# Limited Emphasis on Forms/Poomse



## Independent_TKD (Jun 30, 2007)

How do you view schools that place limited emphasis on poomse? My opinion of poomse varies. Clearly, poomse are not practical in terms of self-defense or sparring. I do believe they are useful in developing balance and muscle control. They also provide an artistic element and a tie to tradition.

However, I use much more practical and functional drills with my students that achieve both of these goals. If I can help students build balance and muscle control thorugh practical drills, do forms offer only an artistic element? If so, should they be categorized as parts of a "martial" art? 

I feel it is possible for students to study forms as a personal suppliment to their training. I don't feel it is a necessary skill needed to be a good practitioner of TKD. As it stands now, my students do manditorily practice forms, but I am debating the idea.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Kacey (Jun 30, 2007)

I think that in limiting patterns, and teaching your students that they are only valuable to "provide an artistic element and a tie to tradition", but that they are "not practical in terms of self-defense or sparring", you are doing them a major disservice.  For more detail on why I think this, see this thread for a discussion of the value of patterns in training.


----------



## exile (Jun 30, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I think that in limiting patterns, and teaching your students that they are only valuable to "provide an artistic element and a tie to tradition", but that they are "not practical in terms of self-defense or sparring", you are doing them a major disservice.  For more detail on why I think this, see this thread for a discussion of the value of patterns in training.



Kacey, you took the words out of my mouth!


----------



## dortiz (Jun 30, 2007)

As a lot of starting martial artist probably also felt I was not a big form fan in the begining. As I got better and better I still grew to love sparring and not to care for forms. Luckily my teachers knew better. Now forms are my foundation. They are my training , my passion and teach me more every time I do them.

Shocked as I am to say...forms rock!


----------



## simplelogik (Jun 30, 2007)

I used to compete in sparring in my younger years and had always thought poomsae was a waste of time, but as I've "matured" *cough*, I've learnt to realise that poomsae requires it's own dedication and now finding it more challenging than sparring had to offer.


----------



## bluemtn (Jun 30, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I think that in limiting patterns, and teaching your students that they are only valuable to "provide an artistic element and a tie to tradition", but that they are "not practical in terms of self-defense or sparring", you are doing them a major disservice. For more detail on why I think this, see this thread for a discussion of the value of patterns in training.


 
I have to agree with Kacey on forms, and will point you to the same thread that she just did.  There are certain elements in forms that are useful in sparring and self- defense, if you look for it.


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 1, 2007)

TKD is not my main art.  I consider myself more of an Okinawan karate guy, and kata is the essence of karate.  Kata, kihon, and kumite should be different faces to the same coin, and practice in all three should lead to effectiveness in combat.  If you don't think kata is practical for self-defense, I respectfully submit that you're not practicing kata in the "correct" manner.  

Correct practice means performing the moves at all speeds, slow and fast, methodical and with broken rhythmn.  It means exploring what all the turns and chambers can really mean and then practicing them both solo and with a fully resisting partner.  Showing kime or focus in kata means more than just glaring at an imaginary opponent and shouting loudly - you demonstrate unified body movement and move realistically.  Too often we only learning the overly formal steps taught by a well-meaning instructor, but if he doesn't also teach you HOW to use kata, those steps can be too restrictive for a student and he begins to think that forms are a waste of time.


----------



## wade (Jul 2, 2007)

Forms, forms and more forms. It never stops amazing me how many people love doing forms. So let me ask you, if you were a swimmer, and you were taught the breast stroke, the butter fly and all the other different strokes that make a swimmer a swimmer but you never got in the pool, would you still be a swimmer? OR! Would you just be doing forms and calling your self a swimmer?


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 2, 2007)

Do boxers shadowbox?  Yes.  Do BJJ guys practice moves on the mat slowly with a partner?  Yes.  Both of those examples are also forms practice.

Like I said, the people who don't value kata or forms generally aren't practicing them fully or properly.


----------



## exile (Jul 2, 2007)

wade said:


> Forms, forms and more forms. It never stops amazing me how many people love doing forms. So let me ask you, if you were a swimmer, and you were taught the breast stroke, the butter fly and all the other different strokes that make a swimmer a swimmer but you never got in the pool, would you still be a swimmer? OR! Would you just be doing forms and calling your self a swimmer?



But Wade, so far as I know, no one is advocating thatcertainly not the people who see forms as the core of the SD content of MAs. Look at the training protocol here, for example. Step 1 involves simultaneously learning and practicing the performance of the form and working out the most realistic bunkai possible, but once you've got them, Kidswarrior's summary of Abernethy's steps 2 and 3 involve `destructive testing' with a partner to weed out the impractical applications, and step 4 involves use of the surviving applications under _very_ realistic conditionsconditions way more like actual streetfighting than ordinary kumite in a typical dojo training session. Abernethy, in one of his articles, comments that

_The fourth and most neglected stage is to practise applying the techniques, variations and principles of the kata in live practise. The only way to ensure that you will be able to utilise techniques in a live situation is to practise your techniques in live situations. You need to engage in live any-range sparring if you are to make your kata practise worthwhile. No amount of solo practice or drilling the techniques with a compliant partner will give you the skills needed to apply what you have learnt in a live situation... _​
and comments in his book that `it should be a self-evident fact that the only way to become an able fighter is to practise actual fighting!' He is talking here about competence in defensive combat, and although he indicates ways in his book to minimize the hazards of `all-in' fighting, he also mentions, somewhere else, can't dig it up right now, that he's broken bones in this kind of kata-based `sparring'. For Abernethy and others in his group, karate is primarily a _jutsu_, not a _do_, and bunkai are the textbook for fighting techniques; realistic simulated combat is the `exercises at the end of the chapter' that, as with any textbook, you have to get good at in order to learn the subjects, as vs.  just knowing _about_ the subject. 

Using your analogy, people who train swimming this way not only practice it, but, when they get good enough, go out to places like Monterey Point and test their knowledge out in the rip tides and killer undertow areas.


----------



## Independent_TKD (Jul 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *wade*
> Forms, forms and more forms. It never stops amazing me how many people love doing forms. So let me ask you, if you were a swimmer, and you were taught the breast stroke, the butter fly and all the other different strokes that make a swimmer a swimmer but you never got in the pool, would you still be a swimmer? OR! Would you just be doing forms and calling your self a swimmer?


 
I have to agree. I have been wrestling with the concept of forms in the TKD curriculum for several years. I only have experience with the Taegeuk forms and Judo kata. From a Judo standpoint, the kata are a very small and relatively unrealistic aspect of the art/sport. Nearly all practitioners accept this. Rather, a heavy emphasis is placed on practical and effective techniques that truly work under pressure. With that being the case, I don't think anyone would claim that Judo is a substandard martial art. 

In terms of Taekwondo, I just have not been convinced that (Taegeuk) forms are any better or more beneficial than more focused and practical drills that reinforce good technique, muscle memory, and logical reaction to realistic attacks.

In others words, I want my students to build muscle memory and respond in a practical and realistic way. In terms of an artistic activity, the Taegeuk forms are great, much like a dance would be admired. I just don't believe they reinforce the most beneficial martial arts responses to attacks, or the most practical kinds of attacking techniques.

Again, I feel the study forms as a suppliment to training is fine. I don't feel it is necessary to be a good practitioner of TKD. If you take a look at some very effective and respected martial arts (boxing, wrestling, muay thai, BJJ), there is actually no forms system at all.


----------



## zDom (Jul 2, 2007)

Independent_TKD said:


> How do you view schools that place limited emphasis on poomse?



With pity. "Their loss," is what I would say.

I think it is more that coincidence that the 9 out of the 10 best fighters I have seen over the years are also the best forms practitioners.

None of them look like they are doing forms while they fight  but they all move SO damn well.

Now, I definately think you ALSO need free sparring, but there is no doubt in my mind: forms practiced correctly are great training and make you a better fighter.

Sloppy weak forms? Those probably are a waste of time. But done right  with precision and power  they are essential.


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 2, 2007)

> I only have experience with the Taegeuk forms



No offense intended to Taegeuk fans, but these forms are perhaps the most simple with little meaning to them beyond the obvious block/punch/kick application.  The Palgwe and Chang Hon sets of forms are richer and deeper in my opinion and they can contain deadly blueprints for maiming or killing an assailant.  

Consider the opening movements in Toi Gye.  There's an clear groin tear/rip occuring as you slap or chop down on the base of your opponent's skull.  The next step as you turn back to center is an unbalancing, throwing movement to rid yourself of the person you have just dispatched.  This is one of the easier applications to "see".  There are dozens if not hundreds more to explore.

Proper forms practice means you need to take these applications or bun seoh out of the hyung or poomse and practice them in a realistic manner.  We often say the form is a catalog of the techniques. Well, when you shop for a shirt through a catalog, do you not see what sizes are available and whether it will fit your body or not? Do you not carefully look for the exact pattern of the fabric or its color?


----------



## Gizmo (Jul 3, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> Do boxers shadowbox?  Yes.  Do BJJ guys practice moves on the mat slowly with a partner?  Yes.  Both of those examples are also forms practice.



One subtle difference is the fact that boxers and BJJ guys, while doing their "forms" practice as described above, perform exactly the same techniques, the same movements as in free sparring. Unless you fight in TKD in traditional stances using traditional blocks, strikes and punches, your form practice is not the same as shadowboxing. The TKD's equivalent to the above forms of practice would be... shadowboxing (or/and "shadowkicking", which I think many of you do in class) and partner drills, which also have their place in TKD...

Seriously, I don't think that patterns have anything to do with producing a better tournament fighter, unless you compete in a traditional system like ITKF Karate. They won't hurt, but they won't help that much as well, at least not more than say gymnastics or running. As for self-defence... well, I don't think they are necessary, either. I think one would be better off practicing drills with a partner than memorizing long sequences.

And BTW... I have students who do great in patterns and poorly in sparring, or vice versa. I also have some who are great in both aspects. From what I saw on many tornaments - people excelling in both are rather a minority.


----------



## foot2face (Jul 3, 2007)

Let me start off by saying  that I strongly disagree with those who have commented negatively on the usefulness of forms, particularly Taegeuk.  At my dojang, forms were heavily emphasized, considered one of the four pillars of TKD.  

We were taught that hand to hand combat consisted of two components, fighting and self-defence/anti-smothering.  Fighting was defined as dominating and destroying your opponent by hitting them hard, fast and as many time as necessary to decisively end the altercation.  Optimally with one or two strikes.  Self-defence/anti-smothering are techniques which allow you to put yourself in a position to fight. In order to land a powerful, decisive blow you need time and space.  If someone standing next to you suddenly swings at you or if someone clinches you with double under-hooks you no longer have the time nor space required to throw a powerful blow.  This is were the forms come in to play.  There are a variety of techniques within the forms that can be used in these situations, buying you time and creating enough space to were you can begin or continue to fight.  Coincidently, this one reason why TKD forms don't particularly resemble TKD fighting.  Were as fighting is the delivery of fast powerful strikes, predominately kicks, at distance; the forms are a collection of philosophy and techniques which complement and supplement the TKDist ability to fight.


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 3, 2007)

foot2face said:


> This is were the forms come in to play.  There are a variety of techniques within the forms that can be used in these situations, buying you time and creating enough space to were you can begin or continue to fight.  Coincidently, this one reason why TKD forms don't particularly resemble TKD fighting.  Were as fighting is the delivery of fast powerful strikes, predominately kicks, at distance; the forms are a collection of philosophy and techniques which complement and supplement the TKDist ability to fight.




Good post.  I would only slightly disagree that the reason why TKD SPARRING (not FIGHTING) differs from the forms is because of the modern emphasis on kicking.  The original Korean karate practiced back in the fifties and sixties looked quite different by my understanding.  

By the way, a couple of people have made the point that forms don't look anything like fighting.  My comment to that is that's true if you only practice the surface movements.  Sure, in a real fight, I am not likely to perform a down block while chambering my other arm to the side like in the first move from Chon-ji.  What if you take the move a little deeper and think of it like a hammerstrike to the opponent'd frontside (throat?  groin?) while jerking his lead arm back under your back arm.  Next, you just reverse your direction and take him down like in the classical aikido shihon-nage throw.

Many of these applications from the forms are easier to understand if you have had some cross-training in a grappling/throwing art.  I believe the old Okinawan karate masters were all well versed in their native wrestling art, so culturally they had an advantage when learning forms applications compared to the average western karate student.


----------



## foot2face (Jul 3, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> Good post. I would only slightly disagree that the reason why TKD SPARRING (not FIGHTING) differs from the forms is because of the modern emphasis on kicking. The original Korean karate practiced back in the fifties and sixties looked quite different by my understanding.


 
My master learned TKD during the fifties as a child in Korea.  According to him they kicked a lot, when they *fought*. You must remember that TKD was not one of the original Korean karates but was *derived* from them and developed an emphasis on kicking.  With regards to "TKD SPARRING," if you don't spar like you fight then what's the point?!


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 3, 2007)

> if you don't spar like you fight then what's the point



It might be different in your school, but we practice various techniques that involve poking out eyes and ripping groins, throats, and faces with claw strikes.  Vital points and soft tissue targets are taught from day one.  Many throws and takedowns are  practiced also.  For obvious safety reasons none of those techniques can be performed when sparring at full speed.  

I suppose you probably just mean the usual list of kicks and punches and evading movements when you talk about sparring = fighting.  If that's the case, I agree that you want to train your sparring as intensely as possible.

But I don't equate sparring with fighting.  For me, they're not the same at all.  For me sparring is more about practicing distance (Maai) and tai sabaki and countering.


----------



## Independent_TKD (Jul 3, 2007)

> a couple of people have made the point that forms don't look anything like fighting. My comment to that is that's true if you only practice the surface movements. Sure, in a real fight, I am not likely to perform a down block while chambering my other arm to the side like in the first move from Chon-ji. What if you take the move a little deeper and think of it like a hammerstrike to the opponent'd frontside (throat? groin?) while jerking his lead arm back under your back arm. Next, you just reverse your direction and take him down like in the classical aikido shihon-nage throw.


 

I am not trying to be stubborn here, but why not just practice the techniques that are supposedly "hidden" within the forms. The basic argument I have heard for a long time supporting forms as integral to being proficient in TKD is that somehow hidden within them are practical techniques/sparring techniques/vital techniques. 

My basic argument is: why not practice those actual techniques directly until students build actual proficiency? I have asked this question amongst my fellow instructors and trusted TKD artists and I have never really received a convincing answer.


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

Independent_TKD said:


> I am not trying to be stubborn here, but why not just practice the techniques that are supposedly "hidden" within the forms. The basic argument I have heard for a long time supporting forms as integral to being proficient in TKD is that somehow hidden within them are practical techniques/sparring techniques/vital techniques.
> 
> My basic argument is: why not practice those actual techniques directly until students build actual proficiency? I have asked this question amongst my fellow instructors and trusted TKD artists and I have never really received a convincing answer.



The answer to that question which has always satisfied _me_ is that a single hyung, just like a single kata or hsing, contains a large number of techs, depending on alternative interpretations of certain moves, and alternative `parsings' of the hyung into combat-complete subsequences. Practicing the whole form in effect keeps it alive, and you, or one of your students, or some deeper descendent in your lineage, may discover new techsdifferent and even more effective sequences of _moves_ based on those movements. But if you extract a few techniques from the hyung, teach them as drills and throw away the hyung itself, you're very likely ruling out the chance of that later discovery. 

There's a related reason as well: if you become adept at `decoding' the hyung into techs, you have a way of carrying around a large number of potential techs, and therefore combat drills, in a small package. The mnemonic role of hyungs is therefore considerable. Combat Hapkido doesn't have hyungs; what they have are dozensor _scores_of separate drills, and there's a hell of a burden on memory! So I think there actually are good reasons to maintain the hyungs, kata, hsings or what have you, to practice them, analyze them and train their applications seriously, rather than compiling them out into a bunch of techs...


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 3, 2007)

> I am not trying to be stubborn here, but why not just practice the techniques that are supposedly "hidden" within the forms. The basic argument I have heard for a long time supporting forms as integral to being proficient in TKD is that somehow hidden within them are practical techniques/sparring techniques/vital techniques.



There are a number of answers for your question.  All of them can be true or none of them or some of them.  Take your pick because ultimately your TKD is exactly that:  your own.

1) You practice forms because many teachers only know the form.  They do not know the applications and therefore they can't teach them.  Nonetheless, the knowledge exists there in the form and can be extracted when the student is ready to start looking for them.  Bunkai analysis is a learning tool in of itself as you learn to look for principles of execution rather than just memorizing rote techniques.

2)  You practice forms because you are studying a martial ART.  If your only concern is fighting prowess, I daresay there are shorter steps to that than TKD or karate.   Forms are among the biggest artistic elements in martial arts.  As evidence, Shosin Nagamine regularly taught and practiced Okinawan folk dance in addition to karate, since he felt the two had synergy to each other.  It's been said that if you're not doing kata, you're not doing karate.  I agree with that statement.

3)  You practice forms because they are an awesome tool for training by yourself with no equipment.  What if Tom Hanks from "Castaway" had been a martial artist?  You can bet he'd be working his patterns from beginning to end over and over again.  

4)  You practice forms for the self-improvement aspects.  Kata has been described as moving meditation by many in a variety of books and articles, some of which you can even read via Google.  I buy it.  I don't practice kata and karate just for self-defense reasons.


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> There are a number of answers for your question.  All of them can be true or none of them or some of them.  Take your pick because ultimately your TKD is exactly that:  your own.
> 
> 1) You practice forms because many teachers only know the form.  They do not know the applications and therefore they can't teach them.  Nonetheless, the knowledge exists there in the form and can be extracted when the student is ready to start looking for them.  *Bunkai analysis is a learning tool in of itself as you learn to look for principles of execution rather than just memorizing rote techniques.*



Well said, stoneheartvery nice point!


----------



## Independent_TKD (Jul 3, 2007)

> There are a number of answers for your question. All of them can be true or none of them or some of them. Take your pick because ultimately your TKD is exactly that: your own....



I have to say this is a very good way of seeing things. I have read many good perspectives on poomse/forms during this tread. I think I will re-examine the usefulness of forms practice. While not immediately functional as a sparring tool, there is a good deal that can be learned from them.

Particularly, I like Stoneheart's comment: "You practice forms for the self-improvement aspects. [Not] just for self-defense reasons." Good point.


----------



## foot2face (Jul 3, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> It might be different in your school, but we practice various techniques that involve poking out eyes and ripping groins, throats, and faces with claw strikes. Vital points and soft tissue targets are taught from day one. Many throws and takedowns are practiced also. For obvious safety reasons none of those techniques can be performed when sparring at full speed.
> 
> I suppose you probably just mean the usual list of kicks and punches and evading movements when you talk about sparring = fighting. If that's the case, I agree that you want to train your sparring as intensely as possible.
> 
> But I don't equate sparring with fighting. For me, they're not the same at all. For me sparring is more about practicing distance (Maai) and tai sabaki and countering.


