What are these techniques really for?

[dancingalone]

. Now I have the impression that most block (low, medium and high) motions maybe could be used mainly depending on where our arms would already be in the moment of the block (assuming our hands can't always stay in guard position). Also, off course, it depends what the attacker is aiming for and what I intend to do as a counter-attack. I still haven't had a great experience of couter-attack after blocking (maybe basic kicks and punchs). Someone now told me about using the backhand after a medium block. To me it seems a great idea. Others have come with many other examples that show a more realistic picture. Anyway, as I had speed concerns, now I consider that not every agressor would necessarily come with a torrent of punches, nor even they would always punch som fast (some, mainly the untrained ones, rely more on strength and reach) -- so in this case I think it'd be a nice idea to use low, medium or high blocks.

IMO, once we shed ourselves of the mental barrier if you will that a block is a block, our expressions of our karate/TKD becomes much more potent. My teacher believes that blocking is an inefficient endeavor in of itself and I mostly agree with him here. Of course it is a fundamental part of martial arts for good reason: if you can't get out of the way of a blow, it is better to block it than be struck. That said, I prefer other things to the good old solid block, and thus it's natural that I am always looking for other explanations for a discrete motion than the blocking interpretation.

 

[Manny]

Kukkiwon, WTF, sport tkd, whatever you want to call it, is a fantastic 'sport' and great 'sport' for people of all ages and genders but if your focus is 'fighting' and you train in this form then you will be forever questioning such things. Everyone I have met who does this form of tkd gets to to about 1st or 2nd dan and has the revelation that, in real terms, they really are no better at 'fighting' than before they started. If you go into this style of tkd understanding and accepting that you are primarily learning a 'sport' then you never have to come to terms with such things because you know what you've signed up for. If you really enjoy tkd and your main goal is learning to fight, then personally I would steer clear of 'sport' tkd, because there are many other forms that focus on 'fighting'.

Sad but true. WTF Style TKD can give you stamina to endure in a real fight and as long as you can keep the BG at bay with your kicks maybe you can nail one or two guy and then fly in a hurry but if the things get very close and personal the kicks won't be a good answer, then you will need, elbows, knees,some kind of take downs and always try to stay on foot. Because of this I like to try another martial arts, I am returning to kenpo to lear to use more my hands and maybe this coupled with my kicks can give certain edge. The bad guys are not going to send you a blow like doing one steps sparring, the bad guy will chase you delivering a blitz of fists and one must know how to dodge or parry them while doing counterpunches or grabing and sweeping,etc,etc.

Manny

 

[oftheherd1]

Chon-Ji. The first full hyung as taught by General Choi. Jhoon Rhee used these Choi forms for a long time with his colored belts.

That may well be, I don't know. Jhoon Rhee called them H forms. I seem to recall that many other TKD teachers did the same around that time.


I don't view the pattern as addressing multiple attackers at all. But if you want to take that assumption, there are survival considerations I would rank far higher in the order of precedence than a down block and then a TURN to face another attacker. Things such as full blown running for example (two people cannot enclose a person entirely without also using terrain or surrounds to their advantage). IMO, the lessons taught through exploring a down block, lunge punch sequence are better aligned with goals like closing in quickly to neutralize a single hostile foe, and I would use other opportunities outside of Chon-Ji to work on multiple attacker scenarios.

The I guess we just have to disagree. Mind you, I am not saying every move in all the forms are multiple attacker defenses. I don't know enough about the forms to say that. But many I have seen seem to be along those lines. I know that some of the forms contain obscure movements that are really like techniques I learned in Hapkido. I learned that from a student I had who was a 4th Dan TKD. There appeared to be no reason for the moves, and he was told they were for art/.looks. As to using other techniques, a MA should use anything that works. But imho, running must be done with great care. You have to be sure you are faster enough than your opponents that you can escape completely or to a point where you can turn and be able to re=engage. That assumes you aren't in a situation where you must stand to protect another. I would prefer to do my running before a fight if that is what I want to do, not after an engagement has started. I guess that is just me.


No, the TKD founders did not start from scratch. Arts like karate, judo, and even kwon bup all played differing degrees of influence depending on which TKD founder you are talking about. And yes we all have two arms and two legs, and there are only so many ways you can hurt another person. Regardless of either point, I'm not referring to either when I made my remark about retrofitting [hapkido] into the hyung.

I don't really know, but I suspect wherever they came from, TKD may have had some joint locks, and other Hapkido-like moves. Some of the things we used to in one and three step sparring was to pull the striker forward and down by his striking wrist, then do windmill sudo strikes to the back, back of the neck, and front of the face. Not particularly a TKD move at the time.

It means that I would like to see the current leaders of TKD make pattern applications a relevant and harmonious part of their respective systems. Harmonious in this case means that ideally they would not simply look to other arts for ideas to borrow verbatim, regardless of any historical connection TKD may have to them. Instead IMO it's far preferable to review their expressions of TKD holistically and invent/create applications that are indelibly TKD in conception and movement. This approach has the advantage of making the entire system as a whole logical to understand and arguably easier to learn and execute physically.

