What separates a good one-step from a bad one-step?

[skribs]

my class has far less injuries than any of those classes. We also have far less injuries than the BJJ schools I have trained with and the MMA school I trained with

And all of the classes in the country, and the world, and the universe? I'm going to need a bucket of salt to take your word on that.

 

[skribs]

What do I do if my opponent throws a jab at me? I will just use my hook punch to attack his punching arm. This way, when my opponent attacks me, I also attack him at the same time. I will never be in defense mode.

IMO, hook punch (offensive thinking) is the same as downward parry (defensive thinking).

I train my guys with combo similar to the combo you have described. The difference is both A and B start from on guard. A doesn't wait for B to throw a jab. A uses hook punch to open B's guard (this is the beauty of the hook punch). A then followed with cross-hook-cross combo.

The advantage of my approach is I don't have to wait for my opponent to throw a jab at me. I can train my combo anytime that I want to.

In another thread, we talk about whether you train offensively, or defensively. If you train offensively, there is no such thing as "one step".

This video shows parry-cross. It's easy to make it into parry-cross-hook-cross (or hook-cross-hook-cross).

If you don't like one-steps, then this isn't the thread for you.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you don't like one-steps, then this isn't the thread for you.

If you start a thread and you just want to hear what you like to hear, that's not online discussion.

When you

- open your window, both butterfly and mosquito will fly in.
- start online discussion, opinions from all different angles will appear.

 

[andyjeffries]

If you start a thread and you just want to hear what you like to hear, that's not online discussion.

When you

- open your window, both butterfly and mosquito will fly in.
- start online discussion, opinions from all different angles will appear.

I think it's fair when someone posts a topic saying "how do I define what is a good X and a bad X" and someone replies with "I dislike X" for it to be off-topic - the OP set the topic and whether people liked or disliked it wasn't it.

I understand this is the internet, and it can be like the wild west at times, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the asker to say "good for you, but that's not what this topic is discussing"

 

[Earl Weiss]

Since the organization and system I belong to has strict parameters for the "1 Step" I have added a different type for use in my school which I call "Sreet 1 Step" These have 2 categories. Striking and grappling attacks. . No classic parameters vis a vis stance, defense and counter. Only Parameters are Attacker attacks, and defender defends and counters. Fundamental aspect is efficacy.

 

[wab25]

And all of the classes in the country, and the world, and the universe? I'm going to need a bucket of salt to take your word on that.

I am not sure I understand your vehement disagreement here.

You are asking what makes a good one step different than a bad one step. Lets use a wrist grab escape. In a good wrist grab escape one step, the attacker will grab the defenders wrist and hold tightly, while the defender does the escape. Bad versions would be where the attacker simulates a wrist grab 6 inches from the defenders wrist, no contact being made.... or using a very light grip and immediately letting go when the defender makes any move at all. When the defender does not have a real grip to escape from, the defender does not get to learn and understand the leverage needed and how to create it.

Same thing goes for a one step against a punch. The punch needs to be thrown in such a way that it will land and hit the defender. If the punch is landing 6 inches short.... then what is the defender learning. The defender cannot evaluate the position he ends in, as the distance is wrong. The defender gets no feedback about what works and what doesn't, because everything works when the punch lands 6 inches short.

And then you accuse me of endangering my students??? You are a 3rd degree black belt in TKD and taught both kids and adult classes. I would expect that you would understand that punches can be thrown at different speeds, with different power, depending on the individual you are working with. I would think that with your experience, you would understand that you can start slow and light, while making contact and moderate the speed and power to the students abilities.

 

[skribs]

And then you accuse me of endangering my students??? You are a 3rd degree black belt in TKD and taught both kids and adult classes. I would expect that you would understand that punches can be thrown at different speeds, with different power, depending on the individual you are working with. I would think that with your experience, you would understand that you can start slow and light, while making contact and moderate the speed and power to the students abilities.

Yes, I did. And yes, I do understand that.

You were mocking black belts who were holding back their power and didn't want to hurt you. So yes, I absolutely 100% accuse you of endangering your students. Maybe you shouldn't say things that would suggest your school is dangerous if you don't want to be accused of it.

