# The Taeguek Cipher - Book Review



## StuartA (Oct 3, 2008)

The Taegeuk Cipher
*by Simon John O'Neill*






----------------------------------------------------------------------
I brought this book for a number of reasons, firstly because obviously pattern applications is a particular interest of mine and my Academy, secondly to support the cause of making patterns have more function in TKD than they presently do (though that is changing) be it Ch'ang Hon/ITF or Kukki/WTF and finally because I know and have seen Simon and knew what he has release so far via the internet, to be not only good, but have far reaching consequences into the system of Taekwondo he practices.

Okay, onto the book. Well, I knew it would be good and even though I only received it today I am very impressed. The book isnt just a collection of techniques and applications for the Taegeuk patterns (even though they form the core of the book) and even if it was, it would be worth the money for any WTF student and many other martial artists who dont have the same focus in regards to their forms/kata/patterns. However, the book includes much more, such as an in-depth history of Taekwondo and its development, so much so I would think many Karateka would learn a lot from it simply for the amount of info on the pre-TKD years and the background of famous Karate masters from all the various styles who form the lineage that eventually led to Taekwondos 'official' birth. Much information on who helped develop the Taeguek patterns and how their history and influence infused the patterns with variosu self-defence aspects such as grappling techniques, throws etc.
It also includes sections on the primary exchanges involved in a self-defence altercation and how the patterns relate, how to develop specific attributes to enhance what you learn/practice within the patterns, sections on patterns performance, sparring drills/exercises relating to pattern application (some of which I already use and a couple that I will certainly start to use) and even a section on how to formulate a practical patterns related syllabus.

Going onto the bulk of the book, the patterns are divided into chapters (obviously) however, the chapters are grouped to correlate to the stages involved in a self defence senerio, that of first attack, grappling range and finally advanced techniques, sothing which I think will help the student immensily. Of the chapters on each pattern, the basic steps/techniques of the pattern are shown by some smaller photographs at the top of each page, with the applications shown underneath in larger photographs. Each chapter covers each step of all the Taeguek patterns and involves mostly small combinations of techniques and how they combine to show the complete self defence applications.

The only (minor) bad points are some of the pictures are darker and/or smaller than I would of liked and require closer scruntany, though with that said, the majority are easy to see at first glance of the page 9wel, they were for me).

Though I've only had this book less than a day, being a Ch'ang Hon student obviously these patterns arnt the ones I practice, but I found myself actively searching out (and finding) techniques & combinations that are similar to what I perform in my own patterns to give me a different perspective on combinations that I know already, of which they there are many. With this in mind I would obviously, without doubt recommending this book to all KKW/WTF students and instructors (perhaps even some of those running the KKW ), all ITF/Ch'ang Hon based students, many students of Karate and anyone else who likes reading about martial art histories or lack pragmatic applications within their own forms or katas, as you will undoubily find common ground.

In fact, I would go so far as to say Simon should be acknowledge as starting what is likely to be a revolution in the KKW/WTF world, something I hope he is remembered for; in recognition of his fore sight, efforts and achievement in releasing this book.

This book is 244 pages, a decent size of 18.9x24.6cm, perfect bound paperback with colour cover, black & white interior and has over 500 photos and lots of text. It will eventually be sold via Amazon, but at the moment it can be found/ordered on http://www.combat-tkd.com as well as http://www.lulu.com/content/2390574


----------



## KickFest (Oct 3, 2008)

Nice overview. I can't wait for mine to arrive now!



			
				StuartA said:
			
		

> In fact, I would go so far as to say Simon should be acknowledge as starting what is likely to be a revolution in the KKW/WTF world


Fingers crossed! There seems to be a growing (if seemingly small) interest in re-incoporating TKD's martial roots which is very promising. Time will tell...


----------



## exile (Oct 3, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Going onto the bulk of the book, the patterns are divided into chapters (obviously) *however, the chapters are grouped to correlate to the stages involved in a self defence senerio, that of first attack, grappling range and finally advanced techniques,* sothing which I think will help the student immensily.




A very gracious and informative review, Stuart! 

What I find interesting about the part of your comments I've bolded is that that strategy for presenting materialgoing from the attack initiation range 'inward'is Iain Abernethy's whole take on the narrative organization of the Pinan kata set in its original Okinawan order. His viewas you probably knew long before I did!is that the first three of the Pinans are kind of the basic textbooks for three combat ranges: the initiation range, the close-in range and the grappling rangeand the last two are kind of the 'advanced' followup techniques sets for those same three ranges, with alternative movements and ground-oriented adaptations of the vertical techs in the first three. I think IA has influenced this whole new generation of 'bunkai-jutsu' analysts, people like SJON and you who see practical applications of forms as the very core of the curriculum, reviving the much older format for MA teaching, before the era of mass instruction with Funakoshi and the other Okinawan expats in Japan. And this idea of kata forming distinct tiers, corresponding to different combat ranges, is one of the most interesting things to come out of his pioneering work on the Pinan set.

I'm waiting with decreasing patience for my copy to arrive, and I'm looking forward to some very interesting discussion of the book on MT. What I'd really love to see, of course, is some lively exchange on the way this method of analysis would extend to the older KKW colored belt pattern, the Palgwes, since that's what we do at my school, rather than the Taegeuks...

Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments here, Stuart.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 3, 2008)

Yes times are changing involving the fighting in TKD


----------



## StuartA (Oct 3, 2008)

Exile,

Though I know of Iains thoughts on the kata being grouped, I came across it after doing my book (so didnt really think about it much for the book itself), whether Simon did or not I cannot say, but either way, it makes training them with this in mind very beneficial to the student I think and is a very good view of it all.

My book took abut 5 days to come, so hopefully others should ba there soon.. Ill be interested to see others views on it.

Regards,

Stuart


----------



## exile (Oct 3, 2008)

StuartA said:


> ...it makes training them with this in mind very beneficial to the student I think and is a very good view of it all.



I agree: I think it helps students make sense of the formsthat they really do form an educational sequence, in many cases, rather than just being separate instructional sets with little connection to each other. Anything which lets you make well-motivated connections between things makes learning much easier.

My copy has already shipped, they tell me... it won't be long now!


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 3, 2008)

exile said:


> I agree: I think it helps students make sense of the formsthat they really do form an educational sequence, in many cases, rather than just being separate instructional sets with little connection to each other. Anything which lets you make well-motivated connections between things makes learning much easier.
> 
> My copy has already shipped, they tell me... it won't be long now!


 
Steady exile, steady. Remember your heart:ultracool

Mine shipped today. I can't wait either.%-}


----------



## exile (Oct 3, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> Steady exile, steady. Remember your heart:ultracool



I think of it as... stationary aerobics! :lol:



IcemanSK said:


> Mine shipped today. I can't wait either.%-}



If a few of us TKDists vanish from the site for a day or two, people should know that it's just that we're swallowing _The Taegeuk Cipher_ whole, and will be coming up for air, and extended discussion, the instant we're finishe reading it. I'm looking forward to some gooooooooood conversations about this book!


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 4, 2008)

My copy is due Monday.  I'm seriously thinking about calling out of work for a day just to read and experiment at the dojang.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 4, 2008)

Well after reading it over I must say it was well written, the biggest problem I had with it was all the pictures, to small for my old eyes. I beleive he has alot of vital point wihen each poomsae but I also believe he should have gone deeper into the complete application. I would have loved to see it expanded more that is all. I would differently recommend these book to anyone that was serious about poomsae and the application of them.

PS I will be putting alot of this to test during classes this week.


----------



## Laurentkd (Oct 4, 2008)

How did I totally miss this? Everyone has already ordered a book I haven't even heard of!!! Off to lulu press to check it out...


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 4, 2008)

Laurentkd said:


> How did I totally miss this? Everyone has already ordered a book I haven't even heard of!!! Off to lulu press to check it out...


 

Oh Lauren, you've been out of the loop.:ultracool


----------



## Laurentkd (Oct 4, 2008)

Well I have ordered it so now I am officially back in the loop (until you all get your copies while I am still waiting anyway).


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 9, 2008)

I just received my copy. I haven't been able to read much of it, but it does look interesting.

My first impression is that it's as if O'Neil is taking a Taekwondo form & giving it to an MAist of a different Art to examine. I don't mean this to offend anyone, but it reminds me a bit of the way George Dillman makes every form or kata all about the "hidden" pressure points in each.

I'm going to keep an open mind however. I'm sure there is value in this text. It's a shift of thought process for me.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> I just received my copy. I haven't been able to read much of it, but it does look interesting.
> 
> My first impression is that it's as if O'Neil is taking a Taekwondo form & giving it to an MAist of a different Art to examine. I don't mean this to offend anyone, but it reminds me a bit of the way George Dillman makes every form or kata all about the "hidden" pressure points in each.
> 
> I'm going to keep an open mind however. I'm sure there is value in this text. It's a shift of thought process for me.



The historical discussion is crucial here, Ice. What SJON shows in those first chapters is that the historical roots of TKD, based on the documented expertise of the Kwan founders and their first generation students, included training in a variety of MAs including not just Japanese Karate, but Judo (Yudo) and Jiujitsu. The latter two were in fact probably the most ubiquitously trained MAs in pre-liberation Korea, because from the time of the occupation on, instruction in them was widely available in Korea due to the presence of Japanese military combat experts in Korea and the favorable attitude of the occupying authorities towards their own MAs. Those patterns and forms that he's talking about were put together either from Japanese patterns, incorporating grappling and controlling elements which were explicit in Funakoshi's karate and the Shito-ryu of the Shudokan school that was part of the mix&#8212;Funakoshi's prewar book show abundant use of these techs, including suplexes (!!?) and throws. So to my way of thinking, the components of the forms that he's parsing out which involve pins, throws, controlling moves and so on are exactly what we would expect, given both (i) the karate sources of these hyung components and (ii) the documented background of the Kwan era pioneers in arts in which grappling, locks, pins 
and throws were simply taken for granted as technical elements.

As a striking art, of course, impact techniques are the bread and butter of TKD, as you'd expect, given the karate base SJON describes. But the use of the aforesaid grappling and controlling techs to _set up_ those strikes is also exactly what you'd expect, given the historical record SJON goes into in detail. In fact, I think his book puts the vast majority of TKD books&#8212;where sloppy history mixing fact with legendary fiction provides a kind of 'decoration' with no real relevance to the technical content&#8212;to shame (Stuart's book being one of the striking exceptions): the meticulous tracing of lineages in O'Neill's book contributes crucial information about the information content we should bear in mind in looking at the hyungs, because it establishes, for each of the founders and style contributors to early TKD, the range of MA knowledge that they possessed. And that was the era in which the TKD forms, or their ancestors, were created. So my reading of the book is that it provides a sound historical argument for why the line of technical analysis provided is not just plausible, but the favored interpretation, when issues of combat utility are taken into account.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 9, 2008)

exile said:


> The historical discussion is crucial here, Ice. What SJON shows in those first chapters is that the historical roots of TKD, based on the documented expertise of the Kwan founders and their first generation students, included training in a variety of MAs including not just Japanese Karate, but Judo (Yudo) and Jiujitsu. The latter two were in fact probably the most ubiquitously trained MAs in pre-liberation Korea, because from the time of the occupation on, instruction in them was widely available in Korea due to the presence of Japanese military combat experts in Korea and the favorable attitude of the occupying authorities towards their own MAs. Those patterns and forms that he's talking about where put together either from Japanese patterns, incorporating grappling and controlling elements which were explicit in Funakoshi's karate and the Shito-ryu of the Shudokan school that was part of the mixFunakoshi's prewar book show abundant use of these techs, including suplexes (!!?) and throws. So to my way of thinking, the components of the forms that he's parsing out which involve pins, throws, controlling moves and so on are exactly what we would expect, given both (i) the karate sources of these hyung components and (ii) the docuemented background of the Kwan era pioneers in arts in which grappling, locks, pins
> and throws were simply taken for granted as technical elements.
> 
> As a striking art, of course, impact techniques are the bread and butter of TKD, as you'd expect, given the karate base SJON describes. But the use of the aforesaid grappling and controlling techs to _set up_ those strikes is also exactly what you'd expect, given the historical record SJON goes into in detail. In fact, I think his book puts the vast majority of TKD bookswhere sloppy history mixing fact with legendary fiction provides a kind of 'decoration' with no real relevance to the technical contentto shame (Stuart's book being one of the striking exceptions): the meticulous tracing of lineages in O'Neill's book contributes crucial information about the information content we should bear in mind in looking at the hyungs, because it establishes, for each of the founders and style contributors to early TKD, the range of MA knowledge that they possessed. And that was the era in which the TKD forms, or their ancestors, were created. So my reading of the book is that it provides a sound historical argument for why the line of technical analysis provided is not just plausible, but the favored interpretation, when issues of combat utility are taken into account.


 
Told ya the history section was good didnt I :angel:

That said, even without it, even if he just found some decent alternative applications without the historical context to back it up... it would still make a worthwhile addition to those that practice these forms (and others with similar patterns) simply because they add to the art... and anyone who would dismiss that isnt doing the art a diservice, but themselves, as martial artists who should grow! And those people should really take the blinkers off or stagnate as the rest bypass them altogethor!

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 9, 2008)

exile said:


> The historical discussion is crucial here, Ice. What SJON shows in those first chapters is that the historical roots of TKD, based on the documented expertise of the Kwan founders and their first generation students, included training in a variety of MAs including not just Japanese Karate, but Judo (Yudo) and Jiujitsu. The latter two were in fact probably the most ubiquitously trained MAs in pre-liberation Korea, because from the time of the occupation on, instruction in them was widely available in Korea due to the presence of Japanese military combat experts in Korea and the favorable attitude of the occupying authorities towards their own MAs. Those patterns and forms that he's talking about where put together either from Japanese patterns, incorporating grappling and controlling elements which were explicit in Funakoshi's karate and the Shito-ryu of the Shudokan school that was part of the mixFunakoshi's prewar book show abundant use of these techs, including suplexes (!!?) and throws. So to my way of thinking, the components of the forms that he's parsing out which involve pins, throws, controlling moves and so on are exactly what we would expect, given both (i) the karate sources of these hyung components and (ii) the docuemented background of the Kwan era pioneers in arts in which grappling, locks, pins
> and throws were simply taken for granted as technical elements.
> 
> As a striking art, of course, impact techniques are the bread and butter of TKD, as you'd expect, given the karate base SJON describes. But the use of the aforesaid grappling and controlling techs to _set up_ those strikes is also exactly what you'd expect, given the historical record SJON goes into in detail. In fact, I think his book puts the vast majority of TKD bookswhere sloppy history mixing fact with legendary fiction provides a kind of 'decoration' with no real relevance to the technical contentto shame (Stuart's book being one of the striking exceptions): the meticulous tracing of lineages in O'Neill's book contributes crucial information about the information content we should bear in mind in looking at the hyungs, because it establishes, for each of the founders and style contributors to early TKD, the range of MA knowledge that they possessed. And that was the era in which the TKD forms, or their ancestors, were created. So my reading of the book is that it provides a sound historical argument for why the line of technical analysis provided is not just plausible, but the favored interpretation, when issues of combat utility are taken into account.


 
Yes the historical background was worth the price alone and the other views on the application just makes it like it was a free book.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Told ya the history section was good didnt I :angel:
> 
> That said, even without it, even if he just found some decent alternative applications without the historical context to back it up... it would still make a worthwhile addition to those that practice these forms (and others with similar patterns) simply because they add to the art... *and anyone who would dismiss that isnt doing the art a diservice, but themselves, as martial artists who should grow!* And those people should really take the blinkers off or stagnate as the rest bypass them altogethor!
> 
> Stuart





terryl965 said:


> *Yes the historical background was worth the price alone *and the other views on the application just makes it like it was a free book.



Dead right on both counts, gentlemen!


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 9, 2008)

I'm certainly not discounting the work of SJON & his going back to the Funakoshi roots. I struggle with the fact I don't see the breakdown of the forms like this in the successive generations of Koreans (Choi, Hong Hi; Son, Duk Sung; Park, Hae Man; S. Henry Cho to name a few) in their discussions of forms. A block is basically a strike defending against a strike in the 1st generations of Kwan folks. 

Why is it that the "block in the form stands in for something else" idea skipped these early generation folks, & yet is apparent to TKD folks 50-60+ years later? Even Kim, Pyung Soo in his books on the Pal Gwe hyungs explains blocks in the forms as blocking strikes. The "pull aways" & releases are explained as such.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> I'm certainly not discounting the work of SJON & his going back to the Funakoshi roots. I struggle with the fact I don't see the breakdown of the forms like this in the successive generations of Koreans (Choi, Hong Hi; Son, Duk Sung; Park, Hae Man; S. Henry Cho to name a few) in their discussions of forms. A block is basically a strike defending against a strike in the 1st generations of Kwan folks.



Well, one important point which emerges in the work of people like Abernethy, or of Lawrence Kane & Kris Wilder (in their pathbreaking book, _The Way of Kata_) is that the decoding of forms was considered to be a privileged body of knowledge entrusted only to the most senior students and never committed to writing. At most, it would be alluded to, with no details given. This is what Kane & Wilder have to say about this particular skill, the _summum bonum_ of classical Okinawan karate:
_The work to uncover hidden techniques in kata is called kaisai. Since it offers guidelines for unlocking the secrets of each kata,  kaisai no genri (the theory of kaisai) was once a great mystery revealed only to trusted disciples of the ancient masters in order to protect the secrets of their systems. As  Toguchi Sensei's quote from his book Okinawan Goju Ryu II indicates, this information has only recently become available to a wider audience.​_(p. 109). The quote that Kane and Wilder allude to is the epigraph of their Chapter 4, and reads as follows:

_Chojun Miyagi taught me this theory [kaisai no genri] just before his death and recommended that I not make it public. However, as karate became popular around the world, I felt it would not benefit true karate if I were to hide it as a secret in my Shorei-kan school. I regret the public has lost confidence in traditional Okinawan karate and may not understand the true value of karate kata._​
Much of the content of _The Way of Kata_ is a explicit statement with careful illustration, of the _kaisai no genri_  of Goju Ryu. What emerges, with devastating clarity, from this passage from Seikichi Toguchi's magnum opus is that the revelation of the decoding rules for kata that he was offering was motivated by the fact that karateka themselves were losing faith in the combat efficacy of traditional karate _because they did not see the self-defense information encoded in the kata_. Sound familiar? 



IcemanSK said:


> Why is it that the "block in the form stands in for something else" idea skipped these early generation folks, & yet is apparent to TKD folks 50-60+ years later? Even Kim, Pyung Soo in his books on the Pal Gwe hyungs explains blocks in the forms as blocking strikes. The "pull aways" & releases are explained as such.



Remember that the 'dual syllabus' went back to Itosu himself, and when Funakoshi went to Japan, he maintained contact with his Okinawan masters, among whom there was an understanding that the arrogant, racist Japanese overlords were not to be given the deepest combat secrets of karate, but rather to be taught only the children's syllabus. This was stated very matter-of-factly in Gennosuke Higaki's excellent book, _Hidden Karate: the True Bunkai for the Heian Katas and Naihanchi_:
_The following is what I was told by Sensei [Shozan] Kubota. When Master Gichin Funakoshi introduced Okinwan karate to the mainland, there was a 'secret pact' made among the practitioners of Okinawan karate. Karate was primarily spread at universities, and the explanation [for the kata movements] which Sensei Kubota learned was about the same as today. It was, however, completely different from what he was taught at night classes by Master Funakoshi at his house. When asked, 'Why did he teach something different than in the daytime, his answer was that 'Master Funakoshi was actually not supposed to teach it.' In other words, because of a 'secret pact', he was not to teach the 'yamatonchu' (slang for Japanese mainlanders)... there is a well known saying in karate that goes, 'Even if you teach the kata, don't teach the actual techniques'...

According to Sensei Kubota, in order to unravel the kata, it is necessary to know the oral instruction, which will restore the bunkai to its original form.​_(pp.65&#8211;66). 

What people like Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, Stuart Anslow and SJON have done is comb through all the available information on actual bunkai applications available, trying to recreate the _kaisai no genri_ principles (some of which were actually revealed in Toguchi's book), and then do their own research using 'reverse engineering' reasoning, undergirded by what of the original 'deep' bunkai can be reliably recovered. Against this background, the systematic concealment of the combat principles and tactics encoded in the kata makes perfect sense. And when you consider that the earliest Korean students of karate, the Kwan founders, were studying either with Funakoshi or Kanken, or _their_ senior students, the absence of the transmission history for the 'true bunkai' becomes completely reasonable&#8212;in fact, it would be very strange if it _weren't_ like that. To the extent that the Kwan founders and senior students were aware of the hidden applications revealed by the complete kaisai no genri, they would virtually certainly have followed the practice of their own Okinawan masters&#8212;whom the evidence strongly suggests they revered&#8212;and not reveal those applications, much less the decoding rules of the kaisai. And to the extent that they _weren't_ aware of those applications, they would obviously have to be silent about them.


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 9, 2008)

Are you saying that the techniques that SJON describes in this book are the hidden techniques of the Tae Guek poomsae that were intended by the designers? If so, one would imagine that the designers would have taught it someone. 

Park, Hae Man is one of the designers of the Tae Guek poomsae. He travels the world giving seminars of these poomsae. Our own Miles is hosting him this weekend for the 2nd time that I call recall. I'm bettin' neither Miles nor his students will share in the "secret" techniques behind these poomsae. My GM is GM Park's direct student. I'd bet my last dollar that no "secret" techniques have been discussed between them.

