OneKickWonder

I've experienced the opposite problem. I have my main style, but I also like to go and get a different perspective or some different skills entirely from elsewhere from time to time. I always tell any new instructor of my main experience, right from the outset, just purely in the interest of openness and honesty, and I also tell them I'm a complete beginner in their style. Yet time and time again, I hear things like 'but you'll know this already', 'I don't need to explain this to you' etc. Which I find frustrating, because if I did already know this, or I didn't need it explaining, then I wouldn't be there.

The rabbit that knows one way to escape the fox, escaped. The rabbit that knew a hundred ways to escape the fox got eaten while deciding which method to use.

Yep, still can't see it.OneKickWonder, what you are describing sounds like the he is shooting the same arm as the kicking leg forward, like a hammer fist strike. That is kind of the TKD way of doing it. When I was in the ATA, we did it without that. Now, the style I'm in encourages sending the arm forward with the kick. Just a different way. I get that there are subtle differences between styles. Incidentally in tang soo do in forms, side kick is often accompanied by a hammer fist as you describe. But it's what the other arm is doing that would concern me more.

There is indeed a lot of dubious stuff in his books. But the three kingdoms stuff is probably relevant, in that he's trying to explain that Korea has a long history of martial arts, as it had to because of feuding. I think the point of it is that, given the recent politics, Korea was seen as insignificant by many in martial arts. There is a widespread notion that if it's not Chinese or Japanese, it's not traditional martial arts. But the point so often missed is that Korea has a long history of internal conflict, and more recent history of Japan trying and almost succeeding in eradicating all traces of Korean heritage during the occupation. Given Korea's history, and it's proximity to China and Japan, I think it's inconceivable that the Koreans didn't develop a good set of fighting skills. I think this may be Shin's motive in bigging up the Korean stuff, and who can blame him? Besides all that, the man was a martial artist, not really so much a writer or historian.

The old 2000 year old line is often misquoted or misunderstood I think. The manual says that martial arts evolved in every part of the world, and that tang soo do is the culmination of 2000 years of tradition. But I've never read a claim that 'tang soo do' is any older than 1950ish. In fact, GM Shin didn't even call his style tang soo do initially. He called his school 'Shin Karate'. Hwang Kee, one of Shin's instructors, and apparent founder of tang soo do as we know it today, has a questionable record. It looks like he had only 3 years tuition in kung fu, and learned the rest from books. Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows for sure. But things have moved on. Tang soo do now is a credible style. Somewhere along the line, someone seemed to have got something right.

That's very different to mawashi geri I learned at wado, and is also very different to tollyo chaki from TSD. The mawashi geri I learned at wado is almost exactly the same as instep version of tollyo chaki. What we see in the clip posted looks very like a drill we have at TSD, which is absolutely not the kick. The long stances, the straight arms, looks like an drill we have to train balance. It's a perfectly good drill, as long as folks recognise the difference between an exercise and a combat move.

In my town, you have a choice of tang soo do, 2 different taekwondo clubs, judo, aikido and karate that I know of. Oh and tai chi but I'm not sure about counting it because it's not the martial aspect, just the health one. We also have boxing, and a club that does BBJ and a bit of MMA. The traditional clubs are always busy. They barely do any marketing at all because they really don't need to. People actively seek them out. I know this even though I've only trained at a few of them because I've visited some, and have friends at others. The boxing club, to my knowledge, doesn't really advertise. No need. They're right in the centre of town and have always been there. The BJJ / MMA club looks like it has maybe a dozen students. They are also the most active in terms of marketing effort. Are we seeing a shift in trends? I don't know. I see great value in MMA and BJJ. I have friends that are involved with them. I don't see any significant levels of disrespect for other styles or their practitioners. But I do see a recurring pattern of misunderstanding. Most notably, that martial arts is about fighting another person now. Traditionalists often recognise that it's about developing a level of fitness and ability that will last into old age, and for many, it's not even about the anticipation of a fight, but just the pure passion for learning what the human body can do with regular training. The modernists on the other hand seem far more obsessed with seeing who can fight right now, without any thoughts about still being fit enough lead a good life at 80 or beyond. One thing I do like about the MMA guys though, and this is nothing to do with combat, is the importance of strength training. Like many traditionalists, for too long I believed that basic training would give me all the muscle in needed. It's only after learning more about injury rehabilitation that I realise that resistance training is absolutely core to injury rehab, flexibility training, even cardio and stamina.

