Simon O'Neill, who wrote the book the Taeguek Cipher, has a DVD out (something I`ve wanted to do with my stuff for a while, but havnt as yet)... anyway, I`m not trying to flog his DVD for him, but thought folks might be interested in seeing the clips of it he posted on YouTube. What do you think of them? Stuart [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjM1k4A1bW8"]The Taegeuk Cipher: Taegeuk Oh Jang, sequence 14 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amVuSMGICPo"]The Taegeuk Cipher: Taegeuk Il Jang, sequence 6 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjsog-5ESQ"]The Taegeuk Cipher: Taegeuk Chil Jang, sequence 4 - YouTube[/ame]
At 0.30, since his opponent has 2 grips on him, his opponent can sense his kicking intention and just give him a bit "downward pulling", it will interrupt his forward kicking. While he has only one leg standing, his opponent can take him down. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjM1k4A1bW8"]The Taegeuk Cipher: Taegeuk Oh Jang, sequence 14 - YouTube[/ame] At 0.23, if his opponent just raises right elbow and hides his head under it, he can block his opponent's left punch quite easily. Again since his opponent has both grips on him, his punching intention can be detected and his body rotation can be taken advantage on. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjsog-5ESQ"]The Taegeuk Cipher: Taegeuk Chil Jang, sequence 4 - YouTube[/ame] When "clinching" is established, the striking will not be effective. Your opponent may just wait for your commitment and weight shifting so he can take advantage on it.
My personal opinion would be that I cant see any working against a sustained, intense violent attack from someone who knows even a little about fighting. They look ok in the low intense demo with a compliant partner though. The only one IMO close to anything usefull would be the second clip,which is basicaly cover a punch and push/trip them. Nothing wrong with that in theory. The problem I see is he is trying too hard to do it like a pattern move and missing all the details and skills and fundamentals to make it work in reality. Someone like Randy Couture could show better, with the key details, how to cover a punch, close to clinch range and take them down and without having ever done a low block. I guess some would argue thats not the point.
Hello. I heard I'd been mentioned and thought I might drop by. I'm not going to try to convince anyone that the patterns were composed with applications in mind, that they are the best vehicle for teaching fighting, etc. I will make a couple of points, though, regarding the above comments. Firstly, pretty much any technique can be thwarted if the opponent is able to read it and has a trained response. But that's not the point. These techniques are things to do to the nutter who starts posturing then throws a punch, or the bloke who grabs you outside the chippy on the way home from the pub. They are things to be done the moment someone lays hands on you, not as part of a tactical bout. On the videos they start from a static clinch out of the necessity of showing a starting point, but that's the extent of it. Also, they are intended for people whose main training in hand technique is the patterns, hence the obvious connection to the stylised pattern movements. Could Randy Couture give us a few tips on how to do it better? I don't doubt it. This material is not for sustained fighting against an MMA fighter, a Wrestler, a Judoka, a Taiji guy, or anyone who has the kind of "sensitivity" to read intention from a double grip. Of course someone like that is going to take you down the minute you shift your weight. If you're worried about defending yourself against MMA guys ... go and train MMA, right? Actually, I've kicked people in the legs from a double grab lots of times and it worked just fine. I've done it to Judo people, too. Cheers, Simon
I love the concept (just as I truly like the books you've done on this topic). I may not particularly like each of the 'application', I like the mental concept behind it... namely digging into the patterns and looking for applications that make sense and work. Some people will argue that it's useless or may give suggestions for a variety of other arts to do, but I think the idea makes sense if you are a TAEKWONDO student. As a TKD student, you spend a lot of time learning and performing patterns. The idea of actually dissecting those patterns and working with them could be a very powerful learning tool, especially if you've committed yourself to the art and 'have to do them anyways'. After pulling out potential applications and trying them out against an opponent (which should give you an idea if it works or not), it may just give you a new perspective and added intensity to the pattern when you perform it. If you can tie your curriculum together with material in the self defense, basic techniques, punch defense, and sparring into your patterns, you turn the patterns into a very easy-to-use and portable learning tool (instead of just something to memorize).
