Kukkiwon certification

[skribs]

The 'vagueness' and indeterminate nature of things not specifically involved with competition (forms/sparring) has been an ongoing theme which I have never understood it.

This is what I have a concern about. Forms/sparring seem very well defined, quality controlled, and universally accepted. The other stuff...not so much.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Only right hand punch attacks are done. I questioned this on the master course in 2016, whether it was definitely right hand only and if so why; and they said "yes, right hand only. 95% of attacks on the street are a right hand punch, so we train 100% of the time for the common attack. If we didn't, we'd have to split 50:50 to get both sides trained well, and then we're training too much for an uncommon attack for it to be natural. Also, if someone attacks left handed, you'll naturally deal with it, even with basic techniques, once you've got used to someone trying to punch you and defending it, even if you're used to the other hand".

This is contradictory in itself. Either you are training for right hand because that's the most likely thing you'll have to train for, and spending time training for the left hand is 'wasted time', or it doesn't matter which hand the attack comes from if the defense works.

If you're making the second claim, then it ultimately shouldn't matter if you train for attacks from the right or left hand, and no time would be wasted training for the wrong one.

If the first is true, then you're acknowledging the second claim isn't since that's the whole reason you're only training the one side. Also, you're playing a probability game-either you get attacked from the right side, in which case 100% of the training time was useful, or you get attacked from the left side, in which case 0% of it was useful, and ou spent all that time for nothing.

I also have a lot of doubts about the 95% number, for two reasons. 1) 10-12% of the population is left-handed, so if you took that at face value, the number would be 88-90% of the time, which is enough IMO to train for the uncommon version. 2) We shouldn't take it at face value, since that assumes we are getting attacked from someone head on. That's ignoring that people can jump out at you from behind, the right or the left side where you don't see them, or with multiple attackers that one of them will end up on the left side. Which should even out the numbers even more, dropping it further from 90% right-handed/right-side (from attackers viewpoint) attacks.

 

[skribs]

I also have a lot of doubts about the 95% number, for two reasons. 1) 10-12% of the population is left-handed, so if you took that at face value, the number would be 88-90% of the time, which is enough IMO to train for the uncommon version. 2) We shouldn't take it at face value, since that assumes we are getting attacked from someone head on. That's ignoring that people can jump out at you from behind, the right or the left side where you don't see them, or with multiple attackers that one of them will end up on the left side. Which should even out the numbers even more, dropping it further from 90% right-handed/right-side (from attackers viewpoint) attacks.

Or, as I said: a jab.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Or, as I said: a jab.

Yup. I responded before reading that reply.

 

[dvcochran]

This is contradictory in itself. Either you are training for right hand because that's the most likely thing you'll have to train for, and spending time training for the left hand is 'wasted time', or it doesn't matter which hand the attack comes from if the defense works.

If you're making the second claim, then it ultimately shouldn't matter if you train for attacks from the right or left hand, and no time would be wasted training for the wrong one.

If the first is true, then you're acknowledging the second claim isn't since that's the whole reason you're only training the one side. Also, you're playing a probability game-either you get attacked from the right side, in which case 100% of the training time was useful, or you get attacked from the left side, in which case 0% of it was useful, and ou spent all that time for nothing.

I also have a lot of doubts about the 95% number, for two reasons. 1) 10-12% of the population is left-handed, so if you took that at face value, the number would be 88-90% of the time, which is enough IMO to train for the uncommon version. 2) We shouldn't take it at face value, since that assumes we are getting attacked from someone head on. That's ignoring that people can jump out at you from behind, the right or the left side where you don't see them, or with multiple attackers that one of them will end up on the left side. Which should even out the numbers even more, dropping it further from 90% right-handed/right-side (from attackers viewpoint) attacks.

Agree. Another numbers game I see at some schools it the high number of one-steps they do. We practice both sides and worry much less about knowing 55 different one-steps (the highest I know).

