[Choi Kwang Do] Choi Kwang Do

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Okay, due to various problems with the last thread (which it isn't necessary to go into) I've started this one afresh.

If anyone has any questions about Choi, or criticisms, complaints (so long as they're actually reasoned out and not just insults) then please post them up here and I (I think I'm still the only Choi student here) will answer them to the best of my ability.

[morphus]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Okay, due to various problems with the last thread (which it isn't necessary to go into) I've started this one afresh.

If anyone has any questions about Choi, or criticisms, complaints (so long as they're actually reasoned out and not just insults) then please post them up here and I (I think I'm still the only Choi student here) will answer them to the best of my ability.

Hi! New on the block so bare with me, I too am a instructor/student of CHOI KWANG DO and i wil also help with any enquiries and so forth. :D

[Jack]

:)

I was just wondering, since Choi Kwan Do is a modern editation of an older art, does CKD have forms? And if so, how much are they emphasised in study?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

We have patterns rather than forms, which are essentially combinationations of basic techniques repeated in one direction from each side at junior level, and then in four directional rotation from each side at senior level. Usually they're called cardiovascular, since one of the main aims of the patterns is to work on cardiovascular fitness and stamina, the other main aim is simply to work on stringing techniques together in ways such that the student will learn to shift their bodyweight correctly to attain maximum power from each technique. A lot of classes will begin with around twenty minutes of cardio after the stretch as a warm up.

[Jack]

Interesting.

Also, how does Choi Kwan Do fight? For example, Taekwondo uses a lot of high kicks and is also a linear art, whilst Kung Fu use a mix of hand and low kicks with circular methods.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

High kicks are taught almost exclusively to show off, and drag in new students (we're big on that part of things), downwards kick, crescent kick and twisting kick are the only exceptions and these are taught at senior levels only. Choi is a very close striking art, I've actually sparred with another student in a phone box, but it works just as well at a distance. Most students find their own preferred distance and style, whether it be using lots of waist-high kicks or close in body punches. In general though Choi involves practical techniques, both linear and circular, and a lot of angling off your opponent to set up the next technique. Hard to actually say that there is a specific fighting style for the art as a whole, people just use the techniques as tools adapted to themselves.

[morphus]

I'd like to add, if i may, that choi kwang do can be practiced by anyone, young or old, boy or girl, large or small. All kicks are performed at the practictioners own ability/flexibility, kicks are aimed low(generally) - knee, groin, perhaps ribs; not everyone has great flexibilty including myself and i teach the art. We practice all ranges kicking, striking, punching, close range (and some groundwork - although we prefere not to be down there).
Combining all ranges can make it a formidable art.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Elaborating on that a little, a while ago in class I was used by my instructor for a confidence builder. I'm about eleven stone, and a decent size. I was told to simply stand upright while a ten year old girl at most half my weight was to perform and inwards punch to my chest at full power (through a focus mitt which I was holding against myself). Somehow that little ten year old got enough impact into that one punch to throw me down onto the floor and wind me. Part of it, admittedly, was sheer shock that somehow she got her full bodyweight behind the technique, but that is one powerful technique, and she was a yellow belt.

The oldest person practicing Choi at the moment is, I believe, eighty-six years old and still running strong.

[Melanie]

Hey ckd...I thought you said you didn't do groundwork? Thats why you threatened to go along to a groundwork seminar with me but you never managed to make it...all for good reasons of course :D

[KarateKid1975]

That sounds really cool, CKD. Do you have a website or something on the art I can read?

I know it's prolly a rare art. I know how ya feel. I do TKD, but it's called Kwok Wu Chuen TKD. It has WTF everything (forms, step sparring, ect) till brown belt (3rd gup/kyu). Then for red (2nd, and 1st gup), we learn 2 Shaolin Kung fu forms, and 2 weapon (bo) forms. We also do Chin Na self defense.

Of course, I did Tang Soo Do for a year and a half before TKD, and they also (or at least my school) also mixed styles. We also did Combat Hapkido, and some TKD stuff.

Do you know what styles is mixed into CKD? Is it Korean?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I said I didn't like groundwork, or practice it much. :) Besides, at least in my school the stuff we learn is little more than the basic principles.

There's a couple, the main one is www.choikwangdo.org

[morphus]

There is no groundwork in CKD syllabus, but we knowledge of ranges as i said "some groundwork" emphasise is on 'don't be down there in the first place!' As for other styles in CKD there many influences - boxing, TKD, ju jitsu, yoga even - but you'll find it uncomparable to other arts because of its conceptual manner. You really do have to have a good few lessons before you 'll fully appretiate it! Find a class and give it a try! PIL SUNG!

[amiller127]

The main Choi Kwang-Do web site is www.choikwangdo.com.
The UK web site is www.choikwangdo.co.uk
The welsh CKD web site is www.ckdwales.co.uk

[amiller127]

Im a chief instructor and 3rd Dan in the art of Choi Kwang-Do and i have been training in the art for over ten years. It is a very practical, powerful art. Two of its main principles are that training in it should promote health and minimise the risk of injury to the practitioner, by applying bio-mechanicaly correct movements. Secondly, each technique should be practical and enable the student to defend themselves in a street situation.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

And then there were three.

Nice to meet you. Have to try and head over to Wales to train sometime if I'm welcome.

[Melanie]

Hello amiller127

Welcome to the forum. :) Have you read my article at all? I spent the day with ckdstudent a while ago. If I ever get over to Wales - would you mind if I contact you...perhaps see a full class?

[amiller127]

Your welcome to come and train at any of the Welsh CKD schools. You can find out their details at www.ckdwales.co.uk

btw JB you may be seeing me soon. My girlfriend and i are planning to come down to one of Mr Brophy's classes soon.

Pil Sung

[amiller127]

What article?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

There're several articles available under the Magazine section.

[morphus]

Anyone wishing to join us in Wales for a training session will be most welcome, anytime. Just try to let us know in advance, maybe we can arrange a session specially prepared for the occasion.:D

[Sweeet]

In my understanding, most traditional martial arts can be described in terms of 3 qualifications - are they mostly linear/circular, hard/soft, and internal/external (external techniques - or ki, breathing, philosophy, ect.). I was wondering how CKD qualifies in these terms. Also, I was wondering whether or not CKD involves some or any groundwork? In my short experience, if another skilled fighter knows that you aren't skilled in groundwork, well, you're going down.. :) I'm wondering how CKD deals with this in terms of self defense.

Sweeet.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Probably about half way between hard and soft, very much circular and external.

As for groundwork, every experienced grappler knows that groundwork is essential, and it certainly is against other skilled opponents. People who've been dragged into pub brawls, mugged, threatened with knives or just randomly attacked by groups of drunken teens might have slightly different experiences. Against inexperienced opponents, knowing how to strike is gonna win, probably faster than grappling.

If you're defending yourself, in seriousness, against someone who is experienced in martial arts then something has gone wrong.

Groundwork is occasionally included as instructors choice, infighting techniques (Habitual Acts of Violence defenses) are taught to everyone though.

[Andrew Green]

Sport TKD would hardly be a good basis, since we don't compete so learning sports-only stuff would be kind of pointless.


Don't have to compete to do sports stuff. Where do you think all those fancy kicks came from?


Saying that Grandmaster Choi was simply bad at TKD would seem to go against the fact that he was in the Korean National Demonstration Team until he crippled himself with the techniques.


That just means he could put on a good show. It doesn't mean he understood how to generate power. Apply the forms, knowledge in practical skills, etc.


Some schools still do teach locking out, of the schools that I've visited there was one TKD school and two karate schools which taught locking out as an essential. There are more than a few instructors out there, in all martial arts, who aren't worth their salt.


And I could probably guess there styles, but won't. Locking out is comes from the sports development of the martial arts. It looks "snappier" and is done to give the illusion of power.


The curriculum has changed a lot since Choi was founded, and there were huge differences from TKD in the first place. Try and bother finding out what it is you're talking about before simply claiming we do a variant of sport TKD. It seems I'm not the only one apparently lacking knowledge.


Read my posts, my claim is that based on the material they put out about themselves, that is the impression it gives. I make no claims to know exactly what it is, I've not trained with anyone out of it. However regardless of what it is, I will reject it based solely on what I've seen. They are either an impractical school which focuses on Demo techniques and spews out nonsense about the evil traditional schools that has no base, or misrepresent themselves greatly in order to attract more students.

What I do know is kicking like that takes time. For a school that is "practical" why spend so much time developing non-practical techniques?


Kwang Jo Choi was trained by general Hi Hong Choi himself and became a master at TKD, i doubt very much he was performing techniques incorrectly. the general had a nick name for Kwang Jo Choi - "Model of tae kwon do". Kwang Jo Choi knew and Knows his stuff. That doesnt mean he's got all the answers. Thats all.


I don't think we want to get into Gen. Choi's credibility, there is enough on that already. However as stated already, Kwang Jo Choi has part of a national demostration team. Locking of the joints is a sport/demo thing which looks good, but is not proper technique.

I doubt very much that Choi's training involved much in the way of joint manipulations, throws, etc. When Gen Choi started teaching, he was teaching a modified version of Shotokan which was very close to Japanese Shotoka. Based on how long Kwan Jo Choi has been training I'd guess that is what he learnt. Modified shotokan from a 2nd dan.

What it likely was was basic excercises, forms and sparring. Probably done with a very high level of intensity. But with little if any training in the application of the forms being taught.

So again, what studies where done contrasting Choi to other traditional Styles, and the effects on the body and the brain? What evidence is there for Choi's claims on this issue?

If you are a self-defence school, why spen all the time and effort on flashy kicks which are just for show, or is that solely to attract students? Don't you think someone looking for a self-defence school would be more interested if they saw some practical techniques being demonstrated instead of just sports/demo stuff?
Isn't it a disservice to your style to misrepresent itself and the sorts of techniques it uses like this?

And just out of curiosity, what about those instructor kids engaged in mortal combat?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Lets see, spend so much time learning non-practical techniques? Unlike a lot of arts we actually teach different techniques at different levels, rather than just giving the whole lot. I'm not saying if its better or worse, but with regards to non-practical techniques the three high kicks we do (although twisting is, as I said, targeted anywhere) are the last three kicks you learn, so taught after around two years and four months of training, in the last eight months before black belt.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Lets see, spend so much time learning non-practical techniques?


right.


Unlike a lot of arts we actually teach different techniques at different levels, rather than just giving the whole lot.


Huh? what style teaches everything all at once?

Aikido... Nope, they would break all the new people.
Judo... Nope, they would break all the new people.
Jujitsu... Nope, they would break all the new people.
Karate... Nope, they would break all the new people.
BJJ... Nope, they would break all the new people.
Shootfighting... Nope, they would break all the new people.
Karate... Nope, they would break all the new people.
Wushu... Nope, they new people would break themselves.
Capoeria... Nope, they new people would break themselves.
Sport Karate... Nope, they new people would break themselves.



I'm not saying if its better or worse, but with regards to non-practical techniques the three high kicks we do (although twisting is, as I said, targeted anywhere) are the last three kicks you learn, so taught after around two years and four months of training, in the last eight months before black belt.

Ahh, so only the "Advanced" techniques are useless...

Just out of curiosity, what are the rules you spar under?

Why not describe some of the more "important" elements you practice. What sort of techniques do you teach, how do you train them to work in a dynamic situation, How do you train striking, clinch, ground ranges?

Perhaps you can clear up my misconceptions about your style, I believe it to be basically TKD, dropped the forms, added in a few escape moves and topped it up with some misinformation regarding the dangerous practices of other styles, as well as a little science babble with no real backing to it.

Where are those referances to the study done to demonstrate the claims I quoted?

Is there a webpage with pictures of "actual" training, not just the flashy stuff I've seen?

Oh and about the teenage instructors engaged in "Mortal Combat"...

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Just because you couldn't apply the techniques doesn't make them useless.

Clinches are taught through infighting techniques.

As for your misconceptions no, since you deny everything that I say I don't believe I can clear them up. I personally know that it is effective, having used it many times in actual encounters, and knowing many others who have done the same. I can also tell you that it is completely different from TKD, there is a little vague similarity with the techniques, but only in as much as a front kick involves kicking to the front, a side kick to the side, and so on. The only way for me to clear your misconceptions would be to meet you and take you through the differences, which I am perfectly willing to do. Other than that you might want to take a look at the interviews on www.choikwangdo.com/aboutckd/magazines2.asp. Grandmaster Choi can explain things a little better than me.

As for the studies I'm trying to get copies, most of it is in ongoing research however.

To be honest I'm not sure. The www.choikwangdo.co.uk/Album%201/Seni2002/index.htm page shows many of the basic techniques though.

Excuse me? What's wrong with teenaged instructors?

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Just because you couldn't apply the techniques doesn't make them useless.


Ok, show me where these techniques have been used with success in a MMA fight. They wouldn't have been, because they are impractical.

Your logic has a major flaw. Nobody in there right mind is going to tell you a butterfly twist is a practical technique.

Just because I can't make it work doesn't mean its impractical...

Against a very inept opponent, a very skilled person may be able to set it up and use it, fine. So what? There are better things one could do, and why train for a best case scenario?

By the way I may be wrong, but that "twist" kick looks an awful lot like an attempt at what in Japanese (since we want to be traditional) would be reffered to as gyak Mawashi geri. It is a quick snap kick which usually targets the groin as a method to close the gap.


Clinches are taught through infighting techniques.
[QUOTE]

Please describe.

I assume this doesn't come from TKD, is it Muay Thai, Judo, wrestling, jujitsu, etc. based? Does it resemble any of those?

What about ground?

[QUOTE]

As for your misconceptions no, since you deny everything that I



What have I denied? Appart from your complete misconceptions about traditional arts of course. I've asked for supporting evidence, I've asked questions about your training, and I won't buy the CKD sales pitch without some evidence that its claims are true.



say I don't believe I can clear them up. I personally know that it is effective, having used it many times in actual encounters, and knowing many others who have done the same.



Really that doesn't say much. After a few Tae Bo tapes you'd know some basic techniques. If someone defends themself with material picked up from a tae Bo tape does that make Tae Bo and effective art relative to other systems?


I can also tell you that it is completely different from TKD, there is a little vague similarity with the techniques, but only in as much as a front kick involves kicking to the front, a side kick to the side, and so on. The only way for me to clear your misconceptions would be to meet you and take you through the differences, which I am perfectly willing to do. Other than that you might want to take a look at the interviews on www.choikwangdo.com/aboutckd/magazines2.asp. Grandmaster Choi can explain things a little better than me.


From this I get, grappling is ignored.

Sparring isn't really done.

Mr. Choi never really understood the forms he was taught. But very few outside Okinawa did at that time, perhaps a few in Japan. Karate / TKD exploded with instructors who only had a few years training in basic excercises.

He seems to suggest that there is not really a relation to fighting in the dojo and fighting in the street.



As for the studies I'm trying to get copies, most of it is in ongoing research however.


How about a simple question. What where the traditional styles and there representitives used for a basis of comparrison?



To be honest I'm not sure. The www.choikwangdo.co.uk/Album%201/Seni2002/index.htm page shows many of the basic techniques though.


I don't really see anything that wouldn't be done in an average point fighting & forms school.


Excuse me? What's wrong with teenaged instructors?

they look 13 at best. But "mortal combat" , what is this "mortal combat"

Sparring?

Why call it mortal combat?

What rules do you spar with (I believe I asked that before)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Ok, show me where these techniques have been used with success in a MMA fight. They wouldn't have been, because they are impractical.


They wouldn't have been, we don't compete remember. I can tell you that they've worked on the street though, and give personal and second person accounts to back what I say up. Of course, you probably wouldn't accept then since by nature attempted muggings, assaults and street fights are rarely documented.


By the way I may be wrong, but that "twist" kick looks an awful lot like an attempt at what in Japanese (since we want to be traditional) would be reffered to as gyak Mawashi geri. It is a quick snap kick which usually targets the groin as a method to close the gap.


Yep that would be wrong. That photo doesn't give a particularly good representation of the kick.

Now, I don't quite understand your hangup on high kicks. All but three of our kicks are trained to be targetted around the groin, the highest but for those three are aimed at the ribs.

The three high kicks are:
twisting kick: targeted anywhere, knee, thigh, under the ribs, arm, chest, back, anywhere so long as the angle is right.
crescent kick: basically chamber up high, and swing the leg round. There's quite a bit more to it than that, but that's a fair description. Targeted generally at the upper arm/rib cage, sometimes at the head, not often used except to show off to juniors.
downwards kick: aimed to cut down across the pectoral muscles, not onto the shoulders (great way to damage your achiles tendon)


What have I denied?


Ignored might be a better word, or possibly misunderstood. You seem to repeatedly ask about and comment on the kicks even after I've explained that we generally don't do kicks like that, and its pretty much for advertising purposes.

Let me put it in context. An advert for karate I saw recently had someone breaking his way through a pile of slabs. Very nice advert, good and impressive. But does it mean that karate trains you solely to break slabs? No. Do pictures of impressive and high kicks mean we only train for those? No. Does the fact that kung fu in films is done for style and looks rather than effectiveness mean that kung fu is purely about looking good and not learning how to fight? No. Does the fact that in Bounty adverts eating a chocolate bar cause small insects to turn into jungle creatures mean that it actually happens? No.

I've got no problem with you not buying our sales pitch without some evidence, unfortunately other than simply demonstrating and explaining I cannot really offer you any. My apologies that this doesn't reach your acceptance level.

If the majority of people who watched a few Tae Bo tapes did pick up techniques, and effectively defended themselves on the street then yes, it would make it self defense. Remember that mostly Choi advertises itself as practical street self defense, if people use it successfully then its evidently doing what we aim to, even if our aims disagree with yours.

Defense drills are performed, another of the important factors in Choi is that we stress non-injury, including such things as simply bruises. This means that full-contact sparring would go somewhat against the ideals. Defense drills still teach people to block and counter-attack effectively, whether or not they're as effective as sparring is a completely different debate.

The infighting techniques are based on the Habitual Acts of Violence attacks, and are methods more than actual combinations or specific movements. We do not teach that one movement must be met with another. If someone grabs you from behind in a bear-hug we teach people several techniques that you can hit them with, and then tell them to keep using them. We also teach a couple of breaks out of bearhug, and at later levels takedowns.


Mr. Choi never really understood the forms he was taught. But very few outside Okinawa did at that time, perhaps a few in Japan. Karate / TKD exploded with instructors who only had a few years training in basic excercises.

He seems to suggest that there is not really a relation to fighting in the dojo and fighting in the street.

Nice to hear that you know him and his instructors who can tell you this.

Oh there is a relation, just not much of one. In the dojo you don't really want to do everything you can to knock the other people out, especially if you're teaching self-defense. What's the point of learning to defend yourself if while doing it you get hurt just as badly or worse as you would in a mugging or other street attack? For full power techniques we have shields, focus mitts. For learning the basics of sparring without injury we have padding and more importantly, self-control.


How about a simple question. What where the traditional styles and there representitives used for a basis of comparrison?


I believe that they were the Tae Kwon Do that Grandmaster Choi was practicing at the time, and several styles of Karate. I couldn't tell you which off the top of my head though.

Of course, the styles would be easy to tell. Just look for the people wincing in pain as they do their savage locking out techniques.


I don't really see anything that wouldn't be done in an average point fighting & forms school.

I'm not suprised, these are static photos, all you'll see is people performing techniques and working on equipment. Come down to a class sometime and you might see a difference, or you might not.


they look 13 at best. But "mortal combat" , what is this "mortal combat"

Firstly instructors have to be a minimum of 14 years old, and the people in white do-boks were kids, not instructors. Secondly the people in black do-boks are instructors, and at least eighteen years old.

I'd imagine that the 'Mortal Combat' thing is pretty much a gimmick for a kids class. Kids aren't small adults, and they can't be taught in the same way from the start. They have to enjoy their classes, and they might happen to pick up a few techniques on the way.

[morphus]

GENTLEMEN,
You seem to be getting a little heated, Mr Green, you obviously won't accept CKD as being effective in any way which is ok. i trained this way, it's comfitable for me (and quite a few others), i also studied ju jitsu and played with 1 or 2 other arts. We could argue till the cows come home about technique differences, theres little point because all arts are different, some are better than others but every art has something even if its just confidence building. CKD does have close range defence drills such as lapel grab-throat grab-head lock and so on, we have ways of trying to deal with these situations and thats the way WE do it but if you go into another arts dojo they will do it different; and the same if you go somewhere else-something different. This has been my experience, some i liked, some i didn't.

On the commercial matter, it's a dog eat dog world out there, thats human nature, its more competitive than ever, so we rap our products up to look the best they can be. CKD doesn't lie about being practical, its very simple to learn and perform. CKD(as have many arts now) have taken some of the more complicated techs' and katas out making it easy for anyone to perfome techs'- kicking low for example, BUT some people are very naturally gifted and flexible so at times they kick high; UNFORTUNATLY people are much more impressed when they see a high kick to the head(prob' because of FILMS)so to attract attention you sometimes have to use these great looking techs' to promote the art. When people take a lesson People soon find out what they can do for themselves and we show them how they can improve. Our art is all about SELF IMPROVEMENT! This reflects in gradings, where even somebody with a disability would be able to hold his/her own.

We should all respect other arts even if sometimes we disagree with the way they do things.;)

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent


They wouldn't have been, we don't compete remember. I can tell you that they've worked on the street though, and give personal and second person accounts to back what I say up. Of course, you probably wouldn't accept then since by nature attempted muggings, assaults and street fights are rarely documented.


Irrelevant. If your kicks truly are effective, people who do compete would be using them.


Yep that would be wrong. That photo doesn't give a particularly good representation of the kick.


Perhaps you could give a bit of an explanation of how its different?


Now, I don't quite understand your hangup on high kicks. All but three of our kicks are trained to be targetted around the groin, the highest but for those three are aimed at the ribs.


I'm not, you just ignore everything else.



Ignored might be a better word, or possibly misunderstood. You seem to repeatedly ask about and comment on the kicks even after I've explained that we generally don't do kicks like that, and its pretty much for advertising purposes.


yep, your kicks still look immpractical, but I'll leave that alone.



Let me put it in context. An advert for karate I saw recently had someone breaking his way through a pile of slabs. Very nice advert, good and impressive. But does it mean that karate trains you solely to break slabs? No. Do pictures of impressive and high kicks mean we only train for those? No. Does the fact that kung fu in films is done for style and looks rather than effectiveness mean that kung fu is purely about looking good and not learning how to fight? No. Does the fact that in Bounty adverts eating a chocolate bar cause small insects to turn into jungle creatures mean that it actually happens? No.


If the only pictures of karate people you ever saw where breaking things, one might think that is a big part of the style.

Howevere there is a difference. Breaking things is a skill aquired by learning how to hit properly, with power and focus. I don't break things, but I'm quite sure that I could do a fairly immpressive break if I wanted to, yes there are some tricks people use, but mostly it is not a skill which requires a great deal of practice that would not normally be done to achieve.


I've got no problem with you not buying our sales pitch without some evidence, unfortunately other than simply demonstrating and explaining I cannot really offer you any. My apologies that this doesn't reach your acceptance level.


It's a safe escape, you're across an ocean, I'm never going to be in your area to visit you. Tell you what, why don't you drop in to my school, we can go a few rounds and if your style and training methods are solid it will show. Then I'll come back here and tell everyone how effective CKD is. How's that sound?


If the majority of people who watched a few Tae Bo tapes did pick up techniques, and effectively defended themselves on the street then yes, it would make it self defense. Remember that mostly Choi advertises itself as practical street self defense, if people use it successfully then its evidently doing what we aim to, even if our aims disagree with yours.


You missed the question "does that make Tae Bo and effective art relative to other systems?"

If your claiming CKD is as good as Tae Bo, then fine I'll buy that. That doesn't make it a good style for self-defence.


Defense drills are performed, another of the important factors in Choi is that we stress non-injury, including such things as simply bruises. This means that full-contact sparring would go somewhat against the ideals. Defense drills still teach people to block and counter-attack effectively, whether or not they're as effective as sparring is a completely different debate.


So learn to fight without getting a bruise, sparring, grappling, and a whole lot of other things which might hurt?

Sorry if I don't buy it, might as well do a cardio kickboxing program that uses striking pads, probably get a better work out which would give you an advantage.


The infighting techniques are based on the Habitual Acts of Violence attacks, and are methods more than actual combinations or specific movements. We do not teach that one movement must be met with another. If someone grabs you from behind in a bear-hug we teach people several techniques that you can hit them with, and then tell them to keep using them. We also teach a couple of breaks out of bearhug, and at later levels takedowns.


How do you develop the timing required to pull them off in a dynamic situation?

Or do you just assume that it will happen on its own, without training it in a sparring situation?


Nice to hear that you know him and his instructors who can tell you this.


It's actually quite common knowledge that this wasn't taught.


Oh there is a relation, just not much of one. In the dojo you don't really want to do everything you can to knock the other people out, especially if you're teaching self-defense. What's the point of learning to defend yourself if while doing it you get hurt just as badly or worse as you would in a mugging or other street attack? For full power techniques we have shields, focus mitts. For learning the basics of sparring without injury we have padding and more importantly, self-control.


Go 70% then, or even 50%, if you can't make it work against someone who is holding back what makes you think you'll be able to do it against someone who isn't?



I believe that they were the Tae Kwon Do that Grandmaster Choi was practicing at the time, and several styles of Karate. I couldn't tell you which off the top of my head though.


I'd be interested to know if you can find out. Using himself doesn't cut it.



Of course, the styles would be easy to tell. Just look for the people wincing in pain as they do their savage locking out techniques.


Usually only done by instructors who didn't learn correctly, and sports styles, done to look pretty for demos.


I'm not suprised, these are static photos, all you'll see is people performing techniques and working on equipment. Come down to a class sometime and you might see a difference, or you might not.


As I said earlier, this is a safe challenge for you as it has no realistic chance of happening.


Firstly instructors have to be a minimum of 14 years old, and the people in white do-boks were kids, not instructors. Secondly the people in black do-boks are instructors, and at least eighteen years old.


