The Chambering Hand - What is it doing?

[Makalakumu]

Sensei Robert M. Rivers, of Motobu Ha Shito Ryu has taken the time to put together this video regarding the "chambering hand" in kata. Please take the time to view it and let us know what you think.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/chambering hand.mov

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm not allowed to load the documents onto the computer I am currently using, but Chambering is a choosing point as well as a position of strength.
Sean

 

[Gary Crawford]

IMHO I agree with what he is saying as far as Kata goes only

 

[Makalakumu]

In this video, Sensei Rivers is showing that the chambering hand is actually doing something. For many karateka, this may come as a surprise, because it's not something that is taught in a "striking" system.

The bottom line is that the action of the "chambering hand" turns Kara-te (tangsoodo) into the well rounded martial art it once was.

A martial art that included striking, clinch work, joint locks, and throwing.

 

[Touch Of Death]

In this video, Sensei Rivers is showing that the chambering hand is actually doing something. For many karateka, this may come as a surprise, because it's not something that is taught in a "striking" system.

The bottom line is that the action of the "chambering hand" turns Kara-te (tangsoodo) into the well rounded martial art it once was.

A martial art that included striking, clinch work, joint locks, and throwing.

Cool
Sean

 

[Chizikunbo]

Interesting...

 

[robertmrivers]

All

I posted the video page...but forgot to post the page about our free educational classes.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/bridging_the_gap.htm

Check it out. It would be an easy way for us to get together.

Regards

Rob

 

[Blindside]

Sensei Robert M. Rivers, of Motobu Ha Shito Ryu has taken the time to put together this video regarding the "chambering hand" in kata. Please take the time to view it and let us know what you think.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/chambering hand.mov

So before the video, or to the unenlightened karateka what was the explanation for what the "chambering hand" was doing? Because I look at this from the perspective of a kenpo and kali guy and think "yeah, so?" In kenpo, dozens of our explicitly designated techniques begin with "inward parry, right outward X (check, eye rake, wrist grab, etc) and that all begins in our basic blocking forms. I'm not trying to say that kenpo is "better" simply that I'm somewhat mystified that this sort of material comes across as unusual or why it would be even marginally controversial.

Lamont

 

[tellner]

It's a decent point, an application of the movement. And it's as good a rationale for the rather odd custom of chambering on the block or before the punch as you're likely to hear.

I'm still not convinced. If it were true, first of all TSD and Karate people would fight with more of that sort of action. They'd do more grabbing, twisting and pulling. Second, it happens on almost every block and almost every punch. If it were a particular application it would show up once in a while. And it wouldn't be taught as the classic way of blocking and punching. Besides, it's damned hard to grab a hand out of the air and do a wristlock as he demonstrates.

Either something important was lost along the way or the curriculum is stupid and senseless. I'm not willing to believe the latter, so the question is "What was lost?" It was probably a principle or two that became a rote movement done without understanding and was gradually divorced from the real world.

My guess would be that there were at least two things. One is that in a fight you have to take care of high and low, near and far. The master can have his limbs anywhere and still do it. The rest of us have to ingrain it by physically having something there. The second part gets back to motion. A fight isn't in still snapshots. You have to be able to move the parts of your body independently and not stop and wait. One way to learn this is to have the hands and arms doing different things and offset their timing. A beginner's static representation of this might look like the classic chamber. Unfortunately, as Karate and its offspring including TSD and TKD ended up as high-school PE and conditioning for cannon fodder the subtleties were discarded.

 

[Makalakumu]

So before the video, or to the unenlightened karateka what was the explanation for what the "chambering hand" was doing? Because I look at this from the perspective of a kenpo and kali guy and think "yeah, so?" In kenpo, dozens of our explicitly designated techniques begin with "inward parry, right outward X (check, eye rake, wrist grab, etc) and that all begins in our basic blocking forms. I'm not trying to say that kenpo is "better" simply that I'm somewhat mystified that this sort of material comes across as unusual or why it would be even marginally controversial.

