# Korean forms and applications



## Kong Soo Do

This thread is for the discussion of any/all Korean forms and the applications you as an instructor and/or student teach or have been taught associated with them.  No right or wrong answers.  Post a video or link to the form you'd like to discuss and give us a post describing what you believe to be the application associated with the movement segment in question.  Thank you in advance for staying on topic and respecting others opinions, experience and training.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

I will offer one.  Taegeuk sajang:


----------



## Gnarlie

Look forward to hearing them.  Personally, I don't really care about the name, history or pedigree of a particular motion or movement.  If it works effectively for a particular purpose within the principles of the art in question, that's good enough for me, and in my view doesn't alter or sully the philosophical and symbolic value the pattern may contain. 

It would be great if people could post video examples of the movement under discussion, for those of us who may not know the pattern it's from. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## miguksaram

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I will offer one. Taegeuk sajang:






Made it easier to watch and post thoughts.


----------



## Earl Weiss

I had an article published in Totaly TKD on this topic. 
At the basic level of the Chang Hon forms, the text stipulates applications for movements. Many people think these are meant to be exclusive application when the opposite is true. 
At the basic level, the stated appliucation / purpose is a tool to help you understand how to move. How you move depends on the need for power, speed, balance, distance and direction of the opponent. Knowing these factors makes it easier to conceptualize how to move. How you move is the concept. The application helps you understand the concept. The application is a tool. 
Being part of a large group and having standard applications helps get people on the same page. However it can lead to a tunnle vison of sorts thinking that moves can only be used one way. 
This is not a new or unique concept. Karate Kid had "Wax On, Wax off" where he learned to move firts and then learned application. Peyton Quinn's book (either Bouncer's guide or Real Fighting) makes the same comment about the application being a tool. 
Teaching the textbook application is an efficient mwans for teaching the desired move. However, once the student has some competence with this than variations can be introduced. How many and how large th variation is limited by your imagination and practical considerations. Although at some point the variation may be so large that the original move has no relationship. 

Here is the textbook application for Won Hyo and variations. These videos are meant to be demonstrative. They are not intended to be instructional or example of combat speed.







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksj4AvRz8_0&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFnQBjpZGYU&feature=channel&list=UL


----------



## Gnarlie

Just regarding the applications shown at the end of this video, the jebipoom mokchigi application I'm fine with, but the pyonsonkeut chigi application is weak against a punch directed with intent toward the solar plexus.  The pressing block does not do enough to divert the punch, leaving you taking one in the bread basket.   Any thoughts? 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I will offer one. Taegeuk sajang:



Taegeuk Sajang opens facing north in junbi seogi (ready stance) and then facing left (west) and stepping with the left foot into dwi seogi (back stance) while executing sonnal makki (knife hand defense).  This is followed by executing nullo makki (pressing block) with the left hand and stepping with the right foot and executing pyonsonkkeut sewotzireugi (spear hand thrust) to the solar plexus with the right hand.  The taekwondoin then turns around 180 degrees (east) and repeats the same techniques but with the opposing hand and leading foot.

The knife hand defense is against a punching attack.  
1. If the attacker is punching with the left hand, the block can transition into a wrist grab, pulling the opponent's left arm to your left, thus shifting you out of range of his other hand, and allowing you to apply an open hand press at either elbow or shoulder, or to apply a damaging open hand strike to the elbow.
2. If the attacker is punching with the right hand, the block can transition into a wrist grab, pulling the opponent's right arm to your left, shifting his ballance to his right foot, allowing you to sweep the leg while pressing or striking with your right hand.

Pressing defense uses a circular motion to bring your left palm down on the incoming attack and press downward.  
This can also transition into a grab that would allow you to either retain the attacker's right while striking with your own right hand, or to execute a wrist lock take down using both hands.

The third movement is to turn north and execute jebi pum mok chigi (swallow form neck strike).  In this technique, a sonnal olgul makki (knife hand face defense) is used simultaneously with a sonnal chigi (knife hand strike) to the neck.  

With the knife hand defense, you are defending against a face/head level punch.  As an open handed defense, it can transition to a grab of the attacker's right wrist.  The same option for a sweep or a follow up strike that was present with sonnal makki is present here.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Gnarlie said:


> Just regarding the applications shown at the end of this video, the jebipoom mokchigi application I'm fine with, but the pyonsonkeut chigi application is weak against a punch directed with intent toward the solar plexus. The pressing block does not do enough to divert the punch, leaving you taking one in the bread basket. Any thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


Pyonsonkkeut sewotzireugi/spear hand is really a separate application from the pressing block.  As I have said before, taegeuk pumse are not intended to replicate some kind of imaginary fight, but to introduce and reinforce specific techniques at different levels.  In practical application, one would not simply stand in a back stance after executing sonnal makki, make the nullo makki, and then counterattack.

Generally, the form is learned and trained in and the individual techniques are also learned and trained in separately, both solo and with partners.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> This thread is for the discussion of any/all Korean forms and the applications you as an instructor and/or student teach or have been taught associated with them.  No right or wrong answers.  Post a video or link to the form you'd like to discuss and give us a post describing what you believe to be the application associated with the movement segment in question.  Thank you in advance for staying on topic and respecting others opinions, experience and training.



Why don't you start the discussion off with one of the "Korean forms" that you practice. I know you created one, but have you learned any "Korean forms", and if so, what are the applications that you find in them?


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I will offer one.  Taegeuk sajang:



I took a Kukkiwon seminar and the demonostrator above was one of the instructors. I know he toured the US during those Kukkiwon Instructor Courses.


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Pyonsonkkeut sewotzireugi/spear hand is really a separate application from the pressing block.  As I have said before, taegeuk pumse are not intended to replicate some kind of imaginary fight, but to introduce and reinforce specific techniques at different levels.  In practical application, one would not simply stand in a back stance after executing sonnal makki, make the nullo makki, and then counterattack.



That move also relates if you have a knife or knives in your hand(s).


----------



## d1jinx

puunui said:


> I took a Kukkiwon seminar and the demonostrator above was one of the instructors. I know he toured the US during those Kukkiwon Instructor Courses.



I too have taken 2 seminars where he was the Instructor.  Very good.  Very serious.  But very friendly during a 1 on 1.  I think the language barrier was the biggest handicap.  Alot of times he was very thorough and descriptive in Korean, and the translator had 1 maybe 2 sentences in english.  I wish I were more fluent in korean to better understand his instruction.  Although his actions was clear, the "why" and detail wasnt due to the translators.


----------



## d1jinx

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Pyonsonkkeut sewotzireugi/spear hand is really a separate application from the pressing block.  As I have said before, taegeuk pumse are not intended to replicate some kind of imaginary fight, but to introduce and reinforce specific techniques at different levels.  In practical application, one would not simply stand in a back stance after executing sonnal makki, make the nullo makki, and then counterattack.
> 
> Generally, the form is learned and trained in and the individual techniques are also learned and trained in separately, both solo and with partners.



i have often wondered why the _spear hand_ was introduced so early in rank.  I remember being excited as a child to learn the cool new move, but the first time I tried it, I almost broke my fingers.


----------



## dancingalone

d1jinx said:


> i have often wondered why the _spear hand_ was introduced so early in rank.  I remember being excited as a child to learn the cool new move, but the first time I tried it, I almost broke my fingers.



So you can start conditioning your fingers early on?


----------



## puunui

Here one application. In Palgwae 7 Jang, there are two hujin steps (slide back) followed by a middle punch with the rear hand. A sparring application for this is to do the two hujin steps, and instead of punching, you throw a back leg roundhouse kick counter, the theory being that in taekwondo, we do with our feet what we other martial arts do with their hands. So in the poomsae the two hujin steps are followed by a punch, but in sparring, the two hujin steps would be followed by a kick.

Another application from Taegeuk 5 Jang. The opening sequence features a down block followed by a hammer fist to the head. A sparring application of this would be a front leg roundhouse kick followed by a same leg front leg ax kick to the head. 

Both of the above are fairly common or easily seen competition sparring applications for poomsae movement. The idea of substituting a kick for the poomsae punch, is a key concept in taekwondo. Some or most of us have probably heard this before, and these are a couple of tangible real life examples which do not require overly stretching the poomsae beyond recognition. But these types of "applications" will be difficult to see if you do not know the poomsae, or do not understand or have little or no experience with the modern competition training methods or modern competition sparring. But like the hapkido like applications, these things jump out at you if you are familiar with these principles and training methods in taekwondo. However, it is still my opinion that it is best to train these applications in sparring class, rather than doing the easter egg hunt thing and then going and training. Why add the extra step?


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> So you can start conditioning your fingers early on?



Finger tip push-ups. Every day!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui

The opening move of taegeuk 1 jang that some said was a hammer fist to the groin. For taekwondoin versed in the modern competition training methods, that movement series (down block, middle punch, landing forward) would or could be a right leg off the line roundhouse kick while at the same time blocking with the left arm in a cover position, landing forward. This is a basic attack, maybe the most basic, which is suitable for a white belt to learn. Again, substitute a kick for the hand strike and you get a sparring "application".


----------



## Dirty Dog

Gnarlie said:


> Just regarding the applications shown at the end of this video, the jebipoom mokchigi application I'm fine with, but the pyonsonkeut chigi application is weak against a punch directed with intent toward the solar plexus. The pressing block does not do enough to divert the punch, leaving you taking one in the bread basket. Any thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2



That assumes that a pressing block can only be done downwards. I see poomsae as a way to teach techniques, but only examples. The downward pressing block may be considered the archetype of palmheel blocks, and that is how it's demonstrated in several poomsae. But it can certainly be adapted to other situations, simply by changing the angle at which it is performed.


----------



## Gnarlie

I completely agree that it's adaptable, I was just questioning the practicality of the way it is demonstrated in the video.

With slight adaptations I can make this pressing block work as an elbow or shoulder control, bringing the opponents head down to the level of the fingertip strike, which fits nicely into the nerve filled cavity between the jawline and the neck, or can be adapted to a palm heel blow to the base of the skull.

It doesn't fit too well with the twin knife hand block in that application though. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog

Gnarlie said:


> I completely agree that it's adaptable, I was just questioning the practicality of the way it is demonstrated in the video.
> 
> With slight adaptations I can make this pressing block work as an elbow or shoulder control, bringing the opponents head down to the level of the fingertip strike, which fits nicely into the nerve filled cavity between the jawline and the neck, or can be adapted to a palm heel blow to the base of the skull.
> 
> It doesn't fit too well with the twin knife hand block in that application though.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2



The palm heel block (batangson makki) as demonstrated in that poomsae is more directly applicable to stopping a front snap kick or knee aimed at the solar plexus, followed by a spearhand thrust to their solar plexus. It's also a way to get students used to the concept of simultaneous blocks/counter attacks, as opposed to one following the other. For that purpose, the specific combination of block/attack is less important than the CONCEPT.

 As has been mentioned before, it's unlikely that the poomsae was intended to show a series of techniques in a way that is directly applicable to fighting, although obviously the individual techniques/combinations can be used.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> The idea of substituting a kick for the poomsae punch, is a key concept in taekwondo. Some or most of us have probably heard this before, and these are a couple of tangible real life examples which do not require overly stretching the poomsae beyond recognition.



Hmm, simple but fascinating.  If anyone can share similar KKW poomsae ideas, I'd love to read them.


----------



## dancingalone

Here is one of the surface level applications from Bassai Dai (Pal Sek De).  

[yt]IETjq3Jf-JQ[/yt]

The scoop block from 14-15 seconds in of the video is frequently interpreted as trapping the leg off kick and then using the limb to dump the attacker to the ground.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

puunui said:


> Here one application. In Palgwae 7 Jang, there are  two hujin steps (slide back) followed by a middle punch with the rear  hand. A sparring application for this is to do the two hujin steps, and  instead of punching, you throw a back leg roundhouse kick counter, the  theory being that in taekwondo, we do with our feet what we other  martial arts do with their hands. So in the poomsae the two hujin steps  are followed by a punch, but in sparring, the two hujin steps would be  followed by a kick.





			
				puunui said:
			
		

> The idea of substituting a kick for the  poomsae punch, is a key concept in taekwondo. Some or most of us have  probably heard this before, and these are a couple of tangible real life  examples which *do not require overly stretching the poomsae beyond  recognition*.



Kata and forms contain specific movement sequences for a reason.  Within these specific movement sequences we find the applications, be they b-p-k in nature or more advanced such as locks, throws etc.  The movement sequences have no need of being changed in-and-of-themselves, otherwise we've changed the meaning of the movement sequence completely.  Replacing a _middle punch with the rear hand_ with a _back leg roundhouse kick_ is a completely different movement sequence and is not represented by the form.  While it very well may have excellent application in sparring or an altercation, it isn't what is represented in that portion of the form.  In essence, you have stretched the form beyond recognition during this particular portion.  Don't take this as an jab at you Glenn, I'm telling you clearly that it isn't right up front.  What you have described above isn't an application _from the form_ you've mentioned at that particular movement sequence.    




puunui said:


> The opening move of taegeuk 1 jang that some said was a hammer fist to the groin. For taekwondoin versed in the modern competition training methods, that movement series (down block, middle punch, landing forward) would or could be a right leg off the line roundhouse kick while at the same time blocking with the left arm in a cover position, landing forward. This is a basic attack, maybe the most basic, which is suitable for a white belt to learn. Again, substitute a kick for the hand strike and you get a sparring "application".



One of the possible applications mentioned for this form, at this particular movement sequence was the hammer fist.  This application does not alter the actual movements of the form at the portion discussed.  It does not replace this or that movement in favor of another.  Another application was a forearm strike (also referred to a half-spear), off-balancing movement and strike using the bottom forearm of the right arm.  Again, this application fits the actual movements of the form, at this particular sequence.  Nothing has had to be substituted or replaced. 

Again, just to be clear, no jab and no disrespect intended.  But we all need to be very careful about altering a form from what the creator of the form presented.  We can't replace whole sections in place of something else and say it is an application of the form in question.  We need to use what is contained in the form itself.  

Respectfully submitted.


----------



## Archtkd

puunui said:


> I took a Kukkiwon seminar and the demonostrator above was one of the instructors. I know he toured the US during those Kukkiwon Instructor Courses.



That's Grandmaster HWANG, In-Sik, 8th Dan. He was and might still be Plural Professor at Anyang Technical College in Korea, and chairman of the Education Committee at the Kukkiwon.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Kata and forms contain specific movement sequences for a reason.



We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Within these specific movement sequences we find the applications, be they b-p-k in nature or more advanced such as locks, throws etc.



Locks and throws are not "more advanced" than striking. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> The movement sequences have no need of being changed in-and-of-themselves, otherwise we've changed the meaning of the movement sequence completely.  Replacing a _middle punch with the rear hand_ with a _back leg roundhouse kick_ is a completely different movement sequence and is not represented by the form.  While it very well may have excellent application in sparring or an altercation, it isn't what is represented in that portion of the form.  In essence, you have stretched the form beyond recognition during this particular portion.



That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms. Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective is the principle which runs through both taekwondo and hapkido, which is, we do with our feet what others do with their hands. If you have actually practiced these arts, then you would understand this principle. The fact that you do not understand again underlines your lack of experience with the korean martial arts in general and taekwondo in particular. This is over and above the fact that you started this thread about applications in "Korean forms" that we teach or have learned, and you fail to give your own example, even when asked. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you cannot answer because you have not learned any "Korean forms" and therefore cannot present any applications. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> What you have described above isn't an application _from the form_ you've mentioned at that particular movement sequence.



Yes it is. See above. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> But we all need to be very careful about altering a form from what the creator of the form presented.  We can't replace whole sections in place of something else and say it is an application of the form in question.  We need to use what is contained in the form itself.



