displace them. I wish to make them MOVE now, I endow them with energy with a turn-back-side-kick, perhaps.

I must be misunderstanding something. It seems very plain to me, you can give some smaller strikes from time to time, not full power, because you do not wish to chance overcommitment. You wish to strike and then recover VERY FAST as you advance, where to commit FULLY to any one strike would take more time to recover the guard.

But, no one has answered the question -- why is the yell not given on each strike.

 

[newGuy12]

To give some VERY BIG motion at the beginning can be dangerous. If this motion is quite overt, then the COUNTERATTACK can be the ending strike, it can be very strong.

So, I feel leary to give a very big motion from the initial position, when the exchange starts.

Say, if we -- She-Shack! Start! And I then give one VERY BIG roundhouse kick, thinking only -- I will finish this now -- I will give a knock out NOW! Then, maybe yes, maybe no. The opponent may give a very good counter attack. What if he does jump spinning side kick and gives it to me good in the solar plexus. I might not get up so fast!

 

[FearlessFreep]

To give some VERY BIG motion at the beginning can be dangerous. If this motion is quite overt, then the COUNTERATTACK can be the ending strike, it can be very strong.

So, I feel leary to give a very big motion from the initial position, when the exchange starts.

Say, if we -- She-Shack! Start! And I then give one VERY BIG roundhouse kick, thinking only -- I will finish this now -- I will give a knock out NOW! Then, maybe yes, maybe no. The opponent may give a very good counter attack. What if he does jump spinning side kick and gives it to me good in the solar plexus. I might not get up so fast!

perhaps it would help to define terms? Is a 'strike' equal to a 'technique'? Or is a 'strike' equal to an 'exchange', if you will?

For example, there are some front side techniques (both with hands and feet) that I can see doing with 100% force that I have no illusion that they would end the fight (although it would be nice if they did : ), but when part of a sequence of techniques together (an exchange), the goal and intention is to end it.

 

[newGuy12]

perhaps it would help to define terms? Is a 'strike' equal to a 'technique'? Or is a 'strike' equal to an 'exchange', if you will?

For example, there are some front side techniques (both with hands and feet) that I can see doing with 100% force that I have no illusion that they would end the fight (although it would be nice if they did : ), but when part of a sequence of techniques together (an exchange), the goal and intention is to end it.

You can tell me. I do not know.

I take it that "one strike, one kill" means there is not a combination of strikes. Who needs the combination if one strike (one punch, one kick) gives the knock out? It is over.

 

[DArnold]

You can tell me. I do not know.

I take it that "one strike, one kill" means there is not a combination of strikes. Who needs the combination if one strike (one punch, one kick) gives the knock out? It is over.

You talked about multiple strikes above but made the assumption that the last strike was the finishing blow.

What if it is only the first strike that gets in but alas... because you do not practice with the theory I stated (One kick, one punch, finish) then the entire series you started would be a waste of energy.

This is why every technique is thrown/practiced as a finishing technique (unless you could guarantee that the third one will always land - :ultracool)

The only difference in fighting a master and a white belt is focus... nothing else. Otherwise you are wasting time.

 

[newGuy12]

The only difference in fighting a master and a white belt is focus... nothing else. Otherwise you are wasting time.

I only have this power that I have, and my focus only, which is not the focus of a Master Instructor. I know very well that I cannot strike with the fist one time and surely make the opponent stop and give up.

It is possible for me to do, if I land the punch right on the solar plexus and it is in the "ideal phase", but this is not something that I can bet on, no. Also, when I think in my brain, or "without thinking, but doing it":

Left-right punch (combination)
Side kick (right foot)

I consider left-punch to be a punch, but even if it is blocked, it can "make noise" -- this is at least as "good" as a feint -- I can also "fake" this. Right hand punch is more strong. I commit more, because I also do not distinguish so much the punch and the kick, the motion will blend.

The motion of the waist turning a little for the side kick is already commenced with the right punch -- they are not so seperate.

The side kick -- this can be seen as the BIG motion -- it is not a joke if it lands.

This is my way of seeing this -- I do not seek to interact with the opponent with only one motion. I am not a Master Instructor, and would not think, "I will give only one motion". Instead, I wish to do three, but as one, with the BIG one counting more. I hope to land the kick more than the punches, of course. If the opponent is in the punching range, I hope to make him move BACK -- into the kicking range.

 

[newGuy12]

If a Kihap adds power to a move then why not Kihap on every move??

I hope that we have some kind of agreement on this. I am confident that NOT all motions are meant to "end the fight" in the hyung.

 

[cflick]

I hope that we have some kind of agreement on this. I am confident that NOT all motions are meant to "end the fight" in the hyung.

Of course otherwise they'd be more like one steps!

 

[Errant108]

Kihap is not shouting.

 

[newGuy12]

Kihap is not shouting.

Do you mean by this that you exhale powerfully on each motion, but silently, instead? And by that, you, in essence kihap on each move, but only silently?

My idea of the kihap includes an audible sound.