# Exploring hidden techs.



## terryl965 (Mar 29, 2009)

How do you go about finding the hidden techs in the poomsae you do? Maybe you just believe it is just suppose to be one way... why is that? Since poomsae's are old, do you believe we need to go and re-invent the wheel for today society? What is it that drives you to finds ways for the poomsae to be more realistic for today enviroment?


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2009)

I myself believe that street violence isn't technically any different now from what it was in Itosu's Shuri, Terry. I keep reading stuff that suggests that the nature of street assaults has changed, and maybe it has in terms of how many people you're dealing with and what kind of weapons you have to worry about... but even there, I think very little has changed, and I'm often frustrated that those who talk about 'keeping up with the times' are so rarely specific about just _how_ the times have changed.

So with that in mind, I'm guided by the Habitual Acts of Physical Violence framework, articulated first by Patrick McCarthy, and backed up by a lot of hard documentation from US Justice Department and UK criminal investigations units, about what kind of attack initiations you're most likely to encounter. And I try to read hyungs in terms of realistic responses to those kinds of attacks. Grabs, grab-and-punch, shoves, sucker punches. I try to apply the kind of analysis that guys like Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, and Rick Clark apply in Karate, and Stuart and Simon in TKD. And I try particularly hard to work out whether a particular move is purely decorative, or has martial content but maybe has been modified so as to 'Koreanize' it, or corresponds to the original application in a direct way. I think certain combat applications were 'lost in translation' from kata to the hyungs, so I'm always looking over the hyung's shoulder at whatever I can learn about the bunkai for the kata that the hyung moves were taken from. Trial and error, really... but I can't think of a more principled way to do it, at this point.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 29, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> How do you go about finding the hidden techs in the poomsae you do? Maybe you just believe it is just suppose to be one way... why is that? Since poomsae's are old, do you believe we need to go and re-invent the wheel for today society? What is it that drives you to finds ways for the poomsae to be more realistic for today enviroment?



Well, as I said in response to another thread you created, our students create their own advanced 3-step, 2-step, and 1-step sets - so they use their own experiences to choose which techniques they will use and how they will apply them - so students are constantly interpreting tul (pattern) techniques to their own abilities, preferences, strengths, and experiences to create their own applications.  While there are some applications that, upon demonstration, are determined to be ineffective, this system causes students to explore techniques and applications for themselves rather than learning preset techniques  - and thus they tend to explore, and understand, more than those who learn step sparring as another type of pattern.  I'm not putting down learning step sparring as a pattern - there are uses for that as well - but I think that, in the long run, students need to explore for themselves if thery are truly to understand.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 29, 2009)

Hidden techniques..........hmmmmmm kind of a mine field to stray into, but here goes. My personal assessment of anything to do with a kata/hyung has to do with the given movement that's being done. Lets take the 1st taeguek form. Opening move(s) 1) turn to the left, execute a left hand down block, 2) step forward with right leg and execute a right hand punch. Now those are the given structured movements of the form and I see nothing hidden. They are what they are, a simple down block and a step punch. Now I realize that folks want to see stuff and have been kind of directed into believing different things, but unless something different comes out of the given movement/technique, then there is nothing remotely possible that could be hidden. I've heard the arguments that it could be this and it could be that, if you did this or did that. But here is the rub, as far as I'm concerned. If I did this so it could become that, then I have in fact altered the given structured movement of the particular form and thusly have actually changed the form to suit the intention to see something else. It's called the end justifies the means and it has nothing to do with anything hidden, because there was nothing hidden. Look at whatever form(s) you practice and take the given movement at face value and ask yourself, is/are these practical self defense positions and would I use it/them in a real altercation?


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2009)

Brad Dunne said:


> My personal assessment of anything to do with a kata/hyung has to do with the given movement that's being done. Lets take the 1st taeguek form. Opening move(s) 1) turn to the left, execute a left hand down block, 2) step forward with right leg and execute a right hand punch. Now those are the given structured movements of the form and I see nothing hidden. They are what they are, a simple down block and a step punch.



Those are also the first movements of Kicho Il Jang and Palgwe Sam Jang. And the down block is accompanied by a retraction chamber. So here is a non-obvious application that does not involve a single change in the actual _movements_ that have been carried out, but is quite different from the simple down block/lunge punch that's standard interpretation for this sequence.

The literal movements are

(i) ready position, preparatory to a 90º turn into a left front stance/down block;
(ii) 90º turn into a left front stance/down block with chambering retraction of the right fist;
(iii) movement into right front stance/middle lunge punch with chambering retraction of the left fist...

In one SD situation in which this sequence of movements is usefully _applied_, the attacker has grabbed the defender's arm or shirt. The corresponding _moves_ are

(i)' the defender covers the attacker's wrist with his own right fist, or reverses the wrist grab&#8212;this is one of the very earliest SD techs we teach them&#8212;and in either case, simultaneously (a) twists the captured wrist counterclockwise, and (b) turns quickly counterclockwise pulling on the wrist&#8212;this is the concealed meaning of the apparent presentation of the defenders left side to the the attacker at the outside of the form (something that would be suicidal to do in a street confrontation, obviously)...

(ii)' followed by simultaneously (c) driving the left forearm against the attacker's now forcibly extended right arm just above the elbow (the lower part of the `chambering' phase of the `down block'), (d) hikite of the trapped fist by the defender's `chamberinging retraction' of the right fist (pulling the attackers right fist into a maximally extended positon to give the defender's arm pin on the attacker maximum leverage and trapping the attacker in position) and projection of the defender's full body weight forward into the pin via the front-stance movement, forcibly driving the attacker's upper body down and exposing their lowered head to the defender's upcoming counterattack. 

Having driven the attacker into a lowered position via the arm pin described, the defender (e) quickly moves the left arm from its pinning position to near the defender's right ear into an arcing upward elbow strike to the side of the attacker's lowered head, continuing up to a position above the defender's right ear, and then lowers it in hammerfist strike or knifehand to major targets on the attacker's head: the carotid sinus or larynx. This downcoming strike can be subdivided at the defender's discretion into (e1) a spearhand elbow strike to the attacker's face (eyes are a good target) and (e2) the payoff hand strike to the selected target. The main lesson of the whole subsequence is contained here: if you can trap the attacker's arm while going outside, you own him and the fight is effectively over, assuming a correct continuation.

(iii)' A smooth muchimi shift of the striking left hand to a grab on the attacker's ear/hair/collar is immediately followed by a simultaneous (f)hikite retraction of the left fist to pull the injured attacker in and around and (g) a right-hand strike (maybe a fist, but I think a palm-heel strike is sounder) to the attacker's face with the full weight of the defender's body moving into a right front stance.

(iii)" An alternative analysis has (f)' the retraction translating to a grip on the attacker's ear or hair, pulling it back while at the same time (g)' the 'punch' supplies torque on the other side of the attacker's head so that a neck break results. Picture a good firm grip on the attacker's head with both hands and an extremely sharp twist (left hand pull while right hand pushes around) and you have the picture...​
If you carry out the _moves_ as described in (i)'-(iii)' or (i)'-(iii)", with no actual uke involved, you'll get a sequence of _movements_ indistinguishable from (i)&#8211;(iii). What's hidden is not the movements, but the application of those movments: the retraction as a hikite trapping of the attacker's gripping hand, the down block as one or more elbow techs followed by a downward hammerfist, etc. It was Itosu himself who told us that the block/punch labels he gave to these techs, which were carried into Shotokan and its Korean development and finally into TKD, were not intended for adult practitioners, but were the children's version he was trying to get into the Okinawan schools. 

This is a fast, hard application that works well even with a completely noncompliant attacker.  And things like wrist locks and arm pins would have been familiar to the Okinawans, who used techs like that in their tuite, and to Japanese MAists of Funakoshi's generation, many of whom had very likely been exposed to judo and jujitsu, which were taught in Japanese schools at the time that GF and other expats brought karate to Japan.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 29, 2009)

*My personal assessment of anything to do with a kata/hyung has to do with the given movement that's being done. Lets take the 1st taeguek form. Opening move(s) 1) turn to the left, execute a left hand down block, 2) step forward with right leg and execute a right hand punch. Now those are the given structured movements of the form and I see nothing hidden. They are what they are, a simple down block and a step punch*

Ok but what happens if you grab the leg with an inside/outside  downblock and wrap it with the upper arm and then srep though with the punch and a stomp on the person chest. I know I am getting a little carried away with it but wht could that not be what really needs to be done. This iswhat I am talking about.


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Ok but what happens if you grab the leg with an inside/outside  downblock and wrap it with the upper arm and then srep though with the punch and a stomp on the person chest. I know I am getting a little carried away with it but wht could that not be what really needs to be done. This iswhat I am talking about.



