From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V6 #369 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Mon, 26 July 1999 Vol 06 : Num 369 In this issue: the_dojang: ITF - WTF - KTA - GTF - UTF - for crying out loud!! the_dojang: Re: The Jo's the_dojang: 1999 Jr. Olympics the_dojang: Whacking the larnyx...a followup... the_dojang: Whoops... the_dojang: Jhoon Rhee and Bruce Lee the_dojang: . ......................................................................... The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~725 members strong! Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, California Taekwondo, Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body of an e-mail (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To send e-mail to this list use the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and online search the last two years worth of digest issues at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! Ray Terry, PO Box 110841, Campbell, CA 95011 KMA@MartialArtsResource.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 4karate@bellsouth.net Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:48:04 -0500 Subject: the_dojang: ITF - WTF - KTA - GTF - UTF - for crying out loud!! To Chris McKenna who wrote: "...but I also wanted to understand how these two martial arts are different/similar and how they ended up that way!" Chris....the answer to your question in a nut shell..... ....."politics". It all came about because of politics...and I don't just mean within an organization. The TKD issue has been touched and affected on more than one occasion by the political struction of the Republic of Korea as a nation. Unfortunately for you my friend...nothing short of about two to three years of fairly intensive cultural and historical study will make it make sense. Good luck. Best Wishes, John Hancock 4th Dan, Mi Yong Kwan Tang Soo Do ------------------------------ From: Eric Mueller Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:36:26 -0400 Subject: the_dojang: Re: The Jo's > > > From: Tkdtiger@aol.com > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:43:12 EDT > Subject: the_dojang: Junior Olympics > > Eric - I am hurt - you forgot one of the best parts of the JO's!!!! Getting > to put faces to so many of my and your Internet friends. It was great to meet > you in person finally, as well as others I have im'd or emailed and had never > met in person. > Oooops ! Sorry! How thoughtless of me. Let me get some Ice for that Hurt ; - -) When Your right , you are right. It was great meeting you and everyone else, both within the Internet Community & the USTU. Eric Mueller ------------------------------ From: Tkdtiger@aol.com Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:23:57 EDT Subject: the_dojang: 1999 Jr. Olympics In a message dated 7/24/99 11:28:10 PM Central Daylight Time, the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com writes: << Instead of sending the whole Wgt. division out at one time the sent only matches out. >> I would have liked ot see match numbering at this tournament - for all divisions. The way we do it in OK, all registrations are pre-registration. The computer then sets up the matches - and these are then printed off and posted around the tournament site and well as provided to the coaches. The parents and coaches then know what ring and what match. As sparring progresses, the referees change the number of the match in the ring. If the ring is on match 10 and you are match 30, you have time. If you are match 11 - - your rear had better be where you need to be. This puts the onus back on the parents and coaches to have the kids where they need to be, but it also helps them know how long they have - can junior have a drink? A piece of fruit? Time to go to the bathroom? And it flows a LOT faster. ------------------------------ From: "J. Thomas Howard" Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:05:21 -0500 Subject: the_dojang: Whacking the larnyx...a followup... This is an older topic, but this is the first chance I've had to reply. Perhaps the difference here is that I'm speaking from a generalized self-defense viewpoint, I'm not sure... Steven Gilmore wrote: > I wrote: > >Considering it is a basic drill to teach techniques defending against > >front grabs, it is also applicable as a basic building block for a series > >of techniques useful against any type of frontal grab, from a choke to > >about anything else you can think of. > > There are other, very-effective strikes that can be accomplished from the > same position which are not directed at the eyes or throat. Quite so. However, these are ones that are high percentage, in terms of making sure that there is a reaction, no matter the size, strength, etc, of the attacker. > >Similarly, poking someone in the eyes really isn't that serious, depending > >on how you do it. And most importantly, it is a great way to distract an > >attacker so that you can attempt to escape. > > MY EYES consider it very serious, no matter how it is done. I believe that is the idea. > As I said > before, there are other less-risky targets available. Especially in > response to having a SHIRT grabbed. And as I've said---this is a basic drill for techniques to deal with grabs of any type from the front. Yes, it is practiced from a shirt grab. It is still applicable to any grab from the front, be it a wrist grab, a choke, or whatever. As always, your response is proportionate. It can be something