Record what you can do

[wab25]

There are two problems with this line of thinking, though.

1. How do you decide what is enough variance of the technique that it becomes something new?
2. How do you codify and present the variations? (This may be more of an artificial problem, but we'll get to that in a minute).

Variances vs. New Techniques
This is what I hinted at in my post above. Are the long-range hook and mid-range hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Are the lead hook and strong hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Right there, you could have 1, 2, 2, or 4 techniques, depending on how you break it down. And different people break it down in different ways.

You can take a lot of techniques and find similarities between them. The front kick and roundhouse kick are pretty darn similar, except that a roundhouse kick includes a pivot that the front kick doesn't. The back kick and spinning hook kick also start off very similar to each other, it's only the final strike that's different. Going the other direction, I know several different wrist locks that we tend to call "wrist lock" but they are fundamentally different from each other in execution. A front snap kick and a front push kick are also very similar (and usually both called "front kick") but executed very different from each other.

You could probably take this to the extreme and just lump every strike under one technique, since physics is the same for every strike. It doesn't matter if it's a knee, a foot, an elbow, a fist, a shoulder, hip, or forehead, the principles of how to generate force don't change from strike to strike.

• You want to use as hard of a surface as possible to strike with
• You want to put your weight behind the strike
• You want to accelerate your strike before hitting the target
• You want to follow through after hitting the target
• You want to strike your target on a vital point that's going to inflict maximum pain, damage, or disruption

Where do you draw the line? Where should others draw the line? Is there any particular reason why your line is "right" and theirs is "wrong", other than what you say?

Codify and Present
One of the issues that I see on a lot of TMA videos is this idea that what isn't presented isn't known. We have one fellow on this site who very much falls into that category (but I'm not going to call him out specifically), where if you don't present every variation of the technique and every way of adapting it, he assumes you don't know it at all.

Now, the simple solution here is just to ignore people like that, but in spite of how stupid the points they're making are, they say them with such conviction that a layman might assume they're right.

Let's say you demonstrate a technique, but you don't demonstrate every variation of the technique. Someone may see that as a hole in your training or curriculum, instead of just something that wasn't included for the sake of time. Of course, now that I think of it, that may happen no matter how you categorize them, as the commenters wouldn't know of your naming convention.

I find it interesting to ask the question: Why? When I look at an art, any art, they have a set of things that they teach and a method to teaching them. So, why do they teach those things, instead of other things? And why do they teach them that way?

Many people look at Karate and go through the Katas to see what Karate teaches. They treat the Katas like a dictionary of techniques that are Karate. That is wrong on many levels. The Kata are pretty terrible as a dictionary of Karate... it does not have all the combinations, all the variations or even all the techniques. Its worse, they list the same technique over and over and over again.

So, why were certain things included? Why were things grouped the way they are? What were they trying to transmit?

Its not a matter of being "right" or "wrong." The different arts are saying different things, in different ways. None of them are saying "Here is a catalog... memorize it." If you consider the total number of techniques that exist and the total number of variations and the total number of combinations and the total number of entries and the total number of finishes... you don't have enough time in your life to do them all, let alone get any repetition. Even if you did them all... how do you apply them?

Each art has a unique view on how to solve the problem. Understanding why they picked a certain set of techniques, why they grouped them the way they did... can go a long way to helping you understand what you are supposed to be learning from it. Yes, memorization has its place... its the very first step. Once it is memorized, and you don't have to think about what comes next.... you can now start to study it. Whether it is a 50 step kata / form or 4 step grap, lock, takedown, finish or a one step hip throw. There are reasons why Karate teaches 50 step katas and Judo teaches 1 step techniques. You can learn a lot be figuring out what those reasons are.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Each art has a unique view on how to solve the problem.

It doesn't matter what style that you train, the basic principle to solve a certain problem should still be the same.

What should you do when your opponent

- bear hug you from behind?
- bear hug you from the front?
- shoot at your leg?
- give you a head lock?
- ...

 

[JowGaWolf]

The following clips contain a lot of information. If you can create a clip like these, you have contributed to the MA world big time.

I like this kind of clip. Just do it. no talking.