I studied wado (karate) and separately tai chi in its combat version more or less concurrently years ago. More recently my chosen style is tang soo do. Here's my observations. At first, like at beginner level, TSD and wado look almost identical. The only major difference in found when I started TSD was that the fighting stance is much more like cat stance as found in kung fu, whereas wado's fighting stance was closer to a front stance, pretty much identical to 'snake' stance from tai chi. Other than that, TSD starts out looking very much like how wado looks at the beginner level. At the beginner level, tai chi and wado seem quite different. Tai chi is more circular, as more open hand techniques, and the punches are a bit more like jabs than 'thrusts' of karate. That's beginner level sort of done. As you advance, you start seeing more open handed stuff in TSD whereas wado is pretty much about fists, but then you see something from wado that is core to its power sneaking into TSD, most notably, what the Japanese call tai sabaki. We make better use of redirection and angles as we move up through the grades. Similarly, in wado, the slow but powerful linear 'thrusts' that differentiate it from tai chi start to give way to jabs and that most awesome of techniques, uraken or back fist. It starts to look more like tai chi. Tai chi, when practiced as a martial art, places a lot of emphasis on physical conditioning tight from the start. It was certainly the toughest training I ever did. Far tougher physically than either wado or TSD. But as you progress, it becomes obvious that this is to prepare you for the more linear and powerful moves found in styles like karate. So what conclusion can we draw? That's upto the individual. But one of my conclusions is that they're all pretty much the same thing, just taught in different ways. The tai chi kung fu folks seem to focus on mind and body first, so that you are well equipped to learn the powerful combat moves. The karate and TSD folks train technique first and assume mind and body will be refined through repetition of technique. In essence, I think all styles cover largely the same things, but not necessarily in the same order. Just on the point that kata are often criticised as not flowing or not being relevant. That depends on two things in my opinion. How they are taught, and how they are practised. It's that simple. Some people seem to want to try to replicate a series of stoll photos or sketches. Some people want to use them as moving meditation. Some look for the flow and try to visualise the fight. Maybe some people want to learn to dance I don't know. But kata/hyung/forms all have the flow. The all teach the principles of combat. Not competition fighting but staying alive at any cost kind of fighting. It's anything but just punches and kicks. There's neck cranks in them, throws, arm locks and breaks, chokes, take downs, escapes, and of course an unhealthy dose of gonad ripping. In schools that teach the flow these things present themselves quite freely. In schools that teach the series of stills, perhaps it is harder to see. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's one of the reasons the tai chi folks start hyung slowly, so you have time to spot things. But the very same flow, when taught properly.

Have you tried it against a heavy bag or kick shield? I mean no disrespect, but I think you'd just bounce off. It looks like you're leaning back too much, but it's difficult to tell for sure as the video cuts off before the kick finishes. Ie we dint see how your weight shifts as you bring your kicking foot back down. This might be different in taekwondo. But I'd suggest keeping your arms in. It looks like you are throwing them out to counter balance. If that's the case then it means your core is not doing its job right. Try kicking with your arms kept in guard position. You'll find your core muscles have to work harder to maintain your balance, but it means you can focus more force into the kick while at the same time meaning your opponent will hind it a bit harder to simply step in diagonally and land 3 solid strikes to your unguarded head and body before you even bring you kicking foot back into play.

