Hyung learning techniques

[MBuzzy]

A big part of being an effective practitioner of our style is learning, performing, and applying our Hyung. We talk a lot about the performance and applications of hyung, but very little about the techniques used to actually learn them. To me, this is a big part of it, since everyone learns differently and as martial artists, we have to both learn and instruct others.

So what do you find is the best technique for instructing hyung? i.e. what has had the best results?

For me, the best way to learn is to do a few moves with the instructor and redo those until I have them, then add a few and repeat. After I've learned it in class though, I find that I need to reinforce it with videos or notes to remember all of the movements to practice. Then as I am corrected, I make more notes to refer back to when I practice.

When I am instructing others, however, I find that the best way is to go through the hyung in its entirety once, and then try to explain the logic or pattern behind it. After that, I will generally then instruct them the way that I learn it. I'll also demonstrate or have them watch it a few times so that they get a feel for it.

What other techniques are out there? What do you find is the most effective?

How do you then go about making minor corrections and having them stick?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I find it interesting that you have different ways of learning and teaching. Fascinating.

I'm not a TSD person but I still learn and teach forms. I find I learn in much the same way you do except that instead of using video and notes I spend days repeating what I have learned. On occassion I have been known to work on the hand movements in the shower. I guess I get a little obsessive.

However, unlike you, I generally teach the way I learn. I must say that I usually demonstrate the entire form before going to work on teaching it in sections. I also gives students a brief explanation of what they are doing with each section. When they have learned the entire form we go back and begin a more indepth examination of the techniques involved.

I also like to tell my students to envision multiple attackers surrounding them. It seems to help them focus.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

I try to teach hyung as I'm taught them: one move at a time. When my sa bum nim teaches me a new hyung, he shows me the first move, has me repeat it until I have it right, then adds another move. Then I practice both moves until I have them right. Then the third move, and so on until the end. I find this the best way to learn, because it works on the principle of muscle memory. Sometimes, going through the whole form all at once leads to a rushing or blurring of techniques which, especially because the applications are hardly ever completely on the surface, is not a good thing. So, especially when I'm teaching someone else a hyung, I make sure they have the first move right before moving on to the next. Not saying I'm perfect, but I can keep trying, can't I?

Tang Soo!

 

[jks9199]

When I teach forms, I adjust my methods to the student.

I've taught some the function, and only later strung it together (with a few adjustments) into the form. I've taught others the motions, then explained them when they had them down. And, most often, I've blended both approaches.

 

[exile]

When I teach forms, I adjust my methods to the student.

I've taught some the function, and only later strung it together (with a few adjustments) into the form. I've taught others the motions, then explained them when they had them down. And, most often, I've blended both approaches.

Yes, this seems to be the key idea. Teach a bit of the form, get them to understand, in rough detail anyway, what the combat uses of the form are for. A bit more of the form movements, a bit more of the applications. This is how I've found it best to teach the taikyoku katas in my TKD classes. Students want to know the `what', but they also want to know the `why'; and there's no reason why they shouldn't, I don't think. It certainly seems to make it easier for them to assimilate the series of motions that these hyungs consist of.

I also teach them that the point of a front stance is not the final position but the movement of weight forward taking advantage of the leverage some prior technique has established, and that of a back stance is, again, not the final position, but the way you use your weight to anchor a trapped opponent while you administer a strike to the selected vulnerable target. It's extremely useful, as an instructional tool, to make the combat applications clear at least in general outline, I've found, both for hyungs and for isolated techniques. Emphasizing that the upward chambering in a down block conceals a possible elbow strike sets up the introduction of hyung combat applications down the road.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

Students want to know the `what', but they also want to know the `why'; and there's no reason why they shouldn't, I don't think. It certainly seems to make it easier for them to assimilate the series of motions that these hyungs consist of.

Couldn't agree more. My sa bum nim makes sure to show me the application as he's showing me the form, so I get a better understanding of what I'm doing. It's usually only a simple interpretation at first, but the more I do a form, the more he shows me.

 

[MBuzzy]

JT - seems the like just a slight difference from how we do it. Rather than a few moves at a time, then repeat, just one move at a time.

As for applications though, I tend to hold off until the student either knows the form completely or is a bit more advanced to start going into applications. Especially with young students, for most of them, just learning the motions is hard enough without learning applications to confuse them. Plus, there is plenty of time for that....

 

[exile]

Couldn't agree more. My sa bum nim makes sure to show me the application as he's showing me the form, so I get a better understanding of what I'm doing. It's usually only a simple interpretation at first, but the more I do a form, the more he shows me.