Lamont

I totally agree and I think that it is good to remember that Kenpo and Karate share a common root. This stuff looks familiar for a reason.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm still not convinced. If it were true, first of all TSD and Karate people would fight with more of that sort of action. They'd do more grabbing, twisting and pulling. Second, it happens on almost every block and almost every punch. If it were a particular application it would show up once in a while. And it wouldn't be taught as the classic way of blocking and punching.

First of all, classic, is an assumption on the part of many who have practiced this art. There is nothing classical about it. Nor is there anything effective about it.

Secondly, you have to understand how kata were created. I want you to imagine a jujutsu two person kata list with 20 effective self defense techniques. Now imagine doing those techniques back to back, in the air, by yourself. Now take the movements that are the same and condense them into one movement. Now change some of the more obvious martial movements to something less threatening in order to hide the knowledge.

And there you have it, a kata.

A kata is NOT going to reflect actual combative movements and help you practice them because that isn't its purpose. A kata is a syllabus. It is a memnotic device. It is a historical document that records self defense techniques.

To a karateka, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick and it should look like any other effective fighter's technique.

 

[zDom]

A kata is NOT going to reflect actual combative movements and help you practice them because that isn't its purpose. A kata is a syllabus. It is a memnotic device. It is a historical document that records self defense techniques.

That's what I've always thought about forms.

It is an alternative to standing in a basic stance doing the same basic movement over and over; an advanced and more interesting method of practicing basics.

Or to put it another way, as mentioned above, it is a (more advanced) way to make sure you practice all the techniques in your curriculum.

And in addition to being much more interesting than hitting a stance, doing 50 reps of block A and strike A, hitting a second stance and doing 50 reps of block B and strike B, it is dynamic.

IMO, a beginning student needs learns basic movements as above, for the most part.

But a dan ranked student need rarely do this. Instead they simply go through all their kata/poomsea a half dozen times and they've then practiced all the core basics, worked up a good sweat, and are ready to move on to free-sparring.

That said, on rare occasions I've actually unintentionally busted out with a short sequence from one of my poomsea during free sparring, effectively putting into practice some of the dynamic sequences trained into my neuro-muscular system when the situation elicited it.

 

[robertmrivers]

Blindside

It is only controversial if your self defense techniques involve bringing the hand to the hip when you punch or block. In American Kenpo, the hands are usually kept in front, so it is not an issue for you. Also, in your forms, the hands rarely come back to the hip when you punch. If you do bring the hand to your hip, it is explicitly implied that you are grabbing something and bringing it you. The kenpo kata were even changed to reflect this. The problem is that some styles try to use the older kata without knowing the older applications. As the older principles are not known, techniques are "invented" that attempt to fit the mold...but they don't.

Kenpo comes from karate. Every principle, stance and concept found in Kenpo is found in Karate under a different name. Jujutsu was added to Kenpo, but, Tuite is found in karate which is essentially the same thing. Jujutsu...whether it is Danzan Ryu, Brazillian, Judo, Hapkido, or tuite all has its roots in the same place. Karate, Kenpo, TKD, or TSD all have their roots in the same place. Those who are versed in the history of the martial arts are not easily surprised by these concepts or that different arts have nearly the same approach to self defense... beyond mere coincidence. If you put a schooled Kenpo, Karate, Wing Chun, White Crane, and Classical Jujutsu guy in the same room sharing techniques, you will have many more similarities in the principles than differences.

Your reaction to the video is the same reaction I get when people all day long tell me that their kenpo is more efficient than mine and they proceed to demonstrate and explain material that is in our green belt curriculum.

Anyway, as the old saying goes, we are all heading for the top of the mountain...some people will simply get there earlier...

Regards

Rob

 

[Makalakumu]

That's what I've always thought about forms.

It is an alternative to standing in a basic stance doing the same basic movement over and over; an advanced and more interesting method of practicing basics.

Or to put it another way, as mentioned above, it is a (more advanced) way to make sure you practice all the techniques in your curriculum.

And in addition to being much more interesting than hitting a stance, doing 50 reps of block A and strike A, hitting a second stance and doing 50 reps of block B and strike B, it is dynamic.

IMO, a beginning student needs learns basic movements as above, for the most part.

