Significance of Ki Bohn Soo 1 - or, curriculum construction

I have no qualms if someone wants to reassign new numbers, etc., as I have memorized more than one way of counting the techniques along the curriculum in my lifetime (in fact, more than 2, no make that 3... ah, whatever). And let's face it, if you train constantly and consistently then learning the new order should be a "piece of cake" - right?

I have heard something very similar to what you're suggesting, choladeva, and I must admit that it's one of the better methods, IMO, that's ever been presented as an alternative to learning all the various techniques. But as you can see, we're still not doing it, even though it is a GREAT idea.

 

Well, to be honest, I never said that Jwing-Ming's book was the ideal tool for teaching or learning chin na, just that I liked it because it was comprehensive. I also never complained there were too many techniques to memorize, just that it takes a long time and diligent practice to be able to flow between techniques in a dynamic situation such as a confrontation.

I play music. I've learned hundreds of scales over the years. Sure, when I'm jamming in an ensemble I can pull melodies from any number of different modes available in the key signature of the song, but is it necessary to process all that information to play along? No. I can play a melody written in the primary major/minor scale of that key signature with slight variations and have an almost infinite amount of paths to take the phrases. It might not be as exotic sounding, but it works and I can rely on it to work.

I enjoy KSW. I personally think it's laid out in a way that makes it easy to take the first steps on a long road. One of my main complaints about the BJJ school I'm at is that it's not taught with a defined curriculum. You go one day, you learn a sweep from guard. You go another day you learn a submission from mount. You never know what's coming up next. That being said, a white belt learning BJJ learns techniques that are SIGNIFICANTLY more effective than the techniques being taught at the white belt level in KSW. The moves work and the student can use them immediately to great effect if they had to. I can't say the same thing about KBS.

Note: I just posted my 1000th post! Whoooo-hooooo! It's been a long time coming

 

Congratulations! :happy:



As to the rest of your post, thanks for the elaboration. I was just a little unclear with what you had in mind after reading your previous post (#16). But I think now we can safely say that we're barking up the same tree, even if from different angles.

Cheers!

 

yeah man, my eyes were opened wide when i took a semester of bjj! i really do appreciate the idea of a syllabus that progresses over sets, though. all in all though, unless we are faced with extinction or evolution, i wouldn't dare bring up change in our chongbu kwan. one reason is that i can teach what i've learned in work, bjj, judo, and aikido at later levels by infusing it into the technique lesson. another reason is that i (and countless others) have memorized the techniques without enough of a problem to fix it.

im just throwing ideas out there because this is a great thread!

 

Sorry for not responding sooner to the thread I started! Been distracted by other things in life.

BTW, you don't need to go walking down the street. Thanks to the joy of YouTube, you just have to sit at your computer and watch videos. There's lots of stuff out there that you can watch and use to educate yourself.

So then if KBS isn't all that practical, why is it considered so significant to be #1? To be repeated so often and be #1 all the time? Maybe Jo Kyo me doesn't grok it yet so some of you may be snickering at me not getting it. And who is to say that it has to be anything practical? Maybe it's just an effort to demonstrate some key concepts up front about locks and footwork and body manipulations (as well as an initial defense from a lock).

 

That sounds to me like you should just let the fight be alive... whatever you get fed, you work with. So if you were presented with such an arm bar situation, then you'd do it. Thus, if you were presented with a situation that could allow for it, why not do a KBS #1? If they don't know to roll/flip out of it as defense, their face is going to meet pavement and that may "end it quickly" just the same.

OK, point taking about KBB #1. But they are certain closer cousins than say Dahn Doh Mahk Ki #15 is to KBS #1.

And it's a shame hten that people don't engage all the locks. Could that be from lack of proper instruction? Or that the instructors themselves just don't know any better these days (back to the whole quality control issue).

 

First, I don't think wrist locks and defenses against them are bad things to learn because yes, they happen. Your above example of the husband dominating his wife (sadly) isn't unusual. But that all said, I think it's a mistake to think some movement is limited to a wrist-based entry.

I don't know the history of why so much of Kuk Sool and/or Hapkido and such arts are "wrist-lock" based (maybe Bruce could shed some insight here). But just because that's how it is taught does that mean that's where it's left to be? Take Ahp Eui Bohk Soo #6... that could flow from a punch defense. Look at Maek Chi Ki or any such set that starts from the kick-punch defense... does that mean because the tech is taught from a kick-punch sequence that the technique is only useful to defend from that set up? Of course not.