Rick Clark gives a number of variations on just the moves you've described as effective bunkai for the simple 'down block' movement in his book, _75 Down Blocks_ (i.e., 75 different bunkai for just that movement, grouped into subfamilies of application).


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 29, 2009)

We shall agree to dis-agree on this subject. This is not the first time this has been discussed and the folks that seek the hidden truths, more power to you. 

:asian:


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 30, 2009)

Brad Dunne said:


> Now I realize that folks want to see stuff and have been kind of directed into believing different things, but unless something different comes out of the given movement/technique, then there is nothing remotely possible that could be hidden. I've heard the arguments that it could be this and it could be that, if you did this or did that. But here is the rub, as far as I'm concerned. If I did this so it could become that, then I have in fact altered the given structured movement of the particular form and thusly have actually changed the form to suit the intention to see something else. It's called the end justifies the means and it has nothing to do with anything hidden, because there was nothing hidden.



It really depends on where your TKD comes from.  If it remains more closely connected to Okinawan karate, your contention could not be more incorrect, since Okinawan karate specifically teaches that the embusen (or floor pattern) should not trick you into rigidity.  See Seikichi Toguchi's book, _Okinawan Goju-Ryu II: Advanced Techniques of Shorei-Kan Karate_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikichi_Toguchi#cite_note-1 for a short primer on the topic.

Of course if you're firmly into the modern TKD camp, your interpretation may be entirely correct if that's how your teachers taught you.  Form applications are rarely taught in TKD in my observation.  It may be fair to say that they just don't exist as an official concept, the efforts of people like Stuart Anslow notwithstanding.


----------



## SJON (Mar 30, 2009)

Brad Dunne said:


> Look at whatever form(s) you practice and take the given movement at face value and ask yourself, is/are these practical self defense positions and would I use it/them in a real altercation?


 
Just out of curiosity, for what percentage of sequences in the TKD patterns would you answer "yes" under the above conditions? If not the TKD patterns, how about the Pinan/Heian series?


----------



## miguksaram (Mar 30, 2009)

I don't believe in the hidden techniques that people like Dillman try to preach.  I do believe there are different interpretations on what a move can be used for.  People tend to see what they want which is fine the more applications you can get out of a movement, the better.


----------



## K31 (Mar 30, 2009)

I wish our instructors would explain what the movements are supposed to mean.

The owner of my school was watching us perform a hyung one day recently a berated us on performing a downward block with (I guess) what was less enthusiasm than he expected. He went on to explain that the block was supposed to be removing an adversaries grip from your arm.  Ok, now we know, but that was one of dozens of moves in scores of hyungs. I'd like to know that, maybe it would help me to remember some of the form as more than just rehearsed motions.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 30, 2009)

K31 said:


> I wish our instructors would explain what the movements are supposed to mean.
> 
> The owner of my school was watching us perform a hyung one day recently a berated us on performing a downward block with (I guess) what was less enthusiasm than he expected. He went on to explain that the block was supposed to be removing an adversaries grip from your arm.  Ok, now we know, but that was one of dozens of moves in scores of hyungs. I'd like to know that, maybe it would help me to remember some of the form as more than just rehearsed motions.



Do they not teach the application as they go or in drill work prior to learning or reviewing something?


----------



## Brad Dunne (Mar 30, 2009)

Since some folks have asked specific questions of me, I will re-enter the discussion, but it's very doubtful anything different will transpire.

I am not going to convince anyone, who is of the mind that there are hidden movements/techniques within a kata/hyung, otherwise. But I will offer this assessment of a particular movement that was offered by another poster.  

"The owner of my school was watching us perform a hyung one day recently a berated us on performing a downward block with (I guess) what was less enthusiasm than he expected. He went on to explain that the block was supposed to be removing an adversaries grip from your arm."

You folks go and do this for yourselves and then come back and give us your review. 

I offer this for any folks who would like to really get down to an honest show and tell and openly evaluate this subject. A meet and greet is currently being addressed and our good friend Terry has offered his dojang. This would be a great time to visually and physically evaluate this subject.
The old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words, could prove true here.


----------



## K31 (Mar 30, 2009)

clfsean said:


> Do they not teach the application as they go or in drill work prior to learning or reviewing something?



If they are teaching self defense, yes, but what the meaning of a movement is in a hyung, very infrequently. Like, I said, I wish they would. I remember one underbelt "helper" was showing a couple of us a move one time where one arm comes up in a fist while the other chops and she said, "Think of it like you are grabbing your opponent with one hand and chopping with the other" and that's how I always think of it now. 

I was watching a video of a hyung performed the other day and narrator used the term "groin pull" for a move. I thought to myself, "so that's what that's supposed to be". Maybe out of decorum or fear some of the younger students might try it, it was never referred to as that in class.


----------



## K31 (Mar 30, 2009)

Brad Dunne said:


> "The owner of my school was watching us perform a hyung one day recently a berated us on performing a downward block with (I guess) what was less enthusiasm than he expected. He went on to explain that the block was supposed to be removing an adversaries grip from your arm."



I think the term I should have used here was "low block" although if I see or read the term for some in 5 places it usually has 5 different names.

The point is, I (we) always thought of it as a block. Get the hand down as fast as possible never mind the in between. To the instructor/owner it's "break the hold" exaggerate the move away from the arm/shoulder.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2009)

Here's my question: given that we have a technique in which (i) the left arm swings the elbow forward so the fist come to rest next to the right ear, and then (ii) abruptly drops down to end a small distance above the lower part of the left thigh, during which motion of the left hand (iii) the right hand rotates palm upward to create a fist, and pulls back to the right side, _why do we think that this technique is actually a *block*?_. Yes, it's called a block in Japanese, but that's because it was called a block when Funakoshi and the other first-generation expatriates brought karate to Japan with Itosu's labeling of the moves attached. And Itosu was explicit in his insistence that grade-school karate was not the true art, but a safe version  for children. So why should we _start_ from the assumption that material which was specifically labeled for a diluted, kid-friendly version karate should be interpreted in the same way for adults training for survival in unarmed combat?

This is what Simon's post is pointing to, I think. The literal interpretations of blocking techs in kata make little or no sense, because, as Abernethy points out, 'the modern interpretation of the kata often has every other move explained as a block'. For a choice example, take a look at Palgwe I Jang, moves 5&#8211;7&#8212;a double knifehand downward 'block', a middle knifehand 'block' and a 'rising block'. Who in their right mind would take use three precious 'tempi' (taking the term from chess) with a blocking move, and only then following up (as in move 8 of that Palgwe) with a strike? Block, block, block, punch... really? Anyone who's been in an openendedly  violent episode knows that  this is just begging to be damaged beyond repair. 

And the crazy rationales for the so-called 'double block' in Pinan Shodan/Palgwe Sa Jang are exactly the same. What moves are you likely to be facing such that simultaneous blocks outward and upward are necessary, followed by an uppercut that only makes sense if your attacker is docilely standing there _waiting_ for you to hammer him? This is the key argument, the really persuasive one I think, for taking the movements in Karate kata (and, derivatively, KMA hyungs) to not be the literal children's-karate versions, but something much more practical&#8212;the sheer screaming impracticality of the standard interpretations, based on Itosu's deliberate camouflaging of the intentions of each move. As Abernethy reminds us over and over in his books, _uke_ doesn't mean 'block', literally&#8212;it means, reception or response. 

My money, if I had a chance to bet, big-time, is that Itosu would be baffled by the fact that his children's version of the art was taken to be the adult version and that people were actually seriously advocating the low-impact child-safe karate lite he had introduced into the schools as the basis for self defense in do-or-die street violence.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 30, 2009)

exile said:


> . So why should we _start_ from the assumption that material which was specifically labeled for a diluted, kid-friendly version karate should be interpreted in the same way for adults training for survival in unarmed combat?
> 
> <<<<<<<<
> 
> I question the assumption as to why anyone training for combat would want to train in unarmed combat.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> exile said:
> 
> 
> > . So why should we _start_ from the assumption that material which was specifically labeled for a diluted, kid-friendly version karate should be interpreted in the same way for adults training for survival in unarmed combat?
> ...


----------



## K31 (Mar 31, 2009)

exile said:


> Earl Weiss said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Maybe you should ask the ROK Marines, who used TKD training to lethal effect against a far greater force of Viet Cong and North Koreans at Tra Binh Dong during the Vietnam War, and whose 11th Division received a full grade promotion for every soldier in the ranks. Or the Black Tiger and White Tiger ROK commandos, who used it as a tool in their silent killing repertoire to carry out the assassinations they were tasked with in the Korean and Vietnam Wars respectively. I would think the answer is obvious: _because you may not have a weapon available._ Does that sound like a reason?
> ...