Your thought?

Completely agree. If "masters of the fighting arts" could have recorded on video, they would have. They used the materials of record keeping that were available and all of that stuff is confusing if you are new to it.

Stuff like this is only useful if you know the kata already.

 

[wab25]

It doesn't matter what style that you train, the basic principle to solve a certain problem should still be the same.

What should you do when your opponent

- bear hug you from behind?

First off, the different arts solve this issue in many different ways. A simple look through youtube will show you many arts different takes on the solution to the bear hug from behind. My question still stands though... Why does Kung Fu solve the bear hug this way, and TKD that way and Judo some other way?

Further, its the wrong question to ask: how to solve bear hug from rear? Then you have to ask about bear hug from the front, from the side, from the diagonal, pulling you, pushing you, lifting you... right hand over left, left hand over right... the list gets way too long.

All of the martial arts I have spent any time studying, have avoided making a list of situations and then matching a technique to it. There are too many situations and too many techniques. Rather, they have picked a set of strategies and tactics that they develop. If you properly develop the right tactics and strategies... then you can adapt those tactics and strategies to whatever situation you find yourself in. They do pick situations to work from and techniques to use... but the idea here is to teach those core principles, tactics and strategies... such that the student can learn to apply those in any situation.

You also have to factor in the goal. Not all arts have the same goal. Is your goal to kill the other guy? Disable him? Knock him out? Choke him out? Submit him or escape?

There is a lot more to learn than just memorizing which technique goes to which situation.

 

[dvcochran]

First off, the different arts solve this issue in many different ways. A simple look through youtube will show you many arts different takes on the solution to the bear hug from behind. My question still stands though... Why does Kung Fu solve the bear hug this way, and TKD that way and Judo some other way?

Further, its the wrong question to ask: how to solve bear hug from rear? Then you have to ask about bear hug from the front, from the side, from the diagonal, pulling you, pushing you, lifting you... right hand over left, left hand over right... the list gets way too long.

All of the martial arts I have spent any time studying, have avoided making a list of situations and then matching a technique to it. There are too many situations and too many techniques. Rather, they have picked a set of strategies and tactics that they develop. If you properly develop the right tactics and strategies... then you can adapt those tactics and strategies to whatever situation you find yourself in. They do pick situations to work from and techniques to use... but the idea here is to teach those core principles, tactics and strategies... such that the student can learn to apply those in any situation.

You also have to factor in the goal. Not all arts have the same goal. Is your goal to kill the other guy? Disable him? Knock him out? Choke him out? Submit him or escape?

There is a lot more to learn than just memorizing which technique goes to which situation.

Agree. But there is value in training technique in general, especially for beginners. Scenario training is invaluable for job/roll specific people. Teaching the near infinite alternatives to each technique on an individual basis is inefficient and unnecessary. As people advance they should understand things like 'off hand' grabs and such and work through the options to counter them. It is a must have. If the curriculum does not stimulate this 'natural' learning something is missing.

 

[wab25]

But there is value in training technique in general, especially for beginners. Scenario training is invaluable for job/roll specific people.

I agree with you here, 100%.

The point I was getting at is that while both Shotokan and TKD teach a lunge punch, they teach it differently. They both teach to step forward into front stance while punching with the forward hand. But, the details are different. Those details are important. They are not important because the Shotokan punch is better than the TKD punch. They are important because the Shotokan punch is different than the TKD punch. They are both correct for their own styles and both wrong for the other style. The reason TKD has the unique details it does, is because it is showing something a little different than what Shotokan is showing. When you start to look at why those details are there and why they matter and how they continue to show up in your system... you can start to understand what your system is trying to teach you... you start to see the bigger picture. It is important to get the details of the technique right.

When the different arts move to their scenario training / rolling / pressure testing, they focus on different techniques. One reason is because they focus on techniques that their kata / form training supports. For a punch response, karate and TKD will probably focus on some sort of block counter and punch or block and kick. Judo or Jujitsu may use blend and throw techniques against the same punch. This way you use the drills and rolling / sparring in order for you to practice applying the things you learned from the kata / form.