I used to doubt your input on Taekwondo-specific things. Now I doubt your input on everything. I do not trust a single thing you say. And you're wasting your time talking to me.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You were mocking black belts who were holding back their power and didn't want to hurt you. So yes, I absolutely 100% accuse you of endangering your students. Maybe you shouldn't say things that would suggest your school is dangerous if you don't want to be accused of it.

I've read through this at least 5 times trying to understand your point of view..and the only thing I can find is this:

<QUOTE>I have trained with way too many black belts, across many arts, that have a hard time hitting me... not that my defense is any good, but they panic and pull up when they realize that they are going to make contact with their punch</QUOTE>

Is that what you're talking about? If so, I don't see this as mocking, or indicating any sort of endangering his students. It's a concern if someone is incapable of following through with their punch, which is an issue that happens and is often a result of that. Incidentally, it's also endangering them. Both in that they may not follow through if they use what they learn in self defense, and literally from not following through in the dojo. I broke my leg when I was around 12/13, largely because I hesitated on my initial punch so I was not in the spot the person doing the takedown expected.

 

[wab25]

Yes, I did. And yes, I do understand that.

Apparently, you do not understand that punches can be thrown at different speeds and at different power levels.

You were mocking black belts who were holding back their power and didn't want to hurt you.

I was not mocking anyone. I was pointing out that many people train to hit people, but have issues actually hitting someone. It was not that they were holding back their power, its that they would not even make contact. If you train punching, you should be able to punch someone, with control. That means you should be able to make contact, with an appropriate level of force. If you understand that punches can be thrown at different speeds and different levels of power depending on the situation, then you should be able to understand that a black belt should be able to make contact with his punch, without injuring his training partner.

Do you send your TKD students into their first TKD match before they have ever been kicked? Is the first time your student gets kicked, during their first competitive TKD match? Or do you give them some contact in class, to prepare them for the match? When is the first time your TKD student blocks a kick that was meant to score.... in their first competitive match or do you work them up to it in class before hand?

 

[Yokozuna514]

A good one step has a clearly defined action by one partner and a clearly defined reaction by the other partner. The one step is designed to describe a solution to a particular situation. Good one steps provide the solution and allow the participants to work on the action and solution at a pace they can both be comfortable with while giving them the ability to accelerate the speed and realness of the encounter as they understand how to apply the solution. Good instruction provides the freedom to seek other possible solutions to the same situation and encourages participants to try and compare efficacy with the original solution provided. The ultimate goal for the one step is to give the participants the ability to gain experience with a possible scenario and give them a tool or building block to improve their overall training.

 

[andyjeffries]

For what it's worth, this is a link to the Kukkiwon's self-defence book content. It was freely available on their site recently, I downloaded each page, combined it to a PDF and are sharing it on the basis that they were happy for it to be given freely away.

Kukkiwon Self-defence textbook Total.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Most of the new self-defence syllabus techniques are useful in one step sparring too.

Our criteria for grading one-steps is:

* Does it work? (i.e. an inefficient lock or choke will fail that part because it wouldn't work)
* Is it safe? (from the defenders point of view, did they keep themselves safe or do something stupid to put themselves at increased risk, and from the attacker's point of view, did their training partner treat them safely)
* Is it grade appropriate? (if a master grade candidate does movements that we'd expect from a blue belt, there's something gone wrong, they should have progressed)

I cover that criteria a bit more in blog post - How to do a Taekwondo promotion test objectively

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Our criteria for grading one-steps is:

* Does it work? (i.e. an inefficient lock or choke will fail that part because it wouldn't work)
* Is it safe? (from the defenders point of view, did they keep themselves safe or do something stupid to put themselves at increased risk, and from the attacker's point of view, did their training partner treat them safely)
* Is it grade appropriate? (if a master grade candidate does movements that we'd expect from a blue belt, there's something gone wrong, they should have progressed)

I cover that criteria a bit more in blog post - How to do a Taekwondo promotion test objectively

Just to clarify, this is for grading someone doing a one-step, not grading the one-step itself as a technique, right? Or is it meant to be both?

