From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #671 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Tues, 17 Oct 2000 Vol 07 : Num 671 In this issue: the_dojang: Re: Anyone have an injury like this? the_dojang: Korean MA the_dojang: Stances are Models the_dojang: Books on Korean history the_dojang: Re: karate music the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #670 the_dojang: more 'ruminations' on 'b' the_dojang: . ========================================================================= The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~1250 members strong! Copyright 1994-2000: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a "plain text" e-mail 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 five years worth of digest issues at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Gassiot" Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:49:15 -0500 Subject: the_dojang: Re: Anyone have an injury like this? >Long story short, my doctor told me their is some sort of "package" that >covers the muscles in the calf. Just like saran wrap when you buy meat at >the grocey store. I must have ruptured the "saran wrap" from the compression >of the blow (I was kicking REALLY hard) and had some internal bleeding (I >had VERY slight swelling...but a whole lotta pain). Udell, I have had a more severe form of this injury. I hurdled a fence retrieving a home run to find a piece of rebar on the other side, it glanced of my tibia (shinbone) and punctured my anterior dorsiflexor, not to mention the saran wrap. After it all "healed" it looked like a knot on a tire when I put a lot of weight on it. Doing squats would make it bleed internally sometimes, my foot would get a little yellow. Anyway, I ended up having it surgically fixed, the doc just roughed it up and sewed it back together. I'm good as new. I'm surprised that you actually injured this given that your opponent was wearing guards, were they the hard shell soccer type? We don't allow these, they have to be soft on both sides. I would think you will have a much better idea of the severity in a few weeks when all the bruises heal. If you end up with a small hernia, it's probably no big deal, mine was over an inch in diameter. I personally don't like shin guards, I like block with my elbows sometimes when someone is kicking hard. When they are wearing shin guards it doesn't hurt them, and I just get a jammed shoulder! DREW 1st Degree ATA ------------------------------ From: mtomlins@mail.volusia.k12.fl.us Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:46:25 -0400 Subject: the_dojang: Korean MA I agree with the statement made earlier that the Korean MA were alive and doing well way before the advent of the Japanese infusion into the Korean MA. All one has to do is look at the martial arts chronologically. The Korean Silla dynasty which was home to the Hwarang Warriors was around almost a full one thousand years before the invention of the Japanese Samurai. Michael Tomlinson ------------------------------ From: David Reed Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:33:45 -0700 Subject: the_dojang: Stances are Models The argument here seems to be that the horse stance is a MODEL which is the best starting point for learning the correct feeling of foot, knee, hip, and body alignment, weighting, dynamic pivoting, blah, blah, blah. A few points. This is only true in styles where the instructor actively feels the need to teach such verbiage around the techniques and is not a traditional method nor is it the "basics" any more than a map is the road. This method of teaching while done in poetry or in style scrolls(which is not a Korean tradition) in a very indirect format is really very western. We want kinesiology as if that would make us better which leads me to point #2. Understanding and discussion of toe pointing is pointless. You can discuss tactical situations where stability, and hip rotation are important and foot positioning is key. However, if one would insist that there is one right way to do a stance they entirely miss the point. Different styles have many variations and has been pointed out they vary significantly. Looking at stances in northern Chinese systems, where Korean martial arts certainly has been influenced, and Southern Chinese systems where the basis of all the forms came from, they are very different. Which is right? They both are for the applications and training needs at the time. Why do stances change in higher forms? Why do the transitions alter? To build fluency - period. Musicians play scales not to play better scales but to play music better. Moreover to insist that they are the fundamental "basics" is to miss another major point. Fighting is fluid and all techniques merely build good muscle memory and ability to execute. The real basics are the emotional and mental components of fighting. I have seen fighters lock up in traditional stances at the beginning of a sparring match and stay there for extended periods as they wait for the mental lapse in their opponent that will offer an opening. The stances varied, not one was better and no one really noticed the technical fine points as the mental meant everything. And each person felt completely comfortable in their given stance. You can use stance and distance drills to simulate some of the physical and mental stress of fighting and this is perhaps a better use of this element. Lastly, training is organic and cyclic in nature. The instructor ensures that enough