But a dan ranked student need rarely do this. Instead they simply go through all their kata/poomsea a half dozen times and they've then practiced all the core basics, worked up a good sweat, and are ready to move on to free-sparring.

That said, on rare occasions I've actually unintentionally busted out with a short sequence from one of my poomsea during free sparring, effectively putting into practice some of the dynamic sequences trained into my neuro-muscular system when the situation elicited it.

zDom - Please don't take offense, but I'm seeing a contradiction in this post. On one hand, you see a hyung as NOT being a realistic representation of actual combative technique and then on the other you are saying that one can practice all of their core basics by practicing a hyung.

The latter part of what you were writing about is definitely not how I was trying to portray my views on hyung. I see them as syllabus, truly like a syllabus, like you would see in any class or college course. The syllabus outlines the material, but it really doesn't give you the indepth knowledge of its use. It certainly hints at it and can help you remember it, but you cannot practice the material just by doing the kata. Just like you couldn't learn zoology by reading the syllabus.

A great example of what I am talking about is the chambering hand itself. When you practice the hyung, you chamber the hand over and over again, depending on what form you are practicing. And in many dojangs, when you practice the "basics", you chamber that hand over and over again, when you "punch and when you "block".

Now that you understand what the chambering hand is doing, why would you continue the practice the hyung movement in a drill and continue to chamber that hand with nothing in it? In my mind (and in my dojang) I see a strike and a block in the most conventional way possible, just like you would if you really had to defend yourself. When we practice principles associated with the chambering hand, we are working on actually grabbing and pulling our uke or we are working for kazushi for a throw.

My point is this, once you understand "the chambering hand" this will change everything you thought you knew about basics. Movements in the hyung like "ha dan mahkee or 'low block'" have no meaning outside of the hyung. Thus, it is utterly pointless to practice them as basics outside of that context unless you are just trying to learn the form.

 

[mtabone]

Ok…I kept trying to resist posting on this topic…but I cant help it any more


NONE OF THIS IS NEW TO TANG SOO DO!!!

It might be new to people in the TSD Community, BUT IT IS NOT NEW TO TANG SOO DO!!!

This concept was shared and taught to me when I was a 7th/6th gup…

Sorry, I had to say that.

All these conjectures that “Tang Soo Do has to evolve”, and that some “people are holding on to this idea and that idea”, when in reality, these concepts have permeated Tang Soo Do since its inception. No big deal here.

Now for those who might say they where added in from other sources not Tang Soo Do in nature, my instructor, KJN Ferraro and all of his students were at the time all Tang Soo Do MOO DUK KWAN members (it don’t get no more Tang Soo Do then that! :ultracool ).

Ok, I feel a little better…

TANG SOO!!!
Michael Tabone

 

[Makalakumu]

Ok…I kept trying to resist posting on this topic…but I cant help it any more


NONE OF THIS IS NEW TO TANG SOO DO!!!

It might be new to people in the TSD Community, BUT IT IS NOT NEW TO TANG SOO DO!!!

This concept was shared and taught to me when I was a 7th/6th gup…

Sorry, I had to say that.

All these conjectures that “Tang Soo Do has to evolve”, and that some “people are holding on to this idea and that idea”, when in reality, these concepts have permeated Tang Soo Do since its inception. No big deal here.

Now for those who might say they where added in from other sources not Tang Soo Do in nature, my instructor, KJN Ferraro and all of his students were at the time all Tang Soo Do MOO DUK KWAN members (it don’t get no more Tang Soo Do then that! :ultracool ).

Ok, I feel a little better…

TANG SOO!!!
Michael Tabone

Michael, this has not been my experience with the Moo Duk Kwan and my lineage comes through Master Seiberlich one of the very first people to open a TSD school in the US.

In true MDK dojangs, we were told that the chambering hand may be bringing something back with it and that was it. We never practiced it. We never worked applications. We never explored it. And when we did basics, or Ill Soo Shik, or Ho Sin Shul, we chambered that hand over and over very precisely...for no reason.