----------



## clfsean (Mar 31, 2009)

K31 said:


> If they are teaching self defense, yes, but what the meaning of a movement is in a hyung, very infrequently. Like, I said, I wish they would. I remember one underbelt "helper" was showing a couple of us a move one time where one arm comes up in a fist while the other chops and she said, "Think of it like you are grabbing your opponent with one hand and chopping with the other" and that's how I always think of it now.
> 
> I was watching a video of a hyung performed the other day and narrator used the term "groin pull" for a move. I thought to myself, "so that's what that's supposed to be". Maybe out of decorum or fear some of the younger students might try it, it was never referred to as that in class.




... wow ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 31, 2009)

K31 said:


> exile said:
> 
> 
> > I've re-read your last posts a couple of times and I'm confused.
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 31, 2009)

exile said:


> Earl Weiss said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Maybe you should ask the ROK Marines, who used TKD training to lethal effect against a far greater force of Viet Cong and North Koreans at Tra Binh Dong during the Vietnam War, and whose 11th Division received a full grade promotion for every soldier in the ranks. Or the Black Tiger and White Tiger ROK commandos, who used it as a tool in their silent killing repertoire to carry out the assassinations they were tasked with in the Korean and Vietnam Wars respectively. I would think the answer is obvious: _because you may not have a weapon available._ Does that sound like a reason?
> ...


----------



## miguksaram (Mar 31, 2009)

exile said:


> Earl Weiss said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Maybe you should ask the ROK Marines, who used TKD training to lethal effect against a far greater force of Viet Cong and North Koreans at Tra Binh Dong during the Vietnam War, and whose 11th Division received a full grade promotion for every soldier in the ranks. Or the Black Tiger and White Tiger ROK commandos, who used it as a tool in their silent killing repertoire to carry out the assassinations they were tasked with in the Korean and Vietnam Wars respectively. I would think the answer is obvious: _because you may not have a weapon available._ Does that sound like a reason?
> ...


----------



## miguksaram (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> exile said:
> 
> 
> > I believe some of the exploits are referred to in detail in "A Killing Art" . He relates the empty hand trench warfare that occurred. Still, I really think they spent plenty of time using / training with knives, guns etc.
> ...


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2009)

K31 said:


> exile said:
> 
> 
> > I've re-read your last posts a couple of times and I'm confused.
> ...


----------



## seasoned (Mar 31, 2009)

In and of itself, in Okinawan GoJu, all blocks are strikes. This was not taught until BB for fear it would alter the structure of the original technique, the block. The principles are the same pertaining to power and movement, its just that the focus is different. This, in a nut shell is how it is with regard to techniques. You learn the obvious, only to find out that the principles fit into a large array of all aspects of self defense, and so it is, with an art form. Within kata there are many hidden movements so as to keep there intent away from prying eyes. It is also true with many arts that hid their movements into dance forms. Some times what you see isnt what you get. :asian:


----------



## seasoned (Mar 31, 2009)

seasoned said:


> In and of itself, in Okinawan GoJu, all blocks are strikes. This was not taught until BB for fear it would alter the structure of the original technique, the block. The principles are the same pertaining to power and movement, its just that the focus is different. This, in a nut shell is how it is with regard to techniques. You learn the obvious, only to find out that the principles fit into a large array of all aspects of self defense, and so it is, with an art form. Within kata there are many hidden movements so as to keep there intent away from prying eyes. It is also true with many arts that hid their movements into dance forms. Some times what you see isnt what you get. :asian:


 
Sorry for the assumption that Okinawan GoJu and TKD would view kata the same, but it only makes sense, I guess. :shrug:


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 31, 2009)

90% of "history" in martial arts, IMHO, should be considered historical fiction; books like, "A Killing Art", are propaganda and myth.  Hidden techniques are the same; those of us who trained in the late 70s and 80s learned very simple explanations to our forms but now the cult of boonhae/bunkai is in vogue.  Dont spend too much time looking for secrets, train hard and never quit and you will learn the real secrets.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 31, 2009)

MSUTKD said:


> 90% of "history" in martial arts, IMHO, should be considered historical fiction; books like, "A Killing Art", are propaganda and myth. Hidden techniques are the same; those of us who trained in the late 70&#8217;s and 80&#8217;s learned very &#8220;simple&#8221; explanations to our forms but now the cult of &#8220;boonhae/bunkai&#8221; is in vogue. Don&#8217;t spend too much time looking for &#8220;secrets&#8221;, *train hard and never quit and you will learn the real secrets*.



My sentiments exactly, the harder one trains and the more diligent we are to techniques, all will be reveled, in time.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> I question the assumption as to why anyone training for combat would want to train in unarmed combat.



Well, this is one of those missing bits from taekwondo, where it lost a bit in translation from one of its parents.  Within Okinawan karate, kobudo is taught hand-in-hand with the unarmed techniques.  The two reinforce each other and the various forms are supposed to teach you that the movements in armed and unarmed fighting are actually very similar if not always the same.

It's not exactly training with a handgun, but within the context of the working class fighting art it was, karate is indeed a fighting system with multiple ranges, weapons included.


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2009)

MSUTKD said:


> 90% of "history" in martial arts, IMHO, should be considered historical fiction; books like, "A Killing Art", are propaganda and myth.




Would you care to identify just where you get support for the 'propaganda and myth' claim from? The core of Gillis' history are the many volumes of Korea-gate congressional investigations carried out by the US Congress in the 1970s, with extensive documentation; interviews with Nam Tae-hi, Jhoon Rhee and others with significant cross-referencing and independent checking; and American FBI and CIA sources. You want to identify Gillis' argument, with its complete citations, 400+ footnotes pointing to particular sources, and so on as propaganda and myth? Then  defend the point. Be specific&#8212;tell us exactly what is propaganda and myth in the book, i.e., unsupported pseudohistory with no reliable documentary basis. Be my guest, MSTKD&#8212;I'm all attention.



MSUTKD said:


> Hidden techniques are the same; those of us who trained in the late 70&#8217;s and 80&#8217;s learned very &#8220;simple&#8221; explanations to our forms but now the cult of &#8220;boonhae/bunkai&#8221; is in vogue.  Don&#8217;t spend too much time looking for &#8220;secrets&#8221;, train hard and never quit and you will learn the real secrets.



Let me get this straight: you guys learned very simple explanations, therefore the analysis of _boohae/bunkai_ is a _cult??_. How about some evidence for 'cult'hood? Cults operate as closed groups, with doctrine handed down unquestioned from the source. Abernethy's group, the British Combat Association, is a 'cult'? They don't get together, pressure test their ideas and explain their results? Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder's work is 'cult-think'?  Or Gavin Mulholland's or Rick Clark's? Our own members' Stuart Anslow's work and Simon O' Neil's work is 'cult'think? Maybe we should ask them, since they're both active members of this site, just how they carry out their analysis and subject it to experimental testing, eh?

You are throwing around the words propaganda, myth and cult pretty freely, MSTKU, for someone whose post doesn't contain a single actual _fact_ (other than that thinking about alternative, nonobvious applications was something you never did when you started training). Maybe you should supply a few, if you're going to make claims like that? As I say, I'm all attention.


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> I believe some of the exploits are referred to in detail in "A Killing Art" . He relates the empty hand trench warfare that occurred. Still, I really think they spent plenty of time using / training with knives, guns etc.



No one would deny that, I don't think



Earl Weiss said:


> The "*You may not have a weapon available" is great rationale for the average civilian. *For any type of combat force, if you do not have a weapon, things have already gone horribly wrong. One of the reason's the military spends little time on empty hand combat training.  Empty hand training in the military is used to build mental toughness and esprit de corps. Not increase the efficiency of the soldier.



But TKD originated as the Korean branch of karate, which was from the outset oriented to civilian combat. And that's my point: civilians normally do not have weapons available.



Earl Weiss said:


> Silent killing? You are much more efficient with an edged weapon or garrot.



Of course you are. The point is, you are also not going to send your forward recon operatives into such situation if they are untrained to use every possible weapon, including their own bodies, are you? 



Earl Weiss said:


> From cavemen to spartans and forward thru history man has learn that weapons, even rudimentary clubs make for a more efficient fighting machine.
> 
> So, as with all fighting forces you have limited training type and resources. How much do you want to spendon empty hand training, and how much on weapons training. Does that sound like a reason?



It does not sound like a reason to for a civilian to avoid learning unarmed combat techniques, given that (i) s/he is unlikely to have a weapon, and (ii) _that the military use of unarmed combat techniques, even as a last resort, demonstrates that these techniques can be effective under the most severe combat circumstances_. Which was the point of _my_ post. In response to which, _you_ argue that having a weapon is more effective than not having a weapon. This is otherwise known as a _non-sequitur._

By the way, EW, I notice that suddenly the thread has become about the use of unarmed combat techs in the military, rather than hidden combat-useful techniques in karate and its offshoots. Again, a bit off-topic, eh? Read over the OP. Then read over all this stuff you're posting about the preferability of armed to unarmed combat. Think it's still relevant to Terry's question? 

