"But in a real fight we'd do it like this ..."

[SJON]

I am occasionally criticised for altering techniques to fit my applications. Actually, I don't alter the execution of the movements themselves very much, if at all. I think what bothers people more is that I use them for things other than what they're "supposed" to be used for (e.g. a blocking movement as a strike or a takedown) or other than what the conventional name indicates.

However, I also see a lot of this kind of thing:

Now, here, the KTA itself seems to be saying that it's OK to radically alter the mechanics of basic technique for "actual fighting". Why does it suddenly adopt the mechanics of Boxing or Muay Thai in a majority of the movements?

Where is the planted rear heel, for example? There is a specific, very effective reason for keeping the rear heel planted, although it seems even the KTA has forgotten it.

So, to summarise, it's OK to significantly alter the performance of a technique as long as it still vaguely fits the description, but it's not OK to perform the movement in the standard manner but assign it another effective use.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Simon

 

[Earl Weiss]

Well, as you know I am a regular contributer to Totally TKD as well and addressed this issue in my Pattern Paradigm article as you address it in your book. So, when addressing the "Standard" method, in order to address your question we would first need to address "Standard" . I will leave it to KKW people to address the KKW application of the term.

From the Chang Hon perspective I would define the "Standard" as defined in the Fundamental technique volumes 3&4, and stance volume, as expanded upon in the pattern volumes. However, it is also stated that the techniques are varied for combat and sparring as patterns also strive for esthetic qualities. As stated in my article the "Standard serves" as a convenient nucleaus from which to morph a techbnique anywhere in a 360 degree spherical range in order to adapt the standard technique if and as needed for sparring, self defense, or Demonstration purposes (Breaking or jumping for height and distance).

A comparison could be made to Boxing drills versus competition. Boxers don't always box to hone their abilities. Some of their drills like roadwork, speedbag work, head movemet drills etc. have little resemblance t wat they train for, yet the skill set / conditoning helps their boxing abilities.

 

[Touch Of Death]

None of those blocks were meant to be just blocks, it is just how you were taught.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I am occasionally criticised for altering techniques to fit my applications. Actually, I don't alter the execution of the movements themselves very much, if at all. I think what bothers people more is that I use them for things other than what they're "supposed" to be used for (e.g. a blocking movement as a strike or a takedown) or other than what the conventional name indicates.

I have always maintained that the names we give techniques are somewhat arbitrary and falsely limiting. Our students have heard it so many times it's practically a mantra - Every strike is a block. Every block is a strike.
Names make teaching easier. When you're working with a group of people, it's much easier to say "high block" than "everybody do this" and demonstrate the technique. But when we call something a block, a student (especially a beginner) will think of it as only a block, which limits and can impede their understanding of how the movement can be used.

Forms teach a basic movement, and these movements are taught in a very specific stylized way. For example, forms teach when performing an outside middle block, the arm should be at a very specific angle, with the palm facing a particular direction and with the knuckles at a specified height (the details of those angles, directions and heights vary from one org to another).
But obviously, reality will require that each of those details be modified to suit circumstance.
Forms teach many things, but they do not teach everything.

 

[WMKS Shogun]

Allow me to start by saying I am not a KKW TKD student. I think the potential double standard is bogus. While I believe that forms are supposed to be performed in a particular manner in order to teach fundamental skills, assigning meanings (beyond what it is originally identified as) to said movements as has been done before is GREAT as long as it works. People like Simon and Staurt Anslow have helped TKD to be more 'real' by giving us something more than rote memorization with the forms. At the same time, in the heat of combat, we must adapt technique to fit the situation. Size, speed, distance, timing, surroundings, even clothing; all of these dynamically change how a particular technique may work (or not work) in a particular situation. The 'basic' way to practice a move is sort of the center, if you will. All variations will move outward from there depending on the situation. In the same way that often different striking surfaces of the hand can be used, but the fundamental movement of several hand strikes are nearly identical. The effectiveness of the technique can often depend on the striking surface used and the target attacked.
In forms I was taught to chamber the non-punching hand. I was taught that first, this gives the motion more power via push-pull, second it was added to that idea that I may grab the opponent to pull them into the punch, thereby increasing the impact. All this said, when doing fighting drills (not in forms) we also practiced punching without chambering the non-punching hand and instead covering the head or body. This was not to teach us that chambering was wrong/ineffective, but to give another variation to the technique.
As long as there is a reason for the movements, I think it is fine. Simon, keep doing what you are doing! Even though I am not a KKW practitioner, I picked up the Tae Guk Cipher and found it to be well thought out and well laid out (and from what I can tell, it was LONG overdue for KKW stylists).