 

[skribs]

For what it's worth, this is a link to the Kukkiwon's self-defence book content. It was freely available on their site recently, I downloaded each page, combined it to a PDF and are sharing it on the basis that they were happy for it to be given freely away.

Kukkiwon Self-defence textbook Total.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Most of the new self-defence syllabus techniques are useful in one step sparring too.

Our criteria for grading one-steps is:

* Does it work? (i.e. an inefficient lock or choke will fail that part because it wouldn't work)
* Is it safe? (from the defenders point of view, did they keep themselves safe or do something stupid to put themselves at increased risk, and from the attacker's point of view, did their training partner treat them safely)
* Is it grade appropriate? (if a master grade candidate does movements that we'd expect from a blue belt, there's something gone wrong, they should have progressed)

I cover that criteria a bit more in blog post - How to do a Taekwondo promotion test objectively

How do your students select what self-defense they perform?

In my first school, self-defense wasn't on the test. In both my most recent school and my current school, self-defense is prescribed by the Master for the test. The difference is that on your way to black belt at my old school, there were over 90 of them (23-26 total on the black belt test itself, depending on age), whereas my current school there are 14. But everyone who is a yellow/advanced in my current school does defense 1.1 and 1.2, every green does 2.1 and 2.2, and everyone going for black belt does all 1.1-7.2.

If your school is similar, then I would argue that as helpful as this information is, it's also off-topic for this thread. I was looking more at the creation of those techniques than the performance of them.

For example:

1. Step offline, block, chop
2. Step offline, block, chop, palm strike, body punch, elbow strike
3. Step offline, block, chop, palm strike, body punch, hook punch, elbow, backfist, punch, front kick, jumping back kick, spearhand, ridgehand, and then 10x horse stance punch to various targets
4. Step offline, block, grab the hand, roundhouse kick, use the kick to set up a sweep, pin them down and punch
5. Kneeling back kick, kick with the other leg, stand up, grab the hand, sweep, pin them down and punch

The first one is overly simple, but good for beginners. The second one is a combination, but a small enough combination to make sense. The third one is the much maligned "throw 20 moves while the opponent just stands there." At what point in this kind of one-step does it go from "good combo" to "just plain silly."

The fourth is what I would call a prototypical punch defense. It blocks and immediately grabs the punch, and then uses that to set up some strikes (with added power from pulling them in, something we also do in Muay Thai), and mix in some grappling skills. The fifth is kind of the same, except there's so much time between the punch missing and the arm being grabbed that it's very unrealistic to be there.

Another minor example would be two very similar techniques from my old and my new school:

1. Step to the right, block with the left hand, chop inside with the right hand. Left hand grabs their wrist, right hand grabs their shoulder. Bend them over, right knee strike, left 12-6 elbow strike. The left hand is used because the right hand is holding the shoulder down, which "pins" them in that position. If you used the right arm to elbow strike, there's much more opportunity for them to stand up and avoid it.
2. Step to the left, block with the right hand, palm strike with the left hand. Right hand grabs their wrist, left hand grabs their shoulder. Bend them over, right knee strike, left 12-6 elbow strike. To me, this makes less sense, because letting go of the shoulder pressure gives them the opportunity to stand up. The right arm holding their wrist doesn't do anything without any additional anchors.

This is the kind of thing I'm looking at in this thread. What makes a one-step make sense, what makes it not? For what it's worth, at both schools, there are ones I really like, ones I like but would tweak, ones I don't like, and ones I think make zero sense. Those that I like (or at least would tweak) make up around 75% of the curriculum.

 

[TheTraveleress]

This ^^^

If I could pick one bad habit to fix that I see in many, many karate, TKD, and kenpo schools, it would be the practice of drills where the attacker throws a fully extended punch which comes up 6 inches (or more) short of the defender and then leaves the punch hanging while the defender goes through a sequence of counters. To my mind, the incorrect range is worse than the punch being left extended and worse than the defender getting multiple moves to the attacker's one. That incorrect range makes the timing wrong. It makes the angles wrong. It makes the footwork wrong. It alters the techniques that will work. It basically messes up everything.

BTW, just to make sure I wasn't misremembering the prevalence of the problem, I went on YouTube and searched for TKD one-step sparring. I went through the first 8 results and 6 of the 8 had the attacker stepping in with a fully extended punch which came up anywhere from 2 to 8 inches short of the target. Note - all of the demonstrations were by black belts.