I don't recall so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that some of Funakoshi's "hidden" techniques were in some of his books? If this is that case, why would successive generations feel the need to hide them from all but top students? How could they if the books are available to the world? Point being, how are they hidden if they're written in books available multiple languages?

I'd be very surprised if GM Park, Hae Man were to read SJON's book & say, "well yeah, that's what we really meant the boon hae to be for the Tae Guek's."

I do see possible value in some of the ideas & options that SJON came up with. "If I were in position X & moving to position Y, here are 2-3 things I could do in between" is an interesting thing to ponder. But to claim that these are the secret &/or hidden meanings of the Tae Guek poomsae deciphered by someone other than one of the designers is utter folly. IMO.

Reasoning it out, a hidden or secret technique in the Tae Gueks makes no sense to me. In older kata, perhaps. I wouldn't persume to speak to that issue. It would seem to me that some "masked master" would have blown the lid off of this to the complete embarassment of the designers & the KKW years ago for spite & much profit.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> ]Are you saying that the techniques that SJON describes in this book are the hidden techniques of the Tae Guek poomsae that were intended by the designers?[/B] If so, one would imagine that the designers would have taught it someone.



No, not necessarily. As SJON points out, a lot of the component sequences that show up in the Taegeuks are found in the Okinawan/Japanese kata that the Kwan founders and their students studied, but whose content wasn't necessarily made clear to them by their teachers, for the reasons that the authors I cited summarize. The subsequences which make up the Palgwes, the Taegeuks and some of the black belt forms, and much of the Ch'ang Hon tuls,  represent recombination of old kata elements (for the ITF forms, see Chris Thomas' terrific article, 'Did karate's Funakoshi found Taekwondo?' in Black Belt 21, 1988 (October issue)). And what SJON is suggesting is that the designers of the Taegeuks retained these subsequences, even though they recombined them and added to them, precisely because they were aware that there was significant combat information contained in them&#8212;without necessarily knowing _in full_ just what that information was.   



IcemanSK said:


> Park, Hae Man is one of the designers of the Tae Guek poomsae. He travels the world giving seminars of these poomsae. Our own Miles is hosting him this weekend for the 2nd time that I call recall. I'm bettin' neither Miles nor his students will share in the "secret" techniques behind these poomsae. My GM is GM Park's direct student. I'd bet my last dollar that no "secret" techniques have been discussed between them.
> 
> I don't recall so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that some of Funakoshi's "hidden" techniques were in some of his books?



No, I _didn't_ say that. I said that Funakoshi's books contain illustrations and photos of grappling techniques, throws and the like, which Funakoshi was quite upfront about as being components of Okinawan karate. In _Karate-do Kyohan_, GF wrote that 

_in karate, hitting, thrusting and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are also included._​
&#8212;a point also echoed by Shigeru Egami in _The Heart of Karate Do_, where he specifically refers to  karate's 'throwing techniques'.  If you check my previous post, you'll see that I was talking about the use of grappling/pin &lock/throwing techs in the earlier karate that the Okinawan expatriates brought with them to Japan. I did _not_ say that the 'hidden' techniques were in his books, and I'd be very surprised if he ever committed those apps, or the broader theory of kata interpretation called kaisai no genri in Japanese, to paper. I referred in the post you're alluding to to 'grappling, locks, pins and throws [being] simply taken for granted as technical elements'. I said that what's significant about the existence of these 'grappling' apps in traditional, old-era karate is that&#8212;given that they were envisaged as part of the system (or system*s*, since in Itosu's and Motobu's day, each kata was regarded as a separate style)&#8212;_once that existence is recognized, their identification as part of the 'subtext' of kata&#8212;or the recombined kata elements that TKD hyungs comprise&#8212;is no longer anything controversial or even surprising. _ That's why people like Stuart, SJON, Abernethy, Patrick McCarthy and other bunkai theorists take pains to point out that in early-era karate, these controlling techs were taken for granted as combat resources. I most definitely did not say that these, or _any_ other elements, were explicitly discussed _ as components of 'hidden' bunkai techs,_&#8212;by Funakoshi or by anyone else, because those guys did not record those hidden applications in print. 



IcemanSK said:


> If this is that case, why would successive generations feel the need to hide them from all but top students? How could they if the books are available to the world? Point being, how are they hidden if they're written in books available multiple languages?



I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that these techniques and methods of analysis are fully present in the published work of Funakoshi or anyone else. I _did_ point out that certain general principles were presented in Toguchi's book, specifically, three general principles that he described as 'basic rules'. Kane & Wilder discuss these in detail in their book; if you're interested, see their Chapter 4 for their discussion of what Toguchi said, and what the combat content of those principles was.  But the details of the full theory of kata decipherment appeared neither in Funakoshi's books nor anyone else's. As Higaki notes repeatedly, it was orally transmitted, and only to senior students (Choki Motobu effectively makes the same point in one of his books, and suggests that Funakoshi wasn't senior _enough_ to be entrusted with the full monty; see below). That's why they are hidden.



IcemanSK said:


> I'd be very surprised if GM Park, Hae Man were to read SJON's book & say, "well yeah, that's what we really meant the boon hae to be for the Tae Guek's."



See my foregoing comments, which are largely a reprise of SJON's conclusions&#8212;in a nutshell, that (i) certain deeper applications of karate kata movement _were_ made available to Park Hae Man,  Kim Soon Bae and the other members of the Taegeuk formation committee, based on their seniority under their own instructors who, O' Neill argues, probably themselves had received a certain amount of oral instruction in the hidden bunkai for the kata elements that fed into later TKD hyungs;  and (ii) that, as he says,

_there are two feasible explanations for the contradiction between the desire to break with Japanese tradition and produce an art superior to Karate, and the conservation of the bulk of the Karate syllabus [in the Kukki hyungs]. One is that the founding masters really believed that the simplistic  'kick-block-punch' interpretation was a practical fighting system, and that a superficial makeover would suffice to convince the world that they had invented a new, superior martial art. The other is that that they recognized the old Karate forms for what they were&#8212;codifications of highly effective vital point and grappling techniques&#8212;and were loathe to tamper with these contents beyond making a few judicious modifications and additions, and reorganizing them to some extent in order to grade them for difficulty. This second hypothesis goes a long way to validating the patterns as realistic self-defense systems...​_
Notice that in order for SJON's 'second hypothesis' to be true, it isn't necessary in the least that the Palgwe and Taegeuk designers themselves saw all, or even most, of the concealed techs that SJON has parsed out of these hyungs. The key point is that the form designers were aware that there _were_ potent applications within the source forms, just as Higaki became aware of this because of what Kubota told him. 



IcemanSK said:


> I do see possible value in some of the ideas & options that SJON came up with. "If I were in position X & moving to position Y, here are 2-3 things I could do in between" is an interesting thing to ponder. But to claim that these are the secret &/or hidden meanings of the Tae Guek poomsae deciphered by someone other than one of the designers is utter folly. IMO.
> 
> Reasoning it out, a hidden or secret technique in the Tae Gueks makes no sense to me. In older kata, perhaps. I wouldn't persume to speak to that issue.



The point of much of SJON's work is, however, that the Taegeuks, and much if not most of the KKW hyungs historically, are recombinations of sequences from the Pinans and other classic Okinawan kata sets.  So if they were present in the 'older kata', as you say, then they would be preserved in the hyungs themselves. It's the subsequences that preserve the short, effective two and three move SD applications, after all.



IcemanSK said:


> It would seem to me that some "masked master" would have blown the lid off of this to the complete embarassment of the designers & the KKW years ago for spite & much profit.



I don't follow this last conclusion.  One of SJON's points is that the KKW hyungs preserve much of the combat instruction set of older karate, but that the composers of these hyungs, while aware that the ingredients for their new hyungs had very different applications beyond the literal, combat-impractical ones, did not know the full system for decoding those older meaning. Going back a generation, Motobu himself claimed that Funakoshi didn't fully understand the bunkai for the Okinawan kata he taught, because neither Itosu nor GF's other teachers entrusted him with the full analysis. The recovery of these techniques has largely been the result of the hints and the few explicit suggestions and instructions offered by the pioneer karateka and early TKD masters, including the one whom SJON cites in his introduction:

_The process [of my research] began when I read an interview with a well-known Malaysian Taekwondo master, who mentioned that the patterns contained many soft, circular motions, joint locks and other hidden applications, and demonstrated them in photos._​
To 'blow the lid off this', one would have to do the painstaking reconstruction work that people like Stuart Anslow, SJON and others have carried out on the details of pattern application in the karate based arts. And these people are, in effect, 'blowing the lid off this' by publishing the results of their research. I don't really see where the contradiction is.

If you think it's all folly, well, I doubt that anything I've written here will convince you otherwise, Ice. Everyone who reads the book will draw their own conclusion; I myself find SJON's overall perspective, as well as his detailed analyses, extremely plausible.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 10, 2008)

exile said:


> I myself find SJON's overall perspective, as well as his detailed analyses, extremely plausible.


As do I... however, I feel it is fair for IcemanSK to be skeptical, as though there is evidence towards _'more'_ in kata/patterns, the main issue is the glaring hole in the time period when applications of more than a p/b/k nature were not taught generally and how more recent stuff (such as both Simons & my book) suggest that certain revered Masters either didnt know this stuff or held it back... which, considering the way these Masters are held in such high regard can be hard to swallow and that is understandable.

But I have another view that make make things easier to digest for some and it differs from Simons, although mine is in regards to Gen Choi and the Ch'ang Hon patterns, so I cant say this is the case for those that Simon has researched regarding the Taegueks, as his research and evidence is very good and add much credibility for the founders (and is probibly a better/nicer way to look at it all than mine).

First of all, my thoughts work on the fact that most believe that the patterns of TKD largely follow the trend of Japanese karate, stemming from the shotokan taught by Funakoshi, following the way they are put togethor and many of the combinations in them.. I think this is clear for all.

Now Choki Motobu is known to have derided Funakoshi for not knowing the in-depth nature of the Kata he taught and evidence has been presented of what many refer to as the "_School System_" of Karate differing from the original Karate in many ways when it went to mainland Japan from Okinawa - Funakoshi was caught up in this time period and my take on it, from what I have read, is that Funakoshi didnt have the gaps filled in and in fact learnt the "_School System_" or at least a system that was incomplete in many important areas (such as the real bunkai). There were reasons why this occured but too much to go into here. A compelling book to read about this is "Shotokans Secret". 

So Funakoshi learnt (or decided to teach if you prefer to believe that version) the slimmed down version to the Japanese. In turn, these taught Choi, who wiggled and jiggled a few things and then in turn taught TKD to others (like me). In my book I compared it to being given a colour by numbers picture, but with no numbers - so for many years the outline was the picture, until someone decided to colour it in, but then they didnt have the numbers so were free (and challenged) to do this as they felt it was meant to be. Coupled with the fact that the Japanese term which is now refered to as "_block_" was a mistranslation (whether deliberatly or not) from the Okinawan word for the same action, which mean "_to recieve_"

The question here is why wasnt Gen Choi teaching in-depth applications and the answer (to me) is simple - because he didnt learn them.

The next question is - well , why didnt he question them? The answer is again pretty simple.. because firstly back then you never questioned the master.. it just wasnt the done thing period (many still wont dare do that today  this is clear) and TBH, there was no reason to question the masters anyway as the majority (like today) were happy with what they had.

However, following the lines of history from Itsou to Funakoshi to Choi and Okinawa to Japan to korea the colours may not have been passed along correctly, but the picture still was (albiet in various guises) and it only takes a couple of people to start questioning things, have a light bulb moment, notice something similar in another art maybe and then begin researching, both history and applications and it becomes clear - whether they were past along in step by step detail or not *IS NOT* the question, the real question is are they still with us and as all patterns are basically rewrites of the original Okinawas kata, the answer is an astounding yes.. and as long as you accept that, then you can accept there is more to the movements and sequences than what we once learnt and thus, chose to or not to work on that area more to give what you do more depth.

Point being, we shouldnt deny their exsistance because our own teachers or masters didnt show them, it is acceptable and understandable they didnt know them and were none the wiser... its not a taint on them, it just how it was back then; they never had multiple books to cross-reference, the internet, arts were closed with regards to discussing the finer details, no one questioned seniors etc etc.

I think it was either Clayton or kane who posted a picture of a brightly painted vase, with a nice pattern on its sides and flowers sticking out the top - to most it looked like a nice funky vase.. upon closer inspection (and stepping back to see it clearly) it was actually a hand grenade with the firing mechanism taken out.. his point being that an object of detruction can be seen and used as totally different things depending on the perspective of the person looking at it - and one would only question it if they were a) very insightful or more likely b) they had a small inkling that that wasnt its main purpose

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 10, 2008)

Following on from my last post I have one final thing to say regarding applications to patterns.

Simon and others back up the alternative use by way of history, but, even if he didnt, even if he just re-engineered the Taegueks and found other alternatives to their movements, as long as these applications were pragmatic and added to the students training, they should not be dismissed but rather embraced, as even in that sense he is adding to the art and forwarding it - and this is the way of martial artists - not to stagnate, but to be progressive.. we can still retain the roots and the traditions and be progressive at the same time - the one good thing about it all is that we are able to add to our current systems and give them an even fuller figure... maybe its just me, but I like that!

Stuart


----------



## rmclain (Oct 10, 2008)

I just wanted to add that according to Grandmaster Kim Soo, Yudo was a mandatory PE class in his high school.  I don't know if this was all high schools or not.  But, I was told that while striking arts were banned from being practiced by Koreans in Korea during the Japanese occupation, Judo (Yudo) in the school system was normal and allowed.

R. McLain


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> The question here is why wasnt Gen Choi teaching in-depth applications and the answer (to me) is simple - because he didnt learn them.
> 
> 
> The next question is - well , why didnt he question them? The answer is again pretty simple.. because firstly back then you never questioned the master.. it just wasnt the done thing period (many still wont dare do that today this is clear) and TBH, there was no reason to question the masters anyway as the majority (like today) were happy with what they had.


 
Stuart good post, I edited it due to only having time to address this one issue.

I too believe that he and the other Korean Masters didn't learn the bunaki or applications from the forms as well.  But then niether did the many of the current and past Japanese and then in turn western masters either.  Reading in Jose Fargus's book on Karate Masters(?) I found that many of the older Japanese masters of Shotokan and other styles didn't learn applications of the forms as forms of self defense really, they were taught instead the basic block, punch and kick applications.

And a key reason for this was that it was being taught to hot blooded young men in universities who wanted to test themselves in matches against one another.  So a shift occured away from self defense to sparring.  Who wants to practice a form for three years and dig for the meanings when I can get out and test my self and fight instead.  And if I have a good fighting school then I help spread the art through tournaments and such.  I think this shift took place much to the dismay of Okinawan masters who brought the arts to Japan in the first place.

Now I seem to remember that in that book that the western masters/leaders of the MAs who trained in Okinawa learned the applciations and placed more of a priority of training in them. 

In regards to the Korean Masters, I believe they were in the same classes (time frame) as the (now) Japanese Masters (when they were students) and they probably learned the block, kick and punch method as well.  When they made the forms they rearranged segments probably looking at them as more of sparring combinations that can be rearranged at will than a detailed fighting method that taught how to defend yourself in different ranges etc. etc.

To back up this view I offer the following.
1) The shift from up right stances (more natural, more in line with self defense) to the lower deeper more powerful foreward stances that you practice in basics.  The shift is really evident in the early photos of Funakoshi and the later Shotokan versions of the same moves in the forms.

2) The basic same applications of techniques found in the earlier TKD manuals and the same applications or very similar in the Japanese system manuals.

3) In the early versions of TKD which were very much based on Japanese karate systems there were the same elongated stances and the same basic blocks and kicks.

4) In regards to sparring both TKD and karate adopted the roundhouse kick in the late 30's or early 40 time period.  Which came form the chinese systems to Japan not form Okinawa to Japan.  Again mainly due to sparing techniques. 

Mark


----------



## StuartA (Oct 10, 2008)

Hi Mark (Boar man),

Seems we are in agreement. As far as Shotokan, the buck stopped with Itsou (so to speak) and all else is a knock on effect from there.

The _'hot blooded young male'_ thing is a good reason, as is the _'school'_ system, as is perhaps not wanting to divulge the _'essense'_ with those that oppressed them for so long perhaps (ie. okinawans to japanese)... perhaps even a combination of these. 

I concur with all your points... though I would like to know the reference to the 4th one, as from my research, strangly enough, taek Kwon didnt really have much reaching consequences into TKD above and beyond that it was Korean, had a similar name & had lots of kicks in it.. but previous to that, it was one of the few Korean arts pre-karate that got exported to China (in parts).. ie. the Chinese took some of the kicks and infused them into their systems.. perhaps it came full circle!!

What is the book you refer to.. have you a link as I could find it on Amazon?

Regards,

Stuart

Ps. One further point for readers of this thread. Changing karate to fit the schools happened before it was exported to japan.. it happen on Okinawa first, following the emporers death and thus making it legal to teach it openly as his death meant they were no longer bound by secrecy. Terefore, in theory, the change could have been a) to make it more accpetable for children to learn  b) all the above myself and other have submitted as evidence or c) a pure business move ie. make it more popular for the masses

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 10, 2008)

Found it:


----------



## SJON (Oct 10, 2008)

Hello.

Many thanks for the interest in the book and the kind comments. There's some great discussion going on here. I'm really impressed with the knowledge that I'm seeing and the cordial tone that's being used. I also see a few familiar faces!

Give me a bit of time to read back over the thread, and I'll be back.

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2008)

SJON said:


> Hello.
> 
> Many thanks for the interest in the book and the kind comments. There's some great discussion going on here. I'm really impressed with the knowledge that I'm seeing and the cordial tone that's being used. I also see a few familiar faces!
> 
> ...



_*Welcome to MartialTalk, Simon! *_


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 10, 2008)

SJON said:


> Hello.
> 
> Many thanks for the interest in the book and the kind comments. There's some great discussion going on here. I'm really impressed with the knowledge that I'm seeing and the cordial tone that's being used. I also see a few familiar faces!
> 
> ...


 
Welcome Simon glad to have you here, one quick question why and how did the book come to be?


----------



## SJON (Oct 10, 2008)

Hello.

OK, Ill try to address some of the points raised, in no particular order and with a none-too-clear head (its late and I have a cold).

First of all, did somebody mention pressure points? As far as Im concerned, the whole vital point thing is far less of a big deal than people make out. I remember when I was a schoolkid back in Liverpool, we all knew lots of vital points like (1) strike the jaw (2) grind a knuckle under the ear (3) punch the solar plexus (4) kick the balls (5) knee the outer thigh. Add to that some "adult tough guy" targets like the base of the skull, the eyes, the throat, the collar bones, the floating ribs and the knees. Add to that some grappling targets such as the sides of the neck and some gripping points on the arms. And now you have a full set of pressure points for use in developing an unarmed combat method. I suspect similar knowledge was to be had on the streets of Naha, Nanjing, Busan or Tokyo at any time you care to choose over the last 100 or 500 years.

Regarding the Taekwondo patterns, the big question is  as you have been discussing  whether the early KSD/TSD masters ever really knew the deeper applications of the forms they learned, or whether they were only familiar with the K/B/P versions. Here I think there are two things to consider.

One is that what we now look at as hidden secrets may not have been such a big deal (as has already been mentioned on the thread). I think that using grips to tie up the opponent in order to facilitate striking has always been present in the striking arts, as has the tendency to throw him to the ground once youve struck him, possibly in order to stomp on him some more. Combine this with a grappling culture comparable to that of high-school wrestling in the US. I dont think this stuff was ever consciously concealed. I think it just fell by the wayside as soon as the striking arts began to emerge as a commercial phenomenon, simply because self-defence was never a big enough business. The paying masses just wanted to spar and the associations wanted to promote their arts to as large a public as possible. So the gripping aspects of the striking arts were emphasised less and less, and any connection between this and the patterns was lost to the collective memory.

The other is whether General Choi and later the KTA Poomse Committee ever actually built the deeper applications into their patterns. I must say, I really believe they did. Remember that were talking about something that wasnt such a big deal, not something mystical based on meridians, chi flow at certain times of day, the destructive cycle of elements, etc.
Now, I wont claim to know much about the Chang Hon patterns, and maybe General Choi was even guilty of including a few sequences because he thought they looked cool, or because he saw a certain non-combative physical training value in them, but I think the man had a very clear combative idea of what he was doing in the majority of them. Have a look at the 7th Chang Hon pattern Toi-Gye. At the beginning there are a couple of sequences with a low inverted spear hand strike followed by a drawing back into high stance accompanied by a kind of half low block and a simultaneous rear backfist. To me this is clearly a groin grab and pull, ideal for maiming and upending an adversary in a military or civilian context. The funny thing is, something similar appears in Pinan Godan and in Kushanku, although Choi decided to modify the final stance, presumably to get more of an upward jerk into the proceedings. There is nothing mystical here, no super-secret pressure point applications, just a very practical, nasty sequence that ceased to be taught as such because people were having too much fun (and earning too much money) doing high kicks.
I think the above is just as true, if not even more so, of the Taegeuk patterns. On the whole, they are less flashy than the Chang Hon set, and a lot more repetitive. And if you consider the background of their composers, those apparently impractical K/B/P sequences start to look like something else altogether.
Now, would Park Hae Man, if challenged, suddenly say, OK guys, you got me there. We really did design deeper meanings into the patterns. I doubt it. I wouldnt presume to comment on his character and motivations, as I do not know him and it would be rude to do so. However, I would not be surprised if (a) he chose to maintain the pact of silence referred to in earlier posts (b) he did not feel inclined to suddenly contradict 40 years of the official K/B/P version, with all the emotional/institutional investment that this entails. On the other hand, I would certainly be tempted to ask him if he or a trusted student could convincingly demonstrate the efficacy of the standard K/B/P applications of the high block sequences in Taegeuk 1, the last sequence in Taegeuk 5, the backfist sequences in Taegeuk 7 and the high/low block sequences in Taegeuk 8 against a committed attacker, and then tell me that the original intention wasnt something different 


Why did the book come to be? Because  like Stuart, I suspect  I thought, Damn, there must be something more to this   and years later, here we are.

