Traditional techniques and patterns

Discussion in 'Tae Kwon Do' started by Taizu, Jan 31, 2011.

  1. Taizu

    Taizu Valued Member

    (Just a warning, AIMAA(my assoc) does not use the Korean names for any techniques, so if any confusion arises tell me and I'll dig out my manual to get the Korean translations)

    Just out of interest how do you approach the 'traditional side' of Tae Kwon Do? (This is not a debate on the validity of traditional techniques and patterns.) Personally I see the patterns as training tool, for correct breathing and general exercise. Try doing patterns(or traditional techniques) with light hand weights at 1/3, 1/4 speed and you'll see what I mean.

    Can patterns be regarded as more than this, are they really intended for an 'imaginary opponent'? Are these techniques applicable in any way? Perhaps the question I should be asking is "were the patterns intended for more than a nod to the history/ traditions of Korea?".

    Thoughts? (or hell an answer would be even better =P)

    Branching off from this a little. Fighting stances, what do you use and what does your school encourage? Taking for granted that fighting stances are a very personal thing changing from person to person, but the general idea still remains. My own school encouraged a kickboxing styled stance(feet about a shoulder or a little further apart, toes pointing to the open side), however after training with a WTF school who favoured a 'L-stance' fighting stance(weight 50/50) I began to think about it a bit more.


    The 'L-stance'
    - Decreases the target area, and makes it easier to defend
    - Opens up the hips so its easier to kick
    - Allows the use of traditional techniques, blocks, bare foot stance(which can not be used out of this stance. Good for evading attacks to the front leg)
    - If you rotate the foot and square your hips, you end up in forward stance(not 100% perfect, but close enough), thus traditional techniques can be used. Also with a follow through with a cross/reverse punch you end up in this stance

    (NOTE: When I mean use traditional techniques, I don't suggest applying them like in the patterns with the reaction hand at the waist at the end of a technique. You need that protecting your jaw. =) Use common sense in application )

    Bad things about it
    - Puts the back hand too far back.
    - Movement and balance. Its a little strange and it would be very difficult to recover quickly from an attack to the open side
    - If you needed to retreat or was falling back under attack the back leg takes alot of pressure(around the knee. But I don't have the best knees so that may just be me).

    What do you think? Am I seeing things or does it seem that a fighting 'L-stance' is a way to bridge the traditional with the fighting techniques.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2011
  2. blackbelt92

    blackbelt92 Valued Member

    About the forms, my style of Taekwondo intended them to be used as a way to practice self defense. My instructor teaches us the practical applications that are hidden in our forms. After practicing the forms, he has us practice the individual applications against an opponent. Besides for self defense, I also see the forms as a form of meditation. Sounds weird, but it works for me. I think that some things in the forms are practical and some things aren't(just because of modern day weapons...things like that) Hope I helped.
     
  3. ecytkd

    ecytkd Valued Member

    Pattens contain many practical self defence techniques though for many students and instructors are seen as just the next step of promotion.
    The work of SAnslow {TKD} and I Abernethey {Karate} show in depth the self defence techniques in traditional martial arts.

    You mention the reaction arm pulling toward the waist , that is a practical application in a grappling situation eg holding a opponent close in to apply a technique, extending a opponents limb to apply a lock, or clearing an obsticle { eg opponents arms after clash of forarms to deliver a strike} or as a simple release technique from a wrist grab.

    I encourage you to seek out Anslow and abernethys work as they are both pioneers in this area, and if your school dosent practise the appications in TKD then maybe you could research it yourself, you will be suprised at what is actually in them.

    Regards

    Jason
     
  4. aaron_mag

    aaron_mag New Member Supporter

    Read some pattern application books like others are have mentioned. Very interesting. If you buy Machida's DVDs he has some interesting things to say about the traditional stances (that I really liked). Also Bas Rutten's stances in his instructionals are very much like a traditional 'front stance'.
     
  5. Master Betty

    Master Betty Banned Banned

    Patterns as a training tool has been done to death on MAP. Suffice to say that most people who train to fight consider them an absolute waste of time unless you're just doing it for the enjoyment factor. Some few people, usually those of a traditional background and not ring fighters, do consider them useful.