Which is it 14 or 18?



I'd imagine that the 'Mortal Combat' thing is pretty much a gimmick for a kids class. Kids aren't small adults, and they can't be taught in the same way from the start. They have to enjoy their classes, and they might happen to pick up a few techniques on the way.

Adults have to enjoy there classes to. And kids CAN be taught realistic skills, providing you don't do certain things which risk damaging their undeveloped joints.

Without kicks now, here are some things that you haven't given a straight answer for:

1) Clinch work, how do you train it? Is it solely done throw static HAOV sets?

2) How do you address the ground? Or do you just avoid it and believe it won't ever happen to you.

3) What rules do you spar under? or do you just not do sparring as someone might get a bruise.

4) How do you develop the timing and ability to make your techniques work against a uncooperative resistiing opponent who doesn't just do what he's suppose to?

Get those and we'll continue.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by morphus
GENTLEMEN,
You seem to be getting a little heated, Mr Green, you obviously won't accept CKD as being effective in any way


Just a little tired of CKD constant digs on tradtional styles and getting their facts completely wrong. Jimmy does the same, CKD is not all that special, tradtional styles are not dangerous.


We should all respect other arts even if sometimes we disagree with the way they do things.;)

Nope, that would be silly. I'm pretty easy, I don't care much what you do as long as you don't make claims which are clearly wrong.

CKD promotes itself as having immproved itself over the tradtional arts, which where not only less effective, but actually dangerous to the practioner. It makes some really odd claims based on scientific study, but doesn't have any reference to those studies.

It is not superior to traditional arts, and traditional arts are not dangerous. It is modified TKD with some boxing style punches thrown in as far as I can tell. It has also left out some major parts of the tradtional arts, imporant parts. Such as grappling, locking, throws, sparring, conditioning, etc.

If you enjoy what you do, do it and ignore me. But don't try and tell me that tradtional methods are wrong, yours are superior, and what you do is best for self-defence.

Not all methods are equal, its not just the practioner, how and what you train in is important. I don't know if there is a best method, but their are certainely better and worse ones.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Irrelevant. If your kicks truly are effective, people who do compete would be using them.

And they wouldn't be competing under the name of Choi Kwang Do, so I cannot say that a Choi Kwang Do practitioner has in fact used them in MMA fighting because CKD students don't compete. Besides, tournaments don't really interest me so I've never really studied them to look at the techniques people use, it costs more money and time than I'm willing to spend.


Perhaps you could give a bit of an explanation of how its different?

Fine, if I must, but I guarantee that without illustration you're unlikely to understand. Draw the kicking knee up into chamber across the body, turn the ankle outwards, and kick out and back. The actual motion is pretty much semi-circular when done at speed. As you kick push off the grounded ball of the foot.


yep, your kicks still look immpractical, but I'll leave that alone.

Stand on the receiving end of one of my side-kicks done at waist level.


If the only pictures of karate people you ever saw where breaking things, one might think that is a big part of the style.

Howevere there is a difference. Breaking things is a skill aquired by learning how to hit properly, with power and focus. I don't break things, but I'm quite sure that I could do a fairly immpressive break if I wanted to, yes there are some tricks people use, but mostly it is not a skill which requires a great deal of practice that would not normally be done to achieve.

Being able to kick high simply comes with practice and experience. You'll see very few pictures of junior belts kicking high. I personally, along with all but one of the black belts in my school, never kick high except with downwards, crescent or occasionally twisting, or in demonstrations.

I still see no difference between the posters I see of karate people board-breaking, and the Choi photos of people doing 'stunt' techniques.


It's a safe escape, you're across an ocean, I'm never going to be in your area to visit you. Tell you what, why don't you drop in to my school, we can go a few rounds and if your style and training methods are solid it will show. Then I'll come back here and tell everyone how effective CKD is. How's that sound?

Damn, didn't notice where you were. In that case I suggest you talk with someone who doesn't do Choi that I've trained with. Mel would be a reasonable example, and I'm hoping to expand the list.

You know, that sounds ilke you're being arrogant and impolite, and no, I'm not interested in going out of my way either to inflict or receive pain.


You missed the question "does that make Tae Bo and effective art relative to other systems?"

If your claiming CKD is as good as Tae Bo, then fine I'll buy that. That doesn't make it a good style for self-defence.

No, I didn't miss the question, you missed the answer. Being better relative to another martial art is unimportant, except in marketing, what is important is whether it works. If it works on the street in genuine confrontations its good. Otherwise its not. I know, as do many others, that Choi does work on the street. Therefore its good, no matter how many times you tell me that the kicks are impractical, that I couldn't stand against you, or anything else I will still know that it is effective and works.


So learn to fight without getting a bruise, sparring, grappling, and a whole lot of other things which might hurt?

Sorry if I don't buy it, might as well do a cardio kickboxing program that uses striking pads, probably get a better work out which would give you an advantage.

No, learn to fight while trying to minimize pain. I couldn't care less if you buy it or not, so long as those people who are interested in learning to defend themselves and who are willing to pay, and who will enjoy the art do buy it. I buy it because it works. You don't because you haven't seen it and refuse, since you've never trained the same way as me, to believe that it could work. I know it works, you believe it doesn't. Fairs fair.


How do you develop the timing required to pull them off in a dynamic situation?

Or do you just assume that it will happen on its own, without training it in a sparring situation?


By doing them at speed, and as realistically as possible without injuring people. Why, how do you do them, going full pelt at each other and trying to break limbs with your techniques?


Go 70% then, or even 50%, if you can't make it work against someone who is holding back what makes you think you'll be able to do it against someone who isn't?

Because it has. Say it doesn't work all you like, I've seen, and had, it work, so I know it does. Whether you believe is unimportant and irrelevant.


I'd be interested to know if you can find out. Using himself doesn't cut it.

I'll let you know when I do, and if I manage to get a copy of the research paper I'll mail it to you.


Usually only done by instructors who didn't learn correctly, and sports styles, done to look pretty for demos.

Which nevertheless do exist.


As I said earlier, this is a safe challenge for you as it has no realistic chance of happening.

Its not a challenge. Its an offer to show you Choi, not in a combative, destructive manner, but in a constructive manner where I would show you the princples behind the techniques, the applications, and the methods of teaching. Since you only seem to be able to rationalise it as me fighting you, I'm not interested.


Which is it 14 or 18?

Assistants (blue do-boks) 14, Chiefs (black) 18. Easy when you know how.


Adults have to enjoy there classes to. And kids CAN be taught realistic skills, providing you don't do certain things which risk damaging their undeveloped joints.

Instructors are there to teach, not enjoy their classes. They enjoy their teaching, and they train outside of classes. Adults do enjoy their classes too, that's why we often split adults and kids. We do teach kids realistic skills, we just allow them to have fun while doing it.


1) Clinch work, how do you train it? Is it solely done throw static HAOV sets?

Random, suprise HAOV attacks designed to provoke quick reflexes and instinctive reaction. A few other varying drills such as wandering around the do-jang while some people throw random attacks, both infighting and strikes.


2) How do you address the ground? Or do you just avoid it and believe it won't ever happen to you.

Hasn't ever happened to me so far although a couple have tried, but ground-fighting is instructors choice.


3) What rules do you spar under? or do you just not do sparring as someone might get a bruise.

Rules? Uh...don't simply try to overwhelm your partner because neither you nor they will learn anything from it. Force them to work hard, but don't just try and kill them, save that for the AIs.


4) How do you develop the timing and ability to make your techniques work against a uncooperative resistiing opponent who doesn't just do what he's suppose to?

Defense drills, target punching, shields, stopping kicks, just about every drill we do is aimed towards either this or improving your techniques to make the ones that land more effective.

I'm not sure if I can be bothered to continue, nothing constructive is going to come of this since you obviously have it in for Choi Kwang Do and are not interested in the art at all, simply trying every way you can to attack it. If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but that's the way it reads.

[morphus]

I have a few questions for Andrew if i may, i ask the questions because i'm interested in looking at other styles and i always keep an open mind!

How long have you studied Martial arts and what styles have you studied?

From your website you look as though youve studied long and in depth. you say you know weapons.

When in the curriculum do you start weapon training?

Do you think all trad weapons training is important/relavent?

How long do think it takes one of your students to learn EFFECTIVELY(actually using techs') to defend themselves for a street confrontation i.e mugging?****This is the one i'like answered the most if you could please!!!!

Do you think karate comes from kung fu and china originally. The reason i ask this is because you must think that karate is better than kung fu styles(i use the term kung fu losely for chinese styles)or you would study kung fu or maybe you have?

Have you ever seen CKD at all or better still trained in a lesson, i ask this because you would then at least know for certain whether your thoughts on CKD were correct(of coarse its up to the individual to make up there minds on a subject).

One last one- Do you think from your answers i will get a perfect impression of the type of training i would get at your class?

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

And they wouldn't be competing under the name of Choi Kwang Do, so I cannot say that a Choi Kwang Do practitioner has in fact used them in MMA fighting because CKD students don't compete.


Again, irrelevant. If the techniques worked they would be used. Most competitiors really don't care where there techniques originate from, just if they are effective.


Besides, tournaments don't really interest me so I've never really studied them to look at the techniques people use, it costs more money and time than I'm willing to spend.


It costs how much to pick up a tape at the local video store and watch it?

For someone who teaches don't you think it is part of your job to know which techniques actually work in a fight?



Fine, if I must, but I guarantee that without illustration you're unlikely to understand. Draw the kicking knee up into chamber across the body, turn the ankle outwards, and kick out and back. The actual motion is pretty much semi-circular when done at speed. As you kick push off the grounded ball of the foot.


this still sounds basically like a gyak mawashi geri or reverse round kick


Stand on the receiving end of one of my side-kicks done at waist level.


As I said, if we ever meet we can go a few rounds.


Being able to kick high simply comes with practice and experience. You'll see very few pictures of junior belts kicking high. I personally, along with all but one of the black belts in my school, never kick high except with downwards, crescent or occasionally twisting, or in demonstrations.



I still see no difference between the posters I see of karate people board-breaking, and the Choi photos of people doing 'stunt' techniques.


Fine, I don't really like them either. Ignore them, some schools do that sort of thing, others don't.


You know, that sounds ilke you're being arrogant and impolite, and no, I'm not interested in going out of my way either to inflict or receive pain.


In other words you wouldn't play with me?



No, I didn't miss the question, you missed the answer. Being better relative to another martial art is unimportant, except in marketing, what is important is whether it works. If it works on the street in genuine confrontations its good. Otherwise its not. I know, as do many others, that Choi does work on the street. Therefore its good, no matter how many times you tell me that the kicks are impractical, that I couldn't stand against you, or anything else I will still know that it is effective and works.


No that is exactly what is important.

Would you rather have a 1980 K car, rusted but relaible
or a 2002 BMW, runs perfectly.

Both are the same price, both work.

The consumer knows nothing about cars, but the one selling the K car convinces him that his car is better. Gives some misleading information, and indicates that driving the BMW is actually hazardass and will get you their slower. Over time by driving the K car you will lose your health, cripple yourself and have to either stop driving or switch to the K car.



Its not a challenge. Its an offer to show you Choi, not in a combative, destructive manner, but in a constructive manner where I would show you the princples behind the techniques, the applications, and the methods of teaching. Since you only seem to be able to rationalise it as me fighting you, I'm not interested.


Sparring is constructive!!!

You can theorise all you want, but if you can't put it into application its useless.

I'm a farmer, you're a farmer. I think about what would be the best way to grow crops, study different methods and grow crops.

You think about it, ignore much of the information out on growing crops and never actually grow crops.

You tell me you know how to grow better crops then me, I say show me your better crops, you say you can't, you don't actually grow crops, but you can give me your theories on it...



Random, suprise HAOV attacks designed to provoke quick reflexes and instinctive reaction. A few other varying drills such as wandering around the do-jang while some people throw random attacks, both infighting and strikes.


After the initial attack to they continue, or stop and let you do your technique?


Hasn't ever happened to me so far although a couple have tried, but ground-fighting is instructors choice.


Ah yes, the HA! noone will ever get me to the ground logic.


Rules? Uh...don't simply try to overwhelm your partner because neither you nor they will learn anything from it. Force them to work hard, but don't just try and kill them, save that for the AIs.


Target areas, elbows/knees, grabs, throws, locks, groundwork?


Defense drills, target punching, shields, stopping kicks, just about every drill we do is aimed towards either this or improving your techniques to make the ones that land more effective.


What about actually learning how to land them, (ie sparring with them)


I'm not sure if I can be bothered to continue, nothing constructive is going to come of this since you obviously have it in for Choi Kwang Do and are not interested in the art at all, simply trying every way you can to attack it. If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but that's the way it reads.

Nope, I had nothing against it until the digs against traditional arts finnally annoyed me.

You can sit their and say our stuff is dangerous, doesn't work as well, destroys the joints, causes arthritis, etc. I can come back and tell you you're wrong on just about everything about traditional arts and what you do is some of the least effective methods out there.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by morphus
I have a few questions for Andrew if i may, i ask the questions because i'm interested in looking at other styles and i always keep an open mind!

How long have you studied Martial arts and what styles have you studied?


My main style is Isshin ryu karate, I have however trained with and been influenced by many others.


From your website you look as though youve studied long and in depth. you say you know weapons.

When in the curriculum do you start weapon training?


Whenever the student wants, it is optional, some just do weapons.


Do you think all trad weapons training is important/relavent?


Important/relevant for what goal?


How long do think it takes one of your students to learn EFFECTIVELY(actually using techs') to defend themselves for a street confrontation i.e mugging?****This is the one i'like answered the most if you could please!!!!


Some can do it before they attend a class, some will never be able to do it.

After a few months they would be in a significantly better position to do so.


Do you think karate comes from kung fu and china originally. The reason i ask this is because you must think that karate is better than kung fu styles(i use the term kung fu losely for chinese styles)or you would study kung fu or maybe you have?


Both karate and kung fu are very generic terms. Neither is better then the other. However some branches within them are better for certain things. I have been influenced by things coming from Chinese, and therefore kung-fu sources.


Have you ever seen CKD at all or better still trained in a lesson, i ask this because you would then at least know for certain whether your thoughts on CKD were correct(of coarse its up to the individual to make up there minds on a subject).


Nope, to be honest its not something I would go out of my way to investigate.


One last one- Do you think from your answers i will get a perfect impression of the type of training i would get at your class?

Of course not, perfection is impossible. However I could give you a pretty good idea, just not based on the questions you asked.

I don't have a clue what your classes are like, but I got a pretty good idea of the sorts of training methods Jimmy uses based on what he's written. Their not unique, others use them, I've seen them before, and I've seen other methods get better results.

[waya]

You can sit their and say our stuff is dangerous, doesn't work as well, destroys the joints, causes arthritis, etc. I can come back and tell you you're wrong on just about everything about traditional arts and what you do is some of the least effective methods out there.

Actually that is not completely wrong. I have had joint damage from training in Shotokan, as has another friend of mine who competed heavily a few years ago. It depends on the person and the instructor.

I agree with one statement in another post that the effectiveness of CKD can't be judged until it is witnessed first hand. I also don't think it can be done by simply seeing one person, the same as any other art. Each student has a different competence level and reason for training, so you would have to see a few before having an informed opinion.

I do believe the point could be debated without challenging each other to duel though lol. It is beginning to look like a couple of people about to face off with rapiers :) lol

Rob

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by waya


Actually that is not completely wrong. I have had joint damage from training in Shotokan, as has another friend of mine who competed heavily a few years ago. It depends on the person and the instructor.


Very True, but then a qualified needs to be inserted, Traditional arts practiced incorrectly will damage the joints. That however is not the claim that was made.


I agree with one statement in another post that the effectiveness of CKD can't be judged until it is witnessed first hand. I also don't think it can be done by simply seeing one person, the same as any other art. Each student has a different competence level and reason for training, so you would have to see a few before having an informed opinion.


Again I agree, same for anything. You can't really tell if a movie is good until you see it. But the preview will influence whether or not you go and see it.


I do believe the point could be debated without challenging each other to duel though lol. It is beginning to look like a couple of people about to face off with rapiers :) lol

Rob

Not a duel, but if we ever met, we could spar a few rounds and have a good idea where each other stands. I'll spar with anyone I can, its the best way to see where each otherstands and find weaknesses within your own methods.

If a persons methods are effective it will come through in the way that they spar.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Traditional - following old traditions and staying with them.

Okay, are we all agreed on that?

Now an art is no longer traditional if it changes those traditions, since it is no longer following those old traditions. Its still a martial art with a good lineage, but no longer traditional.

Around fifteen years ago many traditional arts involved a lot more locking out of the joints in your techniques. Korean-style Tae Kwon Do for example.

Now if an art has changed to rid itself of that then it is no longer a traditional art, it is simply an art. Therefore many traditional arts do teach locking out, and techniques that'll cause joint damage. (It isn't only locking out that does)

Yes. If the techniques work they will be used, and I wouldn't be at all suprised to see them in use at a tournament if I ever could be bothered to go along and waste several hours of my time watching people hitting each other. I don't like tournaments. They do not interest me. Just because you seem to believe that effectiveness in tournaments is the be-all and end-all of the arts I cannot be bothered to do something I don't want to do.


For someone who teaches don't you think it is part of your job to know which techniques actually work in a fight?

I've told you already and you're ignoring it purely for the sake of argument. All of the techniques work, I can personally vouch for this. I have sparred several times outside class and seen the effectiveness of my techniques, although in the inter-class point sparring tournament (informal one) I visited I was disqualified for illegal techniques.


Would you rather have a 1980 K car, rusted but relaible
or a 2002 BMW, runs perfectly.

Both are the same price, both work.

If both get me there without damage to me then I couldn't care less which I have, I'd prefer an ugly car with better fuel effeciency and cheaper insurance to some flash yuppie's car any day.


I'm a farmer, you're a farmer. I think about what would be the best way to grow crops, study different methods and grow crops.

You think about it, ignore much of the information out on growing crops and never actually grow crops.

And yet again you completely ignore everything I've said. I've grown my crops in class, and I've harvested them on the street.

Have you ever used your techniques in a street confrontation with a druggie swinging a chain around and trying to mug you? Or anything similar?

If not, then please just drop the effectiveness of techniques issue. I know they work. Other people who've used them know they work. Get over it!


After the initial attack to they continue, or stop and let you do your technique?

Depends on the drill. Sometimes its done just like one attack three to five counters, others continuous attacking for a short while.


Target areas, elbows/knees, grabs, throws, locks, groundwork?

All areas are targets, angling off is emphasised (something you very rarely see anywhere else), elbows and knees are permitted, its just all the techniques you know, in a controlled fashion.


What about actually learning how to land them, (ie sparring with them)

Is not necessary, that's what we have shields and focus mitts for. If you know that you can hit them, there's no need to actually hit them to prove it. It hurts them, damages their confidence, and just isn't necessary, so why bother?


Nope, I had nothing against it until the digs against traditional arts finnally annoyed me.

You can sit their and say our stuff is dangerous, doesn't work as well, destroys the joints, causes arthritis, etc. I can come back and tell you you're wrong on just about everything about traditional arts and what you do is some of the least effective methods out there.

And you can do this without any knowledge of the art, principles or techniques whereas we make those claims with at least some evidence. Must be nice to be arrogant enough to argue on a subject about which you know absolutely nothing purely for the sake of argument.


Nope, to be honest its not something I would go out of my way to investigate.

Then why are you continuing the argument? Its obvious you've made up your mind based on the information you have (a handful of promotional materials) so why keep arguing and wasting everyone's time? If its just because you enjoy arguing please say so and I won't bother responding to any of your posts in future.


I do believe the point could be debated without challenging each other to duel though lol. It is beginning to look like a couple of people about to face off with rapiers lol

Hey, I've not challenged anyone. All that would prove is that one of us is either a better fighter or luckier. That's no use whatsoever to me, and if Andy believes that its the only way to prove which is better then that's his problem and not mine. My offer, to anyone who has doubts about Choi, is simply to take them through the techniques and principles, how we train, everything, not to try and beat the crap out of them.

[morphus]

I did type in a long statement but then wiped it off accidently before putting on to post (*~#$) I'll type it again another time.

So for now here is a website or two for Andrew to click on to. These are just a sample and do not explain everything there is to know about CKD.
The first has techniques in action!!!!
The others are from recent converts from other arts.

www.concentric.net/~sertic/tech.htm
www.martialartsnz.com/
www.martialarts-largo.com

[Tseek Choi]

CKD is often called "The art of street Fighting".
I wonder how long a CKD exponent would last against a competent Wing Chun exponent?

"Being better relative to another martial art is unimportant, except in marketing."

Fine unless you are up against someone proficient in a real martial art.

Note to all the CKD people out there.
people from other styles would not ridicule CKD to such an extent if CKD did not blatantly insult all traditional arts, especially when the only "traditional" art they name is TKD.
Have you even seen a style like Xing Yi or BaJiQuan?


Colin...................

[morphus]

There are many other styles that i have not seen, i have seen a quite a few, and trained in a few. In CKD the emphesise is not on whether we can beat another martial artist or a pro' boxer or win on the ground in a cage, i would have little confidence(though i'd have a go if i HAD to) against a pro' in a ring/cage or other arena.
The point is to defend ourselves in a street confrontation i.e mugging etc - in this situation i would not necessarely stand and fight, i may have to hit and escape/run for the opponant might be a lot bigger and stronger, have weapon, or have his mates waiting for there turn. So its the escape opportunity i want more than anything in that case - it really depends on the situation. This is reality.
I suspect a great athletic martial artist could do a 56 move kata on an attacker, but while he's doing that one of the attackers mates puts a bottle over his head or a knife in his back or kicks his head in while he's on the ground trying to put an arm lock on(this is why we(CKD) don't go to ground if we can help it).
We (CKD) know how it all works, that doesn't make us right all the time with every technique, it just our (CKD) way.
I said earlier "if i had to"(defend myself)only then would i use anything i have been taught and a hell of a lot more for survival.

We are also taught to bite - gauge - elbow - knee - pull hair even and do anything it takes to defend ourselves. You name it we 'll use it because thats what its all about SURVIVAL!

[stump]

Hi folks,

just a quick question for the CKD guys and apologies it's it's been answered before and I missed it?

Do you pressure test (in the animal day sense of the term) yourselves and your techniques?

[morphus]

I try to personally, but we can only go so far, i try to pressure test my students also to a certain extent.
Not quite animal day.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Traditional - following old traditions and staying with them.

Okay, are we all agreed on that?


For the sake of argument yes.


Now an art is no longer traditional if it changes those traditions, since it is no longer following those old traditions. Its still a martial art with a good lineage, but no longer traditional.


Then the TKD your Mr Choi learned was not a traditional art.


Around fifteen years ago many traditional arts involved a lot more locking out of the joints in your techniques. Korean-style Tae Kwon Do for example.


Name 3 others.



Now if an art has changed to rid itself of that then it is no longer a traditional art, it is simply an art. Therefore many traditional arts do teach locking out, and techniques that'll cause joint damage. (It isn't only locking out that does)


Nope, thats not how it works. 100+ years ago no locking, probably 50 years ago. The change was locking to make it look better. This was most likely a mistake in the proper transimission of technique.

Oh, and traditional arts CAN change.


Yes. If the techniques work they will be used, and I wouldn't be at all suprised to see them in use at a tournament if I ever could be bothered to go along and waste several hours of my time watching people hitting each other. I don't like tournaments. They do not interest me. Just because you seem to believe that effectiveness in tournaments is the be-all and end-all of the arts I cannot be bothered to do something I don't want to do.


No Holds barred fights are the closest your going to get to streetfighting. What works in them will most likely also work in a street fight. Whats that nickname you like to give your style again?


I've told you already and you're ignoring it purely for the sake of argument. All of the techniques work, I can personally vouch for this. I have sparred several times outside class and seen the effectiveness of my techniques, although in the inter-class point sparring tournament (informal one) I visited I was disqualified for illegal techniques.


And a 286 works, why would anyone want a pentium 4?


All areas are targets, angling off is emphasised (something you very rarely see anywhere else), elbows and knees are permitted, its just all the techniques you know, in a controlled fashion.


What!?! Rarely see?!? I suppose you'd actually have to look to see what others are doing. You'll never see the sun if you stay locked in the basement.


Is not necessary, that's what we have shields and focus mitts for. If you know that you can hit them, there's no need to actually hit them to prove it. It hurts them, damages their confidence, and just isn't necessary, so why bother?


They don't hit back, pads and shields are not the same as people. You can't learn timing from a pad, it just doesn't work.



And you can do this without any knowledge of the art, principles or techniques whereas we make those claims with at least some evidence. Must be nice to be arrogant enough to argue on a subject about which you know absolutely nothing purely for the sake of argument.


You ignore 99.99% of traditional styles and insult them at every turn, you ignore all evidence that doesn't lead to the conclussions you want. Knowing nothing about your training methods that alone is enough for me.


Then why are you continuing the argument? Its obvious you've made up your mind based on the information you have (a handful of promotional materials) so why keep arguing and wasting everyone's time? If its just because you enjoy arguing please say so and I won't bother responding to any of your posts in future.


Because somebody has to, this is a public forum, Choi's advertises outside of there own membership. If someone makes claims against what I do that have no backing I will point out the errors. I will also put the people making the attacks on the pedistal, see if you can back your claims and where you get your information from.

You cannot. You only look at the few examples in which things are done wrong, locking the joints for example, and ignore the 99.99% of "traditional" styles that don't do that. You say you're methods are superior, but you know nothing about what others are doing.

If you don't want traditional stylists to attack your style, don't attack traditional styles and methods without knowing what your talking about first.


Hey, I've not challenged anyone. All that would prove is that one of us is either a better fighter or luckier. That's no use whatsoever to me, and if Andy believes that its the only way to prove which is better then that's his problem and not mine. My offer, to anyone who has doubts about Choi, is simply to take them through the techniques and principles, how we train, everything, not to try and beat the crap out of them.