 
It was not different in my school.  You described precisely the type of techniques I was speaking of in my earlier replies.  Techniques that are contained in the forms and *not* hidden.  However, non of these techniques are fight enders.  You may poke a man in the eye or rip at his groin but as long as he maintains consciousness he maintains the ability to cause you harm.  The only way to decisively end the altercation is to strike him in the head with a powerful blow, hence the high kicks in TKD.  For example, someone can grab me wrapping his arms around my body.  In this position I can not strike with enough force to knock him unconscious but I can push him a way with an eye gouge, like the one contained in Koryo form.  This accomplishes two things; first, it creates space by combining his recoil reflex from being poked in  the eye with my push,  now I have enough room to launch a powerful strike; second, it buys me time to land a powerful strike by reducing his reaction time due to impaired vision. 

As far as sparring goes, the ultimate goal in my school was to simulate a real fight.  This ment anything goes,  within reason,  basically a fight between freinds.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 3, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> There are a number of answers for your question.  All of them can be true or none of them or some of them.  Take your pick because ultimately your TKD is exactly that:  your own.
> 
> 1) You practice forms because many teachers only know the form.  They do not know the applications and therefore they can't teach them.  Nonetheless, the knowledge exists there in the form and can be extracted when the student is ready to start looking for them.  *Bunkai analysis is a learning tool in of itself as you learn to look for principles of execution rather than just memorizing rote techniques.*
> 
> ...



Great post - thanks for sharing your viewpoint.  Number 3 is, IMHO, the most valid reason; unlike many other physical activities, forms can be practiced at any time, in nearly any location (modification can be made for smaller spaces), with no special equipment or clothing needed.


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 3, 2007)

foot2face said:


> It was not different in my school.  You described precisely the type of techniques I was speaking of in my earlier replies.  Techniques that are contained in the forms and *not* hidden.  However, non of these techniques are fight enders.  You may poke a man in the eye or rip at his groin but as long as he maintains consciousness he maintains the ability to cause you harm.  The only way to decisively end the altercation is to strike him in the head with a powerful blow, hence the high kicks in TKD.  For example, someone can grab me wrapping his arms around my body.  In this position I can not strike with enough force to knock him unconscious but I can push him a way with an eye gouge, like the one contained in Koryo form.  This accomplishes two things; first, it creates space by combining his recoil reflex from being poked in  the eye with my push,  now I have enough room to launch a powerful strike; second, it buys me time to land a powerful strike by reducing his reaction time due to impaired vision.
> 
> As far as sparring goes, the ultimate goal in my school was to simulate a real fight.  This ment anything goes,  within reason,  basically a fight between freinds.



Kick2face, thank you for clarifying your viewpoint.  In my studies, we do lots of hand conditioning work through makiwara, rice/bean/rubber tube buckets, as well as old-fashioned tiger pushups.  For us, these strikes combined with tuite ARE the fight-enders rather than the high kick you favor in your example.  I can see why we have differing interpretations on sparring.  

Good luck to you!


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

foot2face said:


> The only way to decisively end the altercation is to strike him in the head with a powerful blow, hence the high kicks in TKD.  For example, someone can grab me wrapping his arms around my body.



This I don't see. High kicks were never part of the Okinawan karate that the Kwan founders brought home in diluted form from Japan and seem to have diluted still further (apart from the military form that Gen. Choi had taught to the Korean troops in the Korean and Vietnam wars, although there are many who claim that the source of that combat system was really Tai Hi Nam... but that's a different topic altogether!) The traditional Okinawan kata, in its Shotokan variants, contain virtually no high kicks at all. And this was also true for the kicks in Kwan-era TKD and TSD. The `cranking up' of lower or mid-body kicks (the latter typically administered to an already controlled assailant) was strictly the result of tournament scoring systems which rewarded high kicks _precisely because these are the most difficult to land and the riskiest to attempt_. Almost every document the British Combat Association group has put out on kickingand this is advice from `celebrated' bouncers, club doormen and crowd control/security types who have often been involved in hundreds of the nastiest altercations possibleis, forget the high kicks if you want to be able to go on eating solid food. Just a single example from one of the great masters of modern combat-realistic karate, Iain Abernethy:

_ In the modern dojo, practically every technique has a kick within it somewhere. If you compare these with the kata you will note that kicks are nowhere nearly as widely used. The simple reason for this is that the techniques of the kata are designed for real combat and so the use and emphasis on kicking is based upon those strategies.

Another thing to be aware of with regards to kicking is that it is always best to kick low, ideally lower than the level of the fingertips when the arms are down by the side. Low kicks arer harder to counter, they are quicker and the chances of you being unbalanced are greatly reduced. In recent times, may of the kicks within the katas have been elevated, presumably for visual effect. However, it is vital to understand that originally all the kicks throughout the kata were low.... *certainly there are not head height kicks within the katas, as to execute such a kick in a real situation is suicidal!* There are kicks directed to the head, but in these instances the opponent has been positioned so that they are on the ground or on their knees, hence the kick is still low._​
(_Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Applications of Karate Kata_, p. 86; my emphasis). This is a man you need to listen to; he's one of the main `rediscoverers' of the combat use of kata movements, and his group on realistic combat applications of karateprobably the largest and most advanced such group in the worldtrain live, and realistically, to a degree that most of us would just as soon stay away from. To finish off a controlled attacker, a hard hammer-fist or knife-hand to the throat or carotid sinus or temple is way more practical and effective than attempting a kick that requires distances from the attacker you're never going to be allowed in a real streetfight.



foot2face said:


> As far as sparring goes, the ultimate goal in my school was to simulate a real fight.  This ment anything goes,  within reason,  basically a fight between freinds.



This is I think 100% correct. But that's how Abernethy's group's combat-based sparring method worksand as he's written, he's had bones broken in the course of this kind of ultra-realistic sparring, even though protective gear was usedand the watchworkd from people like him is, do not, at any time, attempt a high kick against an untrained, violent assailant. You'll live to regret it... on the _best_ outcome.


----------



## DArnold (Jul 3, 2007)

exile said:


> This I don't see. High kicks were never part of the Okinawan karate that the Kwan founders brought home in diluted form from Japan and seem to have diluted still further (apart from the military form that Gen. Choi had taught to the Korean troops in the Korean and Vietnam wars, although there are many who claim that the source of that combat system was really Tai Hi Nam... but that's a different topic altogether!) The traditional Okinawan kata, in its Shotokan variants, contain virtually no high kicks at all. And this was also true for the kicks in Kwan-era TKD and TSD. The `cranking up' of lower or mid-body kicks (the latter typically administered to an already controlled assailant) was strictly the result of tournament scoring systems which rewarded high kicks _precisely because these are the most difficult to land and the riskiest to attempt_. Almost every document the British Combat Association group has put out on kickingand this is advice from `celebrated' bouncers, club doormen and crowd control/security types who have often been involved in hundreds of the nastiest altercations possibleis, forget the high kicks if you want to be able to go on eating solid food. Just a single example from one of the great masters of modern combat-realistic karate, Iain Abernethy:_In the modern dojo, practically every technique has a kick within it somewhere. If you compare these with the kata you will note that kicks are nowhere nearly as widely used. The simple reason for this is that the techniques of the kata are designed for real combat and so the use and emphasis on kicking is based upon those strategies._
> 
> _Another thing to be aware of with regards to kicking is that it is always best to kick low, ideally lower than the level of the fingertips when the arms are down by the side. Low kicks arer harder to counter, they are quicker and the chances of you being unbalanced are greatly reduced. In recent times, may of the kicks within the katas have been elevated, presumably for visual effect. However, it is vital to understand that originally all the kicks throughout the kata were low.... *certainly there are not head height kicks within the katas, as to execute such a kick in a real situation is suicidal!* There are kicks directed to the head, but in these instances the opponent has been positioned so that they are on the ground or on their knees, hence the kick is still low._
> 
> ...


 
These statements are roughly 25% correct.
A) For those wishing to practice old style Kata's this is correct as they do not understand or know how to train high kicks.
B) Do you wish to be a bouncer or a Martial Artist?

Your theory leaves out one minor part...

It's called focus.

As far as your techniques above, there is no silver bullet.  These are just sales attempts.  If you want to claime research then you could say P.P.C.T. as these are based on affectiveness, medical, and legal research. Every salesperson in every style has them. 

I don't need to fold a heavey bag if I kick you in the proper spot: temple, sternum, point of chin...  you'll go down.

And, before you say well, it's harder to kick a spot, that is because these styles that you mentiion do not train, or know how to train high kicks. Also, If you miss your focal point against a violent assailant with a hand technique, the results would be the same...
You'll live to regret it.

It seems like the negatives are from those who wish to be fighters and not martial artists.

If you dont teach patterns how do you teach such things as: trajectory, reactionary force, theory of power, stances, balence, technique, timeing...

And for those of you who say patterns don't look like fighting. Well, neither does line drills, heavy bag training, breaking, shadow boxing, conditioning?
Is it supposed to?

Be vary careful when you start discarding things based on your own limited perception. You may be cutting off your nose to spite your face!


What there is
____________________________________________________

What your teacher knew
___________________________________________

What your teacher liked
_____________________________________

What your teacher showed you
__________________________________

What you learned
__________________________

What you like
___________________

What you are able to pass on to your students
_____________

What your students learn
_________

What your student like
____


----------



## foot2face (Jul 3, 2007)

I disagree with many of your comments above, Exile, but of course I do, because the conversation has become one of style rather than the usefulness of forms; and in a discussion about style, no one agrees!  Remember what you consider diluting others call refining, just ask BJJ practitioners.

I will say this however, my master was a military combat instructor between the  Korean and Vietnam wars and he taught me to kick to the head.  You can take the advise of bouncers and doormen who believe head kicks are "suicidal," but I prefer to listen to the soldiers and LEOs who were senior BBs at my dojang.  I can also speak to my own experiences were head kick have served me very well.


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

DArnold said:


> These statements are roughly 25% correct.
> A) For those wishing to practice old style Kata's this is correct as they do not understand or know how to train high kicks.



They don't understand or know how to train high kicks? 

High kicks are intrinsically unstable and difficult or impossible to get in at close fighting ranges. That is a fact about high kicks themselves. Somehow you deduce that people who want to base their training on the standard karate kata or their recombinations in KMA forms and recognize the combat impracticality of high kicks don't understand or know how to train high kicks. Would you care to fill in the missing reasoning steps, DA? There are going to have to be an awful lot of them, I'd guess!




DArnold said:


> B) Do you wish to be a bouncer or a Martial Artist?



This question is a bit of a non sequitur. The issue is whether high kicks are practical for self-defense in real CQ combat. How is my occupational preference relevant to that issue? You question doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid. I've no idea what you're getting at here... so let me just observe that (i)Bushi Matsumura and Anko Itosu were two of the greatest MAs of all time, the creators of modern linear karate; (ii) they were not bouncers;  (ii) they had, between them, scores of fights; and (iv) they did not include high kicks in their system. I conclude from their example&#8212;and from that of Chotoku Kyan, Choki Motobu, Mas Oyama, and several dozen names of eminent karateka I can think of for whom (i)&#8211;(iv) apply equally truly&#8212;that not using high kicks in your fighting system, and using your art for self-defense in violent encounters, is compatible with being a martial artist and does not entail that one is a bouncer. So I have to say, again, that your question _seems_ unconnected to anything relevant to the discussion.



DArnold said:


> Your theory leaves out one minor part...
> 
> It's called focus.
> 
> As far as your techniques above, there is no silver bullet.  These are just sales attempts.  If you want to claime research then you could say P.P.C.T. as these are based on affectiveness, medical, and legal research. Every salesperson in every style has them.



Sorry, but this again makes no sense to me. It has the feel of words thrown on the screen. What are `[my] techniques above' that you're referring to? Who talked about a silver bullet (I take it you mean something like `magic solution', but for the life of me I can't figure out what you're getting at!  )



DArnold said:


> I don't need to fold a heavey bag if I kick you in the proper spot: temple, sternum, point of chin...  you'll go down.



Um... yes.... what is supposed to follow from that? 



DArnold said:


> IAnd, before you say well, it's harder to kick a spot, that is because these styles that you mentiion do not train, or know how to train high kicks.



Which styles, DA? Okinawan karateka don't know _how_ to train high kicks? They don't know how to carry out basic balance, accuracy and power exercises that every color belt in any of the karate-based arts learns to do in a proper school? Iain Abernethy doesn't know how to train high kicks? 

If these guys don't train high kicks, DA, it doesn't seem likely that the reason is because it's such a secret, is it, now? Those styles don't train people to do back flips either, but it's not because it's a great mystery how to do back flips. It's more likely that they don't train back flips because they're not a particularly practical combat move, wouldn't you say? Well, based on the writings of people like Abernethy, Loren Christensen, Kane & Wilder and many others, it's quite clear that their advice about high kicks is based on the same reasoning that holds in the case of back flips. I myself train high kicks, but I would never dream of trying to use them in a street fight at close quarter range, for exactly the reasons that Abernethy gives. I train high kicks because if I can deliver a high kick with power, balance, and accuracy, then any _low_ kicks I deliver to an attacker will be _very_ effective indeed. It's no different from a runner training by wearing a 20 lb. pack on his or her back. S/he certainly isn't going use it in the actual race itself, right? 



DArnold said:


> Also, If you miss your focal point against a violent assailant with a hand technique, the results would be the same...
> You'll live to regret it.



Yes. And this has to do with what, exactly? 




DArnold said:


> It seems like the negatives are from those who wish to be fighters and not martial artists.



Someone who trains Goju-ryu, TKD or any other karate-based art is a martial artist to the extent that s/he is a practitioner of a martial art (Gojo-ryu, TKD, etc.) Last time I checked, that was the dictionary definition of a martial artist. A karateka or TKDist is a MAist by virtue of practicing a martial art. If you practice a martial art in such a way that what you learn is less effective in combat than some other way of practicing that art, then I'd have to say that you're a less accomplished MAist than somone who practices the more effective version. One useful thing about looking at the history of the MAs is that it's full of examples of great martial artists who were also great fighters; that is, they excelled in _fights_. Not tournament competitions, but fights. They were fighters _and_ martial artists. You're not, by any chance, suggesting that the two are mutually incompatible, are you? Because, as I say, the history of the MAs is full of people who were both. 





DArnold said:


> What there is
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> What your teacher knew
> ...



I'm sorry, DA... I haven't a clue at what these disconnected phrases are supposed to add up to. I have the impression that you may have overlooked much of this thread before posting this reply, so I'll just say that I am a big fan of kata, for reasons I've given here and in Kidswarrior's poll/thread on kata as complete fighting systems. I have the sense that you are talking to several different people here about somewhat different things... but I have to say, it's really hard to tell from your prose just what you're trying to get across.


----------



## exile (Jul 4, 2007)

foot2face said:


> I disagree with many of your comments above, Exile, but of course I do, because the conversation has become one of style rather than the usefulness of forms; and in a discussion about style, no one agrees!  Remember what you consider diluting others call refining, just ask BJJ practitioners.



I'm not talking about style. I'm talking about the difference between the combat-effective interpretation of forms&#8212;what is called realistic bunkai in connection with karat&#8212;vs. the simple block-kick-punch interpretation of these forms that Anko Itosu consciously adopted when he was trying to get Okinawan karate incorporated into the local schools, and deliberately, and explicitly, provided relatively harmless interpretations for what had been throat strikes, breaking neck-twists, and groin strikes. When you describe a  throat strike as a middle knife-hand block, or a neck twist as a lunge punch with retraction, or a groin strike as a blow to the lowered collarbone or temple, _and train these movements as the first kind of move rather than the second_, then you aren't `refining' anything, you're blunting highly effective combat moves for one reason or another. The history of karate makes it very clear that this process, which began with Itosu's `domestication' of karate for school consumption, continued when Funakoshi took karate to Japan and taught it to mass classes using kihon drills as the primary teaching tool, with little coverage of the locks, pins, sweeps and other components that were (and are) still components of the original Okinawan _te_ system devised by Matsumura and Itosu. And the process of removing the hard combat content of the forms and, e.g., teaching what Itosu deceptively called blocks as though they actually _were_ blocks, has pretty much continued unabated. In exactly what sense is this defanging of the most effective interpretations of the kata a `refinement'? You mention BJJ here, but for the life of me I can't see the relevance.



foot2face said:


> I will say this however, my master was a military combat instructor between the  Korean and Vietnam wars and he taught me to kick to the head.  You can take the advise of bouncers and doormen who believe head kicks are "suicidal," but I prefer to listen to the soldiers and LEOs who were senior BBs at my dojang.  I can also speak to my own experiences were head kick have served me very well.



Then perhaps you can explain just why it was that the military TKD that Gm. Choi and Tae Hi Nam devised and taught to the ROK troops for use in the Korean and Vietnam Wars &#8212;where it was applied with such lethal success that the VC field command directed their fighters to avoid contact with Korean troops _specifically because of their skill in Taekwondo_&#8212;contained no high kicks whatever. There's an excellent description of this version of TKD in Simon O'Neil's ninth _Combat_TKD_ newsletter, and the killing techniques he identifies are virtually all hand techniques, with knee strikes and kicks to the lower body. The point of this system, he emphasizes, was literally to kill enemy soldiers when weapons weren't available, and at the battle of Tra Binh Dong the 11th ROK Marines, in close quarters fighting, often empty-handed, left on the order of 250 NV dead and routed a much large force of NV regulars with VC support. And they didn't use high kicks for _any_ of that, because it wasn't part of the ROK military TKD training program. 

BTW, it's not me, but Iain Abernethy, a sixth dan Isshin-ryu karateka who also has had plenty of street experience, who uses the terms `suicidal' in the passage I explicitly quoted _him_ as saying. Geoff Thompson, one of the `bouncer and doorman' who you're referring to in what I've quoted above, also happens to be a 6th Dan in Shotokan karate and a 1st Dan in judo. Loren Christensen, who also cautions against high kicks in fights, hold BBs in several styles of karate as well as a BB in Arnis, and served as a member of, and combat trainer for, the Portland Oregon police department for decades; prior to that he was a member of the military police in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Their work is widely published and highly respected by martial artists interested in realistic scenario-based martial arts training. I can think of a half-dozen more guys just like them, in some cases like Lawrence Kane, and Okinawan Gojo-ryu BB who specializes in stadium security and was involved in more than 300 violent encounters in that work, who have warned, in books and articles, against using high kicks in close-quarters combat. 

But if you want to plan on using high kicks under those kinds of conditions, fine. I'm not really concerned with your choices; I'm more interested in making clear to others who are reading this thread why, whatever their value as training exercises&#8212;and they are the skill component of TKD that I train most intensely&#8212;high kicks are a big, big mistake to think of using in that bar, or parking lot, or wherever people find themselves in a dangerous situation that they wind up not being able to talk their way out of.


----------



## WMKS Shogun (Jul 4, 2007)

Exile:The statements are accompanied by the line :_____________ that gets shorter with each statement (generation) to represent knowledge being lost. 
Foot2Face: I liked your first post about the striking techniques and the anti-smothering techniques. Well put!
    As far as the general usefulness of forms/patterns training, I feel that they are invaluable and should be kept in the training of TKD. While often the applications are not taught due to an instructor's lack of knowledge, that does not mean that students cannot learn applications from continued practice and contemplation/meditation on it. Besides, there ARE instructors and masters out there who DO know good application (Hae Sul) for the forms if one knows where to look, so having a working knowledge of the forms then becomes of paramount importance. 
At some point in time it was pointed out that in a real fight one would not hold the hands a certain way before performing a downward/low block, but remember, that in many cases, the chamber is as much a part of the application as the move itself. Often, the action of chambering is a grab or hold to aid in a strike, throw, or escape, or sometimes serves to guard/cover for the body before a counter-attack. As a former wrestler, I often see more in the forms than some of my same ranked peers and even some who outrank me solely on the basis of my grappling experience and understanding throws, holds, escapes, etc. (PLEASE NOTE: I am in no way claiming to be great or a master or anything of the like). Armed with an understanding of how grabs can change a fight between strikers, a plethora of applications can be discovered for those who know how to look. (I would reccommend books by Anslow, Kane, Wilder, & Abernathy for a good start if you do not know where else to look).