understanding of weighting exists in the student to move on. At a later time(s) stances in the context of a given tactic or skill combination are reviewed with perhaps a little different spin. I have done this a Gup member and then at 1st, 3d, 5th, and 7th Dan. I'm not sure why it was every other Dan except that I believe that's when I was functionally and mentally ready to move on. I do agree that if an instructor does not insist on adequate, correct practice, it will be impossible to move on to more sophisticated techniques. I also bet that every one of the senior members on the list have smacked their head when seeing again a technique taught early on after 20 years. They say "Ah, that's how it works there!", recognizing that all techniques are almost infinite in application and variation. Forgive my rant, but to break up our art into "basics" and other compartments gives a false impression that: 1 - you can mentally divide the curriculum up; 2 - once "mastered" you can move on; 3 - they are separate elements; 4 - there is a 'right' way to do them. All of this is just an attempt to make model of a style. While this is useful for junior black belts to organize curricula it is not a real representation of the grand scheme. If we are going to have a discussion about front stances and toe positions let's do it in the context of what techniques are executed best; where the balance weaknesses are for joint techniques; where the opponent might be positioned, etc. Regards, David ------------------------------ From: "Christopher Spiller" Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:10:50 GMT Subject: the_dojang: Books on Korean history I have recently been doing a little reading on Korean history. I have finished both _A New History of Korea_ by Lee, Ki-Baik and _The Two Koreas_ by Don Oberdorfer (which, by the way, I highly recommend to get a better understanding of Korean politics and 20th century history). I was wondering if anyone had any suggstions for further reading, especially for the period of Japanese occupation and the Three Kingdooms Period. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Taekwon, Chris "Every experience of beauty points to infinity." Hans Urs von Balthasar _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ From: "Daniel G." Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:05:31 EDT Subject: the_dojang: Re: karate music How about I've Got the Power & Everybody Dance Now? ~Daniel _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ From: J Thomas Howard Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:19:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #670 This is going to be a bit long, folks. Sorry. First off: > From: MSKBEvans@aol.com > << 1) Stances are dynamic in use > 2) Stance practice exists to teach people how to utilize body weight > effectively when performing techniques. > >> > quite a bit of thought went into this post and i enjoyed reading it. > thanks. > Ps. not just these two lines .. the whole thing :-P Thank you. :) > From: William Upton-Knittle > Subject: the_dojang: Re: Crane eats Cat > >. How can > >the crane stance or cat stance *possibly* be construed to come from horse > >stance? Please explain or retract the 'all'. > Yes, they all come from that one stance that we used to be forced to stand > in for sooo long..... > The "cat" stance is simply the front foot drawn another half hip inward (or > in some cases all the way inward, but along the same line)...and the crane > is a cat stance with the leg raised...but poised for kicking along that > same line. You are talking about the leg position, and apparently ignoring the change in weight distribution, or you simply don't change yours. (Which would be interesting to watch, since you have to pick up one leg.) "Based on" is simply silly, since you have a completely different leg position, hip position, and weight distribution. How can this be "based" when everything that makes it a "stance" has changed? > OK...the BIG question. What is THE single most basic piece of knowledge > involving the body that EVERY martial art is based upon. You have to have a body first. > And while you are thinking about that....practice your stances now that you > know how to do them knowing they are based exactly on your body. Of course they are based on my body. That much is obvious, and you haven't really spoken to that topic, nor has anyone argued that. (One asumes they already figured that out.) However, your contention that "all stances are based on the horse stance" hasn't had any logical basis yet, far as I can tell. Tell me, do: Since stance change involves weight distribution change (which you haven't addressed yet) one wonders how the horse stance is the basis of all other stances when everything that defines each stance in weight distribution, foot placement, and direction is different? Following comment from someone other than "b" (sorry can't find the attribution) Re: straight forward or 45 degree to the side on front stance: > When I took Shotokan, the sensei said that either way was acceptable. I > usually cant mine out some, it feels more stable to me. I can't remember > how she had hers, I belive it was slightly canted but I can't be sure. > I'll try to ask and see what she was taught. I'll note that the founder's book on Shotokan has the back foot canted out at 45 degrees or so. I'll also note their front stance is a LOT farther forward than most I've seen. > From: William Upton-Knittle > At 08:44 PM 