Reverse Knife-Hand Front Strike (Sonkal Dung Ap Taerigi) - Taekwon-Do Lesson #66

[@sethang8297]

Thank you, Grand Master. Preparing for my next grading(Choong-Moo) and this makes the reverse knife hand strike so much easier to understand. Looking forward to your next tutorial. Tae-Kwon!

[@TheMegazaya]

Thanks for the lesson Grand Master. Perhaps you or someone reading can answer this question. Why do we bring the non striking hand to the position as shown? If it is for reaction and improved power I actually can deliver more power pulling the non striking hand rapidly back to my waste. Or does it serve another purpose Sir?

[@DonatoNardizzi]

I believe it has a dual purpose. One is as a reaction and at the same time it adds added protection by covering your body. Just like the 2nd movement in Won-Hyo Tul, the Knife-Hand Inward Strike (Sonkal Anuro Taerigi).

[@jawara.d.king-authorof7books]

...thanks for the lesson 📋

[@miqvPL]

weird that it isn't in the encyclopedia, wasnt it a requirement for higher dan ranks to break boards with it?

[@georgelazarou5937]

Any ideas on the name of the technique when it stops at the coronal plane of the body? Undeniably effective as GM Kwon Jae Hwa has repeatedly proven, but is it safe in the long run?

[@MatiasPalacios81]

I don't think I saw anything about that in the Encyclopedia. My understanding of the coronal plane is that it is the anatomical line that divides the body between belly and back (ventral and dorsal). I haven't seen distinctions in the naming of the techniques if they hit in the front or in the back. Assuming my understanding of the term Coronal Plane is correct (and please forgive me if it is not, I'm not a trained physician as you are) then it means that the opponent is located exactly how it is shown at this moment in the video kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6TQXqaJf9KSsLc. This does not necessarily mean that there is not a particular way to name this technique. This just means that I was not able to find it. What I can say for sure if that depending on the height of the impact, it can be divided into Najunde (low), Kaunde (mid), or Nopunde (high), and that depending on the position it can be baro (obverse) or bandae (reverse).

[@DonatoNardizzi]

Do you mean the kick that moves like a vertical Kick and then pauses near the head and then is brought down sharply? That's more like a Downward Kick if that's what you are refering to.

[@georgelazarou5937]

@@DonatoNardizzi I am referring to a Reverse Knifehand Strike to the side, as mentioned by you, between 1:00 and 1:15. At the moment of the strike, the angle of the upper limb with the torso would be around 180 degrees, whereas in a Front technique the same angle would be around 65 degrees. As you very well spotted, it is not to be found in the Encyclopedia, as indeed reaffirmed by Matias Palacios in his excellent answer. "This does not mean it is not a valid technique" are your exact words. Then, why did the Founder ignore this technique? Ignore as in "not aware of" or as in "disregard intentionally"? Just food for thought, while staying indoors (and potential inspiration for me, as I am browsing the final draft of "Taekwon-Do Study Companion")

[@DonatoNardizzi]

@@georgelazarou5937 Sorry. I should have checked which video you were commenting on. I assumed it was the Vertical Kick for some reason. In answer to your question, I am not sure why General Choi may have disregarded this technique. Your guess is as good as mine. No doubt it is an extremely powerful technique, quick to execute, and it doesn't leave you exposed on the later stages of the technique. I am wondering if General Choi may have dismissed it because to wind up for the technique would require the attacker to swing their arm back quite far while keeping the arm fairly straight. This leaves the attacker in a position where their head is exposed and the arms are nowhere near a position to shield or block a sudden attack. With a Front Strike the arm doesn't need to swing back so far. The reason why I said it is valid technique is because there are situations where it can be very effictive. Whether it is a 'standard' technique (which should then have a name) or it is an adaptation of a standard technique is still in question. What is your interpretation?

[@georgelazarou5937]

@@DonatoNardizzi I take it for granted that there must be a reason for this technique not to be included in the Encyclopedia. Could it be mere preference, as in middle inward blocks or is there a better reason? Does this technique conform with ITF terminology? It is not a front technique nor side nor sidefront. What is it then? What line does the attacking tool stop at? It is not A, not B, nor C. It should be line E, possibly F, but there is no line E or F in TKD. Then, there is also the issue of safety. You did refer to it, as in bending slightly the elbow in order to avoid "jolting" the joint or a nice fracture of the head of the radius in the short run or a nice osteoarthritis of the elbow in the long run. But what about the shoulder? Not in the front technique, included in ITF syllabus, but in the nameless (my initial post) one, expelled (your initial post) from ITF syllabus.

[@malibumondsg74]

Started by our Singaporean legend Tan Sar Bee…

[@Whitelightnin76]

Smack someone across the ear with one of these and they’ll lose their balance and fall if you do it right. Speaking from experience. Not supposed to get into street fights but have found myself in a few