"The Taikyoku Problem"

[Kung Fu Wang]

a better engine

Someone had mentioned "snake engine" in this forum before. As far as I remember, he didn't want to talk about how to use his "snake engine" in combat.

One has a

1. good engine, but doesn't know how to fight.
2. bad engine, but knows how to fight.

IMO, 1 < 2.

What will be your respond for B's question?

A: MA is not only for fighting. It can be for health, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...
B: Why do you care about power generation if you don't care about fighting?
A: ...

 

[Flying Crane]

Now we are talking about the key issue here.

Many Taiji guys love to talk about power generation. But they don't even want to talk about fighting. My question is, "Why should you care about power generation if you don't care about fighting?" If you just want to train MA for health, whether you can generate power or not will have nothing to do with your health improvement.

Should you try to develop fighting skill first, you then try to "enhance" your power generation? What's the usage that one may generate the maximum power, but he has no fighting skill to deliver it?

I have seen so many MA people who has perfect foundation (good speed, good power, good flexibility). But they don't have fighting skill.

I believe one should develop fighting skill first, and enhance foundation later. A bad punch that can land is better than a good punch that hits into the thin air.

See, I feel it’s a better approach to develop that foundation first because then your fighting skill will be powerful from the beginning. If done the other way around, all too often people never go back to fix the lacking issues later. They have developed a certain bit of fighting ability, but with less than optimum power. They never rework it to insert that power in later. People don’t want to do that.

I did it, but it took me a long time to figure it out, and access to better quality instruction. If I had that instruction from the beginning, I could be much better now.

 

[Flying Crane]

Someone had mentioned "snake engine" in this forum before. As far as I remember, he didn't want to talk about how to use his "snake engine" in combat.

One has a

1. good engine, but doesn't know how to fight.
2. bad engine, but knows how to fight.

IMO, 1 < 2.

What will be your respond for B's question?

A: MA is not only for fighting. It can be for health, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...
B: Why do you care about power generation if you don't care about fighting?
A: ...

I don’t know what snake engine is.

But people want to believe that they have a high performance sports car when they have a corvette with a 1970s VW Bug engine under the hood. There is no sports car there. It is just a very pretty clunker.

People have a fancy fighting method with all kinds of complicated combinations and rapid-fire machine gun punching. But those punches are weak, which is why they need so many. They see all the fancy stuff they have, and want to believe that makes it superior. In fact it is not. If they had a solid foundation and powerful technique. Then delivery of one or two is plenty, the fight is over. No need to machine gun punching, 18 punches to take a guy out. Go back to the foundation and make it strong.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

See, I feel it’s a better approach to develop that foundation first because then your fighting skill will be powerful from the beginning. If done the other way around, all too often people never go back to fix the lacking issues later. They have developed a certain bit of fighting ability, but with less than optimum power. They never rework it to insert that power in later. People don’t want to do that.

I did it, but it took me a long time to figure it out, and access to better quality instruction. If I had that instruction from the beginning, I could be much better now.

Which one will be more likely to happen?

A guy with good

1. MA foundation will develop good fighting skill later on.
2. fighting skill will enhance his foundation later on.

Please notice that "fighting skill' can only be developed when you are still young. But "foundation" can still be enhanced through your old age.

 

[Flying Crane]

Which one will be more likely to happen?

A guy with good

1. MA foundation will develop good fighting skill later on.
2. fighting skill will enhance his foundation later on.

Please notice that "fighting skill' can only be developed when you are still young. But "foundation" can still be enhanced through your old age.

My opinion is the first one is a better route. People begin application when the foundation is already becoming strong and they have an understanding of how to engage the foundation in application.

The other way, what happens is people think they “already know that stuff”. So when you start working on the foundation they find it boring because it isn’t all the cool application stuff. Then You tell them that they need to go back and start over with everything, focusing on bringing the foundation into what they already do. People object to that, they don’t want to revisit stuff that they think they already know. So often they stop training or they split off so they can just keep doing what they know, they don’t want to put in the hard work of making it better. The concept is foreign to them.