It was only through my teacher that we truly learned what that hand was doing. It was only in his non-conformist dojang that we actually practiced the skills that this was attempting to teach. When we were part of the federation, he refused to teach the Ill Soo Shik and Ho Sin Shul partly because they took all of these misunderstood concepts and mashed them together and mostly because he thought that these would be dangerous for someone to actually attempt in a real fight. The only thing we really worked alot were the basics in line drills, where we chambered the hand over and over again with nothing in it.

In my dojang, I have changed this.

The bottom line is that if the chambering hand is supposed to be bringing something back with it and you aren't practicing that on a regular basis - which is what is shown in the forms - then you really ARE NOT learning this concept. Further, if you are chambering your hand with nothing it it when you are actually blocking or striking or actually fighting, you are putting yourself at risk to get KTFO.

The MGK isn't doing anything radically different then what the MDK did. The structure of the curriculum is pretty much "traditional" in the sense that it is still a loose copy of Shotokan. With that being said, I truly doubt that you have actually learned what this is supposed to be teaching. You may have intellectualized it, but that in no way, means that you can perform it.

In order to do so, I think you truly have to alter almost everything regarding your practice of TSD. This is the "upgrade" that people are talking about.

 

[zDom]

zDom - Please don't take offense, but I'm seeing a contradiction in this post. On one hand, you see a hyung as NOT being a realistic representation of actual combative technique and then on the other you are saying that one can practice all of their core basics by practicing a hyung.

I'm not at all offended, upnorthkyosa

I see the patterns as not being realistic representation of actual COMBAT, but I DO see them as practical combat techniques.

For example, lets take the sequence: low block from walking stance followed by a lunge punch; repeat on the other side.

The sequence - low block, lunge punch - works. I've used it. But it is unlikely that you would first have someone attack on your left side with a low attack immedately followed by someone attacking on your right side with a low attack.

But it is much more interesting to practice within the context of a form and adds a dynamic element.

The latter part of what you were writing about is definitely not how I was trying to portray my views on hyung. I see them as syllabus, truly like a syllabus, like you would see in any class or college course. The syllabus outlines the material, but it really doesn't give you the indepth knowledge of its use. It certainly hints at it and can help you remember it, but you cannot practice the material just by doing the kata. Just like you couldn't learn zoology by reading the syllabus.

I look at it as learning words with simple stories:

"See Dick run. See Spot run. Run, spot, run!"

as opposed to just going over a spelling list:

Dick
Spot
run
see

Now, there definately is more to learn about the words other than their use in the Dick and Spot running story, of course. And the Dick and Spot story is not indicative of the way you will probably REALLLY use those words. But it is more interesting that just looking over a spelling list.

Now that you understand what the chambering hand is doing, why would you continue the practice the hyung movement in a drill and continue to chamber that hand with nothing in it?

Not exactly sure what point you are making, but fwiw, I was taught the chambering hand motion can also be thought of/used as an elbow-point strike to an attacker behind you.

I've even drilled this elbow strike on a heavy bag. Never had to use it, but seems like it would be very effective and I'm glad to have it in my tool box, so to speak.

But even if there was no practical use for chambering hand, it is, IMO, useful as a training tool to train into students use of the hip - pulling back hard on one side makes the hip rotation, and thus the strike, stronger.

In my mind (and in my dojang) I see a strike and a block in the most conventional way possible, just like you would if you really had to defend yourself. When we practice principles associated with the chambering hand, we are working on actually grabbing and pulling our uke or we are working for kazushi for a throw.

I was also taught this use for the chambering hand, and have drilled with students grabbing a wrist or clothing and pulling them into the punch.

My point is this, once you understand "the chambering hand" this will change everything you thought you knew about basics. Movements in the hyung like "ha dan mahkee or 'low block'" have no meaning outside of the hyung. Thus, it is utterly pointless to practice them as basics outside of that context unless you are just trying to learn the form.

Well, again, maybe you misunderstood what I was getting at, or I am not understanding your point.

But when I practiced forms, I thought of the techniques within them, each and every one, as a combat technique.

Anyway, not sure where we are disagreeing —*I'm either missing your point or you misunderstood mine. Perhaps my comments make more sense with the addition of this post.

But even if we ARE in disagreement: no offense taken on my part!