The question is concealed techniques, yes? Maybe we should _stick to the question?_ If you want to discuss the military applicability of unarmed combat systems, maybe you should consider a thread devoted to that _quite different_ topic, rather than one concerned with the technical content of kata and hyungs?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> exile said:
> 
> 
> > . So why should we _start_ from the assumption that material which was specifically labeled for a diluted, kid-friendly version karate should be interpreted in the same way for adults training for survival in unarmed combat?
> ...


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Earl Weiss said:
> 
> 
> > OK lets refocus on Hidden techniques.  I question your premise that the assumption should start for adults training in unarmed combat.
> ...


----------



## K31 (Mar 31, 2009)

Are there any references that break down hyungs, particularly the Palgwe, for their application? Not necessarily "hidden" application but what they represent? (MA-application wise, not the earth, wind and fire meaning)


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2009)

K31 said:


> Are there any references that break down hyungs, particularly the Palgwe, for their application? Not necessarily "hidden" application but what they represent? (MA-application wise, not the earth, wind and fire meaning)



No, which is a big disappointment to me. I've been experimenting with various bunkai for some subcomponents of some of the Palgwes for a while, and what I'd really like is someone who's been doing this for a long time, with the necessary facilities to pressure-test proposed apps with fellow instructors and students to see what works and what doesn't (something that all of the bunkai analysts I know do as a matter of course, MSTKD's 'cult' label notwithstanding ), so I could get a sense of where I'm on course and where I'm missing leads. We've had the Ch'ang Hon and the Taegeuk hyungs given close attention by Stuart and Simon, and I think Simon has said somewhere or other that his next book project will include coverage of the Palgwes, but it sounds as if it's down the road a bit.


----------



## StuartA (Mar 31, 2009)

MSUTKD said:


> 90% of "history" in martial arts, IMHO, should be considered historical fiction;


Im not sure about 90% but a fair bit is 'wishful thinking' to be sure however, people, such as Alex Gillis and Dr Kimm & others are slowly seperating the myths from the facts.




> books like, "A Killing Art", are propaganda and myth.


Have you actually read the book or are you just going by the title/cover?




> Hidden techniques are the same; those of us who trained in the late 70&#8217;s and 80&#8217;s learned very &#8220;simple&#8221; explanations to our forms but now the cult of &#8220;boonhae/bunkai&#8221; is in vogue.


Its not _'in vogue'_.. its simply a new way of looking at old things to make them better. A cult is a group who accept things as they are and never question them.. this is the exact opposite! Andjust because what you learnt was _'simple'_ it doesnt mean theres not more to it all. The history of TKD/Karate quite clearly shows different!




> Don&#8217;t spend too much time looking for &#8220;secrets&#8221;, train hard and never quit and you will learn the real secrets.


If one is training hard, then studying their art is part of that.. its not looking for secrets, its making your own art better and more productive than it was previously. Going back to my first remark, have you in fact read any of the books on the subject at all.. by any of the authors Exile mentions? (Out of interest)

Stuart
Boon hae Cultist :uhyeah:


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 31, 2009)

exile said:


> Earl Weiss said:
> 
> 
> > The thread has nothing to do with armed combat, EW. The relevant phrase for what you're doing is _thread hijacking_. The problem we're looking at, at Terry's initiative, is a simple one: are there concealed techniques to be found in the _unarmed_ combat systems he's asking about?
> ...


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 31, 2009)

K31 said:


> Are there any references that break down hyungs, particularly the Palgwe, for their application? Not necessarily "hidden" application but what they represent? (MA-application wise, not the earth, wind and fire meaning)


  For General Choi's Hyungs / Tuls, his encyclopedia provides applications for virtualy every move. 

IMNSHO those applications are not stated to be the exclusive application, and I believe his ,materials indicate quite the opposite. His classroom teaching most definitely did. 

However, knowing the textbook application provides an invaluable training tool for angle, distance and level (height) of the technique.


----------



## StuartA (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> Mr. Anslow; Any thoughts?


Indeed. But Im not speaking for all systems, just TKD. TKD decended from karate, specifically Okinawan Karate (originally). On Okinawa, when it was developed, Japan had banned all its citizens, including guards etc. from carrying weapons... hence any development involved defences that could be employed empty handed against both empty hand and weapons. They may have secretly practice weapons, but in the main, to me at least, based on the history of it all, it was empty handed combat techniques Verses empty hand and weapons as the main thrust. TKD patterns are a heritage of this history, therefore follow the same reasoning.

That is not the same as military employing weapons based training, as of course they did/do.

Now if TKD evolved from say japanese Jui-jitsu, then the premise of weapons based patterns would be more of a likelihood.. but it didnt.

Just my thoughts,

Stuart
Ps. good to see you here Master Weiss - folks, if you want Ch'ang Hon TKD/Gen Choi/ITF info.. Master Weiss is a _'book of knowledge'_


----------



## StuartA (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> For General Choi's Hyungs / Tuls, his encyclopedia provides applications for virtualy every move.


Indeed... many of which are the same over and over dispite different blocks/techniques. 



> IMNSHO those applications are not stated to be the exclusive application, and I believe his ,materials indicate quite the opposite. His classroom teaching most definitely did.


As you know, I dont 100% agree with this, but do believe that originally they were (to the best of his knowledge, so it was not a fault) but in time he became more open minded to other stuff/applications like you experienced when training with him (credit for that)



> However, knowing the textbook application provides an invaluable training tool for angle, distance and level (height) of the technique.


This I agree with and though I advocate more realistic applications for training, I do use these to help teach the techniques as they are much similar to grasp when teaching solo patterns.

I dont wanna harp on as I did a big section about this in a certain book, so I am happy to agree to disagre on certain aspects.

Stuart


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 31, 2009)

Earl Weiss said:


> OK, I guess I am not making my point clear. If the techniques found in the patterns of unarmed combat systems have hidden techniques, why should those hidden techniques be limited solely to weaponless techniques?
> 
> If you start from the premise that "Martial" has to do with combat and warfare, then from the beginning of time combat and warfare used weapons. Weapon arts also have patterns. As the sytems developed, the weapons were stripped from some systems. However, I submit that some of the pattern motions now stripped of their weapons were originaly used for that purpose.
> 
> ...




Not having read this entire thread carefully (limited time), I'm not sure where your argument comes from...I myself have no beef with your contention.  The way I have been taught is that there are formal kata for empty hand and separate formal kata for kobudo.  The reason for the separation is really another topic, but as anyone who has studied the forms can attest, the movements really aren't so dissimilar, particularly for the smaller weapons like sai or tonfa.  One can certainly practice the pinan forms with a pair of sai in hand, and many do.  Consequently, the applications of the form may be practiced as well with or without weapons.  It's just an adaption one makes as bunkai is supposed to be 'actualized' in the moment, although surely distinct outcomes can be taught and drilled as building block bunkai.

And perhaps I digress, but nothing within kata is really 'hidden'.  If an h-pattern looks like a simple down block and lunge punch combination, it's because the onlooker lacks the training to recognize the substance behind the drill (I'm talking in general and not referring to the participants on this thread who are surely seasoned and skilled martial artists).  I always recommend crosstraining in an aiki-jutsu art to karate-ka since the benefits are so large, particularly with sensitivity and bunkai training.


----------



## SJON (Mar 31, 2009)

OK, I'll come clean. I operate a cult. PM me for personalised indoctrination and donations.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 3, 2009)

StuartA said:


> I do use these to help teach the techniques as they are much similar to grasp when teaching solo patterns.
> 
> I dont wanna harp on as I did a big section about this in a certain book, so I am happy to agree to disagre on certain aspects.
> 
> Stuart


 
Although I think you mistyped "Similar" when you meant simpler, I think EVERYONE needs to read and digest that statement.  It is the genius of the simplified system, be it Funakoshi;s or General Choi. It simplifies teaching of the system.  One the simplified version is used as a tool to teach "Good technique" (Good in this case being powerful, fast and well balanced motion done with practical efficiency. ) Then how you use the motion is only limited by your mental process and practical considertions. 

As Mr. Anslow says we have agreed to disagree on intended exclusivity of the applications.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 3, 2009)

SJON said:


> OK, I'll come clean. I operate a cult. PM me for personalised indoctrination and donations.



I'll join if we can split the harem.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 3, 2009)

MSUTKD said:


> 90% of "history" in martial arts, IMHO, should be considered historical fiction; books like, "A Killing Art", are propaganda and myth.