Given that TKD, like many other Korean MA, including Hapkido, are new, and that most if not all current moves have probably been known for centuries, how would you propose they do that?

Thanks for your reply. It was thought provoking.

 

[oftheherd1]

IMO, once we shed ourselves of the mental barrier if you will that a block is a block, our expressions of our karate/TKD becomes much more potent. My teacher believes that blocking is an inefficient endeavor in of itself and I mostly agree with him here. Of course it is a fundamental part of martial arts for good reason: if you can't get out of the way of a blow, it is better to block it than be struck. That said, I prefer other things to the good old solid block, and thus it's natural that I am always looking for other explanations for a discrete motion than the blocking interpretation.

Sorry for my lack of understanding. I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA. If a block is not a block, what is it? And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it? It sounds fascinating. Thanks for your reply.

 

[StudentCarl]

Sorry for my lack of understanding. I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA. If a block is not a block, what is it? And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it? It sounds fascinating. Thanks for your reply.

I'll take a shot at a couple of these. What we label a block is a general movement that can be adapted to many uses including strikes, grabs and throws, particularly when coupled with movement of the other arm and the stance it's in. The book '75 Down Blocks' is one author's workup of different techniques that are fundamentally based on the low forearm block (arae makki). Blocking is inefficient because it is defensive, giving up a timing moment doing (usually) minor damage. What's better is making the attack miss by not being there while moving to attack a vital target yourself. Movement, position, and choice of an offensive action is better than just defending, as the attacker can usually continue the attack because you haven't forced him to defend.

Probably the best way to conceive of a block is as a movement that can be a building 'block'--a flexible general tool. Without going too far, consider stances the same way. The entail learning to shift your mass, which can be used to add power to whatever else you do. While you wouldn't fight in a front stance, you might very briefly find yourself moving through one while executing a throw or an angular entry on an opponent. Blocks, strikes, and stances all are tools as you learn to move your body with speed and power. It's good to remember that not all tools must be used according to the directions that came with them, and that skilled artisans often develop new uses for their tools.

 

[Earl Weiss]

.



General Choi gave his patterns to the world, and from that moment the patterns changed by instructor by instructor. I definitely understand General Choi left instructions as to how he believed the forms should be performed, perhaps even used. That said, a host of teachers crossing multinational lines don't feel constrained by them, nor should they. In the end, martial arts are all personal expressions anyway.



.

I have no issues with those who might say something like :"I have taken Chon Ji" and modified it to make it my own, so if you go anywhere else do not expect that what you are doing is the accepted standard.

Sadly, few do this and students often think they are peforming to a widely accepted standard and have a rude awakening. I also have issues when any number of variations are done and students perform techniques without any clue as to why they are doing something. Certainly people are free to disagree with any number of reasons people d things a certain way. What is sad is when people don't have any idea other than we do it this way because that is how I was taught.

I have met instructors who told me they or their instructor changed this, that or the other thing. I as if this is written down anywhere/ The question is usualy met with a blank stare or a statement like "My students know" . Well guess what, they don't. Have seen those students when the isntructor passes on having to go thru all sortsof meetings and machinations to come to some sort of agreement on what they wer taught or should be teaching, in effect reinventing the wheel.

I submit that for the most part patterns changed from instructor to instructor because they had poor instructors or were poor students. They were never taught the aapplicable parameters and never took it upon themselves to ask or look it up.

Patterns, as a foundation need to be performed to some standard. if the instrutor has their own established standard, so be it. Otherwise how is an instructor observing a student to know if the student: A. Knows the standard and B. Is performing how the student thinks they are performing.

Example. Patterns have no opponent. In a combat situation technique levels will vary so the student hits the ntended target. In a pattern the level might be stipulated as high, and high is stipulated as the student's eye level. Now you observe the student doing the "High" punch to their chin level. Do they know it's supposed to be eye level? If so, do they think they are at their eye level when they are not?

Now, are the standards the best thing out there/ Matter of opinion. I for one teach the standard, that way my students go anywhere in the world and fit right in. BUT I also offer more advnced students my opinion on some stated standards and what i like better.

 

[jks9199]

Sorry for my lack of understanding. I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA. If a block is not a block, what is it? And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it? It sounds fascinating. Thanks for your reply.

To begin with -- a block is a strike at the weapon. Which means a block can become a strike at a target, too. Imagine delivering an upward block to someone's chin... or a down block to a groin. Can a block become a throw?

Then... can strikes become blocks?

 

[dancingalone]

I have no issues with those who might say something like :"I have taken Chon Ji" and modified it to make it my own, so if you go anywhere else do not expect that what you are doing is the accepted standard.