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 10, 2008)

Welcome to MT Mr. O'Neil!.  Let me say that I've spent th epast week reading your book (on my 3rd go through).  I'm really enjoying it.  I've been asking for something like this for the Taeguk patterns for years now.  

I spent about 30 minutes this evening playing around with the apps from Taeguk Il Jang...my son (we'll call him uke Zak) now hates you .  It's a lot of fun working these sequences and getting the nuances of footwork and timing down.

Two things I'd like to see in future iterations of th ebook...larger photographs. I'm sure cost constraints had to be part of your equation in getting this out.  It would be nice to see greater detail in the photos to make it easier to follow along.  Also, notations between ohitis to indicate turn directions.  Iknwo they ar ein the application descriptions, but a hand drawn arrow would also help the end user make easier sense of the material.

That being said, an educated practictioner should have little problem figuring out what to do with the amterial presented as it is in the book.

Finally, do you have any plans on doing a book on the blackblet kukkiwon patterns (koryo, keumgang, etc.)?  If not, can you point me in thte direction of information to do some of that work myself?

Thanks.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> Finally, do you have any plans on doing *a book on the blackblet kukkiwon patterns* (koryo, keumgang, etc.)?



And the Palgwes... pleeeeeze... :waah:

Though in all seriousness, I view books like Stuart's and Simon's as not just expositions of specific analyses, but as guides to the general _method_ of form analysis. If one reads these books and makes the connections between the formal patterns and the application techs themselves, one should eventually be able to replicate the same method of analysis. It's like looking at a bunch of worked examples in a math or physics textbook, and then confronting a new equation or problem to solve... if you've paid attention to the worked examples, and absorbed the procedure and way of thinking that they lay out for you, you should be able to extend what you've learned to new materials and 'sight-read', as the musicians say, any form that's put in front of you. I'm hoping that over time, I'll develop reasonable analysis skills from work of this sort that I'll then be able to pressure test with not-particularly-compliant partners...


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 10, 2008)

I see that.  Where I've struggled is trying to learn th ebasics of forms analyses based on forms I don't know.  I've personally found that to be very challenging.  The stuff being done my Mr. Anslow and Mr. Abernathy made snese to me on a conceptual level...but I struggled  because I wa snot fmailar with the forms form which they drew their examples.  It wasn't until i started studying the Pinan katas that Mr. Abernathy's stuff started making more sense ot me.  

I'm sure in time my analyses skills will improve.  But at this time, I need more support.  

Peace,
Erik


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> I see that.  Where I've struggled is trying to learn th ebasics of forms analyses based on forms I don't know.  I've personally found that to be very challenging.  The stuff being done my Mr. Anslow and Mr. Abernathy made snese to me on a conceptual level...but I struggled  because I wa snot fmailar with the forms form which they drew their examples.  It wasn't until i started studying the Pinan katas that Mr. Abernathy's stuff started making more sense ot me.
> 
> I'm sure in time my analyses skills will improve.  But at this time, I need more support.
> 
> ...



I know exactly what you mean, Erik, 'cause I'm in the same boat. I know the Pinans in a kind of rough and ready way, but the forms I know best are the Palgwes, and, as you say, it's very different when you're looking at forms you know only indirectly, on the basis of others' performance and a second-hand knowledge of the movement sequences, as vs. ones you've internalized completely. That's why I really do wish that we could have a book-length treatment of the Palgwes&#8212;it would help me internalize the method of analysis much more quickly, having as the basis of comparison (between the form and the bunkai for that form) something I know well.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 10, 2008)

All I know is this not taking anything away from this book and its contexts, lets remember it is there interpetation of said form, poomsae or Kata and not to be picking or anything but since we are talking poomsae's here can we call them that. It always kills me when we are talking about a korean poomsae it gets called a kata that is the japanese side of things.

I was wondering how did you come up with some of the S.D principle lets say in Tae Guek Oh jang movement 10-11-15-13-14-15 in particular, not starting but trying to undrstand your perception of said poomsae. Looking forward to your response. Bu the way is has always been my favorite of all the Tae Gueks.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 10, 2008)

Just a side note here OK I am enjoying the book, but would like to keep everything grouded until we have a full understanding of his feelings towards his work and the reason behind his interpitation of all the poomsae's.


----------



## SJON (Oct 11, 2008)

Good morning.

At the moment I'm taking a break before embarking on another book, not least because my wife would kill me otherwise. My intention is for the next one to be on the BB patterns, followed by the Palgwes. This could take a while, but I think the second one will be quicker than the first.

In the meantime, yes, the principles shown in this book (and in Stuart's and Iain Abernethy's) are perfectly applicable to other pattern sets, although the focus and specific methods of each set do tend to be a little different.

I take note of the comments regarding clarity and size of photos.

Terry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding movements 10-15 of Taegeuk 5 (the two knifehand/elbow sequences, I gather). Do you mean how did I come up with the specific application/technique, or what wider concept/principle I'm trying to illustrate?
The theme of the poomse is that of dealing with the clinch in a rather "nastier" fashion than in previous patterns, in the sense that not only do you take your man down, but you make sure you break something while you're at it.
The wristlocks were apparent to me for a number of reasons, such as (a) at this range the hands are generally fixed and are easily located and grabbed (b) the "elbow strike" is at the wrong height for a strike and the rear hand adds nothing (c) the transition between the arm positions of the two movements really looks like a wristlock (to me, anyway!).
Generally I tend to think that the same movement performed on both sides is often not "once against a left attack, once against a right attack", but a conceptually similar solution applied to the inside and the outside of the same attack. Notice that in this case the right wrist is attacked both times.

I hope that answers your question.

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 11, 2008)

SJON said:


> Good morning.
> 
> At the moment I'm taking a break before embarking on another book, not least because my wife would kill me otherwise. My intention is for the next one to be on the BB patterns, followed by the Palgwes. This could take a while, but I think the second one will be quicker than the first.
> 
> ...


 
Yes it did thank you like I said not trying to put anything down just asking questions.


----------



## SJON (Oct 11, 2008)

Hi Terry.

No problem. Questions are welcome, and I certainly haven't interpreted any of them as anything other than polite, perfectly valid queries.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## DMcHenry (Oct 11, 2008)

I ordered my copy the other day and am looking forward to receiving it.

Mac


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 12, 2008)

The problem I have with books like this:

Unless you were the one who designed, or helped design, the Taegeuk, Palgue, and Koryo forms, all you are really doing is second guessing the creators of the forms and trying to determine what those forms mean based on your theories and history.

It might be different if you sat Hae Man Park and his colleagues down, asked them what the techniques in each form are supposed to accomplish (and that's assuming you get past the language and cultural barriers), and diligently wrote down and committed to memory what he said and demonstrated. I'm assuming you have not.

Therefore, to me this book is simply your interpretation of what you think the forms are supposed to be doing, whether Taegeuk, Palgue, or Koryo. Some of it might be reasonably accurate. Some of it most likely is not, because you'd have to know what they were thinking and had in mind. And unless you got it from them personally, I highly doubt that.

I feel fortunate that my own instructor had personal relationships with senior instructors like Hae Man Park. If I want to know what a form is doing, I just ask.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 12, 2008)

YM so with this it means your instructor is giving there interpitation to said poomsae and on a side not you talk about only the Korean know for sure but you always call them forms why is that. There has been alot of research dowen by non Koreans about the Tae Gueks poomsae's and we are finally come from the shadows so why would you bot see what is out there. What is the name of your instructor by the way and his try's to Hae Man Park? See I have been doing this for a long time and over that time I have heard stories change for the betterment of TKD or so they say. Let say it is his interpitation of said poomsae's so it give new light and understanding to them. Some of it I can see others it just does make sense at this time to me, but over time I will either believe or throw it away but at anyrate if I do not see with both eye's open we cannot grow the Art.


----------



## DMcHenry (Oct 12, 2008)

Baring knowing what the form originators intended when the moves were designed, we do need to discover/decide what the techniques are within the forms, otherwise we are just doing a martial dance.  It also takes off all restrictions, so no interpretation is incorrect  the one that speaks to you and you relate to is correct for you.  To me, this brings the art back in martial arts.  This discovery is what makes trying to understand the cipher interesting and an enjoyable journey.  Otherwise, whats the point?  Why train in forms, obscure choreographed techniques with no meaning at all?

Personally, I love forms, and the study and decoding of the techniques contained within.  Keeps it fun and interesting.

Your mileage may vary.  I would love to see more similar books, and am glad Simon spent the time and effort to compile and share his information and ideas.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 12, 2008)

I apologise for my tone, but this response is one of the reasons why martial arts remain stagnate, indoctrinated and never evolve.. the early master were not gods, they were humans and thus make mistakes (and like most humans find it hard admit them) or miss things, or overlook things or are short-sighted etc etc. Only others make them god-like.. but under the facade, they are still human! Give them the respect they deserve, but remember they are human as well.



YoungMan said:


> Unless you were the one who designed, or helped design, the Taegeuk, Palgue, and Koryo forms, all you are really doing is second guessing the creators of the forms and trying to determine what those forms mean based on your theories and history.


So... then the forms creator should have made it clearer what they are for.. or maybe they already did!! Which means Simons work is much required!



> It might be different if you sat Hae Man Park and his colleagues down, asked them what the techniques in each form are supposed to accomplish (and that's assuming you get past the language and cultural barriers), and diligently wrote down and committed to memory what he said and demonstrated. I'm assuming you have not.


See above... there should be no need for that IMO... I think by now they would have shown there was more to them above and beyond p/k/b.. *IF,* to them, there was (see my previous post regarding Gen Choi & this area). The _"language/cultural barriers"_ thing I have heard loads of times before as reasoning for not showing stuff, unfortunatly, actions speak louder than words.. and a photo can capture that easily, after all, it is worth a thousand words!



> Therefore, to me this book is simply your interpretation of what you think the forms are supposed to be doing, whether Taegeuk, Palgue, or Koryo.


As I said already, so what.. even if its another take on them (possibly a better one btw).. if it adds to the art then thats a good thing and one that should be embraced. Not giving them credence because hes not the creator who didnt chose to share the real appliactions or more likely didnt ahve any above p/k/b is short-sighted to say the least! 



> Some of it most likely is not, because you'd have to know what they were thinking and had in mind. And unless you got it from them personally, I highly doubt that.


The Taegueks are documented, as are their official applications - I think its clear what they had in mind, and history shows this to be missing a few things consistant with what patterns/kata are for.. I think we are extremely lucky that they followed the same formula as Itsou etc., so we can rework them correctly now, in the 22nd century!



> I feel fortunate that my own instructor had personal relationships with senior instructors like Hae Man Park. If I want to know what a form is doing, I just ask.


You shoudn't have to ask your instructor, to ask his instructor... if theres more to them from their creators above what is taught, then they should be the standard applications.. strangely enough, they are not!

Personally, I suspect, that out of respect, Simon has actually given the Taeguek creators too much credit, when in reality, insight into SD related applicational knowledge bypassed them altogethor as it did with others... again, to repeat my earlier post, this isnt a stain on them, just the sign of the times & how it was back then!

Again, apologies...

Stuart


----------



## exile (Oct 12, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> I would love to see more similar books, and am glad Simon spent the time and effort to compile and share his information and ideas.



Absolutely, DM. 

The idea that all there is in a form is what the people who designed the form _intended_ to be in there is questionable on several grounds. In the first place, it assumes that the originators were working from scratch, and creating movement sequences in a complete historical vacuum, in order to teach specific things. But in the case of TKD patterns, that's dead wrong: many of the subsequences of TKD hyungs are traceable back to Japanese, and earlier Okinawan kata, and still _earlier_ Chinese _xsing_ sequences. And we know in some cases that certain sequences in TKD/Japanese/wherever forms which are marketed a certain way were actually used differently in their sources. The infamous 'double block' in Palgwe Sa Jang at the very start, for example, and the next three moves after it, are lifted straight out of Pinan 1/Heian 2, and we have photos of Funakoshi actually performing this 'double block' in a combat sequence with Otsuka, founder of Wado-ryu as his opponent&#8212;but not as a block! In Higaki's book, a photo of Funakoshi in action shows him using the motion to go inside and deflect Otsuka's straight punch with the 'rising block' while using the inside-to-outside  'middle block' _as a strike to the throat/lower jaw_. It is a picture-perfect 'double' rising block, exactly the opening move of Palgwe Sa Jang, but as been pointed out in many places, the literal double rising application standard in literal karate bunkai for Pinan Shodan, and which I've heard repeatedly from TKDists, assumes extremely implausible circumstances, especially in the context of street violence. What Funakoshi demonstrates with the motion, on the other hand, is clear, direct, and devastatingly effective in the hands of a well-trained MAist, in just that kind of context. The fact that the move has that kind of combat applicability is inherent in the movements themselves, whether or not the creators of the Palgwes were aware of it by the time that project was initiated.

The second point is that there is always more to something genuinely great than the artist thought of. That's part of what makes art different from engineering. Successive generations of readers have found Shakespeare's or Milton's work highly relevant and meaningful, because even though those writers were men of their era, their greatness left plenty of insight in reserve that makes sense in our own time. So far as the kind of form-parsing that Stuart and Simon do with the TKD forms, what are we going to say&#8212;hey, those applications look effective, stand up to pressure testing, meets the conditions imposed by real street combat violence,  but I'm not going to pay any attention to any of those applications because Hee Man Park or Bae Young Ki weren't aware of them? That, to me, sounds just plain self-defeating...


----------



## StuartA (Oct 12, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> I would love to see more similar books, and am glad Simon spent the time and effort to compile and share his information and ideas.


 
"Oh oh"... << jumps around with hand in the air>>


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 12, 2008)

StuartA said:


> "Oh oh"... << jumps around with hand in the air>>


 
You beat me to it.


----------



## SJON (Oct 12, 2008)

YoungMan,

At no time have I categorically stated that what I propose is the only possibility as the true, original intention of the poomse composers. I think I make this clear in the book. I am proposing a hypothesis based on conclusions I have drawn from the sources available to me and from personal analysis, observation and experience. This is standard academic practice, and is something that historians do all the time. I happen to believe the hypothesis I propose, and I believe that I have every right to propose it.

The applications presented in the book are indeed my own interpretations - again, shaped by my own research and my experience - and are, I believe, valid as SD methods whether you believe that the founders intended something similar, something nothing like it, or something midway between the two.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 12, 2008)

Youngman open your mind and see past the entrance way and into what the future might be bringing in the meantime have a great day.


----------



## exile (Oct 12, 2008)

First, I'll just say that it look to me as if an awful lot of posters on this threadthe great majority, in factare interested in the result of the research carried out by Simon and Stuart, and see a definite value in their findings (with the always-valid proviso that these findings need to be critically examined and probed as part of their own 'pressure-testing'). Those who see no interest or value in this work will simply ignore it, as is their right. I'm therefore assuming that the continuation of discussion in this thread will be carried out by MAists who are receptive to this line of inquiry, and so I'd like to shift the discussion somewhat from the direction it's been going in to a different issue, one which _assumes_ the validity of this kind of analysis.

My question is, when you guys look at a new form, _how do you get started with the analysis?_

I know that bunkai analysts following the approach that Stuart and Simon adoptwhat I think of as the Abernethy picturetypically have a number of guidelines, rules, rules of thumb, call 'em what you will, which represent criteria that must be satisfied by any plausible 'realistic' bunkai analysis. But these rules of thumb sort of apply _after_ the factthey don't tell you in particular how to think of a given interpretation for a set of moves; what they give you is a kind of vetting checklist for a given interpretation of a hyung subsequencea way to assess any _pre-given_ bunkai analysis. They don't tell you how to _come up_ with a range of such interpretations in the first place.

So what I want to know is, when you see a form for the first time, what do you start with in getting a handle on its combat content? Do you have some other procedures, rules of thumb, guidelines or the like that point you, reliably, in the right direction?  A lot of us, I think, hope to learn from your work how to construct and test our own form application analyses. But how to get started, how to 'sight-read' a new form and construct various alternative possibilities... those are the questions. What do you chaps actually _do_, confronted with a new form to analyze?


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 12, 2008)

For me I look at how realistic of an approach it is for today world and what can be seen from different views and angles of said Poomsae.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 12, 2008)

Look, I'm not saying a book about what the applications of the Taegeuk forms is not useful. However, none of you created them. Hae Man Park and his colleagues did. Therefore, unless he writes a book as the creator of the forms and describes what the forms are doing, a book by anyone other than the creator of the forms is second-guessing what the intent of the forms is. 
Now, if it is established at the beginning that the author has not spoken with Hae Man Park and the book is simply his attempt to decipher what the forms mean, and he could be wrong, that's fine. But don't try to tell people "this is what this form is most likely doing" if you haven't spoken with the form's creators.
And definitely don't tell me what the Taegeuks are trying to accomplish because you've studied the Japanese forms and this what they do. I could care less what the Japanese forms do. I don't practice karate.


----------



## SJON (Oct 13, 2008)

Good morning.



YoungMan said:


> Look, I'm not saying a book about what the applications of the Taegeuk forms is not useful. However, none of you created them. HaeManPark and his colleagues did. Therefore, unless he writes a book as the creator of the forms and describes what the forms are doing, a book by anyone other than the creator of the forms is second-guessing what the intent of the forms is.


 
Correct, although I prefer to think of it as applying a set of academic and technical criteria rather than just second guessing.



YoungMan said:


> Now, if it is established at the beginning that the author has not spoken with HaeManPark and the book is simply his attempt to decipher what the forms mean, and he could be wrong, that's fine.


 
Nobody is claiming otherwise.



YoungMan said:


> But don't try to tell people "this is what this form is most likely doing" if you haven't spoken with the form's creators.


 
Why ever shouldnt I?



YoungMan said:


> And definitely don't tell me what the Taegeuks are trying to accomplish because you've studied the Japanese forms and this what they do.


 
I have not studied Japanese forms. I have evaluated the very considerable influence of a particular set of Okinawan forms, along with a number of other influences, on this set of Korean forms.



YoungMan said:


> I could care less what the Japanese forms do. I don't practice karate.


 
Fair enough. Each to his own.




exile said:


> So what I want to know is, when you see a form for the first time, what do you start with in getting a handle on its combat content? Do you have some other procedures, rules of thumb, guidelines or the like that point you, reliably, in the right direction? A lot of us, I think, hope to learn from your work how to construct and test our own form application analyses. But how to get started, how to 'sight-read' a new form and construct various alternative possibilities... those are the questions. What do you chaps actually _do_, confronted with a new form to analyze?


 
Exile, in my case, getting started analysing a sequence is usually a combination of some or all of the following:

· being aware of certain general characteristics of the art, e.g. whether there is a general preference towards a particular approach
· seeing which way the weight is shifting as per stance and turn
· taking into account a number of habitual uses for certain techniques, e.g. low block for dragging something down or as a low hammer strike
· likely kind of attack, e.g. more likely a haymaker than a backfist
· likely kind of solution  e.g. striking, gripping  in the context of the pattern as a whole
· seeing what the hands are doing at all stages of the movement, i.e. not only at the beginning and end
· knowing what a whole lot of techniques actually look like, particularly throws, takedowns and joint manipulations
· assuming that at least one hand is going to be gripping the opponent most of the time
· taking into account certain generally desirable results, e.g. unconsciousness, broken limb, opponent on the ground

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## StuartA (Oct 13, 2008)

exile said:


> My question is, when you guys look at a new form, _how do you get started with the analysis?_
> 
> I know that bunkai analysts following the approach that Stuart and Simon adoptwhat I think of as the Abernethy picture


Actually, I didnt follow any guidelines of Iains, in fact I hadnt seen them before I did my book. But, I have been told Kris Wilders book contains the ABC method for deciphering kata.. but again, Ive havnt read the book, just the PDF preview he posted.





> What do you chaps actually _do_, confronted with a new form to analyze?


First of all, the forms I delved into were not new.. I have been practing them for near on 20 years and already had some applications I utilized (many of which made it into the book). For me, my further analysis was based on how I viewed things, historical context etc (as explained in the book). For example, though applications can be many and varied, I set myself the MO (in the book) to ensure I kept to a steady path and because I wasnt trying to go beyond TKD back to Okinawa, but wanted to view them as the TKD Drill Instructors did (these are the ones that first started coming up with alternative applications to the forms, albiet sequences, not whole forms AFAIA).

Regarding the Ch'ang hon patterns, there are really 3 _types_ of applications:
1. Those Gen Choi percieved (and hence put in his books)
2. Those that exsisted prior to the formulation of the patterns, that go back to Okinawa and beyond - much/all records of which were lost in the bombing of Okinawa (these can be further split into two areas - the Itsou/Matsumura era ie. hard style, and beyond that to China/Kung fu ie. soft style)
3. Those alternatives that the TKD Drill instructors came up with based on their own perceptions as well as those who did the initial pattern design work (many of whom remain unknown).

