Technique discussion - deflecting, redirecting and capturing the fist

[zac_duncan]

Hi, my name is Zac Duncan, I'm a HKD 1st dahn in St. Louis and I've been studying for about 10 years. I just singed up on the AikidoJournal site so some of you might've encontered me there.

I'm a little surprsed that there isn't more discussion of technique on this board and others, so I thought I'd get it started. I'm curious about how other schools and other hapkido-related arts perform defense against a punch so here's my questions.

Typically, at my school the parry is achieved by putting your hand at the elbow of the punching arm and sliding it back towards you while simultaneuosly executing a step forward at a 45 degree angle. Capturing the fist is primarily done by moving your hips with the punch beyond the point of the parry and sliding your grab down the arm to the fist.

When I studied Kuk Sool Won, punch captures were often achieved by moving back away from the strike and catching the punch in an X block.

These two methods are very different, and both seem to offer various advantages and disadvantages. What other methods of deflection and entrapment are used by the varied practitioners out there. Which methods do you prefer?


Cheers!
-zac

 

[Kumbajah]

We use both methods and others - different tools for different jobs. The elbow to fist method seems to work best with a "committed" punch. Someone swinging for the bleachers if you will. The x capture seems to work better with a less committed attack. More of a jabbing punch. True jab is extremely extremely difficult to snag.

Most of our foot work is at angles (Almost all). There are a few cases of stepping back but it is to parry not catch. Few people can counter moving back (Ali is the only one that comes to mind) Its like trying to out run a train. Much easier to get off the tracks.

Brian

 

[zac_duncan]

Interesting... I've found the elbow to fist method to be easier than the X when it comes to catching less "commited" punches, especially when very close to the opponent.

I agree about the moving backward statement, I tend to prefer angular footwork to backing up. I always feel better up close, though it seems like the distancing method gives you a little better leverage for "long-arm" throws vs. close up control and take-down methods.


You say you use other methods, what are they?

 

[Kumbajah]

Basically variations of the two - some of the top of my head
circular traps - circling trapping arm instead of fist - snaking motion
Two hand trap - similar to elbow fist method
Block, trap with other hand arm - key lock or lock in with crook of elbow ex hip throw
Arm pit trap - similar to elbow fist
Pass off - block with one pass to the other hand
Forearm trap - redirecting with one trapping with the other

again short list - I'm late for class

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Zac:

Sounds like you are stepping into the area of teaching priorities more than anything else. There are pretty much as many ways of parrying strikes, kicks and punches as you have teachers. For instance, among the Level Two material we do is a parry vaguely reminiscent of some inside-fighting Chinese styles. There the idea is "he who controls the elbow controls the arm". Then again at our Level Four material there are 6 "Conversions" that are taught. Used in variant combinations you can pretty much convert any counter to a grab into a counter to a kick or strike its just a matter of working out the proper recombination. For myself, the matter of sliding up or down the arm (or leg) in response to an attack has almost everything to do with position and combat distance. By this I mean that I don't go into the offered technique with some preconceived notion about what I am going to do. I simply take what the attacker gives we. We call this the Water Principle. The odd thing about this, and the reason I mention it here, is that a person could throw what looks like almost the identical attack and for some reason I may move one way one time and another way another time. It has to do more with what I sense about the attack than what is actually happening. Think I better stop here or this is going to start sounding pretty confusing. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

Thanks for your input Bruce, I suppose there really is no way to ennumerate the ways of trapping and parrying. Too broad of a topic for detailed discussion.

A shame too, because I think it might be fun to argue over technique instead of history for a bit. Maybe technique is something that's simply impossible to on the web.

Do members of this forum every get together to train?


Cheers!
-zac

 

[glad2bhere]

I think you are right. Technique gets talked about way too little. I had wanted to organize a set of common terms for some of our most basic skills and techniques but it never really went anywhere. The trouble is that in the absence of some well-defined commonalities each time we start talking technical we almost have to invent the technique until someone recognizes the biomechanics and says "oh, that sounds like our..... technique". Even then some of the techniques can be down to shades of difference regarding balance-breaking and the rest.

