ky0sa
White Belt
Posts: 29
|
Post by ky0sa on Feb 16, 2012 1:01:11 GMT
What do people think about the techniques of Taekwon-Do and Taekwondo?
Are they face value - a punch is a punch?
Or are there hidden applications - a punch can be a lock?
Both?
|
|
Stuart Anslow (Editor)
Administrator
Never compromise? Not even in the face of Armageddon - Rorschach
Posts: 247
|
Post by Stuart Anslow (Editor) on Feb 16, 2012 7:38:12 GMT
What do people think about the techniques of Taekwon-Do and Taekwondo? Are they face value - a punch is a punch? Or are there hidden applications - a punch can be a lock? Both? Do I really need to post where I stand on the issue? Stuart
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Feb 16, 2012 9:23:39 GMT
I have not encountered the punch being interpreted as a lock before, but in my experience blocks are rarely if ever blocks as commonly thought. Even in 1965 (or 68??) Henry Cho wrote "Secrets of Korean Karate" and showed different usages for the blocks. For instance low block was shown in one example as smashing away your opponents guard and opening him up for a strike. This is a long way from the common "block a front kick" application most commonly taught today (he did include the modern common usages too). If we go back in time a little we have strong evidence that early Taekwondo came largely from Karate ( jungdokwan-taekwondo.blogspot.com/2011/09/taekwondos-karate-roots.html )and Karate came from a blending of many different martial arts of south east Asia one of the most primary influences was Chinese martial arts (all though Siamese martial arts also seemed to have a role to play). This is backed up by research of the likes of Patric McCarthy (not sure on the spelling). In old school Te, or Tote/Tode (old name for Karate) pronounced Tang Soo in Korean (early name for Taekwondo) they did not have any names for most of the techniques. Kenwa Mabuni and other pioneers of Karate state this in their writings. Kenwa Mabuni invented many of the common names in use in Karate today in the 1920s-40s. So in the Karate link they did not have names for most of the techniques in the "old days" but what about the Chinese martial arts? They had names for their techniques but they were almost never literal names, but rather poetic descriptions of the mind set needed to execute the application of technique or a poetic description of the technique itself. For example in one description in Muye Dobo Tongji you can read: "Strike at your opponent like an ox roaring at the sky". This is hardly a literal description of technique. So in Karate (the Taekwondo building blocks) the motions did not have names or at best they had very vague poetic names/descriptions but what about the techniques in Kata were they all kick block punch like it is taught today (and arguably taught to the first Taekwondo pioneers)? Again if you read the works of Funakoshi, Motobu, Myiagi, Mabuni etc you will see that it was not as simple. The earlier works of Funakoshi for instance demonstrates throws and states flat out that they are to be found in Kata. Even in the newer editions of his works you see statements like "always envision grasping and pulling your opponent when drawing your hand back to your hip" (Karate Do Kyohan) etc. He also states that arm lock and throws are in Kata (Karate Do Kyohan). For those out there practicing the original Taekwondo Hyung (Pyungahn, Chulgi, Bal Saek, Kongsookoon etc) how many are taught applications like throws and arm locks in your hyung? Today most Taekwondo practitioners does not practise the old Hyung but rather the newer inventions like Chang Hon, Taegeuk, Pal Gwe patterns instead. They are different than their predecessors, but they are still made from the same building blocks namely basic technique. Some minor modifications has been made, but when you change your movements you lose some applications, but you often gain others. So if the newer patterns were made with the "face value" applications you describe then there will be additional applications to the movements (maybe not intentional but still) because of the history of the movements themselves. Many people who reverse engineer applications (Iain Abernethy might be the best known in the west) state that each movement has multiple applications. With this in mind you could arguably find effective applications for any number of sequences of techniques in our patterns even if the makers of the form did not intend to have more than face value applications there in the first place:-) This goes a far way to explain that yes it is possible to find/Extract practical applications from our patterns no matter what was put into them in the first place because they used the same (or almost the same) movements as the older forms used. That said, I personally think that the pioneers meant for the patterns to contain effective combat applications and all though they were not taught as such they were taught as Ho Sin Sul or self defense techniques. The linking of the ho sin sul back to their patterns were up to the students, maybe some made the link, and maybe others did not, or maybe there was never meant to be a link at all:-) If you want effective applications I urge you to look up Stuart Anslows book (if you want effective applications to Chang Hon patterns) or Simon John O`Neil book. They are frequently advertised in the Totally Taekwondo Magazine. Come to think of it buy both no matter what patterns you practise. They both contain fascinating insights and history sections that actually contribute something new instead of rehashing the same old things that "all books on Taekwondo" states. I do apologize for the long rant folksO:-)
|
|
|
Post by richardconceicao on Feb 17, 2012 21:46:20 GMT
i have to essentially agree with the above comment, and the historical context that it describes. "Lean on the horse-ask the road for directions" is the opening move of a Baqua form. Even the Japanese terms for high block,middle block (age uke, chudan uke) changes (gedan barai) is not low block- it is low strike.
