Self defense from forms

[Cyriacus]

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.

In my experience, it depends on the type of person. I for one, and certainly not a fan of dodging for my own use. But i can block almost anything.
I imagine for others, moving out of the way is simply better.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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.

Though not directed at me, I'd like to comment if I may. Sparring, as used in the majority of dojangs/dojos, remains within the confines of a specific rule set. Certain movements are allowed, others are not. For example, in a typical TKD dojang, sparring probably wouldn't include ground fighting as it is generally outside of the parameters that are taught. Various rules are enforced as well. Combat on the otherhand, is a free-flowing, chaotic event wherein no rule set exists (at least upon the part of the attacker), nor are specific techniques not allowed. Combat can/does usually take place in situations/environments that are not trained for in typical dojangs i.e. enclosed spaces, outdoors, dim light, sloping surfaces, improvised weapons etc.

Perhaps, for the perspective of TKD, a 'block' can best be defined as a 'movement to intercept and/or deflect an incoming attacking movement'. Would this be an acceptable starting point? The only problem that I see with it, is that while a 'block' can be done on occassion in combat under the above definition it still at a distict disadvantage since a reacton will always be slower than an action. The karate phrase, 'there are no blocks in karate' bears close examination. It can be true, though somewhat misleading depending on how you view it. Typically, when training in Okinawan karate, I was always taught that a 'block' is actually a strike while often offering protection from an incoming attack.

As an example, the S.P.E.A.R. technique or the elbow jab cover are both protective covers (block) but also offensive strikes. Either of these 'blocks' effectively protect the head from an incoming attack such as a haymaker using what is termed the 'flinch response'. But at the same time, they are devestating counter-attacks designed to allow multiple follow up strikes (if necessary) in the shortest amount of time in a very brutal, fight-ending manner. They are so effective that they have been adopted in MANY L.E. training programs, including ours. The S.P.E.A.R. is fully capable of fracturing the clavicle, breaking the jaw, breaking the nose and fracturing the eye socket in rapid succession in just over a second. It will damage those specific parts of the body to a greater/lesser degree based upon the force used in the defense. In short, it is desgned to end the fight now. Karate, at least the arts I was taught, was very much the same way. A fight was suppose to be over in just a few seconds (typically an attack is statistically over in 7 seconds with injury occuring in the first 3 seconds) and the attacker was suppose to be broken and physically unable to continue the attack.

In this light, we can take a movement such as the one usually labeled a 'low block'. This is typically taught as a defense against a low punch or an incoming kick. I've discussed at length that a low block is an extremely poor choice of defense against an incoming kick. However, the 'low block' makes a particularly devestating movement (read: hammer fist) to the lower anatomy of an attacker at close range.

What I'm saying is that a 'block' should not be something that in-and-of-itself is a purely defensive movement. It needs to be defensive-offensive in nature and execution. In otherwords, the block itself should be capable of ending the fight or at the very least, in addition to causing damage to the attacker also set up additonal attacking movements.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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?

To back up what Tez stated in her reply, we learned this beginning on day one. But yes, it can/does vary from instructor to instructor. Remember that an instructor is only human and can only teach what they themselves have learned.

For us, it started with the very first 'horse stance'. This is often taught as a position to strengthen the legs (it can) and that the hands on the hips is the 'chambering postition' (it isn't). That is a postition that has lowered your center of gravity, engaged your hips for increased power and a movement that allows you to off-balance the attacker. In otherwords, it isn't a martial-arty stance to do your line drills (that came later), it is a movement that allows you to do brutal harm to the attacker.

 

[seasoned]

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.

When I was young and in my prime I would side kick all the time (high and to the ribs). But, now that I am old and gray i'll pick a knee, any old day. "The way they were intended".

 

[Master Dan]

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.

Probably this is one of the best definitions you have given related to this subject that is objective and acurate in a simple form. Problem comes with people training in only one small portion of TKD or under instructors who only have a limited knowledge base thinking that is all there is.

 

[Archtkd]

In this light, we can take a movement such as the one usually labeled a 'low block'. This is typically taught as a defense against a low punch or an incoming kick. I've discussed at length that a low block is an extremely poor choice of defense against an incoming kick. However, the 'low block' makes a particularly devestating movement (read: hammer fist) to the lower anatomy of an attacker at close range.

What I'm saying is that a 'block' should not be something that in-and-of-itself is a purely defensive movement. It needs to be defensive-offensive in nature and execution. In otherwords, the block itself should be capable of ending the fight or at the very least, in addition to causing damage to the attacker also set up additonal attacking movements.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would assume most people posting in the taekwondo forum know and understand what a good block is. Here's what the Kukkiwon instructor manual -- provided to folks who've taken the Kukkiwon master instructor courses -- states. The text is taken from page 164 of the manual. The English is not the best and there are typos, but it's clear what the message is:

"4.