 

[mtabone]

Upnorth,

These concepts that are talked about in the above posts and post on other threads on this message board, many are simply not new to Tang Soo Do (what ever ones lineage is. Even though we share the MDK line)

Now, the application of forms is something that was never officially taught in the Moo Duk Kwan. I have to agree. Absolutely the case.

That does not mean that all student of the Moo Duk Kwan were:
1) people that did not creatively come up with application
2) people that did not actively study and search the application of forms
3) people that were not aware of history and Tang Soo Do roots
4) people that had no martial arts back round before.

Creativity and studious research are things that for the most part studios and teachers help to cultivate, not largely orgs/feds. Some do, some don’t. Some are into the natural order of growth, some are not. Remember not all old things are bad and not all new things are good…

And before I begin my little post, I would like to state on thing…. I like application of forms. I think it is the major intent of forms to pass along the basic concepts and understanding of combat to someone, as well as to conditioned people mentally and physically. I believe that by creatively looking at the forms over and over again a student can open up tons of doors to explore and develop.

The application of the forms is something I personally need to understand to perform the hyung at a higher rate of technical proficiency. I remember hyung in attack of this to that to this to that to this to that…from technique to transition. I might perform a hyung with one understanding one year, another the next, but it is that intent that shows through in my hyung. Now, as far as transitions from move to move, they indeed have their own particular application. The moves themselves obviously also have an application.

What I believe to constitute proof of application, is its effectiveness. That is what I deem to be reasonable definition. Yours might be different. Another might say what makes it an application is that is the way they were taught. And that is fine.

Now I have said before on this board, application of forms (and there for proof of their techniques individual effectiveness) is something that is worked on by the individual in my organization (the Tang Soo Do Mi Guk Kwan). And I do work on them when I feel like I want to explore something….

And with that I am going to do something of a karate blasphemy…(at least on this board)

I don’t rely on the forms to teach me everything about self defense and combat. :erg:

Neither do I rely upon the Ill Soo Shik or Ho Sin Shul taught in the curriculum either. :erg:

I do recognize them for what they are though: ways to communicate concepts of combat. They are like mini forms if you will…

As far at the effectiveness, there have been some modifications to many of the one steps and self defense techniques in the Mi Guk Kwan. These modifications came with understanding of Aikido/Aikijustu, Jujustu, Kali etc… all of which have had a tremendous influence on the Mi Guk Kwan. I have never been taught by someone who was not a WHAK (West Haven Academy of Karate) instructor, on the Ill Soo Shik or Ho Sin Shul of the Moo Duk Kwan, so I might never have gotten the product that is ineffective and not a great source of concept transfer.

I no longer know the Moo Duk Kwan path, but in the Mi Guk Kwan we have basic one steps and intermediate one steps. Now, on Dan tests, you are asked to show advanced one steps.

The curriculum has set one steps and intermediates, yet no advanced one steps because YOU (the student) are to integrate that knowledge and make your own one steps. How do you know they will work? By trail and error, and basing it in the tried and true concepts (and hopefully many concepts that have been broken if you know what I mean) that have been taught to you in your prior training.

I do not know if the comment of “With that being said, I truly doubt that you have actually learned what this is supposed to be teaching. You may have intellectualized it, but that in no way, means that you can perform it.” Was a personal jab at me or not, though I guess it could be read that way, computers are not the best transmitters for tone of converse…

As far as actually learning if I am supposed to be grabbing and pulling with my back hand while I do such and such with that, or what ever the application of the month on the internet is, I believe someone can only summed up with seeing and training with me. Or is that supposed to be learning an objective end that to be calculated with latitude, and longitude in precise minutes and seconds? That the only true applications are this that and this… and who made up those applications? They guy that created the form? Well, we could always ask him…. Oh no we can’t. They are dead. So I guess we have to go on “lineage” and that fact that someone is right is the fact they got it from this guy who got it from that guy…

(btw I do practice a myriad of concepts with partners, in class in drills, so I don't get KTFO)

And if that is your burden of proof for great application then fine. Mine is effectiveness and practicality, FOR ME! My students might have a different set of application. It is all about the effectiveness and practicality in my opinion.