we must remember that since human movement is constrained by the nature of our bodies, all martial arts have to use these motions to produce the desired effect. as Sensei Annesi once stated "a lock is a block is a blow is a throw"
i have seen applications done in many arts that appear in the forms as extremely basic moves that have a variety of sophisticated and dangerous uses. appearances, as they say, can be quite deceiving!
while i can be easily convinced that the modern forms were put together with almost only percussive aspects in mind, i find that to reduce them to this, is not only is quite boring for the practitioner, but deprives the art of the depths in can achieve.
it is my personal opinion that the sporting emphasis with its consequent reduction of complexity ("look ma-no hands!) is one of the main reasons that practitioners of other arts feel that TKD is bereft of any combat utility.
|
|
Stuart Anslow (Editor)
Administrator
Never compromise? Not even in the face of Armageddon - Rorschach
Posts: 247
|
Post by Stuart Anslow (Editor) on Feb 17, 2012 22:14:11 GMT
Besides which, the Okinawan term for block (Barai) was (possibly purposly) misinterpreted as "block".. when in fact it means "To Receive" - that should be a big clue!
Please correct if my Japanese terminology is wrong!
Stuart
|
|
Stuart Anslow (Editor)
Administrator
Never compromise? Not even in the face of Armageddon - Rorschach
Posts: 247
|
Post by Stuart Anslow (Editor) on Feb 17, 2012 22:17:26 GMT
i as Sensei Annesi once stated "a lock is a block is a blow is a throw" Ohhh.. I like that.. can I (possibly) use it as a quote in my next book? (Is that Sensei Tony Annesi btw?) Stuart
|
|
|
Post by richardconceicao on Feb 18, 2012 1:43:04 GMT
of the many Toni Annesi informative (and entertaining) seminars and workshops i have attended, he has strangely never recruited me to act as his literary agent. i guess then (since i can't make a buck on it) that you are free to use the ascribed quote. i love it because it says so much in so few words.
you are correct that Uke is "reception". an overlooked concept in that it does not imply how you are to "receive" it. something that i will amplify in a future submission to your magazine with regard to the knife hand.
|
|
Stuart Anslow (Editor)
Administrator
Never compromise? Not even in the face of Armageddon - Rorschach
Posts: 247
|
Post by Stuart Anslow (Editor) on Feb 19, 2012 12:55:24 GMT
of the many Toni Annesi informative (and entertaining) seminars and workshops i have attended, he has strangely never recruited me to act as his literary agent. i guess then (since i can't make a buck on it) that you are free to use the ascribed quote. i love it because it says so much in so few words. you are correct that Uke is "reception". an overlooked concept in that it does not imply how you are to "receive" it. something that i will amplify in a future submission to your magazine with regard to the knife hand. Opps.. I meant Uke not Barai (which AFAIA means sweep or sweeping motion right?). LOL.. at your deep and meaningful explanation about the quote.. a simple 'why not' would have been just as good, but not as much fun to read ;D Stuart
|
|
ky0sa
White Belt
Posts: 29
|
Post by ky0sa on Feb 22, 2012 0:40:48 GMT
Fascinating history, thanks guys. And today? Now? Is a punch a punch, is a punch a lock, or both?
|
|
|
Post by oerjan on Feb 22, 2012 7:39:04 GMT
I would say that in the case of the punch 9 times out of ten it is a punch.. Sometimes it can be an unbalancing technique or a grab, but the punch is a punch in my view.
Blocks on the other hand can be just about anything from a strike, to lock, to well anything:-) In my view it depends on the level of understanding of the practitioner and it also depends on what he is seeking in his training.
Someone only interested in "hard style Taekwondo" (kick block punch) will see only those things in his forms, someone doing them for "moving meditation" will see what his instructor teaches him or maybe nothing at all because he is "meditating". Someone trying to make sense of all his training and searching for "hidden applications" will find what he is searching for.
The wast majority today sees kick block punch or face value applications because their instructors teach them that way. BUT their instructor teaches the forms that way because they were taught the names of the techniques as "low block", "face block", etc. As I wrote in my first post in this thread the names of the techniques were invented in newer times when much knowledge was all ready lost.
If I ask someone to picture the usage of the "low block" and show them the motion they will see a usage of something that blocks an attack delivered to the low section. It is not strange that they do that considering the label I put on the technique. But if I just show them the motion with no label (and they have not been exposed to labels) and ask them to see if they can see any usages for the moves then maybe some will say a hammer strike to the groin etc.