Defense

1) Makki (blocking)

The makki (defense or blocking) techniques are to protect oneself from being attacked by one’s opponent. Averting the opponent’s attack by escaping is another means of protecting oneself. It is often said that running away from danger is the best technique for self-defense.

However it is important to master the techniques of blocking (makki) the opponent’s attach in case of a face-to-face confrontation. A man of good defense techniques may not necessarily provoke a fighting, although he is capable of winning. To the contrary, a man of insufficient defense capabilities would prove himself stupid if he dares a fighting. Defending oneself from attacks alone could not lead to a final solution, if the other party continues attacking; therefor it is necessary to apply techniques of weakening the opponent’s offensive. That is why most makki taekwondo techniques are designed to hurt the opponent in the course of defending oneself by using the wrists or hand blades, which if trained hard my inflict impacts on the other party’s vital points, making the latter’s arms and legs incapacitated.

Therefore, makki techniques must be trained hard that they function equally as offensive techniques. ..... For that reason taekwondo training is planned to begin with makki techniques which will be follows by offensive techniques."

 

[Kong Soo Do]

When I was young and in my prime I would side kick all the time (high and to the ribs). But, now that I am old and gray i'll pick a knee, any old day. "The way they were intended".

I remember my instructor relaying a story years ago when he was one of the judges at a competition. I don't recall which form was being demonstrated, the the young man did a couple of side kicks, one waist high and the second head high. It was well done, but the form called for knee high followed by waist high. When asked, the young man stated that his instructor had told him to kick waist/head as it looked flashier. And it did look flashier...but it was wrong as far as the form went. My instructor explained the application of that part of the form to him i.e. the first kick to the knees will bring the attacker's upper torso down due to the way the body works (Okinawan/Japanese/Korean seniors knew how the body works i.e. body mechanics) thus the second waist high kick was likely to be to the head of the attacker...because he'd be bent over with his head waist high. Doing it the 'flashier' way would have the second kick going off into thin air as the upper torso wouldn't be there.

Even from a b-p-k perspective, the forms (generally) are set up in a way that makes complete sense from the perspective of body mechanics. If I hammer fist someone in the groin, the likely body mechanic is to bend forward at the waist and grab for the injured area. Thus a form using this movement would anticipate the probable reaction and have the follow up be a movement that capitalizes on that reaction.

Bottom line is that this is a martial art, and function should weigh heavier than flash. Particularly if SD is any kind of consideration.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Probably this is one of the best definitions you have given related to this subject that is objective and acurate in a simple form...

Thank you.

 

[seasoned]

I remember my instructor relaying a story years ago when he was one of the judges at a competition. I don't recall which form was being demonstrated, the the young man did a couple of side kicks, one waist high and the second head high. It was well done, but the form called for knee high followed by waist high. When asked, the young man stated that his instructor had told him to kick waist/head as it looked flashier. And it did look flashier...but it was wrong as far as the form went. My instructor explained the application of that part of the form to him i.e. the first kick to the knees will bring the attacker's upper torso down due to the way the body works (Okinawan/Japanese/Korean seniors knew how the body works i.e. body mechanics) thus the second waist high kick was likely to be to the head of the attacker...because he'd be bent over with his head waist high. Doing it the 'flashier' way would have the second kick going off into thin air as the upper torso wouldn't be there.

Even from a b-p-k perspective, the forms (generally) are set up in a way that makes complete sense from the perspective of body mechanics. If I hammer fist someone in the groin, the likely body mechanic is to bend forward at the waist and grab for the injured area. Thus a form using this movement would anticipate the probable reaction and have the follow up be a movement that capitalizes on that reaction.

Bottom line is that this is a martial art, and function should weigh heavier than flash. Particularly if SD is any kind of consideration.

Okinawan GoJu always targets low, with the side kick. But, because we did go to tournaments, mid level side kick was used. I remember this one time when I was setting this guy up for a left front cross over side kick, he moved from a left foot forward stance to a right forward stance, and my left side kick targeted straight into his ribs. Long story short, he blocked my kick down right into his hip which in turn took him right off his feet and down. He laid there for the longest time, and when he did stand up he had trouble walking.
That day, we both became a believer.