 

[SJON]

Note: Cross-posted with David's and DD's posts.

Hello Earl.

I’ll take your word for the Chang Hon standard and the acceptable limits of its variation. There are people here far better qualified than me to talk about the KKW standard too.

However, my eyebrow always creeps upwards when there is so much insistence in practice (i.e. in 99% of classes and gradings) on performing a technique one way but it turns out that there’s a “free pass” to do it pretty much any way you please handily tucked away in some dusty tome (no offence meant to the General’s oeuvre or any other; just a figure of speech).

Of course Boxers don’t fight by running or rotating their fists the way they do with a speed ball. But they do throw a right cross the same way they train to throw a right cross, i.e. heel up, shoulder committed. They don’t train the specific technique one way in the gym then suddenly start throwing Wing Chun punches when they get into the ring.

I mentioned the above example particularly because TKD is big on keeping the heel planted and not overcommitting the shoulder. In fact, I’m fairly sure there are detailed descriptions on how power should be generated in a TKD reverse punch, and none of them involve raising the heel. The video shows pretty much pure Boxing mechanics.

Why so much insistence on keeping the heel planted in training if the “practical” application raises the heel? Why is it so often said that the pattern shows the “ideal” method (c.f. the justification for training large chambers for blocks) when this ideal is abandonned in fighting?

Could it be that the people who establish the standards aren’t always 100% clear on why certain things are the way they are?

These are open questions. They are not directed personally at Earl.

I do think there are circumstances under which the rear leg can be allowed to trail forwards with the heel raised in a TKD reverse punch, but I think the default method should be to root the heel. The problem is, this doesn’t work too well unless certain other details are observed, so most people end up doing it for exhibition purposes, such as pattern performance, but omitting it when it comes to fighting.

And how about those inverted elbow bong sau-type blocks shown in the video? Could that possibly be a “striking” movement used as a block? That would be a novelty … all that insistence that “a block is just a block” and now it turns out that a strike isn’t necessarily a strike

Best regards,

Simon

 

[WMKS Shogun]

Humorously enough, I was taught to throw a reverse punch one way for forms and another for fighting (heel down in forms, heel up in sparring/fighting). I teach my students both methods, teach what the differences are mechanically/physically, and why they are different practically. Heel down tends to give more stability and we teach is as a body shift into the punch (a finisher), but a heel up reverse punch is for greater mobility, when you want to hit and move or roll it into another move via a short hip change. I agree with you and feel that the higher ups should either agree that 'yes, there is more than one correct way to do it and we teach this way first because....' or say 'no, this is the way we do it because...' and stop doing it any other way. Personally, I prefer the first and feel it is acceptable to have something be one way in a form and another similar way outside of the aesthetics of forms. While a front stance is used in fighting, it is rarely the rigid, overly dramatic, picture perfect version seen in forms. It took me years to realize I while I was fighting I was shifting into front and back stances from time to time, as necessity dictated. Standard stances all have their place and reason, just somewhere along the way, it seems like many instructors forgot to tell us why. No one ever explained to me: This is why we do a Front/Back/Horse/Side/Cat stance. These are the situations in which this ____ stance will be useful. This is something I figured out on my own from watching how people move and fight and looking at how I moved, both in TKD, as well as other arts/styles. I have tried to make this up to my own students by making sure they understand what they are doing AND why.
I recall a few years ago being at a seminar being taught by a very well-known, now-deceased, former full-contact champion. He was moving and cutting angles and retreating while telling us "Traditional karate doesn't teach you this, it doesn't teach you this..." and I laughed to myself because all he was doing was shifting into a modified front stance, or shifting into a modified back stance, stepping off on and angle into another front stance, etc. I got a few new ways of drilling stances in different timing, but the actual movements themselves which he was teaching were all in the forms! There is a great need in the martial arts to ASK questions and seek answers beyond "My master taught it this way, so I teach it this way as well." We need to seek to understand that concept behind the technique. A technique is a method of executing a concept.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Note: Cross-posted with David's and DD's posts.