And some people resent the fact that this information was withheld, so now they discover their development isn’t what they thought it was. Should have done it right the first time instead of going back and doing it over later. That is the slower method in the big picture, even if it was quicker in the short term.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Go back to the foundation and make it strong.

This question has bothered me for a long time.

This guy has 21-3 under his belt in Sanda. His form performance (foundation) was about 65 in score.

What's wrong with this example?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My opinion is the first one is a better route. People begin application when the foundation is already becoming strong and they have an understanding of how to engage the foundation in application.

My experience is different from yours.

I have seen so many MA guys who

- have developed good foundation, but fail to develop fighting skill. Toward the end, they are just good dancers.
- can fight. But their foundation are not perfect.

The concern is, if you spend 10 years to develop your foundation, you may be too old to test your skill in the ring (or on the mat).

 

[Flying Crane]

This question has bothered me for a long time.

This guy has 21-3 under his belt in Sanda. His form performance (foundation) was about 65 in score.

What's wrong with this example?

I don’t know who he is, I am not in a position to judge him. You can go a long ways with raw aggression and athleticism, even with low technical skills. But perhaps he could be better.

 

[Flying Crane]

My experience is different from yours.

I have seen so many MA guys who

- have developed good foundation, but fail to develop fighting skill. Toward the end, they are just good dancers.
- can fight. But their foundation are not perfect.

If you spend 10 years to develop your foundation, you may be too old to test your skill in the ring (or on the mat).

First, I am not advocating that one should do nothing but square horse for ten years. But I am saying that in the beginning, a dedicated focus on foundation and how it is used, needs to be on the menu. You don’t have to be perfect with it before you work on other things, including application. But you need to understand it and how it is injected into application, so that as you train your application is strong from the beginning.

Again, you tend to present things in an either/or way and I do not believe that is appropriate. Everything is on a continuum. This isn’t a zero-sum game.

 

[Flying Crane]

My experience is different from yours.

I have seen so many MA guys who

- have developed good foundation, but fail to develop fighting skill. Toward the end, they are just good dancers.
- can fight. But their foundation are not perfect.

The concern is, if you spend 10 years to develop your foundation, you may be too old to test your skill in the ring (or on the mat).

I should add another thought to this.

Competition has some different concerns and priorities than does martial arts outside of competition. The number of years that a person has to be actively competing is limited, so there is a priority on developing skills quickly, so that competition can get underway. It is my belief that perhaps some methodologies are used that give good results quickly, even if they might not be the best in the long run. It that makes sense, for the sake of having a competitive career that might be of limited duration. So that isn’t a criticism, rather it is an observation that I am sure some here will disagree with. Ones mileage may vary.

I think I’ve made it clear that I have no interest in competition. Never really have. So I have the luxury of taking my time if I feel it is better for me and for the long term.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think I’ve made it clear that I have no interest in competition.

The Chinese wrestling system is a competition art. The competition is part of the daily training. May be this is why the approach used is different.

 

[Flying Crane]

The Chinese wrestling system is a competition art. The competition is part of the daily training. May be this is why the approach used is different.

It could be, and it could be that a grappling method is inherently different from a striking method in terms of what makes sense in how training is conducted.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It could be, and it could be that a grappling method is inherently different from a striking method in terms of what makes sense in how training is conducted.

Since I have trained both the striking art and the throwing art. I do believe that the method used in the throwing art can be applied to the striking art also.

In the throwing art, one can creates his new form. Why can't striking art people also created their new forms?

If one can create his new form, the concern in this thread will no longer be valid.

These are new created throwing art forms.

 

[Flying Crane]

Since I have trained both the striking art and the throwing art. I do believe that the method used in the throwing art can be applied to the striking art also.

In the throwing art, one can creates his new form. Why can't striking art people also created their new forms?

If one can create his new form, the concern in this thread will no longer be valid.

This is a new created throwing art form.

You are correct, that is possible and is often done. Partnered application drills are absolutely done.