----------



## exile (Jul 4, 2007)

WMKS Shogun said:


> Exile:The statements are accompanied by the line :_____________ that gets shorter with each statement (generation) to represent knowledge being lost.



Ah... gotcha! Thanks WMKS_S! I'm tempted to appeal to posting long after midnight after waking up before 7am that morning for missing that. It just made no sense when I was looking at it. Thanks for the clarification.




WMKS Shogun said:


> While often the applications are not taught due to an instructor's lack of knowledge, that does not mean that students cannot learn applications from continued practice and contemplation/meditation on it. Besides, there ARE instructors and masters out there who DO know good application (Hae Sul) for the forms if one knows where to look, so having a working knowledge of the forms then becomes of paramount importance.



Hear, hear!



WMKS Shogun said:


> At some point in time it was pointed out that in a real fight one would not hold the hands a certain way before performing a downward/low block, but remember, that in many cases, the chamber is as much a part of the application as the move itself. Often, the action of chambering is a grab or hold to aid in a strike, throw, or escape, or sometimes serves to guard/cover for the body before a counter-attack.



Yes, or the chamber _itself_ is the block, with the so-called block actally constituting part of the strike (the chambering for a `double middle knife hand block' itself correspnds to a deflection to the outside, with the apparent block corresponding perfectly to a knifehand strike to the neck). And in a down block, the chambering corresponds to either an arm pin or an elbow strike to the head (the attacker's grabbing arm being trapped and anchored by the `retraction'). 




WMKS Shogun said:


> As a former wrestler, I often see more in the forms than some of my same ranked peers and even some who outrank me solely on the basis of my grappling experience and understanding throws, holds, escapes, etc. (PLEASE NOTE: I am in no way claiming to be great or a master or anything of the like).



Great point. As Abernethy has shown in his books on _Karate's Grappling Methods_ and _Throws for Strikers_, there are all kinds of grappling techs built into the katas, hyungs and hsings of the MAs. We've just gotten so used to Itosu's deliberate obscuring of the actual combat motivation for most of the moves in the forms...




WMKS Shogun said:


> Armed with an understanding of how grabs can change a fight between strikers, a plethora of applications can be discovered for those who know how to look. (I would reccommend books by Anslow, Kane, Wilder, & Abernathy for a good start if you do not know where else to look).



All excellent choices. A very good place to start rethinking the application of even semingly simple basic kihon-type movements is Rick Clark's _75 Down Blocks_. And  Bill Burgar's _Five Years, One Kata_ is a terrific demonstration of this way of decoding forms using a single Shotokan kata, Gojushiho, which Burgar studied in depth for a five year period. 

Very nice post!


----------



## foot2face (Jul 4, 2007)

A  mistake you keep making, Exile, is that you continue to reference Japanese experts and Okinawan MAs.  This is the TKD board. TKD is a Korean MA developed by Korean MAists, it may have roots in Japanese karate but has become its own distinct fighting system with different philosophies and methods. Once the conversation turns to the merits  of various methodologies, it has in fact become a discussion of style. 

Although the experts you mentioned have impressive credentials, it doses not impress me that none of them advocate the use of head kicks, because non of them come from systems that teach them.

In regards to the killing techniques you spoke of.  I am not familiar with Mr. O'Niel or his article but perhaps he censored himself which MAist often do when dealing with the more gruesome aspects of their system just as the ones you mentioned earlier. It can also be that you simply misunderstood him,  but I met men who were there and they spoke of these techniques.  They were done on an already beaten and unconscious opponent, usually one who went down by a kick to the head. This is a morbid detail often omitted due to its unsporting appearance.  In a previous post I discussed the merits of eye gouges and groin rips.  Though effective their not decisive, as long as a man maintains consciousness he maintains the ability to harm you.  In war the terms are far more severe, if a man is still alive he can kill you.  You may beat him and knock him unconscious but if you don't finish him, in a few minutes he'll recover, grab a rifle and plug you and your buddy in the chest from 200 meters off.  So killing techniques were added to a system that was already adept at knocking opponents unconscious.  You would simply role the limp body of your opponent over on its back and deliver a hard knife hand strike to the throat or use various other finishing technique including the neck twist you mentioned. 

Please stop speaking down to me as if I were a 12 year old tournament bunny who has no experience beyond what I have seen  on the Power Rangers.  You can not convince me that head kick do not  work.  I and others I have trained with have used them in very dangerous situations and I have full faith in their effectiveness.  You must understand, just because you can't do it dose not mean it can not be done!


----------



## exile (Jul 4, 2007)

foot2face said:


> A  mistake you keep making, Exile, is that you continue to reference Japanese experts and Okinawan MAs.  This is the TKD board. TKD is a Korean MA developed by Korean MAists, it may have roots in Japanese karate but has become its own distinct fighting system with different philosophies and methods. Once the conversation turns to the merits  of various methodologies, it has in fact become a discussion of style.



A killing or incapacitating strike is what it is because of biomechanics, not æsthetics or signature idiosyncrasies or anything else. A backflip doesn't become an effective fighting technique simply because it becomes part of some MA's `style'. 



foot2face said:


> Although the experts you mentioned have impressive credentials, it doses not impress me that none of them advocate the use of head kicks, because non of them come from systems that teach them.



And the systems that do not teach them do not teach them because they are risky and their effect is far better implemented with elbow strikes to the face, forearm strikes to the throat and so on. The logic you're using here, so far as I can tell, is the same as someone who says that automobile engineers who do not advocate use of rubberband powered engines do not impress you, because they do not work for automobile companies which have utilized rubberband driven engines. Well, of course, if they _had_ good reason to think that such engines were inferior to internal combustion engines, then they _wouldn't_ advocate the former, right? What you should be asking is, _why_ do they exclude high kicks from their system?



foot2face said:


> In regards to the killing techniques you spoke of.  I am not familiar with Mr. O'Niel or his article



Yes. I gathered this.



foot2face said:


> but perhaps he censored himself which MAist often do when dealing with the more gruesome aspects of their system just as the ones you mentioned earlier. It can also be that you simply misunderstood him,



Well, foot2face, you read the following and you tell me if Mr. O'Neil is censoring himself because of squeamishness about the `gruesome' aspects of their system:

_Open-hand throat attacks are also extremely common in the [Chang Hon] patterns, generally taking the form of knifehand strikes.  A well delivered blow to the fron to the front of the throat will crush the trachea, killing the recipient... a blow to the side of the neck using the edge of the hand can be a knockout technique due to its effect on the vagus nerve and the carotid sinus. A descending attack to the collarbone can easily snap it, leaving the victim in considerable pain and lacking the use of his arms....One of the most effective ways to kill a human being, well used in combat grappling systems all over the world, is to break the neck. This is usually done by twisting it beyond its natural range around the vertical axis, although a sharp rotation around the horizontal axis can also be successful, also leaving the throat open for a strike. There are several techniques in the Chang Hon hyungs in which both hands are raised to head height before sharply changing position. These movements often indicate neck breaks....

A number of secondary techniques are used to support the main methods. These include groin maimers, guaranteed to leave a man incapacitated; eye jabs, at least disconcerting, at best highly traumatics; foot and knee stamps&#8212;again either painful or crippling, depending on the contact made; and basic throws, particularly those that dump the recipient on his head._​
Self-censoring? :wink1:

BTW, throughout his whole series of essays in the _Combat TKD_ newletter, and in the article that Mr. O'Neil wrote for a 2005 issue of _Taekwondo Times_, he discusses the role of what he calls `simple kicks': front and side kicks aimed at the midbody or lower. In connection with General Choi's curriculum for the ROK infantry and special commando units (the Black Tiger and White Tiger squadrons formed for advanced field operations, aka silent killing and sabotage, in the Korean and Vietnam wars respectively), he comments that 

_Simple kicks, particularly the front and side kicks, are devastating weapons, particularly with the added weight and hardness of military boots.​_​
In  connection with high, tournament-format kicking techniques such as the high kicks you seem to be seriously advocating as tools in the chaotic close-range conditions of a streetfight, O'Neil observes in one of his essays, `Taekwondo as a kicking art', that

_One of the ways in which Taekwondo was made to look less like Japanese karate was to take advantage of the wealth of native Korean kicking technique, and to emphasize this aspect within the existing framework. With time, kicking grew in importance in competition Taekwondo and featured more heavily heavily in the hyungs and poomses than in the older patterns. As a result of the growing popularity of the tournament sport in particular, a large part of regular training is taken up by kicking drills and physical conditioning to enhance kicking ability. This tendency has continued in the last 20 year or to to such an extent that Taekwondo&#8212;particularly the WTF variety, but also the ITF&#8212;could be said to have moved way from its origins as a self-defense system to become closer to Taekyon, the tournament activity in which contestants attempted to knock each other down with kicks. *Taekwondo's undeniable progress as an international sporting and artistic phenomenon has meant the inevitable loss of a significant part of its original practical self-defense content. One of COMBAT-TKD's principal goals is the recovery of this lost tradition....*​_​
I'm not sure how much plainer this could be stated. But if you like, you're free of course to assume that I've been misinterpeting Mr. O'Neil's fairly constant reminders to avoid any but the most simple low-target kicking techs. 



foot2face said:


> but I met men who were there and they spoke of these techniques.  They were done on an already beaten and unconscious opponent, usually one who went down by a kick to the head. This is a morbid detail often omitted due to its unsporting appearance.  In a previous post I discussed the merits of eye gouges and groin rips.  Though effective their not decisive, as long as a man maintains consciousness he maintains the ability to harm you.  In war the terms are far more severe, if a man is still alive he can kill you.  You may beat him and knock him unconscious but if you don't finish him, in a few minutes he'll recover, grab a rifle and plug you and your buddy in the chest from 200 meters off.  So killing techniques were added to a system that was already adept at knocking opponents unconscious.  You would simply role the limp body of your opponent over on its back and deliver a hard knife hand strike to the throat or use various other finishing technique including the neck twist you mentioned.
> 
> Please stop speaking down to me as if I were a 12 year old tournament bunny who has no experience beyond what I have seen  on the Power Rangers.  You can not convince me that head kick do not  work.



I think you misunderstand me, foot2face. I am not really interested in convincing you of anything; I'm concerned with the logic and practical content of your arguments, in terms of what people who read this thread will conclude. If in the course of a street assault by somone who's done that sort of thing for a long time on dozens of victims you decide to defend yourself with a high kick to the head, that's your choice entirely, and I really wouldn't attempt to dissuade you&#8212;what happens to you doesn't affect me, after all. 



foot2face said:


> I and others I have trained with have used them in very dangerous situations and I have full faith in their effectiveness.  You must understand, just because you can't do it dose not mean it can not be done!



As I say, if you want to go ahead and try to use kicks to the head in a bar fight, or a similar altercation, I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you&#8212;just as I wouldn't try to dissuade someone who was convinced that backflips, or a 720º flying back kick, or a triple toe loop sans ice skates, was the right thing to do in a CQ encounter with a skinhead brawler.


----------



## WMKS Shogun (Jul 4, 2007)

Foot2Face, 
     I think part of the reason that Exile cites karate people in his posts for the applications of and effectiveness of both head level kicks and forms is because it is what he knows best. Personally, while I teach/train in Tae Kwon Do, in an altercation, I would likely resort to low and mid-level kicks and high and mid-level strikes UNTIL I had them dazed enough to possibly finish with a head kick or similar technique, though in my case, since I am short and have short legs, it only makes since. I must be practically in punching range to get my leg close enough to perform a head level kick, so it does me little good to head kick from the beginning. 
 Also, many of the authors cited are karate people, but only because there have not been many instructors in Tae Kwon Do who have written about the applications of forms to the depth of their karate counterparts. Staurt Anslow has written a book on the ITF's Chang Hon forms (chon-ji forms), and I know of a few books about the Taeguk forms (though the authors' names leave me at the moment) but compared to the number of books covering kata applications Tae Kwon Do is somewhat lacking. 
Foot2Face says head kicks are effective in street encounters, Exile says they are not. Remember though, it is the artist, not the art. There are some who can probably make head kicks work in the street, and there surely are those who would get themselves into trouble trying that tactic. Can we leave it at that?


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 4, 2007)

> Also, many of the authors cited are karate people, but only because there have not been many instructors in Tae Kwon Do who have written about the applications of forms to the depth of their karate counterparts. Staurt Anslow has written a book on the ITF's Chang Hon forms (chon-ji forms), and I know of a few books about the Taeguk forms (though the authors' names leave me at the moment) but compared to the number of books covering kata applications Tae Kwon Do is somewhat lacking.



To be honest though, anyone who has studied both the Chang Hon forms and the Shotokan Heian forms knows where General Choi got most of his inspiration from.  The good general lifted many moves verbatim from the Heians.  It's not unreasonable to use the karate bunkai to interpret the Chang Hon forms, the desire for TKD to come out of karate's shadow notwithstanding.

I realize kick2face's teacher and seniors have said high kicks were part of the ROK soldiers' repetoire in the Vietnam war.  I, like Exile, have a different understanding, but it's not like I was there myself, so I ultimately am relying on what I have read and heard from others.  There's a Black Belt magazine article within the last year where Hee Il Cho himself states the jumping and spinning kicks were added recently (certainly post-fifties) to TKD.  I don't have the magazine anymore else I would quote it directly.


----------



## exile (Jul 5, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> To be honest though, anyone who has studied both the Chang Hon forms and the Shotokan Heian forms knows where General Choi got most of his inspiration from.  The good general lifted many moves verbatim from the Heians.  It's not unreasonable to use the karate bunkai to interpret the Chang Hon forms, the desire for TKD to come out of karate's shadow notwithstanding.
> 
> I realize kick2face's teacher and seniors have said high kicks were part of the ROK soldiers' repetoire in the Vietnam war.  I, like Exile, have a different understanding, but it's not like I was there myself, so I ultimately am relying on what I have read and heard from others.  There's a Black Belt magazine article within the last year where Hee Il Cho himself states the jumping and spinning kicks were added recently (certainly post-fifties) to TKD.  I don't have the magazine anymore else I would quote it directly.



I saw that same article too, stoneheart, and many others have noted the same thing. What's interesting is that, as Abernethy observes, high head kicks have made their way into the karate curriculum as a direct result of the pressure for flashy acrobatics in karate tournaments (a process of turning combat systems into combat sports and then combat sports into combat spectacles, something which we're now seeing with the XMA phenomenon, and which, as Flying Crane has posted about before, had actually overtaken CMAs in the form of acrobatic wushu, with the enthusiastic collaboration of the Chinese governement). Success as a spectator sport depends on athletically impressive moves of this kind, so that what TKD has experienced in its evolution into an Olympic sport is now begining to affect karate. And interestingly, I've notice a lot of hand-wringing (including posts on this forum, and in the karate literature) about the prospect that the regearing of karate curricula for sports rather than SD application will lead to a loss of credibility for karate as a combat-effective fighting system comparable to what TKD has undergone. The TKD that I do is much more like Shotokan karate than it is like WTF/KKW sparring-oriented TKD, but I still wince a little when I hear things like that being said...

The fact is that karate kata were the Okinawan masters' `living notebook' of what techs worked in the fairly nasty place that 19th century Shuri was. And Matsumura had particular reason to be be concerned with effectiveness; there is good reason to believe that he was the King of Okinawa's security chief, something like his chief bodyguard. It's also been suggested that Itosu, who worked under him at the palace of the last King of Okinawa, also had security/protection responsibilities. Under the circumstances, they had to be concerned primarily with combat effectiveness. There's a _reason_ why the classic Okinawan and later the Japanese kata included _no_ high kicks, and why the height of kicks in hyung performance has risen dramatically from the time when hyung competition in became a fixture of international tournaments...


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 5, 2007)

> What's interesting is that, as Abernethy observes, high head kicks have made their way into the karate curriculum as a direct result of the pressure for flashy acrobatics in karate tournaments (a process of turning combat systems into combat sports and then combat sports into combat spectacles, something which we're now seeing with the XMA phenomenon, and which, as Flying Crane has posted about before, had actually overtaken CMAs in the form of acrobatic wushu, with the enthusiastic collaboration of the Chinese governement).



Well, I'm a bit embarassed to admit I'm part of that phenomenon.  I have a small nonprofit school I inherited from the previous instructor.  He taught "shorin-ryu" karate, but his drills obviously drew a lot from the Korean systems, since they had crescent kicks and spinning back kicks in them.  I briefly tried to introduce more authentic material (kotekitae & makiwara practice among them)  into the class, but the students were really more happy with the system as it was.  I'm going with the flow right now and I'm explaining the differences to the students as they come up.  At some point, I'd like to transition to the taekwondo name and TKD forms since it is a more accurate representation of what the class is than shorin-ryu karate.


----------



## exile (Jul 5, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> Well, I'm a bit embarassed to admit I'm part of that phenomenon.  I have a small nonprofit school I inherited from the previous instructor.  He taught "shorin-ryu" karate, but his drills obviously drew a lot from the Korean systems, since they had crescent kicks and spinning back kicks in them.  I briefly tried to introduce more authentic material (kotekitae & makiwara practice among them)  into the class, but the students were really more happy with the system as it was.  I'm going with the flow right now and I'm explaining the differences to the students as they come up.  At some point, I'd like to transition to the taekwondo name and TKD forms since it is a more accurate representation of what the class is than shorin-ryu karate.



No need to be embarrassed, stoneheartif the practical application is taught in a realistic and responsible way, I actually see nothing wrong with teaching people high kicking; I drill high kicks more than any other individual TKD tech just because they put such terrific stress on balance and strength (particular in the hip flexors). If you can deliver a first class, controlled, accurate high kick in good balance to an arbitrary point on a heavy bag, you're going to have really devastating _practical_ kicking skills for the low-target techs that the original karate and Kwan-era TKD hyungs referred to. The trick is ensuring that people know when to use what. I think that _that's_ the particular argument that IA and others of that bunkai-jutsu group have with the way high kicks are used in the karate curriculum...


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 5, 2007)

It's not the kicking practice I'm sheepish about.  I'm a stickler for using the right terminology when I can, so I feel a bit weird about teaching a shorin-ryu class that's really a TKD class.    Obviously I have no axe to grind with TKD myself.  It's a fine system although we (the figurative we) can and do argue all day about it.

Good night.  I've enjoyed the discussion thus far.


----------



## foot2face (Jul 5, 2007)

exile said:


> A killing or incapacitating strike is what it is because of biomechanics, not æsthetics or signature idiosyncrasies or anything else. A backflip doesn't become an effective fighting technique simply because it becomes part of some MA's `style'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Gentlemen, we have a disagreement! One thing I think we can agree upon, howerver, is that TKD is somewhat of a generic term similar to karate or kung fu.  It is obvious by your previous post that you have an ITF lineage which I understand has strong ties to shotokan.  I am not an ITF man and not beholden to Japanese dogma.  The system I studied is governed by different philosophies and principles, not more or less effective, just different.

