Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by skribs, Sep 12, 2020.
I do this, usually about 10 or so posts too late.
I decided to give this question another go somewhere else. Somewhere where it wouldn't end up with me just arguing with you two again. So I posted it here:
The double knife-hand block : taekwondo
I'll sum up the conversation I had with a few of the commenters:
Them: It's a guarding block, except you use the other hand to help bring your upper body momentum into it.
Me: But what about the off-hand position at the end? Why palm up?
Them: As a chamber for your next strike.
Would you look at that? Their answer was concise and to the point. When I questioned the specifics of their answer, they were able to follow up with specific answers. Those answers met all 3 of my criteria: the 2 primary ones I've asked for here, and the third I've asked in previous threads:
It uses the technique as done in the form (main hand is a knife-hand block, off-hand comes from outside-in, and ends palm up).
It makes sense (the main hand makes sense as a block, the off-hand makes sense as to why it's moving in the direction it does, and why it ends in the exact position it does)
It uses the technique as described in the form (as a block). This was a secondary requirement in my post, the other two were "musts" and were met.
Now, this doesn't 100% change my opinion on the forms. However, it's opening me up to gathering more data and seeing if I can change my mind on my analysis. I still think the forms don't teach it very well, especially since you guys seem to have missed this, and half of the comments on the thread I linked missed it as well. I'm also skeptical of some of the later techniques, especially half of Keumgang. But I'll do one a day or one a week, and go through the different moves in the poomsae.
I think you guys (and most of the others that I've watched/read) have really overthunk the double knife-hand block. I'll see how people feel about some of the other techniques I mentioned above.
I am happy for you. Really I am. This shows progress, it shows you are learning and progressing. Thats what this is all about. Its not about you accepting my answer... its about you finding the answer that you accept.
I just want to illustrate the progress shown here.
You may have gotten the same answer here, except that you had listed that answer as a possibility that you would not accept.
Its great to see the progress that you are making.
This is one of the great things about these forms and kata... one of the ideas is to always keep looking. There is more than one answer.
I don't think we missed it. I think we believed you when you said you would not accept it as being in chamber because of the word "block."
The bigger point here is that the forms don't do the teaching... thats the teachers job. The forms are the body of work to be studied. A good teacher should not only point out specific things with in the body, but should also teach the student how to find things on their own with in the body of work being studied.
I hope you continue your progression here. Its not about you getting the same answer that I have. In fact, I hope that you don't. Its about you finding answers that work for you. The forms and kata are not empty, they are not too look good.... they have things in them. It is very possible, and in fact highly likely, that you will find different things in there than I will. Through discussion, I may learn from your view... I may accept your view and change mine, or I may add your view to mine or I may not agree with your view, but at least I will look at things from your viewpoint and learn something I had not known before.
I don't remember that (and I have a pretty good memory). I remember every time I tried asking specific answers, I'd get the runaround.
I remember you were too busy trying to explain that the main hand didn't have to be a block, that it could be a strike.
I did actually quote you above... saying that in your first post to kick off the thread about the double knife hand block. I even bolded the bullet point where you explain why it can't be a chamber. (you have to expand the 2nd quote from you in the above post.) I also quoted you saying it had to be a "block" and could not be anything else... (a chamber would be not a block)
I also found in that thread right on the first page, where Danny I believe suggested that it would block a double lapel grab.
Whew... memory. Not directly relevant to this topic, so I'll just say, @skribs I highly recommend looking into the fallibility of memory. It's fascinating. If you have 1 1/2 hours or so to listen to a couple of podcasts, it will get you started. Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell, season 3, episodes 3 and 4. Great stories, and particularly in episode 4, it gets into memory, and how often they are entirely wrong. I don't trust my memory for much. I mean, I do, but if I post a fact on this forum, you can be pretty sure I double checked it to make sure I wasn't misremembering.
Maybe I thought you meant the whole thing was a chamber. Might have been a miscommunication.
EDIT: guard position and a block with a chamber are two different things.