It sounds like you and I are at a similar point in our respective journeys. So I'll share some of my own musings, to see if you can relate. Very often, rather than being a super tough martial artist, I actually feel like an aching old man that's always working around some niggling minor injury or other. In training, because it is hour upon hour, month after month of same training, you don't always notice the gradual improvement. Exactly like you don't always notice you're getting older until one day you realise your hair has stopped growing When I first went back to training (consider it starting again as it had been years since I'd last trained), the student that had to take time out due to exhaustion or faintness or a sprain was usually me. In fact it was pretty much always me. Then one, out of respect for the feelings of others, I kept eyes forward as someone else wobbled out of the hall with assistance to be cooled down and checked over by the first aiders. Then it happened other times. Then one day I realised the student that bails out first is no longer usually me. The training hadn't become particularly more intense. The students hadn't become less fit. The only remaining explanation is that I'd become more fit. By the same token, I suddenly realised that I don't seem to always have a pulled muscle somewhere, and I hardly ever fall over these days in kick drill. If I take a decent knock, I don't seem to hurt as much as I used to after just a light knock. In sparring, I used to burn out because of firing off a rapid volley of kicks and punches way before I was even in range. Now I find myself completely at ease and conserving my energy and applying just the right techniques at the right moment. Sure I still get walloped, but I suddenly fund that between fluid movement and increased resilience I can very often just absorb it without panicking (disclaimer, we only use light contact, about 50% force max). But then I see footage of real thugs fighting. Sometimes I see it for real. Less so now I'm getting older and don't go out to nightclubs anymore but still I see it occasionally. Look up footage of an untrained thug fighting. If ever you need reminding that people are just bald monkeys that have evolved into weaklings, just watch the average drunkard fight. Sure it's still dangerous and scary. But think about the speed and power and accuracy of your moves compared to the untrained thug. I still don't feel like a hard case. But if martial arts teaches us anything, surely it teaches us to see the truth. Mostly about ourselves. That truth is usually I guess that we're not some legendary warrior. The truth is we are just people. But the truth is also that we train a lot harder than many, and we endure a lot more. And we are everything we used to be, but with more added on. If we have to fight a drunken thug, there no guarantee we'd come off best. That's true whether you've got at least a year til black belt, or if you're 10th Dan in everything. But you know more about yourself and your own abilities than before. You know exactly how fast you can move, how much you can take, how well you move etc. Oh and if you're anything like me, then despite your best efforts, you may be still compare yourself against your peers. Except nowadays your peers are all martial artists. You're not comparing yourself to the untrained drunken idiot that wants to start a fight for no good reason. You're comparing yourself against people who have trained and fought with a clear mind and stone cold logic for years.

I prefer the more accurate but less inspiring versions of the old says. No pain no gain - no pain, reduced likelihood of chronic injury. Pain is weakness leaving the body - pain is a survival mechanism that teaches us to avoid injury. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger - what doesn't kill us might leave us with permanent debilitating injury, or might not, but is unlikely to make us stronger any more than good diet and safe training.

I see. I've never been an exclusively high kicker so I've never experienced that myself but if you've ever seen videos of Chloe Bruce, I would say over 99% of her kicks are high kicks where they're at head level or higher. Very rarely have I ever seen her throw even a mid level kick. I wonder how she would be at low kicks, if she's just too used to kicking high to be good at low kicks. Chloe and her little sister Grace are excellent performing artists. I believe both have had roles as stunt doubles in martial arts movies. I'm not sure how effective they'd be in a real situation though. I've only ever seen them demonstrating choreographed displays. That's not in any way to put them down. Both are vastly more skilled than I am.

Probably. You might get some 'feedback' about it afterwards but I'd say most would let that through. Looks like you've gone for the more traditional ball of the foot version rather than the faster instep version. Was that your intention? That's the version we use in TSD wherever it appears in forms and also for breaking. Just make sure you get your toes back properly.

