Hardcore Taekwondo

[Blue_Knight]

See, you get it but, you warped the analogy.

I get it because I have been studying it for more than 44 years, not because someone just explained it to me. We all use different terminology and jargon, and I have different ways of phrasing it. I have been teaching it for more than 33 years, and through that time I have used it in real life on many occasions. The way I train and teach works for me, and my students very well.

All your scenarios use a gun, a bullet, and targets. You know it is called "Live Fire" training. Then the degree of difficulty is moved up to progressively.

My analogy was not about "Live Fire" shooting, although your point is well taken. I used it to show that real combat has resisting opponents, people who move about in any direction, and sometimes shoot back. Many people argue that standing still, shooting at a stationary target, with no one shooting at you is nothing like real life combat (police or military), and they are right. However, I still contend that a set amount of training on the basics of how to draw a weapon, load, reload, clear jams, and aim accurately at a stationary target is valuable training. Likewise, the rudimentary practice of forms, and one-step sparring hones skills that enhance actual combat when combined with a balance of "alive training" with a resisting opponent.

Forms do not do that at all. Forms are like a gun with blanks. You may aim at the target, but you'll never know if you have any accuracy.

You see, to me, this type of statement is clearly about opinion. I have been doing this long enough to know that accuracy can be attained, and honed just by punching and kicking in the air. I can visualize a spot in space, and know if I hit it or not. I can watch students do their forms, and tell if they hit the accurate target as to where an opponent's vital point would be - so yes, you can know if you have accuracy in forms (it is one of the criteria listed in WTF rules for Olympic Poomsae competition).

They have flash and make noise but, are no threat. They aren't done under pressure,

You are absolutely correct. Firing blanks in a gun are no major threat, and are not done under pressure. Techniques thrown in the air pose no immediate threat and are not under pressure. However, I can do a technique in the air with full power, and then repeat the exact same movement with 3 or 4 boards placed between point A and B of the start and finish, and the boards will be demolished. If a person moves into the same range as the boards, they will be injured. The only issue is being able to execute the same technique with the same power and accuracy under the variable conditions of a resisting fight, with movement, and while under pressure. Absolutely, you must specifically train (alive training) to do that, but I contend that the rudimentary stage is just as valuable to the complete process.

Also, please don't say "imaginary target. Yes, shooting a gun at a target paper is still a target, that is visible, which you can use to target.

You might object to saying "imaginary target" if you wish, but it is a valid application. The only reason paper targets (or other objects) are necessary in gun targeting is because the bullet travels too fast, and you can not be sure of where it hit, or how accurate your shot was unless you see the hole in the target. With kicks and punches, I can visualize for myself, or for a student, where an imaginary opponent's vital targets would be if someone were standing in front of them. I can see if the kick or punch is 'on target' or not.

Matt Thorton is using an old concept don't disregard because you "heard it before." Yes, many people said it but more forgot what it means.

Perhaps you misunderstood me, but I am not disregarding "alive training" at all. In fact, I am a huge proponent of it (I usually refer to it as "reality training"). My argument has simply been against the opinion that forms or one-steps have 'no value' and should be done away with. I believe that "alive training" will get you good at real fights, and forms or one-steps ALONE will not, but combine the two, and I believe a student will reach higher levels of proficiency - - at least, that has been my experience.

Thanks for your input
Blue Knight

[Blue_Knight]

1. I try to stay away from analogies (like guns) since they muddle the discussion.

If you don't care for analogies, that is your choice. Many people come to understand a point better because they were given an analogy to see things from a different point of view. As in this case, it can also be used to show that the same principles are applied to other skill sets.

For example (more analogies), a golfer swings the club to hit a ball toward a hole. One might think that the best way to get better at that is to ONLY hit a ball, and not swing at air. Yet, any golfer who is good will swing multiple times at the air, or the tips of the blades of grass where the ball is not - then move into position to strike the ball. Baseball players do the same thing with a bat. There is valuable information that is learned, and practiced by the brain when completing the same motion without the distraction of 'trying' to hit something. If it were not a valuable practice, these athletes would not do it - - or someone would come along who NEVER swings a club or bat unless they are hitting a ball, and be better than the rest.

Can you be the best if swinging at the air is ALL you do? NO. Should it be the majority of your time? Probably not. Should you abandon it all together - - I think I've proven my point with these analogies. Unless this confuses you further, or you simply disagree with the validity of the comparison. That would be your opinion.

Your argument about one-steps being a great way to "put information into the brain and sharpen skills" doesn't hold water.

That would be 'your opinion' but carries no weight without evidence to back up the claim that it does not hold water. Any movement of the body puts information into the brain. That information becomes valuable and useful when reflexes become instant responses in real life self defense and works. Repetition of that movement is essential to sharpening skills and creating reflexes and muscle memory. These are facts that are only disputed by those who value the resisting scenarios more.

I value those as well, but that does not take away from the fact that solo practice, forms and one-step sparring ALSO increase abilities and skills that the brain ultimately uses in self defense. One does not cancel out the other or make it obsolete, in my opinion, and since most students spend more time alone than with a partner, they would be missing out on valuable hours of training if they ONLY did alive training.

What skills are they using? Repeating the process of defending a predetermined, known attack without footwork, timing or resistance doesn't impart any useful skills.

Again, that is a statement of opinion, and not backed by indisputable facts. What skills are they using in one-steps? There are lessons in distancing, range, timing of defense and counter to the 'predetermined' attack. There is footwork, and positioning of the body. Accuracy of blocking, the skill of evading followed by pinpoint targets on a real human body (enormous step in teaching someone to fight another person). Is it the final goal? No, but continued practice hones skills that are used in alive training - so put the two together and you benefit more, IMO.