 

[dvcochran]

I thought about that a lot after being told it, and where I came down to is this:

Let's assume we wanted to train to defend either side punch we'd need to split the time 50:50. That gives us equal chances with either hand. Now, let's assume only one defence technique - we train them equally and all is well. However, students would get very bored very quickly and wouldn't bother (or masters wouldn't make them). So we have to have a good variety of them to stave off boredom. So now we're at "many" techniques and 50:50 split. If practicing a given technique many times makes it more natural/fluid, then we'd be wasting 45% of them on a hand that's unlikely to come. Given that an inward block (with either blocking hand to either striking hand) followed by a straight punch works, a 5% chance of a left hand defence has a working counter, and doesn't need the variety the other hand got so you don't just practice that one for many many hours. In reality the best defence to a punch is something super simple - parry and strike (and strike again if needed), all the other techniques are for interest and avoiding boredom.

So I kinda got on board... Even practicing 100% right handed will give you the reaction speed for a left hand punch coming, the most basic defence will come naturally, so no need to waste 45% of time, or reduce the syllabus lots in order to train both hands equally (given X hours in class you can fit in Y defence techniques if one handed defending or 1/2 of Y defence techniques if you want both hands equally).

But you are not just training both 'hands'. There are tons more stuff gained from working both sides. To name just a very few is foot/body work, stance/posture, balance/anatomy, recognition/reaction. This list goes on and on. Dismissing it due to boredom is just lazy and frankly lame.
I am certain it takes the average person longer to get a given technique correct from both sides than it does to learn two techniques on their favored side.

"If it was easy we would have little girls doing it for half the price." That is an old saying I have heard all my life. Sounds pretty stupid when I see it written down. That is pretty much how your explanation sounded.

 

[skribs]

I am certain it takes the average person longer to get a given technique correct from both sides than it does to learn two techniques on their favored side.

I would say the opposite. It takes quite a bit of time to learn one side correctly. Once you understand the theory, it's a lot easier to mirror it to the other side. I've probably handwritten less than 10 pages with my left hand in my entire life. Yet, my left-handed writing is much better than my right-handed writing was when I was in first grade. By then, I had been drilling writing for a couple of years. I am much better at throwing a ball with my left hand than I was as a kid throwing a ball with my right. And as a kid, I loved to play catch. It is much easier to adjust to left-handed training that is to learn it in the first place.

I'd argue it's easier to adjust 2-3 techniques to the left hand than to learn a single new technique with the right.

 

[dvcochran]

I would say the opposite. It takes quite a bit of time to learn one side correctly. Once you understand the theory, it's a lot easier to mirror it to the other side. I've probably handwritten less than 10 pages with my left hand in my entire life. Yet, my left-handed writing is much better than my right-handed writing was when I was in first grade. By then, I had been drilling writing for a couple of years. I am much better at throwing a ball with my left hand than I was as a kid throwing a ball with my right. And as a kid, I loved to play catch. It is much easier to adjust to left-handed training that is to learn it in the first place.

I'd argue it's easier to adjust 2-3 techniques to the left hand than to learn a single new technique with the right.

Does your school work both sides? I could see that viewpoint more from someone who works both sides.

You do not feel you are an exception, somewhat ambidextrous? I am very, very left handed. Even when my left arm was restrained for a couple of months to heal it did not make that much difference. I still have more trouble doing one-steps on one side. I would have to say my footwork is a (very) little better on the right side, because it is a right sided world but it is much easier for me to lead with my left hand.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do disagree that you would "figure out" how to do left-hand punch defense on the fly. I do agree it's easier to learn once you know right handed, but that's something to figure out in the safe environment of training, instead of on the street. I also find it odd for Taekwondo, since we train 50:50 in kicks and punches ourselves.

I agree that it seems a radical assumption. It can lead to both difficulties detecting left-hand attacks, and habits that leave openings for those.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I thought about that a lot after being told it, and where I came down to is this:

Let's assume we wanted to train to defend either side punch we'd need to split the time 50:50. That gives us equal chances with either hand. Now, let's assume only one defence technique - we train them equally and all is well. However, students would get very bored very quickly and wouldn't bother (or masters wouldn't make them). So we have to have a good variety of them to stave off boredom. So now we're at "many" techniques and 50:50 split. If practicing a given technique many times makes it more natural/fluid, then we'd be wasting 45% of them on a hand that's unlikely to come. Given that an inward block (with either blocking hand to either striking hand) followed by a straight punch works, a 5% chance of a left hand defence has a working counter, and doesn't need the variety the other hand got so you don't just practice that one for many many hours. In reality the best defence to a punch is something super simple - parry and strike (and strike again if needed), all the other techniques are for interest and avoiding boredom.