It is not an upgrade in what I am, or anyone in that matter, is learning material wise, or concept wise in Tang Soo Do, that needs the upgrade at all (as I have on several instances had to resort to the use of my training to protect myself and others. One time that sticks out in accordance with this post was the use of the opening moves in chill sung e rho to thwart a bat swung at my midsection: blocking close to the persons hands as possible, as I chopped him in the neck and kneed him in the head, only the grab his shirt with my hands and ‘escort’ him to the ground…after it was over and the adrenaline cooled down, I could not believe it happened like it did… many people in martial arts, and many types of martial arts, have stories like this….)


It is the individuals own personal understanding with the nature of combat, the myriad of ways to neutralize it, and the personal development of self physically, mentally, and spiritually that needs the upgrade.


TANG SOO!!!

Michael Tabone

 

[Makalakumu]

Michael - I'm a professional educator IRL and I've spent alot of time pouring over this or that curriculum to make sure that the concepts aligned with the goals. This was part of what I did for my Masters degree. Every class we taught, we had to philosophically defend and I taught biology, earth sciences, astronomy, physical sciences, and Physics, so this was alot of work.

As a side project, I started working on my own martial arts curriculum. I'm a martial arts packrat, so I was able to look at the standardized curriculum that I learned when I started in the MDK. I looked at the curriculum that my teacher was using after he had made changes. And then I looked at my own goals of what I wanted to try and get across to my students.

Here are the conclusions that I arrived at based on my analysis...

1. The kicho that we practiced techniques that were based on the forms and they would not be used in sparring or fighting. Further, the kicho that we were practicing, were picked arbitrarily. There were lots of other moves in many forms that never practiced at all.

2. The hyungs, as we practiced them in the MDK, were not useful for self defense. I worked as a security guared on a college campus for five years and only in the most superficial way did what I did resemble something I was practicing in the hyungs.

3. The drills that we practiced with Ill Soo Shik did not transfer effective combative technique. They were loosely based on the Kicho and incorporated some basic principles, but overall, they were slow, mechanical, and distance/timing were completely unrealistic.

4. The drills that we practiced with the Ho Sin Shul faced the same problems as those for Ill Soo Shik. Furthermore, these drills had more problems. For one, there were techniques taught in these drills like sweeps and locks that were not addressed in kicho. Therefore, there was no official mandate to practice them. For another, it seemed as if these techniques were drawn out of the blue. They had no basis in the system, there was no explanation of where they came from or how they connected to anything.

5. The emphasis on kicks was detrimental to the goal of actually defending oneself. I can count on one hand the times I've actually had to kick someone in order to defend myself. These kicks were very basic. With that being said, the proliferation highly difficult and ultimately ineffective is surprising when one's stated goal is self defense. The real reason these kicks developed was for point sparring.

6. The sparring that we practiced in the MDK did not incorporate any other aspect of the training. It loosely connected some of the kicking and striking techniques, but the techniques that were mostly practiced were the ones that would score lots of points in a point sparring competition. Furthermore, this type of sparring taught a number of bad habits that are detrimental in a real fight. When I was competing in the tournament scene, I found myself having to face some of these habits on my job.

So, does it surprise me when you say that you don't rely on any of this for self defense? No. I completely understand that. The entire organized curriculum is completely disconnected from the goal of self defense. Which begs the question, what are the goals of this curriculum?

?

This is a very difficult question to answer because at every step of the way, the explanation that we are given as students is philosopically unsound. There is no connection to any STATED goals. Thus, one is forced to hypothesize about what the goals may be. These are my best educated guesses.

1. Tournaments - The sparring and the kicks lend themselves well to competing in a point sparring competition.

2. Aesthetics - The way the basics and the forms are practiced are really constructed to make things look pleasing to the eye. I watch my daughter at her dance class and the instructor breaks down the dance moves exactly and critiques the actual dance in the same same way that is done in the MDK.

3. Marketing - The standardization of the curriculum, the "flashy" nature of its techniques, and its overall safety really lend itself to forming a chain of dojangs that can service alot of people and make lots of money.

If this is what you want out of the Martial Arts, then the MDK is the perfect organization for you. And I wouldn't disparage anyone for making this choice because we all have the freedom to live our own lives and pursue different goals.