It was No.3 I wanted to get at.. No.1 has already been detailed quite in-depth, No.2 are already being explored by Iain and the Karate guys and even though they do cross over, many a move have been changed making findings here more historical and less relevant to TKD, furthermore as I dont believe they were conciously carried across, though are there through luck anyway, it means things wernt altered for a reason, but simply because! Hence No.3 for me.

Though I didnt follow an ABC method, the biggest research area for me was my cross-training with other arts/instructors, through (and before) IAOMAS as this allowed me to see things that someone who soley studied one art may not have seen, then these were tried out, tested etc. all the while they had to fit the original MO. I strongly believe all the arts are connect somewhere, even those that look really different, for example I trained with a BJJ instructor and found stand up techniques in the TKD patterns, that were virtually identical to BJJ ground stuff.. connected, as I said.

Therefore, it is important to draw from a bigger a picture as possible, you cant see a throw if you dont know what a throw looks like to begin with etc.

Regarding individual patterns, in the book I sub-name them ie. the elbow breaking pattern.. this is because I would look through them over and over, first finding stuff that jumped out at me or that I already used, then researching other techniques out etc. and to me, if the first 6 combinations found (though not nessecarily in order) led to a joint break, it was quite likely the more obscure ones did as well.. though I remained open-minded and that is why I did the alternative applications section at the end of each chapter.

So, in summary:
1. Utilize as much 'outside' knowledge as possible - other arts often contain the answers (more so as many of the originators trained in other arts)
2. For me, the applications had to fit the MO of the period I was looking at - in most cases that mean 'finishing' the opponent by way of kill, break, main or incapacitate
3. As the historical contexts was not carried forward (in the Ch'ang hon tuls).. pragmatic is more important than historic IMO.. so if it works and does what its meant to.. thats great. If they do carry some historic (pre-TKD) relevance than thats a bonus.
4. A fist is not always a fist, but a_ 'tight grip'_
5. Regarding the Ch'ang hon tuls.. a turn may be part of the application or it might not be (see point 3)
6. TKDs national identity must be taken into account.. things were added to make a disctinction that this is Korean, rather than Japanese (like the high kicks)
7. The start and end of as _'block'_ doesnt dictate the start and end of an application, in fact, mmuch of the end parts are follow through to ensure an application works, much like a punch should have follow through
8. If it works under pressure, then it is not wrong, even General Choi acknowledge this often!

There was a guy on the book forum who refused to acknowledge that fighting without pulling your hand back to the hip on every technique was clearly wrong/dangerous.. simply because Gen Choi had not said so and endorsed this practice in his book.. to him (the guy) this was the pinnicle of fighting, something to admire and try to get to.. to me & others, when striking, its a dam stupid and dangerous practice and because he couldnt accept Gen Choi didnt have the whole picture whilst formulating the patterns, to him, it meant it couldnt be so.. where as to others, once you understand what the reaction hand is for.. a whole load of possibilities open up.

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 13, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Look, I'm not saying a book about what the applications of the Taegeuk forms is not useful. However, none of you created them. Hae Man Park and his colleagues did. Therefore, unless he writes a book as the creator of the forms and describes what the forms are doing, a book by anyone other than the creator of the forms is second-guessing what the intent of the forms is.
> Now, if it is established at the beginning that the author has not spoken with Hae Man Park and the book is simply his attempt to decipher what the forms mean, and he could be wrong, that's fine. But don't try to tell people "this is what this form is most likely doing" if you haven't spoken with the form's creators.
> And definitely don't tell me what the Taegeuks are trying to accomplish because you've studied the Japanese forms and this what they do. I could care less what the Japanese forms do. I don't practice karate.


 

Youngman you still did not answer my question, have you or your instructor sit down and talk to Hae Man Park and get everything from his mouth? I practice TKD as well but I still remember its roots came from Okinawa Karate, I do look beyond what others have said about poomsae because in no time in my life have I ever got a real honest answer in to regards all application for the set of poomsae. The best we ever have gotten is a tidbit of the real application. My lord we do not even get notice of changes until the Koreans feel fit to tell us minutes before competition, because they keep so much info. bottle up so they have better chances to win.

What is it you are scared of change or truth about the all mighty poomsae;s of old.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 13, 2008)

Terry,
I am fortunate to have an instructor who practiced under both Hae Man Park and Mr. Uhm. Aditionally, Hae Man Park has conducted seminars on form and Taekwondo technique for our organization.
I have seen my instructor demonstrate various techniques from the Palgue forms, and there is no doubt in my mind he knows what the techniques are used for. Personally, I don't think he needs to ask Hae Man Park what each form does. He has practiced the art for 50 years, working with some of the most senior Kukkiwon masters alive. I think his forms knowledge is pretty solid.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 13, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Terry,
> I am fortunate to have an instructor who practiced under both Hae Man Park and Mr. Uhm. Aditionally, Hae Man Park has conducted seminars on form and Taekwondo technique for our organization.
> I have seen my instructor demonstrate various techniques from the Palgue forms, and there is no doubt in my mind he knows what the techniques are used for. Personally, I don't think he needs to ask Hae Man Park what each form does. He has practiced the art for 50 years, working with some of the most senior Kukkiwon masters alive. I think his forms knowledge is pretty solid.


 
Out of interest... were these more than the block/punch/kick variety?
Any photos/video of his seminars?

Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 13, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Terry,
> I am fortunate to have an instructor who practiced under both Hae Man Park and Mr. Uhm. Aditionally, Hae Man Park has conducted seminars on form and Taekwondo technique for our organization.
> I have seen my instructor demonstrate various techniques from the Palgue forms, and there is no doubt in my mind he knows what the techniques are used for. Personally, I don't think he needs to ask Hae Man Park what each form does. He has practiced the art for 50 years, working with some of the most senior Kukkiwon masters alive. I think his forms knowledge is pretty solid.


 
Well I have been practicing for 45 years and have trained oversea's and till this very moment I stilll have question that cannot or will not be answered, my GM has been doing it since the beginning as well and knows all the great Master's and like he says we American get what they will allow us to have. Who is your G.M. was he at the conception of the Tae Gueks has ne been behind the close doors when all the application have been expanded on over the last twenty years, what changes have been made since the conception of the Tae Dueks? Yopu see youngman I have to been in TKD for a longtime and relize that we get everything well after the conception and sometimes we only get a tidbeit of what is truely meant. I have been to Korea five times to train with some great people there and haver done the KKW course but we still dio not get any priviledges to the real application. I have been told 7 different application for the same movement in TG #5 by five different people all learned from the very best and sometime that was the very same person how is this possible?

All I know is you train here in America which means we only get a tidbit of what really is and if your GM is that close he only gives a tidbit because he has to by order of the KKW. Sorry if you do not believe this but it is true.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 13, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Hi Mark (Boar man),
> 
> The _'hot blooded young male'_ thing is a good reason, as is the _'school'_ system, as is perhaps not wanting to divulge the _'essense'_ with those that oppressed them for so long perhaps (ie. okinawans to japanese)... perhaps even a combination of these.
> 
> ...


 
Stuart

The 4th point I was trying to tie together the concept of karate moving away from self defense to the sparring model.  In the interview with Nakayama he states that he brought the roundhouse kick back from china (where he went to study for a while) and then introduced it to what would become the JKA (Shotokan) sometime late 30's early 40's.  The Okinawan forms Pinan's, Nahanchi, Passai/Bassai etc. etc. didn't have the roundhouse kick.  They had more of the front kick, side kick in them which can be used for self defense more so than the roundhouse.  I had also read somewhere else where the roundhouse kick came from China and then to Japanese karate for use in sparring.  But Nakayama's interview was the first place I found someone say that they brought it from China and introduced to Japanese karate, so that is why I mentioned it.

But if you look at the higher forms they include the roundhouse kick turn kick which have more of a sparing model to them then a self defense model.

Mark


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 13, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Hi Mark (Boar man),
> 
> The _'hot blooded young male'_ thing is a good reason, as is the _'school'_ system, as is perhaps not wanting to divulge the _'essense'_ with those that oppressed them for so long perhaps (ie. okinawans to japanese)... perhaps even a combination of these.
> 
> Stuart


 
Stuart

Sorry I ran out of time on my last post.

In that book that I referenced on the interviews with the karate masters the phrase "hot blooded" "Young males" or there abouts came up a several times referring to the time period when karate was brought into the unversities and clubs were formed.  During this time when sparring was in it's infancy there wasn't much control and people were hurt many times.  and the training was pretty brutal.  From the interviews in that book I think that the emphasis on sef defense for karate training gave way to developing a militaristic/nationalistic mindset and sparring matches (competition) to test one's self.  

But I think that the karate that was practiced in Okinawa for the schools was different.  Because it was taught to younger group of students with a different aim.  It was probably centered more on kata than the sparring mentality of the 30's-40's time frame of Japanese karate.

Your point about the not wanting to divulge the information to the oppressors I believe is a valid one.  Believe it or not the first time I heard a theroy like this was from Joe Lewis at a seminar he did at a Moo Duk Kwan school back in 1985.  He said he was told by his instructor in Okinawa that you don't block like we were all taught (imagine a closed fist down block) instead you block with open hand (like you might in sparring).  That the Okinawans taught the Japanese wrong because they had oppressed (occupied) their country so they taught them the closed fist down block method.  Now I'm saying I believe totally in what Mr. Lewis had said, but I do believe that point of view has some merit, because I have heard this view from others in different arts.

Mark


----------



## exile (Oct 13, 2008)

My thanks to Stuart and Simon for their clear and detailed answers to my question. (In passing, I want to make it clear to Stuart that when I referred to confronting a new form, I wasn't intending a form that was new to him, but rather a form that he hadn't yet worked out a detailed set of possible applications for.)

I think it's important to get the nationalistic/historical static out the discussion as much as possible. I can't understand why anyone would reject pressure-tested applications of TKD hyungs just because those applications might have been inspired by knowledge of older Okinawan or Chinese interpetations for  movements that the TKD patterns were based on.  A combat interpretation is effective, or not, because of objective factors: biomechanical reality, robustness under adrenal shock, the typical development sequence of violent street attacks and the mindset of the assailant in such attacks. None of this is affected in the least by whether you call what you're doing karate,  tang so do, TKD or anything else. In the end, all there are are _motions_, in a certain sequence, that are either effective or ineffective in incapacitating the attacker. It's not as though a wristlock/elbow pin/downward weight projection/hammerfist sequence to dispatch an assailant who's grabbed your shirt or wrist is going to work fine as long as you think what you're doing is Shorei-ryu, but is critically ineffective if you're a KMA or CMA practitioner.  

Wherever they came from, those motions are present in the patterns because _someone_ found them effective after repeated trials&#8212;effective enough to put in the formal curriculum that the forms are the living textbooks for. Once we know that, we have the most important piece of information of all&#8212;that there _are_ effective applications of this sequence of movements, after all (in the same way that knowing that a given verbal problem contains all the information necessary to completely determine the answer is probably the most important information you can have about a given question). And once you know _that,_ you have the luxury of getting down to the business of figuring out just what the most battle-worthy applications of those motions to real fighting are&#8212;i.e., of combing the patterns for combat-successful interpretations, in the _certain_ knowledge that they're going to be there. If some of those interpetations were first discovered by Okinawan or Japanese MAists, or someone practicing one of those arts, why is that a valid reason to reject the interpretations in question of the 'cognate' movements in a related MA, as long as they're solid and effective from a strictly martial, 'engineering' point of view?


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 13, 2008)

Youngman I appreciated your PM but I rather answer your question out here in front of people that know me and know my integrity. You ask *45 years and only a fourth Dan,* yes that is right only a fourth my insteuctor does not believe in rank all that much and neither do I, but I will explain this one more time here on Martial Talk.

I train for the love of the Art not sport TKD was the right fit for me after recieving my first it took another five years to get to second, then another eight for third, I was in no hurry, then came marriage kids and life. I still workout but had no need for a fourth so no worry about it, back in December of 2004 I was ask by my G.M. Kim to go ahead and test for my fourth since he was getting up in his years so if I needed to get a KKW for any of my students I could, so I did this was after 21 of not testing. So you see rank means nothing to me, just like I say in every post about it. What matter is training and understanding of the poomsae's.

Just on a side note if you believe so much in the Korean way why do you call them forms instead of poomsae's which is the right way.

Youngman I mean no dis-respect toward you or your lineage but I have seen alot of stuff over the years, some good some bad some I reaaly do like and things I cannot ever like. But the one thing I have always done is respect my fellow TKD'ers whichever views they may have and if you feel any dis-respect coming from me I am sorry for that, it is not my intention here. My intention is bring in comments about TKD and my personal views out for people to see. Remember not every single person out there cares about a stripe on a belt, my GM does not and neither do I. I hope we can agree to dis-agree and enjoy each other post here on Martial Talk. It is a forum like this that can tear down mountain and build long lasting friendship though the art of TKD.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 13, 2008)

Terry,
No disrespect, only disagreement. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable. 

I call them forms rather than poomsae because my Korean-born instructor calls them forms.


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 14, 2008)

SJON said:


> YoungMan,
> 
> At no time have I categorically stated that what I propose is the only possibility as the true, original intention of the poomse composers. I think I make this clear in the book. I am proposing a hypothesis based on conclusions I have drawn from the sources available to me and from personal analysis, observation and experience. This is standard academic practice, and is something that historians do all the time. I happen to believe the hypothesis I propose, and I believe that I have every right to propose it.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Simon,

Welcome to MT first of all.
I've been out of town this weekend, but read a bit more of your book on the plane home. Your use of the word hypothesis helps me enter into the discussion a bit farther. As an hypothesis & an attempt to "dig deeper" I can appreciate the spirit of your work. I'm sorry if my previous posts were dismissive. 

My issue, perhaps like Young Man's, is that I've have been to a few Tae Guek poomsae seminars of Park, Hae Man. There has not been a hint of your work in what he shared in those seminars. Because GM Park (& perhaps others on the Tae Guek design team, I'm unaware) is still very much alive & teaching regularly, it's hard for me to accept another hypothesis of his forms beside the ones he shared with me. If you were talking about Palsek, or another form who's designer is long gone, it would be easier for me to accept. 

I look forward to much more healthy discussion on this.


----------



## SJON (Oct 14, 2008)

Hello Iceman.

No problem. I have no personal issue with anything youve said, and I consider them valid observations, whether I agree with them or not.

I understand your position. You have been in contact with one of the poomse composers, and he has maintained the K/B/P approach. Given that I believe that this was not the original intention, I have to assume that he just didnt want to teach the type of application I am suggesting for whatever reason, probably one of the ones mentioned on this thread.

I would like to ask a few questions:

1. In his poomse seminars, did GM Park at any time demonstrate the sequences with a partner who attacked with anything other than formal lunge punches, front kicks or perhaps an overhead descending stick attack?
2. When blocking, did he use any part of the arms other than the conventional blocking surface to parry the incoming blow?
3. Did he modify the distances or directions shown in the poomse in order to place himself at a suitable range?
4. Did anyone question the K/B/P practicality of any of the sequences, such as the ones I mentioned in a previous post?

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## StuartA (Oct 14, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> My issue, perhaps like Young Man's, is that I've have been to a few Tae Guek poomsae seminars of Park, Hae Man. There has not been a hint of your work in what he shared in those seminars. Because GM Park (& perhaps others on the Tae Guek design team, I'm unaware) is still very much alive & teaching regularly, it's hard for me to accept another hypothesis of his forms beside the ones he shared with me.


 
IcemanSK,

I hope you dont mind me jumping in here, but Id like to put the same questions to you, that I put to Youngman, who has, like you, attended these seminars. These were:

_Out of interest... were these [applications] more than the block/punch/kick variety?_
_Any photos/video of his seminars?_

Unfortunatly for me, the fact that you say there was _not a hint_ of similar stuff to Simons work, only adds weight to my thoughts (see previous posts of mine regarding Gen Choi & the Ch'ang Hon set) that the patterns were strung togethor in what was considered the _'model'_ at the time ie. they simply copied the kata models of p/k/b and made them similar but with their own take on them, but they still retained the p/k/b mentality. As I said in a previous post, there is nothing wrong with that, it was a sign of the times... however, because they follow that model and because its already been shown that kata that followed that p/k/b model did indeed have more depth once... why not the Taegueks!

This doesnt mean Park, Hae Man doesnt have extrodinary martial knowledge or anything, just that perhaps it wasnt infused in the patterns (more so as I understand they were put togethor pretty quickly).

I believe both Simon & myself agree that the patterns can be and possibly at one point probibly were, more than the sum of their parts and so they should be in the future, the only things we differ on is whether thought & knowledge on applications above & beyond p/k/b were actually part of the intentions - Simons history section on the Taeguek creators adds weight to the theory they might have been, my research (on Gen Choi) says not... your post here seem to indicate the same... hence my questions.

Either way, as I probibly have repeated too much... 1) its not a slight on the pattern creators at all 2) It doesnt matter, as its the future and evolution of the art that counts

Stuart

Ps. thanks Boarman for filling in those details 
Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 14, 2008)

Simon,

The poomsae seminar that I went to was over Koryo thru Pyong Won, rather than the Tae Gueks. My answers are based on those poomsae.



1. In his poomse seminars, did GM Park at any time demonstrate the sequences with a partner who attacked with anything other than formal lunge punches, front kicks or perhaps an overhead descending stick attack? I do remember a few instances of other attacks, but I cannot recall on which response techniques they were used. 
2. When blocking, did he use any part of the arms other than the conventional blocking surface to parry the incoming blow? Not that I recall.
3. Did he modify the distances or directions shown in the poomse in order to place himself at a suitable range? I was honestly learning Keumgang-Pyong Won for the first time. I was quite nervous & trying not to trip over my own feet.
4. Did anyone question the K/B/P practicality of any of the sequences, such as the ones I mentioned in a previous post? As there was not a translator (in addition to the GM-student relationship issue) questions were limited to over what he showed us (rather than what he did not/was not showing us.)


I have a photo with GM Park & myself from that day. Others took photos of the seminar. I'm not sure if video was taken at THIS seminar. Our own Miles hosted GM Park at his own dojang this weekend. I'm sure he'll has many details of his experience.


----------



## exile (Oct 14, 2008)

One useful 'test environment' for the general idea that many components of previously existing forms were adjusted in TKD to fit the simple p/b/k model is the set of unquestionably Okinawan kata that were taken over whole into TKD&#8212;often with the Okinawan or Japanese name intact, apart from small pronunciation modification&#8212;but changed in ways that show how much pressure the p/b/k model imposed on Korean thinking about the movements in these forms. I've written about this before, but the opportunity to revisit it with Stuart and Simon in on the discussion is way too good to pass up! 

The test case I have in mind is the old Okinawan kata Wansu, renamed Empi in Japanese, which has become the hyung Eunbi and is one of the advanced elements in our Song Moo Kwan curriculum at my dojang. I've seen vids of other TKD practitioners performing Eunbi and it's always the same as the way I was taught it: the kicks are high front snap kicks. I was therefore very interested to encounter what looks to me like a very hard-***, streetwise bunkai interpretation for Empi, performed and explained by Paul James here, which shows that the front snap kicks were, in the unquestioned source form for Eunbi, actually _knee_ strikes. And given the close-in interpretation  of the preceding and following movements as grab-and-strike attack on the throat and groin, the role of the knee strike makes perfect sense and is totally compatible with the fighting range involved. When Empi was translated into TKD as Eunbi, however, it appears that the leg techs involved were automatically translated as high front kicks, whose effectiveness depends on a much greater (and probably fairly unrealistic) amount of room; then the question is, what work are the preceding and following hand movements supposed to be doing? Given the fighting range implied (or imposed) by the high front kick, any followup grip/strike attack on the assailant's groin, along the lines illustrated in James' bunkai demo,  is going to be pretty impractical. So what can be the point of that movement into a half-kneeling stance with crossed-over fists that we do immediately after each of those nouveau high kicks??

To my mind, this is a perfect illustration of how a stylistic priority&#8212;leg techs must be kicks, period&#8212;winds up thoroughly compromising the fighting content of a pattern, imported from a source art, where the original combat application of the pattern in that source is just not understood. When this happens, the effect of that translation is something that leaves you shaking your head, wondering what the surrounding motions are now good for. And it looks to me as if a lot of stuff in the Palgwes, for example, which we know are heavily indebted to the Pinan katas for their content, has been affected the same way&#8212;I can't think of a single knee strike in the whole Palgwe set. It looks to me as if every leg tech was treated the same, with knee attacks, the actual business end of those techs&#8212;at least in many cases&#8212;being reinterpreted as nothing more than the chambering phase of the high front kick that replaces the original knee attack designed for close-range delivery. I wonder how many other times motions intended to be elbow strikes were translated similarly in TKD, with the strike itself reinterpreted as a chambering motion for a block or something... all this is the kind of thing that results from taking the p/b/k model as a fixed template that hyung motions have to be fitted into, regardless of the combat thinking that went into the katas which the hyung designers drew from when they devised the KMA versions of those katas...


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 14, 2008)

Iceman this is what I mean when I say the Korean keep stuff from us, see there was an interpitor but question regarding other possilibilities where not allow only on what he was showing. Why is this, why can we never ask about other possibilities? I know you are a great person but sometines we have to ask ourself is there more than meet the eye. Everytime I have attended one of these we never get to ask or when we do it is said please keep to this, that is what is so fruastating to a longtime practitioner of TKD. I hope with open minds and eyes one day we can share info. without be blinded.