So I just don't think that because there's so much wrist-lock based that it means everything is really hell-bent on wrist locks. Merely that provides a "starting point" for working with a technique.

BTW I agree about the Chin Na book. It's a great one.

I actually touched on this on my blog:

http://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/satisfying-ego-or-satisfying-results/

It's nice to have an encylopedia of knowledge, but in the end you really need to whittle your effective use set down as simply as possible. Less is more.

But that's one question about the Kuk Sool curriculum. While there is so much emphasis put upon the 3608 techniques, memorizing and regurgitating them well.... Consider Bruce Lee. He had to first study Gung Fu and learn all that classical mess before he could discard and simplify. I mean, if you have nothing at all, how can you discard anything? You've got to learn a whole lot to gain the knowledge about what's out there, and the perspective to know what's truly useful for you and what isn't, thus you can start the simplification process. So perhaps that's something Kuk Sool can be good for? To be that encyclopedia of knowledge to found yourself upon?

 

Well, that's perhaps yet another argument for these "break off" Kuk Sool schools and maybe new organizations to change up the curriculum a bit. Get all "old school" and bring these things back. Even as UnknownKJN said, the curriculum of WKSA has changed over the years so well... maybe it needs some more work, maybe it needs to revert back, or whatever. Something for your business plan perhaps. ;-)

 

So this starts to hit on something I wanted to get to by starting this thread.

If all of these techniques are ultimately the same, just with different entries or setups well... why isn't it taught that way? That is, we have the "arm bar" technique set which just goes to talk about arm bars and the mechanics of an arm bar and effectively applying an arm bar. Then it shows different ways of getting into an arm bar, from an inner wrist grab, from clothing grabs, from putting your hand against their elbow, from getting into a chicken wing, etc..

Do you see what I'm getting at? Why isn't it taugh that way? And then, why is it taught the way that it is? What advantage is gained here?

Granted, there's more than one way to skin a cat. So, let's discuss the merits of these different methods of skinning it. (oo... that sounds morbid).

 

although the lock is similar, there are often diffs in the escape. kbs 6 is obviously sms 1, but i was taught to break the thumb before the arm bar. aebs 18 we do a dropping arm bar, but in jgsms 1 we make space with a side kick before securing the arm bar. through various predicaments we see the same lock can be applied. in addition, ideally through curriculum progression we learn a deeper understanding of the technique. its actually a pretty cool, albeit methodical method of teaching

 

I think you just answered your own question here, as that pretty much sums it up IMO.

ROFL - Heinlein is one of my favorite authors and Stranger in a Strange Land one of my favorite books of his (just in case anyone else missed the reference to the word "grok").

No. It's not a QC problem. One must learn the nuances of manipulating a joint by first locking a different joint elsewhere along the appendage (what I call a multiple or combination joint-lock) before becoming more successful with a full understanding and execution of KBS #1. You, yourself, mentioned the "teach kwan-juhl-ki early" mind-set, and this is one of the reasons for employing that teaching model.

I've heard what I consider a feasible speculation, based on the belief that KSW is closely related to HKD and that HKD is basically DRAJJ, that grabbing the wrist is given so much focus because it's one of the best ways to control the SWORD that your opponent would most likely be holding (DRAJJ was developed as H2H for the samurai of japan, right?).

This reminds me of the sculptor allegory, where he is asked how he carved such a beautiful statue of a horse. His reply was that he chiseled away anything that didn't look like a horse.

EDIT:
I had meant to mention something else pertinent to this train of thought but initially forgot (there was a lot to respond to with 5 posts in a row ).

I know it's a simplistic approach, but please understand that I am NOT a golfer. But I did hear about an interesting method to improve your driving and hit the ball straight: first hit a bucket of balls while DELIBERATELY trying to slice, then hit another bucket of balls while DELIBERATELY trying to hook - then hit a third bucket of balls while avoiding doing anything that would result in a hook or a slice (which you should've figured out with the 2 previous buckets of balls).