 

[jobo]

I agree with you here, 100%.

The point I was getting at is that while both Shotokan and TKD teach a lunge punch, they teach it differently. They both teach to step forward into front stance while punching with the forward hand. But, the details are different. Those details are important. They are not important because the Shotokan punch is better than the TKD punch. They are important because the Shotokan punch is different than the TKD punch. They are both correct for their own styles and both wrong for the other style. The reason TKD has the unique details it does, is because it is showing something a little different than what Shotokan is showing. When you start to look at why those details are there and why they matter and how they continue to show up in your system... you can start to understand what your system is trying to teach you... you start to see the bigger picture. It is important to get the details of the technique right.

When the different arts move to their scenario training / rolling / pressure testing, they focus on different techniques. One reason is because they focus on techniques that their kata / form training supports. For a punch response, karate and TKD will probably focus on some sort of block counter and punch or block and kick. Judo or Jujitsu may use blend and throw techniques against the same punch. This way you use the drills and rolling / sparring in order for you to practice applying the things you learned from the kata / form.

the karate and tkd punch are not different because they are doing different things, they are just different, because...... now its possibly fair to say that there is only one optimal way to throw a punch, but because neither is optimal, they are just the same level of mediocre, but slightly different

 

[wab25]

the karate and tkd punch are not different because they are doing different things, they are just different, because......

The Shotokan that I study, has us start in a very low front stance. The punching hand will be in chamber, tight to the ribs. The whole body moves forward, taking a step, the back foot making a crescent shape... the weight lands on the front foot as the punch hits. The punch comes out straight. The head stays level the entire time, no up or down motion... though the whole body has some side to side motion due to the crescent step.

As I understand the TKD punch, they have a more upright stance. They also add in a slight up and down sine wave action, landing the punch on the down side of the sine wave. (sorry guys I haven't put training time into TKD, feel free to correct what I got wrong here)

They are different because the Karate is trying to maintain low stances, and linear punches while the TKD folks are developing the sine wave action. There are of coarse many other technical differences, but my lack of training in TKD prevents me from going further into what they do.

The reason they are different is because the two arts are focusing on different ways to move, and generate speed and power. Other things learned later in the arts, will rely on the style of movement started here.

now its possibly fair to say that there is only one optimal way to throw a punch, but because neither is optimal, they are just the same level of mediocre, but slightly different

Well, first you would have to start with defining what an optimal punch is... Is it the fastest punch? a jab. Is it a punch with the most power? haymaker? If the other guy has a really tight and high guard, perhaps the optimal punch would be a hook, to go around his guard. If he is leaning forward, the most optimal punch might be an upper cut. If someone were trying to learn Karate, then the most optimal punch might be a Karate style punch. If one were learning TKD, then the most optimal punch would be a TKD style punch.

 

[skribs]

As I understand the TKD punch, they have a more upright stance. They also add in a slight up and down sine wave action, landing the punch on the down side of the sine wave. (sorry guys I haven't put training time into TKD, feel free to correct what I got wrong here)

You're talking about 2 different styles of TKD training. There's other ways it's done in some of the other forms and styles as well. Some ITF guys do sine wave, some don't (nobody else does). The KKW forms use a more upright stance, but more traditional KKW schools also teach forms with a deeper stance. Some schools do the crescent steps, some do straight steps.

I'm sure you'd also find different styles of punching in different styles of Karate as well. To compare your Shotokan to the Taegeuk forms or to the sine wave forms, then yes there are differences. But those aren't the only styles of TKD.

 

[jobo]

The Shotokan that I study, has us start in a very low front stance. The punching hand will be in chamber, tight to the ribs. The whole body moves forward, taking a step, the back foot making a crescent shape... the weight lands on the front foot as the punch hits. The punch comes out straight. The head stays level the entire time, no up or down motion... though the whole body has some side to side motion due to the crescent step.

As I understand the TKD punch, they have a more upright stance. They also add in a slight up and down sine wave action, landing the punch on the down side of the sine wave. (sorry guys I haven't put training time into TKD, feel free to correct what I got wrong here)

They are different because the Karate is trying to maintain low stances, and linear punches while the TKD folks are developing the sine wave action. There are of coarse many other technical differences, but my lack of training in TKD prevents me from going further into what they do.