I'll let other people deal with this statement.  It seems like a gross generalization and white wash of plenty of good scholarship.




MSUTKD said:


> Hidden techniques are the same; those of us who trained in the late 70s and 80s learned very simple explanations to our forms but now the cult of boonhae/bunkai is in vogue.  Dont spend too much time looking for secrets, train hard and never quit and you will learn the real secrets.



Based on my research, it's a good chance you did NOT learn any real applications of the forms in the 70s or 80s.  I don't know who your teachers were, but if they were connected to any of the kwan heads and you did not have access to Okinawan Karate training, then I would say that my comments are probably on the mark.  

The bottom line is that Koreans did not learn the applications of the forms from the Japanese or the Okinawans.  They did not understand the applications for the classical karate kata and when they remixed them to form the "Korean" kata they still did not understand what they were doing.  

When I say "do not understand" I am very explicitly meaning that they were not taught what these moves really were for.  The Korean Masters certainly invented a system of understanding the moves that was very complicated, but that system is demonstrably less effective then the system that was originally extant.

The group of people involved in researching and changing the curriculum of the KMAs back to close quarter self defense based art is doing nothing cultish.  To label it that, IMO, really just labels you as a reactionary who is very resistant to change.  You may have learned your art one way and if you want to practice it that way, I have nothing against you at all.  There is no need to disrespect people who may have discovered what they see as gaping holes in the credibility of the kwans and want to correct that.

I truly understand how some people can feel resistant to these changes.  I put a lot of time into learning my art and one wants to feel like that time was worthwhile and spent training in the best way possible.  In a way it was, because you train the best you can with what you have.  This information gives us more and the delusion that the art we practice is perfect is the only thing that prevents many of us from seeing how we can have more.


----------



## exile (Apr 3, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> MSUTKD said:
> 
> 
> > 90% of "history" in martial arts, IMHO, should be considered historical fiction; books like, "A Killing Art", are propaganda and myth.
> ...



Quoted for truth. 

This is exactly the same kind of response that would have been justified if someone, faced with Champollion's deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphics based on the Rosetta stone, were to have dismissed his discovery on the grounds that they had learned in school that hieroglyphics were just a bunch of funny pictures, and then went on to label the work of Champollion and his predecessors and successors as the 'hieroglyphic alphabet cult'. Very well said, maunakumu.

So far as your point in the statement



> The bottom line is that Koreans did not learn the applications of the forms from the Japanese or the Okinawans.  They did not understand the applications for the classical karate kata and when they remixed them to form the "Korean" kata they still did not understand what they were doing.



is concerned, we have excellent evidence that this is the case. As I mentioned earlier, Gennosuke Higaki, in his excellent study of bunkai for the Pinan/Heian kata set, noted that his own teacher Shozan Kubota, one of the last of Funakoshi's senior students, had been told explicitly by Funakoshi that the key applications for the kata were not supposed to be taught to the Japanese, and that he himself (i.e., GF) was breaching an understanding he had with his own mentors in Okinawa by doing so.  Given GF's assimilation of his Japanese overlords' attitudes in most relevant matters, it would be very strange for him to have taught the applications for kata to the Koreans, when he was doing his best _not_ to give them away to the Japanese. Higaki's book, btw, shows GF sparring with another senior karateka and using the 'double block' from Pinan Shodan as a deflection accompanied by a backfist to the attacker's neck, not as a simultaneous rising and outward middle block, the orthodox explanation for this move. This seems pretty eloquent testimony from GF himself that the combat construal of these moves was _not_ the official Itosu-based 'packaging' that was retailed to the Okinawan school authorities.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 3, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> It really depends on where your TKD comes from. If it remains more closely connected to Okinawan karate, your contention could not be more incorrect, since Okinawan karate specifically teaches that the embusen (or floor pattern) should not trick you into rigidity. See Seikichi Toguchi's book, _Okinawan Goju-Ryu II: Advanced Techniques of Shorei-Kan Karate_ for a short primer on the topic.
> 
> Of course if you're firmly into the modern TKD camp, your interpretation may be entirely correct if that's how your teachers taught you. Form applications are rarely taught in TKD in my observation. It may be fair to say that they just don't exist as an official concept, the efforts of people like Stuart Anslow notwithstanding.


Good book.


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 4, 2009)

There's no such thing as hidden techniques.

There is such things as people who were clueless as to what they were actually doing.


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 4, 2009)

My biggest eye openers were (1) meeting and training with Sensei Jay S. Penfil, his knowledge runs deep like a well, and (2) stumbling upon Sensei Iain Abernethy's website, followed by printing and sharing his articles, email contact, and an amazing seminar in Canada.

Having come from a KMA background I can say this, the Korean Maters did not develop the same depth as the Okinawans did in their forms.  That does not mean that the Korean versions of the older forms, or even some of the Korean-born forms, are bad or worthless.  It just means that when you start to consider practicality, you may find yourself changing some of the details in how you perform your technique and your form.  All the forms I train with have changed, for the better.


----------



## StuartA (Apr 4, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> There's no such thing as hidden techniques.


How true.. there are only techniques for _open_ eyes and _closed_ eyes!



> There is such things as people who were clueless as to what they were actually doing.


I think thats a bit harsh.. people were misled in a _'blind leading the blind'_ type of thing, but in todays society, with the information available, there is no excuse for perpertrating the same old misguided myths.. so I guess, those guys really are clueles in a way!

Stuart


----------



## exile (Apr 4, 2009)

I think there's a big difference between being uninformed and being clueless... if you're uninformed, it just means you haven't had access to certain information. Cluelessness, to me, includes across-the-board rejection of any information that comes your way which doesn't match your preconceptions, without even scrutinizing or testing it out. The Mediæval peasants who didn't know that the solar system contained other planets with similar properties to earth were uninformed. The guys who refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the moons of Jupiter... _they_ were clueless. It's a difference in _attitude_...


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 4, 2009)

I am simply amazed at some of the responses so far. I for one believe every tech. can have hidden movements inside them and can have more than one variation.

I know alot of you here and it is like clockwork on the responses we are getting. Poomsae are more than just movements, now with that being said some of the newer ones may not have the same meaning as the older ones, but stil it has to have more than just a movement, there has to be practical application for Self Defense or why have them at all. Those that believe there is nothing beyond the movement than I feel sorry in a way of your training, Poomsaes means alot more and complicated than that. I hope I did not offend anyone but just my personal obsevation here.


----------



## Brad Dunne (Apr 4, 2009)

I think Terry has hit upon half the equation........"can have hidden movements inside them and can have more than one variation."

I lean more towards the "more than one variation" in lieu of the "hidden" aspect. You can take any form and within the context of that form, vary a movement/technique and you have uncovered nothing hidden, but just something different.


----------



## exile (Apr 4, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> I am simply amazed at some of the responses so far. I for one believe every tech. can have hidden movements inside them and can have more than one variation.
> 
> I know alot of you here and it is like clockwork on the responses we are getting. Poomsae are more than just movements, now with that being said some of the newer ones may not have the same meaning as the older ones, but stil it has to have more than just a movement, *there has to be practical application for Self Defense or why have them at all.* Those that believe there is nothing beyond the movement than I feel sorry in a way of your training, Poomsaes means alot more and complicated than that. I hope I did not offend anyone but just my personal obsevation here.



Well said, Terry. 

But you have to bear in mind that there are people who do not see SD as the driving force behind (or even, in some cases, as a valid motive for) MA practice.  Sport TDK and sport karate partisans seem to take this view with depressing consistency. In part II of his superb article 'The History and Evolution of Karate-Do Kata', Harry Cook observes (_Classical Fighting Arts_ 2.12, p.23) that

_In 1989, Fusajiro Tagaki, then the Executive Director of the Japan Karate Federation and Secretary General of WUKO, wrote in Karatedo Nippon Magazine Vol. 6 that karate was a modern sport and should not be considered a Japanese martial art. He accepted the idea that if 'there is a tradition that karate should preserve,  then that must be kata', but from the whole tone of this article, and others he has written, it is obvious that the idea of karate as a method of self defense is to be minimized, while the modern idea of a competitive sport, where athletes train to fight people doing the same techniques, is to be promoted.​_
This also appears to be the view of notable people in the sport TKD world, like Steve Capener.  People of this stripe seem to wish to see the CQ combat blood sucked out of the body of the karate-based MAs. At bottom, I believe, people like this are interested in forms solely because they're something they can pin the label 'traditional' to, as in Tagaki's remark.  Increasingly, there are people in the karate-based MAs who regard this attitude as a crock, and who are going to look more deeply into kata for precisely such CQ self-defense possibilities&#8212;the original purpose of MA forms. Now that we've begun to learn how to recover these meanings, it's clear that the various MAs are going to split into those who see them as the foundation for effective fighting skills, as embedded in the kata/hyungs/etc., and those for whom the forms a nothing more than choreographed dance performances with vaguely violent appearance, to be judged on the same kinds of basis as figure skating or diving competitions. The arts are going to divide along these lines, and new organizations, publications and curricula are going to come to the fore.

