Static training methods in the traditional martial arts

[RTKDCMB]

With all these reality based defence systems out there many people have begun to question the training methods of traditional martial arts. They see many of the static methods of training such as patterns, one step sparring and certain self defence techniques as unrealistic. That is because they are taking what they see at face value. They use statements like “that won’t work in a real situation”, “your opponent is not going to just stand there after the first strike and wait for you to counter-attack”, “your training is ‘dead training’, you need to do ‘alive training’ on fully resisting opponents to be able to use it in a real situation” and “you fight like you train” as justification for saying that traditional martial arts are ineffective. They use this as a way to come up with their own special system of self-protection that ‘does not involve martial arts” yet they use martial arts techniques. So what are some of the training methods that receive criticism?

Bringing the hand back to the hip whilst punching with the other one;

Why is this done in traditional martial arts training? Bringing the hand back to the hip when punching instead of returning to the guarding position is not something you would do in free sparring or a real self-defence situation, if this is so then why is it done in the patterns or during basics line drills (walking up and down in a straight line in a stance practicing basics)? The answer is that this is done to learn the technique and so you can practice them without having to worry about protecting from attacks. It is a way of isolating the individual movement to concentrate on perfecting them. When you use the same technique during sparring, where you do have to worry about protecting yourself from attacks, you perform the punch from the guarding position. Punching whilst bringing the hand back to the hip is the purest most powerful form of the straight punch with 1 arm going forward and 1 arm going backwards at the same time driving the other one forward like 2 kids on a seesaw, this teaches you to twist the hips properly when performing the punch. If you watch carefully when a traditional martial artist punches from a guarding position this action of moving 1 arm backwards still occurs but to a lesser extent but the hip movement is the same. This is because of all of the practice of twisting the hips that was gained performing the punch in its raw state.

Static movements – one step sparring and self-defence techniques

What is the purpose of training to defend yourself from a single attack by your opponent just standing there while you counter attack? Again it is just a way of practicing and concentrating on the individual techniques. When some people see one step sparring or knife defences they think that this is how a traditional martial artist would actually perform the techniques in a real life self-defence situation. Why is it so difficult to understand that they are just practicing the techniques and not always training for realism on resisting opponents? If a white belt student trained on fully resisting opponents all the time then how are they supposed to learn the techniques properly and become good at them? They can’t so they must learn the techniques first and then at a later time practice them on opponents that provide a bit more resistance. When practicing certain self-defence techniques the person grabbing must grab firm but not tight, this is to allow the defender to practice the techniques without injuring his training partner An example would be a defence against a bear hug from behind where the defending student kicks back to break the knee or use a knife hand strike to chop the groin and then perform a release after the attacker has been softened up. If the person grabbing holds with full resistance then to perform the release the defending student would have to actually break the knee or really strike the groin to use the release and that would be impractical for teaching purposes. When practicing any particular release from a hold the person grabbing must not fight against the movement the person defending is making them do (this is to prevent injury to the attacking student) but must not move for them either, (this would be no resistance at all) and will not help the defender learn anything. An example would be a defence against a shoulder grab that involves the defender putting the attacker into a wrist lock. The defender must initiate the movement not the attacker and the attacker must not resist too much. The more the attacker resists the more force the defender must use to perform the technique successfully and this can lead to serious injury. It does not take much effort to break someone’s wrist and care must be taken to ensure both students can continue practicing safely. They practice this way so that they can perfect the techniques so that they become second nature so if they need to do them in a real situation they can use the techniques effectively and efficiently.

Patterns – hyung, kata, forms and whatever

Some people criticize martial arts that use patterns as a training tool, they say that patterns are useless and unrealistic and even suggest that traditional martial artist believe that patterns are supposed to represent free sparring. The main purpose of patterns is so you can practice the basics in 2 dimensions instead of just 1 (during line work). The patterns contain many of the most important techniques of the art, put into a logical order, to ensure they are practiced regularly even if they are not the student’s favourite techniques. There also some very important concepts that the patterns introduce to the student such as footwork, combinations and simultaneous block and counter-attacks. The patterns do not necessarily represent a single entire sequence but rather represent a few separate smaller sequences, one after the other, strung together for convenient practice. Patterns are also an excellent fitness exercise, performing 10 or more patterns at full speed and power one after the other will certainly get your heart pumping.

Belts

Martial artists trained for centuries without using a belt system so why do we need them now? The answer – back in the days before belts masters teaching their art would typically have only one student to hand down the art or sometimes a small group so back then it was easy for them to keep track of the students’ progress and also back then martial arts were almost always a lifelong commitment. When you have a school that has over 500 branches with an average of 10-30 students per class keeping track of every student’s progress becomes a lot more difficult, therefore a belt system becomes a bit more necessary. Also with the modern age students come and go, they start a martial art, stop for whatever reason (work or family commitments etc.) and restart sometimes years later so having a belt is a way for the instructors to gauge a student’s level of understanding and they also serve to group together students with similar knowledge and skills. Today’s modern world is a lot more goal orientated so having a belt system gives the students some short term goals and a target to aim for.

Basics always the same position for the hands

Some people may argue that having your hands end up in the same position, for example an outer forearm block that always has the fist in line with the shoulder and the front toes, does not represent reality in that attackers will not punch exactly at the same height every time. The techniques are practiced that way so that they are all the same, like a template, so that there is a basis where technique can be improved upon. When the techniques are utilized in free sparring or in a self defence situation they are modified for blocking and striking at different heights. Learning the blocks in the basics at every conceivable height would be a lot more difficult so you learn then at a specified height and then adjust according to the situation.


Please note; when reading this post that this is a training philosophy and not in any way meant to suggest that this is a statement of absolute truth and everybody who disagrees is wrong or that this is the only way of thinking. If you have different views then feel free to disagree (or rhyme), no offense is intended.

 

[Noah_Legel]

While I agree that traditional martial arts are effective, I can't say that I agree with your reasoning for a few of the things you listed. I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you, and this is just my opinion, but I believe that your explanations are really attempts to justify unrealistic training more than anything.