The reason they are different is because the two arts are focusing on different ways to move, and generate speed and power. Other things learned later in the arts, will rely on the style of movement started here.


Well, first you would have to start with defining what an optimal punch is... Is it the fastest punch? a jab. Is it a punch with the most power? haymaker? If the other guy has a really tight and high guard, perhaps the optimal punch would be a hook, to go around his guard. If he is leaning forward, the most optimal punch might be an upper cut. If someone were trying to learn Karate, then the most optimal punch might be a Karate style punch. If one were learning TKD, then the most optimal punch would be a TKD style punch.

The Shotokan that I study, has us start in a very low front stance. The punching hand will be in chamber, tight to the ribs. The whole body moves forward, taking a step, the back foot making a crescent shape... the weight lands on the front foot as the punch hits. The punch comes out straight. The head stays level the entire time, no up or down motion... though the whole body has some side to side motion due to the crescent step.

As I understand the TKD punch, they have a more upright stance. They also add in a slight up and down sine wave action, landing the punch on the down side of the sine wave. (sorry guys I haven't put training time into TKD, feel free to correct what I got wrong here)

They are different because the Karate is trying to maintain low stances, and linear punches while the TKD folks are developing the sine wave action. There are of coarse many other technical differences, but my lack of training in TKD prevents me from going further into what they do.

The reason they are different is because the two arts are focusing on different ways to move, and generate speed and power. Other things learned later in the arts, will rely on the style of movement started here.


Well, first you would have to start with defining what an optimal punch is... Is it the fastest punch? a jab. Is it a punch with the most power? haymaker? If the other guy has a really tight and high guard, perhaps the optimal punch would be a hook, to go around his guard. If he is leaning forward, the most optimal punch might be an upper cut. If someone were trying to learn Karate, then the most optimal punch might be a Karate style punch. If one were learning TKD, then the most optimal punch would be a TKD style punch.

well the most optimal punch first has to land, then its the one that imparts the most force, if all thats going to land is a jab, then the optimal version of a jab is well optimal.but its far from optimal to left jab if you can get them with an over hand right or overhand right them if your at upper cut range

either way, for what ever orientation you find your self there is an optimum punch and an optimum mechanics for that punch

if the version of punch your using doesn't impart the most optimal force that possible from that position then its not the optimum way of doing it

 

[wab25]

You're talking about 2 different styles of TKD training. There's other ways it's done in some of the other forms and styles as well. Some ITF guys do sine wave, some don't (nobody else does). The KKW forms use a more upright stance, but more traditional KKW schools also teach forms with a deeper stance. Some schools do the crescent steps, some do straight steps.

I'm sure you'd also find different styles of punching in different styles of Karate as well. To compare your Shotokan to the Taegeuk forms or to the sine wave forms, then yes there are differences. But those aren't the only styles of TKD.

Like I said, I can't get into specifics about how TKD is different than Karate... as I don't have enough / any time training in TKD. The point is that the schools that teach crescent steps, do so for a reason. The schools who teach straight steps, do that for a reason. The schools that teach sine wave, do so for a reason. The reason is not, "because its different" or "because it looks cool." If a school or instructor uses either of those reasons... its good to know that, and I would never train there or recommend someone to train there.

Learning the why for all those details and differences, will help you see the bigger picture about the art that you study. One of the things I have seen commonly done in all the arts I have dabbled and trained in... is that the first things they teach you are more about getting you to learn how to move your body and less about being effective techniques in and of themselves. They are the basis on which the art is built... This is the very core of the art. When you get the core down, the other higher techniques become much more effective.

When I went to train boxing at the local boxing gym... the first thing they did was hand me a jump rope and put me in the corner. No one even talked to me until after I had attempted to jump rope for nearly an hour. (I imagine it took them that long to control the laughter...) Now, no boxer has ever jump rope KOed a guy in the ring. However, that exercise is key to understanding the foot work, the leg work, the movement, the speed and the power generation that they use. When I started Karate, it was a low front stance, walking forward and backward. For Jujitsu, it was a forward roll.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Like I said, I can't get into specifics about how TKD is different than Karate...

