# Application of TKD poomsae in SD



## exile (Mar 1, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> IcemanSK said:
> 
> 
> > Just looking at the textbook again shows a different thing altogether. It shows the double knifehand block simply blocking a midsection punch (no trapping involved) then the second side kick to the throat of the opponent.
> ...



Right, and this is all too commonly the case with the Korean forms... they have in many cases been changed to conform to an 'über-rule', a stylistic requirement that bears little or no relationship to combat reality, and therefore make little sense in terms of practical use (as per a lot of the 'official KKW explanations'). A good, very sobering exercise is to look at the Korean versions of the old Okinawan kata, such as Empi, which becomes Eunbi, and see how the superficial resemblance is underlain by certain critical differences that drastically reduce the combat effectiveness of the system and make no sense in those terms. The replacement of the knee-strike-to-abdomen/groin strike sequence in Empi with a high front kick (supposedly carried out while you're pulling the attacker close to your body!) is a perfect example... the inevitable outcome of the Okinawan-to-Korean form translation rule that you replace knee strikes with foot-strikes, and the higher the better. 

I would really hope that this kind of thing could be reversed, but after seeing those vids of Chloe Bruce, and of the new KKW forms that were posted a few weeks ago, I think that if anything it's going to get way worse than it is now. As long as you stick with the WTF scoring protocols, this is what's going to happen...


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 1, 2008)

exile said:


> ....... A good, very sobering exercise is to look at the Korean versions of the old Okinawan kata, such as Empi, which becomes Eunbi, and see how the superficial resemblance is underlain by certain critical differences that drastically reduce the combat effectiveness of the system and make no sense in those terms......


Ex, do you have links or refs to these early forms (or at least a list of names so I can google them), so that we can look at and compare variations?

Thanks!


----------



## exile (Mar 1, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Ex, do you have links or refs to these early forms (or at least a list of names so I can google them), so that we can look at and compare variations?
> 
> Thanks!



Hi, NJMI do, actually; let me dig around some....

OK: here's a nice performance of Empi. And here's a really nice, clear demo of the crucial bunkai oyo involving the point I brought up in my previous post. Lucid, simple, and nastily effective. 

But in the Eunbi that I learnedand my instructor follows a _very_ conservative line on hyungsthose abdominal knee strikes are turned into high front kicks. And I've seen Eunbi at tournaments, and it's the same story. But the whole range/balance story changes, in the direction of much greater implausibility, when you do that....


----------



## IcemanSK (Mar 1, 2008)

Do you have a version of Eunbi, exile?


----------



## exile (Mar 1, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> Do you have a version of Eunbi, exile?



Only the one I've learned. I'll poke around in my 'library' of demo vids, though... I started doing this when trying to find a version of Rohai similar to the one I learned, and came up empty, but I encountered a lot of interesting Koreanizations of Okinawan/Japanese kata along the way... more soon, if I can turn up anything!


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 1, 2008)

exile said:


> ........But the whole range/balance story changes....


Thanks for the links, and they make clear what you are saying.

In kendo, there is a critical concept called 'maai', the idea of maintaining a correct control of the distance/time between two opponents, or between attacker and target.  Kendo practices three main ranges - you can think of them as short, mid, and long ranges.  From the video, the karate kata appears to employ the short range almost exclusively, while the introduction of a snap kick into the equation forces the distance between the opponents to shift unnaturally between close and mid ranges.

In sparring, I usually 'jam up' a larger opponent by staying close enough to where their kicks are innefective.  It appears in this example that the newer TKD form has unintentionally introduced just this kind of 'jamming up', but in such a way that its own kicks become inneffective.  

Am I understanding correctly that this is what you are saying?


----------



## exile (Mar 1, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Thanks for the links, and they make clear what you are saying.
> 
> In kendo, there is a critical concept called 'maai', the idea of maintaining a correct control of the distance/time between two opponents, or between attacker and target.  Kendo practices three main ranges - you can think of them as short, mid, and long ranges.  From the video, the karate kata appears to employ the short range almost exclusively, while *the introduction of a snap kick into the equation forces the distance between the opponents to shift unnaturally between close and mid ranges.*
> 
> ...



Yes, exactly. And the problem, as I see it, is that that is going to happen a lot when a short-range leg tech like an abdominal knee strike is reinterpreted as a high kick, all other things being equal. More generally, the WTF acrobatic-kick ethic, imported into older TKD forms such as Koryo, is, inevitably I think, going to impose the kind of distortion of the combat content of those forms that people have been referring to.


----------



## foot2face (Mar 1, 2008)

exile said:


> Right, and this is all too commonly the case with the Korean forms... they have in many cases been changed to conform to an 'über-rule', a stylistic requirement that bears little or no relationship to combat reality, and therefore make little sense in terms of practical use (as per a lot of the 'official KKW explanations'). A good, very sobering exercise is to look at the Korean versions of the old Okinawan kata, such as Empi, which becomes Eunbi, and see how the superficial resemblance is underlain by certain critical differences that drastically reduce the combat effectiveness of the system and make no sense in those terms. The replacement of the knee-strike-to-abdomen/groin strike sequence in Empi with a high front kick (supposedly carried out while you're pulling the attacker close to your body!) is a perfect example... the inevitable outcome of the Okinawan-to-Korean form translation rule that you replace knee strikes with foot-strikes, and the higher the better.
> 
> I would really hope that this kind of thing could be reversed, but after seeing those vids of Chloe Bruce, and of the new KKW forms that were posted a few weeks ago, I think that if anything it's going to get way worse than it is now. As long as you stick with the WTF scoring protocols, this is what's going to happen...


Exile, Im sorry but you have consistently demonstrated that your understanding of TKD (especially with regards to KKW TKD) is extremely limited. From my perspective, comments like this are as accurate as someone saying that techniques of TKD come from ancient Korean MAs. Of course, to one who trains and learns how to apply O/J kata the later Korean forms seem less particle and combat related but that is because they come from an another style and represent a completely different understanding of MAs (not less practical just different). For one who properly trains and learns the philosophy behind the more recent Korean forms (Tae Geuk, Koryo and perhaps the two new poomse) they are extremely practical and combat effective. Im sure to an outsider many CMA form may look like nothing more than a flowery dance, especially if their frame of reference is hard JMA kata, but in reality there are loads of useful applications within them. This is similar to what happens when someone with limited experience in the later TKD poomse try to judge their effectiveness. 
Quibbling over the exact height of the second side kick is pointless. Those who participate in form completions may prefer to throw it higher (in order to impress with their physical ability) while those who are more SD oriented a bit lower. In actuality the exact height of both kicks isnt important, what matters is that the first one is generally low and the second is generally high. The point of this technique in the poomse is to demonstrate the principle of low-high striking. A theory of multi-level combo striking where initial strikes are directed to the low region with the belief that it is generally less guarded and one has a higher success rate for landing a solid uncontested blow and that the low region offers numerous targets that when struck can stun or stammer you adversary, compromising their defenses allowing for an immediate blow to their much more desirable higher region. There are many useful applications for the double side kick technique in Koryo form. Trying to pigeonhole it into just one boon hae undermines the overall effectiveness of the poomse and is usually the first mistake made by those who try to reinterpret them as one would a JMA kata.


----------



## exile (Mar 1, 2008)

Since this was raised, I really don't think I can avoid answering it. And I don't think it's at all irrelevant to the issues underlying the the point that the OP raised.




foot2face said:


> Exile, I&#8217;m sorry but you have consistently demonstrated that your understanding of TKD (especially with regards to KKW TKD) is extremely limited.




If you're going to make comments as broad-brush as this, f2f, I would expect you to provide some correspondingly wide justification for them. Are there any here? Let's see....




foot2face said:


> From my perspective, comments like this are as accurate as someone saying that techniques of TKD come from ancient Korean MAs.



There is by now an enormous documentary base for the argument that TKD does _not_ come from ancient KMAs, a point I've been making almost from the time I started posting on MT. So presumably, you're claiming that there are comparably strong pieces of evidence that the kind of case I raise, the translation of Empi into Eunbi, really _is_ underlain by bunkai principles and applications of considerable robustness, and that the evidence is out there. Well, _is_ it? Can you point me to some examples of the robust, plausible application of the sequences in Eunbi which are cognate with those of the Empi that Eunbi derives from? I've provided demos of Empi and of the oyo for Empi; will you reciprocate, and support your comments above about my inferior understanding of TKD, by showing me just how the substitution of the high kick for the knee abdominal knee strike in the Empi --> Eunbi translation makes at least as much sense as the bunkai for Empi, taking into account my exchange with Ninjamom above, and our basis for the reservations we share about the substitution of leg techs?




foot2face said:


> Of course, to one who trains and learns how to apply O/J kata the later Korean forms seem less particle and combat related but that is because they come from an another style and represent a completely different understanding of MAs (not less practical just different). For one who properly trains and learns the philosophy behind the more recent Korean forms (Tae Geuk, Koryo and perhaps the two new poomse) they are extremely practical and combat effective.



Then maybe you can provide some concrete examples of cases where the substitution of a high kick for a knee or lower leg strike&#8212;with much of the rest of the form retained the same, as in the case I raised&#8212;makes just as much combat sense? Empi came first, with the kind of businesslike bunkai that is all over the place in Okinawan forms once realistic and sensible interpretation principles are applied; the TKD version, Eunbi, derives from it, but the principal alteration was the substitution of high kicks for the knee strikes in Empi. Exactly how do the hikite/retractions aspects of the first part of the sequence in question connect with the high kick and then with the faithful reproduction of the `cross punch'? followup? A high kick at very close range, knocking the attacker way out of range, followed by a one step movement in to attack his groin? Surely not! So what are the effective bunkai for this combat subsequence in the form? 




foot2face said:


> I&#8217;m sure to an outsider many CMA form may look like nothing more than a flowery dance, especially if their frame of reference is hard JMA kata, but in reality there are loads of useful applications within them.



We are not talking about CMA forms, which do not look in the least flowery to me. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing them in, but they represent a straw man. No one is talking about CMAs, or FMAs for that matter.




foot2face said:


> This is similar to what happens when someone with limited experience in the later TKD poomse try to judge their effectiveness.



Reread what I have said, f2f, and you'll notice that what I was explicitly referring to was the tendency to reflexively substitute high kicks for other leg techs in the O/J source forms that the KMAs have incorporated, without corresponding changes in the rest of the form to accomodate the changes made. Read again the first paragraph in the text you quoted from me. I was talking about a particular form-substitution ethic and gave Empi/Eunbi as an example. And you have yet to provide a single argument that the substitutions made in the translation, which leave almost all the other moves intact but change the height of the kicks, are combat-effective or even combat-rational. 

My comments in the second paragraph you quote from me reflect my sense that that the mania for high flashy kicks in TKD-specific forms reflect glitz over combat substance&#8212;Chloe Bruce's XMA 'hyung' that we saw several months ago is a perfect example&#8212;and I'm far from alone in that view. Whether that reflects an 'extremely limited' understanding of TKD, or simply one that diverges from your own, is of course an open question. You're not the first person in the KMA section to insist that any disagreement with your own technical assessment reflects negatively on everyone but you, and I suspect you won't be the last. But the point is, you've given no arguments at all to back up your wholesale negative comments&#8212;something simple courtesy, I would have thought, would require you to do.

Now let me connect this with Terry's OP, because there is, I think, a definite connection. The source of the TKD forms was in Okinawan kata, via Japan, and while a good deal of the combat significance of the Okinawan forms seems to have gone by the wayside in the Japanese context, the applications were still there, and are still there, and are there as well in the subcomponents of the hyungs. The height of the kicks, and of the leg techniques in those forms in general, was determined by severe practicality. The same logic which in the case of Empi/Eunbi systematically changed knee jams to the abdoment into head-high kicks at knee-strike range has also decreed that Korean forms which originally involved low or middle kicks should be high kicks, regardless of their practical value. To my way of thinking, the question you have to ask yourself is, given that this is the case, what is the purpose of competing in tournaments under those judging conditions? What purpose does it serve? If the original purpose of the forms was to encode practical self-defense techniques, and the showmanship aspects of competition have driven the height of the kicks up regardles of their canonical form, what does tournament victory actually mean, even if you achieve it? If you are going to have to alter Koryo, and probably other classic hyungs, in this way just to have a chance of winning a medal, what _good_ is being served? To me it looks as though there really isn't much point, and it's not at all clear just what value that medal would reflect. And that's probably going to be the case as long as you have to compete under WTF judging conventions. If that's a correct view of the case, then I think far less harm is done&#8212;so far as your students' contact with the Koryo hyung and its possible role in their training are concerned&#8212;if you do the form in the canonical, traditional way. The benefit for them learning to do it correctly will be much greater than the temporary satisfaction of a bit of glitter in their hand...


----------



## e ship yuk (Mar 1, 2008)

IcemanSK said:


> Do you have a version of Eunbi, exile?



The form as I learned it, which may be slightly, though not completely, different from the one exile learned.  In this video, which is myself and my instructor going over the form several years ago, we are throwing sidekicks, as I was prepping for a tournament, and the thrusting kick looked better. Unlike exile, the kick we "traditionally" threw was a roundhouse.


----------



## IcemanSK (Mar 2, 2008)

e ship yuk said:


> The form as I learned it, which may be slightly, though not completely, different from the one exile learned. In this video, which is myself and my instructor going over the form several years ago, we are throwing sidekicks, as I was prepping for a tournament, and the thrusting kick looked better. Unlike exile, the kick we "traditionally" threw was a roundhouse.


 
Thank you for this! It's different than the one I know as well, but it's close.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 2, 2008)

I remember going over forms with Hae Man Park years ago, and he would demonstrate the techniques to show what you were doing. Nothing like seeing a demo by GM Park to make you understand what forms like Koryo are supposed to be accomplishing.
Before you brush off Korean forms as ineffective due to "ineffective translation", make sure you understand what the Korean techniques are doing. Quite an eyeopener watching a true master showing why the forms are the way they are. There is a reason for those techniques, and it's not just to kick high.
For the record, we have always taught Koryo as low-high side kick. I would never change my form just to win a medal.


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Before you brush off Korean forms as ineffective due to "ineffective translation", make sure you understand what the Korean techniques are doing. Quite an eyeopener watching a true master showing why the forms are the way they are. There is a reason for those techniques, and it's not just to kick high.



I specified _exactly_ why I thought the translation of Empi, into Eunbi, essentially intact except for the replacement of the abdominal knee strikes by high kicks (with no further adjustments in the preceding and following moves) presented serious application problems. And now perhaps you'll reciprocate by explaining just what the 'reason for those techniques' is, yes? You assure me there is one; well, let's have it. Why don't you tell me exactly what the Korean modification to the old Okinawan form added in the way of effectiveness in the bunkai. Your post implies you have a story to tell about that; otherwise, the fingerwaving and tone of wise admonition would be inappropriate. So please tell me: just what is the combat application of the modification that represents value added to the original Empi kata? I'm listening....


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Before you brush off Korean forms as ineffective due to "ineffective translation", make sure you understand what the Korean techniques are doing. Quite an eyeopener watching a true master showing why the forms are the way they are. There is a reason for those techniques, and it's not just to kick high.



I specified _exactly_ why I thought the translation of Empi into Eunbiessentially intact except for the replacement of the abdominal knee strikes by high kicks (with no further adjustments in the preceding and following moves)presented serious application problems. And now perhaps you'll reciprocate by explaining just what the 'reason for those techniques' is, yes? You assure me there is one; well, let's have it. Why don't you tell me exactly what the Korean modification to the old Okinawan form added in the way of effectiveness in the bunkai. Your post implies you have a story to tell about that; otherwise, the fingerwaving and tone of wise admonition would be inappropriate. So please tell me: just what is the combat application of the modification that represents value added to the original Empi kata? I'm listening....


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 3, 2008)

You know exile, asking you about Taekwondo and its history and methods would be like asking a judo practitioner about kung fu. Considering your background, I really don't see you as much of an authority on the effectiveness on Taekwondo forms.


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> You know exile, asking you about Taekwondo and its history and methods would be like asking a judo practitioner about kung fu. Considering your background, I really don't see you as much of an authority on the effectiveness on Taekwondo forms.



Now that you've gotten that off your chest, YoungMan, please back up your earlier post and explain to us exactly what the applications that are incorporated in the translation modifications to the original Empi kata are. And you're not asking _me_, YM. I'm asking _you_: please back up what you just posted in your prior message. 

This is also known as, put up or shut up, and one thing you should know about MartialTalk: its members can recognize bluffing and posturing when they see it. You posted a message that was predicated on a claim about your knowledge of effective combat applications of the translation moves. Snide non sequiturs won't help you here. Would you please explain exactly what you were getting at in your previous post? Show us how much of an authority _you_ are. We're all waiting to hear what you have to say...


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 3, 2008)

I have nothing to prove to you, and am certainly not going to waste my time making a point to someone who would not be convinced anyway. You obviously don't think much of the combat effectiveness of Taekwondo. That's your right. I'm certainly not to waste valuable time looking over old texts and quoting people who lived 50 years ago (or centuries ago) just to make some arcane point about what a technique in Koryo is supposed to do. Simply put, Taekwondo has more than established its effectiveness, and it doesn't need your approval, or any other person who is convinced of the superiority of Japanese/Okinawan styles, to be validated.
Don't think Taekwondo is combat effective or has lost something in its so-called translation from Japanese styles? Fine. Keep practicing Karate, where its obvious you've found your niche.


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I have nothing to prove to you, and am certainly not going to waste my time making a point to someone who would not be convinced anyway. You obviously don't think much of the combat effectiveness of Taekwondo. That's your right. I'm certainly not to waste valuable time looking over old texts and quoting people who lived 50 years ago (or centuries ago) just to make some arcane point about what a technique in Koryo is supposed to do. Simply put, Taekwondo has more than established its effectiveness, and it doesn't need your approval, or any other person who is convinced of the superiority of Japanese/Okinawan styles, to be validated.
> Don't think Taekwondo is combat effective or has lost something in its so-called translation from Japanese styles? Fine. Keep practicing Karate, where its obvious you've found your niche.



I don't do karate. I do Taekwondo, Song Moo Kwan lineage (which contains a number of important karate kata, and did so from the time of Byung Jik Ro himself), in a dojang which emphases realistic combat techniques, and I focus on effective bunkai based on the work of TKDists like Simon O'Neil, Stuart Anslow and the TKD 'subgroup' of the British Combat Association and try to apply their methods, based on the recovery of bunkai techniques pioneered in Japanese karate by people like Iain Abernethy, Rick Clark, and Bill Burgar. I've posted enough about the effectiveness of TKD as employed in the RoK military in two wars to make it clear to anyone who's read any of the threads on TKD's combat effectiveness carefully just how committed I am to TKD as a combat art, and how much I resent the efforts of the sports federations which try to denature that effectiveness by going in the XMA direction. I've probably posted a dozen or so posts on that subject along in the year and a half I've been on the board. So once again, your comments have little relationship to any facts that are relevant.

From your own answer here, which is roughly what I expected, it's evident that in spite of your implicit claim to have an actual combat application of the translation moves in Empi/Eunbi, you actually have nothing to offer, just as your recycled dojang folklore about taekkyon has no legs, in the face of repeated presentations of the state of the historical art on taekkyon (e.g., that cited here). You call on evidence you don't have, you ignore the available historical evidence on historical issues that you insist on discussing, and you can't even get the MA background of other people in the discussion right....You might consider just what kind of impression you're making, so far.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 3, 2008)

Exile,
I have watched repeated footage of Taekkyon practitioners on Youtube (I don't live in Korea so it's the closest I can get), and all of them do the things you claim Taekkyon doesn't do (high kicks, jumping, jump spinning etc.). Maybe it is you, with your "research", who is mistaken. Don't ask me how Taekwondo, with its supposed Shotokan roots, got a hold of these techniques. Maybe the truth isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. I just know what my eyes saw. Maybe Taekkyon wasn't as dead as people thought. If it were dead, it wouldn't be on Youtube showing techniques I see in modern Taekwondo.
Don't tell me Hapkido, because Hapkido originally didn't look much like it does today either. 
As for Koryo, it reflects how the Koreans perceive self defense and their approach to technique. It is not a "mistranslation" of Empi and not intended to be. It is what it is. You seriously think techniques in the form would not have been changed had they been thought ineffective? Give the Koreans a little credit. It is not supposed to be a "translation" of a Japanese form. It is a Korean form with its own merits and weaknesses, as is any form. It also undergoes changes to make it better.
But I dislike as well the downward slide of Taekwondo from effective self defense to sport and circus act. We agree on that. I think the next couple of years are going to see some big changes in Taekwondo's direction.


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Exile,
> I have watched repeated footage of Taekkyon practitioners on Youtube (I don't live in Korea so it's the closest I can get), and all of them do the things you claim Taekkyon doesn't do (high kicks, jumping, jump spinning etc.). Maybe it is you, with your "research", who is mistaken. Don't ask me how Taekwondo, with its supposed Shotokan roots, got a hold of these techniques. Maybe the truth isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. I just know what my eyes saw. Maybe Taekkyon wasn't as dead as people thought. If it were dead, it wouldn't be on Youtube showing techniques I see in modern Taekwondo.
> Don't tell me Hapkido, because Hapkido originally didn't look much like it does today either.



I won't tell you Hapkido. I'll tell you that none of the kicking techniques that the Taekyonists of the 20th centuries explicitly identify as the essence of Taekkyon were high or even middle kicks, as I cited in the post I referred you to, and which you apparently have not taken in. I'll tell you that at the time when thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of Koreans were doing Taekkyon, there were a grand total of four known taekkyonists in Korea, mostly quite elderly, practicing those low kicks and unbalancing techniques, and that the growth of Taekkyon to the several thousand who now do it happened long after TKD was already experimenting with increasingly high kicks. All of that is cited in my post. I'll tell you that when you see a late-developming martial art, 'nouveau Taekkyon', which grows from nowhere in the shadow of what was becoming the most popular MA in the world, and then you see the same kicks in the nouveau art that you do in what had been around, and developing for at least a generation previously from its Kwan roots, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what the direction of transmission _had_ to have been. And the research you put in scare quotes is not mine, but the work of professional MA historians who actually have _read_ Song Duk Ki's book, and can show exactly why, from what he and his senior students themselves say, there is no connection between the kicking techs in established TKD vs. those of the nouveau taekkyon you've seen a few vids of. Why, why is this point so difficult? :idunno:

I'm not blowing off the rest of your post, YM, but we have to leave for a bit and I can't get back to the rest till later in the day.... I really think you are not getting my point about Empi/Eunbi, or what Terry's actual complaint about Koryo judging is (the _form_ hasn't changed, but the judging criteria have!) but we'll have to let it go till then...


