Practical Application of the Double-Knife-Hand Block

[Kung Fu Wang]

As to that video, you have Enemy #1's left arm in a wristlock and armbar. Enemy #2 is attacking from the left, so you use pain compliance to move Enemy #1 in the way of Enemy #2 and turn him into a human shield.

Now we start to get into detail. If you control your opponent's arm,

- your wrist control palm and your elbow control palm should face to each other and not face the same direction.
- also your tiger mouth (space between thumb and index finger) should open.

In that clip, both palms are facing downward. You can't control your opponent's arm this way. Also neither tiger mouth are open. No grabbing intention.

IMO, if small detail cannot map into application, the application intention is missing. No matter how many years a traffic cop may direct traffic, he will never become a MA person.

 

[skribs]

Now we start to get into detail. If you control your opponent's arm,

- your wrist control palm and your elbow control palm should face to each other and not face the same direction.
- also your tiger mouth (space between thumb and index finger) should open.

In that clip, both palms are facing downward. You can't control your opponent's arm this way. Also neither tiger mouth are open. No grabbing intention.

IMO, if small detail cannot map into application, the application intention is missing. No matter how many years a traffic cop may direct traffic, he will never become a MA person.

This is what I have been saying most of this thread (and another thread on a similar subject). I'm glad someone else thinks like me. If I'm locking the elbow, then that hand will probably face down instead of inward, but I do agree about the wristlock. I was just coming up with an off-the-cuff response for the general motion.

Although when I get too hung up on how to grab a hand or wrist in hapkido, my master will tell me I'm overthinking it and just to do it without using his thumb. (And usually make it more painful to drive the point home). If you're pinning the hand in with a ridge-hand, this might technically work. But I'll admit I'm reaching for that one.

One thing that pops into my head is you just noticed there's a scorpion on you and are trying to set it down on the table next to you without startling it into stinging you, but that seems to be a bit of an odd thing to put into a martial arts form.
Or pretending to be a zombie so other zombies don't eat you, but that seems even less likely.

It kind of reminds me of the WTF Taekwondo clinch, but again - details will take that out. And this video looks older than what I believe would be the Taekwondo clinch.

Also reminds me a bit of an arm escape and then a trip, but there would be more legwork and more muscles in the arms would be engaged.

Yeah I got nothing!

 

[jks9199]

So, is it by happenstance? Is it that there is none intended? I am confused...

There is a story of a kata being taught, and the instructor reached a point where he taught three hopping steps back. A student asked him why, and he had to answer "Well, that's how I was taught... I don't know what it's supposed to be doing..." They experiment and experiment and nothing seems to make sense. He has a chance not too long later to ask one of his own instructors... and they too can't explain it. They finally get a chance to ask one of the most senior members of their system... He thinks about it, goes through the kata -- and then suddenly remembers. "Oh, yes... in the old dojo, we didn't have enough room unless we took those three steps back. They're not part of the form; they just were done so that we didn't run into the wall."

I don't think that's the answer to the OP's question... but it's something to consider. Is the movement simply because it's part of how that technique is done, and it's preserved in a basic form? Does it set something else up?

When I look at the form in the video linked above, the various movements are choppy and disconnected to me. What is the basic explanation or application? If it's a block, why is the next move another block, but no strike?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Here is the question. If an "abstract" form can be mapped into many different "application" forms, when you train, should you train the "original abstract" form, or should you train the "mapped application" form?

One day when I trained the 'diagonal strike" (SC 1st form). My teacher walked toward me and asked me what I was doing. I told him that I train the form exactly the same way that he taught me. What he had said that day open my eyes for the rest of my life. He said, "If you want to train single leg, you should train diagonal strike this way. If you want to train diagonal cut, you should train diagonal strike this way."

A principle can be mapped into many applications. IMO, each and every application should be trained separately.

diagonal strike -> punch on your opponent's shoulder
diagonal strike -> single leg
diagonal strike -> diagonal cut
diagonal strike -> ...

 

[skribs]

When I look at the form in the video linked above, the various movements are choppy and disconnected to me. What is the basic explanation or application? If it's a block, why is the next move another block, but no strike?

I'll admit that sometimes I feel there's too many blocks in the Taekwondo poomsae. However, sometimes your opponent uses a combination instead of a single attack, and rarely in Taekwondo forms do we have a simultaneous block and strike (which is what I would opt for).

Taekwondo forms tend be slower paced and often contain individual techniques instead of combinations. They still flow together, but they tend be timed differently than what it sounds like you're used to. The reasons for this, as far as I can tell, are:

• Palgwe Taekwondo forms and Shotokan Karate both place an emphasis on deeper stances and powerful attacks.
• Breathing is an important aspect of Taekwondo forms, to exhale sharply or kiyhap with every technique
• Going faster in the forms, students tend to get sloppy. I see this the most in kids. Going slower allows you to do the form more accurately.

