Self defense from forms

[chrispillertkd]

I don't know what to tell you Chris, I've been pretty clear as to the point(s) I've stated. No where in either of my above posts did I say TKD is ineffective for SD.

I know, and as I said before I was pointing out that it was effective (and easy to teach) for people other than kids. I've posted before while Gen. Choi probably developed Taekwon-Do the way he did and moving it away from a self-defense aspect certainlty doesn't apply.

Now, too be clear, some venues of TKD i.e. sport training methodology TKD is generally VERY ineffective for SD. It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, it wasn't designed for it. But that wasn't anywhere in the point(s) I made above, and I believe I was very clear. My comments were strictly on the use of forms.

Yes, and my comments had nothing to do with sport training either.

It isnt' new at all, in fact, it goes back centuries for some forms. But this doesn't mean everyone is aware of alternate applications or even, as I pointed out above, has a use for alternate applications. They are simply there.

Which is why I pointed out the cyclical nature of posts in online forums.

A bit off topic, but well worth commenting on. A high kick can certainly be effective...if it connects. But that begs the question; will it connect?

The same can be asked for joint locks, sweeps, throws, pressure point strikes, indeed any technique. If you train for it then your chances of using it effectively increase dramatically. I've seen people's wrists just collapse when hitting the heavy bag with a basic punch because they don't train enough. But I'm not going to suggest punching isn't effective.

Training to high kick someone, in a controlled environment, in loose fitting clothing, while warmed up/stretched out, on a dry, flat, level surface, in well-lit conditions, under pre-arranged rule sets is quite different than attempting to high kick someone in a chaotic fight, in street clothes, at a time that is very probably disadvantageous to you (read: you're not warmed up/stretched out/in a loose fitting Gi), in an environment that could be closed in (read: elevator, stairwell, alley, between parked cars, traffic, innocent by-standers), on a surface that could be sloping, wet, loose, probably in dim-light conditions where the attacker is under no obligations to allow you to pull off your favorite move.

Speaking from personal experience, yes they will work in self-defense situations even if you're pulled off balance or taken by surprise or in an enclosed space like a narrow hallway. I certainly wasn't in a uniform standing in class doing line drills.

With no offense intended, I would prefer someone versed in realistic fighting skills at a variety of ranges and proficent in gross-motor skills to someone trying to use a refined-motor skill movement designed for sport.

Me too. Which is why the ROK army guy is going to destroy the alternative applications dude 99% of the time. A high turning kick is a gross motor movement and is quite capable of knocking someone for a loop (even from a sitting position on a couch). I know.

The more refined skills can be very effective, like I said before. But it's a question of putting the training time in. I know alternative applications people who simply don't do so. There are also some who come up with applications that I would say are at least as ineffective as the "traditional" applications they critisize.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I know, and as I said before I was pointing out that it was effective (and easy to teach) for people other than kids.

I just don't know what to tell you Chris. I feel like you're reading "I like Pepsi and dry environments" when I've clearly stated "I like pina colodas and getting caught in the rain". :uhyeah:

The same can be asked for joint locks, sweeps, throws, pressure point strikes, indeed any technique. If you train for it then your chances of using it effectively increase dramatically.

Yes, but only if you train with the proper training methodology for the intended purpose. Otherwise you're needlessly handicapping yourself. I think you're confusing hard training with correct training. One can train hard till their blue in the face, if it isn't using the correct training methodology for the intended result they're going to have to rely on luck.

Speaking from personal experience, yes they will work in self-defense situations even if you're pulled off balance or taken by surprise or in an enclosed space like a narrow hallway. I certainly wasn't in a uniform standing in class doing line drills.

Umm...can you offer documentation or verification of this event(s)? It isn't my intent to call you out, but if you're going to put forth this sort of thing as back up to a comment you're going to have to supply something more substantial. To say you can pull off a refined motor skill high kick in street clothes against a determined, violent attacker, when caught by surprise is well...sorry, I've got to call BS. Unless you were very lucky or the guy was really drunk. The best you're going to be able to pull off after being surprised is a 'flinch response' and that doesn't cover a refined motor-skill high kick. Since you speak from personal experience on this matter, can you back it up?