I think there's a built-in incentive for students to take the whole form-internalization process more seriously when they understand, even in very general outline, that there's a practical, usable payoff for them in absorbing and really understanding the correct execution of the forms. If a student thinks you're just being arbitrary and insisting on something for no better reason than that's the way it's always been done... well, they may do it, but their heart won't be in it to nearly the same degree as if they realize that the hyung looks the way it does for a reason, and a good one, one that may give them a defense skill they didn't possess before. I know I work like that myself, and I get the same sense from the people in my classes... especially the kids.

 

[Makalakumu]

The very best way to learn a hyung is to have the person who created it show you the applications and have you drill them over and over and over again until you have the moves internalized to the instinctual level. Then, the instructor should show you the "shorthand" helps you remember the actual content.

Working through the form puts the cart before the horse, so to speak.

For tangsoodoin, who were taught only the moves in the forms, but no real applications, then I would suggest taking a good hard look at your curriculum before you even attempt to really teach a hyung.

If you are still marching up and down the floor doing "low block" and "front punch" then you missed the point behind the techniques that are actually being shown in the forms. Then you are completely missing the point of the hyung.

Something that should blow all of our minds is that some of these hyungs are complete martial systems. Think about that for a minute and ask your self why you should teach the do this, then do this, then do this type of pedegogy...

I don't mean to insult anyone, but honestly examine whether or not you should even be teaching a form if the latter is all you know. If I paid a teacher to teach me biology and they gave me a sheet of notes written in a personal form of shorthand and then walked away without an explanation, I'd be pissed...

 

[MBuzzy]

UpNorth - Agreed, the applications and reasons behind the moves are by far the most important aspect.

With that said, most of us do not have access to the people who created the forms. In addition, learning these forms are a big part of our curriculum. I would submit that even if you DO know all of the applications - or at least a "set" of applications and you DO understand how the form is put together and why......the doesn't necessarily mean that you will remember the moves or the sequence after having it all explained. Even with an in depth study of the individual techniques, the history, the intentions, etc....without drilling the form and committing it to muscle memory, you can't PERFORM it.

For example, I'm working on Jung Jul, the second Yuk Ro form. I have gone through all of the movements individually through Ill Soo Sik, through trying out applications, through basics designed specifically for that form, studies of the history and creation, etc and I've seen it demonstrated a great many times. But the form still isn't completely committed to memory. There are still portions where I have to stop and think "ok, what's next." Its a complex form and I still have some kinks to work out.

So based on your explanation - How do you TEACH a form to a new student?
How do you yourself LEARN a form?
In your opinion, if your school DOES teach the applications, does the order that you learn the material matter (i.e. form first or applications first)?

 

[MBuzzy]

Another point here - I have been in situations where I have a very limited time to learn a form. Specifically, I only had access to someone who KNEW the form in its entirety for a very short period of time. But there are other situations, if you are far from your instructor (as I am in Haidong Gumdo - I get one lesson per week and I get nothing out of it if I have to relearn material each week), if you are at a seminar, etc. In those cases, I want to learn the movements and the form itself quickly. I can work on applications later. I can come here and ask about those applications, I can examine it more closely on my own time....but there are times when just learning the movements is all you have.

Is there anything wrong with learning the form so that you have the material to look at? I feel that I've gained something from that....because if I had never learned the movements at all, I don't even have the chance to look at the applications or start to examine the form.

 

[JWLuiza]

The teaching of forms should vary by the level of the practitioner. There is a high percentage of overlap between the kata. For example, when teaching Bassai or Kanku Dai, I teach sections "This is the Pinan 5 section" etc. Of course this only works when I'm teaching brown or black belts...

At gup/kyu ranks I teach sections as well though. I find this helps the students grasp the breathing and timing dynamics earlier. Also, this helps work within short-term memory limits. I can hold over 30 forms in my head, and I know others who know 50+ because they think in sections instead of individual moves.

 

[MBuzzy]

At gup/kyu ranks I teach sections as well though. I find this helps the students grasp the breathing and timing dynamics earlier. Also, this helps work within short-term memory limits. I can hold over 30 forms in my head, and I know others who know 50+ because they think in sections instead of individual moves.

Exactly, and I know some who can store more than that across their 3 or 4 styles....so how do they learn them? How do they STORE them?

I've also run into people who can learn a whole form in an hour or so, then store it in their memory for later examination.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

JT - seems the like just a slight difference from how we do it. Rather than a few moves at a time, then repeat, just one move at a time.

As for applications though, I tend to hold off until the student either knows the form completely or is a bit more advanced to start going into applications. Especially with young students, for most of them, just learning the motions is hard enough without learning applications to confuse them. Plus, there is plenty of time for that....

True that. When I'm teaching kids (which is usually my fate), I tend to go your route, making sure they have the moves down first (with proper technique!) and then showing them what it means. In fact, the first explanation a student is usually given is the surface appearance - what upnorthkyosa refers to as "low block and front punch" - because at first they need to solidify the techniques in their minds. I realize low block in front stance is hardly ever used just as that, but as you progress, you learn more. Anyway, from what I've seen kids younger than maybe 13 or so have just enough attention span to keep the moves in their heads. For them, sparring and self-defense drills are going to be just as important as hyung in teaching them TSD.