Sadly, few do this and students often think they are peforming to a widely accepted standard and have a rude awakening. I also have issues when any number of variations are done and students perform techniques without any clue as to why they are doing something. Certainly people are free to disagree with any number of reasons people d things a certain way. What is sad is when people don't have any idea other than we do it this way because that is how I was taught.

I have met instructors who told me they or their instructor changed this, that or the other thing. I as if this is written down anywhere/ The question is usualy met with a blank stare or a statement like "My students know" . Well guess what, they don't. Have seen those students when the isntructor passes on having to go thru all sortsof meetings and machinations to come to some sort of agreement on what they wer taught or should be teaching, in effect reinventing the wheel.

I submit that for the most part patterns changed from instructor to instructor because they had poor instructors or were poor students. They were never taught the aapplicable parameters and never took it upon themselves to ask or look it up.

Patterns, as a foundation need to be performed to some standard. if the instrutor has their own established standard, so be it. Otherwise how is an instructor observing a student to know if the student: A. Knows the standard and B. Is performing how the student thinks they are performing.

Example. Patterns have no opponent. In a combat situation technique levels will vary so the student hits the ntended target. In a pattern the level might be stipulated as high, and high is stipulated as the student's eye level. Now you observe the student doing the "High" punch to their chin level. Do they know it's supposed to be eye level? If so, do they think they are at their eye level when they are not?

Now, are the standards the best thing out there/ Matter of opinion. I for one teach the standard, that way my students go anywhere in the world and fit right in. BUT I also offer more advnced students my opinion on some stated standards and what i like better.

I understand what you are saying. You support standards and defined parameters and in particular the ITF/General Choi perspective of how these forms should be done. Understandably so as someone who had the fortune to study with General Choi. I respect that viewpoint very much.

I likewise support standards for beginners and intermediates, though not necessarily those defined by General Choi. When a person becomes advanced in ability and understanding, the system bends to suit their individual strengths and weaknesses. In other words, know the 'correct' way of doing things and why it is the correct way in the first place, but feel free to change things up to suit your own body and personality later on if you wish.

At this point in time, there are myriad groups and individuals across the world that use the Chang Hon patterns as part of their studies. I daresay a reasonable amount of them know their own parameters for performing the forms and the rationale behind them even if they don't necessarily align with what General Choi last taught.

 

[Cyriacus]

To begin with -- a block is a strike at the weapon. Which means a block can become a strike at a target, too. Imagine delivering an upward block to someone's chin... or a down block to a groin. Can a block become a throw?

Then... can strikes become blocks?

The Following is Ridiculous. You have been Warned.


Groin Form/Pattern/Kata:

Ready Stance > Low Block > REALLY Low Block > Raising Block To Groin > Opposite Arm Inner Forearm Guard to Groin > Front Leg Raise To Groin > X-Block To Groin > Grip X-Block Tightly > Rip X-Block Away > Left Arm Scooping Block To Groin > Right Hand Palm Heel Block To Groin > Ask the Fellow how hes still standing up > Roundhouse Pu...Knuckle Block To Groin > X-Block Groin > Take Down Opponent By Raising Arms Straight Up To THROW HIM > Return To Ready Stance.

It has 16 Movements.
Thats 6-1 = 5. 6+5 = 11. 11+6 - 17. 6x17 = 102. 102-6 = 96. Which is 69 Backwards. So there you bloody have it!
Overhead, the Movements start and finish in the same place, and draws out the Calligraphic Symbol for a Colon (Take that WHICH EVER WAY YOU CHOOSE).


Now, assuming you were wise enough to skip the afore;
Ive knocked People down to the Ground with Blocks.
So yeah, they can be used as a Strike.

 

[dancingalone]

That may well be, I don't know. Jhoon Rhee called them H forms. I seem to recall that many other TKD teachers did the same around that time.

Jhoon Rhee was a Chung Do Kwan man before later learning the Chang Hon patterns, which includes Chon-Ji, in what I understand was a matter of days. Any number of the Chung Do Kwan (karate forms such as the Taikyoku or even the Heian/Pyung Ahn series) hyung could likewise be called 'h forms'. It would be interesting if you could look up examples of Chon Ji and Taikyoku Shodan and Heian Shodan on Youtube and let us know which of them you learned. Certainly, in my TKD lineage we learned the Choi forms rather than the Chung Do Kwan forms.

The I guess we just have to disagree. Mind you, I am not saying every move in all the forms are multiple attacker defenses. I don't know enough about the forms to say that. But many I have seen seem to be along those lines. I know that some of the forms contain obscure movements that are really like techniques I learned in Hapkido.

I don't believe pattern applications, much less multiple attack scenarios, were much of a consideration when any of the Korean TKD pattern sets were put together. The evidence for this is the dearth of applications training within TKD regardless of whatever affiliation taekwondoin come from. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in adding bunkai, to use the karate term, to TKD patterns, but this movement seems to come from younger, more junior practitioners rather than those at the top of the hierarchies in the various organizations.

