bushido_man96

Being OK based, Bob, you might have some luck in finding some ARMA study groups near you. I'd do a search and look around; universities tend to be a place to check, but there are others, as well. Right. They were both well trained in great combative systems, and both types of weapons were well made. The two were more equal than most people realize.

Thanks for the thoughts, Bob.

Congrats, and well deserved!

Sounds like you did well, and its great that you come out of testing with a new rank, as well as ideas of what you want to improve on, and how to do so. Very nice job, and congrats! Thanks for sharing this experience with us.

I had never heard of Saju Jirugi, Saju Makgi or Saju Tulgi until I got the TKD Encyclopedia set by Gen. Choi. Does you school use them for teaching white belts? Do you find any advantages over using just Chon Ji for teaching the basics and turning?

That's cool to hear. I'm glad it was a good, positive experience for you. I believe the WTA is the World Taekwondo Association, and I think it may be an off-shoot of WTF stuff, but not for sure. An internet search didn't reveal much. Good luck with it and keep us posted!

Yep, good and bad. I can't believe you got actually "tossed out" like that! Nuts! I'm glad you got a good experience to balance it out. I'm the kind of guy that if I heard you did a different style, I'd be like, "cool, so we do this, how do you do it?" And just start learning....

Thanks, guys. Watching practice at times frustrates me, though. He stands up straight waaaaay too much, and at times just dances around instead of shooting a take down. But, I keep working with him. Too much instructor in me, I guess.

All good points. So, what I think we have here, as opposed to an efficiency vs effectiveness argument, is instead a rating scale of techniques in general, based on their efficiency and effectiveness.A jab is efficient, for sure; fast, straight line, recover quick for defense. But as far as effectiveness, its damage capability isn't as high as that of a hook punch, usually. So, we have a scale to put the techniques on, and we see which way the scale leans more, I guess.

The way I see it, as much as any one of us try to imitate what an instructor teaches us for years and years, we can only become so much like that person, as we cannot become that person entirely. We're all a bit different, and so our experiences are a bit different than those we learn from. We all end up spicing the MAs in our own way.

I think this would be tough, without sacrificing power in the technique. Instead, I think making that hand work into a trap or as a feint for the next hand would be better.

Boy, I can try! Its been a while since I've done some reading, although I have some books I need to get through, for sure! Aside from what I can offer, the user called Zoodles who was here a while back could probably offer lots of good stuff, as he actually gets to practice it. One of the major things I've seen with Medieval Combat, are the misconceptions people have, compared to like, the Samurai of Japan. There are those who would be inclined to believe that the Japanese Samurai were such superior warriors that they would have been able to easily conquer Medieval Europe's fighting knights, but that's just not the case. The standard Medieval longsword was fairly light, not likely more than 4 lbs. The blades were well balanced and were sharp. Medieval Combat was made up of very concise systems, with renowned masters of the time doing the teaching and drilling. Empty hand tactics were a part of it, as well. Another thing not readily known by those who don't practice it or research it is that the systems usually transitioned very well across to other weapons. Quarterstaff work transitioned very well into sword work, as well as pole arm tactics. Grappling was always a popular system for hand-to-hand, and many techniques not unlike those found in Aiki-jujutsu can be found in Medieval manuals. There was a big thread that floated around a long time ago about Medieval Knights vs Japanese Samurai, and reading through it you can see how the romanticization of both the Samurai (which got the better) and the Knight (which got the worse, in my opinion) affect the answer people would give, based on story books and movies and not actual research and application. I'll try to find it and post the link here. I hope that helps sate your thirst for now. I would always recommend checking out https://www.thearma.org for any other questions. That site is a treasure trove. I look forward to the input of others! Thanks for asking, Bob!