I think that one-step drills can have value, but performed this way I think they are worse than useless.

What makes it good depends on the level of your student

yes.... two of the first things we try to work on after you get the back and forth choreography down is getting the punch to the nose, when you get your distance first it is pretty darn close to a punch in the face and second responding with a block, evade or restraint before it gets straight. If that arm is straight everything to follow is a waste of time because you just got punched in the face! First one step skill that we aim to master is saftey (choreography, giyups, etc), second distance and response.... After you have have these basics down, what makes a one step good increases with rank and skill. Is the move rank appropriate, is it practical, does it flow in a manner that will help you to escape or does it tie you up and put you at risk, do you know and understand what the moves you have chosen will do to your opponent and how a body will likely respond... as rank goes up control distance goes up, and skills are mastered we add elements to the response is not just right handed single punch response. A good one-step is one that teaches a valuable skill and that depends on rank and time in training because what makes a onestep good should evolve with the student.

 

[andyjeffries]

Just to clarify, this is for grading someone doing a one-step, not grading the one-step itself as a technique, right? Or is it meant to be both?

Well, it's kinda both. The students can free form choose to do whatever they want. We teach about 12 from Blue belt to Red belt level, but they're free to learn others from fellow classmates, or to create their own - we work with them in the run up to gradings though to review the ones they're planning on doing.

 

[andyjeffries]

How do your students select what self-defense they perform?

I've just replied to Monkey Turned Wolf kinda explaining, but it's up to them, but we'll advise/guide them.

The main golden rule is that the one-steps must end in a submission or a strike. We used to allow "extract" as an option, but lots of mid-coloured belts were choosing that as an option most of the time, so we've removed it as an option (if you can do the other two, then just stopping and running is an easy option, but if all you know is running, and that option is taken away...)

The other one we consistently apply is don't block on step one, then step to the attackers open side on step two (to do some follow up). If you go to the open side it needs to be a simultaneous block and strike, if you go closed side, one-two is acceptable.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Just realized I never actually answered. Keep in mind this is not from a TKD perspective, but someone who did kempo, and my understanding is that what you call one step are very similar to our SD combination #s.

Essentially, there has to be something that the combination teaches. This does not have to be directly a fighting application, nor does the combination have to be practical.

An example is one where you do a left hand knife hand block, followed by a jumping scissor kick. I can't think of a way to use that in an actual fight, and there's no real set up taught. Despite that, I still think it's a useful one. It provides a very concrete time to learn the move, and encourages practicing-which helps develop leg strength and 'hops' for some of the more complicated things that they learn in the next few belts. It's essentially a bit of conditioning built into practicing combinations (which are practiced from beginning to end regardless of rank; there is no 'info dump' that occurs. If there was, this would be much less useful).

Other uses are more martial-learning how movements can flow together, or learning a way to set up a throw. If there is not a use for the combination, or if there is a lot of superfluous moves that are unrelated to the main purpose, that's a bad one to me.

Below is off-topic, but related. Feel free to skip reading it if you're not interested.

A useful exercise IMO is to find the main purpose behind each combination. Once you do that, you have something to focus on when learning, practicing and teaching it. And from my experience, at least in my form of kempo, there is at least one main purpose behind each of them. I've also stripped some to what I find to be the principle and just practice that, or see different ways, for my own practice.
An example for that, is combination 1. The combination is essentially parry with a backstep to a cat stance, then lunge forward wrapping the arm, throwing some strikes to off balance, grab their throat then throw an o soto gari, and throw more strikes. Depending on who's teaching, the second to last strike is done during the takedown, or after. My viewpoint of the technique is that it's teaching you two things: The first is to distance parry, and the second is how to invade space and throw before they can react. As a result, when I practice it, I'll experiment with different ways to do the distance parry-sometimes I'll do a step backwith the back foot and use that as a spring. Sometimes I go fully into the cat stance, sometimes I keep my feet still and just weave my head back. Then I'll also often practice the invading-I'll imagine (or have a partner) do different strikes, and rather than doing the parry-catstance, I just practice ways to get on their inside and position for the throw. So if they come with a hook to my face, I weave under, do the step in and wrap the arm, and continue the remaining of the combination. In my mind, all of this is still just practicing combination 1.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you don't like one-steps, then this isn't the thread for you.

Which post in this thread did I ever say, "I don't like one step"? I just said, "A good one step is your opponent makes 1 move; you respond with 1 move."

Here are some "one-step" that we trained in my system. We do train one-step. But our opponent can only respond with 1 move. Every one-step train a certain principle/strategy.

1. The leg is longer than the arm.

2. If you don't allow your opponent to put weight on his leading foot, he can't punch you.

3. Pull your opponent's kicking leg to help you to move in.
4. Guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.

5. Borrow your opponent's force and lead him into the emptiness.

 

[skribs]

I've just replied to Monkey Turned Wolf kinda explaining, but it's up to them, but we'll advise/guide them.

The main golden rule is that the one-steps must end in a submission or a strike. We used to allow "extract" as an option, but lots of mid-coloured belts were choosing that as an option most of the time, so we've removed it as an option (if you can do the other two, then just stopping and running is an easy option, but if all you know is running, and that option is taken away...)

The other one we consistently apply is don't block on step one, then step to the attackers open side on step two (to do some follow up). If you go to the open side it needs to be a simultaneous block and strike, if you go closed side, one-two is acceptable.

This is kind of the direction I am planning when I open my school.

I will add one to the possible list, although I don't have a succinct one-word title in mind: forcing the other person away from you (either a push or a toss). For example, a sweep that would force them to roll away from you, or using a wristlock to create the distance.

It's not exactly a submission, not exactly a strike, but also not exactly just running away, either.

 

[skribs]

Just realized I never actually answered. Keep in mind this is not from a TKD perspective, but someone who did kempo, and my understanding is that what you call one step are very similar to our SD combination #s.

Essentially, there has to be something that the combination teaches. This does not have to be directly a fighting application, nor does the combination have to be practical.

An example is one where you do a left hand knife hand block, followed by a jumping scissor kick. I can't think of a way to use that in an actual fight, and there's no real set up taught. Despite that, I still think it's a useful one. It provides a very concrete time to learn the move, and encourages practicing-which helps develop leg strength and 'hops' for some of the more complicated things that they learn in the next few belts. It's essentially a bit of conditioning built into practicing combinations (which are practiced from beginning to end regardless of rank; there is no 'info dump' that occurs. If there was, this would be much less useful).

Other uses are more martial-learning how movements can flow together, or learning a way to set up a throw. If there is not a use for the combination, or if there is a lot of superfluous moves that are unrelated to the main purpose, that's a bad one to me.

Below is off-topic, but related. Feel free to skip reading it if you're not interested.

A useful exercise IMO is to find the main purpose behind each combination. Once you do that, you have something to focus on when learning, practicing and teaching it. And from my experience, at least in my form of kempo, there is at least one main purpose behind each of them. I've also stripped some to what I find to be the principle and just practice that, or see different ways, for my own practice.
An example for that, is combination 1. The combination is essentially parry with a backstep to a cat stance, then lunge forward wrapping the arm, throwing some strikes to off balance, grab their throat then throw an o soto gari, and throw more strikes. Depending on who's teaching, the second to last strike is done during the takedown, or after. My viewpoint of the technique is that it's teaching you two things: The first is to distance parry, and the second is how to invade space and throw before they can react. As a result, when I practice it, I'll experiment with different ways to do the distance parry-sometimes I'll do a step backwith the back foot and use that as a spring. Sometimes I go fully into the cat stance, sometimes I keep my feet still and just weave my head back. Then I'll also often practice the invading-I'll imagine (or have a partner) do different strikes, and rather than doing the parry-catstance, I just practice ways to get on their inside and position for the throw. So if they come with a hook to my face, I weave under, do the step in and wrap the arm, and continue the remaining of the combination. In my mind, all of this is still just practicing combination 1.

How does the jump scissor kick come into play later?

Is there another way you could teach it than the impractical technique?

How is it explained to the students which techniques are directly applicable and which are building blocks for future techniques?