Excellent post. Lucky for me I've realised this now in my early 40s. I've sustained as few long term injuries, at least one of which is permanent, before realising it, but thankfully I'm not too broken. I have friends who are less fortunate. Good friends that have life changing permanent injury as a direct result of training hard for too long and without enough recovery time. Thing is, for those of us in our 40s or older, it is really the luck of the draw. We grew up in an era of stupid sayings like 'no pain no gain' or 'pain is weakness leaving the body' or 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'. Sayings that nowadays are widely recognised as utterly ridiculous. Those that got away with it and realised in time are just lucky. The younger generations have no such excuse. Sports science has become a real thing and basic understanding of how cartilage works, tendinitis vs tendinosis etc, nutrition, recovery cycles etc are all fairly common knowledge nowadays. Yet you still see daft young fools over training for short term gains. It's a tricky one because of course you still have to push the boundaries in order to progress. But you have to balance that with the long term. I think this is one if the reasons why I prefer traditional martial arts to competition oriented styles. In the case of the former, typically consideration for old age is built in, whereas in the latter it's all about being the best you can be right now, with no regard for the long haul. That's not a criticism. Living for the now is a good thing. But if you want to also live for the future then you have to look after yourself.

I think I'm going to give it a go. Perhaps not yet. My learning curve is already steep enough for now with tang soo do and tai chi. I'm still new to tai chi. Once I reach a point where I can do their short form (about 60 moves) fluently, then I think I'll start to have a bit of spare learning capacity again. Probably towards the end of this year. Then I'll do a bit of juggling of my training plan and somehow fit in judo for a while. I don't really plan to go far in judo. I really just want to pinch some if their principles to incorporate into my training.

I wonder about this sometimes. Let me throw in a scenario. In our style, we have several arm lock techniques. They can very broadly be divided into two categories. One involves hype extending the opponents elbow, forcing their arm straight. The other doesn't depend on their arm being straight, but instead takes advantage of their bent elbow as leverage to put torsion on their shoulder. I prefer the latter. I personally find it much easier to apply and sustain. But our club teaches both. So even though I don't like the straight arm version, I'll still teach it to newbies. Simply, because I don't think I could really adopt the technique doesn't mean someone else can't. I also don't like some of the more acrobatic kicks, but I'd still help teach them, because our younger, thinner, lighter students have no bodyweight to rely on, so for them the fast longer range stuff is their advantage. So I sometimes wonder, if a teacher doesn't like a technique, yet sings it's praises, is he really a hypocrite, or is he acknowledging that everybody is different, with their own strengths and weaknesses, and what is really a bad technique for one might be very well suited to another?

I use books to try to understand the background and philosophy of a style. Sadly I've found that many are, how shall we say, of dubious accuracy. So I don't bother any more.

I did aikido for a while and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I found that it wasn't really giving me much that I wasn't already getting from tang soo do. TSD has joint locks and take downs and such already. And like TSD, I found that aikido didn't really cover ground based fighting very much. Sure, in aikido you spend quite a bit of time down, but only doing falls and rolls mostly. What I really want to cover is the worst case scenario. That you are on the floor with somebody pinning you down smashing your face in. In TSD were taught to get back up ASAP and try to keep it a stand up fight until you can escape. Fair enough. I'm happy with that. But what I'm after is the practice of getting back up when someone is physically trying to prevent you doing so.

Hi all. I know that there's a gaping hole in my martial arts coverage. If I were in a fight, and it went to the ground and for whatever reason I couldn't bounce back up immediately, then my martial arts would Cound for very little. Sure we have some grappling but it's very limited, and mostly geared towards throwing people down rather than being the throwee. So I want to add in some ground based stuff. In my town, for grappling and ground stuff, there's BJJ or Judo. Sadly the stuff I hear from the BJJ folks is pure attitude. It's all about inflicting pain for sport and trophies from what I gather (not BJJ in general, just what I hear from people I know in this one club). So that leaves Judo. Do we think an older guy can do Judo without getting smashed into little pieces?

To be fair, there is a teaching method for the side kick that produces a slightly different kick to the actual real one. The teaching tool version is broken down into upto 5 separate distinct moves. They are bring the knee up and forward, half pivot and chamber, extend and pivot, retract, return. To do all that as distinct moves in under 1 second would be impressive, and probably very harsh on the joints. This teaching tool is to drum in the notion of chamber and pivot, so that there is nothing for your opponent to get hold of until the very rapid kick comes, then get it straight back, thus minimising the length of time your leg is offered to your opponent. It also trains the difference between side kick and roundhouse, in that a side kick pushes straight out, straight through the target, as opposed to coming round the guard. Once students find the teaching method natural, they can speed it up. You still keep all the ingredients, but instead of them being distinct components almost done separately in sequence, they become one flowing move with arcs rather than sharp angles. The pivot, chamber, extension and return are all still there, but they flow as one movement rather than several. This can be done right in under a second by most students after a fairly short amount of time, if they practice often enough, and listen to their instructor.