There you go again, trying to add in your "kata" pieces from your non korean jigsaw puzzle to a discussion regarding "Korean forms". The forms I am discussing, my direct teacher was the "creator" and I can do what I want with them, especially since he was one of the korean martial arts teachers who told me of the principle running through taekwondo where we do with our feet what others do with their hands. If you wish to discuss applications using your "kata" rules, then perhaps the korean martial arts forum is not for you.. But if you wish to discuss "Korean forms" you would be better served to adopt korean martial arts principles, rather than some "kata" rules from someplace else.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Hmm, simple but fascinating.  If anyone can share similar KKW poomsae ideas, I'd love to read them.



There are others, but that is the main distinguishing characteristic between korean martial arts and others, that we do with our feet what others do with their hands. 

The hapkido roundhouse kick for example, was developed from the knife hand strike to the neck. But instead of our hands, hapkido utilizes the bone directly below the ankle, with the toes pointed. This is similar to the commonly referred "instep roundhouse", but we do not strike with the instep. We would if the knife hand strike was done with the back of the hand, but it isn't. Also the hapkido roundhouse kick angles downward, like a knife hand strike. In taekwondo competition, we call that a Z Kick. So those knife hand strikes in the poomsae, you can substitute an instep looking roundhouse kick, which has a different developmental path than the karate roundhouse kick, which was originally conceived as a horizontal front kick using the ball of the foot. 

We hear these concepts told to us, but very few actually think about, research or explore what these principles mean, mainly because I think too many people are filled with the notion that taekwondo is "nothing more than korean karate" and therefore karate principles and ideas are applicable and transferable to taekwondo. In contrast, the taekwondo pioneers acknowledge that taekwondo's roots come from karate, but much work and research has been done since those early days in the 1940s, and taekwondo has evolved from that time. But in order to see that development, one must be willing to look at taekwondo in its own light, and not through rose colored karate glasses. 

That is one of the reasons why I told you to forget about all that stuff and keep your arts separate. I can tell you are still struggling with that idea, although you do seem more open to taekwondo than even just a few months ago. In other words, I see growth.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

puunui said:


> We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here.



Unfortunately, you've once again taken offense when none was intended.  My statement was;



> Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do*
> 
> 
> 
> *Kata and forms* contain specific movement sequences for a reason.



Kata AND forms have many similar attributes, which is why I mentioned both.  And they BOTH contain specific movement sequences for a reason.  As the OP, kata AND forms were mentioned for the reason stated.  So yes, 'we' are talking about both and their relation specifically to Korean forms.  



> Locks and throws are not "more advanced" than striking.



Yes, they are.  Whereas a strike is basically a gross motor skill, locks and throws often require more complex or refined motor skills to accomplish.



> That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends  have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms.



What 'friends' are you referring to in your statement?

Specifically what 'rules are you referring to?


> Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective...
> 
> The fact that you do not understand again underlines your lack of  experience with the korean martial arts in general and taekwondo in  particular.



You need to work on your civility Glenn.  I have addressed you respectfully and I expect the same.  Just because a person disagrees with you, or points out where you're in error does not make their view 'narrow' or indicate a lack of experience.  


> The forms I am discussing, my direct teacher was the "creator" and I can do what I want with them...



Anyone can do anything they wish with any form.  It doesn't make it correct.  And as I pointed out above, you can't take a movement sequence in a kata or form and completely interchange it with completely different movements and then claim it is an application of the movement sequence in question.  You can replace a straight punch with a 360 degree flying somersault atomic knee smash...but you've altered the form fundamentally and that sequence is no longer part of that form.  Therefore it isn't an application of that form.  



> ...we do with our feet what others do with their hands.



Once again, that is all wonderful.  But, in the movement segment you cited, the strike was with the hand and NOT with the feet.  By changing it you are by extension claiming to know better than your senior who you claimed created the form.  Since he put in a hand strike at that movement sequence, he meant to demonstrate an application using the hands...not the feet at that juncture.  So you can substitute if you like, but it is no longer a movement sequence of the form you cited and therefore is not an application of that movement sequence.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Unfortunately, you've once again taken offense when none was intended.



No offense taken. Just stating facts. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Kata AND forms have many similar attributes, which is why I mentioned both.  And they BOTH contain specific movement sequences for a reason.  As the OP, kata AND forms were mentioned for the reason stated.  So yes, 'we' are talking about both and their relation specifically to Korean forms.



Wrong. Here is the original post. Kata is not mentioned.



Kong Soo Do said:


> This thread is for the discussion of any/all Korean forms and the  applications you as an instructor and/or student teach or have been taught  associated with them. No right or wrong answers. Post a video or link to the  form you'd like to discuss and give us a post describing what you believe to be  the application associated with the movement segment in question. Thank you in  advance for staying on topic and respecting others opinions, experience and  training.



I don't see the word "kata" in there. Do you? And why would it be? The topic is "Korean forms and applications" in the taekwondo section of MT. We are not talking about kata. If you wanted to talk about kata, then you should have put that in your original post, which you didn't. 





Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, they are.  Whereas a strike is basically a gross motor skill, locks and throws often require more complex or refined motor skills to accomplish.



Anyone who has studied the korean martial arts or any martial arts really will tell you hand techniques are much easier to learn than kicking. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> What 'friends' are you referring to in your statement?



I apologize for assuming that you have friends.




Kong Soo Do said:


> Specifically what 'rules are you referring to?



Your rule wherein taekwondoin cannot substitute a kick for a punch when working "applications". 




Kong Soo Do said:


> You need to work on your civility Glenn.  I have addressed you respectfully and I expect the same.  Just because a person disagrees with you, or points out where you're in error does not make their view 'narrow' or indicate a lack of experience.



Pointing out your lack of experience is not uncivil. It is factual. 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Anyone can do anything they wish with any form.  It doesn't make it correct.  And as I pointed out above, you can't take a movement sequence in a kata or form and completely interchange it with completely different movements and then claim it is an application of the movement sequence in question.



Why not? You said there are no right or wrong answers. See your original post:



Kong Soo Do said:


> This thread is for the discussion of any/all Korean forms and the applications  you as an instructor and/or student teach or have been taught associated with  them. *No right or wrong answers.*



Or is it now your position that there are right and wrong answers?



Kong Soo Do said:


> You can replace a straight punch with a 360 degree flying somersault atomic knee smash...but you've altered the form fundamentally and that sequence is no longer part of that form.  Therefore it isn't an application of that form.



That might be true if I were substituting a straight punch with a 360 degree flying somersault atomic knee smash, but I am not. I am substituting a straight punch with the rear hand with a rear leg roundhouse kick.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Once again, that is all wonderful.  But, in the movement segment you cited, the strike was with the hand and NOT with the feet.  By changing it you are by extension claiming to know better than your senior who you claimed created the form.  Since he put in a hand strike at that movement sequence, he meant to demonstrate an application using the hands...not the feet at that juncture.  So you can substitute if you like, but it is no longer a movement sequence of the form you cited and therefore is not an application of that movement sequence.



He is not my senior, he is my teacher, which is a different relationship according to the Confucian principles which permeates taekwondo. And I am not claiming to know better than my teacher, because I am following the principles that he taught me, which is again, in taekwondo we do with our feet what others do with their hands. 

I have received many positive comments regarding my poomsae examples and its connection to the idea of substituting the feet for hands. I have been told that they never thought of it in that way before and this has opened up a door to a whole new side of taekwondo that they never thought existed. Funny how you are spending so much effort trying to slam that door shut using pieces from your "kata" puzzle. This again goes to your lack of understanding and experience with the korean martial arts.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

puunui said:


> Wrong. Here is the original post. Kata is not mentioned.



Kata was mentioned in the quote you used above, which is why I responded as I did.  Don't play games Glenn, it bogs down the thread.



> Anyone who has studied the korean martial arts or any martial arts  really will tell you hand techniques are much easier to learn than  kicking.



We weren't discussing hand vs. kicking skills Glenn.  We were discussing striking vs. locks and throws.  


> Your rule wherein taekwondoin cannot substitute a kick for a punch when working "applications".



This is not my rule, it is merely common sense.  If you are going to offer an application for steps and a hand strike then make the application for steps and a hand strike...not a kick.  More to the point, don't rearrange the form and then claim you have an application for the original format.  An application for a form uses the movement sequence as demonstrated by the form.  



> Pointing out your lack of experience is not uncivil. It is factual.



Once again, a jab that isn't needed.  Because someone doesn't agree with you, or has pointed out where you're in error doesn't mean they are inexperienced.  It is not a productive comment, nor is if friendly.  



> That might be true if I were substituting a straight punch with a 360  degree flying somersault atomic knee smash, but I am not. I am  substituting a straight punch with the rear hand with a rear leg  roundhouse kick.



Which has altered the form you cited.  It is therefore not an application of the movement sequence you've cited.


----------



## Dirty Dog

puunui said:


> I don't see the word "kata" in there. Do you? And why would it be? The topic is "Korean forms and applications" in the taekwondo section of MT. We are not talking about kata. If you wanted to talk about kata, then you should have put that in your original post, which you didn't.



Let's see. In KMA the word is forms. In JMA, it's kata. Gosh, seems to me that there's some splitting of incredibly fine hairs here, rather than any actual discussion of the applications found in kata. I mean poomsae. No, I meant tul. No, drat, I meant hyung....



puunui said:


> Anyone who has studied the korean martial arts or any martial arts really will tell you hand techniques are much easier to learn than kicking.



Which isn't what you said at all. You said that joint locks are not more advanced than strikes. Really?



puunui said:


> I apologize for assuming that you have friends.



May I remind you of the TOS:

*1.3 "Freedom of Speech":

*Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited.



puunui said:


> Your rule wherein taekwondoin cannot substitute a kick for a punch when working "applications".



So you think that pointing out that a low block is also a hammer fist is going too far, but changing a punch to a kick is ok?



puunui said:


> Pointing out your lack of experience is not uncivil. It is factual.



Allow me to once again point you to the TOS:

*1.3 "Freedom of Speech":

*Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited.

Additionally:

*1.10.3 No Individual Bashing / Fraud Busting. *

It is not our mission to out and expose frauds or decide who "sucks". Such discussions rarely lead anywhere other than to headaches, and lawsuits.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> One of the possible applications mentioned for this form, at this particular movement sequence was the hammer fist. This application does not alter the actual movements of the form at the portion discussed. It does not replace this or that movement in favor of another. Another application was a forearm strike (also referred to a half-spear), off-balancing movement and strike using the bottom forearm of the right arm. Again, this application fits the actual movements of the form, at this particular sequence. Nothing has had to be substituted or replaced.
> 
> Again, just to be clear, no jab and no disrespect intended. But we all need to be very careful about altering a form from what the creator of the form presented. We can't replace whole sections in place of something else and say it is an application of the form in question. We need to use what is contained in the form itself.
> .....
> 
> Once again, that is all wonderful. But, in the movement segment you cited, the strike was with the hand and NOT with the feet. By changing it you are by extension claiming to know better than your senior who you claimed created the form. Since he put in a hand strike at that movement sequence, he meant to demonstrate an application using the hands...not the feet at that juncture. So you can substitute if you like, but it is no longer a movement sequence of the form you cited and therefore is not an application of that movement sequence.
> ....
> 
> Which has altered the form you cited. It is therefore not an application of the movement sequence you've cited.


You said in your OP that there were no wrong answers to the question.  

His initial post contributed to the topic.  You responded and corrected him, he responded and corrected you.  You've now responded again and corrected him,  each post taking you back to the friction that you said you wished to avoid.  

So if there are no wrong answers, according to you, then it really shouldn't matter if the application he cited altered the form in your opinion or not.  This is no different from another poster (cannot remember who) saying that the santeul makki in taegeuk paljang contained a throw, and if I recall, you liked the post (I did as well).


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Kata was mentioned in the quote you used above, which is why I responded as I did.  Don't play games Glenn, it bogs down the thread.



Kata was not mentioned, just "any/all Korean forms". A "kata" is not a "Korean form". See your original post below.



Kong Soo Do said:


> This thread is for the discussion of any/all Korean forms and the   applications you as an instructor and/or student teach or have been  taught  associated with them. No right or wrong answers. Post a video or  link to the  form you'd like to discuss and give us a post describing  what you believe to be  the application associated with the movement  segment in question. Thank you in  advance for staying on topic and  respecting others opinions, experience and  training.





Kong Soo Do said:


> We weren't discussing hand vs. kicking skills Glenn.  We were discussing striking vs. locks and throws.



Kicking is a form a striking. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> This is not my rule, it is merely common sense.  If you are going to offer an application for steps and a hand strike then make the application for steps and a hand strike...not a kick.  More to the point, don't rearrange the form and then claim you have an application for the original format.  An application for a form uses the movement sequence as demonstrated by the form.



I can understand your position if the only experience you had available to you is "kata" based, as opposed to korean martial arts based. But korean martial arts operate under different principles.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Which has altered the form you cited.  It is therefore not an application of the movement sequence you've cited.



You are allowed to do that in taekwondo. Perhaps not in "kata" based arts.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So if there are no wrong answers, according to you, then it really shouldn't matter if the application he cited altered the form in your opinion or not.  This is no different from another poster (cannot remember who) saying that the santeul makki in taegeuk paljang contained a throw, and if I recall, you liked the post (I did as well).



I rather liked that myself, but I do see a difference between 'this turn with those arm movements could be a throw' and 'this arm movement is actually a kick'. 

But hey, if there really are no wrong answers, then I vote for the flying triple twisting back flip axe kick with the Dim Mak death touch.


----------



## puunui

Dirty Dog said:


> Let's see. In KMA the word is forms. In JMA, it's kata. Gosh, seems to me that there's some splitting of incredibly fine hairs  here, rather than any actual discussion of the applications found in  kata. I mean poomsae. No, I meant tul. No, drat, I meant hyung....



Actually in KMA the words are hyung poomsae and tul. In JMA and OMA it is kata. And not splitting hairs, because the principles the underlie japanese and/or okinawan martial arts are different than those that underlie korean martial arts. 




Dirty Dog said:


> Which isn't what you said at all. You said that joint locks are not more advanced than strikes. Really?



Yes, really. Joint locks are not more advanced that strikes, especially kicking. I practice hapkido and find that hand techniques such as joint locks and throws are much easier to teach, learn and retain than kicking, which many find more advanced. Look at all the people who struggle with the modern competition training methods. If they were so easy to learn, then everyone would be doing them. However such is not the case. Kicking, as a form of striking, is a highly advanced endeavor, although under the right teacher, it can be made much more simple and easy to understand. But for those who think taekwondo is "nothing more than karate" or hapkido is "nothing more than chin na, aikijujutsu or jujutsu", the road will be long and arduous. 



Dirty Dog said:


> May I remind you of the TOS:



No you may not.



Dirty Dog said:


> So you think that pointing out that a low block is also a hammer fist is going too far, but changing a punch to a kick is ok?



Never said pointing out a low block is also a hammer fist is going too far, although no doubt that is what you probably "think" I said. As has been shown in the past, you misread and/or misunderstand a lot of things that I write.


----------



## puunui

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So if there are no wrong answers, according to you, then it really shouldn't matter if the application he cited altered the form in your opinion or not.  This is no different from another poster (cannot remember who) saying that the santeul makki in taegeuk paljang contained a throw, and if I recall, you liked the post (I did as well).



Exactly. And I would think that a more productive approach would be to contribute to the discussion by offering up an application from a Korean form that he studied. I've given out three or more, and I don't even engage in this sort of thing. But I do see the principles that are being expressed in the poomsae, and how they can be applied to kicking applications. But then again, I practice the korean martial arts, and part of that is the knowledge of the principle that we do with our feet what others do with their hands.


----------



## StuartA

Just had a quick flick through this thread and some of the points made and, having studied in much depth the Ch'ang hon patterns from Chon-Ji through to Juche & Ko-dang I feel warrented to comment on this thread, even though the KKW forms are not my area (but I will email Simon O'Neil - author of the best book on applications for these forms and see if he can pop on here to give his opinion also).