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 14, 2008)

Great discussion everyone. First of all, haven't read the book. But after reading all the posts (carefully) I think I can say, with a great deal of certainty, each of you love poomse, as do I. I think we are all on the same page as far as the "textbook definition" of poomse and kata: Pattern movement AKA known as *form.* Defense against an imaginary attackers. 

 I, also having attended several seminars on Poomse by GM Park Hae Man. I distinctly remembering him demonstrating on me, the SD applications on several of the TG poomse, as well as the BB poomse.  I don't recall him holding back any "secret" applications, as a matter of fact, he demonstrated some of the movements and suggested there are other plausible applications. 

I am in agreement with most every post (if that matters) on this thread, and, I applaud anyone who researches and writes an informative book. True, there is a "concept" for each poomse. Poomse is *the* essence of the *Art. * Interpretation is, indeed, interpretation.

The Name of the Book, uses the word "cipher" in the title. No disrespect to the author, I would have used a different word. For one of the definitions of the word "cipher" means: 
4.
something of no value or importance. 


How about, Maybe, My Take on the Tae Gueks?

Now in the Title, I know what denotation the author is referring to. Does any one see my point here?

I truly believe Poomse is like a multi-vitamin for your art. it has all the essentials you need for a growing TKD'ist. Like Terry, I am open to others opinions- and take, on things. This is how we learn.

I will continue to use GM Park Hae Mans interpretation(s) until he says otherwise and I applaud those who take the time and research to write such a book 

Finally, I don't know how many of you have had to use your SD skills for real. Unfortunatley, I have. Simplicity, and responding to the "situation at hand" is a far cry from movement number "whatever" of any form.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 14, 2008)

Kwng Jang excellent post, by the way I have every intention to give respect to Pak Hae Man he is a great pactitional of TKD. Now with that being said why when ask about other possibilities he is not interested in exploring them for the betterment of our Art. I lo love TKD history as well as what it will be in thirty forty fifty year. Ifor one will never evr close my mind to possibiliies withen any said poomsae. I can agree with seeing people views and how they interpeded the poomsae but I cannot agree with close minded  people that say it is my way or the highway.


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 14, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Kwng Jang excellent post, by the way I have every intention to give respect to Pak Hae Man he is a great pactitional of TKD. Now with that being said why when ask about other possibilities he is not interested in exploring them for the betterment of our Art. I lo love TKD history as well as what it will be in thirty forty fifty year. Ifor one will never evr close my mind to possibiliies withen any said poomsae. I can agree with seeing people views and how they interpeded the poomsae but I cannot agree with close minded people that say it is my way or the highway.


 
Thank you Sir!  I did say he mentioned "other" possibilities regaurding the application of certain movements. I agree with you completely on "close minded people" They stagnate the the growth of others.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 14, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> this is what I mean when I say the Korean keep stuff from us, see there was an interpitor but question regarding other possilibilities where not allow only on what he was showing. Why is this, why can we never ask about other possibilities?


I have another view of this Terry, its not that stuffs being kept, its a way of _saving face_ (and Im not refering to any masters in particular here).. no master whether Asian or Western likes the possibility of having to admit, that after 40/50 years of training and being the grade they are, that perhaps there is more to some of this stuff than once envisaged!!!

At least Gen Choi used the "_if it works, then its good_" in regards to alternative applications, whilst still following the line of non-questioning students at seminars. Others mentioned in this thread have hinted the same, say "other possibilities" exsist, whilst not comfirming what these are.. but at least they are half way there!

I have experience of this 1st hand. A guy I know has been to numerous patterns courses under an ITF master. In a email he sent me, he told me how all the courses had been similar... moves of patterns, do them like this, this blocks a punch, this blocks a kick etc etc... until the course following the release of my book where the master started showing alternatives, beyond the p/b/k variety.. applications lifted directly from my book, but with no acknowledgment to me. I actually found it funny, as despite the lack of acknowledgment, it did show my thoughts had gained a foothold and is causing a change and it also made me understand the bit i previously mentioned about saving face, so again, at least this master was part of the way there, ingerity of the matter not withstanding!

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 14, 2008)

StuartA said:


> I have another view of this Terry, its not that stuffs being kept, its a way of _saving face_ (and Im not refering to any masters in particular here).. no master whether Asian or Western likes the possibility of having to admit, that after 40/50 years of training and being the grade they are, that perhaps there is more to some of this stuff than once envisaged!!!
> 
> At least Gen Choi used the "_if it works, then its good_" in regards to alternative applications, whilst still following the line of non-questioning students at seminars. Others mentioned in this thread have hinted the same, say "other possibilities" exsist, whilst not comfirming what these are.. but at least they are half way there!
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Stuart excellent points by the way.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 14, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> I, also having attended several seminars on Poomse by GM Park Hae Man. I distinctly remembering him demonstrating on me, the SD applications on several of the TG poomse, as well as the BB poomse. I don't recall him holding back any "secret" applications, as a matter of fact, he demonstrated some of the movements and suggested there are other plausible applications.


I think many would be interested in hearing if the applications shown were more than the p/k/b variety or if he demonstrated (rather than just suggested) what these plausable applications were (see my last post regarding Gen Chois get out clause). Also, how would you know he was holding back on "secret applications" after all, they, by nature are secret! 




> Poomse is





> *the* essence of the *Art. *


Actually, I disagree with this, personally they are one part of the art, part of the sum of the whole.




> The Name of the Book, uses the word "cipher" in the title. No disrespect to the author, I would have used a different word. For one of the definitions of the word "cipher" means:





> 4.
> something of no value or importance.


When I read the word "cipher" I would certainly not have thought of that definition. Reading from (I presume) the same online dictionary, I would read the word similar as it states on no 4 " 
*a*_. A cryptographic system in which units of plain text of regular length, usually letters, are arbitrarily transposed or substituted according to a predetermined code._
_*b.* The key to such a system._
_*c.* A message written or transmitted in such a system"_
....certainly more so considering the contents of the book! Personally, I think its a great title that describes his work well!





> How about, Maybe, My Take on the Tae Gueks?


Because it sound silly and is dismishive of the authors work and intentions. It isnt just his take, but a study also based on historical research and historical facts also.



> Now in the Title, I know what denotation the author is referring to. Does any one see my point here?


I do.. you feel (as others do) that unless the author of the patterns defines this is for this, then this is for that, all others must ensure they add a disclaimer of sorts... my question is why should he? If patterns, kata and poomse furfilled what they were suppose to be in the first place, there would be no need for books like mine, Simons or indeed Iains! Sadly, for whatever reasons they dont.

So you can:
a) Accept present applications of the p/b/k type as they were prescribed, which means you also accept that the creators were fully aware of what kata/patterns were for (pre-karate) and deliberatly chose to ignore everything about them in favour of offering 50 blocks to stop an attack that rarely, if ever, happens in real life.

b) Accept that perhaps the pattern creators were not fully aware of what kata were for, simply copied a template of things which they believed at the time was correct but has since been proved incorrect as time has moved on and that they themselves were a product of the era and as such not infallable and make ends to correct this - as Simon has done.





> I will continue to use GM Park Hae Mans interpretation(s) until he says otherwise


Whichs comfirms my points above! Until he says otherwise or until they get you injured I presume (no disrespect intented to GM Park).





> Finally, I don't know how many of you have had to use your SD skills for real. Unfortunatley, I have. Simplicity, and responding to the "situation at hand" is a far cry from movement number "whatever" of any form.


I have and it one of the reasons I find most modern pattern interpretations lack real value for what they are meant to be.. "_a series of offence and defences movements".._ no matter who is doing the telling! Realistic pattern applications no longer become move number _"whatever_" but instead furfill their true purpose and become infused in the student for quick decisive action and thus create a valuable self defence toolbox!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 14, 2008)

Out of interest is this the Park, Hae Man many are refering to?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7HO0yRJ-btM

Stuart


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 14, 2008)

Stuart,

All great points!

Yes the youtube video is GM Park Hae man

How will I get hurt doing it his (GM Park) way?  Been A student almost 30 years- Haven't been hurt yet, (knock wood ) 

As one of the TG *Authors* are you suggesting GM Park Hae Man does not know how to teach application of something he had a hand in creating?

"cipher" also suggest a  secret code. is the author claiming to have unlocked that which not have been locked? (people are always looking for some hidden meaning)

Sir, you are talking to a forms junkie, and I am most certainly, not a newbie.  Man can not live off form alone.

However, *I *believe, like I said, Poomse is like a multi-vitamin. This is how much emphasis I personally place on it. To me, Poomse is the essence of the art. Yes Stuart, There are other facets of TKD, I am well aware of them.

Stuart, I wiill have to read the book and like others come to my on conclusion.  

R.I.F (how many of you know what this means?)


----------



## StuartA (Oct 14, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> All great points!


Thanks.. and apologies if I came across a bit grumpy in my last post.. it wasnt intentional.. just late here in the UK (nearly 4am).. hence tired



> Yes the youtube video is GM Park Hae man


Thanks for clarifying.



> How will I get hurt doing it his (GM Park) way?


Because anyone who is led to believe that something like a mid section block will stop a punch from a committed attacker, will get hurt if theyw ere to try it for real... and these are the type of applications (p/k/b) that he is teaching (I believe).



> Been A student almost 30 years- Haven't been hurt yet, (knock wood )


Then I can only summise that you dont use patterns in a self defence enviroment and that when you ahve had to defend yourself (noted from your previous post) it didnt involve anything earnt in the patterns (and I hope not that spinny move in your video clip on your site either :uhyeah



> As one of the TG *Authors* are you suggesting GM Park Hae Man does not know how to teach application of something he had help in creating?


Ah! Now the crux of the matter. I believe *he* is teaching the applications *he* feels are correct, based on *his* knowledge and what *he* learnt, which is based on the karate kata from before (aka Funakoshi era).. do I believe in light of recent research that the applications he thought were blocks are really blocks.. no, not for a minute. So yes/no 



> "cipher" also suggest a secret code. is the author claiming to have unlocked that which not have been locked?


Perhaps.. he gives good evidence in his book that they might have been locked by the authors.. only 1 of 7 (I believe) was Park Hae Man! Or he could be refering to unlocking the system planted *in all* kata/patterns and then applying it to the Taegueks! Ill await Simons own response to that for a difinitive answer.



> Sir, you are talking to a forms junkie, and I am most certainly, not a newbie. Man can not live off form alone.


Not sure what that means! Many in my system consider themselves 'patterns' experts and they are in once sense, as they know the A,B,Cs pretty well.. however, that doesnt make a sentence unless you study how to link it all up! If a door is closed, one cannot see beyond it after all! No offence intended here btw.



> Stuart, I wiill have to read the book and like others come to my on conclusion.


That would be a good idea yes.. sorry, I thought you had read it already



> R.I.F (how many of you know what this means?)


 _Resistence is futile_ maybe! 

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 15, 2008)

As this thread is getting quite large and mainly concerns Simons book and the Taegueks, I feel it would be a good idea to (re)clarify my position on all this and my reasons for that reasoning, as I dont want it to look like its a witch hunt of Hae Man Park or any other masters.

First of all there are two influences involved in this. The things that influenced Taekwon-do as a whole and the things that purely influenced the patterns. For Taekwon-do there are any number of influences, this is clear from my own research of the Ch'ang hon system and though TKD is by and large influenced by Shotokan, it also has influence in varying degrees and guises from Judo, Hapkido, Taek Kwon and other arts.

However, the patterns fo Ch'ang Hon are by and large influenced by Shotokan (with WTF patterns being influenced by Ch'ang Hon and thus by design, also Shotokan) and not other arts. They have the Korean twist on them, but they are still following the same template of Shotokan and it is this area, and this area alone that we are discussing here.

Okay, now I strongly believe that there is a black hole in Shotokans history regarding kata applications. It isnt just a belief, but fact backed up by lots of reseach and evidence, both by myself and the Karate researchers.

According to research, pre-shotokan Karate was the arts practiced only by the palace guards for defence of the King of Okinawa and as such it was top secret. The king died in 1879 and thus the 'official secrecy' sworn by all who studied was disolved. Funakoshi was a body guard in training, he was not a full bodyguard and as such had not learnt the full bodyguarding system and when the king died, his training was not completed. He had learnt Itsous kata, but not the fine details, which were only filled in when a body guard was to take it up as an official duty/job and then sworn to the same secrecy of the others.

So Funakoshi didnt learn the finer details of the patterns, just the shell (p/k/b).. Itsou, set about redesigning the Karate system for the Okinawa schools, thus it took a less lethal approach, untilizing blocks rather than grab/break than techniques. Funakoshi then took Karate to Japan in the same mode as Itsous "school system", thus indepth/dangerous applications didnt travel across from Itsou to Funakoshi, Itsou to the schools and Okinawa to Japan. the buck stopped with Itsou and started again with Funakoshi in a different guise. Plus there is the added thoughts that perhaps the oppressed (Okinawans) didnt want to teach the oppressors their system, so again, gave them the "school system".

Okinawa>Japan>Korea = Taekwondo. However, though the finer details were not transmitted across, the basic buidling blocks of kata were. These were remodelled by many Karate systems and of course TKD. However, they were still used/modelled with the same outlook as Funakoshi had and thus the p/k/b variety continued in various forms & guises, carry all the while the building blocks for a deeper understanding of them.

Anyone who was instrumental in forming kata from 1901 to 1998 (give of take) used the Funakoshi Shotokan model (Im refering to TKD & Karate here). Therefore, they were all based on the p/k/b mentality, but all carried with them the building blocks to make them more than the sum of thier parts - if they had verved away from this, it wouldnt have been possible in the same way.

So when I talk of masters not knowing the deeper applications to patterns, I am not refering to a single master, but to all that fall into the time period I gave mentioned above. Like it or not, as patterns carry forward, whether conciously or not, certain attributes were carried along with them... and its these attributes that allow people like Iain Abernethy and Simon to either unlock them, or make them more than they previously were. Its not a slight on the masters that didnt know/realise or their martial knowledge.. Ch'ang for example teaches many throwing techniques, there are sections in Gen Chois manuals on them.. but ion the surface, these are not in the patterns, not as standard applications put forth by the guys that created them.. though when digging a little deeper they are there, many JJ guys easily recognise them! So the martial knowledge was there, just not with regards to applying it in the patterns (IMO.. as Simons opinion differs).

It doesnt mean individuals didnt utilize them in a more pragmatic manner, Im sure certain karate instructors did, I know TKD drill instructors did, Dillman and others did.. but the issue was that due to communication at the time, these were relatively small instances compared to the wave of p/k/b kata/patterns going around. Its only now, with modern technology, that insights, theories, research, evidence etc. can be shared and discussed openly that the relativness of it all becomes more of a force to be reckoned with and of course we need those that are willing to question and go against the docterines of the last 100 years. In essense, Karate & TKD have come full circle and I (and others) feel its time to embrace that and throw away the shackles of the past 100+ years!

It reminds me of a TV advert I saw. Say I was a caveman and aliens felt it would be good for us to have the wheel, they they dropped some stone circles with holes in them and in one they put an axel, thinking its quite simple to make the leap from stone circle to cart. However, i have never seen a wheel, or a cart and the wheel was lying flat with a pole sticking out the centre... great I thought, must be a new washing line (like i have seen already) - so I connected the pole with vine and hung my lion clothes out to dry! Point is, it would take almost a _'vision'_ for someone to realise in the 1950s to 1970s, that patterns, evolved with more more than p/k/b until modern technology, openess and sharing, walls and barriers coming down (plus the odd light bulb moment) allowed someone to gather evidence to the contary when they finally went "a-ha... I wonder"!

Anyway, thats my take on things and why I argue against certain issues. I just dont want anyone to think I dislike a certain person or art, because I hold the pioneers and masters in great respect, I just see things differently, as _'our time'_ allows me to do so.

Stuart

Ps. there is also evidence to support that those since 1901 kata/patterns are used as a mass training system for large groups, originally, before Itsou introduced them to the schools of okinawa, kata were a more personal thing. One instructor would teach one or two students his kata, they would then amend and change the kata to suit their fighting style etc. etc. Uniformed group practice is another area that has travelled across, when in fact, this wasnt the original intention either - but again, many do not know this and thus it continued as the _'way it was meant to be'_

PPs. If we kept to the doctrines of people on the premise that they are a high authority and thus know better, we would still believe the earth was flat and that babies should sleep on their fronts to avoid cot deaths (and old and new example of why it is good to question)


----------



## SJON (Oct 15, 2008)

Great discusson all round.

Exile,

Interesting point about stylistic priority, and one which I agree with to an extent. I do think that the Koreans added a higher percentage of kicks in their patterns, and this could have been either in order to consciously emphasise the national identity of the art, or just because they liked using kicks in self-defence.

Even so, kicks in the Chang Hon and Taegeuk patterns are only present in relatively few sequences  about 10% and 30% respectively, if I recall rightly  and the ones that are present are mainly front kicks and side kicks (mainly the former in the Taegeuks). What I mean is, while its true that the Korean patterns feature more kicks than the Okinawan ones, its not as if every second move is a kick.

This is a bit like the lots of high stances to more accurately represent natural fighting stances myth. OK, there are a few high stances in the first three Taegeuks, but I dont think it has much to do with imitating free sparring. But lets leave that for another conversation  

Getting back to kicks, and your point about the high snap kicks being used as knee strikes in the older version of Wansu, this is actually something I touch on in the book. I think (in fact, Ive been told by some high-ranking Koreans, if that makes any difference), that kicks in patterns are generally delivered high (a) for aesthetic reasons and (b) because if you master the high kick then the low version is easy  I dont actually agree with this last statement, but again, lets leave that one for another day. I also think that movements which follow a similar trajectory can and should be adapted to the range encountered, and in the applications in the book I use the front kick as a knee strike, a forward stamp, a forward thrust and a snap kick.


Kwanjang,

About the title, I am aware of the definition you quote, but obviously the usage here is the secret code one, which is the one most people associate with the word. Plus, it sounds much cooler, not to mention somewhat more professional, than My Take on the Taegeuks. Am I claiming to have unlocked them? Well, I dont like the word claim, as it has rather a negative connotation, as in the phrase outrageous claims (as it happens, my academic background is as a linguist and linguistician). But yes, the implication is that Im unlocking something that I believe was locked at some time, partly consciously, partly by not keeping the lock oiled. Dont read too much into that, though  its just a word .

I fully concur with Stuart regarding use of pattern sequences as K/B/P for real self-defence. Sure, you can probably use individual K/B/P _movements_ from a pattern for self-defence  for example, high outwards forearm block plus reverse punch  but surely the idea of the pattern is to show whole _sequences_ that work as presented?

Ill tell you what, why not do an experiment? Take the first of the two rising block sequences in Taegeuk 1, which is supposed to be a defence and counter against a high line strike. Have a partner throw a full-speed, committed haymaker or overhand right at your head, with plenty of forward impetus. Respond with the K/B/P pattern sequence, _without stepping back first_ or making any other major changes, and see how well it not only stops the attack but puts him out of action so he cant continue attacking. You might want to wear a mouthguard and helmet.
Next, try the first sequence I propose in the book for Taegeuk 1 (i.e. the first down block and punch sequence) against the same attack, making sure you spear him hard on your elbow on first contact (have him wear a chest protector and helmet). Simple and effective. If you do it full force, hell end up hurting, on the ground and maybe unconscious  all at the same time!
Compare and let us know which is more street-worthy.

Im encouraged by the fact that GM Park hinted at other plausible applications to you. However, Id like to ask you the same questions I asked Iceman in my previous post.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## KickFest (Oct 15, 2008)

A little off-topic, but I'm sure I remembered that caveman advert differently... turns out I was right :lol:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcJTSBzdIA
btw great discussion going on here.

Now, I'm not the voice of authority on this subject by any means, but my take on this is as follows:

I often hear people say things along the lines of "the real journey starts at black belt". Before this you're learning the fundamentals of your system, e.g. theory, techniques, applications etc from your instructor verbatim. But surely, once you get to black belt you know enough that you can take your knowledge and start to ask meaningful questions like SJON etc are doing? You should now have enough knowledge that you can start to seek the answers to these questions yourself without having to be spoon-fed what is right and wrong. Will your answers be the same as other people's? Probably not. Does that make them wrong? Only if they don't work for what they're intended for.
At this level, to say you're wrong because someone higher in rank thinks you're wrong seems to me an archaic viewpoint that propagates the kind of stagnation that leads people to believe that k/b/p is a legitimate self-defense strategy in and of itself.

As long as you're doing the same poomsaes, who cares what you think the moves really represent? Surely everyone is entitled to their own opinion in this regard? Now if someone were to say that the poomsaes were all a load of tosh and make their own without the proper expertise, yes that would be problematic but that isn't what's happening here.

Just my 0.02.