The more refined skills can be very effective, like I said before. But it's a question of putting the training time in

No, it is a matter of delivering the skill on target during a chaotic fight, when refined motor skills go out the door due to adrenaline dump and loss of manual dexterity in the extremities i.e. it is a matter of luck or a very unskilled attacker. To keep this squarely within the scope of the thread, it is these gross motor skills that are presented in the forms, for those interested in learning them. They worked then, they work now.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I don't believe that there are blocks in forms. As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block. If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.

Really? You can't think of any instance where you may want to block an attack? You never block when you spar?

 

[chrispillertkd]

Umm...can you offer documentation or verification of this event(s)? It isn't my intent to call you out, but if you're going to put forth this sort of thing as back up to a comment you're going to have to supply something more substantial. To say you can pull off a refined motor skill high kick in street clothes against a determined, violent attacker, when caught by surprise is well...sorry, I've got to call BS.

Sorry, I don't have a police report from defending myself for you. My apologies.

Unless you were very lucky or the guy was really drunk.

Neither time the aggressor was drunk. Whether I was lucky, who can say? I did use techniques that I had learned in class pretty much exactly as I learned them. As it turns out, however, I learned that I can kick someone pretty damn hard when I need to.

The best you're going to be able to pull off after being surprised is a 'flinch response' and that doesn't cover a refined motor-skill high kick. Since you speak from personal experience on this matter, can you back it up?

What would you like me to do? Let you surprise attack me? Seriously, your question is more than a bit odd. I will say, however, that your characterization of a turning kick (i.e. roundhouse) as a "refined-motor skill" is inaccurate, at least the way I understand the term. It's no where near as complicated as trying to put a joint lock on someone who is intent on messing you up.

No, it is a matter of delivering the skill on target during a chaotic fight, when refined motor skills go out the door due to adrenaline dump and loss of manual dexterity in the extremities i.e. it is a matter of luck or a very unskilled attacker. To keep this squarely within the scope of the thread, it is these gross motor skills that are presented in the forms, for those interested in learning them. They worked then, they work now.

Which is, as I mentioned, dependent on putting the training time in to become sufficiently proficient with them.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Cyriacus]

I believe that this is incorrect, at least from a Taekwondo perspective. It can be argued that all the techniques contained in the forms came from Karate, and that the "original" intent of those techniques was not block, punch, kick, etc, but the creators of Taekwondo poomse named the techniques for a reason. A low block is a low block. You could use the same motion for another purpose, but in Taekwondo it's still a low block.

I'm not saying that you couldn't reverse engineer or figure out hundreds of different applications. Even if you do that, it doesn't mean that the low block isn't a low block. Like literature, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the author knows his true intent. Some people argue that the creators of Taekwondo poomse weren't aware of the "true" applications for whatever reason. Whether that is true or not, from a pure Taekwondo perspective I believe that a block is a block, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.

For fun, get someone to do a midsection front kick at you. Block it with a Low Block, then keep doing it until youre no longer blocking - Because in forms, its mostly means to be a strike. Most middle forearm blocks can be used to grab arms or legs and trap them.
As for the part about the creators of TKD - Theyre called Blocks in Karate as well. Do they not know what Theyre talking about when They discuss how Their system is used?

 

[bluewaveschool]

Really? You can't think of any instance where you may want to block an attack? You never block when you spar?

Of course there are blocks in TKD. I teach the same punch/kick/block type drills that I'm sure most of the rest of you have/do train with. And there are plenty of times that you would need to block. But when I'm working breakdown, I try to look for more than just "I block a punch". Now, you also have to be careful getting overly creative. I've seen moves overthought into something that just isn't workable.