Bringing the hand back to the hip whilst punching with the other one

Pulling the hand back to chamber when punching does not provide a "seesaw" affect and doesn't really do anything to help you use your hips while punching, nor does it help you focus on a "pure" punch. To teach punching in this way without ever explaining and drilling the purpose of pulling the hand to chamber (which is to pull something you have grabbed a hold of on your opponent) is really just effective at teaching a bad habit. People who train in other arts can teach effective power generation and punching form without utilizing a chambered position, so obviously the chambering has little to do with the punch beyond enhancing its impact by pulling your opponent into the punch. I feel that far too many people maintain an obsession with the chambering as a method of perfecting form without actually putting any thought into function. Basically, I agree with you that chambering while punching is an effective technique, but I disagree with your reasoning because it neglects realistic utilization of that technique.

Static movements – one step sparring and self-defence techniques

I believe that most of the one-step sparring drills that are in use today are mostly useless, because they generally use the most basic traditional applications of every technique--a block is a block, a strike is a strike, the stance means nothing, and the hand pulling to chamber does nothing. This is completely unrealistic. You could argue that it helps students become accustomed to responding to attacks from another person, but the drills could be reworked to be MUCH more effective by utilizing practical applications against realistic attacks.

Your explanation of why self defense techniques should not be drilled on a fully resisting opponent is something I partially agree with--no one is going to be able to successfully perform the techniques on a fully resisting opponent on their first try, and so when a new technique is learned it should always be worked with very little resistance at first. From there, however, I believe that the resistance needs to be gradually increased over time until the opponent is fully resisting so that the student develops the proper form, speed, power and timing required to execute the technique effectively when they need it. It should be noted that when I say "fully resisting opponent," I do not mean that they resist everything to the point where you have to perform the technique as you would in real life, because that would result in far too many injuries, as you mentioned. In my view, the opponent should be as resistant as possible, but they are also acting out a role, and should try to react realistically to the techniques being used on them. This means that they should not let go of a grab or freeze after punching you just because you started to do a technique, but the should also not ignore the strike to the eyes or kick to the knee that you so kindly stopped before seriously injuring them with it. This helps strike a balance between realism and safety, but nothing is going to be perfect.

Patterns – hyung, kata, forms and whatever

I somewhat disagree with the first half your explanation of this, which is saying that the patterns are intended to make you practice basics "in 2 dimensions instead of 1." The reason I disagree with this is because a pattern isn't necessary to practice that--you can just change how you do your kihon practice. From there, you outline the fact that the patterns contain important techniques that have been put into a logical order, and include things like footwork, combinations and simultaneous block-and-counters. I agree with this, as long as all those things aren't the same ineffective, unrealistic basic-level applications I described in reference to one-step sparring drills.

 

[K-man]

With all these reality based defence systems out there many people have begun to question the training methods of traditional martial arts. They see many of the static methods of training such as patterns, one step sparring and certain self defence techniques as unrealistic. That is because they are taking what they see at face value.

Is it possible that 'traditional' is actually a style that has moved away from traditional? The static methods you describe are not traditional but additional training introduced to sharpen students' sparring skills. One step sparring has nothing to do with self defence.

They use statements like “that won’t work in a real situation”, “your opponent is not going to just stand there after the first strike and wait for you to counter-attack”, “your training is ‘dead training’, you need to do ‘alive training’ on fully resisting opponents to be able to use it in a real situation” and “you fight like you train” as justification for saying that traditional martial arts are ineffective.

No. It doesn't mean 'traditional' martial arts are ineffective. It means the martial art you are describing is ineffective.

They use this as a way to come up with their own special system of self-protection that ‘does not involve martial arts” yet they use martial arts techniques. So what are some of the training methods that receive criticism?

Bringing the hand back to the hip whilst punching with the other one;

Why is this done in traditional martial arts training? Bringing the hand back to the hip when punching instead of returning to the guarding position is not something you would do in free sparring or a real self-defence situation, if this is so then why is it done in the patterns or during basics line drills (walking up and down in a straight line in a stance practicing basics)? The answer is that this is done to learn the technique and so you can practice them without having to worry about protecting from attacks. It is a way of isolating the individual movement to concentrate on perfecting them.

If this is what you have been taught it really is time to change your instructor.

When you use the same technique during sparring, where you do have to worry about protecting yourself from attacks, you perform the punch from the guarding position. Punching whilst bringing the hand back to the hip is the purest most powerful form of the straight punch with 1 arm going forward and 1 arm going backwards at the same time driving the other one forward like 2 kids on a seesaw, this teaches you to twist the hips properly when performing the punch. If you watch carefully when a traditional martial artist punches from a guarding position this action of moving 1 arm backwards still occurs but to a lesser extent but the hip movement is the same. This is because of all of the practice of twisting the hips that was gained performing the punch in its raw state.

Sorry, I think this is all so totally wrong that I wouldn't know where to start trying to fix it. When you are sparring, your hand is nowhere near your hip. You don't punch from the hip, you punch from kamae. When you are fighting, and at grappling range, you are grabbing and dragging in. The muscle memory with the retracted hand is pulling some part of your opponent into the strongest position to control that you have available.


Static movements – one step sparring and self-defence techniques

What is the purpose of training to defend yourself from a single attack by your opponent just standing there while you counter attack? Again it is just a way of practicing and concentrating on the individual techniques.

As a self defence strategy I don't think it has any value. For point sparring it has value.

When some people see one step sparring or knife defences they think that this is how a traditional martial artist would actually perform the techniques in a real life self-defence situation. Why is it so difficult to understand that they are just practicing the techniques and not always training for realism on resisting opponents?

You should be training the way you would in the real situation. You can train slowly but the intent should still be there. Without realism you might as well stop training altogether.

If a white belt student trained on fully resisting opponents all the time then how are they supposed to learn the techniques properly and become good at them? They can’t so they must learn the techniques first and then at a later time practice them on opponents that provide a bit more resistance. When practicing certain self-defence techniques the person grabbing must grab firm but not tight, this is to allow the defender to practice the techniques without injuring his training partner.

I can agree to an extent here, but you should be able to increase the resistance reasonably quickly. For example, if you were teaching police recruits some unarmed combat and you had just two days, how quickly would you add realism? Just because a student is a white belt doesn't mean they need to train for years to become proficient.

An example would be a defence against a bear hug from behind where the defending student kicks back to break the knee or use a knife hand strike to chop the groin and then perform a release after the attacker has been softened up. If the person grabbing holds with full resistance then to perform the release the defending student would have to actually break the knee or really strike the groin to use the release and that would be impractical for teaching purposes.