In regards to the excerpts from Mr. O'Neil article.  The open-hand throat attack is precisely the technique I referred to in my earlier reply.  This is a precision technique that must be executed exactly, especially if the intention is to kill(or all the students who have been accidentally struck in the throat would have died) this is significantly easier to do if your target is lying helpless in front of you.  The article also mentions breaking the collarbone.  The collarbone is fairly sturdy and not easily broken, especially in a standing target who would collapse downward, negating much of the force from the blow. It is much easier to accomplish if the target is motionless on his back with the ground bracing him below.  The neck twist can also be found in Koryo form.  It is often described as a groin tear hammer fist combo.  You lunge forward (as you would when executing a front stance) over your target who is lying face down. Sitting on the upper back in order to gain leverage and stabilize the target, you continue the technique.  The low upward-facing spear hand is the means by which you reach under the chin, grabbing the opposite side jaw. The chambered hammer fist is where you grab the hair. The simultaneous spear hand retraction and hammer fist strike is in fact the neck twist.  The technique I just described requires a sure grip and a good bit of leverage and would be exceedingly difficult to execute on a conscious opponent who is resisting your every move.  We may disagree on the merits of high kicks in TKD but I think that we can agree that TKDist of any style generally lacks the extensive grappling skill need to immobilize and execute such an advance maneuver as a neck break on an opponent who is fighting back. Did Mr. O'Neil censor himself when he wrote of those killing techniques, perhaps not, but maybe those who taught him, did.  It is one thing to kill you enemy on the battlefield while engaged in desperate hand to hand combat, such images are often glorified.  It is a completely different thing, howerver, to mutilated the body of an unconscious and utterly helpless man. It is an image that many may find distasteful and nowhere near as heroic, never the less this is an ugly reality of war and the men who did such things may feel reluctant to speak of them.   

Why must you imply that simply because I am an advocate of head kick that I must be one of those 720º flying back kickers, I made no such inference.  The methods I use to land my head kicks are practical, I just don't run up to a guy, spinning with my feet in the air like a dancer.  My head kicks are often setup with low body kicks compromising my opponent by knocking them off balance, causing them to double over, to drop their hands or to wince in pain.  The head kick is then delivered usually from an awkward(for my opponent, not me) angle.  I prefer to use head kicks because I am a believer in the principle of "combat accuracy," which sates that in the random chaos of combat it is more effective to deliver excessive force to a general area than less force to a precise location.  It has been my experience as well as the experience of the men I have trained with and learned from that head kicks deliver force far above the threshold required to render someone unconscious.  I don't have to hit then on the temple from an exact angle, it doesn't have to land right between the eyes or on the point of the chin. Any solid contact and they drop.

I hope this helps clear things up and settles our differences.

Respectfully,  Foot2Face


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jul 6, 2007)

foot2face said:


> Why must you imply that simply because I am an advocate of head kick that I must be one of those 720º flying back kickers, I made no such inference. The methods I use to land my head kicks are practical, I just don't run up to a guy, spinning with my feet in the air like a dancer. My head kicks are often setup with low body kicks compromising my opponent by knocking them off balance, causing them to double over, to drop their hands or to wince in pain. The head kick is then delivered usually from an awkward(for my opponent, not me) angle.


 
What your describing is not the high kick that exile spoke about that sparked the disagreement here.  If your opponent is on his knees or off balance a kick to the head will be about a waist level kick at most unless your opponent is 9 foot tall.  NOT A HIGH KICK!!  What exile was speaking about was the overemphasis in modern TKD sparring on kicking high to the head on a standing opponent.  I have to agree with exile that trying to execute a high kick to the head on the street is very risky because it leaves your groin open and makes you easy to bring to the ground.  Matter of fact, my opinion is that any kick delivered above knee level requires a proper set up and the higher the kick the more you have to set it up.

In response to some of your previous posts where you claimed Japanese and Okinawan Kempo lineages do not train high kicks.  You are 100% wrong.  Okinawan and Japanese Kempo do train high kicks but mostly for developing strength, flexibility, and balance in order to make the low kicks more effective.

_Don Flatt


----------



## foot2face (Jul 6, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> What your describing is not the high kick that exile spoke about that sparked the disagreement here. If your opponent is on his knees or off balance a kick to the head will be about a waist level kick at most unless your opponent is 9 foot tall. NOT A HIGH KICK!! What exile was speaking about was the overemphasis in modern TKD sparring on kicking high to the head on a standing opponent. I have to agree with exile that trying to execute a high kick to the head on the street is very risky because it leaves your groin open and makes you easy to bring to the ground. Matter of fact, my opinion is that any kick delivered above knee level requires a proper set up and the higher the kick the more you have to set it up.
> 
> In response to some of your previous posts where you claimed Japanese and Okinawan Kempo lineages do not train high kicks. You are 100% wrong. Okinawan and Japanese Kempo do train high kicks but mostly for developing strength, flexibility, and balance in order to make the low kicks more effective.
> 
> _Don Flatt


 
When I say high kick I mean high kick.  Just because I kick a man in the groin or sweep at his leg, doesn't mean he is going to instantly drop to his Knees.  I have to take advantage of his compromised state and kick his head where ever it may be.  

In regards to Okinawan and Japanese Kempo and training high kicks, you made my point for me.  When I speak of training hick kicks I am not talking about just developing strength, flexibility and balance but the cultivation of skill and practical knowledge  for the explicit goal of kicking someone in the head.


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jul 6, 2007)

*CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLOW FOR KICKING HIGH TO THE HEAD*

It's really quite obvious that if you offset a man's balance, cause him to double over, or drop him to the ground makes it easy to deliver a powerful finishing kick to the head.  But then again it's not really a high kick then is it??  And we all know if it's not a high kick to the head it just doesn't look as cool so I will outline some circumstances that will allow you to deliver that ultimate kick to the head finish!!

*1. Fight someone else who is also trying to kick high to the head.*  They will definitely be hanging back at the right range and you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.  Just hope your kicking is better than theirs.

*2. Become a world class grappler so that people will be weary of getting too close to you then surprise them with that flashy high kick finish you've been working on.*  They will definitely be hanging back at the right range and you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.

*3. You are Chuck Norris.*  The mere sight of your beard will cause them to hang back at the right range and you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.

*4.  Fake them out.  Use hand gestures.  Kick them in the legs a few times so they think the high kick is gonna be to the legs.  Make a funny face.*  Whatever it takes to keep them hanging back at the right range so you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.

*5.  Your opponent is drunk.*  This will make it easier to put them at the right range and you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.  (As long as they're drunk and you're not, you should have time for your high kick to the head.)

*6.  Your opponents back is turned.*  You could get a friend to tap their shoulder, run into another room and hide behind a door, or pay some hot girl to call their name at the right time.  Make sure they're at the right range and you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.

*7. Use a throw, a takedown, or some pesky hand techniques to get them down to the ground then wait for them to get back up and as soon as they do--- Kick them high to the head!!!* This way you won't have to worry about those pesky throws, takedowns, or hand techniques.

Thus ends my public service announcement.

_Don Flatt


----------



## foot2face (Jul 6, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> *CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLOW FOR KICKING HIGH TO THE HEAD*
> 
> It's really quite obvious that if you offset a man's balance, cause him to double over, or drop him to the ground makes it easy to deliver a powerful finishing kick to the head. But then again it's not really a high kick then is it?? And we all know if it's not a high kick to the head it just doesn't look as cool so I will outline some circumstances that will allow you to deliver that ultimate kick to the head finish!!
> 
> ...


 
Whats with all the acrimony? I never insulted anyone's technique or questioned the effectiveness of their style.  I simply related the methods I apply and that have worked for me.  I am not an old fogy but I have been around the block more than once and one of the lessons I've learned was that every style works, if applied correctly.  I would never dream of speaking about the meathods of an other fighter in such a definativly negative manner as you, especially if we are not standing face to face.
Your post only exposes your inexperience and the insecurities you have about your methods, not the ineffectiveness of mine.

I said it before and I'll say it again.  Just because you or the people around you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2007)

foot2face said:


> Whats with all the acrimony? I never insulted anyone's technique or questioned the effectiveness of their style. I simply related the methods I apply and that have worked for me. I am not an old fogy but I have been around the block more than once and one of the lessons I've learned was that every style works, if applied correctly. I would never dream of speaking about the meathods of an other fighter in such a definativly negative manner as you, especially if we are not standing face to face.
> Your post only exposes your inexperience and the insecurities you have about your methods, not the ineffectiveness of mine.
> 
> I said it before and I'll say it again. Just because you or the people around you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done!


 
I'll just add my own comment here, I've not really taken part in this discussion but have kept an eye on it.  First, I certainly believe that kata, when done well, when understood properly, is very very important and useful.  I also understand why many people don't like them.  

As to high kicks, I think most people believe that they have too many inherent dangers to make them reliable.  It's true, they can certainly work for someone who is skilled with them.  But for most people, reaching that level of skill and confidence with them is beyond their reach.  They may practice them, may use them in sparring, but on the street, feel their efforts have better chances elsewhere.  But this doesn't mean that they won't work for someone who has developed the necessary skill and confidence in them.  I think it is safe to say that they are a riskier technique than many others.  But that doesn't mean they cannot work.


----------



## exile (Jul 6, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> In response to some of your previous posts where you claimed Japanese and Okinawan Kempo lineages do not train high kicks.  You are 100% wrong.  Okinawan and Japanese Kempo do train high kicks but mostly for developing strength, flexibility, and balance in order to make the low kicks more effective.
> 
> _Don Flatt





foot2face said:


> In regards to Okinawan and Japanese Kempo and training high kicks, you made my point for me.  When I speak of training hick kicks I am not talking about just developing strength, flexibility and balance but the cultivation of skill and practical knowledge  for the explicit goal of kicking someone in the head.




I'm going to invite readers of this thread to walk through the logic here with me for a little bit. Kosho is pointing out to f2f that f2f's claimthat O/J MAists can't be trusted to formulate reliable judgments about high kicks is unsound because they don't know how to do themis without foundation, because O/J MAist do train high kicks. They just don't use them because they view them, along with a large majority of MAists, including plenty of TKDists who are quite good at them but wouldn't dream of using them in a streetfight, as absolutely hopeless in such a fight. F2F's mysterious reply is that 'In regards to Okinawan and Japanese Kempo and training high kicks, you made my point for me.' Well, if the O/J MAists know how to do these kicks, and therefore know what it takes to do them, isn't their reluctance to build them into their CQ self-defense curricula then a reflection of their judgment that it is a _mistake_ to try to train these high kicking techs for serious combat use? Just as Gen. Choi, who used the basic sets of Chang Hon kata, which did not contain any high kicks at all, as the curriculum for the RoK military in two wars to train the lethal battlefield TKD, left them out of the curriculum? And just as innumerable karateka who also happen to confront serious violence professionally (some of whom I've alluded to in previous posts) have also dismissed high kicks for what Geoff Thompson calls `the pavement arena'; see also the work of Peyton Quinn (the article at http://www.rmcat.com/morePQarticles.html#itb gives a snapshot of his views on MAs, including his dismissal of the practicality of kicks above the waist), creator of the Rocky Mountain Combat Applications system, author of _REAL FIGHTING: Adrenal Stress Conditioning Through Scenario Based Training_, and America's closest analogue to the UK's Geoff Thompson. _In what sense has Kosho `made' f2f's point for him?_ All that follows from Kosho's post, again, is that people with trained expertise in the technique of high kicking do not view it as a useful, safe CQ defensive tech, since otherwise, possessing as they do the ability to use it, they _would_. I'm baffled by f2f's logic here, as I have been throughout this thread, but, well, what can you say?



foot2face said:


> Your post only exposes your inexperience and the insecurities you have about your methods, not the ineffectiveness of mine.



Now bear in mind, this is coming out of the (electronic) mouth of someone who in the very same paragraph asks, `Whats with all the acrimony?
The content of the following material I've posted indicates that unlike Kosho, f2f is quite happy to attribute to a fellow member of MT  both insecurity and lack of knowledge, which by any definition are negative and even derogatory characterizations of Kosho's mental/emotional properties. Putting it more plainly, these are personal attacks which f2f is in no position to make: how on earth can he or anyone judge whether someone is insecure based on that other person's considered assessment of a particular MA techniquean assessment which the overwhelming majority of experts on close quarters combat and realistic combat training support? People like Thompson, Quinn and the high dans in the British Combat Association repeatedly advise strongly against high kicks. They are professionals in both realistic MA application and systematic violence and have been in the business for decades in many cases. And we're supposed to believe that these guys are opposed to high head kicks because they're inexperienced and insecure about their methods?? :lol: Issues of rudeness aside, the use of language like this doesn't do much to enhance the credibilty of any `argument' that has to resort to statements whose silliness becomes apparent so quickly.




Kosho Gakkusei said:


> I said it before and I'll say it again.  Just because you or the people around you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done!



True, f2f has said it before and is saying it again. But unless you also accept the thinking of the Bellman in Lewis Carroll's _The Hunting of the Snark_`what I tell you three times is true!'the repetition doesn't add anything to the very dubious arguments he's presented to date. I'd suggest that anyone interested in the topic look at the first half of Chapter 6, `Kicking Techniques', in _Becoming a Complete Martial Artist: Error Detection in Self-Defense_, by Tristan Sutrisno and Marc MacYoung, which shatters, using realistic combat success criteria, any shred of crediblity that anyone might claim for high kicking in violent street conflicts. MacYoung, btw, is another self-defense systems expert, MAist (primarily karate and Wing Chun, but years of boxing experience as well) who trains LEO and military personnel in H2H combat techs for a living, along with writing books on realistic self defense approachessomeone else who is _probably_ neither inexperienced or insecure about his methods. :wink1:


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jul 6, 2007)

foot2face said:


> Whats with all the acrimony? I never insulted anyone's technique or questioned the effectiveness of their style. I simply related the methods I apply and that have worked for me. I am not an old fogy but I have been around the block more than once and one of the lessons I've learned was that every style works, if applied correctly. I would never dream of speaking about the meathods of an other fighter in such a definativly negative manner as you, especially if we are not standing face to face.
> Your post only exposes your inexperience and the insecurities you have about your methods, not the ineffectiveness of mine.
> 
> I said it before and I'll say it again. Just because you or the people around you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done!


 
No acrimony is intended.  I'm not even sure of the definition of acrimony but judging from the context of your response, I was making a point with humor.  I'm sorry you did not find it funny.  We must not only use a different approach to fighting but also humor.  My last post was for those of you that will enjoy the wit.

Stating my opinion without the wit.  Successful use of a high kick not only requires the appropriate training to do so ie. flexibility, balance, power, speed, & timing but also requires an appropriate set up to work.  The range of the move is very particular and the movement is easily jammed in chamber.

Can it work? Yes, depends on the skill level of both parties.  You have a "kicker's chance" which is slightly worse odds than a "puncher's chance."  Strategically, I would veiw it as slightly inferior to seeking a one punch knockout.  Reason being is that it takes longer to throw a kick to the head than it takes to throw a punch to the head and it also takes longer to retract a kick than it takes to retract a punch.  Additionally, being on one foot temporarily makes you immobile.  My preference is maintaining mobility and utilizing combinations.

Let me relate a relevant story.  As a concrete dispatcher, I interact with some interesting truckers.  One such is an aging biker appropriately nicknamed "Chopper".  Chopper is only 5'8" but has shoulders over 3' wide and is built like a tank.  He related an occaison when a "Black Belt from Red Dragon Karate" started a fight with him in a biker bar.  According to Chopper, the black belt kicked him in the head a few times.  Chopper then showed me a permanent egg he had on his shaved head from the incident.  I asked him what happened next and he told me that he got mad and put the black belt in the hospital as well as some of the other "black belts" that had tried to jump in to help their friend.

_Don Flatt


----------



## exile (Jul 6, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> No acrimony is intended.  I'm not even sure of the definition of acrimony but judging from the context of your response, I was making a point with humor.  I'm sorry you did not find it funny.  We must not only use a different approach to fighting but also humor.  My last post was for those of you that will enjoy the wit.
> 
> Stating my opinion without the wit.  Successful use of a high kick not only requires the appropriate training to do so ie. flexibility, balance, power, speed, & timing but also requires an appropriate set up to work.  The range of the move is very particular and the movement is easily jammed in chamber.
> 
> ...



Don, I think you can go a little further.

People who make it their business to study such things, like Patrick McCarthy, who's compiled a list of the `habitual acts of violence' which initate a fight, have noted that unlike tournament sparring distances, which typically involve 810 feet of separation between the participants, a streetfight is normally initiated when no more than a single foot of distance separates the participants. Let's assume your target is 6' tall and you're equally tall, so that your leg is something like 4' long. Then very basic trigonometry tells you that the angle between your two legs when you tag them in the head will be be just a shade under 170º. In other words, all you would-be head-kicking street-fight defenders out there had better be able to do the splits_standing!!!_ because that's pretty much what you have  to do, apparently. That's hard enough in the ideal case when the surface is dojang-secure and you don't have a ton of obstructing crap in the physical environment. To be a bit more realistic, add those factors in as well. And then you get some idea why people like Loren Christensen, Geoff Thompson, Petyton Quinn, Marc MacYoung and Iain Abernethyguys with well over a _century_ of collective experience at applying SD techs from the karate-based arts to violent conflicts on mean streetsadvise you not to even think about using high head kicks in a real street assault situation. 

And yes, I've heard the `it's not the art, it's the practitioner' argument before, I've _used_ it myself in enough of these pointless art-X-beats-art-Y arguments that seem to dog us, even on MT. But strictly speaking, that line is inapplicable to the current discussion, which is not whether the art itself is able to defeat some other art in a fight (obviously an absurb claim, regardless of what the arts in question are). The current discussion is, is some technique from a given art practical in a real-time do-or-die survival situation? And if you say, well, it is, if the practitioner can do it, then you have to ask, OK, what would a practitioner reliably have to do to _make_ it practical? In an objective, engineering sense: what are the physical constraints that would be involvedthe hoops you would have to jump through? This is of course what I was getting at in earlier posts about the idiocy of trying to use a 720º flying back kick in a streetfight: sure, you can say in this case just what you can say for a high head kickit's not the technique per se, it's the practitioner. But exactly what would a practitioner have to be able to do, reliably, to make such a double-rotation flying back kick usable in a realistic situation, not a staged dojang demo?

The answer to this question in the case of the high head kick is pretty clear: you would have to be able to execute a standing split while maintaining balance on an irregular surface with masses of interfering stuff in the environment, half of which or more you won't be able to see once the adrenaline dump hits you and you start developing one or another degree of tunnel vision. Are _you_ the MAist who can do that? Can even years of training make you that MAist? Given the facts that  (i) the brutally effective techs recoverable from katas and hyungs allow you to incapacitate on attacker (or worse) under the same bad conditions far more reliably and safely without any kicks higher than the waist, and that (ii) only a minute fraction of MAists with the inherent genetic capacities to do what high kicks require are going to be able to execute such techs reliablyor even once by dumb luck!why are we even _having_ this discussion??


----------



## foot2face (Jul 6, 2007)

Exile, are you trying to learn to fight from a book like Daniel at the beginning of _The Karate Kid_?  You keep referencing books written by who knows who.  Don't you have any of you own experiences or at least the experiences of the people you supposedly train with to relate?  Never the less, you should be proud of your extensive book collection, you are obviously well read.

