Function Over Form: A Principle Based Approach to Taekwon-do For Personal Defence

Learning traditional martial arts is conventionally a technique heavy process. The advancement in rank and experience often owes more to the acquisition of technical knowledge than it does the application of this knowledge. The age old cliche of ‘more is better’ underpins this approach and serves to distract people from a very harsh and stark reality. It’s not what you know but what you can apply that matters!

The argument which is often put forward in support of this is that the techniques form the building blocks for understanding the art more deeply and in a more rounded way. Fundamentals are just that. Fundamental. Without them there can be no development. Without a solid foundation the towering structure built above is prone to collapse. This is true. To be successful in all things development must be made from a solid base, understanding the basics is often the best route (note here that best does not mean quickest) to mastery of that given activity. Traditional martial arts taught in the conventional setting (basics, sparring and patterns) provide this foundation. However before testing the integrity of the blocks laid, we quickly move on to establishing the next floor, and the next floor, with little regard to whether the work undertaken below will hold up. Some might argue that it is through sparring that the technical acquisition made via patterns and fundamental drills are tested. This would be wholly the case if the context of sparring closely reflected the context of actual physical assault and not competition. For safety reasons this is often not the case, with rule formats and targets being constrained to ensure the health and safety of the participants. An additional consideration here is also, the broadly symmetrical goals possessed by the two (or more) individuals within the context of sparring. Everyone engaged has consented to the activity and is seeking to improve their skills (and hopefully facilitate the development of their training partners) in a controlled, safe manner. This is essentially the antithesis of those goals held by parties engaged in, or indeed victims of, actual physical assault. Physical assault in this regard is the very definition of violence, where one party is intending to commit severe physical harm to another who is seeking to avoid that harm.

Our intention here is to ensure that the martial art taught (and therefore learned) provides efficacy as a method of personal defence and for this to occur there has to be a shift away from the emphasis on technique acquisition as an end in itself. We are suggesting that a better approach would be to evolve towards technique acquisition tested through application and underpinned by shared core principles. In short we are suggesting that the conventional approach and paradigm that we use to teach (and therefore learn) effective personal defence techniques has to shift.

To legitimately make this shift we have to focus on all areas of our activity. It must be more than focusing solely on ‘what’ is being conveyed. This evolution has to extend to ‘how’ it is being communicated and taught. Traditional teaching models need to shift towards a more ecological style of teaching, which does more than merely show and tell. Learning ecologically means taking that subject matter (or technique for our purposes) and applying it in different environments and settings. Simply put, the reality of personal defence is chaos. It is not predictable. The specifics of the situation we are instructing our students to handle is by default unknown, intrinsically we don’t know who we are preparing our students to defend themselves against, how many of them there are or how they will attack. There’s no way of predicting how and indeed if the capabilities we are looking to develop will be needed and in what specific context and manner they will be required. 

The conventional teaching manner, in which we therefore approach the rote learning of this unknown chaos is essentially flawed. Prescribing a situation, prechoreographing a response and its anticipated result is fine, in the context it is specifically taught (i.e. a dojang with compliant participants). It is a solid manner in which more repetitions of that technique can be rehearsed and repeated. This is the essence of our set sparring drills. However the flaw is always in the drill. For example, the mentality and intention of the assailant is immediately skewed (are they truly seeking to cause injury and harm to the other party?). The intensity of the response has to be diluted (in contact and/or selected targets) in order to safeguard and protect the participants from harm. As a point of fact here, in many instances we rehearse these responses with no contact being made and therefore reinforcing our ability to miss rather than hit a given target. The environment in which the drill occurs is one of mutual cooperation, agreed outcomes and anticipated success. Our need to define mentality, intensity and environment effectively sanitises the technique, making application specific to the training context and unlikely to effectively translate to other, potentially more dynamic, settings.

This approach where technique is taught, learnt, memorized and then added to, is the simplistic approach that underpins most western teaching models. It’s reflective of the traditional model that predominates most academic institutions. It effectively lends itself to mass education, where large groups are taught essentially the same subject matter. The teacher/professor regurgitates a bunch of facts or rules and the students are required to assimilate these, with their success being measured in an examination based on their ability to recall the knowledge. However rarely are students tested on their ability to interpret and ecologically apply this knowledge. Given that this is the experience that most of us have, it is unsurprising that we default to this approach in the delivery of Taekwon-do and personal defence. We apply the rote learning process to attempt to distill and better understand chaos. We seek to provide flow and rhythm to a subject that by its nature is dynamic, constantly changing and has no set features. We make assumptions and predictions that we could not possibly know concerning threats and outcomes. We often mistakenly perceive prowess in competition to represent real efficacy, or place emphasis on form (how it looks) over function (what it does). The absolute worst here though is that we either shun independent thought or attempt to develop this through conforming to a master-student relationship where everyone does the same thing (which is somewhat in conflict with the desired outcome.) Through a need to appear and behave in a respectful and courteous manner, we observe the pseudo-confucian ideal that the master is always right and must not be questioned under any circumstance. For all the right reasons, misinterpretations and mistakes of the past are effectively shared and carried unquestioningly into the future.

