Pointless discussions and why they are pointless

Strange title today is it not? The reason for this posts existance is that I have experienced watching

people discuss (and spending valuable partner time) the merits of the different blocks applied purely as blocks in step sparring. Now those who read this blog regulary will know that the organisation I train and study under have "fixed" or "set" (predetermined) step sparring drills for its students so the only punch we get in step sparring is the traditional straight punch. This is also the case for many who has not set or predermined step sparring in their syllabus too so that is why I write this post. The reason being is that many of the discussions on the different blocks are pointless and therefore steal away valuable training time!






This truly dawned on me a while back but last night I experienced it myself when training 3 step sparring with another black belt. He was corrected by another student for using the wrong block, because the predetermined fixed sparring demanded that the regular bakkat momtong makki be used, while he was doing anpalmok bakkat makki (same block in essence but the back of the hand points toward the opponent while the regular points toward the defender). The reason I feel this discussion is so pointless is that they in Kukki Taekwondo at least follow the same trajectory, covers the same vital points of the defenders body, and it ends up in the same place. The fact is if you are using any of those two blocks in step sparring against a formal straight punch it does not matter how you chamber the block, where your fist points, or even if your hand is open or closed. All these neuances are only important when you look deeper on the application level (as you would do if you are researching Poomsae for instance). But in step sparring the blocks are used as blocks with varying degree of sophistication yes, but they are still blocks.



If you attack me with a formal middle section punch I can step back and defend myself against that punch using any number of blocks before I counter attack. For a few short examples I could use the inward or outward block, inner or outer wrist being the blocking surface, or knife hands instead of close hands, (that makes 4 different blocks), with open hands I could use inward block with the palm or outward block with the back of the hand (that makes 6) or I could use a knife hand guarding block (7) etc. Everyone of these will stop and defend against a formal straight punch while setting up a reverse punch counter. Now if you look deeper and change the attack you might want to rethink what blocks you chose to use for the current situation, but in a set step sparring situation? Just block and be done with it:-)

When the chamber of the block is not used, and the pulling hand serves
no pragmatic reason beyond "its tradition", the minutae of the technique
matters very little if any. A great number of techniques (blocks) can be used
and not change the outcome the slightest.

This also goes for all the discussions on the different ways to chamber the different techniques too. If the Eungyoung (practical application) is as a pure "block" against a static formal straight punch (which the mainstream is seeing the blocks as being) then it really does not matter the slightest which way you chamber! As long as the block "blocks" you are OK! The only place those discussions are worth any training time at all is when researching applications using the whole movement of the technique against realistic attacks. Even then many times the different ways of executing the blocks will only be minor differences if any to the actual application.

So: If you are of the pure kick block punch paradigm of applications: stop wasting peoples training time on pointless discussions!