-- end of edit --

I can't answer this question because I wasn't there whenever the curriculum was originally devised. But I've said it before... whether the techniques are taught using the current way of dividing the material or based on a grouping using each different type of joint-lock and then the different *entries* to that particular lock, my POV is that a fuller & deeper understanding can't be reached until a certain amount of skill is developed through rigorous practice as well as exposure to the various possibilities WRT the outcome of a grappling encounter through live training (and/or competition). Depending on how often one trains, this could be as little as one year or as much as three years down the line (or never if you're unlucky enough to have a lousy instructor :evil. So exactly how the material gets divided in order to teach it (in some sort of logical manner), doesn't really matter as long as it makes sense. The way I see it, the curriculum was not meant to be considered as *complete* if abandoned somewhere along the progression. FWIW, usually most people will gain the deeper understanding I spoke of without needing to follow it all the way to the end (but at least past chodan).

 

After posting my last reply (#31), I had to be away from the computer for awhile, so it's not like I'm terribly slow (okay, now it's time for one of my favorite jokes: I'm not slow and I'm not fast, I'm half fast).

But once I did take care of that bit of business, I decided to follow some of the WWW trails left by the hsoi-slug.

I certainly feel as though our friend (and "just some guy") coc716 is closing in on that final stretch of discovery which will cast his ultimate perspective of what MA means to him, and perhaps this is why he seems to be "all over the map" in jumping from one idea to the next, in an attempt to "pull it all together" (that and the extra time on his hands that he's apparently had lately). I am not professing to have all the answers, but I feel that any dedicated MAist will eventually go through such an epiphany at some point in their MA career.

That said, I'd like to toss a few things into the discussion that I noticed in the random "stream-of-thought" link-hopping expedition that I just took.

_____________________________________________________________

In that Raven Miller blog-post of the SPEARing Jerry McGuire article by Tom Arcuri (2002), there is mention that good self-defense instruction needs to be "three-dimensional" meaning that it must cover the emotional, psychological and physical aspects of the victim if the student is to be successful in a RLSD (real life self defense) situation. How similar is this statement to the one touted by IHS about the key components necessary to develop a true MA character? I refer to the "body, braim (sic), mind" mantra. The correct idiom in english is rightly "body, mind & spirit" but the choice by IHS to circumvent any religious connotations has to be complimented (but it's basically the same thing). Also be aware that the word "mind" and the word "heart" are identical in korean (in chinese too). This is where the other KSW chant of "strong body, smart brain, good heart" or "I'm strong, I'm smart, I'm good-hearted" comes from. So in essence, the body/strength aspect = physical, the brain/intelligence aspect = psychological, and the mind/good-nature aspect = emotional, when compared to those same aspects mentioned in that wonderfully great article - MA instruction: art, sport, or combat? (aka: SPEARing Jerry McGuire)

EDIT:
On second thought, perhaps the "I'm smart" quote refers to enough mental control to keep your emotions in check and if so then the "I'm good-hearted" part would mean that your psychological make-up is not warped towards unnecessary violence. The "I'm strong" quote obviously can't refer to anything but your physical skills & abilities, so no change there. --end edit--
_____________________________________________________________

Now, for some comments about KBS from the hsoi-blog:

This observation is a strong argument for the TIG (time-in-grade) debate WRT promotion amongst the dahn levels. It also speaks volumes concerning the "less is more" adage that coc716 seems to embrace (don't get me wrong, as I fully concur that less IS more). But one must practice and practice and practice some more, in order to be able to (as Pugil professes) "absorb what is useful" and discard whatever doesn't happen to work for you. How else did the "magnificence" befall whoever you're watching and learning from? (whether in person or on an "old-footage" YouTube clip)

_____________________________________________________________

I like the solution invented by hsoi for an inexpensive DIY mook jong. Nice job and very creative!
_____________________________________________________________

I also like the distinction that Leo Gaje, Jr. made WRT sport and combat versions of MA. Since combat is considered unsuccessful if you don't survive, you have to take an active approach. Since no such severe (life or death) end-result exists in sport, a passive approach will do. In summation, sport MA = passive, and combat MA = active.

_____________________________________________________________

And I especially appreciate the kali video with Michael Janich explaining one of the basic elements of FMA (in fact I think I'll link it below). Before watching this video, I admit that the HUBAD video that Pugil had posted elsewhere on MAP appeared to me to be little more than something similar to the chi-sao (sticky hands) of wing tsun, but now I have a much better grasp of all it entails. And I've seen the Heaven-6 pattern done by kali/escrima stylists before and instantly recognize it as kin to something I know as "plum-flower." Not ever delving into FMA to any great depth, I never saw the connection of this maneuver to drills that I'm also quite familiar with but know as "check & counter" or "check, control, & counter" and which apparently form the foundation for most of the hubad drills (I've also seen similar stuff in kenpo BTW). But this revelation about the connection doesn't really surprise me, as any really good training model will look for similarities to capitalize upon, especially when it comes down to trained reflexes, i.e. muscle-memory. If not mistaken, the same type of commonalities evident here are also incorporated in modern day training regimens utilized by police/military (simply because of the whole "gross motor skills in stressful situations" argument).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxVAR4zM6bg"]Brief Analysis of Heaven Six[/ame]

_____________________________________________________________

As stated, I'm just throwing out some random bits & pieces, but hopefully a connection of some sort will be recognized WRT the various concepts I mentioned.