Okay, here are my observations from reading through the posts in order:

1. Kata = Patterns = Poomsae = forms and to say they are different is incorrect. Sure they have 'flavours, but they all follow the same mentality and were built on the same structure and premise.

2. I hold Master Weiss in very high regards, not just because he has much intimate knowledge of ITF TKD, but more so that he has proven (to me) that despite being what I`d term an ITF Stalwart (no offence intended), and US disgreeing on many things over the years, he is still open minded, whilst most on that side of the fence refuse to accept applications above and beyond at all - when I saw his videos showing alternative apps I nearly fell off my chair... but I respect his 'willing' + his article raised a much needed opinion/though for other such stalwarts! Sadly, other 'stawarts' are not the same.

3. Just because a Master is high rank or even designed a form it doesnt mean he has studied any other applications above the punch/kick/block type of thing. And I mean no offence here to anyone... on my side, Gen Choi and his pioneers between them made 25 pattens on such a method.. never realising what was actually retained within them. Its a standard practice of making forms, to build them of what you know already and change them to be a bit different! The old masters we ALL hold in high regard will not acknowledge this area at all. Years ago I interviewed a pioneers 9th degree and he told me they learnt whatever application was told to them and in some cases, none at all!

4. The 'spear hand' comment is a interesting point - no student at 7th kup (ITF) will have developed strong enough fingertips for this as a striking technique. Sure, it could be for a soft target.. but more likely, its not a strike at all. In my book, it show it as a basic throw... and basic throws are taught at lower levels!

5. AFAIA no forms/poomsae/patterns have been created with sparring in mind... I know of aTKD instructor that did this, but his forms look nothing like the ITF or KKW forms. Virtually all techniques in forms are for closs quarter combat and those that are 'distance' techniques (such as the double step and flying kick in choong-moo) are for covering 'the gap' in self defence and not sparring related!

6. No offence, but in all my reasearch, I have never heard of substituting and hand technique for a foot technique or vice-versa. And I've never heard of it as a 'key concept'.. I note in that particularly post it says its a 'modern' thing so maybe it is a 'later concept' to aid WTF competition sparrers or something, and indeed, its a novel idea, but as far as the formation of patterns go, I sincerly doubt this was a concept at all! Though I know we are discussing KKW poomsae here, so perhaps Mr O'Neil would be more versed to say on this, as for me it seems a riduculous notion TBH. I agree a high kick could be a low kick etc., but hand techniques use the hand and foot techniques use the foot - period! 

7. You do not get 'sparring applictions' in patterns IMO. I mean no offence , but performing two hand technqiues (block/punch) as a parry/kick technique doesnt tranlate to a sparring drill well... it would be best to simply perform a sparring drils, as a drill and thus, eliminate the time between the two technqiues for the benifit of the sparring student!

8. While Im sure all patterns combinations can be adaptable for what you want to teach (to a point), the ITF Saju's being a prime example (even though they are technically not patterns) and are really for 'basics' practice - a pattern/poomsae, taught as tool to train sparrng doesnt really make much sense and they were never 'made' for that purpose, yet do 'hide' SD related purposes - that is an histoical fact!

9.No matter what you take out of a pattern (meaning what sequence of techniques) and what applications you apply to them, when you take out the opponent, the techniques should be pretty similar to 'solo' perfromance - as this is the point of poomsae/patterns - the jigsaw piece should fit the jigsaw and not be forced to fit!

10. kata rules DO apply to KKW poomsae, just as they do ot ch'anh hon forms as they both uses the same foundation as the building blocks!


*Apologies also because I didnt watch the video presented at the beginning and I didnt note who exactly said what.

*Stuart


----------



## shesulsa

We could all learn so much more from this thread if the two bickering siblings could keep their comments to application as opposed to sniping and art-bashing.

You ... DO know who you are ... don't you?


----------



## Earl Weiss

puunui said:


> I practice hapkido .



Really? Keep practicing and maybe you'll get it right. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek - is there an emoticon for that?)


----------



## Archtkd

StuartA said:


> 5. AFAIA no forms/poomsae/patterns have been created with sparring in mind... I know of aTKD instructor that did this, but his forms look nothing like the ITF or KKW forms. Virtually all techniques in forms are for closs quarter combat and those that are 'distance' techniques (such as the double step and flying kick in choong-moo) are for covering 'the gap' in self defence and not sparring related!
> 
> 6. No offence, but in all my reasearch, I have never heard of substituting and hand technique for a foot technique or vice-versa. And I've never heard of it as a 'key concept'.. I note in that particularly post it says its a 'modern' thing so maybe it is a 'later concept' to aid WTF competition sparrers or something, and indeed, its a novel idea, but as far as the formation of patterns go, I sincerly doubt this was a concept at all! Though I know we are discussing KKW poomsae here, so perhaps Mr O'Neil would be more versed to say on this, as for me it seems a riduculous notion TBH. I agree a high kick could be a low kick etc., but hand techniques use the hand and foot techniques use the foot - period!
> 
> 7. You do not get 'sparring applictions' in patterns IMO. I mean no offence , but performing two hand technqiues (block/punch) as a parry/kick technique doesnt tranlate to a sparring drill well... it would be best to simply perform a sparring drils, as a drill and thus, eliminate the time between the two technqiues for the benifit of the sparring student!



I hope you are not referring to Kukkiwon poomsae. Kukkiwon poomsae has always been closely related to kyorugi, and this is not new.


----------



## Gnarlie

There is a view that kyorugi IS the application of poomsae.  In a modern sparring context the link may not be as clear to see as it perhaps once was, as the main kind of sparring we see is the Olympic kind. 

In clubs that still practice all the various forms of sparring on the Kukkiwon syllabus, I think the link is probably clearer.

Certainly in my time practicing even just hanbon kyorugi I've seen and effectively used a lot of poomsae motions.  In a set sparring situation they can work well.  In the semi-free and free sparring situations, striking with the feet is more common.  There's a disconnect there, where suddenly, obvious poomsae technique drops out of the equation and we move to only foot striking.  I'm not sure if this is due to impracticality of poomsae techniques, or due to the sparring rules limiting the use of hand techniques. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gnarlie

I may have posted this before, but here's a quote from the Kukkiwon website that fits:

"From the technical viewpoint, the poomsae itself is Taekwondo, and the  basic movements are no more than the preliminary actions to reach the  poomsae. The Kyorugi is a practical application of the poomsae and the  Taekwondo spirit is manifested not in an abstract mental philosophy  expressed in the documents but in the actions of poomsae."

For fun, here are a couple of videos of early TKD circa 1956 /57 (before the creation of the Taegeuk poomsae).  The sparring shown here is not just kicking, but instead also features all kinds of hand techniques.  It's also fairly clear to see at least some Shotokan influence.  The step sparring remains as part of the Kukkiwon syllabus, but the freestyle sparring with hand techniques is in my experience not commonly practiced and I would guess is probably limited to only a few schools who choose to include it.  With this kind of freestyle sparring it's easier to see how Kyorugi could have been considered the application of the poomsae.


----------



## andyjeffries

I must admit I find this thread and whole concept a bit moot.  Let's look at the facts:

1) Puunui has posted that his teacher was one of the creators of the Kukkiwon poomsae (one of/was the)

2) Puunui said that his teacher has told him that there aren't hidden meanings of locks and throws in the poomsae

3) Puunui has said this his teacher has told him that there are sparring applications if you change hand techniques for kicks

4) While some people may have an issue with Puunui's tone/methods of debate, no one has ever accused him of outright lying about the facts in a situation

So why is this still a discussion?

It's been said that some of the sequences in Karate have hidden meanings behind them (locks and throws) and that the same sequences in Taekwondo poomsae exist therefore they must also have them.  But this isn't the case, if the creators of the poomsae didn't intend for those meanings to be there then you are trying to retrofit applications from other martial arts that were not intended in this one.

It's also been said that we shouldn't change the movements from hand techniques to kicks as this is changing the movement.  However, the same folks are advocating changing things from blocks and punches to locks and throws.  I don't know about anyone else but I'd find it impossible to throw someone using only the movements in Taegeuk 1 without distorting them from the movements specified; if for no other fact than in Taegeuk 1 there is no need to open the fists from start to finish.

At the end of the day, I understand that some of the sequences in Kukkiwon poomsae exist in other martial arts and those guys may have developed those poomsae to include these hidden meanings to only reveal to their advanced/favourite students.  However, it's been stated that although the same movements exist in Kukkiwon poomsae that there was no intended hidden meaning by the creator of the poomsae so any attempt to find/create them is purely an exercise in fun and fantasy on the behalf of the practitioner.

I personally have better things to do than try to recreate hidden meanings that weren't there.  I do believe that ponies are actually unicorns that had their horns sanded down and one day I'll find the secret to unlocking their magical power...  Or maybe they were actually just ponies in the first place, but I hope I'm right!


----------



## Markku P

andyjeffries said:


> I personally have better things to do than try to recreate hidden meanings that weren't there.  I do believe that ponies are actually unicorns that had their horns sanded down and one day I'll find the secret to unlocking their magical power...  Or maybe they were actually just ponies in the first place, but I hope I'm right!



I don't have much time so I train Poomsae to keep my Taekwondo skills higher. When I like to train joint locks and throws then I train Hapkido


----------



## Gnarlie

andyjeffries said:


> I must admit I find this thread and whole concept a bit moot.  Let's look at the facts:
> 
> 1) Puunui has posted that his teacher was one of the creators of the Kukkiwon poomsae (one of/was the)
> 
> 2) Puunui said that his teacher has told him that there aren't hidden meanings of locks and throws in the poomsae
> 
> 3) Puunui has said this his teacher has told him that there are sparring applications if you change hand techniques for kicks
> 
> 4) While some people may have an issue with Puunui's tone/methods of debate, no one has ever accused him of outright lying about the facts in a situation
> 
> So why is this still a discussion?



I totally agree and accept all of this, and just to make my position clear, I'm not saying that there's anything hidden in the Taegeuk poomsae.  All I'm trying to do is further my understanding of how Poomsae is the essence of Taekwondo.  This naturally involves a process of learning and understanding the history and lineage of these patterns.  Since there is a clear relationship between the poomsae of Taekwondo and the patterns of other martial arts, gaining an understanding of the intent of the same movements in other martial arts is part of that learning process.  I would also say that experimentation with the practicability of the movements in the poomsae in various situations (for their intended purpose or otherwise) is part of that journey.  In my view, this kind of research is a positive thing and can only deepen my understanding and improve my abilities as a martial artist.  If it's for me personally, and I'm not teaching it to anyone else, where's the harm?



andyjeffries said:


> It's been said that some of the sequences in Karate have hidden meanings behind them (locks and throws) and that the same sequences in Taekwondo poomsae exist therefore they must also have them.  But this isn't the case, if the creators of the poomsae didn't intend for those meanings to be there then you are trying to retrofit applications from other martial arts that were not intended in this one.



If I'm retrofitting for my own personal consumption and betterment as a martial artist, and not teaching it to others as the definition of the movement, is that a problem?  Should I not do this?



andyjeffries said:


> It's also been said that we shouldn't change the movements from hand techniques to kicks as this is changing the movement.  However, the same folks are advocating changing things from blocks and punches to locks and throws.  I don't know about anyone else but I'd find it impossible to throw someone using only the movements in Taegeuk 1 without distorting them from the movements specified; if for no other fact than in Taegeuk 1 there is no need to open the fists from start to finish.



In my view, for personal use I'll change whatever I need to change to get a practicable technique out of it.  Functionality first and foremost.  I agree with puunui to a point, if a kicking technique works instead of a punch I'll shove it in there.  I certainly would allow myself the opportunity to grab clothing, hair or a wrist in any application of Il Jang, but I'm still not sure I could make it work for a throw 



andyjeffries said:


> At the end of the day, I understand that some of the sequences in Kukkiwon poomsae exist in other martial arts and those guys may have developed those poomsae to include these hidden meanings to only reveal to their advanced/favourite students.  However, it's been stated that although the same movements exist in Kukkiwon poomsae that there was no intended hidden meaning by the creator of the poomsae so any attempt to find/create them is purely an exercise in fun and fantasy on the behalf of the practitioner.



Yaaay! Fun! Seriously, when I think about 'reverse engineered, retrofitted' applications, it only remains fantasy until I can make it work against a resisting opponent.



andyjeffries said:


> I personally have better things to do than try to recreate hidden meanings that weren't there.  I do believe that ponies are actually unicorns that had their horns sanded down and one day I'll find the secret to unlocking their magical power...  Or maybe they were actually just ponies in the first place, but I hope I'm right!



I agree that the intent wasn't there with the Taegeuk and KKW BB Poomsae, and I won't be claiming to have found any 'secret' or 'deadly' applications, or revealing that the techniques that work for me are extracted from the poomsae.  But it won't stop me using them as a constant source of inspiration in finding really useful and meaningful techniques for use in both sparring and self defence contexts.  This helps me to see Taekwondo as one coherent system instead of a system fragmented into defunct poomsae movements and sport kicking.  In my mind it fits with the overall philosophy of TKD and develops my understanding of some areas of other martial arts.  I think that can only be a good thing.

All I'm trying to do is pay due diligence to the movements included in the Poomsae, and understand their place not only in Taekwondo, but in the context of martial arts as a whole.

So, please let the discussion continue, even if it is moot in your view.


----------



## andyjeffries

Gnarlie said:


> I totally agree and accept all of this, and just to make my position clear, I'm not saying that there's anything hidden in the Taegeuk poomsae.  All I'm trying to do is further my understanding of how Poomsae is the essence of Taekwondo.  This naturally involves a process of learning and understanding the history and lineage of these patterns.  Since there is a clear relationship between the poomsae of Taekwondo and the patterns of other martial arts, gaining an understanding of the intent of the same movements in other martial arts is part of that learning process.


 
It's part of learning why they are in those other martial arts, it's not part of understanding Taekwondo though - as accepted, they aren't intentionally in Taekwondo so it won't help in your understanding of Taekwondo.



Gnarlie said:


> I would also say that experimentation with the practicability of the movements in the poomsae in various situations (for their intended purpose or otherwise) is part of that journey.  In my view, this kind of research is a positive thing and can only deepen my understanding and improve my abilities as a martial artist.  If it's for me personally, and I'm not teaching it to anyone else, where's the harm? If I'm retrofitting for my own personal consumption and betterment as a martial artist, and not teaching it to others as the definition of the movement, is that a problem?  Should I not do this?



I have no issue what anyone wants to do.  If you feel this is beneficial to you to have a play with this go for it.

My issue comes when it sounds like these are the hidden/secret moves that you have to be a REAL expert to know and the fact is they aren't there.  For example, the first movement of Taegeuk 1 is a low block and it's been discussed as a hammerfist strike to the "the groin, bladder, femoral nerve, common peroneal nerve...".  As I work it, the bladder is an option, but with the blocking fist correctly two fist heights above the thigh it brings the strike too high to hit most of those potential targets.  In order to work in this hidden meaning/alternative application you have to change the pattern.

As I said, it can be fun if you're in to that sort of thing (what else could I be doing here), but it wasn't intended.



Gnarlie said:


> So, please let the discussion continue, even if it is moot in your view.



I wasn't trying to stop it, I was just posting my opinion on why I personally find it a waste of time ;-)


----------



## andyjeffries

_puunui _
*Account Suspended*

Seriously?  Someone got butthurt and complained again?

I understand that Puunui offends some people, but the fact of the matter is that he's one of the (if not, the) most senior Kukkiwon practitioners on here with close links to a lot of kwan founders and Kukkiwon seniors (so he has a lot of information direct from the source).  This is useful/interesting to those of us that are Kukki-Taekwondoin and I'm sure interesting to those outside that want to understand/know more about Kukki-Taekwondo.

How about everyone acts like an adult instead of running off saying "Miss, Puunui called me names and hurt my feelings, miss, miss..." like we're still in school.

If you don't like what someone says, post something to clarify it (if you're worried about others reading it without a correcting fact) and then drop it/ignore it.


----------



## Gnarlie

I agree completely that Puunui puts forth some really valuable information, and over my time on MT, along with Mastercole, he's probably done the most to improve my understanding of many aspects of Kukki TKD.

I've also found him to be approachable, helpful and civil when treated as such.

The fact remains that if we are not just civil but reasonable with one another, then nobody has the opportunity to complain and nobody ends up suspended or banned.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jaeimseu

andyjeffries said:


> _puunui _
> *Account Suspended*
> 
> Seriously?  Someone got butthurt and complained again?
> 
> I understand that Puunui offends some people, but the fact of the matter is that he's one of the (if not, the) most senior Kukkiwon practitioners on here with close links to a lot of kwan founders and Kukkiwon seniors (so he has a lot of information direct from the source).  This is useful/interesting to those of us that are Kukki-Taekwondoin and I'm sure interesting to those outside that want to understand/know more about Kukki-Taekwondo.
> 
> How about everyone acts like an adult instead of running off saying "Miss, Puunui called me names and hurt my feelings, miss, miss..." like we're still in school.
> 
> If you don't like what someone says, post something to clarify it (if you're worried about others reading it without a correcting fact) and then drop it/ignore it.


Amen, brother. I think some things get taken personally when they don't need to be.


----------



## Chris Parker

andyjeffries said:


> _puunui _
> *Account Suspended*
> 
> Seriously?  Someone got butthurt and complained again?
> 
> I understand that Puunui offends some people, but the fact of the matter is that he's one of the (if not, the) most senior Kukkiwon practitioners on here with close links to a lot of kwan founders and Kukkiwon seniors (so he has a lot of information direct from the source).  This is useful/interesting to those of us that are Kukki-Taekwondoin and I'm sure interesting to those outside that want to understand/know more about Kukki-Taekwondo.
> 
> How about everyone acts like an adult instead of running off saying "Miss, Puunui called me names and hurt my feelings, miss, miss..." like we're still in school.
> 
> If you don't like what someone says, post something to clarify it (if you're worried about others reading it without a correcting fact) and then drop it/ignore it.





Gnarlie said:


> I agree completely that Puunui puts forth some really valuable information, and over my time on MT, along with Mastercole, he's probably done the most to improve my understanding of many aspects of Kukki TKD.
> 
> I've also found him to be approachable, helpful and civil when treated as such.
> 
> The fact remains that if we are not just civil but reasonable with one another, then nobody has the opportunity to complain and nobody ends up suspended or banned.
> 
> Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2





Jaeimseu said:


> Amen, brother. I think some things get taken personally when they don't need to be.



Right.

Before this goes too far and derails what looks like an good potentially interesting thread, I think it's best to end the discussion of what's going on with puunui. His account is suspended due to his own behaviour, not anything else. Blaming the people who reported his posts is missing the point of his posts being report-worthy in the first place. The moderation team do not act on baseless claims, but do always examine every report to assess validity, and honestly that should be enough. But if you need more than that, I'd point out that rank does not absolve bad behaviour, knowledge of one field does not give authority over anyone else on the board, and actions (such as posts and messages) that go against the rules and spirit of the board are assessed on their merits with no special consideration for relationships, titles, ranks, schools, or anything else. If Glenn wishes to pass on the insight he clearly has to offer, he might be best advised to look to exactly how he's presenting it (and himself).

Now, back to the topic at hand...


----------



## Earl Weiss

A couple of thoughts: 
1. Much has been said about  patterns as sparring. I think the focus is misplaced. The systems as a whole do not advocate patterns as a replacement for sparring, but simply another part of the art. This  is similar to the discussion of WTF sparring as SD, as an anaolgy with regard to missing techniques made with regard to Judo sparring and SD. Does anyone say Boxer's speed bag work or jump rope is bad for sparring? Also ignored is how patterns relate to combat / SD. 
2. Rather than "Real" or "Hiden" applications I think (feel free to disagree) a better term is "alternate applications."  Different arts, same motion and different application. Both real, neither hidden. 
3. As addressed in my Totally TKD article, at some point a motion is morphed so greatly in order to perform an alternate application that most an resemblance of the original motion is lost. This would be something new, and not truly an alternate application. At what point in the morphing does this occur? You decide. 
4. The point about only what a founder intended as being the application IMNSHO is wrong since it is contrary to: A. The principal I cite in my article that the applicatin is but a tool to help you understand the concept. Understand 100 applications and you may understand one concept. Understand one concept and you may understand 100 applications; and B. At Instructor courses, General Choi who would often use the socratic method would often have this exchange: GC "What is the purpose of this technique? Precoscious student "It is XXX sir." GC pointing to another student says: "He says it is YYY, what do you say."  PC being smug says "Sir, your book sayss it XXX."   GC again pointing at another student says: He says he doesn't care what my book says, how do we solve this problem?"  The solution was to have the other student demonstrate the alternate application. GC would then say "If it works, then it is a good application." 
So, there you have at least the intent of one system founder. He did not mean for the application(s) he stated to be exclusive.


----------



## d1jinx

andyjeffries said:


> _puunui _
> *Account Suspended*
> 
> Seriously? Someone got butthurt and complained again?
> 
> I understand that Puunui offends some people, but the fact of the matter is that he's one of the (if not, the) most senior Kukkiwon practitioners on here with close links to a lot of kwan founders and Kukkiwon seniors (so he has a lot of information direct from the source). This is useful/interesting to those of us that are Kukki-Taekwondoin and I'm sure interesting to those outside that want to understand/know more about Kukki-Taekwondo.
> 
> How about everyone acts like an adult instead of running off saying "Miss, Puunui called me names and hurt my feelings, miss, miss..." like we're still in school.
> 
> If you don't like what someone says, post something to clarify it (if you're worried about others reading it without a correcting fact) and then drop it/ignore it.



this is what it has come too. 
If you notice, many of the others who were regulars arent posting anymore either. and Ironically, they are all KKW people. 
coincidence? 
Yet seems the non-kkw people wish to discuss KKW related items and NOT want to hear what the KKW people have to say about it. 
We _used_ to have some reputable people here.

my $.02.  bye bye.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

d1jinx said:


> this is what it has come too.
> If you notice, many of the others who were regulars arent posting anymore either. and Ironically, they are all KKW people.
> coincidence?
> Yet seems the non-kkw people wish to discuss KKW related items and NOT want to hear what the KKW people have to say about it.
> We _used_ to have some reputable people here.


Amen to that.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Earl Weiss said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 2. Rather than "Real" or "Hiden" applications I think (feel free to disagree) a better term is "alternate applications." Different arts, same motion and different application. Both real, neither hidden.



Agreed.  I don't think the term 'hidden' is the most appropriate, rather simply 'application'.  As you mentione above with Gen. Choi, there may well be several different applications that use the movement sequence as described by the form.  If the application works, then it works.



> 3. As addressed in my Totally TKD article, at some point a motion is morphed so greatly in order to perform an alternate application that most an resemblance of the original motion is lost. This would be something new, and not truly an alternate application. At what point in the morphing does this occur? You decide.



This touches on my previous comments on the other page.  If were talking about a specific movement sequence in a form, we need to stick with the movements contained within that sequence.  As a side note, I would encourage anyone/everyone to get Totally TKD if they haven't already.  It is a valuable resource.



> 4. The point about only what a founder intended as being the application IMNSHO is wrong since it is contrary to: A. The principal I cite in my article that the applicatin is but a tool to help you understand the concept. Understand 100 applications and you may understand one concept. Understand one concept and you may understand 100 applications; and B. At Instructor courses, General Choi who would often use the socratic method would often have this exchange: GC "What is the purpose of this technique? Precoscious student "It is XXX sir." GC pointing to another student says: "He says it is YYY, what do you say." PC being smug says "Sir, your book sayss it XXX." GC again pointing at another student says: He says he doesn't care what my book says, how do we solve this problem?" The solution was to have the other student demonstrate the alternate application. GC would then say "If it works, then it is a good application."
> So, there you have at least the intent of one system founder. He did not mean for the application(s) he stated to be exclusive.



Agreed.  Well said.  Thank you.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> Kata and forms contain specific movement sequences for a reason. Within these specific movement sequences we find the applications, be they b-p-k in nature or more advanced such as locks, throws etc. The movement sequences have no need of being changed in-and-of-themselves, otherwise we've changed the meaning of the movement sequence completely.


I'm confused.  If forms are created for a specific reason, then why couldn't puunui be correct in his statement that these forms were created to also be an easy transition to sparring using a kick in stead of a punch?  

If there is no need to change in and of itself then by definition, a kick is a kick, a punch is a punch and to assume anything else would be contridictary your statement.


----------



## StuartA

Archtkd said:


> I hope you are not referring to Kukkiwon poomsae. Kukkiwon poomsae has always been closely related to kyorugi, and this is not new.


I was refering to all forms/patterns/katas that followed the 'make up' of karate kata and are based on the p/k/b methology!  Whilst I understand that the new taegueks were more kicking based, as to represent the style more, I have never read anything that says they were 'designed for sparring'... I see designed to be more KKW/WTF'y as a seperate thing and I can agree with that.. because AFAIA, the Palgwe were considered 'too karate' and not 'taekwondo' enough, hence why the new set was made to be closer to what is perceived as Taekwondo the kicking art!  But, the same system was used to make the Taegeuks as was used to make the Palgwes, just things were added, altered etc. to be more like they wanted them to be and represent Taekwondo better. 

Sure, I could be wrong, as I havnt studied the KKW forms at all.. with the exception of a few books... but I have seen them and they do not look any closer to sparring than ITF patterns do IMO!

Stuart


----------



## miguksaram

StuartA said:


> 1. Kata = Patterns = Poomsae = forms and to say they are different is incorrect. Sure they have 'flavours, but they all follow the same mentality and were built on the same structure and premise.



I could be wrong but, if you are going to go this route then Kata=Patterns=Tul...not poomsae.  Tul means pattern, as in a pattern you can make from a cookie cutter.  There is a difference in the Korean language when saying tul vs poomsae.  I believe the closest would be to say Kata=Patterns=Tul=Hyung.  The mindset/rules of kata is definetely seen in taekwon-do tul, but you will find that the creators of taekwondo poomsae moved away from that for whatever reason.   



> AFAIA no forms/poomsae/patterns have been created with sparring in mind... I know of aTKD instructor that did this, but his forms look nothing like the ITF or KKW forms. Virtually all techniques in forms are for closs quarter combat and those that are 'distance' techniques (such as the double step and flying kick in choong-moo) are for covering 'the gap' in self defence and not sparring related!


Before making a definitive statement in regards to KKW TKD forms, I would recommend speaking directly to the creators of the Taeguk poomsae to find out what they had in mind in when developing the forms.  You may be absolutely correct, but you may also be wrong as well.  



> 10. kata rules DO apply to KKW poomsae, just as they do ot ch'anh hon forms as they both uses the same foundation as the building blocks!


So then there are deep hidden techniques that the Koreans put into Taeguk poomsae, that we are not made privy of, just like some feel are in karate kata?


----------



## StuartA

andyjeffries said:


> It's been said that some of the sequences in Karate have hidden meanings behind them (locks and throws) and that the same sequences in Taekwondo poomsae exist therefore they must also have them. But this isn't the case, if the creators of the poomsae didn't intend for those meanings to be there then you are trying to retrofit applications from other martial arts that were not intended in this one.



_"didnt intend"_ is vastly different to _"didnt know"_ and if the system of creating a poomsae is based off previous systems of creating forms... then certain traints will carry through, even if combinations are altered a bit. Sure... like the ITF tuls, some bits are simply added 'because'... but a kick is a kick, a punch is a punch and the hand is still pulled back to the hip - just taking the hand back to hip part shows (in my mind) that they did not know why this was originally done, but the fact that it still performed, means that 'hidden, alternative, whatever' applications can still be found within the poomsae.




> It's also been said that we shouldn't change the movements from hand techniques to kicks as this is changing the movement. However, the same folks are advocating changing things from blocks and punches to locks and throws.


From my research into patterns, movements remain pretty much the same, often the only difference is.. a fist is a grab rather than a punch or pull back hand, but once in motion, the fist is a clenched fist again, just like the form.



> I don't know about anyone else but I'd find it impossible to throw someone using only the movements in Taegeuk 1 without distorting them from the movements specified; if for no other fact than in Taegeuk 1 there is no need to open the fists from start to finish.


I cant speak of that but i have done seminars on pattern applications and sometimes see students struggling to excute the 'alternative application' and its usually always because they are looking at the end result and trying to achieve it in a different fashion to what the pattern shows - when I tell them to simply execute it as the pattern shows, they find it much much easier. 





> However, it's been stated that although the same movements exist in Kukkiwon poomsae that there was no intended hidden meaning by the creator of the poomsae so any attempt to find/create them is purely an exercise in fun and fantasy on the behalf of the practitioner.


Like I said earlier.. you cant intend to add or not add something if you didnt know about it to begin with! The proof of this is right there in 24 of the 25 ITF patterns.. even the 25th one (Juche) which I originaly though would be worthless in reagrds to realistic applications, I have found it not so... because, even though its a 3rd generation pattern (meaning it was build off the Ch'ang hon tul, as opposed to the Shotokan kata). the simple fact it was built this way allowed it to retain much of what we are talking about here!



> I personally have better things to do than try to recreate hidden meanings that weren't there.


I think hidden and even altenative meanings are the wrong choice of word for this subject... 'misunderstood' would be better IMO.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

miguksaram said:


> I could be wrong but, if you are going to go this route then Kata=Patterns=Tul...not poomsae. Tul means pattern, as in a pattern you can make from a cookie cutter. There is a difference in the Korean language when saying tul vs poomsae. I believe the closest would be to say Kata=Patterns=Tul=Hyung. The mindset/rules of kata is definetely seen in taekwon-do tul, but you will find that the creators of taekwondo poomsae moved away from that for whatever reason.


Tomatoes/Tomadoes... the point being made was that they all follow the same structure!




> Before making a definitive statement in regards to KKW TKD forms, I would recommend speaking directly to the creators of the Taeguk poomsae to find out what they had in mind in when developing the forms. You may be absolutely correct, but you may also be wrong as well.


I do not have to do that.. beacuse you can see that by looking at them - if they were for sparring - when in WTF sparring do the students pull their hand to their hip?  Or execute ANY of the blocks found in the patterns?  I don't recall seeing any knifehands scored at the Olympics either!!!  And I know for a fact, high ranking Masters hardly (if ever) will admit even that there 'could' be more to it than they knew when designing them, as this would mean a deep loss of face!




> So then there are deep hidden techniques that the Koreans put into Taeguk poomsae, that we are not made privy of, just like some feel are in karate kata?


Who said the Koreans put anything in there.. as I keep saying.. you cannot make a concious decision to include/excude thinsg you do not even know about to begin with!

Stuart


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> I'm confused. If forms are created for a specific reason, then why couldn't puunui be correct in his statement that these forms were created to also be an easy transition to sparring using a kick in stead of a punch?
> 
> If there is no need to change in and of itself then by definition, a kick is a kick, a punch is a punch and to assume anything else would be contridictary your statement.



Let me see if I can explain my point.  In the movement sequence he described, IIRC, it was two steps and a punch using the rear arm.  Now, anyone can take any portion of any form and switch out the components as they see fit...but it is no longer the movement sequence that the creator of the form intended for that portion specifically.  If they wanted to demonstrate a kick at that particular portion, they would have put in a kick instead of a punch.