    As for the stance it's really easy. If you want to train realistically, don't use L-stance. As soon as leg kicks are involved, giving your opponent the back of your front leg to kick is basically asking to be put on your butt. In fact, when a thai boxer called changpeuk fought a traditional karate kickboxer called rick roufus back in the 70's that inability to even comprehend the low kick led to 2 spiral fractures in his femur bones. It doesn't make it easier to kick either, what it does is make your front leg kick much faster but much less powerful and makes your back leg kick immediately telegraphic. Indeed, the rear leg round house coming from an L-stance will never has as much power as a properly delivered roundhouse from a square stance.

    Bas' video here will let you figure out for yourself exactly why....

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5iTWCwlZyM"]YouTube - Bas Rutten's secret to power kicking[/ame]

    Now basically bas, and indeed virtually every K1/MMA fighter uses a modified thai stance and kick for these reasons. If, however, your focus is more on the sport side of TKD then the L-stance is superior because it's less focused on the effect and more on the speed.
     
  6. Taizu

    Taizu Valued Member

    Thanks for the replies, some interesting points and references raised. I'll definitely check them out.

    Master Betty, I'm not surprised that it has been talked to death. Not what I was aiming for, but a discussion on your own take on pattern and traditional techniques. I do agree with you on using a more natural stance. The video is pretty good, I'll definitely check out more of his videos. Always good to see another perspective.
     
  7. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    whatever happened to just moving normally and applying the principles of the stance when you need them (lean back, lean forward, put leg like this to do this easier, etc) instead of standing in one all the time?
     
  8. TKDDragon

    TKDDragon Valued Member

    I beleive the best answer for this may come from StuartA the thread below will start you down the path on applications and give you some of the arguements on both sides of the fence. I beleive the AIMAA does older chong hon forms correct?
    http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91412

    The "L stance" if i'm correct based on your description is more of a tourney stance designed for three things 1) improve the speed of front leg side kicks and roundhouses at the expense of power, 2) reduce the access to the body target area (However it exposed more of the back of the head and spine), and 3) improve the speed of turning techniques with the back leg. In tourney's these are viable because of the reduced targets, striking, and no real clinching or grappling/takedowns allowed. In a more open format the weakness far out number the strengths and I would advise against it. Just from a boxing prespective someone seeking an angle on you would only have to circle to your outside a little bit to gain a huge opening as you would only have one arm in position to defend while you would be forced to move more to compensate as your power hand is further from the target. Your only counter would be a turning kick which could be jammed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2011
  9. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Lots of thoughts just from this :)

    Firstly we can dismiss any notion of Korean tradition (beyond the names/meanings given to the patterns) as they are simply Shotokan kata chopped up an re-arranged.

    Secondly I don't think for a minute that Geb Choi had any idea of the applications behind pattern/kata movements. He was not unusual, as neither did most karate instructors of his time.

    As a result I think he viewed patterns as an aesthetic exercise, designed to show movement principles and demonstrate athletic skill.

    Now, that doesn't mean we can't find useful information in them, techniques useful in self defence rather than sparring. But to do so we need to look at them in the way that Stuart Anslow (StuartA here on MAP) do, and also not be afraid to go look at the kata that are often a source too, through the works of people like Iain Abernethy, Chris Wilder etc.

    So, "were they intended for more than a nod...." yes, but only as an aesthetic exercise. "Were they intended for any practical purpose?" No.

    Does this mean we can't explore them to discover the practical purposes behind the movements? Of course not. More than that, we positively should!

    How we train that information in a useful way in class is the next step :)

    Mitch
     
  10. Oldmike

    Oldmike Valued Member

    What is "L stance"?

    Is it shoulder width apart with feet position at 90 degrees ie: front foot pointing forward and rear foot pointing of to the side at a 90 degree angle?
     
  11. Master Betty

    Master Betty Banned Banned

    It's never been that way lol.
     
  12. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    *cries in the corner*
     
  13. Oldmike

    Oldmike Valued Member

    Still asking.
     
  14. Mandras

    Mandras Eats Ninjas For Breakfast

    L-stance, to the best of my befuddled knowledge, is a stance that is one and a half times shoulder width long from the front toe of your leading leg to the back heel of the other leg; with the ball of your front foot in line with the middle of your back foot; both feet angled at 15 degrees; and roughly 70% of your weight on the back leg, so that it is bent much more than the front leg.

    Happy?

    Personally I find that while it does allow you to kick faster with the front leg (as master betty mentioned), I find that too rigid an l-stance slows the speed at which I can move my feet, especially laterally.
     
  15. Taizu

    Taizu Valued Member

    Bingo, both you(Oldmike) and Mandras got it.