Yes the art of streetfighting, in which noone will fight.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by morphus
[B]
I suspect a great athletic martial artist could do a 56 move kata on an attacker,


You miss the point to kata completely.


but while he's doing that one of the attackers mates puts a bottle over his head or a knife in his back or kicks his head in while he's on the ground trying to put an arm lock on(this is why we(CKD) don't go to ground if we can help it).


I once had a BJJ practitioner say that they spend a lot of time fighting with someone in a mounted position because that was the las place they'd ever want to be in a real fight.

Wanting to avoid the ground is a lot different then not training to be able to do it.

By the way, BJJ is just as traditional as TKD if not more so in my opinion.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

You ignore 99.99% of traditional styles and insult them at every turn, you ignore all evidence that doesn't lead to the conclussions you want. Knowing nothing about your training methods that alone is enough for me.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you were insulting my art with absolutely no knowledge of it. I understand now that saying something that is true in many cases, although not in all or most, is an insult to all traditional martial arts, not merely those that lock out and do perform damaging techniques. I will mend my ways in future and not point out the benefits of CKD over these.


Because somebody has to, this is a public forum, Choi's advertises outside of there own membership. If someone makes claims against what I do that have no backing I will point out the errors. I will also put the people making the attacks on the pedistal, see if you can back your claims and where you get your information from.

I have backed my claims up, many times. Once again we come to you arguing purely for the sake of argument, and ignoring all evidence that I give because it doesn't fit into your frame of reference.


You cannot. You only look at the few examples in which things
are done wrong, locking the joints for example, and ignore the 99.99% of "traditional" styles that don't do that. You say you're methods are superior, but you know nothing about what others are doing.

Locking out isn't the only way that some traditional styles damage your joints. You don't even need to lock out to cause damage if you're having to use muscle to stop a technique you've thrown, it does almost the same thing. I'd also call it pretty damaging when you put two people up against each other full contact, hardly going to appeal to the average middle-aged businessman who just wants somewhere his family can go and learn martial arts to make themselves secure.


If you don't want traditional stylists to attack your style, don't attack traditional styles and methods without knowing what your talking about first.

You might note that I didn't attack anything. That was you attacking Choi out of the blue. If your argument is with grandmaster Choi or the claims made on the website then e-mail them. I'm a lowly assistant instructor, unsuprisingly the heads of Choi Kwang Do do not confide in me everything that they are going to do.

I have a 386 here, I actually use it on quite a regular basis for the things that it works for. It is infinitely more reliable than this tacky, overpowered and underefficient pentium that I've got in front of me at the moment.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
[B]
I understand now that saying something that is true in many cases, although not in all or most, is an insult to all traditional martial arts, not merely those that lock out and do perform damaging techniques.



Humor me, without mentioning TKD name 3 tradtional arts which typically lock out there techniques. I'm pretty sure I could name 30 that don't.

[morphus]

Andrew you seem to be taking every little point literally.
You also seem to want to argue more statements made by CKD STUDENT, you only pick up on the fact that you think we are attacking trad' forms of martial art.
When CKD was first announced it was advertised as being better for you than SOME NOT ALL trad forms but now CKD can stand on its own two feet, some of the statements about trad forms are just left overs from that period.
Is the style you practice actually named as being inaffective? No its not, CKD was pointing more to TKD and sports /competition karate - if YOU teach in a way thats geared towards the street then thats fair enough i and i'm sure all other CKD students/instructors will highly respect that.

[Freeform]

Nice debate going on guys.

Firstly, don't you think that over the 1500yrs of recorded oriental schools and I believe over 2000yrs for the Egyptian/Southern european schools that prehaps they would have figured out the best way to practice techniques long before know. There are of course personal preferences but come on, basics are basics. The only real points that exist these days are power against mobility against cover up.

The kicking techniques you describe sound very familiar to the ones I practice in Shotokan and Wado Ryu.

And as to locking out this, I believe, was started in the 1950's by the American GI's who trained in Japan for a couple of years and then went back to america, promoted themselves to BB and opened schools. Their Japanese teachers didn't correct them either through ignorance (the difference in body types) or because the Americans had nuke them twice and they thought it would be funny for these GI's to be inadvertantly hurting themselves.

I've got to agree with Andrew on the pressure testing because I do alot of it myself and see a big difference between myself and students of schools who do not. I'm thinking of writing up something to show people how to safely pressure test.

In closing I'd hope to see Jimmy and Morphus at the UK meet we've been trying to organise for a while so we can all enlighten each other.

Cheers

Colin

[LilBunnyRabbit]

What exactly do you mean by pressure testing?

With regards to working out how to do the techniques properly two thousand years ago, yes, I have no doubts that they did. Those techniques have passed down and passed on through time.

Heard of Chinese whispers?

The best way to keep techniques effective and relevant is simply to constantly research them. I know that most traditional arts do this, but some schools boast that they are doing the techniques their master was taught by his master was taught by his master, and so on, without any new memes in the mix. When that happens what you get is meme inbreeding.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
What exactly do you mean by pressure testing?


Here's a example of the sort of progression I typically use.

Sprawl & leg take down:

First take the leg take down, go throw the mechanics working against a stationary opponent. Grab like this, shoulder here, head like this, follow throw like this, etc.

Once the mechanics are down get the opponent to start moving and throwing strikes. The person doing the takedown defends and when the time is right moves in for the take down. Start slow work it up, have the other person move out of the way if they see it coming after its been done a few times...

Next introduce the sprawl. Go through the how to, get the motions down, then have someone really try to take you down. Sometimes they succeed, other times they don't. Take just that technique and spar with it. Both people just go for a leg take down, defend with a sprawl.

Have one person throwing strikes, the other going for a leg takedown, the person throwing strikes is to do the sprawl when the leg takedown attempt is made, the person going for the take down really does go for the take down.

Now let either do it, both throw strikes, just some light sparring strikes only. But at anytime either may attempt a leg take down, the other may respond with a sprawl. The goal is either a successful takedown, or a successful sprawl.

Now really spar, all techniques go. The leg take down and the sprawl become a part of it. If you can't make it work, it fails the test. If you land on your face every time you try the take down it needs work, if you spend most of the time falling backwards your sprawl needs work.

If you can't make it work effectively in sparring no matter what you do, it probably isn't a very useful technique.

Being able to do a technique well isn't enough. Being able to land a solid jab into the bag is nice. But you also need the timing to do it when the target is moving and coming in and out of your line of fire, it is trying to defend against you and it is also trying to hit you, or close to a clinch or takedown.

Pad's don't protect themselves or hit back. There are many drills you can do to improve your jab, but one must be sparring with it.

[Freeform]

Cheers for the pressure test explanation Andrew.

You can also take this to its natural conclussion and allow almost anything, exclussions normally include fishhooks, eye-gouges, biting etc. This sort of training has to be done under strict supervision for the obvious reasons. This way you get to practice attacks/defence in real time against a trained opponent. If you can get techniques to work in this environment, it should be easier to do it live.

Thanx

[Freeform]

Just posted a brief discription of how we Tai Jitsu guys pressure test over in the Tai Jitsu thread if your interested.

[amiller127]

Andrew Green

First, you have never seen Choi Kwang-Do in action, or had its principles and philosophies explained to you. This message board is a poor medium in which to explain techniques and drills. The best thing to do is to see a few classes or seminars on the subject and then base your decisions on that. If you want to have the chance to see CKD then there will be a seminar in Canada if you can make it

Canada Seminar
When : Saturday, July 19, 2003
Where : Toronto, Ontario
Details : Contact HQ for Details

Im not sure if it is that far away from you.

Why do we mainly list Tae Kwon Do as a traditional Martial Art and compare CKD to it. Simple, the majority of the ORIGINAL CKD instructors came from Choi Kwang-Do. They attended a seminar by Grandmaster Choi and they compered their art to CKD and decided that what we taught made sense. We do however have instructors who have studied many other arts, such as Jiu Jitsu (Mr Paul Jones, Mr Jamie Treharne, Mr Chris Ellis in the UK to name a few.)

verseas, Mr Bruce Cairney (Austrailia, studied numerous arts), "Mr Stephen Kendall Jones, New Zealand The Chief Instructor and owner is Stephen Kendall-Jones, with 28 years training and a vetran 5th Dan Black Belt. Master Instructor Kendall-Jones is a holder of multiple black belt grades; 5th Dan Choi Kwang Do, 5th Dan Shotokan Karate; 3rd Dan Shito Ryu Karate; 3rd Dan Tang Soo Do Korean Karate; 5th Dan American Kenpo and instructor level in Krav Maga (Israeli military self-defence). His knowledge of fighting systems are unparalleled in this region. He also has a lot of real-life experience to draw on after 8 years as a specialist police officer in a variety of roles including undercover, riot, anti-terrorist and detective roles in one of the UK's most violent cities, being involved in over 400 serious, violent incidents. 5 years of service as aircrew in the Royal Air Force gives Sensei Kendall-Jones a unique view of combat strategy as well."

THIS MAN HAS CONVERTED TO CHOI KWANG DO BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A PRACTICAL MARTIAL ART. HE CHANGED BECAUSE HE SAW THE ART IN ACTION AND WAS FED UP WITH THE INJURIES THAT HIS PEERS WERE INFLICTING UPON THEMSELVES.



Maybe you would like an unbiased opinion. Mr Paul Clifton, Editor of 3 of thh UK's martial arts magazines, who has seen almost any style that is worth seeing says this.

As the editor of 3 world leading martial arts magazines, I can assure you there is very little that can be classed as new in the world of martial arts.

I must admit that I too was very skeptical about some of the statements being brandished about, such as ;



“It has given me a new vigor for life” and



“since taking up the study of Choi Kwang -Do I can face any obstacle in life”



My skepticism was quashed, however, when I finally had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing the man behind this revolutionary martial art; Grandmaster Kwang Jo Choi.

Mr Clifton has met Grandmaster Choi on numerous occasions now and ranks CKD as one of the best martial arts he has ever seen. On his first interview with Kwang Choi, he came away from the photo session and he asked his cameraman what he thought of Choi Kwang-Do. The cameraman of this magazine who also has seen just about everything that you can see in martial arts wanted to join the art. If you dont believe me then contact him at Paul@martialartsinprint.com or pick up a copy of COMBAT magazine.


As for Sparring. Like everything in life it has its pros and cons. Sparring may help you develop reflexes, timing and strategies. Sparring isnt suitable for everyone. It may well work for you. However sparring leads to more injuries (fact). Sparring isnt practical for a street self defence situation (fact) With sparring, there are rules to follow - which you would not have on the street. By sparring you are both looking for openings to hit the other person. I have had a few of my students start sparring in class as an experiment. They moved around, they jabbed, they both ended up countering each other. They would switch bewteen attacking and defending when need be. At the end of it they were bother knackered and hurt. They were so focused on finishing the fight atht they werent looking for a way to get out of it unharmed.

What is wrong with doing a sprint away from your opponent and avoiding a fight? If i do that have i not " Defended Myself" Succesfully. Why do we need to have such a Macho, ******** attitude in the martial arts. As far as im concerened i will do my best to avoid a fight if possible. But i get attacked and i have to retaliate i will hit the person attacking me as hard and fast as i can.

Another thing with sparring, you know your opponent. If you and i were to spar, you would instantly be aware. your adrenilin would flow and you would prepare to fight. You will have had a chance to evaluate me and guess what are my strengths or weaknesses. If i was to see you on the street and attack you without any notice, the psychology would be different. And if i hit you on the street, it would hurt you a hell of a lot more than when we sparred. You may outpoint me in the dojang or even outfight me. But if you were to attack me in the street and you had no idea of who i was and what i do, you would have a hell of a time trying to put me down.

As we do not spar, we use defence drills to build these skills. The drills start off by getting the students blocking punches and kicks of any type. With this they learn to deal effectivly with a large variety of techniques from multiple angles. They also learn to angle around, to not move in a straight line and make as hard a target to hit as possible. We also teach dodges and slips to make it that much harder to hit the person. This is all taught (Not Mastered) by Yellow Senior belt at least (6 months in).

Sometime during the first six months, we start weaning the students off of this type of blocking constant attacks from multiple angles. They have learnt defensive skills and have improved their reflexes considerably. We than teach counter attacks. One student will attack with punches or kicks. the otehr will angle around (Opening the oponent up to attack at the sides or back) and then counter attack as quickly as possible. This start off slow and then builds up speed until the defender can block and throw an effective counter attack in the smalles amount of time.

the next step then is what we call "Wild Attacks". This is where we start with our hands down and no stance. We are then attacked from any angle within our field of vision and we react by blocking and the counter attacking. So by now we have built up our defensive reactions and are opening up pour opponent and looking for where we can counter attack. After this drill we have a few others that im not going into for now.

So we basically build the same charecteristics that you do with sparring. We work on our reactions, we build up counter attacks, fighting strategies. We do this in as safe and controlled manner as realistically possible, because not all people want to leave the class hurt, but want to know self defence skills. In all of the years i have been in CKD (11 in jan 2003) i have never seen any choi student come away from a lesson with a serious injury. One or two nose bleeds and a bruise are the worst. In comparison, two years ago in a tournament, semi contact near to where i live a Karate student was killed by a messed up techniqe. I have spoken to a few Karate and Tae Kwon Do people and almost all that do free sparring or competitions have been injured or hurt badly in class. If you can gain the same skills without getting hurt what would you prefer?? Or do you feel that getting hurt is a part of martial arts?? Self Defence, the idea is to keep yourself from harm and minimise any damage. By sparring you will end up hurting yourself. Doesnt sound like the kind of defence i would like. Why spend years of yourlife learning to save yourself from getting hurt by a stranger when you are effectivly hurting yourself to do it??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrelevant. If your kicks truly are effective, people who do compete would be using them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. How many CKD schools are there in Canada?? As far as i know there are two in ALL of Canada. The main areas for CKD are Atlanta Georgia, Michigan, UK, India and thats about it. It is a new martial art. Not many peole have heard of it or taken the time to learn about its principles and techniques. The most anoying thing that people do is when i tell them i do Choi Kwang-Do they tell me that i mean Tae Kwon Do. Not many people have experienced this art and so it hasnt filtered into the mainstream as such. Give us 50 years and see how many people will adapt our teachniques for their practicality and power then. We are now 15 years old!! How many of the people who compete have seen CKD, trained in CKD and understood the art. 0% If they did, they would utilise teh techniques. Too many people think that we are basically modified Tae Kwon Do with a bit of boxing. They have never taken the time to understand how the art works and so derride it

By the Way, Paul Jones has a students who entered an amateur boxing competition. There were many stages and his student got to the final. The majority of the people he fought were knocked out and a few by his first or second punch. He also had the highest knockdown rate in the contest by far. The final fight wasnt much because both men had got tired and they fought to a points decision. If you would like to spar and ever come to the UK get Paul to ask that student to train with you. I would put my money on him and he isnt even a black belt. Ok, he may not have been able to kick in the competition, but i would love to see you take one of his kicks. I know people who have a bruise that has lasted for 2 years because they had to try and block his techniques he is that powerfull.


Target areas, elbows/knees, grabs, throws, locks, groundwork?

Choi Kwang Do also has close range drills. these are for when you get into grappeling range. they are generally basic techniques for fighting you way out of being grabbed. What we teach hear is basic, but extremely effective. Why is it basic. Because, 1 the simple stuff we do works. 2 Its a lot easier to remmeber. How do i know it works. 1 I have been attacked and succesfully used them to defend myself. 2 In my class we practice the close range agressivly among the senior adults. I have used these drills to release myself from quite a few grabs and holds against people bigger and stronger than me. Once we get a release we use in fighting techniques. A range of elbows, knees, headbutts. I teach controlling the head to controlthe body and throw the attacker off balance. I even teach my students to use bighting, gouging and even their shoulders as weapons. We also teach the students a few basic takedowns to finish off a fight. We dont go down with them and get them in locks. We teach how to break a persons balance and slam then into the floor. We dont teach any more after that because there is no need to attack a person that is down and it would be illeagal then anyway.

We do also have a limited amount of groundswork in the art. It isnt part of the syllabus, but it is stuff that the instructors are taught so that they can round off their martial arts and self defence skills. This is then taught to the students when teh instructor feels it is appropriate.

As for locks, we dont teach then. Its all fine to practice locks on your partner, but it restricts you and leaves you vulnerable to attack by others. Why, tie up two or more of your weapons to get a person in a lock when you can end a fight by punchinh, kicking or striking? Why get someone in a lock and run the risk of one of their friends being nearby and attacking you when your tied up?? And when you get a person in a lock, what do you do? Do you break their arm or joint etc?? Do you leave them go?? If you leave them go, whats the likelihood of them attacking you again, but being sneekier this time. Why wait around, or give that person a chance to attack you again?

CKD like everythin has good and bad points in an overall self defence system. We can teach you to punch, kick and strike to your full potential. You could improve your power considerably when you spend the time to learn the art. We do not however have much of a groundwork syllabus. It is a small amount that we
do, but it is basic and it works. Our aim isnt to go to the floor and wrestle, but if we are taken down we can defend ourselves. Maybe not as much as a jiu jitsu black belt, but we have a better chance then other people.

Im sure that you will pick apart everything i write with a fine toothcomb. You may find the odd contradiction, but then who is perfect. And by the way, sorry for the spelling and bad grammer, its late and im tired.

Dont have a go at CKD, you have never experienced it. The majority of the UK instructors have come from different martial arts. they have experienced many different kinds and have settled onthis because IT WORKS. James' instructor used to do other arts and so he passes his knowledge and experience on to James. He may or may not have done any other art in his life, but the fact that he is using facts, tken from a second generation source, doesnt make them any less truthfull.

And by the way, CKD does advertise outside of its membership, but so does every other art. what is the point of advertising and promoting the art to people who have already found it and experienced it?? We are proud of the art, it is incredible and we are proud of that. We welcome anyone who wants to learn it, just like other arts would. We want to see it grow and spread to as many places as possible. What is wrong with that. Im sorry if that offends you and that you dont like what we claim. However, i fail to see how you can dispute our facts when you have never seen the art for yourself and base your comments on articles and adverts. Why are you so defensive? Maybe you feel threatened by the fact that, if what we are saying is true, then some of what you have spent years learning has been improved on and you dont know or understand it. If you werent so thretend you wouldnt be arguing with a teenager who has spent a small amount of his life studying the art. Try aiming your arguments to the more senior people such as Mr Brophy whos contact details you can find at www.choikwangdo.co.uk or are you afraid of the possibility of being proven wrong?

Pil Sung

Dale Miller

CKD Instructor and examiner for Wales, UK

[amiller127]

BTW

It should read


Why do we mainly list Tae Kwon Do as a traditional Martial Art and compare CKD to it. Simple, the majority of the ORIGINAL CKD instructors came from Tae Kwon Do. They attended a seminar by Grandmaster Choi and they compered their art to CKD and decided that what we taught made sense. We do however have instructors who have studied many other arts, such as Jiu Jitsu (Mr Paul Jones, Mr Jamie Treharne, Mr Chris Ellis in the UK to name a few.)

[waya]

Wow, getting a bit heated in here :D

Personally I don't think that any one system is more practical than any other. It all depends on the practitioner, and the quality of instruction.

After reading your post, I don't believe CKD would be practical for me. But for others it most likely would be a good choice, depending on what purpose is behind the training.

Rob

[Andrew Green]

Dale,

Perhaps I'll go into this more later as I'm a little short on time right now.

You have said nothing that has not been said, your attempt to prove the case of CKD has done nothing to sway me towards seeking out an instructor. In fact it has simply confirmed my opinion that CKD is not for me and does not train in a manner I would consider effective for my purposes.

On the kicks, you don't need a CKD practioner to throw the sort of kicks you do, if they worked those that compete would use them its that simple. Do you really think a MMA competitor cares what schools teach the kicks he uses? Of course not, if they work in the ring (or octagon) they are good kicks.

As for your puncing, aren't your punches derived from boxing?

If so do you know why boxers punch the way they do? Do you know how they punched under LPR, or Broughton rules? Do you know why they do it differently now?

Street vs Mat: Not as big of difference as you think. If it doesn't work on the mat, it won't work on the street. Yes there are differences and they need to be recognized, but the two are very similar.

grappling: very important, hitting someone isn't always the best alternative for real situations. I'd prefer to end it with a lock/restraint/choke if possible.

Sparring: without some form of it (many forms prefered) with as few rules as possible you are missing out on the most effective means of training.

Kind of like opening a hockey school (Hey, I'm Canadian ;) ) and teaching some skating, puck handling, shooting, passing and saying you've learnt to play hockey without ever actually playing or even getting hit and hitting, trying to get past a real person, etc. You may have better chances then someone without that training, but you haven't learnt to play. All you've done is learnt some basic skills. Anyone with any real experience is going to beat you badly, so what if you get lucky against a team thats never even skated before?

And then, you go out and claim a superior method of learning to play hockey, no one gets hurt and you don't compete, even amongst yourselves.

Now you market your "new and improved" method of teaching hockey to a bunch of real hockey teams and seem supprised when someone starts pointing out that you're "system" is flawed in its approach. The only reply is that they should come out and try it before giving an opinion. Why bother?

You don't play the game, you leave out a good chunk of the skills as they might cause injury and do things differently then those that actually play the game, drawing from modified skills coming from other sports like figure skating and baseball.

[Freeform]

Can I interject with a dose of reality?

The proof of the the pudding is in the eating. Have you ever had to defend yourself in the street? This is the only real test to the practicality of your training?

Colin

[Andy Murray]

Personally I'm pleased that, whilst heated, the current CKD thread is a little more objective than the previous one.

We express opinions based on the sum total of our previous experiences, yet; we are limited by our ability to recognise others reasoning via this present medium.

On both sides of the debate I see points well made, and points I vehemently disagree with. The best conclusion is to meet up and discuss, prove/disprove points made, though I think this should be done in a less challenging manner by both parties.

As opposed to making statements, I feel there is a need here to ask more questions to clarify the points made.

Regardless of whether we agree all the time, I have found from experience that we, as MArtistes have so much common ground that we always get along in person.

Let's not start firing missiles across the Atlantic just yet eh?

(A.Miller you can correct mistakes in your post by hitting the red Edit button at the bottom of it. No need to re-post the correction)

Regards to all.

Andy

[morphus]

Ok, Andy Murray has made a good point, more questions need to be asked and more answers given. So, can we have questions about CKD perhaps from Andrew Green or anyone else for that matter, the questions should be about one point/subject at a time, so it gives us a good chance to answer in depth about that particular point/subject.:)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

You have said nothing that has not been said, your attempt to prove the case of CKD has done nothing to sway me towards seeking out an instructor. In fact it has simply confirmed my opinion that CKD is not for me and does not train in a manner I would consider effective for my purposes.


Since you seem to have a fairly negative opinion of it purely from publicity materials and with no or very little experience then yes, I doubt it is for you. Just because you wouldn't like it though doesn't make it inneffective.


On the kicks, you don't need a CKD practioner to throw the sort of kicks you do, if they worked those that compete would use them its that simple. Do you really think a MMA competitor cares what schools teach the kicks he uses? Of course not, if they work in the ring (or octagon) they are good kicks.


How about if they've been proven time and again to work on the street?


As for your puncing, aren't your punches derived from boxing?


Not quite, some of the principles are similar since boxing punches have good mechanics, but we teach a variety, not merely the ones used in boxing, and we also include a variety of strikes, both hands, elbows and knees.


If so do you know why boxers punch the way they do? Do you know how they punched under LPR, or Broughton rules? Do you know why they do it differently now?


No and no, and to be honest I don't really think it affects me. We punch the way we do because its a way to generate as much power as possible from the techniques. How do you punch?


Street vs Mat: Not as big of difference as you think. If it doesn't work on the mat, it won't work on the street. Yes there are differences and they need to be recognized, but the two are very similar.


Yep, one's soft and bouncy, the other usually involves someone stepping out of the dark and swinging a punch at you, grapping you by the shoulder and trying to hit you, two guys trying to take your wallet off you, someone coming at you with a baseball bat with no particular warning, someone jumping you from behind to try and rip your backpack away, a drunkard simply swinging a kick at you for no real reason, a guy on drugs convinced that you've got some, and determined to get them off you no matter what, someone trying to steal your car in a dark carpark at night. Shall I go on?


grappling: very important, hitting someone isn't always the best alternative for real situations. I'd prefer to end it with a lock/restraint/choke if possible.


Fine, you end it like that. Personally I'd like to hit them as hard as I can, put them down or at least cause them enough pain that they're not gonna be chasing after me as I sprint off into the distance. The same goes for their two mates hiding round the corner.


Sparring: without some form of it (many forms prefered) with as few rules as possible you are missing out on the most effective means of training.


Really? How so? We're missing out on fighting against opponents trained and skilled in the same martial art? Missing out on being needlessly hurt? We learn to block and attack in defense drills, why bother introducing pain to it, except from some macho 'I can take more than you can' urge?


Now you market your "new and improved" method of teaching hockey to a bunch of real hockey teams and seem supprised when someone starts pointing out that you're "system" is flawed in its approach. The only reply is that they should come out and try it before giving an opinion. Why bother?


Fine, now if I criticise your art (doesn't matter what it is, if I wanted to I could find a way) and attack it without ever having seen it, how would you persuade me to believe that its a good art when I simply deny any statement that you make and refuse to try it for myself?


You don't play the game, you leave out a good chunk of the skills as they might cause injury and do things differently then those that actually play the game, drawing from modified skills coming from other sports like figure skating and baseball.


We don't play the game? Right, then why does it work on the street? We leave nothing out because it might cause injury, we simply practise in a safe way. And where did the whole figure skating and baseball thing come in?


The proof of the the pudding is in the eating. Have you ever had to defend yourself in the street? This is the only real test to the practicality of your training?


Yes, more than once or twice, as have other people I know ranging from white belts up to third dan black belt. They vast majority have managed it, in fact as far as I'm aware the only one who ever actually got hurt in an encounter was me, mainly because I was overconfident and turned to walk away a little too early.

[Andrew Green]

There are a number of issues here, all of which are worth discussion.