There has been an interesting issue that I've seen many times over the last 15 - 20 years - as the whole pressure points and interpretation of kata thing has developed... To be cruel it's about 'making a silk purse out of a sow's ear' - yes you can retrofit or invent or assume - but a lot of arts are 'ART' and patterns / forms / kata in particular - Yes there are forms that contain 'good stuff' but there are also a LOT of modified, adapted or even simply training forms, that don't take well to having applications reversed into them. Several years ago I designed a form for a few adult students that had a variety of moves - strikes, locks, takedowns... BUT the actual purpose of the form was to teach (and have them practice) a particular bit of footwork (that was repeated throughout the form)... So - where I think I am heading with this - is that unless we actually know what the form's originator intended we will always have problems with applications. NOW... All the above does NOT mean that you shouldn't try and figure out applications for forms - just the opposite - it's a very good thing as it helps people understand movement patterns, and tactical solutions to possible situations... So, well done Simon!!!
For me, my first thought is how do you know how good someone is untill they attack? No one does. So its flawed, IMO, to say its ok to do this or that against this person but dont do it if they know a bit. No one knows that untill its too late. For me,It makes absolute perfect sense to train for the worse case scenario of a violent, skilled determined attacker. This stuff will not work in that situation IMO. You are right that nothing might work but you have to give yourself the best chance right? My second thought is nutters dont attack at that low an intensity. Those clips are done at too an low intensitys compared to someone realy wanted to take your head off. A third thought is that theres no doubt that at some point in time patterns, forms or whatever, were peoples experiences of fights or situations but over time its been mixed with other things like religouse symbols or other cultural meanings and also stylised to become something else. Finding meaning makes it hard without it getting unrealistic. Theres no way to be two or three moves ahead in a chaotic violent encounter. You respond to each changing moment as it happens. So saying you do this..then that...then this...like its going to go that well.....is not realistic. A fourth thought is that the irony of it is that learning to fight against skilled guys must come first because it gives you the ability to see anything that is usefull in patterns and disregard anything thats not. It becomse pretty obviouse. You have you own rubbish metre then to rely on. The first people to create forms must have been fighting first ,to have the experiences to do try to create them. Im pretty sure they would advocate learning to fight as part of the process.
You’re rather assuming that everybody has the opportunity and inclination to train MMA or similar, are you not? That would make your argument flawed. I accept the criticism, but in turn ask that you keep things in perspective. The “low intensity”, as you call it, is specifically the product of filming 96 sequences in headgear that doesn’t absorb much impact and with plenty of falls over 3 days. So we realised early on that full speed and trying to take each others’ heads off would mean (a) not being able to complete the filming in an economically viable time frame and (b) viewers not being able to see what was going on. The term “full speed” used on the blue screen in the middle of each sequence is a convenient way of not having to explain the above every time, while assuming people will understand that if it was one isolated, life-threatening event, then you’d be going hell for leather. You’ve lost me there. Who’s saying “you do this, then that, then this”? Not me. He grabs me or swings at me and I smack him several times without giving him much say in the matter and without depending on what he does next. Religious symbols and cultural meanings … not that I’m aware of. No, mate, no. You’re missing a big piece of the picture. The stuff in the DVDs – and, in my opinion, the stuff that’s shown in the TKD patterns – is a “plan B”. It’s what you do when you haven’t had the chance to use your plan A. Of course we learn to fight as part of the process. We spend most of our time training to beat people very hard about the head while parrying our opponent’s attempts to do the same to us. That is our core syllabus. This is TKD's core strategy. You’re assuming that the pattern application stuff is the whole of what we do. As Thomas very neatly pointed out, this is a way for TKD people, who do these patterns anyway, to put them to use in a fashion which allows them to access a series of solutions that they probably wouldn’t otherwise approach, via movements that are familiar to them. Best regards, Simon
QUOTE=SJON;1074824413] No. What I mean is that you seem to agree that these applications will not work against someone who knows how to fight or has experience with violence or fighting in some capacity. If thats the case how can anyone know that untill its already kicked off and its too late? If SD is to be taken serioulsy then you train for the worse case senario. Taking a chance that the attacker is not going to be skilled is pretty risky .........and being risky is not good SD. Thats why I saw its flawed Its not clear what is to be assumed. To me anyway.The impression is given that the full speed attack is how it will actualy happen. Those not familiar with violence or chaos of real fights may not realise that is not realistic. It cant be show at high realistic intensitys as they would fail. The only way they work is at low intensity with compliant people. IMO. You dont say it but the guy just stands there and lets you do what you want after his initial low intense attack. You get away with stringing moves together like its going to be that easy. Theres no details or room for failure.One slight interuption between moves and the applications failed. Fighters anticipate failure for everything they do and compensate for it just in case. These details are the key. I have heard that point before anyway, but non of that is clear from these clips, which I was commenting on. Im just commenting on what I see. I dont see any of that said on the website either or DVD description. The impression given to me is that this is SD that will work as it is. No one who sells this stuff makes it very clear IMO. The truth is all this kind of stuff is hell of a lot easier to decipher or disregard if you can fight already.
