Well what do you want to know about it, the reason its not on a meridian?, what it affects?, what? I'll answer the first qs. Hohn Soo, and a couple of others, is a PP that has not meridian bc its a piont that is in the "over-spray" of a meridian. To understand this just bear with the very simple explaination of the Ki theory Ki moves through the body like water in rivers, called meridians, PP's are pionts where the rivers break through, cross, or merge ( The piont Sahm Um Kyo is an example of three meridians crossing -the name loosly means "Three Um rivers connection"), with Hohn Soo what happens is that a river moving very quickly or turbulence in the system causes an over-spray effect, so ki goes there but not as much as it would a direct piont.
Don't feel that bad. Sometime last summer/fall, KJN started asking black belts and those of us in the Master's Club weapons class (archery & knife throwing) to learn the Korean names for Maek Chi Ki and Maek Cha Ki. I've got most of Maek Chi Ki, but the only NEW one in Maek Cha Ki that I usually remember is sahm um kyo. I'm starting to work on it again, since mental training & theory is one thing I *can* do in coming months.
I seem to have a different partner every class, but a couple times I've worked out with a 50-something guy about my size named CJ. I like him lots, but he can't do Maek Cha Ki while holding a straight face... Everytime he does #2, Dohk Bi, he sputters and grins and says "Dog Pee!" I defy you to ever forget that one again.
I was looking through the red books recently to see if I could locate the pressure points that are called out in the descriptions and I came across a couple I need help locating: Sam Doo Bak Keun, E Doo Bak Kun, and Mok Dong Mak Are these not directly on the pressure points since they aren't called Hyul? Also does anyone have more info on these? Thanks.
I apologize for reactivating this after such a long dormancy, but I finally got around to trolling some of the older threads and I thought I might be able to contribute some usefulness to this one (plus I've recently been waxing prolific on your wikia as well ). Although lung#5 (yang gye) seems correct, it is actually a rather *deep* point and therefore difficult to manipulate with your thumb and still do the tech in question. Nor is it large intestine#11 (gok ji). I had always learned if not just *getting the arm to bend* at the elbow, but actually hitting a pp, then Choi YW has chosen the definitive answer. Large intestine#10 (sam li) is a very shallow point (needling only requires a few mm, though sticking in further causes no harm). Also, despite most charts making it look like you can only manipulate this point by going to the inside of the brachioradialis, due to its shallow nature it can be easily attacked on either side of the brachioradialis. This means you have options when doing the tech; if you need to make your opponent bend his arm more (resistance to tech by stiffening the arm), you attack inside this muscle. If you need to move his arm more across the torso (resistance to tech by pushing elbow outward), you can attack the point from the outside of the muscle. Maintaining your grip on the tip of the elbow with your other four fingers (which is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the follow-up portion of the tech) and simply moving your thumb to either side of the brachioradialis to hit this point (depending on the need), becomes "second nature" after sufficient practice. Your Master may say something different entirely, but if so, please don't quote me or I might have to abandon posting here on MAP. BTW, nice drawing in post #6.
I will offer an alternate view. My opinion is that there is no time to waste feeling for which direction your oponnent is resisting, particularly if we are talking static resistence, i.e. they can't move their feet. I prefer to take charge. I use Gok Ji for two main reasons. It is at the end of the lever arm and it is very easy to grab when moving quickly. When I step in, I grab with both hands I sharply pull the oppenents arm with a twist of the waist, at the same time starting the rotation of their forearm. Then I drive my body weight through their elbow. Done correctly, even a very strong person will have a hard time slowing the technique down utilizing just static resistence. If you cannot walk through someone's static resistence easily, how is this technique ever going to work when they can move their feet, i.e. dynamic resistence.
Sometimes its helps to remind people of something they already know so as to keep things on track. I think its important to remember that in KMA in general, indeed, in most MA throughout the Pacific Rim nations, the use of TCM and Accupuncture studies to designate "pressure" points is a relatively recent innovation and is not supported historically. Historically, there are 38 pressure points and 46 strike points, and these are only somewhat related to meridians and Ki-flow. A quick look at such books as "HAPKIDO: Art of Masters" (see: Myung) or "BU BEI SHI" (see: McCarthy) will show highly simplified charts of "vulnerable areas" to be targeted with techniques. Historically these were the sorts of charts that might have been used to educate students as to where and how to strike. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Slightly Off-Topic Technique Analysis I clearly see your point. I don't think you see mine, however. Consider this: IMO using Gok Ji is the same thing as relying solely on the body mechanics to make this tech *work* (you said this, yourself, in describing how you prefer to take control). Although not referencing Gok Ji, I ALSO said this is a viable option (ensure the elbow bends). I agree techniques should be done quickly once you commit yourself to do it, as any pause could be detrimental. So let me clarify my earlier statement (it obviously didn't *paint* a clear enough picture). People generally have one of two *flinch* reactions to having their arm grabbed. One is to straighten and/or stiffen the arm (especially at the elbow). The other is to withdraw, pulling the elbow into a bent but rigid position tucked close to the ribs. Once you've grabbed the arm, you would instantly be able to determine which one your adversary has *chosen.* You would still initially control the arm by grabbing the wrist with one hand and *cupping* the elbow with the palm/fingers of your other, with the thumb still *grabbing* but not pressing any point just yet. A split-second before stepping thru with the subsequent move, is when you could *slide* your thumb into position (depending on their flinch reaction) to best facilitate the tech. Realize I'm not discounting the force applied by your arms (push/pull) to carry out the tech or that you might use against any resistance they might display. I'm referring to the specific pressure used by the thumb near their elbow as a means to enhance the success of the tech. Granted, without special conditioning of the hands that strengthens the vise-like grip of the fingers, employing any pp other than Gok Ji might seem futile (but hopefully you see my point that Gok Ji doesn't constitute a *true* pp attack in this instance). One other thing to note about this tech is an advanced stepping pattern that merely spins 360º all at once, without breaking it down into a "step across and 180º pivot." I hope this clears things up, and I also want to say that I think your assessment of how to execute this tech makes more sense than many that I've heard in the past. Happy Trails!