For instance, when I'm working with one of the several white/yellow belt kids at my dojang, as much time, if not more, is spent on long-distance drills and technique drills as on hyung (they only know one). Teaching them their new form, once they've been promoted, is really more of a first-step into the water which will be expanded upon in later classes. If they have the techniques down, the form follows, since the techniques are taken from the forms.

Teaching red belts is a whole different story. I don't usually get the opportunity to teach them new forms, but I get plenty of opportunity refining them. There was one recent instance when I had to show a 1st gup keema hyung (naihanchi) cho dan in class (because he decided he didn't want to show up to class very often) by example. The other six red belts may have thought it boring and unnecessary, but I had them go through the form at a snail's pace, repeating from the beginning every few moves along the way until they could do the whole thing. Every step of the way I also explained more about the actual techniques, especially the punch-down cross -> inside-outside/low block -> two-fisted outside-inside strike sequence, so the kid could get the basic idea of what he was doing as he went through the form. And actually, he amazed me by doing so well his first time doing it, when some of the red belts who should have known and been doing the form for much longer were horribly sloppy. I'll stop myself before I go off on a rant tangent.

Anyway, @JWLuiza: Good idea. Similar story when doing pyung ahn cho dan: "Three high blocks, just like hyung e bu," "Now center punches, like hyung il bu," etc. Chunking is always a good way to memorize something. Just gotta make sure you're not just going through the motions while doing it, I guess.

 

[terryl965]

This is what we do it has always worked for us, we teach the adults, teenagers and childern the same: we start out with a few moves and make sure they have those done in proper sequence and then continue thoughout the form. Then we go back and correct the proper position of punches and kicks to make sure they understand the importance there. Then we go and teach the proper power behind each block, kick and punch and then lastly we go back and explain the application to all the movements. Lastly we go back and explain the difference SD principle withen the form itself.

This has always worked for us and we have always had fantastic results.

 

[Makalakumu]

For me, teaching a "hyung" starts with teaching a person how to punch. You've got to make the "simple" techniques and "complex" techniques, or you'll never get what the hyung is trying to tell you.

Simple techniques are things like hand strikes, kicks, blocks and parries, joint locks, and throws. These techniques are done from any way of standing, clinching, or on the ground.

Complex techniques are what you find in the hyung. Things that most tangsoodoin call "low block" and "front punch" are actually complex techniques. They are not just "low block" and "front punch" they are many things.

The next step is multifaceted. First, you've got to teach a student the simple techniques are shown in a form. You've got to drill the student on those techniques until they can perform them at full speed and full power. You also have to take into account the level of the student. Some techniques, like certain throws, should only be performed when a student has at least a year of breakfalling practice. So, its okay for the student come back and "backfill" at later date with those techniques to see where they fit in.

The next thing to do is to examine the hyung and extract the principles from it. These are ways of linking simple techniques in effective, combative ways. When you drill your students on the usage of simple techniques, these principles guide how you put them in combination. Again, you need to take student level into account and teach to it. It's okay to "backfill" principles also.

Lastly, you need to spar with these techniques and principles. You need to practice them with limited resistence first and then up the ante as the student progresses.

At any point along this continuum, the hyung can be shown. Traditionally, it was always revealed last, but I think that was done more for cultural reasons rather then pedegogical. As far as revealing the hyung goes, just about anything that you guys are talking about works fine.

What I want you guys to see is that "teaching" a hyung isn't just a part of your martial art. It should encompass then entire martial art. Your entire curriculum should be guided by the material in the hyung. Everything you do should go back to this or that hyung the student is currently working on.

If it doesn't, then you are dealing in disconnected material. The teaching methods won't stand up to critical analysis and, ultimately, it won't convey the objectives the teacher wants to teach...assuming there are objectives in the first place.

For those of you who are teaching classical hyung, this is especially important. These hyungs were designed as martial arts that would protect your life. Would you stake your life on the way you "teach" a hyung?

 

[MBuzzy]

UpNorth - seems like no more than order of instruction. Whether you learn the applications then the full hyung or the full hyung then the applications either way, you are reaching the same end.​

 

[Makalakumu]

UpNorth - seems like no more than order of instruction. Whether you learn the applications then the full hyung or the full hyung then the applications either way, you are reaching the same end.​

Well yeah kind of, but I think you need to take into account how the vast majority of TSD is taught. Complex techniques are passed off as simple techniques and the result is that a lot of misconceptions are propagated. Master Penfil always makes this point, "do you spar the way you perform a hyung?"

The answer is no. Why not?

 

[MBuzzy]

Well yeah kind of, but I think you need to take into account how the vast majority of TSD is taught. Complex techniques are passed off as simple techniques and the result is that a lot of misconceptions are propagated.