as little as "wiping" the pads of your finger from the forehead (across the eyes) downwards, to something as serious as using a tiger's claw hand position to stab directly into the eyes. It is versatle. Handy, hmm? Offhandedly, if a person twice my size grabs me, and says he is going to throw me through the wall, I'm probably not going to start out with a joint lock---simply because I'd REALLY rather distract him first, and make him think about himself, as opposed to thinking about harming my poor innocent body. If it is a drunken idiot, I'll "wipe" his eyes, and do a simple flesh grab to a joint lock. That surprises him, gets me free, and allows me to take control. And nobody gets hurt. On the other hand, if it is someone who is holding me so his buddies with knives can get within range, I'll probably see if I can scoop both eyes out at once. But no matter what else, I can't really prepare myself for either one of those situations if I don't practice, now can I? Similarly, I see no reason whatsoever to ignore such obvious and useful targets. You've got to remember----this is one of the five basic reactions to a front grab. You build of them, learn others, learn variations, etc. This is the basic, for people just learning, and wanting self-defense knowledge. > >Actually, the most important part of it is that it is _easy_. Many people > >try to teach joint locks as the basics of self-defense----and they aren't > >very basic. Even the easiest joints locks are MUCH more difficult to > >learn and execute on a resisting opponent than a simple eye poke. > > I think now we're into a matter of educational methodology and practice > time more than technical merits. I will say that too often, people practice > joint locks only on willing, non-resistive partners.... bad idea. Indeed. And anyone who has indeed practiced on non-willing, resistive opponents will tell you that: 1) an eye poke is easier, 2) it is much easier to put a lock on someone who has already been distracted by something else. I'm not against locks. Locks are MUCH more useful than strikes. You can do much more with them, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, they aren't nearly as easy as strikes. If you are teaching someone basic self-defense, do you teach wrist locks? Or do you give them a grounding in basic strikes and movement first? Locks are for control (sorry for being pedantic) which with strikes just can't do. However, ever seen a 5'4" female mid-rank try to put a lock on a 6'4" 250 linebacker? Size makes a difference, and no matter how much practice you put in, it is ALWAYS easier to make that joint lock work on a resisting opponent if you distract them first. > >Also, the larnyx technique isn't quite what you think. :) It isn't a > >strike, though it can be (if the situation is serious enough to require > >it) ---you use the points of the thumbs to press in slightly above the > >hollow of the throat, in a slightly upwards angle. At this point, it is > >easy to cause pain (and panic) but isn't likely (at all) to damage either > >the windpipe or the larnyx. Now, if it is applied higher, that is a > >different story. > >Which is a good thing, because this reaction can be used for an entire set > >of levels of attack. > > I understand the how-tos of attacking the larynx... it is taught at white > belt level in Kuk Sool Won. I still don't think it is appropriate for > responding to a SHIRT grab. Repeat: we are talking about a generalized response. What is the problem, if this is a technique taught at white belt level? We don't teach like this: "Here is the situation, here is the response. Now, here is a different situation, here is a different response. Here is a third situation...." We say: Here is a general set of body angles, and attack directions. Here is the placement. We can produce different levels of body responses in such a way...." Additionally, shirt grabs (unless you are talking drunken idiots in bars) in self-defense situations normally lead to something much more dangerous. I personally am not going to try a joint lock (normally) without first distracting my attacker. Much easier that way. And, with either the eye attack or the larnyx attack, I can do it without damaging my opponent. Similarly, I CAN damage them if necessary. > >However, the techniques spoken of earlier aren't of the "mess with me, and > >I'll rip out your eyes" type. Matter of fact, I can think of a situation > >in my past where I used the pads of my fingers to tap the eyes of an > >attacker who grabbed me with one hand, and was ready to punch me with > >another. It was a front grab, and my reaction (initially) was straight > >from my white belt days. My followup was a joint lock, but what made THAT > >easy was that simple, quick, white belt technique. > > > >The eye tap caused no damage, merely made him blink and stop for a moment, > >re-arranging his thinking. I COULD have used that technique to do severe > >damage to his eyes----but that doesn't mean I had to. You train to react > >appropriately to the situation. > > > I think that you are both very fortunate. Since you neither know the situation, my attacker, or myself, that is rather a daring statement, based on a complete lack of facts or knowledge, wouldn't you think? I could give you the situation, but it really doesn't matter. The point of this little anecdote is simple: the reaction was basic, simple, non-damaging, and completely effective. What is the problem, one asks? The rest of this was