More specifically, a movement sequence can have more than one application.  One application may be the more readily apparent b-p-k type of application.  Using the first movement sequence from Il Jang, as descibed by Mr. Simon O'Neill in his book, the 'readily apparent' application is a down block followed by a step and a punch.  That's all well and fine.  But as Mr. O'Neill demonstrates (and I have successfully used in real life against a resisting bad guy), another application using this movement sequence is an off-balancing principle followed by a strike using a different part of the right arm (the bottom portion of the forearm or even the bottom portion of the fist) against what would be at this time the side part of the upper torso/head area.  I described this in the other thread as well.  Now, this application uses the movement sequences as seen in that portion of the form itself.  Now, if someone on a whim were to take out the down block and stick in a high block or outside middle block or whatever, the fundamentals of the afore mentioned application just went out the window.  By sticking in a different 'block' the dynamics change completely into something else.  Now again, a person can mix n match as they wish to come up with all types of variations on a theme, but it is a variation on a theme, not an application using the movements demonstrated in the form. 

As I and several others have posted, applications on specific movement sequences shouldn't alter the form to fit the application.  The application is there and fits the form.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> So then there are deep hidden techniques that the Koreans put into Taeguk poomsae, that we are not made privy of, just like some feel are in karate kata?



As some of us have talked about, terms like 'deep' and 'hidden' aren't necesarily an apt description.  But as an example, if a specific movement sequence in a karate kata means 'A,B and C' then it will also mean 'A,B and C' if that same movement sequence is repeated in a Korean form.  The creator of the Korean form may have:


Known about application 'A' but not 'B and C'.
Known all three but chose not to pass 'B and C' on as general information because he/they wished to emphasis 'A' for a reason.

None of this is disrespectful and is not to be taken as such.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> None of this is disrespectful and is not to be taken as such.



Why would you feel I am being disrespected? Just because I question what is being said does not mean I am feeling disrespected, it means I may or may not agree with you or I may not fully understand what you are saying. If I feel disrespected, trust me, you will know, believe it or not, I have a tendency to be forth coming with my thoughts. 

For the most part I take issue with people who tend to be definitive about what they feel someone else means or doesn't mean when they have not A) Spoken with that person directly, B) Read that was their thoughts or C) Talked to a reliable source who did in fact learn the information directly. As I have stated, that there are many interpretations that one can find from these forms, some basic, some outlandish and some in between. 

While you may not agree with puunui's version, he is not wrong. He simply has a different understanding of KKW TKD than you do. I would dare say a better understanding of the art as a whole than yourself or myself for that matter. With that he is able to interpret a bit more into the form than someone like yourself, myself, Daniel and others on this list, who do not have the background training with many of the seniors and pioneers that he has had. I would hold this true to Mst. Weiss in terms of ITF TKD as well. I could look at Chon-ji and pick out what I know based on my general martial arts experience. However, he may come with something totally outrageous in my eyes, based on his specific knowledge of the art and its philosophy when dealing with its pioneers. Who am I to tell him that he is wrong, when I do not have any deep training in his art. 

You may look at this post as me defending my friend, and it is, but understand that I would put up this same defense for others who have had extensive and direct training and coversations with the pioneers of their chosen art. While I may or may not disagree with it, I would not claim they are wrong so much as try to pick their brain as to how they came up with that interpretation. After all you want an open non-confrontational, non-disrespectful thread, then everyone (I include myself in this group as well) needs to open up their minds and ask questions more than make statements.


----------



## shesulsa

miguksaram said:


> Why would you feel I am being disrespected? Just because I question what is being said does not mean I am feeling disrespected, it means I may or may not agree with you or I may not fully understand what you are saying. If I feel disrespected, trust me, you will know, believe it or not, I have a tendency to be forth coming with my thoughts.



Don't you think this might have been a polite caveat? a friendly reminder that he indeed intends no disrespect? People use this phrase all the time - why needle another user about a commonly used phrase?  This is the path to trouble and seems to be directly disproportionate to your statement here:



> For the most part I take issue with people who tend to be definitive about what they feel someone else means or doesn't mean



So without meaning any disrespect - whether you gleaned any or not - let's all take a moment and breathe, shall we?



> After all you want an open non-confrontational, non-disrespectful thread, then everyone (I include myself in this group as well) needs to open up their minds and ask questions more than make statements.



If this can be accomplished without people directly stating that the opinions of others are not applicable, not valuable, not worth anything and punctuate this opinion with rank we are all supposed to bow down to and without personal insults, that would be the most desirable thing.

As a KMAist of another sort, I recognize that it can be difficult to reconcile the dichotomy of discussion on this board and the piety of our protocol.  Please keep in mind that while we can keep this in place, MartialTalk.com is not a rank-shielded arena.  It doesn't matter how many degrees a person has on their belt ... _*what matters is how they conduct themselves.*_ And, gentle-persons, isn't that what it's really all about?

:asian:


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> While I may or may not disagree with it, I would not claim they are wrong so much as try to pick their brain as to how they came up with that interpretation.



Indeed.  I was hoping puunui or someone else would post ADDITIONAL ideas behind the KKW poomsae.  I don't care that they may be "crackpot" from other perspectives including my own coming into the conversation.  It's hard to learn something new if we reject something out of hand, and considering we've been trying to get at the meaning of poomsae in the KKW universe, I think it's a shame we've lost a better source for that information.

The old saying about emptying our cups comes to mind.  I enjoy talking about karate bunkai myself as evidenced by my choice to post a vid of Bassai Dai on this thread, but that's really not what puunui was discussing, something he went to some pains to broadcast.  I think both KSD and StuartA have offered good positional statements but in the end, they're still based on training perspectives outside what puunui was trying to impart.  It would be like me arguing that kenpo's forms methodology is all wrong because it does not fit with what I think Goju-ryu kata is about.  

It's been said that knowledge and rank do not excuse bad behavior on MT.  True enough.  Bob's site, Bob's rules.  I'll only say in observation that the better martial artists I know, not even knowing puunui at all or how he 'moves', all have quirks to them and it's a matter of taking with their idiosyncrasies in stride as you digest what you can from their offerings.  I bet my own sensei, if he cared enough to learn how to use a browser, would get kicked off MT rather quickly, since he himself is a blunt man.

I enjoy reading most people's posts here.  Just wish we could all curb our fingers at times.  It's OK to not say (type) anything even if we disagree vehemently with what another person is saying.


----------



## StuartA

Obviously there are some that believe that Taekwondo and thus it forms/poomsae have no connection with karate and thus the historical basis I and others purport cannot be true - despite what we say or what evidence we give. Okay, so don't accept what we say (mine through much research) but how about the word of one of the most influential men in kukki TKD: Chong Woo Lee?

Here is part of an article with responses from Chong Woo Le regarding what _'KKW Taekwondo' _was really based upon. I believe (and correct me if I`m wrong) that he was Ji Do kwan and one of the most (if not the most) important people in Kukki TKD!

*Question:* After the Liberation, did all the people who openedstudios do Karate?
_*Chong Woo Lee: *_"*The basic movements, such as the blocking and hitting techniques,* *were identical with Karate*."

*Question: *If that is true, do you mean there is no resemblance to our traditional martial arts forms?
*Chong Woo Lee:*  At a quick glimpse, it looks the same, but the basic techniques are completely different. Therefore, it should be determined that there are no similarities. Taek Kyun has transformed significantly recently. 

*Question:* Is Karate the only martial art that had an impact on Taekwondo in the process of its creation after Liberation? No other influences at all?
*Chong Woo Lee:*  That is a candid statement. I am the one who wrote books bringing in various materials of all sorts, but now is the time to disclose the facts. *All the masters who taught Karate got together and formulated basic Taekwondo forms,* and I took a central role. It should not be a big issue now to disclose this fact, because we are at the top of the world.


No offence to those who feel different as we are fed different things from different sources, but this is not an ITF guy or karate guy saying this.. its a KKW/Taekwondo guy.. more so someone of great importantance!


Stuart


----------



## ralphmcpherson

My instructor told me that our GM's teacher played a role in the invention of the palgwe forms. My GM and his instructors are very big on the idea of getting applications from forms and searching within the forms for additional information. I believe forms are much more than a heap of random movements joined together as an exercise. In saying that, I wouldnt know the first thing about taeguek forms as Im only versed in the palgwes.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

StuartA said:


> I believe (and correct me if I`m wrong) that he was Ji Do kwan and one of the most (if not the most) important people in Kukki TKD!



Yes sir, he was Jidokwan.


----------



## StuartA

ralphmcpherson said:


> My instructor told me that our GM's teacher played a role in the invention of the palgwe forms. My GM and his instructors are very big on the idea of getting applications from forms and searching within the forms for additional information. I believe forms are much more than a heap of random movements joined together as an exercise. In saying that, I wouldnt know the first thing about taeguek forms as Im only versed in the palgwes.



Now that is a Grandmaster I would love to meet!
May I ask his name?

Stuart


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> Obviously there are some that believe that Taekwondo and thus it forms/poomsae have no connection with karate and thus the historical basis I and others purport cannot be true - despite what we say or what evidence we give. Okay, so don't accept what we say (mine through much research) but how about the word of one of the most influential men in kukki TKD: Chong Woo Lee?
> 
> Here is part of an article with responses from Chong Woo Le regarding what _'KKW Taekwondo' _was really based upon. I believe (and correct me if I`m wrong) that he was Ji Do kwan and one of the most (if not the most) important people in Kukki TKD!
> ....
> 
> No offence to those who feel different as we are fed different things from different sources, but this is not an ITF guy or karate guy saying this.. its a KKW/Taekwondo guy.. more so someone of great importantance!



I have classes to teach so this will be short...

This really doesn't address the point made in my opinion.  It is well known that the creators of the KKW poomsae studied karate.  I think the point of contention is if the creators of the forms in question say there is no intended applications in the karate bunkai sense, why go on about it?  

Obviously we can take the same Taegeuk forms and come up with some probably good alternative meanings for the movements based on principles and analysis derived from karate study.  It might even be fun and worthwhile to do.  But why the interest in pointing that out?  I don't think anyone from the KKW side has said you couldn't.  Just that it wouldn't be KKW TKD if you did, which is reasonable enough in my opinion.


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> This really doesn't address the point made in my opinion.


It wasnt intend to! But.. (and apologies).. I missed whatever point your were making because your most recent posts were regarding a banned member, which I have no interest in getting involved in (thats the mods decision after all). So please feel free to make it again.

As far as the post goes, it was a general point for anyone who says "_Kukki poomsae are different and not related to kata"_ - when obviously they are, and the post I made simply comfirms that!



> It is well known that the creators of the KKW poomsae studied karate. I think the point of contention is if the creators of the forms in question say there is no intended applications in the karate bunkai sense, why go on about it?


This point has been addressed already! And is further given less credence by the recent post by ralphmcpherson, who says his "_GM played a role in the invention of the palgwe forms _and his ... _GM and his instructors are very big on the idea of getting applications from forms " -_ like I said... what they say (as in your comment) and what is.. is in reality two different things.. it doesnt make them right I`m afraid - history speaks for itself!



> Obviously we can take the same Taegeuk forms and come up with some probably good alternative meanings for the movements based on principles and analysis derived from karate study. It might even be fun and worthwhile to do.


Sure.. but its also not a _'fun game' _- this kind of research is based on sound historical reasoning and sure, if you don't like it, thats fine.. but it cannot be dismissed with just a _"GM So & So said no"_ type of mentality.. 



> But why the interest in pointing that out?


A) See 2nd line reply B) Because many are interested in that area C) Because the historic facts speak for themselves



> I don't think anyone from the KKW side has said you couldn't. Just that it wouldn't be KKW TKD if you did, which is reasonable enough in my opinion.


So SD type applications to the KKW MARTIAL ART of Taekwondo wouldn't be KKW!!!.. er, okay.. I can live with that, if thats what the majority of KKW students believe.. from what I`ve seen thats not the case. And apologies if those that study and interpret the poomsae make taekwondo_ less _taekwondo and _more martial _in context, but believe it or not... some still like the martial element left in Taekwondo!


Stuart


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> I think the point of contention is if the creators of the forms in question say there is no intended applications in the karate bunkai sense, why go on about it?


*This is actually an interesting point*. So.. they (in your opinion or by their own words) dont feel what folks term_ 'alternative' _applications are relevenat.. yet they still offer the _'old'_ applications of _blocks to punch _etc. (which can be viewed via the KKW web site and numerous KKW books) - which funnily enough.. do the EXACT same thing.. meaning _'knifehand blocks a punch' 'low block blocks a kick' _as the Karate (pre-bunkai) do - *and yet*, you and they feel they are not related, yet clearly they are because they both use the same techniques for the same (unworkable in real life) 'basic' applications.. so if they are in that respect, they are also in the research of boon hae (to give it it proper korean name)!!! 


Stuart


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> I think the point of contention is if the creators of the forms in question say there is no intended applications in the karate bunkai sense, why go on about it?


Sorry, just thought of this and it made me chuckle.. so maybe it will you too!

Saying what you have said is like me giving my daughter a car.. she cannot drive so she says _"I will sit in it with my friends and it will be our social place to meet"_ and NOT use it as a car ... yet its still a car! So if she says that.. no-one should point out.. its still a car.. go figure!!! 

Stuart


----------



## ralphmcpherson

andyjeffries said:


> _puunui _
> *Account Suspended*
> 
> Seriously?  Someone got butthurt and complained again?
> 
> I understand that Puunui offends some people, but the fact of the matter is that he's one of the (if not, the) most senior Kukkiwon practitioners on here with close links to a lot of kwan founders and Kukkiwon seniors (so he has a lot of information direct from the source).  This is useful/interesting to those of us that are Kukki-Taekwondoin and I'm sure interesting to those outside that want to understand/know more about Kukki-Taekwondo.
> 
> How about everyone acts like an adult instead of running off saying "Miss, Puunui called me names and hurt my feelings, miss, miss..." like we're still in school.
> 
> If you don't like what someone says, post something to clarify it (if you're worried about others reading it without a correcting fact) and then drop it/ignore it.


Firstly, Im not the one who reported Puuini, BUT, I dont care how 'senior' soneone is, they still have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. He has continually been rude and obtuse and goes out of his way to stir the pot while those who disagree with him remain polite and well mannered. I dont know the exact reasons for his suspension, but I applaud whoever made the decision.


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> As far as the post goes, it was a general point for anyone who says "_Kukki poomsae are different and not related to kata"_ - when obviously they are, and the post I made simply comfirms that!



Well you're jumping in late so understandably you're missing a lot of the context in this discussion which actually spans threads and months here on MT.  You're taking the stance that the creators of the KKW poomsae studied karate and so as they formulated their own forms they inevitably also brought across the body of knowledge from karate and so the process of kata analysis can likewise be applied to the Taegeuk series.  Am I right?




> This point has been addressed already! And is further given less credence by the recent post by ralphmcpherson, who says his "_GM played a role in the invention of the palgwe forms _and his ... _GM and his instructors are very big on the idea of getting applications from forms " -_ like I said... what they say (as in your comment) and what is.. is in reality two different things.. it doesnt make them right I`m afraid - history speaks for itself!



Ralph can jump in here if I'm wrong, but I don't know that his GM was on the committee that actually designed the Taegeuk poomsae.  If he was, I'm sure he would have mentioned it before.  And please restate for me how you have addressed the contention that KKW does not have the concept of bunkai.  That if a person decides to study the Taegeuk poomsae in a such a fashion, no one is going to try to stop them, but they shouldn't say it is a basic component of KKW TKD.  Are you able to come up with a quotation from GM Chong Woo Lee saying otherwise?

That's actually the main argument put forth that I agree with.  I reiterate that of course it is quite possible to study the Taegeuk from a karate perspective.  But that's not the point of contention here. 



> Sure.. but its also not a _'fun game' _- this kind of research is based on sound historical reasoning and sure, if you don't like it, thats fine.. but it cannot be dismissed with just a _"GM So & So said no"_ type of mentality..



Stuart, I can call it a fun game if I want.  It is a fun game.  It can be something else too practiced correctly.  I hope I don't sound testy, but I am a godan in Okinawan Goju-ryu.  I am well versed in kata and their role in Okinawan karate pedagogy.