Hello Earl.

I’ll take your word for the Chang Hon standard and the acceptable limits of its variation. However, my eyebrow always creeps upwards when there is so much insistence in practice (i.e. in 99% of classes and gradings) on performing a technique one way but it turns out that there’s a “free pass” to do it pretty much any way you please handily tucked away in some dusty tome

>>>>What a system provides for and what instructors teach or grade on may be very different. How or what instructors grade on is not the fault of the system. At least as far as general Choi's system patterrns / fundamental techiques are but one element of the cycle of TKD and tere is no indication that it should be weighted more than any other element. <<<

I mentioned the above example particularly because TKD is big on keeping the heel planted and not overcommitting the shoulde

Why so much insistence on keeping the heel planted in training if the &#8220;practical&#8221; application raises the heel?

>>> I don't think "Sparring methodolgies" are neccessarily "practical" applications. In self defense, maintaining a stable base is more important than sparring where rules make itless important since getting knocked over is not a real issue due to rules. <<<



Hello Earl.

I&#8217;ll take your word for the Chang Hon standard and the acceptable limits of its variation. However, my eyebrow always creeps upwards when there is so much insistence in practice (i.e. in 99% of classes and gradings) on performing a technique one way but it turns out that there&#8217;s a &#8220;free pass&#8221; to do it pretty much any way you please handily tucked away in some dusty tome

>>>>What a system provides for and what instructors teach or grade on may be very different. How or what instructors grade on is not the fault of the system. At least as far as general Choi's system patterrns / fundamental techiques are but one element of the cycle of TKD and tere is no indication that it should be weighted more than any other element. <<<

I mentioned the above example particularly because TKD is big on keeping the heel planted and not overcommitting the shoulde

Why so much insistence on keeping the heel planted in training if the &#8220;practical&#8221; application raises the heel?

>>> I don't think "Sparring methodolgies" are neccessarily "practical" applications. In self defense, maintaining a stable base is more important than sparring where rules make itless important since getting knocked over is not a real issue due to rules. <<<

Why is it so often said that the pattern shows the &#8220;ideal&#8221; method

>> Because people focus too much on one aspect<<

Could it be that the people who establish the standards aren&#8217;t always 100% clear on why certain things are the way they are?

>>Or perhaps they were 100% clear on what they were seeking to accomplish. It's the people who misinterpret what was taught or why that were not 100% clear. <<

Why is it so often said that the pattern shows the &#8220;ideal&#8221; method

>> Because people focus too much on one aspect<<

Could it be that the people who establish the standards aren&#8217;t always 100% clear on why certain things are the way they are?

>>Or perhaps they were 100% clear on what they were seeking to accomplish. It's the people who misinterpret what was taught or why that were not 100% clear. <<










EW

 

[SJON]

Perhaps, indeed. Not sure I follow you, Earl. Perhaps it's the formatting

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

I mentioned the above example particularly because TKD is big on keeping the heel planted and not overcommitting the shoulder. In fact, I’m fairly sure there are detailed descriptions on how power should be generated in a TKD reverse punch, and none of them involve raising the heel. The video shows pretty much pure Boxing mechanics.