Furthermore, from an Okinawan karate perspective in which pattern application IS generally of high interest, there's really not a lot of bunkai which addresses multiple attackers either, even in sequences where there are turns, and even within the higher level kata. My opinion comes from studying Matsubayashi-ryu and Goju-ryu to dan ranks, and I have also shared information over the years with other karate people from a good handful of other karate styles.

I don't really know, but I suspect wherever they came from, TKD may have had some joint locks, and other Hapkido-like moves. Some of the things we used to in one and three step sparring was to pull the striker forward and down by his striking wrist, then do windmill sudo strikes to the back, back of the neck, and front of the face. Not particularly a TKD move at the time.

TKD has always had links to other arts. General Choi reported brought in a hapkidoin to create a hoshinsul curriculum within the ITF. I've never claimed that TKD is a 'pure' system. Far from it. It owes a lot to other martial arts like karate, but arguably has evolved more and more over the interceding decades, especially if we look at KKW TKD.

Given that TKD, like many other Korean MA, including Hapkido, are new, and that most if not all current moves have probably been known for centuries, how would you propose they do that?

I am not proposing that TKD leaders create anything 'new'. I am saying they should rejuvenate the study of patterns within their groups to include the idea of realistic applications and make forms a viable form of pedagogy for combat skills rather than just something done for 'art' or for basics practice or for competition.

But how to innovate in a logical fashion? You don't just simply copy something from another art and import it as is. As an aikido-ka, I am constantly tempted to add more and more locks and throws into the TKD class I teach, but not everything imports well, particular the ones that are small-circled in nature. By and large, people from linear striking systems don't understand them in an expeditious fashion. It takes a lot of work to get them up to speed and by the time you've spent that much time, you might as well be teaching an aikido class rather than a TKD class. So we pick techniques and tactics that resonate with taekwondoin, those that fit in with much of what they do already. One example would be a tani otoshi throw taught in judo where the defender remains on his feet rather than also going to the ground with his attacker. Most of my TKD students pick this one up easily because the footwork is not so different from how they shuffle step already.

 

[dancingalone]

Sorry for my lack of understanding. I guess I need to improve on my knowledge of other MA. If a block is not a block, what is it? And could you give some idea why blocking is inefficient, and what replaces it? It sounds fascinating. Thanks for your reply.

Movement is not immutable. The same open-handed sweep to the side with my left arm could be a block or a grab or a parry or a strike or a part of something else such a throw or a combination technique. The only difference is the actual part of the arm I make contact with, what part of my opponent I am touching, and the speed and desired effect I am imparting. Yet to the casual observer, any one of those things looks the same practiced in the air without a visible partner or target to work with. Adjunct to that, most people probably see a 'block' with in a pattern as a block, and this has been compounded by decades of teachers teaching the same phenomenon, likely stemming from the whole Itosu/Funakoshi youth/karate popularization effort.

As for why blocking is inefficient... Some thoughts below.

First, you do hapkido correct? Is the path of least resistance to block or is it only a last resort? Certainly in the aikido I study we don't generally want to solidify ourselves and push back at force with our own force, even if we can do so more intelligently by taking a different angle to avoid the brunt of the attacker's strength. Instead we seek to blend with our attacker (or is it to gather him into our hara?) and in so doing we neutralize him.

Second, blocking represents an opportunity cost of sorts. When you commit yourself to making a block, you are undeniably choosing to do this over another alternative. What if you could move in such a fashion as to avoid the attack while simultaneously counterattacking yourself? Is that not better tactically?

For example, if someone throws a side kick at you, what do you do? 1) Do you try to block a side kick with a down block or a side block standing roughly where you are already? Hmm, good luck with that. 2) Do you step back or to an angle to avoid the kick before countering with your own kick as is taught in a sport sparring match? Better I suppose, but I think acquiring closer range is imperative to ending a true fight. You don't want to drag things out and exchange shots at each other. 3) Do we step to the side to avoid the kick while covering up with a block before truncating with a series of counterstrikes as is frequently taught in many one and three step sparring sets? Also better than option 1, but there's still that opportunity cost taken up. 4) Do we move in such a fashion that we avoid the attack and in same movement counter effective. IMO this is best. An example would be angling one's torso to let the kick slip by while immediately attacking the kicker's jawline with a ridgehand that converts into reverse hip toss once we have entered in behind the strike.

Now do we always have four options like I presented here. Well, no. But, the more you train the more options you have and I'd rather train for alternatives like #4.

Third, say we just like blocking. It makes sense to us, we think we can do it successfully, so why not block, yada, yada. Well, the main reason is that most people don't condition their arms like they should if they really want blocking to work for them. I mean in the destroy your attacker's arm sense. That's real blocking. The old Hung Gar people go crazy with all the arm banging they do to build up bone density. So do the hardcore Goju-ryu karate people with their kotikitae. Respectfully, just as the spear hand strike is an 'archaic' remnant from the days when martial artists conditioned their fingers, so too is blocking an artifact of times past when arm conditioning was a lot more prevalent. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that blocking can't work if we don't condition our arms. It can, but I would suspect that instead of blocking and destroying the attacker's capacity to hurt us, we now really mean blocking and absorbing force, which is less than optimal IMO.