As far as people training together I have traveled quite a bit to teach seminars and probably even farther just to sit back and learn. Between the two I tend to enjoy the latter to the former. Let somebody else organize things, right? :ultracool

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

"The trouble is that in the absence of some well-defined commonalities each time we start talking technical we almost have to invent the technique until someone recognizes the biomechanics and says "oh, that sounds like our..... technique". "

I agree, that is a problem when it comes to discussion even amongst people in person. We don't even have common terms for the most basic of techniques, techniques we all know. It's really frustrating. I wonder what, if anything can be done to help develop a system of common terms? I know the japanese systems have terms for many of their techniques, perhaps borrowing and translating those terms would be a start?

 

[glad2bhere]

Not to sound like a cynic but heres what happens.

One person decides to locate commonalities among Hapkido practitioners. problem is that most martial artisits are individualists and to be found in conformity with someone else takes away from their supposed individuality. ERGO: many KMA practiioners will actually LOOK for ways to be different from other people even when there is no reason for it.

Lets suppose you get two or three people to call a thing a thing. Now among those three people you have consensus but getting other people to use a common language is yet another problem (back to the first point about individuality).

Lets suppose that you get everybody in the Hapkido community to agree on a uniform nomenclature. Somebody is going to want to take credit for it, or see that nobody else takes credit for it.

But ya know what the biggest reason that this won't happen?

The biggest reason this won't happen, and the biggest reason that there will never be a uniform syllabus or curriculum or a single unified organization or any of the other good things that would help the Hapkido arts along------

The Hapkido community doesn't want it.

To have those things that I have mentioned and many more will mean that many Hapkido people would have to admit that they have been lazy, or derelict or misrepresentational of themselves as actual Hapkido practitioners. And its a lot better to live in their make-believe world arguing how many front-snap-kicks can be done on the head of a pin and selling memberships to organizations and touting seminars. Sad, but true.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

uniform syllabus or curriculum or a single unified organization or any of the other good things that would help the Hapkido arts along------

The Hapkido community doesn't want it.

I suppose that's true, though while a common cirriculum or a unified orginization might actually interfere with teaching the art, a common vocabulary doesn't hurt anyone. Or does it?

Still, I can dream of having it.

 

[glad2bhere]

Oh, sure. For instance I still work on mine and keep it posted on the website in case people want to comment. Right now the focus is more on sword nomenclature than MTHand. I have often been tempted just to use transliterated Japanese terms but there is so much nationalism about how the Koreans don't have any traditions except for what they got from the Japanese that I would rather do some research and see if I can locate terms that may have been used before the Occupation. I get real tired of Korean traditions always standing in the shadow of Japanese traditions. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

I have often been tempted just to use transliterated Japanese terms but there is so much nationalism about how the Koreans don't have any traditions except for what they got from the Japanese that I would rather do some research and see if I can locate terms that may have been used before the Occupation. I get real tired of Korean traditions always standing in the shadow of Japanese traditions. FWIW.

Out of curiousity Bruce, why not simply use english terms? Couldn't they then be translated into Korean? Sure, it breaks from tradition, but it almost seems that breaking from tradition is the tradition in our art. Just a thought.