Surprisingly, the small tidbits I've learned about Tai Chi, 2 of the 3 points I mentioned above about Taekwondo forms are important to Tai Chi.

There is a story of a kata being taught, and the instructor reached a point where he taught three hopping steps back. A student asked him why, and he had to answer "Well, that's how I was taught... I don't know what it's supposed to be doing..." They experiment and experiment and nothing seems to make sense. He has a chance not too long later to ask one of his own instructors... and they too can't explain it. They finally get a chance to ask one of the most senior members of their system... He thinks about it, goes through the kata -- and then suddenly remembers. "Oh, yes... in the old dojo, we didn't have enough room unless we took those three steps back. They're not part of the form; they just were done so that we didn't run into the wall."

There's a bit of that at my dojang in various parts. When I practice at home in my tiny Condo, there's a lot of shallow stances, a lot of half-step-forward/half-step-backward motions (where normally it would just be a step forward), and a lot of hopping back for room. In the dojang the person in the front right usually has to scrunch up the part of the form that takes them into the corner. In one form, near the end, we typically stop the form and have the first row take 2 steps forward and the 2nd row take 1 step forward, so there's enough room for a jump spinning kick without kicking each other.

Here is the question. If an "abstract" form can be mapped into many different "application" forms, when you train, should you train the "original abstract" form, or should you train the "mapped application" form?

One day when I trained the 'diagonal strike" (SC 1st form). My teacher walked toward me and asked me what I was doing. I told him that I train the form exactly the same way that he taught me. What he had said that day open my eyes for the rest of my life. He said, "If you want to train single leg, you should train diagonal strike this way. If you want to train diagonal cut, you should train diagonal strike this way."

A principle can be mapped into many applications. IMO, each and every application should be trained separately.

diagonal strike -> punch on your opponent's shoulder
diagonal strike -> single leg
diagonal strike -> diagonal cut
diagonal strike -> ...

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, there is a lot of attention to detail in the Taekwondo forms. In each technique I perform, there are probably dozens of details in each technique that I look at, including:

• How are my toes aligned
• Feet distance on X and Z axis
• Bend in each knee
• Alignment of my hips and shoulders
• Position of my hand and elbow for each hand in chamber position
• Timing of chamber and technique
• Timing of breathing during technique
• End position of each hand
• Tightness of my fist or blade of hand
• Concentration on where I'm looking
• Posture

A lot of this becomes muscle memory the more you practice, but when I practice my forms I work on the movements to make them more exact. In doing so, I must respect that the precise motion was selected for a reason, and understand the reason itself to be precise.

The other side of the argument is - there are so many possible techniques you can use, especially if you start looking at variations, that do you reach a point where practicing all of them becomes impossible, so you lump similar motions together to train more efficiently? Or do you continue to train each one individually?

For example, I can think of several factors in doing a front kick:

1. Are you using the ball of the foot or heel to kick a vertical target, or your instep to kick a horizontal target?
2. Are you kicking low (i.e. knee), middle (i.e. groin or stomach) or high (i.e. solar plexus or nose)?
3. Are you doing a snap kick or pushing kick?
4. Are you doing a kick with the front leg or rear leg?
5. Are you adding a hop, step, skip, or jump to your kick? (And yes, all are different)
6. Are you stepping forward or back after the kick?

Now, with the front kick, question 2 just changes how high you aim, but with a roundhouse kick it may change the degree to which you turn. With a roundhouse kick, you have speed kicks and power kicks, you have repeated kicks and double kicks, you have kicks that help you set up a turning kick.

Do you practice one possible option as "front kick" and then say the motion applies to all types of front kicks? It kinda does and it kinda doesn't.
Do you practice 100 variations of the kick to keep current on each? Then you're not getting much repetition on any individual movement
Do you isolate factors and drill them one at a time? i.e. if you've practiced both ball of the feet and instep, do you need to drill both versions for low and high kicks?

This may be where some of the disconnect is. Where I want to separate similar movements into individual techniques to practice, others might want to group them together for the sake of efficiency.

This is kind of a rambling post, I think I'll stop now.

 

[jks9199]

Taekwondo forms tend be slower paced and often contain individual techniques instead of combinations. They still flow together, but they tend be timed differently than what it sounds like you're used to.