Wait, did I say 'are going to??' Sorry about that&#8212;it's already started!


----------



## Red Menace (Apr 4, 2009)

I find this discussion pretty interesting.  I'm new to the concept of the forms containing "hidden" techniques.  The idea of variations makes a lot of sense to me.  In my school, we are taught that the forms are self-defense techniques and each move is explained in terms of what we are doing in response to an attacker.  It's all very much straight forward though: a low block is a low block, etc.  

I have always felt that some parts of the forms (we learn the palgwe forms by the way) are practical and others are part of the "art" of taekwondo or are done for conditioning or coordination developing purposes.  Do those of you who believe that the forms contain hidden techniques feel that the less obviously practical parts of forms are actually hiding a more practical technique and are not just added in for "artistic" purposes? Do you think that as the forms were being created that some parts were just for show?


----------



## exile (Apr 4, 2009)

Red Menace said:


> I find this discussion pretty interesting.  I'm new to the concept of the forms containing "hidden" techniques.  The idea of variations makes a lot of sense to me.  In my school, we are taught that the forms are self-defense techniques and each move is explained in terms of what we are doing in response to an attacker.  It's all very much straight forward though: a low block is a low block, etc.
> 
> I have always felt that some parts of the forms (we learn the palgwe forms by the way) are practical and others are part of the "art" of taekwondo or are done for conditioning or coordination developing purposes.  *Do those of you who believe that the forms contain hidden techniques feel that the less obviously practical parts of forms are actually hiding a more practical technique and are not just added in for "artistic" purposes? Do you think that as the forms were being created that some parts were just for show?*



Good question, RM!

My own sense is that it has to do with the point in time at which the hyung was created.

The palgwes are, I believe,  the oldest layer of the Kukki-variant of TKD hyungs still having official 'sanction' (the Heian katas, which simply taken over as the Pyung-Ahn set&#8212;the Okinawan name, but the Japanese progression order, a somewhat odd combination&#8212;having been ejected from the syllabus as part of a systematic elimination of the Kwan-era 'Korean karate' parts of the syllabus). They are transparent recombinations of subsequences of the Pinan set (e.g., Palgwe Sa-Jang's opening sequence is simply lifted from the beginning of Pinan Shodan, and the later spearhand strikes are a transparent reference to the sequence of spearhands in that kata) and maybe a couple of the other 'classic' katas such as Naihanchi. I think that when you get to the Dan forms, though, a fair number of moves there are of the 'decorative' variety you're referring to. It would be a major&#8212;and extremely worthwhile&#8212;project, for an 'experimental hyung' research team to systematically investigate the KKW hyungs, identify whatever sources can be found in Okinawan/Japanese kata for the recombined subcomponents, and to study the Palgwes and especially the BB forms such as Koryo, Kamgeung and so on for combat applicability. My _guess_ is, the later in time the hyungs were introduced, the more performance/decorative components you'll find in them. It would be good to get Simon and Stuart's input on this question...


----------



## seasoned (Apr 4, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> There's no such thing as hidden techniques.
> 
> There is such things as people who were clueless as to what they were actually doing.


 
Yes, what an awakening to do techniques a certain way for many years, only to discover what was the obvious all along. The best way to hide something is in plain sight, while calling it something else.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 5, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Yes, what an awakening to do techniques a certain way for many years, only to discover what was the obvious all along. The best way to hide something is in plain sight, while calling it something else.



Very true!  To add a bit more, you cannot learn or use bunkai effectively unless you actually drill in a method that is conducive to furthering 'open-ended' fighting instincts.  You must engage in spontaneous 'bull in the ring' drills.  You must engage in 3/4 speed semi-cooperative kumite with a purpose in mind to practice various locks and tackdowns.  Too much line-based kihon and jiyu kumite may actually be harmful to your development as a 'real' fighter, and that's a concern I specifically guard against after seeing too many students that have engrained bad habits or closed off their creativity from overly rote training.


----------



## SJON (Apr 5, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I'll join if we can split the harem.



I don't think so ...


----------



## SJON (Apr 5, 2009)




----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 5, 2009)

I was just working through bunkai for the Pinan kata with my girlfriend the other night.  Knowing and training the bunkai gives the kata more depth and meaning.  

I have to admit that I was honestly of that mindset that forms are solely for physical and mental exercise when I was younger.  Now that I look to the application of techniques, the forms that I train are so much more important to me.

When I was at a seminar with Sensei Iain Abernethy, he mentioned that the kata are like a cookbook.  They are full of recipes and by training the bunkai you are learning to cook.  But you won't be a 'chef' until you can apply the principles from the recipes in combat.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 5, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> I was just working through bunkai for the Pinan kata with my girlfriend the other night. Knowing and training the bunkai gives the kata more depth and meaning.
> 
> I have to admit that I was honestly of that mindset that forms are solely for physical and mental exercise when I was younger. Now that I look to the application of techniques, the forms that I train are so much more important to me.
> 
> When I was at a seminar with Sensei Iain Abernethy, he mentioned that the kata are like a cookbook. They are full of recipes and by training the bunkai you are learning to cook. But you won't be a 'chef' until you can apply the principles from the recipes in combat.


 
Yes it does seem with age comes appreciation for the actual application of said poomsae's


----------



## Kacey (Apr 5, 2009)

Any training method that relies on word-of-mouth transmission will lose things - whether those things were hidden deliberately or lost because something wasn't transmitted in time does not change the fact that word-of-mouth is a faulty system.  No matter how it happens, I do believe that some things were not transmitted.

In addition, martial arts in general are more widespread than they've ever been, more people are learning multiple arts and applying concepts from one to another, understanding of physiology and how that applies to martial arts is increasing everyday - all of those also add to finding new, or untransmitted, applications for techniques.

Arguing over where those mistransmission occurs seems senseless to me.  Either it happened, or people are discovering previously unknown application - or both.  Nothing will change that now - what we can do is continue to explore, and to share, what we discover, so that those applications won't have to be discovered yet again in the future.


----------



## searcher (Apr 6, 2009)

Aright guys, I am going to let you in on a secret.


There are no hidden techniques, because I stole all of them.     And put them away for safe keeping.:redcaptur


On a more serious note, how do any of you know that some techniques were ever hidden or that it is actually people finding applications on their own and thinking that it was a hidden technique?      You don't.     I wish I could vist someof the old masters and see if they truly hid techniques or if it is just a more modern approach to the forms.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> I wish I could vist someof the old masters and see if they truly hid techniques or if it is just a more modern approach to the forms.



I am visiting some of the old masters in various arts.  They never learned the applications or they learned applications to highly modified kata.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Apr 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> Aright guys, I am going to let you in on a secret.
> 
> 
> There are no hidden techniques, because I stole all of them. And put them away for safe keeping.:redcaptur
> ...


 

You mean Rick Clark didn't really "Find" 75 of them for the down block / low outer forearm block?   

I like his disclaimers because he often says he doesn't know if apps were real or hidden. Only that they make sense and work.


----------



## StuartA (Apr 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> There are no hidden techniques, because I stole all of them. And put them away for safe keeping.


LOL.. Im gonna have to use that next time someone brings up the old "hidden" discussion - good stuff.




> On a more serious note, how do any of you know that some techniques were ever hidden or that it is actually people finding applications on their own and thinking that it was a hidden technique?


Like Master Weiss says of Rick Clark, at no point do I claim anything about the applications I teach being _hidden_ in TKD, as I dont believe that. I do believe however, based on historical research from Karate historians, that Kata applications were not past forward for one reason or another.. call that hidden or not, I dunno - but that history forms part of TKDs history and make up and thus carries forward, with the main thing being that what is doen has much more to it - its really that simple.

Stuart


----------



## searcher (Apr 6, 2009)

I have this knawign feeling that since george Dillman came around with his brood and their "secret" techniques that he is supposed to have found, it seems to me that a great many people are starting to "find" these hidden techniques in their forms.    It is kind of irritating to me and I wish people would stop trying to be the next Dillman.   There are enough applications that are easy to see in the forms that we canspend a great many years working on them.   I think that if you come up with something from a form, then say that you see _______ as application from ________ form.     Don't go telling everyone that you found a hidden technique.     IMO, it makes you look like a loon.

*rant off*


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 6, 2009)

I think some of us are looking at this term "hidden" a little differently.  I in no way can say that some application to a certain set of techniques from some form was intentionally hidden by the master who created the form.  I can also say, that I'm not sure if some of the versions of the forms that I practise were altered from other versions so as to make certain applciations more or less obvious.  I can say outright that some of the modifications that I've made to the way i train with my forms, and the little variations that I've added, is due to the nature of the applications that I prefer to those varied segments.  I'll train with what I feel is most optimal.  

When I hear "hidden" in relationship to form applications, I think more about the less obvious applications.  Example: I've never used the so-called low x-block to block a groin kick in a fight.  I also doubt that I'll ever use that technique to block my groin in a fight.  That would leave my head and torso not only open, but it may be easier to off balance me from the front that way.  A lot of people, though, teach this move as an x-figure block of a groin strike.  If that works for someone else, cool.  But I don't like that approach to blocking the groin from the low kick for my training since I have other ways that I find more optimal.  I prefer applications that utilize said "x-block" for trapping/grappling, like for twisting an arm into a bent-lock or for pulling an arm down while striking.  These types of applications would be "hidden" to a non-martial artist if they just saw the form being trained.  Are the applications I utilize for this technique inherent in the form? No.  Were they on the minds of the Masters who created these forms?  I don't know.  Why do I train with them then?  Because I find them useful in training for situations that involve another human being trying to injure me.


----------



## MSUTKD (Apr 6, 2009)

searcher said:


> I have this knawign feeling that since george Dillman came around with his brood and their "secret" techniques that he is supposed to have found, it seems to me that a great many people are starting to "find" these hidden techniques in their forms. It is kind of irritating to me and I wish people would stop trying to be the next Dillman. There are enough applications that are easy to see in the forms that we canspend a great many years working on them. I think that if you come up with something from a form, then say that you see _______ as application from ________ form. Don't go telling everyone that you found a hidden technique. IMO, it makes you look like a loon.
> 
> *rant off*


 
My thoughts EXACTLY.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2009)

Another thing to keep in mind is that "okuden" is real.  There is a hidden level in kata in which only the highest adepts of the closest to teacher were taught.  Certain moves in kata aren't shown or even implied.  They rely on direct oral transmission in order to be taught.  

Another aspect of "okuden" is how karate is taught.  Application are doled out in layers where students are introduced to the meaning of various moves in stages.  Lower graded students may know something is up at the higher levels, but none of it makes sense until it is built to that point.

I see the point in saying that nothing is really hidden, but in another sense, yes, it really was hidden, on purpose and there is plenty of literature to back that up.


----------



## K-man (Apr 7, 2009)

I recently came across a post elsewhere that I thought worthy of retaining for the benefit of my students. This was written by a man called Christopher Penn. 


> There's actually an expression for this in the Japanese martial arts - okuden or hidden secret teachings. The skill of a master instructor is to create an environment in which you relate to what's being taught, but the lessons come from within, from your own mind and experiences. That's the true meaning of esoteric - something that must come from within, a secret that cannot be imparted externally. A master teacher of the esoteric can create the conditions for you to have those experiences, but cannot give them to you directly.
> A classic example is an apple. Can you think of the taste of an apple?
> If you've had an apple, yes.
> If you've never had an apple, no. No matter how many words or expressions you use, you can never impart the taste of an apple to someone who has never had one.
> Okuden secret teachings are the same - and a sign of a true master teacher is that everyone in the room has a different but equally enriching experience, something in there for everyone. I guarantee that if I were in the room with you, I'd have different ideas and experiences come from within.


The relevance here is that, as many have said, the techniques are in plain sight but we have only just started to understand the many different applications of those techniques.


> quote from seasoned "In and of itself, in Okinawan GoJu, all blocks are strikes. This was not taught until BB for fear it would alter the structure of the original technique, the block."


Unfortunately, we were never taught that, BB or not. Once we realised that the 'blocks' were indeed strikes we went the next step to say 'there are NO blocks in kata', then we began to comprehend the different meanings of the techniques we practised. :asian:


----------



## StuartA (Apr 7, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I am visiting some of the old masters in various arts. They never learned the applications or they learned applications to highly modified kata.


 


maunakumu said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that "okuden" is real. There is a hidden level in kata in which only the highest adepts of the closest to teacher were taught. Certain moves in kata aren't shown or even implied.


 
These two quotes seem to be at odds with each other.. are you refering to current Masters, or Masters of yesteryear?

thanks,

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Apr 7, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> I think some of us are looking at this term "hidden" a little differently.


 
Yes, I think thats the case. When someone says "_hidden_" its as if implying they were deliberatly withheld but are still there known to a special few. Perhaps _'lost'_ (applications) would be a better word. As history definatly shows different functions to applications than P/K/B and for one reason or another the transmission of these applications ceased and over time were in fact lost.

We will never be 100% sure if the application to such a move was 100% definatly what we find, due to the destroying of Okinawa, but hints and clues survived and, through research into this area we can be sure that applictions in their present form are unlikely to be what they were origially, therefore todays martial artists now can add some extra tools to their tool box. Some however bulk at the thought of having to learn new stuff, to admit that theres more than they presently understand and prefer to continue to hammer in their screws with a crowbar!

Dillman presented his research implying 'hidden' and 'secrets', this is not the way Iain A, Simon, myself and many others present theirs, we base our research on historical fact and draw conclusions from that. people are free to read and take from it what they wish.

Stuart
Ps. If you havnt read it yet, see 'Takwon-dos Black Hole' in issue 1 of TotallyTKD (www.totallytkd.com) as I feel this explains this area quite well. Plug Plug. :angel:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2009)

StuartA said:


> These two quotes seem to be at odds with each other.. are you refering to current Masters, or Masters of yesteryear?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Stuart



Both, in a sense, it depends on the art.  For example, I've had the opportunity to train with two eight dans in Shotokan who were trained by none other then Kanazawa sensei themselves.  Both of these men were fantastic practitioners of Shotokan and knew the insides and outs of every move in their kata.  When I asked about the "stacked fist move" and showed them in a kata that I practice, they showed me how to perform it so that it merely was a short punch.  When I trained with their upper level class there simply was nothing else but the long range ippon kumite karate which was performed extremely well.

In another example, I visited a goju studio and spoke with the instructor.  Miyagi Chogun traveled to Hawaii in 1933 and taught several locals Goju.  This man's teacher was a direct student of Miyagi.  This person was familiar with just about every nasty trick that kata have to offer, but I was told that it would take 25 years to answer some of my specific questions about bunkai.  With the way that traditional Goju is taught, you simply wouldn't be introduced to some application material until you had put in your time.

Another thing that is very interesting about Hawaii is that I have access to the people who made this.  This is probably the biggest collection of rare books on Karate that I've ever seen.  They even have some of the first books written on various KMAs like Tang Soo Do dating back to the early 50s.  From what I've been able to glean, since I'm not a native speaker nor do I read the language, "the old masters" in KMAs simply did not know the applications to the forms.

Anyway, it all depends on who you talk to.  I'll be continuing my wanderings in the upcoming days and weeks.  Right now, I'm focusing on an old school Shorin teacher from Seibukan lineage.  Very hard to get a hold of.  Very lengthy process to arrange a visit in traditional culture.  This is what "Isshinryu" looked like before Tatsuo had his revelations.


----------



## IcemanSK (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm wondering why it might be that the Koreans didn't know these bunkai (boon hae) details that their Japanese/Okinawan counterparts knew. 

I'm wondering how much the fact that weren't natives had to do with this. Perhaps, they just weren't seen as "worthy" (for lack of a better word) to be considered as a close "disciple" of their masters. 

Perhaps it could be that they didn't stay long enough & went back to Korea to teach before they could be taught these details.


----------



## exile (Apr 7, 2009)

Very useful discussion so far!

As people have pointed out, some (perhaps much) of the contention around this issue arises from the use of the word 'hidden'. It's easy to see a word like 'hidden' or 'concealed' as implying an agent responsible for hiding or concealing something (i.e., as passive verbs). But the _adjective_ 'hidden' doesn't imply that someone actually did any hiding of anything. Pennsylvania has a community called 'Hidden Valley' that illustrates the point nicely&#8212;no one went out of their way to _hide_ the damned thing, eh? The place is hidden because it's not particularly accessible or obvious in any way (well, now that it's a four season resort, the management is trying to change all that, lol). In that sense, 'hidden' simply means something not immediately apparent, something you have to work to get at&#8212;and I think that's probably an apt description of some of the deeper bunkai techs, especially with the very names of the component movements, Itosu's sanitized repackaging legacy, offering easy but misleading hints about how we should interpret those movements.