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 3, 2008)

_*ADMIN NOTE:*_

Off-topic posts regarding TKD pattern effectiveness have been moved from Koryo Problems to here. Please continue this discussion in this thread.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Admin.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 3, 2008)

I know I could be convinced and I'd love to hear the explanation for the side kicks in Eunbi.  My school does high front kicks and I'm not sure the bunkai make sense to me there, but Youngman, it would be nice to be given an example instead of ad hominem attacks.


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

All right, let's get back to this. 



YoungMan said:


> Exile,
> I have watched repeated footage of Taekkyon practitioners on Youtube (I don't live in Korea so it's the closest I can get), and all of them do the things you claim Taekkyon doesn't do (high kicks, jumping, jump spinning etc.).Maybe it is you, with your "research", who is mistaken. Don't ask me how Taekwondo, with its supposed Shotokan roots, got a hold of these techniques. Maybe the truth isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. I just know what my eyes saw. Maybe Taekkyon wasn't as dead as people thought. If it were dead, it wouldn't be on Youtube showing techniques I see in modern Taekwondo.



According to Song Duk Ki, the man declared a Living Cultural Asset in 1987 by the Korean government for essentially _single-handedly_ preserving the old 19th century folk game of taekkyon&#8212;_as he himself identifies it explicitly in his book_ (see the page references given in the link I gave you)&#8212;there were only three or four people in all at the time of his one-man performance in front of Syngman Rhee in 1958 who knew taekyon. _He couldn't find anyone to demonstrate with._ There were a grand total of ten or so earlier in the 20th century. At the time of the Rhee demonstration, there were hundreds of TKD dojangs in Korea, and kicks had been getting steadily higher from the early days of the post-Occupation. On the basis of _what?_ A village folk competition (this is from SDK himself, remember?) in which, according to SDK's chief student and Chairman of the Taekyon Research Association Lee Yong-bak (quoted in Young 1993 from a recorded personal interview with  LYB), the primary kicking techs in _traditional_ taekyon were low attacks on the opponent's knees and feet)?? And if, between 1958 and the middle of the first decade of the 2ist century, we suddenly see an influx of techniques that look very much like that of the dominant Korean MAs, huge even at a time when taekkyon was on the verge of extinction, and now probably the most practiced MA in the world, you are going to say that the presence of those high, spinning TKD-like kicks in taekkyon is&#8212;contrary to what the last practitioners of traditional taekyon say about it&#8212;the _source_ those high kicks in a MA that grew explosively on Korean soil after the Kwan founders returned from Japan? 

Think again about what those modern taekyon videos you're looking at contain. There are four possibilities that are each compatible with the kicks those videos display:

(i) TKD got its kicks from modern taekyon;
(ii) modern taekyon got its kicks from TKD;
(iii) both modern taekyon and TKD independently invented those kicks;
(iv) modern taekyon and TKD got their high kicks from some third source, possibly different in each of the two cases.

All four possibilities are combatible with what you're seeing on those videos. So the fact that they're on those videos cannot by itself determine which of (i)&#8211;(iv) is correct. We need additional facts. In the link I posted, and in the brief, incomplete summary I gave a couple of paragraphs back, the documented facts are almost impossible to square with (i), given what the taekyon pioneers from the early 20th century themselves say about their art, in their own books and personal interviews. (iii) is possible, but given the enormous prestige and influence of TKD and the relatively marginal status of taekyon on the current KMA scene, just how plausible is that? And in the case of (iv), we have no candidates, none, for the mysteriously missing sources of the kicks in both taekyon and TKD independently. (ii) has all the facts, and all the plausibility, going for it. So why on earth would you conclude that (i), which has to contradict the testimony of the taekyon pioneers themselves, must be the answer?? And I also cannot figure out why you put the word _research_ in scare quotes, when what I've cited is the currently best-vetted assembly of facts, and careful informed analysis of them, in the whole KMA historical literature, and hinges largely on the testimony of Song Duk-ki himself, and his own senior students.




YoungMan said:


> As for Koryo, it reflects how the Koreans perceive self defense and their approach to technique.[It is not a "mistranslation" of Empi and not intended to be.



YM... I'm just shaking my head, and, I have to say, your credibility just took a major hit. I never said that Empi and Koryo were related in any way. I said that the _Eunbi hyung_ was derived from the Okinawan Kata _Empi_, that its name is a literal transliteration, and that hyung itself is virtually identical to Empi except that in Eunbi the abdominal knee strikes of Empi have been converted to high kicks _without any concomittant changes in the rest of the Empi-->Eunbi_ translation. Got that? And the reason I brought that up was because the same translation rule that applied to the original Okinawan Empi to produce Eunbi seems to have been applied in the _judging practice_ in the Koryo performances that Terry was complaining about. Do you understand? I said, I think quite clearly, that in effect _the judges are doing the same thing in evaluating the Koryo standard that was done by the Kwan instructors to the Empi standard when this was incorporated into the TKD hyung set as Eunbi._ Do you see how totally off the mark your version of what I was saying was, sheerly in terms of what I had actually said, on the one hand,  and what you turned that into, on the other?



YoungMan said:


> It is what it is. You seriously think techniques in the form would not have been changed had they been thought ineffective? Give the Koreans a little credit. It is not supposed to be a "translation" of a Japanese form. It is a Korean form with its own merits and weaknesses, as is any form. It also undergoes changes to make it better.



Now do you see how absurd this whole passage reads? Eunbi is, completely, a translation of an originally Okinawan form, Empi, whose name was retained subject to the usual pronunciation changes; we learn it in my Song Moo Kwan lineage because a _lot_ of Okinawan forms were incorporated, and passed down via the Shotokan connection&#8212;Byung Jik Ro was a fourth dan under Funakoshi&#8212;into the SMK that BJR founded. We do the Pinans, we do Rohai and several other classic kata in their TKDified versions. Of _course_ Koryo isn't a translation analogue of Empi, or any other kata. _Who ever said it was???_

And now maybe you should note something about what Terry's actual complaint was: he was objecting because his students are penalized by the judges for performing Koryo according to the WTF standard, because the _judges_ want to see high kicks. The WTF hasn't changed the standard. The KKW hasn't changed the standard. _The judges simply want to see high kicks instead of mid kicks even though the latter are in the description standard for the Koryo hyung._ Do you see? Application, bunkai, boon hae, _none_ of that is relevant; the judges want to see high kicking even though the specs themselves do not sanction those kicks as high kicks! 

I'm just baffled at the number of ways you've managed to misconstrue what Terry was saying, what I was saying...


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 3, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> I know I could be convinced and I'd love to hear the explanation for the side kicks in Eunbi. My school does high front kicks and I'm not sure the bunkai make sense to me there, but Youngman, it would be nice to be given an example instead of ad hominem attacks.


 
Youngman I too would love for you to explain Bunkai in Eunbi? I'am not trying to be judgemental but would love to hear and see your views.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 3, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Youngman I too would love for you to explain Bunkai in Eunbi? I'am not trying to be judgemental but would love to hear and see your views.



Right.  Me too!  I would very much love to hear of the application that you know.  Irregardless of how the argument of history turns out (or does not turn out), please add my name to the list of users who wish to know the application of the double side kick in the form.

I can see in my mind the jamming of the kick with the first low kick and then the kick to the body with the second kick.  I did not jump on board earlier because of the argument (I do not wish to engage in that, I only wish to know of the application that you know of).

Regards,

Robert


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Youngman I too would love for you to explain Bunkai in Eunbi? I'am not trying to be judgemental but would love to hear and see your views.





newGuy12 said:


> Right.  Me too!  I would very much love to hear of the application that you know.  Irregardless of how the argument of history turns out (or does not turn out), please add my name to the list of users who wish to know the application of the double side kick in the form.
> 
> I can see in my mind the jamming of the kick with the first low kick and then the kick to the body with the second kick.  I did not jump on board earlier because of the argument (I do not wish to engage in that, I only wish to know of the application that you know of).
> 
> ...



Wait, guys, read my preceding post... YoungMan confused Koryo with Eunbi in what I was saying and thought (I cannot figure out he got there, but he did ) that I was saying that _Koryo_ was the Koreanization of Empi (whereas you can clearly see, I think, that I was saying that _Eunbi_ is the descendent). And Eunbi does not have side kicks, at least the version I learned. So what you're asking YM for would have to apply instead to Koryo: 'what is the SD function of the high side kicks, as Terry described it, in the judges' preferences for Koryo performance?'


----------



## foot2face (Mar 3, 2008)

Keep in mind, Im doing this as someone who was taught how use Korean poomse, specifically the Tae Geuk., and my interpretation of this segment, I believe you refer to them as subsequences, is based upon that; just as your interpretation of the forms are based on a JMA bunkai perspective, which is why I think you dont always see the value of the Korean forms.
I dont practice Eunbi, Im not familiar with it at all, based on the video you provided of Empi and you description, this is how I envision the segment; you begin by stepping into a left front stance as you perform a low block with your left arm, you follow with an upward rising punch with your right fist then deliberately open your hand. Now in Empi this is where a knee strike is delivered but according to your description it was changed to a high front kick in Eunbi. You step down from the kick moving forward and landing in a cross stance while you bring you outstretched arm, with an open hand, over to your left shoulder, executing a low punch with your left fist. You then adjust you position transitioning into a reverse front stance/side stance as you execute a low block/hammer fist with your right arm. This is the description I am going to base my following application on, I hope it is accurate. Before I begin, let me discuss my approach. The TKD I was taught is predominantly a striking system, I want as little contact with my adversary as possible, preferably just my weapons with their vulnerable targets. Its not a grab on to my adversary and beat them at close range system, which many karate, especially Okinawan ones, can be. Tactically, I strive to crate space, allowing for movement and generation of power. My goal is to prevent extreme proximity and smothering, inhibiting my adversaries ability to grab and clinch. This is in line with what I discussed in the multiple attackers thread, of how my system seeks simplicity. Employing tactics that allow one to apply their skills across a variety of situations. Fighting like this would allow me to defend against a single attacker but is also useful when dealing with more than one attacker by creating space and facilitating moment, an important factor when attempting to deal with multiples. It also helps when facing someone with a knife. The benefit in fighting up close in a clinch is that it increase your control over your advisers position and it mitigates their strikes by smothering them, tuning otherwise damaging blows into relatively harmless shoves and slaps. This advantage goes out the window when your attacker has a knife, the slightest flick of the wrist can cause a devastating wound with a sharp blade. Now on to the application. My version begins the same way the one in the video you linked does. The attacker grabs your right wrist you respond by breaking the hold with a low block you them execute an upward rising punch to the throat area, catching under the jaw driving the head back, again just like in the video. Here is were it becomes different, if you dont grab and hold your adversary, their body will follow were their head goes causing them to step back, creating space. This is very similar to an application I describe in another tread for Tae Geuk Yuk Jang where you deliver an upward rising knife hand strike to the side of your opponents neck, catching under the jaw, driving them back. Instead of immediately grabbing your attacker the open hand can be used as a body check, nudging them in their upper chest adding to their backward momentum. At this point they should be just beyond arms length, in perfect range for a front kick to the solar plexus. This is a powerful, stunning blow done outside your attacker reach lessening the chance that they might collapse on top of you and grab hold, as they could if it were a close in knee which isnt necessarily a bad thing if you train for it but it dose add some risk and as I mentioned before my system avoids this type of situation. Now your arm is still outstretched with an open hand, as you step down into a low cross stance you grab their left wrist which presumably would be covering their throat, a very common reaction to being struck there, or at least up guarding their upper region after just being hit there twice. As you step in low to deliver a low punch to their groin/belly region (a type of blow that will typically cause you target to double over lowering and exposing their head, very much in line with the low to high striking I wrote of earlier) you pull their left arm to the outside of your left shoulder. This repositions their torso just to the outside of you so they cant wrap you up as they collapse from the low blow. You now adjust your stance, sliding in with the side stance, (remaining just behind their left arm as oppose to stepping in front of it as in the video, again lessening the chance that they can wrap you up) delivering a finishing blow to their now exposed lowered head rather than their groin.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 3, 2008)

exile said:


> So what you're asking YM for would have to apply instead to Koryo: 'what is the SD function of the high side kicks, as Terry described it, in the judges' preferences for Koryo performance?'


Yes, this is the information that I wanted.  I do not practice the other forms mentioned (Embi and Eunbi).  I am not familiar this these.




foot2face said:


> The TKD I was taught is predominantly a striking system, I want as little contact with my adversary as possible, preferably just my weapons with their vulnerable targets. Its not a grab on to my adversary and beat them at close range system, which many karate, especially Okinawan ones, can be. Tactically, I strive to crate space, allowing for movement and generation of power.



Yes!  This is how we were taught -- to prefer the kicking range, no grabbing.  You try to kick the opponent, hopefully in a vital point, like the temple or the solar plexus.  

I am intrigued by the applications that are spoken of by Exile, but we were not taught these things.  We do not wish to grab anyone if that can be avoided, and we avoid close range if we can!


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 4, 2008)

Foot2Face, 
I would like to thank you for your analysis, it was very well thought out. It also shows how little you (and most KMA practitioners, so don't feel too bad or insulted) understand about the basics of your own art. Much of this problem lies in the fact that the Okinawans rarely taught anything other than the "schoolchildren's art" to ANYONE under 3rd dan (or less than a decade of training before the kyu/dan system was adopted), even their own people (including family members). They were even more restrictive in teaching the mainland Japanese and even worst when it came to those of "an inferior race" like the Koreans (note: I am not agreeing with the Japanese imperialistic attitudes, just mentioning that they existed at the time the Kwan founders were training in Japan).

By only learning the "children's art" that Itosu created in Okinawa and his student Funakoshi exported to Japan, the critical elements of kyusho and tuite (keupso in Korean) are omitted. These are the elements that give traditional basics and the forms they compose their effectiveness. This is the grab and strike, jointlock, ect. portion of TKD and it has been handed down from TKD's O/J roots. When I began TKD over 30 years ago, my instructors taught in alongside Hapkido and Yudo and I had previously trained in Jujitsu up to 1st kyu as a child (when my first instructor quit teaching), so I had an easier time than most connecting the dots. AND accepting the truth about what dots were being connected since I already had quite a bit of experience with making a lot of those type of techniques work in practical application.

Most KMA instructors don't teach the proper applications because they(and even their instructors) were never taught them. They may have been told they were important or even essential to their art, but most were never shown why. This (IMO) was more of the fault and the disgrace of the O/J instructors than the Koreans, BTW. Still in any pattern, regardless if it is an O/J original or the re-spliced versions of the Koreans; if you know what you are looking at, if the hand is at the hip, it's grabbed something. Also, if it is in a pattern, it's combat intention is NOT a block.


----------



## foot2face (Mar 4, 2008)

There are those in this forum who often lament, and rightly so, the reluctance of others within the TKD community to accept the fact that the roots of TKD are predominately JMAs. Conversely, a good number of those who eagerly embrace this fact are unwilling to accept the possibility that the Koreans made meaningful changes to the system and developed their own philosophies and understandings regarding the MAs. 



Kwan Jang said:


> Foot2Face,
> I would like to thank you for your analysis, it was very well thought out. It also shows how little you (and most KMA practitioners, so don't feel too bad or insulted) understand about the basics of your own art. Much of this problem lies in the fact that the Okinawans rarely taught anything other than the "schoolchildren's art" to ANYONE under 3rd dan (or less than a decade of training before the kyu/dan system was adopted), even their own people (including family members). They were even more restrictive in teaching the mainland Japanese and even worst when it came to those of "an inferior race" like the Koreans (note: I am not agreeing with the Japanese imperialistic attitudes, just mentioning that they existed at the time the Kwan founders were training in Japan).
> By only learning the "children's art" that Itosu created in Okinawa and his student Funakoshi exported to Japan, the critical elements of kyusho and tuite (keupso in Korean) are omitted. These are the elements that give traditional basics and the forms they compose their effectiveness.


Absolutely everything you wrote here (with the glaring exception that I understand little about the basics of my art) is 100% correct. The Kwan-era masters did not have a sophisticated understanding of how to apply their forms, which is why they and latter generations developed their own. Eunbi is not a more recent Korean form, the kicks were certainly not added to reflect a sporting aspect. So the question remains, why were they put there? Some might respond NationalismThe Koreans wanted to disguise the forms JMA origin. This doesnt make much sense to me. Why keep everything exactly the same except for substituting a few knees for kicks? It doesnt seem like much of a disguise, its right up there with Superman putting on a pair of glasses to become Clark Kent. Besides, if they really didnt understand the forms or how to apply them effectively and deeply resented their Japanese origin, why not get rid of them all together? Perhaps the answer is that forms like Eunbi represent a transitional period where Korean MAist began moving away from the O/J kata which they didnt have a deep understanding of towards creating ones they did.



Kwan Jang said:


> When I began TKD over 30 years ago, my instructors taught in alongside Hapkido and Yudo and I had previously trained in Jujitsu up to 1st kyu as a child (when my first instructor quit teaching), so I had an easier time than most connecting the dots. AND accepting the truth about what dots were being connected since I already had quite a bit of experience with making a lot of those type of techniques work in practical application.


When I began studying TKD as a child nearly two decades ago, I didnt need to have the prior knowledge of another style in order to glean the applications of my forms. My master taught them to me. They were defiantly practical and I believe them to be authentic to TKD considering that he was a KKW 9th Dan, a combat instructor while serving in the Korean military in the early 60s and a National Champion in the late 60s.



Kwan Jang said:


> Also, if it is in a pattern, it's combat intention is NOT a block.


I completely disagree with this. While its true that in many applications blocks are much more than a block, there are also various applications where they are just that. In the first few Tae Geuk poomse, for instance, there are numerous examples of simple SD maneuvers, very basic defensive flinches. A response to a surprise attack; youre walking down the street MYOB and someone just grabs or swings at you out of the blue type of situation. Your goal is to simply cover the area theyre attacking with the block and drive them back with a strike.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 4, 2008)

foot2face said:


> I completely disagree with this. While its true that in many applications blocks are much more than a block, there are also various applications where they are just that. In the first few Tae Geuk poomse, for instance, there are numerous examples of simple SD maneuvers, very basic defensive flinches. A response to a surprise attack; youre walking down the street MYOB and someone just grabs or swings at you out of the blue type of situation. Your goal is to simply cover the area theyre attacking with the block and drive them back with a strike.




I would agree the Tae Geuk patterns probably were designed with those intentional blocking applications in mind.  However, the deprecated forms of Okinawan/Japanese origin should be studied within the context of karate theory as they obviously contain tuite and kyusho bodywork within them.   This is a sweeping statement, but I nonetheless think it's true.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 4, 2008)

Foot2Face, 
Allow me to clarify a few things from my post and then address some of your comments. First, when I mentioned the basics of TKD, I really meant the traditional basic techniques that were adopted from the O/J arts. If you are performing sundan maki or anuro maki (as examples) as blocks, you really don't understand them. These are the "children's art"(karate-do) interpretation. I think it is safe to assume that when you spar, you don't block in a front stance and have your hand at your hip so that you can elbow the guy sneaking up behind you. Does your sparring or self defense strongly resemble your forms? If not, then you don't understand the real application of the techniques that are often termed the "basics of TKD". 

When I mentioned that I had studied Daito-ryu JJ as a child prior to TKD and was trained in Hapkido along with TKD, it was not to say these are superior arts. It's just that the movements for these system strongly reminded me of the basic "blocks" in TKD. There was a strong resemblence that was not too hard to connect the dots. When I later had the oppurtunity to train in Small Circle JJ with Wally Jay and then later with my friend Leon (Wally's son and the current Grandmaster of SCJJ since his father's retirement), I noticed that the "basic blocks" of TKD were exactly the same movements in MANY cases as the grab and strikes and the joint manipulations in SCJJ, just with a different application.

The fact that your instructor is a former military combat instructor, Korean national champion and 9th dan are all reasons that you should be proud of him and feel quite fortunate to train with him. However, despite how qualified he is at certain aspects of TKD, if he does not understand the original kyusho and tuite that is the basis of the "basics" of what the forms are really all about, then he doesn't understand this aspect of the art either. It's not his fault or to his discredit that he was never taught this, it's just a gap in the knowledge that was passed down.

My traditional base is the KMA's, not the Okinawan or the Japanese. I am more of a MMA'er and cross trainer these days, but I never have cut away my roots in the KMA's. If I felt the O/J MA's were superior, I would have made them my base instead. I have had the oppurtunity to train with and have some close training relationships and friendships with both masters and grandmasters of those arts. I share with them and they share with me, but I really do enjoy kicking people in the head. I agree with you that the KMA's have made very worthwhile additions to their root arts in their evolution. If I didn't feel that way, I would have shifted my base over a long time ago. (Off the record, if I were to shift over under one GM I know, I would be ranked at 7th dan under him well before my instructor will promote me. My instructor is notoriously stingy about rank...and no, I will never change). 

Even within the O/J MA's, the vast majority of the practitioners are never introduced to or thoroughly trained in the kyusho or tuite. It would be rare within those systems as well to be part of the "in crowd" and to really learn those skills, yet without this, forms/pattern practice really is mostly a waste of time. The main differnce between the O/J MA's and the KMA's toward forms is at least in the O/J MA's, at least the top people know what they are doing and what is really going on regarding this area of training. Still, if they are unwilling to share it with their students, it does little good and just is wasting the student's time and energy.

My concern is that because of how many instructors and masters withhold this info, most martial art practitioners view forms as either a waste of time or as something that is "part of the art and part of the tradition". The truth is that forms/patterns are a very good syllabus that you can work from for very effective and practical self defense against common attacks giving you many different principles and combos to work from. BTW, if you ask someone the question of "why do we do that" and they give the awnser that it's part of "the art" or "it's tradition", you can instantly translate that into meaning they don't know the awnser.

F2F, I will concede that the tae geuk patterns probably do contain blocks since they don't really contain much if any of the kyusho or tuite within them. As such, I really don't pay them any attention and regard them as a case of the blind leading the blind. At least the ITF patterns were re-spliced versions of the earlier O/J katas (as were the pal gwes), so if you want to break them down, there is still a lot of value to be dug out of them. IMO, the tae geuks really are just the waste of time that many who don't understand the real purpose behind patterns think all forms are. At least in XMA you are demonstrating athletic ability.


----------



## foot2face (Mar 5, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> Foot2Face,
> Allow me to clarify a few things from my post and then address some of your comments. First, when I mentioned the basics of TKD, I really meant the traditional basic techniques that were adopted from the O/J arts. If you are performing sundan maki or anuro maki (as examples) as blocks, you really don't understand them. These are the "children's art"(karate-do) interpretation. I think it is safe to assume that when you spar, you don't block in a front stance and have your hand at your hip so that you can elbow the guy sneaking up behind you. Does your sparring or self defense strongly resemble your forms? If not, then you don't understand the real application of the techniques that are often termed the "basics of TKD".


It appears to me that youre the one who doesnt have a full understanding of TKD. The applications from the TKD forms arent meant to be the core of the fighting system, as with many O/J arts. The applications from the forms are just one of several tools in the box and are more in line with hosinsool drills, very specific techniques that are meant to counter very specific attacks, complementing ones ability to fight by filling in various little gaps.