And that's you, not me, right? We could go round in circles like this all day. You're assigning me a series of points of view to your own convenience, and crediting yourself with "the truth". Not good, in terms of rhetoric. Got any video I could look at? Cheers, Simon
I got banned for a bit. Oops. It's a truth I believe in yes. I think I've just answered your points or tried too. There's no plan to make it convenient for me at all. Just answering your points. I don't have a clip no. If you think I don't train or something then I can easily private message where I am and if your in the area say hello. That is in no way a challenge as I got accused of that before with a similar reply just the best I can do. I have neither the ego or inclination to post clips of myself.
Fair enough. Personally, I tend to think that fighting and SD are not the same thing, although there is some overlap. I imagine you've heard the point of view before. Suffice to say that I wouldn't dream of suggesting that anyone adopt the techniques shown in the videoclips for an MMA match, just as I wouldn't dream of insisting that a prerequisite for SD training should be for the student first to undergo an MMA fighter's conditioning and sparring regime just in case. Fine if you don't have the inclination. Entirely up to you, and entirely respectable. It was just a suggestion to see what kind of thing you would consider to be the better approach for Kukki TKD people. I don't quite get the "ego" part, though. You don't honestly think I made those DVDs (at a not inconsiderable cost) to massage my ego, do you? I don't think that. Obviously. Hey, I'm the Scouser ... I'm the one who's supposed to be highly strung . No worries, I don't take it as such. I am always delighted to meet up with anyone for civilised discussion and training. The main spanner in the works tends to be that I live in NW Spain. Cheers, Simon
You can make this point time and time again (I have too)... but those that dislike patterns or see no relevance in them beyond a 'dance' for comps simply don't get it! :bang: Stuart
I agree... fighting is where you end up when you: a. Know jack about self protection work... or more likely.. b. when it all goes to crap! to me, good SD is ending it before it gets to a fight and IMO thats what patterns/kata etc. are for. Its also why we ALL spar as well! :hat: Stuart
No. Cold, rainier-and-windier-than-the-UK NW Spain. Hot espressos with a dash of strong alcohol are on me.
I have heard the point that SD is not fighting. It's always said like a mantra. I don't think it's that cleAr cut though and aspects of fighting are essential for SD in my opinion. It's funny as I would advocate a basic foundation in the fundamentals of fighting as a prerequisite to the physical aspects of SD. It would help a lot. If people don't want to its fair enough but it must be realised it's a hell of an advantage. The nonsense responses you get from that opinion is that you must be a meat head who goes about fighting all the time and understands no aspect of SD or the soft skills or who thinks every SD situation is like to ring fight. My response would be those people don't understand how to fit fundamentals of fighting into SD. What I mean by ego is that it's not me or my nature to want to post clips of myself.
However, much of it has a very "square peg, round hole" feel. Forms should be explored, however the context of the movement needs to be understood fully, and fundamental principles of combat need to be respected. To learn this a degree of cross training is likely necessary, and high intensity testing needs to occur. Otherwise what often happens is you get some reasonable ideas with hideously flawed dynamics and ineffective delivery systems that you can drive a counter a mile wide through.