Shifting the Paradigm

The solution here is to move away from the convention. To invest in developing and indeed teaching a deeper understanding of ecological learning from the very beginning. Let’s stop and clarify things here. 

The approach we take to teaching (and learning) is our ‘how’. 

The fundamental building blocks(i.e. techniques) are our ‘what’. 

The common principles underpinning the application of these building blocks are our ‘why’. 

Our paradigm shift is then an evolution towards a deeper investment into the ‘why’ over the ‘what’. It is reflective of an attitude which actively encourages and seeks personal investigation within a range of different environments and settings (for example, using personal defence sparring, scenario and principle specific training drills.) Through this approach we provide opportunities for our students to effectively pressure test technical application in a variety of contexts and develop proficiency in function as well as form. It relies wholly on a shift in the traditional master-student relationship towards a developmental coaching or mentoring approach, rather than the conventional teacher/instructor role. It creates an environment where technical investigation is invited and questioning and analysis becomes the norm. 

What then should Principle Based Training include?

There’s no one size fits all answer to this question.

A principle is considered to be a common factor which relates to most, if not all techniques, regardless of context. For example this could be generation of power, range/distance management or movement/structure. Each of the three principles listed would apply as readily to techniques in attack, as techniques in defence. Moreover, they would be common and essential principles for techniques performed standing (i.e. striking and/or grappling) as well as those employed on the ground (i.e. grappling and/or striking). Core principles will differ from art to art, equally they should differ from academy to academy (accounting for individual preferences and bias). A principle based syllabus or programme must also base itself wholly in the achievement of a given outcome. Here we are seeking to develop greater efficacy and capability within the context of adult students and personal defence application. The principles that relate to improving aesthetic form, teaching children etc. are very likely to be somewhat different to those highlighted here. The key however is to recognise that through the investigation and understanding of these principles, students are better equipped to analyse and gain greater levels of capability into how best they apply the knowledge gained in relation to that desired outcome.

One potential way to begin developing a principle based training syllabus would be to focus on three core questions:

1. Commonality: What are the essential, common features of all the techniques to be taught/learnt? 

2. Generality: Could this principle be taught/learnt without reference to a specific technique?

3. Simplicity: Could the principle (or set of principles) identified be taught/learnt quickly?

Commonality

A principle must have utility. It has to be an essential aspect of (or at least of use to) all the building block techniques within that particular set. It may be necessary therefore to separate techniques into groups to assess their common features. 

For example, for a personal defence beginning with broad categories based on specific defensive themes, such as strikes, blocks, traps (joint manipulations), strangulations, throws /takedowns, grappling and ground fighting might enable an appropriate classification of a specific technique and therefore assist in identification of common features. 

A further means of classification here may be to consider techniques in relation to their effects and use. Using categories such as McCarthy’s suggested habitual acts of physical violence may give opportunity to identify common principles existent in the defensive responses, tactics and techniques best employed.

Commonality also means that the principle identified is not context specific. This means that it cannot wholly rely on a specific set of circumstances, a singular environment or the compliance or a willing training partner. The necessity for an ecological learning approach is further reinforced here, in that once the principle has been introduced it needs to be useful in a variety of scenarios, contexts and circumstances. 

Generality

In conjunction with commonality, the principle identified should lend itself to investigation without reliance on a singular technique or movement. For example, if we were to suggest that balance in movement is a key principle in striking, it would be possible to teach, learn, investigate and develop this without focusing on a single technique. A principle must apply itself broadly to most, if not all, techniques classified within that category.

Generality and commonality are closely interlinked. For this to occur there has to be a robust and clear basis for categorisation. From this the core principles for each category will emerge. It is entirely possible that (depending on the specific approach to categorisation taken) we ultimately end with several independent lists of category specific core principles. With this we can devise a syllabus/structure for teaching (and therefore learning) based on category or principle. We can also seek to further analyse and consolidate the independent lists to identify any areas of generality across categories, with a view to identifying any generic, underpinning principles which affect and are therefore common to all techniques.

