News

Last Grading - 29th March 2009

Questions to inspire thought by John Stacey

I do believe that most techniques performed within Poomsae are not simply limited to the basic perception of the technique. That the techniques are actually related more towards striking vital points, or other perhaps hidden meanings, such as throws, or breathing and focus exercises to develop 'Chi'. These techniques have been developed over centuries, and not as perhaps some believe since the advent of Tae Kwon-do in the fifties by General Choi. They have been taken from various Japanese, Chinese and Korean methodology in martial arts, to develop fighting abilities and techniques to cause serious injury to an opponent, and not simply to put on a show. It would appear that a number of techniques, and certainly their meaning, has been diluted over modern times, with the move of Tae Kwon-do more towards a sport than a martial art by definition. Economy of motion dictates that the best form of defense or attack should use the least amount of effort to cause the maximum impact. Why then perform a block with one hand, and then a strike with another?. Why not simply block and strike at the same time with one hand, which then leaves the other hand free to strike also.

Furthermore, surely alot of the blocks and/or strikes would be to a specific vital point, so as not to have to rely on who is the physicaly stronger of the two opponents, remembering that all martial arts were developed over the centuries to cause serious injury to incapacitate the opponent and/or perhaps even death, in any conflict, in the most effcient means possible. When studied from these perspectives, each technique starts to take on a new meaning.

A couple of examples of what I mean.

1) A right lead arm low block (Ahrae Mahki) into long stance (Apkoobi Sohgi) - is this simply a traditional block against a low to mid section, as an example turning kick ? How practical is this stance and block in this situation - the stance is too slow, you would be kicked long before the stance position and block is achieved, and using a block in this way using your arm in such a 'force against force' way to directly impact against a kick in the directly opposite direction of travel ? Surely the kick would break the arm ?

Could this actually be using a long stance to gain distance and power towards an opponent, to step inside their forward leg, using the action of the low block as a strike not a block, to the opponents vital point on their inner thigh ? Could the follow up of the reverse punch be a knock out blow to the opponents sternum vital point, to combine two pressure point strikes ?

Another description might be that the block and punch are in very quick sucession. The block is to defend against a front kick rather than a turning kick, using the long stance to gain distance towards the opponent, which the opponent would have as a result of their kick. The low block forearm could deflect the front kick whilst the punch extends in the same motion to strke the inner thigh vital point. The reverse punch would now be in range, but still being a vital point strike still to the sternum area. Perhaps the block takes place whilst the lead leg for the stance is still in the air, for speed, which would then also provide further power for the reverse punch as this lead leg lands on the floor as the reverse punch is executed.

Perhaps both of these explanations are true, using the Economy of Motion theory again, having one simple defense and counter technique which is equally effective to more than one type of attack.

2) WIthin poomsae Keumgang - the double arm mountain block (Santeul Mahki) whilst twisting with a stamp into horse stance (Juchoom sohgi).

Could this actually be a block to a punch, with then the twist to 90 degrees and a stamp of the foot being a step over the opponents leg, with the block/twist to throw the opponent to the floor ?