Standardized Ho Sin Sul

[Master Jay S. Penfil]

That's a bit of overkill from my perspective. There are only so many ways you can be grabbed. Better to learn one or two simple, useful, and quick techniques than trying to cram 100 into your brain.

I have to agree with JT here…

One of the major issues that I have with many of the martial arts association, regardless of system or nation of origin is the constant bombardment at each level with regard to new material to memorize.

A student spends approximately three months memorizing what he/she needs for a given rank testing, gets it to a point that they can test with it and is than given a whole new list of requirements.

I prefer to teach less volume with higher proficiency and deeper understanding.

Keep this in mind…

When you are attacked on the street by an attacker who is not going to be compliant, and who isn’t going to stop attacking you if you attempt to “Tap-Out” your ability to respond quickly to the attack is what will save you or cause you to loose. The more fancy techniques that you have stored in your memory, the more confused you will most likely be at the time of the attack.

With regard to Ho Sin Sul training, I teach my students about the importance of controlling center, timing and distance, as well as how to take the attackers balance away and put him on the defense right away.

Practicing wrist grabs is the best way to learn about joint manipulation. If you can get a hold of the attacker’s hand, and you are well trained in what to do with it once you have it, the rest is easy.

All of the wrist locking techniques should be applicable with punching or striking techniques as well. Once you have a grasp of how to apply a specific wrist lock from a grab, try to apply the same lock on an incoming punch. This is something that I see few if any schools teach.

Ho Sin Sul should not be an extravagant exercise. It shouldn’t be so fancy that it takes thousands of hours to learn. If it does, you will never make it work in real life. I work with many law-enforcement officers. When I teach the Tang Soo Do basic hand techniques, we work Ho Sin Sul into our practice. Every technique that we use has multiple Ho Sin Sul built into them.

Think about it this way…

If you are going to practice Hadan Mahk Kee for thousands and thousands of repetitions in your lifetime you should be able to use it in a real life situation.

How many of you can explain in written form here; How you would apply Hadan Mahk Kee in a real street confrontation, doing it as it is practiced in class?

This is what I have my students do for every testing from the beginning. If they can’t apply a required technique when attacked, it doesn’t matter how pretty they look when demonstrating it in the air.

When my student, Master David Frizzell returned from Iraq a couple of years ago for a 2 week R&R, I had him teach a two hour seminar for my class. He asked me; what do you want me to teach? I said; it’s your seminar, teach anything that you want to teach. Master Frizzell chose to teach “Battlefield Applications of Gicho Hyung Il Bu”. For those of you who are not familiar with Tang Soo Do hyung, this is “Basic Form #1”. At first everyone was scratching their heads; what is he going to take us through? How will he keep our interest for two whole hours with “Basic Form #1”?

The amount of Ho Sin Sul demonstrated by Master Frizzell from Basic Form #1 blew everyone away.

In closing here, let me state that; everything that we do in class should center around Ho Sin Sul. If what you are being taught can’t be applied (by you), get with your instructor to figure it out. If what you are being taught can’t be successfully applied by your instructor, ask yourself; why am I here? If your goals include “self-defense”, and the instructor that you are learning from can’t make it work, you are in the wrong school.

Ho Sin Sul is among the most important areas of our training.

 

[Makalakumu]

Ho Sin Sul is among the most important areas of our training.

I agree with Master Penfil 100% with the above. However, I would ask his opinion on what he thinks of the separation of ho sin shul and ill soo shik. I essentially consider what koreans call "ho sin shul" to be ill soo shik that use pushing and pulling techniques. Which all of our forms defend against equally as well as striking techniques. Thus, IMHO, I feel that the separation between the two is unnecessary and probably counter productive.

Personally, I see Ho Sin Shul as something very different then what most KMAists practice. This is largely because of what I feel above. Ho Sin Shul means "defense of the body" which, if you think about it, can include techniques that attack with strikes, pushes or pulls. So, what should ho sin shul encompass? What would make it any different then ill soo shik?

The answer lies in the nature of the attack. In ill soo shik, the defender tells the attacker what he/she wants them to do. This is done in order to practice applications from the form. In ho sin shul, knows only the general rules (if any) for the nature of the attack. The actual attack comes randomly, with intent, and with an increasing amount of resistence as rank progresses.

In my experience, many TSD dojangs already do this, but it is not formally present in the curriculum. In my dojang, we call this ho sin shul.

 

[exile]

...what should ho sin shul encompass? What would make it any different then ill soo shik?

The answer lies in the nature of the attack. In ill soo shik, the defender tells the attacker what he/she wants them to do. This is done in order to practice applications from the form. In ho sin shul, knows only the general rules (if any) for the nature of the attack. The actual attack comes randomly, with intent, and with an increasing amount of resistence as rank progresses.