With my guys in a bear hug, I am holding as hard as I can. If you think you can break my knee, go for it. That is not reality based. You might get to stomp on my foot but normally you will be on the ground before that happens. I doubt that you'll get a knife hand anywhere near my groin either.

When practicing any particular release from a hold the person grabbing must not fight against the movement the person defending is making them do (this is to prevent injury to the attacking student) but must not move for them either, (this would be no resistance at all) and will not help the defender learn anything. An example would be a defence against a shoulder grab that involves the defender putting the attacker into a wrist lock.

Who told you that would work? If someone is holding your shoulder you will be smacked in the mouth before you can even think of using a wrist lock.

The defender must initiate the movement not the attacker and the attacker must not resist too much. The more the attacker resists the more force the defender must use to perform the technique successfully and this can lead to serious injury. It does not take much effort to break someone’s wrist and care must be taken to ensure both students can continue practicing safely. They practice this way so that they can perfect the techniques so that they become second nature so if they need to do them in a real situation they can use the techniques effectively and efficiently.

This just isn't going to happen! If you train without total resistance you will have a totally flawed knowledge of what will work and what won't. If you need to break someone's knee to make another technique work, your technique is flawed.

You have asked questions, then answered them. I'm not sure many of your answers are correct.

Patterns – hyung, kata, forms and whatever

Some people criticize martial arts that use patterns as a training tool, they say that patterns are useless and unrealistic and even suggest that traditional martial artist believe that patterns are supposed to represent free sparring. The main purpose of patterns is so you can practice the basics in 2 dimensions instead of just 1 (during line work). The patterns contain many of the most important techniques of the art, put into a logical order, to ensure they are practiced regularly even if they are not the student’s favourite techniques. There also some very important concepts that the patterns introduce to the student such as footwork, combinations and simultaneous block and counter-attacks. The patterns do not necessarily represent a single entire sequence but rather represent a few separate smaller sequences, one after the other, strung together for convenient practice. Patterns are also an excellent fitness exercise, performing 10 or more patterns at full speed and power one after the other will certainly get your heart pumping.

This is so far off the road! Get a good book on kata. Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder ... "The way of Kata", is a good place to start.

Belts

Martial artists trained for centuries without using a belt system so why do we need them now? The answer – back in the days before belts masters teaching their art would typically have only one student to hand down the art or sometimes a small group so back then it was easy for them to keep track of the students’ progress and also back then martial arts were almost always a lifelong commitment. When you have a school that has over 500 branches with an average of 10-30 students per class keeping track of every student’s progress becomes a lot more difficult, therefore a belt system becomes a bit more necessary. Also with the modern age students come and go, they start a martial art, stop for whatever reason (work or family commitments etc.) and restart sometimes years later so having a belt is a way for the instructors to gauge a student’s level of understanding and they also serve to group together students with similar knowledge and skills. Today’s modern world is a lot more goal orientated so having a belt system gives the students some short term goals and a target to aim for.

Two classic reasons for the belts ... To hold the pants up and keep your jacket closed.

Basics always the same position for the hands

Some people may argue that having your hands end up in the same position, for example an outer forearm block that always has the fist in line with the shoulder and the front toes, does not represent reality in that attackers will not punch exactly at the same height every time. The techniques are practiced that way so that they are all the same, like a template, so that there is a basis where technique can be improved upon. When the techniques are utilized in free sparring or in a self defence situation they are modified for blocking and striking at different heights. Learning the blocks in the basics at every conceivable height would be a lot more difficult so you learn then at a specified height and then adjust according to the situation.

This is Kihon or basic form. Nothing else.


Please note; when reading this post that this is a training philosophy and not in any way meant to suggest that this is a statement of absolute truth and everybody who disagrees is wrong or that this is the only way of thinking. If you have different views then feel free to disagree (or rhyme), no offense is intended.

No offence intended with my reply.

 

[Cyriacus]

I havent got much to add to what the others have said.

With all these reality based defence systems out there many people have begun to question the training methods of traditional martial arts.

Theres a pretty good reason for that.

They see many of the static methods of training such as patterns, one step sparring and certain self defence techniques as unrealistic. That is because they are taking what they see at face value. They use statements like “that won’t work in a real situation”, “your opponent is not going to just stand there after the first strike and wait for you to counter-attack”, “your training is ‘dead training’, you need to do ‘alive training’ on fully resisting opponents to be able to use it in a real situation” and “you fight like you train” as justification for saying that traditional martial arts are ineffective. They use this as a way to come up with their own special system of self-protection that ‘does not involve martial arts” yet they use martial arts techniques. So what are some of the training methods that receive criticism?

So far, all of those criticisms are valid. I suspect youre listing off issues youve encountered or seen encountered, because alot of TMA places teach their techniques with aliveness. Also, not being a martial art doesnt become void when you use MA techniques. Not being a MA is a way of disassociating yourself with the term. I stopped considering myself a martial artist as soon as i found out that alot of people, even other martial artists, see some kind of value in the 'art' part of it that i just dont. And i do not want myself associated with that side of it. If i codified my own system, i wouldnt call it a martial art. Even if it was one.

Bringing the hand back to the hip whilst punching with the other one;

Why is this done in traditional martial arts training? Bringing the hand back to the hip when punching instead of returning to the guarding position is not something you would do in free sparring or a real self-defence situation, if this is so then why is it done in the patterns or during basics line drills (walking up and down in a straight line in a stance practicing basics)? The answer is that this is done to learn the technique and so you can practice them without having to worry about protecting from attacks. It is a way of isolating the individual movement to concentrate on perfecting them. When you use the same technique during sparring, where you do have to worry about protecting yourself from attacks, you perform the punch from the guarding position. Punching whilst bringing the hand back to the hip is the purest most powerful form of the straight punch with 1 arm going forward and 1 arm going backwards at the same time driving the other one forward like 2 kids on a seesaw, this teaches you to twist the hips properly when performing the punch. If you watch carefully when a traditional martial artist punches from a guarding position this action of moving 1 arm backwards still occurs but to a lesser extent but the hip movement is the same. This is because of all of the practice of twisting the hips that was gained performing the punch in its raw state.