You know, this is a Great post. And is begs the question why din’t Skribs just go ask his instructor?
You genuinely did not know it was a ready hand? The is a rather basic answer isn’t it. Regardless, if that satisfies you I am happy for you.
As far as I can tell, you didn't know either, because you failed to mention it.
In all serious Skribs, we all know this has been a long and drawn out thread. You are 3rd or 4th Dan (I forget at the moment). When you ask questions like the one you asked or at least the one the thread centered on (again I forget at the moment) it is a real head scratcher. I made what now seems to be an incorrect assumption that you were looking for more or deeper into the block. Preface that with your near immediate rant to bash the forms and say again that they are not what everyone else says they are and understandably you get what you get. Wab25 done a very commendable job of explaining a good bit but no matter what the reply was you had already dismissed it and started bashing. Compound all of this with the fact that there were several others who attempted to give answers or at least flesh out the question that you dismissed and well, there you go. To you recent reply:
I was baling hay when I read the post, subsequent answers and your reply and frankly got pissed off enough to have to stop the tractor & baler and get out and walk around for a minute. Frankly, the fact that theses COLOR belt level answers satisfied your questions offends me to a point I don't even understand. Especially since you claim to be a mid level BB in a style I love and vehemently defend. It makes me question if you even really are a BB. You don't understand upper level answer, you are satisfied by very basic answers, you play all the cloak and dagger crap with your instructor and school, deflect and call me a stalker every time your school or instructor are mentioned, and have made many incorrect inferences about forms, techniques, styles, and federation. That is a good bit of evidence stacked up against you.
Look, I don't care if you as an individual want to go around making claims you cannot and consistently do not back up, but when you make claims against TKD as a whole, we have a problem.
But what I surmise is that you are just in such a big of a rush to jump ranks; that you are missing the ride, and missing out on a Lot of learning. If two answers so basic that most people on a MA specific site skipped over it changed the Very hard stance you have taken for some time on forms, that says a Lot.
My Kali teacher used to always say anyone can parry; babies come out of the womb kicking, flailing and parrying. This is what you did with the answers you were given here. Several times you were given answers but did not hear them or did not understand them. When this happens you start parrying, making all kind of silly excuses. Several times people were fishing for what you thought the answers were but you were too busy deflecting.
My TKD GM often talks about sine wave but not in the way you may think. He uses it to explain how we must live and control our emotions. We will get high, high and low, low. That is a part of life. But we must strive to find the parity and stay as close to it as possible. And we must learn how to handle and use the highs and lows to our benefit and not as a deterrent or an excuse. Adversity is the best tool there is if viewed as an opportunity and not an excuse. Don't get so mad at yourself and others that you cannot stop, reflect and ask the 5 W's.
Keep asking questions. That is a Very good thing. But don't have the answer so pre-framed that you do not hear the answers you get.
I usually enjoy our give and take. I will be the first one to admit this last exchange went too far on my part. It would have been better and easier for me to just walk away and ignore the blather. But that is not who I am; never have been, never will be.
I've said in several of these posts that I'm looking for the direct application first, and then the deep dive after that.
It is not at all my fault that you overcomplicated this. I asked a specific question, looking for a specific answer. You were too busy in the clouds to answer my question.
Keep in mind, when I first asked the question, I was probably either a color belt or a 1st Dan. But you didn't have the answers then, either.
This whole rant from you because the answer I sought was too basic? And this upsets you? Give me a break. Sometimes the answer is basics. Sometimes what is obvious to you isn't obvious to someone else. I would think someone who wanted to mentor people would know that.
At the time I started searching, every single form I used it in, it was not used as the chamber. Sometimes we go into a kick (Koryo). Sometimes our next technique is with our blocking hand (usually a downward palm) and the offhand goes into a proper chamber. Sometimes we use that hand next, but there's a different chamber (such as chambering at the ear for an inside block).
We didn't start the Taegeuks until much later. I see a little how it's used in 4, and a little more in 8. But the forms I had experience with didn't use it as a chamber.