Thinking about it, I suppose there are a few instances that I use the block as a block, but I generally keep the appendage in question as part of the movement. For example, the opening movement of Do-San, as I block the punch I grab the arm (sleeve if possible, overwise the wrist) so they can't escape, and pull them towards me as I deliver the punch. However, in Chun-Ji, I don't use any of the down block to 'block a roundhose'. We all know people that have the sort of roundhouse that would break your arm if you tried such a thing. I've got a wristlock, an armbar and a strike that I teach off the top of my head.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

I once started to read a book about the secret hidden meanings behind the blocks in the Tae Geuk forms. (These are the current forms used by the World Taekwondo Federation.) It supported many of the ideas presented by people in this thread (blocks are actually hapkido-like moves, not blocks). The name of the book was the Tae Geuk Cipher. I'm somewhat embarrased to say that I never finished it. It was terribly interesting but about half way through I decided it was too much work to figure out the explanations for how each move in each form could be applied to a throwing/grappling type move and decided that, even if the writer's hypotheses were true, I was not successfully taught grappeling/throwing as I learned Tae Geuk forms since I did not know I was learning these things.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Originally Posted by bluewaveschool I don't believe that there are blocks in forms. As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block. If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun."

. However, in Chun-Ji, I don't use any of the down block to 'block a roundhose'. We all know people that have the sort of roundhouse that would break your arm if you tried such a thing. I've got a wristlock, an armbar and a strike that I teach off the top of my head.

So are you saying you may have over generalized somewhat?

First and foremost I will say that stated patttern applications for the Chang Hon system are not meant to be exclusive, but are examples.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with morphing techniques. I have a whole article addressing his in Totally TKD.
Third, the low outer forearm Block in Chon Ji Tul is not traditionaly intended to "Block a roundhouse" Stated application is to protect the same side lower abdomen from an attack to the same side lower abdomen. It could be a punch, Side Percing Kick, or front snap kick. So, your issues with Blocking a roundhouse fall well outsisde the stated applications. Further, traditional stylist use Dallyon as part of the training which involves conditioning and strengthenin the contact surface making your concerns even less relevant for the traditional application (s).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Neither time the aggressor was drunk. Whether I was lucky, who can say? I did use techniques that I had learned in class pretty much exactly as I learned them. As it turns out, however, I learned that I can kick someone pretty damn hard when I need to.

Look Chris, I'm not trying to hassle you here. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you were caught by surprise and were able to get off a high kick that landed, it was not a committed attack. A high kick, even by a well-seasoned professional, fully aware of the situation and involved in a chaotic fight with a determined attacker is a low % move at best. And actually landing it without getting dumped is even lower % unless the guy is drunk, fighting with his eys closed or fighting in slow motion. Again, I'm not busting your chops, at least that isn't my intention, but no, I can't believe a determined attacker caught you by surprise and you were able to get off a high kick that saved the day. There is more to the story.

It's no where near as complicated as trying to put a joint lock on someone who is intent on messing you up.

Another reason I can't quite believe you've been in any real altercation with a determined, committed attacker. Why in the world would you even try for a joint lock in this situation!?! Locks are situational and can only be applied when some measure of control has been established or the attacker has been placed in a position of disadvantage (read: they've been stunned). And even then, only by someone proficient in using them in real situations. All this choreographed hogwash people put on videos where they are locking up/throwing people around (who are waiting their turn to attack) is just that...hogwash.

Which is, as I mentioned, dependent on putting the training time in to become sufficiently proficient with them.

And again, only when trained with the proper methodology.

 

[bluewaveschool]

I prefer to not be there when someone throws a sidekick at me. Miss on the block and get knocked off your feet, that's been my experience with the sidekick. Literally.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I once started to read a book about the secret hidden meanings behind the blocks in the Tae Geuk forms. (These are the current forms used by the World Taekwondo Federation.) It supported many of the ideas presented by people in this thread (blocks are actually hapkido-like moves, not blocks). The name of the book was the Tae Geuk Cipher. I'm somewhat embarrased to say that I never finished it. It was terribly interesting but about half way through I decided it was too much work to figure out the explanations for how each move in each form could be applied to a throwing/grappling type move and decided that, even if the writer's hypotheses were true, I was not successfully taught grappeling/throwing as I learned Tae Geuk forms since I did not know I was learning these things.