Mr. Gilmore's response to someone else, but since I happen to know the instructor... > I understand the emotional response here but I do not agree with it. All of > my training has taught me about the appropriateness of response. A grabbed > shirt is just not that serious an attack and therefore doesn't warrant > risking their eyesight or ability to breathe (both of which, without great > control on your part, ARE life-threatening). Not really. Eye attacks are not life-threatening, though depending on what you do, can fit the legal definition of "maiming." However, not normally. Similarly, larnyx attacks aren't always life-threatening either, though this takes much more control. You are correct, though----generally, this will be considering lethal response if it is a strike. A push, however, can be different... However, again: I'm not really understanding the "grabbed shirt" refrain. Again, this IS a generalized response to a general situation. > >The belief of my instructor is that if you stick your thumbs into their eyes > >and push them away they probably won't be coming back for more. You avoid > >the fight. They walk away rubbing their eyes, but they'll recover. If I > >put someone in a joint lock I may have to use it. I don't know about you, > >but I'd rather not break someone's arm if I can avoid it. > > No disrespect to your teacher, but my experience is that striking people > only tends to enrage them and make them attack all the harder. I don't > think in this case that someone will just "walk away" unless you have done > such damage to their vision that they cannot continue. In the above story, > the eye attack was not the fight-finisher. No, but he didn't write the anecdote. Striking people may enrage them. However, that is certainly not a reason to ignore striking. Similarly, as was said before, striking is EASY compared to joint locks. I'm don't really agree with the "walk away" part---but I will say that I know of a situation where an eye strike finished the attack, because the defender pushed her attacker's arms away after the eye strike, and was able to escape. (And call security.) To me, eye strikes aren't fight finishers---but the point of self-defense isn't to "finish" your attacker, necessarily. The point is to do what is necessary to stop your attacker from harming you. Distracting them to enable you to escape fits that nicely. > We both agree that control is important, whether it is controlled joint > manipulation or controlled striking. When I first began, my preference, > too, was to striking; I have transitioned over time to preferring joint > manipulations. Against an agressive attack, I would very likely use a > combination of striking, pressure-point manipulation, and joint-locking to > subdue and immobilize an attacker. I quite agree. (Noting that I can think of very few situations in which most people need or want to "immobilize" an attacker---at least in terms of holding them. "Immobilize" in terms of not enabling them to chase/follow, certainly.) I don't mean any disrespect here, and I'm going to apologize now for any sarcastic tone to my text. I have a bad habit of writing like I speak, which often means that my words don't have inflection to make my meaning clear. Overall---I would tend to say that we agree about this, Mr. Gilmore. We probably (ok, almost certainly :) have different methods, but the importance really lies in the control. Thomas - ------------------ thomcat@binary.net http://www.binary.net/thomcat "If you aren't modeling what you are teaching, then you are teaching something else." ------------------------------ From: "J. Thomas Howard" Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:09:29 -0500 Subject: the_dojang: Whoops... Sorry about the poor formatting on that last post, people. Yeesh. Thomas Nebraska Hapkido Association - ------------------- thomcat@binary.net http://www.binary.net/thomcat/Hap.html "If you aren't modeling what you are teaching, then you are teaching something else." ------------------------------ From: Kim Jones Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: the_dojang: Jhoon Rhee and Bruce Lee Odd subject title, huh? But today at practice, well, before the drilling began, a lot of people got autographed copies of this picture of Jhoon Rhee and Bruce LEe, possibly from back in the '60s. Well, it's a split picture. I'll have it scanned and posted on my webpage within the week, seeing as how quickly I can get to a scanner belonging to a chingu who's willing to do a favor for me. How my instructor got that many copies, I wont' know, but the autograph is dated about the time Jhoon Rhee was in Korea touring the military bases giving demonstrations. And... it's black n' white. :) === "Vengence of the righteous strikes home to reap the rewards from the faulty." Kim Jones (ladytimberland@yahoo.com) homepage: http://members.tripod.com/NekoChan00/ AOL IM: TKDGemini _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V6 #369 ******************************** Support the USTU by joining today! US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 405, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this digest, the_dojang-digest, send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY of email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com, in pub/the_dojang/digests. All digest files have the suffix '.txt' Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, Martial Arts Resource, California Taekwondo Standard disclaimers apply.