True, but to that end, what is the proper level of complexity? Or the point of understanding? I guarantee that I am learning different things from what you teach and that every school teaches different applications and has different levels of understanding. In fact, I'm 99% sure that if I studied with you, the level of understanding that I have would be inadequate in your opinions - but its all I have and all that I've been exposed to. Not for lack of looking, that's just all that I've been exposed to with the resources that I have - and that is true for a huge majority of people in any style. They just don't have access to those with a different level of knowledge. Let's face it - MOST SCHOOLS are members of a parent organization, who specifies their curriculum and with standardization, there will always come a degree of loss in terms of innovativeness. Some schools use the most basic possible, punch, kick, block. Some go a little further, some go a lot further, some much MUCH further. But the further you go, the harder it is to keep standardization across what is basically a worldwide Martial Arts empire for most styles. You simply can't run an organization that big and tell everyone "just be creative."

So which one of these is acceptable, or far enough? And if someone did decide what was far enough, then try to enforce it, you run into more standardization and less free thinking and analyzation.

I think that as it stands now, every school has a different level of understanding and instruction. I don't think any of them are wrong or doing their students a disservice. On top of that, if the vast majority of the art is taught a certain way (the basics, with these misconceptions), then as we've said, at what point does the exception become another style?

I think that the point is that you shouldn't limit yourself to "the way it has always been done." The point at which I feel instructors are doing themselves and their students wrong is when they completely dismiss any other interpretation of way of doing things, even if it is better. It is up to that instructor's judgement to decide what is better, what is worse, what fits and what does and doesn't work.

Master Penfil always makes this point, "do you spar the way you perform a hyung?"

The answer is no. Why not?

Again, I'm at a loss here. I DO NOT spar the way that I perform hyung. Because simply put, if I stayed in front stances and did low blocks and punches the way they are intended in a lot of hyung - I'd get my butt kicked. The way I spar is to adapt to the situation, move according to my opponenet and use what I know the best way that I know how to gain an advantage.

Now if that were reversed and I was told to perform a hyung the way that I spar - it wouldn't be a hyung anymore.

Would you mind expanding on that point?

 

[Makalakumu]

True, but to that end, what is the proper level of complexity? Or the point of understanding? I guarantee that I am learning different things from what you teach and that every school teaches different applications and has different levels of understanding. In fact, I'm 99% sure that if I studied with you, the level of understanding that I have would be inadequate in your opinions - but its all I have and all that I've been exposed to. Not for lack of looking, that's just all that I've been exposed to with the resources that I have - and that is true for a huge majority of people in any style. They just don't have access to those with a different level of knowledge. Let's face it - MOST SCHOOLS are members of a parent organization, who specifies their curriculum and with standardization, there will always come a degree of loss in terms of innovativeness. Some schools use the most basic possible, punch, kick, block. Some go a little further, some go a lot further, some much MUCH further. But the further you go, the harder it is to keep standardization across what is basically a worldwide Martial Arts empire for most styles. You simply can't run an organization that big and tell everyone "just be creative."

So which one of these is acceptable, or far enough? And if someone did decide what was far enough, then try to enforce it, you run into more standardization and less free thinking and analyzation.

I think that as it stands now, every school has a different level of understanding and instruction. I don't think any of them are wrong or doing their students a disservice. On top of that, if the vast majority of the art is taught a certain way (the basics, with these misconceptions), then as we've said, at what point does the exception become another style?

I think that the point is that you shouldn't limit yourself to "the way it has always been done." The point at which I feel instructors are doing themselves and their students wrong is when they completely dismiss any other interpretation of way of doing things, even if it is better. It is up to that instructor's judgement to decide what is better, what is worse, what fits and what does and doesn't work.

My advice is to listen to your instructor and learn as much as you can. If you ever begin to teach, then it becomes your legacy that you want to pass on. You have the ability to shape the art as you may and you don't have to repeat the same old misconceptions.

Again, I'm at a loss here. I DO NOT spar the way that I perform hyung. Because simply put, if I stayed in front stances and did low blocks and punches the way they are intended in a lot of hyung - I'd get my butt kicked. The way I spar is to adapt to the situation, move according to my opponenet and use what I know the best way that I know how to gain an advantage.

Now if that were reversed and I was told to perform a hyung the way that I spar - it wouldn't be a hyung anymore.

Would you mind expanding on that point?

Sure. The hyung are shorthand for techniques and combinations. The simple techniques that you actually use to fight are locked up inside of complex techniques. You can't use the complex techniques of the hyung to fight because that is not there purpose. Thus you shouldn't spar like you perform a hyung. Nor should you practice your basics, your combinations, or your applications (Ill Soo Shik and Ho Sin Shul). The hyung is a book that your art should flow out of.