I disagree. Others have explained why. That being said, you should look into Hikeru, i think its spelt. The traditional punch is the fine art of grabbing someone by the shoulder or lapel or arm and so forth, and pulling them forward whilst you punch them in their head. In Bunkai or some equivalent it can be an assortment of other things. Punching like this (Hands to hips - The following does not relate to grabbing on first) does not add power, or purity. Any punch that engages body rotation or linear movement or your mass will generate power. What you do with your free hand means little to nothing. It can dangle by your side for all it matters. Your punching hand is just the point of contact for your bodies movement. Also, if you consider it a raw state, explain why the same hip twisting is found in other methods of punching that take less time to learn to do 'correctly'.

Static movements – one step sparring and self-defence techniques

What is the purpose of training to defend yourself from a single attack by your opponent just standing there while you counter attack? Again it is just a way of practicing and concentrating on the individual techniques. When some people see one step sparring or knife defences they think that this is how a traditional martial artist would actually perform the techniques in a real life self-defence situation. Why is it so difficult to understand that they are just practicing the techniques and not always training for realism on resisting opponents? If a white belt student trained on fully resisting opponents all the time then how are they supposed to learn the techniques properly and become good at them? They can’t so they must learn the techniques first and then at a later time practice them on opponents that provide a bit more resistance. When practicing certain self-defence techniques the person grabbing must grab firm but not tight, this is to allow the defender to practice the techniques without injuring his training partner An example would be a defence against a bear hug from behind where the defending student kicks back to break the knee or use a knife hand strike to chop the groin and then perform a release after the attacker has been softened up. If the person grabbing holds with full resistance then to perform the release the defending student would have to actually break the knee or really strike the groin to use the release and that would be impractical for teaching purposes. When practicing any particular release from a hold the person grabbing must not fight against the movement the person defending is making them do (this is to prevent injury to the attacking student) but must not move for them either, (this would be no resistance at all) and will not help the defender learn anything. An example would be a defence against a shoulder grab that involves the defender putting the attacker into a wrist lock. The defender must initiate the movement not the attacker and the attacker must not resist too much. The more the attacker resists the more force the defender must use to perform the technique successfully and this can lead to serious injury. It does not take much effort to break someone’s wrist and care must be taken to ensure both students can continue practicing safely. They practice this way so that they can perfect the techniques so that they become second nature so if they need to do them in a real situation they can use the techniques effectively and efficiently.

Fights are a bit more dynamic than that. If you need to practice an individual technique, you dont need a fancy drill to do it. You can just do it, anywere, anytime. Also, "The more the attacker resists the more force the defender must use to perform the technique successfully and this can lead to serious injury" leads me to wonder if someones been telling you that striking is deadly and unsafe to practice full out, or some other nonsense like that. Protective gear is used nowadays to prevent cumulative injury over time. In not actually making contact, youre just drilling in a bad habit (overestimating, as well as ranging, though mostly overestimating), even if it improves your 'technique'. The only way striking is deadly is if the other person cant take a hit (for psychological or medical reasons), or by way of sheer volume.

Patterns – hyung, kata, forms and whatever

Some people criticize martial arts that use patterns as a training tool, they say that patterns are useless and unrealistic and even suggest that traditional martial artist believe that patterns are supposed to represent free sparring. The main purpose of patterns is so you can practice the basics in 2 dimensions instead of just 1 (during line work). The patterns contain many of the most important techniques of the art, put into a logical order, to ensure they are practiced regularly even if they are not the student’s favourite techniques. There also some very important concepts that the patterns introduce to the student such as footwork, combinations and simultaneous block and counter-attacks. The patterns do not necessarily represent a single entire sequence but rather represent a few separate smaller sequences, one after the other, strung together for convenient practice. Patterns are also an excellent fitness exercise, performing 10 or more patterns at full speed and power one after the other will certainly get your heart pumping.

Sparring is not fighting. Patterns are not sparring. Fighting is not patterns. Patterns are valuable if well taught and interpreted. If you want fitness out of them, youre wasting time you could be spending wildly hitting the air until you cant lift your limbs any more. Though id recommend a bag - Your joints dont tend to like bashing air too much.

Belts

Martial artists trained for centuries without using a belt system so why do we need them now? The answer – back in the days before belts masters teaching their art would typically have only one student to hand down the art or sometimes a small group so back then it was easy for them to keep track of the students’ progress and also back then martial arts were almost always a lifelong commitment. When you have a school that has over 500 branches with an average of 10-30 students per class keeping track of every student’s progress becomes a lot more difficult, therefore a belt system becomes a bit more necessary. Also with the modern age students come and go, they start a martial art, stop for whatever reason (work or family commitments etc.) and restart sometimes years later so having a belt is a way for the instructors to gauge a student’s level of understanding and they also serve to group together students with similar knowledge and skills. Today’s modern world is a lot more goal orientated so having a belt system gives the students some short term goals and a target to aim for.

Belts are as valuable as you consider them to be.

Basics always the same position for the hands

Some people may argue that having your hands end up in the same position, for example an outer forearm block that always has the fist in line with the shoulder and the front toes, does not represent reality in that attackers will not punch exactly at the same height every time. The techniques are practiced that way so that they are all the same, like a template, so that there is a basis where technique can be improved upon. When the techniques are utilized in free sparring or in a self defence situation they are modified for blocking and striking at different heights. Learning the blocks in the basics at every conceivable height would be a lot more difficult so you learn then at a specified height and then adjust according to the situation.


Please note; when reading this post that this is a training philosophy and not in any way meant to suggest that this is a statement of absolute truth and everybody who disagrees is wrong or that this is the only way of thinking. If you have different views then feel free to disagree (or rhyme), no offense is intended.

Thats pretty standard. But i dont see how it would be hard to practice blocking at different angles and heights if you had someone, you know, trying to hit you whilst you practiced blocking. Against air i guess that makes sense.

Also, for your note at the end, there is no absolute truth. I agree with that. That doesnt mean that a philosophy has the right to be rooted in false information, and that it can be justified by being 'different', or 'itself'. Falsehood is falsehood however you spin it. Within the confines of accurate information, theres a huge, huge variety of totally different and unique systems. They can justify their viewpoints by being rooted into fact.

But from what im reading here and in other threads, without any offense intended, i suspect youre getting some questionable instruction to say the least. Really now, if youd rather not pursue that discussion, thats fine. If you disagree, you dont need to make a point about that and explain why im wrong, its fine. You can just ignore this part of the reply. But if the thought ever crosses your mind that the only reason your training works is because YOU are MAKING it work, just take a second to really think about what youre actually learning, how you are being taught, how others are being taught around you, and what part of their training actually makes them successful in learning. Because its easy to confuse a method of punching being good for people being able to throw decent punches of their own accord. Dont confuse ingrained habits for refined skills.