 

[Cyriacus]

Movement is not immutable. The same open-handed sweep to the side with my left arm could be a block or a grab or a parry or a strike or a part of something else such a throw or a combination technique. The only difference is the actual part of the arm I make contact with, what part of my opponent I am touching, and the speed and desired effect I am imparting. Yet to the casual observer, any one of those things looks the same practiced in the air without a visible partner or target to work with. Adjunct to that, most people probably see a 'block' with in a pattern as a block, and this has been compounded by decades of teachers teaching the same phenomenon, likely stemming from the whole Itosu/Funakoshi youth/karate popularization effort.

As for why blocking is inefficient... Some thoughts below.

First, you do hapkido correct? Is the path of least resistance to block or is it only a last resort? Certainly in the aikido I study we don't generally want to solidify ourselves and push back at force with our own force, even if we can do so more intelligently by taking a different angle to avoid the brunt of the attacker's strength. Instead we seek to blend with our attacker (or is it to gather him into our hara?) and in so doing we neutralize him.

Second, blocking represents an opportunity cost of sorts. When you commit yourself to making a block, you are undeniably choosing to do this over another alternative. What if you could move in such a fashion as to avoid the attack while simultaneously counterattacking yourself? Is that not better tactically?

For example, if someone throws a side kick at you, what do you do? 1) Do you try to block a side kick with a down block or a side block standing roughly where you are already? Hmm, good luck with that. 2) Do you step back or to an angle to avoid the kick before countering with your own kick as is taught in a sport sparring match? Better I suppose, but I think acquiring closer range is imperative to ending a true fight. You don't want to drag things out and exchange shots at each other. 3) Do we step to the side to avoid the kick while covering up with a block before truncating with a series of counterstrikes as is frequently taught in many one and three step sparring sets? Also better than option 1, but there's still that opportunity cost taken up. 4) Do we move in such a fashion that we avoid the attack and in same movement counter effective. IMO this is best. An example would be angling one's torso to let the kick slip by while immediately attacking the kicker's jawline with a ridgehand that converts into reverse hip toss once we have entered in behind the strike.

Now do we always have four options like I presented here. Well, no. But, the more you train the more options you have and I'd rather train for alternatives like #4.

Third, say we just like blocking. It makes sense to us, we think we can do it successfully, so why not block, yada, yada. Well, the main reason is that most people don't condition their arms like they should if they really want blocking to work for them. I mean in the destroy your attacker's arm sense. That's real blocking. The old Hung Gar people go crazy with all the arm banging they do to build up bone density. So do the hardcore Goju-ryu karate people with their kotikitae. Respectfully, just as the spear hand strike is an 'archaic' remnant from the days when martial artists conditioned their fingers, so too is blocking an artifact of times past when arm conditioning was a lot more prevalent. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that blocking can't work if we don't condition our arms. It can, but I would suspect that instead of blocking and destroying the attacker's capacity to hurt us, we now really mean blocking and absorbing force, which is less than optimal IMO.

Im specifically addressing the Highlighted Text, since this isnt my Debate.

Step Forward > Low Palm Heel Block > Back Knuckle Strike/Back Elbow Strike/Back Kick/Front Leg Stamp Kick to Knee/Horizontal Backfist/Left Straight Punch/Etc.

Blocking can be used to create Opportunities.
Youve just gotta be able to determine when theyre best used.
Repositioning CAN work, up to a point. But People arent just going to blunderbuss you. They can redirect themselves. Pivot. Turn. Realign their Arms for the Strikes. It doesnt always work out. Blocking works more often. BUT, at the expense of how many things you can do from that point. Dodging/Evading doesnt work nearly as often, but puts you in a better Position from which to proceed.
Your Third Option is considered to be the stupidest thing you can possibly do by some People ive talked to - Since one you start going back, and good Fighter can move FORWARD. And I capitolise that, to emphasise Forward. Try jogging backward, have someone run up and shove you, and try to stop at the moment the Shove comes in without having faulted balance. Then replace those Shoves with an armory of Strikes.
Number Four is Subjective. Evading and Countering at the same time can be efficient, certainly. But it can also put you into some awkward places. Perhaps not from Perspective, but ill use your example. You state allowing a Kick to slip by, then performing a Ridge Hand>Hip Throw. The issue is the Power Arc. IF it works, its great. But this is the issue with Evasion. It forces you to be in a position from which your Initial Counter must be efficient, lest you be right in your Opponents Power Arc. Say your Ridgehand was prevented by, say; (Does some quick stationary thinking as to ones position during a Side Kick. Really, this took me about 5 minutes. If I had someone to try it with it wouldnt have taken as long. Incidentally, I just need to filter information myself for now);
Palm Heel Block to the Bicep. Would Destabilise the Attack*. And this is where Blocking can be useful. Due to your Proximity, there isnt much Technical Application that can occur. You cannot plan for what the Uke (I cant think of a better word right now) will do from there, now how you would react, besides Re-Countering as he Counters your Counter. Which turns an opportunity into a cluster**** of hitting each other and hoping for the best.