There's another sense of 'hidden moves' that no one's actually mentioned, I don't think&#8212;a move which was understood to be interpolated between two overt moves in a kata. Kane & Wilder discuss these a bit. Their point is that the kata were guides to combat for MA students, but that in earlier times, a lot of the students would have already been exposed to some form or other of traditional MA (tuite in Okinawa, jujitsu in Japan) and would take such interpolated movements for granted. Again, the idea here is that no one was hiding anything, but rather that there were common techs that no one bothered to record, since they were more or less _assumed_ as part of the combat repertoire.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 7, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> Very true! To add a bit more, you cannot learn or use bunkai effectively unless you actually drill in a method that is conducive to furthering 'open-ended' fighting instincts. You must engage in spontaneous 'bull in the ring' drills. You must engage in 3/4 speed semi-cooperative kumite with a purpose in mind to practice various locks and tackdowns. Too much line-based kihon and jiyu kumite may actually be harmful to your development as a 'real' fighter, and that's a concern I specifically guard against after seeing too many students that have engrained bad habits or closed off their creativity from overly rote training.


Very good point. Also, this is exactly the reason Tensho kata "the pushing hands kata" is within the GoJu system. The pushing hands of GoJu lets you not only experiment, but at the same time helps you gain that sensitivity and intuitiveness needed to flow.


----------



## StuartA (Apr 7, 2009)

IcemanSK said:


> I'm wondering why it might be that the Koreans didn't know these bunkai (boon hae) details that their Japanese/Okinawan counterparts knew.


Personally I dont think the Okinawans taught the Japanese cos of the occupaton of their country.



> I'm wondering how much the fact that weren't natives had to do with this. Perhaps, they just weren't seen as "worthy" (for lack of a better word) to be considered as a close "disciple" of their masters.


Probibly. *IF* the japanese were taught them (which I doubt as a general thing, thoug there may have been exceptions), then this would certainly have played a part.



> Perhaps it could be that they didn't stay long enough & went back to Korea to teach before they could be taught these details.


Unlikely IMO.. more likely your above point.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Apr 7, 2009)

Interesting story for you. About 2 weeks ago I was teaching patterns to a friend of mine who has been a 3rd degree for quite a while and is look to eventually garde for his 4th. We were going through pattern Yoo-Sin (amongst others) and whilst doing so, I told him the ITF _'standard'_ applications as taught and my _'interpretation'_ of the applications... lets call them app #1 and app #2 (to keep it short).

Anyways, a week later he trained with a Shotokan stylist, who obviosuly studies bunkai and low and behold, he did the pattern in front of him and the Karate guy said "_thats moves a throw_", thats moves a "_trap_" - the exact same applications I gave him!

Point is, lost, hidden, removed, forgotten... who cares, as long as they work, are realistic and make what we do more than they were before!

Stuart


----------



## Decker (Apr 10, 2009)

Considering what has been said (that the Koreans didn't really know the deeper bunkai when they made TKD), would it be accurate to say that overall, the Japanese/Okinawan karate kata might contain a wider variety of moves with practical combat applications than the Korean TKD poomsae/tuls?

I understand that a particular technique can have many different interpretations (75 Down Blocks), but a given technique could be either more or less practical than another technique, and probably, said technique could have more, useful interpretations than another, correct?

Also, regarding the ROK Marines' usage of taekwondo in Vietnam as an example to show the art's effectiveness, I'd just like to ask, _what_ was so effective about it? The training methods? The particular strikes taught (that probably overlap with lots of other striking martial arts' strikes)? Could it be the Marines' proficiency with the real, killing bunkai? Or was it just their ferocity?
If it were the last two combined, would/could the results have been the same if they learnt, say, karate instead?

Hmm... should I have started a new thread, perhaps?

Thank you very much.


----------



## IcemanSK (Apr 10, 2009)

StuartA said:


> Personally I dont think the Okinawans taught the Japanese cos of the occupaton of their country.
> 
> 
> Probibly. *IF* the japanese were taught them (which I doubt as a general thing, thoug there may have been exceptions), then this would certainly have played a part.
> ...


 

In hindsight, I should not have lumped the Okinawans in with the Japanese in my thought. It makes sense that there would be strain due to the occupation.


----------



## exile (Apr 10, 2009)

Good questions, D. My thoughts:



Decker said:


> Considering what has been said (that the Koreans didn't really know the deeper bunkai when they made TKD), would it be accurate to say that overall, the Japanese/Okinawan karate kata might contain a wider variety of moves with practical combat applications than the Korean TKD poomsae/tuls?



Well, a lot of the TKD forms are really just recombinations of subsequences from classical O/J katas, so they bunkai/boon hae would be the same. There have probably been some modifications (in the direction of a more athletic, decorative style)&#8212;knee strikes replaced by higher kicks is not uncommon&#8212;but since each subsequence in a kata corresponds to a 'complete' tech (starting with the attacker's aggressive move and ending with his, um, elimination from the fight), as long as those sequences are preserved, the information in the kata is still available. What changed is the _knowledge_ of the practical interpretations. There's just as many apps in the opening moves of Palgwe Sa Jang as in those of Pinan Shodan&#8212;because the openings are literally identical&#8212;but I suspect that Itosu and his students have _very_ different ideas about what those initial movements were to be used for in a fight than the first, and certainly second generation of Korean karate students. 




Decker said:


> I understand that a particular technique can have many different interpretations (75 Down Blocks), but a given technique could be either more or less practical than another technique, and probably, said technique could have more, useful interpretations than another, correct



I'd agree. If you look through Clark's catalogue of techs, some look a good deal more robust than others. 



Decker said:


> Also, regarding the ROK Marines' usage of taekwondo in Vietnam as an example to show the art's effectiveness, I'd just like to ask, _what_ was so effective about it? The training methods? The particular strikes taught (that probably overlap with lots of other striking martial arts' strikes)? Could it be the Marines' proficiency with the real, killing bunkai? Or was it just their ferocity?
> If it were the last two combined, would/could the results have been the same if they learnt, say, karate instead?



Training and inherent ferocity/toughness of the Korean military probably had a lot to do with it. But from what I understand from Simon O' Neil's writings, the military application of ROK TKD emphasized killing techs&#8212;neck breaks, all-out throat strikes and so on&#8212;suitable for the extreme conditions on a battlefield at close quarters.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 10, 2009)

exile said:


> Training and inherent ferocity/toughness of the Korean military probably had a lot to do with it. But from what I understand from Simon O' Neil's writings, the military application of ROK TKD emphasized killing techsneck breaks, all-out throat strikes and so onsuitable for the extreme conditions on a battlefield at close quarters.



Considering the presence of US during the inception of the ROK, I wonder how much all of that came from a standard Marine combative manual.  How much can honestly be attributed to TKD?

When one considers that Shotokan was imported to Korea in order to become TKD, you would HAVE to supplement it in order to make it a battle field art.


----------



## StuartA (Apr 10, 2009)

Decker said:


> Considering what has been said (that the Koreans didn't really know the deeper bunkai when they made TKD), would it be accurate to say that overall, the Japanese/Okinawan karate kata might contain a wider variety of moves with practical combat applications than the Korean TKD poomsae/tuls?


This is one of the best questions I've heard for a long time. I actally feel that Okinawan kata had simply 1 bunkai for each technique.. its just that no one can know for sure which is the right one! Due to the 'cut & paste' nature of Korean forms, I think the whole premise of it being a reworking allows us to be more open with Boon hae and not feel that maybe we havnt got the right one.. as there was never really a _'right one'_ in Korean forms!



> I understand that a particular technique can have many different interpretations (75 Down Blocks), but a given technique could be either more or less practical than another technique, and probably, said technique could have more, useful interpretations than another, correct?


Indeed. As Bruce Lee said, "_Keep what is useful, Discard what is not_" - the way I see it is that not all apps work for everyone, as we are all different, so keep and train the ones that work for you best!



> Also, regarding the ROK Marines' usage of taekwondo in Vietnam as an example to show the art's effectiveness, I'd just like to ask, _what_ was so effective about it? The training methods? The particular strikes taught (that probably overlap with lots of other striking martial arts' strikes)? Could it be the Marines' proficiency with the real, killing bunkai? Or was it just their ferocity?


*All*.. it was the final combination of the above that mattered!! Like in todays society, one without the other doesnt make it work... _the ingredients make the cake _after all!



> If it were the last two combined, would/could the results have been the same if they learnt, say, karate instead?


Yes... the Phillipinos did the same!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Apr 10, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Considering the presence of US during the inception of the ROK, I wonder how much all of that came from a standard Marine combative manual. How much can honestly be attributed to TKD?


Most of it TBH.. the US was still very stand offish from koreans from what I understand. The end result was that lots of Americans learnt, brought back and taught TKD - the same cannot be said the other way round eh!

JMHO

Stuart


----------