Oh and SJON, I'd just like to say thanks for writing the book. The history section on its own was fascinating, and although I'm pretty junior in TKD it's given me lots to think about.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 15, 2008)

KickFest said:


> A little off-topic, but I'm sure I remembered that caveman advert differently... turns out I was right :lol:
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcJTSBzdIA


 
Lol.. good find. I wanted to keep it clean, despite it emphasising the point. I also didnt want anyone to think I was hinting I was into watching pole dancing or anything :angel:


Stuart


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 15, 2008)

In the pursuit of full disclosure...I'm a fan and supporter for modern form/poomse/kata sd application theory.  I come from an Aikido background...so no forms, but drilling inclose throws, locks, etc.  I'm in  kukkiown affiliated school.  I do not know my Kwan lineage (our GM is one GM Soon Ho Chang)...and thus I feel i am in a more neutralposition in regards to history and TKD development issues.  Bottom line is I am very interested in the whoel art, specifically where the art cabn be both beautifulto watch, fun to participate in (training and psort aspects alike) and useful as a means of self-defense.

Like others, I feel that it is good to try to find new echniques in the poomses.  For me, it adds a feeling of aliveness and relenvance to my solo poomse practice.  If that is not what the developers of the Taeguks had in mind, oh well...it's working for me and improving my TKD.  I don;t think one could argue that this is a bad thing.

On a more specific note, I took about 45 minutes the other day to run thriough the 10 applications from Taeguk Il jang from Mr. o'Neils book.  My son got to be me partner.  We'd go slow at first as I tried to get the specific moves down, then gradually speed up to about 80% full power.  This was fun.  What I found useful is that the faster we went, the harder Zak went down.  This was the same for good Aikido practice back in the day.  He wasn't getting to me anybetter, just hitting the ground harder.  If< as sometimes happened, I wasn't perfect on my technique (particualrlay on the entry)...I was still in a position to not get hit hard and the take down still often happened.  That's a good sign too.

Finally, when we were done and it was time to stat comp team, Zak mentioned that he was feeling a bit tender in the torso and might have to go easier in sparring (he didn't...drama)...those elbows in the defensive entry really took their toll.  next time we pratcice, we'll either keep it to 50% power OR i'll have him pad up more.

Bottom line, I'm finding thes techniques to be realistic in workable and I try them.  My current goal is to continue having ipromptu workout sessions with my son to practice this stuff.  I'm also going to see if I can get some of the other adult blackbelts to work with me.  Once I get a better handle on doing this stuff physically, I;m going to ask my Sabumnim for permission to run a seminar or brief series of classes at the school about this.  For me, this stuff is proving useful.  As always, YMMV.

I just thought all of you would like to hear from someone who has tried some mild pressur etesting of this stuff.  So far so good.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## SJON (Oct 15, 2008)

Ah ... ahem ... yes ...

I don't think I stressed in the book - and I should have done - that if you're going to go hard on those applications from Taegeuk Il Chang, a chest protector is a good idea, particularly the new kind which have more protection round the collar bones and shoulders. The "attacker" will essentially be spearing himself on the elbows in most of those apps, and indeed, the harder he comes in, the more it will hurt.

Taegeuk Il Chang is a very gratifying poomse when applied this way, because it addresses the typical first big worry that students have - i.e. what do I do if someone just wades in and swings at me? - and shows how easy it is to do something about it. And, of course, it's a great feeling when, as Erik observes, the harder they attack, the harder they hit the ground, even with imperfect or partial execution.

Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying it. Try to get to a good level of competence on each pattern (apps) before moving on to the next one. That way you get a feel for the overall point of the pattern and you can build on it as you move on.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 15, 2008)

Yeah, we're going to pad up next time.  Also, Zak needs a turn throwing me about.  It'll be intersting to see hwo that goes, I've got about 110 lbs on him.  I expect he should be able to perform the techniques on me no problem though.

What's interesting is that one dones't NEED a lot of strength to make this stuff work.  That entry with the elbows is really relying on good posture and structure, then the opponenet incoming momentum plus the defender forward momentum turn into a nasty elbow strike...followed by variious throws/locks/strikes.  I'd say that just the entry alone could be enough to take the wind out of the sails of a determined attacker.

My next purchase will be some of Iain Abernathy's stuff on the Heian kata (as I'm learning those and am more familiar) followed by Stuart's book.  My goal is to try my hand at tackling Koryo and Keumgang and try my hand at analyses.  First i need to get comfortable with the application and deciphering process though.

Peace,
Erik
Peace,
Erik


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 15, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> I would love to see more similar books...


Here is a different avenue of approach.  The _Anatomy Of Motion: Combat Analysis of Traditional Karate Kata_. http://danandersonkarate.com/store/karate_bk4.html

yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## DMcHenry (Oct 15, 2008)

Hey Dan,

Is this the same Dan Anderson that was a top fighter in the late '70s or so?  If so, I remember seeing you a lot in mags such as Karate Illistrated, etc.

Which kata do you go over in your book?  

Regards,
Mac


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 15, 2008)

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. I was just reading the book & noticed that SJON uses the knife hand block sequence frequently as a strike. My GM (Edward Sell) refers to this technique as a "face chop" & calls it a strike, rather than a block, as most others do. He says that how he was taught. Perhaps a connection has been made on that point.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 15, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> Hey Dan,
> 
> *1.*Is this the same Dan Anderson that was a top fighter in the late '70s or so? If so, I remember seeing you a lot in mags such as Karate Illistrated, etc.
> 
> ...


Hi Mac,

1.  Yes, tis I.  I had hair then. 

2.  Naihanchi Shodan, Matsumura Seisan & Sepai (from Okinawan Goju).

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## exile (Oct 15, 2008)

Something which is really important for people to realize is that early on, when the 'traditional' martial arts were taking their modern forms, the kind of rigid lockstep brand loyalty (and hostility to ideas from any other source) that some people in the current MAs display was unknown. Things just didn't work like that. Karateka all know (or should know) the story of Matsumura learning the fighting technique of a marooned Chinese sailor named Chinto and capturing it in the kata of that name; there's a lot of argument about whether or not the story is historically accurate, but that isn't the point, in this context anyway. What's important is that it shows a completely relaxed attitude toward the idea that the founder of modern linear karate would try hard to master a set of CMA techniques he hadn't encountered before, simply because they had proven effective against him in single combat. The great pioneers of the MAs as we know them were pragmatists and would have laughed up their sleeves, no question, at some dude X who, say, refused to take advice from a TSD practitioner about how to apply some move in a form because X was a TKD or HKD adept. To them, this would have made no sense.  

As SJON points out, the KMAs were _saturated_ with Japanese ideas&#8212;saturated!&#8212;in the early part of the 20th century. How could it be otherwise? The Occupation had flooded the Korean peninsula with Japanese military combat experts, many of whom had judo/jiujitsu expertise; Korean kids were _bound_ to be exposed to it; and one of the earliest pre-TKD dojangs in Korea had been a Yudo (=judo) dojang previously. That kind of knowledge&#8212;of throws and pins, of pressure points, of controlling moves&#8212;was everywhere. It all got packaged together, along with the linear karate that the Kwan founders with only one exception learned in Japan (along with various CMA circular techs, as SJON documents, in certain cases)... 

... and all of that went into the final product that emerged from the shadows of the Occupation.  I was very struck by Stuart's point that many of the techs latent in the Ch'ang Hon forms are immediately recognizable by the JJ guys he knows, because it's exactly what I noticed, and posted about a year back, after attending a seminar on Combat HKD that Drac and Father Greek put together near Cleveland featuring instruction by Gm. Pellegrini. A lot of the moves in CHKD reproduce exactly the movement in a number of TKD hyungs that I either know, or at least recognize. And the same thing would have been true several generations ago in the formation of the karate techniques, built into the forms, that Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Rick Clark and others have brought to light: the early karateka, as per the story about Chinto, were open to any technique that worked. They didn't turn up their noses and scoff at new ideas as being 'not karate'; they grabbed whatever worked and incorporated it. This whole stylistic chauvinism thing came much later, and has much more to do with marketing than combat effectiveness, whereas for the great pioneers of karate, it was combat effectiveness that was the gold standard. And I doubt very much whether the Kwan founders were any different. 

So if the identification of these diverse elements in the technique sets that can be recovered by careful study of the TKD hyungs turns out to bear similarities to judo, or jiujitsu, or HKD or anything else, there's no reason at all to be surprised, eh? Me, I'd be surprised if that _weren't_ the case.


----------



## SJON (Oct 16, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. I was just reading the book & noticed that SJON uses the knife hand block sequence frequently as a strike. My GM (Edward Sell) refers to this technique as a "face chop" & calls it a strike, rather than a block, as most others do. He says that how he was taught. Perhaps a connection has been made on that point.


 
I'm pleased to hear that. At least two Asian masters of mine taught me that "blocks" should frequently be used as strikes, and not just in the sense of "damaging the attacking limb".

This is an example of what I meant by elements falling into disuse rather than necessarily being "secret contents" concealed by the pattern composers. If this technique was commonly used as a strike in the early kwans, then it casts a whole new light on, for example, the knifehand block sequences in Taegeuk Sam Chang, doesn't it?

If you think about it, the "knifehand blocks" display mechanics far better suited to striking than to blocking. You can get tremendous power into a lead hand knifehand strike by using the "block" movement in more of a forward direction, coinciding with sliding forwards into the "back stance".


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 16, 2008)

SJON said:


> If you think about it, the "knifehand blocks" display mechanics far better suited to striking than to blocking. You can get tremendous power into a lead hand knifehand strike by using the "block" movement in more of a forward direction, coinciding with sliding forwards into the "back stance".


Let's take it one step further.  If a person is going to hit you, why do you step forward to block their hit?  They are coming TO YOU.  They aren't going to the middle and wait for you to show up.  They'll come to you.

As to the knife hand "block" isn't it interesting that the formation and angle of the "blocking arm" is set up to slide under the angle of the jaw for a strike to the neck?

Your Honor, I rest my case.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> Let's take it one step further.  If a person is going to hit you, why do you step forward to block their hit?  They are coming TO YOU.  They aren't going to the middle and wait for you to show up.  They'll come to you.



Suppose someone is swinging a baseball bat at your head. Do you wait for them to 'come to you', or to you step forward early to catch them _inside_ the radius of the swing? Isn't the idea the same, with maybe a bit less peril, in the case of a roundhouse punch to the defender's head? By the time they actually _come_ to you, you are in their crosshairs, if you wait. If you move in while the blow is just getting started, you're no longer in the target rangeq, and they're committed to the strike, meaning it's harder for them to avoid _your_ striking moves. This is the point, is it not, of what SJON calls the 'defensive entry'?


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 16, 2008)

exile said:


> Suppose someone is swinging a baseball bat at your head. Do you wait for them to 'come to you', or to you step forward early to catch them _inside_ the radius of the swing? Isn't the idea the same, with maybe a bit less peril, in the case of a roundhouse punch to the defender's head? By the time they actually _come_ to you, you are in their crosshairs, if you wait. If you move in while the blow is just getting started, you're no longer in the target rangeq, and they're committed to the strike, meaning it's harder for them to avoid _your_ striking moves. This is the point, is it not, of what SJON calls the 'defensive entry'?


The coming inside the radius of a curved swing is part & parcel of FMA but the rising block or the knife hand block - nope.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> The coming inside the radius of a curved swing is part & parcel of FMA but the rising block or the knife hand block - nope.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson



Wait... I'm confused, I think I've missed something here... I _thought_ the question was, why would you step into the attack; and what I said in my response was just sort of the standard rationale for closing the distance on the attacker to render his attack not just harmless but self-destructive. But judging by your answer, there seems to be something at issue about the rising block/knife hand on the one hand and something about Filipine MAs on the other. It wasn't clear to me that SJON was saying anything about the FMAs, but only that it's more combat-realistic to treat the movements he mentioned as strikes, rather than as literal blocks....

As I say, I'm clearly not getting somethingcan you walk me through the line of reasoning here? I feel as if there's some crucial assumption or claim or something that someone made in one of the earlier posts that I just flat-out missed.... :idunno:


----------



## SJON (Oct 17, 2008)

Haha, no, indeed I wouldn't presume to be in a position to comment on an FMA connection at this point!

As Exile correctly observes, the idea of what I call the "defensive entry" is to move _forwards_ inside the range of the attack (which will almost always either be curved or on a slight diagonal, even if it is a "straight" attack), and block the _body_ rather than the attack itself. The hand attack is dealt with as a kind of by-product of this movement. Regarding blocks, off the top of my head I can only think of one instance in the whole book in which a movement conventionally referred to as a block is used as something resembling a block rather than a strike or manipulation.


----------



## DMcHenry (Oct 17, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> Hi Mac,
> 
> 1. Yes, tis I. I had hair then.
> 
> ...


 
Master Anderson, its an honor and pleasure sir.  If I were to order a copy of your book, would you be able to autograph it for me?
I understand about the hair thing.  I dont have much left on top now either.
Mac


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 17, 2008)

Remember FMA and TKD are two different approaches to fighting, what could work for them nay not work for us.


----------



## Miles (Oct 18, 2008)

FWIW, my student who usually translates for GM Park was not at the seminar so I didn't get a chance to ask him about boonhae in the Taegueks.

However, having said that, GM Park demonstrates blocks as arm-bars and set-ups for blocks as parrying motions.  At the Kukkiwon, GM Lee demonstrated a scissor block as a catch and simultaneous elbow break.


----------



## SJON (Oct 19, 2008)

Now we're getting somewhere!

Miles, can you talk me through some examples of the kind of "blocks as armbars" and "preparations as parries" that GM Park demonstrates.

Maybe there are more similarities between our approaches than we suspected.

Best regards,

Simon


----------



## StuartA (Oct 19, 2008)

Miles said:


> GM Lee demonstrated a scissor block as a catch and simultaneous elbow break.


 
Good stuff... but whats a scissor block? (picture perhaps as maybe it comes undera  different term for others like me)

Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 19, 2008)

The scissor block start from a posiiton where one arm is in a low block position and the other arm is in an outside block position.  You then swing your arms at the elbows simultaneously loike winshield wiper so that the outside block become s a low block and the low block becomes an outside block.  The "scissor past eash other.

In Taeguk Chiljang, there are two double scissor blocks at moves 12 and 13 respectively.  These can also be found in Kata heian san dan (for reference purposes...if thery are in the Chang hon forms, I couldn't sya where)

Peace,
Erik


----------



## StuartA (Oct 19, 2008)

As I suspected... we have a similar block in pattern Hwa-Rang. I too teach an arm-lock application to it 

Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 19, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Out of interest is this the Park, Hae Man many are refering to?
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7HO0yRJ-btM
> 
> Stuart


 
I did notice in this video that GM Park did use other than "standard" TKD techniques. Including a "pull out" after a wrist grab & a "foot stomp" in Tae Guek Oh Jang.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 19, 2008)

G.M. Park does move outside the relms alot of the times, but he has never really gone into details like I would like to see. He is good with poomsae's.


----------



## exile (Oct 19, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> The scissor block start from a posiiton where one arm is in a low block position and the other arm is in an outside block position.  You then swing your arms at the elbows simultaneously loike winshield wiper so that the outside block become s a low block and the low block becomes an outside block.  The "scissor past eash other.
> 
> In Taeguk Chiljang, there are two double scissor blocks at moves 12 and 13 respectively.  These can also be found in Kata heian san dan (for reference purposes...if thery are in the Chang hon forms, I couldn't sya where)
> 
> ...



There's a scissors block in Palgwe Oh Jang as well at the very beginning; from joon bi, you go into that position as the first move, prior to the double knifehand down block to the left. The version we do at my dojang hams it up a bit with flamboyant circular motions to lead up to the scissors pass. Not a version purists would like, probably, but it's a bit of self-indulgent fun....


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 19, 2008)

Can anyone give me a good practical usage of the scissors block?  I've run into this is Taegeuk Chil-Jang and been asked by junior students and always thought my internal answers were unclear and my spoken answers were lame?


----------



## exile (Oct 19, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Can anyone give me a good practical usage of the scissors block?  I've run into this is Taegeuk Chil-Jang and been asked by junior students and always thought my internal answers were unclear and my spoken answers were lame?



I see a knee in the groin or abdomen, bringing the attacker's upper body down, followed by a hair- or ear-grab and pulldown (the downward part of the block), with a simultaneous rising fist impacting the attacker's descending throat (the upward part). Something along those lines...


----------



## StuartA (Oct 19, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> I did notice in this video that GM Park did use other than "standard" TKD techniques. Including a "pull out" after a wrist grab & a "foot stomp" in Tae Guek Oh Jang.


Pull = standard release technique.. same can be found (as a release technique) in the Chang Hons. The foot stamp was good though, and shows he like a little creativeness in the patterns (a lesson there perhaps!)... unless its a stamp in the actual pattern (which I dont know). Wont mention the rising block or X-stance/backfist applications however :uhyeah:

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 19, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Can anyone give me a good practical usage of the scissors block? I've run into this is Taegeuk Chil-Jang and been asked by junior students and always thought my internal answers were unclear and my spoken answers were lame?


 
I have it as an arm trap/lock and also a combination parry/PP strike.. not sure of the stances used in Chil-Jang, so they may effect it (ours are done in a closed stance)

Stuart


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 19, 2008)

StuartA said:


> I have it as an arm trap/lock and also a combination parry/PP strike
> 
> Stuart



Intriguing...can you break it down?  Or have a video?

Admitedly, I am a bit cynical about a lot of motions in the Taeguek forms.  Good for some thing but I rarely look for direct, practical application of every motion.  So I'm not saying I expect a realistic answer, but I am curious and willing to learn


----------



## StuartA (Oct 19, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Intriguing...can you break it down? Or have a video?


 
No video, but will try to break them down.

For ease of understanding Im gonna go all ABC...

*1. Arm trap lock*
Get opponent to hold out right arm (aka a simulated grab)
Use the block by bringing your left arm down from above their onto their forearm, whilst your right arm comes up underneath their arm, to the elbow joint - split second after the first in order to bend the elbow. You should find their arm bends and goes behind them (or they turn slightly) allowing you get trap their arm behidn their back

*2. Parry & PP Strike Combination*
As a strike comes in (right arm), pivot body 90 degrees (so your facing their arm side ways (avoids blow and sets up counter).. at same time block the arm with your left (using back of forearm in sort of mid block position) simoutainiously striking to groin, following parry, change over, use left arm to pull theirs down (if you can) and strike to the carotid artery or jaw line with the right (use arm, if thumb of fist depending on height) - this was taught to me by a PP expert who happens to hold a 7th dan in TKD also (Chung Do kwan I believe - old skool) 

Hope you get them, and remember... they are to secret for my Vol 2! :shooter:

Stuart


----------



## Miles (Oct 19, 2008)

SJON said:


> Now we're getting somewhere!
> 
> Miles, can you talk me through some examples of the kind of "blocks as armbars" and "preparations as parries" that GM Park demonstrates.
> 
> ...



Sure!  In TG5 at the end of the poomsae is a left low block followed by right inside middle block, then a front kick followed by a stomp and right front strike.

GM Park demonstrated that the right hand performing the front strike is a parry of a punch into the defender's left hand which pulls the attacker into the defender's right front strike.  This is done while simultaneously stomping  down the attacker's shin to instep.

BTW, hoping to get a copy of your book for Christmas.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 19, 2008)

StuartA said:


> No video, but will try to break them down.
> ...
> Hope you get them, and remember...



Thanks, those follow and I can visualize it, although it did fit my expectations of not really being the scissors block(s) from Taegeuk Chil-Jang but rather an application of the general motions of a scissors block in a markedly different context.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 19, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Thanks, those follow and I can visualize it, although it did fit my expectations of not really being the scissors block(s) from Taegeuk Chil-Jang but rather an application of the general motions of a scissors block in a markedly different context.


 
Sorry.. you lost me... can you explain?

what do you mean by " _although it did fit my expectations of not really being the scissors block(s) from Taegeuk Chil-Jang_" and "_an application of the general motions of a scissors block in a markedly different context_" 

I looked at a diagram of Taegeuk Chil-Jang (below), and with exception of the stances and the turn used in the ch'ang hon pattern for No.2 app, I cant see much of a difference for the blocking motion and I cant see the stance making much of a difference (esp for the first app), so Im guessing the block is perfromed in a different motion or something!! Actually, looking at the pattern diagram below, the next two moves also fit the 1st application, as if the oppoenent is turned a grab and pull on the knee would attack his spine 

BTW, in the first example app, a second motion (of same block) releases the right hand and enages the attacker left arm (now behind them) in a locked position!

Stuart


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 19, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Pull = standard release technique.. same can be found (as a release technique) in the Chang Hons. The foot stamp was good though, and shows he like a little creativeness in the patterns (a lesson there perhaps!)... unless its a stamp in the actual pattern (which I dont know). Wont mention the rising block or X-stance/backfist applications however :uhyeah:
> 
> Stuart


 
Stuart, 
I know pull is a standard release technique. Yet many folks (including SJON in his book) ignore it in Tae Guek Oh jang in favor of something else. I brought it up because (even tho it seems obvious to many) it is not to everyone.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 19, 2008)

"so Im guessing the block is perfromed in a different motion or something!! "


Yes, motion 12A is the first step of the scissors block and is done in a forward extended stance (or deep front stance or however you call it).  Also the 12A and 12B are really one move.  Also both arm motions in 12A are executed  simultaneously

What that means is that  if you were to use a right hand grab to my right or left shoulder/center chest/etc...  I would drop forward into a forward extended stance... distances don't make sense to then do the first part of the scissors block to break your grasp and turn it around and arm lock behind your back.  Especially since  the left arm motion in 12A is usually coming upward/outward, not downward.  

Add to this is that 12A and 12B are really just "12" and are only separated in the diagram to illustrate the full set of arm motions.  This doesn't flow into the arm lock portion of your App 1.