 

[bluewaveschool]

I was sparring another black belt, and I heard the instructor say stop. He didn't. I saw his skip in side kick about 1/2 second before it hit me straight in the chest. I didn't have time to tense up, so like a drunk in a car wreck I wasn't hurt when I flew 3 feet backwards and landed flat on my back. It was a beautiful kick though.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

I still think it's highly possible that we are not all having the same conversation here.
Take for example the fist move of Tae Geuk 1 (WTF yellow belt form). It is a low block. We put our left hand up to our right ear, then move it down by our left knee quickly. I was always taught to think of this as stopping a strike aiming at my left side. I can see how I could easily be hitting the person's leg hard enough with my forearm, or even with the side of my fist, to cause them pain while I block.

But, what Simon O'Neill, the friend of Kong Soo Do, says in his book the Taegeuk Cipher is that this move actually represents hitting an opponent in the shoulder and pushing him towards the floor. That's a really big difference.

Kong Soo Do said something in an earlier post on this thread that I took to mean that this is pretty common knowledge in Karate that what we call a low block is actually a strike to the shoulder that pushes the person towards the floor. I took months of Karate as a kid and was never taught this. That is not much of a surprise, of course. But, what I want to know is at what age/rank does the average karate practicioner get to be let in on the secret that what they were once told was a block is actually a grappling move?

 

[Earl Weiss]

People who say a move is "Really This" exclusively as opposed to that or the other thing are drinking the Kool Aid. Rick Clark in one of his "Real Applications" books admits the people who knew the original intent are long dead. The stuff is now reverse engineered, and as he says, he doesn't know what the "Real Application" was, only that his stuff works.

I had an article published about this recently, which basicaly says that in the early stages you learn an application as a tool for focusing on proper motion, but once proper motion is learned it can be used in any number of applications.

 

[Archtkd]

People who say a move is "Really This" exclusively as opposed to that or the other thing are drinking the Kool Aid. Rick Clark in one of his "Real Applications" books admits the people who knew the original intent are long dead. The stuff is now reverse engineered, and as he says, he doesn't know what the "Real Application" was, only that his stuff works.

I had an article published about this recently, which basicaly says that in the early stages you learn an application as a tool for focusing on proper motion, but once proper motion is learned it can be used in any number of applications.

The problem is that some of us will debate to the death about what basic "proper motion" is, in any martial art.

As far as Kukkiwon taekwondo is concerned, taeguk forms are only 40 years old. There are living sources -- who helped develop the forms in 1972 -- to educate us on what basic blocks and strikes are. Then again, some of us believe those living sources do not/did not know what they were doing. Some of us will refer to early 19th Century texts, diagrams, fiction, hearsay, pre-World War II Japanese history and rumors, upon which they continue to rely when learning, practicing and teaching parts of a Korean martial art, which are younger than they are.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

As far as Kukkiwon taekwondo is concerned, taeguk forms are only 40 years old. There are living sources -- who helped develop the forms in 1972 -- to educate us on what basic blocks and strikes are. Then again, some of us believe those living sources do not/did not know what they were doing.

Is this what you believe? I'd have to say you're incorrect. Within the confines of the knowledge that they themselves received, many of them are highly proficient. Not all of them, as I've stated before, were advanced practitioners of an art (be it Shotokan or whatever) prior to teaching in Korea. Most of them were of very low level with, as I've stated, at least one exception (of 5th to 7th Dan depending upon the source and holding the position of a head instructor in Japan). Thus, they very probably did not learn the 'base' art to a high level as opposed to an Okiwawan or Japanese practitioner who would have stayed with the base art in question longer. And of course, racial discrimination was a factor to differing degrees. All in all they did the best with what they had to work with. Is TKD generally the 'complete' art that it could be (i.e. having more depth besides b-p-k)? No, generally it isn't. But those Korean seniors should not be blamed for what was beyond their ability to control.

 

[Archtkd]

Is this what you believe? I'd have to say you're incorrect. Within the confines of the knowledge that they themselves received, many of them are highly proficient. Not all of them, as I've stated before, were advanced practitioners of an art (be it Shotokan or whatever) prior to teaching in Korea. Most of them were of very low level with, as I've stated, at least one exception (of 5th to 7th Dan depending upon the source and holding the position of a head instructor in Japan). Thus, they very probably did not learn the 'base' art to a high level as opposed to an Okiwawan or Japanese practitioner who would have stayed with the base art in question longer. And of course, racial discrimination was a factor to differing degrees. All in all they did the best with what they had to work with. Is TKD generally the 'complete' art that it could be (i.e. having more depth besides b-p-k)? No, generally it isn't. But those Korean seniors should not be blamed for what was beyond their ability to control.

