Why chumbi sogi in one step sparring??

[Manny]

I just wonder, why in one step and three step sparring (SD) we must to part from the chumbi sogi instead the ready stance, I mean onguard? It's stupid to stand chumbi when the atack is coming at you, it's better to stay in the ready position (like a boxer stand) to anticipate the oponents moves and don't to be anchored to the ground.

All the one steps sparring I know both practicioners are in choombi sogi the enemy makes the ap kubi posistion yels and when the defendant yesla back the oponent make his/her move and the defendent reactions.

It seems silly to me to wait till we see the blow or kick to star moving.

Manny

 

[bluekey88]

In my school, through brown belt (5th gup) we do one steps from fighting stance. However after that,. the defender starts out in chumbi. The reasoning being, you may not be able to get into a stance. You may be in a position where a neutral stance is preferred (say you're trying to diffuse a sdituation, but it goes out of hand anyway). In the end, one must be able tyo flow into any technique from any stance.

Peace,
Erik

 

[Brad Dunne]

This was done for the benefit of beginners, to introduce them to the movements being done. It should however, start being phased out by the time students reach 8th or 7th guep IMO. There is the school of thought, where they feel starting from a non-offensive stance can possibly reduce the situation. I'm of the school where it's automatic for me to assume an angled position when confronted for any reason. Perhaps a big part of that development stems from being in law enforcement, in which we are taught this to protect the weapon, but it has carried over and IMO rightly so into my MA's training. Now it's not so much a boxers stance or an on guard position, it's just a normal walking stance, but the body is angled approx 45 degrees and this unto itself is not a threating or aggressive position, but it is a very defendable position. As opposed to the squared up neutral stance, I'm already that one step ahead of that position.

 

[IcemanSK]

I always wondered the same thing Manny. But I think there's something positive to be said for practicing SD from an "unprepared" or not an ideal stance. If I'm attacked on the street, I'm not going to be in the "perfect" position with my hands in a fighting stance ready to go.

I think that, in a small way, jun bi soegi allows students to throw SD techniques from an akward position. Perhaps that not the intent, but merely a side benefit.

 

[SJON]

I rather agree with Erik and Iceman. I think chumbi stance - or even better, a less formal neutral stance, perhaps factoring in some moving about and gesticulating or placating movements with the hands - is far more productive for the defender, as it imitates a real situation a lot better. I think the real problem with the whole set-up is the attacker starting too far away in ap kubi. As Brad says, the "formal" approach could be good for introducing beginners to the movements, etc., but after that you have to move towards something more realistic.

Another question is that most formal one-step - and all three-step - combinations that I've seen are next to useless against an attacker who throws a haymaker with real intention, and who will continue if you don't shut him down immediately.

 

[Brad Dunne]

"Another question is that most formal one-step - and all three-step - combinations that I've seen are next to useless against an attacker who throws a haymaker with real intention"

While I concur that the three-step combinations are a waste of time, I don't see the rational of most of the one-steps being useless. After all, that's what there supposed to be used for. Now to be fair, I have seen schools offer up some really stupid one's, but the blame there lies with the instructor and not the one step applications themselves. To me, the jab is a lot more trouble defending then the haymaker. The haymaker to me, gives me more time and space to react, but again, my training is not structured along the lines of the somewhat straight forward/linear movements associated with modern TKD.

 

[SJON]

When I say most of the one-steps I've seen are next to useless, I mean that their effectiveness relies on the attacker:

- being a certain distance away before launching the attack
- shouting before attacking
- not driving forwards constantly
- not repeating or retracting the attack
- using certain standard attacks like lunge punches and front kicks that are never used in real fights

Plus, there seems to be a trend for the defender using high kicks just because it's TKD, and TKD has to have high kicks.

About the jab, true, it's faster, but you don't often see them in a street fight.

And of course, the instructor - or the federation that dictates the syllabus - are most often to blame. Here in Spain, for example, there is a widespread disease called "titulitis", which is the illness by which one eschews the acquisition of actual ability and concentrates on the specific mechanics of passing an exam in order to obtain the "título" (certificate or qualification). So, you get generations of people who are really good at doing grammar exercises but can't speak the language to save their lives. Something similar happens with the martial arts, their belt grades and the supposed objective of being able to defend yourself.

 

[ATC]

We do one steps from Chumbi and fighting stance. Also when from fighting stance you will not do full blocks and attacks as you do from traditional stance as it is more like a fight. Also we were told that the one steps were just a guide and not absolute. Do what works.

When we practice once steps we also always are made to make up our own moves as what is shown does not always work. When we make up our own we have to do it on the spot. No pre thought out movements, just on the fly as would happen for real.