Why so much insistence on keeping the heel planted in training if the “practical” application raises the heel? Why is it so often said that the pattern shows the “ideal” method (c.f. the justification for training large chambers for blocks) when this ideal is abandonned in fighting?

I personally never understood why punching is practiced 95% of the time with the non-punching hand at the waist, which you would almost never do in real life. Why not practice what you would really do??? I never understood that.

I think someone else here posted once that he started tkd and was learning a bunch of stances, and then the instructor showed the "fighting stance". And the student wondered, "well then, what are all these other stances for??".

 

[WMKS Shogun]

I personally never understood why punching is practiced 95% of the time with the non-punching hand at the waist, which you would almost never do in real life. Why not practice what you would really do??? I never understood that.

Punching with the hand on the hip is 1) to teach push-pull for greater momentum and 2) to teach that the retracting hand should be grabbing and pulling the opponent into the punch/strike.

I think someone else here posted once that he started tkd and was learning a bunch of stances, and then the instructor showed the "fighting stance". And the student wondered, "well then, what are all these other stances for??".

Fighting stance is your neutral. Front, back, cat, etc. all flow from a more neutral stance. I believe I said something similar in an earlier post in this thread.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

Punching with the hand on the hip is 1) to teach push-pull for greater momentum and 2) to teach that the retracting hand should be grabbing and pulling the opponent into the punch/strike.

Agreed, but you would think at a certain point a student would drift towards practising the technique the way he/she would "actually" do it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I personally never understood why punching is practiced 95% of the time with the non-punching hand at the waist, which you would almost never do in real life. Why not practice what you would really do??? I never understood that.

I think someone else here posted once that he started tkd and was learning a bunch of stances, and then the instructor showed the "fighting stance". And the student wondered, "well then, what are all these other stances for??".

"Fighting stance" is just a name. What you've posted proves my point - that students (especially at lower levels) will assume that the name defines the technique. The names we give are both an aid and a hindrance to learning. It is up to teachers to lead students to understand that it's all just movements.
"Fighting stance" is just a neutral position, from which you should flow into other stances as circumstances change.
Sadly, this is something that not all teachers do very well.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

"Fighting stance" is just a name. What you've posted proves my point - that students (especially at lower levels) will assume that the name defines the technique. The names we give are both an aid and a hindrance to learning.

As a white belt at a university club, my primary instructor was a "yellow" belt, from Hong Kong, who had about 15 years of Chinese martial arts. He joined TKD only because his room mate was the 3rd dan instructor. I refer to him as my primary instructor because I did most of my training outside class with him.

I learnt the "fighting stance" in class from the 3rd dan, and noticed that this guy with 15 years CMA experience didn't use it.

He said, "in North America,people only want to punch you in the face, so I keep both hands high".

Then I got thinking and asked, "what about in Hong Kong?".

He answered, "oh in Hong Kong, they'll kick you in the balls. So I would keep one hand low there, like they teach in class."

And that was my instruction to adaptability and not getting stuck on labels!

 

[Earl Weiss]

Perhaps, indeed. Not sure I follow you, Earl. Perhaps it's the formatting

Could it be that the people who establish the standards aren&#8217;t always 100% clear on why certain things are the way they are?

>> Or perhaps they were 100% clear on what they were seeking to accomplish. It's the people who misinterpret what was taught or why that were not 100% clear. <<

Your post indicated that it was the people who established the standards that were not 100% clear on why they were doing what they were doing. My point was that those establishing the standards may have been clear, but for whatever reason the people learning did not understand the reasons.

CAse in point. General Choi's texts contain application (s) for movements. Some thing that the text application(s) was meant to be exclusive or and exhaustive. Hpwever, this is not stated anywhere. To the contrary when gemneral Choi taught he would sometimes ask: What is the purpose of this move? Student A might say it is for 123, and student B might say it was for XYZ. General Choi would then ask student A: "What do you think about what student B said?" Student A would proudly say "Your book says it's 123." To which General Choi would reply: "He does not care what book says, how do we solve this problem?" Ultimately the resolution was to have student B deonstrate what he said the application was and General Choi would comment that if it worked it was a good application. His tyext would also liken fundamental moves to an alphabet and linking them as sentences. As we know letters linked in different ways ave different end products. So to it seems would fundamental moves. Also. letters and words in different contexts have different applications.