So I kinda got on board... Even practicing 100% right handed will give you the reaction speed for a left hand punch coming, the most basic defence will come naturally, so no need to waste 45% of time, or reduce the syllabus lots in order to train both hands equally (given X hours in class you can fit in Y defence techniques if one handed defending or 1/2 of Y defence techniques if you want both hands equally).

I don’t think a 50/50 split is necessary. I encourage students to “mix it up” in freestyle one-step drills. This results in something like 80% right handed attacks, which seems optimal.

 

[skribs]

Does your school work both sides? I could see that viewpoint more from someone who works both sides.

We train both sides for basic techniques and sparring. We don't train both sides for punch defense (with one exception: one belt we train defense against 2 punches, the second of which is a left-hand punch). However, in Hapkido, we are encouraged to train both sides for handgrabs once we've familiarized ourselves with the first side.

I do agree that specifically training for what's common is the best approach until you're comfortable with it. However, I think purposefully ignoring one side leads to that opening that @gpseymour said.

You do not feel you are an exception, somewhat ambidextrous? I am very, very left handed. Even when my left arm was restrained for a couple of months to heal it did not make that much difference. I still have more trouble doing one-steps on one side. I would have to say my footwork is a (very) little better on the right side, because it is a right sided world but it is much easier for me to lead with my left hand.

I could be. But we do train a lot of our stuff for both sides, and most students are able to work both sides.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is contradictory in itself. Either you are training for right hand because that's the most likely thing you'll have to train for, and spending time training for the left hand is 'wasted time', or it doesn't matter which hand the attack comes from if the defense works.

If you're making the second claim, then it ultimately shouldn't matter if you train for attacks from the right or left hand, and no time would be wasted training for the wrong one.

If the first is true, then you're acknowledging the second claim isn't since that's the whole reason you're only training the one side. Also, you're playing a probability game-either you get attacked from the right side, in which case 100% of the training time was useful, or you get attacked from the left side, in which case 0% of it was useful, and ou spent all that time for nothing.

I also have a lot of doubts about the 95% number, for two reasons. 1) 10-12% of the population is left-handed, so if you took that at face value, the number would be 88-90% of the time, which is enough IMO to train for the uncommon version. 2) We shouldn't take it at face value, since that assumes we are getting attacked from someone head on. That's ignoring that people can jump out at you from behind, the right or the left side where you don't see them, or with multiple attackers that one of them will end up on the left side. Which should even out the numbers even more, dropping it further from 90% right-handed/right-side (from attackers viewpoint) attacks.

I will also point out that since we don’t get to dictate the circumstances of when or where we might be forced to defend ourselves, there are simply a lot of unknowns in the mix. We might get attacked while holding an armful of groceries in the right arm, or while holding a baby in the right arm, something that cannot simply be dropped carelessly in the act of defense. So practice both sides, in my opinion. You will always have a stronger side, no doubt, but so what? You can do a lot to create a good deal of equality. The effort isn’t wasted, and some level of ambidexterity isn’t a bad thing. I think it’s a good exercise for the brain as well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I will also point out that since we don’t get to dictate the circumstances of when or where we might be forced to defend ourselves, there are simply a lot of unknowns in the mix. We might get attacked while holding an armful of groceries in the right arm, or while holding a baby in the right arm, something that cannot simply be dropped carelessly in the act of defense. So practice both sides, in my opinion. You will always have a stronger side, no doubt, but so what? You can do a lot to create a good deal of equality. The effort isn’t wasted, and some level of ambidexterity isn’t a bad thing. I think it’s a good exercise for the brain as well.

