so i was listening to a doctor talk about music activating both sides of the brain. He also was discussing touching the hands stimulating the frontal lobe. of course these techniques were developed for stroke survivors, but i find it interesting. in tkma we have sets with numbered techniques. i practice three times a week for about 3 hours and have the hardest time still with calling sets such as dwi eui bok su out of order. soooo... anybody have any cool tricks they use? in our group we have some silly ones that tie numbers to phrases that rhyme(sms8--->open the gate).
It's really not all that difficult IMO, to teach yourself to do sets of techniques "out of order." The key is to make randomness seem less random. If you only practice a set of techniques in ascending order, then you will always struggle. But to properly illustrate my point, I'll resort to using a comparison concerning the practice of forms... If you only do forms facing in the same direction, then when you do try to do them facing in a different direction, you'll find it, astonishingly, quite difficult. However, if you were instructed from the outset to do forms facing front, back, & sideways, then no such barrier will exist. I've seen this first hand with the T-shaped form (aka: jung geup hyeong, or blue belt form). It's often taught to be done where you *repeat* the same steps after executing a 180° turn at the end of the T pattern, as this will make it so all of your motions will be completed with you facing in the same direction as when you started. Students who were never taught to do forms in multiple directions, inevitably struggle with the execution of the second, offset T pattern, whereas students who have practiced multiple directions with their prior forms usually exhibit no such hesitation. Some people think you need to be COMPLETELY random in order to tweak this training attribute with the techniques. I've even known people to conjure up ridiculous methods to foster such randomness, while preventing the dreaded "overlap" syndrome (i.e. where you call a technique which you have already done, thus *wasting* time), by suggesting the use of playing cards as a training aid (e.g. red cards for 1-10, black cards for 11-20, using a pile of card drawn from the deck which appropriately represent the set of techniques being practiced). Fortunately, such nonsense is totally unnecessary as *tricking* the brain is much, much simpler. Despite the fact that you will RECOGNIZE the order as being a rather SIMPLE manipulation of the typical succeeding number sequence, the easiest way to practice randomness with the technique sets is to do them as odds & evens. My favorite way to maximize training time is to go up odds (i.e. 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.) and down evens (i.e. 14, 12, 10, 8, etc. in a set with 15 techniques). And of course, to do the reverse (up evens, down odds). Even doing a set in descending order will force your body to disrupt the *standard* order in which you learned the set. BION, if you do this simple adjustment to your practice of the technique sets, then doing a technique called *at random* becomes much easier with a quicker response time. And with a little extra effort, jumping from one set to another becomes less of a challenge (imagine a BB test where five techniques from five different sets are called out, and you are expected to do them with little hesitation - it's not so much "memorization" as it is HOW you practice that enables this ability).
I have found that memorization CAN be a great tool for understanding, but unfortunately there are far to many parrots in TKMA. I have seen several folks that were lost in the numbers without actually ever learning the principles and concepts behind techniques. Numbered sets are a great way to make sure a large group of people are learning the same thing. I find this especially true when trying to preserve our curriculum. I would also point out that practitioners should "get it" after awhile. Advanced students should learn conceptually and not just "by the numbers". The sets are loaded with repetition and as such the practitioner should "get it" but admittedly it is a seemingly scarce evolution of learning.
Yes, I agree. Now we are getting (a little) off topic, but to my mind, the point of doing numbered sets of techniques is only so that you learn concept, and body mechanics, in order to be able to do do a technique in a uniques situaution that might not be exactly like the "numbered" technique. I find it interesting that Kenpo, another art taught by memorization of numbered sets, has developed little "code-words" strung together in phrases - like "five swords" or "squeezing the peach". (I have thought about developing something like that, but haven't done it)
kind of like alot of cma. its funny how nicknaming techniques develops almost naturally to aid memorization. on another note, i hope more thought went into the numbering than simply the order which came to the creator's mind. for instance, unkn kjn once turned on an imaginary light bulb over my head when he told us how SMS 1 and 2 are natural lock flows against resistance.