 

[RTKDCMB]

While I agree that traditional martial arts are effective, I can't say that I agree with your reasoning for a few of the things you listed. I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you, and this is just my opinion, but I believe that your explanations are really attempts to justify unrealistic training more than anything.

Bringing the hand back to the hip whilst punching with the other one

Pulling the hand back to chamber when punching does not provide a "seesaw" affect and doesn't really do anything to help you use your hips while punching, nor does it help you focus on a "pure" punch. To teach punching in this way without ever explaining and drilling the purpose of pulling the hand to chamber (which is to pull something you have grabbed a hold of on your opponent) is really just effective at teaching a bad habit. People who train in other arts can teach effective power generation and punching form without utilizing a chambered position, so obviously the chambering has little to do with the punch beyond enhancing its impact by pulling your opponent into the punch. I feel that far too many people maintain an obsession with the chambering as a method of perfecting form without actually putting any thought into function. Basically, I agree with you that chambering while punching is an effective technique, but I disagree with your reasoning because it neglects realistic utilization of that technique.

Static movements – one step sparring and self-defence techniques

I believe that most of the one-step sparring drills that are in use today are mostly useless, because they generally use the most basic traditional applications of every technique--a block is a block, a strike is a strike, the stance means nothing, and the hand pulling to chamber does nothing. This is completely unrealistic. You could argue that it helps students become accustomed to responding to attacks from another person, but the drills could be reworked to be MUCH more effective by utilizing practical applications against realistic attacks.

Your explanation of why self defense techniques should not be drilled on a fully resisting opponent is something I partially agree with--no one is going to be able to successfully perform the techniques on a fully resisting opponent on their first try, and so when a new technique is learned it should always be worked with very little resistance at first. From there, however, I believe that the resistance needs to be gradually increased over time until the opponent is fully resisting so that the student develops the proper form, speed, power and timing required to execute the technique effectively when they need it. It should be noted that when I say "fully resisting opponent," I do not mean that they resist everything to the point where you have to perform the technique as you would in real life, because that would result in far too many injuries, as you mentioned. In my view, the opponent should be as resistant as possible, but they are also acting out a role, and should try to react realistically to the techniques being used on them. This means that they should not let go of a grab or freeze after punching you just because you started to do a technique, but the should also not ignore the strike to the eyes or kick to the knee that you so kindly stopped before seriously injuring them with it. This helps strike a balance between realism and safety, but nothing is going to be perfect.

Patterns – hyung, kata, forms and whatever

I somewhat disagree with the first half your explanation of this, which is saying that the patterns are intended to make you practice basics "in 2 dimensions instead of 1." The reason I disagree with this is because a pattern isn't necessary to practice that--you can just change how you do your kihon practice. From there, you outline the fact that the patterns contain important techniques that have been put into a logical order, and include things like footwork, combinations and simultaneous block-and-counters. I agree with this, as long as all those things aren't the same ineffective, unrealistic basic-level applications I described in reference to one-step sparring drills.

Thank you for your honest reply, just a few things in reply, There is nothing unrealistic about perfecting your technique, if your techniques is bad then when it comes to having to use it in self defence then you will not be accurate or have the speed and power necessary to efficiently dispatch your attacker. If your techniques is good then you may only need 1 punch, kick or strike to finish them off.

The hand back to the hip is not designed as a grab, there are techniques where you do that though. If you extend your left arm and have your right arm at your hip and punch but leave your left arm out stretched and repeat bringing your left arm back to your hip you will notice the difference. You can turn a T-shaped handle much easier if you turn, push-pull from both sides than you can from just one side.

In my school the one-step sparring techniques mainly involve things like; kick before he punches you, avoid and strike/kick or simultaneous block and strike rather than the basic block the punch and then counter.

 

[Cyriacus]

Thank you for your honest reply, just a few things in reply, There is nothing unrealistic about perfecting your technique, if your techniques is bad then when it comes to having to use it in self defence then you will not be accurate or have the speed and power necessary to efficiently dispatch your attacker. If your techniques is good then you may only need 1 punch, kick or strike to finish them off.

Technique does not work that way. Technique that requires that much refinement is something you will never use under pressure, and if one strike is enough, the other guy was never a real threat to you in the first place. This just leads me to believe even more that someones telling you that striking is more effective than it actually is.

The hand back to the hip is not designed as a grab, there are techniques where you do that though. If you extend your left arm and have your right arm at your hip and punch but leave your left arm out stretched and repeat bringing your left arm back to your hip you will notice the difference. You can turn a T-shaped handle much easier if you turn, push-pull from both sides than you can from just one side.

A punch is not a T shaped handle. It it were a handle with only one bar, youd grab the bar with both hands and pull both in the same direction at the same time. If it only had a handhold for one hand, the best you could do with your other hand is grab your own wrist. Taekwondo comes from Karate, and in Karate, it is most assuredly a grab. Its also a grab in most Bunkai for blocks. In all of my examples above, theres another thing. You dont turn a handle with your arms. Your arms hold it, and you rotate or pull it with your body.

In my school the one-step sparring techniques mainly involve things like; kick before he punches you, avoid and strike/kick or simultaneous block and strike rather than the basic block the punch and then counter.

If youre able to kick him before he punches you, he isnt close enough to be a danger in the first place. This is why 'RBSD people' can have a low opinion of some TMAs. When you punch a heavy bag, how close to it do you stand? When you punch someone in the head, how close to them do you stand? When you practice kicking someone who tries to punch you, how close to you do they stand?

 

[RTKDCMB]

No offence intended with my reply.

If this is what you have been taught it really is time to change your instructor.

If that was the case then most martial artists would have to change their instructors so why would I want to change to an instructor who does not teach the basics properly.

You should be training the way you would in the real situation. You can train slowly but the intent should still be there. Without realism you might as well stop training altogether.

Training for realism is good practice but doing it without concentrating on the individual techniques as well is like trying to write a story in a foreign language and just picking up their alphabet along the way.