I think practice rather than believe is the term I might prefer when it comes to how I approach the Kukkiwon taekwondo forms. I have never thought that it's beneficial, necessary or relevant to look at pre-World War 11 Japanese or Okinawan martial arts history in order to learn, practice and understand Kukkiwon taekwondo poomsae and basic technique. In that regard, I don't see what the Japanese/Okiniwan martial art rank of the kwan founders in the 1930s and 1940s, has to do with the the current Kukkiwon poomsae created in 1972. I am not saying that the history should be ignored or obfuscated, but misapplied history can become a big burden and problem.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think practice rather than believe is the term I might prefer when it comes to how I approach the Kukkiwon taekwondo forms. I have never thought that it's beneficial, necessary or relevant to look at pre-World War 11 Japanese or Okinawan martial arts history in order to learn, practice and understand Kukkiwon taekwondo poomsae and basic technique. In that regard, I don't see what the Japanese/Okiniwan martial art rank of the kwan founders in the 1930s and 1940s, has to do with the the current Kukkiwon poomsae created in 1972. I am not saying that the history should be ignored or obfuscated, but misapplied history can become a big burden and problem.

Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue. I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit. YMMV

 

[Archtkd]

Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue. I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit. YMMV

I think this a very interesting and quite sober discussion under development. From a practical point of view at what stage do you think a taekwondo practitioner should be looking back at the pre-kwan development era? I am at the level of taekwondo practice where I am still a long way to go before I can fully grasp the current Kukkiwon poomsae and other areas of the art. I think looking back, which is not what the creators of the current poomsae where doing, would hinder my progress. I sometimes pursue the history, but it's purely for intellectual purposes.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue. I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit. YMMV

I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think this a very interesting and quite sober discussion under development. From a practical point of view at what stage do you think a taekwondo practitioner should be looking back at the pre-kwan development era? I am at the level of taekwondo practice where I am still a long way to go before I can fully grasp the current Kukkiwon poomsae and other areas of the art. I think looking back, which is not what the creators of the current poomsae where doing, would hinder my progress. I sometimes pursue the history, but it's purely for intellectual purposes.

I think it depends upon the focus of the individual TKD practitioner. If one is in TKD as a social interaction venue, it may be intellectually interesting, but not needed. Same for a TKD practitioner that is only interested in sport/competition. They would concentrate their time on training that is allowed by the rule set they compete in, thus again it isn't 'needed'. For someone looking for a more 'complete' art (read one that goes beyond striking/kicking into locks, throws etc) then looking into what is contained in forms can be exceptionally rewarding. For those TKD practitioners to which that applies, white belt. It isn't far-off mystical knowledge, rather it is simply practical information that is readily useable. Just as a Hapkido or Jujutsu student begins learning balance displacement principles early on, so could the TKD student (if it is of interest).

As mentioned earlier, TKD can/does contain something for everyone. Perhaps it is in a unique place within the martial community because of this. Imagine, a strong sport component for those wishing to compete while being an excellent physical pursuit for those looking to get off the couch while simultaneously being a strong and complete 'fighting' art for those that want/need more principles beyond b-p-k. One would not be superior to the other, rather the training is tailored to the needs/wants of the student. And best of all....the actual training in-and-of-itself doesn't change on iota. Forms, as they stand right now, can serve both camps even within the same school. And from a business standpoint, a TKD instructor (that has legitimately spent time learning alternate applications) can now offer both if the student base wants it. And the forms don't change. That's the best and most unique thing that could really elevate TKD beyond even where it is now!

I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them?

Although other arts had their imprint on TKD, Shotokan is often thought of as 'the' parent art. I would suggest the writings of Funakoshi Sensei as a good starting point. Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others). Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill. Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well). Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles. This would be a good first start.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yet I've been places that have never done it.

The whole idea of hiding techniques within the form comes from a teaching methodology that utilizes a layered curriculum. There are numerous reasons for using the method, the most basic of which is that it works well for the instructor and is usually how the instructor was taught. Another reason was to keep rival schools from knowing the whole system by watching someone practice a form.

KKW taekwondo (cannot speak for ITF or other systems) typically does not do much in the way of 'hidden techniques' or layered teaching. The form is taught as part of the art, has a symbolic meaning related to the palgwe (the eight divination symbols, also called bagua in Chinese) or to specific hanja (in the case of yudanja pumse).

Hapkido uses no forms whatsoever, yet the techniques get communicated. Most taekwondo schools, regardless of organization from what I gather, that teach self defense just teach self defense rather than trying to tie it into the forms.

I think that using the forms to teach self defense can be effective, but there are other ways to teach self defense. Using forms to keep one's art a guarded secret is no longer a factor for the most part, so there is no actual need to teach self defense that way aside from that you happen to like it and that it works for you. Which are both good reasons.