we usually get sharpened up at advanced brown belt, but concepts aren't elucidated until black belt. many of these sets can be taken at face value as extra technique sets, but can also be taught with their corresponding concepts. ki bon bon/kwan jeol ki introduces alternates and isolation; gak do beop angles. jeon hwan beop introduces unbalancing, friction and speed. it wasnt until i received my 2nd degree black belt that master yang started teaching alternatives to techniques below black belt. the point i am trying to make here is that after learning the proper form for 'x' amount of techs, principles can be taught. after principles, we can play around. i know it is much of a drift, but do people have ideas on whe to introduce priciples before they appear on the curriculum, or do they kindof naturally 'click' at the levels they are taught at?
I have observed that many practitioners don't know how to flow from one joint locking technique to the next. Not only this, some don't see a solution to an attack from a conceptual point. I just see these "advanced" practitioners that can't think out of the box, simply repeating what they are shown, like a parrot that mimics but does not understand. To answer the question I teach concepts very early, from the beginner level on up. I understand that many practitioners understand what they are doing, but many more do not!
Also, you can know which techniques are reversals and counters, but in order to actually do them, you need what Chinese arts and JKD call “sensitivity” to read your partners movements. My instructor did specific drills to develop this (think “chi sao”). Curious to know if anyone one else has taught or learned “sensitivity drills” as part of learning transitions and reversals. Edit:to GM Murphy….to expand on what you are saying, I think that what many don’t see is that (ideally) any Hapkido curriculum is not necessarily a set of responses to a number of attacks, but rather is designed to be a vehicle to learn concepts so that they can “think outside the box”, as you put it.
Ahh... the old "mimicking parrot" analogy. :happy: I just love it! Unfortunately it's this very thing which produces high ranking individuals who have no business teaching MA, but through their own persistence in lingering around until they do get promoted, manage to move up in rank, often in MA associations that are too big to notice. I agree with Moosulmaster, that it's never too early to introduce the concepts behind the techniques, when teaching your students. But let's face it, some folks need to be exposed to the stuff longer than others, before you can get light bulbs to go off in their head. I've seen people want to mess with the order of the curriculum, but IMO it's not all that great of an idea, as sometimes there are *hidden jewels* nested in there that you just may not be aware of ... yet. And I'd also like to address the question posed by Cz. As we all know (and as Moosulmaster pointed out), there is much repetition within the joint-locks found in the kuk-sool curriculum. So it makes perfect sense to invent little "code words" to help with the transmission of the material. Although MMA has termed "armbar" to be the hold where you pin the back of the hand to your chest while lying on the ground (legs across their chest), I always used it to describe any lock where the elbow was being hyperextended (e.g. KBS #6 or #7). Likewise when grabbing your own wrist for increased leverage, I said "figure 4" and when locking the arm by placing it in your armpit, "chicken wing." I never used the term, "hammerlock" to describe cranking the arm behind a person's own back, but since it's used by a majority of law enforcement personnel, I see no reason not to use it. A trick to show the importance of learning the curriculum by numbers, that I always like to spring on students can be done quite early in their training. Technique #4 in the set An Son Mok Su (inner wrist seize), doesn't need to be demonstrated in order for them to learn it. They should already be familiar with the starting position, so all you need to do is tell them to initiate the movement from escaping technique #5 (son ppae gi), and finish with the lock from basic technique #6 (ki bon su). Of course there are plenty of other opportunities within the curriculum where this little trick will work, but I'll leave it up to you to discover on your own. :topic: OFF-TOPIC :topic: Somewhat off-topic but I'd like to share anyway... The way that KBS #6 is illustrated in the KSW textbook, is identical to the way that I think it should be taught. That is, to engage their inner wrist with the medial aspect of your own wrist, circling their arm clockwise and grabbing their wrist at the 12 o'clock position as a means of correctly positioning their shoulder so the elbow lock will work. However, by the time a student has encountered the set of gwan jeol gi (kwan juhl ki; 관절기) and is fairly proficient with it, I think that showing them an alternate method of doing KBS #6 is advisable. Rather than circle the arm to correctly position their shoulder, go straight for the wrist lock (i.e. place the palm of your right hand on the back of their right hand and pull on the sides of their wrist using your thumb & middle finger, simultaneously pushing on the back of their hand with the heel of your palm). Then, because of the finesse garnered from the set of gwan jeol gi, they should be able to snatch the opponent's arm out straight such that the shoulder rotates appropriately. IMO, this is how students learn that all the various pieces can be mixed & matched as the situation calls for, and this in turn leads to them thinking conceptually about the techniques.