 

[glad2bhere]

When I wrote my books, and when I teach my classes English is the language that I use. My students only rearely are so curious about Korean culture that they will accept the occasional use of Korean. However, what I have noticed is that because of language and culture, we get very little interaction from practitioners from other countries. Usually one of the first disclaimers is that their English is not very good. I was thinking that maybe we would get more interaction from other countries and keep support for our Korean roots if we used Korean terminology. However, I have also found that English is growing around the World by leaps and bounds so maybe you have a good point. At any rate the idea would be to have everyone using the same terms. For instance even if we avoid using the Aikido term, "Ik-Kyo" to identify an Arm-bar, do we use the manner in which the control is actuated---"elbow lock"-- or the configuration that results ---"arm bar"--- or just identify the family of techniques as elbowlocking techniques and then just number them in sequence? Lot to ponder, right? Its a little like the the concussive techniques. Do we do the "family of kicks" then itemize "front", "side" and "back"? Do we itemize each kick as in "front kick" and "back kick". Do we give them poetic names that help us remember them as in "yellow dragon shakes his tail". Or do we just identify a group of kicks and number then as in "kicking to the front: 1,2,3,4,5"? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

Personally, I'm against using sequences to describe the techniques as my number four is your number ten and standardizing the order might interfere with how an instructor would like to introduce concepts.

A good example of this: recently, a black belt from another school joined ours. He and I were comparing cirriculums and he performed a technique from what he identified as a yellow belt set that is taught in our cirriculum as a 1st dan technique. Personally, I agree with it being taught later because even though the technique is fairly easy to perform, it illustrates a lot of concepts. I tend to feel that early techniques should emphasize much one or two concepts at most (using a circle to create a joint lock or using angular footwork to avoid incoming force, for example). However, the master that designed their cirriculum might have felt that it was important to teach the students these techniques early so that they can grow into them (he most likely had a much better reason that is elluding me). I'd hate to see either school have to conform to the other's way of thinking.

While it would unquestionably be a challenge, I think an individual could identify the basic techniques i.e "arm bar" and then identify the variations based on body positioning (inside, outside, etc.) and intent (takedown, throw, arrest/control). I'm certain I'm oversimplifying this, but it does seem like something that could be done. Perhaps at some point, the person cataloging this would have to resort to numbering variations, but hopefully, this would be a rare instance.


Just a thought.

 

[glad2bhere]

".....While it would unquestionably be a challenge, I think an individual could identify the basic techniques i.e "arm bar" and then identify the variations based on body positioning (inside, outside, etc.) and intent (takedown, throw, arrest/control). I'm certain I'm oversimplifying this, but it does seem like something that could be done. Perhaps at some point, the person cataloging this would have to resort to numbering variations, but hopefully, this would be a rare instance......"

Yep. Thats what I did with my own curriculum. The techniques are broken into families depending on how the technique is actuated or "fullfilled". The families are each stepped through 6 levels of increasing sophistication. The individual techniques are named (in English) with various adjectives that give clues as to direction, vector, result and so forth. If you stop by

www.midwesthapkido.com

Levels 1 through 4 or published and I am at work on the Black Belt material as I write this. Not an easy effort as it is quite a bit more than just cherry-picking techniques and laying them out in an intelligent progression. GM Myungs material forms the foundation so in many ways I am a bit limited by the nature of our particular Kwans' material--- at least as far as publishing. Now, within the classroom I can take a few liberties. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

Thanks for the link Bruce, I do like the way the techniques are described, though I'm unsure what the "Double Flex" techniques refer to.

Can you explain the motion?

 

[glad2bhere]

I was so tempted to go right to the Aikido book and reference the Japanese term. Gotta quit using that material and let Hapkido stand on its own, right?

The Double-Flex or "S-arm" material requires the simultaneous flexing of both the elbow and the wrist to produce localized discomfort in the distal end of the forearm. This is usually in conjuction with a torquing of the wrist to an oblique angle. Once the balance has been taken this configuration can be used in a variety of ways for pins, locks, projections and throws. But the original configuartion is key. Some people confuse these techniques with the Figure Four material because in those cases there are likewise flexation of the wrist and elbow and a torsion on the wrist. The main difference is the use of the defenders' own forearm to accomplish the maintenance of the authority rather than only pressure and grip. Hope this helps.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

I know that exact technique. I call it "my favorite". I absolutely love the reaction that lock gets.

Double flex... a good name for it.