Is sparring necessay?
Is groundwork?
Is hitting and running the best strategy?

all of which I'd be more then willing to discuss, but this thread is getting rather dull. You've made your claims, you believe them, have fun with it. I disagree with your methods, your theories and your style as a whole. Unless something new can be brought forth I see no reason to continue.

Freeform: Not really, Any training is better then none. Buying a big and hitting it for 30 mins a day will make you a better fighter and increase your odds on the street. So why don't we just shut down all the schools and buy bags?

Tae Bo is better then nothing and can be used for defence. Is Tae Bo an effective martial art?

There are some people that can defend themselves without any formal training, does that mean we shouldn't train?

All arts CAN work, I won't try to argue that. But some work better then others.

Get a group of figure skaters, and another group that has never played hockey, or even skated. The two groups are about equal in every other sense, but one has trained in figure skating. Have them play hockey, the figure skaters will win. So I conclude that figure skating is an effective method of playing hockey.

Better then nothing yes, but good no.


And where did the whole figure skating and baseball thing come in?


reread the post.

[Freeform]

Andrew, I think you kind of missed my point, I meant that if your advertising the style as 'streetfighting' the only 'real' proof that it works is by winning a street fight, of wich there are several types (muggings, multiples, match fights etc).


Personally I'd like to hit them as hard as I can, put them down or at least cause them enough pain that they're not gonna be chasing after me as I sprint off into the distance. The same goes for their two mates hiding round the corner.

My other point is that you can't ignore grappling, sometimes you don't get the chance to choose, such as with multiples or if someone just gets the drop on you and grabs you. Its very easy to happen, you can't be 100% vigilant 100% of the time

Just my 2 cents, please don't hurt me anyone :)

Thanx

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Andrew Green

all of which I'd be more then willing to discuss, but this thread is getting rather dull.



'Au Contraire' Monsieur Green,

It's just starting to get interesting :D

[morphus]

CKD doesn't ignore Grappling, we try to cover all ranges.

Grappling starts in stand up position(getting in close and grabbing)we train quite extensively in this.
It then moves to the ground with a take down of sorts, again we teach the simplest/most practical for us, once on the ground the most practical thing to do is simply get up(if you don't get up you do run the risk of being attacked by other parties) so we teach simple, effective escape techniques, once we're free from a hold we get up(we don't try to fight on the ground for reasons said earlier).
In CKD we first and foremost teach avoid a confrontation.
If it has to be......., we teach don't be on the ground for we don't know what 'll happen once we're there(we will have no control and no easy escape on the ground, where as if we're on our feet and the odds turn against us we can always do a runner -"subject to terms and conditions"):D

If anyone disagrees with this lets discuss it.
The only problem is, with sinarios the answer tends to be different for each one, so try to steer clear of them.

[waya]

I agree with Freeform, groundifighting can't be ignored completely. A good percentage of street fights end up with at least one person on their back.

Rob

[morphus]

What exactly are we calling ground fighting?

Do we have one definition or are there a few or even many?

I'd like a few people to give there input on that question to see if we are all of the mind!

Opinions please?

[waya]

To me, anything from the ground up. If I'm not on my feet I consider it groundfighting.

Rob

[morphus]

If you're taken to the floor do you stay there indefinately and try to win there or do you wait for - hopefuly - an opportunity to get up and then run or kick the sh*te out of them or does it depend on the situation in which case we can't really debate it anyway.

If we're are faced with mugger or rapist or even multiple attackers for instance is it better to stay on the ground and try and win from there(mistakes are made thats how fights are won and lost) or provide a escape for ourselves and get up and run like hell?

We've got to look at the worst possible senario...no?
Any thoughts on that?

[amiller127]

grappling: very important, hitting someone isn't always the best alternative for real situations. I'd prefer to end it with a lock/restraint/choke if possible.


I agree, that hitting someone isnt always the best for every situation. the best alternative is to try to avoid any confrontation if possible. While i do believe that there are occasions when you may need to restrain someone i dont think its wise to lock someones limbs. By doing that you are tying yourself up unessacarily and leaving yourself open for a friend or another person to come in to attack you. As for chocking, like locking, im not happy to try to choke someone. I actually was experimenting with choke's in class and i managed to knock a student out with one. It's too risky to practice on people as far as im concerned. And if you dont practice a technique with an element of realism you just get a negative transfer from doing it. After all, if all you practice is to lightly lock you arms around someones throat then you will end up doing that on the street and get nowhere.

Im not trying to convert you to CKD Andrew. As far as im concerned, i couldnt care what you really think of the art as your not someone i know well enough to worry about their thoughts and beliefs. I mearly illistrated SOME of our training methods to let you see how we train for Self Defence. You may not feel those methods are for you and i respect your right to feel that way. I just felt like you didnt seem to understand how James was explaining our methods and i also felt that you were being very negative and aggressive unnecasarily. I have made my points and that is where i will leave it with you.

BTW, i feel that Choi Kwang-Do is the best art for me. I have gained so many benefits form it and i know that i can use it to defend myself succesfully, without causing unnecassery stress to my body. I also acknowledge that although it is an excellent art, there are things to be learnt from other arts that could benefit a CKD students overall self defence abilities. But what art is 100% perfect??? There is a flaw in every one. CKD has enabled me and my students to punch, kick and strike with an amazing amount of power. I know this as i have trained at other martial art classes and felt a difference in power with comparable sized students. There are training drills to cover a wide range of defence scenarios that are practical, easy to learn and apply with the minimum amount of lessons to be able to use them effectivly. I know this because i have used them and so have my students and the results have spoken for themselves. However, if i was to ever come accross a martial art that could teach me to punch, kick, strike harder and make my defence skills a magnitude better then i would go study that. I cant see that ever happening though. I have found what i want, but i still feel that there are other things to gain form studying other arts, you just have to filter it and apply what you can use to your training.

Pil Sung

Dale

[Andrew Green]

Response in Groundfighting thread...

[amiller127]

Its not just the lock out movements of Traditional Martial Arts that is different to CKD. Another difference in CKD and TKD is the way we block. TKD blocks (From what i have seen) work by first crossing the arms and then bringing the arm up to intercept the attackers limb (For a high block). In CKD we shift our body weight out of range and at the same time lift our arm to intercept the attack in one fluid motion.

TKD students that engage in competitions tend to know that their traditional way of blocking doesnt work and so do not cross their arms, but block straight away. So TKD teaches the student one traditional way to block that is impractical for realistic defence and they then block differently when in fights. What is the point of teaching something one way and then have to change it to make it work in a fight situation.

Another thing that we do differently is that we do not use the "blade" of the arm to block. In traditional blocks, only one of the two bones are used to intercept and block an attack. In CKD we use both the Radius and Ulna and effectivly spread the load of the deflection onto the two bones, instead of the one, effectivly allowing us to absorb more power safely. Also by using the one bone to block, as TKD Traditional Blocks are taught, the marital artist has to twist the Radius and the Ulna so that they are not parallel and effectivly cross. this leaves the arm sucseptible to breaking when used to defend heavt blows.

So in escence, when we Choi Kwang-Do instructors keep harping about how different our art is over traditional arts and how much more safer and practical it is, we do not just use the lock out techniques as an example. There are so many differences in the Bio Mechanics and principles of our art that differentiate us from the "Traditional" arts. Maybe some of the people who teach these arts have changed their teaching methods over the years, but the majority havent. So when we say training in CKD is healthier and more beneficial than tarining in some traditional arts we have more than one difference to show. Maybe over time, i and other CKD instructors will discuss more here, but im going to just leave it at that for now

Pil Sung

Dale Miller

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by amiller127

So in escence, when we Choi Kwang-Do instructors keep harping about how different our art is over traditional arts and how much more safer and practical it is, we do not just use the lock out techniques as an example. There are so many differences in the Bio Mechanics and principles of our art that differentiate us from the "Traditional" arts. Maybe some of the people who teach these arts have changed their teaching methods over the years, but the majority havent. So when we say training in CKD is healthier and more beneficial than tarining in some traditional arts we have more than one difference to show. Maybe over time, i and other CKD instructors will discuss more here, but im going to just leave it at that for now

Pil Sung

Dale Miller

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that caused all this. You make a huge generalization about how traditional arts do things with little or no exposure to the vast majority of traditional arts.

Here let me try this,

I've seen some "Korean" stylist lock their punches/kicks. I've seen Korean stylist that did not understand the motions in their forms, for example they tried to apply a motion as a block which clearly was not useable in the manner they attempted, I've seen Korean stylists that sparred in a poor manner if the goal is self-defence. I've seen Korean stylists that know very little about infighting. Want more?

Anyway I can fairly clearly show that Korean styles are inferior and damaging to the practitioner physically. They are ineffiecient for self-defence purposes and practice many non-practical skills.

So you should not study a Korean art, instead a Okinawan or Chinese or Philipino or...

Choi Kwang Do is a Korean art, as such it is inferior and self-damaging. They lock their joint, use non-useable blocks and don't train in a practical way.

Now can you spot the fallacy?

This is exactly what your propaganda does.

Actually mine covers more, a higher percentage of Korean arts do these then "traditional" arts as you only use TKD as your source for what traditional arts do. Their are a lot more traditional arts then their are Korean arts.

You cannot make claims like this based on one or two groups doing thigs WRONG.

Oh, and CKD IS A TRADITIONAL ART from everything I've seen and heard from you guys...

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Oh, and CKD IS A TRADITIONAL ART from everything I've seen and heard from you guys...

Then you haven't been listening.

As for the propoganda, I have yet to see a traditional form of karate, TKD, or even a form of American kickboxing that does not lock out on techniques or at the least halt the techniques by brute force just before a lockout. I'm sure they're out there, but I've not seen any of them. I've also yet to see a traditional form that does not block with a single bone in the arm, trying to cause damage with the blocks.

Now, given that I actually travel around to visit other schools whenever possible I think we can safely say that the claim can be backed up, not necessarily in all cases but the exceptions are the minority. Happy now?

[Freeform]

Happy now?

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy... you should know better than to ask that here.

Okay, as to people not understanding things let me dissect something for you. We'll use the (excuss me Andrew) "Traditional Karate upward block".

Firstly, the bone thing in a nice simplistic answer. What bears a stronger load point load, two beams side by side, or one beam on top of the other? Your increasing the amount of material to resist damage.

Next point. Hold a dumbell over your head. Try it with the outer forearm facing the ceiling, now try it with unla facing the ceiling, notice a difference? Yes, the second way is easier because now the muscles are aligned in a stronger position.

Rotation. When performed correctly the "Traditional blocks" include a 'snap' rotation of the forearm before contact, this adds extra power and the deflection used in (and I use the term loosely) Karate 'blocking'.

And this locking out of techniques is begining to sound old and tired. It has already been explained that these are incorrectly performed movements taught by inept teachers. CKD is relatively new compared to "traditional" arts, give it 10-15 yrs and your style will have the same problem that all the others have, cranks claiming to teach it (and doing it wrong) and idiots that have sneaked through the gradings that actually ar certified to teach (and are doing it wrong).

Regards

Colin

[morphus]

I am a student/instructor of CKD and i don't think we should have to justify the way we teach or justify the techniques and we shouldn't have to appologize for the way we advertise, if someone doesn't like it then they could learn/teach something else.

We don't have all the answers, it just suits the practitioners personally and individually.

CKD promotes - personal gain - health and flexability - self defence - self confidence etc.
Its safe and easy to learn, and non-competitive.

Whats to argue with, we haven't said anything that isn't true.

We could argue allday about any subject to do with CKD, the fact is people like it!

[Melanie]

Ahem...very well put morphus :)

Maybe its time we agreed to disagree?

Given the chance...we could all have a go at everybodys interpretation of MA. :D

hi, ho, hum...

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

As for the propoganda, I have yet to see a traditional form of karate, TKD, or even a form of American kickboxing that does not lock out on techniques or at the least halt the techniques by brute force just before a lockout.


I agree wholeheartedly that one shouldn't lock out the limbs when striking. This was a feature commonly found in Karate/TKD etc. in the 1970's and even 80's, in the UK. I would hope that less people do it nowadays. The style of Okinawan Karate I now study certainly does not encourage this practice. I don't know if you took part in Chris Barron's session on Okinawan Karate on Saturday but I don't believe that his style 'locks out'. And certainly I don't do that, but I wasn't teaching any Karate that day so you wouldn't have noticed that. However, if you trained with any of my students you shouldn't have seen them locking their limbs out straight.

Your system appears to disapprove of arresting a blow a little before 'lock out', by tensing the musculature around the joint? I personally believe that it is fine to do this, as long as your muscles have sufficient power and control to appropriately cushion the joint during this movement. I'd be interested to hear the rationale as to why CKD disapproves of this.


I'm sure they're out there, but I've not seen any of them. I've also yet to see a traditional form that does not block with a single bone in the arm, trying to cause damage with the blocks.


Actually I use both ways, depending on the circumstances. But anyway, I think that blocking methods in Karate and its derivative arts (eg. TKD) are extremely poorly understand by most practitioners. Which is why they block one way in basics and another way in sparring.

Mike

[morphus]

Ok Mike i'll try to explain how its done in CKD.

Stance is important feet comfortable pace forward turn feet approx' 45degrees inwards, rear hand just level with chin elbow relaxed to body; leading hand shoulder height elbow relaxed to body(arm making a 'v' shape)! I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STANCE TO PERFORM CKD TECHNIQUES.

If we take a rear punch(leading right leg-left hand punch)
it starts with a push off the rear leg, pushing the hips square to the target(plantar flex) and opening out the chest as you have not yet moved the stiking arm, this causes a stretch in the chest/shoulder(plymetric stretch);then perform a shoulder flip motion rolling the arm towards the target, (target is close in front of your face)at the striking point with the arm bent the shoulder/elbow/rist/fist should be aligned for a split second (when speeded up). The weapon is the first 2 knuckles. Drive through the target and follow through with the palm of punching hand facing the ground.
It is at the moment just before the arm locks out that we relax the elbow joint(causing a flowing motion) before bringing the hand and body back to the original starting point ready for the next technique!
There is no lock out, no sudden jolt to muscles/joints, no pull back.
The essence of CKD is flowing, foward(backward if we're forced)motion.
The same machanics are used for each and every punch/strike/kick/elbow/knee even head butt.

I hope that gives you a good idea of a CKD technique, as its written - stand up and try it, see what you make of it.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by morphus

CKD promotes - personal gain - health and flexability - self defence - self confidence etc.
Its safe and easy to learn, and non-competitive.

Whats to argue with, we haven't said anything that isn't true.


Morphus,

If that was all that was said, then none of this would be here. It is the shots against "traditional arts" and misinformation avout them that I object too.

I really don't care what you guys do, I've looked into it enough to say there is nothing for me in it. But if it makes inaccurate claims against what I do, saying it is harmfull and less effective based solely on strawmen arguments I will step up and show this.

Jimmy,

Please explain to me how CKD is not a traditional art. You follow a "traditional" rank structure, have a defined syllabus, rituals associated with your art, etc.

Its just not old, but the tradtitional aspects are still there.

What makes it different from a traditional art?

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by morphus
Ok Mike i'll try to explain how its done in CKD.

Stance is important feet comfortable pace forward turn feet approx' 45degrees inwards, rear hand just level with chin elbow relaxed to body; leading hand shoulder height elbow relaxed to body(arm making a 'v' shape)! I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STANCE TO PERFORM CKD TECHNIQUES.

If we take a rear punch(leading right leg-left hand punch)
it starts with a push off the rear leg, pushing the hips square to the target(plantar flex) and opening out the chest as you have not yet moved the stiking arm, this causes a stretch in the chest/shoulder(plymetric stretch);



With you so far.


then perform a shoulder flip motion rolling the arm towards the target, (target is close in front of your face)at the striking point with the arm bent the shoulder/elbow/rist/fist should be aligned for a split second (when speeded up).


But this bit isn't totally clear to me. I'm not sure what you mean by the shoulder flip. And when you say the shoulder, elbow, wrist & fist are aligned, do you mean they are in a straight line? Or do you mean something else by alignment?

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

I seem to recall reading in an earlier post about CKD addressing the 'Habitual Acts of Violence'. I take this approach myself, ie. I'm not really too worried about defending myself against jump spin whip kicks - but I do train to defend against wild haymaker punches for example. Do any of the CKD have a basic list of HAOV that you train to deal with?

Thanks,

Mike

[morphus]

Mike, yes the shoulder/elbow rist/fist are in a straight line from the shoulder - out. shoulder flip is just the natural farward role of the shoulder joint while extending the arm to target.

I hope that helps with that matter.

Yes we do have HAOV that we train to deal with.
These would be lapel grab, also done with impending punch - throat grab - wrist grabs - head locks - bear hug/rear and front - hair pulls etc etc, that type of thing.

Some of our drills are designed to defend against 'the ole haymaker' Wild attack.

Though we do spinning kicks at an advanced level(brown belt onwards), we do keep it as practical as possible, kicking low for defence, looking for practical targets like the knees, groin, and maybe ribs, the same applies when punching, we don't go for small targets like the temple, or certain nerve points, though we are made aware of them because the targets are too hard to hit when in a stressful, fast moving situation.

Andrew - I think the that the statement of being better for the practitioner than trad arts is true to a certain extent(my personal veiw). But the statement wasn't an attack on all trad arts, it was originally to point out that we are very different, we actually rarely use this statement any more in advertising though you can still find it if you look for it.
We may describe our art as non-trad because it doesn't look like trad arts when performed and also has different policies for self defence and also for business.
As for saying it has nothing for you , you may well think that, but maybe if you trained with us for a while there might be something you can take away and add to your own style - you never know.

With respect, morphus

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by morphus
Mike, yes the shoulder/elbow rist/fist are in a straight line from the shoulder - out. shoulder flip is just the natural farward role of the shoulder joint while extending the arm to target.

I hope that helps with that matter.


So far, so good. But now I'm trying to make sense of that in the context of your earlier comment about the elbow relaxing just before 'lock-out' would occur.

Trying to envisage this I'm concluding that your fist doesn't travel back to its starting point in a straight line. Rather its a straight punch that returns to a guard position along a different, curved, path. Am I on the right lines here?

By the way, don't think that I'm trying to make a critical comparison between your way of punching and mine. I'm just ever curious to examine different ways of solving the same problems. I'm also very concerned to teach students to use natural and ergonomic movements, so if you do have any views that 'nearly' locking the limbs out is detrimental I'd be interested to hear them.

Thanks,

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Shoulder, elbow and fist are in a line parallel to the floor, never in a straight line with one another viewed from above, only from the side. Travels a few inches past the contact point, then you allow the arm to simply fall, and drop back from the elbow to rest back in guard.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Shoulder, elbow and fist are in a line parallel to the floor, never in a straight line with one another viewed from above, only from the side. Travels a few inches past the contact point, then you allow the arm to simply fall, and drop back from the elbow to rest back in guard.

Gotcha. So (at least as far as the arm movement goes) not unlike a hook in boxing (not that I'm saying its exactly the same, just broadly similar). And presumably a lead hand punch is executed in a similar manner?

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Almost.

To start the punch off you torque forwards past the level, so your hips are past parallel, then you throw the punch as you would a rear inwards. The mechanics are the same for almost all of our punches, with a handful of exceptions.

[morphus]

Mike - hhmmmm... no not really, the punch when first learned/performed can seem like a hook, though this is not correct, it is a straight punch, and when performed correctly with experience it is very different to the hook - takes a lot of practice, to make it flow the right way.

We do however have a hook punch(round punch) of sorts using the same mechanics and is quite deliberately rounded/hooked.

There are a couple of factors other than whats been told you need to know,
You don't move your front foot at all - act as though its nailed to the floor,

When the punch goes forward (target in front of your face 8 to 12 inches)through the target( i'd say about 8 to 10 inches,maybe a bit more depends on your reach) extending to NEAR lock out, it is the elbow that relaxes first - being dropped to relax back into the body, hand and body following close behind to there original position, but all anatural fall back, not a pull back.

All CKD techniques are performed from only one ,two at the most stances - this simplifies things.

I have to admit i'd rather teach this face to face, it would'nt be so technical if i could show it aswell, but this is a challenge and prob' improving my teaching!

I hope this further helps, maybe i'll get to demonstrate to you some time.

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Morphus and Jimmy

Slightly confused still. Jimmy indicated that the shoulder elbow and fist are in the same horizontal plane (correct me if I'm wrong in that) but not in a straight line. But Morphus is saying that it is a straight punch. 'Straight' to me means that the shoulder, elbow and fist are all, more or less, in a straight line. So now I'm throwing a straight punch but instead of withdrawing along the same line, I'm dropping the elbow back in towards my body as I reach my maximum extension (not as far as 'lock-out'). Yes?

Mike

[morphus]

I'd say you more or less got it...it is a difficult concept to get over on the forum.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by morphus
I'd say you more or less got it...it is a difficult concept to get over on the forum.

Well, we got there in the end then.:)

Mike

[Freeform]

I am a student/instructor of CKD and i don't think we should have to justify the way we teach or justify the techniques


Sorry morphus but I'm a great believer in justifiying a technique, why its done and how it works. If I couldn't or wasn't willing to I wouldn't teach it. When we're talking about life or death I think this is VERY relevant.

Regards

Colin

[morphus]

Freeform - do you mean justify it to yourself and the student your teaching it to, if so well then yes i would justify it.

But i was actually talking about justifying it to someone who had never seen my techniques and never met in person. How can i justify a technique when i cannot show them it in an application, thats impossible, its easy to argue in words.

All anyone can say for sure is that 'it works for me', how can someone who you've never met argue with that, but when you say 'i do it like this' this is very easy to argue with.

If someone askes 'what art do you do'?
i answer 'Choi kwang do'
they look puzzled, cos they don't know what it is,
I tell them about it, they understand a little better,
If i show them what it is they understand a lot better.

Its like the 4 blind men describing an elephant, each decribes it differently because each had only used some part of the elephant as the base of there analysis.
You have to have the whole picture to fully understand.;)

Yours with respect, morphus

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Inwards punch is the technical term that we use (anuro jirugi), but the trajectory is a straight diagonal line. A way we used to explain it was to imagine a square with your shoulders as two of the corners, the trajectory should head towards the opposite corner.

[Andy Murray]

How does that differ from a boxers 'cross' Jimmy?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

In many ways it doesn't, the mechanics are very similar. Boxer's have good crosses, so we use similar principles. If something works, why break it?

[Andy Murray]

So why do you guys call it an Inwards punch then? If it's essentially a cross, why confuse people?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Because the majority of our students have never done boxing, and an inwards punch is a nice, simple descriptive term. Why call a particular kick a front kick? It differentiates it from the other kicks, describes the target and is a nice name for the technique.

Why call a uniform a do bok? Why call a school a dojang? Why call an instructor sabanyim?

[Andy Murray]

Personally I knew the terms Jab n Cross form age four. I think people are far more likely to recognise said technique as a 'cross' than an inwards punch mate.

Titles being descriptive is great, but if it ain't broke, then don't fix it! 'Cross' works fine!

"Why call a uniform a do bok? Why call a school a dojang? Why call an instructor sabanyim?"

I don't!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Also people have preconceived ideas about a cross, which don't necessarily match with the actual technique.

Actually inwards punch is a translation from anuro jirugi, so blame the koreans.

[Andy Murray]

So how does 'anuro jirugi' differ from a boxers cross?

You've mentioned people as having pre-conceived ideas of what a boxers cross entails, so what is so special about it.

From an outsiders point of view, CKD has roots in TKD, which is known as being a great kicking style, but knows little about hand techniques. How certain are you that this scientific technique utilised in CKD isn't as common as sugar in every other MA kitchen?

[TkdWarrior]

hmm inward punch?? hey i used to call that before knowing that it's cross :D
damn, guys why u all blame to Koreans... live n let live :D
PS: Does CKD uses realistic Weapons??

-TkdWarrior-

[LilBunnyRabbit]

From an outsiders point of view, CKD has roots in TKD, which is known as being a great kicking style, but knows little about hand techniques. How certain are you that this scientific technique utilised in CKD isn't as common as sugar in every other MA kitchen?

Of course it is, or rather variations of it are. There are differences as there are between any technique in two styles. I'll show you them sometime. We call it inwards punch. Someone else might call it centreline punch. Someone else might call it the cross. Someone else might call it wind of the north star. Its just a useful, descriptive name.

Realistic weapons? As in weapons that you'll be walking down the street with?

There are stick and knife defense drills in the curriculum, but if you start training to use weapons there's a high chance you'll start carrying them, and that's a great way to get arrested.

[YODA]

but if you start training to use weapons there's a high chance you'll start carrying them, and that's a great way to get arrested.


LOL!

Man you must have led a sheltered life. Here where I live almost EVERYONE carries weapons. The only difference is that some know how to use them.

LOL!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

A lot of people carry weapons here, but not the majority. There've been a fair number of arrests, and unsuprisingly neither the police nor the bouncers like it.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

There are stick and knife defense drills in the curriculum, but if you start training to use weapons there's a high chance you'll start carrying them, and that's a great way to get arrested.

Hi Jimmy,

I don't see the connection to be honest. I train, to a small degree, with weapons and I don't get any temptation to to carry an illegal weapon. However, I do carry items that could potentially be used as weapons should the need arise. I could quite legitimately use my umbrella, steering-wheel lock, pen, keys etc. as weapons of convenience, as long as I am not carrying them with that purpose in mind. I could also quite legitimately pick up a weapon of convenience. Or if I take a weapon from an attacker, I am better placed to use it to defend myself from his mates, as long as I have some appropriate weapons training.

Even if not using a weapon yourself but when facing an attacker with one, some practice with that particular type of weapon will help - you'll have a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses of that weapon.

But I do agree that purposefully carrying a weapon in the UK is a very foolish thing to do.

Mike

[amiller127]

Originally posted by Freeform


Okay, as to people not understanding things let me dissect something for you. We'll use the (excuss me Andrew) "Traditional Karate upward block".

Firstly, the bone thing in a nice simplistic answer. What bears a stronger load point load, two beams side by side, or one beam on top of the other? Your increasing the amount of material to resist damage.

