|
Post by Possum on Sept 7, 2012 7:56:10 GMT -5
Thanks jwbulldogs. At times I still feel like I dishonored him. That's a horrible feeling - like I let down a friend or a parent. I respect him in every other way.
|
|
|
Post by cheetah on Sept 7, 2012 16:09:09 GMT -5
Possum - I finally had time to read your whole post. The only thing that I disagree with is that sine wave forms are harder than non sine wave. The only difference I see in the sine wave concept is the bouncing up and down and letting gravity fuel the striking or kicking techniques. My current form is Gae Baek. I have videoed myself practicing this form and also watched videos of this form done with the sine wave concept. I don't feel that the sine wave makes the techniques harder, just different because of the bouncing up before each technique and down executing it.
|
|
|
Post by Possum on Sept 8, 2012 7:01:52 GMT -5
cheetah, The thing that makes it difficult - and maybe it's just me - are two things: the timing of the bounce and the impact on the knees (more fatigue). I don't practice the sine-wave style, so it's entirely possible I am missing the point that simple instruction could fix. I wish I had an instructor who could tell/show me how to do it properly. My attempts (and I'm admitting a huge faux pas here...) consisted of hiding in the garage with a laptop and trying to mimic someone else doing it sinewave way. I wrote off my first few attempts as just learning curves, but after 4 of 5 attempts (several days) I realized I do need an instructor. And I picked chon ji. How simpler a form could I have chosen? :-( I would love to learn it that way, since I firmly believe in it's principles. I just can't seem to do it right. (now, please don't tell anyone I did that!) :-) :-) But on the flip side, doing it more contemporary, requires faster and smoother execution, and that in itself can make it more difficult. So it's possible I'm biased because of experience.
|
|
|
Post by cheetah on Sept 12, 2012 12:06:48 GMT -5
Possum - ok, I misunderstood the term "harder". If you meant more difficult, I agree, the whole timing thing of the bouncing up during the chamber and down during the technique is difficult to accomplish, I agree. I thought you meant incorporating the sine wave concept into the forms made them "more powerful". My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Possum on Sept 13, 2012 10:33:44 GMT -5
cheetah, I originally meant more difficult. But, there is a theory that the sinewave is a power generator as well, that is spelled out in Choi's encyclopedia. I have a book written by Dr Lee Kyu Hyung, who among many distinguished positions he holds as president of various Kukkiwon(KKW) and university jobs, he also wrote a book "25 complete Poomsae". In the book, he goes into remarkable detail about the differences between KKW and Karate, in terms of where they get their power. He says that Karate gets its power from rooting (and proper body mechanics) while KKW gets it from speed (and proper body mechanics). Rooting and speed - that's where it boils down. ITF uses the sinewave, and they believe the power comes from the downstroke (the sink in the sinewave), which is the same as rooting. So to summarize: ITF(sinewave) = power source comes from external rooting ITF(no sinewave) = power comes from internal rooting Karate = power comes from internal rooting KKW/WTF = power comes from speed, there is generally no rooting at all Whether one is better than the other, I think that's a matter of opinion. For many years, having primarily practiced in a Chung Do Kwan-oriented KKW school, we performed our techniques similarly as non-sinewave-ITF / Karate folks do - by rooting. For me to use KKW and sinewave is almost equally difficult for me. I am finding, however, that the sinewave is more technically difficult to perform. Since others argue the same and that there is no difference in power, that is a likely reason why many ITF schools have abandoned the sinewave. If interested, I can photocopy the relevant pages in Dr Lee's book, and also send you the PDF of Choi's encyclopedia. It's very interesting reading, I think.
|
|
|
Post by cheetah on Sept 13, 2012 11:45:25 GMT -5
I'm always up for some good reading, sure and thanks.
Yea, we use the non sine wave Chang Hon forms. I've tried to do them as sine wave but to me it feels like more of a dance than techniques. Personal preference I guess.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 13, 2012 22:58:50 GMT -5
I think I would slightly disagree with him on that power in karate. It also comes from speed. I'm saying this based on my personal experiences.
One day we were breaking board in class many years ago. This was before I earn my black belt. I was using a lot of power even though it wasn't needed. Then the assistant instructor told me to break the board with a speed break. I was confused. Then our sensei came over and explained it to me. They had me hold my own board with 2 finger lightly. Now I had to break it using nothing but speed. I used power and the board didn't break and flew across the room. Do it gain but use speed I was told. I did it. It broke in half and I was still holding the other part of the board with 2 fingers. Then I had to do it with and open hand knife strike. I did it but it wasn't perfect. The board left my hand and it wasn't broken, but while in the air the board split in half. It was weird to me. I had never seen anything like that. I had to continue working on that one. I broke it each time, but the breaks initially were delayed. I don't know why that worked that way to this day.
|
|
|
Post by cheetah on Sept 14, 2012 10:19:37 GMT -5
JWB makes a great point. I'd say that power has to be a factor even in a speed break, it can't be just one or the other. BTW, I love doing speed breaks. I did a spinning ridge hand speed break for my 2nd Dan test and it was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Possum on Sept 14, 2012 11:17:26 GMT -5
It isn't that Karate, etc doesn't rely on speed for power, but rather it's how they implement the speed to gain power. Karate uses the full body, whereas KKW taekwondo relies on the circular movements of the body. When you see a KKW taekwondoin doing what you would call for example, Kihon kata (Korean: Kibon hyung) you will note a "lazy" appearance by the Taekwondoin. The Karateka will appear to be more explosive, and you see the hip shake in many cases.
On top of that, KKW does not have wide or long stances: the shift from one movement to the next is made faster because of the elevated center of gravity. That was a tactical tradeoff when KKW starting having us narrow and condense our stances. We are not as fully rooted as Karate or ITF stylists are. Thus, KKW dispenses with any notion of sinewave - there's no time or even room to implement it. And internally, that rooting can happen, but because of the narrow stances, it's not as profound as it would be in Karate or ITF. A good many of the replacement Taeguek forms use walking or natural stances, compared to the older Palgwe, which relied heavily on long and wide front and back stances. Even our horse stance requires the knees to point inward, so as to help feel a tightness in the calf: this allows quick movements in different directions because the legs are already tense and ready to move. In the older method, the feet were wider apart, the knees bent straight forward and the feet were parallel to each other. It's permissible now to have the feet pointed slightly inward so as to effect the tension on the calf. I'll dig up some videos on YT that clearly shows this, they might explain better than I am.
|
|
|
Post by cheetah on Sept 14, 2012 11:31:47 GMT -5
Wow, I love learning stuff. I've always wondered why WTF uses so many walking stances, ahp sugi and ITF uses none, always a deep front stance, ahp kubi. Now I have an explanation, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 15, 2012 1:15:38 GMT -5
I don't know much about that KKW. But not every style of karate uses long stances. In Shorin Ryu we do not use those long stances.
|
|
|
Post by Possum on Oct 2, 2012 20:50:36 GMT -5
I think the book I mentioned probably generalized too much. If that were true, that'd be a huge mistake and uncharacteristic for Dr Lee, who is renowned for his work and his theory. As to Sang Kim (the other co-author), I have reservations. He's also very distinguished, and I like many of his books and DVD's, but many of his books seem hastily written. You all have got me re-thinking my trust in the book... :-(
|
|