In my experience, many TSD dojangs already do this, but it is not formally present in the curriculum. In my dojang, we call this ho sin shul.

So, in a nutshell, you're saying that ho sin shul is relatively `alive', noncompliant training? As vs. the kind of approach in one/three step training, where the moves are predetermined, and you're just mastering the physical execution? Very interesting... that would imply a logical progression in training from ill soo shik to relatively constrained ho sin shul to completely unpredictable, combat-realistic ho sin shul, would it not?

 

[Makalakumu]

Absolutely! Because that is what is missing! In every standardized curriculum that I've seen, there is NOTHING like that, but it needs to be there. This may be in an instructors mind and they may implement that in the dojang outside of the drills that are required, but it has never formally been put down as a requirement.

This is unfortunate, IMO. That progression is what is going to help a student use this stuff in real life.

Sigh. Again I'm struck with the simple fact that so many people have been taught bad pedegogy for so long. If more people understood this, KMA would have a completely different image.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

In ill soo shik, the defender tells the attacker what he/she wants them to do. This is done in order to practice applications from the form. In ho sin shul, knows only the general rules (if any) for the nature of the attack. The actual attack comes randomly, with intent, and with an increasing amount of resistence as rank progresses.

Indeed; part of ho sin sul testing is being able to react as soon as you're grabbed, without having to think about how you're being grabbed or what you're going to do. You just do it. This is especially important in knife/sword defense, because you have to react to a weapon coming at you from a direction you won't know until it's coming right at you. You pass if you defend yourself; if you don't, you're dead.

 

[exile]

...that would imply a logical progression in training from ill soo shik to relatively constrained ho sin shul to completely unpredictable, combat-realistic ho sin shul, would it not?

Absolutely! Because that is what is missing! In every standardized curriculum that I've seen, there is NOTHING like that, but it needs to be there. This may be in an instructors mind and they may implement that in the dojang outside of the drills that are required, but it has never formally been put down as a requirement.

This is unfortunate, IMO. That progression is what is going to help a student use this stuff in real life.

Sigh. Again I'm struck with the simple fact that so many people have been taught bad pedegogy for so long. If more people understood this, KMA would have a completely different image.

If it's any consolation—and I'm pretty sure you're as aware of this as I am, UpN!—Japanese karate has faced exactly the same problem for a good long time, to the extent that the need to progress from formalized, conventional one- or three-step prearranged training to effective defense against fullly unpredictable attacks has become a kind of rallying cry for the people in karate who are trying to reclaim the combat-effectiveness of their art. It's not just the KMAs which have this problem (though the high-profile shadow of the Olympics makes TKD, and by extension TSD, an especially visible target for the skeptics). The Japanese striking arts too face a major pedagogy problem similar to ours. I'm inclined to think that there's a serious element of something like denial in much current and recent MA training in general, of a kind that would have baffled people in occupied Okinawa in the 19th century or post-occupation Korea in the mid-20th century. JT's post touches on that:

Indeed; part of ho sin sul testing is being able to react as soon as you're grabbed, without having to think about how you're being grabbed or what you're going to do. You just do it. This is especially important in knife/sword defense, because you have to react to a weapon coming at you from a direction you won't know until it's coming right at you. You pass if you defend yourself; if you don't, you're dead.

A lot of the pedagogical problem that UpN was talking about reflects a serious disregard for the point I've bolded in your post. It's not particularly pleasant to train for defense against vicious physical attacks, but if you don't, you won't have the skills to meet them successfully. A lot of dojangs and dojos don't seem to want to confront the fact that training for that kind of defense requires a kind of approach very different from ordinary sparring training...

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm inclined to think that there's a serious element of something like denial in much current and recent MA training in general, of a kind that would have baffled people in occupied Okinawa in the 19th century or post-occupation Korea in the mid-20th century.

What I've been searching for is for some kind of evidence that would indicate that people like me have reinvented the wheel. I take a look at Okinawan Karate and I have to wonder if they have a vastly different curriculum then what we or the Japanese have. From what I've gleaned from talking to people, this seems to be the case, but now I want to see it on paper.

 

[Master Jay S. Penfil]

Greetings to all,

I have stated this for a long time now, and UpN and I have discussed it in detail on the phone as well as here on MT.

What we teach as our Tang Soo Do curriculum, the Japanese teach as there Shotokan, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryo, etc. curriculum all came from the original Okinawan roots. The problem was simply that; when the Okinawan’s packaged their systems and shipped them off to other countries they intentionally left out the meat and sent the empty shell.