Our forms develop a rhythm or flow rather than being done metronomically, unless we've got a reason for doing it on a beat, like a group performance. There may well be sequences of more than one block, but at some point, the blocks have to stop and some sort of strike or other attack happen; that's part of the "storytelling" of a form. For example, our first form has 8 sets of 2 counts; the rhythm is one-two, one-two... because each set is a block and punch. The (imaginary) attacker comes from the front, throwing a punch to your face, and you step into it, blocking and counter-punching... and so on. The flow reflects (one) application... not necessarily the only one, and a different performer might emphasize it slightly differently. But, with that said... I can still look at a form done differently and see common principles -- or their lack. This particular form seems to lack a unifying story -- so I kind of guess that the "story" is really a principle of movement or positioning, rather than a set of direct applications. In this particular instance, I would suspect perhaps that the underlying principle of the movement of both hands in the knife hand block is the movement of both hands in unison and symmetry.

 

[skribs]

Our forms develop a rhythm or flow rather than being done metronomically, unless we've got a reason for doing it on a beat, like a group performance. There may well be sequences of more than one block, but at some point, the blocks have to stop and some sort of strike or other attack happen; that's part of the "storytelling" of a form. For example, our first form has 8 sets of 2 counts; the rhythm is one-two, one-two... because each set is a block and punch. The (imaginary) attacker comes from the front, throwing a punch to your face, and you step into it, blocking and counter-punching... and so on. The flow reflects (one) application... not necessarily the only one, and a different performer might emphasize it slightly differently. But, with that said... I can still look at a form done differently and see common principles -- or their lack. This particular form seems to lack a unifying story -- so I kind of guess that the "story" is really a principle of movement or positioning, rather than a set of direct applications. In this particular instance, I would suspect perhaps that the underlying principle of the movement of both hands in the knife hand block is the movement of both hands in unison and symmetry.

In earlier Taekwondo forms it's more metronomical, but in later forms you find there are some beats that are faster and some beats that are slower. For the forms at our school, Palgwe 1 is pretty metronomical, Palgwe 4 has fast parts and slow parts, Palgwe 7 is mostly fast, and Palgwe 8 is mostly slow. (Our forms are different from other school's versions of the Palgwes, so looking them up on Youtube won't help much).

Some forms, too, build up on each other. I have limited exposure to the Taegeuks, but Taegeuk 1-3 seem to do this. Our basic forms really build on each other. Kibon 1 establishes a pattern with down blocks and punches. Kibon 2 adds kicks before each punch. Kibon 3 takes away the kicks and most of the punches but adds in several blocks to the form. Now, Kibon 3 seems strange, because it has 14 blocks and only 6 strikes. But Kibon 4 is basically a combination of Kibon 2 & 3, and every block in Kibon 4 is proceeded by at least one strike. So in the context of the form itself, Kibon 3 doesn't make much sense. In the context that Kibons 1-3 prepare you for Kibon 4, it makes more sense.

The story I feel comes in smaller beats in Taekwondo forms, and I feel the story is more often than not a story of strikes - punches, kicks, and blocks.

 

[DaveB]

I am specifically trying to understand this application of the technique. I am specifically trying to understand why the motion to reach the position of the double-knife-hand block is advantageous over that of a single knife-hand block, in this particular context. '

But that's not the question you asked, hence it's not the question that was answered.

Someone else mentioned the hips going the other way in the double-knife-hand, ie turning into the block. Well you turn into the block when you want to hit with the other hand simultaneously with the block.

But as I said the main reason for the method is to differentiate it from karate.

I don't care about the other contexts, because I already understand them (or at least, some of them). I specifically want to address this one. @Jaeimseu , @wab25 , and @WaterGal were working with me on Page 2 to help me understand.

Knowing that a similar motion can be used for other things doesn't help understand how the motion can be used for this thing. Looking at this particular application, as those I mentioned helped me with on Page 2, the conclusion I have come to is that it is similar to putting your hand tight at your side, except in a more central location which opens up some combinations better - namely anything that will chamber across your body. So a punch is going to be better for your hip, but you might flow into a backfist easier from the solar plexus. Yesterday whenever I had a spare moment on the mat, I was playing around with different combinations and how they flow from the double-knife-hand vs. from the single-knife-hand, and I have a better understanding of this application of the technique now.'