But on the test we have to do what is taught and our self created ones are all thought out as they want to see us use techniques taught and how well we understand the moves.

********************************************************
Nice April fools trick YouTube. Ha ha ha... you got me. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEH3XHHeQhY&feature=rec-HM-rn&flip=1)

 

[Brad Dunne]

When I say most of the one-steps I've seen are next to useless, I mean that their effectiveness relies on the attacker:

The effectiveness of any technique, regardless of any style, should fall not on the attacker, but the defender. Otherwise, what's the sense of even training.

- being a certain distance away before launching the attack

One should be able to adjust to all ranges of incoming attacks and if the training is well rounded, the defense against a long range punch can and should be used even if the attacker has grabbed you and is now attempting to punch. But the initial training for these has to start somewhere and opening up the distance is the starting point. It should'nt stay there though.

- shouting before attacking

There's a reason for this and though some may not agree, it was initially designed as to distract the defender. Just having that split second of distraction could be all that's needed to get the attack through to the target. If one trains to ignore such acts, then it won't be a surprise in the real world. Just about every fight I've witnessed opened up with a verbal assualt, then quickly followed by a physical attack.

- not driving forwards constantly

If the defender is doing the given technique(s) for the attack adequately, the attacker should not be driving forward at all. After all, the premise is to stop the attack asap and using your words, "and who will continue if you don't shut him down immediately."

- not repeating or retracting the attack

Again, refer to the above statement. If you are doing things right, the attacker should not be permitted to repeat the same attack and should not be able to retract(?).

- using certain standard attacks like lunge punches and front kicks that are never used in real fights

Just what is a lunge punch? I've seen guys jump in the air, at the defender and throw a punch. I've seen guys on a dead run throw the ever popular haymaker-roundhouse-hook punch. I've seen guys slide across the hood of a car and attempt to punch. Likewise, I've seen the front snap kick used by many in the street and they were not trained MA's for they did a lousy job of delivering the kick, but they tried. A front stomp kick is a favorite of street fighters. Different areas of the world seem to have different rules of engagement and perhaps your particular area, you do not see these applications applied, but here in the land of OZ, we see them.

Plus, there seems to be a trend for the defender using high kicks just because it's TKD, and TKD has to have high kicks.

Now this we agree on.

 

[Manny]

I am always at yellow condition you know aware of my sorroundings and trying to anticipate bad things, bad places and bad people, so that's why I feel dummy to traing sd using a neutral positions as chumbi sogi. In the streets as in life I feel more comfortable in an angle position (ap sogi), in a relax way (but ready) and trying to calm down tha things if someone or two people try to ambush me.

From the ap sogi stance I can lauch a speady front kick to the groing before the bad guy makes his move and them smash an elbow on him or I can dodge or parry or even block a punch or kick, I am quicker in the angle position that the chumbi sogi and arms down.

Manny

 

[Marginal]

I just wonder, why in one step and three step sparring (SD) we must to part from the chumbi sogi instead the ready stance, I mean onguard? It's stupid to stand chumbi when the atack is coming at you, it's better to stay in the ready position (like a boxer stand) to anticipate the oponents moves and don't to be anchored to the ground.

The main reason is that it helps establish spacing and keeps the one steps more uniform in their execution. Also, are you always going to be in ready stance if someone takes a swing at you? Not necessarily.

For example, I was walking through a food court at a mall. Some guys were goofing around, and they didn't see me. As I walked past, one threw a blind punch as part of a story. I slipped the punch and kept on walking. The guy who threw the punch didn't even know he'd had a near miss until one of his friends told him. He shouted out "Sorry" soon as he knew. I just laughed. It was a nothing encounter.

If I'd taken up a fighting stance and forcefully blocked the punch, things probably would've gotten a bit heated.

 

[SJON]

The effectiveness of any technique, regardless of any style, should fall not on the attacker, but the defender. Otherwise, what's the sense of even training.

I agree. They shouldn’t, but they do. I’m referring to the techniques themselves and the way they are trained.

One should be able to adjust to all ranges of incoming attacks and if the training is well rounded, the defense against a long range punch can and should be used even if the attacker has grabbed you and is now attempting to punch. But the initial training for these has to start somewhere and opening up the distance is the starting point. It should'nt stay there though.

Indeed, one should, but this generally isn’t the case.

There's a reason for this and though some may not agree, it was initially designed as to distract the defender. Just having that split second of distraction could be all that's needed to get the attack through to the target. If one trains to ignore such acts, then it won't be a surprise in the real world. Just about every fight I've witnessed opened up with a verbal assualt, then quickly followed by a physical attack.

No argument from me on the above. However, the main consequence of the shout at the beginning of one-steps is that the defender knows exactly when it’s coming.