Think about it…

If you were Okinawa and the country that you lived in fear of for being the “GREAT OCCUPIER” found out that you had a great system of self defense and they wanted you to send it to them to learn; knowing in advance that they would take what you sent them, learn it, and one day return to your homeland and use it against you, would you send them the real deal, or some less viable copy to keep them happy with you?

The Okinawan’s were not stupid. They sent a bastardized version of their art to Japan, and left out the most important peaces of the puzzle, just to be safe.

When Oyata Sensei first came to the USA back in the early 1980’s, he was the first Okinawan to open up and share the real intent behind the Okinawan techniques. I know many of the first group that trained with him. Every one of them came from hard core schools. Many of them were from Isshinryu schools here in Metro-Detroit. As hard core as these schools were; and I know because that is where I first became involved in martial arts training in 1972, not even the Isshinryu schools had the knowledge that Oyata brought to the table.

What Oyata presented was so powerful that many of the senior black belt instructors left their instructor to go and train directly under him. Sensei Carbone was the one that was responsible for bringing him here in the first place.

When you watch George Dillman present Kyusho and Tuite you are not seeing what is real. He is not to be taken seriously. Dillman claims to have trained for extensive periods with Oyata and several other grandmasters. Watching Oyata, and watching Dillman is like watching Michael Jordan at the peak of his NBA career, and watching my 12 year old son Michael on the basketball court and trying to make a comparison. Would you waste you time??? I wouldn’t, and he is MY son…

To question if one has to go to an Okinawan school as opposed to a Korean or Japanese school in order to find the real deal on martial application is like saying that you are putting together a basketball team, and want to win every game. Your players are all African-American’s. Will that guarantee your team to be victorious? Not a chance. You want to make a great financial business so you build the business with only Jewish employees. Will you guarantee you business to be successful? Not a chance.

Just as we know that the prejudices that state; “All African-American’s can play Basketball”, and that “All Jewish people are wise and rich” are not true, the same is true in martial arts. Just because a school teaches what is known as Okinawan Karate, doesn’t mean that they have any more understanding of what is within the forms then the Korean or Japanese instructors.

You have to find the right instructors, and that is sometimes an impossible task in itself. I have been fortunate to be raised in a place where we are rich in great instructors, and over the years have had the opportunity to meet and train extensively with those who have what we have all been searching for.

These instructors, like me, teach seminars for anyone who is willing to bring them out to their community and cover their fees.

I have said it before. This isn’t rocket science. Once you start on the right path and establish an understanding for the principles and concepts that drive technique and application, you can look at any technique, any hyung/kata and decipher it. It is like learning a new language. Anyone can learn how to speak the words, and create sentences, but to truly understand it; you must amerce yourself completely and dig deep for the true meaning. Anything less is just a superficial education and has little value.

We can discuss these issues on discussion boards till our fingers fall off, but until we are face to face and ready to sweat on the training floor it is just discussion.

John, you haven’t reinvented the wheel. You have jumped on a wheel that has been spinning since the introduction of martial training to the western world and are trying to keep from falling off. You are on the right track. Keep up the good work.

If you have some time to get together, get a hold of me and we will make it happen.

 

[Chizikunbo]

Personally, I see Ho Sin Shul as something very different then what most KMAists practice. This is largely because of what I feel above. Ho Sin Shul means "defense of the body" which, if you think about it, can include techniques that attack with strikes, pushes or pulls. So, what should ho sin shul encompass? What would make it any different then ill soo shik?

The answer lies in the nature of the attack. In ill soo shik, the defender tells the attacker what he/she wants them to do. This is done in order to practice applications from the form. In ho sin shul, knows only the general rules (if any) for the nature of the attack. The actual attack comes randomly, with intent, and with an increasing amount of resistence as rank progresses.

Hello,
I do believe that Il Soo Shik Dae Ryun and Ho Shin Sool need to be separate. IMHO Il Soo Shik is used to teach proper distancing, and timing, among other things it includes basic strikes, kicks, and blocks to a known attack...Whereas ho shin sool contains throws, grappling maneuvers, punches, blocks, strikes etc. to an unknown attack. When we work on Ho Shin Sool, one student stands in Choon Bi, and two-three other students stand in a line in front of him...Beginning one at a time the students from the line come forward and circle the student in Choon Bi, and suddenly launching a random attack (which may include grabs, chokes, strikes, kicks, attacks with gun, knife, club etc.) the student defending must neutralize the attack quickly and effectively ending with the opponent on the ground, and the defender shuffling away. Then the next student from the line enters, and the one on the ground rejoins the line...advanced students may practice against two, or more attackers at once, usually this is done light-medium contact...but makes apparent the need for students to know and understand nak bup...because in intermediate/advanced levels, there are no mats used.
I do not practice Bunseok in il soo shik it is done on its own with the specific goal of analysis of techniques, and practice of those techniques, in more of an informal manner...it is put to practical use in ho shin sool practice.

