WTF clubs that credits General Choi as founder and/or developer of TaeKwonDo

[Tez3]

Or the fact that I said an alternative version of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with alternative.

It's not an alternative version of a knife hand though, it's a different technique.

It's not an alternative version. It uses totally different body mechanics to strike with the opposite side of the hand. That's not an alternative version. It's a completely different technique. I would expect even a 9th geup to understand this.

Just about to post when I saw you getting there before me. This boy is a real shmendrik.

 

[Axiom]

It's a completely different technique.

Yet the instructional states: This is similiar to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).

 

[Gnarlie]

Or the fact that I said an alternative version of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with alternative.

Not a knife hand in that the striking surface and mechanics of the motion are very different, requiring a totally different hand form.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Gnarlie]

Yes, you are completely wrong. If you want to do your own thing, fine. Declare yourself the 25th Dan Soke of Douche-Ryu and be done with it.

Odd that that's the word that's been on the tip of my tongue for the majority of my interaction with Axiom here.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Okey, so in summary then: My terminology for the ridge hand - "Alternative knife hand - perfectly compatible with the instructional video, is completely wrong.

You are completely incorrect. Yes. I'm glad you're finally starting to recognize this.

Such a technique does not exist in the ITF, apparently, because striking with straight fingers is always wrong according to the GM. You will break them.

Neither the knife hand nor the (totally different) ridge hand involve striking with the fingers. Striking with the fingers is a spearhand. And your instructor is correct. A spearhand done with straight fingers is quite likely to result in one or more broken fingers. A properly performed spearhand involves bending the fingers such that the tips of the 2nd-4th fingers strike at the same time and lend rigidity to each other.

Apparently the problem is that you're too ignorant/foolish/unteachable to understand that these are three totally different techniques.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yet the instructional states: This is similiar to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).

The description is of the position of the fingers relative to each other. The techniques are totally different.

 

[Axiom]

Not a knife hand in that the striking surface and mechanics of the motion are very different, requiring a totally different hand form.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

As I recall (just watching it 10 minutes ago) it is was the same striking motions performed in the video. Either way the technique has not been made of aware of in class, so I don't know why you blame ME for that.

 

[Gnarlie]

Yet the instructional states: This is similiar to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).

And the different striking surface, targets, and body mechanics required. So, completely different. The similarity lies only in the face that it uses an edge of the hand. There is no need for bent fingers with this technique because of the different mechanic. Come one dude, this is simple.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Axiom]

Neither the knife hand nor the (totally different) ridge hand involve striking with the fingers.

I didn't say striking with the fingers as the point of impact with either technique, I said striking with the fingers being straight.

 

[Dirty Dog]

As I recall (just watching it 10 minutes ago) it is was the same striking motions performed in the video. Either way the technique has not been made of aware of in class, so I don't know why you blame ME for that.

The striking motions for a knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand are completely and totally different.
Your instructor may be holding off on introducing the other techniques simply because he is aware of your limited understanding and doesn't want to confuse you more than you already are.

 

[Gnarlie]

As I recall (just watching it 10 minutes ago) it is was the same striking motions performed in the video. Either way the technique has not been made of aware of in class, so I don't know why you blame ME for that.

Hang on, I thought you were the one correcting your 9th dan instructor? Doesn't that mean you know best? Now that you DON'T know about something, you want to push it onto your 9th dan again? Sounds fishy to me.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Gnarlie]

The striking motions for a knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand are completely and totally different.
Your instructor may be holding off on introducing the other techniques simply because he is aware of your limited understanding and doesn't want to confuse you more than you already are.

This is highly likely to be the case. I think he's probably noticed the douchey aura.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Axiom]

The striking motions for a knifehand vs ridgehand vs spearhand are completely and totally different..

I see the difference between striking with a back swing as a typical knifehand, compared to a vertical trajectory with the ridgehand, but I still don't concider them completely different. In my book they are both knifehands-types of strikes due to the open hand and nature of the strike.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't care if it's listed under a seperate name, it is a similiar technique that he completey disregards and claims that fingers must always be bent. Just like he claims that the rear leg MUST be pointing 25 degrees in the L-stance which I can refute in 10 seconds. Yet he insists on correcting me each time....

The fingers being bent has a specific purpose in a knife-hand strike. That purpose is irrelevant when striking with the other side of the hand (ridge-hand). There's nothing in that ridge-hand strike to suggest straight fingers in a knife-hand strike. That's like saying a foot position for a front kick should/can be used for a back kick. It's a non sequitur.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I see the difference between striking with a back swing as a typical knifehand, compared to a vertical trajectory with the ridgehand, but I still don't concider them completely different. In my book they are both knifehands-types of strikes due to the open hand and nature of the strike.

Apparently you do NOT, since the trajectory of a ridgehand is virtually always horizontal. It certainly was so in the video you posted.
Your book, by the way, is completely irrelevant.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

¨
Am I completely wrong about the L-stance? Which I am not allowed to perform they way I sees fit for my body? Which I have informed him is perfectly correct by the book

Okay, let's see if I can help you at all. First, the book is old. Sometimes, things are learned to be better one way than another. Second, there may be a VERY good reason he's requiring that specific angle. At 4 years of training, you're not experienced enough to pick up some of the nuances of why one position is better than another.

If you really think you know this better than him, it's time to leave the school. You will refuse to learn from him, and that's a problem (for you) regardless of whether you are right or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Or the fact that I said an alternative version of a knifehand. The commentator says similiar to the knife hand, I am content with alternative.

Except that it's not an alternative version of the knife-hand. It is similar to it in a rough sense, but it is not a version of a knife-hand, at all.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okey, so in summary then: My terminology for the ridge hand - "Alternative knife hand - perfectly compatible with the instructional video, is completely wrong. Such a technique does not exist in the ITF, apparently, because striking with straight fingers is always wrong according to the GM. You will break them. End of dogmatic sentence. Nevermind the video or the parent technique that is never shown in class.

And my stance on the L-stance is also wrong, despite the encyklopedia backing me 100%.

Good to know.

Your use of "alternative knife hand" is NOT consistent nor compatible with the video. He says it is "similar to". Not even close to the same thing. Striking WITH THE KNIFE HAND with the fingers straight is in error (for your style - I can't speak to all). Pointing out that they can be straight in a completely different strike is irrelevant to the question.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yet the instructional states: This is similiar to the knife hand except for the thumb tucked in (and fingers straight).

Yeah it says "this form is similar to the knife hand" (I think I've quoted that correctly), and then it shows, quite clearly, that the striking surface isn't the same. It is visually similar, but not a similar technique. None of the mechanics are even close.

 

[Axiom]

Apparently you do NOT, since the trajectory of a ridgehand is virtually always horizontal. It certainly was so in the video you posted.
.

What difference does trajectory make to what you label it as? The point of impact is different parts of the open hand, but that does not warrant a new terminology in my book. The hand formation is waaay too similiar and both resembling knifes in hand forms.

Just like a turning kick with the instep and a vertical trajectory path is just as much of a turning kick as when it's horizontal and striking with the ball off the foot.