So, now one simply looks at examples of applications used by General Choi thinking he ment them to be exhaustive or exclusive. W

Whois it that lacks the understanding?

 

[RTKDCMB]

I personally never understood why punching is practiced 95% of the time with the non-punching hand at the waist, which you would almost never do in real life. Why not practice what you would really do??? I never understood that.

I will repeat a post I posted earlier, maybe this will clear things up for you a bit:

There are many reasons for bringing the punching fist back to the hip. For the elbow one to work the 2nd opponent would have to be practically up against you. Some of the reasons I can think of:

1) Simplicity - one of the 1st things you learn when you begin Taekwondo is the horse riding stance mid section punch, when doing 2 punches like this (with the non-punching hand returning to the hip) both punches are exactly the same. When you do them in a forward stance or a back stance or from a guarding block one is more powerful than the other so it is easier to learn and to get the twist of the wrist right from the horse riding stance. Also if you are doing it for one technique simplicity demands you do it for all of them.

2) Hip involvement - goes back to point 1, most of the power in any single hand technique comes from twisting the hips so bringing the punching hand back to the hip puts it into the position for the next punch which starts at the point of rotation.

3) Retracting the striking hand - If your hand can retract your hand back to the hip as fast as you can finish your punch then you can retract your hand to avoid it getting grabbed as fast as you can punch. Going back to point 2 it also helps to improve your hip rotation with the push-pull action.

4) Speed - Because coming from the hip you have to move your hand further to get to the target than if you were punching from a guarding block. If you want to punch a target faster (get there in less time) you will have to punch faster from the hip so if you can punch fast from the hip how fast can you punch from the guarding position?

5) Grabbing something - Sometimes the retracting hand can be the result of grabbing your opponent and pulling them in to increase the power you hit them with, to make it harder for them to defend against it or to bring them closer to you. There are some movements in the Chang Hon patterns that do this, although not just to the hip such as the grab-chop in Whon Hyo or the double elbow in Po Eun which could either be 2 elbows to 2 different opponents or grabbing with one hand, pulling them in and hitting them with the other.

I am sure there will be some that disagree and/or have other ideas but there you are.

 

[punisher73]

Note: Cross-posted with David's and DD's posts.

Hello Earl.

I&#8217;ll take your word for the Chang Hon standard and the acceptable limits of its variation. There are people here far better qualified than me to talk about the KKW standard too.

However, my eyebrow always creeps upwards when there is so much insistence in practice (i.e. in 99% of classes and gradings) on performing a technique one way but it turns out that there&#8217;s a &#8220;free pass&#8221; to do it pretty much any way you please handily tucked away in some dusty tome (no offence meant to the General&#8217;s oeuvre or any other; just a figure of speech).

Of course Boxers don&#8217;t fight by running or rotating their fists the way they do with a speed ball. But they do throw a right cross the same way they train to throw a right cross, i.e. heel up, shoulder committed. They don&#8217;t train the specific technique one way in the gym then suddenly start throwing Wing Chun punches when they get into the ring.

I mentioned the above example particularly because TKD is big on keeping the heel planted and not overcommitting the shoulder. In fact, I&#8217;m fairly sure there are detailed descriptions on how power should be generated in a TKD reverse punch, and none of them involve raising the heel. The video shows pretty much pure Boxing mechanics.

Why so much insistence on keeping the heel planted in training if the &#8220;practical&#8221; application raises the heel? Why is it so often said that the pattern shows the &#8220;ideal&#8221; method (c.f. the justification for training large chambers for blocks) when this ideal is abandonned in fighting?