I suppose My point, is that there is a Time and Place for everything.
Disregarding one because you prefer another is foolish.
Favoring one over the other, without outright not using the other as a matter of some kind of Principle, is fine.

Lastly, Blocks can be Redirections. Not necessarily Absorbsions.

*-Whichever hand you use for the Ridge Hand, if the Bicep is blocked, your Opponents hands will be up. If you try to follow with the other hand, when he does the same, he is now in a position from which to grab you around the neck. Or Strike your neck, for that matter.
Optionally, Clinching. Or a sharp Elbow, if the guys good.
Or a Shove.
Either way, it forces an uncontrolled engagement.

 

[oftheherd1]

Thanks StudentCarl. I think I understand part of what you are saying. I guess I always look at things through a Hapkido lens. We use blocks a lot. We have to as we tend to move into an attack. You can't just let the strike or kick come in and hit you. As we block, we may sometimes use a block that continues into a strike. More likely, we will block the attack as we move into our own attack.

But to me a block is just what we usually understand; an interruption of a strike or kick, by deflecting the opponent's movement. It may be a strike or kick at the striking limb, but it will stop or deflect the blow. We may move to one side as we block. The block may cause pain itself, and/or it may move into a grab to the opponent. But first we will usually block. The block may just cause the blow to miss by a little bit, it doesn't have to move a blow a long way away. But it has to prevent the blow from landing.

If we block and continue an attack, I guess that is what you refer to as a building block? But my understanding is that we have blocked first, whatever we then did. That is the way the Hapkido I learned was taught. We first learned how to block, then we learned how to use those blocks to allow us to attack ourselves. So the first thing I learned in striking defense was several blocks. Same with kick defense. First the block, then the continuing of the technique into a strike, kick, throw, or lock. But as I said, first, there is a block to avoid the opponent's attack, then moving into my own attack. Does that describe what you are talking about?

 

[oftheherd1]

To begin with -- a block is a strike at the weapon. Which means a block can become a strike at a target, too. Imagine delivering an upward block to someone's chin... or a down block to a groin. Can a block become a throw?

Then... can strikes become blocks?

Certainly a block may be a strike at the weapon; hand, foot, or whatever. However, a block's purpose is to block/deflect. Can you use the same or a similar movement as a strike? Yes. But then it is no longer a block, it is a strike. Blocks and strikes are fundamentally used for different reasons. As you explain it, I just don't see it.

But thanks for your reply.

 

[StudentCarl]

But as I said, first, there is a block to avoid the opponent's attack, then moving into my own attack. Does that describe what you are talking about?

I don't think there is only one right answer, but let me put a fight into rhythm with beats. Each movement is a beat, so a block takes up a beat. Assuming you and your opponent move at the same time, let's say your opponent strikes and you block. Unless you have done damage, destroyed his balance, or gained a controlling grip (which your hapkido block often becomes), your opponent can continue his attack. Blocking by itself is definitely better than getting hit, but if you can move to attack in that first beat in a way that avoids his attack, you can defeat him sooner and hopefully with less contact. If you only block and do not improve your situation, the second beat will see the attacker continue his attack, leaving you again only defending on the second beat. It's also good to remember that blocking can result in injury to the blocker. I broke an arm blocking a kick I should have sidestepped when I was a new yellow belt.

To go to your hapkido world, if your block results in control of a limb and upsetting your opponent's balance, then you are in position to win on the second beat. Your block was as much to stop and grab a limb as to stop an attack. So I would say that your 'block' was not completely defensive but also the first step of your attack.

Carl

 

[StudentCarl]

I don't believe pattern applications, much less multiple attack scenarios, were much of a consideration when any of the Korean TKD pattern sets were put together. The evidence for this is the dearth of applications training within TKD regardless of whatever affiliation taekwondoin come from. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in adding bunkai, to use the karate term, to TKD patterns, but this movement seems to come from younger, more junior practitioners rather than those at the top of the hierarchies in the various organizations.

As a junior black belt I'm reading and studying the bunkai literature to deepen my study of forms. I think there is value in thinking about movement in a more flexible way and finding applications. At the very least I think it would be incredibly narrow-minded as a martial artist to think of a movement as only one thing with only one use. It's possible that the seniors who designed the Taekwondo patterns were more concerned with carving an independent Korean identity than passing along an intact fighting system such as those contained in some of the karate forms I've read about, but it doesn't really matter for what I'm doing.

I agree with what I've read from Iain Abernethy and others suggesting that it's actually "traditional martial art" to cross-train, shamelessly take things that work well from elsewhere--in short to find what works best. The discovery and testing is fun and deepens my understanding. I believe that the 'old masters' were the original 'mixed martial artists'.