Marcy,

That was written by Simon O'Neill, a friend of mine. I would not classify these interpretations as secret, just not generally known. As I stated before, TKD seniors were limited to teaching only that which they themselves were taught. Not meant as a slam, but they were not as knowledgeable as their Okinawan contemporaries (for the most part, as I mentioned, there was a least one exception). For the most part, they had only the basic understanding of karate (yes, what I term as the children's sub-system). Not a slam on Korean seniors, most Allied G.I.'s were taught the children's sub-system of karate as well or at the least, didn't have time to learn the 'adult' version before returning to their own countries.

It isn't a secret that karate contains all/most the same techniques/principles of say, Hapkido or Jujutsu. It isn't a secret that these more advance principles take more effort than b-p-k to learn to a level of proficiency. And since you just don't generally teach these sorts of things to children (which is why Itosu Sensei relabled the Pinan Katas in the first place i.e. convert them to b-p-k) and TKD can legitimately be thought of as an art that in large part caters to children, any vestige of this nature to its karate roots was lost/overlooked in favor of b-p-k by the majority.

I know some will take it as an insult to suggest that TKD is (as a majority) basically a children's sub-system of karate. It is what it is. But that sub-system 'can' be pretty damn brutal and all that is necessary for many/most SD situations IF trained using the proper methodology. The majority of TKD, at least in certain organizations doesn't use a SD training methodology and generally is NOT effective for SD. However, if the focus isn't SD then no problem exists. There are segments of TKD that are VERY effective for SD, some use the sub-system (with the proper methodology) and some use the more in-depth elements from the parent art of karate.

Again, this simply highlights the diversity of TKD. It's a sport to those training for sport. It is SD for those training for SD. It can be a social outlet, part of an exercise program, a means for those with a competitive nature or a means to go home safe. As long as the methodology for each isn't confused with proper training for the other, it has something for everyone and everyone has a reason to be happy.

 

[dancingalone]

... Theyre called Blocks in Karate as well. Do they not know what Theyre talking about when They discuss how Their system is used?

Well, this is a subject of some discussion among karate-ka. Some argue that the term 'uke' generally translated as 'block' into English actually means 'to receive' which can imply something very different than a hard style forceful deflection of an incoming strike. And then there are the people who say Okinawan karate-ka had no standardized terminology like soto uke, etc, until the Japanese added them, instead eschewing them for perhaps good reasons.

Vocabulary shapes understanding. If I call a certain motion a block, my new students will inevitably understand the motion as a block, unless I take pains to explain other alternative meanings.

 

[dancingalone]

Really? You can't think of any instance where you may want to block an attack? You never block when you spar?

My karate sensei believes blocking to be an inefficient tactic, unless combined/integrated with other motion. This is a 1,2 count I am referring to (block, counter) that he 'dislikes'.

It is sometimes unavoidable of course, but he consistently prefers other options if available.

 

[Earl Weiss]

My karate sensei believes blocking to be an inefficient tactic, unless combined/integrated with other motion. This is a 1,2 count I am referring to (block, counter) that he 'dislikes'.

It is sometimes unavoidable of course, but he consistently prefers other options if available.

What do you think? Do you see a difference between combat and sparring.

I think before this matter can be intelligently discussed, perhaps we would need to agree on exactly what is, and what is not a block.

 

[dancingalone]

What do you think? Do you see a difference between combat and sparring.

I think before this matter can be intelligently discussed, perhaps we would need to agree on exactly what is, and what is not a block.

Definitely there is a huge difference between sparring and combat. If I wasn't clear, I was speaking from the latter perspective. Blocking, even if it is only covering up in your guard, is completely unavoidable in virtually every sparring rule set out there.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Look Chris, I'm not trying to hassle you here. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you were caught by surprise and were able to get off a high kick that landed, it was not a committed attack.

Well, since you were there you're qualified to ... wait, what?

It's a matter of your training.

Again, I'm not busting your chops, at least that isn't my intention, but no, I can't believe a determined attacker caught you by surprise and you were able to get off a high kick that saved the day. There is more to the story.

You're right. There's him almost being knocked out and me getting the hell out of there.