But just because I am a trained karate-ka does not mean I have to translate my methods to other arts.  It may be that the way YOU practice your hyung, applications are paramount.  That's great and I support this type of inquiry within TKD itself, have even indulged in it to a high degree.  But I'm not going to tell people that they way they do things is wrong or incomplete or whatever else.  



> So SD type applications to the KKW MARTIAL ART of Taekwondo wouldn't be KKW!!!.. er, okay.. I can live with that, if thats what the majority of KKW students believe.. from what I`ve seen thats not the case. And apologies if those that study and interpret the poomsae make taekwondo_ less _taekwondo and _more martial _in context, but believe it or not... some still like the martial element left in Taekwondo!



As I said you're coming very late to the show.  It's been said time and again that KKW hosinsul is practiced outside of the poomsae.  The poomsae are not meant to teach SD within KKW TKD.  Your mileage may vary when talking about other forms of TKD or other arts altogether.



> So.. they (in your opinion or by their own words) dont feel what folks term_ 'alternative' applications are relevenat.. yet they still offer the 'old' applications of blocks to punch etc. (which can be viewed via the KKW web site and numerous KKW books) - which funnily enough.. do the EXACT same thing.. meaning 'knifehand blocks a punch' 'low block blocks a kick' as the Karate (pre-bunkai) do - *and yet, you and they feel they are not related, yet clearly they are because they both use the same techniques for the same (unworkable in real life) 'basic' applications.. so if they are in that respect, they are also in the research of boon hae (to give it it proper korean name)!!!
> *_



I think that is just what they did back then.  Similar to the rather unusable examples in General Choi's Encyclopedia or in GM Duk Song Son's books.  I don't know that form applications were ever something considered on a serious level in early TKD so why should we expect the examples to be realistic or workable?  

Bunkai just wasn't there.  Now sure you can retrofit it, as you do, and come up with something cool and useful.   It doesn't mean it was there in the first place.  Itosu's magical methods in the Pinan kata don't automatically translate to the Taegeuks just because the inventors added some similar sequences in a few spots.  It takes a person intentionally training so to bring them out, and in this case, apparently the creators of the forms say they never added such a layer of meaning into their creation.

It's like people adding in all kinds of allegory and such to a novel when the writer says he never intended such.  Who is right?  



> Saying what you have said is like me giving my daughter a car.. she cannot drive so she says _"I will sit in it with my friends and it will be our social place to meet" and NOT use it as a car ... yet its still a car! So if she says that.. no-one should point out.. its still a car.. go figure!!!
> _



I like my novel analogy better.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

You are correct dancingalone, my GM's teacher was the one on the commitee who deigned the palgwes, not my GM. My instructor has discussed it with me a few times but my GM has retired and i would be lucky if i saw him once a year and his english is very poor so its not something ive been fortunate enough to discuss with him one on one as he had retired before i even started tkd.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Originally Posted by *dancingalone*

I think the point of contention is if the creators of the forms in question say there is no intended applications in the karate bunkai sense, why go on about it?



StuartA said:


> Sorry, just thought of this and it made me chuckle.. so maybe it will you too!
> 
> Saying what you have said is like me giving my daughter a car.. she cannot drive so she says _"I will sit in it with my friends and it will be our social place to meet"_ and NOT use it as a car ... yet its still a car! So if she says that.. no-one should point out.. its still a car.. go figure!!!
> 
> Stuart



I'm kind of thinking it would be like an instructor  giving you something you never saw before and telling you it's a "Door Stop"  to use it to keep hold the door open. Put it on the floor in front of the door and it keeps the door from closing. It is a "Door Stop"  and it works to hold the door open. As far as you know that's what it is. When your instructor moves on you take over the school and the door stop. You have yopur students use it accordingly. One day a stranger from a strange land appears, and while you are using a rock to try and pound in a nail, he picks up the door stop, and efficiently drives in the nail because he recognized the door stop to be a hammer.  Now, if the instructor never knew what a hammer was and didn't recognize tis thing as a hammer and did not know how to use it, does that mean it's not a hammer? 

The above should not be seen as a slam on the instructor. Perhaps the most efficient way to teach movements to large numbers is though a stated application that helps understand the concept. The downside is  a sort of tunnel vision and stifling of learning  if you accepot  that as the end f the story.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Earl Weiss said:


> I'm kind of thinking it would be like an instructor  giving you something you never saw before and telling you it's a "Door Stop"  to use it to keep hold the door open. Put it on the floor in front of the door and it keeps the door from closing. It is a "Door Stop"  and it works to hold the door open. As far as you know that's what it is. When your instructor moves on you take over the school and the door stop. You have yopur students use it accordingly. One day a stranger from a strange land appears, and while you are using a rock to try and pound in a nail, he picks up the door stop, and efficiently drives in the nail because he recognized the door stop to be a hammer.  Now, if the instructor never knew what a hammer was and didn't recognize tis thing as a hammer and did not know how to use it, does that mean it's not a hammer?



This my favorite analogy of all time. For the next 24 hours, at the very minimum.



Earl Weiss said:


> The above should not be seen as a slam on the instructor. Perhaps the most efficient way to teach movements to large numbers is though a stated application that helps understand the concept. The downside is  a sort of tunnel vision and stifling of learning  if you accepot  that as the end f the story.



By and large, this is how we teach. We teach techniques (either as individual techniques/combos or as part of a kata/hyung/tul/poomsae/pattern/cookie cutter/psychotic dream/divine inspiration) and give one, maybe two examples of how they could be used. Eventually, we expect to see the student come to the realization that these examples are just that - examples. Not the be all and end all of how that movement can be used.


----------



## Jaeimseu

dancingalone said:


> Well you're jumping in late so understandably you're missing a lot of the context in this discussion which actually spans threads and months here on MT.  You're taking the stance that the creators of the KKW poomsae studied karate and so as they formulated their own forms they inevitably also brought across the body of knowledge from karate and so the process of kata analysis can likewise be applied to the Taegeuk series.  Am I right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph can jump in here if I'm wrong, but I don't know that his GM was on the committee that actually designed the Taegeuk poomsae.  If he was, I'm sure he would have mentioned it before.  And please restate for me how you have addressed the contention that KKW does not have the concept of bunkai.  That if a person decides to study the Taegeuk poomsae in a such a fashion, no one is going to try to stop them, but they shouldn't say it is a basic component of KKW TKD.  Are you able to come up with a quotation from GM Chong Woo Lee saying otherwise?
> 
> That's actually the main argument put forth that I agree with.  I reiterate that of course it is quite possible to study the Taegeuk from a karate perspective.  But that's not the point of contention here.
> 
> 
> 
> Stuart, I can call it a fun game if I want.  It is a fun game.  It can be something else too practiced correctly.  I hope I don't sound testy, but I am a godan in Okinawan Goju-ryu.  I am well versed in kata and their role in Okinawan karate pedagogy.
> 
> But just because I am a trained karate-ka does not mean I have to translate my methods to other arts.  It may be that the way YOU practice your hyung, applications are paramount.  That's great and I support this type of inquiry within TKD itself, have even indulged in it to a high degree.  But I'm not going to tell people that they way they do things is wrong or incomplete or whatever else.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you're coming very late to the show.  It's been said time and again that KKW hosinsul is practiced outside of the poomsae.  The poomsae are not meant to teach SD within KKW TKD.  Your mileage may vary when talking about other forms of TKD or other arts altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is just what they did back then.  Similar to the rather unusable examples in General Choi's Encyclopedia or in GM Duk Song Son's books.  I don't know that form applications were ever something considered on a serious level in early TKD so why should we expect the examples to be realistic or workable?
> 
> Bunkai just wasn't there.  Now sure you can retrofit it, as you do, and come up with something cool and useful.   It doesn't mean it was there in the first place.  Itosu's magical methods in the Pinan kata don't automatically translate to the Taegeuks just because the inventors added some similar sequences in a few spots.  It takes a person intentionally training so to bring them out, and in this case, apparently the creators of the forms say they never added such a layer of meaning into their creation.
> 
> It's like people adding in all kinds of allegory and such to a novel when the writer says he never intended such.  Who is right?
> 
> 
> 
> I like my novel analogy better.



I like your novel analogy. 

I'm wondering if this discussion of applications or meanings might be similar to homophones in language. An English speaker would tell you that the "moon" is the thing you see in the sky at night. A Korean speaker would tell you it is the door. They would both be right, from their own point of view. The sound of the word is virtually identical, but carries different meanings depending on who hears it. So, depending on where a person is coming from, the meanings or applications could be different. A Karate guy is likely to interpret the movement from a Karate perspective, while a Kukki taekwondo guy will do the same from his own perspective.

In this way, alternative meanings may be possible, but they aren't necessarily "correct" within the context of a particular art. So, you can say that "moon" is that bright thing in the night sky, but if you do, then you aren't speaking Korean anymore.

I hope this doesn't read strange. This newborn has got me up at all hours...


----------



## seasoned

I love analogies. 

Martial arts are for everyone. And, as long as a person is happy and content with where they are, then they are fulfilling the intent. 
I feel that the intent is the same with all arts, and that is preservation. "The passing of information", over many life times. 
I know I shouldn't speak for other arts, but IMHO, you don't learn to forget, but you learn to pass it on.

Centuries ago, preservation, was word of mouth, and also forms, (kata). 
I can speak for Okinawan GoJu in that, then, books were not the means. Oh, information was written down on paper, as well as in the mind of the practitioner, but that information was guarded and not readily given away. You see, to the Okinawan's, Okinawan te was a life preservation art, and as poor farming people, they had little to offer. Little to call their own, except a unique means of guarding their homeland from foreign invaders, and that means, was looked upon as a national treasure. In the passing of time this national treasure became known as Okinawan GoJo. 

The devastation from the latter part of WW2, left 1/3 of the Okinawan's dead, and much of what was written about their national treasure destroyed. This art, in order to survive intact, was gathered together by a hand full of karate ka that would become the keepers of this art.  

I mention the above only as a back drop to explain what I think may be in the minds of kata based contributor of this thread. You see, Okinawan GoJu, when first presented outside of Okinawa, in the early turn of the 19th century was said to be to harsh as the art it was, and therefor was presented by invitation, has a block, punch, and kicking art. All other manor of technique, which was the true national treasure, was well hidden within the kata, for future practitioners with a pure heart, to find for them self. 

Now, is the above message for everybody, no. This is what makes martial arts "for, everyone". Live and let live, train and let train, and share when asked, in a spirit of humility. And this is how the arts will be there in many forms, with something for everyone.:asian:


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Earl Weiss said:


> I'm kind of thinking it would be like an instructor giving you something you never saw before and telling you it's a "Door Stop" to use it to keep hold the door open. Put it on the floor in front of the door and it keeps the door from closing. It is a "Door Stop" and it works to hold the door open. As far as you know that's what it is. When your instructor moves on you take over the school and the door stop. You have yopur students use it accordingly. One day a stranger from a strange land appears, and while you are using a rock to try and pound in a nail, he picks up the door stop, and efficiently drives in the nail because he recognized the door stop to be a hammer. Now, if the instructor never knew what a hammer was and didn't recognize tis thing as a hammer and did not know how to use it, does that mean it's not a hammer?
> 
> The above should not be seen as a slam on the instructor. Perhaps the most efficient way to teach movements to large numbers is though a stated application that helps understand the concept. The downside is a sort of tunnel vision and stifling of learning if you accepot that as the end f the story.



Excellent example!

This is the point I've been making for many threads/months. Some have, for some reason, seen it as disrespectful to KKW seniors despite me stating that it isn't meant to be at all. As I've said many times, a person cannot teach what they themselves did not learn. And as I mentioned in a previous post, either they didn't know applications beyond the b-p-k model or some did know but made the choice to concentrate on the b-p-k model. That isn't disrespectful, that's just stating the options.

Whether or not the KKW seniors recognized/encourage/teach additional applications in the KKW forms isn't the point. They exist. For someone to then extract these applications for their use is a positive endevor and in no way takes away from someone that doesn't wish to do so. And I will state that a KKW TKD instructor/student can teach/learn additional applications from KKW forms and still be KKW TKD. Really, does anyone see them revoking your BB if you teach that a down block can also be used as a hammer fist? As I've mentioned numerous times, a good instructor WANTS his students to grow beyond themselves. 

More to the point, why would any art or faction within an art resist the art growing? Think about this for a moment. KKW TKD has a great sport element for those wishing that pursuit. It has a great kid/family dynmanic for those wishing that aspect of the art. By looking at more in-depth and yes...advanced applications within the forms you now have a fantastic SD element with locks, throws etc within the SAME art. Imagine...something for everyone within the SAME art. Why in the world would anyone resist this?


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> Well you're jumping in late so understandably you're missing a lot of the context in this discussion which actually spans threads and months here on MT.


I am!  Okay.. fair enough.. though I can only post on what I read on the thread at hand, not know that it spands other discussions and thats exactly what i did!



> You're taking the stance that the creators of the KKW poomsae studied karate and so as they formulated their own forms they inevitably also brought across the body of knowledge from karate and so the process of kata analysis can likewise be applied to the Taegeuk series. Am I right?


Yes




> And please restate for me how you have addressed the contention that KKW does not have the concept of bunkai.


I never said they dont have bunkai (boon Hae).. they do.. they show the same applications as the karate applications do ie. block a punch etc.  Which was part of my point and pasrt of what you have just said above!



> That if a person decides to study the Taegeuk poomsae in a such a fashion, no one is going to try to stop them, but they shouldn't say it is a basic component of KKW TKD.


I didnt (and neither did any one else I think) say its a 'basic' component. My posts were simply on the subject of those that say.. they wernt there at the beginning, when created so they cannot be there at all! Plus the KKW taekwondo poomsae have not connection to karate kata!



> Are you able to come up with a quotation from GM Chong Woo Lee saying otherwise?


I dont have to.. I posted that to show the Karate connection that some seem to deny exsists!



> That's actually the main argument put forth that I agree with. I reiterate that of course it is quite possible to study the Taegeuk from a karate perspective. But that's not the point of contention here.


Actually, seeking out 'realsitic applications' isnt really a Karate persepctive, as for nearly 100 years they did exactly the same and never looked into more than the P/K/B applications



> Stuart, I can call it a fun game if I want. It is a fun game. It can be something else too practiced correctly. I hope I don't sound testy, but I am a godan in Okinawan Goju-ryu. I am well versed in kata and their role in Okinawan karate pedagogy.


I never said you couldnt call it a 'fun game'... I simply said for those that study this side, its not a game... it can be fun though 



> But just because I am a trained karate-ka does not mean I have to translate my methods to other arts. It may be that the way YOU practice your hyung, applications are paramount. That's great and I support this type of inquiry within TKD itself, have even indulged in it to a high degree. But I'm not going to tell people that they way they do things is wrong or incomplete or whatever else.


Where have I told anyone that the way they do things are wrong? I simply express my opinion on the connection and building blocks of all forms, which include the KKW poomsae. And nor is it about trying to force people to 'translate their methods'.. its simply information and evidence that points in the direction that they (the poomsae) hold more than is/was known... its not telling anyone they HAVE to go this route... simply saying that you can't deny it exsists is all!




> As I said you're coming very late to the show. It's been said time and again that KKW hosinsul is practiced outside of the poomsae.


As it is in ITF too.. and even with decent Boon Hae it can be as well.. but that doesnt change any of the facts. Perhaps if better hosinsul techniques were found in the patterns earlier on, hosinsul would of used them!



> The poomsae are not meant to teach SD within KKW TKD.


Again... this is because, when created they wernt really capable of that IMO... if they knew then what we know now, it may have been a whole different ball game. But that can change IF people want it to.. again thats up to them, as the poomsae certainly contain all the right tools from what Ive seen! What are the poomsae meant to teach then btw?



> Your mileage may vary when talking about other forms of TKD or other arts altogether.


Not even sure what you mean by this!




> I think that is just what they did back then. Similar to the rather unusable examples in General Choi's Encyclopedia or in GM Duk Song Son's books. I don't know that form applications were ever something considered on a serious level in early TKD so why should we expect the examples to be realistic or workable?


See, we do agree on something - I feel the same about Gen Choi's books etc. And your right, why should we expect to see more realistic examples - we wont on a bigger level, cos those up top dont wat to do or acknowledge this stuff - but it still doent make it NOT there! Like I said, research shows that this area is there and exsists for those that want it!



> Bunkai just wasn't there. Now sure you can retrofit it, as you do, and come up with something cool and useful. It doesn't mean it was there in the first place.


As far a patterns/poomsae go - it wasnt there sure.. because you cannot add soemthing or not add something that you don't know about! As i have said already!



> Itosu's magical methods in the Pinan kata don't automatically translate to the Taegeuks just because the inventors added some similar sequences in a few spots.


Yes it does, because its more than a few spots and its intrinsic to the way the patterns and poomsae were built!



> It takes a person intentionally training so to bring them out, and in this case, apparently the creators of the forms say they never added such a layer of meaning into their creation.


On your first part - yes, of course, it does take someone to bring them out, as the P/K/B method is too ingrained and now we have new knowledge, but again, it wasnt knowledge that was there when the creators created them!



> It's like people adding in all kinds of allegory and such to a novel when the writer says he never intended such. Who is right?
> I like my novel analogy better.


I like Master Weiss.. as he has 'hit the nail on the head' 

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Earl Weiss said:


> Originally Posted by *dancingalone*
> 
> I think the point of contention is if the creators of the forms in question say there is no intended applications in the karate bunkai sense, why go on about it?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kind of thinking it would be like an instructor giving you something you never saw before and telling you it's a "Door Stop" to use it to keep hold the door open. Put it on the floor in front of the door and it keeps the door from closing. It is a "Door Stop" and it works to hold the door open. As far as you know that's what it is. When your instructor moves on you take over the school and the door stop. You have yopur students use it accordingly. One day a stranger from a strange land appears, and while you are using a rock to try and pound in a nail, he picks up the door stop, and efficiently drives in the nail because he recognized the door stop to be a hammer. Now, if the instructor never knew what a hammer was and didn't recognize tis thing as a hammer and did not know how to use it, does that mean it's not a hammer?
> 
> The above should not be seen as a slam on the instructor. Perhaps the most efficient way to teach movements to large numbers is though a stated application that helps understand the concept. The downside is a sort of tunnel vision and stifling of learning if you accepot that as the end f the story.



Yes, exactly. Funny you use the hammer anology as in my first book I used the quote; _*"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" *_to make the exact same point!

Stuart


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> Whether or not the KKW seniors recognized/encourage/teach additional applications in the KKW forms isn't the point. They exist. For someone to then extract these applications for their use is a positive endevor and in no way takes away from someone that doesn't wish to do so. And I will state that a KKW TKD instructor/student can teach/learn additional applications from KKW forms and still be KKW TKD. Really, does anyone see them revoking your BB if you teach that a down block can also be used as a hammer fist? As I've mentioned numerous times, a good instructor WANTS his students to grow beyond themselves.
> 
> More to the point, why would any art or faction within an art resist the art growing? Think about this for a moment. KKW TKD has a great sport element for those wishing that pursuit. It has a great kid/family dynmanic for those wishing that aspect of the art. By looking at more in-depth and yes...advanced applications within the forms you now have a fantastic SD element with locks, throws etc within the SAME art. Imagine...something for everyone within the SAME art. Why in the world would anyone resist this?



As has been mentioned numerous times, no one says you can't train bunkai using the KKW forms.  No one is going to be kicked out either for training bunkai.  Some people HAVE said they find other aspects of their training more rewarding and that they have no interest in studying applications the way karate-ka do.  Some people HAVE said bunkai is not part of KKW TKD as currently framed.

How is any of that debatable?  It really isn't.  Everything else you're stating are just strawman arguments IMO, KSD.  Things like 'a good instructor WANTS his students to grow beyond themselves' or 'why in the world would anyone resist this'.  

Those who want to do such things, do.  No rules against it.  No sanctions coming down the pipeline for the 'heretics'.  No need for anyone to say anything other than, yeah I like bunkai, but yes I understand there is no such thing as bunkai in the KKW conceptualization of forms.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Kong Soo Do said:


> Excellent example!
> 
> This is the point I've been making for many threads/months. Some have, for some reason, seen it as disrespectful to KKW seniors despite me stating that it isn't meant to be at all. As I've said many times, a person cannot teach what they themselves did not learn. And as I mentioned in a previous post, either they didn't know applications beyond the b-p-k model or some did know but made the choice to concentrate on the b-p-k model. That isn't disrespectful, that's just stating the options.
> 
> Whether or not the KKW seniors recognized/encourage/teach additional applications in the KKW forms isn't the point. They exist. For someone to then extract these applications for their use is a positive endevor and in no way takes away from someone that doesn't wish to do so. And I will state that a KKW TKD instructor/student can teach/learn additional applications from KKW forms and still be KKW TKD. Really, does anyone see them revoking your BB if you teach that a down block can also be used as a hammer fist? As I've mentioned numerous times, a good instructor WANTS his students to grow beyond themselves.
> 
> More to the point, why would any art or faction within an art resist the art growing? Think about this for a moment. KKW TKD has a great sport element for those wishing that pursuit. It has a great kid/family dynmanic for those wishing that aspect of the art. By looking at more in-depth and yes...advanced applications within the forms you now have a fantastic SD element with locks, throws etc within the SAME art. Imagine...something for everyone within the SAME art. *Why in the world would anyone resist this?*


Who is resisting? From what I can recall reading, even the people who aren't into alternative applications have said that they don't really have any issue with people doing it. The only thing people seem to resist is the idea that the alternative applications are the "original" applications or somehow secret, hidden, etc. applications that the founders were ignorant of. You now appear to be allowing for the chance that the founders simply made a choice not to include alternative applications when they formulated the Taekwondo poomse, which I think is better than making the statement that they were ignorant of them. You generally say that it's not disrespectful, just stating the facts. I would say it's not really a fact, but your opinion. When other posters made a similar comment about your ignorance of the Taeguek poomse you appeared to find that disrespectful. You can put in the disclaimer that you don't mean disrespect, or use expressions like "with all due respect," but it doesn't make it any less disrespectful in my opinion. That's like the Ricky Bobby Nascar movie. He says "with all due respect" and then thinks it's ok to say anything after that.

As far as Kukkiwon Taekwondo having something for everyone, I don't think anyone has disputed that. Instructors are pretty much free to teach the way they like outside of the minimum requirements. If someone wants to teach alternative poomse applications, or locks and throws, or weapons, or whatever else strikes their fancy, they are welcome to do that. They are also free to not do it if they don't wish to. Just like you (I assume) don't teach sport sparring or the Taegeuk poomse to your students. Teach what you want. If you choose to teach self defense through forms applications, who cares? If another instructor wants to teach self defense separately, who cares?


----------



## Gnarlie

Jaeimseu said:


> Teach what you want. If you choose to teach self defense through forms applications, who cares? If another instructor wants to teach self defense separately, who cares?



Exactly.  So we should be quite free to discuss here the techniques and principles illustrated by applications relating to any Korean form we like, without fear of resistance or reproach. 

Up to now, this thread had been mostly about whether they officially exist or not, with everyone trying to prove everybody else wrong on a topic that can't be proven as it's not documented.  Who cares?  The movements of poomsae CAN be used as legitimate self defence techniques, is all that matters.  Discussion of how harms nobody. 

It's like we decided that we are going to open a dojang, then spent the first week arguing over whether the mats should be blue or red.  It's a minor detail, open the dojang already! 

Now, who's going to put forward a proposed application for one of my favourites, the covered pressing block, backfist combo from Taegeuk Chil Jang? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQH1cOQ6W_Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do

DA and Jaeimseu,

To avoid misunderstanding, many of my comments are rhetorical in nature and not accusatory.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Discussion of various applications found in forms is an educational pursuit that many of us enjoy and obviously passionate about.  It just struck me however, that we may also wish to break it down further than the forms themselves, at least for part of this discussion.  We all do line drills of one sort or another i.e. high block, low block, straight punch etc.  Perhaps from a foundational perspective, we can also touch base on what these movements may be used for in additon to the obvious.  

For example, in this and several threads the low block has been discussed as a very effective hammer fist to the groin, femoral nerve etc.  It has also be discussed as an effective forearm jam/half-spear and off-balancing movement to set up the opponent.  

What do you see for other types of blocks, other than use as a 'block'?  This then translates into a larger perspective of forms.  

For example, a high block.  We use this as a very effective forearm smash from grappling range.  I think someone else described something very similar in this or another thread?  What else can you use the 'high block' for, beyond the obvious?


----------



## Gnarlie

Kong Soo Do said:


> Discussion of various applications found in forms is an educational pursuit that many of us enjoy and obviously passionate about.  It just struck me however, that we may also wish to break it down further than the forms themselves, at least for part of this discussion.  We all do line drills of one sort or another i.e. high block, low block, straight punch etc.  Perhaps from a foundational perspective, we can also touch base on what these movements may be used for in additon to the obvious.
> 
> For example, in this and several threads the low block has been discussed as a very effective hammer fist to the groin, femoral nerve etc.  It has also be discussed as an effective forearm jam/half-spear and off-balancing movement to set up the opponent.
> 
> What do you see for other types of blocks, other than use as a 'block'?  This then translates into a larger perspective of forms.
> 
> For example, a high block.  We use this as a very effective forearm smash from grappling range.  I think someone else described something very similar in this or another thread?  What else can you use the 'high block' for, beyond the obvious?



I'd say that depends on willingness to accept the principle of using the chamber hand to block, stun or capture.  If we're willing to go there, it works as a wonderful closed side upward smash to the underside of the elbow, or a strike to the face with the chamber hand opening up the neck followed by a rising strike to the throat or carotid area.

Thinking more laterally, I've seen examples of it used to manipulate someone into a standing position by pulling their hair, or as a fairly robust shirt collar strangle.

I have comprehensive notes on this very subject, and how the individual movements of the Taegeuk series relate to those of patterns in other arts.  But I'm off out to the cinema now, so will update more tomorrow.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gnarlie said:


> I'd say that depends on willingness to accept the principle of using the chamber hand to block, stun or capture.



Absolutely.  I'm of the opinion that the chambering hand (the hand that comes back to a 'ready' position on or near the hips) is not necessarily getting into postion for a block or strike, rather it has grasped something (limb, clothing) and you are bringing that object back into your center to off-balance the attacker and futher set him up for a follow up strike.



> I have comprehensive notes on this very subject, and how the individual movements of the Taegeuk series relate to those of patterns in other arts. But I'm off out to the cinema now, so will update more tomorrow.



Excellent, I would love to see this.


----------



## shesulsa

Kong Soo Do said:


> Absolutely.  I'm of the opinion that the chambering hand (the hand that comes back to a 'ready' position on or near the hips) is not necessarily getting into postion for a block or strike, rather it has grasped something (limb, clothing) and you are bringing that object back into your center to off-balance the attacker and futher set him up for a follow up strike.



I guess I'm confounded why anyone would (A) limit themselves to one application as the definitive go-to move when in a self-defense application one would be better prepared to leave the options open and (b) feel villified in arguing application for said reason.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do

shesulsa said:


> I guess I'm confounded why anyone would (A) limit themselves to one application as the definitive go-to move when in a self-defense application one would be better prepared to leave the options open and (b) feel villified in arguing application for said reason.
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2



I'm not sure what you're saying here? I agree that no one should limit themselves to one, or even specific applications. Now, having said that, we are always going to gravitate towards techniques/principles/movements that play to our strengths and even take into consideration our weaknesses. 

This is one of the ways I feel applications can and do really have a strong showing. On the surface, we can see an individual strike, or combination of strikes. That's all well and fine, and may be the only thing to solve the issue. Below the surface, and by that I don't mean 'hidden', we can have an application that touches on some core principle. For example, the 'chambering' mentioned above. For those comfortable with grappling arts, it is understood how important the principle(s) of grasping/seizing/controlling can be and how they can be used. Once these principles are understood, we can use it at a variety of angles (both ourselves and that of the attacker), on the ground, a position of disadvantage etc. Just as importantly, we can use this principle to provide or create the opportunity to appropriately follow up. 

For example, is this a low level threat situation where we simply need to grasp and off-balance an individual, possibly for a transporter, pain compliance or control method? Is this a higher threat situation which may require a more dynamic involvement such as a strike/kick/throw? Put it another way, striking or kicking is a one-dimensional response to an attack. Whereas grasping/seizing/controlling provides a whole range of options which also include striking and kicking as well as a plethora of other responses. This then leaves our options open to a situation that could be ever-changing and doesn't lock us into one response level. And this is vitally needed due to attacker/subject factors, venue of the attack, weapon(s) present, number of attackers etc.


----------



## Earl Weiss

seasoned said:


> I love analogies.
> 
> Martial arts are for everyone. And, as long as a person is happy and content with where they are, then they are fulfilling the intent.
> :asian:



Yep, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Kong Soo Do said:


> For example, a high block.  We use this as a very effective forearm smash from grappling range.  I think someone else described something very similar in this or another thread?  What else can you use the 'high block' for, beyond the obvious?



In  the  Chang Hon system we call this a "Rising outer forearm Block" it gets into amore interesting issue about the chamber for this block. In the Chang Hon system the Blocking arm is on top and in many others it is underneath. The different chambers lend themselves to different applications. 

There are also references on how an open hand variation of a block lends itdlef to grabbing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Admin Note:*

Since it has been discussed in this thread, I will put this here as an Official Statement.

Puunui's suspension, and now ban, was a result of his own actions and attitude, towards other members, my staff, and myself.  If there is anyone to blame for his membership being revoked, it is him alone. He was given more than a fair chance to conform to our posted rules, rules which the majority of our members have no trouble following. I attempted to discuss the situation with him, and was met with a negative, hostile attitude which forced me to remove him for the good of the community. He has threatened legal action against me and MartialTalk as a result.

Our staff does it's best to enforce policy evenly, and fairly, to all members. We do not 'play favorites'. Rank, membership level, patronage are irrelevant. We have suspended and banned supporting members, moderators, and investors as needed, and even I have been suspended when I went too far. We strive for fairness, and if we have any fault, it's allowing people too many chances. 

Should anyone wish to leave as a result, that is your choice. I am certain 'the other side of the story' is being passed around, which will disagree with my above statement. You may believe as you like. It has never been, nor will it be our policy to discuss any members 'infraction record' with other members. We handle most direct actions privately. This may appear to some that nothing is being done, however all reported posts are evaluated by at least 3 moderators. We do this to help ensure fairness to all members, equally.  Puunui was given fair treatment. His suspension and ban were his own doing. 

That is all I will say at this time. 

Thank you,
Bob Hubbard,
Administrator, MartialTalk.com
President, SilverStar WebDesigns Inc.


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> In  the  Chang Hon system we call this a "Rising outer forearm Block" it gets into amore interesting issue about the chamber for this block. In the Chang Hon system the Blocking arm is on top and in many others it is underneath. The different chambers lend themselves to different applications.
> 
> There are also references on how an open hand variation of a block lends itdlef to grabbing.



I did not know that about the Ch'ang Hon high block.   That opens up a wealth of new possibilities not just for applications, but for comparing with quasi-parent arts. 