 

[oftheherd1]

Thanks for your reply. See my comments inside the quotes.

Movement is not immutable. The same open-handed sweep to the side with my left arm could be a block or a grab or a parry or a strike or a part of something else such a throw or a combination technique. The only difference is the actual part of the arm I make contact with, what part of my opponent I am touching, and the speed and desired effect I am imparting. Yet to the casual observer, any one of those things looks the same practiced in the air without a visible partner or target to work with. Adjunct to that, most people probably see a 'block' with in a pattern as a block, and this has been compounded by decades of teachers teaching the same phenomenon, likely stemming from the whole Itosu/Funakoshi youth/karate popularization effort.

I can't disagree with that. It would appear that many things that are actually techniques that I would use in Hapkido, or you would use in Aikido, specific to a particular attack, have been modified to an extent, to fit the TKD thought process of block, then attack. Probably when first included in the forms, the teachers knew, and told their students, what was going on. A lot of that seems to have been lost from the teaching process.

As to your comment that a block could be a grab or a parry or a strike, I would answer that first it must be a block. You first have to block/parry it so it doesn't hit you. Then, and as a continuation of the move, you most certainly may grab or strike some other part of the attacker's person.

As for why blocking is inefficient... Some thoughts below.

First, you do hapkido correct? Is the path of least resistance to block or is it only a last resort? Certainly in the aikido I study we don't generally want to solidify ourselves and push back at force with our own force, even if we can do so more intelligently by taking a different angle to avoid the brunt of the attacker's strength. Instead we seek to blend with our attacker (or is it to gather him into our hara?) and in so doing we neutralize him.

Well, first of all, I can't think of a block I learned in Hapkido, or TKD, that was a direct confrontation to the punch or kick, meeting it with force of my own to stop it. It was always movement to the side. I remember being corrected by Mr. Rhee when I tried to do otherwise, and him telling that the particular kick was too powerful for that as a defense. The only exception I can think of in Hapkido, is sword defense. Sometimes engaging the sword with a short stick, and then bringing it down to stop just above the head as energy is absorbed, is the only possible defense. Not something I would like to do, but if it was all I had, it is a tool. That isn't taught until after attainment of 1st Dan. That assumes some speed, strength, and timing already learned.

Second, blocking represents an opportunity cost of sorts. When you commit yourself to making a block, you are undeniably choosing to do this over another alternative. What if you could move in such a fashion as to avoid the attack while simultaneously counterattacking yourself? Is that not better tactically?

Certainly a point for consideration. As I was taught, we would block as we move in, a counter-attack being part of the entire movement. We have very few counters to a punch or kick where we would not first block, or block as part of the counter. But blocking when it is used, is normally much as you describe; avoiding the attack and counter-attacking.

For example, if someone throws a side kick at you, what do you do? 1) Do you try to block a side kick with a down block or a side block standing roughly where you are already? Hmm, good luck with that. 2) Do you step back or to an angle to avoid the kick before countering with your own kick as is taught in a sport sparring match? Better I suppose, but I think acquiring closer range is imperative to ending a true fight. You don't want to drag things out and exchange shots at each other. 3) Do we step to the side to avoid the kick while covering up with a block before truncating with a series of counterstrikes as is frequently taught in many one and three step sparring sets? Also better than option 1, but there's still that opportunity cost taken up. 4) Do we move in such a fashion that we avoid the attack and in same movement counter effective. IMO this is best. An example would be angling one's torso to let the kick slip by while immediately attacking the kicker's jawline with a ridgehand that converts into reverse hip toss once we have entered in behind the strike.

We have many defenses. Mostly we block first as we move in to counter. Before attaining 1st Dan, in the Hapkido I learned, I was taught 9 blocks, some high, some low, some middle. Then I was taught 5 blocks and strikes, 5 blocks and breaks, and then 5 blocks and throws.

To your questions, number 1, with a side block. is certainly one of the ways I learned in TKD. As to Number 2, you might want to add this to your tool kit: Step back long (enough), covering your rib cage with your left hand (assuming the left foot forward), bring your right hand in an arc up and down with a back knuckle strike to your opponent's ankle bone, just as he has full extention. The rest of the worries you had are gone. Break or not, that foot is no longer working well for your opponent. If he is the only one, take him out as you wish or leave. If more than one, the first isn't going to attack you before you can defend other(s). Number 3 - for a right side kick, move forward to the left, away from the kick. Sudo strike the calf with your right hand as you simultaneously ridge hand strike the shin with you left hand. Turn your right hand to the leg and slide both of them down, whether you opponent is trying to withdraw the leg or not. Your left hand will catch the forward part of the foot, the right the heel. Twist the heel up and the toes down, and if you wish, lower the leg to rotate the leg even more. Walk away covering your ears to lessen the sound of the screams of the dislocated knee/hip. ;-) This will also work for number 4. Your solution is also quite doable, if a little more complicated, and depending on you attacker still being there for you to step behind. With your kind permission, I will add that to my tool kit. We had some counters where we stepped to the side of a kick, and raised the same arm as the kicking leg up, and trapped it with our arm, then counter attacked in one of several ways, such as stepping forward and kicking down on the calf of the opponent's plant leg, forcing him to fall backwards with an injured calf, or with our other hand, grabbing his leg at about the knee and pulling it forcefully to dislocate it.

