# If you know Kong Sang Koon, do you really need to know O Sip Sa Bo?



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2008)

If you know Kong Sang Koon, do you really need to know O Sip Sa Bo?

It would seem like Kong Sang Koon fits the curriculum of TSD better.  You can see bits of Pyung Ahn, Bassai, and Chinto in it.  O Sip Sa Bo has some elements of Naihanchi in it, but it seems to fit better with a different grouping of hyung.


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 23, 2008)

Very interesting question.

Kong Sang Koon definitely fits well with the Pyung ahn forms and I can see pieces of other forms as well.  But this question makes me think of an analogy with the Chil Sung forms.  If you learn the first 3 Chil Sung forms, there are pieces of the Pyung ahns all through out them, but still in a slightly different presentation.  So I can see the argument that you may not need to learn the Pyung ahns if you know Kong Sang Koon.

As for Oh Ship Sa Bo, I can see pieces of the Naihanchis and well as some other hyung.  Personally, I would say that it is valuable to learn both KSK and OSSB.  Especially since I know how you think of forms.  If you can dig into both of them and get the meanings out of the movements and analyze them, I could see you getting completely different things from the two forms.

Whereas, I can see you getting the same basic applications and ideas from KSK and the Pyung Ahns, as well as from OSSB and its derivative forms.  

I am also a believer that every form has purpose in its presentation, order, and practice.  There is also something to be learned just from the action of learning a form.

The part about OSSB fitting with a different grouping of hyung...well, that may be true as many portions don't seem to fit well with other parts of the TSD curriculum.  But that is true of other forms too...when I first learned Yuk Ro Cho Dan, I was blown away by how much different it was, but it is really just in the difference of the Japanese vs Chinese influence.


----------



## DMcHenry (Nov 25, 2008)

I like them both, and they are very different forms.  Each form bring a different aspect to work on.  I like the fact that some of the yudanja hyungs are so different from each other.  I'd hate to be doing the same type forms over and over, like just different combinations of basics in just a different order.   Makes it all interesting and enjoyable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2008)

One of the things I'm looking at is the rationale for the selection of hyung at the yudansha level.  Why were certain forms picked for the curriculum while others were neglected?  Gojushiho is a great form, but it doesn't share many characteristics with other forms in the list.  It stands out.


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 25, 2008)

I'm just throwing this out there for discussion's sake....but if I were creating a style, I would pick forms by exception.  I would choose forms that did introduce varying principles.  I personally wouldn't want a series of forms (and only those forms) that all demonstrate the same concept and nothing else.  Isn't one of the things that we discuss here so often, that cross training is important?

Musashi specifically wrote that learning as much from as many systems and styles as you can is essential to the study of your own system.  I wish that I had "The Book of Five Rings" with me here so that I could put some of his quotes out here....but really, isn't that the value of having a number of forms that "dont' share the characteristics of others in the list?"

Personally, I love the fact that we have both the Chil Sung hyung as well as the Pyung Ahn hyung.  They are two completely different approaches to self defense and a fighting style, and yet we have incorporated both of these "hard" and "soft" / "internal" and "external" approaches into the same art.  While some schools of TSD lean one side or the other....the mixture of the two is so interesting to me.  It is like reading a two "How To" books on the same topic from two opposing perspectives.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 1, 2008)

You know, I was doing some thinking about this thread this morning.  If you look at the two forms and you think about what Funakoshi Sensei said about Shotokan when he formalized the syllabus, this starts to make sense.  He told students of Karate that he was blending the Shorin and Shorei Ryu.  Shorin, he said, is a quick stepping art with quick and complicated counters.  Shorei is low and powerful with circular components designed to grapple and unbalance.  Kong Sang Koon and O Sip Sa Bo seem to fit that description, IMO.  Thoughts?


----------