I was looking forward to a friendly discussion, but you don't want to hear what I have to say, just criticize it.
I am disappointed that this debate was not predictive, but that's the way things are with some people.


----------



## exile (Jul 6, 2007)

foot2face said:


> Exile, are you trying to learn to fight from a book like Daniel at the beginning of _The Karate Kid_?  You keep referencing books written by who knows who.  Don't you have any of you own experiences or at least the experiences of the people you supposedly train with to relate?  Never the less, you should be proud of your extensive book collection, you are obviously well read.



I'm sorry, f2f, but instead of answering a question with a question, what you should be doing is responding to the points I raised in my last post. Or some of them. Or even _one_ of them.

In answer to your question... I really hate to do this&#8212;I was involved in street violence in NYC during the 10 years I lived there that involved use of every weapon from my feet and hands to a K-55 single-edge lock-blade, a motorcycle chain I had rigged up as a belt and wore every day for years, and a car antennae that I opportunistically borrowed to deal with an assailant who was, let's say, distressed by his contact with it. Strictly speaking, none this is any of your business, and it's also irrelevant to the question. In my last post I mentioned some very good reasons why high kicks in a streetfight are a rotten idea for all but a few percent of MA practitioners. I notice you haven't said one thing in reply except to note that I'm well-read. Exactly what do you think an objective reader of this thread is going to conclude from this pattern of responses?



foot2face said:


> I was looking forward to a friendly discussion, but you don't want to hear what I have to say, just criticize it.



I did hear what you had to say, f2f, and it was on the basis of the _content_ that you have to say that I was criticizing it. You seem to be operating with the implicit assumption that there's something to be said for every point of view. And what I'm saying is, having heard what you have to say, I see absolutely nothing _right_ about it. We're not arguing æsthetics. I'm applying a standard of logic and respect for the facts to your arguments and finding them essentially empty, nothing but an endless repetition of the assertion that high kicks can work if you can make them work. As I noted above the same is true for flying back kicks and every single XMA circus trick Matt Mullins has ever performed with his troupe... sorry, _performance team_. It's also true that throwing 315lb weighted barbells at an assailant works if you can make it work; in fact, _X works if you can make X work_ is true no matter what X is. But all that means is that that argument has no content. _If X is true, then X_ is true is not particularly informative. 



			
				foot2face said:
			
		

> I am disappointed that this debate was not predictive, but that's the way things are with some people.



It actually _was_ predictive, f2f: it predicts that if you try to use high kicks against an experienced assailant attacking you from a foot or so away, you're going to get your clock cleaned.

And if you meant to write `productive' instead, well, there again we part company. The fact that so little substance has been forthcoming in defense of high kicks is informative and pertinent to a judgment on high kicks, wouldn't you say? I'm sorry you think that when you make a claim about something, that claim doesn't have to pass critical scrutiny, but things are otherwise. If you try to argue that a heavier object falls faster in a vacuum than a lighter object, you're also going to get an argument from me of the same kind. I don't think having a friendly discussion precludes subjecting some set of claims from one or another of the discussants to serious scrutiny and finding it both inherently deficient and inadequately argued. The term `friendly' doesn't entail `uncritical'.

 It does, however, seem to me to entail not making personal judgments about other participants' `insecurities' and so on...


----------



## bluemtn (Jul 6, 2007)

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:

_Please, return to the original topic.

-K. Lane/ tkdgirl
-MT Moderator-


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 7, 2007)

Flying Crane or Exile, could you explain the "original Four HEROIC Cynical Curmudgeons" thing?  Thanks.


----------



## DArnold (Jul 8, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> To be honest though, anyone who has studied both the Chang Hon forms and the Shotokan Heian forms knows where General Choi got most of his inspiration from. The good general lifted many moves verbatim from the Heians. It's not unreasonable to use the karate bunkai to interpret the Chang Hon forms, the desire for TKD to come out of karate's shadow notwithstanding.
> 
> I realize kick2face's teacher and seniors have said high kicks were part of the ROK soldiers' repetoire in the Vietnam war. I, like Exile, have a different understanding, but it's not like I was there myself, so I ultimately am relying on what I have read and heard from others. There's a Black Belt magazine article within the last year where Hee Il Cho himself states the jumping and spinning kicks were added recently (certainly post-fifties) to TKD. I don't have the magazine anymore else I would quote it directly.


 
This is a fallacy, as I have studied both, and anyone who has can tell your your stament about them being the same is wrong. The moves may look the same but they are vastly different and it is a great dis-service to generalize about Shotakan and TKD this way.
As for anything you can gleen from you statment that is true, it is that they were an insparation, nothing more


----------



## exile (Jul 8, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> Flying Crane or Exile, could you explain the "original Four HEROIC Cynical Curmudgeons" thing?  Thanks.



Well, Tellner, Flying Crane, Xue Sheng and I found ourselves not just on the same page in one particular discussion, but on the same line... a line that was fairly cynical, not in the sense of being willing to exploit people's weakness or ignorance, but in the sense of believing that the explanation for whatever we were talking about was to be found in some kind of ethical deficiency or corruptness&#8212;something along those lines. It was suggested that we now belonged to some kind of brotherhood of cyncial curmudgeonity, and... well, the rest is history... 

PS: the `HEROIC' part was self-mockery (as well as mockery of a certain genre of describing people). _True_ cynicism begins at home!


----------



## exile (Jul 8, 2007)

DArnold said:


> stoneheart said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest though, anyone who has studied both the Chang Hon forms and the Shotokan Heian forms knows where General Choi got most of his inspiration from.  The good general lifted many moves verbatim from the Heians.  It's not unreasonable to use the karate bunkai to interpret the Chang Hon forms, the desire for TKD to come out of karate's shadow notwithstanding.
> ...



I suggest that anyone who wishes to investigate the matter for themselves check out Stuart Anslow's book _Ch'ang Hon Taekwon-do Hae Sul: Real Applications to the ITF Patterns, Vol: 1_, Cornwall, UK: Diggory Press, and compare the kinds of bunkai proposed with those for Shotokan the book by Iain Abernethy (who wrote the Foreward to Anslow's book), _Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_. The gist of stoneheart's point is his statement that `It's not unreasonable to use the karate bunkai to interpret the Chang Hon forms...' I think it would be worthwhile for those interested to study the bunkai interpretations that Abernethy and Anslow are providing respectively and determine for themselves whether _these_ are `vastly different'.


----------



## DArnold (Jul 8, 2007)

exile said:


> They don't understand or know how to train high kicks? High kicks are intrinsically unstable and difficult or impossible to get in at close fighting ranges. That is a fact about high kicks themselves. Somehow you deduce that people who want to base their training on the standard karate kata or their recombinations in KMA forms and recognize the combat impracticality of high kicks don't understand or know how to train high kicks. Would you care to fill in the missing reasoning steps, DA? There are going to have to be an awful lot of them, I'd guess!
> 
> This question is a bit of a non sequitur. The issue is whether high kicks are practical for self-defense in real CQ combat. How is my occupational preference relevant to that issue? You question doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid. I've no idea what you're getting at here... so let me just observe that (i)Bushi Matsumura and Anko Itosu were two of the greatest MAs of all time, the creators of modern linear karate; (ii) they were not bouncers; (ii) they had, between them, scores of fights; and (iv) they did not include high kicks in their system. I conclude from their example&#8212;and from that of Chotoku Kyan, Choki Motobu, Mas Oyama, and several dozen names of eminent karateka I can think of for whom (i)&#8211;(iv) apply equally truly&#8212;that not using high kicks in your fighting system, and using your art for self-defense in violent encounters, is compatible with being a martial artist and does not entail that one is a bouncer. So I have to say, again, that your question _seems_ unconnected to anything relevant to the discussion.
> 
> ...


 
The reason you are wrong is because you make statements like the following, 

"High kicks are intrinsically unstable and difficult or impossible to get in at close fighting ranges. That is a fact about high kicks themselves." 

*That is not a fact, it is merly your supposition.* However, I can see from a limited point of veiw where you may assume something like this as fact, based on people who are not experts in the field. People everyday do exactly what you say does not work to save their lives.

I'll break it down and make it simpler for you.

You have used biased people, who are not experts in the field you are making conclusions about (High kicks), to deduced that high kicks are ineffective and don't work. This in no way diminishes them as experts in hand fighting. But since close range high kicks work, and they don't use these techniques, what they say has little, if no bearing on drawing any far fetched assumption.

This would be similar to me making conclusions about BJJ based on TKD or Shotakan based on KungFu. It would mearly be me trying to validate what I was doing or give a sales pitch, which anyone who has been in any art long enough knows, is silly youthful exuberance.

Your logic is that based upon people who do not train or know how to use close range high kicks. So I am saying, and from experience, that your statements are wrong.

(As far as back flips, I dont know of anyone in a Martial art, or a Fighting School who teaches this as a defense technique. But would be interested if someone had a story about it)
____________________________________________

Now is where it gets fun.

So where you say, ...you could be unbalanced when you throw a high kick.

(I could be blinded, throwing up... Wow, this is the "WHAT IF" game which is silly - well, what if your standing on a sheet of ice and a 747 is coming down at you... waste of time.)

Yeah, if you kick as fast as my grandmother. However, most kickers don't sit there and hold their leg out for you to grab. Once my leg hits you in the temple, just as fast or faster than you punch, you'll go down.

Now I could go point to point, endlessly back and forth, which proves nothing except for the fact that we both have good and bad examples which will prove my point further in the post about validity.

Any real expert knows that if you train in grappling for a couple hours every night for yrears, or you train in Shotakan a couple hours every night for years, or you train TKD kicking a couple hours every night for years then you will be a dangerious person able to defend themselves.

This, "I have a silver bullet" argument, that my style works the best is just insecure juniors talk of validation or sales pitches. Nothing more.

There is a very simple test as to what is the best and what is valid in self defense...
Ready...

*When was the last time any style/technique was used to defend someone.*

It has nothing to do with organizations, federations, schools...

That's it

It's that simple!

Which is hard for many (stuggling juniors and those trying to sell what they are doing) to understand.

If it has been used, then it is the best, and valid. 

If a woman wards of a rapist by hitting him in the head with a phone...
then that is valid and the best

If a child stabs an abductor with a pencil and gets away, then it's valid and the best.

If you use a punch and stop a problem in a bar fight, then it's valid and the best.

If I use a TKD High kick at close range and stop a mugger, then it's valid and the best.

It's really very simple, but then again this flys in the face of those argueing that their style is better, or those tyring to sell what they are doing.

As your techniques are used daily and save peoples lives, then they are the best and valid. As "close in high kicks" are used daily and save peoples lives, then they are the best and valid..

The only true invalid techniques I have seen are those that have never been used.

The point at which your arguments started to fall apart is when you start stating things as "Fact"

You can speak to your own preferences or others preferences but unfortunately there are examples, too numerious to reference, that disprove your assumptions


Addition: Anyone that trains with high kicks knows that they are for close in, as there is no such thing as a long distance high kick


----------



## DArnold (Jul 8, 2007)

exile said:


> I suggest that anyone who wishes to investigate the matter for themselves check out Stuart Anslow's book _Ch'ang Hon Taekwon-do Hae Sul: Real Applications to the ITF Patterns, Vol: 1_, Cornwall, UK: Diggory Press, and compare the kinds of bunkai proposed with those for Shotokan the book by Iain Abernethy (who wrote the Foreward to Anslow's book), _Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_. The gist of stoneheart's point is his statement that `It's not unreasonable to use the karate bunkai to interpret the Chang Hon forms...' I think it would be worthwhile for those interested to study the bunkai interpretations that Abernethy and Anslow are providing respectively and determine for themselves whether _these_ are `vastly different'.


 
Unfortunately Mr. Anslows book is not an accepted definition of TKD and to make conclusions on this would be doing TKD a big injustice.
I have seen parts of Mr. Anslow's book and just as you have stated, they are *proposed*. 
Unfortuantely, in the ones that I have seen they miss the mark on what the General was teaching.

They go into personal supposition and venture into things that make the most sense to the author.
Is this bad, not really.
Does it define TKD, not really as in many cases I could, as Mr. Anslow, suppose Judo, Aikido, Kempo, and Hapkido moves that would make just as much sense... However, drawing a conclusion from this that these styles are all alike would also be failed logic... due to me publishing a book based on supposition.

This is analogous to where the General Choi used to ask what the purpose of a low block with the outter forearm was. To which many replied it was to stop a front kick. Incorrect. it was to stop anything attacking the lower abdomen. So where Mr. Anslow adds his own definition I would in no way say they are a definition of TaeKwon-Do

So has Mr. Anslow made people think about what they could do next? A good idea - Yes, but any good instructor can do this.
Are they the basis of TKD and what the general taught - NO

This feeds the larger problem of many juniors who look for the one correct answer and miss the point. This is nothing new as many have published books similar to this in the past, Jhoon Ree, Cho...
It gives juniors something to argue about when they miss the forest for the trees. 

Remember, books are just trainging tools, but not necessarly the truth or the way...
or correct:uhyeah:


----------



## exile (Jul 8, 2007)

DArnold said:


> Unfortunately Mr. Anslows book is not an accepted definition of TKD and to make conclusions on this would be doing TKD a big injustice.



I'd like to see that statement substantiated, DA. So far you've just offered your own personal authority as validation. But your statement is considerably broader: `X not an accepted definition' is usually taken to imply that X is not accepted _in general_.



DArnold said:


> I have seen parts of Mr. Anslow's book and just as you have stated, they are *proposed*.
> Unfortuantely, in the ones that I have seen they miss the mark on what the General was teaching.



We seem to be at cross-purposes here. I am assuming that Mr. Anslow is correct on the performance of the tuls (if not, a correction would be most welcome!), so what is at issue is the question of bunkai. The question is not what Gen. Choi's intentions were in creating the forms, or what he himself intended as the bunkai. The question is, what self-defense applications are recoverable from the bunkai. If you start at the beginning of this thread, what you will notice is the question of whether hyungs are a necessary or at least significant part of TKD, and if so, how. The arguments that have been made involve the assertion that hyungs are very important because they encode practical applications. If a certain sequence in the ITF tuls turns out to have realistic street-applicable defense applications, then those applications are both valid per se and also constitute evidence that forms do constitute an important component of a TKD curriculum. It is completely irrelevant whether the interpretation was one that Gen. Choi envisaged or not. Mr. Anslow's interpretations might well be superior to those that Gen. Choi, envisaged, for example&#8212;he, like many of the other `bunkai-jutsu' investigators, subjects his interpretation to demanding `live' testing against noncompliant opponents&#8212;and so, if his interpretations are robust, then with respect to the point at issue, their resemblance to what Gen. Choi himself intended is, as I say, _irrelevant_



DArnold said:


> They go into personal supposition and venture into things that make the most sense to the author.



What you are saying here holds for all bunkai interpretation, does it not? In the old Okinawan curriculum, such as Fukakoshi and Motobu and the other first-generation Okinawan expatriates experienced in their training, a student was taught a limited number of kata and was expected to spend years investigating them for practical use. They were not spoonfed interpretations by the instructor; part of their training was specifically _in_ making sense of kata. There is a terms for the goal of that investigation&#8212;_kaisai no genri_&#8212;the general _method_ of deciphering kata applications, which students were rarely instructed in; they were expected to spend years learning that method for themselves. So Mr. Anslow is doing nothing different from what the Okinawan pioneers did themselves to create and propagate the systems that became the Shotokan roots of the Kwan systems the founders brought from Japan. 

And there was no guarantee that a karateka would come up with the best interpretation possible; as Patrick McCarthy has noted, Motobu was convinced that Fukashima's were inferior, for example, and as almost certainly the far better practical self-defense expert of the two, he might well have been right. In which case, the kind of bunkai that Gen. Choi learned when he studied under GF in the 1930s would have been suboptimal as well. Since by his own account Shotokan karate was essential to the formation of TKD (as stated in an interview in _Combat_ magazine in the 1970s; you can find the documentation in Mr. Anslow's book), it seems likely that by his own account, his training training in Shotokan, making up the largest portion of his MA training, if not its entirety, would have become implicated in his own kata designs. If Mr. Anslow can find better ones than Gen. Choi did, then those applications are to be credited to the Ch'ang Hon tuls just as much as anything the General intended, and actually, _more_ so. We'll just have to look at whether his bunkai meet the kind of criteria for street effectiveness that people like Bill Burgar, Kane & Wilder, and Sutrisno & MacYoung, in books on form interpretation and street defense, observe as necessary conditions on application. Saying that `Gen. Choi didn't intend this' is a biographical fact about the General that has nothing to do with whether the tech in question is more or less useful.



DArnold said:


> Is this bad, not really.
> Does it define TKD, not really as in many cases I could, as Mr. Anslow, suppose Judo, Aikido, Kempo, and Hapkido moves that would make just as much sense... However, drawing a conclusion from this that these styles are all alike would also be failed logic... due to me publishing a book based on supposition.



I can't make much sense of this passage, I'm afraid. 



DArnold said:


> This is analogous to where the General Choi used to ask what the purpose of a low block with the outter forearm was. To which many replied it was to stop a front kick. Incorrect. it was to stop anything attacking the lower abdomen. So where Mr. Anslow adds his own definition I would in no way say they are a definition of TaeKwon-Do



If you are saying that TKD is exactly what the content of General Choi's mind was on any given point, then there really is nothing more to discuss, I'm afraid.  And there is plenty of reason, given by the MAists who have written in detail about realistic interpretation for forms, to regard use of a low block to stop an attack as, practically speaking, a very low-value use of that move. The kind of interpretation Mr. Anslow gives, where a low forearm`block' is in fact a strike to an assailant's forcibly lowered, exposed throat, is in line with a great deal of work on effective self-defense. Again, whether or not that's what Gen. Choi intended, or even imagined, is irrelevant to the thread topic, because if the tech is a consistent intepretation of the form and is effective in combat, the General's possible attitude with respect to it is completely beside the point.



DArnold said:


> So has Mr. Anslow made people think about what they could do next? A good idea - Yes, but any good instructor can do this.
> Are they the basis of TKD and what the general taught - NO
> 
> This feeds the larger problem of many juniors who look for the one correct answer and miss the point. This is nothing new as many have published books similar to this in the past, Jhoon Ree, Cho...
> It gives juniors something to argue about when they miss the forest for the trees.



I don't see just what this comment bears on, DA.