Could it be that the people who establish the standards aren&#8217;t always 100% clear on why certain things are the way they are?

These are open questions. They are not directed personally at Earl.

I do think there are circumstances under which the rear leg can be allowed to trail forwards with the heel raised in a TKD reverse punch, but I think the default method should be to root the heel. The problem is, this doesn&#8217;t work too well unless certain other details are observed, so most people end up doing it for exhibition purposes, such as pattern performance, but omitting it when it comes to fighting.

And how about those inverted elbow bong sau-type blocks shown in the video? Could that possibly be a &#8220;striking&#8221; movement used as a block? That would be a novelty &#8230; all that insistence that &#8220;a block is just a block&#8221; and now it turns out that a strike isn&#8217;t necessarily a strike

Best regards,

Simon

I know of an instructor who earned his BB in TKD while stationed in Korea during the 60's. He has Gen. Choi's first book/first edition that was written in Korean. Being a language translator he could read the book and says that Gen. Choi admitted that they did not know the applications of the Japanese katas that they learned. This statement was taken out of other editions. Since I don't speak/read Korean and don't own the book myself, I can't confirm 100% this statement, but it is food for thought and is consistant with many other JKA "applications" for their kata and what some of the higher level instructors have said.

I think that this problem of "practicing it one way and then doing it differently" is exactly because instructors don't know what it is they are doing. Okinawan karate, which is really what we have to go back to for this discussion, was a civilian self-defense system. It was NOT based on sport's fighting and that type of range that you find in a boxing/kickboxing match. MANY of the things that are taught in TKD/Karate seem to be influenced by those combat sports. The use of a seperate fighting stance/guard is not of use outside of already knowing you are ready to get into a fight. For S-D purposes you are going to adopt a more natural hand and foot position to protect yourself without looking aggressive (the same types of postures you see in kata many times). The stances taught in TKD/Karate are all found in the combat sports, as well, when you look at the actual matches. They are isolated in training to show and highlight their strengths and weaknesses and how to maximize their potential. But, watch a kickboxing match and you will see the front stance while punching, the cat stance for evasion and the horse stance/sumo stance when doing stand up grappling.

Same thing with punching/blocking techniques. In boxing a punch is a punch, it has no other applications. In TKD/Karate, it may not be the case. As we look at the "hikite" for example, we see that it can be used to teach the principles of how to maxmize the punch, but it is also teaches in close quarter combat that everytime your hand is coming back, it isn't coming back empty. You are in close and are grabbing clothing, skin, or hair to off balance and do more damage with your punch.

Almost ALL of the things that get changed "when you do it for real" are changed to fit into a sports style sparring match with an extended distance. NOT a self-defense situation where the person is in close and maybe grabbing/pushing or punching/kicking.

 

[SJON]

Could it be that the people who establish the standards aren’t always 100% clear on why certain things are the way they are?

>> Or perhaps they were 100% clear on what they were seeking to accomplish. It's the people who misinterpret what was taught or why that were not 100% clear. <<

Your post indicated that it was the people who established the standards that were not 100% clear on why they were doing what they were doing. My point was that those establishing the standards may have been clear, but for whatever reason the people learning did not understand the reasons.

CAse in point. General Choi's texts contain application (s) for movements. Some thing that the text application(s) was meant to be exclusive or and exhaustive. Hpwever, this is not stated anywhere. To the contrary when gemneral Choi taught he would sometimes ask: What is the purpose of this move? Student A might say it is for 123, and student B might say it was for XYZ. General Choi would then ask student A: "What do you think about what student B said?" Student A would proudly say "Your book says it's 123." To which General Choi would reply: "He does not care what book says, how do we solve this problem?" Ultimately the resolution was to have student B deonstrate what he said the application was and General Choi would comment that if it worked it was a good application. His tyext would also liken fundamental moves to an alphabet and linking them as sentences. As we know letters linked in different ways ave different end products. So to it seems would fundamental moves. Also. letters and words in different contexts have different applications.