well, i made the jump and checked out the wing chun subforum! after watching master (wong and his funny f-bombs) and one of the comments towards the bottom i can tell that chunning uses a similar yet different approach to memorization. i may be wrong, but it seems that drills(which are like a claustrophobic kun dae ryeon) are memorized then titled. the drilling probably stimulates the right side of the brain, as sensitivity requires a strong sense of rhythm. the choice in finishing with a maek chigi/chagi, lock, or throw would be where the memorization of techniques comes into play. great information and practise to think about CZ. thanks!
I do have a few descriptions for KBS, at least. I more or less use these to describe other tech, as well...but they are not really 'Code words' the way Parker kenpo uses the term. On the topic of ways to describe techniques, here’s a list of how I describe KBS, which is one of the Kuk Sool sets I still use, that is still more or less intact: 1. Bridge lock, or "3 point lock" (heard some-one from a different HKD org call it a "bridge lock", so we started doing – no other reason) 2. Inside Center lock & take-down 3. Shoulder lock 4. Choke (this is different in our Curriculum, - like KS KBS 2, But ends in a choke instead of a take-down, if anyone is curious) 5. Fan 6. Arm Bar 7. Two hand press 8. Double-grip Wrist-lock 9. Sweep 10. Rotational Balance Break 11. Counter clockwise head rotation 12. Spike the Vampire 13. Rotational sweep) 14 & 15 are different in curriculum, and are now Harai Goshi and Ippon Seonage from Yudo/Judo
Well, not exactly "chi sao" (i.e. sticky hands) nor is it something that's included in the "official" curriculum, but most KSW schools I've visited seem to practice at least one or more of the following: Grappling Sensitivity Drill- right hand grabs collar, left hand grabs sleeve at the elbow (similar to judo), with one person designated as initiator, the other as follower. Initiator steps forward, backward, and sideways, often with quick jerking momentum. The follower's job is to keep up as best they can. This drill can progress to the point where the initiator tries to imbalance the follower (i.e. do a throw or trip the feet), and the follower has the option of trying to reverse such attacks (since they are the follower they aren't allowed to initiate a throw of their own). Balance Sensitivity Drill- this is typically done by tying two belts together, where the very end is held in the right hand against the right hip, and the belt straps the waist along the back with the left hand holding it out in front of your navel. Usually one foot is designated as an anchor, where if you move it for any reason, you lose. A variant which doesn't use belts places the right feet adjacent to one another (lateral sides touching) and clasping right hands. In this variant the right foot is the anchor, and thus the left foot can move about freely (switching sides is highly recommended however, for the sake of developing greater ambidexterity). Slow Kicking Drill- not so much of a sensitivity drill, but I like to change the way this drill is executed as students advance in rank. The basic drill is merely a "marching" pattern where two partners work their way across the training floor and back again. Beginners simply kick in front of their partner (no contact should be made), either stepping forward from a rear leg kick or stepping backward from a front leg kick, using various kicks (either the same kick over & over for each trip with several trips made to work all the different kicks, or a predetermined sequence of different kicks on one or more trips if time is short). The obvious benefit of the drill is to obtain strength AND flexibility in the legs by kicking slowly yet as high as one can muster. At the intermediate level I like to introduce an additional element, where the two people working the drill are positioned much closer to one another, such that the non-kicking person has to block the kick (if not, then contact on the body or head will be made). This teaches better precision for the kicker and better defensive skills for the non-kicker. At the advanced level it does approach being a sensitivity drill, as the slowness can be decreased as long as the precision & control is fully maintained. Definitely adding combinations of kicks at this juncture can lead to greater skill when sparring.