DArnold said:


> Remember, books are just trainging tools, but not necessarly the truth or the way...
> or correct:uhyeah:



And one could say the same thing wrt to the Encyclopædia. In which case, Gen. Choi's intentions have no priviledged standing so far as tul application goes. And in that case, Mr. Anslow has done the only thing possible: sought to explain why what he is proposing is a valid set of interpretations for each tul subsequence. So far, he's produced a massive, encyclopædic reference to this end, one which you yourself say you've only read parts of.  And your response to his work, so far as I can see, are a few paragraphs offering not one criticism, well-supported or otherwise, of the effectiveness of his applications&#8212;which, again, is the issue that is relevant to the thread topic of whether leaving out or limiting poomsae training is necessarily a deficiency of a TKD dojang.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 8, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy **http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486**. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MartialTalk Super Moderator-
*


----------



## DArnold (Jul 8, 2007)

exile said:


> I'd like to see that statement substantiated, DA. So far you've just offered your own personal authority as validation. But your statement is considerably broader: `X not an accepted definition' is usually taken to imply that X is not accepted _in general_.
> 
> We seem to be at cross-purposes here. I am assuming that Mr. Anslow is correct on the performance of the tuls (if not, a correction would be most welcome!), so what is at issue is the question of bunkai. The question is not what Gen. Choi's intentions were in creating the forms, or what he himself intended as the bunkai. The question is, what self-defense applications are recoverable from the bunkai. If you start at the beginning of this thread, what you will notice is the question of whether hyungs are a necessary or at least significant part of TKD, and if so, how. The arguments that have been made involve the assertion that hyungs are very important because they encode practical applications. If a certain sequence in the ITF tuls turns out to have realistic street-applicable defense applications, then those applications are both valid per se and also constitute evidence that forms do constitute an important component of a TKD curriculum. It is completely irrelevant whether the interpretation was one that Gen. Choi envisaged or not. Mr. Anslow's interpretations might well be superior to those that Gen. Choi, envisaged, for examplehe, like many of the other `bunkai-jutsu' investigators, subjects his interpretation to demanding `live' testing against noncompliant opponentsand so, if his interpretations are robust, then with respect to the point at issue, their resemblance to what Gen. Choi himself intended is, as I say, _irrelevant_
> 
> ...


 
Yes, we diverge on many paths.
You seem to be enamored with written material as I have found them only to be reference material. Many times fraught with errors and opinions.
Do I use my opinions, yes, to support items.
But never to tout them as gospel facts.

Any book must also be discerned for its value:

A man inventing an art and explaining it
A mans subjectional interpitations of anothers work
A man selling information to make money?

Your comparison of Mr. Anslows book and the generals are fraught with errors as the TKD encyclopedia was devised by the man who invented TKD with the purpose of explaining the purpose. Where Mr. Anslows is subjection and extrapolation for an unsupported viewpoint.

Do I say Mr. Anslows is not valid, NO. However it is mearly one mans supposition/interpetation and extrapolation, which in some instances that I've seen are just that, an extrapolation with no basis or foundation of TKD.

One built a car.  The other designed some tires like many before him. Jhoon Rhe, Choy... But to say their tires are definitive of the car is ludicrious.

Now to state that the only purpose of patterns is to produce "practical application" then that is where I think we differ also as it appears from your discussion that you look at practical as only things you can fight with, "Self Defense".  

Being a Martial Artist and not a Fighter then the "Do" changes what you do, how you practice, and what you view as practical. Just as the Samurai saw value in every aspect of their life, not just Kenjitsu, but Kendo.

I would dare say that these pragmatists would be laughed at by the Samurai.  For how practical are the "tea ceremoney", Or the teachings of the Hwa Rang, or the teachins of Loa Tsu...

Mearly a waste of time when you could be practicing "Practical Techniques with Practical applications"

Yeah, we diverge :uhyeah:


----------



## exile (Jul 8, 2007)

DArnold said:


> Yes, we diverge on many paths.
> You seem to be enamored with written material as I have found them only to be reference material. Many times fraught with errors and opinions.



Since much information is conveyed by written material, I do consult it. I'm not sure why you choose the verb `enamored'. I accept information in any form I can find where it seems to be reliable, well-supported and relevant. I am aware of the very high regard with which you hold Gen. Choi's writings, but rather than saying you were `enamored' of them, I'd prefer putting it this way: you accept what the General is saying them and find it valuable. 




DArnold said:


> Do I use my opinions, yes, to support items.
> But never to tout them as gospel facts.



This is, of course, the status of an opinion: a view. Facts are different kinds of things entirely. An opinion might accord with the facts, or not. I happen to have a certain opinion of your discussion of Mr. Anslow's book, and I've presented some reasons why that opinion is supported in my previous post. I'm not sure where `touting' comes in. I've presented an opinion and supported it with appeal to evidence that others can assess for themselves, without asking them to accept my personal authority for any of it. So I'm not sure what the point of your comment here is.

Any book must also be discerned for its value:



DArnold said:


> A man inventing an art and explaining it
> A mans subjectional interpitations of anothers work
> A man selling information to make money?



I won't get into the question of whether Gen. Choi invented TKD or not; it really is irrelevant to the point. Mr. Anslow's interpetation of TKD is no more subjective than Gen. Choi's is, given that TKD is not defined as General Choi's personal interpretation of it. And `a man selling information to make money'.... would  you care to expand on this point, DA? I'd rather not draw any conclusions from this comment without a little more information.



DArnold said:


> Your comparison of Mr. Anslows book and the generals are fraught with errors as the TKD encyclopedia was devised by the man who invented TKD with the purpose of explaining the purpose. Where Mr. Anslows is subjection and extrapolation for an unsupported viewpoint.



General Choi presented certain movement sequences, called tuls, which he believed should be applied in a certain way. Mr. Anslow is looking at those same sequences and saying that there are better applications. There is nothing pre-given, or `factual', about the superiority of the General's interpretationsI believe I addressed this point in my last post, and there is widespread agreement amongst MA historians that the Kwan founders were basically exposed to a rather diluted interpretation of the kata applications simply because Funakoshi himself was was not fully up to speed on the bunkai for those katas. Therefore, if Mr. Anslow can do better at tul interpretation than Gen. Choi, his interpretations have superior validity. Let me use an analogy, rough but I think serviceable: the chap who devised the rules of chess probably was a reasonable player, all those millenia ago. I suspect that Gary Kasparov would cut him to ribbons before the opening was over. 



DArnold said:


> Do I say Mr. Anslows is not valid, NO. However it is mearly one mans supposition/interpetation and extrapolation, which in some instances that I've seen are just that, an extrapolation with no basis or foundation of TKD.



Again, I get the sense that you are equating TKD with whatever it was that Gen. Choi was thinking. This is, however, a private usage. Plenty of people do a version of TKD which is significantly different from what General Choi taughtthe majority, I'd say, though the numbers aren't important. What is important is that Mr. Anslow is presenting interpretations of ITF TKD hyungsam I correct? So in that case, his `extrapolation' does have a very _solid_ basis in TKD! What you're saying is actually a bit differentthough you're not, I'm afraid, articulating it explicitly: you're sayingagainthat `TKD' entails only the interpretation of TKD that Gen. Choi intended. I'm sayingagainthat if you don't accept the equation of Gen. Choi's world-view on KMA with TKD (as most of the TKD world does not), then what he is presenting is a set of applications of TKD forms which are indeed bunkai for TKD forms, and whose validity as SD scenarios depends completely on their combat applicability.  



DArnold said:


> One built a car.  The other designed some tires like many before him. Jhoon Rhe, Choy... But to say their tires are definitive of the car is ludicrious.



I'm not going to even _try_ to figure out how this analogy is relevant to the current discussion, DA.



DArnold said:


> Now to state that the only purpose of patterns is to produce "practical application" then that is where I think we differ also as it appears from your discussion that you look at practical as only things you can fight with, "Self Defense".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What you're missing, again, DA, is the relevance of the SD application aspect to the thread. Let me urge you, again, to go back to the beginning of the thread and read it carefully. What you will see at the outset, and as the thread develops, is that there is a suggestion that TKD can be taught _as a self-defense system_ with minimal reliance on forms. So the discussion centers on forms as repositories of practical self-defense tactics, guided by a coherent strategy. That is why the discussion involves self-defense: because of the premises of the OP and the OPer's arguments. Since it's the self-defense utility of including forms in the curriculum which is at issue, I don't understand why you think it's relevant to bring in issues about Do, or Martial Artistry or the variety of other topics you allude to. How do they bear on the thread topicthe necessity, or otherwise, of inclusion of hyung in the TKD curriculum?


----------



## DArnold (Jul 8, 2007)

exile said:


> Since much information is conveyed by written material, I do consult it. I'm not sure why you choose the verb `enamored'. I accept information in any form I can find where it seems to be reliable, well-supported and relevant. I am aware of the very high regard with which you hold Gen. Choi's writings, but rather than saying you were `enamored' of them, I'd prefer putting it this way: you accept what the General is saying them and find it valuable.
> 
> This is, of course, the status of an opinion: a view. Facts are different kinds of things entirely. An opinion might accord with the facts, or not. I happen to have a certain opinion of your discussion of Mr. Anslow's book, and I've presented some reasons why that opinion is supported in my previous post. I'm not sure where `touting' comes in. I've presented an opinion and supported it with appeal to evidence that others can assess for themselves, without asking them to accept my personal authority for any of it. So I'm not sure what the point of your comment here is.
> 
> ...


 
Nope, didn't miss it.
Trying to discern if a move is a silver bullet, or a short cut, misses the whole point of an MA/DO. I'll try to keep the analogys simpler.
One without the other is simply not TKD.

I guess I should go back and ask the question do you want to be a MA or a fighter. Big difference.

And by picking and chooseing moves you may find moves that you like more, based on whatever criteria you use.  However, by doing so you miss the entire purpose of an art.  Why not just compare punching, or kicking? Why, because then it is not an art and it is a waste of time unless you take it to the next step and develope your own art.

Without this, this goes back to the juvinile aspect of "My style is better than yours"
Look at all those who don't understand high section kicking.
They have limited themselves and discarded for not only them, but their students, what they don't understand.
I pity the one student it may have helped, if these people who want to pick and choose, hod only the fortitude to continue.

You can teach any part you want and make up anything you want, however, then it is not TKD.

This is where we diverged when you told students to compare with Mr. Anslows book, as representing TKD. Call me a Cramudgeon or whatever.

However, I wouldn't call dentistry without painkillers dentistry.
I wouldn't call surgery without anestheseology medicine.

I don't call TKD without the forms TKD.
I don't call Mr. Anslows extrapolations TKD.
Therefore comparing them to whatever, in no way, shows a representation of TKD to anything other than some moves Mr. Anslow put down in a book.

It's just some made up stuff that you want to teach.
So is it applicable base upon the theory you propose behind the system.
Who knows.
However, the next step for Mr. Anslow is much bigger.
To develop his own style based on his research, but please, don't call it TKD.  There are enough imitators out there.


----------



## exile (Jul 8, 2007)

DArnold said:


> And by picking and chooseing moves you may find moves that you like more, based on whatever criteria you use.  However, by doing so you miss the entire purpose of an art.  Why not just compare punching, or kicking? Why, because then it is not an art and it is a waste of time unless you take it to the next step and develope your own art.
> 
> You can teach any part you want and make up anything you want, however, then it is not TKD.
> 
> ...



For readers of this thread who might be troubled by the quoted material, let me offer you reassurance! 

Stuart Anslow is an ITF 4th Dan in TKD, who is the chief instructor of the Rayner's Lane TKD dojang in Middlesex, UK. His book, the first in a three volume set, displays 9 of the Ch'ang Hon tulsSaju Jirugi, Saju Makgi, Chon-Ji, Dan-Gun, Do-San, Won-Hyo, Yul-Gok, Joong-Gun and Toi-Gyebreaks them up into subsequences which take the defender from the first response to the initial attack to the incapacitation of the attacker and the end of the fight, displaying the sequence of movements for each of these tuls and then showing the decoding of the movements into combat-effective _moves_. Basic bunkai are given, along with more advanced variants and backup techs, all based on the hyungs movements. The applications are  illustrated with clear photographs of the moves, with multiple angles shown where necessary. 

One of the forewords to this book is written by Gen. Yun Wook Yi, a TKD instructor and military officer in the ROK army in the Korean War era and a military TKD instructor under Gen. Choi. His own instructors were all first-generation TKD Dans under General Choi, including  the legendary Gm. Hee Il Cho, one of the highest-ranked and most celebrated TKD exponents in North America. Of Mr. Anslow's book, Gm. Yi comments that 

_Many techniques and applications in Ch'ang Hon tuls faded away as Taekwon-do transitioned from a military martial art into a civilian martial art. The only ones who knew the actual applications were spread out among the first generation Taekwondo Grandmasters who were under General Choi. 

This book is a compilation of Mr. Anslow's quest to find the lost techniques. The techniques and applications he has in this book are what Mr. Anslow's research found (along with his own studies), and sourced together what numerous 1st generation Korean Taekwon-do Grandmasters originally taught, but have since stopped teaching*the true applications. They are the `lost techniques' from the first generation Taekwondo Grandmasters. This book in essence brings back the `lost legacy' of Gen. Choi's Ch'ang Hon Taekwon-do'.*​_​
(my emphasis).

And there you have it, from a  man who served under Gen. Choi, trained under some of his elite military instructors, including Hee Il Choi, and served as a top-ranking military officer and instructor. I think you can rest assured that what Mr. Anslow is teaching is indeed ITF TKD, and I again urge you to read his analyses of the optimal combat applications of the ITF hyungs he covers in his book, and then compare them with the kind of bunkai that distinguished karateka such as Iain Abernethy, Rick Clark, and Bill Burgar, who have worked for years on the experimental testing of combat applications for Shotokan kata using `live' testingand decide for yourself just how `vast' the difference between the combat systems deducible from the hyungs on the one hand and the kata on the other are.


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 8, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stoneheart*
> 
> 
> ...




They are vastly different only because that is the interpretation you choose to take.  I'm not a fan of "official, that's the way we do it because  that's the way so-and-so intended" dogma.  There's so many dangers fraught with assuming there's only one right way, particularly when it's regarding something that has grown far beyond one man or even a small group of men.

As you yourself have admitted, the moves in Shotokan and TKD hyung are very similar.  I can very well see some TKD-centric bunkai existing and I would be interested in learning more about them, however I am unwilling to discard all of the obvious influences and knowledge that can gleaned from karate, the FATHER of TKD.

After all, not everyone doing TKD is doing only the ITF or WTF versions.  Some prominent GMs even predate the ITF and WTF and their teachings reflect that, whatever set of forms they choose to use this week.  It's a dangerous assumption to make that your TKD is the only way.


----------



## DArnold (Jul 9, 2007)

stoneheart said:


> They are vastly different only because that is the interpretation you choose to take. I'm not a fan of "official, that's the way we do it because that's the way so-and-so intended" dogma. There's so many dangers fraught with assuming there's only one right way, particularly when it's regarding something that has grown far beyond one man or even a small group of men.
> 
> As you yourself have admitted, the moves in Shotokan and TKD hyung are very similar. I can very well see some TKD-centric bunkai existing and I would be interested in learning more about them, however I am unwilling to discard all of the obvious influences and knowledge that can gleaned from karate, the FATHER of TKD.
> 
> After all, not everyone doing TKD is doing only the ITF or WTF versions. Some prominent GMs even predate the ITF and WTF and their teachings reflect that, whatever set of forms they choose to use this week. It's a dangerous assumption to make that your TKD is the only way.


 
I did not say that there was only one way of doing things.

I am not one to try and change histroy, yes by studying TKD and Shotakan you can see where the General got some of his inspiration.

Here I may have misworded my stament. Many of the moves in these two styles may look the same but if you study them both, the movements, theory, and purpose has drastically changed. What the General knew of Shotakan has since changed also. So making this comparison now, and as time goes on, hold very little, if no meaning.

However, assumeing that since Karate uses a side kick and TKD uses a side kick you can call these the same is a far streatch.

And yes, there are many out there doing older versions of TKD but this is akin to those who would practice dentistry but dont want to use pain killers. Is that dentistry?
Yeah, I guess.

And there are those that have tweeked a few things, for various reasons.
But I would be more apt to go with Jaque Cousteau (the inventor of SCUBA Diving) and all his knowledge than someone imitating what he did.

This does not make them invalid, inaffective... It just means they did not have the fortitude to follow through and create their own style.

There are many similarities between styles, as like religion, I feel they are parallel lines. And parallel lines do meet at the horizon.

I also agree with you that I would not change what I have studied. However history does show you insights.

Surley, everyone starts somewhere, but claiming Karate as the father is about as insecure as you can get and holds about as much validity as anyone claiming they invented fire.

Most all martial arts have these absurdities where they try to trace their lineage back to the cave man, as if they could or anyone would belive them.

Mearly sales pitches.


----------



## DArnold (Jul 9, 2007)

exile said:


> For readers of this thread who might be troubled by the quoted material, let me offer you reassurance!
> 
> Stuart Anslow is an ITF 4th Dan in TKD, who is the chief instructor of the Rayner's Lane TKD dojang in Middlesex, UK. His book, the first in a three volume set, displays 9 of the Ch'ang Hon tulsSaju Jirugi, Saju Makgi, Chon-Ji, Dan-Gun, Do-San, Won-Hyo, Yul-Gok, Joong-Gun and Toi-Gyebreaks them up into subsequences which take the defender from the first response to the initial attack to the incapacitation of the attacker and the end of the fight, displaying the sequence of movements for each of these tuls and then showing the decoding of the movements into combat-effective _moves_. Basic bunkai are given, along with more advanced variants and backup techs, all based on the hyungs movements. The applications are illustrated with clear photographs of the moves, with multiple angles shown where necessary.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, so has Joon Rhe and other, have written great forwards and claim validity from the General.

I would also encourage people to read it, but not take it as any definative source, but one of many simialar reference books that have come out over the ages like Rhe's interpitation.

Many have learned from the General.
Many with the integrity and fortitude to Create their own style.
Park Jung Tae, Kong Young Il...

Many now come out of the woodwork since the generals death claiming knowledge. My only question is where were all these pioneers when the General was alive?

And many have leached off the name of TaeKwon-Do due to it's popularity. I make no inferences, only observations.  Everyone must draw their own conclusions. However, these facts must be noted.

It would be easier to promote TKD vs Fred-Do

However, some questions are now arising!

I seem to remember Mr. Anslow stating that he was not ITF but independent. And looking at his site it shows that he is using the ITF name, uniforms, but not their certificates.

This smacks of someone selling themselves as ITF, for the money.

Our/my history is ITF also, however, upon leaving the ITF we changed our advertising to Ch'ang Hon as selling ourselves as ITF would not show good integrity.

And now after looking at his bio, I understand why a lot of his self-defense extrapolations smack of Judo.

Have any of the ITF's endorse his book as their standard.

Maybe Mr. Anslow could clear up these questions.

If I am wrong, I am wrong but the questions must be made public also!


----------



## exile (Jul 9, 2007)

DArnold said:


> My only question is where were all these pioneers when the General was alive?



Well, Mr. Yoon Wook Yi was in the RoK army. And Mr. Anslow was not yet born.




DArnold said:


> I seem to remember Mr. Anslow stating that he was not ITF but independent. And looking at his site it shows that he is using the ITF name, uniforms, but not their certificates.
> 
> This smacks of someone selling themselves as ITF, for the money.



What I stated in the original post is that Mr. Anslow's belt was in an ITF school, which reflects information I acquired while finding out about his work, and that he teaches an ITF curriculum. Mr. Anslow is completely upfront about both his training history and the affiliation of his school. As he himself tells us,

_The style I teach is ITF Taekwon-do and although this is my base art many martial arts fascinate me, so I cross train in other styles every now and then, exchanging techniques and ideas with like minded martial artists. Apart from my style of Taekwon-do, I've trained a bit in Judo (at college), Shotokan karate with my training partner for over 4 years, Ju Jitsu, attending seminars & gaining certificates, and Kung Fu (in my school days), but Taekwon-do is the only art I've graded in, which doesn't really matter as its what lies behind the belt that counts. And its very easy once you been training for a while to implement other techniques & ideas into your own style from other arts & people.​_
And this is what we learn about his school:

_Rayners lane Taekwon-do Academy was started in April 1999. It is an independant school of Taekwon-do that adheres to the original I.T.F. syllabus of Taekwon-do. This syllabus has been expanded in order to develop students capabilities in all  ranges of self defence, in order to make each student as capable as possible in all areas once they obtain their 1st degree  black belts.