I'm reading The Encyclopedia of Taekwon-do Patterns, vol 1, by Stuart Anslow, and before getting into the patterns themselves, he has a page where he lists the above mentioned "Standards." Some I agree with, and some I don't, but I think they all warrant some discussion, and I don't feel they are exclusive to TKD patterns, as many other styles likely feel the same way on some or all. Here they are: 1. All patterns start and finish on the same spot. I don't really agree with this one so much. When I was in the ATA, the patterns were designed to do that, and I usually got close, but never usually dead on. In the TTA now, with some of the modifications made in techniques and stepping in regards to the ITF forms we do, some of the forms just don't end in the same place they started. Won Hyo, for instance, in our org, ends up about a sitting stance length to the right of where we start. Although I think starting and ending on the same spot can be beneficial, I think the techniques are the most important aspect, and look to get the techniques down, along with the stances, with power and speed. Just my thought. 2. Each pattern should be performed in a rhythmic motion without stiffness. I pretty well agree with this. One should look comfortable when doing a form. Power should flow smoothly through speed and technique. Breathing should be a factor in this, as well. I also think its important to get the right combinations in the form together in the proper rhythm. 3. Each technique should be fully formed before moving onto the next. Again, agreed. Incomplete techniques running together is just sloppy. 4. Techniques should be performed with realism. Agreed. If you throw a punch, throw it like you would punch someone trying to hurt you. If its a block, block as if your life depends on it. If you have bunkai and know it, visualize the bunkai working as you perform the technique. 5. Correct breathing should be performed throughout each pattern. Agreed. Some people breath in on each chamber, and out on the execution of each technique. Some will work it between certain techniques. However its done, being consistent and rhythmic will keep the form rhythmic. 6. Correct posture and muscle tension should be utilized in all techniques. Agreed. We have a fellow in our school testing for 1st dan soon, and he had good power, but tends to keep everything to tensed up, and is holding his own performance back. Relaxed tension at the beginning, with good kime at the completion of the techniques. Correct posture lends to good balance, and better technical performance. 7. Each pattern should be perfected before moving onto the next. This one, I don't agree with as much. White belts aren't going to be perfect at their testing. They're white belts. I think there are good intentions in this standard by Mr. Anslow, and perhaps I am reading too much into it, and taking it too literally. I know no one can be perfect, so I won't get into that whole mess. But, I think that the early stages are going to be far from perfect, but improvements will be seen, and its up to the instructor to figure out what is acceptable and what is not for white belts, orange belts, and other beginner grades. So overall, I don't disagree much, and where I do disagree is probably more of a semantics issue than anything else. I do think these are good standards to live by for forms practice, though. I'd like to hear the thoughts of everyone else, and if there are standards you would add, let's hear them!

Thanks Brian You are welcome!

Yes, they are. It's all about location, facilities, and affiliation. I'm sure training at Extreme Couture in Las Vegas is much more expensive than training at the average, local MMA gym. I mean, really...look at his floor plan http://www.xtremecouturemma.com/GymTour.asp I'm willing to bet those are larger and better kept facilities than 90% of the gyms around the world. I agree with you. That place is like an MA mansion! There is some truth to the adage of "you get what you pay for." Not always, but at times.

I'd guess, and its just a guess, is an addition to "Hapkido" because its another offshoot of Hapkido. This happens alot when people branch off from their former school and take their own, slightly divergent path in the same art.

I actually agree with this perspective. My problem is when a school claims a system that it clearly does not teach (there are only a handful of certified ninjitsu experts in the U.S.) or when they make outlandish claims such as teaching "an elite tactical system" but won't disclose the system name. My biggest problem with this is that they are lies. To begin a relationship based on a lie is never a smart idea. Good points made here. It could be he's using these names to try to sensationalize what he is doing a bit, and it could be for the advertising of it. Like he tries to put out an air of mysteriousness in what he has to teach. Or, it could be the opposite, which is no good, either.I've never heard of the bus pickup. I'd be a bit leery of my kids getting on a bus like that.

I can't disagree there. If you see a straight line coming at you, a slight movement off line takes care of it. Speed, timing, and combinations like straightblast and tallgeese mentioned come into play.

Thank you both for the suggestions! I enjoy the history related topics myself.

Ch'ang Hon Taekwon-do Hae Sul, Real Applications to the ITF Patterns, vol 2, by Stuart Paul Anslow. I read the first volume, and really liked it, and volume 2 picks up with black belt patterns, going from Hwa-Rang to Juche. Although I don't practice all the patterns listed in this book, I still found the technique walk-throughs interesting, and I do like the most of them. Also of worth are the intro sections on the names of the forms; if Anslow could do expanded works on just the history of the forms themselves, I'd buy that, too! I realize there are TKD practitioners out there that probably don't agree with the route Anslow has taken on interpreting the ITF forms, and he has explained how he has extrapolated the interpretations he has made. Whether you like them or not, they do make you think, which is good for anyone. And even though my organization has variations on some of the techniques in these forms, I still find the applications useful, even when it comes to modifications for the way we do things. I impatiently await volume 3!

Spot on for the predictions, Bob! As for the commercials, they were ok. I really liked the Paul Harvey/Ram commercial. Other than that, I wasn't overly impressed, either. My kids were watching when the Go-Daddy commercial came on. That was a bit much, I thought.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Forums!

I can see both points of view from ps1 and tallgeese. The main thing for me is that the person being taught has to want to change. If they don't, then no amount of self-discipline and respect that you try to teach them is going to amount to a hill of beans to them. They have to really be feeling a connection to the style you teach them, and that connection has to be so strong to them and create such a desire that they are willing to give up what they were doing in order to replace it with what you are willing to teach them. Many times, that replacement value isn't high to kids like this; especially repeat offenders. I think it can be a noble attempt to do what is right. Could it work? Sure. I just don't think the success rate would be that high.

I think its the melting pot, really. You just get such a cross-section of differences.