10/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >Comments from anyone about body movement? Stance practice? Am I missing > >someone's meaning here, and just stating the obvious? (Well, I _thought_ > >I was stating the obvious.) > I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.....most of your comments are > beyond the point I was making. Which is part of the problem I'm talking > about. Your jumping to weight placement, etc., without understanding that > it's your body that determines YOUR hip width, etc. I'm aware that it is my body that determines my hip width. That seems obvious. Similarly, I'm also aware that my body type and style determines the depth, width and such or my stances. That is also obvious. That being said, my point was apparently something you missed in that your commentary about the horse stance did not take into account the difference in weight placement, which makes all the difference in the world to the stances. If your weight placement doesn't change, you aren't doing the stance right. If you don't have a difference in weight placement, AND that is correct for your art, then you aren't doing any Korean art I've ever seen. Your statements (read: proclamations) are not supported by your comments. I was addressing the problems there, and wondering what your followup commentary would be. > Then you fall into a beginner's idea of the horse stance. That stance bows > the legs. There is tremendous pressure on the ankles when it it done > correctly. But this is, again, a step beyond the point I was making. [sigh] That depends on your body type. And ankle strength. Obviously the stance bows the legs. It rather has to. I didn't address that fact. However, what I *did* address was the fact that if after several years of solid practice, you are still using tons of energy to simply stand in a horse stance, you aren't doing it right. Of course, my commentary on that was considerably after my questions and comments about stances in general, which you are not addressing. > Go back and read the simple words, then instead of intellectualizing about > them, PRACTICE the moves and you will begin learning the basics which hold > the secrets. Like too many martial artists you appear to have forgotten the > basics, as I've been saying all along. Hmm. I'm going to ignore that blantant rudeness of this from someone who doesn't know me, and who doesn't bother to respond to my commentary on his proclamations. > ALL stances are based on the "horse" stance...and that stance is based on > YOUR body. You have not yet made any proof of that fact (the first half of the sentence). Please do so. > And any system that teaches less or more than one hip's width > (again based on YOUR body) for a front stance is teaching a weak and > vulnerable stance that is either not balanced or too wide and "clunky" to > move quickly. Which again, depends on what art you are practicing, and what you are planning on doing with your front stance. I will note that the generalized idealized front stance that I was taught had approximately one shoulder's width being the proper size. I'll also note this changes depending on your body type. A couple of references for different sizes of front stance: "Taekwondo" by Yong Chin Pak, pg 60 (Stance slightly sider than shoulder width.) "Hapkido" by Dr. He-Young Kimm, pg 97 (Stance shoulder width) I will find it amusing if you say that these two authors aren't proficient in the basics. Lastly, I'll note that if "moving quickly" is what you are looking for, a front stance isn't what you'd want to go with in the first place. That is beside the point, however. > Once again....the BASICS. You must know them like you know your breathing > before you move onto weight distribution, etc. All that will fall into place. [sigh] Obviously. But if you aren't practicing the basics correctly (meaning your instructor, and later, _you_ needing to understand WHY you are practicing the basics, which obviously affects how you practice) all you are doing is leg and arm-waving. > It's the BASICS I discussed and you've jumped ahead to non-basics. Your commentary and contentions about the basics are not supported due to the actual reasons for practicing those basics, which I pointed out. If you have a counter-argument of a logical type, together with a proof or logical belief that "all stances are based on the horse stance" I (and I'm sure many others) would like to hear it. > First of all you haven't picked on my comments. You commented on them > without giving them thought or trying them in the dojang I'll note you have no idea whether or not this is true. > and experimenting > with the foot placement -- which is all I have talked about so far. Indeed. Incorrectly, I must add. You said to take a horse stance and turn the feet 45 degrees in the same direction, and you have a perfect front stance. This is not true. You said from a horse stance, turn one foot 90 degrees and you have a perfect back stance---which is not true. Now, if you are now attempting to change your argument that instead of the _stance_ being perfect, it is merely that the _foot placement_ for each stance is now correct, you might be able to argue that, though you will run into stylistic differences.. But that isn't what you said. You said stance. Meaning hip direction, weight placement and distribution, and foot placement. If you only mean foot placement when you say "stance" then again, you aren't practicing any Korean art I've seen---primarily because the _basics_ include the most important