Even if it did, it would be improved by adding those elements, wouldn't it?

Yes! That is why I agree that "alive training" is an important, advanced stage to move into, and shift the balance, but not to ignore the value of practicing the basic elements in forms and one-steps either.

Secondly, having "a real live human being to target" is shifting the terminology. Yes they're alive, but that doesn't make one-steps alive or useful.

I think you misunderstood my intention by calling a one-step partner a real live person. I was not attempting to shift that term to be like "alive training" The term "real live" is important to the mental factor of throwing full power, controlled strikes at a living person (just like the analogy of shooting at a paper target does not equate that someone will have it in them to shoot a real live person, causing injury or death.)

The so-called live action of one-steps is when the opponent moves forward with a step and an attack, closing the distance, and even attempting to actually make contact. This is not the same as striking a bag, or a BOB body target. It is not as challenging or realistic as "alive training," and is not what I meant by having a live opponent. Also, one steps can be modified to include multiple attacks, and random attacks within a controlled environment, another benefit to having a 'real live person' as a partner.

You say one-steps and forms "allow you to slow things down, analyze it, repeat it over and over without the distraction of resistance or change," but ignore the fact that these distractions are precisely what make you better at the given skill.

I am not ignoring these facts. I am making the point that these distractions are valuable to the stage of training one might call "alive" or "reality" training. Those distractions do make you better when practicing that stage, but they do interfere in the repetition and analytical stage, which I believe is just as important, and should not be abandoned.

Analysis and dead repetition doesn't help.

This is another example of personal opinion without any facts to back it up. In my experience, they do help, and are actually quite beneficial when combined with a balance of "alive training."

Lastly, I'm familiar with the "get it right, then move on" philosophy of training. What does it produce? People who say that the drill can be modified this way or that, but who rarely--if ever--get around to doing it. It produces people who can do static one-steps and forms very well, but who can't apply that "knowledge" that they took enormous amounts of time to "get right." It turns out that "getting it right" means "doing it picture-perfect in a scenario that isn't useful."

I agree with you 100% when this applies to those who stagnate, and are stuck in the "get it right" stage. Your argument here is right, but only if the student fails to do both analytical training AND reality training. I just disagree that one should move completely into the "alive training," and leave the solo practice, and analytical one-steps behind. I don't believe that a student who never did the slow, analytical stage, and gradual progression into one-steps and then alive training will ever be as good as some with experience in both (my opinion).

I had a student back around 1978, who was a security guard. At yellow belt, he had learned a few one steps to a pretty good proficiency (for a beginner). One night, he witnessed a man trying to rape a girl in a parking lot. He pulled the man off the girl, and the guy whirled around with a punch to my students face. My student instinctively followed a prearranged one-step of an inward block, elbow to the rib, spin elbow to the jaw, and a spin back-fist to the temple.

He barely caught the back-fist on the guys chin as he was going down unconscious from the first two strikes. To tell me that one-steps has no value, or can not be used in real life just as they are practiced in class, does not ring true to me. I still believe that "alive" or "reality" training gives you a better sense of a real fight, and is a must for all students, but one-steps are a part of the whole package as well - in my experience.

Blue Knight

[DerAuslander]

Compared to alive training utilizing the I-Method, one steps are antiquated and useless, and have no place.

Yes, a Ford Model-T may get you somewhere, but if your goal is to get there as quickly and as efficiently as possible, why would you waste your time with it?

[MaverickZ]

I've slowly come to realize why doctors sometimes have to amputate limbs.

[casico]

Can someone tell me what 'teh' means, or is it a spelling mistake from 'the'??? I dunno...

Anyway, a lot of traditional MA were made to train Armies, or so many stories go. So you would imagine if they stood up on a battlefield they should be pretty hard core. Muay Thai is like this, I reckon, and maintains its war mind set attitude. But TKD has been absent from wars for many centuries now, hasn't it? In any case, yeah, it should depend on the guy practicing and teaching as to whether it gets trained aggressivly enough to stand up in a ring or in a heavy street fight. I reckon the problem most now days would be many idiots have gotten into the mindset that it is all about technique, which is good, but much as about muscle power, aggression, reflexes, and speed, also. Some schools may use many of these aspects, but mostly the only ones that use all are ring fighting styles. If I had to put it as why a style of TKD is now taught soft cock it would probably be due to lazy and fat instructors that would cower at a real fight and they teach soft and say it is good coz they are too afraid of fessing up that what it really takes to be good is too much effort for their lazy asses, so they pay it off, in most cases, subconciously.

One word LAWYERS

[monkeypoo8762]

Two words,

Zombie Thread.

Seriously, are you new to the internet or something? This thread is over a year old, and to bring it back with a completely pointless post is why I only read this forum a few times a month. . . . .

[Katriona1992]

Hi, I'm a Black Belt in TKD. What style of it? Kamao.

We were 2 small clubs in NSW, Australia.

That's it, I trained in it because we did hard sparring, competed in Kyokushin and similar style tournaments and trained, in my view, realistically.

I loved it, stuck with it for 5 years and missed a handful of classes in that time. They do exist but WTF and ITF do a lot better then clubs like the one I went too. It's a shame but at the same time, they do better marketting, have more exposure and my instructor rarely advertised (apart from a flyer at some certain stores around my town).

If I didn't move away from that town to where I am now, I would still be there training my arse off. As it stands I took up the style that I felt was similar to that, Kyokushin, it's just as good and I train twice as much :)

which school was it? I am planning to move to Aussie soon and I am having problems locating a good tkd school (most websites I open up try to sell me on an awesome taekwondo birthday party :help:)

thanks :)

P.S. Sorry for slightly hijacking the thread...