What I have a problem with, is the dishonesty. Instructors who are claiming that this will teach self defense are intentionally or unitentionally misleading their clients. Many teachers intuitively understand this, that is why they opted to combine their arts with others like BJJ, Judo, Kali, Aikijutsu, boxing or wrestling. The end result is that most instructors will have two separate curriculums. One that is standardized for advancement in the organization and another that is really designed to teach a student self defense.

This structure has led to the cultivation of three types of TSD or SBD instructors...

1. The first type is only good at the standardized curriculum. They will get you advanced in the organization and they will take your money and you will not be able to defend yourself.

2. The second is someone who is good at both. They will get you advanced in the organization, they will teach you effective self defense techniques and they will take your money. It will take longer to meet this teacher's criteria, because there will be alot of additional requirements.

3. The third type is someone who is going to be good at teaching you self defense and pretty bad at teaching the other aspects in the standardized curriculum. This type of teacher is going to be loosely connected to a federation if they are connected at all and they will most likely have their own curriculum worked out that will give you a well rounded education in self defense. You will advance based on this curriculum, not any standardized curriculum.

All of this ties back to what is happening with the chambering hand. Under the first instructor, you will not learn anything about what the chambering hand is doing. It will just be another standardized aspect of the aesthetics for what you are doing.

Under the second instructor, you may hear this or that about what that hand is supposed to be doing, but you won't really practice it in the sense that you are learning the actual techniques that are involved with it. However, you may learn those techniques as part of this instructors self defense curriculum. For example, you may learn how to throw someone to the ground. What you will not see, is how those two things, the chambering hand and the throw, are connected.

Under the third instructor, you may or may not learn anything about the throw or the chambering hand. This person is a complete wildcard and anything is possible.

The sad thing about this whole situation is that it doesn't have to be this way. Good teachers don't need to have two curriculums that they need to teach their students in order to meet their objectives. Or, they don't need to nearly reinvent the wheel and almost create their own systems so they can meet their goals.

All they need to do is understand the forms. It's all there. It's all connected. It all makes sense. And it all works for self defense. The bottom line is that, IMHO, most TSD is a mess of philosophically disconnected concepts and it just doesn't have to be that way.

 

[mtabone]

John,

What you have simply is a false conclusion in your analysis.

If side stepping on an angle away from an incoming technique is a faulty principle of martial arts and combat, then I would have to agree with you.

If checking, blending, diverting, neutralizing, and changing the unified power of attack is a faulty principle of martial arts and combat, then I would have to agree with you.

If using hip and momentum, building someone’s physical body for Tang Soo Do, and training the mental/emotional side of someone is faulty principle of martial arts and combat, then I would have to agree with you.

If hitting your opponent in the openings created by side stepping, checking, blending, diverting, neutralizing, and changing the UPA is faulty principle of martial arts and combat, then I would have to agree with you.

I said in my last post I do not rely on the standardized curriculum for my actual self defense. I did say, I rely on them as a more then adequate way to transfer the principles and understandings of combat.

All of the above things are taught in the Ho Sin Shul and Ill Soo Shik.

I do believe you might be looking at things as if everyone who is going to learn from you has your same eyes….

In other words, Teachers take people who are normal everday folk and start to make them good at martial arts. They have no foundation in their past to draw on. They are simply people walking in from the street. You have to teach them in ways that will gradually get them to understand these principles. You need to teach them in ways that will make understanding accessible to them. THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING EVERYDAY OF THEIR LIVES! They are not Spartans or Samurai, just people.

Back in the day they were just school children. J

The point is they were not just thrown together in a “lets make a buck off of these people”. If that were the case, then I fail to see the result in any of my students and my teachers when faced with a fight, IN OR OUT OF THE RING. If it were simply for the money and what not, then why do is it many of the people I know who train in classical martial arts in good schools (TSD or other wise) who are involved in real life altercation have positive outcomes? I guess it’s just a whole lot of chance and luck…

One day John, we have to get together and train. I am sure when it comes right down to it we have more in common then we both think we do.

Tang Soo.

MTabone