Another reason I can't quite believe you've been in any real altercation with a determined, committed attacker. Why in the world would you even try for a joint lock in this situation!?! Locks are situational and can only be applied when some measure of control has been established or the attacker has been placed in a position of disadvantage (read: they've been stunned). And even then, only by someone proficient in using them in real situations. All this choreographed hogwash people put on videos where they are locking up/throwing people around (who are waiting their turn to attack) is just that...hogwash.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I will point out, however, that you've misread my post at least about this. I certainly didn't say I tried a joint lock. I pointed out that a kick is a gross motor movement - the kind of movement that you said were more effective - while a joint lock is not.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

Marcy,

It isn't a secret that karate contains all/most the same techniques/principles of say, Hapkido or Jujutsu..

Forgive my ignorance of karate. At what point (certain degree of black belt maybe?) does a typical karate student know that the forms they have been taught, which at first appeared to be b-p-k to them, relate to hapkido or jujutsu moves as explained in your friend's book?
I assume this varies from instructor to instructor, but can you give me a rough idea?

 

[Tez3]

Forgive my ignorance of karate. At what point (certain degree of black belt maybe?) does a typical karate student know that the forms they have been taught, which at first appeared to be b-p-k to them, relate to hapkido or jujutsu moves as explained in your friend's book?
I assume this varies from instructor to instructor, but can you give me a rough idea?

Not sure about the 'relating to hapkido etc' bit but as a karate student we were taught from the first kata that it contained the techniques that are to be used for self defence. In karate it's called Bunkai, there are other ways to learn the contents of katas but we've always known, though some I suppose don't teach it, that katas/forms are for learning self defence.
I've always been taught that the uke was the 'receiver' and that 'blocks' while they can be used as such are never as simple as that and are often a less effective technique when used as a block.

 

[Gorilla]

Your opinion stated as fact!!! Much of what you say is correct and then you go off the deep end!!!!

This has come up from time to time. In the majority of TKD, you are correct in saying a low block is just a low block (as one example). However, not in the totality of TKD, just the majority. TKD, as most will acknowledge, comes from Okinawan Karate. Many TKD forms (and TSD) come from Karate kata. Some were designed later, but used the same principles. According the many Okinawan masters (read Itosu Sensei, Funakoshi Sensei and others) there are in-depth applications beyond block-punch-kick in kata (and Itosu Sensei did relabel the Pinan Katas for children's consuption thereby creating a sub-system i.e. children's karate). Therefore TKD forms based upon Okinawan kata will have the same principles. Additionally, TKD forms developed later (but still on the pattern or Okinawan kata) will also have in-depth applications, though not as pure. Thus, a TKD form can and does contain locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing etc.The question then becomes, how many Koreans knew these applications as opposed to just the block-punch-kick. I believe at least some knew, but the majority did not. Thus the creator of a particular Korean form likely did not know more in-depth applications. And since you can't teach what you don't know...it didn't get passed on. It doesn't invalidate the applications being present however despite any lack of ability to convey this knowledge. Remember, the majority of Korean 'seniors' were very low level Dans (or no Dans) with at least one exception. And this is a shame really because it has limited TKD as a whole from what it could actually be (and what some of us teach it as). TKD could in many ways be a very close cousin of HKD because of the information that can be gleened from the forms. Take what I'm saying as it is intended. In no way am I slamming TKD, or the seniors the founded it. Some had a deeper understanding of their base art (Karate or whatever) than others. And one can only put into the development of TKD what they themselves have received. However, it is worth noting that TKD is an easier art to teach as b-p-k. Particularly to children.

 

[Cyriacus]

Well, this is a subject of some discussion among karate-ka. Some argue that the term 'uke' generally translated as 'block' into English actually means 'to receive' which can imply something very different than a hard style forceful deflection of an incoming strike. And then there are the people who say Okinawan karate-ka had no standardized terminology like soto uke, etc, until the Japanese added them, instead eschewing them for perhaps good reasons.

Vocabulary shapes understanding. If I call a certain motion a block, my new students will inevitably understand the motion as a block, unless I take pains to explain other alternative meanings.

My experience with Karate is short - Im grateful for the expanded insight

A lack of standardised terminology would explain it. I was mostly thinking in terms of the motion being a block, but its uses being more extensive.