Simplicity

As human beings we are very often predisposed to making simple things more complicated than they necessarily need to be. We are prone to embellishment, over complication and at times a myopic focus within the traditional martial arts. We can lean towards skewing the perspective of what we do away from the practical, again tending to favoring the form over the function. Through shifting towards a principle driven approach we are required to strip away the non-essentials. This is an exercise which cuts through the smoke screen presented by years of misinterpretation and bias. Core principles are the fundamental roots, without these things nothing truly functions. Therefore they should be simple. They should be simple to understand, simple to learn, and simple to practice. Principle based training shouldn’t require hours of repetitive practice to learn and become embedded into all that we do. They should not involve multiple steps or high levels of physical skill or coordination to perform. In a reality and within a personal defence context, the core principles should be as closely related to gross motor, instinctive natural responses as possible. 

As a further filter to assist here it could be worth considering the following question: 

What would be the most essential things to communicate (and therefore learn) if you only had four hours to teach (or learn) about that category? 

If you only had 4 hours to communicate how to hit something effectively, with optimal efficiency and maximal outcome, what would you need to communicate?

Once you’ve done that. Now consider what you might communicate if you only had two hours?

There’s a finite point where this level of distillation becomes useful, however if you can honestly answer the two questions above, you should be well on the way to the identification of the core principles for that specific category.

The specific detail of a principle driven approach then is dependent on the approach taken towards categorisation, depth of analysis, investigation and understanding of fundamental techniques. This focus on technique may appear to be in conflict with the previously stated need to shift away from technique acquisition as an end in itself. However, it is important to recognise that the core principles we are identifying affect all techniques (in that category). In this then whilst we may appreciate that we are adding another ‘block’ or ‘strike’ to the list, it is not the express intention to teach or enforce acquisition of all of them. Rather we are making this categorisation with a view to developing understanding of that one block, or that one strike. The goal is to ensure movement in that specific category becomes the optimal expression that we can make in respect of power, speed, impact, effect and efficiency. We are also underpinning the utility of the movement in respect to its function and application. As a process therefore once we have identified these core principles (based on the chosen categorisation) we may wish to become engaged in a process of technique deacquisition and reduce the volume of specific techniques required. As Bruce Lee is often quoted as saying, 

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10000 times.”

The latter would definitely be on the path to understanding the efficacy, application and core principles existent in that particular category.

Core Principles for Taekwon-do and Personal Defence

The below is not intended to be ‘the way’, merely a finger pointer. It is intended to be a signpost as to where one could look to begin investigating into how this paradigm shift could be made in specific relation to personal defence application. It is in no way exclusive or definitive, however if it guides you towards asking and answering further questions that would be a fantastic outcome. 

For the purpose of this initial investigation our categorisation process here was very broad. 

We simply started with the question of how do we increase the efficacy of Taekwon-do in respect to personal defence application?  

Through this we deliberately chose not to break down the art into further more specific categories and avoided any detailed analysis of individual techniques. We were simply looking for any essential core principles that we felt it would be necessary to understand if you were seeking to improve your personal defence capabilities. We made every attempt here to ensure that the principles identified met the three points previously mentioned, commonality, generality and simplicity.

1. Balance - static and dynamic

Essentially refers to the position of your centre of gravity (COG) and contact points with the ground. Whether in movement or static we are seeking to ensure COG stays over that base.

2. Focus - targeting

This refers to the fact that some places hurt more than others when hit. We intend to hit for maximum efficiency and therefore hit the places that hurt most. A second consideration related here is accuracy, in that if you mean to hit it, then hit it.

3. Two Way Action - breaking equilibrium

In some way relatable to balance we are seeking to retain our own base and equilibrium whilst doing everything possible to break our opponents and exploit their momentum. Of particular importance here is the idea of two way actions such as pulling and striking; or push and pull (in respect of joint manipulations and takedowns.)  

4. Waist and Hip engagement - big drives small

Use of the entire kinetic chain to achieve maximum efficiency in striking, pull, pushing, sweeping and crashing. Local muscular strength and endurance is finite and quickly expended, through appropriate focus on coordinated movement we can place better emphasis on use of weight rather than strength.

5. Weight Distribution - push/pull/stability

Associated again to balance we are seeking to ensure that maximum efficiency is gained in striking, pulling, pushing, trapping, sweeping and throwing by appropriate use of body weight. Where possible we are working in conjunction with, rather than against gravity. Where possible we are seeking to utilise weight transference and momentum, instead of (or in addition to) local muscular strength.

6. No Blocks - there are however strikes/parries/traps/frames

Contentiously we suggested that this should feature as a core principle as it aids further individual investigation and analysis of a significant volume of often misinterpreted techniques. With a personal defence context our feeling is that there is limited efficiency in the convention block then strike approach. Those actions conceived as ‘blocks’ have a myriad of alternative uses and it is of critical importance that these are fully investigated.