Thanks, UKJN- that is great stuff…Also, if we are talking “official” here, then I think JMMKBS and Tooki are great examples of sensitivity drills, because you are using the attackers energy to circle into the lock, or throw.
:topic: OFF-TOPIC :topic: Sorry. I'd like to comment on this despite it not being centered on memorization. Viewing #2 & #4 as being similar techniques is a mistake IMO. But perhaps I can explain why without being too wordy (although not likely - LOL). The first thing to communicate, would be to look at #1 & #3 as a comparison (1~4; 2~3). While the stepping pattern for #1 & #3 are identical, the folding of the arm on #3 makes it different enough in most people's minds that classifying it as a different technique makes sense. Unfortunately, there is less of a distinction made with #2 & #4, simply because of the way each technique is portrayed in the KSW textbook. However, once relative body angles & precise stepping pattens are introduced into the mix, the two techniques become easier to differentiate. Despite the way GM IHS is positioned in #2 when behind his opponent (i.e. at a slight oblique), most would accept the idea of being parallel in stance to the opponent (I'll address below, 2 different stepping patterns which produce one position or the other). The position of your right foot, whether it makes you even (i.e. parallel) to your opponent or at a slight oblique, can be ignored when looking at the ENTIRE technique since you should be using that foot to kick your opponent's right leg out from under them for the takedown. The fact that GM IHS demonstrates using only one hand to grab clouds the BASIC fundamentals that using both hands is preferred for beginners. In this sense, the grip for #1 (thumbs crossed on the back of the hand and fingers curled into the palm) should also be the grip used for #2. Since you will stand upright behind your opponent on #2 before taking them down, lifting the elbow up high in order to make going under their arm easier, is paramount (and ergo the reason for using the wristlock portrayed in the textbook). With #4, getting the elbow up as high is less important since you will inevitably kneel in order to drag them down, albeit incorporating a rather nasty twist of the entire arm. The textbook neglects to mention that in #4 the hand should be grabbed from "underneath" just as it does in #3 (note that "grabbing from underneath" is code for pressing your palm against your opponent's palm when grabbing). Thus when taking into consideration that both hands should grab, #2 has you grabbing the sides of their hand, while #4 has you *sandwiching* their hand. Note that the extra 90° between these two grabs adds more torque to the arm in #4, and since the stepping pattern of #4 also adds an additional 90° of torque, the arm is stressed in a completely different fashion than in #2. Since #4 has you kneel immediately after stepping under the arm, it's very easy to miss the fact that your relative body angle to your opponent is perpendicular, not parallel. Although one of my favorite variations for #4 is one where you do move in the same plane as your opponent, but instead of taking one LESS step than #2, you take one MORE step than #2 (i.e. a total of 3 steps after grabbing their hand - which still has you kneeling down on the right knee for the takedown, albeit with a much more violent jerk due to being further behind them). In the variant I just outlined, you substitute the extra 90° of torque on their arm with an increased displacement off their centerline, when it comes time to tug on their arm. As promised, here are the 2 stepping patterns used for #2: one uses 2 points of contact & a pivot (leaving you precisely parallel), while the other uses 3 points of contact & no pivot (leaving you at a slight oblique). More fully, the first method places the right foot beside the left foot (and thus only ONE point of contact), pivoting with bent knees to get under their arm, with the repositioning of the left foot making the second point of contact. The second method places the right foot in a spot that would mark the 3rd point of an equilateral triangle, where the other two points are marked by the opponent's feet (tall people find this way to be easier in ducking under the arm), and thus 2 points of contact have been made with the repositioning of the left foot making the third point of contact.