As I mentioned, we have more defenses than I mentioned, plus more blocks and counters are learned before attaining 2nd Dan.

Now do we always have four options like I presented here. Well, no. But, the more you train the more options you have and I'd rather train for alternatives like #4.

Third, say we just like blocking. It makes sense to us, we think we can do it successfully, so why not block, yada, yada. Well, the main reason is that most people don't condition their arms like they should if they really want blocking to work for them. I mean in the destroy your attacker's arm sense. That's real blocking. The old Hung Gar people go crazy with all the arm banging they do to build up bone density. So do the hardcore Goju-ryu karate people with their kotikitae. Respectfully, just as the spear hand strike is an 'archaic' remnant from the days when martial artists conditioned their fingers, so too is blocking an artifact of times past when arm conditioning was a lot more prevalent. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that blocking can't work if we don't condition our arms. It can, but I would suspect that instead of blocking and destroying the attacker's capacity to hurt us, we now really mean blocking and absorbing force, which is less than optimal IMO.

That is a very good point. But that mostly if you are trying to break something with your block (not a bad idea in itself). Most blocks only need to move the mass of the limb enought to the side to avoid being hit by fist, foot or knee. Much less force needed. But combine the block with the speed that is normally necessary, and yes, you need some toughening

Does any of that sound like what you have learned in Aikido? And can you see what I mean by a block first and continuation for a counter? I really think we may be closer in understanding and application, just using terms a little differently.

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't think there is only one right answer, but let me put a fight into rhythm with beats. Each movement is a beat, so a block takes up a beat. Assuming you and your opponent move at the same time, let's say your opponent strikes and you block. Unless you have done damage, destroyed his balance, or gained a controlling grip (which your hapkido block often becomes), your opponent can continue his attack. Blocking by itself is definitely better than getting hit, but if you can move to attack in that first beat in a way that avoids his attack, you can defeat him sooner and hopefully with less contact. If you only block and do not improve your situation, the second beat will see the attacker continue his attack, leaving you again only defending on the second beat. It's also good to remember that blocking can result in injury to the blocker. I broke an arm blocking a kick I should have sidestepped when I was a new yellow belt.

To go to your hapkido world, if your block results in control of a limb and upsetting your opponent's balance, then you are in position to win on the second beat. Your block was as much to stop and grab a limb as to stop an attack. So I would say that your 'block' was not completely defensive but also the first step of your attack.

Carl

Explained that way, by beats, yes, there is an ability for further attacks. Some times even with a simultaneous block and attact there may be a danger. But in the Hapkido I learned, we usually tried to avoid that by moving out of the way, or grabbing in such a way that the opponent is unable to strike or kick anyway, such as the manipulation of a joint to put the opponent off balance and/or out of stance and unable to deliver a blow. Or, we delivred a counter as we blocked. But you are right, it is always something to be aware of and protect against.

EDIT: I think that as I mentioned before, the first teachers/adopters of forms, probably knew in a fight, you weren't probably going by beats, or that you needed faster speed. But since the forms were a teaching method, it made sense to sometimes to "do it by the numbers." I don'e really know that, but it seems to make sense just for the reason you bring up.

 

[puunui]

What these techniques are for are to improve one's health and physical fitness. According to Shaolin legend, the monk Bodhidharma travelled from India to China's Shaolin Temple. When he arrived he found the monks to be in too poor shape for the practice of Buddhism's chanting and mediation. So he taught them 18 techniques to designed to improve their health and physical fitness. From those 18 techniques, which I believe were yoga poses, sprang the Shaolin martial arts.

The Chung Do Kwan's founder, GM LEE Won Kuk, believed that the martial arts was primarily for improving one's health. He wrote a calligraphy, Hwal In Taekwondo, meaning Life Giving Taekwondo or Taekwondo for long life, which was the basis of his philosophy. So the martial arts aren't for beating people up or for "self defense" or "war" or whatever. It is to lengthen your life and improve your physical, mental and spiritual health.

 

[StudentCarl]

So the martial arts aren't for beating people up or for "self defense" or "war" or whatever. It is to lengthen your life and improve your physical, mental and spiritual health.

That's the best thing of all, a daily benefit. I get fitter and happier, get to train, coach and compete in a fun sport, and meet great people. If I should find practical defense skills that I hope to never need again, that's good too. What's not to like? I'm guessing the Shaolin monks also found practical skills in their fitness activity, or we'd only see them running fitness programs. Apparently GM LEE Won Kuk also felt "primarily", not exclusively.