 

There are several variables in the Hubad (also spelt 'Hubud') exercise. The video you posted simply shows one aspect of it, and my video showed another. The double-stick (Sinawali) drill shown, and often referred to as 'Heaven-Six', is one of very many such drills. It begins from what is often referred to as a 'closed position'. i.e. Right hand stick held above the right shoulder, and the left hand stick held across the waist with the hand above the right hip. You could relate this to one weapon, a sword perhaps, being carried at the back, and accessed by reaching over the shoulder. The other weapon, another sword perhaps, being carried in the belt, or waist band, on the right side allowing for a cross-draw.

As to the Heaven-Six drill itself: You are perfectly correct in saying that it relates very closely to the Kuk Sool Staff Plumb Flower double-handed spinning exercise. By performing the exercise with two sticks, it is very easy to see how the same - or very similar - motion of the hands can be used in empty-hand applications. That's why I'm always going on about how training in the Filipino Martial Arts is actually entirely complimentary and beneficial to Kuk Sool / Hapkido practitioners.

It's the same with Maek Chi Ki. Kali has similar limb destructions, but they are not delivered in an airy-fairy unrealistic manner - forgive me putting it that way, but it's true! Kuk Sool has a lot of the moves, and they can look great in demo's but, for use in the street, they need to be looked at again.

As for the Heaven-Six empty-hand application, that is also too complicated for beginners to understand. A Basic-X Four-Count, performed from an Open Position, is far easier for them to understand and perform, whether it be with two sticks or the empty hands.

 

Perhaps it is a QC problem then, or maybe an issue with how things have been restructured over the years.

It's been said that after learning all the under-black-belt curriculum one should spend a year just working to refine what you already know before learning new stuff (Jyo Ko curriculum). Exactly when this is done is up for debate... but at least during my time in it seemed to originally be positioned such that you'd get all your curriculum by Dahn Bo level then spend the rest of time at Dahn Bo just refining and working on things just as soon as you promoted to Jyo Kyo you could start learning new stuff. But by the time I left, it seemed to be moving towards spreading it out such that new stuff was done all along the way up until Jyo Kyo promotion and that the "year of waiting" would happen while you had a crisp new black belt around your waist. But then all too often people would get that belt and start learning Ki Bohn Bohn. But I guess, varies from school to school... but then that brings up the QC issue. But I digress.

The greater point is it seems that's when this KBS #1 nuance stuff should have been picked up and worked upon. I guess I just wasn't on the fortunate receiving end of that. Sure I got some finer points here and there along the way, but I'm talking a total formalized effort on the part of the instructors to say "OK, let's now revisit things from the beginning and really focus on stuff". I guess I just wasn't lucky to receive this, but then.. I shouldn't have had to be lucky or unlucky; shouldn't it have been a standardized formalized thing to do?

I find it interesting that I've discovered a renewed interest in my Kuk Sool studies. All of the b.s. and politics and other non-martial-related-crud that didn't serve towards my desired goals (e.g. fancy dancing and nothing more) just drove me nuts and made me want to get out. But I've always said I enjoyed the art itself and actually do find myself missing it and wanting to find a way to really study the art itself at a deeper and more complete level. I feel at times that I understand, but that also I don't... that there's some key ingredient missing.

Trouble is, finding a teacher that could help me get there given these constraints.

 

I was out deer hunting for 3 days. When you're sitting in a deer blind waiting for the deer to show up, you can't do much other than think about stuff. One thing I always turned to over the past howevermany years to pass time like that was go through all my Kuk Sool techniques in my head. Found myself doing that yet again, but then also streaming off into other thoughts... thus this thread.

Just a continued part of my journey.

Yes, I can see you spent a lot of time at my blog to find all this stuff out. I didn't realize it would turn into some sort of psychoanalysis session exposing the unconscious search that I'm on.