Kwan Jang said:


> When I mentioned that I had studied Daito-ryu JJ as a child prior to TKD and was trained in Hapkido along with TKD, it was not to say these are superior arts. It's just that the movements for these system strongly reminded me of the basic "blocks" in TKD. There was a strong resemblence that was not too hard to connect the dots. When I later had the oppurtunity to train in Small Circle JJ with Wally Jay and then later with my friend Leon (Wally's son and the current Grandmaster of SCJJ since his father's retirement), I noticed that the "basic blocks" of TKD were exactly the same movements in MANY cases as the grab and strikes and the joint manipulations in SCJJ, just with a different application.
> The fact that your instructor is a former military combat instructor, Korean national champion and 9th dan are all reasons that you should be proud of him and feel quite fortunate to train with him. However, despite how qualified he is at certain aspects of TKD, if he does not understand the original kyusho and tuite that is the basis of the "basics" of what the forms are really all about, then he doesn't understand this aspect of the art either. It's not his fault or to his discredit that he was never taught this, it's just a gap in the knowledge that was passed down.


My master was there is the 50s, back in the days when TKD was Korean Karate. He remained an active member of the KMA community, witnessing and participating in the progression of the art before emigrating to the U.S. in the late 70s. If anyone is in a position to truly understand the *Korean* methods for applying *TKD* poomse, its him.
You, on the other hand, give a detailed explanation as to why the vast majority of TKDist (myself included and perhaps my master) dont truly understand our system because we lack the knowledge of authentic Okinawan bunkai. You however, have this knowledge, not because you had the good fortune of training under one of the very few Korean TKD masters who have this understanding or because you were the long time student of a competent Okinawan karate instructor who showed you the true intent of these movements, but because you have some experience in a third, completely unrelated style. Are you serious.or are you just pulling my leg? Have you ever considered the possibility that your prior experience with another art altered, not enhanced you perspective on TKD. That many MAs share similar movements simply due to basic human mechanics. That perhaps you were biased by your JJ training, recognizing application similar to what you already knew but were unreceptive to different yet equally effective uses for those movements.



Kwan Jang said:


> The truth is that forms/patterns are a very good syllabus that you can work from for very effective and practical self defense against common attacks giving you many different principles and combos to work from.


This is one area where you and I are in complete agreement.



Kwan Jang said:


> F2F, I will concede that the tae geuk patterns probably do contain blocks since they don't really contain much if any of the kyusho or tuite within them. As such, I really don't pay them any attention and regard them as a case of the blind leading the blind. At least the ITF patterns were re-spliced versions of the earlier O/J katas (as were the pal gwes), so if you want to break them down, there is still a lot of value to be dug out of them. IMO, the tae geuks really are just the waste of time that many who don't understand the real purpose behind patterns think all forms are. At least in XMA you are demonstrating athletic ability.


This is a typical response from someone who has limited experience with the Tae Geuk poomse or has been spoon fed the fallacious propaganda of other organizations and styles that wish to belittle my style of TKD. You should refrain from making such foolish statement as it does your argument no good.
You have expressed several assumptions about me and my style of TKD that are way of the mark. Before we continue this discussion you should read my past posts, especially those regarding the use of forms, so that you will have a more accurate view of me and my methods.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 5, 2008)

Foot2Face,
 First, I am not bashing TKD, I hold a master's rank in it (5 dans higher than you according to your profile), if you happen to be one who puts much value in rank. I also did quite well in TKD competiton years ago (including the state, national and even international level), though I found the politics involved and the restrictions/limitations of the sport version not to my liking (while I love kicking people in the head, I like punching faces and tying people in knots as well. Also, I have seen TKO'ed Koreans declared winners simply on the basis of their nationality). I have clasmates that were medalists in the world championships and the Olympics in TKD (they are also either BLACK BELT Hall of Fame or TKD Hall of Fame members as well). One of my black belts put together a vid of me on youtube that is basically all TKD techniques under KJN David Hughes, if you want to get a look at how I do at "your style" that you feel I'm bashing.

My instructor/GM is a BLACK BELT Hall of Fame instructor and I happen to be one of his highest ranked students. (When I say this, it is not to say that instructors who haven't been honored as such are lesser instructors, BTW.) His status simply has opened doors for me to cross train and share with some of the legendary masters, GM's, and world champions from all styles of martial arts. Another thing is that he encourages his senior students to cross train and bring things back "home". He is always pushing us to learn, grow and evolve. I won't bore you with the laundry list of top level people we've trained with over the last few decades, many on a regular basis for years, but it is extensive.

I have trained with masters and GM's in the Okinawan systems, not as a student, but as masters sharing for over a decade. They come over to my school and do seminars, I go over to theirs and do the same. We go out to eat and play for the weekend. As someone they consider a peer, they have shared things with me on the kyusho and tuite that they do not share with any of their own students under master level and that few in the Okinawan lineage ever learn. It has been suggested by at least one of the 8th dans that he and I do joint seminars on this when he does regular seminar tours in Europe and that we do DVD's on this subject with a focus on TKD forms/patterns.

My earlier point was that coming from a JJ background (especially the JJ system that Choi created Hapkido from), I noticed that the techniques that were called "basics" in TKD were very similar movements to many techniques that I learned as a child. In Hapkido, we scratched the surface at least, of some of the applications of these movements. So when I began learning the kyusho and tuite within the bunkai from the Okinawan stylists, I was very open to it and not closing my mind to the applications that were far more usable and effective, let alone made much more sense than the ones usually passed down from karate-do via Korean TKD masters.

Have the Korean martial arts added things of value since they have evolved the base they started with? Of course. Olympic style is full contact rather than the no contact point sparring that the Japanese karate-do systems used. My main complaint is that to seek olympic acceptance, it became more of a speed game than the KO/power based sport it used to be. Plus IMO, it has too many restrictions that take it too far from being viable training for combat (no combat sport is completely there, but MMA and MT come quite a bit closer IMO). While this may be true for sport tae kwon, the same does not hold true for the combat art of TKD, though. The arsenal of kicking is far more comprehensive and fighting from the outside range is far superior to the root arts that TKD evolved from as well.


----------



## exile (Mar 5, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> Foot2Face,
> ... it has too many restrictions that take it too far from being viable training for combat (no combat sport is completely there, but MMA and MT come quite a bit closer IMO). While this may be true for sport tae kwon, the same does not hold true for the combat art of TKD, though. The arsenal of kicking is far more comprehensive and *fighting from the outside range is far superior to the root arts that TKD evolved from as well.*



Hey KJ, I wonder if I could get you to elaborate on the point I've bolded. Are you saying that fighting from the outside range is in general a superior strategic principle to the typical karate strategy of closing the distance, or are you instead saying that TKD's capabilities for relatively distant combat are superior to the distant-combat technical arsenal of the O/J arts that TKD is based on? And whichever it is, can you give more detail about your thinking on the point?


----------



## matt.m (Mar 5, 2008)

Well, what a debate we have here.  It seems that these types of debates will never die either.  Look, the Japanese and the Koreans used different footwork.  For example I will use Kendo and Kumdo, Aikido and Hapkido, Karate and Tae Kwon Do for example.  Even Judo vs. Yudo.  Technically I am a 2nd dan Yudo, I say this because I teach with the stronger pull, deeper entry and hip deeper, even though the certificate says U.S.J.A.

From what I have seen of hapkido and aikido they are similiar but at the core they are totally different arts.

Anyway, the entry and application styles as well as philosophies are different.  Period end of story.  But it is all good.  Just train hard and perservere.  It's all good.

Here are 2 links that I hope will help prove my point, or at least point you guys in the right direction of the point I am trying to make.

Aikido: 



 
Hapkido: 



 
I have been considerate to show two extremely notable figures in each art.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 6, 2008)

I was referring to TKD's (in general) greater emphasis on the outside ranges. As you know, the majority of real fights and self defense situations start in a closer range, so infighting skills are a neccesity. These are an inherent part of TKD as part of the system though through the forms, IF (and only if) you put it into practice. There has been some people who claim that they practice their grappling by doing their forms, yet just working it in the air is far from being enough.

I like to make a distinction between some of the different types of fighting. There are sport fights with a wide range of different rules and methods, From point fighting, to olympic TKD, to boxing, to judo, to MMA, ect. In this type of fighting, you have two athletes who are fighting under a certain set of rules to achieve a victory in an athletic contest. There are playground fights, which can be li'l Joey and Bobby at recess ("I call you out") or their uncles at the bar. With this type of fight, it's much more about asserting dominance. And though it can easily escalate into real combat, usually the intent is rarely to cause serious permanant damage to one's opponent. Finally, there is real combat or self defense. These can vary from simple stun and runs to soldiers on the battlefield. Often in these situations, you are in reaction to an aggressor. Also attackers like to use weapons, they like to use numbers and they prefer to attack wehn you are off guard (or blinded by your own blood).

In any fight, set point control is probably the most powerful and dominant quality, if it is used. The oppurtunity to use it is more likely to occur in sport or playgroud fights since you are less in reaction and have the oppurtunity to "square off" against your opponent. A good kicker can use lead leg probing strikes to set and control the critical distance/firing line from the outside ranges and thus control the fight. In boxing, the jab is used for the same purpose. To awnser your question, if you are good at this, then the outside range CAN be superior.

My point on the topic of patterns/forms is that there is a signifcant and growing percentage of practioners of the martial arts in general and TKD in particular that feel that forms are a time buster and just a filler. And that they could be using their training time to better use. A popular point that is brought up is that you would never fight for real in a static front or horse stance with your hand at your hip when you block or punch. Practitioners will often question why spend time practicing "basics" that do not resemble the striking that you would use in a real fight. The way you train is the way you react.

 To me, this is a VERY valid point...if you are going by the karate-do bunkai or the Korean-ized variation of it. Neither is anywhere close to being realistic and I would hope that no one around here would actually try to fight or defend themselves in such a manner. I have actually seen people who tried to do this and thought that they were being "true to their art" by trying to fight that way. I had one guy at the gym I worked out at who spent months trying to sell me the virtues of this type of fighting everytime he saw me there. 

Contrast this with the applications/bunkai when you include the kyusho and tuite including the close quarter joint locks, grab and strikes, ect. This system is very similar to many schools of JJ and has a very strong proven track record both in combat and in self defense. If you break this down, then build it up through the scales of force and resistance with a partner, then the movements in your form become a syllabus for giving much greater depth to your TKD practice. IMO, if you use the forms the way they were originally intended, they are a valid and important part of your training and if you master the material in this syllabus, then TKD (and karate-do) become far more complete combative systems rather than just kick/punch systems. 

I am not trying to "bash" TKD, but I do see some wrong turns that it has taken IMO. There are things that are already part of the system that most students have already had training in, but few practioners are putting it to effective use. Low kicks, sweeps, takedowns, elbow and knee strikes, joint locks, trapping and infighting,... these are all a part of TKD. However, I see so many instructors only giving a token effort or ignoring all these altogether. Many TKD students even know much of this even exists in their art, all some of them know how to do is slap a hogu with a cut kick.


----------



## exile (Mar 6, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> I was referring to TKD's (in general) greater emphasis on the outside ranges. *As you know, the majority of real fights and self defense situations start in a closer range, so infighting skills are a neccesity. These are an inherent part of TKD as part of the system though through the forms, IF (and only if) you put it into practice. *There has been some people who claim that they practice their grappling by doing their forms, yet just working it in the air is far from being enough.



As you probably know by now, we are 110% in agreement on all this. 



Kwan Jang said:


> I like to make a distinction between some of the different types of fighting. There are sport fights with a wide range of different rules and methods, From point fighting, to olympic TKD, to boxing, to judo, to MMA, ect. In this type of fighting, you have two athletes who are fighting under a certain set of rules to achieve a victory in an athletic contest. There are playground fights, which can be li'l Joey and Bobby at recess ("I call you out") or their uncles at the bar. With this type of fight, it's much more about asserting dominance. And though it can easily escalate into real combat, usually the intent is rarely to cause serious permanant damage to one's opponent. Finally, there is real combat or self defense. These can vary from simple stun and runs to soldiers on the battlefield. Often in these situations, you are in reaction to an aggressor. Also attackers like to use weapons, they like to use numbers and they prefer to attack wehn you are off guard (or blinded by your own blood).
> 
> In any fight, set point control is probably the most powerful and dominant quality, if it is used. The oppurtunity to use it is more likely to occur in sport or playgroud fights since you are less in reaction and have the oppurtunity to "square off" against your opponent. A good kicker can use lead leg probing strikes to set and control the critical distance/firing line from the outside ranges and thus control the fight. In boxing, the jab is used for the same purpose. To awnser your question, if you are good at this, then the outside range CAN be superior.



Right. The trick is getting the chance to keep the fight at that range. As you say, and as is well-supported by statistics on street violence of the kind reported in John Titchen's recent book on the Pinan/Heian kata, fights generally start close, and get closer very quickly.



Kwan Jang said:


> My point on the topic of patterns/forms is that there is a signifcant and growing percentage of practioners of the martial arts in general and TKD in particular that feel that forms are a time buster and just a filler. And that they could be using their training time to better use. *A popular point that is brought up is that you would never fight for real in a static front or horse stance with your hand at your hip when you block or punch. Practitioners will often question why spend time practicing "basics" that do not resemble the striking that you would use in a real fight. *The way you train is the way you react.



And if anyone doubted that this is an issue, just thrash through any of a couple of dozen MT threads in the past few years on kata effectiveness....



Kwan Jang said:


> To me, this is a VERY valid point...if you are going by the karate-do bunkai or the Korean-ized variation of it. Neither is anywhere close to being realistic and I would hope that no one around here would actually try to fight or defend themselves in such a manner. I have actually seen people who tried to do this and thought that they were being "true to their art" by trying to fight that way. I had one guy at the gym I worked out at who spent months trying to sell me the virtues of this type of fighting everytime he saw me there.



Right. You're talking about the standard punch-kick-block-and-that's-the-lot story, what guys like Abernethy call the 'standard story' that, as they show in their books and videos, is often absurdly impractical because the packaging of the movements is taken literally....



Kwan Jang said:


> Contrast this with the applications/bunkai when you include the kyusho and tuite including the close quarter joint locks, grab and strikes, ect.



Simon O'Neil's book on TKD should be out soon, and is _full_ of reanalyses of TKD movements along just these lines: traps, pins, controlling moves... the lot. I was at a Combat Hapkido seminar last year around this time, and was struck by how similar a lot of the CH moves were to TKD moves that go by the name of 'chamber' or 'retraction'. The big difference of course is that TKD and the other karate-based arts are much more likely to be using the trap/lock/pin/etc. to set up a strike, rather than using joint controlling movements as the primary combat moves in themselves. I like striking much better than controlling, but I'll happily do the latter if it gives me a chance to set up the former in a very effective way.



Kwan Jang said:


> This system is very similar to many schools of JJ and has a very strong proven track record both in combat and in self defense. If you break this down, then build it up through the scales of force and resistance with a partner, then the movements in your form become a syllabus for giving much greater depth to your TKD practice.



Noncompliant training.... no, there's no substitute for that. (The trick is finding people who are willing to do that sort of training in a serious way...)




Kwan Jang said:


> IMO, if you use the forms the way they were originally intended, they are a valid and important part of your training and if you master the material in this syllabus, then TKD (and karate-do) become far more complete combative systems rather than just kick/punch systems.



I see this as the essence of the 'new paradigm' in TKD (as it has proven to be in karate). But a lot of critical reevaluation of many techs displayed in the hyungs is going to be necessary to see the movements in the forms for what they are, and what kind of information they contain. 



Kwan Jang said:


> I am not trying to "bash" TKD, but I do see some wrong turns that it has taken IMO. There are things that are already part of the system that most students have already had training in, but few practioners are putting it to effective use. *Low kicks, sweeps, takedowns, elbow and knee strikes, joint locks, trapping and infighting,... *these are all a part of TKD. However, I see so many instructors only giving a token effort or ignoring all these altogether. Many TKD students even know much of this even exists in their art, all some of them know how to do is slap a hogu with a cut kick.



One of the things which seems to be a persistent part of the historical background literature on the karate which contributed its technique set to TKD is that most of the karateka in both Okinawa and Japan had been exposed to jujitsu methods, which were part of widespread training in both Japan and Korea in the early 20th century. That means that for many karate practitioners, there would have been no question that certain movements that were taught in Okinawan and, later on, Japanese forms would have consisted of the sort of thing I've bolded in the preceding. Abernethy has suggested that the Satsuma budo-jutsu techniques, involving a lot of that sort of thing (some people have claimed that the Minamoto-era samurai's 'home' empty hand MA was Daito ryu Aiki-jutsu, which was also applicable to sword and other weapon methods) diffused, through intermarriage between the locals and the Satsuma overlords, through Okinawa by the time Matsumura began developing 'linear' karate. It's pretty clear that those elements were crucial in the original 'basis' art of Japanese and, later, Korean karate.

Eventually this will all become widely known and applied, I believe...


----------



## foot2face (Mar 6, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> if you want to get a look at how I do at "your style" that you feel I'm bashing.


Allow me to clarify, when I refer to my style Im writing of KKW TKD which relies heavily on the Tae Geuk poomse that you were very dismissive of.
The term style is not the most accurate, perhaps variant would more appropriate. Variants that represent TKD during different points of its evolution as well as variants that reflect the preferences of different Kwans and organizations, such as KKW/WTF Kukki TKD, ITF Chang Hon TKD, ATA Song Ahm TKD and so on.

I believe the issue of different variants of TKD is relevant to the discussion. Older variants of TKD tend to be more receptive to the Okinawan methods for applying the forms. Ironically, many who practice later variants of TKD and would be more likely to embrace the Korean methods tend to focus predominantly on the sporting aspect of the art, relegating the forms to nothing more than formal exercises done for tradition sake. If they do wish to learn how to apply their forms they often look to practitioners of older variants. This is one of several problems plaguing TKD. 


Kwan Jang said:


> I was referring to TKD's (in general) greater emphasis on the outside ranges. As you know, the majority of real fights and self defense situations start in a closer range, so infighting skills are a neccesity. These are an inherent part of TKD as part of the system though through the forms, IF (and only if) you put it into practice. There has been some people who claim that they practice their grappling by doing their forms, yet just working it in the air is far from being enough.


Yes exactly, and the majority of the Korean TKD applications are infighting techniques but are more conducive to the art as they facilitate the effective outside range fighting of TKD that you referred to in your earlier post. The Okinawan bunkai tend to be geared towards controlling and dominating the close range with traps, locks, pressure point and inside striking however the Korean TKD applications are geared towards driving the attacker back or away allowing one to engage at a more beneficial(for a typical TKDist) range. They are not just simple block/strike combos, they include a lot of grappling or more precisely anti-grappling. 

I really feel we could have a much more productive conversation if you read some of my previous post where I discuss how I was taught to use the forms. Below I linked to a few such post. Im looking forward to your comments. 

post 1

post 2

post 3

post 4


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 7, 2008)

Oh, the WTF...yeah, I kind of remember them. Wasn't my instructor their national lightweight champion and a medal winner at the 1977 world championships, as well as the captain of their USA TKD team? Wasn't his instructor, GM Dan Kyu Choi not only a WTF 9th dan, but also the head coach of the USA TKD team that year (BTW, I did study under GM Choi as well prior to his retirement, but I mostly recieved my instruction from his two top students. Back then they were 2nd dans and KJN Ernie Reyes, Sr. and KJN Tony Thompson are still my instructors to this day). I vaguely seem to recall that my classmate Dianne Murray was the captain of the USA Olympic TKD team and a silver medalist at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. I kind of remember that another classmate of mine, Greg Fears was the silver medalist at both the '77 and the '78 WTF world championships (at a time that non-Koreans would never win no matter how badly they beat the gold medalists. If you think this is sour grapes, at least one of the gold medalists will admit in public that Greg pwned him).

As I seem to recall, didn't I win a gold medal at the WTF's first junior olympics when I was 16? And didn't I place in the adult divisions at the nationals that year? Hmm, I seem to recall something about getting back into USTU (then the WTF affiliate for the USA) competiton in 1999 having caught a case of Olympic fever, and won the TN. state championship and went on to the nationals. Unfortunately, I tore the miniscus in my knee a week earlier and had to withdraw from competion between matches after my knee swelled to the size of a grapefruit and locked up after I was stupid enough to insist on fighting anyway. Oh, and didn't they issue me a master's pass at that tournament.

OK, all sarcasm and attempts at humor aside, my point is simply that just because I am critical of the tae geuks as patterns doesn't mean I am "bashing your style". I have had conversations on the topic of the tae gueks with three seperate WTF 9th dans and they have even less regard for them than I do. BTW, they were the ones who brought up the subject, not me and these were seperate conversations years apart. They have a high regard for the original pinan forms they were taught while they were coming up and even the palgwe series, but they too see the tae geuks as a watered down series of patterns. Does this make them bashers of WTF/KKW TKD in your mind as well? 

In fairness though, I can see by the posts you provided the links for that this subject means a lot to you and that you have invested some time and energy here. I honestly don't want to step on your toes here, but I do feel that the bunkai used by the Okinawan systems WHEN they include the kyusho and tuite applications are far more combat worthy though. I did respect the time and dedication you put into your posts enough to review the tae geuks and it has been many years since I have been motivated to do so. My conclusion (FWIW) is that your applications are still basically an outer range/Korean-ized variation of the Karate-do (school children's art) interpretation of the patterns. Unlike some other versions of forms used in TKD, it's harder to even constuct something that would truly be combat effective from this. In a way though, you should see this as a good thing. It means that "your TKD" has within the scope of it's traditional curriculum a much broader base than you ever knew. This means you can stay within your traditional style and not have to be a cross trainer like me to be effective in more ranges.

Let me make a suggestion, if I may. Try pressure testing the applications that you posted against a fully resisting, non-compliant opponent who is both larger and stronger than you. If you can break it down into segements and make it work under these conditions with such a training partner, then you will know that it is at least viable under the conditions that you describe and are not just accepting blindly what has been passed down to you. Even if it turns out to be viable, if you don't actively apply it and practice it under these conditions, it will be of no real use to you. I do the same with the applications I endorse all the time, except for the bigger and stronger part.  When you are my size and can bench nearly 600lbs raw(no suit) and squat over 800 lbs, finding someone bigger and stronger to pressure test things against is actually a challenge, though my students do presure test aginst bigger and stronger partners all the time.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 7, 2008)

Can I ask a syupid wuestion to all you high and mighty top rank Instructors and I am being as serious as I can here. Why does every single person say they are WTF 9th and WTF 8th and WTF certified? I mean come on the WTF does not certifesd anyine except for one brief year, all of the certification comes from the KKW in Soul Korea. This has been a pet peave of mine for twenty five years and it just tears me apart when people does not use the correct terminology when talking about certification.