*The academy teaches all the major aspects of Taekwon-do as taught in the  large federations, patterns, sparring & destruction*, but we also teach areas that are sadly neglected in some schools. These areas include pattern interpretation  (patterns contain strikes, locks, throws & pressure point techniques), pattern application (teaching the correct methods of applying the techniques found within the patterns) & street smart self defence, although I see Taekwon-do as an art of self defence & dislike the fact that people refer to specific parts as self defence rather than Taekwon-do as a whole._​

Very straightforward. And I don't see why he would make any more money `selling himself as an ITF school'  than selling himself as an independent school. MA in the UK, as I understand it, is much less factional and sect-ridden than it seems to be in the US, and if the instructions is good, people will pay just as much for training in an independent school as an ITF or WTF school. He teaches the ITF syllabus because he likes it, having himself been trained in the ITF syllabus. Why does one need any more explanation than that? I am perplexed at the idea, which you've also mentioned previously with no actual evidence, that he is somehow `profiteering' from teaching the ITF syllabus. But the point is in any case not really relevant in any way to the nature of the thread OP; see below.



DArnold said:


> And now after looking at his bio, I understand why a lot of his self-defense extrapolations smack of Judo.



Since the kinds of pins, locks, throw-downs and other control moves his interpretations reflect were standard bunkai for the Okinawan predecessors of the Shotokan karate that the Kwan founders who jointly created TKD, and contain virtually none of the lifting throws and ground moves, I can't see any feed-in to what Anslow is doing, based on his _four months_ of judo training before taking up TKD and a bit of cross training in the arts he mentioned, but I _can_ see exactly the relation between his `extrapolatons'&#8212;I assume you mean the bunkai interpretations for the forms&#8212;and the Shotokan that Gen. Choi learned. Again, though, the historical sources of these bunkai are irrelvant; more below. 



DArnold said:


> If I am wrong, I am wrong but the questions must be made public also!



Once again, the issue here is not ITF affiliation purity and other organizational political questions. For many martial artists, MA sectarianism is of no interest whatever, or doctrinal factionalism and the like. What is of interest is the combat effectiveness of their art, given the OP.

Which comes back, once more, to the same old points:

(i) the thread starts by positing that TKD poomsae are not particularly useful to self defense. If you check the OP, you'll see that that is exactly what Independent_TKD, the OPers, says. And he then questions whether one needs poomsae in the TKD curriculum at all.

(ii) Now we have a number of posts arguing that indeed the poomsae are very relevant to self-defense, that the premise of the original post is incorrect. So now the self-defense applicability of TKD forms comes into the discussion. Do you see how the issue now shifts to whether or not poomsae do indeed have combat effective interpretations? And therefore the question is, is there some evidence bearing on that question?

(iii) Now we switch to Mr. Anslow and his analyses of the bunkai, which he does in live, noncompliant testing situations similar to others in Abernethy's working group, to which he belongs. These interpretations are combat-oriented, and _if_ they are indeed effective, and their content is trained realistically, then Mr. Anslow constitutes a living contradiction to the OP. And that is the only respect in which Mr. Anslow's work is relevant to this thread: as a contradiction to the OP's claims of combat irrelevance. 



DArnold said:


> Maybe Mr. Anslow could clear up these questions.



I'm sure he could. But it should be clear from (i)-(iii) that given the logic of the thread's OP claims and the followup discussion, the answers will be completely beside the point so far as this thread is concerned. If there are effective bunkai for these forms that constitute the combat scenarios to be realistically trained, then the OP is wrong. And that's why Mr. Anslow's work is relevant to the thread.


----------



## stoneheart (Jul 9, 2007)

> I did not say that there was only one way of doing things.
> 
> I am not one to try and change histroy, yes by studying TKD and Shotakan you can see where the General got some of his inspiration.
> 
> Here I may have misworded my stament. Many of the moves in these two styles may look the same but if you study them both, the movements, theory, and purpose has drastically changed. What the General knew of Shotakan has since changed also. So making this comparison now, and as time goes on, hold very little, if no meaning.



I understood your point perfectly well.  What I am arguing is that karate bunkai is a very reasonable way to study TKD hyung, particularly so with the Chang Hon set General Choi is credited for inventing.  Martial arts understanding does not flow from a vacuum.  They are built from a lifetime of experiences and yes, a huge part of General Choi's understanding came from Japanese karate, Korean nationalism aside.



> However, assumeing that since Karate uses a side kick and TKD uses a side kick you can call these the same is a far streatch.
> 
> And yes, there are many out there doing older versions of TKD but this is akin to those who would practice dentistry but dont want to use pain killers. Is that dentistry?
> Yeah, I guess.



If you're saying that the older versions of TKD that are more obvious or honest about their link to karate are obsolete, I must disagree with you.  Different from what you choose to practice, yes.  Obsolete, no.  In fact, I think being able to learn from the wide body of karate knowledge available is only an advantage.



> And there are those that have tweeked a few things, for various reasons.
> But I would be more apt to go with Jaque Cousteau (the inventor of SCUBA Diving) and all his knowledge than someone imitating what he did.
> 
> This does not make them invalid, inaffective... It just means they did not have the fortitude to follow through and create their own style.



Well.  Not everyone regards General Choi as the final source of TKD knowledge.  From where I stand, I owe as much if not more so to Hwang Kee and Tanken Toyama, two masters who PREDATE General Choi., two men whose teachers are part of what is called tae kwon do today.  

If you specified in your posts that you are referring only to ITF TKD, I might be inclined to go with you, but you don't.



> There are many similarities between styles, as like religion, I feel they are parallel lines. And parallel lines do meet at the horizon.
> 
> I also agree with you that I would not change what I have studied. However history does show you insights.



No disagreements here.  I would say these assertions flow rather well with mine own.



> Surley, everyone starts somewhere, but claiming Karate as the father is about as insecure as you can get and holds about as much validity as anyone claiming they invented fire.



Insecure?  Please don't bring personal attacks into this.  I'm absolutely capable of having a discussion about TKD and karate and bunkai without feeling insecure about it.  As for the claim that karate is the father of TKD, it's true enough, and I stand by it.



> Most all martial arts have these absurdities where they try to trace their lineage back to the cave man, as if they could or anyone would belive them.
> 
> Mearly sales pitches.



Well as I said knowledge does not just spring from a vacuum.  In my opinion it's a shame to discard useful knowledge out of something as vacuous as simple nationalism.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 9, 2007)

This particular thread seems to have degenerated into a discussion of whether or not reference books should be used to teach application.  Since the original topic of the thread was "How do you view schools that place limited emphasis on poomse?" I have started a new thread with my discussion on the use of reference books in MA training and instruction here.

To return to the original question, I view schools that place limited emphasis on poomsae to be artificially limiting their options, for reasons that I have already stated in detail within this thread about a similar topic.


----------



## StuartA (Feb 4, 2008)

Hi folks,

This thread was brought to my attention by someone and as it specifically questions my integrity I thought I should come here and clear a few things up:



DArnold said:


> I seem to remember Mr. Anslow stating that he was not ITF but independent. And looking at his site it shows that he is using the ITF name, uniforms, but not their certificates.


Yes, I am no longer with the ITF, but was with an ITF org up to 2nd degree. I do not claim to be with the ITF anymore and make that quite clear. I do however teach the ITF system I learnt, I am simply no longer a member of ITF "the organisation" (which is really what it is, though many refer to it as the style), hence I would not be paying for their certificates anymore either. I do not believe you have to be part of any organisation to teach what you were taught anyway. I still actively train with both ITF & Non-ITf Taekwon-do students.

The reason my students wear ITF uniforms is simple.
When I left the TKD organisation I was with. I still mixed and trained with many of them (and still do) and so did my students and I wanted a uniform that was similar and wouldnt stand out as vastly different, but also represent the art I study/teach - TKD. At that time in the UK you could either buy karate Gi's, WTF doboks or get funky coloured ones made up for lots of ££££, then a company advertised ITF uniforms.. these were similar to the ones we originally wore and exactly what I was looking for.

Yes they have the ITF badge and tree, but the designer of the badge (C K Choi I believe) has stated that the badge is for all taekwon-do.. not just the ITF groups, so I am free to use it.. same with the ITF tree I believe.. though they both came "built in" on the uniforms so I had no choice anyway. Still, I see it as a great way to pay homage to the style I study and teach as ITF is commonly (though incorrectly) refered to as the style and this is what I teach (though I refer to it as ch'ang hon TKD these days, now that the name is more widely know).





> This smacks of someone selling themselves as ITF, for the money.


LOL.. thats the stupidest thing Ive read for a while. 99% of new studnets havnt got a clue about ITF/WTF and the rest of it.. so it makes no difference to them, and those that learn about it whilst training at my school, dont care anyway. in fact, TBH, it would more likely lose the school money than gain it, as Id have to charge more for everything to cover all the ITF fees for this and that.



> Our/my history is ITF also, however, upon leaving the ITF we changed our advertising to Ch'ang Hon as selling ourselves as ITF would not show good integrity.


As I have never run my club as ITF anything, but simply Rayners Lane Taekwon-do Academy I had no reason to change anything.



> And now after looking at his bio, I understand why a lot of his self-defense extrapolations smack of Judo.


Apart from the fact Judo techniques are part of TKD anyway, of course my small look into judo had an influence, though in the whole scheme of things this is minimal. In fact Gen choi's small look into Hapkido had an influence on him as well! 




> Have any of the ITF's endorse his book as their standard.


Doubtful as they toe the party line like you and anything not in the big book isnt TKD, but senior ITF masters have been reported teaching applications from the book.. though they havnt publically acknowledged it. What was that you said about integrity? 



> Maybe Mr. Anslow could clear up these questions.


Hope thats clear enough!

Futhermore,


> I don't call Mr. Anslows extrapolations TKD.


Why! Everything I do is based on TKD!!!



> It's just some made up stuff that you want to teach.


Actually its a critical analyasis of what was taught to me!! And I wont even use that as a reference back to the tuls!



> However, the next step for Mr. Anslow is much bigger.
> To develop his own style based on his research, but please, don't call it TKD. There are enough imitators out there.


Now Im getting narked!! How dare you say what I teach isnt TKD or that its an imitation.. being open minded and wanting to make what you teach more wholesome (for want of a better word) and practical & useful isnt imitation.. its innovation. Being closed minded only stunts the arts growth.




> Now to state that the only purpose of patterns is to produce "practical application" then that is where I think we differ also as it appears from your discussion that you look at practical as only things you can fight with, "Self Defense".


It was General Choi who stated that btw... "tul is a series of offensive and defensive movements.. etc."

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Feb 4, 2008)

Now the above post is out the way, I would like to thanks exile and others for their comments on the book and what we are trying to achieve. I say we, as I know I am not alone in this.

Your comments were very gratifying (I say that in a humbling way) and I really appreciate them. One small thing.. Yi, Yun Wook was not the General, it was his father, though he has also trained with the ROK and the legendary instructors/pioneers noted in the book.

Thanks again,

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Feb 4, 2008)

I dont post as often as I use to on forums these days, but will check out some of the other topics when I have some time, as some look very interesting.

Feel free to email/PM if I can be of any use to anyone.

Regards,

Stuart


----------



## exile (Feb 4, 2008)

Stuart?! Whoa, the man himself! I very much appreciate your input and willingness to speak to the points that have been raised in this thread. 

My own sense is that what we've really been talking about is the combat content of hyungs in TKD and their relation to self-defense. I think of your books, along with those of people like Iain Abernthy and his group, and the _Combat TKD_ newsletters that Simon O'Neil has put out, as constituting the living demonstration of just what that content is, how to identify it, and (implicitly) how to train it in noncompliant attacker/defender scenarios&#8212;what Abernethy calls bunkai-based sparring. Clearly, if there _is_ serious combat content implicit in the forms, then these represent a valuable resource for teaching SD skills. But beyond that, if a school does not teach you how to 'read' the forms, the 'decoding' methods that allow you to parse a given form and identify the kind of combat principles and techniques that are contained in it, then in my view the curriculum is denying you access to a crucial tool that individual TKDists (andother kinds of karateka) need to continue their own personal MA education and investigation of the art. That kind of growth through individual research and experimentation is something that becomes more and more important as you advance through the ranks and start trying to build your own version of the art for yourself&#8212;as all martial artists who pursue their art in depth wind up doing. Learning to read and intepret combatively the hyungs of TKD is the analogue of, well... learning to _read!_

Of course you can forego the hyungs and teach nothing but applications directly, in the matter of Hapkido drills. But given the huge body of combat information that's already present in the hyungs, I honestly do not see what sense it makes to in effect 'compile out' the combat subsequences of the forms and teach them as a bunch of isolated techs. As Bill Burgar says, forms are unmatched as mnemonics for teaching you many different applications at once. And let's face it, there may well be information in the hyung that your instructor hasn't seen, which you yourself might see one day if you keep studying it&#8212;but which you'll never get access to if you don't learn the form in the first place. 

For those reasons, I think that schools which do not teach the forms, or do not teach students, as they reach more advanced stages, how to think about realistic combat interpretations of the forms, are doing their students a disservice. But my argument is based on the premise that the forms themselves do encrypt a rich variety of practical fighting applications. The reason for my invoking Stuart's book, and the other sources I've referred to, was simply to document the broad and deep evidence assembled (in large part by the 'extended' BCA group, along with others such as Burgar, O'Neil, Rick Clark etc.) that the forms do embody very specific strategic and tactical guidance relevant to the hardest street attack situations. (Apart from which, of course, it's a very good book!  )


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 4, 2008)

StuartA said:


> I dont post as often as I use to on forums these days, but will check out some of the other topics when I have some time, as some look very interesting.
> 
> Feel free to email/PM if I can be of any use to anyone.
> 
> ...


Welcome to Martial Talk, Stuart! Hope you enjoy the limited time you have to spend, and we look forward to your experience and expertise.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 4, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Yes they have the ITF badge and tree, but the designer of the badge (C K Choi I believe) has stated that the badge is for all taekwon-do.. not just the ITF groups, so I am free to use it.. same with the ITF tree I believe.. though they both came "built in" on the uniforms so I had no choice anyway. Still, I see it as a great way to pay homage to the style I study and teach as ITF is commonly (though incorrectly) refered to as the style and this is what I teach (though I refer to it as ch'ang hon TKD these days, now that the name is more widely know).



In the US, the ITF tree and logo is copyrighted - and the copyright belongs to the USTF.  Several organizations whose students formerly wore this uniform were threatened with lawsuits if they continued to do so - including some that belong to one of the 3 ITF's.


----------



## StuartA (Feb 4, 2008)

exile said:


> Stuart?! Whoa, the man himself! I very much appreciate your input and willingness to speak to the points that have been raised in this thread.


LOL.. no different from anyone else here!



> My own sense is that what we've really been talking about is the combat content of hyungs in TKD and their relation to self-defense.


Thats right and to deny that exisitence is very closed minded.. even the General himself protrayed them as such.. without giving the finer details!



> Clearly, if there _is_ serious combat content implicit in the forms, then these represent a valuable resource for teaching SD skills.


I quite agree. i ahve been into pattern applications since I first read an article by master Willie lim back in the early ninties. Iain is brilliant and for a moment made we wish i had studied Wado, but then i realised I didnt and that the TKD world needs a shake up in this area!



> then in my view the curriculum is denying you access to a crucial tool that individual TKDists (andother kinds of karateka) need to continue their own personal MA education and investigation of the art.


Or the evolution of the art itself. Some are closed minded... "if the General didnt say it was so then it cannot be" etc.  This area I discussed in detail in the book... Choi did many great things but was only human and a product of his enviroment!



> As Bill Burgar says, forms are unmatched as mnemonics for teaching you many different applications at once.


Ive not read Bills book, but i completely agree. Furthermore, TKD is not going to get rid of the froms for testing etc. they are tained so much, so why not make them a more valuable part of training... thats my opinion.



> And let's face it, there may well be information in the hyung that your instructor hasn't seen, which you yourself might see one day if you keep studying itbut which you'll never get access to if you don't learn the form in the first place.


True and in the case of the book, it was only ever meant a a starting point... I never meant it to be the definitive text on applications.. some however have read parts only and read into this incorrectly.



> For those reasons, I think that schools which do not teach the forms, or do not teach students, as they reach more advanced stages, how to think about realistic combat interpretations of the forms, are doing their students a disservice.


So do I... very very much so!



> But my argument is based on the premise that the forms themselves do encrypt a rich variety of practical fighting applications. The reason for my invoking Stuart's book, and the other sources I've referred to, was simply to document the broad and deep evidence assembled (in large part by the 'extended' BCA group, along with others such as Burgar, O'Neil, Rick Clark etc.) that the forms do emody very specific strategic and tactical guidance relevant to the hardest street attack situations. (Apart from which, of course, it's a very good book!  )


I should point out that Im not a direct member of the BCA.. though the guys in it are awesome examples of martial artists.. I just havnt really thought about it all that way.


Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Feb 4, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Welcome to Martial Talk, Stuart! Hope you enjoy the limited time you have to spend, and we look forward to your experience and expertise.


 
Thanks for the welcome. time permitting Ill try and offer what I can... but I can already see there are lots of educated martial artists on here, so my imput may be limited.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Feb 4, 2008)

Kacey said:


> In the US, the ITF tree and logo is copyrighted - and the copyright belongs to the USTF. Several organizations whose students formerly wore this uniform were threatened with lawsuits if they continued to do so - including some that belong to one of the 3 ITF's.


 
Last I heard was that the copyright issue was thrown out and that the court rules that as they have been in exsistance for so long, by so mant, no one would be allowed to exclude others in using them!

I have contacted an ITF man in the know on this issue and will report back once I hear from him. The USTF is no longer part of any ITF, though are thinking of jining ITF-V I think.. still, why would they want to enforce such a thing anyway!

Bottom line is:
1. C K choi the designer of the logo said it is allowed by all.. technically, he holds any real copyright
2. Im in the UK, so US rulings dont affect me
3. I dont really care about it TBH. If they wanna cover the costs of my students uniforms and make a big ho ha about it, Ill happily change.. until then.. I dont care.. Im a martial artists, not a bickering baby.. those orgs should take note!

Stuart


----------



## Kacey (Feb 4, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Last I heard was that the copyright issue was thrown out and that the court rules that as they have been in exsistance for so long, by so mant, no one would be allowed to exclude others in using them!



In the US, the laws are somewhat different - they hold the copyright, and charge for the privilege of using the logos.



StuartA said:


> I have contacted an ITF man in the know on this issue and will report back once I hear from him. The USTF is no longer part of any ITF, though are thinking of jining ITF-V I think.. still, why would they want to enforce such a thing anyway!


 
The USTF _has_ rejoined ITF-V, as an AA.