With my guys in a bear hug, I am holding as hard as I can. If you think you can break my knee, go for it. That is not reality based. You might get to stomp on my foot but normally you will be on the ground before that happens. I doubt that you'll get a knife hand anywhere near my groin either.

Been done in a real life attack so your point is moot.

Who told you that would work? If someone is holding your shoulder you will be smacked in the mouth before you can even think of using a wrist lock.

That's what blocking is for.

Two classic reasons for the belts ... To hold the pants up and keep your jacket closed.

Pants and jackets have ties to do that.

This is Kihon or basic form. Nothing else.

That's basically what I just said.

 

[Tez3]

I was looking online for examples of Hikite (the pulling hand) apart from the normal Iain Abernethy ones, most describe it just as I was taught.....it's a grab.

K-man and Cyriacus have said everything I would have said!

People do need to research kata and Bunkai before dismissing it.

 

[Cyriacus]

If that was the case then most martial artists would have to change their instructors so why would I want to change to an instructor who does not teach the basics properly.

It really isnt most. If this is what you consider to be proper basics, that reinforces KMans point.

Training for realism is good practice but doing it without concentrating on the individual techniques as well is like trying to write a story in a foreign language and just picking up their alphabet along the way.

No, its not. Focusing on individual techniques is a good way to get really good at a highly technical motion that youre never going to use in that manner. Technique is overrated.

Been done in a real life attack so your point is moot.

A real life attack? Oh really? So a person or people blitzed you in an ambush you didnt anticipate or see coming for no discernable reason at all? Or by attack do you mean fight or physical altercation that turned violent? And furthermore, if you can kick the knee from a bearhug, or hit anything with your hands, it aint a bear hug. Sorry to tell you. Its probably some crappy hold being done from too far away. Bear hugs are done body to body. You would not have that range of motion, no matter how you try to spin it. Your point is moot. Furthermore, people do practice groin striking full contact. It can be done with protective gear.

That's what blocking is for.

And this is the problem. You have probably been lead to believe that having good blocking technique means youre less likely to be struck when someone grabs you with one hand to hit you with the other. Reality doesnt agree, mate.

That's basically what I just said.

Thats also the problem, all over again. And the whole sorry cycle repeats itself.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Bringing the hand back to the hip whilst punching with the other one;

Why is this done in traditional martial arts training? Bringing the hand back to the hip when punching instead of returning to the guarding position is not something you would do in free sparring or a real self-defence situation, if this is so then why is it done in the patterns or during basics line drills (walking up and down in a straight line in a stance practicing basics)? The answer is that this is done to learn the technique and so you can practice them without having to worry about protecting from attacks.

With the greatest respect, this is incorrect. This is why most, and I do mean most, martial artists really don't understand the art they train in fully. It is why kata has become a cookie-cutter mechanism for the next colored belt rather than the diagram of useful bunkai it is suppose to be.

Why do we chamber our hand back to the hip?

Look at the movement in a mirror. Start with the hand outstretched in whatever punching/blocking motion you'd like. Now, closely examine what this hand is going to do as you rechamber it to the hip. As you bring it back the hand is closed. Why? Because there is something in the hand. What? The bad guy you are pulling towards your center of gravity, off of his center of balance in order to set up the the counter-strike. Notice the closed hand goes from palm down to palm up as it nears your hip. This activates stonger flexor muscles in your arm for the purpose of pulling. Again, what are we pulling? The bad guy's shirt/arm/hand/ear/eye socket or whatever it is you grasped initially. Notice your probably in a horse stance. Why? Are we going to fight that way? Nope. But from a grapple, we are going to grasp the bad guy, drop our center of gravity, pull them off balance and into our center of gravity thereby facilitating our next movement, whatever movement is appropriate to the situation.

I do it all the time to bad guys. It works well. And when you look at a 'simple' static line drill and the associated movements of that line drill, and when you understand what these movements actually mean in combat....it takes on a whole new dynamic. You'll never look at these 'simple' line drills the same way again.

Think of it this way, is walking around in a horse stance with our hands chambered on our hips during a fight a sound tactic? Nope. So either the Okinawan founders of Karate were really stupid and had no concept of fighting or those movements they taught don't mean what most martial artists think they mean. Since many of them had reputations of being very tough opponents (see Itosu Sensei as an example) and they in turn taught people who turned out to be very tough opponents I'd suggest that somewhere along the line something was lost in translation.

All I can say is I fight bad guys all the time. I teach people that fight bad guys all the time. I teach what some call 'deeper/hidden/secret' meanings in the movements. I call them common sense

 

[RTKDCMB]

It really isnt most. If this is what you consider to be proper basics, that reinforces KMans point.



Technique is overrated.

That's what people with poor technique usually say, those who have to hit someone 20 times in the same spot to finish them off. Search Karate vs pimp on YouTube and see how overrated his technique is.

A real life attack? Oh really? So a person or people blitzed you in an ambush you didnt anticipate or see coming for no discernable reason at all? Or by attack do you mean fight or physical altercation that turned violent? And furthermore, if you can kick the knee from a bearhug, or hit anything with your hands, it aint a bear hug. Sorry to tell you. Its probably some crappy hold being done from too far away. Bear hugs are done body to body. You would not have that range of motion, no matter how you try to spin it. Your point is moot. Furthermore, people do practice groin striking full contact. It can be done with protective gear.

Saying that something doesn't or wouldn't work or that it must have been a crappy hold does not change the fact that something happened and neither does sticking your fingers in your and humming real loud. Oh and if your are using protective gear then it's not really full contact.

And this is the problem. You have probably been lead to believe that having good blocking technique means youre less likely to be struck when someone grabs you with one hand to hit you with the other. Reality doesnt agree, mate.

I'm not sure what reality you are living in but in this one, unless you're really terrible at them, blocks can and certainly do work and pretty damn well. If you can't stop a simple punch from hitting you, especially after years of practice, then your training is a waste of time.


Thats also the problem, all over again. And the whole sorry cycle repeats itself.

I will not waste time trying to convince anyone who does not believe in basics or patterns why it is done how it's done.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

That's what people with poor technique usually say, those who have to hit someone 20 times in the same spot to finish them off. Search Karate vs pimp on YouTube and see how overrated his technique is.