That's great, I disagree completely especially about the hip chamber, but your own understanding is your own journey and clearly you are intent on figuring it out for yourself.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I think another issue inherent in your post is focusing too much on the name of the Block. In your system (per your post) the English name is "Double Knifehand Block" In the Chang Hon System it i "Knifehand Guarding Block" So one might think the purpose is inherent in the name, i.e. "Double" means both hands somehow blocking, vs "Guarding" meaning perhaps one Blocking and one serving only to Guard. To a large extent I think names and particularly English names were chosen in order to give a somewhat intuitive idea as to not just purpose but perhaps positioning as well. I will leave it to KKW people to give examples from that system but here are a couple of others. In some Chinese systems the term "Mountain" Block is used. Not because you are blocking a mountain but because the shape is similar to the Chinese calligraphy for mountain. In the Chang Hon system it is "W" shape block for the same reason. Certainly the name has nothing to do with the textbook application or alternate application. I could provide more examples, buy I think this makes the point.

 

[skribs]

But that's not the question you asked, hence it's not the question that was answered.

Someone else mentioned the hips going the other way in the double-knife-hand, ie turning into the block. Well you turn into the block when you want to hit with the other hand simultaneously with the block.

But as I said the main reason for the method is to differentiate it from karate.



That's great, I disagree completely especially about the hip chamber, but your own understanding is your own journey and clearly you are intent on figuring it out for yourself.

I want to start looking at a lot of the motions in the poomsae, and this is where I want to start. In particular, I am looking for the best-fitting practical application of why you would train this technique. The rules I am trying to follow when I look at techniques are:

1. The application must match the motion in the form. Otherwise, the motion in the form should be different to match the application.
2. Unless I have good reason to believe otherwise, I am going to believe that the name of the technique is accurate. For example, this is the double-knife-hand block, which I take to mean it is NOT a strike and it is NOT a grappling application, but is in fact a blocking technique.
3. I am going to try to keep each thread specific to a technique.

My question is this - what is the purpose of covering your solar plexus with the other hand in the manner depicted in the double knife-hand block?

What I quoted is from my original post. This IS the question I originally asked. You may not have interpreted it that way, but that IS what I asked.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean about the hip chamber.

 

[skribs]

I think another issue inherent in your post is focusing too much on the name of the Block. In your system (per your post) the English name is "Double Knifehand Block" In the Chang Hon System it i "Knifehand Guarding Block" So one might think the purpose is inherent in the name, i.e. "Double" means both hands somehow blocking, vs "Guarding" meaning perhaps one Blocking and one serving only to Guard. To a large extent I think names and particularly English names were chosen in order to give a somewhat intuitive idea as to not just purpose but perhaps positioning as well. I will leave it to KKW people to give examples from that system but here are a couple of others. In some Chinese systems the term "Mountain" Block is used. Not because you are blocking a mountain but because the shape is similar to the Chinese calligraphy for mountain. In the Chang Hon system it is "W" shape block for the same reason. Certainly the name has nothing to do with the textbook application or alternate application. I could provide more examples, buy I think this makes the point.

I didn't reject the other hand being a guard because of the name. I rejected the other hand being a guard because the position doesn't fit with other guards we use.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I didn't reject the other hand being a guard because of the name. I rejected the other hand being a guard because the position doesn't fit with other guards we use.

How boring would life be if everything fit?

 

[DaveB]

IMO, if small detail cannot map into application, the application intention is missing. No matter how many years a traffic cop may direct traffic, he will never become a MA person.

I used to think the same, but it's just not correct. I've seen way too much evidence that karate forms and at least a proportion of Chinese forms were just not created with such rigidity.

And the reason for this is simply that if you were going to try and exactly mirror your forms to your applications then for every variation you'd need a new sequence and the forms become too long to be useful.

Solo training isn't the same as training application of techniques. The forms exist to be
- Exercise, because you don't need anyone else to do that.
- A library of technique and strategy

Large volumes of data need to be compressed to be portable and in forms that occurs by making the techniques you practice a middle ground between the variations.

And since fighting is too fast and too fluid to be picking from a library of techniques the middle ground movements are laid out in patterns that convey core guiding rules which crystallise in application but which are malleable to the circumstance.

Maybe this approach is unique to southern Chinese Kung-fu and bled into karate (of which TKD is a sub group). Either way you just can't apply such rigid thinking to karate/TKD without losing most of the point

 

[DaveB]

I didn't reject the other hand being a guard because of the name. I rejected the other hand being a guard because the position doesn't fit with other guards we use.

So in order to accept knew information it has to be similar to old information?

 

[skribs]

How boring would life be if everything fit?

So in order to accept knew information it has to be similar to old information?

Let me rephrase - I didn't understand it's purpose as a guard, because guards are typically held away from your body to properly buffer the force of an incoming blow. If you look at the Wing Chun guard, for example, which is a similar position, the off-hand is held near the elbow and forearm, in front of the body, instead of tight against the body. As I said in my original post, and others have said in replies, if the hand is touching the solarplexus and something strikes the hand, the force travels through the hand and still goes right into the solarplexus. It's just like a Newton's Cradle or the break in pool.