But also limiting the surface area to absorb the impact. Thus increasing the risk of breaking the bone on top.

Just think back to your physics class. Or check out this link -

http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quicklearn.asp?loc=ql&topic_id=4&quicklearn_id=4&subject_id=16&ebt=316&ebn=&ebs=&ebl=&elc=4

With blocking the way you describe, the surface area of the arm is smaller. If a force is applied over a smaller surface area you get a larger pressure on it. THIS increases the risk of breaking your arm.

If the surface area is larger (Using the arm as we do in CKD, you can see it is) the force is spread out and the pressure is low. Thus, using basic physics we have shown you how the arm positioning in our blocks has been thought out and designed to REDUCE the risk of injury to the practitioner in comparison to other arts that use the "Blade" of the arm.

Another reason why we go on about "Traditional Arts" being less beneficial for overall health, IF they are practiced in the manner that our Grandmaster was taught (By General Choi, i may add)

Originally posted by Freeform
[b]

Next point. Hold a dumbell over your head. Try it with the outer forearm facing the ceiling, now try it with unla facing the ceiling, notice a difference? Yes, the second way is easier because now the muscles are aligned in a stronger position.

Rotation. When performed correctly the "Traditional blocks" include a 'snap' rotation of the forearm before contact, this adds extra power and the deflection used in (and I use the term loosely) Karate 'blocking'.


So your telling me you want to add more power to your arm when you have weekend its ability to absorb the impact? Call me crazy if you want, but if i have reduced the ability of my arm to absorb pressure, there is no way i would want to put more power into that arm to meet that pressure?? Ok, you may not be injured now, your arm may be fine now, but when youve been training for 30-40 years at that intensity with the same techniques then tell me how beneficial your techniques have been for your body?

[TkdWarrior]

hmm nice post amiller...watever u hav said about blocking is quite rite, for example u can look for dogbrother's clip of shin break in which person got contact at lower part of shin n got broken

but when sayin that traditional art doens't go well with health then i think u r quite wrong...
the name u took(Gen Choi) i can tell u that he lived well past his 80's why didn't he got any probs or injury related with any things wat u say in CKD??...my teacher is doing from last 20 yrs...his teachers is doing for about 35+ years...they still didn't hav probs... GM Rhee ka Hee was with Gen from his army days(my teacher was trained with him too) n he doesn't get any of those probs...
wat motivated the idea of CKD was that Training of GM Choi(not Gen choi) it must hav be that he was over enthuasist n went beyond his body capabilites...only at that level u get hurt...
even i m responsible for this...having faced those problems with my knuckle i can tell u how much is rite...but with rite practice it's minimised...when i started training 6.5 yrs back i just overdid it..n had probs with my knuckles but with rite training in TKD i hav lessened it's effect(just couple of yrs back i could punch with my rite hand, my MA started from Muai thai)
just my thoughts...
-TkdWarrior-

[Andrew Green]

Two things:

I don't like the way your trying to use the "rising block", banging force on force to stop a blow is usually a bad idea. But it can be done.

Think about your logic though, and apply it to punches. Don't hit with the knuckles, it decreases surface area and could damage yourself. Instead hit with the palm. In part that is true, you don't hit skull with knuckles, but punching is done by eveyone (including CKD)

Many of the old Okinawan karate masters have been asked about what makes good karate. They answer "Long life". With many practitioners continuing into their 80;s and even 90's it seems a little odd to say they have spent 70+ years damaging themselves.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I don't like the way your trying to use the "rising block", banging force on force to stop a blow is usually a bad idea. But it can be done.

So can jumping out of a plane and landing safely, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.


Think about your logic though, and apply it to punches. Don't hit with the knuckles, it decreases surface area and could damage yourself. Instead hit with the palm. In part that is true, you don't hit skull with knuckles, but punching is done by eveyone (including CKD)

True, however with punching we are trying to cause damage to a target, besides which the human fist has two lovely large knuckles designed for hitting people. These are solid lumps of hard bone. The bones in your arm are more at risk, being essentially sticks or rods and thus standing more chance of micro-fractures or breakages than solid lumps.

To put it another way, would you prefer to try and break someone's forewarm, or their knuckles?

The forearm you can break with a good blow, knuckles you'll need a fairly good blow with a hammer or similar weapon.


Many of the old Okinawan karate masters have been asked about what makes good karate. They answer "Long life". With many practitioners continuing into their 80;s and even 90's it seems a little odd to say they have spent 70+ years damaging themselves.

And yet I've met people training in various arts in their 20s to 30s who're complaining about arthritis, sore joints, weak knees, etc etc. Compare this to Choi where we've got students who used to have similar problems which they are rapidly recovering from.

I won't deny that the old masters are absolutely exceptional, that would be pointless. If they've been doing it for 70+ years though then think about the number of people who haven't made it that far, due to whatever reasons, including health.

[TkdWarrior]

<And yet I've met people training in various arts in their 20s to 30s who're complaining about arthritis, sore joints, weak knees, etc etc. >
jimmy u r not understanding one thing... that is that with rite guidance this doesn't happen...i told most of my teachers is 35 + yrs old n they hav expereince for about 20+ yrs in TKD alone... but they don't hav problems.. it's not because one stops practice it's because of not intelligent practice...
My Taiji teacher hav done iron palm iron shirt n iron broom legs but if u look his hands they don't hav calluses, they r soft, i m doing Iron Palm n Iron Shirt n i hav'n't developed any calluses...
my Iron Palm techniques comes from Internal Arts, but i think Mr Andrew can tell u about Iron Palm practices or anyone else in this site...
-TkdWarrior-

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

True, however with punching we are trying to cause damage to a target,


Same with this sort of block.


besides which the human fist has two lovely large knuckles designed for hitting people.

They are bigger then the forearm bones :confused:

And they are not designed for hitting people



These are solid lumps of hard bone. The bones in your arm are more at risk, being essentially sticks or rods and thus standing more chance of micro-fractures or breakages than solid lumps.


Both are bone, ones just bigger


To put it another way, would you prefer to try and break someone's forewarm, or their knuckles?


smaller bones break much easier.


The forearm you can break with a good blow, knuckles you'll need a fairly good blow with a hammer or similar weapon.


Why do you think the Dog brothers wear gloves but not forearm pads?



And yet I've met people training in various arts in their 20s to 30s who're complaining about arthritis, sore joints, weak knees, etc etc. Compare this to Choi where we've got students who used to have similar problems which they are rapidly recovering from.


So?

I too have students who came in with these problems and have had a noticable increase since beginning training.

Maybe some places just do things wrong.


I won't deny that the old masters are absolutely exceptional, that would be pointless. If they've been doing it for 70+ years though then think about the number of people who haven't made it that far, due to whatever reasons, including health.

So they are just genetic mutations who are not injured in the same way as us. They are also sick and twisted individuals who find it amusing to teach others methods which cause injury while telling them that it will make them healthy and live longer.

Perhaps some schools just do things wrong.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

So can jumping out of a plane and landing safely, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.


True, however with punching we are trying to cause damage to a target, besides which the human fist has two lovely large knuckles designed for hitting people. These are solid lumps of hard bone. The bones in your arm are more at risk, being essentially sticks or rods and thus standing more chance of micro-fractures or breakages than solid lumps.

To put it another way, would you prefer to try and break someone's forewarm, or their knuckles?


Gobsmacked! Your knuckles are not solid lumps of hard bone. They are...wait for it...JOINTS. They are not designed for hitting people, they are designed to articulate the fingers, nothing more, nothing less.

The bones of the forearm (ulna, radius) are much closer to being 'solid lumps of hard bone'. They are...wait for it again....bones, not joints.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Look it up in any anatomy book.

The forearm you can break with a good blow, knuckles you'll need a fairly good blow with a hammer or similar weapon.


Have you ever seen a forearm being broken with a good blow? I haven't, but I've seen people cause irrevocable damage to their knuckles by striking things with them.

Now I can break knuckles easily. It requires a little anatomical knowledge and a bit more common sense. Place one of the fingers in a lock - take the lock too far. It does not require a great deal of strength. The ulna or radius, however, would take quite a hefty blow.

Andrew was quite right when he talked about hitting the head with a palm-heel rather than the knuckles. Its much safer. Try hitting a head without padding on your hands and you'll rapidly reach the same conclusion. The forearm, however, well I can whack this into any part of the human body without danger of any significant injury to myself. What's more, the technique can look remarkably similar to the rising block that people keep deriding.:eek:


I won't deny that the old masters are absolutely exceptional, that would be pointless. If they've been doing it for 70+ years though then think about the number of people who haven't made it that far, due to whatever reasons, including health.

The old way of doing Karate was as much about longevity and good health as anything else. Sadly, this is not fully appreciated in many modern karate styles. But happily there are teachers, in every discipline, who are keen to protect the health and well-being of their students. It is foolish to tar all practitioners of any particular art with the same brush.

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Same with this sort of block.

Oh of course, blocks aren't meant to stop someone from hitting you, they're designed to hurt their arm. Should've remembered that.

We don't train to hurt people with blocks, we train to not get hit by using blocks.


They are bigger then the forearm bones

And they are not designed for hitting people

No, they're smaller than the forearm bones. However they are also tougher.

Actually they were originally designed for walking on. Knuckles are among the most effective weapons on the human body, make the best of what you've got.


Both are bone, ones just bigger

A small lump of stone is harder to break than a rob of stone, as with almost all materials, including bone.


Why do you think the Dog brothers wear gloves but not forearm pads?

God alone knows, I can't think of a good reason.


So?

I too have students who came in with these problems and have had a noticable increase since beginning training.

Maybe some places just do things wrong.

So that's our argument pretty much validated.


So they are just genetic mutations who are not injured in the same way as us. They are also sick and twisted individuals who find it amusing to teach others methods which cause injury while telling them that it will make them healthy and live longer.

Perhaps some schools just do things wrong.

If you can do something, and its not harmful to you, most people assume that its not harmful to anyone. Its only when the teacher is injured by it that they begin to wonder if that's why their students suffer. I don't doubt that there are schools that just do things wrong as well, muddying the issue.


Gobsmacked! Your knuckles are not solid lumps of hard bone. They are...wait for it...JOINTS. They are not designed for hitting people, they are designed to articulate the fingers, nothing more, nothing less.

The bones of the forearm (ulna, radius) are much closer to being 'solid lumps of hard bone'. They are...wait for it again....bones, not joints.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Look it up in any anatomy book.

They are in essence lumps of bone, they are some of the best weapons on the human body.

So by your argument we shouldn't punch with the knuckles at all?


Have you ever seen a forearm being broken with a good blow? I haven't, but I've seen people cause irrevocable damage to their knuckles by striking things with them.

Hmm, different experiences I guess.


Now I can break knuckles easily. It requires a little anatomical knowledge and a bit more common sense. Place one of the fingers in a lock - take the lock too far. It does not require a great deal of strength. The ulna or radius, however, would take quite a hefty blow.

Since we were referring to impacts I was ignoring the fact that they can be broken in a lock, same as any other joint. They are harder to break with an impact than the arm.


Andrew was quite right when he talked about hitting the head with a palm-heel rather than the knuckles. Its much safer. Try hitting a head without padding on your hands and you'll rapidly reach the same conclusion. The forearm, however, well I can whack this into any part of the human body without danger of any significant injury to myself. What's more, the technique can look remarkably similar to the rising block that people keep deriding.

I've thrown a few punches without padding, and strangely not reached the same conclusion. Yes it stings a little, but since it also stops them from attacking you its worth a little sting.

When you throw an elbow into someone the impact is more spread out than when you're blocking, I also doubt that you throw an elbow using only one of the bones in alignment, as the traditional rising block generally requires.


The old way of doing Karate was as much about longevity and good health as anything else. Sadly, this is not fully appreciated in many modern karate styles. But happily there are teachers, in every discipline, who are keen to protect the health and well-being of their students. It is foolish to tar all practitioners of any particular art with the same brush.

True, but unfortunately in many styles (not just karate) there are enough doing it badly that people are getting hurt.

[Mike Flanagan]

Oh of course, blocks aren't meant to stop someone from hitting you, they're designed to hurt their arm. Should've remembered that.


If you're talking about the movement known as 'rising block' in karate you should be aware that it has a multitude of practical uses, not only for 'blocking' attacks. For instance it can be used as a strike. Typically I would use it to strike the neck/jaw area. This is a devastating technique.

But lets look at its function as a block. Do you remember what I said the other day "strike a hard target with a soft weapon and a soft target with a hard weapon". Now if the attack is a round punch to my head I might well block it by striking to the inner aspect of the elbow area with my forearm (my ulna to be specific - that's the forearm bone on the same side as the little finger). Hence I'm striking the soft tissue of their arm with a hard bone. This can be extremely painful for the puncher and makes it more difficult to deliver another blow with the same arm.

If, however, the attack was a downward blow to the head with a hard weapon, I would use 'rising block' differently. This would look more like the 'traditional' way of using the block. However I do not block with the ulna alone. The first point of contact is actually the back of the arm, using the ulna and the radius bones but with the padding of the outer forearm muscles between the bones and the incoming weapon. This is not a force against force block however, rather the block glances against the incoming weapon. Immediately on impact the forearm rolls so that it is only the ulna in contact with the weapon. To work best this should be accompanied by a sideways shift of the body to avoid the strike. The roll of the forearm enables the weapon to be relatively easily pushed aside. When viewed by the 'uninitiated' this can appear to be a simple smashing of ulnas together, but it is not, it just happens a bit quick to really see properly what is happening. In fact, it can go further than that. Having made contact with the incoming weapon and slowed it down to some degree its possible to carry on with the same rolling motion of the forearm and grab the weapon. Again, to the uninitiated this can look like you're just reaching out and grabbing the incoming weapon but it is much more subtle and effective than attempting to do this.

Do all karate practitioners do it this way? Probably not. But I know many do, I first learnt to do it in about 1977 so I'm sure its fairly common knowledge in karate circles.

This rolling of the forearm is found in many karate movements and has a number of uses.

RE: KNUCKLES


No, they're smaller than the forearm bones. However they are also tougher.


In what way are they tougher? Can you cite your medical source for this information?


Actually they were originally designed for walking on. Knuckles are among the
most effective weapons on the human body, make the best of what you've got.


No they were not designed for walking on. They are designed for enabling controlled movement of the fingers.

It may be that once upon a time our ancestors used them to occasionally support their weight, in the same way that some apes do today. But even in modern apes this use is secondary to the primary purpose of articulating the fingers. This can be easily seen by comparison with quadripeds. They bear weight on their front legs with the part of their anatomy that corresponds to the medial (not the lateral) parts of our hands, ie. the palm-heels, inner aspects of the knuckles or the fingers - depending on which quadriped your looking at. I can't think of a single quadriped, off the top of my head, that walks on what we would regard as the lateral aspect of the knuckles.

But that's enough zoology and paleontology. Suffice to say that what may have partially true for our ancestors several million years ago is not true for modern humans.


A small lump of stone is harder to break than a rob of stone, as with almost all materials, including bone.


How easy it is to break an object depends in part on its shape. Obviously, for a relatively inelastic material, the longer and thinner it is the easier it is to cause major fracture, as long as you hit it in the middle, perpendicular to its long axis. You're argument might have some validity if indeed the knuckles were actually 'robs of bone'.


They are in essence lumps of bone, they are some of the best weapons on the
human body.


No, they are in essence joints. Joints are composed of a number of tissues including, but not limited, to: bone, cartilage, ligament, tendon, lubricating fluid. I can recommend a number of good anatomy texts that you might find informative.


So by your argument we shouldn't punch with the knuckles at all?


No, I did not say that. 2+2<>5 no matter how much you would like it to.

We should certainly exercise caution when striking with our bodies though. With any weapon on the human body, there are targets that it is appropriate for and targets which it is not. I like my knuckles, I avoid striking powerfully to bony projections or solid plates of bone with them.

I said: "Have you ever seen a forearm being broken with a good blow? I haven't, but I've seen people cause irrevocable damage to their knuckles by striking things with them."

To which you replied: "Hmm, different experiences I guess." So are you saying you have seen a forearm broken with a good blow?

By the way, I'm not saying that that's not possible. Of course it is. But its much easier to damage a knuckle, most easily with a lock, but I've also seen it happen with strikes. I've never seen a broken ulna, radius or humerus in training (although of course it can happen).


I've thrown a few punches without padding, and strangely not reached the
same conclusion. Yes it stings a little, but since it also stops them from attacking you its worth a little sting.


Then you have been relatively lucky. I think there was another thread recently in which someone mentioned why gloves were introduced into boxing. It was not to protect the person on the receiving end of the punch, but primarily to protect the hand of the puncher. But presumably the experiences of generations of boxers are irrelevant?


When you throw an elbow into someone the impact is more spread out than
when you're blocking, I also doubt that you throw an elbow using only one of
the bones in alignment, as the traditional rising block generally requires.


When striking with the elbow you are still striking mainly with the ulna (depending on the orientation of your hand) but yes the impact is more spread out by the presence of the soft tissue around the proximal end of the ulna. Actually when I do an elbow I may choose to strike with various parts of the ulna depending on the target. Against a relatively soft target the mid-part of the ulna can act as a 'blade' to dig into the soft tissue or even to apply pressure to the edge of a bone - the mastoid process or occipital ridge (base of the skull) for example. Against the flat side of the skull I would prefer to use the more proximal end of the ulna (close to the elbow joint). Against the ribs I might quite like to dig the point of the elbow in. There is no one 'best' answer, merely options.


True, but unfortunately in many styles (not just karate) there are enough doing it badly that people are getting hurt.


This much I agree with. But if you do make sweeping assumptions about how other people do things you will inevitably miss many excellent opportunities to learn and improve your own skills. I prefer a pragmatic approach to a dogmatic one.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Okay, with regards to the knuckles and forearms.

Take a marble, try to break it. Take a dice, try the same thing. Take any lump of a material and try to crush it (since in an impact crushing is the important thing). Now take a longer, if thicker, rod of the same material and deal the same amount of force to it. The rod will suffer more damage than the lump did, because of its structure.


I like my knuckles, I avoid striking powerfully to bony projections or solid plates of bone with them.

So do we, I agree with you here. However the point still stands that for striking many targets your knuckles are your best weapons.


This much I agree with. But if you do make sweeping assumptions about how other people do things you will inevitably miss many excellent opportunities to learn and improve your own skills. I prefer a pragmatic approach to a dogmatic one.

I've visited almost every martial art school in my area (I don't visit ones that don't offer trial lessons) and spent several months training at most of them. From this I have concluded two possibilites: 1. A large number of traditional martial arts are taught badly or 2. I'm in a bad area for any martial art other than Choi.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Okay, with regards to the knuckles and forearms.

Take a marble, try to break it. Take a dice, try the same thing. Take any lump of a material and try to crush it (since in an impact crushing is the important thing). Now take a longer, if thicker, rod of the same material and deal the same amount of force to it. The rod will suffer more damage than the lump did, because of its structure.


I believe I already mentioned that the shape of the object makes a difference, as does the point at which the impact occurs. But your argument is fundamentally flawed in more than way. The knuckle is not a lump of bone. It is a joint. Ignoring this fact does not make it any less true. Now when you form your hand into a fist you move the fingers out of the way exposing the distal heads of the metacarpal bones (the long bones you can feel on the back of your hand). Of course, the knuckles being joints there are other more delicate tissues between the skin and the bone, ie. tendon and cartilage. But lets ignore those for a moment. So you're essentially striking with the end of the metacarpal bone. The metacarpals are rod-like in shape with a bulbous head at each end. Mmm, sounds a bit like the ulna and radius, ie. the bones of the forearm, to me! Now going back to those soft tissues. Every time you strike with the knuckles you're driving the cartilage and ligament into the target. I'm not saying this is necessarily dangerous, but you need to choose the target with care, otherwise you may damage them. You might also miss and connect with the fingers instead, damaging them. You might also get the alignment slightly wrong and risk spraining the wrist. None of these problems present themselves when striking with the forearm. Of course it too, just like punching, has its strengths and weaknesses.


However the point still stands that for striking many targets your knuckles are your best weapons.


No the point does not stand. You are stating an opinion that you have not backed up at all with facts, despite me asking you to do so. I have stated a number of facts that can be verified by consulting any decent anatomical text. The reader can draw their own conclusions.

A reasonable knowledge of anatomy can identify many potential weapons, and targets appropriate to those weapons, on the human body. The knuckles are certainly an important one, but there are plenty of others.


I've visited almost every martial art school in my area (I don't visit ones that don't offer trial lessons) and spent several months training at most of them. From this I have concluded two possibilites: 1. A large number of traditional martial arts are taught badly or 2. I'm in a bad area for any martial art other than Choi.

I see you chose to snip out most of my post, conveniently ignoring the points raised.

But as for your last point, I note that you say that you don't visit schools that don't offer trial lessons. So if the school doesn't offer you some free lessons you don't go. Just maybe, I mean just maybe, there might be some schools out there that aren't interested in recruiting as many students as possible, that don't offer free lessons or a free uniform and kamikaze headband when you join, that may even be non-profit organisations and only teach small numbers of students. And just maybe some of these same schools might have a lot of valuable stuff to teach you, if you were actually willing to learn.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

But as for your last point, I note that you say that you don't visit schools that don't offer trial lessons. So if the school doesn't offer you some free lessons you don't go. Just maybe, I mean just maybe, there might be some schools out there that aren't interested in recruiting as many students as possible, that don't offer free lessons or a free uniform and kamikaze headband when you join, that may even be non-profit organisations and only teach small numbers of students. And just maybe some of these same schools might have a lot of valuable stuff to teach you, if you were actually willing to learn.

Maybe there are, but I'm not going to pay for a full years training when they won't even let me watch a class. If they don't want you to watch, there's something they don't want seen until its too late for you to refuse to pay.


No the point does not stand. You are stating an opinion that you have not backed up at all with facts, despite me asking you to do so. I have stated a number of facts that can be verified by consulting any decent anatomical text. The reader can draw their own conclusions.

I apologise, I was wrong and because I'm stubborn tried to defend an indefensible position. So does this mean that we can agree that the knuckles are an important weapon, and punches should be taught?


I see you chose to snip out most of my post, conveniently ignoring the points raised.

I didn't think it was necessary to comment or argue with things I have no argument about.


When striking with the elbow you are still striking mainly with the ulna (depending on the orientation of your hand) but yes the impact is more spread out by the presence of the soft tissue around the proximal end of the ulna. Actually when I do an elbow I may choose to strike with various parts of the ulna depending on the target. Against a relatively soft target the mid-part of the ulna can act as a 'blade' to dig into the soft tissue or even to apply pressure to the edge of a bone - the mastoid process or occipital ridge (base of the skull) for example. Against the flat side of the skull I would prefer to use the more proximal end of the ulna (close to the elbow joint). Against the ribs I might quite like to dig the point of the elbow in. There is no one 'best' answer, merely options

We strike with both bones in alignment, spreading impact and minimising damage. I'm suprised that you'd throw an elbow using only one bone, unless I've misunderstood what you're saying.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

Maybe there are, but I'm not going to pay for a full years training when they won't even let me watch a class. If they don't want you to watch, there's something they don't want seen until its too late for you to refuse to pay.


I wouldn't pay a year's tuition fees up front even if I had seen what they had to offer. Do people really ask that, that you pay a year's tuition, or even just their annual membership fee, up front? Sheesh, no wonder I don't make any money out of teaching. I'm going about it all wrong.


I apologise, I was wrong and because I'm stubborn tried to defend an indefensible position.


Well said. It takes courage to admit that. You have my respect.


So does this mean that we can agree that the knuckles are an important weapon, and punches should be taught?


Absolutely, I think punches are very important. I also use a number of weapons that are not favoured in most modern karate (and other arts I suspect).

Just as an aside though, I will say that I have chosen not to teach punches to complete beginners. I introduce them after several months training. My rationale is as follows.

Initially I try to teach a small self-defence syllabus. So I have no eye on long-term goals, just what people can make work in the very short-term. I find punches, however, to take a considerable degree of practice to get right, to get to the point where you can damage your assailant without damaging yourself in the process. This has to do with correct wrist alignment, fist formation, target selection and distancing. So rather than worry about any of these I just get complete beginners to use a palm-heel instead. I find it much more forgiving on the user. After the student passes their first grade then they can begin to give some attention to long-term skills. I appreciate this isn't the only way to go about teaching, but it appeals to me.


We strike with both bones in alignment, spreading impact and minimising damage. I'm suprised that you'd throw an elbow using only one bone, unless I've misunderstood what you're saying.

I'm not sure whether there is some misunderstanding there. Let's look at it in more detail. Firstly, I presume we're talking about an elbow strike where you're striking forwards (or round, however you view it) or up, rather than when you're striking down or backwards (eg. elbowing someone stood behind you). OK, so checking the bones at the elbow out you can feel 3 bony points:
1. The tip of the elbow: this is the ulnar olecranon, the end of the ulna bone (the bone on the outer (little finger) edge of the forearm).
2. The bony point on the outside of the elbow: this is the lateral condyle of the humerus, ie. it is part of the upper arm bone.
3. The bony point on the inside of the elbow: the medial condyle of the humerus. Again, part of the upper arm bone.

You can see some good diagrams of these bones at:

http://www.pediatric-orthopedics.com/Topics/Bones/Humerus/humerus.html

I think everyone would agree that you don't want to strike with medial condyle of the humerus. You'd need to strike at quite a funny angle and you'd risk banging your 'funny bone' - actually the ulnar nerve which passes close to the surface between the ulnar olecranon and the medial condyle of the humerus.

So right at the elbow you can only realistically strike with the ulna or the lateral condyle of the humerus, or both. Personally I don't like to impact specifically with the lateral condyle of the humerus (I wish that was easier to type:( ). It feels more fragile than the ulnar olecranon to me.

Or we could be talking about a bit further along the forearm than the tip of the elbow itself. This gives rise to the debate about whether you should have your palm facing down or towards yourself at the moment of impact. Either way, I don't really see how you can impact directly with 2 bones.