This isn't an accurate statement either. The amount of times someone has to be struck depends upon the location of the strike as well as the mential/emotional state of the individual, compounded by the influence of drugs. As I've stated before, I once rescued a fellow Deputy that was being attacked by and EDP. I struck him a half-dozen times in the back with a downward elbow to an area that should have temporarily disabled his ability to continue the attack (it was not yet at a deadly force level so a strike to the spin or neck would not have been appropriate or justifiable at that point). The EDP didn't even know I was there. I am not a small man and I alternate between body buiding and power lifting. My partner later told me he could feel every strike through the attacker's body and into his own as they were pressed up against each other in a grapple. Yet the strikes did nothing. I had to resolve that situaiton with a joint lock. So striking is very situational and locational.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Technique does not work that way. Technique that requires that much refinement is something you will never use under pressure, and if one strike is enough, the other guy was never a real threat to you in the first place. This just leads me to believe even more that someones telling you that striking is more effective than it actually is.

Technique does not require that much refinement to work it just works better with it, that's why its called refinement. Technique is drummed into you day in day out so that you can use it under pressure. My low section block is one such technique that I have used under pressure successfully every single time someone has tried to kick me in the groin.

A punch is not a T shaped handle. It it were a handle with only one bar, youd grab the bar with both hands and pull both in the same direction at the same time. If it only had a handhold for one hand, the best you could do with your other hand is grab your own wrist. Taekwondo comes from Karate, and in Karate, it is most assuredly a grab. Its also a grab in most Bunkai for blocks. In all of my examples above, theres another thing. You dont turn a handle with your arms. Your arms hold it, and you rotate or pull it with your body.

I think I will stop using analogies. The body is the T-shaped handle that is used for turning, it is easier to turn it by using push-pull from either side than by turning from 1 side only (double the movement arm - a physics thing).

If youre able to kick him before he punches you, he isnt close enough to be a danger in the first place. This is why 'RBSD people' can have a low opinion of some TMAs. When you punch a heavy bag, how close to it do you stand? When you punch someone in the head, how close to them do you stand? When you practice kicking someone who tries to punch you, how close to you do they stand?

Do people in your experience only try to punch you when they are in punching distance? From everything I have seen people do all sorts of things such as; try to punch by overextending themselves, come at you from a distance to punch you, have longer arms than you. You can side step or move back slightly and kick and most people don't just stand there and punch they are usually moving, you are oversimplifying things.

 

[Cyriacus]

I will not waste time trying to convince anyone who does not believe in basics or patterns why it is done how it's done.

Mate, i believe in basics and patterns. I dont believe the way youre doing them makes sense.

"That's what people with poor technique usually say, those who have to hit someone 20 times in the same spot to finish them off. Search Karate vs pimp on YouTube and see how overrated his technique is."

Thats a forearm strike to the neck, after grabbing his arm and pulling him in. Its what you might know as a raising block. It isnt a technically difficult skill. You can learn it by seeing it done. Welcome to scratching the surface. Technique is overrated. Thanks for proving my point about that, as well as the point about the grabbing arm and Bunkai. Incidentally, forearm strikes as a pre-emptive strike, as found in various patterns (i dont know about yours, but its in Taegeuk Il Jang and Taegeuk Yi Jang, and probably some others), only work from an almost body to body range. At that range, the game is totally different. Do you think the pimp could have blocked that strike if he were intensively trained to do so? Could he have done a wrist release? Or could he have used a kick! Because kicks are totally useful at close range. Additionally, there are plenty of people who can take 20 highly trained blows, ignore them, and take it as a chance to finally mundanely fight someone who'll actually pose some kind of resistance unlike the usual weak twits they go through. Or they might just keep doing whatever it is theyre doing before. Striking is neither reliable nor deadly, and technique doesnt change that. Ill let other people back that up. Ill ask again: Has someone been telling you that striking is deadly and too dangerous to be practiced with contact?


"Saying that something doesn't or wouldn't work or that it must have been a crappy hold does not change the fact that something happened and neither does sticking your fingers in your and humming real loud. Oh and if your are using protective gear then it's not really full contact."

Yes, it does make a difference if the hold is poor. It isnt defending against a bearhug if a bearhug never took place to begin with. If i swing a throw a hook from medium range at your head and you block it, does that demonstrate your proficiency in blocking a headbutt at close range? And full contact through protective gear is still not holding back and hitting as hard as you can. Its better than getting really good at not hitting the other person. Thats a great skill to become good at - Not hurting the other person. Fabulous.

"I'm not sure what reality you are living in but in this one, unless you're really terrible at them, blocks can and certainly do work and pretty damn well. If you can't stop a simple punch from hitting you, especially after years of practice, then your training is a waste of time."

I never said blocking doesnt work - But blocking most certainly cant be relied upon to simple-as-that stop you from being hit by simple attacks. But by the sounds of it, if you have that much faith in blocking, and you think that just having really refined technique on a block is going to stop someone from grab>punching you, youre reality is the one that needs fixing whether you like it or not. I can list off a denizen times when blocking is useful if you like, but that isnt one of them. Unless of course youre training from a range with favorable circumstances which facilitate it working. Im sure in your Dojang, someone throws a punch and you block it. Therefore, you might be lead to believe that that means you can now block a punch.

With that said, i for one wont waste time offering suggestions. Youre not exactly an audience thats willing to learn. I can understand why - If youve spent 25 years on something, you might not like hearing bad things about that 25 years of cumulative knowledge. But, youre on a discussion board making threads about your conclusions. I hope youre enjoying these discussions.

 

[Cyriacus]

Do people in your experience only try to punch you when they are in punching distance? From everything I have seen people do all sorts of things such as; try to punch by overextending themselves, come at you from a distance to punch you, have longer arms than you. You can side step or move back slightly and kick and most people don't just stand there and punch they are usually moving, you are oversimplifying things.

The people who overextend themselves from too far away? Those are the guys you dont need training to deal with, and the situations in which you encounter them are totally avoidable. Im not oversimplifying things - Im looking at things in context. If someones attacking you from too far away, literally anything will work. And youre right. Most people dont stand there and punch. The people you have to worry about are the ones who do get up close. Which is pretty much anyone whos ever had any decent training, or whos been in a few fights and figured it out on their own, or anyone whos ever used a heavy bag, or anyone whos under the effects of rage, or anyone whos just naturally inclined to getting in close, or even some people whove just sat down and thought about it (which people do). Ive made this analogy before: How close do you stand to a heavy bag when you hit it? How close do you stand to a person when you hit them? How close are you to your partner in training?