So...it would appear to me at least that....Taegeuk Chil-Jang uses a scissors block and your App 1 uses a a scissors block but the similarity in the motions is fairly broad


----------



## TKDHermit (Oct 20, 2008)

can someone tell me in Taegeuk 5, after the sidekick, what's the slapping of the elbow for? lol.

and, generally in poomsae, how do you chamber a low block? as in i know blocking arm starts frm shoulder, but the "pull back" arm should it be pointed middle section or low section before pulling back? and how does that block work? -.-  lol.

and as for crossblock, is there any rule as to which arm is on top or below?


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Yes, motion 12A is the first step of the scissors block and is done in a forward extended stance (or deep front stance or however you call it). Also the 12A and 12B are really one move. Also both arm motions in 12A are executed simultaneously...
> 
> ...So...it would appear to me at least that....Taegeuk Chil-Jang uses a scissors block and your App 1 uses a a scissors block but the similarity in the motions is fairly broad


 
FF, you thinking is too confined.. 
1. I dont know how long the forward stance is that you use in the actual pattern, but it simply indicates a forward motion.. it doesnt have to be superlong, just solid at the impact.. besides, how long is an arm.. who can say as different people have different lengths.

2. I used the right arm simply as reference to describe.. it can be utilized with either arm.. more so as the block is repeated

3. Furthermore, just because the pattern starts with the left arm up, it doesnt mean this is the first block.. 12a could be the setting prior to 12b (which would catch the arm) on its downward motion, with 13a the lock behind the back and the extra stance indicating you move to need closer still (which often you do), to keep it tight... shift forward to 12b, 13a, 13b for right arm application

Take it as you will, but I just experimented with it and it fits the pattern diagram easily.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

TKDHermit said:


> can someone tell me in Taegeuk 5, after the sidekick, what's the slapping of the elbow for? lol.


In the Chang Hon tul its usually a grab (to head/back of head) in order to pull it onto (or keep it in place) for the elbow strike!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> Stuart,
> I know pull is a standard release technique. Yet many folks (including SJON in his book) ignore it in Tae Guek Oh jang in favor of something else.


Ill leave Simon to comment on that himself, all I would say is that its one of the few applications taught as standard in TKD that actually works, that said "_block punch with mid block_" is also taught as standard.. neither mean when the moved was first put in, this was the application for it precisely, just that they found one that works (though there are many more that dont - hence my reasoning).

More more interesting is how you commented on the first part of my reply, but ignored the last part... because Master GM Park uses a step as a foot stamp (showing he is open to interetation unless its perfromed as an actual stamp int he pattern, does this mean:
a. Your show it as a foot stamp as well, even though it isnt in the pattern as one?
b. That your be more open to applications as well, like GM Park?
_-- I ask the above as your logic was what GM Park does, your okay with_

Stuart


----------



## SJON (Oct 20, 2008)

Are we talking about the low block, pull back and descending hammer at the beginning of Taegeuk 5?

The reason I dont contemplate a pull out release there is that I cant think of any reason for being in that position in the first place, i.e. standing in a long stance with your weight forward and someone in front of you holding your wrist at low level.

That thing about the foot stomp and pull on to the forward backfist  stomping is cool, defending with the preparation of the move is cool, but Im not at all convinced. Why the unstable X-stance? Why not hit him with something thats going to put him out instead of just annoy him?


----------



## IcemanSK (Oct 20, 2008)

StuartA said:


> More more interesting is how you commented on the first part of my reply, but ignored the last part... because Master GM Park uses a step as a foot stamp (showing he is open to interetation unless its perfromed as an actual stamp int he pattern, does this mean:
> a. Your show it as a foot stamp as well, even though it isnt in the pattern as one?
> b. That your be more open to applications as well, like GM Park?
> _-- I ask the above as your logic was what GM Park does, your okay with_
> ...


 
Don't read too much into my not commenting on the foot stomp, Stuart. It was a busy day. 

In the video, GM Park used a foot stomp after the front kick & before the backfist at the end of Oh jang. I've seen it interpreted in many ways. I'm open to other interpretations, but I don't give them all the same weight. For me, his interpretations have weight because of who he is in relation to the poomsae.


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 20, 2008)

This is all great discussion. I was speaking to a friend of mine over the weekend regarding this particular thread.

1. As far as the k/p/b applications and the 'distance' thing referred to in TG1- As an example, Part of learning TKD requires learning adequate distance. (how long your legs and arms are) Lest we forget 'real life' SD requires a constant re-assessment of the situation at hand and re-adjusting your distance, as the situation necessitates. In real life no technique will be 'textbook perfect'

2. TKD is in fact, a striking art first! There are 'some' take downs. The older GM, like GM Park, GM Uhm, GM Nam Tae HI and the Late Nam Suk Lee were taught either jujitsu or practiced hapkido and are competent if you get in close-they could throw you or break your arm with a wrist lock.
a beginning student (white-green) does not have the repetitions to throw someone. 

3. Instead of the hours endless discussion, and point-counter point at the keyboard. To truly know the poomse- How about just practicing them. There has been, in my opinion, a lot of wasted time pontificating and speculating about things beyond k/p/b. 

           Stuart,

           I am not trying to start an argument, but you commented on a &#8217;little spinny 
           thing' in one of my videos on my web site. First of all, it was for a   
           demonstration purposes. Secondly, it was based on a formal technique I was
           taught by my Instructors. I have also looked at videos on your web-site and 
           I could make some cute comments- but out of respect, I won&#8217;t.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 20, 2008)

And that's one of my main points. Unless you've spoken with Hae Man Park and his colleagues and got it straight from them about what something is doing in a form, you're just using conjecture (this is what I believe this move is based on my interpretation).  You may be correct or incorrect.
Do not say "I don't see the point for this move" unless you know for sure what it's doing and the reason behind it.  I've practiced with GM Park, and it was a real eyeopener because what you may have thought a move was doing turned out to be different.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> Don't read too much into my not commenting on the foot stomp, Stuart. It was a busy day.


Fair enough, thanks for explaining



> In the video, GM Park used a foot stomp after the front kick & before the backfist at the end of Oh jang. I've seen it interpreted in many ways. I'm open to other interpretations, but I don't give them all the same weight. For me, his interpretations have weight because of who he is in relation to the poomsae.


I know you have a great deal of respect for GM Park and Im not trying to dismiss his knowledge or be disresepctful (hence why in other posts I try to shift the focus to a general sense rather than a single person), but what I get from this is that no matter what the application, good or bad, if GM Park says its okay, then thats it... where as, if anyone else (whose not GM Park) disputes an application or offers a good/better one, then its largely dismissed due to their non-position of authority on the subject!!!

Stuart


----------



## SJON (Oct 20, 2008)

Kwanjang said:


> 1. As far as the k/p/b applications and the 'distance' thing referred to in TG1- As an example, Part of learning TKD requires learning adequate distance. (how long your legs and arms are) Lest we forget 'real life' SD requires a constant re-assessment of the situation at hand and re-adjusting your distance, as the situation necessitates. In real life no technique will be 'textbook perfect'


 
  I fully agree that nothing will be textbook perfect in real life. However, you would need to be proportioned like an orang-utan for the Taegeuk 1 rising block sequences to work as is. The alternative would be to block at close range, jump back, kick, and jump forward again to punch. This does not seem particularly practical or efficient.



Kwanjang said:


> 2. TKD is in fact, a striking art first!


 
  Agreed.



Kwanjang said:


> There are 'some' take downs. The older GM, like GM Park, GM Uhm, GM Nam Tae HI and the Late Nam Suk Lee were taught either jujitsu or practiced hapkido and are competent if you get in close-they could throw you or break your arm with a wrist lock.


 
  I agree, and this practice informed their KSD/TSD/TKD.



Kwanjang said:


> a beginning student (white-green) does not have the repetitions to throw someone.


 
  Really? Surely that depends on whether you actually include throws in training or not.



Kwanjang said:


> 3. Instead of the hours endless discussion, and point-counter point at the keyboard. To truly know the poomse- How about just practicing them. There has been, in my opinion, a lot of wasted time pontificating and speculating about things beyond k/p/b.


 
  If youre happy to keep it K/B/P, fine. But Ill ask you again, are you personally truly confident that every one of those K/B/P interpretations will resolve a physical conflict in your favour? To what extent have you pressure tested them against someone really trying to hit you with the type of attacks that are actually used in violent situations (i.e. not lunge punches)?

  I think this is an interesting and useful discussion. And I dont think anybody is pontificating on anything.



YoungMan said:


> And that's one of my main points. Unless you've spoken with Hae Man Park and his colleagues and got it straight from them about what something is doing in a form, you're just using conjecture (this is what I believe this move is based on my interpretation). You may be correct or incorrect.
> Do not say "I don't see the point for this move" unless you know for sure what it's doing and the reason behind it. I've practiced with GM Park, and it was a real eyeopener because what you may have thought a move was doing turned out to be different.


 
  YoungMan,

  Youve said that before, and I answered that yes, it is hypothesis (not conjecture, though  I trust you are aware of the difference). I asked you why in the world I shouldnt do it. You did not answer, so Ill ask you again. On what authority are you telling me what I may and may not do regarding the poomses? Just because you have trained with GM Park? What makes you think he gave you, or any of your contemporaries, the full story?

  I have a bit of a problem with this idea that we have some kind of moral obligation towards particular individuals, groups or  heaven forbid  nations, simply because they were the originators of a particular method or other phenomenon. To me, that is cult-like thinking. I have a particularly hard time when the material in question has been used in an intensely commercial fashion, and has  to my mind  been presented against all logic in such a way that could actual endanger peoples physical well-being should they choose to trust the official K/B/P explanations and the it works if you train hard enough approach.

  I do not need permission to use something which  lets be clear on this  has been sold to me, in whichever way I feel to be appropriate. I dont believe I am attacking or insulting anybody, and I do believe I am offering something which can in fact be useful and enjoyable to a lot of people.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

Some good points Kwanjang,


Kwanjang said:


> This is all great discussion. I was speaking to a friend of mine over the weekend regarding this particular thread.
> 
> 1. As far as the k/p/b applications and the 'distance' thing referred to in TG1- As an example, Part of learning TKD requires learning adequate distance. (how long your legs and arms are) Lest we forget 'real life' SD requires a constant re-assessment of the situation at hand and re-adjusting your distance, as the situation necessitates. In real life no technique will be 'textbook perfect'


- isnt that the said, same reason why there can be different intepretations of patterns (something I touched upon in my response about the scissor block app) 



> 2. TKD is in fact, a striking art first! There are 'some' take downs. The older GM, like GM Park, GM Uhm, GM Nam Tae HI and the Late Nam Suk Lee were taught either jujitsu or practiced hapkido and are competent if you get in close-they could throw you or break your arm with a wrist lock. a beginning student (white-green) does not have the repetitions to throw someone.


They would if they practiced them.. again, thats part of what patterns are for.. repetition of techniques. that said, I feel they should be practiced away from patterns also, but then so should all techniques.



> 3. Instead of the hours endless discussion, and point-counter point at the keyboard. To truly know the poomse- How about just practicing them. There has been, in my opinion, a lot of wasted time pontificating and speculating about things beyond k/p/b.


Discussion is what forums are for! Secondly, you can practice something for a lifetime, but if you practice it one way, it will simply remain that way.. and students that dont question and simply follow the status quo will remain the same no matter how long they practice. Thats how patterns got to where they are now in both Karate and TKD. 



> I am not trying to start an argument, but you commented on a little spinny thing' in one of my videos on my web site.


That was ages/pages back now.. it had a smiley to show it was _tongue in cheek_ as we we talking about the reality of SD if I recall correctly!



> First of all, it was for demonstration purposes.


Now I'm simply intrigued... demonstrating what exactly?



> Secondly, it was based on a formal technique I was
> taught by my Instructors.


The technique I saw and that was nice, just didnt get the spinny part is all.. though like I said, it wasnt a critcism, just a tongue in cheek comment - sorry.. thought you`d notice the smiley. 



> I have also looked at videos on your web-site and
> I could make some cute comments- but out of respect, I wont.


Honestly, feel free, I wouldnt put them up there if I could take critcism.. Im a warts and all kinda guy!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

Dam, Simon posted quicker than me 

*Another Point:* Doesnt the Kukkikwon text book have applications listed for each taeguek?  If so, it would be easy to reference how good/bad they are.

One of you guys must have a copy right?

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 20, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Dam, Simion posted quicker than me
> 
> *Another Point:* Doesnt the Kukkikwon text book have applications listed for each taeguek? If so, it would be easy to reference how good/bad they are.
> 
> ...


 
Yes I do at the school and will post it tonight for everyone.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Yes I do at the school and will post it tonight for everyone.


 
Cool, thats great Terry. Tell you what, as I dont know the Taegueks, I'll have a look at some pattern disgrams and select a couple of moves, from there we can discuss:

a. The text book offical app
b. Simons app for same
c. I can give my view if they are found in the Chnag Hon tul
d. Any others people may have learnt (Youngman, Kwanjang and everyone elses view of what they have been taught would be good here if it differs from the official text book explanation or even if it doesnt)

Should be interesting. Ill do it before go training tonight, so everyone has a chance to respond. I dont have the text book and Im not even gonna reference Simons book.. Im gonna go tye "Taeguek" into google images now and pick a few out at random.

After then next post, everyone can go check them out and we can compile one post with all the replies, then discuss them.

Sounds a good idea right?

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

Okay, here they are. I typed "Taeguek" in google images and the first 3 (viewable) diagrams that came up, I selected a few techniques from:

*Number 1: Taken from Taeguek Yi jang 2*
http://www.blackbeltcollege.com/Taeguek.Ee.Jang.jpg
*Moves:* 11 & 12


*Number 2: Taken from Taeguek 7 (I think)*
http://www.northwest-taekwondo.co.uk/downloads/tk7.jpghttp://www.kimstkd-ca.com/Blue-taegeuk.gif
*Moves*: 4,5 & 6


*Number 3:* *Taken from Taeguek 4 (I think)*
http://lh5.ggpht.com/raztkdclub/R5SqIYKrmBI/AAAAAAAAADs/neUoNlKqNak/s800/taegeuk+04.jpg
*Moves:* 4,5 (and 6 if it works in a combination)


There ya go, gotta go, got a class in half an hour. Ill check back later.

Stuart


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm in


----------



## zDom (Oct 20, 2008)

Random thoughts after skimming this thread:

I feel fortunate that my TKD instructor provided information on what questionable movements actually are and other plausible applications for movements.

I can see how some students and even instructors may find this book a valuable resource (for example, the guy who didn't know what was going on with the elbow strike into the palm on taekguek 5!)


but

I take issue with the notion that the surface applications "don't work against a committed attacker" (too many posts to dig through and find where that was said and by whom).

If your high block isn't working, then I would suggest that you may be doing it wrong. It works fine for ME.

Likewise, I found a low block worked quite well against a committed attacker during a full-contact Olympic-style match, exactly as instructed. It was so effective he limped out of the match.

Also, while some movements may indicate a placeholder for a throw, I would doubt someone's ability to execute a throw based solely on practicing a poomsea and knowing that a movement is also a throw. There is no substitute for throwing people when it comes to learning how to throw people, IMO.

And finally, while there ARE useful alternative uses for many of the movements, I would encourage us all to remember that the surface explanations are quite useful in and of themselves and that:

*"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"*


----------



## SJON (Oct 20, 2008)

Hi zDom.

I appreciate and generally agree with your comments. I'd just like to point out a couple of things.

1. Nobody is saying the individual movements won't work. Sure, a high block will work just fine against a high punch. A low block might even work fine against a kick (although I certainly wouldn't try it, as I'm a svelte customer and my bone structure is fairly light). What I'm saying is that the SEQUENCES shown in the patterns don't work very well when taken as K/B/P, and therefore tend to demand a more realistic explanation. I'm also saying that even though the conventional explanations of individual movements can be made to work with varying degrees of training, these are generally not their most effective uses.

2. Nobody is saying that just by doing a pattern you're going to become proficient in the actual application of any technique, least of all unfamiliar (to conventional TKD) techniques like throws. Of course you have to practice throwing people. How could it be otherwise?

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

Good post zDom, except for:





zDom said:


> Likewise, I found a low block worked quite well against a committed attacker during a full-contact Olympic-style match, exactly as instructed. It was so effective he limped out of the match.


Something working in a tournament, is very different from a committed attack from a thug. Tournament attacks are limited and follow specific rulesets (which is the amin reason WTF'ers keep their hands by their sides) and fit a standard profile, street attacks are not.. just because something works in one arena, it doesnt mean it will work in another. 



> Also, while some movements may indicate a placeholder for a throw, I would doubt someone's ability to execute a throw based solely on practicing a poomsea and knowing that a movement is also a throw. There is no substitute for throwing people when it comes to learning how to throw people, IMO.


As Simon quite rightly pointed out, throws (and in fact all applications) need to be drilled individually.. solo patterns practice is just a single stage in the process, in fact, the very first stage.



> And finally, while there ARE useful alternative uses for many of the movements, I would encourage us all to remember that the surface explanations are quite useful in and of themselves and that:
> 
> *"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"*


Quite agree... except when its a cigerrette though 

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 20, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Okay, here they are. I typed "Taeguek" in google images and the first 3 (viewable) diagrams that came up, I selected a few techniques from:
> 
> *Number 1: Taken from Taeguek Yi jang 2*
> http://www.blackbeltcollege.com/Taeguek.Ee.Jang.jpg
> ...


 
I hope this helps out will be back after classes and I wil take it home just in case.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

Cheers Terry, though perhaps an Englsih translation as ITF terminology is different than WTF and I dont wanna guess, even though a few of the terms seem similar.

Thanks,

Stuart

Ps. Whats Drawspulling?
PPs. For numbers 2 & 3... "defends" what exactly?


----------



## StuartA (Oct 20, 2008)

Apart from Terrys, there are few replies yet. However, I will make seperate posts for the 'comparisons' so as not to dilute this thread more than needed, as an extra, Ill look up the applications of the ITF as well (if I can find suitable equivilants).

So get posting.. Ill link the threads here when done, for a final anaylsis of it all.. should prove interesting, so hope your all up for it!

Stuart

Ps. Feel free to PM me your results if you wish


----------



## Ninjamom (Oct 20, 2008)

Stuart, et al.,

FYI the Kukkiwon (World HQ for WTF TKD) has an official website that lists all the poomsae, broken down by individual motions (both diagrams and lists of techniques), with applications of select movements and videos as well.

http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/information/information04_03.jsp?div=04

You can select any poomsae from the list, then click one of the four subheadings (Description, Summary, Application, Video) for specific information.

Given the depth of the discussion here, I think you will find many of the official applications to be ... er .... embarrassing.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 20, 2008)

SJON said:


> I fully agree that nothing will be textbook perfect in real life. However, you would need to be proportioned like an orang-utan for the Taegeuk 1 rising block sequences to work as is. The alternative would be to block at close range, jump back, kick, and jump forward again to punch. This does not seem particularly practical or efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Simon,
just curious: are you an ITF student or certified through the Kukkiwon? I am not ITF, and would not be presumptuous as to tell an ITF student what their form is doing.


----------



## SJON (Oct 21, 2008)

Am I an ITF student? What makes you think that? Unlikely, given that I wrote a book with "Taegeuk" in the title, wouldn't you say? Perhaps we should ask Stuart if he's a closet KKW person, just in case he is presuming to conjecture on the Chang Hon patterns without sufficient moral authority ...

I nominally belong to the KKW/WTF-affiliated Spanish Taekwondo Federation. The Taegeuk and other KKW poomses are the ones I habitually train in.

If that satisfies your curiosity, perhaps you'd like to comment on the content of the posts rather than sidestepping. I have no desire to be antagonistic, but I must say I find the tone of your posts a little dismissive, without actually putting any counterarguments of substance on the table.

Cheers,

Simon


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 21, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Simon,
> just curious: are you an ITF student or certified through the Kukkiwon? I am not ITF, and would not be presumptuous as to tell an ITF student what their form is doing.


 

Let me ask this question, Are you KKW or WTF. Lets analize this the KKW is a rank mill noq a days all they really do anymore is give rank to anybody without any verication, so they are a processing center, that does help with the bare minium of requirements. The WTF is nothing more than an org. that oversee'a the sport rules for competition, nothing more nothing less. Simon wrote a book about the Tae Gueks which means KKW, if he was ITF he would not even be doing the Tae Gueks, the stances would be wrong in every poomsae. To me you are trying the old bait and switch here. So lets stay on topic and will some of the others please list some of there application to the poomsae in qestio. This makes me feel that all people do is learn the movement and they absolutely have no clue about application. Because if they did they would be talking application instead of all this B.S. about which org. Carry on Please.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Stuart, et al.,
> 
> FYI the Kukkiwon (World HQ for WTF TKD) has an official website that lists all the poomsae, broken down by individual motions (both diagrams and lists of techniques), with applications of select movements and videos as well.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Ninjamom... I'll add that as a reference as well. Unfortunatly they dont seem to show an app for every move, but I will try and utilise what they do show, as well as Terrys stuff from the book.

Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> So lets stay on topic


Yes... lets.

*Terry *- can you put the applications (not the attacks) in the writtern text book in English.

*Simon* - Can you list any apps to the moves you have in your book + any other thoughts

*Kwanjang, Youngman, Exile, Bluekey88 *+ everyone else, please have a look and give any apps you have been taught.

I went through the ITF Encys last night, and the KKW web site just now, so will shortly list stuff - please see http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68512 for further info.