I can't say I have ever heard of the close hand (at the mid-section) call anything other than the ready hand. I have heard several uses for the ready hand explained though.
Then your dojang uses different terminology than mine. We usually just say "left hand" or "right hand" depending on which side is blocking.
You have now repeatedly accused people of either not knowing the basic answer or of being to high in the clouds to give you the basic answer. The truth is, we that we read your first post when you started the thread. You specifically discounted and did not accept the very same answer that you now accept. That answer was not given to you, as you already had that answer and already ruled it out, wanting something different.
You then clarified in post 23 of that thread, that you specifically wanted it to be used as a "block."
I believe Danny had already given you the answer of "blocking" a double lapel grab. You discounted that when he mentioned it. You discount it now when I mention it. (I would have referenced Danny when I brought it up, but had forgotten that he had already brought it up.)
People have been trying to answer your questions. And they get a little frustrated with the response. You get very critical of people when they try to answer, even when they try to answer your very specific question about using both hands as blocks. Then, when you finally accept the answer, the one that you first did not accept, and told us that you would not accept (see your quote above) you go on accusing people of not knowing it or jumping to far beyond it. They were merely trying not to give you the answer you had already clearly looked at and refused.
These threads really shouldn't be about "I am right, and you are wrong." That usually leads to people getting frustrated. These threads should really have the tone of a discussion. "I see it like this," "I don't see it that way, I focus on this aspect differently and thus see it like this." Now, both sides can communicate and learn from each other. But, accusing people of being wrong, selling snake oil, things being worthless for anything other than how I see it... gets people riled up. I think we could all step back, quit accusing each other, and get back to discussing. If you want to be right or if you want me to be wrong... you are in luck. Skribs, you are right and I am wrong. As correct as that statement is, neither of us learned anything from it. But, if that is what you want, you have it now, feel free to quote it at any time.
No, it wasn't. It never was.
Both hands never had to be a block. The technique as a whole had to be a block. I was looking for why you would use that motion for the off-hand while the main-hand was blocking. Later on (in this thread) I dropped that specific requirement. And yet...
The application that was put forth in the thread, which I agreed DOES have it as a block.
For what it's worth, I am now ready to move on from considering it a block. But only because I now see how it can be used effectively as a block. I am ready to move on to similar movements, because now I see how this movement can be effective.
It's not that I think the only way to do it is as in the form. It's that the way in the form has to make sense. From there, variation in technique and scenario are fine. Although at this point, I don't know that I will. But now it's by choice instead of necessity.
You're still doing so, even after the question was answered. It's almost like you're jealous someone else was able to answer. Maybe you knew the answer, and just lacked the communication skills to effectively understand what I was asking, or to effectively answer said question. Whatever the case, you weren't able to answer my question.
To be very clear: a guard position and a chamber are two completely different things. Your hand chambered at your hip is not an effective guard. I'd argue that the hand chambered at the solar plexus is not very effective as a guard, either. Those are chambers, ready to strike. When I discounted it being a guard position, and accepted it being a chambered position, that's because guard and chamber are different things. In a lot of cases, they're both (especially in the boxing guard). But in some cases, especially in TMA forms, there is a chamber that is not effective as a guard.
Quote is a fun button....
I am just going to say progress. First "we do not have any techniques that chamber at out solar plexus," now: we do have at least one technique that chambers at the solar plexus.
That is correct. One technique. The point is, I couldn't draw from other similar techniques, because there aren't any others in the forms that chamber there.
And as I said, in our forms (at least until we started using the Taegeuks very recently), there was never anything coming out of that chamber.
I'm merely explaining why the answer isn't as "obvious" as it's being claimed to be. A different context might have madenit more obvious, but it wasn't from my forms. Hence my complaint about my forms.
Agree. Usually it is wen sonnal momtong makki or oreun sonnal momtong makki so which hand is ready hand is implied. Does your school talk any about the variants of the ready hand? ie, what else you can use it for?123
Separate names with a comma.