parts of different stances, which is that the weight distribution is different. > This is exactly the problem with MA today....jump into sparring before you > know the basic stances forward and backward. You are helping me make my point. Doubtful, as you have not addressed mine. You are, however, managing to solidify my view of you. Anyway, summing up: You contend every stance is based on the horse stance. Did you mean stance, or foot placement? There is a large difference. If you mean stance, do you have any logical basis for this belief? You state that even after years of practice, sitting in a horse stance uses lots of energy. Why? After years of practice, the ankle and knees are built up. You say that "weight distribution" is non-basic, which is true, but that I am jumping ahead without addressing (or understanding, but that is a different argument) the basics. I say that your commentary on stances so far does not make sense in terms of what stances are actually for, which is body movement and weight distribution. From this, if you do not understand what stances are for, you can only parrot what you are told about how to stand in them. Not use them dynamically. As such, your contention that only you seem to understand the basics falls short, as a thorough understanding of the basics requires understanding of their reason for existence. Do you understand the reasons for the basics, and if so, logical following from those reasons, can you provide a reasonsed argument for your contentions? Would you care to address those three points? Anyone--again, am I reading what he said wrong? 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: David Beck Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:29:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: the_dojang: more 'ruminations' on 'b' >------------------------------ >From: William Upton-Knittle >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:17:19 -0700 >Subject: the_dojang: Re: Crane eats Cat > >At 12:46 PM 10/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >>. How can >>the crane stance or cat stance *possibly* be construed to come from horse >>stance? Please explain or retract the 'all'. > >Yes, they all come from that one stance that we used to be forced to stand >in for sooo long..... Again, how??? When you say one comes from the other, you have to point some some simularities or dependencies to back it up. There are differences in one foot being more forward, in how far the knees are bent, in how much weight is on each foot, in where the chest faces...about the only simularity is that in both the toes point forward! you can have a good cat stance without a good horse stance and vice versa; there's no dependency. > >The "cat" stance is simply the front foot drawn another half hip inward (or >in some cases all the way inward, but along the same line)...and the crane >is a cat stance with the leg raised...but poised for kicking along that >same line. It's poised to kick FORWARD, not to the side! and you're leaving out the turning of the chest and the movement of the foot forward and the extension at the ankle -- and it makes no difference! So you can move from one stance to another, SO WHAT! How does that make one BASED on the other? >Here's another one: Where do you punch and kick? Oh, it's too easy. You >form a triangle with your arms and you hit directly in front of your middle >line...same with kicking. Now there ARE forms which incorporate other >variations, but they ALL come from this basic principle.....but watch how >many people do not attack down their middle line......people who do that >you can simply put your open hand up and stop because there is no power >behind it. For front kick yes. Not for roundhouse, not for side, not for hook, etc... for those kicks your middle line (I assume you're talking about the line from hip to hip) is what you want pointing to the target at the time of impact. 'Here's another one' where you're saying ALL, generalizing from a specific case incorrectly. ... past 'b's slams on Thomas well written thoughts on stances... >It's the BASICS I discussed and you've jumped ahead to non-basics. > >b Does that mean you won't address his points? Spending the time you're talking about on static stances is not done in HKD; we'd rather work on footwork and dynamic use of the body. Ever see the Batman episode where the Riddler and Batman are in a boxing match and the Riddler does something so Batman can't take a step? I think it was magnetizing his boots. Anyway, the Riddler pastes him at will. IE, if you can't move, you lose. I don't think this is much of a discussion. You've not responded to any of the points made or explained yourself; you've just thrown out more slams of people and their instructors, more generalizations, and more riddles. I think your riddles are a waste of time, and you're a troll. David N. Beck Internet:dbeck@usa.alcatel.com WATT Lead Engineer Alcatel USA 1000 Coit Road Plano, Texas 75075 ** Opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA ** ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:18:49 PDT Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V7 #671 ******************************** It's a great day for Taekwondo! 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.org To unsubscribe from the_dojang-digest send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY of an email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2000: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply.