Earl Weiss
Senior Master
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,631
- Reaction score
- 966
1965 Text re print available. Amazon.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well in the 1965 book it doesn't mention any grab in pattern Do-San. It mentions a "releasing motion" in pattern Joong-Gun, but not like later books do. It says nothing of a grab in pattern Hwa-Rang.I don't know if they were ever was "Before they became grappling escapes for the Chang Hon Patterns. " Each of the moves provide a different method of trying to release a grab.. The value is in the different motions. The result of the motion can have different applications
An example here is a Do San alternate application.
1. The 1965 Text does not mention a lot of things.Well in the 1965 book it doesn't mention any grab in pattern Do-San. It mentions a "releasing motion" in pattern Joong-Gun, but not like later books do. It says nothing of a grab in pattern Hwa-Rang.
In the video you showed I think that's an example of "overreach". (Taking it too far basically.) A technique like that might have merit if the defender were being grabbed on the uniform by the chest or something. (I'll make a video for people to watch. Too difficult to explain in text.) Then it would be plausible to grab the arm that's grabbing you, strike, and go into an arm bar submission, but to come forward and grab their arm after they've punched is going down a false trail.
But that's a good video for me to do a reaction video on, so I'll get to it ASAP.
1. The 1965 Text does not mention a lot of things.
2. Hwa Rang the position of the hand on fist is unique- The purpose is to grab and pull the fist.
3. Video example may be over reach but the Position of the Right Hand / Arm to use the tricep tendon Pressure point and the foot work is a heck of coincidence. FWIW whether you grab a Right Punch or if they grabbed your uniform the point is the same. Utilize very similar motions but with a different intent and result.
I know that's what the modern books say; however, if you step closer to your opponent you will be too close to use a side kick. My instructor demonstrated that one day in class. You're already within punching distance to do the right middle punch. For your opponent to grab your wrist, you have to be within arm's reach. (I'm assuming it's not a giant that is grabbing you.) That means you're generally too close for side kick to begin with, but to make matters worse, the next move pivots and moves in even closer.2. Hwa Rang the position of the hand on fist is unique- The purpose is to grab and pull the fist.
Agree, but I Hate seeing a young white belt used as the Uke.I don't know if they were ever was "Before they became grappling escapes for the Chang Hon Patterns. " Each of the moves provide a different method of trying to release a grab.. The value is in the different motions. The result of the motion can have different applications
An example here is a Do San alternate application.
Exactly - Same idea except for the follow up which provides a reason to turn 180 degrees.I do think it's a good application if you're already being grabbed, and I have another example of that which I did with my Dad:
Agree but sometimes you use what's available at the moment.Agree, but I Hate seeing a young white belt used as the Uke.
1. Don't use it if you step too close.I know that's what the modern books say; however, if you step closer to your opponent you will be too close to use a side kick. ................................ (I'm assuming it's not a giant that is grabbing you.) That means you're generally too close for side kick to begin with, but to make matters worse, t
As I said before - Patterns teach you how to move. "Wax on Wax Off" The stated applications are but a tool helping you understand how to move. The pattern specifications also provide a convenient point from which to morph the technique in any number of ways to suit a situation.The philosophy is simple: It's impossible to grab someone's wrist when they're punching. So yes, there's a grab, but it's you grabbing your opponent's head before driving into their temple with a round punch, just as there are many techniques in TKD that involve a head grab before a strike.
As long as the listed application isn't setting the student up for failure/disappointment, I agree.As I said before - Patterns teach you how to move. "Wax on Wax Off" The stated applications are but a tool helping you understand how to move. The pattern specifications also provide a convenient point from which to morph the technique in any number of ways to suit a situation.
Aaaand, how old to you think this style of TKD is?As long as the listed application isn't setting the student up for failure/disappointment, I agree.
At the end of the day, making a right round punch into your left hand is making the same motion that the book describes, but the application is very different. The main difference is getting rid of the half steps / cheater steps / intermediate / flow interrupting movements as I call them. Perhaps that's the biggest difference of all. I believe those extra movements weren't there originally. The book sometimes breaks down an atomic movement into pieces that aren't separable.
There's a very clear philosophical/style difference between the way my instructor was taught and how things appear today in the books, and it's consistent every time in every pattern where one of these techniques emerges. That's no accident. It's deliberate. Bottom line: I think we learned a different style of taekwondo, a much older style, and it would have been the first style that went under the name Taekwondo, before the English books were published, and I think that's pretty neat all things considered.
Are you saying the application has been designed to give meaning to the technique, rather than the technique being designed to fit the application? In other words, the self-defense situation was created to explain the technique's meaning, rather than the technique being created to deal with the self-defense situation.The stated applications are but a tool helping you understand how to move.
Can't speak to philosophical differences but there are technical distinctions between how pioneers who were usually Black belts by the time they learned General Choi's system and their prior system such as the Chung Do Kwan. They often did not change their habits and those differences remained in their progeny. An example is the Chung Do Kwan flavor of Pioneer progeny such as those of He Il Cho, Jhoon Rhee, Han Cha Kyo and Name Tae Hi. I would not be surprised if much of the direct instruction received by your instructor was one of those pioneers and he retained the "Flavor" .There's a very clear philosophical/style difference between the way my instructor was taught and how things appear today in the books, and it's consistent every time in every pattern where one of these techniques emerges. That's no accident. It's deliberate. Bottom line: I think we learned a different style of taekwondo, a much older style, and it would have been the first style that went under the name Taekwondo, before the English books were published, and I think that's pretty neat all things considered.
I think they may be 2 sides of the same coin. I don't think saying textbook application is but one example of how a move can be used and is a tool to help someone understand how to move as well as all important aspects of distance and direction is the same as saying the technique would have no meaning without textbook application. I also don't think - at least as far as General Choi's texts are concerned - he intended the stated applications to be exclusive or exhaustive examples of the application for the motion.Are you saying the application has been designed to give meaning to the technique, rather than the technique being designed to fit the application? In other words, the self-defense situation was created to explain the technique's meaning, rather than the technique being created to deal with the self-defense situation.
Possibly an unforeseen and unintentional side-affect. I don't really see how you could create one without creating the other. And I don't see a "chicken or the egg" conundrum.Are you saying the application has been designed to give meaning to the technique, rather than the technique being designed to fit the application? In other words, the self-defense situation was created to explain the technique's meaning, rather than the technique being created to deal with the self-defense situation.
It's not a conundrum or a chicken/egg thing at all. The question goes to the very root of what the purpose of a form is. Originally, forms were designed as a collection of tactical responses (like a pin. counter grab, step and strike combo) to a variety of common attacks such as chokes, wrist grabs, and punches. These types of attacks already existed. The response was created to deal with them. The combinations did not exist in a void for their own sake; they had a specific purpose. In this light, the way a form looks was not that important.Possibly an unforeseen and unintentional side-affect. I don't really see how you could create one without creating the other. And I don't see a "chicken or the egg" conundrum.