When the palm faces back towards yourself the area of impact is on the superior surface of the ulna and the muscle over the radius (the forearm bone on the thumb side). I can't personally use the radius in this strike. I have too much muscle in the way, although I'm not really that well built. Also the radius angles back out of the way, the closer it gets to the elbow. So you're impacting largely with muscle tissue. However, the radius is providing support to much of this muscle tissue. So perhaps that's what you mean by striking with 2 bones?

When the palm faces down the radius is rolled completely out of the way so that you're striking with the ulna only. This I think is my preferred way although I suppose it could be argued that the other way is preferrable for certain targets.

Does this all make sense? Are you striking in one of these ways or is it something wholly different?

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I wouldn't pay a year's tuition fees up front even if I had seen what they had to offer. Do people really ask that, that you pay a year's tuition, or even just their annual membership fee, up front? Sheesh, no wonder I don't make any money out of teaching. I'm going about it all wrong.

Actually only two asked me to give them a full years tuition before they'd let me train, the others asked me to pay a months tuition before they'd let me watch a class.


Initially I try to teach a small self-defence syllabus. So I have no eye on long-term goals, just what people can make work in the very short-term. I find punches, however, to take a considerable degree of practice to get right, to get to the point where you can damage your assailant without damaging yourself in the process. This has to do with correct wrist alignment, fist formation, target selection and distancing. So rather than worry about any of these I just get complete beginners to use a palm-heel instead. I find it much more forgiving on the user. After the student passes their first grade then they can begin to give some attention to long-term skills. I appreciate this isn't the only way to go about teaching, but it appeals to me.

Fair enough, I can see why. Way that we teach is a six-class method for new students, first class spent learning the stances, ettiquette, and right front inwards punch, right front leg front kick and outwards block. Second class is a review of that, and the same off the left side. Third class introduces right rear inwards punch on the right, rear leg front kick (off the right stance, so kicking with the left leg) and inwards block. Fourth reverses the sides again. Fifth class we teach low block, and the combination, and sixth we teach low block on the left, and the pattern.

Main advantage is that, since we've got several assistant instructors and various schools, it means that everyone knows what a new student has and has not been taught.


Does this all make sense? Are you striking in one of these ways or is it something wholly different?

Yep, we teach it with the back of the fist facing outwards, so effectively palm facing towards you, and to perform the strike horizontally from shoulder height.

[Andy Murray]

The only way I can see that you might attempt to share the load across both radius and ulna is if you were striking down with the point of the elbow. Seeing as the point of the elbow is essentially only one bone, this theory carries little weight surely.

One thing on the question of punching or not punching though;

As much as you teach people how 'fragile' the fist actually is, and train them to react with stronger weapons/handshapes, they usually always resort to the fist in a fight, as it is such a deep memory, often the first thing a father teaches his son?

For elbow strikes I'd say take a good look at the Thai method Jimmy, and come back to us with an analysis.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

For elbow strikes I'd say take a good look at the Thai method Jimmy, and come back to us with an analysis.


You mean I'm gonna have to do actual research and *shudder* think? Damn you all!

Okay, from what I've been able to gather from a quick skim through the internet out elbows are actually very similar to Muay Thai. Having only seen pictures and not an actual animation I couldn't be sure, but judging from the body positioning, the arm positioning, and the effect the two techniques seem almost identical. This is referring to the rear straight elbow and front round elbow, since Muay Thai has a much wider variety of elbow techniques than our two most basic (downwards elbows on the same principles as the basic round and straight are added at senior belts).

Interestingly at the same time I noticed that there's also a lot of similarity in our knee strikes.

[Andy Murray]

You mean you've never seen a Thai fight?
Never trained with Thai's?
Never watched one on TV even?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I've seen the fights, and I've watched them on TV a couple of times. Also seen a few films. However I was looking for something that would show technical details of the elbow strikes, because as far as I've been able to tell they're near-identical, but without something that demonstrates exactly how they're performed I can't say for sure. All that I have noticed is that the Thai fighters seem to shift their bodyweight slightly less into the blow, and aim between a few inches to half a foot higher, towards the temples more.

[Andy Murray]

That's a statement you could maybe turn into a question on the 'Thai' forum.

[YODA]

Hmmm...... I know a fair bit about Muay Thai elbows & knees, but nowt about the way CKD does them.

Maybe we should compare notes Jimmy?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Love to. Prefer to wait until the next MAP event or something though because it rarely works over the forums.

Ah, I'll give it a shot.

Torque the body forwards, letting the arm hang back, bring the arm up to shoulder level with the back of the fist facing outwards, twist the hip slightly ahead of the blow and throw the strike. If its rear throw the strike forwards, if its front then twist round to throw the strike.

As for knee strikes, reach forwards and grab shoulder's/head to either pull them down or yourself up. Launch knee at face/ribs/groin as appropriate. Rear knee is done as a straight technique, front knee is brought round to the side more.

[YODA]

You're right - that's pretty useless.

Roll on the next event :D

Then again, I'll try to come up with something in text form & we'll give it a go.

For starters - what do you consider the contact area when using elbows? How big & where is the bit your striking with?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Biggest, lumpiest area of the forearm, area near the elbow itself for most blows, however variations use any part as suitable.

[amiller127]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
You mean you've never seen a Thai fight?
Never trained with Thai's?
Never watched one on TV even?

I would say that we do have some elbow techniques that are similar to Thai Boxing. Not exactly the same though. Thai's tend to use their elbows to cut the opponent. In CKD we try to use, the forearm to smash into the target.

I can say this as my father lives in Thailand and i have visited there a few times. I have watched matches and trained with the Thai Boxers. I would also say that the CKD elbows are more powerfull than Thai boxers technique, due to the sequential motion and bio mechanics.

I trained with my step brother A (Thai btw). I showed him how to apply the CKD technique and he was surprised at how much more power he got out of it. A, btw is a kickboxer and apparently, a very good one at that.

[Andy Murray]

Hi Amiller

Yet while you can take any old technique and apply research to it, develop it etc, it's not always a good thing to do. Surely one of the objectives of the Thai strike is to hit fast while maintaining cover and leave all the other weapons available.

If you make the elbow strike more powerful, are you certain it's not to the detriment of another area?

How can you judge the effectiveness of Choi's elbows, when you guys don't spar or compete?

(Please don't mention the street)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Shields for one, we can get more impact on those. More impact means more power in general, although it may be that the impact isn't as sharp. Punchbags. Power meters.

How can you judge the effectiveness of your techniques without doing all-out sparring or competition with the intention of knocking out, maiming, or killing your opponent? If you're holding back some power, then you're not showing the effectiveness of your techniques, and you can't judge from it. If you're not holding back some power, and a punch to someone's chest isn't sending them back at least a couple of feet, then there's something odd going on.

[Andy Murray]

I disagree Jimmy,

If you throw full power into every strike against a sheild, and that's how you judge your effectiveness, you'll get caught out against a live opponent, cos they move. If your full power strike misses, you will be left exposed, or worse yet, over extend yourself and get taken down.

If you punch someone in the chest, do you really want to move them two feet, or do you want to rip out their still beating heart?

Why even punch them in the chest?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Shields also move, as do focus mitts. I was using the punch to the chest as an example because its a punch which demonstrates power, a punch to someone's head may knock them over and/or out, but its not as convenient to demonstrate power.

Besides, a punch to the chest is something few people expect and is capable of at least cracking ribs and winding someone, both useful. I prefer stomach or head myself though.

If your full power strike misses it doesn't really matter because there's another one right behind it, and another, and another, and you're always ready to block, dodge or weave (practiced with defense drills and focus mitt interruptions). Overextension shouldn't occur as the techniques are circular in format and all return to their starting position as they finish, as part of the natural flow of the technique.

Now, a question about sparring. You will fight as you've trained, so if in sparring you're not trying to take apart your partner then surely you'll also fight with those same, pulled techniques? If on the other hand you are trying to take each other apart then you should (given the power techniques should carry) be at risk of severe injury, shouldn't you?

[Andy Murray]

"Shields also move, as do focus mitts. I was using the punch to the chest as an example because its a punch which demonstrates power, a punch to someone's head may knock them over and/or out, but its not as convenient to demonstrate power."

Knocking someone out is more about technique than about power. Yes, I have!

"If your full power strike misses it doesn't really matter because there's another one right behind it, and another, and another, and you're always ready to block, dodge or weave (practiced with defense drills and focus mitt interruptions). Overextension shouldn't occur as the techniques are circular in format and all return to their starting position as they finish, as part of the natural flow of the technique."



Wouldn't you say that you increase centrifugal force, by increasing the power of a circular technique?
Wouldn't you say that a powerful combination is slower to execute than a light, yet technical one?

"Now, a question about sparring. You will fight as you've trained, so if in sparring you're not trying to take apart your partner then surely you'll also fight with those same, pulled techniques? If on the other hand you are trying to take each other apart then you should (given the power techniques should carry) be at risk of severe injury, shouldn't you?"

As you say you don't really spar, then I don't know that you will understand this. Sparring has it's limits, but it's about visualisation. It takes a lot of control to place your foot or hand on someone without damaging them, as this is done though, you should be aware of the possibilities you could create by changing the depth of field, or the finishing point of a strike. The important part about sparring, is that the other person is trying to do the same thing you are. Oh yeah, and it's not pre-arranged, so you have to analyse movement. You will fight as you 'think' when you train. Take a look at the poll on Sparring on the site Jimmy. Most people find it of value.
I've been sparring for 16 years, and never seriously injured my partner, or been seriously injured by anyone.
In the rare occasions when I've gotten into trouble outside the training environment though, I have never pulled my techniques, or missed. Not to say I might though eh?

[morphus]

I would bet you never used sparring techniques in the "rare occasions of trouble" in fact i would bet that everything to do with sparring went straight out the window. Of course i'm only guessing and please correct me if i'm wrong and accept my humble apologies!:)

[Andy Murray]

Sorry mate, but you're right, cos you're wrong.

No need to apologise though, it's only a question and asked fairly.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Besides, a punch to the chest is something few people expect and is capable of at least cracking ribs and winding someone, both useful. I prefer stomach or head myself though.


I personally wouldn't want to rely on a simple punch to the chest in anything other than a very mild situation. I've had my second or third rib cracked (through the pectoral muscle) in sparring. It didn't stop me, wind me, or even cause me to pause momentarily. So if I can ignore it I'm sure plenty of others can too.


Now, a question about sparring. You will fight as you've trained, so if in sparring you're not trying to take apart your partner then surely you'll also fight with those same, pulled techniques?


Agreed, the maxim "you fight how you train" has a great deal of truth to it. So if you do a lot of touch-contact sparring but little impact work, then you will probably pull your punches in real combat (I know, I've done it).

But you could easily make the same criticism about working with focus mitts. If you focus a lot on that then in a real fight you'll end up punching at the other fella's hands, not his head!

The point is that ALL drills have good points and bad points. What you should try to do is to work a range of drills such that bad habits that might be acquired in one drill do not arise in the first place because another drill teaches you the correct habit instead.

For instance, sparring has the weakness that you inevitably pull your punches. So to prevent this from happening you also do bagwork, focus-mitt work and hitting someone through body-armour.

Another example, focus-mitt work has the weakness that your target selection (and hence distance) are by definition incorrect. So other drills that encourage you to actually target the proper target points on your partner's body can help to get round this. Such drills might consist of the informality of free-sparring or the relative formality of pre-arranged partner work.


If on the other hand you are trying to take each other apart then you should (given the power techniques should carry) be at risk of severe injury, shouldn't you?

Not necessarily. As you can see above, its possible to practice drills in which you can visualise 'taking the other person apart', but without actually following through with the technique. Of course it requires care and trust between training partners.

As ever, I prefer pragma(tism) to dogma.

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Knocking someone out is more about technique than about power. Yes, I have!

Technique and power are very closely intertwined, we generate power through good technique rather than through brute force, which means incidentally that a powerful combination is just as fast as a light one (or close enough as makes no odds) because what matters is the technique.


Wouldn't you say that you increase centrifugal force, by increasing the power of a circular technique?

Depends on what you mean by a circular technique. I mean a technique that returns to its starting point as a natural conclusion to the movement, not one that loops round in a circle.


Wouldn't you say that a powerful combination is slower to execute than a light, yet technical one?

A combination in which you're trying to put power, yes. If however you are relaxed as you perform a light, technically accurate combination the power will be there with no change in speed. Its only when people tense to try and put power into techniques that they slow themselves down.


As you say you don't really spar, then I don't know that you will understand this. Sparring has it's limits, but it's about visualisation.

Ah, and visualisation doesn't come into every other drill that we do? Yes, I understand visualisation, and I have sparred before but not in Choi. I don't say sparring isn't valuable, I don't think its not useful, what I do think is that it is not necessary in order to become a good martial artist and to become good at self-defense. Personally I find the drills that we do of much more use than sparring.


Oh yeah, and it's not pre-arranged, so you have to analyse movement.

Shield sparring isn't pre-arranged. Focus mitt drills aren't pre-arranged. Defense drills aren't pre-arranged. The only pre-arranged thing I can think of that we do is infighting techniques, and that's only the attack which is arranged, the defenses consist of nothing more than generally applicable principles.


But you could easily make the same criticism about working with focus mitts. If you focus a lot on that then in a real fight you'll end up punching at the other fella's hands, not his head!

Only if he starts waving his hands at target positions. To be honest its not that likely to happen.


Another example, focus-mitt work has the weakness that your target selection (and hence distance) are by definition incorrect.

Sorry, how exactly are you using focus mitts in that case? We hold them at heights matching your partners or your own height, depending on what we're working on, at certain angles to permit and prevent certain techniques. We have interruptions, advancing targets, sweeps and bumps to simulate counters and different movements. We also do fast targets, where the mitts are placed randomly at different target positions for two seconds, then removed. Finally the distancing for focus mitts is the same as for any other drill, between three to six inches from your face, unless you're working on longer techniques in which case the distance is greater.


So other drills that encourage you to actually target the proper target points on your partner's body can help to get round this. Such drills might consist of the informality of free-sparring or the relative formality of pre-arranged partner work.

Or perhaps white belt junior defense drill, target punching?


Not necessarily. As you can see above, its possible to practice drills in which you can visualise 'taking the other person apart', but without actually following through with the technique. Of course it requires care and trust between training partners.

So effectively what we do in defense drills then, only with harder contact?

[pgm316]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Personally I find the drills that we do of much more use than sparring.



Maybe they are, but how do you know if you don't spar?



So effectively what we do in defense drills then, only with harder contact?

I'm not sure what you do in defense drills, how hard you train or how effective they are and I wouldn't try to guess! But I don't think Mike was talking about power. Sparring isn't about power, its about "learning" to use techniques. In my opinion it takes practice to be able to use the right techniques against the right attack. I believe I've learnt to do it throw sparring though. Sparring can be light/no contact, very slow and un competitive. But still a good way to learn how to use technique, which IMHO I don't think you can do effectively through drills.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

Only if he starts waving his hands at target positions. To be honest its not that likely to happen.


No its not likely, my point was somewhat tongue in cheek. The serious point though, is that (if you over-emphasise this drill you're training yourself to punch where the attacker's head isn't (rather than where it is).


Sorry, how exactly are you using focus mitts in that case? We hold them at heights matching your partners or your own height, depending on what we're working on, at certain angles to permit and prevent certain techniques.


I wasn't thinking of height, although I suppose that can be an issue too. Basically what I'm saying is that if you always aim at the focus-mitt and never at the head, then you are always punching to the right or left of the head. If you're working against punches thrown by the mitt-holder then I would regard this is a potential weakness - in the absence of drills where you're actually aiming at the head.


We have interruptions, advancing targets, sweeps and bumps to simulate counters and different movements. We also do fast targets, where the mitts are placed randomly at different target positions for two seconds, then removed. Finally the distancing for focus mitts is the same as for any other drill, between three to six inches from your face, unless you're working on longer techniques in which case the distance is greater.


Which all sounds like good stuff, but it still stands that the weakness of focus-mitt work is the fact that you're aiming at something other than the actual target you really want to hit. And that's fine IF you ALSO practice targetting the head or whatever target on your partner's body.


So effectively what we do in defense drills then, only with harder contact?

Not with harder contact no. Sometimes with no contact at all, depending on the targets. How can you practice sticking your finger in someone's eye, for example, or kicking through the knee joint with any amount of contact. I haven't heard you mention your "defense drills" before. Maybe these do address the issues I'm raising? I don't know, I'm not sure what they are.

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Maybe they are, but how do you know if you don't spar?

I have sparred, but not in Choi.


I'm not sure what you do in defense drills, how hard you train or how effective they are and I wouldn't try to guess!

Okay, defense drills.
One side is attacking, the other is defending in all of these.

Level 1: target punching, no contact, moving backwards in straight lines, exchanging when you near the wall
Level 2: target punching and blocking, slow pace, straight lines, swap when you near the wall
Level 3: hand and foot techniques, blocking, slow pace, exchange when you near the wall
Level 4: hands and feet, slow pace, free moving about the hall (angling off is encouraged) several variations possible, swap on command
Level 5: faster pace
Level 6: attacker throws one random attack, defender blocks and throws three to five counters which are blocked. Kiyap at end. variations
Level 7: attacker makes a rushing motion, defender throws a stopping kick and follows up with three to five hand techniques
Level 8: randomly interchange levels 6 and 7

[Andy Murray]

Well round and round we go eh.

I just wanted to summarise a little here;

Choi generally states that everything it does is better than what everyone else does. It's a complete system, that can be used by 5 to 90 year olds for any SD situation, and will be effective, yet never cause them harm thru practice. Choi makes a sweeping statement classifying all the other systems as 'Traditional' and therefore either dangerous to the practitioner, or ineffective.

From my perspective, I have no problem heading for a Choi class to check it out (invites by PM please), so if any forum members want to voice their concerns on the system, and want me to check out specific aspects, then let me know here.

If the Choi guys are fair though, they should also be open minded enough to go to other MA systems and actually check them out fairly. By that I mean, go to a class, take part, and at the end, ask the Instructor to justify anything they don't agree with.

As a final personal comment. I don't think Choi would be taking so much flack on forum if it;

A/ Was less general in it's criticism of everybody else.

B/ Was less defensive every time someone asked them to justify something.

C/ Showed a little more open mindedness to other systems of practice.

D/ Admit when they are wrong.

Answers on a sheet of Asbestos please!

[morphus]

No way - CKD has never said it was a complete system!(though some individuals may think so - I don't!)
CKD never said that ALL other forms are traditional!
I think Kwang Jo Choi was refering to martial arts as taught in a traditional manner, as he was taught in Korea!
I can only speak for myself - i have visited other arts and hold a belt in combat ju jitsu(which i personally love).
As for asking other arts to justify there techniques - personally i wouldn't have the Cheek!(i either like it or don't)

A)I think the claim was for a few reasons - it is totally different to most trad' martial arts - and to get noticed.

B)CKD has taken quite some flakin a lot of ways not just on the forum, i've resisted posting some thoughts and just observed, i personally don't think its worth arguing about, everyone has there opinion!

C)Again i personally am very open minded when it comes to martial arts and accept all arts have something to offer(some more than others)

D)I am the first to admit i am not an expert in martial arts, just a learner, i'm not always right, neither is CKD!

I am speaking for myself, from my point of view, I do NOT speak for CKD

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Choi generally states that everything it does is better than what everyone else does.

Choi states that it does things in a certain way, and that those things have a certain effect. If people claim that those things do not or cannot have that effect, or feel that the claim that a particular method works is invalid, then they're quite welcome to say so. If they feel that its saying that method is better than any other because of the effect that a particular technique (or whatever) has then I don't see how that's our fault.


It's a complete system, that can be used by 5 to 90 year olds for any SD situation, and will be effective, yet never cause them harm thru practice.

Its effective, and can be used for most self-defense situations, while those it can't it should help with the principles for. And yes, it can be used by 5 to 90 year olds without injury.


Choi makes a sweeping statement classifying all the other systems as 'Traditional' and therefore either dangerous to the practitioner, or ineffective.

Choi makes a sweeping statement that traditional arts taught in a traditional manner are harmful and inneffective. It does not claim that particular styles are traditional, other than to use them for examples, taken from specific classes taught by specific instructors.


From my perspective, I have no problem heading for a Choi class to check it out (invites by PM please), so if any forum members want to voice their concerns on the system, and want me to check out specific aspects, then let me know here.

It'd be nice to see you.


If the Choi guys are fair though, they should also be open minded enough to go to other MA systems and actually check them out fairly. By that I mean, go to a class, take part, and at the end, ask the Instructor to justify anything they don't agree with.

As most of us have done. Morphus as he says holds a ranking in combat jujitsu, I've spent several months in a variety of styles


A/ Was less general in it's criticism of everybody else.

You might note that the criticism rarely comes except in defense, although I do agree that this is something that needs to be worked on, largely through my own fault.


B/ Was less defensive every time someone asked them to justify something.

We're not the only ones guilty of this, and when you're having you style attacked by people who've never even tried it or looked at it its hard to avoid being defensive.


C/ Showed a little more open mindedness to other systems of practice.

Talk to Grandmaster Choi about this one. He does regularly train with high-level practitioners of other styles in order to steal techniques, methods, and so on.


D/ Admit when they are wrong.

Again, largely my fault. Although when we are wrong there is a tendency to admit it. Then again the point stands that in many cases who's right is down to different experiences or a matter of opinion, where its nigh-on impossible to say who's right.

As Morphus says. I speak for me. When I reach sixth dan I'll start talking for the style, and only then with Grandmaster Choi's permission.

[pgm316]

I've got to agree with Andy on this. I tried to discuss sparring. It ended up in a debate about my style being traditional, ineffective, hurting people unnecessarily leading to long term health issues. We're by the age of 45 I would no longer be capable of training like that. Sparring is as I was told not necessary for my martial arts, its just violent, which must obviously lead to pain, anger and the dark side. Or was it just hurting myself for no reason.

The problem is assuming choi is right and everything else is wrong. I could say choi sounds too good to be true, a MA for everybody, with little risk of pain or injury to master. So from what you say my years of hard training have been unnecessary? Do you even know what I study?

Yes thats right its choi! Well you’d probably think so from my argumentative reply.

But seriously I just wanted to understand how you could train without sparring or inflicting any kind of pain on each other and still have an effective MA. And to be truthful I still don’t understand. The debate has just gone round in circles. I’ve still not said a bad work directly against choi which is something some choi people can’t say about my training.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

But seriously I just wanted to understand how you could train without sparring or inflicting any kind of pain on each other and still have an effective MA. And to be truthful I still don’t understand. The debate has just gone round in circles. I’ve still not said a bad work directly against choi which is something some choi people can’t say about my training.

It seems that if you train with sparring you can't understand how you could train without it, and if you train without it its hard to see how people could think its necessary, so its six of one half a dozen of the other. People are calling Choi unrealistic and innefective because we don't spar, without knowing any of the other drills we actually do. We're calling sparring violent and painful. Both sides are at fault.

Now, how about this? Sparring isn't necessary, its a useful drill, it does help, but there are other drills which can replace it. Whether or not you choose to do those is up to you, however sparring in and of itself is no more necessary or vital to martial arts than any other form of training. This doesn't mean its useless, it does mean that you don't have to spar.

I have sparred before, to a fairly large degree, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about. Its simply that I believe the drills in Choi are a more than effective replacement for sparring with less risk of injury, and fewer undesirable (to us, probably not to others) elements of competition.

[Andrew Green]

First off, I've asked this a couple times now and got no response.

How are your methods tested and improved, which you have said they are. So Who does it? How do they do it?

Originally posted by ckdstudent

Now, how about this? Sparring isn't necessary, its a useful drill, it does help, but there are other drills which can replace it.


No there isn't, not if you're goals are effective fighting ability. As you have described CKD as "the art of streetfighting" I assume that that is your goal.


Whether or not you choose to do those is up to you, however sparring in and of itself is no more necessary or vital to martial arts than any other form of training. This doesn't mean its useless, it does mean that you don't have to spar.


No, sparring is the most important thing we do, without it you eventually end up with nothing.


I have sparred before, to a fairly large degree, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about. Its simply that I believe the drills in Choi are a more than effective replacement for sparring with less risk of injury, and fewer undesirable (to us, probably not to others) elements of competition.

What rules? How much? point fighting doesnt' count.


Its effective, and can be used for most self-defense situations


How can you know this without actually putting yourself in those situations against a aggressive and fully resisting oppopent. In other words sparring.


Choi makes a sweeping statement that traditional arts taught in a traditional manner are harmful and inneffective.


Which are all completely innacurate for the most part.


Talk to Grandmaster Choi about this one. He does regularly train with high-level practitioners of other styles in order to steal techniques, methods, and so on.


other "traditional" styles :confused: ....

So why not do this yourselves? Why need someone to spoon feed you answers? Why not go ahead and test what you are told in a coontrolled enviroment and determine for yourself what actually works?

AND have your students do the same, what works for you might not work for them, this can easily be sorted out, through sparring with few restrictions on what techniques are allowed. If I wanted to mess my students up really badly, I'd try to teach them to fight "my" way, as opposed to "their" way. You all seem to want to fight "Grand Masters" way.

The biggest problem in "traditional" martial arts today is what you have kept, so when I say CKD is a traditional art, this is why. Blind following of what someone else tells you you "should" need, rather then figuring out what you "do" need.

And yet you abandon sparring, something done in those arts you refer to as "traditional", the training method which prevents this from happening to badly. So I say you are far more "traditional" then all those karate, TKD and Kung Fu schools you preach against.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

How are your methods tested and improved, which you have said they are. So Who does it? How do they do it?

We do it, as do head office in Atlanta. We do it by training with those methods and seeing if it works. It does.

No there isn't, not if you're goals are effective fighting ability. As you have described CKD as "the art of streetfighting" I assume that that is your goal.

The art of streetfighting is a name that has been used by other arts to describe Choi.

No, sparring is the most important thing we do, without it you eventually end up with nothing.

