Matt and Kevin, good points.
Kevin,
In regards to lineage and the strictest execution of a form and how you would be forced to pick a specific time period. While I see your point, I think they would be closer than that. I see that there would be differences, but I suspect the differences would be due to external factors and individual bodies. If armor shape and positioning changes over the centuries, the exact positioning of the arms, hands, etc. will change to match in the executuon of the technique. But the concept and how to execute beyond the physical changes will remain the same. If the armor covers the neck, the hand may cover the lower face. If the armor stops at the top of the chest, the hand may cover the neck. But the hand will be in position at the top of the armor, wherever that may be.
Matt,
I agree with the thinking warrior vs. robot. I'm looking at an ideal in specific movements, not a robotic repetition of a series of movements. Let me give an example, which will also expand on my point to Kevin.
Lets look (for the moment) at a Tae Kwon Do front leg thrust kick (as opposed to snap kick). The "Ideal" (as I understand it) is as follows:
1. Shifting weight to the rear leg, square the hips to face the target. This maximizes the range and potential angle the kick can be fired at.
2. Raise the kicking leg, foot aimed down with the toes pulled up. Lifting flat and positioning afterwards slows the kick.
3. The knee should be raised so that it points directly up to the ceiling. This extends the glute for maximum power and removes the ability of the target from guessing where the kick is aimed.
4. The foot, ankle and calf should be locked into position forming a perfectly solid unit. being relaxed below the knee prior to kicking increases speed, but tighten before firing the kick, in case the target moves in, changing the timing. A rigid foot 3/4 extended at impact does damage. But a relaxed foot extended 3/4 at impact damages the foot or ankle.
5. contract the Gluteus Maximus and the quadricept to forcefully extend the foot forward in a thrusting motion aimed at the target. Lower the knee to point directly at the target as the foot extends, ending in a straight line from hip to toe to target.
6. As the foot starts to make contact, shift the hips pushing the kicking hip forward, adding the power of the hips and rear leg into the kick.
7. Maintain correct upper body posture, as hunching or pulling away saps power from the actual kick.
8. Raise the knee back to the ceiling, pulling the foot back under the knee. This removes the foot from being grabbed, and allows a second kick to be fired if necessary.
9. Lower the foot to the ground.
Now, a variation might be taught "point at your target with your knee." But this reduces the power to only the quad, since the glute is already in position by aiming the knee at the target rather than higher. Not ideal or truly acceptable.
A PERSON might raise their knee to point at the head, rather than the ceiling, because they are not limber enough to go all the way up. This is an attempt to reach the ideal, and an acceptable adaptation. As long at the ideal of "knee as high as possible" is taught to the next generation.
A different variation might be taught, where the kick looks the same, but no mention of the rotated hips is made. This is not acceptable, because a large addition of power is lost.
A PERSON might lift and instead of squaring hips, pull the kicking hip BACK and simply square at the moment the ideal says to rotate forward. This is due to a weak leg, or perhaps a poor sense of balance, or some other issue with hip positioning.This is less than the ideal, because the kicking leg is not 100% in line with the target, until the moment of impact; meaning if the target moves, less range of motion is available to compensate in mid-kick. It is acceptable, because a rotation is happening, adding the desired force. The kicker will be limited in responding to some opponents, but have a successful kick. The key is that the knowledge be taught to the next generation, as well as the correct, ideal positioning. If a student asks, explain the change, why it was done and explain the reason the ideal is correct.
So, over years and generations, specific kicks will look different, but the IDEAL remains the same. Anyone from any age can look at a front thrust kick and identify what it is, what is accurate or different about it and be able to tell if the student has been taught correctly, regardless of their EXACT execution.
So, how the kick is used, when it is used, what follows the kick, etc. are the thinking warrior's skill and abilities. But the execution and the ideal are always the same. Not Robotic, simply correct and expected.
Sport (point sparring) people will drop the rotating hips, because they are rushing for multiple kicks, and 100% potential power is not needed. They might also simplify to just point at head, since the extra motion higher and back down is slower with "wasted" motion and the head is high enough to hit any lower point when actually fired. But, while the variation is the ideal for point sparring, that is not the ideal for a traditional power kick. So, their ideal will be different, because it has a different purpose. Any traditionalist will see the kicks and call them sloppy. Especially when they see an entire school doing it, showing it is a style, not a personal adaptation. But a traditionalist can leave any studio in any city and find another studio that is quality simply by watching to see how the kick is performed by the majority of the students. (and vice versa for a sport fighter. If the kicks always point at the target, they know the students are not being taught to "hide" the aim, allowing them to be predictable abnd easily blocked.)
Does that help illustrate my theory about techniqe and the ideal we should all be striving for, regardless of what style? There is not ONE perfect kick. There is ONE perfect kick for a specific style based on the goal and desired outcome of the kick.
