skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,549
- Reaction score
- 2,559
- Thread Starter
- #201
That's what I mean about them being indirect applications. If I were a TKD teacher (which would presume I knew at least a little TKD ), I'd encourage students at a certain level to start exploring the forms by adjusting them to those kinds of indirect applications. I do that (probably too early) with the forms I teach.
Right. And I have no problem with encouraging people to explore and see what they come up with. I have no problem with "down block and then grab the leg" as a lesson. I also have no problem with "this is what we learned in the form, here's what you can do after that block."
What I have a problem with is when people take a single motion in the form, and tell you that the motion teaches you a combination that includes half a dozen other things.
We teach a Jab-Reverse-Hook-Uppercut combination. I can't just teach a jab and say "now you know this whole combination." I can teach a jab, and then say "here are some combinations that use the jab" and then show the whole combo. But in order for it to be effective, I'd also have to teach the reverse punch, hook punch, and uppercut.
I can't just say "go do 1000 jabs" and expect the other 3 punches to be there.