If I am wrong can one of you find folks please pasye and copy a WTF certificate that is different from the KKW so I can personally see one. It can be PM'ed to me if you like.

Now back to the decussion of Poomsae and applications, we the current old timers with more than twenty years in this so called Art of our have seen the up and down roller coster that is called poomsae make changes after changes and never really seeing proper teaching to all the refs. let alone all the instructors out here. Untik we come together as one and are all thought the exact same way, people are just going to interpate what they believe and there instructors believe, does it make it wrong no just different.

I enjoy TKD as a way of life and a wat to protect whether or bot a certain instructor see eye to eye with me does not change my training or teaching, the count and movements havenot been altor only the common sequene of the way they are presented for competition. I beleive we are all comparing apples jsut a different take with them some like it right off the vine with very little eveer being change and some like the sliced up version while other like apple sauce. It is still all apples in the long run.

Have a wonderful and great day.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 7, 2008)

Terry,
I agree with you. It also irritates me when someone claims WTF certification, especially if they are high ranking (or claim to be). The Kukkiwon certifies Dan ranks, not the WTF. Also, I truly believe that for every 20 people who claim KKW 8th or 9th Dan (or claims their instructor is), probably only one actually is. They make it sound like the world is crawling with high ranking Masters, and that's just not the case.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 7, 2008)

Terry,
You are right about KKW being the one to issue rank rather than the WTF. My mention of the WTF throughout my post was correct since it was about the sport side and competition, except for the one line of about "three seperate WTF 9th dans". I should have said three KKW 9th dans, but since I had been talking so much about the sport side, I had WTF on the brain.

As far as forms/patterns are concerned, I think you are misssing my point; whether you would agree with it or not may be a different matter. I see the older forms as being sets of very functional training drills that, if used and practiced effectively, include the CQC part of TKD that most practitioners don't train in. If you include this type of training from the forms that are a part of TKD, then the art becomes more of a complete system rather than just a kick/punch system. Now, I will be the first to agree that TKD's specialty is kick/punch and it has the most versatile kicking arsenal out there, but it has a CQC side that is often ignored.

If TKD practitioners were to expand their training into this aspect of their art, then they would be much more well rounded and able to defend themselves for real. Now, many people in TKD are going outside TKD to learn how to defend themselves. Even with this type of training, you will always have guys like me who will always cross train regardless. While TKD has a decent punching arsenal, I'm going to become better with my hands by boxing, so I train in boxing (and competed as an amateur when I was in my late teens and early twenties). TKD has knee strikes, elbow strikes and low kicks, but I'll always want to evolve it to a higher level, that's why I've trained in both American kickboxing and MT for over 25 years (and was a pro kickboxer). I'm always going to want to develop my grappling beyond the basic standing grappling and takedowns, ect. that are part of the forms, so I cross train in BJJ, Submission Grappling and Judo and have been a JJJ black belt since 1983 (and I'm getting back into submission grappling competition as soon as my doctor clears me from my surgeries).

Somebody like me is always going to be cross training because I am an obsesive freak with no life (hey, I'm starting to depress myself). I've been doing this since I was a kid and it is my profession. For all the sane people out there who have lives and haven't had over 35 years to stack the different elements of their training, my approach isn't an attractive option. They can however get a well rounded self defense base from TKD if they will train it and the instructors will teach it to them.

IMO, the way many people train in forms and basics now is mostly a waste of time, though it could be so much more. I believe if what you are doing is not to train in and develop effective CQC skills by applying your forms, then you are missing the point. There are those that will argue that it's for competition or "the art" in martial arts. If that's the case, then why not do XMA? It is far more physically demanding and challenging, It is more asthetically and visually pleasing and impressive by far (for art's sake) and about as combat worthy (or not) as the applications that most are prescribing. No, I would never throw a double leg 540 or a 720 in a self defense situation, but I would never block with my opposite hand at my hip or punch from a static deep front or horse stance either. I couild cite examples where each of these can and have worked, but none are a good idea IMO.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes, once again I put a post on the board and got ignored.  Thought I was just being a bit helpful by even showing video evidence of differences between 2 like and similiar but different arts by notable people in their fields.

Look. rank does mean something.  However, I will use Moo Sul Kwan as an example.  Grandmaster Hildebrand has a 7th dan certificate from Nam Suk Lee, Lee and Lee H. Park were in Chang Moo Kwan together in Korea.
He is also a 5th dan certified under GGM Park himself in Hapkido.

David LeGrand and Jim Sautel are 6th dan Masters in Tae Kwon Do, David and Charles began training under Park together.  Sautel came a little later.
Anyway there are only 2 6th dans in the organization.  Jim runs the Colorado aspect of Moo SUl Kwan.

In St. Louis and Southeast Missouri there is a Master for each art: 5th dan:  Bill Evans and Rick Schutt are 5th dans in TKD,(St. L school).  Bill teaches at a different location.  In Perryville we have 5th dan Master Pingel, In Jackson and at S.E.M.O. we have 5th dan Master Doug Johnson.
In the Cape School we have my dad 5th dan hapkido and Ralph Hendrickson 5th dan tae kwon do.

Our motto is "When it comes to rank we must be retarded."  Considering GM Hildebrand who is the President of Moo Sul Kwan and Dad have said repeatedly, we only went up in rank so students could get promoted.

I have my 2nd dan in Yudo because of the same thought processing.  There are a lot of brown 1st's that need testing and promoting.  Not only that but there is a whole "New Crop" of students that I am teaching and so I had to go one more up.  In 3 or so years I will be a 3rd dan for contribution to the art, etc."

Rank in my honest opinion is for the benefit of promotion of students not an ego booster.  I have told my class repeatedly, "My belt is black not because I am better, but because I never washed my white belt."

Although at our last tournament I saw an 8 yr old 2nd dan and a 10 yr old 2nd dan.  Not from our school but gee at the rate their going their gonna be those "I am a 9th degree yada yada yada by the time they are 20.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Mar 7, 2008)

Young Man. 
If you are questioning the validity of the rank of the three 9th dans that I was referring to, they are GM Ahn (former President of the USTU from 1986-1992), GM Dan Kyu Choi (who was head coach of the USA TKD team at the 3rd WTF world championships in 1977), and GM Seoung Eui Shin (who IIRC is the head of Moo Duk Kwan TKD in the USA). You are more than welcome to check their credentials. I only trained directly with GM Choi, but being a 6th dan in his lineage and the highest ranked personal student of one of his two senior students, the other GM's (who are old friends of his) have included me in their "in crowd".

As far as KKW and the WTF are concerned, I am no longer affiliated with them. My instructors parted ways with them many years ago, but didn't mind if we kept up our association with them and I did for quite some time. I won't go into details here, but if you are curious and want to PM me, I will go into why I was unhappy enough to lose respect for them as an org. and break all ties. Though I do have many friends who are still part of that and there are many great martial artists and honorable people involved, I just couldn't abide some of the corruption.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 8, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> Young Man.
> If you are questioning the validity of the rank of the three 9th dans that I was referring to, they are GM Ahn (former President of the USTU from 1986-1992), GM Dan Kyu Choi (who was head coach of the USA TKD team at the 3rd WTF world championships in 1977), and GM Seoung Eui Shin (who IIRC is the head of Moo Duk Kwan TKD in the USA). You are more than welcome to check their credentials. I only trained directly with GM Choi, but being a 6th dan in his lineage and the highest ranked personal student of one of his two senior students, the other GM's (who are old friends of his) have included me in their "in crowd".
> 
> As far as KKW and the WTF are concerned, I am no longer affiliated with them. My instructors parted ways with them many years ago, but didn't mind if we kept up our association with them and I did for quite some time. I won't go into details here, but if you are curious and want to PM me, I will go into why I was unhappy enough to lose respect for them as an org. and break all ties. Though I do have many friends who are still part of that and there are many great martial artists and honorable people involved, I just couldn't abide some of the corruption.


 
Not to start a fight, however if you are responding to me.  I do not prefer "Young Man."  I served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 5 years where I did a lot of combat, saved a lot of lives and got a rating of 80 percent disabled by the V.A., not only that but my Yudo record for the U.S. Marine Team was 33 gold and 2 silver.  

I don't question anyone perse.  To me you are what you are until proven different.  Plus, for that matter my whole point was that a lot of people chase belts and are rank greedy.  I really don't care about what others do, I am just merely stating fact from my organizational stanpoint.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 8, 2008)

My apologies, I spoke a bit too soon.  Always easy to insert foot into mouth than it is to take it out.

Again, sorry I was defensive.  I just had a feeling that your post was directed to me.


----------



## foot2face (Mar 18, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> I honestly don't want to step on your toes here, but I do feel that the bunkai used by the Okinawan systems WHEN they include the kyusho and tuite applications are far more combat worthy though.


Im not seeking to have a debate over the superiority of Okinawan bunkai vs. Korean applications to the forms. Its incredibly subjective and up to the personal preferences of the person relying on them. While one who prefers the Okinawan bunkai will claim, and Ill agree, that they are extremely effective and are far more sophisticated. They often go on to say that the Korean applications are simple and represent an inferior understanding. However, one who relies on the Korean applications will state that by comparison they might seem simple, simple is not synonymous with ineffective. In fact, may SD experts claim that simplicity is a vital component to an effective SD routine. They will continue, saying that the Korean applications are much more inline with the philosophies of TKD and complement the other aspects of the art rather than introducing competing tactics and methods. Its also incorrect to assume that there is no pressure point/nerve strikes and grappling within the Korean applications. There are a several pp/nerve strikes in Korean based TKD applications. Again, not nearly as many as in Okinawan bunkai and no where near as complex as with Okinawan kenpo, getting into Chinese medicine with various points along meridians and the so on, but they are there. The approach taken by the Korean applications is different by that taken by those who emphasize the Kyushu aspect of kata. For instance, a disciple of Oyota might say something like pp dont need to be struck hard in order to work. What is required is precision, contacting them in the exact location and at the correct angle, but Im going to hit hard anyway in the chance that I miss or for what ever reason the point is obscured or ineffective at least I land a solid blow. The TKD outlook is on the other end of the spectrum. TKD evolved as a power striking system. One reason why kicks are emphasized, kicks being among the most powerful strikes one can throw. There is an emphasis on doing structural damage and relying on the immediate physical reaction to the blow rather than a physiological one. This culminates with the belief that concussive shock to the brain via a powerful strike to the head region is the most reliable method for incapacitating an attacker. This is one of reasons why there are high kicks in TKD, there is the belief that kick deliver force far above the threshold needed to knock someone unconscious. When grabbed on the wrist a TKDist will typically hit their attacker hard in the wrist region, generally along the thumb joint location. The objective is to break the hold and knock the hand away, momentarily taking it out of the fight and exposing more vulnerable targets. It has the added benefit of possibly causing structural damage, fracturing the wrist or dislocating the thumb. Typically, they are not looking to inflict pain or set up a sophisticated pp knock out by precisely targeting a specific point on the wrist or arm. This type of thinking is one of the reasons why there are no leg kicks in TKD competitions. Besides the obvious reason of wanting to emphasize the systems aggressive high kicks, particularly to the head, TKD low kicks tend to be aimed directly towards the knees. Unlike other systems that include strikes to nerves on the leg in an attempt to cause pain or deaden the limb TKDist focus on the knee hoping to immediately affect the stability and balance of our adversary and possibly destroy the joint. Since there are no safe ways to hit the knees, low kick were taken out of competitions. By now it may seem that Im contradicting my early statement but pp/nerve strikes are in the Korean application. For example, in my attempted application for Eunbi I briefly mention another application I wrote about where one delivers an upward rising knife hand to the side of the neck just under the jaw. The strike is directed towards the carotid sinus, a classic nerve strike. However, the main objective is to drive the attacker back allowing for more powerful follow up shots. If Im lucky enough to hit the sweet spot and the attacker drops then great, I not going to complain that I wish the fight went a little longer so I could get a few more shots in. The outlook is different, the application focuses on event that all the strike does is drive the attacker back which is fine because it allows you to attack with more powerful strikes from a position youre more comfortable with. The possible pp knockout is just the icing on the cake. This is the way that the kyusho are generally presented in the Tae Geuk applications. With regards to grappling, there are locks, traps and takedowns in the applications but again the approach is a bit different. The goal is not to actually dominate the fight with these techniques but rather use them to facilitate the typical TKD striking.
I was hoping with this discussion, that we could highlight the various methods for applying the forms rather than argue over which are best.


Kwan Jang said:


> Let me make a suggestion, if I may. Try pressure testing the applications that you posted against a fully resisting, non-compliant opponent who is both larger and stronger than you. If you can break it down into segements and make it work under these conditions with such a training partner, then you will know that it is at least viable under the conditions that you describe and are not just accepting blindly what has been passed down to you. Even if it turns out to be viable, if you don't actively apply it and practice it under these conditions, it will be of no real use to you.


I briefly described my training in my earlier post but it seems that I was not clear enough. Please allow me to elaborate. I was taught and trained in the use of these applications. They were certainly pressure tested. Many of the BBs at my school were not originally my masters students. They came, as BBs, from other schools complaining that the dojangs where they used to train had gone soft. They were drawn to my instructor because of his advance rank and reputation for *hard* SD oriented training. Most of them were former Military, like my instructor, and nearly all of them were current LEOs. For these men, TKD wasnt mealy a hobby or a means to keep in shape but a combat system which they depended on to keep them alive when the only weapons available where their hands and feet. The training at the dojangs reflected this. As a consequence of our hard training I have been knocked unconscious, choked out and had my shoulder dislocated. Others in my school received similar injuries as well as gruesome bruises and broken bones. Blood was not an unfamiliar sight and I had to get a new dobahk due to staining on more then one occasion. Like you, my instructor held dans in Hapkido and Judo, other BBs had experience in deferent systems such as Boxing and Wrestling as well. My master often told us that if your TKD only works against other TKDist than its useless. He would often incorporate theses different arts into our training. His goal was not to expand our MA knowledge by making us proficient in other systems but rather to enhance our TKD, allowing us to develop an understanding of how to apply our TKD skill set against other methods and styles.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 18, 2008)

I was not singling anyone out as far as the rank issue. However, you can't deny that claims of 7th-9th Dan rank seem to be much more common than the numbers that actually exist. By definition, there will not be many 7th-9th Dans in the world, nor should there be.
And I agree with Foot2Face: Korean forms application and self defense is MUCH more effective than people give it credit for. Particularly when it's Kwan based, the techniques were never designed to merely cause pain, they were designed to destroy. One of the reasons why traditional TKD does not make a good tournament sport and why TKD had to make many changes to be admitted to the Olympics. Sport TKD can undoubtably cause pain, but traditional TKD is designed to be lethal.
Don't forget, Taekwondo was born during a time of great turmoil in Korea (Korean War, North Korea and China to the north, infighting between Kwans). A martial art that serves only to incapacitate or cause pain would hardly be effective in those cases.
That's one of the reasons why our instructor was so adamant about being careful with Taekwondo-he knew full well what it could do.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 20, 2008)

foot2face said:


> I&#8217;m not seeking to have a debate over the superiority of Okinawan bunkai vs. Korean applications to the forms. It&#8217;s incredibly subjective and up to the personal preferences of the person relying on them. While one who prefers the Okinawan bunkai will claim, and I&#8217;ll agree, that they are extremely effective and are far more sophisticated. They often go on to say that the Korean applications are simple and represent an inferior understanding. However, one who relies on the Korean applications will state that by comparison they might seem simple, simple is not synonymous with ineffective. In fact, may SD experts claim that simplicity is a vital component to an effective SD routine. They will continue, saying that the Korean applications are much more inline with the philosophies of TKD and complement the other aspects of the art rather than introducing competing tactics and methods. It&#8217;s also incorrect to assume that there is no pressure point/nerve strikes and grappling within the Korean applications. There are a several pp/nerve strikes in Korean based TKD applications. Again, not nearly as many as in Okinawan bunkai and no where near as complex as with Okinawan kenpo, getting into Chinese medicine with various points along meridians and the so on, but they are there. The approach taken by the Korean applications is different by that taken by those who emphasize the Kyushu aspect of kata. For instance, a disciple of Oyota might say something like &#8220;pp don&#8217;t need to be struck hard in order to work. What is required is precision, contacting them in the exact location and at the correct angle, but I&#8217;m going to hit hard anyway in the chance that I miss or for what ever reason the point is obscured or ineffective at least I land a solid blow.&#8221; The TKD outlook is on the other end of the spectrum. TKD evolved as a power striking system. One reason why kicks are emphasized, kicks being among the most powerful strikes one can throw. There is an emphasis on doing structural damage and relying on the immediate physical reaction to the blow rather than a physiological one. This culminates with the belief that concussive shock to the brain via a powerful strike to the head region is the most reliable method for incapacitating an attacker. This is one of reasons why there are high kicks in TKD, there is the belief that kick deliver force far above the threshold needed to knock someone unconscious. When grabbed on the wrist a TKDist will typically hit their attacker hard in the wrist region, generally along the thumb joint location. The objective is to break the hold and knock the hand away, momentarily taking it out of the fight and exposing more vulnerable targets. It has the added benefit of possibly causing structural damage, fracturing the wrist or dislocating the thumb. Typically, they are not looking to inflict pain or set up a sophisticated pp knock out by precisely targeting a specific point on the wrist or arm. This type of thinking is one of the reasons why there are no leg kicks in TKD competitions. Besides the obvious reason of wanting to emphasize the systems aggressive high kicks, particularly to the head, TKD low kicks tend to be aimed directly towards the knees. Unlike other systems that include strikes to nerves on the leg in an attempt to cause pain or &#8220;deaden&#8221; the limb TKDist focus on the knee hoping to immediately affect the stability and balance of our adversary and possibly destroy the joint. Since there are no safe ways to hit the knees, low kick were taken out of competitions. By now it may seem that I&#8217;m contradicting my early statement but pp/nerve strikes are in the Korean application. For example, in my attempted application for Eunbi I briefly mention another application I wrote about where one delivers an upward rising knife hand to the side of the neck just under the jaw. The strike is directed towards the carotid sinus, a classic nerve strike. However, the main objective is to drive the attacker back allowing for more powerful follow up shots. If I&#8217;m lucky enough to hit the &#8220;sweet spot&#8221; and the attacker drops then great, I not going to complain that &#8220;I wish the fight went a little longer so I could get a few more shots in.&#8221; The outlook is different, the application focuses on event that all the strike does is drive the attacker back which is fine because it allows you to attack with more powerful strikes from a position you&#8217;re more comfortable with. The possible pp knockout is just the icing on the cake. This is the way that the kyusho are generally presented in the Tae Geuk applications. With regards to grappling, there are locks, traps and takedowns in the applications but again the approach is a bit different. The goal is not to actually dominate the fight with these techniques but rather use them to facilitate the typical TKD striking.
> I was hoping with this discussion, that we could highlight the various methods for applying the forms rather than argue over which are best.
> 
> I briefly described my training in my earlier post but it seems that I was not clear enough. Please allow me to elaborate. I was taught and trained in the use of these applications. They were certainly pressure tested. Many of the BBs at my school were not originally my master&#8217;s students. They came, as BBs, from other schools complaining that the dojangs where they used to train had gone &#8220;soft&#8221;. They were drawn to my instructor because of his advance rank and reputation for *hard* SD oriented training. Most of them were former Military, like my instructor, and nearly all of them were current LEOs. For these men, TKD wasn&#8217;t mealy a hobby or a means to keep in shape but a combat system which they depended on to keep them alive when the only weapons available where their hands and feet. The training at the dojangs reflected this. As a consequence of our hard training I have been knocked unconscious, choked out and had my shoulder dislocated. Others in my school received similar injuries as well as gruesome bruises and broken bones. Blood was not an unfamiliar sight and I had to get a new dobahk due to staining on more then one occasion. Like you, my instructor held dans in Hapkido and Judo, other BBs had experience in deferent systems such as Boxing and Wrestling as well. My master often told us that &#8220;if your TKD only works against other TKDist than it&#8217;s useless.&#8221; He would often incorporate theses different arts into our training. His goal was not to expand our MA knowledge by making us proficient in other systems but rather to enhance our TKD, allowing us to develop an understanding of how to apply our TKD skill set against other methods and styles.



It sounds like your take on form applications is based on your teacher rather than any "official" Kukkiwon SD training, and thus not the official "Korean" take.  I've trained with people who trained directly under Gwan founders, and not heard any such thing.  Where do these applications come from?


----------



## foot2face (Mar 21, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> It sounds like your take on form applications is based on your teacher rather than any "official" Kukkiwon SD training, and thus not the official "Korean" take.


No, it wasnt just my masters way. Several of the BBs at my school came from other dojangs after receiving Dans and were trained similarly by their previous instructors. Ive also met TKDist from other schools who had elements of this in their training as well. TKD evolved a lot since the mid 50s and there are numerous variants representing the art at different points of it's evolutions. The KKW of today is not the KKW of yesterday. 
I was not completely accurate by constantly referring to them as "the Korean applications." You are absolutely correct, it is not the official Korean take, there is no official Korean take. Different KMAs and even different schools within the same KMA have their own take. However, for simplicity sake, I was trying to clearly differentiate strict O/J interpretation form one of the alternate methods developed in Korea. I did not mean to suggest that this is the only way it is done in Korea.


Errant108 said:


> *I've trained with people who trained directly under Gwan founder*s, and not heard any such thing. Where do these applications come from?


This is probably why it doesn't sound familiar to you. It could be that you train a variant of TKD that reflects the preferences of the older generation of masters and closer resembles the arts of the Kwan era. My training represents TKD at a latter point in it's evolution.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 21, 2008)

foot2face said:


> No, it wasnt just my masters way. Several of the BBs at my school came from other dojangs after receiving Dans and were trained similarly by their previous instructors.



Where do you surmise this stream of instruction originates from?  Who is your instructor and who were his instructors?  I'm interested in learning more.



foot2face said:


> The KKW of today is not the KKW of yesterday.



Without a doubt...


foot2face said:


> I was not completely accurate by constantly referring to them as "the Korean applications." You are absolutely correct, it is not the official Korean take...I did not mean to suggest that this is the only way it is done in Korea.



Unfortunately, that was the way it was perceived and why there was such a negative reaction to your previous posts.  If this stream is not an official one, it is no more valid than anyone else's, and even those who research older applications are not retrograding TKD, but looking at what is already within it, in essence, adhering to a complete view of the Korean methodology found in their art.  Criticizing them as being unKorean is not valid, unles it is the Korean method to throw the baby out with the bath water instead out of ignorance.

I do understand where you are coming from.  My own primary instructor, who trained in the Mudukgwan during the transition period between Dangsudo & Taegwondo, taught applications that could be seen as similar to Okinawan bunkai, but retained a distinctly "Korean" feel to them.



foot2face said:


> there is no official Korean take.



Unfortunately, there is an official set of Korean applications for Gukgi Taegwondo pumsae.  They can be found in part in the majority of the Gukgiwon & WTF sponsored gyobun, manuals, and bibles.  They are the elementary school explanations, a high block versus a hammerfist, a crescent kick to block a punch that was too far away to strike you anyway.

It is because of these "official" explanations that the majority of Gukgiwon instructors do not teach applications, why forms are viewed as something you do for a belt test or competition, rather than an integral part of training.  It's this reason why you find people like Exile looking back at connections between Okinawan kata, created with a fighting methodology in mind, to draw out possible modern "explanations" to Taegeuk pumsae and the like.



foot2face said:


> This is probably why it doesn't sound familiar to you. It could be that you train a variant of TKD that reflects the preferences of the older generation of masters and closer resembles the arts of the Kwan era. My training represents TKD at a latter point in it's evolution.



I've trained several variants of TKD, and interviewed practitioners of many different systems.  I've learned what it was like being on the floor with Hwang Gi, Hong Chongsu, Cho Hi-il, Song Deokseon, Pak Cheolhi...to the rigors of training for national & international competition.  I've listened to members of the younger generation regale me with tails of their glorious art descended from the Hwarang and developed out of Taegyeon, and had the older generation tell me about political pressures forcing them to go along with mythologies, or how certain higher ups were talking out their *** when they claimed to have studied with underground Taegyeon masters.  I've had people who were there during the transition era tell me exactly what pieces of what kata where rearranged into what pumsae.

So you'll forgive me for being skeptical.  I am interested in hearing what you have to say though.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 21, 2008)

Ok, here is my take period end of story.  We have a few "New Guys" at the school.  They are both Red belts from their TKD system and 1 new guy from Traditional Shotokan Karate.  All 3 are white belts in MSK:TKD.  Is it out of lack of talent?  Nope, it is because every school teaches different one and three step sparring.  Every school does different "Basic Moves" as well as different standards of which poomsea is taught per level.  For instance Between orange and green I had to do the ITF poomsea Do-San and the WTF poomsea Sam Jang.  For Purple belt test coming up I will have to do O-Jang and Yul-Guk.

So the debate should not be "Is the Application of TKD poomsea in SD applicable?"  It should be "Am I doing enough reps with proper tempo and tension and poise?"  All pieces of any poomsea are applicable for the following reason....."Every block is a breaking strike and every strike reinforces the block."

Anyone who want's to look at the Creditals of Moo Sul Kwan please consider the following........"GGM Park the founder began training in Chang Moo Kwan and ended with Chung Do Kwan for TKD.  He and Nam Suk Lee were great friends.  Nam Suk Lee would come from Korea to Cape Girardeau, MO to go fishing with GGM Park."  "GGM Park trained at the Korean National Yudo Academy and learned hapkido from Won, Kwang Wha himself."

So, it is what it is and you train as you would fight and poomsea becomes applicable.  If you just go through the motions then no there will be no application because there is absolutely 0 intensity.

There are only 2 reasons I train in Tae Kwon Do.....
1. Physical therapy
2. Learning and trying to get better at poomsea every time I perform it


----------



## DArnold (Mar 21, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Can I ask a syupid wuestion to all you high and mighty top rank Instructors and I am being as serious as I can here. Why does every single person say they are WTF 9th and WTF 8th and WTF certified? I mean come on the WTF does not certifesd anyine except for one brief year, all of the certification comes from the KKW in Soul Korea. This has been a pet peave of mine for twenty five years and it just tears me apart when people does not use the correct terminology when talking about certification.
> 
> If I am wrong can one of you find folks please pasye and copy a WTF certificate that is different from the KKW so I can personally see one. It can be PM'ed to me if you like.
> 
> ...


 
Terry, Let them go on.
This is the kind of argument is fun, as I would expect from red belts.
The need to validate themselves over someone else.

My styles better than yours NAH, NAH, NAH.

Those who think books prove their validity in the MA's are quite amuseing.
And god, you have to be validated by Japan or it just isn't an art.
And some of you seniors did get sucked in by book smart Masters...

didn't ya:lol:

Anyone who does not see the validity of another style is just insecure in themselves (or trying to sell you something).


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2008)

DArnold said:


> This is the kind of argument is fun, as I would expect from red belts.



I've long ago lost track of what the discussion about, and I'm finding it hard to respond to posts which contain strings of words, such as the one I've cited, that aren't even well-formed sentences of English. 

I'll just say this, and if the shoe fits, wear it: people who try to lord it over other people on this board, with condescending and self-serving observations about other people's rank in the MAs, wind up digging holes for themselves that they have a hard time getting out of. They get nailed for rep, and they wind up running against the rules of the board, which are built (in part) around the premise that you address the substance of the point at hand, with facts and logic, rather than trying to making overbearing, sniping comments about other people based on your self-described 'exalted' rank. Savvy?

And now, please, maybe we can get back to the point of the OP, which was about self-defense applications inherent (or not) in hyungs, rather than anything to do with Japan, or with one style being better than another, or any other irrelevant and off-topic distractions? Errant and foot2face have been taking the discussion in a very interesting and useful direction, one that seems far more productive than self-congratulatory posts that implicitly glorify the poster's vision of his own elevated status. Can we please follow _them_ in developing the OP theme?


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 21, 2008)

matt.m said:


> So the debate should not be "Is the Application of TKD poomsea in SD applicable?" It should be "Am I doing enough reps with proper tempo and tension and poise?"



If that's what you want to debate, creating a thread to debate that would be suggested.  That is not what we're debating here, and I disagree with your conclusion and your line of reasoning.  Further discussion of this will result in thread drift.  We can do that if you want, or would you rather start a proper thread for that?



matt.m said:


> All pieces of any poomsea are applicable for the following reason....."Every block is a breaking strike and every strike reinforces the block."



There are no blocks in hyung.  That's elementary school TKD.



matt.m said:


> Anyone who want's to look at the Creditals of Moo Sul Kwan please consider the following........"GGM Park the founder began training in Chang Moo Kwan and ended with Chung Do Kwan for TKD. He and Nam Suk Lee were great friends. Nam Suk Lee would come from Korea to Cape Girardeau, MO to go fishing with GGM Park." "GGM Park trained at the Korean National Yudo Academy and learned hapkido from Won, Kwang Wha himself."



What do his credentials have to do with anything?  I wasn't aware we were discussing him.  Regardless, it's the fallacy of appeal to authority.



matt.m said:


> So, it is what it is and you train as you would fight and poomsea becomes applicable.



Pumsae does not become applicable.  It either is applicable or it is not.  If you are never taught how to apply the motions, merely dancing them, no matter with what level of intensity, is not going to make them applicable.  You fight how you train, and if you fight in walking stance low blocking my round kick...well...my sympathies to your forearm.  That is the essence of this discussion, accuracy of application.  If all you are taught is the elementary school application, the "official" curriculum, applicability flies out the window.

 If you just go through the motions then no there will be no application because there is absolutely 0 intensity.



matt.m said:


> There are only 2 reasons I train in Tae Kwon Do.....
> 1. Physical therapy
> 2. Learning and trying to get better at poomsea every time I perform it



Those are great reasons to train, and I hope you're able to succeed in your goals.  The one thing to remember is that your goals are not necessarily the goals of all practitioners.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 21, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> If that's what you want to debate, creating a thread to debate that would be suggested. That is not what we're debating here, and I disagree with your conclusion and your line of reasoning. Further discussion of this will result in thread drift. We can do that if you want, or would you rather start a proper thread for that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I can take constructive criticism, however I have been around the Martial Arts since 1978.  I am a world champion Judoka from the All Marine Judo Team where I won 33 gold and 2 silver medals on the international level.  I also competed Greko Roman for them as an alternate and have 18 Gold and 2 silver.  Along with that "little" accomplishment, well I have survived combat on 4 continenets and 1 Island during my tour of duty in the USMC, where I was discharged as a Sergeant with an 80% disability rating.  I have saved mine, my troops and many innocent lives.  
They are little places like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Tunisia, Israel, Turkey, Albania.....just to name a few place I have been where the U.S. Marines were only wanted by the poor helpless people that needed help.  The rest wanted us dead.  
So frankly, I know what works.....why it works, as well as the commitment to training you have to have.  BTW:  Not to start a fight but what is your MA background and rank?  
I also teach a very successful class of 20+ students 2x a week in Yudo, where I hold a 2nd dan.  I know that isn't a big deal, but I only care about how well my students do.  We went to other Judo schools in the St. L area and my white belts were beating green and brown belts.  So there again, it is all about conviction and heart.  

At our National Convention I taught sword, self defense and Yudo.  So that was a day and a half rotation of intense cirriculum.  Oh sorry, you are new to the board you didn't know that I walk with a cane and 2 custom fit titanium leg braces that hold my patella in track, I also have P.T.S.D. and a Traumatic Brain Injury from surviving a helicopter crash from 1500 ft up.

So, please do not talk about "Conviction" with me.  Remember lineage has everything to do with credentials......however it is your own personal conviction and dedication that makes you what you are.  And if you do not train like you would fight then you are waisting your time.   Oh if you wanna ask for validation, if by chance you might feel as though I am a liar, then please dont hesitate to confirm what about me To the following: TheLetch1, Drac, IcemanSK, Kacey, Carol, or Brian VanCise.  Be my guest.

But thank you for your insight as to my supposed stupidity.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 21, 2008)

matt.m said:


> I can take constructive criticism, however I have been around the Martial Arts since 1978. I am a world champion Judoka from the All Marine Judo Team where I won 33 gold and 2 silver medals on the international level. I also competed Greko Roman for them as an alternate and have 18 Gold and 2 silver. Along with that "little" accomplishment, well I have survived combat on 4 continenets and 1 Island during my tour of duty in the USMC, where I was discharged as a Sergeant with an 80% disability rating. I have saved mine, my troops and many innocent lives.
> They are little places like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Tunisia, Israel, Turkey, Albania.....just to name a few place I have been where the U.S. Marines were only wanted by the poor helpless people that needed help. The rest wanted us dead.
> So frankly, I know what works.....why it works, as well as the commitment to training you have to have. BTW: Not to start a fight but what is your MA background and rank?
> I also teach a very successful class of 20+ students 2x a week in Yudo, where I hold a 2nd dan. I know that isn't a big deal, but I only care about how well my students do. We went to other Judo schools in the St. L area and my white belts were beating green and brown belts. So there again, it is all about conviction and heart.
> ...


 
Errant108 has been around other boards for quite awhile, and I am sure can defend himself.  But I'd like to put this out right away:

His words were not a personal attack on you or your students.  They were an academic response to your stated responses in this argument.  Hey, you sound like a great guy to me, in fact, I'd buy you several rounds of beer (if you drink) at a watering hole if we ever met, you've served the nation in a capacity that I haven't, so kudos.

But, Errant's response and talk of conviction, wasn't an exhortation against your training, but his opinion, and one that I share, that if you train kata/hyung/poomsae as performance art, any practitioner is missing the link between form and function... If I can put words in Errant's mouth.

I doubt he thinks you are stupid, and if you were to re-read his posts from an academic mindset, your responses could be more illuminating as to your contention of how you view forms as an effective practice.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 22, 2008)

matt.m said:


> But thank you for your insight as to my supposed stupidity.



I don't recall ever calling you stupid, nor questioned your experience.

If your post is your standard response to anyone posing a minor disagreement with you in an otherwise civil discourse, then I have no desire continuing the conversation with you.  If not, then we can continue.

In response to your question as to my MA background & experience, my Dharma name is MuSsang, which means the Unequaled.  I am a Fist of the Blue Mountain Sangha.  I am a lay disciple of Pohwa-seunim, who's teacher was Myobong-seunim, who's teacher was Hyeam-seunim.  Under my teacher, I am an instructor of Cheolryun Gwonbeop, Iron Wheel Boxing, at Gakhwangsa, the Temple of the Enlightened King.  That's three generations of my lineage, going back to before the Japanese Occupation, more than enough for you to verify should you desire.  If not, JWLuiza, MBuzzy, & Upnorthkyosa will be able to verify I am who I say I am.

EDIT:  Thank you, JW.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 22, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> I don't recall ever calling you stupid, nor questioned your experience.
> 
> If your post is your standard response to anyone posing a minor disagreement with you in an otherwise civil discourse, then I have no desire continuing the conversation with you. If not, then we can continue.
> 
> ...


 

No man it is all good, I mis interpeted what some of your response was.  I just see so much black belt factory kind of training that I have too much conviction and that helps me to keep my foot in my mouth in a manner of speaking.  I did go back and re read, I owe you a humble apology and hope you accept it.  I just see so many people "Go through the motions without any snap,pop, or intensity during poomsea, kata, hyung......whatever and it is just depressing.

I suppose I am overly opinionated about my convictions concerning combat and "The way you train is the way you fight is a 2 part answer.
1. My father, a 6th dan in hapkido raised me as a single parent as a farmer/brick layer in the 70's and we're pure Scottish.  Seasonal work in small town Missouri makes you appreciate everything and settle for nothing but "Trying to better self, for it is how others perceive you, not what you say."
2  I have seen way  too much ugly in the world from my time in the U.S.M.C. that as a "Defense Mechanism" of sorts I generally have my Spidey sense going off at all times.  It is very hard to deal with.  So that just re inforces my belief system in "You train as though you would fight or don't train at all."

So again, please accept my humble apology.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 22, 2008)

matt.m said:


> So again, please accept my humble apology.



My brother was USMC during GWII.  My father USAF during Vietnam.  My grandfather USAAC during WWII.  I have the highest respect for you & your service.  I grew up a brat, seeing places of the world that most my age can't even pronounce.  I had intended to sign up for the USMC after high school, but deformities in my ankles and feet prevented that.  I have no regrets on that count, because it led me to where I am today, but the fraternity I was never able to join will always be one that I hold in deepest regard.

You owe me no apology, and I will not accept any.  We both have the same goals, if differing methodologies.  Though differing traditions, I would be honored to consider you a senior.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 22, 2008)

Interesting thread with a lot of salient points that I agree with.  Many I do not.  In regards to applications of TKD poomsae, I have an interesting and provacative question.

If you know that there were misunderstandings and missing peices in the way the art was transmitted, if you really feel that the combat effectiveness of the forms were lost when they were changed/altered/created, if you've seen people actually try to perform what you think is flawed in a real fight and get owned, then why continue to practice it?

IMHO, its this kind of mentality that passes along all of the gaps, misunderstanding, and flat out rediculous techniques in the first place.  

If you know its garbage, then throw it away.  Find something that isn't garbage.  

Or if you are convinced, like I am with my own art, that there is something shiny under the muck, try cleaning it off and finding it.

One of the things that really gets under my skin is the "talk" surrounding these topics.  At some point the "talk" needs to stop and become "do" or the conversation ceases to have any meaning.

"Become the change you want in the world."

I think Ghandi said something like that and I really think this applies to discussions like this.

Traverse the gap between "If only we did it like this" to "I do it like this".


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 22, 2008)

I despair that there will be no resolution here.  I myself take no offense at these arguments.  But for one reason or another, there are big fights when we have some discussion.  

User 'Exile' has brought up very good points for discussion.  He has laid these things out with the expertise of an academic.  There is no offense intended.  This is just research methods -- you can pose a question, and consider it, in an objective way, not to take offense, one way or the other way, but to consider it, removing yourself and your personality.

But, this does not happen.  I know that TKD people sometimes get really mad, really quick.  I have seen this myself at tournaments some years ago.  For some reason, this is the way that it is. 

I know to my own satisfaction that you can learn to defend yourself quite well, thank you very much, without any study of the boon-hae.  Understanding can be given with the hool-sin-sool very explicitly.  I know this, because I have seen examples of it. 

But I do not fuss.  I try to keep an open mind, because I am interested in things that are said here.  I know that if I continue to practice, my power will increase -- not as in my youth, of course, but will increase nonetheless.

I think this thread is hosed, because it has been thrashed, this way and that way.  And, here, we have no resolution.  I'm not trying to be a dick.  I have great respect here for all of you, you help me to gain better understanding.  

I suppose that even if we are in the same room in physical space, I doubt that there could be some resolution.  This is astounding to me, this propensity to argue in a heated way.  It is nothing new, and I have seen it in real life with HIGH RANKING MASTERS.  It surprised me the first time, but I suppose that I am getting used to it.  People would rather fuss than to keep focused onto the point and pursue it.

That sounds like I am talking down to everyone, but that is not the case.  As far as I know, I am lacking some kind of understanding and missing the whole point.  

I have to go to the gymnasium now and lift those weights.  Things will be better in my mind after that is done.




Much Respect to All!

Robert


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 22, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> I despair that there will be no resolution here.  I myself take no offense at these arguments.  But for one reason or another, there are big fights when we have some discussion.



Is there ever any resolution to anything?  Especially on discussion boards?  There are better places to go if you're looking for resolution, and just because there is none, does not mean that all sides benefit from the discussion.



newGuy12 said:


> But, this does not happen.  I know that TKD people sometimes get really mad, really quick.  I have seen this myself at tournaments some years ago.  For some reason, this is the way that it is.



Don't despair, I think this has less to do with TKD than just people in general.  Other arts have the same problem.  Not necessarily over the same issues, but they have the same problems.



newGuy12 said:


> I know to my own satisfaction that you can learn to defend yourself quite well, thank you very much, without any study of the boon-hae.  Understanding can be given with the hool-sin-sool very explicitly.  I know this, because I have seen examples of it.



This is true.  Some of those trying to "create" self-defense systems out of their pumsae would be better off crosstraining in BJJ & Muay Thai, or perhaps JKD.

The issue becomes though, for those invested in the system, wanting their system to be a legitimate self-defense system.  If the forms do not provide that, if some meaning cannot be found in them, then what purpose are they for?  As Upnorthkyosa said, just discard them.



newGuy12 said:


> I think this thread is hosed, because it has been thrashed, this way and that way.  And, here, we have no resolution.  I'm not trying to be a dick.  I have great respect here for all of you, you help me to gain better understanding.



I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm not sure I understand why.

We spar in practice, right?  We get hit, get thrown, get joints twisted in ways they aren't supposed to go.  We learn from it (hopefully).  Discussion should be nothing to be feared.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 22, 2008)

One point in the last post that I wholeheartedly agree with is that it isn't just Tae Kwon Do.  I will use Jet Li's Fearless for example........it was Family Wushu vs. Family Wushu right.  In hapkido the infighting is 10x worse than tae kwon do.  Judo/Yudo are very similiar as arts with exception to reason for application of technique.  It is the same with Aikido and Hapkido although they share the same roots.

I am guilty myself and am no innocent, my convictions and opinions are indeed strong.......sometimes to the point of seeming to be overbearing.

However, not all discussions are "Polite" so to speak, and they wouldn't be a debate if they were meant to be.  For this reason, I believe the word "Tact" should be more beneficial to the scenerio of this thread.

Just a thought.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 22, 2008)

matt.m said:


> However, not all discussions are "Polite" so to speak, and they wouldn't be a debate if they were meant to be.  For this reason, I believe the word "Tact" should be more beneficial to the scenerio of this thread.
> 
> Just a thought.



In the words of the great Bas Rutten, "Sometimes the best rebuttal...is a headbuttal."


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 23, 2008)

*Application of TKD poomsae in SD.......... If one wants to see if there are practical applications, all one has to do is look/follow the bio-machanics of the intended application of the given technique. As we are engaged against an imaginary opponent, we must understand what happens to the opponents body when we deliver whatever technique being used. Investigating with the concept, may afford a more open examination of forms and remove the cloak of mystery that some feel is associated within poomsae.  *

*An offered example: we'll take the first TaeGuek form Il Jang. Opening movements are down block to the left-snapkick-step punch. A down block, one can assume, would be against an incoming kick. There have been discussions on what would happen to the arm in the event of using this block against a specific kick. Next we see a front snap kick. What do you feel the opponents body will do/position upon receiving said kick. The third sequenced move, the step punch. Upon knowing what happens with element #2, the front snap kick, decide for yourself the validity or lack of, for element #3 - step punch. *


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 23, 2008)

Brad Dunne said:


> *Application of TKD poomsae in SD.......... If one wants to see if there are practical applications, all one has to do is look/follow the bio-machanics of the intended application of the given technique. As we are engaged against an imaginary opponent, we must understand what happens to the opponents body when we deliver whatever technique being used. Investigating with the concept, may afford a more open examination of forms and remove the cloak of mystery that some feel is associated within poomsae. *
> 
> *An offered example: we'll take the first TaeGuek form Il Jang. Opening movements are down block to the left-snapkick-step punch. A down block, one can assume, would be against an incoming kick. There have been discussions on what would happen to the arm in the event of using this block against a specific kick. Next we see a front snap kick. What do you feel the opponents body will do/position upon receiving said kick. The third sequenced move, the step punch. Upon knowing what happens with element #2, the front snap kick, decide for yourself the validity or lack of, for element #3 - step punch. *


 

There really isn't any remember these are movement to program your body to re-act.  For example of the down block you say against a kick well what f it is to be use against a stick and they are going after your knee's. The second part is the snap kick well lets say the kick is just to stop your opponet from coming forward then the step though punch would be the final blow, to say the least. Remember there is always more than one application to any givem movement.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 23, 2008)

Brad Dunne said:


> *As we are engaged against an imaginary opponent,*


Problem #1:  Imaginary opponent.

Don't engage with imaginary opponents.  Don't theorize what you think an application.  You're still swimming on dry land.

Engage with live opponents.



Brad Dunne said:


> *There have been discussions on what would happen to the arm in the event of using this block against a specific kick.*



The only mention in this thread was a low block against a round kick, not a front kick.  A scooping parry against a front kick, especially when combined with evasive footwork, is a valid tactic found in many full contact kicking arts, such as Muay Thai, Kyokushin, and Taegyeon.  None of them advocate a low block against the round kick, as mentioned above.  Empirical evidence, ie. actually sparring trying that technique, will bear this out.  Small forearm bones meet big shin bone?  Doesn't take a degree in biomechanics to figure that out.



Brad Dunne said:


> *Next we see a front snap kick. What do you feel the opponents body will do/position upon receiving said kick.*



We haven't even gotten there yet.  What happens when you deflect that front kick with your lower parry?  Did you parry and stay inside, or did you parry outside?  Was the front kick a rear leg kick, or a front leg kick?

All of these considerations are why you need to actually spar with these techniques and not just arm chair theorize.

Also, in all three of these techniques, you have neglected transitional movements, so-called "chambering", etc...unless you advocate fighting with your fists at your waist.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Also, in all three of these techniques, you have neglected transitional movements, so-called "chambering", etc...unless you advocate fighting with your fists at your waist.


 
This, IMHO, is the red headed step child of TKD, TSD, and Itosu lineage Karate.  As soon as you address it, the entire basis of the art is questioned.  If karate based KMAists are going to be intellectually honest and really question this aspect with realistic inquiry, the whole edifice will come tumbling down.  

All of the skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 23, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This, IMHO, is the red headed step child of TKD, TSD, and Itosu lineage Karate.  As soon as you address it, the entire basis of the art is questioned.  If karate based KMAists are going to be intellectually honest and really question this aspect with realistic inquiry, the whole edifice will come tumbling down.
> 
> All of the skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet.



I think there's a middle ground between Exile & foot2face.

If we take all factors of Gukgi Taegwondo as one holistic art, then it does not resemble Okinawan bunkai.  However, including that piece of it, through the pumsae, as well as the unique alive environment and progressive, adaptive technique developed in gyorugi, you end up with a modern, truly Korean art.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 23, 2008)

There really isn't any remember these are movement to program your body to re-act. For example of the down block you say against a kick well what f it is to be use against a stick and they are going after your knee's. The second part is the snap kick well lets say the kick is just to stop your opponet from coming forward then the step though punch would be the final blow, to say the least. Remember there is always more than one application to any givem movement. 

First you say there isn't any and then you proceed to qualify the movements and give their SD uses......???????

Don't engage with imaginary opponents. Don't theorize what you think an application. You're still swimming on dry land.

I've seen some really stupid responses on these threads, but congradulations, this one takes the top prize. What is the purpose of forms, other than to practice given techniques and applications. That's what the original intent of this dissussion was about. 

The only mention in this thread was a low block against a round kick, not a front kick. A scooping parry against a front kick, especially when combined with evasive footwork, is a valid tactic found in many full contact kicking arts, such as Muay Thai, Kyokushin, and Taegyeon. None of them advocate a low block against the round kick, as mentioned above. Empirical evidence, ie. actually sparring trying that technique, will bear this out. Small forearm bones meet big shin bone? Doesn't take a degree in biomechanics to figure that out.

There was no mention of which thread had that discussion, only that a discussion had been made. Again, some form of going off on a tangent is occuring. The example form was just that, an example. Now using this example, the movements are what they are, a simple down block in a straight line stance. There is no intent or mention of evasive footwork or what particular kick is forthcoming. We are addressing the basic form as it's given. This is where folks get all disjointed. They want to look for something other than what is presented. Anyone can invision what they think should be happening, but what is actually happening is what you are dealing with and that is the crux of looking at the applications of a form. 

Everything you are addressing is being taken out of context because you are not looking at the basic given technique of the form and dealing with that. Again, the function of forms is self training and hopefully those that thought up the form weren't dealing theory, but this aspect is also involved in what this tread is about, application of TKD forms in SD.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 24, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USES

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. 

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## Kacey (Mar 24, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Also, in all three of these techniques, you have neglected transitional movements, so-called "chambering", etc...unless you advocate fighting with your fists at your waist.



Chambering - that is, performing whatever preliminary or preparatory movement your art teaches - is intended to teach proper body mechanics.  Chambering is seen in line drills and patterns - not in free sparring.  Practicing techniques with chambering - with a full, extended preliminary, included, as stated, bringing the opposite fist to the waist, starting blocks with the wrists crossed (if that's how you do it), etc. - is a method of training muscle memory, intended to ensure that, when you really need to strike or block, enough of it happens that the technique works.  It is a method of overtraining, just like a boxer overtrains when hitting a heavy bag 50 or more times at a stretch, harder than would be needed to knock and opponent out - no one needs to do that in a real fight, but the boxer is training his muscles to be able to perform that technique by doing it over and over, until it happens automatically.

Now, I know people who say "but why train _more_ movement than you need" - and there are valid arguments on both sides.  Some styles teach larger chambering and damp the movement down as the student begins to understand how the movement works - so that by the time the student needs to apply movements, they _understand_ what they're doing and can therefore apply the movements more appropriately, and more minimally, which makes them less visible, so they're not keying their motions.  Others teach only the minimal movement from the beginning - and this can work as well.  It all depends on whether the instructor understands, and can explain, how to use the movement properly to students; if the instructor can do that, then the end result is the same.  Different methods work for different people, styles, etc., and can be equally effective.  The key is understanding how the techniques work and being able to apply them properly; how to teach that will depend on how a particular person was trained, how much the person understands, and how well that person can pass that knowledge and understanding on to others.

And then, too, some issues - including chambering - are based on differing philosophies.  Each art has an underlying philosophy that will change how it is interpreted, understood, and taught, which must be understood to be properly transmitted - too many people learn by rote whatever they need for their next testing.  That's why all of my students have to help teach their juniors - it's _much_ harder to teach something than to do it, and you _must_ understand what you're doing if you're going to explain it to someone else.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2008)

I'm not trying to be deliberately inflamatory, *Kacey*, but IMHO, I think the explanation you gave for chambering (the explanation that is given in most dojangs) is pretty flimsy.  

It's not done in sparring and its not done in self defense situations, or at least those that are envisioned by most karate based KMAists.  

The simple fact of the matter, and I see that you addressed this, is that chambering the hand leaves you horribly exposed.  

"Chambering" the hand only makes sense when you understand hiki-te.  The retracting hand is drawing something back with it.  As soon as you incorporate this into your art, it changes the entire way in which it is practiced.

The interesting thing regarding TSD and TKD is that have all of these old karate relics floating around in them.  "Chambering" is one of them.  And all dojangs have this or that story to explain them.  Heck, I've seen some masters get into long winded arguments about this or that...and the real explanation is simple.  No body in that lineage knows what the original purpose was.  

It's just something to think about.  I do know this...hiki-te makes the most sense out of all the things that I have heard.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 24, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm not trying to be deliberately inflamatory, *Kacey*, but IMHO, I think the explanation you gave for chambering (the explanation that is given in most dojangs) is pretty flimsy.
> 
> It's not done in sparring and its not done in self defense situations, or at least those that are envisioned by most karate based KMAists.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I didn't go into detail about where the chambering hand was going because it is, as you say, an inflammatory discussion.  Yes, I think the chambering hand is doing something - sometimes it is being pulled out of a grab; sometimes it is jabbing the elbow into another attacker, etc.  There are far too many possibilities, depending on the situation, than I could possibly get into in this discussion... and since the original discussion was about poomsae, I had stayed out of it deliberately, because I don't practice poomsae; I practice tuls.  The theory is, nonetheless, the same.  

And as I said, for white belts, I teach them to do what I say because I said it; it's hard enough for white belts to coordinate moving hands and feet in different directions at the same time, and breathing, and looking, and landing in the right spot, without adding additional information that distracts their attention even further from what they're doing _right now_, even if it helps to explain the movement.  I save such explanations for later, as the movements become more fluid and natural.  In addition, if I give the student too much - if I say this is "the way", I prevent the student from discovering applications for themselves.  Too many applications are passed on blindly, without understanding - and like the old kids' game of telephone, where you whisper a sentence in your neighbor's ear around a circle, until the original message is distorted beyond recognition - too many applications are distorted as they are passed on, until they are performed "because sahbum said so", without understanding or meaningful applications.  Better, IMHO, to not understand at the beginning, than to be given an incorrect explanation, or one that the student is not yet ready to understand.

There is a tendency, when teaching, to attempt to pass on everything you knew in one massive exhalation of information - and it's hard to not do that.  Nonetheless, I have found that, for most (not all) students, it is better to parcel out information in small, regulated sequences, so that the information builds on itself; otherwise, it causes information overload in a way that is detrimental to the student.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 24, 2008)

As was explained to me, chambering is done to teach your body how to make maximum power in the beginning when you don't know how to do this.
What do I mean by this? Power is a result of waist action, torque, speed etc. As a color belt student, your body does not know how to make power, and needs to make these exaggerated motions initially to develop power. There is a reason why color belt students seem uncoordinated and prone to exaggerated action. Because they have not learned how to make maximum power with minimum motion. That will come later. I have seen my Instructor almost break people's arm with basic technique that seem to come out of nowhere-almost imperceptible windup.
Now, there are instructors who teach "practice it now as you'd do it later". The problem with this is that that's like teaching advanced math with all its shortcuts to elementary students. Color belts need to practice these huge actions to train their bodies to make power. Eventually, they won't need to, and you won't have to make those actions in a real situation. Your kicking, punching, and blocking will become so smooth with time and practice that the windup and cjambering will become almost imperceptible.
That is a difference between beginning and advanced students.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

My own angle on chambering movements is based on a general principle (which applies to much more than just the MAs) that you start from the strongest premise and see how far you can go in defending it, rather than a weaker premise. In the case of form interpretation, the strongest premise is that all movements have combat application (typically, several different ones, depending on how the preceding and following moves are interpreted). The reason this is the strongest premise is that it's compatible with a much _narrower_ range of facts than the premise that _not_ all combat moves are combat-effective (i.e., some are decorative, or are for training, or are expressive of some spiritual/philosophical/cosmological principle, or...). The stronger position is the one that's most easily shown to be mistaken, i.e. It's the same idea as when you see two critics arguing about the interpretation of a certain passage in an Elizabethan play: one says, well, it's hard to make sense of this bit, so let's just assume it's a textual error; the other says, no, it's just what the playwright intended, but you have to understand the play in a different way, and then the question is, is there independent evidence that supports that different understanding? In the case of chambering, my assumption is that the chamber is often the 'business end' of the technique revealed in the form, so then you have to decide just what that technique is.

We already _know_ that the labels that are attached to KMA and JMA striking arts aren't to be taken literally: Itosu in his own writings was explicit about that, and made it clear that describing things as blocks and punches&#8212;a description tradition which he appears to have started, in order to make karate acceptable to the overeers of the Okinawan school system&#8212;was intended for teaching karate to children; that the actual techs behind the form of the kata were much nastier than those simple kihon moves. So when we look at a _movement_, it's an open question what the intended move is. Where the teaching transmission has lost the original intention, _the intention that shaped the form of the combat sequence in which the movment appears_, we have to try to recover it from considerations of practicality (with respect to our understanding of how actual fights develop) and effectiveness (does it work to minimize the length of time the defender is in danger?). Stances, chambering movements, so-called blocks, so-called punches... all are subject to the same kind of scrutiny.

With chambering movements, there are a number of very natural interpretations in which the chamber is a crucial component of the technique. In the 'down block', for example, the retraction chambering, taken to be a wrist grip/twist pulling the attacker's grabbing arm toward the defender's hip, in conjunction with a rotation of the defender's body, helps set up a second trapping movement where the defender's forearm, slammed into the attacker's extended arm just above the elbow, creates a pin which forces the attacker's head lower the more weight you project into the pin (by a so-called front stance movement). The defender's pinning arm, if it's released quickly and raised high to the defender's opposite side, looks as though it's 'chambering', but the hard, fast 'down block' that creates a hammerfist strike to the attacker's temple, carotid sinus, collarbone or etc. isn't exactly a simple 'preparation' move, expecially since, it can be broken down further into a sequence  rising-elbow-strike (to one side of attacker's head)&#8212;downward-spearing-elbow-strike (to attacker's face)&#8212;downward-hammer-fist (into attacker's temple, throat, etc.) So what look like a retraction chamber of one fist and a set-up chamber for a simple down block winds up having plausible, effective interpretations (in, e.g., Palgwe Sam Jang) as pinning/trapping movements and _multiple_ strikes to vulnerable points on the attacker's lowered upper body. In the Abernethy discussion I cited earlier, the use of the rear hand chamber as a crucial component of a deflection, letting the defende go inside and deliver the forward knifehand 'block' to the attacker's throat again illustrates the way in which the chambering part of a movement can in fact be seen realistically as a component of a decisive combat application.

My feeling is, if some movement , whether a chamber or anything else, doesn't have some effective application, it's going to show: the interpretation of the sequences in which that movement, interpreted as a particular move, is embedded will grow more and more baroque and unrealistic, and at one point it'll be clear that the point of the movement was something else than a specific element in fighting tactics. But it seems to me to be a good idea in general to start from the assumption that there's combat utility in a chambering movement, and see how that holds up in thinking about each subsequence of a form. After a certain amount of experimentation, you may well decide that the intention behind the move was not directly relevant to operations in a fight, and if that's the case, so be it.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 24, 2008)

Also, it is the rear elbow strike of course.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 24, 2008)

When I see black belts doing form, whether it's color belt or black belt poomsae, I would say 75% of the time at least it is obvious they have little to no idea why they are doing what they are doing, other than because their instructor told them to do form. I doubt their instructor knows why certain motions are the way they are. It is frightening to me how many black belts are clueless about form other than knowing what comes next. 
Keep in mind, many motions in form are not strictly for self defense. If that were the case, Keumgang and other forms and their techniques would not exist. Certain techniques teach grace, slow/hard, balance, isometric power, speed etc. It is not just about pins, joint locks, vital spots. But knowing the principles behind these other techniques is just as important and separates the good instructors and students from the so-so or bad.
As I told one of our grandmasters, I believe every Instructor has an obligation to his/her students to know and understand why we do techniques a certain way. Otherwise, the art will surely degrade.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 24, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> Color belts need to practice these huge actions to train their bodies to make power. Eventually, they won't need to, and you won't have to make those actions in a real situation. Your kicking, punching, and blocking will become so smooth with time and practice that the windup and cjambering will become almost imperceptible.
> That is a difference between beginning and advanced students.



This is the point I was attempting to make... which will teach me to post such things before I'm really awake.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 24, 2008)

> Keep in mind, many motions in form are not strictly for self defense. If that were the case, Keumgang and other forms and their techniques would not exist.



Very true of the recently created Korean forms like Keumgang.  Much less true for the Pyong Ahn patterns and its clear children the Chang Hon and Palgwe forms.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 24, 2008)

Well Well Well, I just do not know what to say. Poomsae are a teaching tool just like everything else in the dojaang, so of course it is to teach some SD as wel as balance and joint locks, speed control and of course the all mighty way of life. Poomsae are so much more than most relize. I for one look pass what my GM says and he encourage me to explore and come to my own discoveries about each and every application and find out what works for me and me alone. The grace and poise that one shows also shows the knowledge one has gained form the practice they have recieved.


----------



## YoungMan (Mar 24, 2008)

That's why it's called martial ART.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

dancingalone said:


> Very true of the recently created Korean forms like Keumgang.  *Much less true for the Pyong Ahn patterns and its clear children the Chang Hon and Palgwe forms.*



Yes, I think this is a crucial point. 

Even in the versions of Japanese kata that have been 'Koreanized', such as the particular version of Rohai that my lineage of SMK transmits, it's clear that somewhere along the line a number of decorative elements were includedvery likely by either Byung-Jik Ro himself or else Joon Pye Choi; it would take a bit of digging into what happened to Rohai in other SMK lineages not deriving from Gm. JPCwhich are very hard to see any possible defensive applications for; if they're there, they've been buried under a thick layer of stylization. The Pyung-Ahns, at least the versions I've been shown, are much closer to the O/J source (though there's some controversy, I know, about how much the Heians are really what Itosu taught as the Pinan set; I don't want to go there!) And if the originator of a forms just tells you, look, I put this in to make it 'look good', you probably should take them at their word. 

But if you have no solid reason to think that that's the case, then simply deciding in advance that there's no direct martial content means that if you're wrong, you're never going to discover it, because you haven't tried looking for it. If you're given twenty pairs of numbers and asked what they have in common, you can simply assume that they're unrelated, and you'll never find out otherwise; but if you start from the assumption that they are all examples of the same function, you may well find that that's the case. At one point, you may well decide that they _have_ no common source, but at least you can console yourself with the thought that if there had been one, you'd have found it. (And even so, there might be one there, that someone else finds).


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2008)

On the contrary, Kacey and Youngman, I think there is a way to teach real purpose of the moves to gups.  It just requires a different conception of what kinds of moves are basic.  I would say that if you broke down each move into its peices, lumped together the peices that are redundant or similar, and then taught those as basics, then the actual, useful, applications the moves show can be addressed.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 24, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> On the contrary, Kacey and Youngman, I think there is a way to teach real purpose of the moves to gups. It just requires a different conception of what kinds of moves are basic. I would say that if you broke down each move into its peices, lumped together the peices that are redundant or similar, and then taught those as basics, then the actual, useful, applications the moves show can be addressed.


 
I would agree teaching is teaching, now with that being said every person no matter age will have some diffulculties in adapting the proper techniques.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 24, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> That's why it's called martial ART.


The two terms aren't actually independent. Calling it a martial system wouldn't introduce server maintenance as an excuse for various hand motions.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 24, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> On the contrary, Kacey and Youngman, I think there is a way to teach real purpose of the moves to gups.  It just requires a different conception of what kinds of moves are basic.  I would say that if you broke down each move into its peices, lumped together the peices that are redundant or similar, and then taught those as basics, then the actual, useful, applications the moves show can be addressed.



As I said, I teach different ranks differently, and don't teach everything at once.  However, your assumption that I _don't_ teach application is erroneous.  I was responding to your statement that "chambering" is useless, and discussed only that portion of the thread.  I teach application from the beginning - when the techniques are introduced, individually and in combinations, in line drills, in step and free sparring, and in tuls.  Yes, I teach preparatory positions, and I insist that they be used, for the reasons I gave previously (among others).  Yes, I expect movements to look differently in free sparring - I expect them to be varied to meet the needs of the situation, which requires an understanding of application, because you can't modify what you don't understand.  I simply do it from a different perspective that you do - because I have a different understanding of the purposes of preparatory positions that you do.  Not better, not worse - just different.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2008)

Kacey said:


> and since the original discussion was about poomsae, I had stayed out of it deliberately, because I don't practice poomsae; I practice tuls.


 
Can you explain the difference between the two?  I'm not sure I understand why that would matter?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2008)

Kacey said:


> As I said, I teach different ranks differently, and don't teach everything at once. However, your assumption that I _don't_ teach application is erroneous.


 
I apologize if I came off like that.  



Kacey said:


> I was responding to your statement that "chambering" is useless, and discussed only that portion of the thread.


 
I wouldn't say that "chambering" is useless.  I think that it has a specific purpose and it isn't chambering.



Kacey said:


> I teach application from the beginning - when the techniques are introduced, individually and in combinations, in line drills, in step and free sparring, and in tuls. Yes, I teach preparatory positions, and I insist that they be used, for the reasons I gave previously (among others). *Yes, I expect movements to look differently in free sparring* - I expect them to be varied to meet the needs of the situation, which requires an understanding of application, because you can't modify what you don't understand.


 
This is something that I have never understood.  Why should the basics one practices look any different from what one would do in free sparring?  IMHO, they shouldn't, and this relates right back to the whole point of this thread.  There is a disconnect between the two catagories.  

Kacey, I've been around MT a long time.  You've read my arguments before and I truly think that they apply cross catagorically to most karate based KMAs.  

We, ultimately, share the same lineage, we've got the same problems.



Kacey said:


> I simply do it from a different perspective that you do - because I have a different understanding of the purposes of preparatory positions that you do. Not better, not worse - just different.


 
A lot of this is so hard to describe in this medium.  I'll see if I can get a couple people who have worked out with me and gone to tournaments to post.  One of my students, *Kid*, a fellow MT member, has taken first in every tournament he has entered.  Other people here, *MBuzzy* for one, know me and know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

Brad Dunne said:


> I've seen some really stupid responses on these threads, but congradulations, this one takes the top prize.



I don't recall insulting you or making a personal attack.  If you cannot discuss this maturely, politely, and professionally, I will have no further discussion with you.



Brad Dunne said:


> What is the purpose of forms, other than to practice given techniques and applications. That's what the original intent of this dissussion was about.



Just because a form contains self-defense techniques, or can be applied, does not mean that training it solo, ie. dancing it, will enable you to perform those techniques against a live opponent.



Brad Dunne said:


> Now using this example, the movements are what they are, a simple down block in a straight line stance.



Would you stand completely square to an opponent, in a narrow stance with your feet flat on the floor, one hand down, the other hand pulled to your hip in a fight?

The map is never the terrain.



Brad Dunne said:


> There is no intent or mention of evaive footwork or what particular kick is forthcoming. We are addressing the basic form as it's given. This is where folks get all disjointed. They want to look for something other than what is presented. Anyone can invision what they think should be happening, but what is actually happening is what you are dealing with and that is the crux of looking at the applications of a form.



The map is never the terrain, again.  It is one of my teacher's favorite sayings.

If evasive footwork enables you to perform the given technique much more effectively, why ignore it?  After all, evasive footwork is the hallmark of Gukgi Taegwondo, developed through decades of alive sparring?  Why segregate sparring and self-defense drawn out through pumsae?



Brad Dunne said:


> Everything you are addressing is being taken out of context because you are not looking at the basic given technique of the form and dealing with that.



On the contrary, I am looking at the entirety of the technique in that given sequence, from the pivot (evasion), the right hand going low while the left hand comes high, the hands sliding past each other as the left hand low blocks and the right hand slides back toward the waist, then the body shifts forward as the hands trade positions, kicking forward with the right foot and punching with the right hand as the left is pulled backward.

There is a whole lot more going on there than "low block, kick, punch".




Brad Dunne said:


> Again, the function of forms is self training and hopefully those that thought up the form weren't dealing theory, but this aspect is also involved in what this tread is about, application of TKD forms in SD.



The function of forms is to provide the blue print for self-defense training, which is the one thing that posters such as Exile, Upnorthkyosa, foot2face, etc have been able to agree upon.  Knowing the blueprint does not enable you to defend yourself.  Learning how to apply those given theories, concepts, techniques, and tactics against a live opponent and continually training them in this fashion does.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Discussing of chambering



The problem here is that is essentially the elementary school explanation of chambering, as taught by those who were never taught the actual contents of the kata/pumsae/tul they were practicing.

Keep in mind that for the sake of this discussion, we are only concerned with self-defense, ie. shiljeon, "real combat".  Aesthetic discussion of forms, etc, is not a concern of such matters.

Can chambering help learn gross body motion?

Yes.

Is it necessary?

In no way, shape, or form.  In fact, it actually hinders the student once they try to integrate their pumsae technique into sparring.

Note here, that I am only referring to chambering as pulling the hand back to the hip before or after a technique, such as punching.

Transitional movements are a different, but related topic.

The hand should never come back to your hip if it is not grasping something of your opponent's, a sleeve, a forearm, their shirt, etc.

Transitional movements are much more complex, however, if in looking at a given form you are only concerned with final positions/techniques (like looking at a form play by play in a book), you've only dealt with a 10th of the form.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> As was explained to me, chambering is done to teach your body how to make maximum power in the beginning when you don't know how to do this.



1)  This was never the original intent of the chambering motion.
2)  It is unnecessary and teaches the students bad habits.  If they will not be punching like this in application, they do not need to begin this way.  Boxers and other arts learn to punch fine without first learning how to chamber punches.

Let me put it to you this way.

There is no Okinawan term for chambering a punch.

They refer to it as &#24341;&#25163;.  This is read as "hikite".  In Korean terminology, Insu.  It means the hand that grasps and draws out.

The linguistics clearly show that any explanation for this technical methodology that does not involve a grasp and pull with the withdrawing hand is incorrect.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 24, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I apologize if I came off like that.


 
 Thanks.



upnorthkyosa said:


> I wouldn't say that "chambering" is useless.  I think that it has a specific purpose and it isn't chambering.


 
I think part of the problem is that my "chamber" is different than yours, and has a different purpose.  Bringing the hand back to the belt is for power - which isn't always the purpose in sparring.



upnorthkyosa said:


> This is something that I have never understood.  Why should the basics one practices look any different from what one would do in free sparring?  IMHO, they shouldn't, and this relates right back to the whole point of this thread.  There is a disconnect between the two catagories.


 
Because patterns (tul, poomsae, hyung, whatever you do) are effectively static.  You are performing the techniques to an imaginary opponent, who, conveniently, is exactly the right height, weight, and distance for the technique you are doing.  If you're not visualizing your opponent while practicing forms, you're wasting your time.  Nonetheless, compared to free sparring, forms are not interactive; they are _set_, in a fashion not possible in free sparring.  Patterns are a toolbox intended to provide the tools necessary for self-defense - but how much of your self-defense looks exactly like sparring, anyway?  The aims of sparring and self-defense are different - sparring is a game, and the name of the game is to score points, while self-defense is just that, defense of self, without regard to hitting "legal" target areas or avoiding unnecessary injury - so they look different.  Should we, then, not spar, either, since it doesn't look like self-defense?  Perhaps we should just go out looking for trouble and find out what works by jumping into fights... but that's a topic for another thread.  My point is that we do plenty of things in training that are not identical to what occurs in self-defense - so why do them?  Unless, of course, there is some relationship to self-defense in those techniques, even if we can't always see it.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Kacey, I've been around MT a long time.  You've read my arguments before and I truly think that they apply cross catagorically to most karate based KMAs.
> 
> We, ultimately, share the same lineage, we've got the same problems.


 
As I said, it's all based on perspective, which, in turn, is based on experience and training.  My sahbum, and his, have given me explanations that I find to be valid; you apparently do not agree with their validity.  Thus, we can only agree to disagree at this point.



upnorthkyosa said:


> A lot of this is so hard to describe in this medium.  I'll see if I can get a couple people who have worked out with me and gone to tournaments to post.  One of my students, *Kid*, a fellow MT member, has taken first in every tournament he has entered.  Other people here, *MBuzzy* for one, know me and know what I'm talking about.



As I said, tournament sparring is a game, and doesn't look like self-defense... or those who spar in tournaments would be causing one hell of a lot more damage to their opponents.  And yet, we still spar, and compete in tournaments, even though that doesn't look like _real_ self-defense, which is the purported purpose of training... isn't it?



Errant108 said:


> The problem here is that is essentially the elementary school explanation of chambering, as taught by those who were never taught the actual contents of the kata/pumsae/tul they were practicing.
> 
> Keep in mind that for the sake of this discussion, we are only concerned with self-defense, ie. shiljeon, "real combat".  Aesthetic discussion of forms, etc, is not a concern of such matters.
> 
> ...



So say you; I say differently.   As I said to upnorthkyosa, my training - and thus my perspective - is different from yours.  Chambering, as a gross muscle movement, is teaching students to move their body in a certain way.  Can it be taught other ways?  Certainly... this is just the one I started with, which I understand, and which I teach.  As I said, the movement is damped down - reduced to the minimum needed to get the desired effect - as students improve their muscular control.  I have tried teaching just the final product, the minimal movement - and my students don't understand it, and therefore cannot produce it correctly.  Perhaps that's a facet of my understanding, of the way I was trained... on the other hand, I've seen plenty of practitioners who are so set on the idea that one _must_ be grabbing something if one is extending one's hand that they steadfastly refuse to admit any other explanation might exist, and therefore lose quite a few potential applications, because they have closed their minds to anything _but_ a grab when in that particular position.  I refuse to limit myself, or my students, in that manner.



Errant108 said:


> Transitional movements are much more complex, however, if in looking at a given form you are only concerned with final positions/techniques (like looking at a form play by play in a book), you've only dealt with a 10th of the form.



I don't disagree.  I simply go about teaching it differently than you do.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> 1)  This was never the original intent of the chambering motion.
> 2)  It is unnecessary and teaches the students bad habits.  If they will not be punching like this in application, they do not need to begin this way.  Boxers and other arts learn to punch fine without first learning how to chamber punches.
> 
> Let me put it to you this way.
> ...



This observation ties in very well with what I see, in all the karate-based MAs, as a very powerful and useful principle, that I've seen expressed somewhere as _Each hand action is actively engaged in setting up the target for the other hand._ In Japanese terminology, the term I've seen applied in the realization of this principle is _muchimi:_ the striking hand becomes the controlling hand, and what had been the controlling hand becomes the striking hand. A grab (or a deflected punch) which is trapped by the 'chambering' retraction sets up the pin and the series of elbow and fist strikes I mentioned earlier; but once that final hammer-fist is delivered to the attacker's throat, say, it then can become the new gripping hand&#8212;and the previously chambering hand, brought close to the attacker's face by a new forward-stance movement to the inside, is then in perfect position to deliver a hard punch or palm-heel strike to the attacker's cheek/jaw; once that strike has been delivered, the striking hand, in its turn, grips the attacker's hair or ear, and can, in tandem with the current gripping hand, and a 180º pivoting motion, supply the force to throw the attacker to the ground on the other side, where he can be put out of action completely, if he isn't already. In this sort of approach&#8212;which requires little in the way of complex motions or fine judgment, and which keeps the defender on the outside till the attacker has been damaged sufficiently to the point that going inside isn't much of a risk anymore&#8212;each hand is engaged in setting up the attacker for a strike or unbalancing move powered by the other one.  And this sort of scenario represents just one of a number of possibilities which are as safe and efficient in their use of the defender's resources as you're going to be able to get. 

In this kind of approach, it's really important to stress there's _no contradiction whatever_ between the trapping/countergripping view of chambering applications and the 'torque' set-up explanation that's often given; the fact is that once you've imposed the arm pin and hyperextension on the attacker's lead arm, you can then 'cash in' that coiled-back position of the trapping hand when the other hand shifts its role to gripping and fixing the target in its own turn. The cooperation between the two hands, if it's carried out effectively, means that the attacker is always being controlled and attacked and then recontrolled, with no chance to break away. And sure, it's not going to look like a dance. But form practice is really something that ideally involves a partner, moderately compliant at the outset and becoming less and less compliant as you develop proficiency (of course, practice becomes a bit more dangerous as that happens, but that's another story...) My understanding is that two-person form 'pressure testing' (as one of our members, Kwan Jang, puts) was the norm both in Okinawan karate and in the jiujutsu that many Japanese MAists (and certain Korean MAists who were able to study jiujutsu in Korea, where it was taught for a while by Japanese MAists during the Occupation, as Henning mentions in his 2000 _JAMA_ article) were exposed to. 

I've come to the conclusion that the focus on solo form performance, rather than partnered form study and application, is probably the biggest single factor for the detachment of both the KMAs _and_ much of the JMAs from the arena of combat. It's like in anything: when theory is no longer subject to the verdict of hard experiment, it can turn in on itself and lose its focus on practicality&#8212;as per one of our recent threads, one of the things that's killing current theoretical physics, where mathematical æsthetics has replaced predictive success as the main criterion of accomplishment. Once that sort of thing happens, the rots sets in....


----------



## foot2face (Mar 24, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Where do you surmise this stream of instruction originates from?


I&#8217;m sorry but I can&#8217;t provide you with an exact answer. It&#8217;s my understanding that what I was taught represent an understanding that came about during the developmental years of TKD. If I had to pick a time when it came to fruition and was prevalent I would probably guess the 70s.


Errant108 said:


> Who is your instructor and who were his instructors?


I don&#8217;t feel comfortable with giving my instructors name. I haven&#8217;t seen him in over a decade. He his a very old-fashioned and *private *man. I&#8217;m certain that he would not appreciate me divulging what he would probably consider personal information in such a public forum. Besides, I won&#8217;t share my own name, I don&#8217;t think it would be fair to share his. I do intend to return to my home town with in a year or so. One of the first palaces I visit will be my old school and with his permission I will proudly introduce him to the MT community. 


Errant108 said:


> Unfortunately, that was the way it was perceived and why there was such a negative reaction to your previous posts. If this stream is not an official one, it is no more valid than anyone else's, and even those who research older applications are not retrograding TKD, but looking at what is already within it, in essence, adhering to a complete view of the Korean methodology found in their art. Criticizing them as being unKorean is not valid, unles it is the Korean method to throw the baby out with the bath water instead out of ignorance.


I think you have it backwards here. I never criticized anyone&#8217;s methods as invalid because they were unKorean. I related my interpretation of movements within a particular form. Others criticized my application because it strayed from the strict original Okinawan interpretation and was there by significantly less effective. My following post were a defense of my position. I&#8217;ll agree that it wasn&#8217;t the most artful argument and seemed rather simplistic but my point was simple and I didn&#8217;t see the need to over bourdon it with a longwinded explanation. My point was this, there exist methods that were developed and practiced in Korea for applying the forms that differ from the original Okinawan interpretation of kata, to varying degrees, and they are indeed effective.


Errant108 said:


> I do understand where you are coming from. My own primary instructor, who trained in the Mudukgwan during the transition period between Dangsudo & Taegwondo, taught applications that could be seen as similar to Okinawan bunkai, but retained a distinctly "Korean" feel to them.


This brings up another interesting topic for discussion. It was my understanding that MDK founder Hwang Kee never had any formal O/JMA training and that the kata he practice was learned from Shotokan books. Were these seemingly Okinawan inspired bunkai brought in from other practitioners who had experience in different MAs&#8230;or were they developed by MDK practitioners own interpretations of the movements within the forms? 


Errant108 said:


> Unfortunately, there is an official set of Korean applications for Gukgi Taegwondo pumsae. They can be found in part in the majority of the Gukgiwon & WTF sponsored gyobun, manuals, and bibles. *They are the elementary school explanations*, a high block versus a hammerfist, a crescent kick to block a punch that was too far away to strike you anyway.


From what I gather the applications that have been published to date are simply entry level applications that are meant to introduce someone to using the poomse. The movement within the forms have multiple applications. It would be extremely laborious to compile a comprehensive collection of all the applications with the explanatory philosophies and principles that make them effective. The &#8220;elementary school explanations&#8221; are just that, very simple foundational teachings that are meant to be built upon. For example, &#8220;a crescent kick to block a punch that was too far away to strike you anyway&#8221; establishes the premise behind more advance applications. The idea is to intercept thrusting linear attacks. A more advance application would be intercepting a thrusting attack from someone with a knife or bayonet who is making use of the reach advantage their weapon provides and is just beyond the range of your strikes. There are several reason as to why this application is thought to be effective. It put to use your greatest range weapon against theirs, allowing to intercept the attack as far from your core as possible. An advantage when dealing against an edge weapon where a minor secondary attack or even unintentional contact can cause great harm. It puts forth a shoed foot as opposed to a bare hand, offering an other level of protection. It also makes use of the layered attack/defense rational of emphasized kicking. If the attack gets past my kick I can still defend with my hands, allowing for two chances to respond to a single attack. Kicks are generally more powerful than hand strikes and offer the best chance to completely derail the attack knocking it away far off line, instead of just deflecting it, from your body allowing ample opportunity to close the distance and step in with a powerful attack such as an elbow smash to the head.


Errant108 said:


> It is because of these "official" explanations that the majority of Gukgiwon instructors do not teach applications, why forms are viewed as something you do for a belt test or competition, rather than an integral part of training.


No&#8230;the majority of KKW instructors don&#8217;t teach applications because they are just not a highly emphasized aspect of the art. Boon Hae aren&#8217;t the fundamental core of TKD as with some other MAs. Other aspects take precedence. The applications aren&#8217;t usually taught until well after one receives a BB. At the color belt level the forms are more like active meditation. Stressing crisp technique and fluid movement with focus but not necessarily conscious thought. This helps build that mind body link that allows for instinctive reactions. Most instructor leave it at that. Many of the principles, philosophies and techniques that are contained within the forms are taught separate from them and are never liked to the poomse. It also has a lot to do with the personal preferences of your instructor. Very few, if any, teach the whole complete system. They shape their instruction based on their preferences, of which form application is seldom a priority. It&#8217;s like with kyukpa, I&#8217;ve herd many masters sate that kyukpa is a fundamental aspect of TKD. &#8220;One needs a well conditioned weapon in order to effectively deliver TKD&#8217;s powerful blows.&#8221; To this I&#8217;ve seen plenty of TKDist who can punch through marble slabs and kick through concrete blocks&#8230;but how many do? Many instructors are content with having their students occasionally break a few boards and do not develop these skill any further. This isn&#8217;t necessarily a bad thing and doesn&#8217;t reflect poorly on their ability to defend themselves. They may be extremely capable fighters, just not the stone crushers with hands and feet of iron that you might find in some other schools. It&#8217;s the same way with the forms. You must consider, especially when discussing KKW TKD, that many of the masters from the older generation haven&#8217;t fully embraced the all the &#8220;newer&#8221; methods and still teach some things the &#8220;old way&#8221;. This is most evident in how they view the forms. Younger masters from more recent times tend to focus on the sport and have little interest in or understanding of form application.


Errant108 said:


> I've trained several variants of TKD, and interviewed practitioners of many different systems. I've learned what it was like being on the floor with Hwang Gi, Hong Chongsu, Cho Hi-il, Song Deokseon, Pak Cheolhi...to the rigors of training for national & international competition. I've listened to members of the younger generation regale me with tails of their glorious art descended from the Hwarang and developed out of Taegyeon, and had the older generation tell me about political pressures forcing them to go along with mythologies, or how certain higher ups were talking out their *** when they claimed to have studied with underground Taegyeon masters. I've had people who were there during the transition era tell me exactly what pieces of what kata where rearranged into what pumsae.
> So you'll forgive me for being skeptical. I am interested in hearing what you have to say though.


There is a distinct possibility that if you and I got together and trained, you would recognize what I do. It wouldn&#8217;t seem so unfamiliar to you. Often, so much gets lost in translation over the internet. It&#8217;s very difficult to condense knowledge gained over years of studying into a short paragraph. It&#8217;s likely that I&#8217;m describing things you already know but from an angle your are not used to hearing them from.


----------



## foot2face (Mar 24, 2008)

exile said:


> My understanding is that two-person form 'pressure testing' (as one of our members, Kwan Jang, puts) was the norm both in Okinawan karate and in the jiujutsu that many Japanese MAists (and certain Korean MAists who were able to study jiujutsu in Korea, where it was taught for a while by Japanese MAists during the Occupation, as Henning mentions in his 2000 _JAMA_ article) were exposed to.


This type of thing is usually addressed by hosinsul drill training and is unfortunately, seldom linked to the forms.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

Kacey said:


> So say you; I say differently.   As I said to upnorthkyosa, my training - and thus my perspective - is different from yours.  Chambering, as a gross muscle movement, is teaching students to move their body in a certain way.  Can it be taught other ways?  Certainly... this is just the one I started with, which I understand, and which I teach.  As I said, the movement is damped down - reduced to the minimum needed to get the desired effect - as students improve their muscular control.  I have tried teaching just the final product, the minimal movement - and my students don't understand it, and therefore cannot produce it correctly.  Perhaps that's a facet of my understanding, of the way I was trained... on the other hand, I've seen plenty of practitioners who are so set on the idea that one _must_ be grabbing something if one is extending one's hand that they steadfastly refuse to admit any other explanation might exist, and therefore lose quite a few potential applications, because they have closed their minds to anything _but_ a grab when in that particular position.  I refuse to limit myself, or my students, in that manner.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree.  I simply go about teaching it differently than you do.



Here is the crux of the issue though.

The linguistics are self-explanatory.  Insu is using the hand to grasp and pull.  That is the purpose of this motion.  That is the only explanation for it, because that is what it was created for, what is was intended for.

Now, you may use it for other purposes.  You may ascribe other meanings to it, but those hung up on the idea of grasping and pulling are not "stuck", they're using it for what it was intended for.  Rather than being stuck, they use this for grasping and pulling.  They train punching, by learning how to punch.

If you wish to use chambering in your teaching, that's absolutely fine.  Like you said, that's how you learned.  Just remember that's not what the motion was intended for, and when analyzing forms, intent is central.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

foot2face said:


> This type of thing is usually addressed by hosinsul drill training and *is unfortunately, seldom linked to the forms*.



Right, and that's a big part of the reason for the disconnection between forms and practical combat tactics over the past several decades. It's really too bad, because a lot of people knock forms (how many 'kata are useless' threads, and individual post, have we all been subject to since we joined MT ) without realizing that hard-edged two-person drills were a crucial component of MA training in the early days. Again, it's important for people to realize that it's not just the KMAs that have been subject to this disconnection; it started in Japan in the 30s, and it's something you constantly read karate bunkai advocates complaining aboutthat people now think of kata training almost exclusively as a solo perfomance. We're pretty much all in the same boat, these days....

I found your earlier question about Hwang Kee very apt. In his last book on the history of the MDK, published in 1995, HK explicitly identifies the source of his forms knowledge as Japanese volumes on karate that he got from the book collection of the railroad station where he worked. It's definitely a good question then as to where the MDK bunkai got their Okinawan quality. So far as anyone knows, what 'live' MA HK was actually exposed to was Chinese...


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 24, 2008)

I don't recall insulting you or making a personal attack. If you cannot discuss this maturely, politely, and professionally, I will have no further discussion with you.

If your insulted, for posting what I deem a stupid response on something, that just about anyone who studies the arts knows the rational and purpose of why forms were introduced in the first place, then tough! Don't make such off the wall statements and perhaps you will then find the attributes you seek. Go back and re-read your response to my post, if someone was attacked, it was me. You felt the need to attempt to discredit everything that was said and in less than friendly terms. Just because you used terms such as "swimming on dry land", "don't theorize", and then proceeded to delve into aspects that were not even mentioned, just because you felt the need to talk down and show how possibly insightful others may think you are with a lot of un-necessary retoric, still dosen't negate the fact that you served the first salvo. No further discussion is fine with me, for I don't feel the need to discuss anything with someone who either dosen't know what their talking about or someone who just likes to see themselves talk and hopes that others think their impressive, regardless of the validity of their statements.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

foot2face said:


> I dont feel comfortable with giving my instructors name. I havent seen him in over a decade. He his a very old-fashioned and *private *man. Im certain that he would not appreciate me divulging what he would probably consider personal information in such a public forum. Besides, I wont share my own name, I dont think it would be fair to share his. I do intend to return to my home town with in a year or so. One of the first palaces I visit will be my old school and with his permission I will proudly introduce him to the MT community.



Understood.  I look forward to that.


foot2face said:


> This brings up another interesting topic for discussion. It was my understanding that MDK founder Hwang Kee never had any formal O/JMA training and that the kata he practice was learned from Shotokan books. Were these seemingly Okinawan inspired bunkai brought in from other practitioners who had experience in different MAsor were they developed by MDK practitioners own interpretations of the movements within the forms?



Allow me to clarify.  My teacher certainly did not learn many of the explanations he had for the pumsae from the Mudukgwan.  Those coming up in the Mudukgwan Dangsudo and today's Subakdo learn the same elementary school applications that Exile has been criticizing.  My teacher was a big advocate of crosstraining, and trained in Korean Sibpalgi, Shaolin Long Fist, Shorin-ryu, Judo...etc.  His explanations were his own. Many of them resemble Okinawan bunkai.  Many didn't.


foot2face said:


> From what I gather the applications that have been published to date are simply entry level applications that are meant to introduce someone to using the poomse.



That's pretty much the case, however, given that nothing else has been released officially does not lend much credence to the idea that another official application training system exists other than the elementary school explanations.  The fact that the great majority of instructors I've met have no other explanation also casts doubt.



foot2face said:


> It would be extremely laborious to compile a comprehensive collection of all the applications with the explanatory philosophies and principles that make them effective.



Elimate the ones least effective, select the ones easiest to train.



foot2face said:


> The elementary school explanations are just that, very simple foundational teachings that are meant to be built upon. For example, a crescent kick to block a punch that was too far away to strike you anyway establishes the premise behind more advance applications. The idea is to intercept thrusting linear attacks. A more advance application would be intercepting a thrusting attack from someone with a knife or bayonet who is making use of the reach advantage their weapon provides and is just beyond the range of your strikes. There are several reason as to why this application is thought to be effective. It put to use your greatest range weapon against theirs, allowing to intercept the attack as far from your core as possible. An advantage when dealing against an edge weapon where a minor secondary attack or even unintentional contact can cause great harm. It puts forth a shoed foot as opposed to a bare hand, offering an other level of protection. It also makes use of the layered attack/defense rational of emphasized kicking. If the attack gets past my kick I can still defend with my hands, allowing for two chances to respond to a single attack. Kicks are generally more powerful than hand strikes and offer the best chance to completely derail the attack knocking it away far off line, instead of just deflecting it, from your body allowing ample opportunity to close the distance and step in with a powerful attack such as an elbow smash to the head.



The problem there is that you waste time by the teaching the kick to the punch defense.  The whole idea of using it as a preparatory to the kicking against the knife is a waste of time.  Just train the kick to the knife.  There's no need for the "foundational teaching" you mentioned.  The idea of interception, outside movement, circular versus linear, can be taught through gyorugi.


foot2face said:


> Nothe majority of KKW instructors dont teach applications because they are just not a highly emphasized aspect of the art. Boon Hae arent the fundamental core of TKD as with some other MAs. Other aspects take precedence. The applications arent usually taught until well after one receives a BB. At the color belt level the forms are more like active meditation. Stressing crisp technique and fluid movement with focus but not necessarily conscious thought. This helps build that mind body link that allows for instinctive reactions.



That mind-body link is much better developed through reaction drills, through the gyorugi training that KKW TKD is so known for.

You can't train a form for instinctive reaction.  In order to train reaction, you must have a stimulus to react upon.  This is one of the modern sports science methodology that has made the KKW so famous.



foot2face said:


> Most instructor leave it at that. Many of the principles, philosophies and techniques that are contained within the forms are taught separate from them and are never liked to the poomse. It also has a lot to do with the personal preferences of your instructor. Very few, if any, teach the whole complete system. They shape their instruction based on their preferences, of which form application is seldom a priority.



You strike upon the core of the matter here, which is what many have criticized KKW TKD for.  It is not a holistic system.  Pumsae have nothing to do with gyorugi.  Gyorugi has nothing to do with hoshinsul.  Hoshinsul has nothing to do with gyeokpa.

As I've mentioned, it doesn't have to be this way.  Looking at the pumsae applications and combining them with pumsae methodology pretty much does away with a need for a separate hoshinul curriculum as the entire art becomes hoshinsul.  Train gyeokpa as a methodology for power and tool development rather than acrobatics, and you now have a holistic approach to TKD.



foot2face said:


> You must consider, especially when discussing KKW TKD, that many of the masters from the older generation havent fully embraced the all the newer methods and still teach some things the old way. This is most evident in how they view the forms. Younger masters from more recent times tend to focus on the sport and have little interest in or understanding of form application.



More than anything else, it's this political and technical disjointedness that has hindered Gukgi Taegwondo from developing.


foot2face said:


> There is a distinct possibility that if you and I got together and trained, you would recognize what I do. It wouldnt seem so unfamiliar to you. Often, so much gets lost in translation over the internet. Its very difficult to condense knowledge gained over years of studying into a short paragraph. Its likely that Im describing things you already know but from an angle your are not used to hearing them from.




There's only one way to find out...


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

Brad Dunne said:


> If your insulted, for posting what I deem a stupid response on something



Explain why it was stupid, so we can have a discussion, instead of just saying it's stupid.  That's a personal attack, a fallacy.



Brad Dunne said:


> that just about anyone who studies the arts knows the rational and purpose of why forms were introduced in the first place, then tough!



Actually, the great majority of people do not understand the purpose for why the forms were originally created, and that is why this discussion is taking place.  If you don't wish to discuss it with myself, Exile, F2F, and others, that's fine, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling me stupid.



Brad Dunne said:


> ...if someone was attacked, it was me. You felt the need to attempt to discredit everything that was said and in less than friendly terms.



Disagreeing with you is not discreditting you.  I never attacked your credentials, because, again, that would be a fallacy known as ad hominum.

If you disagree with my analysis and criticism of your explanations, please feel free to counterpoint.  That is how discussions take place.



Brad Dunne said:


> Just because you used terms such as "swimming on dry land", "don't theorize", and then proceeded to delve into aspects that were not even mentioned,



I say those things because that is my position in this discussion and has been in the beginning.  I do not advocate theory, but rather experimentation and experience.  I advocate pressure testing over just doing forms and one steps.  I use the analogy of "swimming on dry land" to explain my point.  Self-defence techniques must be applicable in the freeflowing environment of combat.  Thus, it makes sense to practice them in that environment as close as possible.  Merely going through the motions is related to practicing swimming strokes without ever getting in the water.  It may be of some minor benefit, but you're not actually learning to swim.  I did not come up with this analogy.  Bruce Lee did.

If that is not your point of view, please bring supporting arguments so that we may have a discussion.



Brad Dunne said:


> just because you felt the need to talk down and show how possibly insightful others may think you are with a lot of un-necessary retoric, still dosen't negate the fact that you served the first salvo.



I don't recall ever calling you or your position stupid.  Please point out where I made a personal attack against you.



Brad Dunne said:


> No further discussion is fine with me, for I don't feel the need to discuss anything with someone who either dosen't know what their talking about or someone who just likes to see themselves talk and hopes that others think their impressive, regardless of the validity of their statements.



If you feel my statements are invalid, I would love to see your counterarguments.  If you feel I don't know what I'm talking about, please correct me.  Others on this board seem to believe I at least know enough to have a discussion with.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Understood.  I look forward to that.
> 
> There's only one way to find out...




... and that's face to face! 

I'm getting an idea here... we three are in the general central NE/Mid-Atlantic/eastern Midwest area, right? The Perimeter of Pennsylvania, as I think of it... and MBuzzy is just a bit north of me in A-hiya, and I know Kwan Jang is in Tennesee, just one state south of us... with enough lead time, it wouldn't be too hard for a bunch of us with these shared interests to get together to do some training, boon hae comparisons, technique analysis, the kind of thing we're struggling to do via what is really a pretty difficult medium for that purpose. The KMAists on the board are strung out from sea to shining sea, but those of us in this one-day's-drive area who are interested in these kinds of questions would probably get a lot from a two-day get-together where we could compare notes in serious detail and learn a few things from each other. 

We all have ridiculously busy lives, I know, but this doesn't seem like a _really_ impossible idea, does it??


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 24, 2008)

Damn me for living in Superior.  Double damn me for moving to Hawaii!


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Damn me for living in Superior.  Double damn me for moving to Hawaii!



You're not in Hawaii _now_, though, are you, J? It would be just a few extra hours running time for you... we can make it to Detroit in under four hours from here, so...


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 24, 2008)

exile said:


> You're not in Hawaii _now_, though, are you, J? It would be just a few extra hours running time for you... we can make it to Detroit in under four hours from here, so...


 
With enough time I can do my best to be there. All that know me know I can show better then typing it.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Mar 24, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
SECOND WARNING

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


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 24, 2008)

exile said:


> ... and that's face to face!
> 
> I'm getting an idea here... we three are in the general central NE/Mid-Atlantic/eastern Midwest area, right? The Perimeter of Pennsylvania, as I think of it... and MBuzzy is just a bit north of me in A-hiya, and I know Kwan Jang is in Tennesee, just one state south of us... with enough lead time, it wouldn't be too hard for a bunch of us with these shared interests to get together to do some training, boon hae comparisons, technique analysis, the kind of thing we're struggling to do via what is really a pretty difficult medium for that purpose. The KMAists on the board are strung out from sea to shining sea, but those of us in this one-day's-drive area who are interested in these kinds of questions would probably get a lot from a two-day get-together where we could compare notes in serious detail and learn a few things from each other.
> 
> We all have ridiculously busy lives, I know, but this doesn't seem like a _really_ impossible idea, does it??



I would hope that if ever such a face-to-face happens, that it will be recorded for posterity, hopefully with the digital video and audio.  This whole matter of what this thread is about is very important, and who knows what might get hammered out.

Now, we all know that if some consensus is reached, it should be shared, not hidden away!  Meanwhile I will lurk about, because you all have much to offer about this!!!


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> With enough time I can do my best to be there. All that know me know I can show better then typing it.



That would be outstanding, Terry! And yes, I know what you mean... describing a complex, rapid, continuous three dimensional action by typing in a series of sentences is probably never going to be very successful. I mean... the good MAs books supply really well-done photo sequences, and even then, it's often hard to see just what the technique is supposed to be.

On another note: please, folks, we have now gotten the Second Mod Warning, and that's something that people need to take seriously. Any personal insult or ad hominem attack at this point is going to land whoever does it in Big Trouble. If you put your views out for consideration, you have to face the possibility of getting them challenged; the best response is a cool, rational reply where you lay your evidence out and make the best case for your point of view. All that calling people names accomplishes is make you look like someone who doesn't have a strong enough position to let it speak for itself.

So it would be wise to _think_ before going weapons-hot, and find a more constructive response. And as they say about gravity, it's not just a Good Idea,... it's the _Law._ :wink1:


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 24, 2008)

Errant108 and I could road trip up from MD. Then we could facepunch each other to be BFF.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> Errant108 and I could road trip up from MD. Then we could facepunch each other to be BFF.



Ha!

Soju's on me.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> Errant108 and I could road trip up from MD. Then we could facepunch each other to be BFF.



Yeah, Maryland's right in the neightborhood... we're probably only five or six hours away from Baltimore here.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 24, 2008)

I could host it here at the temple if you'd like.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 24, 2008)

exile said:


> Yeah, Maryland's right in the neightborhood... we're probably only five or six hours away from Baltimore here.


So we need a location and a time frame. I am thinking early May or early June.


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> So we need a location and a time frame. I am thinking early May or early June.



Early June would be best for methis is my heavy teaching quarter, and it's a bit hard to escape; but we're done in the first week in June.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 24, 2008)

exile said:


> Early June would be best for methis is my heavy teaching quarter, and it's a bit hard to escape; but we're done in the first week in June.


 
Cool.  My mom is getting a mastectomy tomorrow, so I'm gonna be worried about getting her all healed up over the next few weeks, so March/April is out for me.  End of May and End of June is vacation/family stuff....  So early June is great for me.

Should we move this to a Meet-up section?


----------



## exile (Mar 24, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> Cool.  My mom is getting a mastectomy tomorrow, so I'm gonna be worried about getting her all healed up over the next few weeks, so March/April is out for me.



Ah, hell, JL, I'm sorry to hear about your mom... my mother had the same thing about thirty years ago; she did fine. But it's awful to have to have that on your mind...



> End of May and End of June is vacation/family stuff....  So early June is great for me.
> 
> Should we move this to a Meet-up section?



Good idea! I've got to teach an early class so have to get to bed right now... someone think of a catchy name for the get-together that's kind of emerging here and we can start a thread in the Seminars, Camps, Events & Tournaments forum.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 24, 2008)

"You say Chamber I say Hikite" for further Meet Up discussion.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 25, 2008)

Disagreeing with you is not discreditting you. I never attacked your credentials.

I also never attacked your credentials, so where does this come into play? 
Being condesending is not the same as disagreeing.

I say those things because that is my position in this discussion and has been in the beginning. I do not advocate theory.

Fine, but as you said it's your position and you strongly, by use of those things you said, refuse to recognize the "other side of the coin" so to speak. Your total disregard of the simple fact that forms were designed so practicioners could self train, regardless of the position of not advocating theory, they are in fact being put together by theory, at least the newer forms.

You want counterpoints and they have been given, but apparently not to your liking, so you insist on additional ones. The original purpose of this thread was the application of poomsae in SD. A simple beginners form was offered, with the stipulation of review of the given movements as they are taught. This was apparently also not to your liking, for you discarded these movements and inserted your own positioning on what should be and this was not the intent of the post. There are many things that could/should be, but that is not focal point of the subject matter. Looking at the given movement within the form and seeing SD value or not was the intent. 

Since it appears to me that semantics are involved, I offer this. I did not call you stupid, I said the response posted was stupid. Many learned people have at times made a stupid comment, does this mean that they are stupid? You took extra exception to the statement because it was in direct counter to your personal position, which I feel is wrong, but you are intitled to it. My initial post was simplistic in nature. It was an offer to look at a given application and it's direct effect on the attacker body (bio-machanics) and if there was any SD value to it, nothing more. nothing less. I would not call that theory, but semi-practical application. One should know how a body reacts when met with force, so a more informed assessment can be obtained on the subject of "application of TKD poomsae in SD.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 25, 2008)

Just throwing this out as something that goes through my head when discussions like this come up.  Not aimed at anyone in particular but the thought was re-sparked by some earlier comments.

I've heard it said that on the street, nobody cares what belt you are.  The dude about to take a swing at you doesn't care if you are if you are a black belt or a red belt or green or white.  You are who you are and your belt won't save you if you can't use what you know.

Well a similar thought to me is that we never know the timeframe for when we will need, if ever, to apply these techniques.  It could be in five years, it could be tonight after class.

So, my thought is, it doesn't do my much good if you show me a mechanic that will work eventually someday when I finally 'grok' it and my body catches up, if I get attacked tomorrow. Or rather, it doesn't do me much good if you show me a *bad* mechanic that's designed to force my body to move in a way that over time will make my body work in a good way; I may need to defend myself next week and all I will have at my disposal will be that bad mechanic you taught me.

Going to music, as I often do.  if I teach you the intervals for a major scale... that is something you can use *right now*.  Yes, there will be a lifetime of discovery to learn how to apply it all and how to relate to other theory and how look inside it and find new connections and all the things you can build off a major scale, but you can still use that major scale *tonight* at your gig, should you need to.

Self-defense is in many ways the same, but in many ways different.  It is different in that we don't get to choose when we will need it, but it is the same in that we should be able to effectively apply what we learn to the best of our abilities at any given time.

It's a building process to master a technique (whether a punch or a kick or a block), but it's a building process that should proceed from "effective foundation"  to "more effective" as we develop.  It should not be "I will teach you something that doesn't work in order that eventually it will build something else that does work"


So if you are serious about teaching effective self-defense, you should probably keep in mind that "what I teach today, they may need before I see them again"

---------------
Now for forms, it seems to me from the above idea that ideas and mechanics learned should be effectively applicable upon learning that the progress of a curriculum of poomse, if it is intended to be for self-defense training,  should proceed not from 'simple mechanic to complex mechanic' but rather from 'simple effective technique against most common scenarios' on to 'more complex effective techniques against both common and less common scenarios'


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 25, 2008)

Note on my last post

1.I'm not saying I expect that on the first night of class that when you teach someone a technique they should be able to be good enough to immediately use it that day, but that I think the technique itself should be a good technique that they can build on.  I know it will take time to improve technique, but don't start out with a bad mechanic under the theory that the mechanic will eventually morph into something good (whether stances or strikes or blocks)

2. I'm not intending to be talking to any given person or form, that's up to you


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 25, 2008)

FF I understand what you are saying but the thing is it does take time for people to get comfitable with doing proper techniques. I know I train all types of people athletic and those that are challenged a tad bit. We must always remember to take the time into consideration when teaching learning a few quick moves are possible in an hour but the time it takes to perfect those moves my take months or even years.

I know one thing is this is for sure we all know what we personnally need and we all know what we do not, we all have a timeframe for this to happen. So once again it would e up to each individual th how long something will take and when or if they would ever need it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2008)

The problem with forms is that we practice too many and that we have so many self defense techniques in each one.

With that being said, I think that you can overcome this by practicing the basics for one or two techniques in a form and then put them together and drill the hell out of them during one class period.

The end result is that over time, the student eventually learns all of the "real" techniques is a form.  That student also learns how to actually apply it peice by peice and immediately after class if they need to.  

FFs post really hits on the themes that caused me to take a critical look at what I was doing with my TSD curriculum.  FWIW, the result of this process is here.  I post it to show that I'm not just spewing out syntax on the internet on this.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 25, 2008)

_FF I understand what you are saying but the thing is it does take time for people to get comfitable with doing proper techniques. _

I know what you mean about time.  Four years later I'm still working on techniques I learned in my first day of class when I was just in their in sweats and a t-shirt dropping off my kids and a friend of mine coaxed me to hop in and give it a try

What I mean thought is bad mechanics that are called "self defense".  What I mean by bad mechanics is bad mechanics within the context of self-defense.  Some mechanics are good for teaching the body certain things but when tried to be explained in a self-defense context make very little sense (or actually are dangerous).  If you are trying to teach self-defense, don't teach bad self-defense.  If you are teaching mechanics that have no applicability to self-defense, don't call it self-defense

and don't assume I have five years to get it right...I may need it to be 'good enough' much sooner than that.


----------



## foot2face (Apr 3, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> That's pretty much the case, however, given that nothing else has been released officially does not lend much credence to the idea that another official application training system exists other than the elementary school explanations.


Ive said it before, the KKW has dropped the ball regarding many aspects of the art. They just dont put out good enough material. Anyone who studies in a good Kukki TKD school will tell you that their training is so much more in depth and comprehensive than any reference material officially released by the KKW.


Errant108 said:


> The fact that the great majority of instructors I've met have no other explanation also casts doubt.


That should be no surprise at all. Direct applications of the forms has never been a major training component of the system. 3-1 step, hosinsool drills, and free sparing have always taken precedence. Again, it also has a lot to do with the preferences of the instructors. Most dont teach every little aspect of the art but focus on what they value the most . A major reason why direct applications of the forms are not often trained. The poomse are actually just a collection of 1-step and hosinsool techniques that demonstrate key principles and philosophies but these elements are typically taught separate from the forms and are seldom linked with them. 


Errant108 said:


> Elimate the ones least effective, select the ones easiest to train.


Least effective and easiest trained are very subjective. Different body types and temperaments perform various applications better than others. For example, Im on the muscular side and favor explosive applications that exploit my strength. Slighter practitioners often do better with applications that rely on finesse. Im also not that slick with takedowns, they just dont click for me no matter how much I train them. I preferred much more, applications that rely on strategic striking. Others I trained with were the opposite. They were very good at takedowns, if you got near them and tied them up in any way they would instantly dump you on your back, putting you in a position to be stomped into the ground. You must also consider the stature of you attacker. There are thing you can easily do to someone who is smaller than you that you cant do to someone that is larger than you and vice versa. The temperament of your attacker should be accounted for as well. You have to respond differently to someone who is wildly aggressive and violent vs. some one who is measured and more strategic. Sure you could compromise and select applications that are generally effective when applied by student across the board and sort of work against attackers of various body types and temperaments but then you run into the same old problem. There will be practitioners who say these applications are OK, but not great and thus the search for new and better applications will begin. The beauty of the forms is that they contain a wide verity of applications allowing the practitioner to select the ones that suit them best. This is probably one of the few practical reasons why forms are still part of the system and have not been completely abandoned. 









Errant108 said:


> The problem there is that you waste time by the teaching the kick to the punch defense. The whole idea of using it as a preparatory to the kicking against the knife is a waste of time. Just train the kick to the knife. There's no need for the "foundational teaching" you mentioned.


Though there are extremely gifted students able to skip ahead to more advance techniques and principles many, including myself, have benefited from taking thing slowly and progressing one step at a time. You also have to keep in mind that in South Korea TKD training is directed towards the youth. Not that its a childs art, they just start training young. Some might not find it appropriate to have 10 year olds lunging at each other with a training knife or bayonet. Better to let them get the basic idea by intercepting punches and bring out the blades when they get a bit older. 


Errant108 said:


> The idea of interception, outside movement, circular versus linear, can be taught through gyorugi.


It most often is. Many of the movements in the forms demonstrate principles that are integral to the system but theyre not trapped in the forms. They are supposed to be applied to the other part of the art. There is a lot of overlap in training that is meant to tie things together the problem is that these ties arent always made apparent. 


Errant108 said:


> That mind-body link is much better developed through reaction drills, through the gyorugi training that KKW TKD is so known for.
> You can't train a form for instinctive reaction. In order to train reaction, you must have a stimulus to react upon. This is one of the modern sports science methodology that has made the KKW so famous.


I dont knowIts real tough to learn how to clear your mind and just react only by sparing, especially for beginners. When faced with the pressures of sparring most are plagued by a hectic inner monologue, hastily debating with themselves about what to do. Thinking about how to attack, how to defend, trying to quickly decide which technique to use next. This slows reaction time. It can be difficult to overcome and often separates people who are good from people who are great. If their minds do go black, its usually a bad thing, it means they froze, and are now getting pummeled or theyre just swinging wildly. Reaction drills are real good but only part of the solution. If you really on them too much you can fall into a very predictable stimulus/reaction Pavlovian response. That is not optimal. Ideally, what is wanted is a state where your mind can quickly analyze what is going on and select the best course of action without having to consciously mull it over. Practicing the poomse as a form of active meditation helps establish that empty mind active body state that is an essential foundation for subconscious action. Allowing your brain to tell your body what to do without the burden of conscious thought. This combined with other training methods help build extremely fast instinctive analyses and responses. 


Errant108 said:


> You strike upon the core of the matter here, which is what many have criticized KKW TKD for. It is not a holistic system. Pumsae have nothing to do with gyorugi. Gyorugi has nothing to do with hoshinsul. Hoshinsul has nothing to do with gyeokpa.


But it is a holistic system. The various aspects of the art mesh together seamlessly. The problem is not with the system but with how it is most often taught. For various reasons most instructors dont teach students how to tie things together. 


Errant108 said:


> More than anything else, it's this political and technical disjointedness that has hindered Gukgi Taegwondo from developing.


Yes, this is a problem but Im not sure if it can be helped, at least not yet. There are a lot of big egos in the TKD world and I believe the KKW has been somewhat vague regarding certain aspects of the art so as not to completely alienate the older generation of masters. I think this has led to the political and technical disjointedness you wrote of. Perhaps in the future when the older generation has moved on the KKW will tighten things up and better define the system in an official manner.


----------



## foot2face (Apr 3, 2008)

exile said:


> Right, and that's a big part of the reason for the disconnection between forms and practical combat tactics over the past several decades. It's really too bad, because a lot of people knock forms (how many 'kata are useless' threads, and individual post, have we all been subject to since we joined MT ) without realizing that hard-edged two-person drills were a crucial component of MA training in the early days. Again, it's important for people to realize that it's not just the KMAs that have been subject to this disconnection; it started in Japan in the 30s, and it's something you constantly read karate bunkai advocates complaining aboutthat people now think of kata training almost exclusively as a solo perfomance. We're pretty much all in the same boat, these days....


But you are assuming there was a connection in KMAs between the original kata that was practiced and practical combat tactics in the first place. Weve discussed in the past how the Kwan era masters learned a child-school version of Karate and that their understanding of the kata was elementary. They practiced them as exercises that reinforced basic movements. The applications of the movements were simple and direct. A punch was a punch and a block was just a block, type of interpretation. Despite this simple understanding, that lacked the practical combat tactics of Okinawan bunkai, TKD proved itself effective. So why the urge to include them now? Over the years the forms were modified, rearranged and created anew. Many believe that these changes were not made for practical reasons and at best represent the same simple understanding inherited from the earlier katas. I dont subscribe to this belief. To me the changes demonstrate an attempt by the Koreans to make use of the forms in a more significant manner and it led to a different understanding of how forms fit into a MA system and how they are applied. I believe you do yourself a huge disservice by looking for Karate kata solutions to TKD poomse problems. Its been said before but TKD really isnt Karate. You risk injecting philosophies and methods that were never part of the system and may very well conflict with the existing philosophies and methods that have made TKD effective. Though the search for Okinawan bunkai is a valid pursuit for a Karateka I fear it will just add to the dissolution of TKD. Further separating the various aspects of the art until no cohesive system exists. Im confounded by traditionalist who reject the modern sport and seek to preserve real TKD by incorporating Okinawan concepts and methods that were never part of the system. Or practical MAist who claim that in order to be really street effective, TKD needs to rediscover the Okinawan bunkai hidden in its forms. Completely oblivious to the fact that TKD has a well established record of effectiveness in some of the harshest conditions possible in spite of these bunkai. The problems that TKD faces today with its effectiveness as a viable MA system being called to question has little to do with the lack of boon hae training and everything to do with a general lack of quality and/or thorough instruction. Instead of looking to other systems to solve the problems we may have with our art shouldnt we look inward, examining what we have and strive to make it work? Rather then seeking the knowledge of masters from other arts cant we find pure TKD instructors who know how to make it work and learn for them? 
Perhaps its indicative of our differing perspectives on TKD and probably our training but to me TKD is all about hard-edged two-person drills. The practical combat tactics that were missed from the forms were accounted for through various types of sparring, which has always been a crucial component of TKD. 
It has 1-step, which was what?Very simple no nonsense block/strike counters to common attacks that directly targeted to most vulnerable point on your attacker. Though it follows a very strict etiquette and is prearranged it can be quite intense with the attack coming at full speed and power. Then theres hosinsool drills which at their core were close range infighting techniques, always practiced with a training partner. Its basic grappling with a lot of break holds and simple but solid joint locks, traps, takedowns and weapon disarming. Intensity ranges from complete compliance for beginners to full on resistance for advanced practitioners. Finally, you had tons of free sparring, an attempt to simulate a live fight, which eventually became full contact. Its responsible for honing the fast, aggressive and free flowing power striking TKD is known for and what I believe to be the core of practical TKD training. If trained properly and more impotently tied together these make for a very effective and complete combat system, even without the forms.


----------