If the defender is doing the given technique(s) for the attack adequately, the attacker should not be driving forward at all. After all, the premise is to stop the attack asap and using your words, "and who will continue if you don't shut him down immediately."

By driving forwards, I mean not stepping with the first technique then stopping to wait for the defender to do his stuff. Compare this with some of the scenarios you describe below, or with the common “grab the shirt with the lead hand and throw multiple overhand rights, pushing forward constantly” scenario. You’re right, the attacker shouldn’t be allowed to drive forwards after initial contact, but in conventional one-steps he would generally be able to, as the first technique (block) usually just redirects his arm rather than stopping or redirecting his bodyweight.

Again, refer to the above statement. If you are doing things right, the attacker should not be permitted to repeat the same attack and should not be able to retract(?).

Again, shouldn’t but generally can.

Just what is a lunge punch? I've seen guys jump in the air, at the defender and throw a punch. I've seen guys on a dead run throw the ever popular haymaker-roundhouse-hook punch. I've seen guys slide across the hood of a car and attempt to punch. Likewise, I've seen the front snap kick used by many in the street and they were not trained MA's for they did a lousy job of delivering the kick, but they tried. A front stomp kick is a favorite of street fighters. Different areas of the world seem to have different rules of engagement and perhaps your particular area, you do not see these applications applied, but here in the land of OZ, we see them.

The point is that no attacker will ever step forwards into ap kubi and throw a single lunge punch, i.e. bamde jirugi. I’ve seen a lot of events like the ones you describe, but would say that the “grab and pound” one I mentioned earlier is the most common. When I say front kicks, I mean TKD-type front kicks. I agree that soccer-type front kicks are common.

Plus, there seems to be a trend for the defender using high kicks just because it's TKD, and TKD has to have high kicks.

Now this we agree on.

Well that’s a relief.

Brad, I think we actually agree on more than we disagree on. I’m not criticising the one-step as a concept, but the way it is generally used.

Cheers,

Simon

 

[Brad Dunne]

SJON, thanks for the clarification of your position and I have to say for the most part I agree with it. As you said, it's not the concept of the one steps, it's the way their taught and the problem there lies squarely on the instructor(s).....:asian:

 

[Wasabinyc]

Personally I think one step sparring is useless.

Schools teach one step sparring for 2 reasons. It teaches the philosophy behind each attack and defend movement. Second reason is more business related rather then teaching anything practical where you can use to defend yourself. One step sparring in my opinion is mostly a gimick. It's also a great time killer for instructors.

Let's be honest. In all likelihood if you get into a confrontation, one step sparring isn't going to save your ***. You'll probably get your head knocked off if you tried that **** on the streets.

While on this subject i think weapons training like num chuks is basically the same thng. Basically business for the school and a waste of time.

Why don't tae kwon do schools concentrate on teaching what tae kwon do is best for? Olympic style sport sparring. All the other crap in my opinion is just a waste of time for the modern tae kwon do student.

 

[Marginal]

Let's be honest. In all likelihood if you get into a confrontation, one step sparring isn't going to save your ***. You'll probably get your head knocked off if you tried that **** on the streets.

Block then strike? That is a silly response to an attack.

Why don't tae kwon do schools concentrate on teaching what tae kwon do is best for? Olympic style sport sparring. All the other crap in my opinion is just a waste of time for the modern tae kwon do student.

BSD.com?

 

[bluekey88]

Personally I think one step sparring is useless.

Schools teach one step sparring for 2 reasons. It teaches the philosophy behind each attack and defend movement. Second reason is more business related rather then teaching anything practical where you can use to defend yourself. One step sparring in my opinion is mostly a gimick. It's also a great time killer for instructors.

Let's be honest. In all likelihood if you get into a confrontation, one step sparring isn't going to save your ***. You'll probably get your head knocked off if you tried that **** on the streets.

While on this subject i think weapons training like num chuks is basically the same thng. Basically business for the school and a waste of time.

Why don't tae kwon do schools concentrate on teaching what tae kwon do is best for? Olympic style sport sparring. All the other crap in my opinion is just a waste of time for the modern tae kwon do student.

I'd say more needs to be done with one-steps and the like rather than less. You're absolutely correct in that one-steps teahc valuable lessons...the problem is that msot schools oftne don't take the training far enough. They don't transition from compliant onesteps. to slight resistance, then greater resistance, then sparring.

the idea of focusing on JUSt sprot sparring is, IMO, one of the problems with modern TKD. And I'm a coach and competitior. Sport sparring is important, but jsut one aspect of the whole (I also think we should be scoring punches and allowing a greater range of techniques in sparring...but that's me).

Any school that focuses one one aspect of the art and forgoes the rest is losing out.

Peace,
Erik