Technique does not require that much refinement to work it just works better with it, that's why its called refinement. Technique is drummed into you day in day out so that you can use it under pressure. My low section block is one such technique that I have used under pressure successfully every single time someone has tried to kick me in the groin.

Thats because its one of the times when blocking is really useful. Blocking is fantastic for stopping any way shape or form of kick.
Drumming in technique, or rather, practicing what youre learning, is sensible. Of course it is. But your low block would have worked just fine if you saw it on TV one time and tried it against a kick to the groin. Its the block itself that works, not your years of practice with it making it work. Practicing it is just that: A codified means of practice. Technique is overrated. I understood what you were saying.

I think I will stop using analogies. The body is the T-shaped handle that is used for turning, it is easier to turn it by using push-pull from either side than by turning from 1 side only (double the movement arm - a physics thing).

I understood what you were saying. This isnt a matter of me not agreeing because i dont understand. In Boxing, when you throw a punch, the non punching shoulder moves back and the striking shoulder moves forward. Its called a T-Frame movement. Theres nothing wrong with that - But that doesnt mean that the practice of pulling your hand back to your hip is just that alone. Otherwise, why dont Taekwondo, Karate, and othersuch people hold records for punching power? Punching power is weight transfer and proximity. Thats it, really. There are countless ways of doing that, and one way isnt better than the other however you spin it. Adding in a car crash effect does, however, add a whole new layer of power into the mix. Like in the 'Karate VS Pimp' video, where he pulls his wrist into the forearm strike.

 

[K-man]

Punching power is weight transfer and proximity. Thats it, really..

Right on! :asian:

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Cyriacus
Punching power is weight transfer and proximity. Thats it, really..

Right on! :asian:

As the ole saying goes, "He who gets there first with the most...wins." :bangahead:

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I know I'm arriving late to this conversation.. . I really have nothing to add other than stating that I am a Traditional Taekwondo practitioner, and I totally agree with what K-man, Kong Soo Do, Tez3, and mostly Cyriacus (I do see value in the "art") have stated. I strongly recommend that you empty your proverbial cup, open your mind, and explore the aspects that these people are suggesting. You may very well realize that you have been merely skimming the surface of the totality of breadth and depth of your own martial art.

I say this with all due respect, as I have found many TMA practitioners who have not been taught these things, and furthermore had been taught to put emphasis on the "technique" without its full understanding. I would think that your many years of practice on the "basics" should only make the journey deeper into your art an easier one.. .

 

[RTKDCMB]

Like in the 'Karate VS Pimp' video, where he pulls his wrist into the forearm strike.

I just had a close look at the video and at no point does the Karate guy grab the pimp's wrist, he kept it at his side whilst at the same time the pimp's arm was above his shoulder and it was a knifehand strike that struck with about the wrist area, it's a bit hard to see from the poor video quality.

Not every martial artist wants to take the time to set records for punching power, there are no world records for punching power and no study so far has any legitimate, verifiable or conclusive data on the subject (including Fight Science). Boxing is a punching only art as far as striking goes so of course their punches will be powerful. Punches are not the only strikes that are powerful, another question along the same lines as yours would be why don't boxers hold any records for kicking or elbowing power?

Punching power is weight transfer and proximity.

That is true, although you forgot speed, selecting the appropriate strike and having good technique will only enhance these so why would it be overrated?

 

[Cyriacus]

Skip to 0:41, then start rapidly clicking play and pause. His right hand clearly goes on the pimps left arm prior to the strike.

Your second question doesnt make much sense. Youre the one who said that punching from the hip had a seesaw effect, and that it was pure and all that. I stand by my retort. And you dont seem to like being told about grabbing and pulling, no matter who tells you to read into it.

Last paragraph: Slight correction: Acceleration. Not speed. Similar, not the same. Thats not you being wrong, mind. Its just that most people hear acceleration, and think speed.
Selecting the appropriate technique is giving your thought process way too much credit (defense wise), and you dont need good technique to hit hard and fast. You can do that without ever learning a thing. Obviously im going to have to explain the statement of 'Technique Is Overrated' in more depth. Ive actually been meaning to make a blog about this, but thisll do for now.

Technique is overrated!
Technique refers both to specific movements, and to the technical side of those movements.
'I hit him with my forearm strike technique!' and 'I hit him with a technically good forearm strike!' respectively.
The first one is fine. The second one is overrated. I cant remember who said it, but martial artists too often get obsessed with moving 'right', with 'proper form', which they try and emulate into reality. Round peg, square hole. But students practice it, because if it isnt working for them, well, they need to practice more, says the teacher. Good technique does not amplify power, or speed. Body mechanics can amplify speed in every sense of the word, and power comes from weight transfer and proximity. With those principles, you can pretty much slam any of your hard things into someone elses soft things (and in some cases, hard things) and get a good effect. You dont need an exact method with which to do that, but the exact method you end up using will be a technique. That part is not overrated, since by definition, any movement you do is a technique (of that archetype). The technique i consider to be overrated is the 'technically good or bad' sort of technique. I direct anyone here who has never done a forearm strike to grab a pillow, put it on a bed, then slam your forearm down on it whilst lowering your weight (transferring your weight in the direction of the movement). Voila! A functional forearm strike! Without any technical skill at all because youve never done it before! The part thats overrated is then proceeding to practice a technical (second definition) way of doing it over and over, and not really getting any improvement you wouldnt by just bashing stuff with it over and over again until youre comfortable with the technique (first definition) itself. Whats even more overrated is when you take something that doesnt work without the second definition of technique, and then 'refining' the bajesus out of that.

I just had a close look at the video and at no point does the Karate guy grab the pimp's wrist, he kept it at his side whilst at the same time the pimp's arm was above his shoulder and it was a knifehand strike that struck with about the wrist area, it's a bit hard to see from the poor video quality.

Not every martial artist wants to take the time to set records for punching power, there are no world records for punching power and no study so far has any legitimate, verifiable or conclusive data on the subject (including Fight Science). Boxing is a punching only art as far as striking goes so of course their punches will be powerful. Punches are not the only strikes that are powerful, another question along the same lines as yours would be why don't boxers hold any records for kicking or elbowing power?

Punching power is weight transfer and proximity.

That is true, although you forgot speed, selecting the appropriate strike and having good technique will only enhance these so why would it be overrated?