What you say may very well be true, to a certain extent. One must remember that soldiers were often conscripted and merely given *crash courses* in how to wield a weapon. So it is highly likely, if given *any* list of vulnerable points, that it numbered far less than the amounts you propose (I do recall seeing a list of "death points" -which were meridian acupoints- however it only numbered about 8 or 12). High-ranking military leaders were quite literate by contrast, and therefore expecting them to learn the meridians and other *healing arts* doesn't seem to be inconceivable. History also states that these "military leaders" were taught empty-hand forms prior to those using weapons, so that they could build on the knowledge of biomechanics and body dynamics gleaned from the empty-hand forms. This wasn't usually so with the *common* soldier. Does this conflict with any personal research that you've done? Or do you consider what I refer to as strictly legend and not hard historical evidence?
Unfortunately, my own information is very much at odds with how a great many folks would like to see Korean martial traditions come together, and sharing the facts I have come up with probably won't make me very popular in some circles. Since you asked, I'll some of my own thoughts and leave it at that. a.) Koreans are not now, nor have they ever been a warrior society. The sort of highly sophisticated education that you are referring to is only to be found among those cultures where military training was raised to an artform as in the case of the Japanese. This was not characteristic of either the Korean or Chinese military systems. b.) The military officers of the CHOSON Dyn (1394 - 1907) were not particularly literate though it would not have been unusual to find literate officers now and again. As demonstrated by the early defeats of Korean forces during the IMJIN WAERUM (1592-1598), Confucian scholars could be and were readily placed in command of field troops based on nothing more than their command of the Chinese classics and clerical skills. c.) The last 400 years of Korean martial traditions revolve around the MUYETOBOTONGJI (publ 1795) whose earliest version was published as a manual of 6 weapons systems ("MUYEJEBO") in 1610. "........ September, 1593, King Sunjo (1567-1608) established the HUNLYUN DOKAM ( Royal Military Training Agency). At the encouragement of the Ming General Liu, T’ing, the Korean Prime Minister under King Sunjo (1567-1608), one Yu Song-Nyong, sought to reorganize the Korean army into a highly structured and versatile organization. His manual for this effort was the Jin Xiao Shin Shu or “Manual of New Military Tactics” written by General Ki, Ji Huang (1528-1588) and published in 1567. At the heart of this approach is a SOGO system, or "order of battle" in which 11-man squads under a TAE-CHONG or "squad leader" are grouped, three at a time, to form a KI ("platoon" or "banner") of 33 men under the leadership of a KI-CHONG. Three platoons come together to form a CHO (company of 99 under the leadership of a CHOGWAN, while five companies form the standard large unit---the SA or "battalion"----of 495 men under a PA-CHONG or battalion commander. This organizational approach continued to include specific responsibilities for each of the three squads of each platoon with one squad of 11 concerned with close-in fighting using edged weapons (SALSU), a second squad using archery for intermediate distances (SASU) and the third squad for gunners using muskets for long ranges (POSU). .................................................................." This was revamped in 1759 by Prince Sado as the MUYE SHINBO, a manual of 18 systems. The final version, published in 1795 was a manual of 24 systems. None of these manuals which served as the backbone and touchstone for military practice refer to, or even allude to, PP work based on TCM. d. Lastly, the military system of the last 100 years of the CHOSON Dynasty was a corrupt and decrepit organization based for the most part on YANGBAN candidates inheriting positions, and paying individuals to actually handle their duties. Taken in toto, there is nothing to document that the martial traditions of the Korean military were much more than efforts by a limited cadre to maintain a system of corvee troops for use in maintaining internal security as needed. The idea of a highly sophisticated or exotic practices as a function of long years of development simply is not supported by facts. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
I, too, am familiar with the various military manuals ordered by different Korean rulers, and am glad you did such a fine job listing them all. You have me at a disadvantage as I don't have access to any of my research/resource materials (save the internet, of course) so my comments will lack the *punch* of such affirmation. That said, I doubt that West Point or the USN Academy would teach battle strategies/tactics in the same class as one geared toward battle psychology or famous upsets in military history, though there might certainly be discussion about how these topics could "cross-over" or intersect. Oral traditions in both CMA & KMA report that learned scholars did study "healing arts" in addition to military training, so forgive me if this proliferation of oral accounts sways my opinion (you don't have to mention the saying about, "no matter how often a lie is told, it's still not the truth"). I agree with you that no matter how much you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. But I'm curious, why are there SO MANY accounts of this sort of thing, spread wide throughout various cultures and geographical regions? Blaming it on "wishful thinking" to support a *popular* current viewpoint just doesn't add up in my book. Some credence has to be dealt here but perhaps that's best left to the TRUE academic experts (I'm a little too busy doing physical training, myself ). Don't let the perceived tone of agitation fool you, I'm as adamant about claims by supposed *debunkers* of such things as acupuncture, when they only cite "AMA-approved" evidence to support their claims and haven't been exposed to the same concepts of internal training that I've been privy to. FWIW.