Certainly these things overlap on a more general level, but I think the difference is Kuk Sool teaching it in a generalized manner and the Miller article is taking a very specific approach towards self-defense and (being) attack situations. When someone is attacking me, I'm probably not going to be all that good-hearted towards them, but I do need to have my emotions under control. In fact, many self-defense instructors teach that you shouldn't just feel no-emotion, but you should feel anger... angry they attacked you, angry they violated you, angry they sought to bring harm to you, and use that anger to fuel you. I can see that to some extent, tho still if one isn't in control of that anger any sort of blind rage could open up a bigger can of worms too.

Still, the overlap in approach is noteworthy.

thank you.

For those curious:

http://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/my-diy-mook-jong/

 

OK, I think I see where MAP is choking... let's try making it into a second reply.

I hadn't likened the Heaven-6 to "plum-flower" but yes the movements are rather similar.

Makes you think about the plum-flower movements in a whole other way.

One thing about Kuk Sool that always kinda floored me, and maybe it's just my relative inexperience with the art, but that there are a lot of good martial movements in there but why aren't they emphasized towards actual fighting? Like the block cover punch movement (like right at the start of Ki Cho Hyung), which if you step away from the gross stylization of it is again akin to a Heaven-6 movement. I just never understood why we spend all this time training to fight a certain way, then when we do any sparring or "fighting" no one actually fights the way they were trained.

Maybe.

Need more time to digest the thoughts over bbq and beer. Or given this all started during a deer hunt, probably some venison.

 

According to the description in the 'Red Book' Chapter 2 Beginning Level Course: Ki Bon Soo "...are 15 of the most basic self-defense techniques in Kuk Sool Won." Speaking personally, I don't really agree with that. For a start, in order to practice the set correctly, and with any speed, you first need a partner who is proficient at breakfalls, including flip breakfalls. With that being the case, how can this set be regarded as 'Beginner Level'?

Secondly, when it comes to using physical means to defend oneself, you should rely on a fast, simple and (if need be) an aggressive response in order to stop/nullify the attack, and allow you to escape somewhere where you will be more safe. And unless the other person has actually already got hold of you in some manner, that response will usually be made up of strikes - rather than hoping to step in, grab a wrist or arm, etc., and throw the attacker to the floor.

So with that being the case, surely Ki Bon Soo should either be regarded as a set that is taught much later on (i.e. at a higher level) or, perhaps, be relegated to the category of 'demonstration only' sets!

 

Uh, I don't think KBS is meant to be an introductory SELF-DEFENSE set, Pugil, but rather an introduction to joint-locks (and the ensuing take-down). FWIW, I think maybe the term S/D started being used to describe the sets taught in KSW since not all of them are necessarily joint-locks. But I agree with you, that KBS is not practical stuff (as it's usually practiced anyway) for beginners to try and use against an attacker. Many modifications do work quite well, but then you're not talking about what a beginner would be doing anymore, right?.

 

Whatever they are meant to be, or not meant to be, I just quoted directly from the Red Book. I also just checked my earlier edition (dark blue) book (dated 1982) and found that it also says: "These are 15 of the most basic self-defense techniques in Kuk Sool Won."

But like I say, you need to be able to breakfall well, if you're to play both roles of doer and receiver - so to speak. (What Japanese martial artists refer to as Tori and Uke.) So I still think that the set could best be taught later on. And keeping in context with the original thread as posted, No: 1 Ki Bon Soo can all so easily become a crappy version of 3 if the 'Uke' tightens up half way through and in a panic, draws his/her arm in close (i.e. bends it) as the technique is being applied. Needless to say, an experienced 'Tori' would have broken the elbow earlier in proceedings anyway, prior to turning and dropping to execute the throw/takedown.

 

Yeah, I know...

So someone apparently made the judgement call to use *flowery* wording when translating from korean to english, rather than going for more technically accurate nomenclature. FWIW, 'soo' (수) means "technique," NOT "self-defense technique." The other term that is often used in naming the sets taught in KSW is 'ki' (기), which actually translates as "skill" but usually gets the same translation of "technique" (I presume for simplicity's sake).

I wasn't arguing what was printed in the red book, nor disagreeing with the fact that other things should be taught prior to KBS (in fact, I mentioned that very thing in my post on the 'Liverpool 2009' thread). Rather, I was hoping you'd understand that you can't always take what's published by WKSA at face value, that's all.