spinninggumby Posted February 5, 2002 Share Posted February 5, 2002 Yeah Harpoon you have a point . Although I feel that learning those (for lack of better term) standardized blocks is still somewhat important I think b/c they teach you how to, like you said, instinctively keep your hands up and use them to absorb blows with some decent efficiency in case you are not able to move out of the way in time. Often times at my old sparring class, we always focused on interception when the opponent rushes in with either sharp kicks or moving out of the way or around the attacker so that blocking would not even have to be necessary. Indeed, many beginners and even advanced practitioners may find blocking to be a great necessity or security blanket but really if you think about it, if you are faster and smarter than the guy coming at you, you feel no need to block b/c u are already one step ahead of him at his game and you can kick him at the correct range or move to a more advantageous position for countering. Obviously certain situations will dictate that you have no choice but to keep your hands up, but yea, LOL 'Conviction is a luxury for those on the sidelines'William Parcher, 'A BEAUTIFUL MIND' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KickChick Posted February 12, 2002 Share Posted February 12, 2002 I'd like to also point out that although blocking in TKD (which there is ) although primarily used defensively is at times very effective offesively too! My foot is throbbing from an elbow block to the top of my foot while I was executing a front push kick in sparring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakmak52 Posted February 13, 2002 Share Posted February 13, 2002 Hmmmm, I think there's a few blocks, 20 maybe?? http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/TKD.list.htm#Blocks Best regards,Jack Makinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Reynolds Posted February 15, 2002 Share Posted February 15, 2002 On 2002-02-12 09:45, KickChick wrote: I'd like to also point out that although blocking in TKD (which there is ) although primarily used defensively is at times very effective offesively too! block=strike, strike=block, hehe. Wise man once said "he who has big mouth has much room for foot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertae Posted February 16, 2002 Author Share Posted February 16, 2002 technically the katas were not "stolen" in tkd there are pictures of them doing similar forms before japanese rule and ancient documents show that koreans had taught japanese diplomats martial arts at one time...to say some thing was stolen is incorrect now some of the forms were lost so they incorporated some japanese forms into it...but it is now know that the black belt forms were indeed not from any japanese martial art...like all martial arts it begins to change so nothing is really traditional...its like a computer...if you dont up date it it becomes old Is it not easier to strike a mountain than it is to strike a fly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Reynolds Posted February 17, 2002 Share Posted February 17, 2002 On 2002-02-16 12:20, mastertae wrote: technically the katas were not "stolen" in tkd there are pictures of them doing similar forms before japanese rule and ancient documents show that koreans had taught japanese diplomats martial arts at one time...to say some thing was stolen is incorrect now some of the forms were lost so they incorporated some japanese forms into it...but it is now know that the black belt forms were indeed not from any japanese martial art. I practice Chung Do Kwan Tae Kwon Do, which was the first kwan in Korea and was opened in Soeul in 1944. At that time, TKD was primarially Okinawan/Japanese Karate with small contributions from Chinese Chun Fa. As more and more kwans were started, TKD was still called "Korean Karate" until possibly as early as 1955 the name "Tae Kwon Do" may have been first suggested during a first effort to bring the kwan's togeather. With the creation of the ITF and later the WTF, all ancient kata was replaced with first the Chang Hon poomse developed by General Choi, and then the Palgwe and Taeguek series. When the new organizations and forms were created, some practicioners fled Korea to escape the governments pressure to change, so that they could preserve the traditional ways that they had been taught. From what I can see, the TKD forms created in the 60's are origional as far as their order and combination are concerned. But the older Chung Do Kwan TKD forms have been mostly preserved by some schools and are clearly Karate and Chuan fa in origin, including the black belt forms. This is just my own opinion based upon what I've studdied and learned about the history of TKD. So far I've never found any evidence that the Koreans had ever taught Japanese diplomats martial arts, or that any such teaching had any effect on Japanese Karate. I'd be very interested in finding out where I can learn about such information. Wise man once said "he who has big mouth has much room for foot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertae Posted February 18, 2002 Author Share Posted February 18, 2002 i got the info from an ancient tex in a book written by a japanese archeologist...for the most part tkd is neither ancient or new...if i find the book i'll be glad to give you the title...they were from ancient text written during i believe the silla dynasty...it incororates some of the ancient tkd styles with some of the japanese styles...which are believed to have originated in korea...its kinda complicated to explain but i'll look for the book... Is it not easier to strike a mountain than it is to strike a fly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Reynolds Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 I'd be super interested in this book. I'll try searching wherever I can look also. Thanks a lot for the info and the help. Wise man once said "he who has big mouth has much room for foot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertae Posted February 20, 2002 Author Share Posted February 20, 2002 no prob....in my own theory i belive that neither part ar correct nor wrong...i belive that some of it is probably really old but not all of it... Is it not easier to strike a mountain than it is to strike a fly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts