# Tae Kwon Do Forms



## Azulx (Jul 31, 2016)

After class Saturday i was practicing these 3 forms : Do-San, Yul-Gok, and Choong- Moo. Feel free to comment and give any criticism. Thanks.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jul 31, 2016)

Are you taught to make an extra motion with your rear foot? Every time you move into a front stance your back foot readjusts. For me, this would be wrong. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Azulx (Jul 31, 2016)

Jaeimseu said:


> Are you taught to make an extra motion with your rear foot? Every time you move into a front stance your back foot readjusts. For me, this would be wrong.



No I am not taught that. I have no idea why I do it. i have never been corrected otherwise. How do you do it?


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jul 31, 2016)

Azulx said:


> No I am not taught that. I have no idea why I do it. i have never been corrected otherwise. How do you do it?



Once my stepping foot lands there is no further movement of my feet. It looks like you are stepping with the rear foot to settle into your stance. I'd just step a little longer maybe to remove the need for extra movement. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Azulx (Jul 31, 2016)

Jaeimseu said:


> Once my stepping foot lands there is no further movement of my feet. It looks like you are stepping with the rear foot to settle into your stance. I'd just step a little longer maybe to remove the need for extra movement.



Ahhh I see, yeah I never even payed attention to that. The only thing that I was trying to make sure of was that my back heel wasn't up.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 1, 2016)

Do San, Briefly, Not knowing what standard you follow.  Outer forearm Blocks should chamber on top, not under. 1,3, and either 9 and or 11 you chamber under. Seems you are also inconsistent.   # 5 should move the let foot and you move the right.   Backfists chamber on top and should chamber under.   Your chamber for the knife han strikes 23, and 24 are not consistent. 24 is better.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 1, 2016)

Yul Guk Same caveat. No Tension 1&3 . Hooking Blocks look like Knifehand Blocks  Bending ready stance is not slow. Punch with Side Piercing Kick should be high - eye level.   Can't tell if chamber on outer forearm or back fist is correct due to rear view.   High Double forarm block should move across the body like most blocks not from close in to forward.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 1, 2016)

Choon Moo caveat same as before , same techniques as other patterns same comments. . Jump with side Piercing kick - Not land and then kick .  From U shape block to spin and knife hand guarding block, block should move across body opposite direction of spin whn you land. Rear foot should land in same place   #12 Upward kick  with knee. Hands grab head and pull down as knee impacts solar plexus. Hands and knee will never meet. Try this - Have someone stand in front of you in more or less a parallel stance. You are in a walking stance like the pattern. Be close enough to grab their head like the pattern. Don't move lead foot like the pattern. Try to bring your knee to their  head.    # 28 is an upward block with palm. Looks like you are thrusting your hands forward.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 1, 2016)

It's been a long, long time since I have done those forms.  I'll defer to Mr. Weiss' detailed technical analysis, and simply add that your power is inconsistent.  Unless the move is specifically a slow or a tension move, you should deliver it with power.  Most of your blocks look like they wouldn't stop a pool noodle, much less a punch or a kick.

May I suggest doing your forms against a heavy bag?  Break the form down into segments and do them repeatedly with full power against the bag.  Then when you go back into the full form on the floor, the power will show through.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 1, 2016)

I can't comment on the TKD so I'll stick to what I know.  You seem to be having a disconnect of power in your blocks.  Make sure you spend time training on how to connect your energy to create power.  The way to train the connection is to just drill the techniques that feel weak.  Eventually your body will learn how to connect the energy from your body to your arms resulting in a more powerful technique.

This isn't a quick process so have patience with it.  You'll most likely learn how to do it when you least expect so long as you keep drilling those area where you feel that the technique isn't powerful.


----------



## Dong xiao hu (Aug 1, 2016)

The little extra movements with your feet are not allowing you to settle into your stance with the correct timing and is dissipating your power. Do the forms slowly and feel the stability of the stance. 

Sent from my Z797C using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 1, 2016)

I took another look at the video with the back foot issue that many have pointed out.  That extra movement in that foot is due to you trying to realign your stance instead of trying to push into the stance.  By this I mean once that rear foot lands push forward into your bow stance.  Currently you are pushing backwards into bow stance. When playing the video slowly I can see your rear foot literally move backwards. 

Stance training can help you with this.  Stance training is done with focus only on your stance and the transition of your stance.  Practice transitioning from horse stance to bow stance, and from bow stance to bow stance.


----------



## Azulx (Aug 1, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Do San, Briefly, Not knowing what standard you follow. Outer forearm Blocks should chamber on top, not under. 1,3, and either 9 and or 11 you chamber under. Seems you are also inconsistent. # 5 should move the let foot and you move the right. Backfists chamber on top and should chamber under. Your chamber for the knife han strikes 23, and 24 are not consistent. 24 is better.



So funny thing, I saw myself chambering for the outer foream block both on top and under. I have no written standard so i will confirm with my instructor today. There is also no written standard on how to transition to the stance for move 5, so i will confirm that today as well. No written standard for Backfist chamber either.... So I will ask my instructor. I will work on the knife hand chambering.


----------



## Azulx (Aug 1, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yul Guk Same caveat. No Tension 1&3 . Hooking Blocks look like Knifehand Blocks Bending ready stance is not slow. Punch with Side Piercing Kick should be high - eye level. Can't tell if chamber on outer forearm or back fist is correct due to rear view. High Double forarm block should move across the body like most blocks not from close in to forward.



! and 3 are slow punches for us, the itf just does kind of an arm lift measure, correct? Ok, so the hooking blocks, I did them with the hand turned over, and my instructor corrected me and said I need more "C-Grip", so I assuming our standard calls for our hand to look like a 'C'. Bending stance is super super sloppy, I was just being lazy and didn't want to get off balanced. Will work on High Double Forearm Block.


----------



## Azulx (Aug 1, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Choon Moo caveat same as before , same techniques as other patterns same comments. . Jump with side Piercing kick - Not land and then kick . From U shape block to spin and knife hand guarding block, block should move across body opposite direction of spin whn you land. Rear foot should land in same place #12 Upward kick with knee. Hands grab head and pull down as knee impacts solar plexus. Hands and knee will never meet. Try this - Have someone stand in front of you in more or less a parallel stance. You are in a walking stance like the pattern. Be close enough to grab their head like the pattern. Don't move lead foot like the pattern. Try to bring your knee to their head. # 28 is an upward block with palm. Looks like you are thrusting your hands forward.



So I kick in the air and land in double-knifehand block? Yeah I'll have to practice the chambering after the 360 jump spin, I can at least land the jump, most of our people fall trying it. For the upward knee strike I need to confirm if we teach the strike to Solar Plexus or head. How do you do move #28?


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 1, 2016)

Make all your techniques count. By that I mean perform them with full intent. The form should demonstrate your technique at its most optimum (with no messy opponent to get in the way). Judging from what you are displaying I don't think you would fight your way out of a paper bag! Sorry to be harsh, but that is the impression I am getting from the video.

I am not a TKD practitioner, however I think the principle should apply to all solo forms practice.


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 1, 2016)

Apologies, let me clarify what I mean. Even when performing the pattern slowly, each technique should have intent, as if you were actually trying to strike your opponent.

Clearly when learning the form, getting used to the body mechanics and timing then your technique won't be at its best. However once your familiarity with the pattern is sufficient, EVERY TIME, you practice it, do it with fighting intent, not necessarily speed, but as if you were fighting. visualise in your mind what you are doing. Else it is just a bad dance with some kicks thrown in.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 1, 2016)

Azulx said:


> . How do you do move #28?



"28.... while executing an upward block with the twin palm."     The palms move in an upward / vertical direction.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 1, 2016)

Do San   




Yul Gok   




Choong Moo


----------



## TrueJim (Aug 1, 2016)

Th0mas said:


> Make all your techniques count. By that I mean perform them with full intent...



*"We need emotional content...!"*


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 1, 2016)

Lol ....


----------



## Azulx (Aug 1, 2016)

Th0mas said:


> Make all your techniques count. By that I mean perform them with full intent. The form should demonstrate your technique at its most optimum (with no messy opponent to get in the way). Judging from what you are displaying I don't think you would fight your way out of a paper bag! Sorry to be harsh, but that is the impression I am getting from the video.
> 
> I am not a TKD practitioner, however I think the principle should apply to all solo forms practice.



Yes, I understand that I should do the former with more realistic intent. Is your comment about me not being able to fight my way out of a paperr bag necessary? You also claim that you are not a TKD practitioner,  so how can you evaluate my fighting ability from a form? What is your martial art experience?  Are you an instructor?


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 1, 2016)

I'm a karate guy, not TKD, so take all this with a grain of salt...

You seem to look down several times during the forms; either at your feet, the mat, or your hands.  Keep your head pointed towards your "opponent."  Your head shouldn't move at all, except when you change direction.

In addition to the back foot sliding back into a deeper stance, you seem to do a sort of hop before the actual next step.  Hard to explain, but it jumps out at me immediately (no pun intended).

The biggest thing I see is intent.  Like previously said, make every move count.  You appear to be walking through it rather than fighting.  That doesn't mean speed it up, it just means for force in your techniques.  I'm not sure how far along you are in learning these forms, but if I had to guess I'd say you're at the point where you finally memorized the movements and now it's time to add power and snap.  But if you're posting this here, you probably are past the point where you just memorized the movements.

Overall I think the forms look good.  Just some pointers to take them from good to great.  And I think it's cool you put yourself out there like this.  If I could figure out the whole YouTube thing, I would too.  And I'd most likely have just as many criticisms.  Keep at it!


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 2, 2016)

Azulx said:


> Yes, I understand that I should do the former with more realistic intent. Is your comment about me not being able to fight my way out of a paperr bag necessary? You also claim that you are not a TKD practitioner,  so how can you evaluate my fighting ability from a form? What is your martial art experience?  Are you an instructor?


Hi Azulx
Maybe the "paperbag" comment was a little unfair 

I appreciate you are trying to perfect your forms and may not be familiar enough yet or fully comfortable with the body mechanics.

My observation was purely based on what I saw in the form and is not a reflection on other aspects of your art.

The point is that forms are not a dance but are meant to represent fighting applications and should be approached with that in mind. This includes the mental and emotional side too, especially when visualisation is so important and should be practiced hand in hand with the physical techinques.

Now I am not a big fan of TKD forms, mainly because they originally were sourced from Shotokan Kata (which had already adapted them) and the structure and application has significantly evolved away from their original purpose.

Arguably (and this is my view) Kata was originally designed as a record of fighting strategies and tactics recorded in a the physical medium. Close range, against civilian assailants dealing with HAPV. The fighting strategies are demonstraited in the form with example applications to highlight the combatative principles. Think of it as an instructor lead lesson plan, used to structure and supplement all aspects of a wider training regime.

The problem with TKD patterns is that the emphasis is on long range, kick-heavy applications, which is significantly different from the martial context of the original kata.

All that being said, there is still value in them, but they need to be practiced in a martial way. Each technique should be performed with mental and physical intent as if you were trying to actually damage someone.

Anyway, to your final question, I have been practicing shotokan karate for 30 years now ( much to my long suffering wife's irritation and my long suffering hamstrings), with a particular interest in pragmatic karate.


----------



## Red Sun (Aug 2, 2016)

Arent you meant to turn your head before you turn? Or was that just in my dojo/dojang?


----------



## Azulx (Aug 2, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Do San, Briefly, Not knowing what standard you follow. Outer forearm Blocks should chamber on top, not under. 1,3, and either 9 and or 11 you chamber under. Seems you are also inconsistent. # 5 should move the let foot and you move the right. Backfists chamber on top and should chamber under. Your chamber for the knife han strikes 23, and 24 are not consistent. 24 is better.



I confirmed the following with my instructor. For our standard Inner/Outer Forearm blocks are chambered under, back fists are chambered on top. I asked why? He stated that that is just how he was taught in the ITA. So that is the standard we follow. I have to work on being consistent with my school's standard because in teh same form I saw myself chamber for the outer forearm block under and on top.

transitioning to move 5 is something I also need to confirm because it isn't in the manual. So idk if I'm doing it right. Even for my school's standards. I will take a look at #24's chamber and go form there.



Balrog said:


> It's been a long, long time since I have done those forms. I'll defer to Mr. Weiss' detailed technical analysis, and simply add that your power is inconsistent. Unless the move is specifically a slow or a tension move, you should deliver it with power. Most of your blocks look like they wouldn't stop a pool noodle, much less a punch or a kick.
> 
> May I suggest doing your forms against a heavy bag? Break the form down into segments and do them repeatedly with full power against the bag. Then when you go back into the full form on the floor, the power will show through.



The inconsistency with power came straight up from laziness. It was at the end of class, I just wanted to walk through the forms and see the chambers and transitions. That is how I became aware of the adjusting back step that I always seem to do. I can assure you I can block a noodle. I will post a video of me trying to do the form with intent. If ti still looks inconsistent then I need to work on forms even more.



Th0mas said:


> Hi Azulx
> Maybe the "paperbag" comment was a little unfair
> 
> I appreciate you are trying to perfect your forms and may not be familiar enough yet or fully comfortable with the body mechanics.
> ...



I appreciate your input. This si the point I was trying to make. You sad you have been practicing Shotokan for 30 years, I have been practicing for just under 2. You have been practicing for longer than I have been alive. There is no possible early way that me and you will have the same understanding of forms. So it is silly to have such a negative comment. Here you have an ability to help me better understand what I am doing, and instead you choose to lead with something like that. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but keep that into consideration.  I may not be the only person who you have an opportunity to hel[p outside your classroom. 

Finally, here is a video of me doing a form for testing. I believe I show more intent here, but there is still many things I have to work on.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 2, 2016)

Azulx said:


> After class Saturday i was practicing these 3 forms : Do-San, Yul-Gok, and Choong- Moo. Feel free to comment and give any criticism. Thanks.



You've gotten some very good input so far, I'd just add a few things to keep in mind while practicing.

1) Work on accuracy of your stances. It's like building a house. If there's not a good foundation the rest of the structure will suffer. I am thinking particularly of your sitting stance (horseback stance), in which your toes are pointing out at nearly a 45 degree angle, but you do tend to appear slightly off balance at times in other stances. A good way to work on this is to simply go through each pattern you're practicing just doing stances and not worrying about the hand or foot techniques that go with them. Working on just stances allows you to make sure you have proper balance as well as check to see if the stances are accurate so your ending spot is the same spot at which you began.

2) In Choong-Moo, movements 25 and 26 are supposed to both be middle side piercing kicks. You perform a side piercing kick followed by a back piercing kick. Your instructor may have changed that technique but the form as designed calls for two side kicks (see the videos posted by Master Weiss in which GM Choi, Jung Hwa, the son of General Choi, performs Choong-Moo for a good example of this pattern in general).

3) Stretch your ankle when doing front snap kicks. I noticed that in general when you perform front kicks your ankle is bent at nearly a ninety degree ankle. The attacking tool for a front snap kick is the ball of the foot, which means in order to hit your opponent effectively you need to stretch the ankle of the kicking foot as you pull the toes back towards the shin.The ankle should be stretched enough that the foot is as close to flat on top as possible.

The videos Master Weiss posted are good examples of those patterns, especially since most of what is on youtube is not great.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 2, 2016)

Hi Azulx

I apologise if you were upset by my comment, it was a poor attempt at humour.

I hope the rest of my numerous inputs to this thread have been useful and demonstrate my willingness to share my experience.

As someone else pointed out earlier, you have put your videos out in public which is commendable and brave. You asked for feedback, which you got. You may not like all of it.. 

Keep up the training..

Cheers

Tom


----------



## Azulx (Aug 2, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> 2) In Choong-Moo, movements 25 and 26 are supposed to both be middle side piercing kicks. You perform a side piercing kick followed by a back piercing kick. Your instructor may have changed that technique but the form as designed calls for two side kicks (see the videos posted by Master Weiss in which GM Choi, Jung Hwa, the son of General Choi, performs Choong-Moo for a good example of this pattern in general).



Thanks for the feedback Chris! My Student Manual says spin side kick for #26, but I will confirm with my instructor today. There are some discrepancies between our Ch'ang Hon forms and the ITF's. This stems from my instructor learning the ITA's variation (which they had 2) then implementing his own variations. My main goal is having good stances and tarnsitions, that seems to be the biggest problem.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 3, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> The videos Master Weiss posted are good examples of those patterns, especially since most of what is on youtube is not great.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



An important Caveat for the videos I posted. As Mr. Spiller notes. They are "Good" examples. Don't ever consider that any video is a "Perfect" example.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 3, 2016)

Azulx said:


> ............ For our standard Inner/Outer Forearm blocks are chambered under, back fists are chambered on top. I asked why? He stated that that is just how he was taught in the ITA. ......................
> 
> transitioning to move 5 is something I also need to confirm because it isn't in the manual. ....................



What I am about to say is NOT meant to be a slam at your instructor. #1. The shortest pencil is better than the longest memory.  Being able to refer to a written standard is better than relying on recollection of how someone was taught. 

#2 . The author of the patterns does have a written standard for the items. Mr. Spiller and I noted. Nonetheless you need to follow the standard of your org. / instructor.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 3, 2016)

Azulx said:


> ................ He stated that that is just how he was taught in the ITA.



Is this the ITA  Founded by James Benko?


----------



## Azulx (Aug 3, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Is this the ITA  Founded by James Benko?



No Sir, ITA (International Taekwon-do Alliance ) was founded by Bert and Kraig Collars, as well as Art Monroe. They were former members of the ATA. ITA is now know as Tiger Rock Martial Arts. They teach what they call Ho-am Taekwon-do.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 3, 2016)

Azulx said:


> No Sir, ITA (International Taekwon-do Alliance ) was founded by Bert and Kraig Collars, as well as Art Monroe. They were former members of the ATA. ITA is now know as Tiger Rock Martial Arts. They teach what they call Ho-am Taekwon-do.



Seem to recall the ATA connection now from a prior thread. Explains the Chung Do Kwan "Flavor" to some of the elements.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 4, 2016)

Another video USTF-ITF Headquarters Public Group | Facebook


----------



## Azulx (Aug 5, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> What I am about to say is NOT meant to be a slam at your instructor. #1. The shortest pencil is better than the longest memory. Being able to refer to a written standard is better than relying on recollection of how someone was taught.
> 
> #2 . The author of the patterns does have a written standard for the items. Mr. Spiller and I noted. Nonetheless you need to follow the standard of your org. / instructor.



I absolutely agree. It actually would be better if there was written standard, because without that things get confusing. I can tell when he is trying to remember things, and he doesn't sound sure about what he is remembering. For example, chambering for backfists, I could have sworn it was on the bottom, then he 'remembered' it was on top. If it was written down he wouldn't have to 'remember'.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 5, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Another video USTF-ITF Headquarters Public Group | Facebook



Master Weiss, I'm not sure if it's different for other people but FB says "attachment unavailable" for me.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 6, 2016)

Checked the link again today and it worked fine. Good video of Gen. Choi giving instruction on Choong-Moo from one of the ITF training tapes series.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Azulx (Aug 15, 2016)

Did a couple of the forms again, hopefully there is some improvement. @Th0mas feel free to comment as you please, I know you have good intentions.


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 15, 2016)

I have not done these forms in about 30 years, so I will not comment on the evolution of their presentation.  When we did them, there was not all of the bobbing up and down that I see when people do the forms now, so I will not talk about those things.

Big thing...work your base.  Work drills to feel the base, the stance, the posture.  Make them rock solid.  Also, understand actual application for each movement, pose, and posture.  When you execute them, execute the application...it will change how you perform. 

I would check with your instructors on the technical aspects of the stances and work them..there are inconsistencies.

Agree with the chambering issues as well.

Overall, well done...how much experience do you have and your instructors have?


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 15, 2016)

Just a note...if your instructor's answer to a martially related question is...it's just the way we do it...there is a lack of depth there.


----------



## Azulx (Aug 15, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I have not done these forms in about 30 years, so I will not comment on the evolution of their presentation. When we did them, there was not all of the bobbing up and down that I see when people do the forms now, so I will not talk about those things.
> 
> Big thing...work your base. Work drills to feel the base, the stance, the posture. Make them rock solid. Also, understand actual application for each movement, pose, and posture. When you execute them, execute the application...it will change how you perform.
> 
> ...



I have about 20 months of experience. My Instructor started TKD in the 70's and did for 2 years. Then spent about 5 years at ITA where he earned his 2nd Dan until 2009, then started his own school in 2014. The school then closed in 2015, and re opened at a new location and have been there ever since.


----------



## Azulx (Aug 15, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Just a note...if your instructor's answer to a martially related question is...it's just the way we do it...there is a lack of depth there.



I think that wherever my instructor trained they didn't go over forms in depth. There seems to be a lack of understanding for certain things, that sometimes becomes noticeable.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 16, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Just a note...if your instructor's answer to a martially related question is...it's just the way we do it...there is a lack of depth there.


Interesting point.  

On the one hand the premise would then be that the instructor knows everything there is to know about a system. 

After 40+ years of teaching I occasionally get asked questions I never heard before.  Some of those I can not answer off the top of my head. Some of those I research and can find an answer to, and some I cannot find a reason for except that's the way everyone seems to do it.   That is the answer I provide to the student. If I have my own rationale I provide that as well, but always explain it is my own rationale and not some widely used or accepted rationale. (At least not to my knowledge.)


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 16, 2016)

I am not saying that an instructor must know everything, but saying that is just the way we do things shows there is an issue.  Now, stating that one does not know but will find out is fine with me...

Everything we do has a martial significance and application...it is a question of finding it out.


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 16, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I think that wherever my instructor trained they didn't go over forms in depth. There seems to be a lack of understanding for certain things, that sometimes becomes noticeable.



That is a shame!!  Everything in a form, kata, poems, hyung, or whatever you call it has martial application...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 16, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Everything we do has a martial significance and application...it is a question of finding it out.



Wouldn't that depend on the art? You've expressed a common theme that is popular with the "alternative application" crowd but I tend to think people should avoid measuring a particular art by a different art's standard. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 16, 2016)

Azulx said:


> Did a couple of the forms again, hopefully there is some improvement. @Th0mas feel free to comment as you please, I know you have good intentions.


Hi Azulx

That was a marked improvement from the last set you showed at the beginning of the thread. In particular your technique shows better connection with the body movement, applying the body mechanics to the strikes and kicks.
As the previous poster outlined, you don't want the body movement to finish prior to applying the striking technique. The momentum of the first should be applied to the second. 
I also will caveat my comments like the previous poster, as how I would perform a similar kata in karate, with a greater emphasis on "dynamic" movement, might be slightly different than TKD. Having said that, having an understanding of the application can't hurt your solo performance.

Now, ratchet up the aggression .
Good job, keep up the good work.

Cheers

Tom


----------



## Gnarlie (Aug 17, 2016)

Hi Azulx

I'm a Kukki TKD guy but I do practice these forms too. I think there are some general things you can concentrate on to make your forms pop:

Eyeline - focus in the direction you are kicking / blocking / striking - there are a number of occasions where you seem preoccupied with the next move and it causes you to look away / up while you are thinking. 

Stance - stretch out the back leg in long walking stance

Kicks - work on flexibility and keep the knee higher, especially with side kicks

Blocks - keep the correct hand form with tight fingers

Generally, forms look powerful when there is high contrast between fast movement and the stop phase - relaxed shoulders and a snappy stop can help. Just like music, where the silence is as important as the note played. 

I like your movement style - you have a lot of potential there, and it won't take a lot to bring it to another level. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 17, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Everything we do has a martial significance and application...it is a question of finding it out.



In the Chang Hon system some pattern techniques have symbolism or aesthetic qualities which are not martial in nature.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 17, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I have about 20 months of experience.



Is this the average time in your school for reaching black belt, or did you earn yours sooner?


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 17, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> Wouldn't that depend on the art? You've expressed a common theme that is popular with the "alternative application" crowd but I tend to think people should avoid measuring a particular art by a different art's standard.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



It will very well depend on the "art" but "Martial Arts" are "martial" and everything done has martial application.  If we are training in a martial discipline and what we do does not have martial application, why are we doing it? Why not run on a tread mill?

If we are training in an "art" that sometimes has something martial, that is what we would expect.  If we are training in a martial discipline, we do not do that.  In fact, often, many of the "esoteric" portions of "martial arts" come from a lack of understanding of application.


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 17, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> In the Chang Hon system some pattern techniques have symbolism or aesthetic qualities which are not martial in nature.



That is nice for art but a waste of time for martial.

Are you sure there is no martial application?  Or is it that you and your teachers do not understand the martial application?  I know in writing this may seem offensive, but it is not meant that way...just a question.


----------



## Azulx (Aug 17, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Is this the average time in your school for reaching black belt, or did you earn yours sooner?



Average time is 2 and half to three years. Under two years is pretty rare.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 17, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> It will very well depend on the "art" but "Martial Arts" are "martial" and everything done has martial application.  If we are training in a martial discipline and what we do does not have martial application, why are we doing it? Why not run on a tread mill?



I'm not saying martial arts has no martial application. Of course they do. What I was asking about was your statement that "Everything we do has martial significance and application." If this is true, IMNSHO, you would have to have a definition of "martial significance and application" that is overly broad or simply exclude things that clearly don't have a direct martial application from the "everything we do" category.



> If we are training in an "art" that sometimes has something martial, that is what we would expect.  If we are training in a martial discipline, we do not do that.  In fact, often, many of the "esoteric" portions of "martial arts" come from a lack of understanding of application.



This is quite possible. I would be interested in hearing some examples of what you consider esoteric aspects of martial arts that contain martial applications.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 17, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm not saying martial arts has no martial application. Of course they do. What I was asking about was your statement that "Everything we do has martial significance and application." If this is true, IMNSHO, you would have to have a definition of "martial significance and application" that is overly broad or simply exclude things that clearly don't have a direct martial application from the "everything we do" category.
> 
> Everything means everything...martial significance and martial application...not sure what the difficulty in the definition is...if it is not martial, we do not do it...it is either a direct application, component of application, or a martial significance...if not, it should not be done.
> 
> ...


----------



## Azulx (Aug 17, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> Is this the average time in your school for reaching black belt, or did you earn yours sooner?



Also for what it's worth, if you're wondering why I was an exception. I started training under my instructor in January of last year. Before testing he told me that since I had started training I had only missed 4 classes. We offer classes generally 3 to 4 times a week. Since this year only three times, but last year we did 4. I had more hours logged between 2 test than some did between 3 and 4. I never asked to test early, my instructor just felt that I had shown that I can do all the colored belt material proficiently enough to test for 1st dan.


----------



## andyjeffries (Aug 18, 2016)

Azulx said:


> I never asked to test early, my instructor just felt that I had shown that I can do all the colored belt material proficiently enough to test for 1st dan.



So then the rest of it doesn't matter - you didn't ask, your instructor decided, so it's all good. One of the things the Kukkiwon is very hot on for people to stop worrying what other people do in terms of gradings, etc and just worry about your own dojang. Congrats on getting to 1st Dan so fast, you've shown good spirit and I hope you go on to be a great teacher.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 18, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> That is nice for art but a waste of time for martial.
> 
> Are you sure there is no martial application?  Or is it that you and your teachers do not understand the martial application?  I know in writing this may seem offensive, but it is not meant that way...just a question.


1. If all you want is "Martial" you will waste  lot of time in a "Martial Art" 
2. If the Creator of the form said something was supposed to be symbolic and the symbolism was X, then that is what it was intended to be . If the creator of the form said something was for beauty / aesthetics, then that is what it was meant to be. 

So the answer to your questions above are   "Yes"  and "No".


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 18, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> I would not know since we do not do esoteric stuff. What are some of the non-martial esoteric stuff that is done?



I couldn't say, since you were the one who brought up "esoteric" stuff in martial arts and said that they're the result of a lack of knowledge of applications. To wit: "In fact, often, many of the "esoteric" portions of "martial arts" come from a lack of understanding of application."

If you don't know what esoteric elements of martial arts contain martial applications how do you know that the esoteric portions of martial arts are the result of a lack of understanding of those applications in the first place? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 18, 2016)

Azulx said:


> Also for what it's worth, if you're wondering why I was an exception. I started training under my instructor in January of last year. Before testing he told me that since I had started training I had only missed 4 classes. We offer classes generally 3 to 4 times a week. Since this year only three times, but last year we did 4. I had more hours logged between 2 test than some did between 3 and 4. I never asked to test early, my instructor just felt that I had shown that I can do all the colored belt material proficiently enough to test for 1st dan.



I wasn't questioning why you tested earlier.  Your teacher thought you were ready.  Average times are just that - average.  Some go earlier, some go later.


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 18, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm not saying martial arts has no martial application. Of course they do. What I was asking about was your statement that "Everything we do has martial significance and application." If this is true, IMNSHO, you would have to have a definition of "martial significance and application" that is overly broad or simply exclude things that clearly don't have a direct martial application from the "everything we do" category.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can give an example, and there are a few that are the result of lack of understanding of the original intent, followed by an esoteric rationale that became the "traditional" explanation.

 Many of them are usually associated with the opening "salutation" of the form. For example in the karate kata kenkudai ( or kushanku) the opening move is wrongly interpreted as a representation of the rising sun or similar nonsense about the moon... Whereas in fact it can be applied as a rather effective tactic for the initial clash of arms in a frontal assault to gain control and reduce the chance of a headbutt (there are other interpretations with equal merit).

Now there are kata (or forms) who's original intent was not to provide a direct relationship with fighting applications. Asai Sensei's Junro kata's  were designed to improve fluididity in karate ( he had witnessed how stiff western karateka were and had devised a set of kata to solve this problem). Also a large number of the "new" TKD forms are just a rejumbled set of non related kata moves that arguably are only about practicing the physical movement and don't have any underlying set of combatative principles ( I know that may not be popular on this forum, but there it is).

Personally I don't practice kata that sit in that catagory as I can get the same benefit in Kihon.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 18, 2016)

Th0mas said:


> I can give an example, and there are a few that are the result of lack of understanding of the original intent, followed by an esoteric rationale that became the "traditional" explanation.
> 
> Many of them are usually associated with the opening "salutation" of the form. For example in the karate kata kenkudai ( or kushanku) the opening move is wrongly interpreted as a representation of the rising sun or similar nonsense about the moon... Whereas in fact it can be applied as a rather effective tactic for the initial clash of arms in a frontal assault to gain control and reduce the chance of a headbutt (there are other interpretations with equal merit).



Yes, Iain Abernethy's interpretation of that move is as valid as most I have seen. But does it mean it's correct? The presupposition that the "esoteric" movements have had their "real" applications lost is a good one. But I don't know that it's true so much as just someone reverse engineering things because _they_ think every single thing you do must be an attack. It's a bit like when George Dillman was "proving" that blocks really weren't blocks. Except that is completely style dependent, as my then kung-fu Sifu was pretty adamant that the blocks I was learning were blocks. Could they be applied in different ways? Sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't what they appear to be.



> Now there are kata (or forms) who's original intent was not to provide a direct relationship with fighting applications. Asai Sensei's Junro kata's  were designed to improve fluididity in karate ( he had witnessed how stiff western karateka were and had devised a set of kata to solve this problem). Also a large number of the "new" TKD forms are just a rejumbled set of non related kata moves that arguably are only about practicing the physical movement and don't have any underlying set of combatative principles ( I know that may not be popular on this forum, but there it is).
> 
> Personally I don't practice kata that sit in that catagory as I can get the same benefit in Kihon.



FWIW, this completely refutes the assertion made above (not by you) that "everything" in martial arts has "martial applications." While I do think that nearly everything we do is at least developing good habits for martial artists to have, that's quite different from saying everything has a martial application (at least in any meaningful sense of those words).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Azulx (Aug 19, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> I wasn't questioning why you tested earlier. Your teacher thought you were ready. Average times are just that - average. Some go earlier, some go later.



I understand, I guess I was just throwing in a "fun" fact.


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 19, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> Yes, Iain Abernethy's interpretation of that move is as valid as most I have seen. But does it mean it's correct? The presupposition that the "esoteric" movements have had their "real" applications lost is a good one. But I don't know that it's true so much as just someone reverse engineering things because _they_ think every single thing you do must be an attack. It's a bit like when George Dillman was "proving" that blocks really weren't blocks. Except that is completely style dependent, as my then kung-fu Sifu was pretty adamant that the blocks I was learning were blocks. Could they be applied in different ways? Sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't what they appear to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi Chris
I think "good" explanations are ones that are based on the weight of evidence, where the mostly likely conclusion best fits the "facts" we have.  The reason for the endless debate is because kata interpretation is not based on quantative testing more qualatative reasoning ( think of it more like the study of history than the study of the science of biology for example).
Iain's interpretation is not the only one, there are quite a few, from different styles, with a similar conbatative interpretation for kushanku. The particular strength with Iain is that he does test his assumptions (kata based sparring etc) and adapts his conclusions accordingly.

We know the intent of the creator of the Junro kata's, he only passed away relatively recently and explained them!

From my experience, a lot of what is said by instructors/sufus/Sensei's etc is often accepted without the application of critical thinking by students... And these instructors are human and also fallible. George "no touch knockout" Dillman, is a case in point.

I think the point is that if you are studying a martial art, everything you do DOES have relationship with martial  activities, but not everything has martial application. Bowing and other forms of respect in a dojo, for example,  are an essential element in the fighting arts where a group dynamic is exposed to high levels of aggression and physical violence... To the point, I don't think bowing is a misinterpretation of a headbutt application 

Which I think is my long winded way of saying I agree with you


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 19, 2016)

Th0mas said:


> I can give an example, and there are a few that are the result of lack of understanding of the original intent, followed by an esoteric rationale that became the "traditional" explanation.
> .



How is it that you are privy to the "Original intent" of forms such as those in the Shorin and Shorei systems?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 19, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> Yes, Iain Abernethy's interpretation of that move is as valid as most I have seen. But does it mean it's correct? The presupposition that the "esoteric" movements have had their "real" applications lost is a good one. But I don't know that it's true so much as just someone reverse engineering things because _they_ think every single thing you do must be an attack. It's a bit like when George Dillman was "proving" that blocks really weren't blocks. Except that is completely style dependent, as my then kung-fu Sifu was pretty adamant that the blocks I was learning were blocks. Could they be applied in different ways? Sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't what they appear to be.
> 
> 
> ,Chris



We are pretty much on the same page. Popular theories include:

1. Some textbook application(s)  is /are the Real / original one.
2. The real / original application was lost or hidden and  can be found by reverse engineering. 
3. (My Favorite) Applications, Textbook or reverse engineered are but a tool to help you understand how to move.  Fast, powerful, efficient, well balanced, on target etc. Once you can move well, then you can morph the technique as needed from this center point (Think center of a sphere) in any manner (Think anywhere toward the edge of the sphere) as as applicable for the  circumstances.  (Think "Wax On Wax off" and if you don't recognize the term get the first Karate Kid movie).


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 19, 2016)

Th0mas said:


> Hi Chris
> I think "good" explanations are ones that are based on the weight of evidence, where the mostly likely conclusion best fits the "facts" we have.  The reason for the endless debate is because kata interpretation is not based on quantative testing more qualatative reasoning ( think of it more like the study of history than the study of the science of biology for example).



It may not be based on such testing now and much has been lost, but if you get "Bubishi" Bible of Karate which is a translation of an older text which explores many Chinese roots there are passages to how they reportedly lined up prisoners of war for such testing.


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 19, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> How is it that you are privy to the "Original intent" of forms such as those in the Shorin and Shorei systems?


I refer you back to the first paragraph of my previous post...


----------



## Th0mas (Aug 19, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> It may not be based on such testing now and much has been lost, but if you get "Bubishi" Bible of Karate which is a translation of an older text which explores many Chinese roots there are passages to how they reportedly lined up prisoners of war for such testing.


I know there are first hand accounts of the Japanese during WW2 of using prisoners of war to test techniques with the bayonete and katana, and historic documents showing how samurai during earlier periods would do the same (if memory serves, I think I have seen copies of a manual on how best to practice sword cuts on a body). 

However I think with regard to the bubishi, those claims should be treated with some skepticism (only because of the length of time and like Sunzu's art of war, the may have been a number of different authors who contributed to the text overtime). 
I think in principle there are a number of general assumptions that we should make when considering applications for the pre-1922 katas :
1) they were devised by someone who had either direct practical experience or was taught by someone who did
2) they are a method of recording a set of fighting principles or strategies
3) the applications shown are an example to demonstrate those fighting principles
4) in the majority of cases, they are designed for dealing with common attacks and self defence scenarios.
5) The kata's in themselves are not enough, they should complement an instructor lead training regime.

Taking on those assumptions then help to contextualise any interpretation when trying to re-engineer the original intent of their creators (whoever they were)


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 19, 2016)

Th0mas said:


> Hi Chris
> I think "good" explanations are ones that are based on the weight of evidence, where the mostly likely conclusion best fits the "facts" we have.  The reason for the endless debate is because kata interpretation is not based on quantative testing more qualatative reasoning ( think of it more like the study of history than the study of the science of biology for example).



I do agree with you to a certain point. The problem with this analogy is that actual historical research requires going back to eye witness accounts and primary sources. The debate about forms and their (possible) applications largely doesn't rise to that level of study. Not all but most of what passes for getting to the "original applications" are little more than wishful thinking, IMNSHO.



> Iain's interpretation is not the only one, there are quite a few, from different styles, with a similar conbatative interpretation for kushanku. The particular strength with Iain is that he does test his assumptions (kata based sparring etc) and adapts his conclusions accordingly.



I have a lot of respect for Iain's approach, as well as the majority of the actual applications I have seen of his. I won't say he's the end all and be all of bunkai, but he does yeoman's work, it seems to me. 

One of the things I really like about him is that he actually does what I mentioned above, viz. goes back to actual historical documents and sees what people said. The works he cites from Mabuni, Funakoshi, etc. may not qualify as going directly to the originator of the patterns (or, more importantly, the originator of the martial system in question) but it allows him to place himself directly in the line of tradition of his art. For me personally, I think this is important (others may disagree). 



> We know the intent of the creator of the Junro kata's, he only passed away relatively recently and explained them!



Indeed. The same can be said about, for example, both Gen. Choi when he developed his patterns and the collective effort of the Kukkiwon when they developed their pattern sets. I have no problem whatsoever with people saying that Taekwon-Do patterns can be "made" to work according to karate standards but the fact is that, as far as I can tell, the actual originators of these patterns were aiming at different goals than the Okinawans appeared to be. 

That being said, Master Weiss has pointed out more than once that when asked about a particular application for a pattern Gen. Choi would answer: "If it works it's a good application." I think, in particular, Mabuni's approach to the meaning and use of angles in patterns is extremely helpful in expanding the possible applications within Gen. Choi's pattern set. But to say this was his original intent would be, I think, incorrect since he was designing a martial art that was to be spread to very large numbers of soldiers not passed on in a one-to-one or one-to-small-group setting like Okinawan karate. 



> From my experience, a lot of what is said by instructors/sufus/Sensei's etc is often accepted without the application of critical thinking by students... And these instructors are human and also fallible. George "no touch knockout" Dillman, is a case in point.



Indeed. Dillman's earlier works have some good stuff in them and the seminar I attended with him was interesting and worthwhile. But several years later I saw him on video talking "no touch" knock outs and the demonstration was... disappointing, let us say.



> I think the point is that if you are studying a martial art, everything you do DOES have relationship with martial  activities, but not everything has martial application. Bowing and other forms of respect in a dojo, for example,  are an essential element in the fighting arts where a group dynamic is exposed to high levels of aggression and physical violence... To the point, I don't think bowing is a misinterpretation of a headbutt application.



Exactly! This is something with which I totally agree and part of the reason why I originally posted but you've really put it in a way that is easily understood. 



> Which I think is my long winded way of saying I agree with you



Ditto.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 19, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. If all you want is "Martial" you will waste  lot of time in a "Martial Art" - *I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!*
> 2. If the Creator of the form said something was supposed to be symbolic and the symbolism was X, then that is what it was intended to be . If the creator of the form said something was for beauty / aesthetics, then that is what it was meant to be.  *THERE IS MARTIAL APPLICATION TO THE MOVEMENT...you may not have been told it, or your instructor may not have known it, but it is there...that is for real "forms" and not the gymnastics that is done so often now.*
> 
> So the answer to your questions above are   "Yes"  and "No".


 *No*


----------



## MI_martialist (Aug 19, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> I couldn't say, since you were the one who brought up "esoteric" stuff in martial arts and said that they're the result of a lack of knowledge of applications. To wit: "In fact, often, many of the "esoteric" portions of "martial arts" come from a lack of understanding of application."
> 
> *I did not bring up the esoteric stuff...I responded to someone else's post.  We do not do the esoteric stuff, so I would not know what it is.  I can look at your "esoteric" stuff and find the application in it.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 20, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> That being said, Master Weiss has pointed out more than once that when asked about a particular application for a pattern Gen. Choi would answer: "If it works it's a good application." I think, in particular, Mabuni's approach to the meaning and use of angles in patterns is extremely helpful in expanding the possible applications within Gen. Choi's pattern set. But to say this was his original intent would be, I think, incorrect since he was designing a martial art that was to be spread to very large numbers of soldiers not passed on in a one-to-one or one-to-small-group setting like Okinawan karate.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris



Therein lies another key point not to be overlooked. It is somewhere in General Choi's materials as well with regard to patterns teaching Distance and direction (angles).


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 20, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> Therein lies another key point not to be overlooked. It is somewhere in General Choi's materials as well with regard to patterns teaching Distance and direction (angles).



Master Weiss, I remember reading a statement to this effect when I got a copy of the General's 1972 book back when I was a green belt and thinking something alone the lines of: "How does _that _work?" While I have no idea of Gen. Choi was familiar with the concept that Kenwa Mabuni states regarding the angle one takes in a pattern is actually the angle with one should use while attacking an opponent (instead of the angle from which an opponent attacks you) approaching the _tul_ in such a way does tend to open up some very interesting possibilities. Personally, I tend to think both approaches are good and have merit to them.

Now if I could just track down that quote! I've spent the better part of an hour looking for it in the 1972, the encyclopedia, and even the 1965 book and the closest thing I've been able to find is the statement about angles and distance in the "Training Secrets." I nearly positive that I saw one directly related to patterns, as you mentioned, though and this is going to drive me crazy until I find it.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 20, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> Now if I could just track down that quote! I've spent the better part of an hour looking for it in the 1972, the encyclopedia, and even the 1965 book and the closest thing I've been able to find is the statement about angles and distance in the "Training Secrets." I nearly positive that I saw one directly related to patterns, as you mentioned, though and this is going to drive me crazy until I find it.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Well, sir you need to know it warms my heart after all the times I made a post alluding to some material I could not pinpoint, and you seemed to pinpoint it in short order, I gave you a tough one for a change


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2016)

Good job on your improvement.  The one thing I notice about your videos is that you always take in information that you feel that you need and then improve.  That says a lot about you as a student and your dedication.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 21, 2016)

chrispillertkd said:


> ......................................... Gen. Choi was familiar with the concept that Kenwa Mabuni states regarding the angle one takes in a pattern is actually the angle with one should use while attacking an opponent (instead of the angle from which an opponent attacks you) approaching the _tul_ in such a way does tend to open up some very interesting possibilities. Personally, I tend to think both approaches are good and have merit to them.
> 
> Now if I could just track down that quote! I've spent the better part of an hour looking for it in the 1972, the encyclopedia, and even the 1965 book and the closest thing I've been able to find is the statement about angles and distance in the "Training Secrets."
> 
> Chris



So far, only source I have located as well.   Certainly it applies to patterns as well as everything else.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Aug 21, 2016)

Earl Weiss said:


> So far, only source I have located as well.   Certainly it applies to patterns as well as everything else.



Agreed, sir, but I am fairly sure there's another quote somewhere specifically about patterns relating to angles. It's going to drive me crazy until I find it again. I think I first saw it in the 1972 book and may have to spend a bit of time rereading that volume in the next few days to see if I can locate it.

Pax,

Chris


----------