Honestly, I don’t know how a grappler would train by himself. I don’t know if it is possible beyond a very limited way. Perhaps that is one reason why I never got interested in grappling. As a generally introverted person, I appreciate my solo training. I don’t like the idea that I would always need a partner for training.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don’t like the idea that I would always need a partner for training.

I feel the opposite. When I block my opponent's punch/kick, I just feel exciting. I don't get that kind of excitement from my solo training. May be I just enjoy the "contact" feeling.

 

[Flying Crane]

I feel the opposite. When I block my opponent's punch/kick, I just feel exciting. I don't get that kind of excitement from my solo training. May be I just enjoy the "contact" feeling.

I’m not saying that I don’t like to have training partners. It is a matter of practicality. Much of the time I do not have training partners available, but that does not stop me from training regularly. There is plenty that I can to that is very beneficial, that does not require a partner. And I enjoy that kind of training. It’s “me” time. having partners to work with is important too, to bring functionality together.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

does not require a partner. And I enjoy that kind of training. It’s “me” time.

What's your solo training program?

I like to break a form into many parts (for example 4 parts). I then do part 1 10 times, part 2 10 times, ... I don't like to do the whole form 10 times. When I do the entire form, I cannot concentrate on individual technique.

 

[Flying Crane]

What's your solo training program?

I like to break a form into many parts (for example 4 parts). I then do part 1 10 times, part 2 10 times, ... I don't like to do the whole form 10 times. When I do the entire form, I cannot concentrate on individual technique.

I spend about an hour on fundamentals which consist of lots of stancework, punches, kicks, stuff done individually and in combinations, static and moving. Then about a half hour on forms which means each form once typically. I don’t do forms over and over, but I do fundamentals over and over, and look for ways to be creative with them. Then typically I’ll pick a weapon to work on, which can then take maybe 20-30 minutes to work through the fundamentals for that weapon, followed by the form on both right-and left-handed. Lately I’ve been shortening the sessions a bit, keeping it between an hour and an hour and a half, but if I am doing the full series then it can be closer to two hours. Once a week I put in a session with the heavy bag, working through a wide range of punching techniques with variations, working that foundation to power the punches (tuning the engine). Then I’ll work through a series of kicks on the bag. I don’t spar the bag. I focus on one kick or punch at a time and drill that on both sides, with variations. The bag session takes about an hour and a half, bag is 85 pounds, I don’t use wraps or gloves of any kind. During Covid I was alternating martial arts with running and strength training, for a total of about six days a week. Lately I’m focusing on just martial arts. I don’t have the time or energy to do everything, sometimes I need to accept that and narrow my focus. But I’m trying to hit 4-6 days a week.

I often fall into the trap of building up a long session over time, then not having time to work it all in so I end up not training, because I don’t have time to do it all. I am working on that mentally, accepting that sometimes I can’t do everything, but it is still better to put in a short session rather than none at all. So even if it’s only 20 minutes, I need to be ok with that.

 

[_Simon_]

They spend too much time experimenting with WHAT to do in reaction to an attack (step here to evade, block here, punch him here and here, kick his knee, etc) and very little time on HOW to deliver the techniques powerfully. Punches end up being all arm and shoulder, muscling through, missing the greater power of good body mechanics and body connection.

YES. THIS. SORRY FOR yelling.

Your whole post but this specifically. So many people are so narrowly focused on application it can detract completely from the quality of that application, and to me more importantly, how you're developing the significant body intelligence and instilling that within your being.

And that is the difference between particular content (he does this, I do that. A-B-C etc) and quality approach and training. Ultimately a merging of the two is important, but that's why I love solo kata training, and have never been big on application as some be all end all. What are the principles this form is trying to communicate? What's the theme? How is it teaching my body to move, to develop connection, to understand transition, generate power in different ways, in shorter spaces/distances etc? There's so much more to it than just partner work, which, don't get me wrong, has its important place, but it is dramatically enhanced through QUALITY training and looking deeper in the forms.

Instilling that deep body intelligence that quality form training offers is so enriching and fruitful.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

(This is a TMA issue which primarily concerns Karate and Taekwondo).