At the dojo where I trained the longest, it was common practice when injured to find a way to train safely with that injury, just for the experience of learning to adapt. So, if I had a pulled muscle in my shoulder, I'd practice without that arm (either tucked in the belt, or just hanging limply). If I had a finger injury, I'd practice not using that hand (but still using the arm, so useful only for blocking and leverage).

I'll also add out of casual observation that it's a bit unpredictable what we will choose not to drop/put down in the moment. I've seen people try to catch stumbling kids but not be able to because some random (relatively unimportant) item was in their hand and their brain couldn't process both "drop that thing" and "catch that kid" at the same time.

 

[skribs]

I will also point out that since we don’t get to dictate the circumstances of when or where we might be forced to defend ourselves, there are simply a lot of unknowns in the mix. We might get attacked while holding an armful of groceries in the right arm, or while holding a baby in the right arm, something that cannot simply be dropped carelessly in the act of defense. So practice both sides, in my opinion. You will always have a stronger side, no doubt, but so what? You can do a lot to create a good deal of equality. The effort isn’t wasted, and some level of ambidexterity isn’t a bad thing. I think it’s a good exercise for the brain as well.

Except we're talking about the response to the other person. Whether I have groceries in my right arm probably wouldn't affect whether my assailant uses a left punch or a right punch.

 

[dvcochran]

Except we're talking about the response to the other person. Whether I have groceries in my right arm probably wouldn't affect whether my assailant uses a left punch or a right punch.

I took Flying Crane's comment as how would a person be able to respond to an attackers initial action if the only hand they ever practice with is holding a child or bag of groceries.
Seems like a valid argument.

 

[Flying Crane]

Except we're talking about the response to the other person. Whether I have groceries in my right arm probably wouldn't affect whether my assailant uses a left punch or a right punch.

Fair enough, but I would say it’s the flip side of the same issue.

When you fight, do you use your right arm in a dominant way, with the left being used in a supporting role, regardless of whether the attack come in with a right or a left? If so, then it doesn’t matter which arm the attacker uses.

If you switch roles depending on the attack, then it does matter.

Or, if the infant is in your right arm when you are surprised with an attack, you may need to use your left arm as the only weapon, with the right arm unable to engage because it is holding the infant and you are turning that side of the body away from the attacker. So as I say, some level of ambidexterity is important, even though it will never equal your dominant side.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think both of you are hitting on it. You need to be able to defend with both sides of your body, against attacks from both sides of your body. So ignoring front/back dimensions, and connotations A for attacker, D for Defender, R for right, L for left....
1. AR -> DR
2. AR -> DL
3. AL -> DR
4. AL -> DL
That's four different possibilities that you've got to prepare for, and train for.

 

[Flying Crane]

At the dojo where I trained the longest, it was common practice when injured to find a way to train safely with that injury, just for the experience of learning to adapt. So, if I had a pulled muscle in my shoulder, I'd practice without that arm (either tucked in the belt, or just hanging limply). If I had a finger injury, I'd practice not using that hand (but still using the arm, so useful only for blocking and leverage).

I'll also add out of casual observation that it's a bit unpredictable what we will choose not to drop/put down in the moment. I've seen people try to catch stumbling kids but not be able to because some random (relatively unimportant) item was in their hand and their brain couldn't process both "drop that thing" and "catch that kid" at the same time.

I think this makes my point. If that object in your arms is an infant, you don’t want to drop it. You need to keep it safe. Dropping it is dangerous, all by itself. Dropping it in the middle of a violent attack could additionally leave it open to being stepped on or kicked or having a body land on it, further injurious. This leaves you fighting back in a handicapped way. So again, some level of ambidexterity would be a good thing.

My earlier experience with Tracy Kenpo included a lot of self defense combinations designed against specific attacks. The theory in most of the Parker-derived Kenpo lineages, is that since most people are right handed, the system is designed so that the right hand is used in a dominant way and the left hand is used in a supporting role, regardless of which attack you are defending.

But this meant that a defense against a left punch was a different choreography from a defense against a right punch, in order to stay consistent with that theory. I, however, was in the habit of practicing all these combinations on both sides, doing the mirror image of the “right-handed” original, as a left handed. So those combos designed against a right punch, I would switch and do the mirror image against a left, and vice-versa. This made a lot more work for me, but on balance I felt it had merit.