7. Centre Line - striking to and through / breaking the line / angles

The reference here is towards both the geometry of the conflict and relative positioning. Geometrically we are interested in the circular and direct lines and their respective opportunities and compromises. Additionally we are focused on ensuring maximum efficiency in attack and defence through awareness of the centre (our own and our opponents) and our relative positioning in respect of this. 

8. Coordination and Flow - one movement makes the next

This relies on the idea that an isolated movement has three potential outcomes: it functions; it doesn’t function; or it has a function different from that anticipated. In all cases that movement should naturally allow, and essentially create, a further one. Action will always be faster than reaction and through observation of this core principle we take and retain the initiative.

9. Range - space and distance control

Whilst this refers to control and appreciation of distance and range relative to your opponent, here we are also concerned with controlling space for the purpose of leverage, pace and rhythm. Through management of distance and space we manage timing, technically and psychologically this can have a massive impact on the conflict, allowing for the creation of freezes, deadzones (relative safe spaces), feints etc. 

10. Mentality - always in attack

This is the keystone. Ensuring the survivor mindset of indignant rage is maintained is fundamental to the successful outcome. The correct psychology and mindset here is essential to control stress and potential freezes. Simply we advocate a mindset that envisages that we are always attacking or progressing our attack. Associated with this very big area is the key that instinct will always take precedence and any subsequent action(s) must be built from and be closely reflective of that instinctive response to stress.

The list here again is not exclusive and in fact we appreciate our limited understanding. With deeper investigation and greater understanding it is wholly likely that this list would get shorter as it becomes further refined. 

A next step is to consider how the principles are best communicated. Do we simply throw them all out there at once, doing our best to focus on everything at the same time? Or is it more prudent to address these in a sequential manner, addressing each in turn? In this latter case there is likely to be further refinement necessary to determine amongst these are there any principles that hold greater priority over others?

Our suggested programme centres on a four weekly cycle, where we seek to provide emphasis to a related set of principles in each week and frequently ‘pressure’ test the acquisition and development of these. The specific drills and training modalities would need to be varied in each cycle, allowing the opportunity to acquire, investigate and apply knowledge dynamically in a non-linear way. Again, we are suggesting this as an example of how one may approach principle based training and by no means are we suggesting this is the only or absolute correct method. 

4 Week Principle Based Training Cycle For Taekwon-do and Personal Defence 

Week 1

Structure and Movement

• Stances

• Footwork

• Balance (dynamic and static)

• Instinctive Defensive Response (flinch reactions)

• Crashing and Breaking Equilibrium

Week 2

Power Generation

• 2 way forces

• Weight distribution

• Timing 

• Coordination and Flow 

• Distance Management / Ranges

Week 3 

Angles and Vectors

• Distance Management / Breaking the Line

• Focus and Targeting

• Striking Tools 

• Parries/Traps/Frames

Week 4

Application and Sparring

• Scenario and Multiple Opponent Drills

• Asymmetrical Sparring (strike vs grapple etc.)

• Principle Based 1 Step

• Personal Defence Sparring 

There are so many influencing factors in regards to personal defence application (for example physics, anatomy/physiology, social anthropology, psychology etc.) that it would be entirely possible to suggest that there is no one best way to approach this. However, as is often the case, effective solutions are inherently simple. Furthermore, whilst a principle based training approach can provide significant results quickly, it also provides a basis for much deeper analysis, investigation and life-long study. Each area of investigation lends itself to deeper analysis, there is always more to learn and refinements to be made.

We began by advocating a shift away from the traditional process of technique acquisition that predominates much of traditional martial arts training, as it applies specifically to personal defence. Without attention to a principle based approach, the massing of technique after technique, with no true sense of individual application, creates nothing more than a basis for freeze and confusion. The identification of response, within the chaos of an assault cannot be clouded by uncertainty or false promises. The more technical answers we possess to a given question, the longer it will take to decide on which is the best one. The more misguided we allow ourselves to be in regards to the potential application of that movement, without truly investing time in analysis and investigation of its application in a variety of contexts, the more at risk we become. The reality of it all is that in this particular context, we will only know that we should have made changes in our training methodologies when it’s too late! 

Focus on a principle based approach doesn’t mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn’t mean that there is no room for more traditional training modalities (patterns, set sparring etc.) but what it does mean is we remove the blinkers and force greater analysis of these modalities. We shift in focus away from the form and towards the function inherent within the modality we are choosing to use. We embrace the commonality of techniques, seeking to develop greater competence in these areas, which ultimately means it impacts everything we do, not just that one routine, in that very specific training context. Principle based training means we refine and simplify to advance and not default to the very human process of adding more and making things unnecessarily complex.