Nobody can, really. Because just as there are multiple styles of Karate, with multiple "ideal" ways of punching, there are multiple styles of Taekwondo, with multiple "ideal" ways of punching.

 

[skribs]

Nobody can, really. Because just as there are multiple styles of Karate, with multiple "ideal" ways of punching, there are multiple styles of Taekwondo, with multiple "ideal" ways of punching.

There are probably more differences between TKD schools or between Karate schools, than there are between TKD and Karate.

 

[wab25]

Nobody can, really. Because just as there are multiple styles of Karate, with multiple "ideal" ways of punching, there are multiple styles of Taekwondo, with multiple "ideal" ways of punching.

There are probably more differences between TKD schools or between Karate schools, than there are between TKD and Karate.

I guess I am not communicating as effectively as I would like. I am not trying to pit one style versus another. I am trying to show that the why is important. Why do you have the techniques you have, why are they grouped the way they are, why are they taught in the order that they are...?

Some differences are between styles. Some are between organizations. Some are between schools. Some are between instructors. And some are between martial artists. When someone says you should do a crescent step here... well, why? And where does that detail come from? Is that part of the art, put in by the founder? Is it part of the art as it evolved over time? Is is specific to an organization? Is it particular to the school you are training at or is it a preference of the instructor?

Knowing that a detail is specific to an instructor, does not mean that detail is meaningless. In fact, it can help you understand more about that technique. Does that instructor like that detail because of his own body? (is he tall, short, flexible or not...) Does he like that detail because of his abilities? (maybe he is naturally fast or maybe is slower and is using this detail to make up the difference or to increase his speed) Does he like this detail, because he is able to use that, or the effects of that detail in sparring? Has this become part of his tactics to set up his opponent? Knowing why that detail is there and where it came from, can help you gain a much better understanding of what you are studying.

When you look at a kata or a form.... ask why are these moves combined together? Is there something about this particular grouping? What about the order of the moves? Why is this kata / form taught first? Or right before this other one? Why does my school teach this kata as a black belt kata when that other school teaches to green belts? There is a lot more than just memorization. When you start learning why you punch like that... you don't have to wonder why you aren't learning to punch like a boxer...

 

[dvcochran]

the karate and tkd punch are not different because they are doing different things, they are just different, because...... now its possibly fair to say that there is only one optimal way to throw a punch, but because neither is optimal, they are just the same level of mediocre, but slightly different

They are different in footwork and how they generate power.
Why do you call them mediocre?

 

[jobo]

They are different in footwork and how they generate power.
Why do you call them mediocre?

as above they are not the best mechanics for delivering energy to your target

if you dont like mediocre, try second rate

 

[dvcochran]

as above they are not the best mechanics for delivering energy to your target

if you dont like mediocre, try second rate

Ok, but why?
Both are a reverse punch delivered while stepping forward. It doesn't get much harder than that. It may not be the ideal unabated first strike but a great punch when setup well.

 

[jobo]

Ok, but why?
Both are a reverse punch delivered while stepping forward. It doesn't get much harder than that. It may not be the ideal unabated first strike but a great punch when setup well.

are you telling me its the hardest punch you can throw in that situation ?
if so, i think you incorrect, but ive no way of proving that

if your not, and it seems not, that is not optimal, so its second rate

i have little experiences with TKD punches, but i do with karate punches and they are almost with out exception second rate, but then the whole movement pasterns restrict your punches to sub optimal, so in a lot of ways its an inherent flaw in the style

 

[skribs]

are you telling me its the hardest punch you can throw in that situation ?
if so, i think you incorrect, but ive no way of proving that

if your not, and it seems not, that is not optimal, so its second rate

i have little experiences with TKD punches, but i do with karate punches and they are almost with out exception second rate, but then the whole movement pasterns restrict your punches to sub optimal, so in a lot of ways its an inherent flaw in the style

Using my strike meter, I've found it to be the hardest punch I can throw. Now, it does have its drawbacks, but power isn't one of them.