I have been doing Karate for 6 years and teaching for almost half a year. I have also done some Taekwondo and similar Korean arts. One common theme between all of these arts is that beginner students learn a very simple kata/form when they first start. In Shotokan this is the Taikyoku kata and in Taekwondo this is either Taegeuk 1 or Chon Ji. These forms are very basic patterns involving stepping and performing either a low block or a punch in a very basic sequence.

The idea behind this is that they are very basic patterns to help the student become acquainted with the art. However, in my experience, these forms are confusing and boring, and the 270-degree spin takes months for some trainees to get right.

The spin in question: (0:46)

I have seen students quit Karate/Taekwondo before progressing beyond white belt. I do not want to make any wild assumptions here but I guarantee that at least a few of them quit because of this damn kata. The basic pattern is uninteresting with limited practical application, and the footwork is, again, near-impossible for some people to get right. The footwork itself is also impractical, as nobody in their right mind would walk like that during a physical altercation. And the mundane, limited nature of these forms, in my opinion, does not encourage the mindset that one would have during a physical altercation in the same way a more complex kata would. This confusion and mundaneness is especially bad for younger practitioners who a.) have less cognitive ability and b.) have a lower attention span for boring, rudimentary things. And from what I have seen, many of these same students love watching high-level competitors perform kata like Unsu, Gankaku, Empi, etc. and sometimes excitedly ask the instructor if they can learn them. But I have never seen a student who enjoys doing Taikyoku. In other words, these students are interested in Karate, just not Taikyoku or anything to do with it.

Some would argue that before doing more complex kata, a student must have a solid foundation in basics. This is very true, but at the same time, aren't there more interesting kata that can be used to teach one basic techniques? Tekki Shodan and Hangetsu immediately come to mind (and, to my knowledge, both Naihanchi and Seisan were starting katas at one point due to their simplicity). Yes, their hand techniques are more complicated, but their footwork is far simpler and are overall more interesting and applicable katas.

My second argument against the "basics before advanced stuff" argument: some styles do teach rather sophisticated patterns to beginners. ATA Taekwondo's first form, Songahm 1, comes to mind:

Above, you see a form that has simpler footwork and more interesting techniques/combos yet is still basic enough for a beginner. Even Wushu and other Chinese arts have rather elegant patterns to teach basic techniques:

Why are these basic forms so interesting but Karate has to stick with a mundane step-block-step-punch routine?

In a nutshell, I think Taikyoku, Taegeuk 1, and Chon Ji are uninteresting, impractical kata that do not encourage a fighting mindset and do little more than confuse new Karateka. I think they feel weird to practice, have little to no relation to any following kata (except maybe Meikyo?), look quite silly, and make Karate look silly to laymen. I personally believe that nothing will be lost if, instead of teaching Taikyoku, new students were taught something like Tekki Shodan, i.e. a kata that is simple, teaches them proper lower body mechanics, gives them some practical self-defense ideas to build off of, feels more natural, and looks a lot better. I think the trend of teaching new students block-punch-block-punch-block-punch-punch-punch-weirdspin-block-punch-etc is counterintuitive.

I would like to hear what more experienced martial artists have to say about this.

Disclaimer: I haven't read all the responses to this. So I may be repeating others.

In SKK, we did a very similar form, under the name pinan 1. Same idea of turn, low block, punch, etc. but in a different order than the videos you shared.

I think it's a great first form. It teaches people the idea of how forms work, and honestly they've got enough new things they're learning that they shouldn't need to spend too much effort on the forms. They're literally learning every kick, punch and block, so letting them learn a form with just 1 block, 1 punch and 1 step let's them focus on the other stuff. Then when they understand everything else better, they can go back to this form and use it as a way to improve their half-moon steps, blocks and basic punches.

It's also a form that you can learn how to experiment and create your own form with. It provides a basic "I" structure (in my style), that let's students experiment with and edit as a good way to practice their visualization skills when they get to that point.

There are more complicated forms, fancier forms, "funner forms", meditative forms, and even simpler forms. But I wouldn't replace pinan 1 (what we call the "I" version of this form" ) with anything else, and if I were to teach forms, this would be the first one I'd use.