And yet you're not willing to consider other views, other opinions, or other methods of training. Interesting. Have you ever tried training without sparring, using other drills in its place?

What rules? How much? point fighting doesnt' count.

Huh? What? Who?

How can you know this without actually putting yourself in those situations against a aggressive and fully resisting oppopent. In other words sparring.

Haven't we already covered this one? We know it works because it does actually work in these situations.

Which are all completely innacurate for the most part.

Yet the great majority of traditional schools I've visited do lock out. Do partner stretch. And do risk damaging their students. Your opinion of this is purely down to personal experience. Mine backs it up. Yours evidently doesn't.

So why not do this yourselves? Why need someone to spoon feed you answers? Why not go ahead and test what you are told in a coontrolled enviroment and determine for yourself what actually works?

Because its easier. And because that someone has a lot more experience at picking and choosing the good stuff than me, I'm more comfortable relying on his opinion of what's worth stealing than my own.

AND have your students do the same, what works for you might not work for them, this can easily be sorted out, through sparring with few restrictions on what techniques are allowed. If I wanted to mess my students up really badly, I'd try to teach them to fight "my" way, as opposed to "their" way. You all seem to want to fight "Grand Masters" way.

Where did that come from? Just because we get told the techniques that maximise power and effect doesn't mean we all fight the same way he does, that would be pointless. We get given the tools, and we apply them as we wish.

The biggest problem in "traditional" martial arts today is what you have kept, so when I say CKD is a traditional art, this is why. Blind following of what someone else tells you you "should" need, rather then figuring out what you "do" need.

So, considering that it does actually work, what "do" we need? Stuff that doesn't work as well?

And yet you abandon sparring, something done in those arts you refer to as "traditional", the training method which prevents this from happening to badly. So I say you are far more "traditional" then all those karate, TKD and Kung Fu schools you preach against.

Until you've seen a Choi class, and taken part, your opinions of our training methods are based purely on what you think. Since you are evidently of the opinion that sparring is essential I don't really see the point in trying to convince you otherwise, as you've also said that you're not willing to try a Choi class because it 'isn't for you'.

At least I try other martial arts before commenting on them.

[pgm316]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

Until you've seen a Choi class, and taken part, your opinions of our training methods are based purely on what you think. Since you are evidently of the opinion that sparring is essential I don't really see the point in trying to convince you otherwise, as you've also said that you're not willing to try a Choi class because it 'isn't for you'.

At least I try other martial arts before commenting on them.


You've not tried my martial art, yet you classify it as traditional and all that comes with it. And then comment on why its not as good as choi's training methods.

True I've not tried Choi and probably won't do, I haven't heard of one in my area. But I am curious of what it entails.

All I can say is that I find sparring valuable. You say I should try training without sparring. In a way I do, if around 90% of my training isn't sparring, then I do try this 90% of the time. All I can speak is from my experience and I find the 10% of sparring valuable. Its we're I feel I really learn how to use techniques and find out how effective they are.

Thats just my opinion, I'm not trying to convince you sparring is essential. Maybe it is for me and not for you. But your not going to change my beliefs on training which you seem to be trying to do.

I'll just have to go off my own feeling of what works without a head office in Atlanta telling me whats right. Although I do have hundreds of years of Chinese history backing up my training beliefs.

[waya]

We do it, as do head office in Atlanta. We do it by training with those methods and seeing if it works. It does.

I have the same question. How do you "see" that it works. I live in a quite volatile neighborhood (my neighbor was cut twice very badly outside my window just the other day) and I can't say that I'd be comfortable using anything I hadn't tried against a resisting opponent and ensured that it works before making it a reaction technique to use in reality.

ROb

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

The art of streetfighting is a name that has been used by other arts to describe Choi.


Could I ask who has said this, what their experience of Choi was, what arts they represent and in what capacity they represent those arts?


Yet the great majority of traditional schools I've visited do lock out. Do partner stretch. And do risk damaging their students. Your opinion of this is purely down to personal experience. Mine backs it up. Yours evidently doesn't.

At least I try other martial arts before commenting on them.

Someone else said "you haven't tried mine". At the risk of sounding a bit 'me too'-ish, you haven't tried mine either.

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I have the same question. How do you "see" that it works. I live in a quite volatile neighborhood (my neighbor was cut twice very badly outside my window just the other day) and I can't say that I'd be comfortable using anything I hadn't tried against a resisting opponent and ensured that it works before making it a reaction technique to use in reality.

Here we go again. I see it works because I and others have used it, not in competition, not in sparring, but in bars, on streets, in clubs, in places where its actually needed.

Could I ask who has said this, what their experience of Choi was, what arts they represent and in what capacity they represent those arts?

Various magazines. I've also heard it referred to as that in person by an American Kickboxing instructor and a TKD instructor. And others have referred to it as that, though not in person to me.

Someone else said "you haven't tried mine". At the risk of sounding a bit 'me too'-ish, you haven't tried mine either.

Which one? Tai chi, tried it. Karate, I've tried two (shotokan and something which was probably just a school name for the style). I've not tried Okinawan because I've not been able to find a club nearby, but its something I'd be willing to do.

I'm willing to try and look at any style if I can. I will not refuse to try any style, and when I make general comments it refers to only those styles I have personal knowledge of, naturally enough. Its hard to comment on styles you haven't seen. So when I criticise something its because that's what I've seen in the majority of classes I've visited, whether its a global thing or not is a different matter, and one open to debate. I can only speak from experience.

[pgm316]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

Here we go again. I see it works because I and others have used it, not in competition, not in sparring, but in bars, on streets, in clubs, in places where its actually needed.


If your happy with it and confident it works, thats all that matters :)


Which one? Tai chi, tried it. Karate, I've tried two (shotokan and something which was probably just a school name for the style). I've not tried Okinawan because I've not been able to find a club nearby, but its something I'd be willing to do.


I'm willing to try and look at any style if I can. I will not refuse to try any style, and when I make general comments it refers to only those styles I have personal knowledge of, naturally enough. Its hard to comment on styles you haven't seen. So when I criticise something its because that's what I've seen in the majority of classes I've visited, whether its a global thing or not is a different matter, and one open to debate. I can only speak from experience.

If you can I'd say try Wing Chun or even some type of kick boxing. Both decent styles in my opinion and quite easy to find usually, I'll have a go at Choi if I get chance!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

No Wing Chun around here unfortunately, although one of our students got a high rank in an oddly named version of Lau Gar, so I've seen some of that. As for the kick boxing I've tried American at a nearby leisure centre, and I hope its not stereotypical of the art in general.

[Andy Murray]

Ah Jimmy, you've done it now,
as just around the corner from you is one 'Wai Po Tang'. Highly respected Wing Chun guy, who is very much the 'real deal'

Here's the link;

http://martialartinstitute.com/Map_addington_village.htm

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Yay!

Wish he advertised more. Then again Croydon is some distance away, I'll try and make it to some of his classes in my spare time, revision week is coming up after all.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

We do it, as do head office in Atlanta. We do it by training with those methods and seeing if it works. It does.


So until you actually need it, you have no idea how well it will work? You're changes are simply guesses as to what "should" work?

No, I'd rather do some testing on my own before


The art of streetfighting is a name that has been used by other arts to describe Choi.


By who? When? what was there background?


And yet you're not willing to consider other views, other opinions, or other methods of training. Interesting. Have you ever tried training without sparring, using other drills in its place?


Have you ever tried driving a car without a engine (flinstone style), then how can you be sure its not better?


Huh? What? Who?


You said you sparred in the past. I asked what sort of sparring you did.


Haven't we already covered this one? We know it works because it does actually work in these situations.


Is it possible that the physical conditioning that you have and the fact that they where in poor health and physical conditioning have anything to do with it? Would Tae Bo have been equally effective? Could it not be that you beat them in spite of your training?

What is so "wrong" against testing yourself against a skilled opponent in a controlled enviroment?


Yet the great majority of traditional schools I've visited do lock out. Do partner stretch. And do risk damaging their students. Your opinion of this is purely down to personal experience. Mine backs it up. Yours evidently doesn't.


My experience is that korean stylist are poor fighters. It is also my experience that arts ending in "do" produce poor fighters. Therefore any one of a korean style ending in do is a poor fighter and knows little about the martial arts beyond demonstration stuf and point fighting.


Because its easier. And because that someone has a lot more experience at picking and choosing the good stuff than me, I'm more comfortable relying on his opinion of what's worth stealing than my own.


No, this is how things get messed up. Eventually you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself. But here lies the failing of traditional arts. Attachment to a Super-human-sensei-know-it-all-expert so that you don't have to ever do any thinking.


Where did that come from? Just because we get told the techniques that maximise power and effect doesn't mean we all fight the same way he does, that would be pointless. We get given the tools, and we apply them as we wish.


How do you develop a fighting style when you don't fight?

It doesn't matter how many techniques you know, you have to learn to apply them against a resisting opponent. That is what sparring is, practicing application.

Until you've seen a Choi class, and taken part, your opinions of our training methods are based purely on what you think. Since you are evidently of the opinion that sparring is essential I don't really see the point in trying to convince you otherwise, as you've also said that you're not willing to try a Choi class because it 'isn't for you'.

At least I try other martial arts before commenting on them.

You haven't tried mine. And I more importantly I don't think you have even tried YOURS to any great extent. You've only tried other peoples. Right now, you do Mr. Choi's drills.

Which may very well work as a base to start with. proper mechanics are proper mechanics, but to have a fighting style you have to develop it. This is done through sparring.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

So until you actually need it, you have no idea how well it will work? You're changes are simply guesses as to what "should" work?

No, I'd rather do some testing on my own before

Your choice, I like the easy life. The stuff works.


By who? When? what was there background?

Didn't I just cover this?


Have you ever tried driving a car without a engine (flinstone style), then how can you be sure its not better?

Just because you believe that sparring is essential to the arts doesn't mean it is, with no experience of other methods how can you possibly judge?


You said you sparred in the past. I asked what sort of sparring you did.

Some TKD, which was continuous light attacks. A little karate, which was medium contact, a little other karate full contact, and some jujitsu, groundwork mainly.


Is it possible that the physical conditioning that you have and the fact that they where in poor health and physical conditioning have anything to do with it? Would Tae Bo have been equally effective? Could it not be that you beat them in spite of your training?

What is so "wrong" against testing yourself against a skilled opponent in a controlled enviroment?

You won't be fighting a skilled opponent in a controlled environment. And no, I did not beat them in spite of my training.


My experience is that korean stylist are poor fighters. It is also my experience that arts ending in "do" produce poor fighters. Therefore any one of a korean style ending in do is a poor fighter and knows little about the martial arts beyond demonstration stuf and point fighting.

Well this was rather pointless, but fair enough. If that's your experience, that's your experience. However since you've never seen CKD I don't really see why your opinion should carry any weight.


No, this is how things get messed up. Eventually you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself. But here lies the failing of traditional arts. Attachment to a Super-human-sensei-know-it-all-expert so that you don't have to ever do any thinking.

I see. So because we use the techniques that the art has we don't think? Hmm, I think you've just claimed that very few martial artists think mate.


How do you develop a fighting style when you don't fight?

It doesn't matter how many techniques you know, you have to learn to apply them against a resisting opponent. That is what sparring is, practicing application.

Sorry, have I not explained this enough. We have shield drills, focus mitt drills, infighting techniques and defense drills. What're these for?

Wow, look. They're for practicing application among other things.


You haven't tried mine. And I more importantly I don't think you have even tried YOURS to any great extent. You've only tried other peoples. Right now, you do Mr. Choi's drills.

Which may very well work as a base to start with. proper mechanics are proper mechanics, but to have a fighting style you have to develop it. This is done through sparring.

You're entitled to your opinion. Even if its wrong. According to you I've wasted nine years of my life. I disagree.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

Just because you believe that sparring is essential to the arts doesn't mean it is, with no experience of other methods how can you possibly judge?


I have experience in many methods, I'd be VERY suprised if you did anything I haven't seen somewhere in some form.


Some TKD, which was continuous light attacks. A little karate, which was medium contact, a little other karate full contact, and some jujitsu, groundwork mainly.


Targets? Disallowed techniques?


You won't be fighting a skilled opponent in a controlled environment. And no, I did not beat them in spite of my training.


Nope, so?


Well this was rather pointless, but fair enough. If that's your experience, that's your experience. However since you've never seen CKD I don't really see why your opinion should carry any weight.


So why should your claims about "traditional" arts carry any?


I see. So because we use the techniques that the art has we don't think? Hmm, I think you've just claimed that very few martial artists think mate.


Not quite.

I claimed that if you never try to develop your own style through sparring and never experiment for yourself to find out what does work. But just rely on what a martial arts dictator tells you, you miss the point.

But I'll go with you, there are a good many martial artists that don't really think about what they are doing. And there are others that don't experiment with their theories. Plus ones that don't do either.


Sorry, have I not explained this enough. We have shield drills, focus mitt drills, infighting techniques and defense drills. What're these for?


hitting shields and hitting people are VERY different things. people move, people hit back, people sometimes react to getting hit, people have different target which do different things, people are alive, pads are not.


Wow, look. They're for practicing application among other things.


Can you practice the application of hockey skills without playing against each other?

Of course not, all you have is a set of skills that you've developed but never put to use and don't really know the value of, nor how to use them in application. It's just untested theory.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I have experience in many methods, I'd be VERY suprised if you did anything I haven't seen somewhere in some form.

But since you're not willing to find out what we do you don't know. There are actually drills in Choi that I've never seen anywhere else, though again this might be more to do with the schools I've visited.


Targets? Disallowed techniques?

TKD: same as for most TKD point sparring contests
Karate medium: Any target, but no gouges (not easy to do with the gloves anyway) grabs, tackles, grappling.
Karate full: Don't target the head, otherwise any striking technique.
Jujitsu: no striking.


Nope, so?

So Choi works. *shrugs*


So why should your claims about "traditional" arts carry any?

Because when I'm talking about traditional arts I talk about those I've seen and tried.


Not quite.

I claimed that if you never try to develop your own style through sparring and never experiment for yourself to find out what does work. But just rely on what a martial arts dictator tells you, you miss the point.

But I'll go with you, there are a good many martial artists that don't really think about what they are doing. And there are others that don't experiment with their theories. Plus ones that don't do either.

All we get given are the techniques. We string them together in our own way during drills.


hitting shields and hitting people are VERY different things. people move, people hit back, people sometimes react to getting hit, people have different target which do different things, people are alive, pads are not.

Shields move, pads and shields interrupt and bump. Pads react to getting hit by changing the target or making it disappear for a moment.

People hold pads, therefore pads are alive. I thought you said you'd be suprised if we did any drills you hadn't seen? By the looks of it we might well do if you don't think pads can be realistic.


Can you practice the application of hockey skills without playing against each other?

Of course not, all you have is a set of skills that you've developed but never put to use and don't really know the value of, nor how to use them in application. It's just untested theory.

Martial arts isn't hockey.

You can learn to fire a gun without shooting at people. Which is quite a good thing when you think about it.

The theory has been tested and put to use.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

therefore pads are alive.

Think very carefully about what you just said.

and then lets go here:


You can learn to fire a gun without shooting at people. Which is quite a good thing when you think about it.


I have some military training and I can assure you there is a lot more to a fire fight then being able to hit a target, no matter how much it moves.

Their is a sparring equivelant.

You can poke your sword into whatever you want as much as you want, that doesn't mean you can fence.

You can punch targets all day and get knocked out in the first round in boxing.

You can hit targets with a hockey puck with perfect accuracy, that doesn't mean you can score on a goalie.

Whats missing?

Actually doing what the drills are supposed to help you with, through "sparring" or the equivelant of it.

you can go out and read all the chess books in the world, but until you actually play the game you will have no idea how good you are. And play against a skilled opponent, not someone who just wandered in and has also never played the game.



But since you're not willing to find out what we do you don't know. There are actually drills in Choi that I've never seen anywhere else, though again this might be more to do with the schools I've visited.


You have described what you do, so far you have not described anything new.

There are certainely drills I've never seen before, no one has seen them all, its not possible. But the concept behind the drills will exist in many different places. There are only so many methods to do drills, but those methods can be used in many ways.

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Andrew Green

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet you're not willing to consider other views, other opinions, or other methods of training. Interesting. Have you ever tried training without sparring, using other drills in its place?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever tried driving a car without a engine (flinstone style), then how can you be sure its not better?


I don't think its a matter of training without sparring. Most MA's training is mainly non-sparring anyway! I can imagine what my training would be like if I discarded the say 10% sparring I do.

And I find the 10% sparring valuable, so do you still recommend I go against what I find works for me? I learn what I can from my teachers, but I never take what they say as the way I must do things. I don't spar because they say I should, I spar because I can feel myself improving with the more sparring I do. Different things work for different people, I do what I feel works for me.

This is why I don't like the way you put faith in your HQ in Atlanta. I wouldn't like people telling me what works, my "traditional" teachers teach me to learn techniques, take things that work for me and discard what doesn't.

I wouldn't be without the drills we do or the pad work, as you say you learn a lot from them. Likewise sparring. Why should anybody train without another useful learning method. It would be like someone taking away my focus pads, only worse!

To sum up, why deny yourself the use of any training method that may be of use. I’m sure I could train without sparring, or without focus pads or the use of drills. Or for that matter any kind fitness exercises. But I’m not going to restrict my training in any way.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

You can poke your sword into whatever you want as much as you want, that doesn't mean you can fence.

How many people do you see fencing with real swords?


And I find the 10% sparring valuable, so do you still recommend I go against what I find works for me? I learn what I can from my teachers, but I never take what they say as the way I must do things. I don't spar because they say I should, I spar because I can feel myself improving with the more sparring I do. Different things work for different people, I do what I feel works for me.

No, I recommend that you go with what works for you. However just because its useful doesn't make sparring necessary. We don't spar, we still learn to defend ourselves, that's all that I'm trying to say.


This is why I don't like the way you put faith in your HQ in Atlanta. I wouldn't like people telling me what works, my "traditional" teachers teach me to learn techniques, take things that work for me and discard what doesn't.

If it didn't work we wouldn't do it, however the techniques can be demonstrated to work.


To sum up, why deny yourself the use of any training method that may be of use. I’m sure I could train without sparring, or without focus pads or the use of drills. Or for that matter any kind fitness exercises. But I’m not going to restrict my training in any way.

The average person on the street doesn't want to spar, they just want to get fit, learn how to defend themselves, and improve themselves. Why force them to spar if they don't want to?

[pgm316]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
No, I recommend that you go with what works for you. However just because its useful doesn't make sparring necessary. We don't spar, we still learn to defend ourselves, that's all that I'm trying to say.


I'm glad we agree on somethings ;) I've never said sparring is necessary. Some people are good fighters without ever training in MA's but that doesn't make MA's unnecessary. Like you even said there it can be useful!


If it didn't work we wouldn't do it, however the techniques can be demonstrated to work.


If your happy it works I'm happy, no complaints there. All I say is be sure yourself it works for you.


The average person on the street doesn't want to spar, they just want to get fit, learn how to defend themselves, and improve themselves. Why force them to spar if they don't want to?


The average person on the street doesn't do MA's. I promise to stop making people on the street spar ;) But I agree it depends what level you want to take it to.

I'd never force someone to do anything they don't want. I don't know why you'd even think that. Like I've said beginners can spar slowly to practice techniques, people that don't want to be a UFC fighter can spar lightly. People that want to test themself can step it up, faster harder and find out if they can deal with attacks. Injuries are usualy down to mismatched partners, which would be the instructors fault. However its rarely a problem and I find people enjoying sparring more than anything else!

All depends what you want to get out of training, I think you only get out what you put in. I like the phraise "Train hard, fight easy".

[Andy Murray]

WARNING!

This thread will Self Destruct in 5 posts!

[morphus]

Hooray!

[morphus]

oh look i've just past 200 posts - woopey!

[Andy Murray]

3

[pgm316]

2

[TkdWarrior]

hmm well first thing Pads dont' hit back even if they r alive...
second even if u r given automatic weapon which u need to pull the triger u can't shoot, anyone hold a gun n fire but how much u hit the target will depends on ur skill...
n then later sparring as i said in some thread(excerpts from book) that it's a tool to develop mindset... simple point is that if u can't fight in controlled enviroment wat chance u hav in uncontrolled...
don't care if ur oppnent is better/worse in both situations...it takes time to control any situation...
theory can be put to use but practical always helps...
-TkdWarrior-

[Andy Murray]

Fizzle......sputter ...phhhst......

Damn US Military Surplus plastique.

Gonna just have to assassinate people instead :(

[TkdWarrior]

BOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM CRASSSSSHHHHHHHHHH
wat the hell this is 6th post :D
-TkdWarrior-

[pgm316]

Does that mean the debate never ends! I may finish myself off in that case!

bang!

ouch!

argh......

[morphus]

missed again aye? lol
its not easy committing hari cari with a piece of sponge...i know i've been there!:(

[LilBunnyRabbit]

hmm well first thing Pads dont' hit back even if they r alive...

They don't hit back? Then what're interruptions and butts? I thought that was the pad hitting back, or at least the person holding the pad hitting back with it so that you can get used to dodging and avoiding. Ah well, must've been wrong.


second even if u r given automatic weapon which u need to pull the triger u can't shoot, anyone hold a gun n fire but how much u hit the target will depends on ur skill...

My point wasn't whether people can hit the target, that's down to practice. Its that you don't learn to shoot by shooting at people, at least I hope you don't.


n then later sparring as i said in some thread(excerpts from book) that it's a tool to develop mindset... simple point is that if u can't fight in controlled enviroment wat chance u hav in uncontrolled...
don't care if ur oppnent is better/worse in both situations...it takes time to control any situation...

Shame most street fights are over in thirty seconds then. Sparring isn't the only tool that can develop mindset.


theory can be put to use but practical always helps...

Yes, and there's more practical than just sparring.

Hey, Andy. Can I do the assassinations, pretty please?

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by ckdstudent


Hey, Andy. Can I do the assassinations, pretty please?

If you're good, we'll let you kill all the pads ckdstudent. Unfortunately you're unproven against real people :D

[waya]

My point wasn't whether people can hit the target, that's down to practice. Its that you don't learn to shoot by shooting at people, at least I hope you don't.

Ok, in theory you can learn to fire a gun without realism, but to learn to handle one under the stress of reality, you have to have the training as realistic as possible (live fire incoming, paintball against opponents, etc). Without that your acuracy on the range may be perfect, but your mentality and nerves won't be developed enough to handle the situation. I think the same applies to any type of fighting.

Rob

[LilBunnyRabbit]

If you're good, we'll let you kill all the pads ckdstudent. Unfortunately you're unproven against real people

Hey! I'm proven against real people...just haven't been in anything where I'd get a medal out of it.

Well, not without being disqualified.


Ok, in theory you can learn to fire a gun without realism, but to learn to handle one under the stress of reality, you have to have the training as realistic as possible (live fire incoming, paintball against opponents, etc). Without that your acuracy on the range may be perfect, but your mentality and nerves won't be developed enough to handle the situation. I think the same applies to any type of fighting.

We do make it as realistic as possible, but without sparring. I think if you saw how we do pad drills and our defense drills it might make more sense.

[amiller127]

Ok. Theres been a lot of debate on the subject of CKD and to be honest with you, we can all argue about it until the cows come home. There ARE good things in other martial arts, and we do not completely ignore them or deride them. Better for someone to have knowledge of ANY decent art, than none at all. Instead of going around in circles, i have a way for those of you in the UK who would like to maybe satisfy your questions on CKD in the best possible manner.

If you are a Black Belt or instructor of another style, you are invited to a conference with the founder of Choi Kwang-Do, Grandmaster Kwang Jo Choi. The conference will have Grandmaster Choi explaining his philosophies and differences between CKD and other traditional arts. If you guys are open minded enough to come then you are all welcome.

The conference will be held on Friday 28th of February, at the Quality Hotel, Wembley from 7:30pm.

If you would like information on this contact CKDwales@yahoo.co.uk or visit the UKCA web site at www.choikwangdo.co.uk for more details.

This will be THE BEST opportunity for you to find out more about CKD. This forum is an incredibly poor way of explaining the art. You will get the chance at the conference to question Grandmaster Choi and learn about the philosophies of the art from the Founder of Choi Kwang-Do. The event is free and all you have to do is get there!

I Leave it to you......

[Andy Murray]

Absolutely Bang On Fair amiller127,
be assured the site will be well represented there, and a fair report given.

Oooh a leap year too. Ominous portents!

Wembley? Is that near Ibrox?

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

They don't hit back? Then what're interruptions and butts? I thought that was the pad hitting back, or at least the person holding the pad hitting back with it so that you can get used to dodging and avoiding. Ah well, must've been wrong.


No they don't, the person holding them does using them. It's not the same thing.


My point wasn't whether people can hit the target, that's down to practice. Its that you don't learn to shoot by shooting at people, at least I hope you don't.


You can learn to shoot a target, not win a fire fight. To do that you do other training, the equivalant of sparring.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by ckdstudent

We do make it as realistic as possible, but without sparring. I think if you saw how we do pad drills and our defense drills it might make more sense.

Hitting back with the mitts isn't anything new, nor is freestyle hitting of the mitts. I fully understand what you're saying you do, and it is nothing new. Many other schools do it and it does have some value, but it is not a substitute for sparring.

[TkdWarrior]

"Shame most street fights are over in thirty seconds then. Sparring isn't the only tool that can develop mindset."
i always thought fights r won in first some seconds...once involved in SF it took me to around 3-4 shots to finish(2 guys) my freind(another situation) took around 6-7 shot for 3 ppl... and all less than 10 seconds...
well that's my points again i m saying that sparring is tool to develop mindset...i agree it's not the only...fighting mindset comes from nature...some ppl r just damn good fighter even if they never tried MA, some ppl r plain BS even if they r BB's... hav seen both types...
-TkdWarrior-

[LilBunnyRabbit]

always thought fights r won in first some seconds...once involved in SF it took me to around 3-4 shots to finish(2 guys) my freind(another situation) took around 6-7 shot for 3 ppl... and all less than 10 seconds...