In the meantime, Ill start compiling all the info ready to post.

thanks,

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Simon,
> just curious: are you an ITF student or certified through the Kukkiwon? I am not ITF, and would not be presumptuous as to tell an ITF student what their form is doing.


 
Hes not telling, he suggesting. And learning from as many sources as possible is a good thing, more so if it corrects something thats poor in the first place, for something better!

Anyway... lets move on with the experiemnt shall we.. Youngman, your insights will be greatly appreciated and helpful if you could participate.

Stuart


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 21, 2008)

OK will list some more and put it in english terms.


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 21, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Okay, here they are. I typed "Taeguek" in google images and the first 3 (viewable) diagrams that came up, I selected a few techniques from:
> 
> *Number 1: Taken from Taeguek Yi jang 2*
> http://www.blackbeltcollege.com/Taeguek.Ee.Jang.jpg
> ...


 
Well, in my school, we don't do much in the way of in depth analyses of poomse.  It's something I';ve always felt was lacking and have worked hard to to try to research this.  I just go tpermission from my instructor to put together an 8 week seminar on poomse analyses for SD.  If it goes well, my instructor wants to work this stuff into the BB curriculum.

Anyway, most of what I know is of the K-B-P variety.  I still struggle witht he creation of more in-depth moves without resortinbg to previosu Aikido and karate training.

In the first example, the kbp applicatino is two block parrying high level punches to the face.  the more in depth analyuses (pretty much what Mr. O'neil writes) could be using the chamber hand of the first high block to pin the arms of an attacker doing a lapel grab while executing a forearm strike to the throat/chin.  doing this again, swithcing handsz, the adding the next move...the 270 turn into an inside block could be a transition into a standing arm bar or head strike/throw.

In the second example.  the kbp analyses could be pulling back into tiger stance and parrying punch with an inside block...turning and parrying a punch from another attacker and then kicking them.  Again, less than satisfactory...perhaps a better application is again from some sort of grab to the left side of my body.  I could secure the offending limb with my right hand (chamber) whiel executing a hammer fist strik to the side of the head/neck.  Grabbing the offending limb with my left hand I could turn and execute an arm-bar takedown as I turn 180...then knee or kick the now bent over attacker in the face.  

In the last example, the kbp version is a knifehand block to a punch followed up by a spearhand strike to the abdomen, inner thigh, or groin.  Better than others, but not necessarily a fight ender.  For a better version, i always like using the knife strike as a wrapping up trapping of an attack with the chamber with a knife hand strike to the kneck. The spearhand motion could than be something like clothesline typ throw or projection...something akin to Kokyunage in Aikidousing the deep stance to get ones front leg behing the opponent and using your body weight to unblance them over your leg.

Hoep this makes sense and i'm REALLY not trying to plagiarize Mr. O'neil or anytone else...I'm still new at this stuff though 

Peace,
Erik


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

Eric,

Cut and paste this to the alternaive thread when it gets up and running properly.

Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## exile (Oct 21, 2008)

SJON said:


> Am I an ITF student? What makes you think that? Unlikely, given that I wrote a book with "Taegeuk" in the title, wouldn't you say? Perhaps we should ask Stuart if he's a closet KKW person, just in case he is presuming to conjecture on the Chang Hon patterns without sufficient moral authority ...
> 
> I nominally belong to the KKW/WTF-affiliated Spanish Taekwondo Federation. The Taegeuk and other KKW poomses are the ones I habitually train in.
> 
> ...



Well put, and I'd just add that it's not very convincing to attack a book, particularly a detailed technical analysis, that one has already declared one has no interest in reading. Some points have been raised and some analyses proposed. The point of this thread is to speak to these points and analyses, no? To challenge them, support them or amplify them. The author's biography seems a bit irrelevant, eh?

If someone were to write a book about the history of Italian art  containing a number of claims about Michaelangelo's intentions in sculpting the David, just how convincing would a challenge to those claims be which was based not on the book's content, but that the author is of Polish, rather than Italian, descent?


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

Okay folks... application comparisons thread is up & running.. go to: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1057661#post1057661

Should be interesting,

Stuart


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 21, 2008)

exile said:


> Wait... I'm confused, I think I've missed something here... I _thought_ the question was, why would you step into the attack; and what I said in my response was just sort of the standard rationale for closing the distance on the attacker to render his attack not just harmless but self-destructive. But judging by your answer, there seems to be something at issue about the rising block/knife hand on the one hand and something about Filipine MAs on the other. It wasn't clear to me that SJON was saying anything about the FMAs, but only that it's more combat-realistic to treat the movements he mentioned as strikes, rather than as literal blocks....
> 
> As I say, I'm clearly not getting somethingcan you walk me through the line of reasoning here? I feel as if there's some crucial assumption or claim or something that someone made in one of the earlier posts that I just flat-out missed.... :idunno:


Hi Exile,

I'll try and be more clear.  The usage of a rising block or a knife hand block as a block application is ridicululous (IMO).  Setting inside of the curved radius of an impact weapons strike IF YOUR TIMING IS GOOD is a staple of Filipino martila Arts, which I practice besides karate.  Sorry to confuse you.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 21, 2008)

DMcHenry said:


> Master Anderson, it&#8217;s an honor and pleasure sir. If I were to order a copy of your book, would you be able to autograph it for me?
> I understand about the hair thing&#8230;. I don&#8217;t have much left on top now either.
> Mac


Hi Dennis,

Yes.

Yours,
Dan Anderson
Note to one and all - just got back from teaching a seminar in LA and missed about 5 pages of this thread.  Wow - very active.  I've been in comm with Simon and am eagerly awaiting his book.  Then I can comment on that as well but it sure seems like it's a good one from all the posts I've read.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 21, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Sorry.. you lost me... can you explain?
> 
> what do you mean by " _although it did fit my expectations of not really being the scissors block(s) from Taegeuk Chil-Jang_" and "_an application of the general motions of a scissors block in a markedly different context_"
> 
> ...


Stuart,


Do you by any chance have a schematic like this for Jang Kwon?

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> Stuart,
> 
> 
> Do you by any chance have a schematic like this for Jang Kwon?
> ...


Hi Dan,

I take it that Jang Kwon is a form from some system. I found the WTF ones by simply doing a google search. I tried using your terms but came up empty Im afraid.

Sorry,

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> Hi Dennis,
> 
> and am eagerly awaiting his book. Then I can comment on that as well but it sure seems like it's a good one from all the posts I've read.


 
Oh oh.. <<jumps up and down again, hand waving wildly in the air>>


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 21, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Hi Dan,
> 
> I take it that Jang Kwon is a form from some system. I found the WTF ones by simply doing a google search. I tried using your terms but came up empty Im afraid.
> 
> ...


Yeah, same here.

Dan


----------



## SJON (Oct 21, 2008)

Jang Kwon is the Korean name for Chang Quan, the northern Chinese "Long Fist" form. There are a lot of different versions of it about, but it is generally considered to be descended from Taizu Long Fist. It is incorporated into the syllabus of kwans in Yoon Pyung In's lineage (YMCA Kwon Bop Bu, Chang Moo Kwan, Kang Duk Won) and - allegedly - into that of Hwang Kee's Moo Duk Kwan, although there seems to be relatively little evidence that it was ever really part of MDK training.

Robert McLain would be the man to ask about that, I suspect.

Dan, I assume you are aware that Stuart beat me to the mark by some considerable time regarding publishing a book on practical TKD pattern applications (see his website). His is concerned with the Chang Hon (ITF) set, and is highly recommendable.


----------



## Ninjamom (Oct 21, 2008)

Only marginally off topic from the direction of drift in this thread:

I have been in contact with the good folks at Red Lion Karate in Red Lion, PA, about using their facilities for a seminar/workshop/practical on boon hae/forms applications some time early next year.  So far, it looks like Master Jay Penfil (who applies these sames sorts of analyses to applications in TSD forms) will be on hand to lead one or a few sessions.  I need to try to gauge interest so we can estimate what fees might be involved, size space needed, etc.  

We have it narrowed down to two possible dates: Fri/Sat Jan 16/17 (this is the MLK Jr Holliday weekend) or Fri/Sat Feb 20/21.  For planning purposes, I need to know:
1. Who here is interested in attending/participating?
2. Who would be willing to lead a session?  (Stuart? Mr O'Neill?  Terry? Others?)
3. What is your 'ideal mix' of guided instruction vs. trial-and-error application?
4. Any other specifics (length, format, group meal, etc) you'd like to suggest the event include (or not).

Please feel free to respond here or PM me.  If there is enough interest, I will start a separate thread for planning this event.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

SJON said:


> Jang Kwon is the Korean name for Chang Quan, the northern Chinese "Long Fist" form.


 
Ah!  Why didnt ya say so 

Here ya go Dan... 





http://67akce.free.fr/videoKF/er duan chang quan.jpg


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

SJON said:


> Jang Kwon is the Korean name for Chang Quan, the northern Chinese "Long Fist" form. There are a lot of different versions of it about, but it is generally considered to be descended from Taizu Long Fist. It is incorporated into the syllabus of kwans in Yoon Pyung In's lineage (YMCA Kwon Bop Bu, Chang Moo Kwan, Kang Duk Won) and - allegedly - into that of Hwang Kee's Moo Duk Kwan, although there seems to be relatively little evidence that it was ever really part of MDK training.


Simon - RESPECT - you have done some serious research!



> Dan, I assume you are aware that Stuart beat me to the mark by some considerable time regarding publishing a book on practical TKD pattern applications (see his website). His is concerned with the Chang Hon (ITF) set, and is highly recommendable.


Thank you brother!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 21, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Only marginally off topic from the direction of drift in this thread:
> 
> I have been in contact with the good folks at Red Lion Karate in Red Lion, PA, about using their facilities for a seminar/workshop/practical on boon hae/forms applications some time early next year. So far, it looks like Master Jay Penfil (who applies these sames sorts of analyses to applications in TSD forms) will be on hand to lead one or a few sessions. I need to try to gauge interest so we can estimate what fees might be involved, size space needed, etc.
> 
> ...


 
You know Im from the UK right?

1. Would do
2. If you wanna cover flights and accomadation, Im up for it! 
3. Whatever the teachers/students. Im happy to teach and also haoppy to learn off al
4. Hey.. love dinner.. chinese, greek, italian.. choice is yours 

Let me know,

Stuart


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 21, 2008)

Stuart,

Sorry but that is not the form I'm looking for. Look at this footage;


> The following is a link to a video of Grandmaster Kim Soo and Master Sean Kim (his son) demonstrating the Chuan-fa form Jang Kwon in 1992. Jang Kwon can be practiced separately as 2 individual forms, or can be practiced as a 2-person form (as demonstrated in this video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcEYR...eature=related


 
You'll notice that from the ready position:
Move 1. Right step forward into cat stance, double "monkey paw" hook
Move 2. Draw left foot to right foot, double hammerfist strikes
Move 3. Right step (to right) to form left back stance, left down block...

THIS is the form I'm looking for. For the longest time I thought my former instructor made it up and then I saw the link to YouTube and viola! It was a real form. I'll keep looking.

Dan


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 21, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Yes... lets.
> 
> *Terry *- can you put the applications (not the attacks) in the writtern text book in English.
> 
> ...


 
As I don't practice the Taegeuks, I'm not in a position to say what they are accomplishing. I do the Palgue and Koryo forms


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 21, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> As I don't practice the Taegeuks, I'm not in a position to say what they are accomplishing. I do the Palgue and Koryo forms


 
Then lets also compare the Palgues and Koryo, ask away with some techs.


----------



## tko4u (Oct 21, 2008)

I see a lot of arguing here. In the end, I believe the taegueks are on the kukkiwon website, there they are done as they are meant to be done. Im not sure why everyone is arguing. Maybe spend more time practicing form and less time arguing about them. After all, practice makes you perfect.


----------



## exile (Oct 21, 2008)

tko4u said:


> I see a lot of arguing here. In the end, I believe the taegueks are on the kukkiwon website, there they are done as they are meant to be done. Im not sure why everyone is arguing. Maybe spend more time practicing form and less time arguing about them. After all, practice makes you perfect.



First of all: people are discussing and debating. Which is the point of a discussion board, and which is how ideas get to compete so that the best of them get sorted out. What's wrong with arguing? If there are competing analyses and solutions, how are we going to establish which hold water and which don't _without_ arguing?

Second: 'meant to be done' by _whom?_ By people who are applying a literal punch/block/kick interpretation, or people who put together a set of fighting sequences disguised, as a matter of long tradition starting with Itosu, as punches, blocks and kicks? The claim is that there are valuable techniques to be obtained by _de_coding TKD hyungs in this way. If there are less effective obvious applications, and more effective concealed applications, what does it matter if people who were unaware of the latter intended for us to do the former? 

Third: when you say 'practicing', I get the distinct impression you mean 'performing', not studying. Not extracting the combat applications, not training those applications under pressure. What is the point of memorizing a bunch of mathematical calculations so you can write them down perfectly every time from memory, if you have no idea of what the mathematics is about, how the calculation is being carried out, or what the answer means?

Fourth: practice doesn't make perfect if you're not practicing correctly. The people who are involved in this discussion are trying to establish just what it is that needs to be practiced, which is the point of the various analyses that are under discussion.

Take a look at the actual book that's being discussed, or at the thread here, and you'll have a better idea of what is at issue, I think. Before you can learn to do something, you need to have a clear idea of just what it is you're doing, _and what the point of it is_, eh?


----------



## StuartA (Oct 22, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> As I don't practice the Taegeuks, I'm not in a position to say what they are accomplishing. I do the Palgue and Koryo forms


 
Oh! Thought you did! Anyways, no matter, neither do I... just have a look at the examples and see if theres any similar moves/combinatiions in the forms you do and let us know what your taught for them.

Stuart


----------



## MasL (Oct 22, 2008)

Deleted: posted in wrong thread


----------



## SJON (Oct 23, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Oh! Thought you did! Anyways, no matter, neither do I... just have a look at the examples and see if theres any similar moves/combinatiions in the forms you do and let us know what your taught for them.
> Stuart


 
The consecutive rising forearms can be found in Palgwe 3, and the knifehand-spearhand combination can be found in Palgwe 8, although in both the following move is different from in the Taegeuks.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 23, 2008)

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people deliver this palm block-spear hand combo to chest level, where the spear hand would contact the sternum. They apparently want their fingers broken.


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 23, 2008)

We've always trained it to aim downwards towards teh abdomen or groin...possibly even the inner thigh area.  It's a risky maneauver that needs to go towards soft targets (throat, eyes, groin, etc.)

Peace,
Erik


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 23, 2008)

StuartA said:


> FF, you thinking is too confined..




I just wanted to let you know that I hadn't stopped thinking about this.   Yes, my thinking was... confined... intentionally, based on some separate thoughts I'd been having for awhile but I realized I sorta hoped midway into the discussion from my a certain direction if my own.  Yes, my thinking was 'confined' in this example, but for a certain reason of my own.  but I thank you for your comments and illustrations and just wanted to let you know that they were very helpful and that my lack of reply wasn't meant to indicate disagreement or anything negative about the exchange


----------



## StuartA (Oct 23, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I can't tell you how many times I've seen people deliver this palm block-spear hand combo to chest level, where the spear hand would contact the sternum. They apparently want their fingers broken.


 
This is what we are talking about.. Im not sure about the forms you do, but most others with this movement teach it as you describe (albiet solar plexus as opposed to chest which is still a hard target to hit int he heat of conflict).. are you refering to the incorrect targetting (ie chest rather than solar plexus) or the whole application as a strike itself?

Thanks for the input,

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Oct 23, 2008)

No worries my friend, I take it you dont want to elaborate on this reason?

Eitherway, your input is valuable and Im glad your considering and looking at things and posting.

Stuart



FearlessFreep said:


> I just wanted to let you know that I hadn't stopped thinking about this. Yes, my thinking was... confined... intentionally, based on some separate thoughts I'd been having for awhile but I realized I sorta hoped midway into the discussion from my a certain direction if my own. Yes, my thinking was 'confined' in this example, but for a certain reason of my own. but I thank you for your comments and illustrations and just wanted to let you know that they were very helpful and that my lack of reply wasn't meant to indicate disagreement or anything negative about the exchange


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 23, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I can't tell you how many times I've seen people deliver this palm block-spear hand combo to chest level, where the spear hand would contact the sternum. They apparently want their fingers broken.


Think of it as a parry down and the spear hand _cross body's _the chest for a balance break into a throw.  Works beautifully.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## exile (Oct 23, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> Think of it as a parry down and the spear hand _cross body's _the chest for a balance break into a throw.  Works beautifully.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson



I _think_ this is similar or related to the application I alluded to before, where the palm, not the fingers, is the impact surface.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 23, 2008)

exile said:


> I _think_ this is similar or related to the application I alluded to before, where the palm, not the fingers, is the impact surface.


Mine to, as mines a throw :uhyeah:


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 23, 2008)

exile said:


> I _think_ this is similar or related to the application I alluded to before, where the palm, not the fingers, is the impact surface.


For me the contact surface is the forearm.  The fingers are for directional aim.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## exile (Oct 23, 2008)

Dan Anderson said:


> For me the contact surface is the forearm.  The fingers are for directional aim.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson



That's the thing I love about these movements... each one yields so many really powerful different _moves_, depending on context.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 24, 2008)

StuartA said:


> This is what we are talking about.. Im not sure about the forms you do, but most others with this movement teach it as you describe (albiet solar plexus as opposed to chest which is still a hard target to hit int he heat of conflict).. are you refering to the incorrect targetting (ie chest rather than solar plexus) or the whole application as a strike itself?
> 
> Thanks for the input,
> 
> Stuart


 
Not the technique itself, just how many people execute it. Too many people do it by aiming too high and striking the bone of the sternum.  Their instructor apprently never caught that and corrected it.  If I remember correctly, Hae Man Park specifically aimed for the abdomen when he did it.


----------



## DMcHenry (Oct 24, 2008)

Personally, I never liked or understood the spearhand strike to the body - I prefer going higher and my main attack would be the vegas nerve in the neck if using the fingertips.  Otherwise with slight modification, I can be striking the collar bone or side of the neck with the pinky side of the hand.

The only time I'd be directing the spearhand towards the body was if reaching to grab the dobak/clothing for a throw.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 26, 2008)

As it was demonstrated to me, you block an incoming kick with the palm block, then immediately attack the abdomen with the spearhand.  The actions are almost simultaneous, although there is a small waist action between the block and strike.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 27, 2008)

I spent my weekend trying to find this book locally, but to no avail.  Looks like I'll have to order. 

Daniel


----------



## StuartA (Oct 28, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I spent my weekend trying to find this book locally, but to no avail. Looks like I'll have to order.
> 
> Daniel


At the moment its only available via Lulu, soon it will be on Amazon, but its unlikely you`ll find it on book store shelves (maybe borders), though you could order it by the ISBN.

Publishers have deals with certain bookshops to push their sales etc. Simons books a solo effort so wouldnt be included in any of those deals.. hence why your unlikely to find it on the shelf.

Stuart


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 28, 2008)

I was at Barnes and Noble.  Borders is my next local port of call.  If not there, then I'll have to go via Lulu.

Daniel


----------



## StuartA (Oct 28, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I was at Barnes and Noble. Borders is my next local port of call. If not there, then I'll have to go via Lulu.
> 
> Daniel


 
Take the ISBN.. you may be able to order it!

Stuart


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 28, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Take the ISBN.. you may be able to order it!
> 
> Stuart



I ordered it from LuLu last week, scheduled to be here Friday


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 1, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> I ordered it from LuLu last week, scheduled to be here Friday



Got it yesterday.  So far it's reading very well.  I'm skipping around a bit.  Some of the earlier background stuff about the backgrounds and origins of the forms is pretty interesting and confirms some things I'd sorta suspected on forms (I'd cut-paste some here if it was online..but it's been so long since I read a non-fiction book in paper that a few times I caught myself looking in the top right corner of the page for a "search" feature) Such things as using forms as drill for large groups of troops/students and the relative simplicity of teaching "block-punch-kick" to troops quickly; those mirrored my own emerging thoughts of the last year or so.

It also confirms some of my thoughts about the execution of the forms, at least looking through the first few motions of Il-Jang; the broad motions of the limbs and body are there but you really need to adjust some angles and timing and motions to glean out the wider usages.  Things like Seq 1 from Il-Jang, turning a 'chamber down-block step-punch' into "defensive entry forward takedown" fits some things I've thought of often for the idea of "look at the general motions, the directions of the body and the weight movement and the limbs...now adjust them a bit and see what it can be"

All in all, nothing really earth-shattering to my thinking, but very reassuring because it seems to crystalize and solidify some of my general random musings with some good research and methodical study.  So (and in keeping with some of my thoughts from my "Spreading My Wings" thread) it's helped move my own personal journey forward quite a few steps and on some solid ground...and gives me a basis for which perhaps I can approach my Sabumnim and help fellow students.

Thanks for the book


----------



## Mark Lynn (Nov 26, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> As it was demonstrated to me, you block an incoming kick with the palm block, then immediately attack the abdomen with the spearhand. The actions are almost simultaneous, although there is a small waist action between the block and strike.


 
I know the threads old but I just got done reading through it.

YoungMan
Do you step forward and parry and spear hand to the abdomen?  Most sequences in the patterns I've seen have you stepping forward, parrying and then spear hand to the chest.

If the kick was a front kick and you parry it downward as you are moving in towards it what part of the leg are you blocking?

Mark


----------