FWIW,
--josh

 

[MasterPistella]

MBuzzy. Sorry, but I only have access to a computer a few times a week. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Yes, I am under GM Pak, Ho Sik.

JT. I had to self-defense against SBN Freidman at one test, & he has the ballistic part down pat. We all got yelled at for going too hard. It was me, him & SBN Szabo. Dang did we have fun. LOL

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

MBuzzy. Sorry, but I only have access to a computer a few times a week. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Yes, I am under GM Pak, Ho Sik.

JT. I had to self-defense against SBN Freidman at one test, & he has the ballistic part down pat. We all got yelled at for going too hard. It was me, him & SBN Szabo. Dang did we have fun. LOL

I don't know SBN Freidman that well/at all, but if you were vs. SBN Szabo...owch. Was this recently? From your previous statement, it doesn't appear that you're ITF.

 

[Tez3]

We only do TSD with the children so everything has to be stuff they can handle. They do wrist grabs, headlocks, chokes, grabs, defences from! On the subject of having 3000 self defence techniques my instructor has an interesting story.
A cat and a fox are sat one day discussing what they'd do if attacked by the hounds, the cat says quietly that she only has 1 defence against them. The fox starts telling her he has hundreds and how brilliantly they all work, in the distance the baying of the hounds is heard. The cat shoots straight up the nearest tree, the hounds get nearer and nearer until they come upon fox who is sat there trying to decide which of his many methods to use................ the ending you can imagine.

 

[JWLuiza]

There is an assumed separation of hyung/ho shin sul/il shoo shik. While some schools train all 3, there is a paucity of schools that remove the artificial distinction. My school uses il shoo shik to work on bridging the gap in distances between striking-->grappling--->ground. Standardized ho Sin sul is just a way to start.

Unlike some the groups described here, we don't teach standardized escapes (well we do.. .but in order to) but actually teach principles (techniques) that can be applied to almost any self-defense technique. Once you learn kote gaeshi from a standardized grip, you can then learn to apply it to another strike/grab/situation.

One of the drills I like to do is: Four corner defense (one defender, four attackers). The attackers grab one at a time (this is not a "reality drill") and once the grab is initiated, the instructor then yells out a throw, lock, or choke that the defender must work his way towards.

Defense is not technique driven, it is position driven. Always strive for the best position and you will have a technique. Strive for an escape/technique and you won't always have it.

But you can't get to that level of understanding UNTIL you've done your repetitions of the standardized escapes.

 

[exile]

On the subject of having 3000 self defence techniques my instructor has an interesting story.

A cat and a fox are sat one day discussing what they'd do if attacked by the hounds, the cat says quietly that she only has 1 defence against them. The fox starts telling her he has hundreds and how brilliantly they all work, in the distance the baying of the hounds is heard. The cat shoots straight up the nearest tree, the hounds get nearer and nearer until they come upon fox who is sat there trying to decide which of his many methods to use................ the ending you can imagine.

That's the old Aesop's fable of the hedgehog and the fox! (I've always wished that we in NAmerica that hedgehogs curled up in hedgerows... I've always wished that we had hedgerows too, come to think of it....) The interesting thing is that most attackers don't have zillions of techs. There has been a fair amount of research showing that most attack begin with a limited repertoire; MAists who've put in years as professional doorment and bouncers, guys like Peyton Quinn, Geoff Thompson and Peter Consterdine, tell the same story. A couple of different responses to each incoming attack technique, or a few at most (with choice driven by environmental opportunities and limitations, say) ought to be plenty, and much easier to train to reflex-reaction speed and sureness than dozens per attacking move. More is not necessarily better in the least, in the MAs anyway!

Unlike some the groups described here, we don't teach standardized escapes (well we do.. .but in order to) but actually teach principles (techniques) that can be applied to almost any self-defense technique. Once you learn kote gaeshi from a standardized grip, you can then learn to apply it to another strike/grab/situation.... Defense is not technique driven, it is position driven. Always strive for the best position and you will have a technique. Strive for an escape/technique and you won't always have it.

But you can't get to that level of understanding UNTIL you've done your repetitions of the standardized escapes.

This sounds much like Abernethy's distinction between techniques and principles. Bunkai give you a set of techniques (or a set of sets, since a given subsequence in a kata usually offers multiple possibilities), but in IA's view, what you should be taking away from those techs are the relevant principles, and what you should be training when you do realistic combat-oriented two-person training is application of principles, not desperately trying to haul the right technique from the grab bag of memory—for just the two respective reasons you two have mentioned: too hard to sift that quickly through all the possibilities to find the right one, and quite possibly, even if you do sift them, there won't be one that's quite right.