Thirty seconds is the average, most often quoted time. Remember also that saying most fights are over in thirty seconds doesn't exclude them from taking less time, its a rough estimate.


No they don't, the person holding them does using them. It's not the same thing.

I see, but surely in sparring all that's happening is that the person you're targetting your techniques against is hitting back. So if they're hitting back with the mitts...


You can learn to shoot a target, not win a fire fight. To do that you do other training, the equivalant of sparring.

However that training doesn't mean you have to be shot at, particularly if you're not training to be a soldier but just as a civilian learning to defend yourself.

Tell me, don't police train almost exclusively on various types of ranges when they're learning to shoot? I could be wrong of course.


Hitting back with the mitts isn't anything new, nor is freestyle hitting of the mitts. I fully understand what you're saying you do, and it is nothing new. Many other schools do it and it does have some value, but it is not a substitute for sparring.

Its not freestyle exactly, its specific targets.

[pgm316]

So basically Choi goes against pretty much every other martial art by saying sparring isn't important, it isn't of use, isn't worth the risk. Its a bit of a bold statement!

Can you post some more detailed details of the Choi event? I am interested to learn more.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

No, Choi says that we don't spar, because its not necessary. Nothing about it not being of use, unless that's what you want to read into it.

[Andy Murray]

Here's one for you Jimmy;

Would you be happier getting in a plane with someone who has done all their flying on a simulator, or someone who has actually taken off and landed before?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Not quite the same thing, how about rephrasing slightly...

Would you be happier getting on a plane with a veteran who's done transatlantic flights before, or one who's taken off, done a couple of air hours, and landed?

Naturally the veteran, but that doesn't mean that the newbie can't handle themselves. In an emergency I'd fly with the newbie quite happily.

Remember we're not trying to teach them how to compete, or how to spar. We're teaching them how to defend themselves if they need to.

From the importance everyone seems to attach to it I'm suprised you do anything but spar. If its so amazing then why bother training in other ways at all?

[Andy Murray]

So is it fair to say that if I do all the drills, and mock reality training that you do already, I also do all the strike sheild and focus mitt training that you do, yet I spar as well, then I at least train as thoroughly as you do?

That's all anyone is saying really, we can respect your own codes of practice, we now know more about your training methodology than you do of everyone elses.

Yet you pick on this one thing which actually forms a fairly small percentage of everyones training, and take the standpoint that sparring isn't necessary, and is in fact injurious, contrary to what everyone else on forum is saying (those that care to answer that is)?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Do people get injured in sparring?

Yes, sometimes seriously. This only occurs when people spar badly, but it does occur.

Is it necessary to spar to learn to defend yourself?

My opinion, having sparred and trained without sparring, is that it isn't necessary. Defense drills and others replace it effectively enough for self-defense purposes.

I didn't really pick on sparring, just said that we don't do it. It seems that people have some difficulty accepting that we can train effectively without sparring.

I'm sure you do train as thoroughly. But we don't spar, and sparring is not essential. Useful, but not necessary.

[Andy Murray]

No one has difficulty accepting that you believe you train effectively without sparring.

The difficulty lies with you stating that other peoples training is defective because they have different beliefs to you.

It's blatantly obvious that nobody is going to change your mind about what you think constitutes safe/effective training.

You do however consistently make statements that challenge other peoples beliefs.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I should hope so, without beliefs being challenged we can't learn. I defend mine when they're challenged, as do other people.

If beliefs weren't challenged then the world would still be flat.

[Andy Murray]

Err, the world was never flat!

Or so I believe anyway.

Perhaps we should all be challenging our own beliefs, and not those of others?

Anyone care to correct me?

[pgm316]

Thats exactly what I said Andy, if 90% of my training is without sparring, then that is as thorough as choi. So why even say try training witout sparring.

You contradict yourself CKD, you say sparring isn't essential. None of us have said it is. Nothing in MA's is essential, you could sit at home and read about it if thats all you wanted. Then you even say its useful. Thats all we've been saying. So why not do it? And don't say its dangerous, everything can be as safe or dangerous as you make it.

I think I'd have an advantage over you from sparring. Its one more way I learn than you.......

"Why don't we train just sparring if we think its so important?" We think its important to learn in all ways and not deny ourself of any.

On behalf of traditional MA's ;)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

No, my only complaint is that people have been calling CKD inneffective, unrealistic, and so on for not sparring. Sparring has its place, that place isn't in a Choi school.

[Andy Murray]

So Jimmy, if Grandmaster Choi did a re-think/about turn, and re-introduced sparring, do you think your own opinion would change?

[pgm316]

I don't think its fair to say choi is inneffective of unrealistic. I wouldn't say to much without even trying a style.

I'm sure some of the more advanced drills are quite usefull!

What if you decided there is a place in a choi school for sparring?

Not saying this is what you should do, but we're I train people are always debating what should and should not be in, people do have very differeing views.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Nope, I still wouldn't think sparring was necessary.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't do it. I actually quite enjoy sparring, but not only do I doubt it will happen (although it is possible), I also don't think it would go down well with many of our students.

[pgm316]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
I also don't think it would go down well with many of our students.

I'm sure it would, you'd have a great laugh, go on you know you want too ;)

It wouldn't if you went into it like a UFC tournament. But simple light sparring is something I always find people enjoy!

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Do people get injured in sparring?

Yes, sometimes seriously. This only occurs when people spar badly, but it does occur.


The most serious injuries I've had in martial training are fractured ribs 3 times and a sprained ankle. The 2 most serious of these (the sprained ankle and damage to the cartiliginous junction of the ribs and sternum) occurred during prearranged drills, not sparring. So my sparring injuries have been less severe.

Twice I've had fractured ribs during sparring:
the first time was in a university Taekwondo club where a fella from another club who was just there to make trouble deliberately side-kicked me in the ribs as hard as he could. You can get w*nkers in
just about any environment.:(
the second time was in a situation that I put myself in - deliberately picking the toughest fighters in the club and mutually agreeing to step up the intensity and power. This was completely voluntary on my part, other people in the same club were able to spar with less risk simply by sparring with lower intensity.

So I really do think you over-emphasise the dangers of sparring as compared with other martial practices. And I'm saying this as someone who actually isn't a big fan of sparring. I think it has some useful lessons (particularly with regard to spontaneity) but also has many pitfalls, so our focus on sparring is actually very very limited.



No, my only complaint is that people have been calling CKD inneffective, unrealistic, and so on for not sparring. Sparring has its place, that place isn't in a Choi school.

I think you might find people to be less critical if you weren't quite so full on about about CKD being THE art of street-fighting, the inevitable implication being that other arts aren't.

What do we actually mean by street-fighting? I'm not going to attempt to answer that here as I think it worth starting a seperate thread on that subject.

What I will say though is that you're experience of 'street-fighting' is by your own admission very limited - one or two encounters at most?

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet (but I will), due to my former occupation I've been involved in dozens and dozens of violent encounters. More than I can count or remember. Many were quite mild, a few were really scary. And I survived unscathed, only even being hit a couple of times. So surely my art is THE art of street-fighting. It has stood the test of reality time and time again, unlike the mickey-mouse arts you lot are doing. You should all jack in those useless arts that you're practicing, tell your collective grandmasters to whistle dixie, and come and learn Flanagan-ryu from me.

Well now that I've got that off my chest...what a load of arrogant guff! Regardless of my experiences, I'm just a bloke who's 'knocked about a bit'. I'm sure that are plenty of people on this forum who could 'whup my ass'! And, guess what, I totally acknowledge that I've got loads and loads to learn. There will always be more to learn and, the beauty of it is, I never cease to make new friends in martial arts who have stuff to teach me. No art is the 'best'.

The moral of the story? I'm not sure, I just felt like a bit of a rant. But I could say that its better to have an empty cup and continually seek to fill it, than to harp on about how you've got the biggest and best cup in town.

Mike

[Greyghost]

clap clap clap clap clap clap ...whistles...clap...clap...(repeat to fade)

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan

It has stood the test of reality time and time again, unlike the mickey-mouse arts you lot are doing. You should all jack in those useless arts that you're practicing, tell your collective grandmasters to whistle dixie, and come and learn Flanagan-ryu from me.

Well now that I've got that off my chest...what a load of arrogant guff! Regardless of my experiences, I'm just a bloke who's 'knocked about a bit'. I'm sure that are plenty of people on this forum who could 'whup my ass'!
Mike

When do we start learning Flanagan-ryu!? ;)

To be honest Mike, I'm not interesting in learning from the "hardest person" of the person with the "best art" I'd rather learn from somebody like youself thats got experience of applying the art in a real situation. I believe it makes you look at MA's from a different perspective. Otherwise your just learning things from somebody that doesn't really know what works, apart from what they've been told!

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by pgm316


When do we start learning Flanagan-ryu!? ;)


You can start straight away via the 'one year to black belt correspondence course' available for only £999.99 - a veritable bargain:)


To be honest Mike, I'm not interesting in learning from the "hardest person" of the person with the "best art" I'd rather learn from somebody like youself thats got experience of applying the art in a real situation. I believe it makes you look at MA's from a different perspective. Otherwise your just learning things from somebody that doesn't really know what works, apart from what they've been told!

Fair enough, but we shouldn't undervalue those who've spent years in the dojo but done little 'field testing' of their art. I have learnt a great deal from teachers who have very rarely had to use their skills in real combat. Bet you have too?

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan

Fair enough, but we shouldn't undervalue those who've spent years in the dojo but done little 'field testing' of their art. I have learnt a great deal from teachers who have very rarely had to use their skills in real combat. Bet you have too?

Mike

I'll second that. Everything I know, I learned from people who knew nothing. :D

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan


You can start straight away via the 'one year to black belt correspondence course' available for only £999.99 - a veritable bargain:)


Bargain! Always worth paying that little bit estra to get your black belt without all that hard stuff :D


Fair enough, but we shouldn't undervalue those who've spent years in the dojo but done little 'field testing' of their art. I have learnt a great deal from teachers who have very rarely had to use their skills in real combat. Bet you have too?

Mike

Too true, I don't undervalue anyone. Everybody has something to offer. I don't like it when people brush off white belts assuming they can't know anything of value. Its usually happens, but you never know what training or experiencs they've had.

I like the way that people who have "field tested" seem to teach in a more realistic way. Just from my experience anyway.

[pgm316]

This discussion has stopped mid circle!

Jimmy, I was just reading about the mornings training melanie and her fellow student did with you. I was surprised to read about the sparring you did after all you've said against sparring!?

Sounded like a good morning of training though!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I don't think sparring is essential, which doesn't mean that I don't enjoy it, or don't think its useful. I simply do not think that it is necessary or even necessarily a good thing when all I'm trying to teach my students is how to defend themselves.

Besides, its just defense drills with both sides attacking and defending.

The reason the discussion stopped mid-circle was because it'd already looped round several times, and to be honest no one was gaining anything from it.

[Cain]

Let me get this straight -

Choi kwang do thinks sparring is useless, causes injuries and that mitts are replacements to real fights. And that u don't do sparring 'cause it results in 'injuries

Yet you say that it's effective on the street. No offense dude but I just fell off laughing :D

Dude when u r practising targets, it does not hit u back, a very valuable lessonn I believe it is

Take this scenario -

Sparring -

You know wat's ur mind like in a fight, you r nervous 'cause there's a live opponent looking at you with angry eyes. You r in a real situation with an opponent ready to beat the crap outta u. You start to spar and u get hit a few times, u get shocked, after some time training u know wat's it like to get hit, so the next time in sparring or a when u get hit, u know wat's it like and it does not surprise u and u hit back....get my idea?

Now we come to ur 'realastic' mitts

You just practise blows on a piece of wood, cotton, sand whatever. You don't know what ur opponent is! You don't know what he looks like! You are just practising with the goal that you have to hit the target, there are no emotional distractions. And most of all you don't know what's it's like to get hit

Now you come in a real fight, a guy, a real opponent is in front of you your mental condition is completely different 'cause here u r not hitting a dumb heavy bag. And then ur opponent hits u on ur face real hard [please don't tell me that u can never get hit on the street if u go for CKD :rolleyes: ] Now it's the first time u got hit on ur face, u hv never felt it b'fore and u r shocked as hell so u just fall down and nurse ur face while the other guy sets himself up for a perfect blow and hits u like u have never been hit before.....

Conclusion -
I can take it that CKD is another style but no sparring? It's a bit wierd

Regards

|Cain|

Edited 'cause I think it wassa little too heated

[Cain]

God!!!! better mark that as Cain's biggest post :D

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Having covered all of this several times, and knowing that the opinion of people who haven't tried or even seen the way we train is difficult if not impossible to change, I'm not even going to bother.

Interesting how people always refer to the mitts (which incidentally do hit back, but that's beside the point since you don't accept that as realistic either, and do move around) and ignore defense drills.

Personally I, and I suspect others, are really getting bored with the same argument being put forward over and over and the explanations being ignored.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Forget it. I'll try one more time, and this is definitely the last time, to explain defense drills.

Level one, white belt junior, target punching, moving in straight lines with all the hand techniques you know targetted at your partner, no contact.

Level two, white belt senior, punching and blocking static. Standing still, one person throws inwards punches, the other blocks them.

Level three, yellow belt junior, all the techniques you know, one attacker, one defender, straight lines, contact full deflective blocking.

Level four, yellow belt senior, see above but free moving around the hall, straight lines are discouraged, angling off is encouraged.

Level five, gold belt to purple belt, attacker throws one random attack, defender blocks and counters with three to five techniques which are also blocked. Free moving again.

Level six, purple belt to brown belt, attacker makes a threatening move, defender throws a stopping technique and follows up with three to five targeted techniques (blocking depends).

Level seven, both of the above at random.

Above level seven, black belt and above, two on one, three on one, free moving, basically whatever the instructor wants.

[YODA]

Hi all

The limiting factors for me about any "Mitt Drill", that make sparring as well a neccessity are...

1. The guy holding the mitts is not getting hit - so he will be moving & reacting in a pretty unrealistic way.

2. The guy hitting the mitts is errr..... hitting the mitts. So every time he hits a mitt that's one less hand that can whack him back. Also the targetting and range issues that this raises are also worthy of note.

Don't get me wrong - mitt drills are a big part of my training, but they have limitations that only realistic sparring can address.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Targetting and range? Mitts are held about six inches from the attacker's face, angled slightly for inwards punches (representing the side of the face/cheekbone area), at ninety degrees for strikes and round punches (round by the ear/neck), face downwards for upwards punches, face upwards for downwards punches/kicks, out to either side at waist level and angled for front kicks, in front for, and yada yada. You can do techniques on any suitable target. On top of this with fast targets you've got a one to two second window to hit the mitt, sometimes less, and you've got to worry about butts and sweeps.

Dammit. I said I was gonna stop replying to this. Bad Jimmy.

[YODA]

Mitts are held about six inches from the attacker's face

My point exactly.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Which is about the range that a street fight usually happens at.

[YODA]

Yeah - but people usually punch AT you - not 6 inches away.

Doh!

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Uh, but your target's still gonna be six inches away, which is why we hold the target there. And when sweeps and butts are performed they're aimed at your head, to force you to dodge or block.

[YODA]

You just don't get it do you?

To learn to FIGHT you need to practice against someome who's FIGHTING back - not hitting you with mitts.

Never mind - I'm off to bed. I've flogged this dead horse enough.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Which is what defense drills are for.

I notice that still people completely ignore the defense drills, and focus only on the mitts. Wonder why.

You seem convinced that only your way can work and that ours can't by the looks of it. Without trying or seeing ours I really don't see how people can be this certain.

I'm convinced that ours can, and that yours does. (Its obvious sparring as though you're fighting's going to teach you to fight, but that doesn't mean its essential to the learning)

[YODA]

Whack whack - Neighhhhh............

Whack whack - Neighhhhh.................

[Cain]

CKDstudent,

Dude if u read the whole of my post sparring is not just about hitting, it's also about getting hit, it's about controlling ur emotions which I assure u can't achieve by hitting ur mitts dude. ur comment on my post indicates that either you have read only the first line or u did not care to read the whole of it.

Maybe you will change ur mind after u read it, if not then I m not gonna waste my time.

Dude there are some things u just can't explain in a scientific way, u have to actually face the hard facts, face a real opponent to get the feel of the real thing.

I am not against mitts but I definitely do not think or believe it is a replacement to sparring.

Regards

|Cain|

edited - but I won't tell u why :D

[Cain]

I m clearing outta this discussion.....just thought this might fit here well.....I m not replting remember so no more heated posts please -

Boards don't hit back :D
- Bruce Lee

Cya guys, I won't show my face here, in this thread again so don't bother arguing ;)

|Cain|

[TkdWarrior]

really i didn't knew that boards were there in Bruce lee's time:D
-TkdWarrior-

[Cain]

LOL!!!

Oops I m outta here

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Dude if u read the whole of my post sparring is not just about hitting, it's also about getting hit, it's about controlling ur emotions which I assure u can't achieve by hitting ur mitts dude. ur comment on my post indicates that either you have read only the first line or u did not care to read the whole of it.

Actually I did read the whole post, and here's my reply to the rest.

Yes, we don't learn to get hit. Yes, this may mean that in their first encounter some students freeze up. However we do train them to react without thinking to attacks, throwing a random punch as you walk past most of the students in my school causes them either to block, or to get out of the way, and bring their guards up. No, its not perfect, but it gives them a better than fair chance against the average attacker.

It should be remembered that we market Choi as a martial art for anyone, including the average guy on the street. Most average people don't want to get hit, hard (we do tap occasionally but that's not the same), while they're training to learn to defend themselves. So we don't hit them hard.

[Cain]

As my profile says I am a big freaking liar :D anyways I was thinking about quoting u again....but forget it...it's useless.....no offense :)

|Cain|

[Cain]

I might add that I m a liar 'cause I promised myself to keep off this thread :D

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Yep, I agree. We come from different training backgrounds. You can't see how we might learn without getting hit, or without sparring, and I can't understand why not. Just a difference of opinion.

So then, any other questions about Choi completely unrelated to sparring?

[Cain]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Yep, I agree. We come from different training backgrounds. You can't see how we might learn without getting hit, or without sparring, and I can't understand why not. Just a difference of opinion.

Man this is taking a load of strength not replying..... :(

So then, any other questions about Choi completely unrelated to sparring?

Hmm....the defense drills which u talk about.....is there any contact? if yes then how much?

Are there sub-systems in the style? If yes then how do they differ?

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Defense drills? Depends on the level. Ones with just target techniques are no contact, obviously. With blocking its light contact, get harder as you work up.

Sub-systems? You mean breakaways?

There's a few still in existence I believe, not sure how they differ though, most're the same but just no longer affiliated. Most of them also have some strange uniqueness about them as well.

Choi Karate
Ku Self Defense (no blocks)
Dynamic Self Defense (no grandmaster, run by committee)

Those're all that come to mind at the moment. They are no longer part of the CKD family though, they are very much breakaways.

[Cain]

Hmm.....r the drills ever done at full power? also do u keep the full body as the target or do u avoid some body parts?

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Not really, if it is done then its done at a speed where your partner can block the techniques, and protective mitts are worn. Otherwise its lighter and faster. Any students who're trying to injure each other get to train with me or one of the other AIs.

The full body's a target, naturally. Why limit yourself?

[Cain]

Targets including the groin? oh sorry I forgot it's no contact.....

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Just because its no contact doesn't mean you can't target your techniques. And yes, the groin is the main target for front kicks.

[morphus]

Sorry, but i have to say a couple of things - sparring can be done full out, depends on the level of competence, I.E white belt- beginner no contact.
Black belt and up full out, both parties agree on the level they want to spar at. This is usually kept for black belt only classes!

I personally always target the groin, but make no contact.

All techniques can be done full force/speed in the air(if need be)I.E for patterns or techniques aimed at a vunerble area(knees/groin etc).

Something i would like to point out is that CKD will teach ANY person self defence, even someone with a disability, phisical or learning - making the point that CKD is for everyone! The syllibus is set so that learning is easy on the pupil no matter what the pupils learning abilities. Instructors are courteous and gentle and will only push the student in an encouraging manner!
Some people walk in to a martial arts class and see pupils sparring (trying to hit each other) even if its light contact and are immediately put off and often walk out thinking they could never do that, same goes at seeing press ups etc being given as punishments in a military fashion or even so much exercise that they think they couldn't handle it(NOT ALL OTHER ARTS TEACH THIS WAY).

The only reason i started in martial arts was because of the approach taken by the CKD instructors/classes.
I am now more confident and have studied other more brutal/pain inducing arts, these are definately good & exellent classes for people who are ready to learn in this way, BUT i have seen people drop out because of the harsh learning enviroment and could'nt keep up physically(taking punishment/knocks).

THIS TO ME PROVES ONE POINT (above all others), that there is a market for CKD and that it is an exellent starting point in martial arts(especially for timid children, women & men), if one wishes to continue to train/learn that way, then thats fine at least they're learning some sort of self defence which could & has proved effective; but if someone then at some point wants to add to there skills/knowledge from other arts well then that can only be a positive move in there quest to defend themselves effectively.

Reading this you may have points to pick at, thinking i have not explained very clearly - FAIR ENOUGH
And i'm sure i'll get shot down by someone.

I am only saying that CKD has its place in the market and you may have issues with the way they promote themselves but it doesn't take away that it has very good/positive points to it(and some negative) but haven't ALL styles.

Cheers for reading!

[Cain]

Wonder how long this thread's gonna last before it goes into a big bang :D

|Cain|

[morphus]

SOON I HOPE!!!!!! :D

[Cain]

I will go get the crackers :D

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Oh, I think that post'll do it. Apparently there are a couple of differences between our schools. We do give pressups as punishments, although only if the person's capable of doing them (no point otherwise) and no more than about ten at a time. We do have 'burnout' classes which are at least as tough as any class in other martial arts out there, without full out sparring (except at black belt classes as you said Morph).

Choi is much, much more than just a starting point for the martial arts. Yes, it does make a good starting point, I'll give you that, but there's a lot more to it than that.

[Cain]

Just curious, what do your exercises consist of?

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Which exercises in particular, to train which aspect?

[Melanie]

Right...before we lose any more people on this thread. I use my overwhelming power as Super Moderator to remove all further posts that go on about sparring in CKD. I may have been quiet recently but I do read every flippin' post!

I have a question Jimmy.

Do you have any weapons or takedowns in your art? If so, are they often utilised? Are they more associtaed in the breakaway arts at all?

P.S. I wasn't joking peeps :)

Melanie
Moderator

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Do you have any weapons or takedowns in your art? If so, are they often utilised? Are they more associtaed in the breakaway arts at all?

Knife and stick defenses are taught, which means that at senior levels you get taught basic knife and stick attacks in order to help people practice them.

There aren't really any weapons (weapons aren't legal to use, so we don't train in them), nor in any of the breakaway arts as far as I'm aware.

Takedowns are taught, again usually at more senior levels.

The breakaway arts are essentially the same as Choi used to be, they objected to having a syllabus which was changed whenever something new was discovered/rediscovered/stolen/developes/etc and so chose one syllabus and stuck with it.

[Melanie]

You mention senior levels? How many years training or what belt are we talking about? I am presently learning breakfalls and have been since my 3rd belt. Do you find this useful?

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Breakfalls? Never had to use them in anger (outside class). Actually I think its an intermediate thing now, I'm still thinking on the old belt system, so that'd be after about the first year of training. But it depends a lot on your instructor, its not officially part of the syllabus so its instructor's choice.

I enjoy doing breakfalls, but I wouldn't say I've found them particularly useful.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Melanie
Right...before we lose any more people on this thread. I use my overwhelming power as Super Moderator to remove all further posts that go on about sparring in CKD.

P.S. I wasn't joking peeps :)

Melanie
Super Duper Pooper Looper Moderator

Yes Boss :D

Jimmy and CKD collaborators,

It'd be good if you could give us a full run down on your self-defence drills ( without mentioning the word sp*rring at all). What are they, what benefits do they have, how do you train them etc?

[Cain]

Ckd I meant the exercises, do u weight train or do freestyle exercises before starting ur classes?

|Cain|

[LilBunnyRabbit]

All of them? Oh-kay.

Cain, nope. Cardiovascular for twenty minutes (sometimes up to an hour and a half) before some classes, better known as patterns. They are actually quite energetic when done at a reasonable speed. Then some of the drills themselves build stamina, but no weight training.

Shield drills, variations: static, free moving, straight lines (rarely, only really when space is particularly limited), bumps (shield 'shoves' defender from any angle, defender recovers, turns and reacts), stopping kicks (shield runs in from varying distances, closer to make the drill harder and is stopped with one of the 'power' techniques), multiple shields, and then just limiting people to specific techniques (mainly for training techniques which is done statically), not letting people use certain limbs, forcing the attacker to stay static while the shield moves around, and vice versa, advancing targets.

Mitt drills, variations: static, free moving, straight lines, fast targets (one to two second exposute of targets before they are changed), butts (mitts are pushed forwards towards the head), sweeps (mitts are swept around at the head), hands/feet only, multiple attackers (mixed shield and mitts are also available), technique practice (static, techniques performed slowly for technical improvement), advancing targets (mitts move forwards, defender has to throw techniques while moving back).

Defense drills(one person attacking, one defending):
white belt junior-target punching in straight lines
white belt senior-punching and blocking in straight lines
yellow belt junior-all the techniques you know, straight lines
yellow belt senior-all the techniques you know, moving freely
gold belt to purple belt-one attack, three to five counters, attacker throws a punch which is blocked, and defender throws three to five followups
purple belt to brown belt-stopping kicks, attacker makes a threatening movement, defender throws a stopping kick and follows up with three to five techniques
brown belt+ -mixture of stopping kicks and one attack, three to five
variations-static, straight lines, only certain limbs, no blocking only dodging

Infighting techniques

Combinations

Basics

[Cain]

hmm....ok but wat about supplementry exercises? Push-ups, flexibility [wat types? ] the usual sort of thing also exercises for the abs or anything of the sort.