Personally I use the labels as a name for the movements, not a label of the application. There is a book called "75 down block" by Rick Clark. He proposes 75 different usages against different attacks such as pushes, punches, wrist holds and even against sticks. I do not agree with all his applications, but I highly recommend it because it really helps fight "label disease" (you can only see what the labels tells you). Can you imagine having to come up with 75 different names for the same movement?
Sorry for the long rant yet again Ky0sa but this is a subject I care for:-) In short yes I guess that today a punch can be just about anything you like as long as it stays close to the form and it is combativly sound. Does that make any sense?
|
|
ky0sa
White Belt
Posts: 29
|
Post by ky0sa on Feb 22, 2012 22:20:25 GMT
Yes, thankyou Oerjan, that makes sense I read the 75 Down Blocks book too, found it stimulating but overcomplicated. We have so many techniques that most are not used, even sometimes. So even the face value of most techniques isn't used, let alone the many possible hidden applications of each. I guess it's the tension between having every possible situation covered, and having a few techniques used well. As in tournament sparring I suppose. They used to say that one kata is enough, or that people who collect patterns are missing the point. However, hidden applications are just fun, aren't they. Have you noticed that both reverse knifehand high front strikes in the patterns are perfomed while turning? I think the left hand can be used to trap the arm of an opponent who's grabbed my shoulder from behind.
|
|
|
Post by richardconceicao on Feb 24, 2012 2:36:08 GMT
i don't know Oerjan but he is quite diplomatic in his discussion. not wishing to sound coarse i think i would posit a stronger position . being something of a "jaded virgin" with respect to this kind of approach, i feel that it is more than just what you would make of it. while it is quite true that this is an individual choice--some people prefer the sport, some just aerobics with a kick, to me this denies true subtlety and depth. in other words, if you like to just punch and kick that is fine, but realize that you are keeping the art on a very simplistic level. there is so much more to it---balance, when to shift weight, alignment, anatomy, kinesiology of human motion, and so on. martial arts used to be life and death. to me this demands a level of insight that is beyond just fun, and i don't mean that in a callous or sarcastic way at all. i am simply saying that exploring these issues is of vital importance to the practitioner. the principles and their variations are the key to what actually makes everything work. this should not be taken as a criticism of the above discussion participants in any way. they at least realized that the question was an important one to raise and discuss. my thanks to them.
|
|
Stuart Anslow (Editor)
Administrator
Never compromise? Not even in the face of Armageddon - Rorschach
Posts: 247
|
Post by Stuart Anslow (Editor) on Feb 24, 2012 9:48:42 GMT
We have so many techniques that most are not used, even sometimes. So even the face value of most techniques isn't used, let alone the many possible hidden applications of each. Thats a good point.. but it is also true to say many arnt used used because the 'face value' application is seen as useless (or next to).. Take standard blocking for instance.. most taught to stop hand/foot strikes at face value.. but when was the last time you saw anyone execute a mid block in sparring!! If at all! IMO.. by changing the focus of a block to an SD application, they become much more applicable, interesting and viable! Oh yeah! As the main chapters of my next book are dont, I think its safe to reveal that is basically the main apps I have for the technqiues you mention. in fact, many of the 'palm to elbow' type technqiues are trapping applications. Stuart
|
|
Stuart Anslow (Editor)
Administrator
Never compromise? Not even in the face of Armageddon - Rorschach
Posts: 247
|
Post by Stuart Anslow (Editor) on Feb 24, 2012 9:51:59 GMT
while it is quite true that this is an individual choice--some people prefer the sport, some just aerobics with a kick, to me this denies true subtlety and depth. in other words, if you like to just punch and kick that is fine, but realize that you are keeping the art on a very simplistic level. there is so much more to it Imagine if that choice wasnt there.. the problem with 'the choice' is that many are too content to stick to the simple things.. moreso with high up masters! Indeed. I know that I started up TKD for both the 'martial' and the 'art'.. I didnt even know there was a sport side then. And though the sport side was interesting and enjoyable (and I did okay), I find what i do now, so much more interesting and rewarding. Stuart
|
|
|
Post by earlweiss on Mar 22, 2012 15:17:44 GMT
"It is like a finger pointing to the moon. If you focus on the finger you will miss all that heavenly glory." - Bruce Lee
As a learning tool the textbook applications are very good ways to focus on angles, distance. Balance, Speed efficiency and power. Now, once you can move in that fashion, how you apply the motion is limited only by your imagination and practical considerations.
This is not a new concept. Think "Karate Kid" movies "Wax on..." "Pick up jacket..." First he was taught how to move. Then he was taught the application(S).
So, IMNSHO if you focus too closely on any application(s) be it textbook, "Real" or "Alternate" you will miss all that heavenly glory.
Hmm. I think an article is coming:)
|
|