So forms are practical then. You have found a good practical use for them. Here's a thing about martial arts and their practicality. Very often, some folks have an extremely narrow criteria for deciding if something is practical. Often it is as specific as, has it been proven to work in the ring with whatever competition rules apply. But 'practical' extends far beyond that. Is it practical against multiple drunken idiots that can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but are aggressive enough and number enough to pose a threat. Or is it practical against someone that doesn't really want a fight and doesn't deserve to get hurt, but has 'flipped out' and just needs to be safely restrained until they calm down. Or outside of fighting altogether, is it practical for keeping you fit and supple and mentally focused. There are many different definitions of 'practical'. First to the bold - Forms, Kata, Hsing, etc. are practical in the sense that the postures that make up the Kata are a representation of the applications. These applications were created through lessons learned in actual combat/battle. The applications are practical in terms of actual self defence and thus the Kata (forms) are practical if taught with the applications as the intended focus. Personally I agree. But I've seen that debated many many times

So forms are practical then. You have found a good practical use for them. Here's a thing about martial arts and their practicality. Very often, some folks have an extremely narrow criteria for deciding if something is practical. Often it is as specific as, has it been proven to work in the ring with whatever competition rules apply. But 'practical' extends far beyond that. Is it practical against multiple drunken idiots that can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but are aggressive enough and number enough to pose a threat. Or is it practical against someone that doesn't really want a fight and doesn't deserve to get hurt, but has 'flipped out' and just needs to be safely restrained until they calm down. Or outside of fighting altogether, is it practical for keeping you fit and supple and mentally focused. There are many different definitions of 'practical'.

Thanks for the insightful responses. But I was thinking more literally. In the example I gave where I find walking up a flight of stairs to be an effort, but can train at high intensity for hours, going up the stairs is boring. It's never going to give me an endorphin rush or anything. And I wonder if it is therefore psychological that it's an effort. Whereas I can carry my kids up the same flight of stairs effortlessly. To be honest I find the same at training. Most of the time I thoroughly enjoy it, but I think we all have days when we're not in the zone, then it suddenly feels like work. So now I'm thinking, if a big chunk of fitness is in the mind, then perhaps we can condition the mind to squeeze more out of the body, not in 6 months or a year, but right now.

If it took any longer, it would be useless. 1 second is a long time in combat.

I used to be skeptical of spinning kicks. I still am skeptical of the more showey and complicated ones. But spinning kicks do have their uses. Perhaps more in free sparring than point sparring though. Here's one of my favourite tricks. I come in with a front kick. Nothing fancy. As basic as it gets. Or a roundhouse will do. Again the simplest kind. If my opponent manages to block it, chances are they will try to knock me by my kicking leg into a spin so that they can get to my side to counter. I take advantage of any spin they put on me and just do a spinning kick with the other leg. Usually high, on the basis that as they've literally only just blocked my low kick, chances are their guard is still fairly low by the time my other foot comes round high. I liken this principle to a wonky floor board. You push one end down and the other end pops up, so you move to push that end down and the first end pops back up. However, did, at anytime, one see someone teaching a spinning kick on the floor, then see that very same person speak negatively about spinning kicks once that person was off the floor, and away from the dojo?? That's what I'm trying to say, and I've witnessed this many times during my MA career; it disgusts me to no end. Ah, I see what you mean. No would be the answer to that specific question. But I have heard our chief instructor criticise some techniques that are in our syllabus. We're part of a wider organisation that sets our grading criteria. That includes the details of our techniques at a basic level (it's up to senior instructors to add their own experience to it). A very few times, I've heard our instructor say things like 'the book says this but nobody is going to look at you negatively if you do it like this instead'. Basically a polite way of criticising what 'the book' says.