    Basically because it isn't efficient. Switching from a natural fighting stance to a fixed stance to use a block or technique takes too long. You'd be half way into the stance and beginning the technique before the attack hits you(which could destroy your stance and guard altogether).

    The tourney stance was the basis of the idea yes. Indeed grappling/takedowns would be one hell of a challenge to overcome, if that was possible. Opening the back of the head and spine isn't something I thought about, and you're right it is a very serious weakness. Again the point you raised on only having one hand to defend isn't something I could find a solution for(TKD's single hand blocks would not suffice in a fight). That's if you don't move, which isn't possible since the stance favours kicks which requires the fighter to move more(distancing, targeting, etc). As for a boxer coming around to the outside, its still possible to use your font hand/arm/shoulder to protect the head. Again you wouldn't be standing there. The major problem with an outside attack is the inability to protect the kidney without over exposing yourself.

    I guess the discussion so far boils down to this; in a TKD competition where speed can be safely prioritised over power, and where the rules protect your spine and kidneys from being hammered, the stance can work. Since the basis for this stance is the possibility to use traditional techniques, if you don't 'believe' in them or they aren't created for such a purpose then the stance is a liability.

    Fair?

    TKDMitch, those are some intriguing points. Do you have any links or references that state this(and can back it up)? If it is a simple thing of me just researching, just say, I don't mind the footwork, but if you have something handy that's cool too. Needless to say I never heard anything on those matters at all in AIMAA.

    (To answer your question TKDDragon on chong hon forms) AIMAA does not go into much detail at all on the school's lineage (be it techniques or otherwise). The information just isn't available, the curriculum handbook gives barely any information apart from rudimentary facts on the association, TKD, Korea, the technique curriculum and the meaning of the patterns. Continuing in this vein, debate on techniques or any aspect of the art doesn't happen, if Grand Master Hee Il Cho wakes up tomorrow and decides that the sky is green and the grass is blue, that's it. We bow and state that we are not worthy of this knowledge and scuttle back to our schools to spread the good news. (I'll stop here before this deviates into a personal rant about AIMAA and the ridiculous adaptations of late, back to your question TKDDragon)

    The curriculum states that the patterns are 'ITF Hyung', presumably due to Grand Master Hee Il Cho originally affiliated with the ITF and left/split from ITF in the 1970s(I think, again no concrete information on that.) I'd presume that they are the older patterns of that organisation.
     
  16. Oldmike

    Oldmike Valued Member

    Oh so happy, thanks.:)

    It's not a stance (assuming I understand your explanation) that I'm familiar with. For sparring we adopt a walking stance for want of a better word, like a boxer would. Our instructor who's in his mid sixties was Song Moo kwan and one of Chik BByung Ro's students so maybe they did things differently.
     
  17. Taizu

    Taizu Valued Member

    That would be our regular fighting stance too. I was just tossing out this idea to see what you guys thought of it. Feel free to pick away at it.
     
  18. TKDDragon

    TKDDragon Valued Member

    Thanks for the clarifications. I have use this stance in the past in tournaments and one thing I've found is that you will need to drill a more natural fighing stance for other applications. Don't fll into the easy trap of using it in class drills or you may find yourself inadvertently using it in a self defense situation. After all we do as we practice :).
    On the Chong Hon forms the reason I asked is that is one of the terms you will see to describe the ITF forms, as is "Blue Cottage". If your looking for applications in the patterns this term will help lead you to the discussions.
    Good Hunting on your Journey
     
  19. Oldmike

    Oldmike Valued Member



    You fight hgow you train.

    When I teach, , except for the white belts, foor kicking drills I've abandomned the old shokan style long stances in favour of the fighting / boxers stance.This allows me to wack them in the face (gently!) If they drop their hands. it also gets them thinking about protecting the face, middle, ribs with elbows etc. Nothing ticks me off more than someone dropping their hands. or perhaps I've just had my ribs broken way to many times :)
     
  20. Taizu

    Taizu Valued Member

    Thanks for the information TKDDragon. I'll be sure to check it out.

    Oldmike, we share a common hate! I learned the value of keeping your hands up after experiencing a back spinning heel kick(reverse turning kick) to the face, and many rounds of sparring with the school heavy weight blackbelt(he's used to teach students to keep their guard up =P ). Although I don't mind too much when sparring, easy to hammer some punches home. :)
     

Share This Page