I never considered it beyond that, it was simply what I did. It wasn’t until I started having conversations with people online that I began to get pushback on that. Some people feel that you don’t practice the mirror image, because it violates the “most people are right-handed” theory. I don’t trust that theory to pull me through, however. And I could never seem to get an answer to the simple question of, what about when you are holding an infant in your right arm, and your left is the only thing you can work with? Nor could I get a satisfactory answer to the question, what about a left-handed person learning the system, for whom the entire system would be awkward if it were only practiced from the right-dominant perspective? So I simply chose to view each defense combo as a defense against a punch, not specific to one side or the other. You do both.

Ambidexterity is a good thing, even though it will never be equal to your dominant side. And the thought process that you need to engage in training that ambidexterity, is good for the brain. I stand by my conclusion.

I continue to engage in this way with my current training. Chinese forms are often lopsided, done from a “right-hand dominant” approach. I also practice my forms on the left side. I do this with empty hands and weapons. I train weapons basic technique on both sides, as well as the forms. I can do staff, spear, sword, and dao (big knife) forms either side. No problem. The left is not as clean as the right, but I am definitely functional.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think this makes my point. If that object in your arms is an infant, you don’t want to drop it. You need to keep it safe. Dropping it is dangerous, all by itself. Dropping it in the middle of a violent attack could additionally leave it open to being stepped on or kicked or having a body land on it, further injurious. This leaves you fighting back in a handicapped way. So again, some level of ambidexterity would be a good thing.

My earlier experience with Tracy Kenpo included a lot of self defense combinations designed against specific attacks. The theory in most of the Parker-derived Kenpo lineages, is that since most people are right handed, the system is designed so that the right hand is used in a dominant way and the left hand is used in a supporting role, regardless of which attack you are defending.

But this meant that a defense against a left punch was a different choreography from a defense against a right punch, in order to stay consistent with that theory. I, however, was in the habit of practicing all these combinations on both sides, doing the mirror image of the “right-handed” original, as a left handed. So those combos designed against a right punch, I would switch and do the mirror image against a left, and vice-versa. This made a lot more work for me, but on balance I felt it had merit.

I never considered it beyond that, it was simply what I did. It wasn’t until I started having conversations with people online that I began to get pushback on that. Some people feel that you don’t practice the mirror image, because it violates the “most people are right-handed” theory. I don’t trust that theory to pull me through, however. And I could never seem to get an answer to the simple question of, what about when you are holding an infant in your right arm, and your left is the only thing you can work with? Nor could I get a satisfactory answer to the question, what about a left-handed person learning the system, for whom the entire system would be awkward if it were only practiced from the right-dominant perspective? So I simply chose to view each defense combo as a defense against a punch, not specific to one side or the other. You do both.

Ambidexterity is a good thing, even though it will never be equal to your dominant side. And the thought process that you need to engage in training that ambidexterity, is good for the brain. I stand by my conclusion.

I continue to engage in this way with my current training. Chinese forms are often lopsided, done from a “right-hand dominant” approach. I also practice my forms on the left side. I do this with empty hands and weapons. I train weapons basic technique on both sides, as well as the forms. I can do staff, spear, sword, and dao (big knife) forms either side. No problem. The left is not as clean as the right, but I am definitely functional.

I personally just like the expanded options. I don’t think choreographed sequences are dependable as answers to specific attacks. The real benefit IMO is the flow from one movement to the next, so when an opening changes you have an answer. That approach calls for training drills more or less equally on both sides.

 

[Flying Crane]

I personally just like the expanded options. I don’t think choreographed sequences are dependable as answers to specific attacks. The real benefit IMO is the flow from one movement to the next, so when an opening changes you have an answer. That approach calls for training drills more or less equally on both sides.

I agree, which is a big reason I no longer train Kenpo. That, and the sheer number of them in the curriculum, it becomes very unwieldy as a system.

But for what it was, the practice on both sides developed a lot of comfort with all kinds of movement.