So instead of making abstract notions about how "not everything has to fit" or "new information can be different from old information", address my belief that holding your hand against your body is bad for a guard position. Why would this be a good thing in a guard?

 

[skribs]

I used to think the same, but it's just not correct. I've seen way too much evidence that karate forms and at least a proportion of Chinese forms were just not created with such rigidity.

And the reason for this is simply that if you were going to try and exactly mirror your forms to your applications then for every variation you'd need a new sequence and the forms become too long to be useful.

Solo training isn't the same as training application of techniques. The forms exist to be
- Exercise, because you don't need anyone else to do that.
- A library of technique and strategy

Large volumes of data need to be compressed to be portable and in forms that occurs by making the techniques you practice a middle ground between the variations.

And since fighting is too fast and too fluid to be picking from a library of techniques the middle ground movements are laid out in patterns that convey core guiding rules which crystallise in application but which are malleable to the circumstance.

Maybe this approach is unique to southern Chinese Kung-fu and bled into karate (of which TKD is a sub group). Either way you just can't apply such rigid thinking to karate/TKD without losing most of the point

Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all description of what a form is, how they were created, and why they were created is going to be very difficult. Some forms are designed just to look good, some are designed to teach, and some are designed to reinforce what was taught. I've participated in a lot of forms threads, and some schools the forms you practice at home are essentially the drills you do in class, and in other schools the forms serve another purpose. In some arts, forms are supposed to contain the entirety of the techniques you use.

In Taekwondo, we do barely any kicks in the forms, there's absolutely no strategy for Olympic-style sparring (which is the sparring rules used by most schools in the organization, to my knowledge), and my school has a lot of techniques that are not contained in the forms. Now, we have other rote-memorized things which do address these other techniques and strategies in our curriculum, so I guess you could consider those kata, even though they aren't like the other Taekwondo katas. But the point is that these are techniques and strategies that don't show up in the forms in the KKW curriculum, even though the KKW and WTF are heavily linked.

 

[DaveB]

Let me rephrase - I didn't understand it's purpose as a guard, because guards are typically held away from your body to properly buffer the force of an incoming blow. If you look at the Wing Chun guard, for example, which is a similar position, the off-hand is held near the elbow and forearm, in front of the body, instead of tight against the body. As I said in my original post, and others have said in replies, if the hand is touching the solarplexus and something strikes the hand, the force travels through the hand and still goes right into the solarplexus. It's just like a Newton's Cradle or the break in pool.

So instead of making abstract notions about how "not everything has to fit" or "new information can be different from old information", address my belief that holding your hand against your body is bad for a guard position. Why would this be a good thing in a guard?

I did, I told you it's there because it's an aesthetic choice.

 

[skribs]

I did, I told you it's there because it's an aesthetic choice.

Yes, and @Earl Weiss responded to that on Page 3 by saying basically what I've said here - there's no buffer for the force of an incoming blow if your hand is tight against your body. So it's more than an aesthetics choice, it's a functional one as well.

 

[DaveB]

Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all description of what a form is, how they were created, and why they were created is going to be very difficult. Some forms are designed just to look good, some are designed to teach, and some are designed to reinforce what was taught. I've participated in a lot of forms threads, and some schools the forms you practice at home are essentially the drills you do in class, and in other schools the forms serve another purpose. In some arts, forms are supposed to contain the entirety of the techniques you use.

In Taekwondo, we do barely any kicks in the forms, there's absolutely no strategy for Olympic-style sparring (which is the sparring rules used by most schools in the organization, to my knowledge), and my school has a lot of techniques that are not contained in the forms. Now, we have other rote-memorized things which do address these other techniques and strategies in our curriculum, so I guess you could consider those kata, even though they aren't like the other Taekwondo katas. But the point is that these are techniques and strategies that don't show up in the forms in the KKW curriculum, even though the KKW and WTF are heavily linked.

Which again returns me to what I said before, TKD forms are mangled karate forms because they were created in a period when forms weren't being studied.

You should see some of the garbage that passed as applications of kata in old Shotokan books. The era that produced those lame ideas was the era that taught tkd's founders.

If you want to understand a knife hand block or any other karate technique study karate kata.

 

[DaveB]

Yes, and @Earl Weiss responded to that on Page 3 by saying basically what I've said here - there's no buffer for the force of an incoming blow if your hand is tight against your body. So it's more than an aesthetics choice, it's a functional one as well.

Except that the paradigm of fighting that uses staggered hands for a guard is not based on absorbing hits by covering. That comes from boxing and is a result of training with gloves.

This is the problem with interpreting new ideas by old standards.