StuartA said:


> Bottom line is:
> 1. C K choi the designer of the logo said it is allowed by all.. technically, he holds any real copyright
> 2. Im in the UK, so US rulings dont affect me
> 3. I dont really care about it TBH. If they wanna cover the costs of my students uniforms and make a big ho ha about it, Ill happily change.. until then.. I dont care.. Im a martial artists, not a bickering baby.. those orgs should take note!



We are all products of our environments, as are our attitudes - and in the US, it's all about money; only those clubs/schools/students who are members of the USTF can use the ITF logo, and being a member has a cost.  Not only were associations outside the USTF threatened with lawsuits, so was the only licensed outlet for ITF-logoed doboks in the US, as which point they refused to sell to anyone who wasn't on the USTF's approved list.  Thus, the assumption that the use of such logos has a monetary incentive.  If the laws are different in the UK, then of course you would have a different perspective.  

I would ask, however, why you don't just buy plain doboks?  I buy them plain and have our association's logos either silk-screened or embroidered on them.  I have a student from the UK who arrived with plain doboks in white and black - so they must be available somewhere.

Nonetheless, this is off the topic of the original post - which was about schools limiting the emphasis on forms in preference to what the OP described as "more practical" skills.  As I said in my original response:



> I think that in limiting patterns, and teaching your students that they are only valuable to "provide an artistic element and a tie to tradition", but that they are "not practical in terms of self-defense or sparring", you are doing them a major disservice. For more detail on why I think this, see this thread for a discussion of the value of patterns in training.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Feb 4, 2008)

First, I'd like to apologize to Stuart for the landmine he stepped into on this thread. This weekend I suggested to him that he should drop by MartialTalk and that it's TKD section was a great place to discuss the art and that there was a very knowledgeable group around here. I had not seen this thread or the direction it was taking when I invited him . Having said that, I am going to horn in with my own opinions on the subject at hand and I suspect that these will ruffle some feathers around here. Still, they are based on historical truth and the facts (at least as far as I know them.)

I do feel that if you understand the proper bunkai/applications of the forms used in TKD, they are a valuable training tool, but ONLY IF you do take the time to properly train them with resisting opponents and can really make them work. There is little doubt that the forms used in TKD, whether they are ITF or WTF (at least the pal gwes and pinans, I will say nothing of the tae gueks) decended from the Okinawan forms via Japan. Gen. Choi and the Korean Kwan leaders at Kukki may have reformatted them and put in their own touches, but the techniques and their sequences are basically just re-spliced. Even the Okinawan masters can trace the roots of their katas to the Tai Chi Chuan 108 movement form.

One of my own side areas of study has been the kyusho and tuite (Korean term keupso) of forms and put quite a bit of time and study in this area for over a decade. During that time I developed a good friendship and training relationship with Master Will Higgenbotham (Okinawan-style 8th dan) and GM Leon Jay (GM of SCJJ). They have even used my school to shoot some of their instructional DVD's and Will has approached me about doing a DVD on the Korean forms. Maybe one day our schedules will ease up at the same time and allow this project to happen.

I am more of a generalist and MMA guy than a specialist like some others on this forum. TKD is just one of several systems that I have earned rank in (BTW, no cross ranking. Only one of my dan rankings in several systems-American Kenpo is the result of any accelerated training), but I do hold a master's rank in it. Because of this, and a strong interest in and curiosity of martial arts history, I am not really very tied down to romanticized versions of TKD's history as some around here seem to be nor have any emotional attachments that make me turn a blind eye to historical facts.

According to the research I've done, the kyusho and tuite applications of the bunkai of the katas were rarely (if ever) taught prior to a student reaching 3rd dan (after the kyu/dan system was adopted). Gen. Choi was only a 2nd dan in shotokan (and even that is giving him the benefit of the doubt since some Japanese sources say 1st dan), it was unlikely that he ever had any exposure to ANY of the true applications of the forms. Therefore his applications and those he passed down to his students in the ITF are likely flawed as well. Especially since they don't match up with the applications of those of the parent arts on which the TKD forms were based.

I would like to address some of the things Master Arnold brought up and what appeared to me to be the spirit underlying his points (at least how I took it, perhaps I am misjudging him). I would like to remind him that while Gen. Choi was responsible for a huge amount of TKD's growth and the acceptance of the actual naming of the system, he was NOT one of the major technical founders. That honor goes to the original leaders of the kwans(Kwan Jang Nim's). To back up this claim, just remember that when the kwans were originally brought together, despite his political position, Gen. Choi was only given an honorary 4th dan (based on his position as the de facto leader of the military kwan based on his rank as a two star general), as opposed to the real 4th dans issued to the actual kwan leaders. It should also be noted that this honorary rank was later taken back when he tried to act like it was an earned rank and also demanded a promotion to 6th dan from the KJN of the CDK. This happened years before his exile from Korea and while he was still a powerful man with an incredible amount of "juice" in Korea.

I am going to shut up now before I offend many of the great TKD practitioners who come from a ITF lineage. I just have a problem with the "party-line" that some with an ITF lineage take about those outside their lineage not being "true practitioners of TKD", especailly given what the documented history is rather than the revisionist version that some ITF people try to make it out to be. BTW, even though my lineage in TKD goes back to WTF MDK, if the evidence supported Gen. Choi's position, I'd give him his props and I think the Kukki/WTF crowd still does not show the proper respect for his contributuions often enough.

One last note to Master Arnold, if I misunderstood where you were coming from and misjudged your intent, I do apologize. I have heard this line from many of those who came from an ITF lineage and may have just assumed that this is what you were implying.


----------



## StuartA (Feb 5, 2008)

Kacey said:


> I would ask, however, why you don't just buy plain doboks?


Because where my school was founded it is a poor area and a plain ITF style dobok didnt exsist in the UK and would have to be made special order for the Academy, in the same mould as making up a funky coloured suit, as the ITF ones were mass produced, hence cheaper, hence the students could afford them.
Nealy 10 years down the line we could get them specifically made up (they still dont sell plain ones in the UK AFAIA) but all the students have the ones we originally got and its mass task and TBH too much to ask for students to all buy a  new, only slightly different type.

plus the reasons I mentioned before.

My old organisation sent a message via the grape vine when I first started teaching saying I should ensure I wasnt wear thier dobok as I would be mistaken for stil being an instructor under them. I sent a message back (same way), saying i woudnt want that as I no longer wanted to be associated with them and they might recieve some kudos from me 9this bit was in jest btw) and that Im happy to return my dobok if they send my money back.. until then, I paid (OTT) for it and I won it!   I never did wear it anyway btw.





> I buy them plain and have our association's logos either silk-screened or embroidered on them. I have a student from the UK who arrived with plain doboks in white and black - so they must be available somewhere.


Not seen where myself, perhaps a mass order for a group of clubs or an org.



> Nonetheless, this is off the topic of the original post - which was about schools limiting the emphasis on forms in preference to what the OP described as "more practical" skills. As I said in my original response:


Yup

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Feb 5, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> First, I'd like to apologize to Stuart for the landmine he stepped into on this thread.


 
No need to apologies. I am happy to take on the martial arts stalwarts misconceptions when needed.... goes with the terriotory of being a little bit known Im afraid.

Furthermore, I am please and privilidged you showed me a forum of intelligent, genuine martial artists... discussing the arts for their benefit. Not all forums are as forthcoming.

So thank you,


Stuart


----------



## exile (Feb 5, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> ...I am going to horn in with my own opinions on the subject at hand and I suspect that these will ruffle some feathers around here. Still, they are based on historical truth and the facts (at least as far as I know them.)



I really enjoyed this post, and just want to comment on some of the many good points in it.



Kwan Jang said:


> I do feel that if you understand the proper bunkai/applications of the forms used in TKD, they are a valuable training tool, but ONLY IF you do take the time to properly train them with resisting opponents and can really make them work.



Yes&#8212;and this is one of the main emphases of the modern bunkai-jutsu movement in karate. It's probably true, as one of our experienced members, cstanley, has pointed out, that a lot of what people are in effect reconstructing from the evidence of the kata themselves have been known all along to the senior master Okinawan  practitioners, but given that, the movement (arising, so far as I can tell, from mostly Shotokan roots) to recover these practical street-effective applications has been accompanied by a new view of training, what Abernethy calls  kata-based sparring, which involves very intense realistic noncompliant training quite different from standard tori/uke one-step training. As Iain Abernethy notes in his April, 2007 article in _Black Belt_, 'Making Kata Work',

_If you wish to use the form's techniques and principles in live situations, you need to practice against noncompliant  opponents because that's what you'll be facing... I've bled, broken bones and dislocated joints through my own adventures, so I fully appreciate that heavy contact isn't for everyone... 

It's essential to gain live experience in applying the fighting techniques and principles recorded by kata. Without it, all the knowledge you gain from kata study will be theoretical. It's foolish to expect this theoretical knowledge to miraculously become practical knowledge when you need it._​
(p. 103). This is directly relevant to the OP question, because there seems to be assumption implicit in the OP that you either have practical combat training _*or*_ you have kata-based training, and that the two are kind of mutually exclusive&#8212;that's my reading of the OP, anyway. But as Kwan Jang and Abernethy are both pointing out, there is absolutely no conflict between making forms central to your curriculum and training street-effective SD; the problem is leaving out the actual combat practice. I always think of it this way: you can read a physics text book and see how the various concepts introduced allow you to find relationships between certain physical variables&#8212;force, energy, momentum, temperature, pressure etc. But once you've seen how these different dynamical notions are mathematically related, how do you actually _use _ those relationships to look at a certain situation where you know certain values for certain of these variables and use that knowledge to determine the values for other variables? And that's where the problem section in each chapter comes in. You don't really understand the physical relationships amongst the various notions until you are able to use these relationships to solve problems, _difficult_ problems. Every competent engineer or physicist has probably solved a thousand textbook problems for every 'conceptual' section paragraph they've ever read. There's no other way to learn how to solve problems than to solve problems. That goes for all branches of knowledge, including knowledge of martial arts. 




Kwan Jang said:


> *There is little doubt that the forms used in TKD, whether they are ITF or WTF (at least the pal gwes and pinans, I will say nothing of the tae gueks) decended from the Okinawan forms via Japan.* Gen. Choi and the Korean Kwan leaders at Kukki may have reformatted them and put in their own touches, but the techniques and their sequences are basically just re-spliced. Even the Okinawan masters can trace the roots of their katas to the Tai Chi Chuan 108 movement form.
> 
> One of my own side areas of study has been the kyusho and tuite (Korean term keupso) of forms and put quite a bit of time and study in this area for over a decade. During that time I developed a good friendship and training relationship with Master Will Higgenbotham (Okinawan-style 8th dan) and GM Leon Jay (GM of SCJJ). They have even used my school to shoot some of their instructional DVD's and Will has approached me about doing a DVD on the Korean forms. Maybe one day our schedules will ease up at the same time and allow this project to happen.
> 
> I am more of a generalist and MMA guy than a specialist like some others on this forum. TKD is just one of several systems that I have earned rank in (BTW, no cross ranking. Only one of my dan rankings in several systems-American Kenpo is the result of any accelerated training), but I do hold a master's rank in it. Because of this, and a strong interest in and curiosity of martial arts history, *I am not really very tied down to romanticized versions of TKD's history as some around here seem to be nor have any emotional attachments that make me turn a blind eye to historical facts.*



A couple of points here:

(i) I've wondered for a long time if there was a Korean equivalent for the tuite aspect of original Karate; thanks for the info on the Korean term _keupso_. As enough practitioners become aware both of the Japanese notion of _bunkai_, the analysis of forms for practical use, and the existence of Korean analogs (e.g., _boon hae_ for bunkai) it may one day be possible to develop a Korean technical lexicon which makes reference to the Japanese terms unnecessary. This is desirable, I think, _not_ for reasons of Korean nationalism (though Koreans may, quite understandably, find it so) but because the existence of a Korean terminology for such combat-based analysis, including the controlling-move and weak-point striking aspect will in effect build these notions into the KMA lexicon, so that when we look at a hyung, asking about what the boon hae and the keupso aspects of the hyung are will be entirely reasonable, because there is a vocabulary which takes the existence of these kind of combat applications for granted. And once that's accomplished, the assumption that hyungs and practical combat techniques have little or nothing to do with each other, or that the former are irrelevant to a school curriculum which emphasizes the latter, or&#8212;especially&#8212;that it's all (and only) kicking, punching and blocking, in the end&#8212;will be well on the way to its deserved oblivion.

(ii) There is now a huge body of impeccably documented researched, much of it peer reviewed by professional MA historians, which unequivocally demonstrates the correctness of the statements I've bolded above in KJ's message.

The following articles have appeared in the past 15 years and provide, amongst them, exhaustive documentation of the very recent origins of TKD/TSD as the legacy of Japanese karate in Korea, the irrelevance of 'tae kyon' to the modern TKD technique set, and the fantasy status of claims of ancient indigenous Korean combat systems so far as the modern KMAs are concerned:

 Young, Robert W. 1993.  The history and development of Tae Kyon. _Journal of Asian Martial Arts_ 2.2, pp. 45-69.

Capener, Steve. 1995. Problems in the identity and philosophy of T'aegwondo and their historical causes. _Korea Journal_, Winter (available here)

Burdick, Dakin. 1997.  People and events of Taekwondo's formative years. _Journal of Asian Martial Arts,_

Burdick, Dakin.  2000. People and events of Taekwondo's formative years [expanded version of the 1997 _JAMA_ article], available at http://www.budosportcapelle.nl/gesch.html

Henning, Stanley. 2000. Traditional Korean Martial Arts. _Journal of Asian Martial Arts._

Adrogué, Manuel. 2003 Ancient Military Manuals and Their Relation to Modern Korean Martial Arts. _Journal of Asian Martial Arts._

These guys have gone meticulously over every physical artifact, every bit of 'ancient' documentation, every misleading etymology, ever assembled on behalf of the completely spurious '2000 year old' history of TKD, and shown that in every single case the evidence is about on a par for the Bermuda Triangle and cold fusion. A very cold light indeed is shed on the motivations and historical integrity of certain prominent MA proponents of these views in the recent interview in the January _Black Belt_ by our own Robert McLain with Gm. Kim Byung-Soo; I won't say any more about that interview here, but I'd urge all to read it in conjunction with the foregoing sources, particularly certain information in the Young article I've cited. The fact is, there is nothing that gives claims for ancient TKD anything beyond the status of wishful fantasizing, and, as Gm. Kim says, this is increasingly coming to be recognized, even in Korea (where, as Young points out in his article, a number of major TKD figures have, fairly courageously, debunked the claims that have been made for TKD's mythical 'Three Kingdoms' origins).



Kwan Jang said:


> According to the research I've done, the kyusho and tuite applications of the bunkai of the katas were rarely (if ever) taught prior to a student reaching 3rd dan (after the kyu/dan system was adopted). Gen. Choi was only a 2nd dan in shotokan (and even that is giving him the benefit of the doubt since some Japanese sources say 1st dan), it was unlikely that he ever had any exposure to ANY of the true applications of the forms. Therefore his applications and those he passed down to his students in the ITF are likely flawed as well. Especially since they don't match up with the applications of those of the parent arts on which the TKD forms were based.



Gennosuke Higaki's  _Hidden Karate: the True Bunkai for the Heian Katas and Naihanchi_ provides testimony from Higake's own instructor, who trained personally with Funakoshi one-on-one as an advanced elite student, that the expat Okinawan masters had a kind of gentleman's agreement, strongly monitored by their own instructors back on the islands, to not teach the Japanese the true, most effective bunkai. Funakoshi let some of these techs slip when working with favorite students, but for the most part the agreement (which Hagaki refers to as the 'secret pact') was adhered to. But Funakoshi, as we know, took over many of the most militaristic and implicitly racist attitudes of the Japanse society he so strongly desired to assimilate into (see Rob Redmond's article here for a sobering assessment of Funakoshi's strategic and tactical choices with respect to his adopted country) and given what Higaki and many other sources report, it is very unlikely that he would have shared the technical knowledge he did possess about the deepest bunkai applications (which Choki Motobu has written about dismissively, saying that GF's technical knowledge of bunkai was negligible) with many Koreans, whom the Japanese regarded with the same hostile contempt as their other colonial subjects. This would have been an additional barrier to the young Choi's getting much in-depth information on the bunkai of the kata he was exposed to and which, according to GM. Kim, he taught faithfully during the first phase of his postwar MA career in Korea.



Kwan Jang said:


> I would like to address some of the things Master Arnold brought up and what appeared to me to be the spirit underlying his points (at least how I took it, perhaps I am misjudging him). I would like to remind him that while Gen. Choi was responsible for a huge amount of TKD's growth and the acceptance of the actual naming of the system, he was NOT one of the major technical founders. That honor goes to the original leaders of the kwans(Kwan Jang Nim's). To back up this claim, just remember that when the kwans were originally brought together, despite his political position, Gen. Choi was only given an honorary 4th dan (based on his position as the de facto leader of the military kwan based on his rank as a two star general), as opposed to the real 4th dans issued to the actual kwan leaders. It should also be noted that this honorary rank was later taken back when he tried to act like it was an earned rank and also demanded a promotion to 6th dan from the KJN of the CDK. This happened years before his exile from Korea and while he was still a powerful man with an incredible amount of "juice" in Korea.



I've read essentially this narrative in a number of independent, well-documented accounts of the history of TKD written by people without a horse in the race, so to speak. 

The time is coming when a clear, cold-eyed evaluation of modern KMA history, and of the partisanship which has resulted in so much legend, wishful thinking and sheer propaganda, will become available.  And a lot of what Kwan Jang has to say in his post will, apparently, be part of that evaluation....


----------



## Kacey (Feb 5, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> There is little doubt that the forms used in TKD, whether they are ITF or WTF (at least the pal gwes and pinans, I will say nothing of the tae gueks) decended from the Okinawan forms via Japan. Gen. Choi and the Korean Kwan leaders at Kukki may have reformatted them and put in their own touches, but the techniques and their sequences are basically just re-spliced.



The Ch'ang H'on (ITF) tuls are heavily influenced by the Shotokan forms; I have a 1965 edition of The Encyclopedia of TaeKwon-Do, which includes a number of Shotokan forms.  Comparison of those forms shows the similarity; Master Arnold demonstrated this similarity at his promotion last Saturday, when he performed Heian (Heian 1?) while I performed Dan-Gun, the second form in the Ch'ang H'on tul set, next to him.  The similarities are striking; there are very few techniques in either form that is not in the other, and most of the techniques are the same, and in the same sequence.

Many of the applications (bunkai) in TKD were lost for a variety of reasons: details were not transmitted for one reason or another; practitioners chose their own favorite interpretation and discarded others; practitioners were not taught interpretation (either in limited forms or not taught at all); practitioners were taught "this is the way you use this technique" and did not search out other applications; oral transmission is often faulty; other reasons apply as well.  

I had the privilege of listening to GM Lang and GM Steiner discuss this very issue last weekend; I only wish I had had a tape recorder, as I can't remember nearly as many details I wish I could have.  I do recall a discussion of applications of techniques in Chon-Ji I'd never considered, including the preparatory motion for the low block being the preparation for a throw, with the blocking motion, with the hands beginning crossed back to back at the wrists, and then the blocking hand moving in an arc across the lower abdomen and the reaction hand moving back (elbow to the rear) could also be a throw - although I can't describe the demonstration clearly at this point (and it was pretty restricted; we were in a restaurant eating breakfast).


----------

