# Karate is kata, kata is karate



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2019)

I am starting this thread because I was asked to defend my assertion that karate and kata are inseparable.  I hope that this will at least be informative, even if you don't agree with my thesis.

I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone, nor do I think anyone else is necessarily wrong.  I speak only for myself and my limited understanding of the art I study.

I'll try to distill it down.  It's been done to death but here it is again.

Karate is kata and kata is karate, in my opinion.

Why?

Let's start with karate itself. The very word means 'empty hand'.  Yes, I'm aware that it once meant 'China hand,' but we accept that it means empty handed self-defense arts at this time.

However, I'm used to the term 'karatedo'.  The word karate is simply shorthand for karatedo.  Do is a word in Japanese that refers to a 'way' as in a way of life.  Not simply a style, or school, like a ryu.

In Japan, many things are do.  Calligraphy, flower arranging, tea making, and so on.  Karate is one among many kinds of do.

Not everyone who studies karate thinks of it that way.  I get it.  Like many things, it can be what people want and need it to be.  You don't how to know how internal combustion engines work to drive a car.  But some people do know how they work, and some care how they work, and that's no more wrong than people who just want to start it up and drive to work.

So consider me a student who studies karatedo, and considers it a way, a lifestyle, a way of life, a lifelong pursuit.

To me, kata encodes karate.  Everything that my particular style is, is found in the kata.  All kihon, all bunkai, everything necessary to know, is found within the framework of the kata itself.

Most who study any traditional form of karate are familiar with the notion of application, also known as bunkai.  It's the 'why' of kata.  Often very obvious.  Why am I doing an upper body block?  Someone is punching me in the head, that's why.  And if all I cared about what self-defense, that would be plenty.  There's a lot to learn, as most know, about body mechanics and how to correctly perform that block such that the incoming power is absorbed and redistributed and channeled and so on.  How one can avoid having one's block collapse under the power of the incoming strike.  Yes, that's all in the kata, and it's important and good.

But there is so much more.  And many know this already.  Advanced bunkai shows that a block isn't always a block, but could be a strike.  That a move in a kata might serve a myriad of purposes.  Some more difficult to implement than others.  Some we try and try and struggle with, trying to make them work.  Sometimes we just can't quite absorb it, sometimes our instructors can't quite demonstrate it, and so on.  So there are limits; to ourselves, in our training, etc.

To me, though, kata goes well beyond even that.  It's a moving, living, study of self-defense applications,  but it also includes breathing, balance, stance, and power training.  Transitions.  Speed.  Where and when to look.  What to notice.

Kata gives one space and permission to experiment, to develop applications, which may seem 'new' to the karateka, but are usually not new at all; just newly rediscovered.  This is where people start talking about 'secret' methods and 'hidden' training and all that malarkey.  It's not hidden, it's just not visible to the karateka who is not sufficiently experienced enough to see them, or to the student who simply does not care to explore what it has to offer.

Of course one can take the basic bunkai of any kata or form and teach just that application, divorced from the kata.  It works, it's legitimate training.  But it leaves so much behind.  As I've said before, if self-defense is the goal (and many argue that self-defense is all martial arts is or should be), one can become proficient in the basic moves that will serve them well in that area fairly quickly.  And as I've also said, there's nothing wrong with that, if that's what one wants.

I can fight, sure. I can defend myself, or at least I fancy that I can.  But I quite honestly don't care about any of that any more.  I practice kata because it talks to me.  It relaxes me.  It enlightens me.  I find new things in it constantly, none of them new or undiscovered of course, but new to me, and I deeply enjoy the exploration.

People come into the dojo from time to time and say they don't want belts or to wear a gi or to bow to anyone, they just want to learn to fight.  Cool.  There's a boxing gym in town, from that I hear, the instructor's top-notch.  And I'm sure it's great training for fighting.  Go there, do that.  I'm not trying to put anyone down - boxing is great.  So are the myriad of other styles.  Find the one that works for you, that gives you what you need.  Do it and feel great about it.  All good.

But my karate is karatedo.  It's a way of life.  Kata is living, breathing, neverending exploration of a universe of language, all framed in the way of informed violence, but at the same time, not about violence at all.  Do you think people spend a lifetime arranging flowers or printing characters because they wanted to accomplish something obvious and simple?  I can order a bouquet from FTD if that's what I want.  I can print fancy characters with a computer and laser printer, right?  Clearly, it's about more than that.

_"Well, I can't understand why anyone would want to, I don't see the point."_  Right.  I get it.  I don't see it either, or I guess I'd be arranging flowers or drawing characters on rice paper with a brush.  But they get it, clearly.  Don't think it valueless because you don't see the value yourself, is what I'm trying to say.

I hear criticism of various types of kata, or moves within kata, all the time.  Often from people with some training, usually from those who moved on and didn't spend much time with it.  _"Oh, that's an unrealistic move, you can't make that work.  You'd never do a low block like that.  It's not practical."_  And so on.  Well, I get that.  If I hadn't spent the last decade plus working on my kata, I might think the same thing.  I can state that in my opinion, such statements are uninformed and nonsensical, but you can't argue someone out of their opinions if they haven't put in the work it takes to actually 'get it'.  And trust me, there's an awful lot I don't know, and mysteries which I have not solved.  I have a lifetime to keep picking at it; I might eventually get a little better.

I also run into experienced karateka who are skilled at their art and highly regarded in their community, and they practice kata I have difficulty understanding.  When I ask them what a given move is for, they don't know.  They do it because they were taught to do it.  They do it well, I guess.  Smooth and clean and with power, but what's it for?  If they can't tell me because I don't understand their application, maybe it's me.  But if they can't tell me because they just don't know, I wonder what it is they think they're doing practicing it.

Kata is alive.  It's packed full of information and it's ready to teach those who are willing to learn the language it speaks.

That, to me, is the hear and soul of karate.  The essence.  Do kata.  Think deeply and consciously about it.  Examine yourself and try to learn the language it speaks.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am starting this thread because I was asked to defend my assertion that karate and kata are inseparable



To be clear - I wasn't asking you to defend it.  I just wanted you to explain it.  I wanted you to give more than 3 words, to explain what it meant, so that I could understand what it is you were trying to tell me.

I wasn't telling you that you were wrong.  I wasn't asking you to prove it.  I wasn't asking you to write a dissertation on it.  I was asking for a sentence or two, something more than three words, so that I would know what you were even talking about.

Maybe this scene can explain it better:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> To be clear - I wasn't asking you to defend it.  I just wanted you to explain it.  I wanted you to give more than 3 words, to explain what it meant, so that I could understand what it is you were trying to tell me.
> 
> I wasn't telling you that you were wrong.  I wasn't asking you to prove it.  I wasn't asking you to write a dissertation on it.  I was asking for a sentence or two, something more than three words, so that I would know what you were even talking about.



So did I explain it sufficiently?


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2019)

I'm gonna start off by saying I train TKD, which borrows a lot of the techniques from Karate kata, but gets them out of order and isn't always quite the same.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> I hear criticism of various types of kata, or moves within kata, all the time. Often from people with some training, usually from those who moved on and didn't spend much time with it. _"Oh, that's an unrealistic move, you can't make that work. You'd never do a low block like that. It's not practical."_ And so on. Well, I get that. If I hadn't spent the last decade plus working on my kata, I might think the same thing. I can state that in my opinion, such statements are uninformed and nonsensical, but you can't argue someone out of their opinions if they haven't put in the work it takes to actually 'get it'. And trust me, there's an awful lot I don't know, and mysteries which I have not solved. I have a lifetime to keep picking at it; I might eventually get a little better.



I hear this not so much about the kata in TKD, but more about 1-punch drills and self defense skills.  Same thing for Hapkido.  People bash techniques for not working (because they don't know how to make them work), bash videos for not using resistance (when resistance isn't necessary for the demonstration), or who have oddly specific criteria of what determines if a technique is battle-tested or not.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I also run into experienced karateka who are skilled at their art and highly regarded in their community, and they practice kata I have difficulty understanding. When I ask them what a given move is for, they don't know. They do it because they were taught to do it. They do it well, I guess. Smooth and clean and with power, but what's it for? If they can't tell me because I don't understand their application, maybe it's me. But if they can't tell me because they just don't know, I wonder what it is they think they're doing practicing it.



I really struggled with this in Taekwondo.  As I said above, a lot of our poomsae are just rearranged kata, especially in the more traditional poomsae.  A lot of the techniques are obfuscated by:

Changing of the kata to be more kid-friendly
Loss of translation from the kata to the poomsae
Techniques done for aesthetics over application
I used to really struggle with how certain techniques apply, and there are a lot of moves that I may use similar in a real fight, but wouldn't do the way they're done in the poomsae.  I've done a ton of threads on these in the TKD section and a few in the Karate section, and come to the conclusion that the way they're done in the poomsae isn't practical.  However, I've found some applications that are kind of close.  I still struggle with whether this is valuable or not.  One way I look at it is if you want to teach someone red and blue, you can teach both red and blue, or you can teach only purple.  Purple may not mean anything in the context, but it kind of teaches the moves.

Our practical application training, and our TKD sparring training, both do things different than the poomsae.  Application training has more circular footwork, and a lot of yin-yang motions you don't see in the poomsae.  Sparring uses so many kicks that aren't in the poomsae, either.  I understand that TKD is different than Karate in a lot of ways, to include the way our forms are arranged and trained, as well as the sparring rules we follow, so my experience is probably different from yours.  

I work backwards, too.  A lot of the moves in our application, I try and find a spot in our poomsae where it fits, and it just doesn't.  We don't train bunkai, and I don't think it's common to in TKD, especially KKW schools.  If you took our curriculum and only used one of the three parts (poomsae, sparring, self defense), I honestly don't think much would be lost in any of them.  If I took 4 students, and trained one of them only poomsae for 2 classes/week, one only application for 2 classes/week, and one only sparring for 2 classes/week, and then the 4th guy I gave 6 classes/week (2 in each), then the 4th guy would be roughly as competent in each discipline as the other 3, because I don't personally see a lot of crossover in the skillsets.

Now, I don't hate the poomsae.  I've found it's what I'm best at out of the three, and I've seen other benefits than the direct fighting application.  But it can be very hard to find it sometimes, especially the more complicated the poomsae gets.



Bill Mattocks said:


> To me, kata encodes karate. Everything that my particular style is, is found in the kata. All kihon, all bunkai, everything necessary to know, is found within the framework of the kata itself.



This is what I was asking for in the other thread.  Something that makes sense to someone outside of your head, what it is you are talking about.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So did I explain it sufficiently?



Technically yes.  But there are options between buzz-word and book to explain what you mean.  I don't get why you couldn't have just said this in the other thread:
_"To me, kata encodes karate. Everything that my particular style is, is found in the kata. All kihon, all bunkai, everything necessary to know, is found within the framework of the kata itself."_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> Technically yes.  But there are options between buzz-word and book to explain what you mean.  I don't get why you couldn't have just said this in the other thread:
> _"To me, kata encodes karate. Everything that my particular style is, is found in the kata. All kihon, all bunkai, everything necessary to know, is found within the framework of the kata itself."_



"Can you explain?"

"No, that's too much."


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2019)

I think Bill went out of his way to give you a very elegant, accurate answer. It is not something that can, nor should be watered down into a one sentence answer. 
I felt there are things missing in your summation of poomsae. You are high enough in rank to be seeking out the "why" and not just the "how" in forms. 
The simplest and more modern answer is The Karate Kid. He was doing movements that he did not understand until he was shown "why". While the application is not always direct, there is purpose in every poomsae, sometimes in the aggregate of combined movements. 
Don't let impatience prevent you from fleshing this out.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> "Can you explain?"
> 
> "No, that's too much."



Pretty much.

I asked for an explanation, you told me "no".  You made it seem like it wasn't worth your time.  You actually spent more time arguing with me about whether or not it was worth explaining, than it would have taken to write that sentence.  You also spent just as much time being a Debbie Downer about how people will just argue with you and disagree with you.

Then you posted this.  Which was significantly longer, and a lot more in-depth than what I was asking for.  It was a good read and I appreciated it.  But I'm merely pointing out that it's not what I was asking for.  If your goal was to answer my question, you did a lot of work that you didn't have to do.  I'm letting you know that next time someone says "can you explain what you mean", you don't need to argue with them for a page and then give a dissertation in another thread.  You can simply answer the question.



dvcochran said:


> I think Bill went out of his way to give you a very elegant, accurate answer. It is not something that can, nor should be watered down into a one sentence answer.
> I felt there are things missing in your summation of poomsae. You are high enough in rank to be seeking out the "why" and not just the "how" in forms.
> The simplest and more modern answer is The Karate Kid. He was doing movements that he did not understand until he was shown "why". While the application is not always direct, there is purpose in every poomsae, sometimes in the aggregate of combined movements.
> Don't let impatience prevent you from fleshing this out.



You apparently don't understand why I was saying that.  It wasn't that I disliked the amount of information.  It's that in the other thread, he was making it seem like one sentence was too difficult for him to answer.  If his response in the other thread was "I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer here, why don't I open up another thread?" I'd have left it alone.  But since his response was to snark at me for not knowing what he meant by "Karate is Kata" (or vice versa), I was trying to point out he could have accomplished this goal a lot easier.  I don't want him to feel like I made him write all this, when all I wanted was to know what he meant by that quote.

As to your response to what I've said about poomsae, are you kidding me?  I've spent the last several years searching for those answers every way I can.  I've been asking questions everywhere martial arts are discussed, I've been reading articles and watching videos to find what I can.  I keep coming to the same conclusion.  The techniques are altered for aesthetic reasons, and the direct application of the exact movements used in the poomsae are not combat-ready moves.

You bring up Daniel in The Karate Kid.  What did he do when Mr. Miyagi taught him the application by saying "sand the floor"?  He got down and tried to do the exact motion, but he was wrong.  He had to stand up and do the technique.  This happened with the first couple of moves.  He did *exactly* what he was taught first, and it wasn't correct.  He then was taught the application, which had a variance from the chore in order to be applicable to a real fight.  Sand the floor was done standing up; paint the house was done staccato instead of smooth.  It's the same thing with the Taekwondo poomsae.  Techniques aren't combined together (at least not strung together like boxing), kicks are virtually non-existent (outside of front kicks and rear-leg side kicks), and a lot of the 2-hand moves will be done much different in an actual situation.  

I feel that the more you have to stretch a technique from the form into a real application, the less integrity the form has.  Just like the more hoops you have to jump through for a joke to work, the less funny a joke is, or the more you have to explain how an analogy works, the worse the analogy is.  If I do a straight punch in a form and tell you the application is to do a spinning kick, you'd think it was ludicrous.  Everyone is going to have a line in the sand where you can say one technique translates into another.  I have a very high bar for that line in the sand.  I feel that high bar exists because of my rank and experience, where I see the details separating one technique from another as useful and pertinent information.

And, even as I seek these answers out, it's not part of the TKD curriculum.  Bunkai is not commonly practiced, and if I do so it's an elective on my own, and not part of the structure of the curriculum.  I don't feel TKD does a good job of translating the forms to application.  I say this because the videos I've seen of Karate bunkai and Taekwondo application are night-and-day.  There's a reason I made some of my posts on the Karate forum instead of the TKD forum.  People talk about what arts excel at or lack at, Karate excels at Bunkai, and Taekwondo lacks at it.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> Karate excels at Bunkai, and Taekwondo lacks at it.


You are answering the question you are searching for. Much of modern, Kukki TKD is very flawed. If this is the type of TKD Dojang you are at you will always be missing part of the equation. You can ask question and search the web until you are blue in the face and will never find the answers. There is much more depth to TKD than what you find at most Kukki schools, most TKD schools in general. Too many have prostituted themselves out to the sport.
This is said by a person who has been in TKD for 37 plus years and whole-heartedly pursued the Olympic dream. 
We are, and are not a Kukki school. We are because we teach the Taeguek and Yudanja Poomsae. We spar by Olympic rule set. We are not because we teach Bunkai (Boonhae), self defense, ground work, 3 other form sets, punches and bag work much like boxers, and we get a depth of philosophy and history that has to be experienced. 

I get the sense that you have been chasing rank and missing out on the best part(s) of MA.


----------



## skribs (Sep 17, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You are answering the question you are searching for. Much of modern, Kukki TKD is very flawed. If this is the type of TKD Dojang you are at you will always be missing part of the equation. You can ask question and search the web until you are blue in the face and will never find the answers. There is much more depth to TKD than what you find at most Kukki schools, most TKD schools in general. Too many have prostituted themselves out to the sport.
> This is said by a person who has been in TKD for 37 plus years and whole-heartedly pursued the Olympic dream.
> We are, and are not a Kukki school. We are because we teach the Taeguek and Yudanja Poomsae. We spar by Olympic rule set. We are not because we teach Bunkai (Boonhae), self defense, ground work, 3 other form sets, punches and bag work much like boxers, and we get a depth of philosophy and history that has to be experienced.
> 
> I get the sense that you have been chasing rank and missing out on the best part(s) of MA.



My school is similar to yours.  We have KKW ranks and teach the Yudanja poomsae (and recently the Taegeuk) and do WT sparring.  But we also teach more traditional forms and different techniques.

My problem is finding the direct application of the poomsae.  I have no problem finding the direct application in the other 75% of our training.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Sep 18, 2019)

Well kata is part of karate 1st you learn the basic then the technique then the forms kata is an exercise that we used in a imaginary opponent if you do kata with an opponent its called bunkai to tradition karate


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 18, 2019)

I respect people for whom kata is the primary purpose of karate training.  Karate can be different things to different people, and that is absolutely one legitimate approach to the practice.  And it sounds like the original poster finds this approach rewarding and of great value in his life.  More power to him, and he should never feel the need to apologize for that.

Where I disagree is the implication that this is the only true meaning of karate, or that people who approach karate differently are missing the point.  I've trained at one dojo which at the end of the day was all about kata in the sort of way you describe, and ultimately it wasn't the approach to karate I personally found most fulfilling.

The idea that all of karate is contained within its kata is one approach to karate, but certainly not true of all forms of karate.  Sport karate and knockdown karate spring to mind first and foremost, where kumite is the predominant focus of the kihon-kata-kumite trinity.  Kata is a part of the training, but not the overarching umbrella that everything else is based off of, and not considered an encyclopedia of everything that's part of the style.  This is a different approach to karate.  Not right or wrong, just different.  Personally, I prefer the kumite-centric approach over the kata-centric approach; but I also do not believe that my way is the only way.  There's room for both Cobra Kai and Miyagi-Do in the same town, right? 

Take running.  Some people sprint, some people run marathons, some people run on trails, some people run on tracks.  There's no one "true" approach to the hobby/passion of running.  It can be different things for different people while still falling under the umbrella of "running."


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I respect people for whom kata is the primary purpose of karate training.  Karate can be different things to different people, and that is absolutely one legitimate approach to the practice.  And it sounds like the original poster finds this approach rewarding and of great value in his life.  More power to him, and he should never feel the need to apologize for that.
> 
> Where I disagree is the implication that this is the only true meaning of karate, or that people who approach karate differently are missing the point.  I've trained at one dojo which at the end of the day was all about kata in the sort of way you describe, and ultimately it wasn't the approach to karate I personally found most fulfilling.
> 
> ...



Can you clarify for me, what kihon and kumite are?  I'm assuming this is techniques and sparring, but we all know what happens when we make assumptions.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> Can you clarify for me, what kihon and kumite are?  I'm assuming this is techniques and sparring, but we all know what happens when we make assumptions.



Oops, sorry.

Kata = forms
Kihon = basic strikes, blocks, and stances
Kumite = sparring


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 18, 2019)

Kata is karate - true.  Karate is kata - true now, but not 200 years ago.  The original combat techniques of what is now known as karate predate kata.  So, in the past, karate existed without kata.  These combat techniques were developed by military men in China and Okinawa.  As such, life or death depended on their efficacy.  A goodly number of the Okinawan masters were bodyguards to the royalty, contracted security personnel or police.  Karate was not just an art for them - it was a professional survival skill.  Katas were devised to help remember and practice these highly effective, often crippling or deadly techniques. 

When the katas were watered down for the public schools and mass consumption, they were disconnected from original karate for 99% of the practitioners (The 1% being Okinawan personal students of the masters).  Many moves in kata lost their relevance to fighting and kata simply became a way to practice basic moves, form and balance, etc. 

Through recent rediscovery of karate's roots and reinterpretation of the katas in line with the original (more lethal, pure combat) intent of the techniques, kihon, kumite and kata are now getting back into alignment with each other:  Kata = karate, karate = kata can now be proudly accepted by those who are "woke" (never thought I'd use that stupid word) to the oyo and "learn the language" as Mr. Mattocks asserted in the opening thread.


----------



## _Simon_ (Sep 18, 2019)

Enjoyed your post very much @Bill Mattocks, I'm also very fond of kata, and appreciate that you mention it develops things other than just surface level self defense sequences (like balance, coordination, transitions etc).

I too, love practicing it for the pure joy of discovery and for meditative reasons too.

I feel like doing kata now.....


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 18, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am starting this thread because I was asked to defend my assertion that karate and kata are inseparable.  I hope that this will at least be informative, even if you don't agree with my thesis.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone, nor do I think anyone else is necessarily wrong.  I speak only for myself and my limited understanding of the art I study.
> 
> ...


That all makes great sense, Bill. Here's my question: cannot all of that be true of a Karate system that doesn't use kata? Can't they have exactly the same range of technique, breathing, balance, exploration, and learning? Can't they have the same lifestyle approach to the art?

I've come to like kata over the last few years (never had much opinion on it in the past), so I'm not suggesting it is a bad thing. I think it works quite well for a lot of people. I just don't think it defines what is and is not Karate. The result, to me, is what defines that.

Now, some of that depends on how we define terms, and that might be all the difference you and I have on this issue. I'll take it away from Karate to avoid any personal ties to an approach. If someone told me they taught Judo with wrestling takedowns that aren't allowed in the sport (and, thus, aren't part of the formal Judo curriculum), I'd still consider it all Judo. If someone taught Tae Kwon Do using the original Shotokan kata, either of the more recent TKD kata sets, or no kata at all, I'd still consider it TKD. But if we defined "Judo" as "the formal set of techniques from the Kodokan, plus their applications and defenses", then the first person is teaching Judo and some other stuff. If we defined TKD as "the Korean art derived largely from Karate and taught using kata", then when the kata are removed it's no longer TKD. So it may be just semantics.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If someone taught Tae Kwon Do using the original Shotokan kata, either of the more recent TKD kata sets, or no kata at all, I'd still consider it TKD.



You'd be better off to call it Tang Soo Do, since that's what it would be...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 18, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> You'd be better off to call it Tang Soo Do, since that's what it would be...


So, would that be the defining difference between TSD and TKD? I've never known what it was (though I did get a chance to sit in at a friends' TSD dojo a few times back in the 90's).


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> You'd be better off to call it Tang Soo Do, since that's what it would be...



To me, it would seem disingenuous for someone who has never trained TSD, but has trained TKD and Karate, to call themselves TSD.  I mean, I've taken 3 years each of wrestling and hapkido, should I open my own BJJ school?


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> To me, it would seem disingenuous for someone who has never trained TSD, but has trained TKD and Karate, to call themselves TSD.  I mean, I've taken 3 years each of wrestling and hapkido, should I open my own BJJ school?



I believe that was more of a tongue in cheek comment on the history of TKD.  TKD used to be pretty much Shotokan when it first started as a style.  It used the same forms as Shotokan.  Some Korean styles, kept that like TSD/MDK.  TKD evolved/changed further to remove the Japanese roots and try to make it more culturally "Korean" in nature.  Part of this was removing the Japanese kata and creating their own forms.  So, his point was that if you are doing all of the Shotokan forms, then it wouldn't be TKD.  TSD even though it uses the Japanese forms, invented a new history about the forms and claimed that they are Chinese in origin and learned there.

I could be completely wrong, but that is how I took the comment.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> My school is similar to yours.  We have KKW ranks and teach the Yudanja poomsae (and recently the Taegeuk) and do WT sparring.  But we also teach more traditional forms and different techniques.
> 
> My problem is finding the direct application of the poomsae.  I have no problem finding the direct application in the other 75% of our training.



Like I said, there are inherent flaws in the Kukki/WT system. It is largely created for closed loop competition. That is All. Much of it is hard pressed to crossover as usable tools. Much of it has to do with the sheer physical level of the person. It takes an above average physique to effectively pull off some techniques. Usable all the time? Yes, for those with an exceptional physique. 
Your response to my Karate Kid comment is accurate but you still do not get it. No, we do not do down blocks in sparring/SD like we do in forms. The form does however condition/train/memorize the body to react correctly to a given input. Daniel sanding the floor (horizontal) trained his body for the correct motion. His body did not care about orientation. When he needed to block low, he had learned how. And while sanding the floor he was strengthening and conditioning his body. A huge component of forms people seem to forget. We exaggerate our stances to learn base And to condition. This example is consistent throughout all forms. 
You can carry this forward to most elements or combination thereof within forms. 

Question: Can you succinctly say what you are seeking in forms/poomsae? You seem to know the answer but refuse to accept it. And do not want to do the work to get there but instead want it to come to you.
There are times we have to push through to another level. There are times we have to work, learn and wait while our mind and maturity can process what is in front of us. It doesn't just happen.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 18, 2019)

Some brought up the "knockdown" karate styles or sport style karate.  I believe that is a moot point, because Bill was very careful of his definition of what he was talking about.  He differentiated between karate-jutsu, which would be concerned with the martial application only, and karate-do, which is a "way" and the combat/martial applications are of secondary importance after the character development.

I think that would be a whole different debate/argument and outside of what Bill proposed to say that you MUST have kata for fighting.

My instructor always stated that martial arts should be a life long pursuit and the ability to fight is a skill that is learned very quickly in the scheme of things, so how do you apply it (or any physical pursuit) to your life to make it better?  I think this is one of the goals of kata, to get inside yourself and dig into yourself and find the "real you".  As someone else pointed out, I think you can do this with any physical pursuit if done with purposeful mindfulness.  There is nothing "magical" about karate/kata, its just the vehicle of your choice to pursue certain intangibles in the mental/emotional/spiritual areas.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Your response to my Karate Kid comment is accurate but you still do not get it. No, we do not do down blocks in sparring/SD like we do in forms. The form does however condition/train/memorize the body to react correctly to a given input. Daniel sanding the floor (horizontal) trained his body for the correct motion. His body did not care about orientation. When he needed to block low, he had learned how. And while sanding the floor he was strengthening and conditioning his body. A huge component of forms people seem to forget. We exaggerate our stances to learn base And to condition. This example is consistent throughout all forms.



My point is, Daniel learned the "form" of wax-on, wax-off.  But the application was not there.  Imagine if Mr. Miyagi had only had Daniel do the chores, and never went through that scene you and I are talking about.  He had Daniel paint the fence, wax the cars, sand the deck, and paint the house, and then never did the partner drills associated with that.  And then Daniel went and taught his friends how to do the chores.  And then his friend opened up a dojo where all anyone did is do chores.  And then one of those students moved to another city, and opened up his own school.  

And one of the students at that school asks "why is it that all we do are chores?"  

How well would Daniel be able to apply the changes in the form, if he had not had that partner drill session?  How well would he have done in the tournament, if all he did was chores without application?  How well would that tangental student in that offshoot school be able to answer that question?



dvcochran said:


> Question: Can you succinctly say what you are seeking in forms/poomsae? You seem to know the answer but refuse to accept it. And do not want to do the work to get there but instead want it to come to you.



I want when I do a technique in a poomsae, for the literal application to be correct as-is.  For there to be at least one practical application, where the exact movement you're doing is correct.  The question of "why would I do this?" or "when would I do this?" should not need to be asked.  Instead, questions like "how else can I use this?" or "are there different times I can use this?" would be better.

The other side is that neither of the TKD schools I have trained at (which both had vastly different training philosophies) ever did anything remotely resembling bunkai of the form.  We never did that translation.  It's never been suggested we do it in our off-time, it's never been told to us that our masters, instructors, or higher level belts have done it.  I've never seen examples of this being done in class, never had a Master correct my attempts at doing bunkai on my own.  I've looked up examples online, and most of what I find (from TKD folks) is either:

"I'm going to show you an application of a down block." _Then does an application of a high block._
"I'm going to show you an application of the down block from Form #1."  _Then does a combination that includes techniques from forms 1, 3, and 7, and has several techniques and concepts that aren't included in any forms._

This is why I've made posts about the various two-hand motions in the forms, such as the double-knife-hand block, augmented block, scissor block, and similar techniques.  This is why I've made posts asking questions about crane stance and the footwork in some of the yudanja forms.  I remember back at my old school, I had similar problems with the forms.  (And back then, I didn't even like them).  I remember when I was like 9 or 10 years old, going on a rant about how the forms are useless, because you do one block and one punch, and then turn around, as if that punch was enough to finish off one bad guy.  

So what would I like to see?  I'd like to see the techniques evaluated in this format:

Applications used as described and as close as possible to the technique in the form
Applications of a similar motion used in the form for different applications
Applications of a different motion used in the form for different concepts
My problem is you typically see #2 and #3, but not #1.  Or the literal explanation of #1 is some fantasy, like you're blocking two strikes at once (instead of simply moving out of the way).


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> My instructor always stated that martial arts should be a life long pursuit and the ability to fight is a skill that is learned very quickly in the scheme of things, so how do you apply it (or any physical pursuit) to your life to make it better? I think this is one of the goals of kata, to get inside yourself and dig into yourself and find the "real you". As someone else pointed out, I think you can do this with any physical pursuit if done with purposeful mindfulness. There is nothing "magical" about karate/kata, its just the vehicle of your choice to pursue certain intangibles in the mental/emotional/spiritual areas.



What if the "real you" is someone who doesn't like kata?


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> My point is, Daniel learned the "form" of wax-on, wax-off.  But the application was not there.  Imagine if Mr. Miyagi had only had Daniel do the chores, and never went through that scene you and I are talking about.  He had Daniel paint the fence, wax the cars, sand the deck, and paint the house, and then never did the partner drills associated with that.  And then Daniel went and taught his friends how to do the chores.  And then his friend opened up a dojo where all anyone did is do chores.  And then one of those students moved to another city, and opened up his own school.
> 
> And one of the students at that school asks "why is it that all we do are chores?"
> 
> ...



Many problems with the transmission of kata and applications are that things were changed for various reasons.  First, is where and what kata are you trying to pull from.  In regards to TKD, Gen. Choi admitted in his first book that he didn't know what the applications to the kata were (it was removed in later editions).  So, you had someone who learned altered katas (Shotokan) that already had key moves changed and altered from the older Shorin-Ryu forms (specifically Shuri-Te).  For example, Wansu became Empi in Shotokan and Funakoshi changed the throw/dump into a jumping spin move.  So, this is why people try to go back to the older versions to see what the moves looked like and find an application from there.  Another example, Japanese -do karate emphasizes a fully horizontal punch that is completely parallel to the floor and the arm is perfect 90 degrees from the shoulders/hips. This is great for the aesthetics of the movement, but has no combat application without changing your targeting.  Itosu admitted that he altered and made it safer for children, Funakoshi also made changes further down the line.

Second, some of the moves in kata are conceptual in nature and people want application.  Compare American Kenpo forms starting at Short 3 and up.  They are all application based and each move is specific to that self-defense technique.  Kata on the other hand will teach you concepts of how to move and the move will have multiple applications.  They are also somewhat of an "outline" to help the student remember what was taught and would be filled in as the student progressed.  That middle block wasn't just a middle block, but the motion used is the same motion as other applications.  If you change the moves of the kata to fit just one application, then you are losing other possible information.

Third, some applications are time/culturally specific.  The application, needs to be changed because the original application is no longer viable.  For example, there is a move in Kusanku kata in which you "chamber" your open hand, palm up by the back of your head and do a move similar to a shuto strike.  This is the application taught, shuto strike to the neck/temple area.  But, why the strange chamber?  Originally, this was an application about drawing your hair pin (Jiffa) out and stabbing the person.  Or, the "wrist twisting" movements in Chinto were designed to show an application if your wrists were bound using the common rope of the time and how to twist and free yourself.

Lastly, many applications were not taught openly.  I read one interview in Classical Fighting Arts, the person talked about learning from Chotoku Kyan and that there were 3 levels of application to every movement.  There was the open application taught (block/punch/block/kick ) that everyone learned, then there was the second level that would have contained more of the joint locking/grappling aspects and then there was the final level that were the lethal applications and rarely taught.  So, you could have many students passing on limited information and only knew the first and some of the second level.

Many people are left with kata applications that are like the Little Mermaid and her "Dinglehopper".  She had a fork and used it as a hair pick.  The application worked, but that isn't what it was originally designed to do.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> My point is, Daniel learned the "form" of wax-on, wax-off. But the application was not there. Imagine if Mr. Miyagi had only had Daniel do the chores, and never went through that scene you and I are talking about. He had Daniel paint the fence, wax the cars, sand the deck, and paint the house, and then never did the partner drills associated with that. And then Daniel went and taught his friends how to do the chores. And then his friend opened up a dojo where all anyone did is do chores. And then one of those students moved to another city, and opened up his own school.
> 
> And one of the students at that school asks "why is it that all we do are chores?"
> 
> How well would Daniel be able to apply the changes in the form, if he had not had that partner drill session? How well would he have done in the tournament, if all he did was chores without application? How well would that tangental student in that offshoot school be able to answer that question?


We all study arts that technically are like the school you mention. At this point, nobodies master was a samurai who fought on horseback with katana or bows. Nobodies master actually killed a guy with his bare hands, that was attacking him with a sword. This is exactly why I have pointed out in the past, to look to the karate roots of TKD. That is not to say that the karate way is the right way or even the better way. Funakoshi taught a bunch of things which greatly influenced TKD. The TKD instructors are many steps away from Funakoshi. In understanding what you do now in TKD, it would be helpful to learn what those things were to start with and then who changed those things and why. I don't believe that all the changes made where watering things down. If Funakoshi watered something down, to teach kids, and that watered down version was taken into TKD, there is a very real possibility that one of the TKD masters, changed it to be more functional, either back to the original use or maybe a new and different one. Or maybe someone prefers punches to throws. But, knowing the changes that the kata went through, to get to your master will help you figure out what you are supposed to be doing now and what is potentially still on the table to discover. Also note, that Funakoshi was busy making changes himself for different reasons. I would also go back before Funakoshi. Personally, I like to go back as far as I can, but I also like to follow the kata forward through the forks. I can take a kata from Funakoshi through Shotokan and compare with that same kata, that missed Funakoshi and his changes, the version that came up through other styles of karate. Additionally, I can follow what happened to Funakoshi's version when TKD took it, and the changes made there. The way I do kata, will reflect my understanding and that understanding will change as I learn more. 



skribs said:


> This is why I've made posts about the various two-hand motions in the forms, such as the double-knife-hand block, augmented block, scissor block, and similar techniques. This is why I've made posts asking questions about crane stance and the footwork in some of the yudanja forms. I remember back at my old school, I had similar problems with the forms. (And back then, I didn't even like them). I remember when I was like 9 or 10 years old, going on a rant about how the forms are useless, because you do one block and one punch, and then turn around, as if that punch was enough to finish off one bad guy.
> 
> So what would I like to see? I'd like to see the techniques evaluated in this format:
> 
> ...


The techniques done in the kata, can be seen as ven diagrams of many applications. You pick the set of applications, such that 80% or more of the techniques are the same... and you pick such that the most important parts are the same. This means that your #2 and #3 will always be there. #1 may not, as its a ven diagram or it might not be common to wear hair pins any more. (I learned something in this thread) However, kata is not really meant to teach you techniques. Its meant to allow you to practice and study them. Doing kata allows you to practice and study the most important 80% of many techniques all at once. It provides a way to take your study in many directions, all while doing the same dance steps. I am not convinced yet that there is a #1 for every movement in every kata. I am convinced that there are quite a few #2s and #3s for every motion and set of motions in the kata. I am also quite convinced that by studying kata and doing kata, I can improve my skills in many areas at once. Learning and doing my Shotokan kata has improved my karate, my Danzan ryu, the aikido techniques I have been learning, as well as some of the boxing I used to take.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> Many problems with the transmission of kata and applications are that things were changed for various reasons.  First, is where and what kata are you trying to pull from.  In regards to TKD, Gen. Choi admitted in his first book that he didn't know what the applications to the kata were (it was removed in later editions).  So, you had someone who learned altered katas (Shotokan) that already had key moves changed and altered from the older Shorin-Ryu forms (specifically Shuri-Te).  For example, Wansu became Empi in Shotokan and Funakoshi changed the throw/dump into a jumping spin move.  So, this is why people try to go back to the older versions to see what the moves looked like and find an application from there.  Another example, Japanese -do karate emphasizes a fully horizontal punch that is completely parallel to the floor and the arm is perfect 90 degrees from the shoulders/hips. This is great for the aesthetics of the movement, but has no combat application without changing your targeting.  Itosu admitted that he altered and made it safer for children, Funakoshi also made changes further down the line.
> 
> Second, some of the moves in kata are conceptual in nature and people want application.  Compare American Kenpo forms starting at Short 3 and up.  They are all application based and each move is specific to that self-defense technique.  Kata on the other hand will teach you concepts of how to move and the move will have multiple applications.  They are also somewhat of an "outline" to help the student remember what was taught and would be filled in as the student progressed.  That middle block wasn't just a middle block, but the motion used is the same motion as other applications.  If you change the moves of the kata to fit just one application, then you are losing other possible information.
> 
> ...



This is my point.  My research has led me down the same information you just so eloquently described - that the application of the TKD forms has been lost through translation, obfuscation, and choices based on aesthetics.  You added a few more items to that list as well.  This leads to the problem I have with the TKD poomsae, is that they are so far removed from application training, I honestly feel you could drop them from the course completely and not affect anyone's ability to fight, whether in the street or in WT rules.  If you take a typical TKD curriculum and dropped the forms out, everything else would still be there, largely unaffected.  I don't think it would lessen anyone's ability to play the kicking game, nor would it affect anyone's ability to learn the short forms or one-step drills that teach application.

Now, this isn't to say forms are necessarily bad.  I think short forms are great.  I think kata, that are created for a martial purpose, are a great idea (can't make any bigger judgment than that without experience), but the poomsae that I have trained fall short.  They were created to be like something else, not to teach something specific.  What I've had to do is adjust my way of thinking regarding the poomsae.  I no longer seek application from them.  I do them to the best I can, but I do them in the same way they were created - mimicry.  I try to train my body to do the form, I don't try and draw martial application from them.  When I do find something that resembles a form, I find it either a happy accident, or I find it a coincidence.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

wab25 said:


> The techniques done in the kata, can be seen as ven diagrams of many applications. You pick the set of applications, such that 80% or more of the techniques are the same... and you pick such that the most important parts are the same. This means that your #2 and #3 will always be there. #1 may not, as its a ven diagram or it might not be common to wear hair pins any more. (I learned something in this thread) However, kata is not really meant to teach you techniques. Its meant to allow you to practice and study them. Doing kata allows you to practice and study the most important 80% of many techniques all at once. It provides a way to take your study in many directions, all while doing the same dance steps. I am not convinced yet that there is a #1 for every movement in every kata. I am convinced that there are quite a few #2s and #3s for every motion and set of motions in the kata. I am also quite convinced that by studying kata and doing kata, I can improve my skills in many areas at once. Learning and doing my Shotokan kata has improved my karate, my Danzan ryu, the aikido techniques I have been learning, as well as some of the boxing I used to take.



It's kind of funny you mention a Venn Diagram, because I was thinking that's how you and some of the others see it.  I see techniques less as a Venn Diagram, and more like a taxonomy chart.  I look at them like a biologist would look at an animal and say "this one has 6 legs, it is an insect; this one has 8 legs, it is an arachnid".  You just seem to look at them all as "bugs".

I am very analytical in my approach to everything.  When I'm playing a video game, I spend as much time running spreadsheets on how to play, as I do actually playing.  So when I practice a technique (the one that comes up often in these threads is the knife-hand block vs. the knife-hand strike) I look at what separates them, not what makes them the same.  I have reasons for doing so, other than my predilection for analysis.  Let me take you through the process, a little bit, of how it works in my mind:

Open-hand techniques are the trunk of a tree
Techniques using the palm, ridge-hand, blade, or fingers are the main branches
Blade-hand techniques, such as various knife-hand blocks or strikes, are the next level of branching.  
Take the branch of knife-hand strikes.  The twigs on this branch include palm-down strikes, palm-up strikes, and power breaking strikes.
Take the twig of palm-down strikes.  This twig has many leaves on it, based on your opponent's guard, distance, height, and whether you're trying to score points or break his collarbone.
Now, at first I said that open-hand techniques are the trunk of one tree, which suggests the other must be closed-hand techniques.  But the tree can be whatever I want it to be, for the purpose of the analysis I'm running.  The tree can be blocks, or kicks, or throws.  The tree is merely the catch-all category for what I'm looking at, and the branches and twigs and leaves are more and more granular versions depending on the context.

When I look at techniques used in sparring, they're all leaves.  They're all organic to the specific situation.  Techniques used in defense drills are usually twigs.  Something you can apply a few different ways, but are usually pretty specific requirements for the test.  With kata, some techniques are leaves or twigs, but if the purpose is to be a branch, it's hard for me to reconcile that with the very specific nature in which _*Taekwondo* _forms are taught, which is purely through detailed mimicry.  It is a purpose that works very well for short forms, or for an art that does Bunkai, but it seems too vague to really apply in the typical Taekwondo curriculum.

I said I'd come back to why I think from the trunk out, and why I make it important for myself to conceptualize each technique individually, than to try to group them together under a Venn Diagram.  I've seen a lot of my fellow students, who do not separate techniques based on the same application.  Their knife-hand strikes and knife-hand blocks look _*exactly*_ the same.  It doesn't matter if they're supposed to be blocking a punch or destroying someone's neck, it always looks like a block, like they're shoving something out of the way.  Or their blocks are too linear, and leave a lot of vertical real-estate unprotected.  

This is why, to me, those subtle details *are* important.  This is why I am so heavily critical of the applications people draw from poomsae.  It is in part because of how important those details are in the training of TKD poomsae, but also because of the people I've seen who don't understand these details and how it compromises their techniques.

I think the Venn Diagram approach works in a different model.  In a system that routinely does Bunkai on their Kata, or in a system with layers of application (striking, grappling, lethal) it makes a lot of sense.  But for a system which trains purely for an exact copy of the form, to try and teach application out of the Venn Diagram model doesn't seem to work.

This is why I've come to the conclusion that trying to draw application out of *poomsae *is a waste of time.  Trying to draw application out of *kata *can be a very beneficial venture.  I train the poomsae, but not for application.  I train for the training it gives my muscles, the satisfaction of doing them, and nothing more.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is my point.  My research has led me down the same information you just so eloquently described - that the application of the TKD forms has been lost through translation, obfuscation, and choices based on aesthetics.  You added a few more items to that list as well.  This leads to the problem I have with the TKD poomsae, is that they are so far removed from application training, I honestly feel you could drop them from the course completely and not affect anyone's ability to fight, whether in the street or in WT rules.  If you take a typical TKD curriculum and dropped the forms out, everything else would still be there, largely unaffected.  I don't think it would lessen anyone's ability to play the kicking game, nor would it affect anyone's ability to learn the short forms or one-step drills that teach application.
> 
> Now, this isn't to say forms are necessarily bad.  I think short forms are great.  I think kata, that are created for a martial purpose, are a great idea (can't make any bigger judgment than that without experience), but the poomsae that I have trained fall short.  They were created to be like something else, not to teach something specific.  What I've had to do is adjust my way of thinking regarding the poomsae.  I no longer seek application from them.  I do them to the best I can, but I do them in the same way they were created - mimicry.  I try to train my body to do the form, I don't try and draw martial application from them.  When I do find something that resembles a form, I find it either a happy accident, or I find it a coincidence.



TKD is not my art and have never formally trained it, so I don't know who does what forms.  But, there are a couple of books out there that go back to the "original" forms (the actual karate roots) and look at those sequences that were retained and show applications for them.  Here are a couple of them.

https://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Cipher-Simon-John-Oneill/dp/1409226026
https://www.amazon.com/Chang-Hon-Ta...2528/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

But, in all honesty.  TKD isn't karate.  So, trying to put the training paradigm of Okinawan karate (kata is karate, karate is kata) that was taught originally, is not applicable to all martial arts that were later derived from those roots.  In the case of TKD, they took great lengths to remove the Japanese roots from their art to make it more Korean.  Furthering your argument, you probably could remove them and not lose what "they" (the founders) were trying to accomplish in making it more Korean.

For example, in Kenpo forms were added because other arts had them and lots of people wanted them and wanted to compete in tournaments with them.  In Ed Parker's Kenpo, Long 4 and after were specifically designed as tournament forms and applications were secondary.  It could be something similar to TKD.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> TKD is not my art and have never formally trained it, so I don't know who does what forms.  But, there are a couple of books out there that go back to the "original" forms (the actual karate roots) and look at those sequences that were retained and show applications for them.  Here are a couple of them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Cipher-Simon-John-Oneill/dp/1409226026
> https://www.amazon.com/Chang-Hon-Ta...2528/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
> ...



If I remember when I get home, I'll check those books out.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is my point.  My research has led me down the same information you just so eloquently described - that the application of the TKD forms has been lost through translation, obfuscation, and choices based on aesthetics.  You added a few more items to that list as well.  This leads to the problem I have with the TKD poomsae, is that they are so far removed from application training, I honestly feel you could drop them from the course completely and not affect anyone's ability to fight, whether in the street or in WT rules.  If you take a typical TKD curriculum and dropped the forms out, everything else would still be there, largely unaffected.  I don't think it would lessen anyone's ability to play the kicking game, nor would it affect anyone's ability to learn the short forms or one-step drills that teach application.
> 
> Now, this isn't to say forms are necessarily bad.  I think short forms are great.  I think kata, that are created for a martial purpose, are a great idea (can't make any bigger judgment than that without experience), but the poomsae that I have trained fall short.  They were created to be like something else, not to teach something specific.  What I've had to do is adjust my way of thinking regarding the poomsae.  I no longer seek application from them.  I do them to the best I can, but I do them in the same way they were created - mimicry.  I try to train my body to do the form, I don't try and draw martial application from them.  When I do find something that resembles a form, I find it either a happy accident, or I find it a coincidence.


I am a big advocate of the benefit of forms training.  However, that assumes, among other things, that the forms are well designed and are properly understood to gain the fighting applications from them.

I believe that not all forms are well designed, and not everyone understands them properly to get martial benefit from them.  In some cases, forms practice is not martially beneficial.  They may still have other benefits such as memorization, cardio conditioning, etc.  

It is possible that in your school or in your particular lineage, forms training is not martially beneficial.  Those answers may simply not be found in your forms, in your school.

As you point out, it may otherwise have little effect on your practice and your ability to develop your skills.  The forms may simply be unnecessary, perhaps even a waste of time.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I am a big advocate of the benefit of forms training.  However, that assumes, among other things, that the forms are well designed and are properly understood to gain the fighting applications from them.
> 
> I believe that not all forms are well designed, and not everyone understands them properly to get martial benefit from them.  In some cases, forms practice is not martially beneficial.  They may still have other benefits such as memorization, cardio conditioning, etc.
> 
> ...



My degree is in psychology.  One of the theories by Carl Rogers is that you have an ideal self, a perceived self, and a real self.  Self-actualization is when all three align.  What's happened in my journey through TKD is I was seeking that martial application, and I felt lacking because I couldn't find it.  When I saw others struggle just as much as I did with the questions I asked, I came to the conclusion that I did, regarding the amount of application from it.  Now, when I do train them, I train without that purpose in mind, and it makes it easier to focus on what I'm supposed to be.

The only problem is when I read about how other arts handle forms.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> My degree is in psychology.  One of the theories by Carl Rogers is that you have an ideal self, a perceived self, and a real self.  Self-actualization is when all three align.  What's happened in my journey through TKD is I was seeking that martial application, and I felt lacking because I couldn't find it.  When I saw others struggle just as much as I did with the questions I asked, I came to the conclusion that I did, regarding the amount of application from it.  Now, when I do train them, I train without that purpose in mind, and it makes it easier to focus on what I'm supposed to be.
> 
> The only problem is when I read about how other arts handle forms.


When you read about how other arts handle forms, why is it a problem?  So you suspect you are missing out on something?

If your system works fine without them, or works fine with having repurposed them, then it works fine.  Does it matter?


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> When you read about how other arts handle forms, why is it a problem?  So you suspect you are missing out on something?
> 
> If your system works fine without them, or works fine with having repurposed them, then it works fine.  Does it matter?



It's because I like what the others are able to get out of the forms.  There's a beauty in that.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, would that be the defining difference between TSD and TKD? I've never known what it was (though I did get a chance to sit in at a friends' TSD dojo a few times back in the 90's).



It's one of them, yes.



skribs said:


> To me, it would seem disingenuous for someone who has never trained TSD, but has trained TKD and Karate, to call themselves TSD.  I mean, I've taken 3 years each of wrestling and hapkido, should I open my own BJJ school?



Poor analogy. You couldn't teach the BJJ curriculum because you don't know it. The post I responded to made it clear that the person was teaching the TSD curriculum. So they're clearly teaching TSD. 
Besides, the statement was regarding what @gpseymour should call a Korean art being taught with the Shotokan kata. Although I will amend my statement to say he could also call it Shotokan rather than TSD and be equally correct.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 18, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am starting this thread because I was asked to defend my assertion that karate and kata are inseparable.  I hope that this will at least be informative, even if you don't agree with my thesis.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone, nor do I think anyone else is necessarily wrong.  I speak only for myself and my limited understanding of the art I study.
> 
> ...



a good link.
The Biggest Problem With "Sport Karate"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> To me, it would seem disingenuous for someone who has never trained TSD, but has trained TKD and Karate, to call themselves TSD.  I mean, I've taken 3 years each of wrestling and hapkido, should I open my own BJJ school?


He was replying to me saying it's what I would call it. And if that's the major difference between them, then it'd be a fair classification. If it were the only functional difference, then it would be fair to say that removing the kata from one actually makes it the other.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, would that be the defining difference between TSD and TKD? I've never known what it was (though I did get a chance to sit in at a friends' TSD dojo a few times back in the 90's).


 
Aside from the kma politics and the kma historical revisionism that would be 90% of it.

Tsd and hsd (hong soo do) at first preserved the Japanese and Okinawan forms. Over time they were were modified or outright replaced in the various kwans with new forms created by Koreans.

TSD was largely introduced into Korea by Koreans who were studying in Japan. Most of these traditions were rooted in Shotokan style. 

A few Koreans, however, trained outside of Shotokan, and were in either the Shito-ryu tradition under Kenwai Mabuni or Shudokan under Kanken Toyama.

There was only one 6th dan who went back to Korea, everyone else was either 1st or 2nd dan.

but yeah... the tkd art fundamentally was about politics, and national identity, and trying to find a connection to indigenous kma arts like Taekyun.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's kind of funny you mention a Venn Diagram, because I was thinking that's how you and some of the others see it.  I see techniques less as a Venn Diagram, and more like a taxonomy chart.  I look at them like a biologist would look at an animal and say "this one has 6 legs, it is an insect; this one has 8 legs, it is an arachnid".  You just seem to look at them all as "bugs".
> 
> I am very analytical in my approach to everything.  When I'm playing a video game, I spend as much time running spreadsheets on how to play, as I do actually playing.  So when I practice a technique (the one that comes up often in these threads is the knife-hand block vs. the knife-hand strike) I look at what separates them, not what makes them the same.  I have reasons for doing so, other than my predilection for analysis.  Let me take you through the process, a little bit, of how it works in my mind:
> 
> ...


That is essentially your own argument to make the situation and the circumstances fit your agenda. The analysis can be "whatever you want"? That is just silly.
Let me ask you a question: What is Your definition of the term Tae Kwon Do?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> TKD is not my art and have never formally trained it, so I don't know who does what forms.  But, there are a couple of books out there that go back to the "original" forms (the actual karate roots) and look at those sequences that were retained and show applications for them.  Here are a couple of them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Cipher-Simon-John-Oneill/dp/1409226026
> https://www.amazon.com/Chang-Hon-Ta...2528/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
> ...


Taeguek Cipher is a very good read. I am not familiar with the other book.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's because I like what the others are able to get out of the forms.  There's a beauty in that.


I am totally stupefied. You seem to understand that there is a deeper meaning to forms yet choose not to see it or seek it within you system. Something is seriously wrong with that.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That is essentially your own argument to make the situation and the circumstances fit your agenda. The analysis can be "whatever you want"? That is just silly.
> Let me ask you a question: What is Your definition of the term Tae Kwon Do?



Let me repeat the salient part:  the Venn Diagram approach works in Karate.  It doesn't work in Taekwondo.  It doesn't work because everything about TKD forms is about getting more exact, not more generic.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am totally stupefied. You seem to understand that there is a deeper meaning to forms yet choose not to see it or seek it within you system. Something is seriously wrong with that.



If that's what you gathered from my post, then I don't even know how to respond.  Everything I just quoted is the exact opposite of what I said.


I don't understand there is a deeper meaning in the TKD forms.  I've come to the conclusion they are all surface level.  I understand that the Karate kata that they are derived from have a deeper meaning.  But the poomsae casserole that we got in TKD is not the original dish they served in Japan.  
I spent 5 years seeking it.  I didn't find it.
In the 5 years of research I did, I've found what I said in #1.  Techniques are chosen for aesthetics over function.  Techniques are taken out of context of the original forms they are derived from, which were even further obfuscated by the Japanese when teaching the Koreans, and earlier by the Japanese when they made the forms acceptable for children.  Whenever I see a Master or a Grandmaster demonstrating a form (including watching videos of the Master's course), all I ever see is how to make that surface level version of the form.  I've only ever seen things explored deeper in McDojos and promotional material.
You say I don't want it.  I do.  You say I don't seek it.  I did.  You say I understand there is.  I understand there isn't.  I wish there was.  

I hope after this post, at least that you understand what I'm saying (whether or not you agree with it).  Because your understanding of what I've said so far is completely wrong.


----------



## skribs (Sep 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That is essentially your own argument to make the situation and the circumstances fit your agenda. The analysis can be "whatever you want"? That is just silly.
> Let me ask you a question: What is Your definition of the term Tae Kwon Do?



If you think my analysis is "whatever I want", then either you don't understand the process or you don't understand what I said.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> If that's what you gathered from my post, then I don't even know how to respond.  Everything I just quoted is the exact opposite of what I said.
> 
> 
> I don't understand there is a deeper meaning in the TKD forms.  I've come to the conclusion they are all surface level.  I understand that the Karate kata that they are derived from have a deeper meaning.  But the poomsae casserole that we got in TKD is not the original dish they served in Japan.
> ...



I felt your pain for a long, long time.
I find myself swimming up the river from KMA, to Japanese/Okinawan karate... but I have spent a lot of time criss training in other karate branchs, and even cross training in other arts trying to reach the source.

One thing I see, is that I have never in the hundreds of Korean masters and grandmasters of tkd that i have met, have ever known any bunhae / bunkai for tauguk, hyung, or pumsae that was anything remotely close to kata and bunkai from jma/oma karate.

I never got to meet Kim Ki Hwang, who knew Toyama's karatedo. (but even he accepted calling his karate.... tkd...)


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> TKD is not my art and have never formally trained it, so I don't know who does what forms.  But, there are a couple of books out there that go back to the "original" forms (the actual karate roots) and look at those sequences that were retained and show applications for them.  Here are a couple of them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Cipher-Simon-John-Oneill/dp/1409226026
> https://www.amazon.com/Chang-Hon-Ta...2528/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
> ...



I ordered the first book.  The second one was like 7x the price and doesn't relate to the forms I'm learning, so I'll pass on that one.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> I ordered the first book.  The second one was like 7x the price and doesn't relate to the forms I'm learning, so I'll pass on that one.



Which form set are you learning?

Are they completely different to the Chang Hon set or another step of derivatives?

If you can find something on the CH set it might actually be worth your while - from what I gather (with my limited knowledge of kkw) just about all your techniques are tweaked from the base of CH (later ITF, earlier shotokan mix) and at least the lower colour belt forms look strikingly similar.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's because I like what the others are able to get out of the forms. There's a beauty in that.


Well, there is no reason why you can't find the same in TKD. Its there to be found. But, it will take some effort and time... most importantly, it will take a change in mindset. If you approach it with this mindset:


skribs said:


> This is why I've come to the conclusion that trying to draw application out of *poomsae *is a waste of time.


you won't ever find it. You need to set that conclusion aside, open your mind and look.



skribs said:


> I train for the training it gives my muscles, the satisfaction of doing them, and nothing more.


You will have to stop doing this. If you have already decided there is nothing there, it won't matter how much you practice them, you won't find it, because you already concluded that there is nothing there.



skribs said:


> I spent 5 years seeking it. I didn't find it.


Well, this is a game changer here. You spent 5 years looking... I bet you spent all of that 5 years too. Sure, 5 years is a while to study something. But compared to the time spent by some of the others here, 5 years is not that long. Some of these folks here have spent 5 times or 6 times or 7 times that long studying. In your 5 years, you made it up to san dan. Some of these guys here have been san dan and greater for 4-5 times the total amount of time you have been studying. They say there is more to it than mimicing and copying. This isn't to diminish in any way, the time you have spent studying. But its like comparing a heart surgeon who is just out of his residency with one who has been a heart surgeon for 15 years. Yes, its impressive just to be a heart surgeon. But a heart surgeon with 15 more years of experience and additional learning and study, would know more.

Look its your training. If you are happy with your conclusion... then be happy with it. But if you really want  what "the others are able to get out of the forms..." Then you will have to change the way you are approaching forms. But, its your training, do what makes you happy. 

ps: if you really like what those karate guys get out of kata, and you find beauty in that, why don't you switch and train that? Especially since you feel that TKD watered it all down and removed all the stuff you are looking for. Why do you study an art that doesn't give you what you want?


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> I spent 5 years seeking it. I didn't find it



I've only been doing TKD for nearly 4 years and because of time in grade requirements I'm only 1st kup.

And yet I seem to have obtained far more meaning from the pattern set I study than you have from yours.

Is that a flaw in your system or a flaw in your ability to interpret?


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Which form set are you learning?
> 
> Are they completely different to the Chang Hon set or another step of derivatives?
> 
> If you can find something on the CH set it might actually be worth your while - from what I gather (with my limited knowledge of kkw) just about all your techniques are tweaked from the base of CH (later ITF, earlier shotokan mix) and at least the lower colour belt forms look strikingly similar.



Well, since I don't train ITF, anything that says "ITF" is outside the scope of my training.  And I'm not buying a $200 book about it.



pdg said:


> I've only been doing TKD for nearly 4 years and because of time in grade requirements I'm only 1st kup.
> 
> And yet I seem to have obtained far more meaning from the pattern set I study than you have from yours.
> 
> Is that a flaw in your system or a flaw in your ability to interpret?



What organization do you train under?  What is it that you get out of your forms?  How have you gotten it?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> I've only been doing TKD for nearly 4 years and because of time in grade requirements I'm only 1st kup.
> 
> And yet I seem to have obtained far more meaning from the pattern set I study than you have from yours.
> 
> Is that a flaw in your system or a flaw in your ability to interpret?


It could be inherent in his particular lineage.  Maybe that is how they are being taught.  Maybe someone upstream in his lineage didn’t understand the forms beyond surface level, so everyone downstream in the lineage is affected in what they are able to learn.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> Well, since I don't train ITF, anything that says "ITF" is outside the scope of my training. And I'm not buying a $200 book about it



I don't blame you on the price of the book, I wouldn't buy it either.

But you're saying again that something is outside the scope of your training, yet you're apparently dissatisfied with said scope.

Looking outside "what master says" is very likely to be the only way to expand your learning, but while you're unwilling to do that you have no place to complain.

I've seen you do this before, where you question what a certain move is supposed to be, and go on to dismiss anything that your master hasn't told you.

This "scope of training" is a self imposed limit.



skribs said:


> What organization do you train under? What is it that you get out of your forms? How have you gotten it?



I'm ITF.

What I've got out of my patterns can't really be condensed into a short blurb and I'm not entirely sure I could explain it anyway - but it would appear to be much closer to what these karate people have been saying, which seems to be what you feel is lacking for you.

As to the how - partly from my instructors, partly from other people in different arts and a whole heap from myself. I refuse to limit myself to the single book explanation of a move and analyse it, along with the before and after.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> It could be inherent in his particular lineage.  Maybe that is how they are being taught.  Maybe someone upstream in his lineage didn’t understand the forms beyond surface level, so everyone downstream in the lineage is affected in what they are able to learn.



That's entirely possible.

It's also possible that it's due to being in a line of people trained in large classes like a production line.

Our largest classes consist of maybe 25 people (and that many is rare). The settings are large enough that we can split up into groups based on grade, and everyone who has a mind to can work with higher grades.

Even so, those classes feel much more (to me) like a practice session as opposed to an actual learning opportunity - those come with the smaller classes where there's time and space to play and refine.

The bigger groups necessarily can't go as much in depth, especially when you're in a constant grading cycle - so you end up with surface (or zero) applications and a concentration on getting the performance good enough to grade with.

We do have to do a certain amount of that too, and much of my learning is done away from the class setting - maybe we're strange in that there's a few like me who like to experiment and share?


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> But you're saying again that something is outside the scope of your training, yet you're apparently dissatisfied with said scope.



Do you really think the best way for me to learn martial arts is out of a book?  Do you think that if I buy this book, it will fix all of the problems that I have with the way forms are trained in my art?  If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.



> Looking outside "what master says" is very likely to be the only way to expand your learning, but while you're unwilling to do that you have no place to complain.



Who says I'm not looking outside of what my Master says?  If you think I am, then you're blind.  Because I wouldn't be on this forum if "what Master says" is the only thing I look at.

And, at that, I respect my Master more than I respect anyone on this forum.  I may have some disagreements with the curriculum, but I can't argue with the results I've had.  There are some things I want more out of, but those aren't the entire curriculum.  There are some things I don't particularly like or see the point of, but over time I'm coming to understand why he does things the way he does.  Even after I understand some of those things, some of them I still disagree with, or wish were done different.  But I have no plans to leave my Master's teachings just because of these disagreements.



> I've seen you do this before, where you question what a certain move is supposed to be, and go on to dismiss anything that your master hasn't told you.



Then you've been reading those threads wrong.  I was asking a specific question, and I was not getting a specific answer.  As an analogy, if I were to ask whether I should put regular or premium gas in my car, and I start getting a lecture on the difference between diesel and gasoline, or on why an electric car is better.  It doesn't help me figure out which button to select at the pump for my car.

It's also not about what my Master tells me.  It's about the forms themselves, and a lot of it comes from higher up than my Master in the lineage.  



> This "scope of training" is a self imposed limit.



No.  The "scope of training" is what I am familiar with and what I am searching for answers on.  I don't need a book explaining to me what I'm supposed to get out of forms I've never trained in.  I haven't learned the forms, I haven't learned the style, I haven't trained with people day in and day out.  You can't learn martial arts from a textbook.  They can supplement your knowledge, but they can't create it for you.  

I could write a textbook about our forms, but it isn't going to show you how to move, your timing or breathing.  If you're supposed to learn bunkai from it, you have to have another person who actually knows the system to practice against.  If you were to take two boxers and have them read a book about wrestling and practice on each other, how much would they learn compared with two boxers who went to a wrestling class and actually practiced against other people?

"Here's a book, go learn" is not the right response for teaching martial arts.  Books are a supplement, they are not a replacement for practice.  And practice without instruction and critique, and without a competent partner with which to increase resistance, is going to get you nowhere.

You're telling me that I can get what I'm looking for by abandoning my Master's teachings and reading a book about forms I've never trained in.  That's got to be the biggest headscratcher I've seen on this forum (and that's saying a lot).  



pdg said:


> What I've got out of my patterns can't really be condensed into a short blurb and I'm not entirely sure I could explain it anyway - but it would appear to be much closer to what these karate people have been saying, which seems to be what you feel is lacking for you.
> 
> As to the how - partly from my instructors, partly from other people in different arts and a whole heap from myself. I refuse to limit myself to the single book explanation of a move and analyse it, along with the before and after.



How are forms trained in ITF?  Are they as rigidly controlled as in KKW?  What do you do in class to draw more out of it than the techniques themselves?

Can you give me specific examples of how you've applied the forms to sparring?  How you would apply them (or have applied them) in a real fight?


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

I'm not saying to abandon what you've learnt and learn from a book instead, I'm saying it's one possible way to supplement what you have.

And those instances you refer to - you want one single solid explanation of why you're expected to do something in a certain way.

Well, anyone who isn't you or your instructor is only capable of theorising on that. Oftentimes what you want (above) just doesn't exist.

A lot of those type of questions I've been asked in class by 4th kup and lower - I'd be extremely surprised to hear it from a 1st Dan, let alone a 4th.



skribs said:


> How are forms trained in ITF? Are they as rigidly controlled as in KKW? What do you do in class to draw more out of it than the techniques themselves?
> 
> Can you give me specific examples of how you've applied the forms to sparring? How you would apply them (or have applied them) in a real fight



I don't know if our patterns are as rigidly controlled, but I do know we get updates on things like the angle and position of hands or feet in specific moves in certain patterns - and if those aren't incorporated in competition or grading it does get noticed.

And the way to draw more out than simply a replication of the single moves is with sparring - so that also should answer how they're applied within sparring too.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Well, anyone who isn't you or your instructor is only capable of theorising on that. Oftentimes what you want (above) just doesn't exist.



These are forms that are done world-wide by hundreds of thousands of people.  More people than just my Master know them.  The specific techniques I've been asking about have been in forms in several arts and styles created in different countries.  These techniques are done by millions of people.



pdg said:


> And the way to draw more out than simply a replication of the single moves is with sparring - so that also should answer how they're applied within sparring too.



How do your forms help you with sparring?  What is it about your forms that has made you better at sparring, than if you had not done forms?  What concepts have you used in sparring and thought "oh, that was like in Form #3", or when have you been in a sparring situation and thought "I should use this from Form #2"? 

Right now it just sounds like you're trying to convince yourself you get more from the forms than you actually do.  Because you can't even give me a specific example of how it's worked.  Just a general, used-car-salesman pitch about how they do, because (buzz word) sparring!


----------



## wab25 (Sep 19, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> It could be inherent in his particular lineage. Maybe that is how they are being taught. Maybe someone upstream in his lineage didn’t understand the forms beyond surface level, so everyone downstream in the lineage is affected in what they are able to learn.


Here is the really cool part about forms / kata. So long as they are copied correctly, all those deeper meanings and applications and principles remain... whether the person doing or teaching the form knows they are there or not.

I used to have a pretty decent o'soto gari (outer reaping throw). When I started taking karate, the first class they started teaching me to walk forward and backward in front stance. (the c-step and everything) These steps show up in the different kata quite a bit. As it turns out, if you take the first half of a forward step in front stance, then step back into front stance, you are doing one of the variations of o'soto gari. My o'soto gari got better. Over time, as I do more kata, I am getting better at making different entrances to o'soto gari... basically every time you step forward into front stance, can be seen as an entrance into o'soto gari... whether you are going forward, or turning. With the kata, concentrating on me keeping a low stance, and taking the c-step into forward stance... my karate sensei was able to greatly improve my o'soto gari... even though he didn't "know" that version of o'soto gari. My sensei asked me to share a little jujitsu with the class... I showed them this version of o'soto gari and showed how they had been practicing it since day one, in karate. They got it so well, I sometimes teach my jujitsu guys the karate front stance before doing o'soto gari. After that first demo in karate, my sensei said "now I know why you smile when we practice Taikyoku Shodan."

So even though your lineage may have watered things down to "just copy," doesn't mean all hope is lost. If they copied right... its still there, but may take more work by the student to find. When I teach Jujitsu, I teach kata exactly as my sensei taught me, because I don't believe I know enough about the kata, to make sure I don't drop something out just because I have not yet found it. I may teach other variations of the kata, as variations, or more applicable in certain situations... But since I keep finding new things in my very first jujitsu kata (katate tori hazushi), even after 25 years of study... I don't think I am ready to change it. But I can show you a bunch of things I found in it, and a bunch of cool variations. Hopefully my students will one day fill in the gaps I missed... and then help me to find them as well.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> A lot of those type of questions I've been asked in class by 4th kup and lower - I'd be extremely surprised to hear it from a 1st Dan, let alone a 4th.



To clarify - the form to get 4th dan.  I'm a 3rd dan.  (Although I think at other schools this is the form learned at 4th dan).

To also clarify - I'm not looking for just the "what is X".  I'm looking for the analysis of when to use X over Y.  A great example of how this discussion fell apart is in my thread about the double-knife-hand block.  I was primarily looking at *the off-hand, why we use that particular finishing position (palm-up, next to solar plexus).*  People kept fixating on the main hand - the knife hand block.  I was trying to figure out the reason for the off-hand positioning after that motion.  *Why not palm down?  Why not a regular knife-hand block with the other hand chambered?
*
The bolded parts above are the questions I was asking.  People kept harping on other things (which is why I dismissed them).  And nobody in that thread could give me an answer about the question I was actually asking.  One person said he knew but wouldn't tell me, everyone else was just trying to draw approximations.  I was asking why a specific detail was in place, and nobody could answer that specific question.  (Going back to my Regular vs. Premium gas analogy above).


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> How do your forms help you with sparring? What is it about your forms that has made you better at sparring, than if you had not done forms? What concepts have you used in sparring and thought "oh, that was like in Form #3", or when have you been in a sparring situation and thought "I should use this from Form #2"?
> 
> Right now it just sounds like you're trying to convince yourself you get more from the forms than you actually do. Because you can't even give me a specific example of how it's worked. Just a general, used-car-salesman pitch about how they do, because (buzz word) sparring!



Ok, you want the "talking to a 5 year old" version.

I apologise, I didn't realise...

Ok, so...

I could have accomplished all of it without patterns practice, but it would have been a different training methodology, so it is what it is.

Here's one specific:

An opponent threw a rear leg high turning kick - I stepped in to reduce momentum, blocked with a high outer forearm and countered with a reverse punch. Moves 1 and 2 from do-san.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Ok, you want the "talking to a 5 year old" version.
> 
> I apologise, I didn't realise...
> 
> ...



I don't see how that's a deeper understanding of the form.  That's just a surface level regurgitation of the block and punch.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> A great example of how this discussion fell apart is in my thread about the double-knife-hand block. I was primarily looking at *the off-hand, why we use that particular finishing position (palm-up, next to solar plexus).* People kept fixating on the main hand - the knife hand block. I was trying to figure out the reason for the off-hand positioning after that motion. *Why not palm down? Why not a regular knife-hand block with the other hand chambered?*



I assume that is analogous to our knife hand guarding block...

Have you tried doing that 'block' with your offhand in another position?

Palm down feels unnaturally awkward.

Going to chamber on the hip doesn't suit the swing motion of the main hand / shoulder / torso.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Ok, you want the "talking to a 5 year old" version.
> 
> I apologise, I didn't realise...
> 
> ...



No, I wanted the "not-a-politician-trying-to-avoid-a-question-I-don't-know-the-answer-to" type of answer.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> I assume that is analogous to our knife hand guarding block...
> 
> Have you tried doing that 'block' with your offhand in another position?
> 
> ...



Palm down is our default position in Hapkido, and the default position in many Kung Fu guards I've seen from training videos I've found.  (See, I'm not just limiting myself to my Master's TKD course).  It's not uncomfortable at all.

It also fits the swing motion of the main hand fine.  Many blocks are chambered cross and the off-hand is pulled to the hip.

However, your point about the swing motion of the shoulder and torso is the part that intrigues me.  I hadn't considered that, and playing around with it a bit does make sense.  When I factor the swing motion in, palm up is a more natural finishing position.  So, to clarify, I've been asking this question for about 4 years, and you're the first person to be able to actually answer it.  Everyone else has been hung up on other parts of the technique (why a knife-hand instead of a fist? why a block instead of a strike or throw?).  Nobody has addressed the mechanic itself.  

So, it's okay for you to be proud for being able to answer the question.  But considering nobody else on here could provide that answer for me, please don't look down on me for not coming to that conclusion, either.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> Palm down is our default position in Hapkido, and the default position in many Kung Fu guards I've seen from training videos I've found.  (See, I'm not just limiting myself to my Master's TKD course).  It's not uncomfortable at all.
> 
> It also fits the swing motion of the main hand fine.  Many blocks are chambered cross and the off-hand is pulled to the hip.
> 
> ...



For the way 'we' arrive at the finishing position I believe you're describing, the other off hand position options you gave just don't feel right.

The torso swing I was referring to is a different movement to what happens with say a high section knife hand block (or forearm, or fist ) which is cross chambered and the offhand finishes on the hip.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

Here's a pic I stole of a knife hand guarding block:




 

Is it similar?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Here is the really cool part about forms / kata. So long as they are copied correctly, all those deeper meanings and applications and principles remain... whether the person doing or teaching the form knows they are there or not.
> 
> I used to have a pretty decent o'soto gari (outer reaping throw). When I started taking karate, the first class they started teaching me to walk forward and backward in front stance. (the c-step and everything) These steps show up in the different kata quite a bit. As it turns out, if you take the first half of a forward step in front stance, then step back into front stance, you are doing one of the variations of o'soto gari. My o'soto gari got better. Over time, as I do more kata, I am getting better at making different entrances to o'soto gari... basically every time you step forward into front stance, can be seen as an entrance into o'soto gari... whether you are going forward, or turning. With the kata, concentrating on me keeping a low stance, and taking the c-step into forward stance... my karate sensei was able to greatly improve my o'soto gari... even though he didn't "know" that version of o'soto gari. My sensei asked me to share a little jujitsu with the class... I showed them this version of o'soto gari and showed how they had been practicing it since day one, in karate. They got it so well, I sometimes teach my jujitsu guys the karate front stance before doing o'soto gari. After that first demo in karate, my sensei said "now I know why you smile when we practice Taikyoku Shodan."
> 
> So even though your lineage may have watered things down to "just copy," doesn't mean all hope is lost. If they copied right... its still there, but may take more work by the student to find. When I teach Jujitsu, I teach kata exactly as my sensei taught me, because I don't believe I know enough about the kata, to make sure I don't drop something out just because I have not yet found it. I may teach other variations of the kata, as variations, or more applicable in certain situations... But since I keep finding new things in my very first jujitsu kata (katate tori hazushi), even after 25 years of study... I don't think I am ready to change it. But I can show you a bunch of things I found in it, and a bunch of cool variations. Hopefully my students will one day fill in the gaps I missed... and then help me to find them as well.


That depends on one’s definition of what it means to copy it correctly.  If it is merely surface copying, it can be “correct” while still being entirely wrong.  Techniques on the form are being executed without engaging the engine.  Stances lack rooting, so punches (as example) lack power from the legs and body and instead rely on arm and shoulder strength alone.

The choreography is correct, but the quality of the movement is low.

If they never get a deeper understanding, then they could practice forever and never improve.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> I don't see how that's a deeper understanding of the form.  That's just a surface level regurgitation of the block and punch.



Well, I'm going to step away from this particular part of the conversation.

It appears we have some sort of language barrier - my initial thoughts weren't enough and you asked for specific examples of use, I gave a specific example and that's not enough either.

So - that's that.

Feel free to enquire about other things like that hand position question though


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> So, it's okay for you to be proud for being able to answer the question. But considering nobody else on here could provide that answer for me, please don't look down on me for not coming to that conclusion, either.



There's really no pride involved.

That's the sort of thing I was on about before - that's the sort of thing I'll analyse and consider.

I'd like to think that other people process the same as I do, but I'm realistic enough to know that's not happening.

So there's no looking down either.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Here's a pic I stole of a knife hand guarding block:
> 
> View attachment 22476
> 
> Is it similar?



This is the exact technique.

Like I said (and you didn't comment on) - this is the kind of answer I was looking for in those previous threads.  This actually helps with half of the blocks I've had questions about, not just the double-knife-hand.  The augmented outside block immediately sprung to mind, that's a natural landing position if swinging the shoulders that way.  The double outside-block I can see in a similar manner - it puts your weight forward compared to a single outside block.  I hadn't considered the other hand as simply being a weight, and the effect it has on your shoulders, center of gravity, momentum, etc.

I'll have to play around with some of the other techniques, particularly our crane stance or reverse stance blocks, and how this affects those.

And, now that I have that surface level understanding, I have a foundation to build on and analyze them.



pdg said:


> Well, I'm going to step away from this particular part of the conversation.
> 
> It appears we have some sort of language barrier - my initial thoughts weren't enough and you asked for specific examples of use, I gave a specific example and that's not enough either.
> 
> ...



You made a claim early on you're getting more out of your forms than I am.  This was an example of you getting something out of your forms, but not more than I am.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 19, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> The choreography is correct, but the quality of the movement is low.
> 
> If they never get a deeper understanding, then they could practice forever and never improve.


I agree. If the instructor doesn't know whats there, it will be harder for the student. But, if the student does the leg work to figure out what it was, as they put in the better rooting, the better stances... the deeper things will then be there to find. But, you are correct... they could, and many do, practice forever and never improve. Many won't even know they are missing something.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> There's really no pride involved.
> 
> That's the sort of thing I was on about before - that's the sort of thing I'll analyse and consider.
> 
> ...



One thing to keep in mind - a lot of these questions kind of end up in the TATA category (too afraid to ask).  Like you said, you'd be shocked to hear a higher up ask these questions.  

When you learn something new as a green belt, you don't even know what you don't know.  So you don't even ask questions, because you don't know where to begin.  As you master that concept, the questions start coming.  How to do it correctly, how to improve it, how to apply it.  Some questions you don't ask because you don't think of them, and others you don't ask because you can't just ask 50 questions about a technique and expect to get any practice in.  Some questions you put on hold, some you just forget about.  As @gpseymour said in the other thread, some concepts in forms exist to be extrapolated later, you're building the muscle memory now so you can focus on the new information later.

However, sometimes you get to a point where you think, "If I ask that question, people are going to say I should have asked it as a green belt."  In fact, that's kind of what you said in this thread.  So you get your black belt, and you're not quite sure of something, but you're thinking that you should have probably asked that at blue belt or red belt.  And then you get to the point where you're way up there, and it's way too late.  This is a TATA question.  And it's what's happened with a few of the questions I bring up on here.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Ok, you want the "talking to a 5 year old" version.
> 
> I apologise, I didn't realise...
> 
> ...



Did somebody kill somebody's dog here and I just missed it?

Getting to the substance of the debate, I think the explanation may have less to do with specific posters and more to do with specific forms.  With some forms, they are designed to be "that you see is what you get" with just one specific application, and there's no real purpose to a deeper bunkai analysis.  A lot of recently developed forms fit into this mold. Take, as an extreme example, Enshin karate's Kuro Obi no Kata leaves no room for subjective interpretation of what they're doing:






Some other forms are malleable in interpretation, potentially being full of throws and infighting. Some don't even make sense unless you look for those sorts of interpretations. This is common in forms originally developed out of old Okinawan katas. Take, as an extreme example, Shotokan's Tekki Shodan, which isn't even recognizable as fighting without Abernethy-style interpretation.






From what I've seen, ITF forms are often based off Okinawan katas (modified, but based on them).  WT forms look like they were developed from scratch with a single viable interpretation to their movements.

If pdg is an ITF taekwondoin, and skribs is a WT taekwondoin, it's no surprise to me that pdg finds more value in "studying the potential application of forms" than skribs does. Not all forms are intended to have Abernethy-style bunkai interpretation applied to them. Many more recent forms are not, and to me WT Poomsae look like they were intended to drill body movement, precision, and be a performance art, as opposed to undergoing Abernethy-style interpretation for hidden throws and infighting techniques.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> You made a claim early on you're getting more out of your forms than I am. This was an example of you getting something out of your forms, but not more than I am.



Well, maybe this is one small example of me drawing and getting more out of my patterns than you.

I obviously have no basis for comparison so I could have reached those conclusions another way, but my interpretation of things like that hand position is derived from my pattern practice.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Well, maybe this is one small example of me drawing and getting more out of my patterns than you.



But...it's not an example of you getting more out of your patterns than me.  It's an example of you getting the same out of your patterns as me.  The form says to block and use a reverse punch.  You blocked and used a reverse punch.  There's nothing profound there.

You're criticizing me of not getting anything deeper out of my forms, but this is surface-level stuff you're giving me.  It doesn't tell me how the form taught you any deeper concepts, or what you've drawn from the form, other than what's sitting there at the surface.  All I can tell based on this, is you have a surface-level understanding of the form.  You've just parroted a block and punch.  What more is there?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 19, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I agree. If the instructor doesn't know whats there, it will be harder for the student. But, if the student does the leg work to figure out what it was, as they put in the better rooting, the better stances... the deeper things will then be there to find. But, you are correct... they could, and many do, practice forever and never improve. Many won't even know they are missing something.


I am skeptical that that could happen, at least in most cases.

To use the punch example, most people believe they know how to throw a punch.  And most people who have not been otherwise trained, will use the arm and shoulder muscles, without (or with minimal) leg and body engagement.  That can be effective if they possess the strength and athleticism, so they have no reason to believe something is missing, that it could be better.  Without someone to guide them, they will not figure it out on their own.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> One thing to keep in mind - a lot of these questions kind of end up in the TATA category (too afraid to ask).  Like you said, you'd be shocked to hear a higher up ask these questions.
> 
> When you learn something new as a green belt, you don't even know what you don't know.  So you don't even ask questions, because you don't know where to begin.  As you master that concept, the questions start coming.  How to do it correctly, how to improve it, how to apply it.  Some questions you don't ask because you don't think of them, and others you don't ask because you can't just ask 50 questions about a technique and expect to get any practice in.  Some questions you put on hold, some you just forget about.  As @gpseymour said in the other thread, some concepts in forms exist to be extrapolated later, you're building the muscle memory now so you can focus on the new information later.
> 
> However, sometimes you get to a point where you think, "If I ask that question, people are going to say I should have asked it as a green belt."  In fact, that's kind of what you said in this thread.  So you get your black belt, and you're not quite sure of something, but you're thinking that you should have probably asked that at blue belt or red belt.  And then you get to the point where you're way up there, and it's way too late.  This is a TATA question.  And it's what's happened with a few of the questions I bring up on here.



Shocked would be the wrong term - I believe I said surprised.

And that's because - in my limited experience - these sorts of questions are either asked at earlier points or answered without being asked.

I wouldn't however be surprised if a lot of the higher grades couldn't answer... More than a few just don't consider this sort of thing and even more don't consider it important.

Thankfully, the times I've felt the need to ask this sort of question I've either got an answer or they've been honest enough to say they don't know but will enquire on my behalf. The culture in my school as I see it is that you shouldn't be afraid to ask, even if you think it's a silly question 

And in honesty - I have asked a lot of similar 'level' questions when it was stuff I couldn't work out. Often just discussing the question led to the answer rather than being given it directly.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> But...it's not an example of you getting more out of your patterns than me.  It's an example of you getting the same out of your patterns as me.  The form says to block and use a reverse punch.  You blocked and used a reverse punch.  There's nothing profound there.
> 
> You're criticizing me of not getting anything deeper out of my forms, but this is surface-level stuff you're giving me.  It doesn't tell me how the form taught you any deeper concepts, or what you've drawn from the form, other than what's sitting there at the surface.  All I can tell based on this, is you have a surface-level understanding of the form.  You've just parroted a block and punch.  What more is there?



I was referring to the analysis of the mechanics in that hand position question actually - moved on from the block/punch 

Move 1 in Dan-Gun is to turn left into a knife hand guarding block.

The contemplation of the process required to arrive at that finish position is what led me to my conclusions on the 'purpose' of that offhand.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Thankfully, the times I've felt the need to ask this sort of question I've either got an answer or they've been honest enough to say they don't know but will enquire on my behalf. The culture in my school as I see it is that you shouldn't be afraid to ask, even if you think it's a silly question
> 
> And in honesty - I have asked a lot of similar 'level' questions when it was stuff I couldn't work out. Often just discussing the question led to the answer rather than being given it directly.



So you should understand why I'm asking these questions instead of giving me a hard time about it.



pdg said:


> I was referring to the analysis of the mechanics in that hand position question actually - moved on from the block/punch
> 
> Move 1 in Dan-Gun is to turn left into a knife hand guarding block.
> 
> The contemplation of the process required to arrive at that finish position is what led me to my conclusions on the 'purpose' of that offhand.



Based on the context of your previous post, this was impossible to interpret.  It sounded like you were just providing an example of drawing application from a form.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Some other forms are malleable in interpretation, potentially being full of throws and infighting. Some don't even make sense unless you look for those sorts of interpretations. This is common in forms originally developed out of old Okinawan katas. Take, as an extreme example, Shotokan's Tekki Shodan, which isn't even recognizable as fighting without Abernethy-style interpretation.



If that's the case, then it appears I'm an Abernathy stylist 

There's a lot in there I recognise from ITF patterns (somewhat unsurprisingly) and most of it I believe I can interpret as usable material...


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> So you should understand why I'm asking these questions instead of giving me a hard time about it.



Hard times build character, think of it as conditioning for the mind 



skribs said:


> Based on the context of your previous post, this was impossible to interpret. It sounded like you were just providing an example of drawing application from a form



Yeah, I could have been clearer admittedly - is it partially cleared up now?


----------



## wab25 (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> A great example of how this discussion fell apart is in my thread about the double-knife-hand block. I was primarily looking at *the off-hand, why we use that particular finishing position (palm-up, next to solar plexus).* People kept fixating on the main hand - the knife hand block. I was trying to figure out the reason for the off-hand positioning after that motion. *Why not palm down? Why not a regular knife-hand block with the other hand chambered?*



So, I have spent time since that last thread you reference, looking at the TKD version of this technique... (or at least what I see on youtube) and I found a few things that I thought were useful. (tried a few of them out on unsuspecting jujitsu students...) Rather than list what I found, I want to go through how I found them.

I started with the Karate version first, as I study that version. Also, the Karate version is in the lineage of the technique in question, at least partially. In the karate version, when the main hand chambers up to the side of the face, the back hand makes a palm up spear hand forward, instead of going back like the TKD version. This is taught as guarding the center line, while chambering... followed by the knifehand block. This can be seen as a spear hand strike to the solar plexus, followed by a block to the side of the neck. In karate, the open hand also signifies a grab. Instead of the back hand delivering an initial spear hand strike, it could be grabbing the gi, then pulling the guy into the block to his neck, or slowing down a little, pulling the guy guy in deeper and executing dump over your forward knee type throw. So, things to take here to the TKD version: the open hands can be spears, knife hands or grabs... the application can be during the initial chamber... changing the distance will change the outcome.

In the TKD version as I see it on youtube... both hands move back together, front one to your face, rear hand goes behind you, then both come forward to the position in the picture. Assume you are facing the other guy, he is grabbing your neck with both hands (dumb choke). When you drop into back stance, do it so that your "front" foot turns out, and your rear foot stays pointing at the other guy. The main hand comes up to your face, from underneath both of the guys arms, while your rear hand chambers behind you. Use the main open hand to grab the guys wrist. (if my main hand is my left, it comes under the other guys left hand, and grabs his left wrist) At this point, my main hand "blocks" which will extend his arm and his side, also rotating him to his right. If you are close enough, the rear hand knifes through his elbow... elbow break or arm bar. (I had to play with getting the distance right, but once you figure it out...) If you are closer, that rear hand can deliver a knife hand to the kidney or short ribs, which are now open.

There is a foot propping throw that we do, where you start facing the other guy, grabbing gi lapel and sleeve. I get the guy to suddenly take a step forward, while using my foot to stop his ankle, preventing that step. If he knows how to fall, it looks pretty cool, if not, he face plants pretty hard. In order to get that sudden step forward, my hand on his lapel, comes to my center, while my hand on his sleeve takes him forward to the far corner. It can look very similar to the chamber before the double knife hand. If you transfer your weight to the front foot, instead of the back foot, you could easily prop his foot for the throw. The hard part of this throw, is generating his forward step. You could take the propping foot out, so as to get closer to the TKD technique. Start in front stance, front hand grabs his lapel, back hand grabs his sleeve. Shift into back stance, using your body weight to generate the power, chambering your hands for the double knife hand block, further propels him past you. As the back hand comes forward, still grabbing his sleeve you can produce and nice arm whip type throw, if your timing is right... or just let them go.

Another art I have looked at a bit is Daito Ryu. They teach big motions first, then make them smaller and smaller. Since Funakoshi was further simplifying things for elementary students, he may have made things even bigger. Start with a cross wrist grab, right hand to right wrist. Its common to cover his fingers with your left hand, circle your right to the outside and produce a lock, in the downward direction. The Daito Ryu guy I train with, does this with out covering the fingers, if you blend right, its not needed. Then after you get the lock going down, he cuts horizontally back into you. This will put you up on your toes like a ballerina trying to get away from the lock. If you start the double knife hand thing from TKD, where the other guy has this cross wrist grab... when your back hand goes into chamber, it just needs to go to the outside of the other guys hand. As you roll your hand to palm up, execute the back side block to your chest, it produces the lock, and cutting motion through the other guy. You will have to make the motion a bit smaller and blend, but it works well.

I hope this makes sense... sometimes my writing leaves some to be desired when describing this stuff. But, by looking at where the technique came from, and by focusing on some of those things as I did the newer TKD version, I found some interesting things there that work for me. Whether you agree or get anything from this doesn't change the fact that when I looked at a TKD technique, looked at how it was done, where it came from and started playing with those ideas, I was able to learn quite a bit about things that had nothing to do with blocking punches. It helped my jujitsu get a little better. It helped my karate get a little better. It helped me figure out that silly Daito Ryu lock. I also got to throw an unsuspecting student quite far.... his face was priceless. Anyway, thanks for inspiring me to learn a few more things by looking at TKD forms and technique.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> Hard times build character, think of it as conditioning for the mind
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I could have been clearer admittedly - is it partially cleared up now?



Partially.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> So you should understand why I'm asking these questions instead of giving me a hard time about it.



Second quote of this part...

I understand why you're asking the questions, but I'm surprised that someone of your rank has to ask them.

I can't remember how old you are, nor how long in total you've been training - which could be very relevant here.


----------



## pdg (Sep 19, 2019)

wab25 said:


> So, I have spent time since that last thread you reference, looking at the TKD version of this technique... (or at least what I see on youtube) and I found a few things that I thought were useful. (tried a few of them out on unsuspecting jujitsu students...) Rather than list what I found, I want to go through how I found them.
> 
> I started with the Karate version first, as I study that version. Also, the Karate version is in the lineage of the technique in question, at least partially. In the karate version, when the main hand chambers up to the side of the face, the back hand makes a palm up spear hand forward, instead of going back like the TKD version. This is taught as guarding the center line, while chambering... followed by the knifehand block. This can be seen as a spear hand strike to the solar plexus, followed by a block to the side of the neck. In karate, the open hand also signifies a grab. Instead of the back hand delivering an initial spear hand strike, it could be grabbing the gi, then pulling the guy into the block to his neck, or slowing down a little, pulling the guy guy in deeper and executing dump over your forward knee type throw. So, things to take here to the TKD version: the open hands can be spears, knife hands or grabs... the application can be during the initial chamber... changing the distance will change the outcome.
> 
> ...



Those need thinking about, but my initial impression is that they're perfectly valid.

I've done quite a bit of thinking and research the other direction - going 'back' to karate from my ITF baseline, and in a fair few instances looking at CMA as well.

For me, it all leads into possible interpretations and applications rather than the somewhat limited single explanations.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

wab25 said:


> So, I have spent time since that last thread you reference, looking at the TKD version of this technique... (or at least what I see on youtube) and I found a few things that I thought were useful. (tried a few of them out on unsuspecting jujitsu students...) Rather than list what I found, I want to go through how I found them.
> 
> I started with the Karate version first, as I study that version. Also, the Karate version is in the lineage of the technique in question, at least partially. In the karate version, when the main hand chambers up to the side of the face, the back hand makes a palm up spear hand forward, instead of going back like the TKD version. This is taught as guarding the center line, while chambering... followed by the knifehand block. This can be seen as a spear hand strike to the solar plexus, followed by a block to the side of the neck. In karate, the open hand also signifies a grab. Instead of the back hand delivering an initial spear hand strike, it could be grabbing the gi, then pulling the guy into the block to his neck, or slowing down a little, pulling the guy guy in deeper and executing dump over your forward knee type throw. So, things to take here to the TKD version: the open hands can be spears, knife hands or grabs... the application can be during the initial chamber... changing the distance will change the outcome.
> 
> ...



What you're doing here is mostly what I would consider the level 2 and level 3 analysis of the technique.  What I'm looking for is the level 1 analysis.

It's kind of like how I work in IT as a system's administrator (Tier 2 or Tier 3, depending on the heirarchy).  A lot of my coworkers are great at Tier 3 functions, and have absolutely no concept of Tier 1 (help desk).  They can build websites and databases, they can make complicated server architecture with ease, but if they have to tell a customer how to log in, they're baffled.  They can use all the technical jargon they want, but when it comes down to simply explaining a basic process in a way that makes sense to the end user, they're flummoxed.

This is the thing.  I have, in a lot of cases, a tier 2 or tier 3 understanding of the technique, but I'm trying to figure out that tier 1 application.  To look at specifically what I'm being taught, and to *not *overcomplicate it, but to just look at it for what it is, and see what use that is.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 19, 2019)

We may disagree here, which I admit... but this is only my opinion...


skribs said:


> This is the thing. I have, in a lot of cases, a tier 2 or tier 3 understanding of the technique, but I'm trying to figure out that tier 1 application. To look at specifically what I'm being taught, and to *not *overcomplicate it, but to just look at it for what it is, and see what use that is.


The tier 1 application is to get you to tier 2 and tier 3. Period. It is to give you the proper mechanics. Instead of put your hand here and move it there, its called punch here then block there. The punch and the block don't have to be practical, though many times they are. The punch and the block have to give you a reason to work on the proper mechanics, rooting, power generation, balance, transition, body unification... how to I send power from the floor to one hand? How to I send it to two hands? Don't over complicate tier 1. Tier 1: a block is a block and a punch is a punch. Now, take what you learned to tier 2 and 3 and 4. Don't ignore, skip or throw away tiers 2 and 3, just because you can't make the tier 1 into something you like. Tier 1, is to train your body and get it ready for 2 and 3. At your rank, go back and do your very first white belt form... as tier 2, then as tier 3. Tier 1 is just a building block to get you further to the other tiers.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

wab25 said:


> We may disagree here, which I admit... but this is only my opinion...
> The tier 1 application is to get you to tier 2 and tier 3. Period. It is to give you the proper mechanics. Instead of put your hand here and move it there, its called punch here then block there. The punch and the block don't have to be practical, though many times they are. The punch and the block have to give you a reason to work on the proper mechanics, rooting, power generation, balance, transition, body unification... how to I send power from the floor to one hand? How to I send it to two hands? Don't over complicate tier 1. Tier 1: a block is a block and a punch is a punch. Now, take what you learned to tier 2 and 3 and 4. Don't ignore, skip or throw away tiers 2 and 3, just because you can't make the tier 1 into something you like. Tier 1, is to train your body and get it ready for 2 and 3. At your rank, go back and do your very first white belt form... as tier 2, then as tier 3. Tier 1 is just a building block to get you further to the other tiers.



With the double-knife-hand block tests that you did, it was all Tier 2 and Tier 3.  There was no Tier 1.  There was the Tier 1 motion with no Tier 1 application.  Then there was modifications of the motion and the situation which bring it to Tier 2 and Tier 3.  In the example @pdg provided earlier, there was a Tier 1 application to the technique he applied in sparring.  The form has a block and a punch.  He did a block and a punch.  This is Tier 1 motion, with Tier 1 application.  His later connection of the turning motion to the double-knife-hand block was a Tier 3 application of that movement.

I said your post missed the Tier 1 application.  That suggests that the Tier 1 understanding was not important to your ability to apply Tier 2 and Tier 3.  What is the Tier 1 application you found?  Or did you not find one?

You also seem to be confusing "not relevant to the question" with "I don't ever want to ever ever learn it ever because it's useless to ever know it."  I'm not saying that Tier 2 and Tier 3 should be thrown out.  I'm saying that if I'm trying to get a better understanding of Tier 1, I want to *temporarily *ignore Tier 2 and Tier 3.  Those are rabbit trails that will distract me from my *current* goal.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> I said your post missed the Tier 1 application. That suggests that the Tier 1 understanding was not important to your ability to apply Tier 2 and Tier 3. What is the Tier 1 application you found? Or did you not find one?


I found no tier 1 application, beyond training the motion, power generation, rooting and such. Simple answer: I found no application. However, I have not closed the door. I allow that there may yet be an application that I have not found. I may find it later or, more likely, someone will show me. Its just that I have not found it yet. I don't let that change the way I train it. And I don't let that stop me from going to tier 2 and 3. 



skribs said:


> You also seem to be confusing "not relevant to the question" with "I don't ever want to ever ever learn it ever because it's useless to ever know it." I'm not saying that Tier 2 and Tier 3 should be thrown out. I'm saying that if I'm trying to get a better understanding of Tier 1, I want to *temporarily *ignore Tier 2 and Tier 3. Those are rabbit trails that will distract me from my *current* goal.



I am not sure why I would ever get confused...



skribs said:


> What I've had to do is adjust my way of thinking regarding the poomsae. *I no longer seek application from them*. I do them to the best I can, but* I do them in the same way they were created - mimicry.*





skribs said:


> *I don't try and draw martial application from them.*





skribs said:


> This is why I've come to the conclusion that *trying to draw application out of poomsae is a waste of time*.





skribs said:


> I train for the training it gives my muscles, the satisfaction of doing them, *and nothing more*.





skribs said:


> I don't understand there is a deeper meaning in the TKD forms. *I've come to the conclusion they are all surface level.*



... oh, yeah, I remember now.

I can only go by what you post. You keep posting that drawing application is a waste of time, because they are all surface level, with no depth at all and you are looking for nothing more out of them. That reads to me like trying to go to tier 2 and 3, from the forms is a waste of time, searching for something that isn't there and that you are no longer looking. Then you ask what is this move for... Makes me wonder why you are wasting your time... instead of just doing them for mimicry sake.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I found no tier 1 application, beyond training the motion, power generation, rooting and such. Simple answer: I found no application. However, I have not closed the door. I allow that there may yet be an application that I have not found. I may find it later or, more likely, someone will show me. Its just that I have not found it yet. I don't let that change the way I train it. And I don't let that stop me from going to tier 2 and 3.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I say they are all surface-level, I mean there is no Tier-1 application, and within TKD there isn't a push for a Tier 2 or Tier 3 understanding.  A lot of it sits at that Tier 1 movement, with no Tier 1 application.  Maybe I need to re-work my model, add in Tier 0 as the movement in the form, with Tier 1 as the literal application.  That makes more sense.

So applying that to the double-knife-hand, *as it is trained in KKW TKD*:

Tier 0: Double-knife hand block, chambered with both hands to one side, executed with the main hand in front and off-hand at your solar-plexus.
Tier 1: ??
Tier 2: ??
Tier 3: ??
Now, we can do the analysis.  It can be done as a self-study elective by a TKD student, or as a part of normal training by a Karate student.  We can come up with:

Tier 0: See above
Tier 1: ??*
Tier 2: This motion is similar to a wrist lock or a choke escape.  It can also be similar to a leg sweep this way or that way.  It can also be similar to a block and strike to the ribs.  
Tier 3:  This motion teaches the body mechanics of how to move both hands together.  It shows putting your off shoulder into the block, which translates will into a strike-and-counter motion.  It teaches how to move your shoulders with your hips during turning motions, which is useful for sweeps.  
*I put a ?? here, because we did discover in this thread, the Tier 1 application could simply be to teach the concepts in Tier 3, and there isn't actually a direct Tier 1 application.  If so, it hasn't really been made clear.  The specific details I had a problem with (the orientation of the off-hand, for example) seem to fit this purpose.  There may be a better Tier 1 fit, but there isn't a practical one, not that you or I could find.

To be honest, a lot of the Tier 3 stuff wasn't apparent to me until today.  The Tier 2 was, but I was still left with that burning ?? at Tier 1.  And we can talk more and more about Tier 2, and fill it with paragraphs and paragraphs of information, but there's still that nagging ?? at Tier 1.

Now, maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone actually took the time to say "there is no direct application for that movement."  There wasn't anyone to say "you train that movement this way, because of X."  @pdg is the first person to answer that question, in the many threads I've brought it up.  As much as I've been arguing with him in this thread, I don't think he realizes just how grateful I am that he made this clear to me, because it's something I have been struggling with for years.  There may not be a direct Tier 1 application, but at least there is a Tier 1 purpose of the form that translates to the Tier 3 analysis.

With that in mind, the Tier 2 analysis does not require a Tier 1 application in order to be performed.  Your analysis pretty much proves this, because you could do that Tier 2 analysis without the Tier 1 application.  All of that Tier 2 analysis serves a great purpose, a good mental exercise, good martial training, and all of that.  But my quest is to get rid of that "??" in Tier 1.  Pdg has come the closest to doing that of anyone I've asked.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

Also, @pdg, this is why I continue to train under my Master even if I don't understand everything.  I've spent the last 5 years working on my double-knife-hand in pretty much every form.  My body's learned the lesson even if my brain hasn't.

I'm starting to think that might be the reason for a lot of the stuff in the forms.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> If that's what you gathered from my post, then I don't even know how to respond.  Everything I just quoted is the exact opposite of what I said.
> 
> 
> I don't understand there is a deeper meaning in the TKD forms.  I've come to the conclusion they are all surface level.  I understand that the Karate kata that they are derived from have a deeper meaning.  But the poomsae casserole that we got in TKD is not the original dish they served in Japan.
> ...


You are a hilarious contradiction of terms.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> To clarify - the form to get 4th dan.  I'm a 3rd dan.  (Although I think at other schools this is the form learned at 4th dan).
> 
> To also clarify - I'm not looking for just the "what is X".  I'm looking for the analysis of when to use X over Y.  A great example of how this discussion fell apart is in my thread about the double-knife-hand block.  I was primarily looking at *the off-hand, why we use that particular finishing position (palm-up, next to solar plexus).*  People kept fixating on the main hand - the knife hand block.  I was trying to figure out the reason for the off-hand positioning after that motion.  *Why not palm down?  Why not a regular knife-hand block with the other hand chambered?
> *
> The bolded parts above are the questions I was asking.  People kept harping on other things (which is why I dismissed them).  And nobody in that thread could give me an answer about the question I was actually asking.  One person said he knew but wouldn't tell me, everyone else was just trying to draw approximations.  I was asking why a specific detail was in place, and nobody could answer that specific question.  (Going back to my Regular vs. Premium gas analogy above).


You do not take them well at all but I am going to give you a suggestion. 
A long time ago I learned about the Rule of Five. It takes the average person hearing something five times before they fully comprehend it. It is most effective if they hear the same thing (questions or suggestions for example) in different ways. Everyone perceives differently. Often the way You understand a question, no one else will understand. It is an art in conversation that is most often hard to learn. 
So instead of asking a question the way You understand it and then getting frustrated because you did not get the answer You expect, ask the question differently. This is a big, big reason you get ridiculed by others. You are bringing it on yourself. I am not saying this to be offensive, I am simply trying to help you reflect and do a little self examination.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> When I say they are all surface-level, I mean there is no Tier-1 application, and within TKD there isn't a push for a Tier 2 or Tier 3 understanding.  A lot of it sits at that Tier 1 movement, with no Tier 1 application.  Maybe I need to re-work my model, add in Tier 0 as the movement in the form, with Tier 1 as the literal application.  That makes more sense.
> 
> So applying that to the double-knife-hand, *as it is trained in KKW TKD*:
> 
> ...


In YOUR TKD there may not be a push for understanding. Do not paint that picture of all TKD. It simply is not true.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You do not take them well at all but I am going to give you a suggestion.
> A long time ago I learned about the Rule of Five. It takes the average person hearing something five times before they fully comprehend it. It is most effective if they hear the same thing (questions or suggestions for example) in different ways. Everyone perceives differently. Often the way You understand a question, no one else will understand. It is an art in conversation that is most often hard to learn.
> So instead of asking a question the way You understand it and then getting frustrated because you did not get the answer You expect, ask the question differently. This is a big, big reason you get ridiculed by others. You are bringing it on yourself. I am not saying this to be offensive, I am simply trying to help you reflect and do a little self examination.



I do.  Then they get upset that I didn't like their answer.  If you want a perfect example of how it looks, this one person recently said "You do not take them well at all but I am going to give you a suggestion."



dvcochran said:


> In YOUR TKD there may not be a push for understanding. Do not paint that picture of all TKD. It simply is not true.



I've been making this statement for years, and thus far nobody has proven me wrong.  People have said I'm wrong, but nobody has proven it.  Nobody has given me actual examples of doing the analysis that @wab25 described.  The examples I've found on youtube were mostly McDojo quality, so I'm not sure if that helps or hurts your argument.

Now, I haven't had much response from people who train ITF and don't think I've gotten any response from ATA on the subject.  But so far @pdg has come the closest to telling me about doing application study, and that was simply that he took two moves in a form and used them in sparring.  Not that he explored them further.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> If that's what you gathered from my post, then I don't even know how to respond.  Everything I just quoted is the exact opposite of what I said.
> 
> 
> I don't understand there is a deeper meaning in the TKD forms.  I've come to the conclusion they are all surface level.  I understand that the Karate kata that they are derived from have a deeper meaning.  But the poomsae casserole that we got in TKD is not the original dish they served in Japan.
> ...


Skribs, ALL this is on you. You are a 3rd Dan BB. That summation is awful and a bad reflection on you. How can you read all the post on this forum and other sites and not hear the wealth of information, knowledge, depth, (I can go on and on) others have gained from forms and not think there may be more to them than your limited understanding?

I HOPE I do not sound disrespectful to anyone or any style. I have immense respect for all the MA pioneers. I never met any of the originals but have met many contemporaries. I did get to meet GM Kee, Hwang but never got to work under him enough to gain any deep learning from him. But most of the originals Masters are from a different time and there were vastly different battle and fighting styles/plans. Certainly there are many things that hold true today but some have become irrelevant over time. 
So, to stay on point with the thread, some if not much of what we learn through kata/poomsae we create ourselves. We all tweak certain things in a move because it works with our body type better. We should exhaust every effort to adapt where it makes sense, but there are times when it simply does not. 
A simple example is in poomsae competitions. Even in WT events where there is a huge emphasis on forms being a specific way, everyone does them slightly different. How else do you think there is a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place?
A more practical example is the much discussed knife hand. While most look all but identical, few really are. This doesn't make any of them necessarily wrong. An experienced Master/instructor/teacher will see and understand when a slight variance in a technique is acceptable. They may be wise to discuss it with the student and talk through any differences to make sure there misunderstandings.
So skribs, there is much more for you to pursue in your MA journey. It is not going to be found in a book or on a forum and likely will not all be learned from the same instructor. This is certainly a time when Quantity and Quality in practice is invaluable. Patience is an ally you need to learn to lean on more.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> One thing to keep in mind - a lot of these questions kind of end up in the TATA category (too afraid to ask).  Like you said, you'd be shocked to hear a higher up ask these questions.
> 
> When you learn something new as a green belt, you don't even know what you don't know.  So you don't even ask questions, because you don't know where to begin.  As you master that concept, the questions start coming.  How to do it correctly, how to improve it, how to apply it.  Some questions you don't ask because you don't think of them, and others you don't ask because you can't just ask 50 questions about a technique and expect to get any practice in.  Some questions you put on hold, some you just forget about.  As @gpseymour said in the other thread, some concepts in forms exist to be extrapolated later, you're building the muscle memory now so you can focus on the new information later.
> 
> However, sometimes you get to a point where you think, "If I ask that question, people are going to say I should have asked it as a green belt."  In fact, that's kind of what you said in this thread.  So you get your black belt, and you're not quite sure of something, but you're thinking that you should have probably asked that at blue belt or red belt.  And then you get to the point where you're way up there, and it's way too late.  This is a TATA question.  And it's what's happened with a few of the questions I bring up on here.


No, that is being ignorantly prideful. Even though we sometimes get bashed and have a "here's your sign" moment, we should never be too proud to ask a question. There is a great value in the tact we take with how we ask the question however.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Skribs, ALL this is on you. You are a 3rd Dan BB. That summation is awful and a bad reflection on you. How can you read all the post on this forum and other sites and not hear the wealth of information, knowledge, depth, (I can go on and on) others have gained from forms and not think there may be more to them than your limited understanding?



If you think that I'm not, you're simply blind.  What do you think I'm doing here?  I'm learning stuff in my time here.  Not every post has to be an epiphany or something I agree with.  But if you think I'm burying my head in the sand, why am I here?



> I HOPE I do not sound disrespectful to anyone or any style. I have immense respect for all the MA pioneers. I never met any of the originals but have met many contemporaries. I did get to meet GM Kee, Hwang but never got to work under him enough to gain any deep learning from him. But most of the originals Masters are from a different time and there were vastly different battle and fighting styles/plans. Certainly there are many things that hold true today but some have become irrelevant over time.
> So, to stay on point with the thread, some if not much of what we learn through kata/poomsae we create ourselves. We all tweak certain things in a move because it works with our body type better. We should exhaust every effort to adapt where it makes sense, but there are times when it simply does not.
> A simple example is in poomsae competitions. Even in WT events where there is a huge emphasis on forms being a specific way, everyone does them slightly different. How else do you think there is a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place?



Because one person did it more correct, with better control and athleticism than the others.  I thought that was obvious.  I don't even know why I need to explain it.



> So skribs, there is much more for you to pursue in your MA journey. It is not going to be found in a book or on a forum and likely will not all be learned from the same instructor. This is certainly a time when Quantity and Quality in practice is invaluable. Patience is an ally you need to learn to lean on more.



You say patience is an ally.  I've been on this forum for 6 years, asking questions the whole time.  If I am not patient, why am I still here?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> What you're doing here is mostly what I would consider the level 2 and level 3 analysis of the technique.  What I'm looking for is the level 1 analysis.
> 
> It's kind of like how I work in IT as a system's administrator (Tier 2 or Tier 3, depending on the heirarchy).  A lot of my coworkers are great at Tier 3 functions, and have absolutely no concept of Tier 1 (help desk).  They can build websites and databases, they can make complicated server architecture with ease, but if they have to tell a customer how to log in, they're baffled.  They can use all the technical jargon they want, but when it comes down to simply explaining a basic process in a way that makes sense to the end user, they're flummoxed.
> 
> This is the thing.  I have, in a lot of cases, a tier 2 or tier 3 understanding of the technique, but I'm trying to figure out that tier 1 application.  To look at specifically what I'm being taught, and to *not *overcomplicate it, but to just look at it for what it is, and see what use that is.


No, you are wanting people to spoon feed you an answer that You think is correct.


----------



## skribs (Sep 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> No, you are wanting people to spoon feed you an answer that You think is correct.



Do you want answers that you think are incorrect?


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> When I say they are all surface-level, I mean there is no Tier-1 application, and within TKD there isn't a push for a Tier 2 or Tier 3 understanding.  A lot of it sits at that Tier 1 movement, with no Tier 1 application.  Maybe I need to re-work my model, add in Tier 0 as the movement in the form, with Tier 1 as the literal application.  That makes more sense.
> 
> So applying that to the double-knife-hand, *as it is trained in KKW TKD*:
> 
> ...



Ok, so a possible tier 1 from that spec for the knife hand block in question...

The lead hand is blocking* a punch or knife hand strike with a knife hand.

The reaction (off) hand is adopting a guarding position of the mid section.



Now that's one reason 'we' call it a knife hand _guarding_ block - close the hands and move the arms 4-6" and you've got a forearm guarding block.

*(I use the term blocking, but redirection is more accurate)


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> So applying that to the double-knife-hand, *as it is trained in KKW TKD*:
> 
> Tier 0: Double-knife hand block, chambered with both hands to one side, executed with the main hand in front and off-hand at your solar-plexus.
> Tier 1: ??
> ...



You asked previously how patterns were trained for me - if this quote is an example of what you mean then I can now answer I believe.

I obviously can't speak to the entire ITF(s), but my experience is more like:

"Perform knife hand guarding block, chamber both hands closed over shoulder and swing body into position, opening hands during move. Finish with lead hand extended and reaction hand palm up by solar plexus. This move is to block an attack from the front/side while guarding the solar plexus with the reaction hand, or as a stance providing a medium range guard to the front and short range to the mid section."


Later, it's encouraged to utilise the move in 3, 2 and 1 step "semi free" sparring as described, leading from or into other techniques - from side kick as a landing position in a guard, or leading into a fingertip thrust (spearhand?) with the former reaction hand for example.

Later still and more optionally, see what you can do with it in normal free sparring. The knife hand action is difficult to truly assess due to the gloves, but the target area is different than using a fist or forearm so it does translate somewhat. Grabs, throws etc. aren't allowed under the sparring rules, so...

Then totally optionally (but certainly not discouraged) play around with it in "self defence" which isn't subject to the sparring ruleset. See if it works as a setup to a grab, or a restraint, or whatever.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Also, @pdg, this is why I continue to train under my Master even if I don't understand everything.  I've spent the last 5 years working on my double-knife-hand in pretty much every form.  My body's learned the lesson even if my brain hasn't.
> 
> I'm starting to think that might be the reason for a lot of the stuff in the forms.



I never even suggested that you ditch your current training, just that you seek to supplement it.

You are doing a bit of that here, but refusing to look at a book based on it being targeted at ITF and therefore "outside the scope of your training" is the sticking point for me (I don't mean that particular $200 book, I wouldn't spend that much )

Now, if the training model that you stated and I quoted in my previous post is how you do all your form training, I think it's a shame really.

Maybe it's a class size Vs time constraint issue, maybe it's that your instructor was taught in the same way, maybe it's endemic to KKW teaching - that I don't know.

If you really are lacking those basic explanations for moves in your forms, start a thread and alert me (or link to existing), or send me a pm - I personally think there's a vanishingly small amount in any of the ITF patterns that doesn't have a surface (and usually deeper) application and as I said, I gather the kkw use very similar techniques.

I'm more than happy to share what I've been taught or discovered - I just think it's something that should be a part of the normal training.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You do not take them well at all but I am going to give you a suggestion.
> A long time ago I learned about the Rule of Five. It takes the average person hearing something five times before they fully comprehend it. It is most effective if they hear the same thing (questions or suggestions for example) in different ways. Everyone perceives differently. Often the way You understand a question, no one else will understand. It is an art in conversation that is most often hard to learn.
> So instead of asking a question the way You understand it and then getting frustrated because you did not get the answer You expect, ask the question differently. This is a big, big reason you get ridiculed by others. You are bringing it on yourself. I am not saying this to be offensive, I am simply trying to help you reflect and do a little self examination.



This is quite apt - it's taken an argument (enthusiastic discussion ) for me to understand the questions.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> But so far @pdg has come the closest to telling me about doing application study, and that was simply that he took two moves in a form and used them in sparring. Not that he explored them further.



I was simplifying because that's what I thought you wanted. I've expanded further above...

But one little bit that I forgot about that I'll add now.

At every stage, each pattern, we'll do a partner drill with it - one person performs the pattern, the other person moves around them with a pad and sometimes a strike stick.

This way, the basic application of every move is demonstrated personally.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> No, you are wanting people to spoon feed you an answer that You think is correct.



I have to be honest - this is exactly what it's looked like to me too.



skribs said:


> Do you want answers that you think are incorrect?



I do.

If you simply think "that's wrong" and dismiss it, then yes it's useless.

But, if you approach it differently you can get a lot from an answer you think is wrong.

Look at why you think it's wrong, discuss it with yourself and others as to the reasons for it's wrongness. Discuss it with the person who said it, tell them why you think their answer is wrong and see how they defend their answer. Use your opinion to challenge theirs and let them do the same to you.


Years ago this was the foremost method of debate - posit disagreement and work to reach a conclusion. Sometimes both parties end up still thinking the other is wrong but it's made them both think about how and why they reached their own viewpoint.

Nowadays of course, with the snowflake revolution, it's a form of bullying to voice a disagreement or tell someone you think they're wrong because you might cause a booboo to their delicate feels - now all you're supposed to do is state your position and leave it.

There is no educational value in that.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> Ok, so a possible tier 1 from that spec for the knife hand block in question...
> 
> The lead hand is blocking* a punch or knife hand strike with a knife hand.
> 
> ...



This was my initial assumption 5 years ago when I first asked the question.  However, in analyzing all of the applications I was taught, I had an issue with the palm being up, because we never were taught any applications from that position.  A lot of people took exception with me asking questions about that particular detail...



pdg said:


> This is quite apt - it's taken an argument (enthusiastic discussion ) for me to understand the questions.



Think about this for a moment.  Seriously, think about it from my perspective.  This is what I go through trying to get answers, even to questions I didn't ask.  When people post something I don't understand, sometimes it's like pulling teeth trying to get the message they wanted me to hear.



pdg said:


> I was simplifying because that's what I thought you wanted. I've expanded further above...
> 
> But one little bit that I forgot about that I'll add now.
> 
> ...



I have to wonder how this works with some of the flashier moves in the more advanced forms.  Or do you simply not have those flashy moves?



pdg said:


> If you simply think "that's wrong" and dismiss it, then yes it's useless.
> 
> But, if you approach it differently you can get a lot from an answer you think is wrong.
> 
> ...



I believe this is what I am doing.  I provide my evidence, experience, and logic for the reasons I have my conclusions, and I ask others to do the same.  I try and provide different reasoning if what I provided at first was not sufficient to explain my position or convince the other person of my position.  When people give me their evidence, experience, and logic, I listen to it and respond to it.  It's just a lot of people give me a talking-down-to in place of that evidence.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> I have to wonder how this works with some of the flashier moves in the more advanced forms. Or do you simply not have those flashy moves?



Which flashy moves?

Obviously it doesn't work well with slow motion stuff (but for purpose those can be done 'normal' speed) and there are moves that are superficially intended as more of an intermediary step than a direct application thing, but there's not much I've seen that can't be applied with this.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> Which flashy moves?
> 
> Obviously it doesn't work well with slow motion stuff (but for purpose those can be done 'normal' speed) and there are moves that are superficially intended as more of an intermediary step than a direct application thing, but there's not much I've seen that can't be applied with this.



In the KKW forms, there are a lot of flashy techniques that look cool, but I couldn't see being used in a fight in the way they're presented in the forms.  The best 3 forms I can think of as an example for this are:

Taegeuk Chil Jang (#7)
Taegeuk Pal Jang (#8)
Keumgang
In Taegeuk 7, there are scissor blocks - down block with one hand, outside block with the other.  Now, I can find plenty of those Tier 2 applications for this criss-cross motion (such as setting up a Z-lock or pulling down the guard and doing a backfist), but the only Tier 1 application I can think of (direct application of the movement as a block) is that you are blocking a low strike on one side and a mid-level strike on the other.  _And also, I've yet to find videos or demonstrations of KKW practitioners doing this Tier 2 or Tier 3 analysis...although that book hasn't arrived yet._

In Taegeuk 8, there is a similar motion - a down block with one hand, and high block with the other.  As with the above, there are numerous Tier 2 and Tier 3 applications I can draw, including a stretching lock or a throw.  I can also see it similar to a sword guard position we recently learned in our sword forms.  But the most direct application of the block that I can see, is I have someone in front of me that is kicking me, and someone behind me or to my side that is striking my head, and i am blocking both techniques.  This Tier 1 application looks cool in demonstrations, but is much less practical than simply using footwork to keep both opponents in front of me so I can actually see them.

Kaumgang has a lot of these blocks.  The low/high block combo in crane stance (which makes it even more wonky), double outside-block (very easy grappling implications, but appears to be blocking attacks from both sides in the Tier 1 application), and a double low block to either side (which, I'll be honest, I haven't looked at as much and don't have much being the Tier 0 movement on this one).

This is why my search for answers has led me to "there's no Tier 1 application."
And why, at least in my opinion based on my research into these forms, the KKW curriculum does not account for the Tier 2 or Tier 3 applications, either.

_Maybe I should at least make the distinction that it's a KKW problem, and not a TKD problem.  But my research does lead me to believe that this is a problem endemic to KKW, and not just a local issue._


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> This was my initial assumption 5 years ago when I first asked the question. However, in analyzing all of the applications I was taught, I had an issue with the palm being up, because we never were taught any applications from that position. A lot of people took exception with me asking questions about that particular detail...



As I said, I see it as a simple mechanical placement issue when the guarding block is taken as a sole entity - it's just the best position to end up in given the route taken to get there rather than a directly applicable 'hand' in itself.



skribs said:


> Think about this for a moment. Seriously, think about it from my perspective. This is what I go through trying to get answers, even to questions I didn't ask. When people post something I don't understand, sometimes it's like pulling teeth trying to get the message they wanted me to hear.



Part of this is down to the way you've asked questions, and part is down to the tone of the initial responses you give.

Then another part (as brilliantly demonstrated by me) is that the other person just doesn't understand your context...



skribs said:


> I believe this is what I am doing. I provide my evidence, experience, and logic for the reasons I have my conclusions, and I ask others to do the same. I try and provide different reasoning if what I provided at first was not sufficient to explain my position or convince the other person of my position. When people give me their evidence, experience, and logic, I listen to it and respond to it. It's just a lot of people give me a talking-down-to in place of that evidence



Sometimes the talking down to you is because, given your rank, it's something that you 'should' know or 'should' be able to figure out yourself without asking.

And again, the implied tone of your responses - this is something difficult to convey in this format - face to face you'd be far less likely to come up against these issues (same for above too, face to face it's easier to ask a question and discuss an answer).

Of course, some of the talking down will be a shield based on a person not actually knowing why they believe what they believe - they formed (or got told) an opinion and take offence when it gets challenged. Unfortunately, there's no fix for that...


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> In the KKW forms, there are a lot of flashy techniques that look cool, but I couldn't see being used in a fight in the way they're presented in the forms.  The best 3 forms I can think of as an example for this are:
> 
> Taegeuk Chil Jang (#7)
> Taegeuk Pal Jang (#8)
> ...



I'll have to look at those if I can find video and if I can draw a parallel I'll get back to you at some point.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> In Taegeuk 7, there are scissor blocks - down block with one hand, outside block with the other. Now, I can find plenty of those Tier 2 applications for this criss-cross motion (such as setting up a Z-lock or pulling down the guard and doing a backfist), but the only Tier 1 application I can think of (direct application of the movement as a block) is that you are blocking a low strike on one side and a mid-level strike on the other.



Moves 13-16(ish)?


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> Moves 13-16(ish)?



Yeah, the last part that's going forward.  

(Luckily, the Taegeuks and Yudanja are standardized enough that if you find a video of it, you found the video of it).


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> In Taegeuk 8, there is a similar motion - a down block with one hand, and high block with the other.



Moves 8+10(ish)?


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> Part of this is down to the way you've asked questions, and part is down to the tone of the initial responses you give.
> 
> Then another part (as brilliantly demonstrated by me) is that the other person just doesn't understand your context...



Then my tone may be being misinterpreted.  Maybe I need a color chart or something.

What you said is interesting and I would like to know more about your thoughts on the subject.
What you said is interesting and it differs from my experience.  Let's compare notes.
What you said is interesting, but not pertinent to what I asked.
I don't think I agree with what you said.  Let me make sure I understand you before we argue.
In my experience, you're simply wrong.  Please provide evidence to back up your point.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> Moves 8+10(ish)?



Yeah.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

@pdg and for Keumgang, it's basically the whole darn form.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

The following are based on similar moves in patterns I have done...

'Scissor' blocks in chil jang - ostensibly a trap or break to an incoming punch or side kick (or possibly against a stick thrust. They are one block, not two.

The moves in pal jang - those carry the description of a rearward backfist combined with a front low block. These are one of the 'two opponent' scenarios...


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> @pdg and for Keumgang, it's basically the whole darn form.



That one would need more time 

If the mood strikes me I may put something basic together and pm it to you...


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> The following are based on similar moves in patterns I have done...
> 
> 'Scissor' blocks in chil jang - ostensibly a trap or break to an incoming punch or side kick (or possibly against a stick thrust. They are one block, not two.
> 
> The moves in pal jang - those carry the description of a rearward backfist combined with a front low block. These are one of the 'two opponent' scenarios...



In this case, I'd consider the scissor block application you provided a Tier 2 application.  Then again, it's kind of hard to tell because it's never been explained beyond the basic mechanics.

This is a motion I learned in a different set of forms (Palgwes) where we describe it there as two blocks.  In either case, maybe the problem isn't that a Tier 1 application doesn't exist, but the problem is that the Tier 1 application is woefully inefficient compared to other simpler options.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> In this case, I'd consider the scissor block application you provided a Tier 2 application.  Then again, it's kind of hard to tell because it's never been explained beyond the basic mechanics.
> 
> This is a motion I learned in a different set of forms (Palgwes) where we describe it there as two blocks.  In either case, maybe the problem isn't that a Tier 1 application doesn't exist, but the problem is that the Tier 1 application is woefully inefficient compared to other simpler options.



See, I'd consider that trap/break motion as the simplest application and therefore tier 1.

That was from memory though - I can check the actual pattern description where that block features at some point and see what it actually says?

It's possible that it states two blocks, but I can't remember off the top of my head...



Are these sort of basic simple applications not described when you're initially taught the form?


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> See, I'd consider that trap/break motion as the simplest application and therefore tier 1.
> 
> That was from memory though - I can check the actual pattern description where that block features at some point and see what it actually says?
> 
> ...



We're told to do a scissor block and shown what the move looks like.  Then we're told how to properly chamber it, where are hands should be (i.e. the inside block too short or too long) and other details are corrected.

There is 0 application training *that is derived from the forms*. This has been my experience at multiple schools.  This has been my experience when I look up instructional videos on the forms provided by various masters (not just one).  This has been my experience when watching the forms be critiqued.  "Scissor block" is the most description we get of the technique.

This isn't to say we don't learn application and we don't drill techniques on a partner.  We do.  They just don't come from the forms.  The training is very compartmentalized in that way.

It's as if the forms are Language Arts, the sparring is Science, and our application drills are Math.  We'll learn a form that has a scissor block, learn an application drill that features a knife-hand block and a sweep (among other things), and then spar with kicks.  My understanding is that most KKW schools (or at least the stereotypical KKW school) does this or even less - many don't even have the application training at all.

I put all of this in there so it's understood that parroting the form isn't the *only* training we do.  But it is the only *form-related* training we do.  I do learn a lot at my dojang, it's just hard to connect the forms to what we actually use.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2019)

Where the hell is the OP?  Does he think can just drop a grenade here and then walk away?? 

@Bill Mattocks


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Where the hell is the OP?  Does he think can just drop a grenade here and then walk away??
> 
> @Bill Mattocks



I asked him to drop the grenade.  He merely pulled the pin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Where the hell is the OP?  Does he think can just drop a grenade here and then walk away??
> 
> @Bill Mattocks


He did say in another thread he probably wouldn’t stay on the thread after his OP.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I respect people for whom kata is the primary purpose of karate training.  Karate can be different things to different people, and that is absolutely one legitimate approach to the practice.  And it sounds like the original poster finds this approach rewarding and of great value in his life.  More power to him, and he should never feel the need to apologize for that.
> 
> Where I disagree is the implication that this is the only true meaning of karate, or that people who approach karate differently are missing the point.  I've trained at one dojo which at the end of the day was all about kata in the sort of way you describe, and ultimately it wasn't the approach to karate I personally found most fulfilling.
> 
> ...



I did not say anything about all karate.  I did mention specifically karatedo, which I believe is a specific way of pointing out the 'way' of karate, as opposed to the jutsu of karate.  Both are respected, both are valuable.  I tend to prefer the do over the jutsu.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I am a big advocate of the benefit of forms training.  However, that assumes, among other things, that the forms are well designed and are properly understood to gain the fighting applications from them.
> 
> I believe that not all forms are well designed, and not everyone understands them properly to get martial benefit from them.  In some cases, forms practice is not martially beneficial.  They may still have other benefits such as memorization, cardio conditioning, etc.
> 
> ...



I believe you are correct.  I have met and trained with people who do kata and cannot explain what some of the moves in them are intended to do, nor can they demonstrate them if they can explain them.  This is not, I believe, their fault.  Rather, they have been cheated.  And there isn't one culprit here.  Drift happens.  Technique is not always correctly transmitted.  Karate becomes what some call 'surface karate'.  There is some application, but no deep inspection of the techniques being employed.

I believe that I am quite fortunate to train where I do.  I lucked into it; I could have ended up somewhere else, and I honestly do not believe I would have been exposed to the level of training I am so fortunate to have found.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> He did say in another thread he probably wouldn’t stay on the thread after his OP.



I'm doing what I can.  But I never intended to try to persuade anyone that I have the truth or anything like it.  Just my opinion, which I've stated.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That all makes great sense, Bill. Here's my question: cannot all of that be true of a Karate system that doesn't use kata? Can't they have exactly the same range of technique, breathing, balance, exploration, and learning? Can't they have the same lifestyle approach to the art?



I don't know, as it is outside of my experience.  That is, I've never experienced training that had a holistic (to misuse the term slightly) approach to karate and did not practice kata.

I find it difficult to conceptualize, that's for sure.  I am imagining a simple kata, which over time and study reveals deeper meaning and a myriad of techniques.  Then, a set of techniques taught that implement all of the things that one simple kata offers, without missing any.  As I am still finding deeper meaning in even the most basic of our kata, and don't expect the well to run dry any time soon (or ever), I'm not sure how those could all be extracted and codified, let alone taught in a cogent manner.

Let's say a given kata can yield 100 applications.  So let's say someone has juiced that particular orange, and distilled it down to 100 sets of instructions and application.  Now they have to teach it, and at the appropriate time and level of understanding, and that's just assuming that 100 was all that was there to be found.  I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.



> I've come to like kata over the last few years (never had much opinion on it in the past), so I'm not suggesting it is a bad thing. I think it works quite well for a lot of people. I just don't think it defines what is and is not Karate. The result, to me, is what defines that.



I don't know what the result is.  I don't know a result anymore.  Karate is, there is no end that I can see or am aware of, short of the grave.  I'm not trying to woo-woo or mystical here.  I just don't think of karate as a thing anymore; it's a way, a path, a method of living and of seeing the world, and such a tiny part of it is about hitting people (although I do enjoy that too).



> Now, some of that depends on how we define terms, and that might be all the difference you and I have on this issue. I'll take it away from Karate to avoid any personal ties to an approach. If someone told me they taught Judo with wrestling takedowns that aren't allowed in the sport (and, thus, aren't part of the formal Judo curriculum), I'd still consider it all Judo. If someone taught Tae Kwon Do using the original Shotokan kata, either of the more recent TKD kata sets, or no kata at all, I'd still consider it TKD. But if we defined "Judo" as "the formal set of techniques from the Kodokan, plus their applications and defenses", then the first person is teaching Judo and some other stuff. If we defined TKD as "the Korean art derived largely from Karate and taught using kata", then when the kata are removed it's no longer TKD. So it may be just semantics.



I can accept that.  I'll have to return again to my thoughts on karatedo and not karatejutsu.  There is nothing about tea making that requires a lifetime devotion to the preparation, but there is a lifetime devotion to the art of making tea that does.  Anyone can plunk a tea bag in hot water and I'll bet it even tastes good.  'Sado' is about so much more than tea, but yes, you can also make some lovely tea along the way.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> He did say in another thread he probably wouldn’t stay on the thread after his OP.


Yup, I read it too.  I just felt like poking him.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2019)

There was a wing Chun guy who wanted to learn Tibetan White Crane, so my Sifu let him come to class, which he did for a while.  But when he was there, he would try to talk to me about wing Chun, and try to talk me into going to his wing Chun school.  

Guy couldn’t focus.  Whatever he was doing, he was thinking about doing something else.  That is crap training.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Then my tone may be being misinterpreted.  Maybe I need a color chart or something.
> 
> What you said is interesting and I would like to know more about your thoughts on the subject.
> What you said is interesting and it differs from my experience.  Let's compare notes.
> ...


You just can't bring yourself to say it can you? Dude, your tone is WRONG for the majority of people. It is most often offensive, confusing, and sometimes abusive. You just don't seem to want to hear and think "hey all these people are saying the same things. Maybe they are right". Come man. You are better than that.
I get that you don't know me. The psych profile report of me when I was in LE said I was brutally honest. The brutally part is a little strong (I have simmered over the years) but It is a perfect description for my engineering mindset and very busy life. I don't have time for and disdain wasteful bs and circular discussions, which is where you strive to take yours. It is just tiresome. Per your suggestions I am putting you on ignore.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You just can't bring yourself to say it can you? Dude, your tone is WRONG for the majority of people. It is most often offensive, confusing, and sometimes abusive. You just don't seem to want to hear and think "hey all these people are saying the same things. Maybe they are right". Come man. You are better than that.
> I get that you don't know me. The psych profile report of me when I was in LE said I was brutally honest. The brutally part is a little strong (I have simmered over the years) but It is a perfect description for my engineering mindset and very busy life. I don't have time for and disdain wasteful bs and circular discussions, which is where you strive to take yours. It is just tiresome. Per your suggestions I am putting you on ignore.



You're judging me on my tone, based on text?  Text is a medium that can't translate tone very well.  It's like judging someone's looks based on hearing them on the radio.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe you are correct. I have met and trained with people who do kata and cannot explain what some of the moves in them are intended to do, nor can they demonstrate them if they can explain them. This is not, I believe, their fault. Rather, they have been cheated. And there isn't one culprit here. Drift happens. Technique is not always correctly transmitted. Karate becomes what some call 'surface karate'. There is some application, but no deep inspection of the techniques being employed.



That's what I think has happened to the Taekwondo poomsae.  It's like the telephone game, where it starts off with "John built a house on the Lake" and by the time it gets to the end it's "James bought hives of lotion."


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm doing what I can.  But I never intended to try to persuade anyone that I have the truth or anything like it.  Just my opinion, which I've stated.



To be clear: your opinion has value.  If some people don't like it, too bad for them.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 21, 2019)

Skribs:

Do you follow the channel practicalkatabunkai on YouTube, Iain Abernethy's channel? If you're interested in forms application, he's as good as it gets. Even if he doesn't break down WT Poomsae specifically, I'll bet you'll recognize some sequences and get ideas for alternative, more infighting-oriented applications. A sample:

The kata Kururunfa as normally performed:






His interpretation of that palms together / cat stance / knife hand block opening sequence:


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Skribs:
> 
> Do you follow the channel practicalkatabunkai on YouTube, Iain Abernethy's channel? If you're interested in forms application, he's as good as it gets. Even if he doesn't break down WT Poomsae specifically, I'll bet you'll recognize some sequences and get ideas for alternative, more infighting-oriented applications. A sample:
> 
> ...



I'll check it out when I get a chance (if not this weekend, then Monday when I catch a break at work).  The only Karate guy on my list at the moment is Jesse Enkamp, the "karate nerd".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know, as it is outside of my experience.  That is, I've never experienced training that had a holistic (to misuse the term slightly) approach to karate and did not practice kata.
> 
> I find it difficult to conceptualize, that's for sure.  I am imagining a simple kata, which over time and study reveals deeper meaning and a myriad of techniques.  Then, a set of techniques taught that implement all of the things that one simple kata offers, without missing any.  As I am still finding deeper meaning in even the most basic of our kata, and don't expect the well to run dry any time soon (or ever), I'm not sure how those could all be extracted and codified, let alone taught in a cogent manner.
> 
> Let's say a given kata can yield 100 applications.  So let's say someone has juiced that particular orange, and distilled it down to 100 sets of instructions and application.  Now they have to teach it, and at the appropriate time and level of understanding, and that's just assuming that 100 was all that was there to be found.  I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.


My experience is that you can do much the same (slightly different process, but same journey) with a core of techniques. The techniques lead to the principles, which lead back to reexamination of the techniques for more application, variations on the technique, then other uses of the principles (including other techniques). The difference, I think, is one of what we use as the focus for the exploration. Kata works for that, and I think core techniques can, too - serving in a similar capacity. I still go back to some of the techniques I know and find new uses for the control principles, for instance.



> I don't know what the result is.  I don't know a result anymore.  Karate is, there is no end that I can see or am aware of, short of the grave.  I'm not trying to woo-woo or mystical here.  I just don't think of karate as a thing anymore; it's a way, a path, a method of living and of seeing the world, and such a tiny part of it is about hitting people (although I do enjoy that too).


The result isn't the end point - just the ongoing outcome of the approach. The way, path, and method of living is, to me, the result of the approach.



> I can accept that.  I'll have to return again to my thoughts on karatedo and not karatejutsu.  There is nothing about tea making that requires a lifetime devotion to the preparation, but there is a lifetime devotion to the art of making tea that does.  Anyone can plunk a tea bag in hot water and I'll bet it even tastes good.  'Sado' is about so much more than tea, but yes, you can also make some lovely tea along the way.


I have a hard time working with that distinction, because I see a lot of "do" in "justsu" systems. Whether it was there originally or not, I cannot say. But there are certainly modern practitioners who make a lifestyle out of the self-cultivation in their art.


----------



## pdg (Sep 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> We're told to do a scissor block and shown what the move looks like.  Then we're told how to properly chamber it, where are hands should be (i.e. the inside block too short or too long) and other details are corrected.
> 
> There is 0 application training *that is derived from the forms*. This has been my experience at multiple schools.  This has been my experience when I look up instructional videos on the forms provided by various masters (not just one).  This has been my experience when watching the forms be critiqued.  "Scissor block" is the most description we get of the technique.
> 
> ...



Well, we have some application drills as I said - the scripted step sparring intentionally uses moves from the patterns and are introduced at roughly the same intervals.

As far as I've seen, the various types of 1 step don't have choreographed moves - the instruction is "use any attack or defence from the patterns up to your grade".

So you have the attacker choose any attack (hand or foot technique) from the patterns, but not tell the defender.

The defender then responds with any defence from the patterns, and also counter from the same pool.

This is supposed to be done at full speed so as to reinforce what you've learned from all those patterns, and you're not restricted to the single "book application" - want to use a rising block against a downward (axe) kick, go ahead and make it work 


Oh, and last night - we did a bit of 1 step and I made use of a scissor block


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2019)

pdg said:


> Well, we have some application drills as I said - the scripted step sparring intentionally uses moves from the patterns and are introduced at roughly the same intervals.
> 
> As far as I've seen, the various types of 1 step don't have choreographed moves - the instruction is "use any attack or defence from the patterns up to your grade".
> 
> ...



How did you use it?


----------



## pdg (Sep 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> How did you use it?



Trapping a fingertip thrust.

There are two versions of the block - one is with the downward hand closest to you which lifts the elbow (break) and the other has the downward hand furthest away to fold the elbow and trap. I used the latter...


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2019)

pdg said:


> Trapping a fingertip thrust.
> 
> There are two versions of the block - one is with the downward hand closest to you which lifts the elbow (break) and the other has the downward hand furthest away to fold the elbow and trap. I used the latter...



We teach both of those techniques (more focus on the fold than the upward lock).  There is absolutely no connection drawn in class that it is a scissors block.  When we do that application, we're told to high block and then hook the elbow.  It wasn't until this week I realized that connection.  This is why I would consider it a T2 application.

And that's the thing - sometimes the applications are taught, but in such a compartmentalized fashion that you don't realize what's being taught until you start to play connect-the-dots.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Taeguek Cipher is a very good read. I am not familiar with the other book.



TKD is Karate's redheaded stepchild. We cannot be sure which happened first, 1. Karate disowned it, or 2.TKD filled for emancipation, and told karate..."you dead to me, old man".


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> In this case, I'd consider the scissor block application you provided a Tier 2 application.  Then again, it's kind of hard to tell because it's never been explained beyond the basic mechanics.
> 
> This is a motion I learned in a different set of forms (Palgwes) where we describe it there as two blocks.  In either case, maybe the problem isn't that a Tier 1 application doesn't exist, but the problem is that the Tier 1 application is woefully inefficient compared to other simpler options.


Hmm, Scissors blocks. Classic Korean/TKD history. I was taught/told by multiple high ranking (Masters)instructors they were originally used as a technique to remove a weapon from an attackers hands, usually a short to medium length weapon. Similar to the more modern (and very risky) gun disarm but more of a vertical motion. 
Would I use it? Unlikely but I do see it as a viable tool if I was mid-range to an attacker. I do Not think it is going to break someone's wrist on a reliable basis. I could happen if a wrist was caught just right but from my understanding that was never the intent.
It is one of those techniques from an era where attacks and weapons were more predictable and usually had more of a life and death intent. People were much more versed in the counters they needed for the attacks/weapons they faced. Very, very different for most of the world today. 
FWIW, I see many people do it as just a "regular" outside block and down block. We teach that the crossing arms/hands meet fist to elbow, fist to elbow in or near a horizontal plan where one fist is on the inside and one is on the outside. This is the disarming motion.


----------



## skribs (Sep 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Hmm, Scissors blocks. Classic Korean/TKD history. I was taught/told by multiple high ranking (Masters)instructors they were originally used as a technique to remove a weapon from an attackers hands, usually a short to medium length weapon. Similar to the more modern (and very risky) gun disarm but more of a vertical motion.
> Would I use it? Unlikely but I do see it as a viable tool if I was mid-range to an attacker. I do Not think it is going to break someone's wrist on a reliable basis. I could happen if a wrist was caught just right but from my understanding that was never the intent.
> It is one of those techniques from an era where attacks and weapons were more predictable and usually had more of a life and death intent. People were much more versed in the counters they needed for the attacks/weapons they faced. Very, very different for most of the world today.
> FWIW, I see many people do it as just a "regular" outside block and down block. We teach that the crossing arms/hands meet fist to elbow, fist to elbow in or near a horizontal plan where one fist is on the inside and one is on the outside. This is the disarming motion.



I'm starting to picture how it would be used.  I think for the application you describe, I would actually do a more exaggerated motion than we use in our form (which is ironic, usually it's the other way around).

We start chambered with our arms crossing our body.  The hand doing a down block is held in the hinge position at shoulder level, the other hand in low hinge position at belly level.  The fists are lined up under or over the elbows.  If I were to use this on a punch or a strike of some sort, I'd likely start with the hand that will be doing the down block further outside, so I can push the punch off-center before doing the scissors motion.

I hadn't thought of the technique as catching the punch between the arms (which maybe I should have, given the name).  I've always thought the technique as blocking either side, to protect your leg and hips with the down block, and your ribs with the outside block.  I think part of this is the way it's taught.  We always look at both blocks independently based on their ending position (the down block should be just over your knee, the outside block should be bent 90 degrees into a bowl shape) and we don't look too much at the crossing part.

And again, the part that baffles me is that we *do *train that application of folding the arm.  We also teach that application with scissor sweeps.  But for some reason we teach the scissor block as 2 separate blocks and don't dive any deeper than that.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 21, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did not say anything about all karate.  I did mention specifically karatedo, which I believe is a specific way of pointing out the 'way' of karate, as opposed to the jutsu of karate.  Both are respected, both are valuable.  I tend to prefer the do over the jutsu.



I know the do/jutsu distinction, but I think it's a mistake to say that karate that emphasizes kumite over kata is always -jutsu, and to be -do, kata needs to be the primary focus.

If your primary focus is simply getting better at real world fighting--like a law enforcement defensive tactics class--then it's -jutsu. If it's a hobby where you're engaged in self-improvement (mental and physical) through self-imposed challenges and athletics, then I would call that -do, not -jutsu.  Whether it's kata-oriented karate, kumite-oriented karate, grappling, archery, whatever. Kyokushin, judo, kyudo...these can all be -do arts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I know the do/jutsu distinction, but I think it's a mistake to say that karate that emphasizes kumite over kata is always -jutsu, and to be -do, kata needs to be the primary focus.



I don't recall making that distinction.



> If your primary focus is simply getting better at real world fighting--like a law enforcement defensive tactics class--then it's -jutsu. If it's a hobby where you're engaged in self-improvement (mental and physical) through self-imposed challenges and athletics, then I would call that -do, not -jutsu.  Whether it's kata-oriented karate, kumite-oriented karate, grappling, archery, whatever. Kyokushin, judo, kyudo...these can all be -do arts.



I don't think 'hobby' is the word I would use.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 21, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't recall making that distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think 'hobby' is the word I would use.



I'm not using "hobby" as a negative judgment, but as a distinction from the purely utilitarian training of law enforcement, bouncers, professional prizefighters, etc.

"A hobby is a regular activity done for enjoyment, typically during one's leisure time, not professionally and not for pay."

Hobby - Wikipedia

Something can be a lifetime passion, but if you're training because you find the training fulfilling instead of because you're a cop or a bouncer or the like, I'd call it a hobby.

And if that's the case, I'd say you're doing karate-do. Whether bunkai analysis of kata is central to your art, or whether your karate is kumite-oriented with a bit of performance-oriented kata on the side.


----------



## skribs (Sep 22, 2019)

@dvcochran @punisher73 @pdg 

I got the Taegeuk cipher and I'm looking through it now.  I've glanced through it a little bit.  There's a couple of points I've noticed:

While he does try and stay true to the forms, there are small deviations from the form to make the techniques work.  Where I have criticized others in the past of doing something completely different (i.e. a block and punch combo becomes an armlock, take-down, and choke-hold), his seems to utilize the movements in the forms as best he can.  Still, there are subtle changes.  I've only really looked through the first three sequences of Taegeuk #1 so far, and he's throwing in a turn here, a hip thrust there, changing the type of strike used to accommodate the application he wants to teach.  Or, in the example we were struggling with in Taegeuk #8, he drops his knee and does a Fireman's Carry, which is a completely different motion from the block used in Taegeuk #8 (the right arm would go out, and then up, instead of going up and then out).
He freely admits in the Introduction what I have been saying here.  "Secondly, although Taekwondo was never taught in the way it is shown in this book outside a very small, closed community (and certainly not to the general public), the distillation of the original self-defense methods are preserved within the patterns and their various components are to be found throughout the post-war Korean military combatives methods and the _hoshinsul_ of civilian Taekwondo.  This book simply details the connection between the patterns and these practices, and provides a tool by which they may be understood within their context.
Basically, in all of his research, he came to the same conclusion I have - that the KKW curriculum that is being disseminated does not include the application for the moves being taught.  And in his recreation of the techniques, he has to de-stylize it to come up with the actual correct technique.  

It's still an interesting book, and I'll have to go through it and see what's in there.  I also plan to go through each of the self defense applications presented with my study group and see if we can recreate them.  It's kind of hard to tell on some of them with how grainy the pictures are.  

Punisher, thanks for the recommendation.  My martial arts library is young, and this will be a good addition to it.


----------



## pdg (Sep 22, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Hmm, Scissors blocks. Classic Korean/TKD history. I was taught/told by multiple high ranking (Masters)instructors they were originally used as a technique to remove a weapon from an attackers hands, usually a short to medium length weapon. Similar to the more modern (and very risky) gun disarm but more of a vertical motion.
> Would I use it? Unlikely but I do see it as a viable tool if I was mid-range to an attacker. I do Not think it is going to break someone's wrist on a reliable basis. I could happen if a wrist was caught just right but from my understanding that was never the intent.
> It is one of those techniques from an era where attacks and weapons were more predictable and usually had more of a life and death intent. People were much more versed in the counters they needed for the attacks/weapons they faced. Very, very different for most of the world today.
> FWIW, I see many people do it as just a "regular" outside block and down block. We teach that the crossing arms/hands meet fist to elbow, fist to elbow in or near a horizontal plan where one fist is on the inside and one is on the outside. This is the disarming motion.



If that's the 'real' intention of that block then I must have independently changed it (not saying I'm the first, just that the way I interpret and apply hasn't been shown to me).

The basic explanation is two separate blocks - or in at least a few cases as a high inner forearm block with the reaction hand extending downward. (I did look it up in a couple of places...)

In use, I'm going to be aiming for the attackers wrist and elbow.

Not to break the wrist, but to take advantage of the greater leverage available by targeting the elbow itself.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 22, 2019)

pdg said:


> If that's the 'real' intention of that block then I must have independently changed it (not saying I'm the first, just that the way I interpret and apply hasn't been shown to me).
> 
> The basic explanation is two separate blocks - or in at least a few cases as a high inner forearm block with the reaction hand extending downward. (I did look it up in a couple of places...)
> 
> ...


It is an explanation I have been told many times. I am not a strong historian so I cannot really speculate on whether it is 100% factual. 
So if I understand correctly, if you were to trap the wrist the inner block would bend it down?


----------



## pdg (Sep 22, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is an explanation I have been told many times. I am not a strong historian so I cannot really speculate on whether it is 100% factual.
> So if I understand correctly, if you were to trap the wrist the inner block would bend it down?



What I meant by aiming for wrist and elbow is that I'd be aiming for both.

Inner aiming for wrist, outer aiming for elbow, ish.

If the inner is downward it's going to try bending the elbow the wrong way (assuming a natural position).

If the inner is upward it's going to fold and trap the arm.


Having them very close together to specifically target the wrist alone just doesn't make as much sense to me with my ability and speed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 22, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I'm not using "hobby" as a negative judgment, but as a distinction from the purely utilitarian training of law enforcement, bouncers, professional prizefighters, etc.
> 
> "A hobby is a regular activity done for enjoyment, typically during one's leisure time, not professionally and not for pay."
> 
> ...



I don't mean to quibble, but I still don't think the word 'hobby' applies.  I have hobbies.  I collect vintage cameras.  I repair and build vacuum tube amplifiers.  I repair and ride vintage motorcycles.  Those are hobbies.  Karatedo is something more to me.  It informs every aspect of my life.  Repairing a radio is fun, but it doesn't teach me how to think about life or about people or how to critically examine my decisions in life.  Karatedo is something I am, not just something I do.  Being on the path is not a religion, but it's a lot closer to that than it is a hobby - for me.


----------



## skribs (Sep 22, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is an explanation I have been told many times. I am not a strong historian so I cannot really speculate on whether it is 100% factual.
> So if I understand correctly, if you were to trap the wrist the inner block would bend it down?





pdg said:


> What I meant by aiming for wrist and elbow is that I'd be aiming for both.
> 
> Inner aiming for wrist, outer aiming for elbow, ish.
> 
> ...


ere to trap the wrist the inner block would bend it down?[/QUOTE]

I think everyone is taught different applications as the default for many of these moves.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 22, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't mean to quibble, but I still don't think the word 'hobby' applies.  I have hobbies.  I collect vintage cameras.  I repair and build vacuum tube amplifiers.  I repair and ride vintage motorcycles.  Those are hobbies.  Karatedo is something more to me.  It informs every aspect of my life.  Repairing a radio is fun, but it doesn't teach me how to think about life or about people or how to critically examine my decisions in life.  Karatedo is something I am, not just something I do.  Being on the path is not a religion, but it's a lot closer to that than it is a hobby - for me.


I think you're reacting to the dismissive connotation that "hobby" has in our culture, i.e. "it's _just_ a hobby." The unstated implication is that an activity not related to earning a living is something lesser, trivial, or frivolous. I don't think that's a problem with the word so much as it is with our culture.

I'll freely admit to being a martial arts "hobbyist" in that I am an amateur*. I don't do it for a living. I don't train with the intensity or duration that I would if I was making a living as a fighter or full-time instructor. 

*(In the original meaning of the word.)

That said, I have been training martial arts for 38 years, currently averaging 8-12 hours of mat time and several hours of independent study time per week. Martial arts has informed my growth as a person, my outlook on the world, and my approach to living in general over the last 4 decades of my life. "Martial artist" is a core part of my identity. Is it a "hobby"? Sure, but one that's central to my life.

Perhaps we could use new vocabulary to distinguish between "hobby that's a casual entertainment" and "hobby that's an important element of our lives and our identity", but until we get those new words, I'm not going to worry too much about the exact terminology someone uses to describe what I do.


----------



## Headhunter (Sep 22, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't mean to quibble, but I still don't think the word 'hobby' applies.  I have hobbies.  I collect vintage cameras.  I repair and build vacuum tube amplifiers.  I repair and ride vintage motorcycles.  Those are hobbies.  Karatedo is something more to me.  It informs every aspect of my life.  Repairing a radio is fun, but it doesn't teach me how to think about life or about people or how to critically examine my decisions in life.  Karatedo is something I am, not just something I do.  Being on the path is not a religion, but it's a lot closer to that than it is a hobby - for me.


Do you make money from it? If the answer is no then it's a hobby


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 22, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't mean to quibble, but I still don't think the word 'hobby' applies.  I have hobbies.  I collect vintage cameras.  I repair and build vacuum tube amplifiers.  I repair and ride vintage motorcycles.  Those are hobbies.  Karatedo is something more to me.  It informs every aspect of my life.  Repairing a radio is fun, but it doesn't teach me how to think about life or about people or how to critically examine my decisions in life.  Karatedo is something I am, not just something I do.  Being on the path is not a religion, but it's a lot closer to that than it is a hobby - for me.



I must wholeheartedly agree.
This isn't a hobby. The better term is "lifestyle".

It is a way of living life. A hobby is done for fun and entertainment.
That is not why karate was developed and released to the public by Anko Itosu.

Karate is primarily a means of improving the quality of life. It helps to recover poor health, regulate mood and emotions. develop focus and self-discipline. And also develope perseverance and fortitude in the face of challenge difficulty.

In fact, karate is very often the opposite of fun and entertaining.

It is much related to the  very old idea of praxis.
*Definition of praxis*


1: ACTION, PRACTICE: such as
a: exercise or practice of an art, science, or skill
b: customary practice or conduct
2: practical application of a theory


----------



## geezer (Sep 22, 2019)

Ironically find myself in agreement with _Tony, Mitlov_ and _Bill_ ...in spite of their seemingly different perspectives_._ On one hand _Mitlov_ has a point and the common word "hobby"_ may_ describe my personal passion for the martial arts, since it is _not_ my profession and, although I do teach to a small group, it is _not_ how I make a living. 

However, in our materially oriented culture, the term "hobby", like the related term "amateur", often has a trivializing if not outright pejorative connotation ...at least in common usage. Anything not done full-time and for financial gain is typically seen as lacking seriousness and being mere recreation.

As _Mitlov_ pointed out, in some circles (see the Wikipedia link), the word hobby is equated with a new concept, that of a "serious leisure perspective" according to which a hobby may be regarded as a serious, passionate pursuit that, although not pursued for profit or livelihood, is nonetheless  an indispensable part of who we are and what we find meaningful in life.

Regardless, I find this specialized definition of the word "hobby" unhelpful since the word is not used or understood this way in general usage. It reminds me of my early college days studying anthropology and religious studies. In those disciplines the word "myth" was used to describe ways in which humans create frameworks to express their search for transcendent truths. Or something like that. So _in that academic context _it was entirely appropriate and not disrespectful to refer to aspects of the "Christian myth", etc. However, as that is not the way the word myth is generally used today, I would _not_ recommend approaching devoutly religious people and telling them how much you respect their particular _myth! 
_
So,  I would say to _Mitlov_, that _Bill_ is quite correct. The word hobby is inadequate here, and I would agree with _Tony_, that we need to find another word or phrase to describe what we do. I just don't know what that would be.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 22, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you're reacting to the dismissive connotation that "hobby" has in our culture, i.e. "it's _just_ a hobby." The unstated implication is that an activity not related to earning a living is something lesser, trivial, or frivolous. I don't think that's a problem with the word so much as it is with our culture.
> 
> I'll freely admit to being a martial arts "hobbyist" in that I am an amateur*. I don't do it for a living. I don't train with the intensity or duration that I would if I was making a living as a fighter or full-time instructor.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you say Tony.
I feel we already have an alternate word for things beyond a hobby; passion. I am guessing but I think we are both passionate about MA (and other things I am certain). Sometimes it keeps me up at night and I have committed crazy long hours, pain and loss for my MA passion. I have not made money directly from my MA competition but I never saw that venture as a hobby since I had way too much in it. 
I love boats and Jeeps but I don't think I can say the same about them (maybe the money part). They are in the hobby category for me.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 22, 2019)

From now on I'll say "passion" instead of "hobby" if it makes folks happy.  What I wanted to get back to , though, is this post. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I did not say anything about all karate.  I did mention specifically karatedo, which I believe is a specific way of pointing out the 'way' of karate, as opposed to the jutsu of karate.  Both are respected, both are valuable.  I tend to prefer the do over the jutsu.



This was in response to me saying that some karate was kata-centric but that some was kumite-centric. If your point was not that karate has to be kata-centric to be "karate-do," what instead was your point? Because that's what I got from this, but clearly I missed your intent.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 22, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> From now on I'll say "passion" instead of "hobby" if it makes folks happy.  What I wanted to get back to , though, is this post.
> 
> 
> 
> This was in response to me saying that some karate was kata-centric but that some was kumite-centric. If your point was not that karate has to be kata-centric to be "karate-do," what instead was your point? Because that's what I got from this, but clearly I missed your intent.



To me.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 22, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> From now on I'll say "passion" instead of "hobby" if it makes folks happy.  What I wanted to get back to , though, is this post.
> 
> 
> 
> This was in response to me saying that some karate was kata-centric but that some was kumite-centric. If your point was not that karate has to be kata-centric to be "karate-do," what instead was your point? Because that's what I got from this, but clearly I missed your intent.



kata the bedrock.
it gives rise to the other two.
kihon and kumite are derived from kata.
but all three together form the core of karate.
and i would agree with the old masters about makiwara, as being essential too.

If i ever have a headstone, this is what i want on it.

If your jissen or kumite is weak, go back and reunderstand your kata.

If your solo kata is lacking in spots... pull it out and work on it as kihon sequences.

if your kihon is poor, relearn how it is used within kata, and drill it until it is smooth and powerful.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I'm not using "hobby" as a negative judgment, but as a distinction from the purely utilitarian training of law enforcement, bouncers, professional prizefighters, etc.
> 
> "A hobby is a regular activity done for enjoyment, typically during one's leisure time, not professionally and not for pay."
> 
> ...



I believe that there is a word for what Bill is talking about, "Budo".  The Martial Way.  It becomes a lifestyle that permeates your being through the study of martial arts.  Budo is not always fun and is not always done for enjoyment.  I have never met a "hobbyist" who practiced their hobby when they didn't enjoy it or want to do it.  That is the point of a hobby, to relax and enjoy the activity.  A martial artist pursuing budo will push themselves and make it uncomfortable and do it even when its not easy or enjoyable because of that pursuit (budo).


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> @dvcochran @punisher73 @pdg
> 
> I got the Taegeuk cipher and I'm looking through it now.  I've glanced through it a little bit.  There's a couple of points I've noticed:
> 
> ...



The main website seems to be down for Mr. Goodin's blog, but here is a link to an article on Scribd. The Why of Bunkai: A Guide For Beginners

The article is VERY good at understanding how karate started to change in its approach to bunkai with the use of labels.  Originally, a student would have learned the motions of the kata and its various uses.  Not all of the motions in the kata are blocks, but when you put labels on the motion, it then locks that motion into place, so to speak.  Then you have all of the "tier one" applications that were not intended as a simple block/punch technique and get VERY disfunctional applications based on the tier 1 idea.  For example, you are doing to separate blocks to two different attackers in multiple directions.

Now we further the "telephone" game with karate's transmission.  Funakoshi admits that he made further changes to the original kata he learned when he brought it to Japan.  Funakoshi did not like free sparring that the Japanese students liked.  The kumite that was introduced was based on the sport of kendo and it's distancing and relied heavily on the 'ippon kumite' idea.  This is why none of the applications from their kata/kumite make sense and the sparring looks nothing like the moves from the kata.  The Shuri kata that Funakoshi learned was based on civilian self-defense and the moves and applications were based on very close quarters and responses to a variety of those common attacks (McCarthy coined the terms Habitual Acts of Violence). 

So, now this changed karate is transmitted to Korea and the applications are all taught as block/punch/kick.  TKD used to be heavy on the kihon and hitting hard to break whatever you touched.  There wasn't much sophistication to what was taught in the early TKD days, but it was very brutal and effective.  "A Killing Art" is a very good read about some of the history of TKD and its formation.  As TKD evolved, they tried to remove more of the Japanese influence out of it and removed the Japanese katas and replaced them with katas of their own.  Sticking with the same idea of block/punch/kick, the sequences were moved around and based on aesthetics and not a deep underlying combat strategy.  This is also when the more acrobatic kicks started to be added in to TKD to emphasize an older Korean art/game and the art started to become its own style very different from its parent art of Shotokan.

As you, and many others have seemed to notice.  The kata in TKD help with body mechanics, fluidity etc. but, without reverse engineering from the older Okinawan katas (Mainly Shorin-Ryu) and trying to find sequences that look very similar and finding those applications, there IS a large void in many TKD schools.  But, there are many out there that do fill the void.  KKW TKD is mainly concerned with its own sport and its main focus is on the sport of TKD, just like any martial art there are exceptions to this, but by and large you won't find "old school" self-defense and applications taught and it is not taught through the vehicle of their forms.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> The main website seems to be down for Mr. Goodin's blog, but here is a link to an article on Scribd. The Why of Bunkai: A Guide For Beginners
> 
> The article is VERY good at understanding how karate started to change in its approach to bunkai with the use of labels.  Originally, a student would have learned the motions of the kata and its various uses.  Not all of the motions in the kata are blocks, but when you put labels on the motion, it then locks that motion into place, so to speak.  Then you have all of the "tier one" applications that were not intended as a simple block/punch technique and get VERY disfunctional applications based on the tier 1 idea.  For example, you are doing to separate blocks to two different attackers in multiple directions.
> 
> ...



And this is my issue.  Let's use arithmetic as an analogy.  Everyone who has made it past 4th grade math knows that arithmetic is all built on itself.  Subtraction is just addition with negative numbers, multiplication is just addition done faster, division is just multiplication of fractions, and exponents is just multiplication done faster.  If you can add 648 + 723 on a piece of paper, then you can also add 7,567,986 + 5,824,438, it will just take longer to do. 

However, you can't teach only addition, and have students learn subtraction.  Maybe a small portion will figure it out, but if that teaching isn't there, the vast majority of students won't figure it out.  A small handful might figure out the pattern and realize that if 2 + 3 = 5, then 5 without 3 is 2.  But most won't even be looking for that pattern, unless they find themselves at a point where they need to be able to figure it out.

The same goes for other rules.  Students may memorize that 2 + 2 + 2 is 6, but how many will extrapolate that into a rule that covers addition of all like numbers?  How many will figure out how fractions work, or how to carry the 1? 

When I was in school, we learned the rules for each of these concepts, and we learned how they connected together.  We received examples on how to apply it (i.e. you have 2 apples and I have 3 apples, how many apples do we have?).

However, my experience with KKW TKD has been that the form -> application training is basically like just teaching addition.  With any technique or concept in martial arts, you need guidance.  That's why people don't just watch a bunch of youtube videos and practice in their basement.  They have to go to class and learn.  I feel bunkai is the same.  Can I figure out some ideas?  Sure.  But without a Master to give me advice, to point out my mistakes, to tell me his experiences, and to push me in the right direction, how good is self-taught bunkai going to be?  For those that do bunkai, does your Master simply show you the kata and then say "figure it out" and leave you stranded on the mat?  Or are there higher belts present (at least some of the time) to give you tips and examples?

This is why I get so defensive when people mock me for not knowing how to do bunkai.  Going back to my arithmetic example, it's like I've been shown how to do addition in the forms, and nothing else.  And yet somehow I'm magically expected to know how to do division and exponents, because "you've been in long enough", or else I'm told I just don't know anything because I haven't been taught that.  But it's something I've searched for and not really found in the KKW forms curriculum.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2019)

It looks like this Blogger has the same journey and struggle that you do.
Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings: "Basic Applications" to Taekwondo Forms

Just thought I'd share so you don't feel like you are alone in your thoughts.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> It looks like this Blogger has the same journey and struggle that you do.
> Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings: "Basic Applications" to Taekwondo Forms
> 
> Just thought I'd share so you don't feel like you are alone in your thoughts.



Don't worry.  In my head, I'm never alone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> Don't worry.  In my head, I'm never alone.


The monkeys in your head don't count, my friend.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 23, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The monkeys in your head don't count, my friend.


You’ve got monkeys?  Lucky bastard.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is why I get so defensive when people mock me for not knowing how to do bunkai. Going back to my arithmetic example, it's like I've been shown how to do addition in the forms, and nothing else. And yet somehow I'm magically expected to know how to do division and exponents, because "you've been in long enough", or else I'm told I just don't know anything because I haven't been taught that. But it's something I've searched for and not really found in the KKW forms curriculum.



I've only said anything about it because I haven't been exposed to the apparent kkw method.

I had a bit of a chat with another student at my school though, and he attended a kkw school while on a work placement - there were no ITF schools near where he was.

He actually echoed what you've been saying, which honestly I was surprised about.

A totally different school to yours, separated by the Atlantic, and with the same lack of application based on poomse.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> As you, and many others have seemed to notice. The kata in TKD help with body mechanics, fluidity etc. but, without reverse engineering from the older Okinawan katas (Mainly Shorin-Ryu) and trying to find sequences that look very similar and finding those applications, there IS a large void in many TKD schools. But, there are many out there that do fill the void. KKW TKD is mainly concerned with its own sport and its main focus is on the sport of TKD, just like any martial art there are exceptions to this, but by and large you won't find "old school" self-defense and applications taught and it is not taught through the vehicle of their forms.



It does seem heavily dependent on which TKD you do...


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> I've only said anything about it because I haven't been exposed to the apparent kkw method.
> 
> I had a bit of a chat with another student at my school though, and he attended a kkw school while on a work placement - there were no ITF schools near where he was.
> 
> ...



And don't get me wrong - I do the forms.  I'm up to something like 26 unarmed long forms at my school.  I do train them, and I do follow the training method my Master lays out for me.  Going forward with the idea that was said earlier, that the Tier 1 application is body mechanics, and not necessarily direct application.  That the goal of forms is exercise and body control, not to teach application.  If that is the case, then they are working fine, and I may have wasted the last 5 years of trying to figure out the direct application being taught.

Moving forward, if I treat them as exercises instead of teachings, it will help.  Because I'll be focused on the right things and not distracted by what they aren't.

But *everything* I've read and seen suggests the KKW forms are not designed to *teach* application.  Like I said, this is at multiple schools, from asking questions here, from researching articles, watching videos of the forms being demonstrated to the general public, watching videos of people getting critiqued and advised on the forms by the grandmaster.  

My conclusion, after all of this, is that the KKW forms are not designed to teach your mind, but your body.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

But there's no reason at all that you can't use your poomse to find the application though, the moves are in there...


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> But there's no reason at all that you can't use your poomse to find the application though, the moves are in there...



This video (from a BJJ guy) is why I don't think that it's very useful to engage in this type of training without guidance:






I mean, I can do it, sure.  But as far as bunkai goes, I'm a white belt.  Just like I'd be a white belt in Judo or BJJ, just like I'd be a beginner at boxing or Muay Thai.  I have skills that translate (just like Chewie had skills that translated from wrestling to BJJ), but I'd also be going off of assumptions and biases, with no guidance or examples to follow.  

Just like when Daniel was trying to learn Karate from a book, and he had to find an actual teacher because he got his butt handed to him.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> This video (from a BJJ guy) is why I don't think that it's very useful to engage in this type of training without guidance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was using 'you' as in your organisation really.

But even so, you do the moves, you know the moves, why can't you make them fit?


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> I was using 'you' as in your organisation really.
> 
> But even so, you do the moves, you know the moves, why can't you make them fit?



You told me that the basic forms and exercises have prescribed partner drills, but at higher belts you make your own drills based on the form.  I'm assuming you also get advised on what you draw from them, i.e. better ways or different ways to apply it.  That's been a part of your training is how to draw the application from the form.

When it comes to that type of training, I'm not even a white belt.  I'm uninitiated.  Would you scoff at someone who has taken 10 years of boxing because he doesn't know how to roundhouse kick?


----------



## wab25 (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> This video (from a BJJ guy) is why I don't think that it's very useful to engage in this type of training without guidance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I may be taking the advice in this video differently than others... But what I get from it, is to train with an expert in the area that you are interested in. When I looked for a Karate school, I did not want one that did no kata and I did not want one that did dance kata. I wanted a school that trained kata, the karate way and that understood what was in the kata. 

I agree with your premise that learning the bunkai, by yourself, without a teacher that understood the bunkai is like training bjj in your basement, from books. Thats specifically why I looked for an instructor that both knew the bunkai and deeper meanings of the kata and also taught those things to his students. When I found instructors that either did not know it or did not show it... I kept looking. As Chewie pointed out... find an expert in what you want to learn, and train with him.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 23, 2019)

If your training is primarily based on poomsae, lack of application training might be a problem. If poomsae isn’t the basis of your training, I’d say it’s only a problem if you make it a problem. 

Personally, I’m not concerned with finding combat ready applications for every movement I come across in a poomsae. There’s plenty to learn and practice without that. I certainly don’t feel the need to come up with several different applications for the same movement. I’d rather just name the other applications for what they are doing and not worry about it. Are the MMA guys sitting around reverse engineering a punching motion to find other ways to use that movement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I may be taking the advice in this video differently than others... But what I get from it, is to train with an expert in the area that you are interested in. When I looked for a Karate school, I did not want one that did no kata and I did not want one that did dance kata. I wanted a school that trained kata, the karate way and that understood what was in the kata.
> 
> I agree with your premise that learning the bunkai, by yourself, without a teacher that understood the bunkai is like training bjj in your basement, from books. Thats specifically why I looked for an instructor that both knew the bunkai and deeper meanings of the kata and also taught those things to his students. When I found instructors that either did not know it or did not show it... I kept looking. As Chewie pointed out... find an expert in what you want to learn, and train with him.



I haven't looked at the schools lately, but I don't think there's much in the way of karate as close to me as this school is.

Even if there was, I honestly probably wouldn't go.  As much as I wish that we did draw applications from our forms, I get a lot of application out of everything else at the school.  I attack the improvisation from a different angle based on Hapkido, and the way we use short forms there.  Plus, this is a community that's basically become my family (including my family, as my parents are also black belts under me, and my nephew trained for about a year).  

This is just one area that's been a bit of a sore spot for me, and I'm learning to view our poomsae different so I know what to expect out of them.  Just like you have to realize when lend Jerry $20, you're probably never gonna see it again, but you love him anyway because he's your cousin.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> If you’re training is primarily based on poomsae, lack of application training might be a problem. If poomsae isn’t the basis of your training, I’d say it’s only a problem if you make it a problem.
> 
> Personally, I’m not concerned with finding combat ready applications for every movement I come across in a poomsae. There’s plenty to learn and practice without that. I certainly don’t feel the need to come up with several different applications for the same movement. I’d rather just name the other applications for what they are doing and not worry about it. Are the MMA guys sitting around reverse engineering a punching motion to find other ways to use that movement?
> 
> ...



There is more to our training, it's just not derived from the poomsae.  I also have to agree with you about the MMA guys.

What do you do with the techniques you don't have an application for?


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is more to our training, it's just not derived from the poomsae.



Do you do any set sparring at all?

If you do, then surely it contains punches, kicks, blocks and avoidance?

And if it does, then maybe there are parallels there that you're just not told?


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Do you do any set sparring at all?
> 
> If you do, then surely it contains punches, kicks, blocks and avoidance?
> 
> And if it does, then maybe there are parallels there that you're just not told?



If there are parallels I'm not drawing, then it's not much of a way to teach the application, is there?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is more to our training, it's just not derived from the poomsae.  I also have to agree with you about the MMA guys.
> 
> What do you do with the techniques you don't have an application for?



Honestly, I don’t spend any time at all worrying about that. There are so many tools for different scenarios that I don’t find it worth my time to figure out how to use a particular movement from poomsae. I’d much rather take a scenario and test which tools are effective than try to force a movement into a scenario because Taekwondo. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> Honestly, I don’t spend any time at all worrying about that. There are so many tools for different scenarios that I don’t find it worth my time to figure out how to use a particular movement from poomsae. I’d much rather take a scenario and test which tools are effective than try to force a movement into a scenario because Taekwondo.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



With that in mind, what do you feel you get out of the poomsae?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> With that in mind, what do you feel you get out of the poomsae?



Lots of things you’ve mentioned before: body control, balance, power generation, breathing, attention to detail, cataloguing techniques, individual practice, etc. But poomsae is not the focus of my program, nor would I want it to be. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> Honestly, I don’t spend any time at all worrying about that. There are so many tools for different scenarios that I don’t find it worth my time to figure out how to use a particular movement from poomsae. I’d much rather take a scenario and test which tools are effective than try to force a movement into a scenario because Taekwondo.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It's not about forcing a movement into it though, it's all about what you said just before that - testing which tools are effective.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> It's not about forcing a movement into it though, it's all about what you said just before that - testing which tools are effective.



It’s a difference of starting point. I’d rather start with a problem and find a tool to solve it than start with a movement and look for a problem to solve. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> It’s a difference of starting point. I’d rather start with a problem and find a tool to solve it than start with a movement and look for a problem to solve.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



And that's how we do it.

In say our one step, you are given a problem - someone attacks you. You are not told in which fashion they are going to attack.

You are then free to choose whichever tool you think might work from all the ones given to you in the patterns. If the one you choose doesn't work, then you can try something else.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> And that's how we do it.
> 
> In say our one step, you are given a problem - someone attacks you. You are not told in which fashion they are going to attack.
> 
> You are then free to choose whichever tool you think might work from all the ones given to you in the patterns. If the one you choose doesn't work, then you can try something else.



I don’t want to limit myself to the patterns. There’s so much that’s not included (even if you reverse engineer applications). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> I don’t want to limit myself to the patterns. There’s so much that’s not included (even if you reverse engineer applications).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



An example of one not included?


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> And that's how we do it.
> 
> In say our one step, you are given a problem - someone attacks you. You are not told in which fashion they are going to attack.
> 
> You are then free to choose whichever tool you think might work from all the ones given to you in the patterns. If the one you choose doesn't work, then you can try something else.



We do this for Hapkido.  But our patterns are wayyyyyyy different there.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> An example of one not included?



Any number of kicks, boxing/mma style punches, grabs, locks, and throws that don’t depend on poomsae movements. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> Any number of kicks, boxing/mma style punches, grabs, locks, and throws that don’t depend on poomsae movements.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh, poomsae. (I honestly don't know how to spell that so I copied you)

Carry on then, nothing to see here 



One day I'll actually sit down and watch them...


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Oh, poomsae. (I honestly don't know how to spell that so I copied you)
> 
> Carry on then, nothing to see here
> 
> ...



What are you differentiating poomsae from?


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> What are you differentiating poomsae from?



Apparently from tul.

That was the second instance recently (the other was from you) saying that there's loads of stuff not included in poomsae.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> An example of one not included?



The kata of Shotokan karate do not include any hook kicks, spinning hook kicks, spinning back kicks, or axe kicks, if I'm remembering my Shotokan days correctly.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Apparently from tul.
> 
> That was the second instance recently (the other was from you) saying that there's loads of stuff not included in poomsae.



I just assumed "poomsae" was the Korean term.  That name covers all of the forms we do.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 23, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> The main website seems to be down for Mr. Goodin's blog, but here is a link to an article on Scribd. The Why of Bunkai: A Guide For Beginners
> 
> The article is VERY good at understanding how karate started to change in its approach to bunkai with the use of labels.  Originally, a student would have learned the motions of the kata and its various uses.  Not all of the motions in the kata are blocks, but when you put labels on the motion, it then locks that motion into place, so to speak.  Then you have all of the "tier one" applications that were not intended as a simple block/punch technique and get VERY disfunctional applications based on the tier 1 idea.  For example, you are doing to separate blocks to two different attackers in multiple directions.
> 
> ...


As someone who has been in TKD for a long time I have seen some of this transformation. I am very thankful I have primarily trained at a Dojang that holds firmly to practicing Boonhae (Bunkai). We have had some very active and passionate discussions about what is or could or should be the applications in the Yudanja Poomsae. However, we are very quick to acknowledge that there are multiple uses for most techniques. That is Kukkiwan's stated explanation for much of the "vagueness" regarding the modern form sets.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> However, we are very quick to acknowledge that there are multiple uses for most techniques. That is Kukkiwan's stated explanation for much of the "vagueness" regarding the modern form sets.



Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying they say it's better to teach none of them rather than one (or more) of them because there are multiple possibilities?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying they say it's better to teach none of them rather than one (or more) of them because there are multiple possibilities?


That it is better to teach multiple options and not be locked into the idea that there is only one way to use a technique.
This can make it very hard for the teacher. They have to firmly understand the limits of a technique, or an arm or a leg for example. Marry this with "pushing" students and it can be very tough.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That it is better to teach multiple options and not be locked into the idea that there is only one way to use a technique.
> This can make it very hard for the teacher. They have to firmly understand the limits of a technique, or an arm or a leg for example. Marry this with "pushing" students and it can be very tough.



But there's been a couple of people now saying that they don't get taught any...

Surely it's better to teach one or two well and inform the students that it's not limited to those, and encourage experimentation?


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> But there's been a couple of people now saying that they don't get taught any...
> 
> Surely it's better to teach one or two well and inform the students that it's not limited to those, and encourage experimentation?



My Master's approach to TKD* is that the student is simply supposed to do.  You follow what he says, because of his experience.  What I can say is, after 6 years of training under him, I understand a lot of why he does things the way that he does.  Even if a lot of things I disagree with, I come to understand his position and see how different people benefit from his way over the way I prefer.  As much as I lament poomsae in this thread, and in my discussions, I've still trained them in the manner in which I've been taught - to seek to mimic closer and closer to what my Master does when he teaches me the poomsae.  So if what I'm supposed to get out of it is the attention to detail and the body work, then I've accomplished that.

When I started teaching, there were a lot of things I thought he was wrong about.  And also, when I started teaching, I made several kids cry and I'm pretty sure I'm the reason several more didn't make it past the 2 week trial.  Since I've listened to him and done things his way, I understand more why it's that way.

Now, there are times for us to spar and experiment, but for the most part, we have to train his way.  And I do (sometimes begrudgingly) and there are many, many times I look at something I've been doing for 2 years and go "oh, that's why I do that."  Sometimes it's just frustrating, like having a piece of a puzzle in my hand but not knowing where it goes, because I only have the edges done so far.

*I specify this is the approach to TKD, because HKD is entirely different, and there's a lot of room to experiment and figure out what works and troubleshoot what doesn't.  It's also 90% partner-based, where the TKD is maybe 25% partner-based.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> My Master's approach to TKD* is that the student is simply supposed to do.  You follow what he says, because of his experience.  What I can say is, after 6 years of training under him, I understand a lot of why he does things the way that he does.  Even if a lot of things I disagree with, I come to understand his position and see how different people benefit from his way over the way I prefer.  As much as I lament poomsae in this thread, and in my discussions, I've still trained them in the manner in which I've been taught - to seek to mimic closer and closer to what my Master does when he teaches me the poomsae.  So if what I'm supposed to get out of it is the attention to detail and the body work, then I've accomplished that.
> 
> When I started teaching, there were a lot of things I thought he was wrong about.  And also, when I started teaching, I made several kids cry and I'm pretty sure I'm the reason several more didn't make it past the 2 week trial.  Since I've listened to him and done things his way, I understand more why it's that way.
> 
> ...



See, I disagree with that way of teaching your brand of TKD.

All the moves have at least one purpose, but to only learn them as copying a move with no explanation seems a waste.

I can't see any justifiable reason to be doing something for 2 years without knowing why...


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> See, I disagree with that way of teaching your brand of TKD.
> 
> All the moves have at least one purpose, but to only learn them as copying a move with no explanation seems a waste.
> 
> I can't see any justifiable reason to be doing something for 2 years without knowing why...



I recently picked up playing guitar.  I learned that there are sharps (#) and flats (b) and that an Ab is the same as a G#.  So, naturally, I just assumed there are no flats and everything is sharp.  Why learn what an Ab is, if I know what a G# is?  Now, the first several pieces my instructor had me learn only included natural notes, so knowing the sharps and flats wasn't particularly useful at that point in time.  As soon as I started learning how scales are organized and how key signatures work, suddenly flats made sense.  

Now, I sat there and told him what I thought about sharps and flats, and he just laughed at me and told me later I'd understand.  And later I did, I reminded him of the conversation we had before, and his attitude was "I told you so".  And now I had to relearn what I forced myself to learn incorrectly.

I've had similar things happen in TKD, where some pieces of advice my Master gave me 4 years ago, but I couldn't work out, suddenly click and I get it.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> My Master's approach to TKD* is that the student is simply supposed to do.  You follow what he says, because of his experience.  What I can say is, after 6 years of training under him, I understand a lot of why he does things the way that he does.  Even if a lot of things I disagree with, I come to understand his position and see how different people benefit from his way over the way I prefer.  As much as I lament poomsae in this thread, and in my discussions, I've still trained them in the manner in which I've been taught - to seek to mimic closer and closer to what my Master does when he teaches me the poomsae.  So if what I'm supposed to get out of it is the attention to detail and the body work, then I've accomplished that.
> 
> When I started teaching, there were a lot of things I thought he was wrong about.  And also, when I started teaching, I made several kids cry and I'm pretty sure I'm the reason several more didn't make it past the 2 week trial.  Since I've listened to him and done things his way, I understand more why it's that way.
> 
> ...


Again, Your TKD, not all TKD.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I recently picked up playing guitar.  I learned that there are sharps (#) and flats (b) and that an Ab is the same as a G#.  So, naturally, I just assumed there are no flats and everything is sharp.  Why learn what an Ab is, if I know what a G# is?  Now, the first several pieces my instructor had me learn only included natural notes, so knowing the sharps and flats wasn't particularly useful at that point in time.  As soon as I started learning how scales are organized and how key signatures work, suddenly flats made sense.
> 
> Now, I sat there and told him what I thought about sharps and flats, and he just laughed at me and told me later I'd understand.  And later I did, I reminded him of the conversation we had before, and his attitude was "I told you so".  And now I had to relearn what I forced myself to learn incorrectly.
> 
> I've had similar things happen in TKD, where some pieces of advice my Master gave me 4 years ago, but I couldn't work out, suddenly click and I get it.



There appears to be a difference here though.

The guitar teacher had to deal with you learning something he didn't think you were ready to comprehend and didn't teach you. He's teaching you things and explaining them along the way.

Your TKD teacher is teaching you stuff without telling you any purpose - which is the polar opposite of the method the guitar teacher is/was using.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> Don't worry.  In my head, I'm never alone.



We understand.

Legal notice: the use of the word "We" in this statement, is to NOT mean any reference to MT users other than TSDTEXAN. Tsdtexan may be alternately refer to tsdtexan(s), but only if such occurrences happen within 1 (single) human male age 45, who being born in Texas, now resides abroad.
In the above and previous sentence, the word single does NOT refer to present, past, or future marital status, but may refer to an ordinal number.
Yes, Texas is a nation.
Statements by some of "us" within tsdtexan do not reflect others within tsdtexan, or martialtalk.com.
The use of the royal "We" should not lead to assumptions that TSDTEXAN is royal, other than a royal pain in the "pita"
TSDTEXAN reserves the right to always be right, only on days that end in "Y".
Yes, tomorrow, is in fact a day that does not end in "Y".
Agreements about free beer being offered tomorrow do not entitle one to free beer today.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I just assumed "poomsae" was the Korean term.  That name covers all of the forms we do.



I associate poomsae as the word for WT forms and tul as the word for ITF forms. That said, I don't speak Korean.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

I've been on a binge of Penn and Teller videos on youtube, and the playlist has finally gotten to where they do their acts.  What Penn likes to do on those, is reveal the secrets of common tricks to the audience, and then one-up that trick to still surprise and baf


pdg said:


> There appears to be a difference here though.
> 
> The guitar teacher had to deal with you learning something he didn't think you were ready to comprehend and didn't teach you. He's teaching you things and explaining them along the way.
> 
> Your TKD teacher is teaching you stuff without telling you any purpose - which is the polar opposite of the method the guitar teacher is/was using.



Actually my guitar teacher was even more cagey.  Simply told me I'd understand later why I was wrong.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 23, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> The kata of Shotokan karate do not include any hook kicks, spinning hook kicks, spinning back kicks, or axe kicks, if I'm remembering my Shotokan days correctly.


Axe kick found in Seipei and Seisan kata.
Although, a number of Shotokan places teach mae Geri in the locations that the axe kick was located with Seipai kata. But in the 60s and 70s Shotokan had axe kicks in these two.

It was muted, never very "in your face".
Only knowing or skillfull eyes would have picked it up, outside of the dojo.

Because the knee never went above hip. but unlike mae geri, where the ankle and heel snap back to chambet before setting the foot down....

in these places the leg extended like a mae geri, but the leg stayed locked after the kick, and returned to the floor.


Okinawan karate didn't advertize flashy high kicks, that was "family recipe secret sauce". Old Japanese karate openly practiced axe and other high kicks, but acted like it was kihon waza, and not from the kata.
Traditions....


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 23, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Axe kick found in Seipei and Seisan kata.
> Although, a number of Shotokan places teach mae Geri in the locations that the axe kick was located with Seipai kata.



I don't think Seipai is in Shotokan. Is this the one you're talking about? At least as performed here, no axe kicks. 






Seisan, aka Hangetsu, doesn't have axe kicks.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I associate poomsae as the word for WT forms and tul as the word for ITF forms. That said, I don't speak Korean.



As far as I understand, ITF called (and call) patterns patterns, or tul.

As part of the distancing from Gen. Choi carried out by kkw, they introduced calling them forms, or poomsae (although I didn't remember the romanisation of the word).


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> Actually my guitar teacher was even more cagey. Simply told me I'd understand later why I was wrong.



Exactly, he told you that you were wrong.

Because you made an assumption about something he hadn't taught you.

Then later, when he taught you about it and explained it, you understood.


What he didn't do was teach you the finger placements for sharps and flats and never ever tell you what they do or how to use them.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 23, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I don't think Seipai is in Shotokan. Is this the one you're talking about? At least as performed here, no axe kicks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Quite a few Shotokan stylists know seipei. Its just not "official". Here is a Shotokan's expertise on practical bunkai discussing seipei.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Exactly, he told you that you were wrong.
> 
> Because you made an assumption about something he hadn't taught you.
> 
> ...



Later on.  When it was appropriate for me.  Long after he taught me what they were.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 23, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I associate poomsae as the word for WT forms and tul as the word for ITF forms. That said, I don't speak Korean.


I thought you may so I used the reference. In actuality, there are no WT forms. Kukkiwon create the "WT" forms. It is a weird but necessary relationship. WT is the sport/sparring identity and Kukkiwon (TKD headquarters) is the governing body.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 23, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Quite a few Shotokan stylists know seipei. Its just not "official". Here is a Shotokan's expertise on practical bunkai discussing seipei.



Yes, but he's doing a front snap kick to the groin, not an axe kick. I'm less concerned with how many Shotokan folks have chosen to learn Seipai and more focused on the fact that these kicks are absent from any Shotokan kata I've ever seen:

Axe kick
Hook kick
Spinning hook kick
Spinning back kick

If everything in karate is derived from the kata, karateka shouldn't use any of these kicks. The use of these kicks supports my approach that kata is one training tool that is part of what makes up karate, but not a complete encyclopedia of what is in karate.

Edit: didn't previously see the "secret sauce" comment. What's the source for that history? I thought a lot of that kicking came from Korea and got adopted into karate training, not from old Okinawan masters.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Sep 23, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Yes, but he's doing a front snap kick to the groin, not an axe kick. I'm less concerned with how many Shotokan folks have chosen to learn Seipai and more focused on the fact that these kicks are absent from any Shotokan kata I've ever seen:
> 
> Axe kick
> Hook kick
> ...


These kicks are generally absent from Okinawan karate and not in any kata I know of, though not to say I've never done or taught spinning kicks.  Also, there is a definite lack of head kicks.  Can these kicks be effective?  Yes, if used very judiciously .  

 I believe the original thinking was that in life or death combat, you generally don't want to expose your back or the family jewels to your opponent.  Should you get caught in either of these positions the results could be fatal, or at least very painful.  I know from experience.  The risks outweigh the possible rewards.  There are many other techniques to choose from that, if missed, would not have catastrophic results.  Sport sparring is a different matter and not the subject here.

 Also, as you get older, these moves are harder to do effectively, and so even riskier.  I have found that as I get older/wiser my karate resembles the traditional Okinawan model more.  Less flashy, risky moves, and more direct, angled, close-in techniques with a higher probability of success.  It may not be as pretty to watch, but my cajones couldn't care less.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2019)

Jaeimseu said:


> Honestly, I don’t spend any time at all worrying about that. There are so many tools for different scenarios that I don’t find it worth my time to figure out how to use a particular movement from poomsae. I’d much rather take a scenario and test which tools are effective than try to force a movement into a scenario because Taekwondo.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think if your (generic "your" - just a comment for the thread) forms don't seem designed to have depth, it's probably most productive to treat them that way. Use them for body training. If you have trouble with a technique somewhere, look for the motion in your forms to see what you're doing there - maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, but it's information to work with. But if the applications aren't meant to be in the forms, trying to glean them is probably time better spent elsewhere.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think if your (generic "your" - just a comment for the thread) forms don't seem designed to have depth, it's probably most productive to treat them that way. Use them for body training. If you have trouble with a technique somewhere, look for the motion in your forms to see what you're doing there - maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, but it's information to work with. But if the applications aren't meant to be in the forms, trying to glean them is probably time better spent elsewhere.


The problem with this ideology is that there are schools that do not train in application. They train on how to use form and sparring technique for best use in competition. 
Do you learn the form? Yes. 
Do you learn to spar? Yes. 
Do you learn to protect your self or a loved one in the event of an attack? Assuming average strength and no other training, Unlikely. 
Do you learn avoidance or situational awareness? No
Do you learn philosophy or historic value? Unlikely

Forms are integral to MA and Must include application to have value beyond  the improved physical condition benefit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> The problem with this ideology is that there are schools that do not train in application. They train on how to use form and sparring technique for best use in competition.
> Do you learn the form? Yes.
> Do you learn to spar? Yes.
> Do you learn to protect your self or a loved one in the event of an attack? Assuming average strength and no other training, Unlikely.
> ...


Forms may be integral to SOME martial arts, but they are not integral to all. And I'll go back to my own forms. There isn't a deeper level to them. I linked together some movements to give folks an exercise they can repeat to work on fluid movement, balance, light cardio, etc. They aren't deep teaching tools. If someone removed them entirely from the system, it wouldn't leave a gap of any kind, assuming they help people in those areas with other exercises.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 24, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Skribs:
> 
> Do you follow the channel practicalkatabunkai on YouTube, Iain Abernethy's channel? If you're interested in forms application, he's as good as it gets. Even if he doesn't break down WT Poomsae specifically, I'll bet you'll recognize some sequences and get ideas for alternative, more infighting-oriented applications. A sample:
> 
> ...


I like Abernathy. He seems to have a handle on realistic application and often his proposed bunkai seem more reasonable than the surface-level block/punch interpretation of the kata.

Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.

Grappling moves of the sort he shows in this video and others are very sensitive to nuances of body dynamics, angling, etc in order to be effective. I almost never see anybody performing the kata with the correct body mechanics to make those techniques work.

Take the video above of the lady performing Kururunfa. She's obviously very skilled at what she does and has worked hard on the kata. However if she tried to perform the applications shown by Abernathy using the mechanics from her form they just wouldn't work. The body dynamics, angling, muscle sequencing, details of hand placement - they're all wrong.

This seems to be the normal situation whenever I watch one of Abernathy's videos. For example, I remember him showing a technique that in the form looks like standing tall with feet together, performing a high chamber, then turning 180 degrees and stepping forward into a front stance with a low block. Abernathy rightly points out how little sense that application makes and instead posits that the chamber represents grabbing around an opponent's neck and the spin/step/low block represents pulling the opponent by his neck into a takedown. Seems plausible. (It's not a high-percentage throw against a competent grappler, but if it's intended for use against an untrained opponent it could work with the right set up and timing.) The problem is that executing that kind of pull/spin/takedown requires a certain sequence of power  generation which I have never once seen from a karateka performing a kata which contains that move.

If the kata were intended to help with solo practice of these sorts of grappling movements, then they should be performed with the details and body mechanics which could make the techniques work. If they are just coded symbols with the movements which loosely approximate the positions of various grappling movements but with totally different dynamics, then I'd consider them to be worthless for that purpose.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> The problem with this ideology is that there are schools that do not train in application. They train on how to use form and sparring technique for best use in competition.
> Do you learn the form? Yes.
> Do you learn to spar? Yes.
> Do you learn to protect your self or a loved one in the event of an attack? Assuming average strength and no other training, Unlikely.
> ...



If you teach application from the form, you don't learn avoidance or situational awareness, and you don't learn philosophy or historical value either.  You learn to protect self and loved ones yes, but to the extent that the application is taken.  (For example, if always applied to 1 unarmed person, are you prepared for someone with a bat, or a knife, or tactics to use against multiple assailants?).

And while I do agree that schools that don't teach any application fall into this category, I've been in multiple schools that teach applications outside of the forms.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I like Abernathy. He seems to have a handle on realistic application and often his proposed bunkai seem more reasonable than the surface-level block/punch interpretation of the kata.
> 
> Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.
> 
> ...



This has been my general criticism of most of the applications I've seen applied to the TKD forms, anywhere I've found anyone that's tried to apply them.  There are nuances in the body mechanics that are all wrong from the form to the application.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I like Abernathy. He seems to have a handle on realistic application and often his proposed bunkai seem more reasonable than the surface-level block/punch interpretation of the kata.
> 
> Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% with this, and this is part of the reason why I personally look to forms as training body mechanics for striking (and for performance value). I personally don't like using them to try to learn grappling through hidden bunkai.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I like Abernathy. He seems to have a handle on realistic application and often his proposed bunkai seem more reasonable than the surface-level block/punch interpretation of the kata.
> 
> Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.
> 
> ...



And this failure of representation in the solo forms is because people (in most trditions) were not taught the two man drills that comprise the form.

Patrick McCarthy actually went on at length that kata was supposed to be more like a mnemonic device to help retain what you were already taught by the two man forms.

The kata practice of most people is incomplete if they only do the solo form. This is also why learning one form took five years in old Okinawan karate.

Funakoshi several times said it took fifteen years to learn three forms. But the curve went down as the practitioner locked in more forms. Because forms do have an amount of redundancy.

The old method of instuction did not meet the needs of military preparatory education in the prewar era. It took too long to train and drill out everything that was desired, so they modified and dropped a lot of things. Making a cliff notes version of karate.


----------



## Buka (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I like Abernathy. He seems to have a handle on realistic application and often his proposed bunkai seem more reasonable than the surface-level block/punch interpretation of the kata.
> 
> Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.
> 
> ...



I agree, and well said. 
Sometimes some things fall into a category that I refer to as Opinion based Martial Arts.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2019)

Buka said:


> I agree, and well said.
> Sometimes some things fall into a category that I refer to as Opinion based Martial Arts.



What would you say is "opinion based martial arts"?  I have an idea of what you could mean, but I want to make sure I'm right before continuing.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.
> 
> Grappling moves of the sort he shows in this video and others are very sensitive to nuances of body dynamics, angling, etc in order to be effective. I almost never see anybody performing the kata with the correct body mechanics to make those techniques work.


I started by learning Danzan Ryu Jujitsu first. Lots of grappling and throwing type stuff. I have since started studying Shotokan Karate and learning this type of kata. What I have found interesting is comparing what Funakoshi says about the application of the techniques in the kata, with what most modern karate folks say about the application of the techniques in kata. I believe that a lot got missed, left out and or altered along the way. But, I have found there is a lot remaining. 

The more I learn the kata, the more I find. At first, I was seeing the punching and striking and blocking... and only believing half of it. Once I went back to Funakoshi's writings I started seeing escapes from grabs, and ways to off balance the other guy if he was grabbing me or if I were grabbing him. Then I started seeing where my jujitsu throws and sweeps would fit in, with certain escapes and off balancing moves creating the opening. Then, after working with a few karate instructors who had Abernathy like interpretations... I started to see how throws and take downs fit in. Now, changes have to be made to actually do the throw, like mentioned before. But, the foot movement, hip movement, power generation are very close... if you do it right. Once you associate this move from kata as matching this move from a throw, you can analyze where you need the power, and what those subtle changes are. Then when you do the kata, you can make those changes... create the power you need in the direction you need. Sure, you leave your hands "wrong" so sensei doesn't come over and correct you... but then most throws are more about structure, position, balance and hip action than they are about the hands anyway.

The thing to note is that I have not stopped practicing or studying my jujitsu. I still regularly practice the throws, locks, escapes... in jujitsu. However, I am able to see how the practice of kata has helped and improved my jujitsu, in very specific ways. Could I have made the same improvements in other ways? Possibly. Actually, probably. I have been studying jujitsu for almost 25 years and karate for 7-8 years. (and yes people have gone from white to black in the time I have and am spending at purple...) That means, that 16-17 years of jujitsu training failed to give me the things I have found through karate kata, that are in jujitsu. For whatever reason, perhaps I am just slow, I needed to look at things that way to get it. (when I show my jujitsu sensei what I learned about jujitsu, through karate, he answers: "yes... I have been showing you that since white belt...") 



Tony Dismukes said:


> If the kata were intended to help with solo practice of these sorts of grappling movements, then they should be performed with the details and body mechanics which could make the techniques work. If they are just coded symbols with the movements which loosely approximate the positions of various grappling movements but with totally different dynamics, then I'd consider them to be worthless for that purpose.


Kata can be seen like a heavy punching bag. Having one and hitting it, is no guarantee that you are learning to punch correctly. In fact, without good instruction, left to your own devices, you are probably learning more bad habits and developing habits that will be hard to change later. You could even be injuring yourself, or training yourself to be wide open while delivering sub-par strikes that leave you way out of position afterwards... all because you don't know what you are supposed to be getting out of hitting the bag. How many threads do we have here, telling people not to go train themselves out of books and videos? Now, find the right instructor, that knows how to use the heavy bag correctly... and it is amazing how much he can teach you with that bag... punching, footwork, body movement, head movement, elbows, knees, clinching... the list is endless.

Just like the heavy bag alone won't teach you proper punching, kata alone won't teach you proper fighting techniques. But used correctly, by a good instructor, both can be used to teach a lot of different things. If your boxing teacher doesn't know how to use / teach the heavy bag... find a new boxing instructor. If your karate instructor does not know how to use / teach the kata (including the applications and meanings) find a new karate instructor... If you can get the same technical some other way, without the need of kata, do that instead.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I like Abernathy. He seems to have a handle on realistic application and often his proposed bunkai seem more reasonable than the surface-level block/punch interpretation of the kata.
> 
> Here's my issue, though. If he is correct about the intended applications, then it means almost everybody is performing the kata wrong.
> 
> ...


This is where (in my opinion) kata should follow application. If the grappling is there, then the mechanics should show it. Maybe just having people practice variations of the kata as they learn new applications, or maybe changing the kata’s focus to better train those mechanics. Form should follow function.


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This is where (in my opinion) kata should follow application. If the grappling is there, then the mechanics should show it. Maybe just having people practice variations of the kata as they learn new applications, or maybe changing the kata’s focus to better train those mechanics. Form should follow function.



And the functional break in knowledge happens when the forms are changed.

For example HikiTe and why people chamber at the hip. When distance was changed, after Okinawan karate had been settled and growing in Japan... misunderstandings developed.






There is a nonsensical idea that continues to be perpetuated that HikiTe is done for power generation.

There is one kata that actually perserved the limb clearing application of HikiTe intact. (see above video)
But their are two purposes of HikiTe. one is explicit and the other is implicit. and both are true.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> If you teach application from the form, you don't learn avoidance or situational awareness, and you don't learn philosophy or historical value either.  You learn to protect self and loved ones yes, but to the extent that the application is taken.  (For example, if always applied to 1 unarmed person, are you prepared for someone with a bat, or a knife, or tactics to use against multiple assailants?).
> 
> And while I do agree that schools that don't teach any application fall into this category, I've been in multiple schools that teach applications outside of the forms.


Agree, all schools should teach application through more than one venue.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 24, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> And the functional break in knowledge happens when the forms are changed.
> 
> For example HikiTe and why people chamber at the hip. When distance was changed, after Okinawan karate had been settled and growing in Japan... misunderstandings developed.
> 
> ...



The power generation isn't nonsense if it's explained correctly. It's more about the back and less about the hand itself, but the hand sometimes goes there when the back does what it needs to do. A classic example is Lyoto Machida v. Rashad Evans.






Hikite can be grab and pull, but it doesn't have to be to make sense. To argue otherwise is to say that Machida, a world class karate fighter, was just wasting energy as he KOed Evans.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 24, 2019)

Pulling the hand back (hikite?) while punching with the other hand is power generation if it is married to torso rotation and driven from the feet and legs.  If it is not connected to those, then it fails in power generation.  It could still be something else, though.


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Pulling the hand back (hikite?) while punching with the other hand is power generation if it is married to torso rotation and driven from the feet and legs.  If it is not connected to those, then it fails in power generation.  It could still be something else, though.



I've always heard (and rejected) that you're fighting two people and elbow-striking the person behind you.  My takes on that position:

Teach to turn your shoulders and back
Pull to strike with the other hand
It looks better (as in aesthetics, not function) than a more functional position for the hand
Teaches you to control both hands instead of just the one, as a lot of people tend to drop their guard after the first punch
Good chamber position for a low punch (i.e. underpunch or body hook)
Good pass-through option to chamber a strike after a low block
Good striking position if someone has an overhook position
A chamber position closer to the ready position, such as if you are attacked while you're not on guard
I do believe (and don't have data to back this up) that this is a stronger punching position.  If you're not at risk of a counter-attack (i.e. attacking someone from behind if they're fighting your friend, breaking a board)
I think the biggest reason in TKD, is the third one I suggested.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 1, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> The power generation isn't nonsense if it's explained correctly. It's more about the back and less about the hand itself, but the hand sometimes goes there when the back does what it needs to do. A classic example is Lyoto Machida v. Rashad Evans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In that clip, you see Machida both types of "hikite".  He traps the arm of Evans as he strikes and also uses it as he "chambers" for the next strike.  As you have stated, each have their place in their usage.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've always heard (and rejected) that you're fighting two people and elbow-striking the person behind you.



I've always used what my instructor taught me when someone asked him about the "rear elbow".  If they're worth hitting, they're worth looking at.  You would never strike to the rear without addressing that attacker as soon as you could.

Again, I think it was a mis-translation of a training idea to emphasize the quick return of the chambering hand to make it dynamic and not a passive return.  Also, it really depends on where your chamber position is, if that even makes sense to say it is a rear elbow.  In our style you wouldn't be actually throwing a rear elbow strike with your hand at your hip as the strike makes contact.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> I've always used what my instructor taught me when someone asked him about the "rear elbow". If they're worth hitting, they're worth looking at. You would never strike to the rear without addressing that attacker as soon as you could.



If someone is behind you, sometimes you don't have that luxury.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 1, 2019)

Re: Hikite - TSDTexan's video post (thank you) starts with a quote from Seikichi Toguchi saying that when a hand gets chambered to the hip, there is generally something in it."  This maxim was passed down from his Goju founder teacher, Miyagi, who expounded this in his Rules of Kata.  Abernathy also shows this in his seminars pulling the opponent in for a strike. 

Chambering to the hip all the time when punching makes the kata look nice, but original katas were not designed to look nice.  There was a good reason if bringing it to an apparently out of position place on the hip.  If not pulling the opponent in, the hand was usually chambered no further to where the elbow met the hip.  This left the fist in a guard position as well as closer to the opponent.  This is the rule of thumb in Isshinryu (which uses a snapping punch), and done ocasionly in other Okinawan katas as well.

Re: The more general problem of a kata's technique not working in a practical application - There are several possibilities:
     1.  The kata has been changed over the years enough to where the original intent has been corrupted
     2.  The practitioner does not understand the oyu fully
     3.  There is a subtlety to the move that is required to make it work that is not shown in the kata, such as a grab, twist, dropping one's
           weight, or leg buckle (all moves that are just a matter of an inch or two so easily missed)
     4.  The move is being looked at without considering the previous or subsequent moves to see the whole series in context


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 1, 2019)

Kata is just one part of Karate. There are many other different parts of Karate and there are some styles of Karate that might not use Kata. To say that Karate is only Kata is greatly limiting it.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 1, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Kata is just one part of Karate. There are many other different parts of Karate and there are some styles of Karate that might not use Kata. To say that Karate is only Kata is greatly limiting it.


I think you are looking at kata in a limiting way.  As you say, there are, indeed, many parts of Karate:  Crippling self-defense, flow, balance, mental attitude, strategy, tactics, strong execution of technique, movement and evasion, spiritual bearing, takedowns, grabs and breaks, etc., etc.  Kata, at least the traditional Okinawan ones, contain ALL these parts (for those proponents that have been initiated in them.)  What is missing from kata is sport karate, which is a whole different animal.

Historically, Karate was not taught from text books or you tube videos.  The theory and philosophy was passed down from master to student by oral tradition.  The physical knowledge was passed down by kata.  Kata was karate's text book, meant to be studied for full understanding.  So, in this sense, kata is karate - the key to a style's interpretation of combat.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 1, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Re: Hikite - TSDTexan's video post (thank you) starts with a quote from Seikichi Toguchi saying that when a hand gets chambered to the hip, there is generally something in it."  This maxim was passed down from his Goju founder teacher, Miyagi, who expounded this in his Rules of Kata.  Abernathy also shows this in his seminars pulling the opponent in for a strike.
> 
> Chambering to the hip all the time when punching makes the kata look nice, but original katas were not designed to look nice.  There was a good reason if bringing it to an apparently out of position place on the hip.  If not pulling the opponent in, the hand was usually chambered no further to where the elbow met the hip.  This left the fist in a guard position as well as closer to the opponent.  This is the rule of thumb in Isshinryu (which uses a snapping punch), and done ocasionly in other Okinawan katas as well.
> 
> ...



Choki Motobu kept to the old tuidi/tode high chamber. He didn't chamber at the hip, unlike most of his contemporaries who brought karate to mainland Japan.





Notice the attacker (in the partner drill) has the sme high chamber/guard in the left photo. This is a Japanese student of Choki Mutobu.




here is a grouping of chambers of him and the other masters. look at their chamber vs his.  While Choki Motobu taught very close distance fighting, and stressed practical training bunkai methods to prepare yourself for jissen kumite (real world fighting), the others made new methods for faster organized training. Longer ranges, deeper stances, and new interpretations of the kata/bunkai.





@punisher73
@skribs
it may not be required to look behind you, one application for the rear empi/HikiTe is the defense against a rear bear-hug. If you were grabbed suddenly, perhaps while in a very packed and crowded area... you would be reflectively counterattacking without the time to even look behind you. 
rear empi...
Either a preemptive strike an instant before its locked in, or as part of breaking off one after it has been applied (used in tandem, with stepping forward into zenkutsdachi). You already knew what was behind you, and you could see both of his arms.
Notice Choki's left hand "chamber" is significantly lower than it normally is. almost at hip height.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 1, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> I think you are looking at kata in a limiting way.  As you say, there are, indeed, many parts of Karate:  Crippling self-defense, flow, balance, mental attitude, strategy, tactics, strong execution of technique, movement and evasion, spiritual bearing, takedowns, grabs and breaks, etc., etc.  Kata, at least the traditional Okinawan ones, contain ALL these parts (for those proponents that have been initiated in them.)  What is missing from kata is sport karate, which is a whole different animal.
> 
> Historically, Karate was not taught from text books or you tube videos.  The theory and philosophy was passed down from master to student by oral tradition.  The physical knowledge was passed down by kata.  Kata was karate's text book, meant to be studied for full understanding.  So, in this sense, kata is karate - the key to a style's interpretation of combat.



in fact, a lot of it was hands on (literally) knowledge.
 the teacher took the students limbs or torso and said here.. not there. putting them into the correct position that was called for at that moment.

in the old tuidi, tode there were many, and I mean *many* things that lacked a name. In Japan, a lot of terms of art, and labels were created, just to answer a Japanese demand for lexical terminology. 

This was exerbated by post war GIs... army and marines stationed in Japan and Okinawa wanting to know what to call "this or that" after they enrolled in various karate dojos.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> If someone is behind you, sometimes you don't have that luxury.



Please re-read the quote.  It said you wouldn't strike to the rear without addressing that person as soon as you could.  Yes, you may have someone behind you, but you wouldn't strike them and then stay with all your attention to the front without addressing that rear opponent again, even if its a look back to evaluate if they are still a threat or not.


----------



## skribs (Oct 2, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> Please re-read the quote.  It said you wouldn't strike to the rear without addressing that person as soon as you could.  Yes, you may have someone behind you, but you wouldn't strike them and then stay with all your attention to the front without addressing that rear opponent again, even if its a look back to evaluate if they are still a threat or not.



While that is true, most of the forms in KKW TKD are demonstration of technique, not strategy.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 2, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Choki Motobu kept to the old tuidi/tode high chamber. He didn't chamber at the hip, unlike most of his contemporaries who brought karate to mainland Japan.
> 
> 
> View attachment 22496
> ...



Again, I never said you wouldn't look or couldn't look.  BUT, if you are teaching a rear strike as a self-defense application.  After you are grabbed and struck the bad guy, you would look to evaluate or turn to further address that attacker.  My response was based on the chamber always being a rear elbow strike in katas that never really address if an actual attacker is back there.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 2, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Choki Motobu kept to the old tuidi/tode high chamber. He didn't chamber at the hip, unlike most of his contemporaries who brought karate to mainland Japan.
> View attachment 22495
> 
> Notice the attacker (in the partner drill) has the sme high chamber/guard in the left photo. This is a Japanese student of Choki Mutobu.
> ...



Agree. I do not know if you do the Pinan (Pyong Ahn) set of forms but this is well represented in the ending line of Pinan 3. A rear elbow and punch beside your own head. There is no need to reach with the punch because the elbow will reactively bring their face to the punch.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 2, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. I do not know if you do the Pinan (Pyong Ahn) set of forms but this is well represented in the ending line of Pinan 3. A rear elbow and punch beside your own head. There is no need to reach with the punch because the elbow will reactively bring their face to the punch.


Right, and the rear elbow works in Pinan 3 because the opponent is not attacking from the rear, but from the front and YOU maneuver, spinning in so he is to the rear.  And as you say, the rear over-the-shoulder punch to the face seals the deal.  You can also look to the rear as you elbow and punch.  Isshinryu's Sunsu kata has a rear elbow as well.  Similarly, the opponent is to the front and YOU step to place him to the rear (so you are back to back) for the elbow strike.  As you spin into him prior to the elbow, there is an arm break, again sealing the deal so to speak. 
In these cases, you are not being attacked from behind, nor are you relying on a single lone elbow to do the job.  While chambering a hand to your hip as you punch _can _strike an elbow to the rear, it is certainly not the reason for chambering it so.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 2, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> in fact, a lot of it was hands on (literally) knowledge.
> the teacher took the students limbs or torso and said here.. not there. putting them into the correct position that was called for at that moment.
> 
> in the old tuidi, tode there were many, and I mean *many* things that lacked a name. In Japan, a lot of terms of art, and labels were created, just to answer a Japanese demand for lexical terminology.
> ...


My Sensei studied in Okinawa for about 7 years (and has gone back many times since) and has told me that was how he was first taught:  "Do this.  No.  Do this way," as the master showed one-on-one what to do.  Terminology was not needed in private/semi-private lessons.  When teaching a large number of students at once, calling out a name was required as showing everyone personally what to do was not practical.  And as you said, the Japanese put this stuff in print (lexical?) - hard to do without words for the moves.  And American logic just seems to crave a name or label for everything.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> While that is true, most of the forms in KKW TKD are demonstration of technique, not strategy.


Thus the gulf between Okinawan karate, and Japanese karate vs TKD widens.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 2, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> My Sensei studied in Okinawa for about 7 years (and has gone back many times since) and has told me that was how he was first taught:  "Do this.  No.  Do this way," as the master showed one-on-one what to do.  Terminology was not needed in private/semi-private lessons.  When teaching a large number of students at once, calling out a name was required as showing everyone personally what to do was not practical.  And as you said, the Japanese put this stuff in print (lexical?) - hard to do without words for the moves.  And American logic just seems to crave a name or label for everything.


i wouldn't call it American logic. its really just western civilization, going all the way to Greco-Roman philosophy. The colonists considered themselves Englishmen. 
But a proper education was still done with Latin. and the methodology was the ancient trivium. "Reading, Writing, Arithmetic" Which was capped of with Logic/Rhetoric.

For example, modern science is still using Latin for the naming of species. Names and Labels indeed.


----------



## Mitlov (Oct 3, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Thus the gulf between Okinawan karate, and Japanese karate vs TKD widens.



Except that karate dojos that are WKF sport oriented (or any sort of sport oriented) focus on the presentation side of their kata, not the bunkai side. Even if they're Okinawan or Japanese styles, not just Korean or American styles.

Folks who train for this aren't focusing on bunkai during kata training; they're focusing on performance.


----------



## skribs (Oct 3, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Except that karate dojos that are WKF sport oriented (or any sort of sport oriented) focus on the presentation side of their kata, not the bunkai side. Even if they're Okinawan or Japanese styles, not just Korean or American styles.
> 
> Folks who train for this aren't focusing on bunkai during kata training; they're focusing on performance.



Just because someone trains performance, doesn't mean they don't train bunkai.

But I will agree, if your purpose is primarily to perform the form (at tests, demonstrations, or competitions), then application is secondary at best.


----------



## Mitlov (Oct 3, 2019)

skribs said:


> Just because someone trains performance, doesn't mean they don't train bunkai.
> 
> But I will agree, if your purpose is primarily to perform the form (at tests, demonstrations, or competitions), then application is secondary at best.



Well sure. And likewise, I'm not saying that people who focus on bunkai never spend one minute training performance. I'm talking about primary emphasis.  WKF-oriented dojos primarily emphasize performance; only a subset of dojos primarily emphasize bunkai. I'm just saying that a lot of Japanese and Okinawan style dojos are sport oriented, just like all Kukkiwon and some ITF dojangs are.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 3, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Right, and the rear elbow works in Pinan 3 because the opponent is not attacking from the rear, but from the front and YOU maneuver, spinning in so he is to the rear.  And as you say, the rear over-the-shoulder punch to the face seals the deal.  You can also look to the rear as you elbow and punch.  Isshinryu's Sunsu kata has a rear elbow as well.  Similarly, the opponent is to the front and YOU step to place him to the rear (so you are back to back) for the elbow strike.  As you spin into him prior to the elbow, there is an arm break, again sealing the deal so to speak.
> In these cases, you are not being attacked from behind, nor are you relying on a single lone elbow to do the job.  While chambering a hand to your hip as you punch _can _strike an elbow to the rear, it is certainly not the reason for chambering it so.


I think we has a different philosophy on the form but I get what you are saying. 
It is the third form so there are three attackers. You have just came down the center line doing as many as 5 movement in a segment to different attackers. At the end of the line they are to each side hence the shift off centerline to each side. A bit of a stretch practically but good practice to each side for a rear attack/counter.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 3, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Well sure. And likewise, I'm not saying that people who focus on bunkai never spend one minute training performance. I'm talking about primary emphasis.  WKF-oriented dojos primarily emphasize performance; only a subset of dojos primarily emphasize bunkai. I'm just saying that a lot of Japanese and Okinawan style dojos are sport oriented, just like all Kukkiwon and some ITF dojangs are.


You cannot say All KKW/ITF dojangs are purely sport oriented. It is just not true.


----------



## Mitlov (Oct 3, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You cannot say All KKW/ITF dojangs are purely sport oriented. It is just not true.



I said all KKW and some ITF. I've never personally encountered a KKW dojang that wasn't focused on sport. That's not a criticism; I'm a sport guy myself. Maybe there are some KKW dojangs that aren't about sport, so would you agree with "most"?


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 3, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> I said all KKW and some ITF. I've never personally encountered a KKW dojang that wasn't focused on sport. That's not a criticism; I'm a sport guy myself. Maybe there are some KKW dojangs that aren't about sport, so would you agree with "most"?


Yep.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Historically, Karate was not taught from text books or you tube videos.


This is a point I've tried to make in the past. We now have books and YouTube videos, as well as some other training methods/tools that can do what kata does. I see it as integral to some approaches to Karate, but not necessary to the art. I actually like the idea of maintaining at least some of that tradition, but don't see removing it as making the result no longer Karate.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 5, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This is a point I've tried to make in the past. We now have books and YouTube videos, as well as some other training methods/tools that can do what kata does. I see it as integral to some approaches to Karate, but not necessary to the art. I actually like the idea of maintaining at least some of that tradition, but don't see removing it as making the result no longer Karate.


I am having a hard time understanding your last sentence. Can you reword it so this thick headed old man can understand it?
I think you are saying more modern conventions like print and internet videos do not hurt the integrity of Karate but I am not sure. Thanks


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am having a hard time understanding your last sentence. Can you reword it so this thick headed old man can understand it?
> I think you are saying more modern conventions like print and internet videos do not hurt the integrity of Karate but I am not sure. Thanks


That's pretty much it. Let me restate it in two paragraphs (because there are two concepts, though related).

I like kata, and I like the idea of maintaining the tradition of it (at least at some level - I'm not sure I agree with the sheer number of kata some styles have). I think it's a useful tool, when used well. What's "used well"? That depends upon the purpose of the training (from the participants' perspective).

There are tools available now that weren't available in the early days of Karate. I think many of the uses of kata can be covered by those other tools (other training methods, videos, etc.). So, I think it's possible to train Karate without kata, without it losing the quality of being Karate.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 5, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's pretty much it. Let me restate it in two paragraphs (because there are two concepts, though related).
> 
> I like kata, and I like the idea of maintaining the tradition of it (at least at some level - I'm not sure I agree with the sheer number of kata some styles have). I think it's a useful tool, when used well. What's "used well"? That depends upon the purpose of the training (from the participants' perspective).
> 
> There are tools available now that weren't available in the early days of Karate. I think many of the uses of kata can be covered by those other tools (other training methods, videos, etc.). So, I think it's possible to train Karate without kata, without it losing the quality of being Karate.


The only caveat I would add is training without Kata, (or some kind of chained, sequenced, or organized pattern with the name of ones own choice) is more of a challenge in larger group settings. It also has a pronounced advantage of memory recollection and repetition for the lone practitioner. I feel they are just a tool like most of the things we do in MA practice.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 5, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's pretty much it. Let me restate it in two paragraphs (because there are two concepts, though related).
> 
> I like kata, and I like the idea of maintaining the tradition of it (at least at some level - I'm not sure I agree with the sheer number of kata some styles have). I think it's a useful tool, when used well. What's "used well"? That depends upon the purpose of the training (from the participants' perspective).
> 
> There are tools available now that weren't available in the early days of Karate. I think many of the uses of kata can be covered by those other tools (other training methods, videos, etc.). So, I think it's possible to train Karate without kata, without it losing the quality of being Karate.


The problem with this is that reading a book or watching a video, while it may catalog the material, is not a physical training activity.  What you read in a book or watch in a video still needs to be translated into physical practice.  And of course this then goes back to the old debate of the quality of training if that video is stand-alone or is part of direct training with a teacher.

Kata is already the physical practice.  If it was taught well, along the way, then you already understand it and it does not need to be translated.

What I am saying is, I do not see video or a book as any kind of equal substitute for kata.  However, I do agree that kata is not necessary in learning a martial art, and I do not feel that an absence of kata automatically makes it no longer Karate.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 5, 2019)

TSDTexan said:


> Notice the attacker (in the partner drill) has the sme high chamber/guard in the left photo. This is a Japanese student of Choki Mutobu.


These are great photos.  For starters, check out the pre-Gi attire.  I would guess from the late 1920's to early 30's.  Earlier, even this uniform  would have been considered "formal."  I love the older Okinawan karate-ka photos - the students look like a mangy but very dangerous pack of alley dogs. 
More importantly, they illustrate Motobu's simultaneous defense/offense.  The right photo shows a check/parry and a simultaneous reverse punch.  The right hand is NOT chambered to the hip during the punch and is available for immediate follow-up.  The left photo shows a head punch that simultaneously acts as a block.  He is countering thru the attack.  Ed Parker called it "single thrust - dual purpose"  These photos, in my opinion, illustrate the pinnacle of fighting technique and shows Motobu's fighting philosophy and spiritual commitment to attack.  No wonder he had the reputation of being the toughest guy in Okinawa.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> The problem with this is that reading a book or watching a video, while it may catalog the material, is not a physical training activity.  What you read in a book or watch in a video still needs to be translated into physical practice.  And of course this then goes back to the old debate of the quality of training if that video is stand-alone or is part of direct training with a teacher.
> 
> Kata is already the physical practice.  If it was taught well, along the way, then you already understand it and it does not need to be translated.
> 
> What I am saying is, I do not see video or a book as any kind of equal substitute for kata.  However, I do agree that kata is not necessary in learning a martial art, and I do not feel that an absence of kata automatically makes it no longer Karate.


Agreed. Videos and books replace part of the stated function of kata. You need other tools to replace other functions. Kata often uses a single movement to represent several applications, so the movement has to be either an approximation of all of them, or focused on one (or a few). As a catalog, this is not ideal, so videos and books can do a better job of transmitting what the catalog is. For learning how to do those things, physical training would be necessary.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 5, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> These are great photos.  For starters, check out the pre-Gi attire.  I would guess from the late 1920's to early 30's.  Earlier, even this uniform  would have been considered "formal."  I love the older Okinawan karate-ka photos - the students look like a mangy but very dangerous pack of alley dogs.
> More importantly, they illustrate Motobu's simultaneous defense/offense.  The right photo shows a check/parry and a simultaneous reverse punch.  The right hand is NOT chambered to the hip during the punch and is available for immediate follow-up.  The left photo shows a head punch that simultaneously acts as a block.  He is countering thru the attack.  Ed Parker called it "single thrust - dual purpose"  These photos, in my opinion, illustrate the pinnacle of fighting technique and shows Motobu's fighting philosophy and spiritual commitment to attack.  No wonder he had the reputation of being the toughest guy in Okinawa.



i have way too much Choki Mutobu and Chosei Mutobu stuff. And I consider him a great inspiration.

He got in a bit of trouble for his street fighting antics. Which lead to him being dropped as an Itosu student.

His family frowned on the matter as he was nobility. But nothing was ever said formally... because he suffered no losses in the street fights with commoners.

He did have one loss but that wasnt a red light district fight. It was against a high level adept.
That would be Itarashiki..  a very serious karateman.

This only escalated his search for stronger karate
 practice. Eventually, he was an old hand at fighting. When he had moved to Osaka, Japan he found himself working as a security guard for a warehouse owner. The owner suggested that he go to a place that held "all comers" bouts.
He showed up, and watched a boxer knock out a number of guys. Eventually, no one wanted to face the boxer. Choki said he would take him on.
The said to Choki... yer an old man. Dont bother.

He KOd the boxer


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 6, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> These are great photos.  For starters, check out the pre-Gi attire.  I would guess from the late 1920's to early 30's.  Earlier, even this uniform  would have been considered "formal."  I love the older Okinawan karate-ka photos - the students look like a mangy but very dangerous pack of alley dogs.
> More importantly, they illustrate Motobu's simultaneous defense/offense.  The right photo shows a check/parry and a simultaneous reverse punch.  The right hand is NOT chambered to the hip during the punch and is available for immediate follow-up.  The left photo shows a head punch that simultaneously acts as a block.  He is countering thru the attack.  Ed Parker called it "single thrust - dual purpose"  These photos, in my opinion, illustrate the pinnacle of fighting technique and shows Motobu's fighting philosophy and spiritual commitment to attack.  No wonder he had the reputation of being the toughest guy in Okinawa.



Here is a photo from within the Daidokan Dojo that Mutobu eventually built. This was after he moved from Osaka to Tokyo.

Notice the packed environment. He did this to train people to flight close in a crowded area. The guys kicking the makiwara would have to pay attention to their surroundings, in case someone was hit hard enough to fly back into them.

Also take note of the earliest use of rib protector in karate. Motobu understood just how easy it is to break ribs. While a lot of masters from Okinawa didn't accept women as students, Motobu like Toyama did teach women.

However, his methods were brutally tough, and a lot of students quit.




Outside of the dojo here is the peak of formalware.

 



there is a distance of 954 miles between Okinawa and Tokyo Japan. See the red path. Today, a system of intercoastal highways and ferries exist, and you can go by car or truck (see blue route) which would 1375 miles driving.

Why do i point this out?
Because Okinawa is a lot hotter in the summer and warmer year around, and Japan is colder year round and can have brutal winters.

So there would be a higher desire to dress up in mainland japan. even for things like Practice Uniforms. The Judo keigogi was modeled on the Japanese equivalent of longjohn thermal under clothing. (by Dr Jiguro Kano)

The Japanese government through the office of the secretary of education, and the DBNK issued mandates that the karate masters from Okinawa formalize things, and establish a ckass uniform.
Gitchin Funakoshi's contrabution would be to modify
Dr. Kano's keigogi to lighter fabiric.

But in Okinawa during a sweltering summer heatwave guys trained on the beach in loincloths.



.
.both of these were taken in Okinawa
The outer wear.



the inner ware


----------



## skribs (Oct 6, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> The only caveat I would add is training without Kata, (or some kind of chained, sequenced, or organized pattern with the name of ones own choice) is more of a challenge in larger group settings.



What is the advantage then of a long kata over a short form or drill work?



Flying Crane said:


> The problem with this is that reading a book or watching a video, while it may catalog the material, is not a physical training activity.  What you read in a book or watch in a video still needs to be translated into physical practice.  And of course this then goes back to the old debate of the quality of training if that video is stand-alone or is part of direct training with a teacher.
> 
> Kata is already the physical practice.  If it was taught well, along the way, then you already understand it and it does not need to be translated.
> 
> What I am saying is, I do not see video or a book as any kind of equal substitute for kata.  However, I do agree that kata is not necessary in learning a martial art, and I do not feel that an absence of kata automatically makes it no longer Karate.



If the purpose of the Kata is as a catalog of techniques, then the video is a replacement for the kata.  The physical training in the drills that replace the kata are what replaces the physical training of the kata.  For example, let's say that you have a block and punch combination in your kata.  This is disguised into a:

Guard clear and strike
Off-balancing pull and strike
Grab and push take-down (with a trip)
Why not simply have:

Drill 1: Guard clear
Drill 2: Pulling strike
Drill 3: Sweep and take-down
Why need the kata at this point?


----------



## Randy Pio (Oct 23, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am starting this thread because I was asked to defend my assertion that karate and kata are inseparable.  I hope that this will at least be informative, even if you don't agree with my thesis.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone, nor do I think anyone else is necessarily wrong.  I speak only for myself and my limited understanding of the art I study.
> 
> ...



Traditional Arts suffer, because people think by simply performing Kata/Form/Set they will be magically infused with some kind of power.  What times we live in, that we don't have to use; what we train.

-RP


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2019)

Randy Pio said:


> Traditional Arts suffer, because people think by simply performing Kata/Form/Set they will be magically infused with some kind of power.  What times we live in, that we don't have to use; what we train.
> 
> -RP


Is that what you think I think?


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> What is the advantage then of a long kata over a short form or drill work?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kata is the source from which your drills can be found, stored for future practitioners and readily accessed to be passed down.  Instead of various individual chapters, they are combined into a book.  By linking these various drills into a kata, they flow from one to the other, involving various directional and distance changes, as well as body repositioning and centering.  To perform an extended kata well, it requires extended concentration and endurance. It is more than the sum of its parts. So, kata is a convenient and useful way to practice karate, along with kumite and basic drills. 

Matsubayashi Shorinryu Master Shoshin Nagamine, (student of Chotoku Kyan, Arakaki Ankichi, and Choki Motobu) wrote:
"Kata is the origin of karate."  "If there is no kata, there is no karate, just kicking and punching."  "Kata is karate."


----------



## Randy Pio (Oct 24, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Is that what you think I think?



No.  I once thought that, now I know better.  However, there are many people who don't know any better.  And, this is why in other circles people say "Your <insert traditionally trained Martial Art> doesn't work".


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 24, 2019)

Randy Pio said:


> No.  I once thought that, now I know better.  However, there are many people who don't know any better.  And, this is why in other circles people say "Your <insert traditionally trained Martial Art> doesn't work".


This is true, a lot of people do believe this.  I find it difficult for me to care what those people think.  I’m open to discussing it, but I don’t care if I am unable to convince them otherwise.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2019)

Randy Pio said:


> No.  I once thought that, now I know better.  However, there are many people who don't know any better.  And, this is why in other circles people say "Your <insert traditionally trained Martial Art> doesn't work".


 

I truly don't care what anyone thinks about whether or not my art 'works', though. Their approval isn't required.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 26, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Kata is already the physical practice.  If it was taught well, along the way, then you already understand it and it does not need to be translated.



That's a really good point.  I agree with what most of you guys are saying, which is that print, photos, even video are helpful tools to training... but are not training in & of themselves.  You must physically practice (or at least mentally rehearse, i.e. visualize) in order to internalize what you are doing.

   I surprised myself once when I was... I think it was when I was practicing for my trainee instructor thing in the A.T.A. way back. I was practicing the white through green belt forms/poomse over and over, just getting them grooved... and I suddenly noticed something (which I've since managed to forget what it was as it's been buried in the vault of all of these overlapping and interwoven concepts) which I'd never actually been "taught" by my instructor.  I recall it was something to do with footwork and weight shifting.  My instructor never told me about it, and it Would have been helpful to know the concept as it would have assisted me at that time with an issue I was having. I don't know if that instructor even knew what it was. But, I remembered, and when I'd have students of mine after that, learning that same form, after we got them to the point where they were going throught he entire thing as their proper form of practice, I'd point it out when appropriate.

   The same thing is applicable to each and every one of my aikido kata techniques. You learn, understand, and teach them differently TO and FOR different ranks, differently. It's really interesting, the conversations which come up when a student spots something which would be revealed at, say, the nidan level when they are at ikkyu. Fun stuff!


----------



## Buka (Oct 27, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> The only caveat I would add is training without Kata, (or some kind of chained, sequenced, or organized pattern with the name of ones own choice) is more of a challenge in larger group settings. It also has a pronounced advantage of memory recollection and repetition for the lone practitioner. I feel they are just a tool like most of the things we do in MA practice.



I have a different opinion. In larger groups I find it easier without. Far easier.

But, of course, that's for us, not necessarily for anyone else.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 27, 2019)

Buka said:


> I have a different opinion. In larger groups I find it easier without. Far easier.
> 
> But, of course, that's for us, not necessarily for anyone else.


If it is a mixed bag of ranks it can be a drain on time. Most often we will either split up the class and have senior belts work with lower belts on forms/drills or all work them together up through all the forms. 
We had a great last Thursday night; had about 16 red belts and 8 black belts, all adults. Good, hard, upper level class. 
I am still limping.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, I think it's possible to train Karate without kata, without it losing the quality of being Karate.


Coming from kung fu.  I'm not sure.  Forms allow me to focus and think about what I'm doing and how I'm moving.  It takes away all of the things that normally would distract me. Here's an example.  I'm one of the few people here who often states that they spar to learn.  When you are trying to win, then you aren't trying to use techniques that you aren't good at.   In this example, the desire win becomes the distraction.  In my opinion winning is a huge distraction.  When training a technique you have to be willing to lose with that technique until you can understand how to properly use it. However, that's the opposite of trying to win by using things that you are good at. 

Training forms, kata clears all of that noise and allows you to focus completely on the technique.  The reason I can do kung fu is because I'm willing to fail with it as a learning process and a lot of times my success comes because I don't bail out on the technique.  In addition I often refer back to the form and say to myself, Do it just like you do in the form.

Can a person learn without the forms.  Yes, but I think it's going to be very limited that way.  When I think of forms, I think of how athletes work on their form and technique outside of the mindset of winning and losing.   Here's an example and it sounds like the same mindset that is used when training kata and forms





Same thing here.





Why do forms?  Probably because there is some significant benefit to it. Can you learn to run without doing forms.  Sure.  No problem.  I learned how to run long distance without any "forms"  I just ran.  Was I the best. nope far from it.  Ironically when I ran track I used to train my running form all of the time.. Was I the best in my event".  I ranked right up their with the best. Ran 110 hurdles and lost maybe twice.  My training for running hurdles was to use only 1 hurdle and I learned how to jump over that one hurdle really good, focusing on my form.  I would  run to the left or the right of this hurdle so I could work on the trail leg only or my lead leg only.   Below are guys training and working on form.  These guys are 100% focused on technique.  Add a stopwatch, and continuous running against some other people and all of that focus goes out of the window.






I could have used any sport. But I picked running because for the most part we don't think of it as training the form.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 27, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Coming from kung fu.  I'm not sure.  Forms allow me to focus and think about what I'm doing and how I'm moving.  It takes away all of the things that normally would distract me. Here's an example.  I'm one of the few people here who often states that they spar to learn.  When you are trying to win, then you aren't trying to use techniques that you aren't good at.   In this example, the desire win becomes the distraction.  In my opinion winning is a huge distraction.  When training a technique you have to be willing to lose with that technique until you can understand how to properly use it. However, that's the opposite of trying to win by using things that you are good at.
> 
> Training forms, kata clears all of that noise and allows you to focus completely on the technique.  The reason I can do kung fu is because I'm willing to fail with it as a learning process and a lot of times my success comes because I don't bail out on the technique.  In addition I often refer back to the form and say to myself, Do it just like you do in the form.
> 
> ...




I don't think the question is "Can you learn karate without the form?"  I think the question may be, "How much better are we with or without the form training?"  Based on every sport and musical instrument that I can think of.  Training form is a big part of being really good at it. If this is a universal truth then I don't see why martial arts and fighting would be an exception.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 27, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think the question is "Can you learn karate without the form?"  I think the question may be, "How much better are we with or without the form training?"


I don't know about Karate. But for CMA, the forms were created because Chinese emperor didn't allow his people to train fighting. CMA turned into a performance/health art in order to survive.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know about Karate. But for CMA, the forms were created because Chinese emperor didn't allow his people to train fighting. CMA turned into a performance/health art in order to survive.


I understand what you are saying but I believe Forms existed before this.change.  I look at everything else that has forms but no Chinese emperor.  I think it's just a natural part of learning.  You take a technique and break it down.  You train that technique individually without the concept of winning but the focus of improving being good with the technique.  

Forms are nothing but techniques chained together.  Instead of doing one at a time you do a set of them.  The issue with forms and kata in general is that they are no longer done from the perspective of learning how to fight, or learning how to use the techniques in a fight.  Because of this forms take on a performance feel and lose the fighting function.  Application is rarely train within a sparring setting.  Most application of technique is almost always trained for demo purposes.

If a person wants to use the techniques to fight with then forms practice is only part of the training that is required.

This by itself will not make you a good basketball player.  You still have to learn how to apply these skill sets in an actual game be it practice (like sparring) or a real game (like fighting).  If this guy wants to be a basketball performer the these drills are fine, but he'll lack the application skills needed to play a competitive basketball game.  Now will this guy be better or worst in an actual game than someone else who doesn't do these but plays basketball.





I think of martial arts in the same way.  A person can train the techniques and skills all day long, but will fall short  if application training in sparring or competition is isn't done.


----------



## Buka (Oct 28, 2019)

Karate is Kumite, Kumite is Karate.

So there.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Oct 28, 2019)

I've been following this post with some interest but until have refrained from contributing as I perhaps did not have the words to properly convey how I felt about the subject.   This past weekend, I had an opportunity to meet and train with Hanshi Oishi Daigo who is a legend in Kyokushin Karate.   He is 69 and as I watched him perform Yantsu and then proceed to do a board breaking performance it struck me that I hope that when I am his age and no longer able to practice kumite as I currently enjoy, there is no reason for me to stop training and continuing to improve other aspects of my karate.   His accomplishments in Kyokushin are not any lessened now that he is not practicing kumite (knockdown does favour the young) but his mind is sharp and his ability to follow his passion is as keen as when I watched him in the documentary of the first Kyokushin World Tournament.    Kata is certainly part of karate and karate is certainly part of kata.   The degree, I suppose, is up to the individual and the importance that the put towards it.  If we focus solely on the aspect of kumite, we are only looking at one aspect of karate.   Is that good or bad ?   Depends on your what your goals are and what you want to accomplish with your karate.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Oct 28, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I understand what you are saying but I believe Forms existed before this.change. I look at everything else that has forms but no Chinese emperor. I think it's just a natural part of learning. You take a technique and break it down. You train that technique individually without the concept of winning but the focus of improving being good with the technique.
> 
> Forms are nothing but techniques chained together. Instead of doing one at a time you do a set of them. The issue with forms and kata in general is that they are no longer done from the perspective of learning how to fight, or learning how to use the techniques in a fight. Because of this forms take on a performance feel and lose the fighting function. Application is rarely train within a sparring setting. Most application of technique is almost always trained for demo purposes.



   That is exactly the issue with forms today, though a little less than yesterday.  Kata was derived from fighting combos, then evolved into performance.  In many cases, the original intent of the moves has been totally lost.  There is now movement to get back to the practical application of kata technique. 

   We are rediscovering the real meaning of the kata's moves.  More than that, we need to work with a partner and see what really works with actual resistance (the way it was originally done) within the scope of the kata's movements (without getting carried away and changing the kata, itself.)

   Try using the individual strings of techniques in freestyle kumite?  I've tried it with several kata parts - fun, very challenging and only sometimes effective.  Maybe I haven't done enough, or harder, partner drills to make them truly effective.  Still, worth doing.  The problem is Karate wasn't developed to use against other karate-ka, and current street fighters are more educated today.  That doesn't mean kata has no value in fighting.  There are lessons and skills, and yes, some techniques, that are applicable to kumite and street fighting. 

   There are some things kata cannot do, but I think, overall, they have a lot to offer above and beyond the traditional and historical link to the past.


----------



## Buka (Oct 28, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> If it is a mixed bag of ranks it can be a drain on time. Most often we will either split up the class and have senior belts work with lower belts on forms/drills or all work them together up through all the forms.
> We had a great last Thursday night; had about 16 red belts and 8 black belts, all adults. Good, hard, upper level class.
> I am still limping.



We always did that as well, higher ranks working with everyone.

Why patterns of movement never helped us was because I never had two students that moved the same way, or had the same characteristics and/or techniques that benefited them in the same way.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 29, 2019)

Buka said:


> I have a different opinion. In larger groups I find it easier without. Far easier.
> 
> But, of course, that's for us, not necessarily for anyone else.


So, if you don't use kata/patterns/poomse, whatever --- put a name on it -- what do you "do" when you get a group of... say more than 10 going at the same time?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 29, 2019)

JP3 said:


> So, if you don't use kata/patterns/poomse, whatever --- put a name on it -- what do you "do" when you get a group of... say more than 10 going at the same time?


Well, when I would run a session in capoeira, we would create short sequences on the spot.  None of them were standardized, although we might use the same one at different times.  Sometimes it was just a single technique, sometimes it was a sequence of several.  The reasoning was to not get fixed into a pattern, and be spontaneous.  Creativity was the point.  Everyone would line up and work the sequence together.

Conversely, in my kung Fu class we often don’t all work the same form at the same time.  Different people work on their stuff, sometimes alone, sometimes with a classmate. Sometimes just basics, but even when working on forms, people often are doing different ones at the same time.  Sifu walks around and makes corrections as he sees fit.


----------



## Buka (Oct 30, 2019)

JP3 said:


> So, if you don't use kata/patterns/poomse, whatever --- put a name on it -- what do you "do" when you get a group of... say more than 10 going at the same time?



Forgive the long winded answer, but, hey, you asked!

I'm used to good size groups, we usually had between fifteen to twenty five people in class, which makes it more fun for everyone. I always found that the larger the class the more pumped up they got.





Pictured above is the class before it actually starts. As soon as the cry of "Line up!' is heard they would snap to a formal ready stance.

After the traditional protocol of bowing in we would warm up with footwork and shadow boxing/shadow kicking to loud music. I first encountered that at a friend's Kenpo school back in the seventies. I couldn't believe how much fun everyone had, myself included. Once a sweat was worked up we'd have formal stretching, pushups, sit ups, chin ups etc. We would do them fast, hard and in great numbers. Everyone knew coming in that if you didn't want to work hard this place was not for you. That's why it was mandatory to watch at least two classes before you were allowed to sign up.

After that is when class really started as far as I was concerned. We'd drill up and down the floor for a few minutes, then get to work. Maybe we would work on side kicks. All kinds of side kicks. I'd break the students into small groups. Some would be on bags - we had fifteen heavy bags, one of which was on an elevator cable strung through the I-beams above so you could kick it and drive it across the floor - some would be on shields, some in front of the mirrored wall, some on each other. Beginners, or what I considered beginners, would be working on the form of the kick itself, black belts helping and encouraging them. Encouragement is important. Honest encouragement, not left handed token BS. And deep down everybody knows the difference.

Then we would work on blocking, jamming or evading the side kick. Then on the differences of applying the sidekick to various size people, to various kinds of fighters. Every couple months I'd have the class go put on their street clothes. So they could see how their sidekick might be affected by what they wear. And they'd do sidekicks, shoes on, to the bags, the air, the kicking shields etc.

Then we would work the various sidekicks in combinations with punches, kicks, footwork and on and on.

And when I say sidekick, I mean every form of sidekick. Defensive sidekicks, step up and slide sidekicks, cross over sidekicks, fall away sidekicks, jump sidekicks, drop sidekicks, etc. The only side kick we never trained was a quarter turn, back leg sidekick. Because the only person you could ever hit with that kick is your grandmother. And it's not nice to kick your grandmother. 

Now think about how many kinds of kicks there are in the Arts, and the variations of all the kicks. I did this with all of them. It's amazing any of us learn anything, there's just so much to do in training Martial Arts. And so little time.

Sometimes we'd do slow motion side kicks - for balance, for muscular strength, for working on keeping your guard up. It's real easy keeping your guard up when you're kicking fast, not so easy kicking slow.

Sometimes we would work extreme short motion movement. Like throwing a technique with very little room to move. We'd explore where the power would come from, how to utilize the body from the inside rather than from the outside. Kicking in close is not easy, it takes a lot of practice and hard work. My teachers spent a lot of time with me on this, I, in turn, passed it on.

Sometimes, I'd work the class into a lather, then have them sit and stretch as I taught them Martial History. At least as I knew it. And I'd teach them the history of American Karate. They all told me they loved those classes. Sometimes I'd teach them about Bushido and what it means....and what it should mean to them. _Rectitude, Courage, Benevolence, Politeness, Sincerity, Honor, Loyalty, and Self-control_.
I find there's less talk of these things in dojos these days and that saddens me greatly.

 Many times I'd have guest instructors come down and have them teach a class from their style. The students loved this as well. Sometimes I'd have various EMTs down and they would teach about injury, preventing injury, immobilizing injury ect. Man, all the guys loved that. And so did the parents of the young students. I'd let them take the class, too. They took copious notes.

Sometimes we'd spend the batter part of a week working on the differences between a jab and a backfist, and of course, how to use them. Sometimes we would go over how to get a workout in at home, especially if you were limited in time and with space. I could write a book about that.

Sometimes we would spend the better part of the week working on various footworks. I never taught one particular kind of footwork, I find that everyone makes their own. And it's real easy to see if it works well, just try it fighting.

Sometimes when sparring was going on, I'd sit against the wall with a handful of mid range belts and we’d watch the sparring. We'd discuss reading the body, reading the stance. "See what so and so is doing? What's he setting up? Now watch what he does when he fights so and so? See the difference?"  It was always great when you would see the light go on over their heads. It helped making them into better Martial Artists and better fighters. I'd ask them, "So, if you were to go up there right now against so and so, what would you try to do? What would you try to take advantage of with your particular skill set as it stands right now?

Sometimes we would discuss psychology and how it applies to Martial Arts. I took several years of psychology classes in college, enjoyed all of them.

Sometimes we would explore the subtle differences of how they kicked a bag, a shield, focus mitts, the air and how they kicked people. A lot of folks think they throw the kick or punch the exact same way in all of these circumstances, but I beg to differ.

We were in New England, which has cold winters. Sometimes, in the middle of class we would go outside into the parking lot and train hard for ten minutes in the slush and falling snow. I'd have them put on their shoes because of rocks and broken glass. And, yes, I was well aware of the dangers of training outside in these winter conditions. My students are my responsibility and I always took that responsibility very seriously.

Sometimes we would work on not getting emotionally invested in any drama surrounding us. We would learn how to "not take the bait". This is extremely important to diffuse situations and avoid conflict/fights. We'd discuss recognizing our own moods, and how your mood might allow a quicker flash point of emotion.

We did a lot of work on breathing techniques.

Then, in nineteen ninety one, I started training with Rickson. But he wasn't teaching us BJJ per se, he was teaching us how to apply what we did in a grappling situation, which is different. It would be another four years before I trained in a BJJ school, a Rickson school.

So, at that point in 91, we had a ton of more stuff to work on. Swell. Again, not enough hours in the day or years in a lifetime. But it sure was fun and my students were all the better for it.

And then there was sparring and kickboxing and boxing and grappling and self defense drills against resistance and knife work and weapons disarms. As for the weapons disarms, every couple years we would have the Boston P.D. Range Master come down and teach a couple of three hour classes on gun safety.
The following week we would all go to the range and they would learn to shoot. I am of the opinion that if you're going to teach weapon disarms you need to know as much about that particular weapon as possible. And not me just telling you. I paid the Range Master, but didn't charge the students, it was just part of their curriculum.

So anyway, that's some of the stuff we would do. There's a lot more, a hell of a lot more, but I have to get my lazy butt to the gym now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2019)

Buka said:


> Forgive the long winded answer, but, hey, you asked!
> 
> I'm used to good size groups, we usually had between fifteen to twenty five people in class, which makes it more fun for everyone. I always found that the larger the class the more pumped up they got.
> 
> ...


Man, I want to go back and join that school. Sounds like an exhausting lot of fun and learning. You rock.


----------



## _Simon_ (Oct 30, 2019)

Buka said:


> Forgive the long winded answer, but, hey, you asked!
> 
> I'm used to good size groups, we usually had between fifteen to twenty five people in class, which makes it more fun for everyone. I always found that the larger the class the more pumped up they got.
> 
> ...


Wow Buka, I would so love those classes!

You've got me all hyped now, am gonna do some of that in my home session later today


----------



## JP3 (Nov 1, 2019)

Buka, you're right... I asked! Ha! Good stuff, though I didn't want to "quote" it so everyone would have to read it all again or scrollscrollscroll.

From my aikido background, I can tell you that, from Our perspective, you were doing all different kinds of kata, but that's another topic, almost entire.  Same goes for Michael's post, above as well. Good stuff there too... except you lose the long-windedness award to our usually taciturn Buka.  I think his doc changed his meds or something....

And... "lazy" my ***.


----------