Yes, I originally learned this technique as you described (if I understand correctly) – but my current org (where many member schools practice a style of Hapkido which apparently broke away from KSW some time ago while still in Korea), teaches it as a technique identical to KBS #2, but with a choke, so we just do it that way out of consistency with other member schools, and as a way to introduce the mechanics of applying a choke. I should also mention that the end position of the hand is different than "standard" KSW, and that we usually practice these techniques from natural stance, so that the end lock (much like a motorcylce handle grip) puts the reciever with his/her weight totally on his right leg for our number two, or bends his body & head down towards you so that you can reach a choke if you're behind them. EDIT: I still do the "old" (old to us, that is) KBS as a variant, though.
I'm not sure I follow you, Cz. Of course the joint-lock in #2 should make your opponent's weight be predominantly on his right foot at the end of the technique, that's why kicking it out from under him works as a takedown. The fact that his weight is also on his right foot at the end of #4 doesn't make the two techniques similar enough IMO to classify them as mere variants of each other (FWIW, #1 & #3 also force the opponent's weight onto the right foot just prior to the takedown). I do comprehend the idea of doing a choke as a variant to KBS #2, probably using movements not too dissimilar from Dan Do Mak Ki #12 or #13, right? This is why I feel that by doing KBS #4 as a variant of #2 but with a choke, that the REAL technique is being bypassed. :dunno: The fact that the twisting arm lock of KBS #4 might appear in other techniques within the curriculum (e.g. son mok su #3), doesn't mean I agree that dropping it from the set of ki bon su is a viable thing to do. Of course, I'm not your instructor so please ignore my passionate rantings & ravings. You already confessed to your continuance of practicing KBS the "old" way, so it's not like you're guilty of dumbing down the art. Keep up the good work!
Right, we both do the weight shift, but I just I meant that (I think) the end position of our lock is different. Don’t you guys use kind of a goose-neck that turns into the center of your partner’s back locking the wrist, kind of like turning a door **** the opposite way? It has been going on 10 years since I stopped doing the “official” KS curriculum – so bear with me) The big red KS book by Grandmaster Hee-Young Kimm has a different way still to do # 4 with a slightly different entering grip, I think (If I remember , as I don’t have it in front of me) EDIT:Also, you may remember that I only use a very limited number of “numbered” techniques compared to the KS curriculum, so for KBS 4, I would teach it one way first but then I might teach it 2, or 3 different ways, once someone learns our “semi-official” way. Same for arm-bar and so on. I could write pages as to why I do this, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that I only teach 3-6 people at a time. Having everyone do a different set of numbered techniques during practice wasn't working so well - so I cut down the number so that we could all work on the same techniques during our class, and then i just have the advanced people do variations
This is perfectly said....I've once witnessed a well known Master in KS at a mixed seminar demonstrating a technique on a fairly large fella with no result.That master simply just walked away,while another long time student of KS from Brownsville,TX thought out of the box and executed the take down beautifully.
So why is it not a requirement to be able to "think out of the box", rather than just adding more and more numbered sets for the higher ranks? Just sayin’
Back on the Topic: First you have to find out how the student learns. Every student learns if different ways. I have used Flash Cards - Making them read it over and over - making a video out order for them to watch - drills (odds up then even downs) - you name it I do it. All of my students are taught from day one that numbers are just that. Techniques / Concepts are what we are learning. If you know how it works you can make it work. A week or more before every test i stop teaching NEW and just go over the old. Practicing techniques and even forms out of order, left handed, backwards, just hand not feet, just feet - tear them apart and the student will learn them. I have from white belt to 5th degree black belt flash card files on my computer. They include everything from hand strikes - Kicking - Falling - Forms - Techniques and such. They are in Korean and English. I would suggest them for any student. I can go through all of mine each out of order and I am sure i know them ( at least what I know of them)! :evil:
