It gets confusing to me haha. Why such an emphasis still on the way a pattern looks? It seems its just to impress a grading panel rather how actualy effective or damaging what I do is. It does get annoying being corrected by a few inches or not being stood tall enough etc etc...silly things that are irrelevent when doing it alone. The tactical details are important when with a partner. Another confusing thing is that TKD comes from Shotokan. Yet Shotokan was changed so it could be taught to lots of people in the military becoming more robotic and to a set beat ,and ,as far as I know ,stances becoming longer and movements going more further away from how a human moves athleticaly and naturaly.So it doesnt make sense ,to me anyway, how patterns can be anything but just an indicator or like an anphabet of ideas that needs more work done away from the patterns. Another thing is the amount of applications for one move that people come up with.The brain doesnt involve the areas needed to process all those options in time when in danger.A person can surely have only one option to train fundementaly thats so familiar its easyer to attemp when in danger. There is the argument that once a student gets the general idea of what patterns is giving him he does not have to train it over and over alone but can drill the ideas seperatly on bags pads with partners etc etc. Or is there still a need? Would be interested seeing peoples views on those points. It might make me less confused or re-afirm how I approach things.
You know, from my research I have found the following. If you take a single move then you can come up with multiple applications for them, but when you keep researching patterns, especially going up the grades, certain applications seem to just 'fit' better over all (in regards to the pattern techniques and emphasis) and with other movements/combinations and applications, which possibly means that certain applications are more likely to have been the original or close! This is something I have found as I have researched patterns from Chon-Ji/Saju up to 4th dan patterns to a degree! Luckily for me, my original research into the lower grade patterns, seems to fit well with the higher grade ones too! I think this may be a possible issue with Matts later books.. what worked as an app for a couple of low grade patterns and individual moves, no longer fit the puzzel as you continue upwards.. and remember, we are examining the patterns here (well I am anyway) rather than individual movements, which can of course be practiced individually anyway and nullify patterns training altogethor! Yes theres still a need, solo patterns are 'muscle memory' training.. appliactions are a different thing.. its the two coupled togethor that make the final approach in SD work. One without the other may not, its like having a gun but never practicing shooting.. how likely is it to still hit the target!! Stuart
Hmm... I'm afraid I must disagree here, and ask the question "Muscle memory training for what?" If it is for remembering moves in sequence in order to perform a pattern as part of a grading, or in a patterns tournament - then sure. But I think both of those situations are redundant in the effectiveness department. If you mean developing muscle memory for reaction, timing, distance, speed, power, accuracy, or any of the athletic qualities that form the purpose of a combat system (to defeat an opponent), then I disagree. The applications can (and always should, IMO) be done against a resisting a partner. Heck, I'd go so far as to say entire patterns should be done against a resisting partner. But I do think solo patterns (and trad. linework) have no place in an effective fighting system. Just my opinion
Noted and I disagree with your disagreement. The purpose of solo practice is to aid 'mind, no mind' meaning we dont have to think.. just do! Not always. Poor technique is akin to a bad application aka failure.. by starting straight off against a resisting opponent this develops poor technique.. imagine if you never learnt side kick before being required to perform it as part of sparring!!! Again, I disagree... why the heck do you think kata/patterns were started in the first place then (pre-karate/tkd)? And for the record.. I dont see patterns as the same as line work.. they are two totally different methods IMO, dispite what they may seem like on the surface. Stuart
by starting straight off against a resisting opponent this develops poor technique Try telling that to Matt Thornton. There are different degrees of resistance. The bit of learning a technique that is without resistance need only last 10-20 minutes. Many "trad" arts make the section of learning a technique without resistance last years! Personally I think you don't actually start learning a technique until you bring resistance into the mix. Everything up to that point is just foreplay.
Solo practice - sure, I acknowledge the benefits that brings if a person practices the right things. But solo patterns - I think they are the most unrealistic way of moving, of learning the skills necessary to fight, that I believe a person is better off devoting their time to other areas (pad work, partner drills, etc). Agreed - I too believe in learning correct technique before adding resistance. But not learning techniques through patterns. There are better methods - take your example of the side kick for instance. Doing this in front of a mirror provides better feedback to the practitioner. I believe patterns develop bad habits more than they prevent or fix them.
I'm not a TKD-ist, nor have I read Matt's book or the other books mentioned, but as a karateka I have given a lot of thought to kata practice and its purpose over the years and have come to a number of conclusions. Whether anyone finds them of value is another question When it comes to application of kata, its not always obvious whether a technique is an application of a particular kata movement or not, hence much of the discussion on this thread. But I think the answer to this is actually quite simple. If a technique really is an application of a particular kata then practising the kata should improve one's ability to actually do the technique. I hope we can all agree on this, after all if it doesn't then there really is no point practising the kata. I'd go further. Practising the kata movement must improve one's ability to do the technique IN A SPECIFIC WAY (rather than just improving fitness, strength, speed, power etc. - otherwise you could view going for a run or weight-training to be 'kata'). So it has to be a case of developing muscle memory, as someone else has already mentioned. How the kata (or the application) looks is irrelevant, its how it feels that is important. I believe you can look at kata movements and identify specific power generation principles in each case. Often tactical principles can also be identified but its the mechanics of the power generation that are most important. By practising the kata movement you are conditioning your body to move in certain powerful ways. Its then just a case of finding tactically useful ways of applying the movements. In short, a technique is an application of a kata movement(s) if and only if it employs the same mechanical principle as the kata movement embodies. Of course, solo practice of the kata on its own won't teach you this. You have to practice application with a partner (amongst all the other training drills you do). I've written a more in-depth article on this subject on my website if anyone's interested. Its the bottom article on the articles page. Mike
I already did! Page 25 & 26 of the book has certain paragraphs inspired following an interview by Matt. I took what he said and turned it around (it related to Cicero 6 mistakes of man)! Stuart
But I dont believe applications and patterns are a way to fight.. but rather a way not to fight! Did you read my book? To me, learning techniques are just one part of patterns... its learn how to make the body think thats important.. sure, as I said previously, you can do away with the patterns for individual stuff, but for so many applications and for lots of people, patterns are the ideal medium. Your thinking solo.. I thinking groups (as an instructor). Stuart
You know I agree I'd like to see you teach 20 beginners even a low block to a decent level in 20 mins! Again, I agree I agree & disagree.. I'd change technique to application myself.. as I see the two as different.. perhaps you dont, but I undersatnd where your coming from! Stuart
I think thats the point (bolded) I was (perhaps unsuccessfully) trying to get across. By doing a technique in a specific way, ad nausim, then there is no longer a need to think of the technique, as once the applications applied.. its done! The problem with adding resistance too early is that often, only part of an application is done, the 'follow through' (as you often see in boxing type punches) is often missed and can be the difference between a workable application and an unworkable one. Stuart
Hi Stuart My personal preference is teach kata movement and simple application more or less hand in hand. I certainly don't wait until the student has mastered solo performance of the kata anyway. I find that having a simple application makes it easier for students to remember the move and learn to do it properly. The real benefit kicks in later when they learn other applications of the same movement and tend to pick them up much more quickly due to having both an intellectual and physical/intuitive understanding of the mechanical principles involved. Mike
Hi Mike, Don't get me wrong, I don't make a student wait say 2 years doing a solo pattern before teaching applications, I just feel that a degree of skill (not mastery) of the techniques of a solo pattern, enables applications to be practiced more readily. I occassionally show basic app's as I'm teaching patterns too, however, at that stage we are not training to make them workable really (well, not in the resistance type mod we do with seniors). One thing I noticed from seminars, where I've taught all grades various applications from the patterns is that those who already know the patterns (from which the application is from) to a decent level, pick up the applications much easier, while those that have to learn the technique as well as the application don't so much, as they need to learn the move and then the application of the move, those that already know it dont and can just get on with making them workable. Stuart
I'd like to see you teach 20 beginners even a low block to a decent level in 20 mins! I didn't say decent level. I said without resistance. The bit where they try the technique out in the air without someone trying to hit them. A "decent level" may indeed take years to attain. If you can't teach someone to put their arms up and then bring one down to the front and the other to their hip in 20 mins then you are either really bad at teaching/demonstrating (which I know you are not) or everyone that comes into your classes has profound physical or mental issues of some sort (which again I know is not the case). As soon as someone has the basic (and it will be very basic) motion down you can introduce low level "resistance" (using resistance as a catch-all term for some sort of pressure/energy appropriate to the technique). A good example is Thai boxing. You don't teach someone to throw a jab in the air for 6 months and THEN get them to hit a pad. Hitting the pad is intrinsic to learning how to jab and so is introduced within the first 10 repetitons of the technique (or even from the first punch). Like practicing swimming...no one suggest learning how to swim on dry land for 6 months and then getting into the pool. There may be 5-10 minutes of theory (if that) about the stroke in question and then you get right in and try it. That's as it should be in martial arts IMHO. You don't hcunk them in the North sea right from the get-go but you at least get them paddling in the shallow end as soon as possible.
StuartA & PASmith I think I agree with both of you The devil is really in the detail. I don't think there's a categorically right answer that fits all individuals. For me, a small class size gives the flexibility to fit the training (in this case how best to teach kata and application) to the individual student. Mike
That would depend (to me at least) upon what is termed a "technique". if simply rasing and dropping your arm to the front counts as "technique" then I'm inclined to agree with you, but I look at a technique as involving all the mechanics such as correct twist/rotation, hip alignment, muscle tension, breathing etc. as its these things that make an application far easier to achive against a resisting opponent because they are all in place to begin with, rather than have to apply things as you go. Well I can only go off experience. I have been teaching TKD for a decade and applications for quite a while and from my own class and seminars etc. thats my experience of it all. No, but neither are they pushed out into deeper water without a float in 20 minutes! Yes.. they try it standing up in the shallow end (or kicking holding onto the edge for the legs).. the eqivilant to solo practice it seems to me. No one who cannot swim is expected to do it in 20 minutes, even in shallow water. Sure.. once they have got to grips with the basics.. swirling your arms around imitating a swiming motion however is not the basics IMO. Stuart
Well yes. As I said in a previous post, teaching one person, one or two techniques/applications is a totally different beast from a class enviroment and hence learning is different (and slower) for a group. I once had a class of 50+ pure white belts (give or take a few) in a Private school I was employed to teach at - there was absolutely no way all of them were doing 'decent' low blocks within 20 minutes.. sure, some had a handle on it, others were perhaps getting there and others had no idea whatsoever. Other stuff also had to be taught as well (though it was a 2 hour class, so Im estimating at least 20 mins, probibly more, was spent on performing low blocks). Would all 50 of them be able to have pulled off an application against a reasonable level of resistance.. possibly the answer would be the same as learning the actual block.. some may of, the majority would have had trouble and some wouldnt have at all. Would they have been able to go through the motions with a lighter level of resistance (meaning someone simply standing in front of them with touch only)... probibly more, but most of them still hadnt got the basic motions of the block down so would still of needed prompting and directions, which isnt really getting to grips with the purpose and something in a class that big you simply cannot do. Stuart
I think that a lot of people don't grasp the traditional movements - like rising block in a walking stance - because the movements themselves seem completely unnatural. I spoke to a number of people who quit (aged between 16 and 53) to address their reasons for giving up (some at 1st kup level). While they all had certain individual reasons, they all expressed a dislike for the traditional syllabus (patterns & line work). They felt it looked silly, was awkward to do, and the reasons for practicing it were flawed. Frankly I have to agree, and I think the next couple of generations may see these aspects removed altogether.
For everyone who quits because of the traditional syllabus several will stay because, frankly, they don't want to be sparrers, never mind fighters. Remove those aspects and you will remove a lot of your club. This is not a good/bad thing of course, it's just true. There's also a selective blindness that occurs as people age or advance up the grades. I have had students gain a black belt at 17ish and get more into serious training, stuff they simply were not capable of at 12 when they started. They then go to Uni and take up JuJitsu, MMA, MT, whatever, and come back to a warm welcome at the club during their holidays. They're quite rightly bubbling with enthusiasm for their new art. They come and tell me about all the hardcore stuff they do and maybe I could do with my students. They forget that they're now looking back at their classes with the eyes of an 18/19 year old and if I'd tried doing that stuff with their younger selves they'd have left MA years ago. They forget the slow progress over the years, how they became fit and strong, how they continued with fence and cover drills, ground and pound drills, heavy contact training. They forget the lessons where we trained so hard they puked, or cried, or could barely drag themselves along to the next session. Then they go to a new art with their brilliant attitude, solid basic skills, a good grounding in SD and adrenaline influenced training, a hunger for all kinds of training in different arts and wonder why I only taught them TKD and why I didn't get them doing full contact sparring from day one, why we didn't do this exercise or that drill which they now do and find that they're really good at I went off on a tangent there didn't I? Still, the traditional curriculum has its place and its strengths. I think it runs out of steam by black belt and needs supplementing all the way through, but it has its place. Perhaps it's time for another thread? Mitch