All very true. I will be the first to admit that the power of imagination and romance has always been stronger than fact. The Japanese have traded in this for sometime with their stories of the SAMURAI warrior as some sort of paragon of martial virtue. In like manner, the Chinese with their tales of adventure by knights-errant are also fun to to tell and retell and do little damage to the nationalistic agendas of their promoters. For myself, however, I prefer the rough and unvarnished--- if less exotic and glorious---- truth of history. To me the "glory" of the Korean fighting traditions is not in tales of ancient warriors but in the spiritual toughness of a people who can get up each time they are knocked down when they probably have every good reason to stay on the ground. Such intrinsic resilience does not need to be "dressed for the occasion" when Korean culture is presented in the court of public opinion. There are, however, other----even Koreans--- who believe such is necessary and its not my place to correct them. I just think its un-necessary, along with being inaccurate. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Unknown-KJN, yes I am firm believer in mechanics first. It boils down to the fact that I have more faith in mechanics than I do pressure points. Don't get me wrong, I love practicing pressure points and I can make many of them work quite well against a large percentage of my practice partner population. The problem I have found is that some people are just not affected, either by pain or weakening. I asked my first teacher, who was an accupuncturist as well, about this and his answer was that a small percentage of people are not affected. I need to have faith in the technique I am performing, so that I can commit to it. If I start with the mechanically maximally efficient technique without pressure points then I know that adding the pressure point will only make it better, assuming that I don't change the mechanics in an attempt to get to the point.
Me too! The "not everyone is affected" aspect was made obvious to me early on, and as a result, I rely on PP only as "icing on the cake" when doing tech (like yourself, not compromising principles of good ol' mechanics/physics in the process). One reason I don't matter-of-factly dismiss PP and meridian Ki theory entirely has to do with an experience I had shortly after becoming a BB in KSW, where I was "knocked out" with a slight tap to the chest during a demo. Prior to the performance, my instructor had abstained for a week from "enjoying" his current girlfriend (who just happened to be a nympho of sorts), so he could work on building his KI reserves as he wanted to demonstrate sufficient ease when "popping" the old thick-style CocaCola bottles (also a scheduled part of the demo). I could feel a tingling that worked it's way exactly along the meridian up into my head (actual time took a mere fraction of a second), then I simply passed out. So FWIW, maybe you should start looking more closely at DJKB, etc. and work those kind of things more into your training - just a thought.
An interesting experience--and I could try to explain it, but anything I say would just be pure speculation, so I think the best thing I can do is just post this video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgQIGKDR9Mk"]Derren Brown - Mind Controlling Punch - YouTube[/ame] of a guy capable of some impressive feats WITHOUT using chi. Remember, Derren is a mentalist (magician) who does tricks. . . not a chi master, and spends a lot of time trying to debunk that sort of thing.
Having been intrigued by magic/magicians and other sleight-of-hand trickery since childhood, I am only too familiar with the sort of misdirection/mind control used by Derren Brown. Although Mr. Brown's "tricks" are a level or two above the pranks played by Harry 'The Hat' Gittes (a role played by actor Harry Anderson on the TV show, "Cheers"), anyone who's seen or remembers those TV episodes knows what I'm getting at. The incident I related happened prior to my own Ki/Qi Gong training, after which I WAS able to manipulate the same *tingling* sensation within my own body (but only after sufficiently developing enough strength/power with my own Ki - see post #10 by onyomi in this thread for a brief explanation). After searching for some pertinent key words in MAP, I gather that MasterDunchok and inthespirit could give you a few examples as well. Some other topics of concern were also touched in these threads: taoist sexual yoga discussion for those who believe chi is mystical I'm not trying to convince anyone who is dead set on only taking things at "face value" as I'm quite the skeptic, myself. But give me some credit that I know the difference between real effects I've experienced and any which may be imagined/illusory.