So, now one simply looks at examples of applications used by General Choi thinking he ment them to be exhaustive or exclusive. W

Whois it that lacks the understanding?

OK, got you. Thanks.

I think to some extent we are talking at crossed purposes. I’m actually talking about the KTA rather than General Choi or Chang Hon TKD, although now that we’re here, I will give him a mention later on.

I am not arguing for or against the existence of alternative applications. I realise that few people share my opinion that the patterns were composed with more than kick-block-punch or a broad scheme of body movement in mind.

Nor am I saying that the composers of the patterns, or those who established (past tense) the standard way of executing particular movements didn’t know what they were doing.

I’m saying that the people who have revised the standards since then or established new ones may not be 100% clear on why the “founders” established the performance of particular MOVEMENTS the way they did.

That’s why I focussed on the lifting of the heel and the Boxing mechanics of the rear hand punch in the video. This is a recent KTA production, as far as I can see, which means that the current standard-bearers of Kukki TKD are saying that you aren’t really expected to root your heel, that’s just for … just for … well, what exactly?

But it doesn’t stop there. Lead hand punch in long front stance turns into Boxing jab in Boxing front stance. Rear hand punch in long front stance turns into Boxing cross in Boxing front stance. And now the movement we call keundol chogi performed in horse stance while looking sideways becomes … a Boxing hook in Boxing front stance while looking forwards.

Now, "keundol chogi" doesn’t even mean anything to do with punching. It means “large hinge” or something similar, and can be used for several generally very nasty things. In the pattern Keumgang, it is associated with large 360º turns. But for want of a better explanation, in this video, produced by the KTA, it is turned into a hook punch in a different stance. Now that, to me, says that the current Kukki TKD authorities either don’t know why the technique was put into Keumgang like this in 1967, or they think it isn’t very good and should be replaced by a better technique from another martial art.

On a side note, if General Choi’s use of Newton’s 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Law to explain the reaction hand and his introduction of the last version of the sine wave are anything to go by, in my opinion he did not have a very good understanding of body mechanics. Or maybe he did, but chose to ignore it in favour of differentiating his TKD from other styles. Either way, I’m wary of any argument that basically comes down to “Gen. Choi was the founder and he said XYZ”. Like so many prominent MA figures, he was a great man, but not an infallible holder of the One True Way.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[Earl Weiss]

5) Grabbing something - Sometimes the retracting hand can be the result of grabbing your opponent and pulling them in to increase the power you hit them with, to make it harder for them to defend against it or to bring them closer to you. There are some movements in the Chang Hon patterns that do this, although not just to the hip such as the grab-chop in Whon Hyo .

While this is one way to "Morph" a technique for an alternate application, this is not the techn ical paramater for Won Hyo #s 2&5 etc. Inward knifehand strike bringing opposite side fist to the shoulder.

There are numerous instances in the Chang Hon system where the opposite fist is brought to the shoulder. Reasons are not specified. There could be reasons other than pulling someone in. Again, if it works it's a good application....

For this move it would need to morph substantialy since if we look at #2 and assume the prior move is to "B" the lead hand that pulls in is toward B yet the target for #2 is to BD which is a line parallel to the 15 degree angle of the lead foot. Or in this case 15 degrees inward from the target you pulled. There might be relative positioning that works. But it must be kept in ming that patterns teach "Distance and Direction" and it must be noted how this changes if a technique is morphed.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I know of an instructor who earned his BB in TKD while stationed in Korea during the 60's. He has Gen. Choi's first book/first edition that was written in Korean. Being a language translator he could read the book and says that Gen. Choi admitted that they did not know the applications of the Japanese katas that they learned. This statement was taken out of other editions. .

Would luv to get a photocopy. Now, there is a statement in the english version where he refers to no single person or country being able to claim inventing techniques and the likelyhood of independant development. Which of course means "THE" applications can and do vary with the system.