Thank you for mentioning this. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Not exactly what I was looking for in an image, but it will do for a pinch.  Different arts may call this type of block by different names i.e. middle outside block.  We use this type of motion all the time in my line of work.  If I can try to describe it in words;  the chambering hand is grasping/seizing the limb (usually the wrist area) of the person and bringing it into your center to draw them in and off-balance them in a forward motion (for them).  The blocking arm is moving in an arc, with the inside of your forearm coming in contact with their elbow.  Then the upward part of the blocking motion is bending their arm in with their hand/fist down towards the ground.  This then rotates their arm and upper torso away from you and places the arm behind their back where you can then put a lock into place, a transporter or pain compliance.  This isn't for an individual who is actively attacking, rather a semi-resisting situation.


----------



## Gnarlie

That arm manipulation from outer forearm block is in my repertoire too 

The above video contains a few ideas on the application of Shuto (twin knife hand block, sometimes referred to as Soodo in Korean arts).  I attended a couple of seminars with Vince Morris, and he's pretty good on applications from Shotokan forms, which he developed Kissaki-Kai from, amongst others.  Seminars were pretty hardcore, opened my eyes to the practicality of a closer range.

Some nice ideas that can fit with some sequences from the Taegeuk forms.


----------



## Earl Weiss

>>Gnarlie
That arm manipulation from outer forearm block is in my repertoire too 

Vince Morris, and he's pretty good on applications from Shotokan forms, which he developed Kissaki-Kai from, amongst others.  Seminars were pretty hardcore, opened my eyes to the practicality of a closer range.<<

Intersting that yoo call it an outer forearm block. In the Chang Hon system the thumb side of the forearm is inner forearm and the small finger side is outer. The block with the palm toward you as per the illustration is inner forearm. Shows how difficult these discussions can be.  I was at a workshop with Vince Morris. He kept urging us to block harder ad then shared a story of a guy getting a massive hematoma from a hard block at a seminar.  I felt his stuff had a more practical side than  some of Dilman's stuff because he did not focus on realy small targets.


----------



## Gnarlie

Earl Weiss said:


> >>Gnarlie
> That arm manipulation from outer forearm block is in my repertoire too
> 
> Vince Morris, and he's pretty good on applications from Shotokan forms, which he developed Kissaki-Kai from, amongst others.  Seminars were pretty hardcore, opened my eyes to the practicality of a closer range.<<
> 
> Intersting that yoo call it an outer forearm block. In the Chang Hon system the thumb side of the forearm is inner forearm and the small finger side is outer. The block with the palm toward you as per the illustration is inner forearm. Shows how difficult these discussions can be.  I was at a workshop with Vince Morris. He kept urging us to block harder ad then shared a story of a guy getting a massive hematoma from a hard block at a seminar.  I felt his stuff had a more practical side than  some of Dilman's stuff because he did not focus on realy small targets.



Sorry, now I look closer at the pic it is inner forearm shown there!  My mistake. 

I had huge bruises after Vince's seminars.  Lung 5 and rubbing point on the back of the arm just above the elbow, both lovely and violet. 

Gnarlie


----------



## miguksaram

StuartA said:


> Obviously there are some that believe that Taekwondo and thus it forms/poomsae have no connection with karate and thus the historical basis I and others purport cannot be true - despite what we say or what evidence we give. Okay, so don't accept what we say (mine through much research) but how about the word of one of the most influential men in kukki TKD: Chong Woo Lee?
> 
> Here is part of an article with responses from Chong Woo Le regarding what _'KKW Taekwondo' _was really based upon. I believe (and correct me if I`m wrong) that he was Ji Do kwan and one of the most (if not the most) important people in Kukki TKD!
> 
> *Question:* After the Liberation, did all the people who openedstudios do Karate?
> _*Chong Woo Lee: *_"*The basic movements, such as the blocking and hitting techniques,* *were identical with Karate*."
> 
> *Question: *If that is true, do you mean there is no resemblance to our traditional martial arts forms?
> *Chong Woo Lee:* At a quick glimpse, it looks the same, but the basic techniques are completely different. Therefore, it should be determined that there are no similarities. Taek Kyun has transformed significantly recently.
> 
> *Question:* Is Karate the only martial art that had an impact on Taekwondo in the process of its creation after Liberation? No other influences at all?
> *Chong Woo Lee:* That is a candid statement. I am the one who wrote books bringing in various materials of all sorts, but now is the time to disclose the facts. *All the masters who taught Karate got together and formulated basic Taekwondo forms,* and I took a central role. It should not be a big issue now to disclose this fact, because we are at the top of the world.
> 
> 
> No offence to those who feel different as we are fed different things from different sources, but this is not an ITF guy or karate guy saying this.. its a KKW/Taekwondo guy.. more so someone of great importantance!
> 
> 
> Stuart



Yes, GM Lee, Chong-woo was a very important person in not only Jidokwan history, he opened up the Jidokwan after the founder, Chun, Sang-sup was kidnapped to NK.  He was the third Kwanjangnim of the Jidokwan.  To list his role in the development of KKW TKD, would take more time than I care to invest.   Yes, they originally based the forms of KKW TKD off of karate kata.  However, with the Taeguks, they moved away from 'karate' forms and developed them do be more geared towards the philosophy and techniques of KKW TKD.  I am not sure what role GM Lee Chong-woo played in this development.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> *This is actually an interesting point*. So.. they (in your opinion or by their own words) dont feel what folks term_ 'alternative' _applications are relevenat..


It isn't really a question of the applications being considered  irrelevant, but of how they are taught.  KKW taekwondo instruction  generally does not use bunkai to teach the applications of various  techniques, but instructors teach technique and application separately.   

It isn't that you cannot pull applications from the forms,  because you can.  A technique is a technique, regardless of who's forms  it is found in.  But the Taegeuk pumsae simply are not designed with  that in mind.


StuartA said:


> yet they still offer the _'old'_ applications of _blocks to punch _etc. (which can be viewed via the KKW web site and numerous KKW books) - which funnily enough.. do the EXACT same thing.. meaning _'knifehand blocks a punch' 'low block blocks a kick' _as the Karate (pre-bunkai) do - *and yet*, you and they feel they are not related, yet clearly they are because they both use the same techniques for the same (unworkable in real life) 'basic' applications.. so if they are in that respect, they are also in the research of boon hae (to give it it proper korean name)!!!


It isn't that people don't think that they're related, but that the forms are not broken down to draw out applications; techniques are taught separately from forms.  It really is a matter of teaching methodology rather than relevance or relation between technique and application.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> Obviously there are some that believe that Taekwondo and thus it forms/poomsae have no connection with karate and thus the historical basis I and others purport cannot be true - despite what we say or what evidence we give. Okay, so don't accept what we say (mine through much research) but how about the word of one of the most influential men in kukki TKD: Chong Woo Lee?


I have yet to see anyone say that taekwondo has no connection with karate, in this or any recent thread.  What we are saying is that taekwondo (Kukkiwon anyway) isn't a karate ryu and that teaching methodologies differ.

As for techniques being 'karate techniques' they're just techniques.  There are stylistic differences, but every unarmed fighting system addresses strikes and defenses, be it west or east, Japanese or Korean.  

There is no question that taekwondo is related to karate, just as karate is related to something else, probably Chinese.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It isn't really a question of the applications being considered irrelevant, but of how they are taught. KKW taekwondo instruction generally does not use bunkai to teach the applications of various techniques, but instructors teach technique and application separately.
> 
> It isn't that you cannot pull applications from the forms, because you can. A technique is a technique, regardless of who's forms it is found in. But the Taegeuk pumsae simply are not designed with that in mind.
> 
> It isn't that people don't think that they're related, but that the forms are not broken down to draw out applications; techniques are taught separately from forms. *It really is a matter of teaching methodology rather than relevance or relation between technique and application*.



This is the part that I still can't quite wrap my mind around. To me, it still seems less efficient to try to teach the application of practical techniques from forms than just teaching the techniques themselves, especially if you're teaching from a "self-defense" perspective. It seems like a much simpler task to me to just design a self defense curriculum based around the concepts and techniques. I don't know why you would need a form at all to do this. Someone mentioned before that the form gave a simple way to draw out hundreds of drills, but then you've still got hundreds of drills, plus a form.

In addition to this, I don't know any beginning students who have any need to dissect a form in this manner. Why wouldn't you just teach them effective self defense techniques directly, instead of complicating things with movements rom forms that could have multiple uses. How does using a form make your instruction better or more effective? I can understand that for some people it might make forms training more interesting, but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?

Finally, it was mentioned that teaching forms this way can add something to the curriculum, but can it not also have the opposite effect? Using forms would limit you to the movements contained in the forms (if we are sticking to the ruleabout not changing the movements), which means there is a high probability that it would be necessary to go outside the forms anyway, which again seems to be overcomplicating things.

If the goal is to efficiently and effectively teach something, especially if the focus of your instruction is narrowed to something like self defense, I think that in this day and age there has got to be a better way to do it. 

And I'd like to reiterate that I am not knocking those who choose to teach this stuff, it just seems to me there are better ways...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Jaeimseu said:


> In addition to this, I don't know any beginning students who have any need to dissect a form in this manner. Why wouldn't you just teach them effective self defense techniques directly, instead of complicating things with movements rom forms that could have multiple uses. How does using a form make your instruction better or more effective? I can understand that for some people it might make forms training more interesting, but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?


Forms are used to teach a variety of techniques in concert; ap seogi>arae makki>dwit jireugi, turn to face north, ap kubi>arae makki, dwit jireugi, for example.  Movement, transition from one stance to the next, attacking and defending in different stances, etc.  The form traces the line of Keon, the first of the pal gwe.  

Forms allow the instructor to see the student perform a variety of techniques in concert and evaluate the technical execution of those techniques.  Is it the only way?  No.  Is it the best way?  Depends on who you ask.

Forms also provide students with a way to practice on their own that, for some, is more engaging and enjoyable than just doing reps of techniques.

In Kukki taekwondo, and certainly in hapkido, forms are not used to transmit the self defense curriculum.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Jaeimseu said:


> This is the part that I still can't quite wrap my mind around. To me, it still seems less efficient to try to teach the application of practical techniques from forms than just teaching the techniques themselves, especially if you're teaching from a "self-defense" perspective. It seems like a much simpler task to me to just design a self defense curriculum based around the concepts and techniques. I don't know why you would need a form at all to do this. Someone mentioned before that the form gave a simple way to draw out hundreds of drills, but then you've still got hundreds of drills, plus a form.



Valid question.  Forms were created for a variety of reasons.  Some to preserve the principles of the system.  In that light, it may be fair to say;  Applications led to the creation of a form to catalog the application which led to a method of passing these applications down to generations to come.  Perhaps this method was developed to disguise techniques if the society didn't approve of martial training.  Perhaps to 'hide' the applications from other schools/arts.  I've heard it put many ways.

In the modern era, one doesn't need forms and indeed many fine systems don't use them at all.  However, for arts that do use them, well...I often find the practitioners of the art using forms for more of a class-filler than anything else i.e. learn a form/take a test/get a belt.  They may not have the best understanding of what it is they are actually doing, depending on the school art.  This isn't necessarily limited to a specific art.  Providing several applications for a movement sequence, imo, helps them get a better appreciation for the art and the form.  It gives it more purpose, again imo.  And it then isn't necessary to have a hundred drills as one needs only the form for reference.

Just some thought.


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It isn't really a question of the applications being considered irrelevant, but of how they are taught. KKW taekwondo instruction generally does not use bunkai to teach the applications of various techniques, but instructors teach technique and application separately.


Could this not be a 'hand me down' thing as well... applications wernt taught in Karate kata either (not in Japan anyway and not the ones we are discussing)... most ITF clubs don't physically teach applications - they (like amny schools) simply say 'this is to block a punch', not teach it directly - maybe if they did, they would realise it doenst work as well as they are led to believe!



> It isn't that you cannot pull applications from the forms, because you can. A technique is a technique, regardless of who's forms it is found in. But the Taegeuk pumsae simply are not designed with that in mind.


As I have said all along - you cannot purposely choose to include or exclude something you dont know about to begin with - so I'm sure they 'wernt' "designed with that in mind" - for sure. But is also does beg the question that, if that is so, why does the KKW website show forms applications online then? Or did (Havnt looked for quite a while)!!!  And this is irrelevant of whether they are good or bad.. the fact is they still showed them!



> It isn't that people don't think that they're related, but that the forms are not broken down to draw out applications; techniques are taught separately from forms. It really is a matter of teaching methodology rather than relevance or relation between technique and application.


And this is one of my 'other' points about using realistic applications - students spend an inordanate amount of time practicing forms - so at the very least, learning a few beneficial applications to what they are practicing over and over, makes that practice much more benifical in the overall grand scheme of things - just an extra benefit IMO.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I have yet to see anyone say that taekwondo has no connection with karate, in this or any recent thread.


What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!

Stuart


----------



## Jaeimseu

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Forms are used to teach a variety of techniques in concert; ap seogi>arae makki>dwit jireugi, turn to face north, ap kubi>arae makki, dwit jireugi, for example. Movement, transition from one stance to the next, attacking and defending in different stances, etc. The form traces the line of Keon, the first of the pal gwe.
> 
> Forms allow the instructor to see the student perform a variety of techniques in concert and evaluate the technical execution of those techniques. Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Depends on who you ask.
> 
> Forms also provide students with a way to practice on their own that, for some, is more engaging and enjoyable than just doing reps of techniques.
> 
> In Kukki taekwondo, and certainly in hapkido, forms are not used to transmit the self defense curriculum.



When I ask the question "Why do you need the forms?" I'm referring only to the segment of instructors who say they teach only for self defense. I teach poomse for many reasons, as well,including the ones you mentioned. I think forms are useful also to get the student moving their various body parts in concert with one another. Learning to move the ams, legs, shoulders, and hips together in poomse makes doing similar things in kicking techniques easier, in my opinion. For example, counter rotation of the shoulders and arms with the hips and pivot foot when doing a round kick.

So I'm not arguing that forms have no purpose, just that I don't see why they are a big benefit for teaching self defense.


----------



## StuartA

Jaeimseu said:


> This is the part that I still can't quite wrap my mind around. To me, it still seems less efficient to try to teach the application of practical techniques from forms than just teaching the techniques themselves, especially if you're teaching from a "self-defense" perspective. It seems like a much simpler task to me to just design a self defense curriculum based around the concepts and techniques. I don't know why you would need a form at all to do this. Someone mentioned before that the form gave a simple way to draw out hundreds of drills, but then you've still got hundreds of drills, plus a form.


I kind of feel a similar thing - that is that as forms are taught anyway... you have to do them for advancement, gradings, competition etc. Why not make them more than the sum of their parts... though Im sure a SD section would still be needed, by utilising something you already do - depending on what applications and how much you teach - then the SD element would be less and thus training time would be more prodctive overall and thus, more benficial to the student!




> In addition to this, I don't know any beginning students who have any need to dissect a form in this manner. Why wouldn't you just teach them effective self defense techniques directly, instead of complicating things with movements rom forms that could have multiple uses. How does using a form make your instruction better or more effective? I can understand that for some people it might make forms training more interesting, but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?


I actually feel studying and /or breaking down of forms (Hae Sul/Boon Hae) to be the domain of BB's who have much more time on their hands. For beginners, showing them an realsitic appliaction as part of their form makes sense... as it kills two birds with one stone! Its not all about self-defence TBH.. or that teaching forms is the better way of teaching SD techniques - just making something we all do (forms), more productive all round! If anyone in TKD wanted just pure self-defence, I would question why they remained in TKD and do not train with a pure self defence instructor anyway! I'm not sure if Im getting my point across, but in essence, its the marrying of the two - SD technqiues and forms - for the benefit of Taekwondo!




> Finally, it was mentioned that teaching forms this way can add something to the curriculum, but can it not also have the opposite effect? Using forms would limit you to the movements contained in the forms (if we are sticking to the ruleabout not changing the movements), which means there is a high probability that it would be necessary to go outside the forms anyway, which again seems to be overcomplicating things.


Not sure I really understand you here - but you have a) teaching forms as a solo exercise with no thought towards anythng else but perfromance b) teaching forms with the basic apps c) teaching forms with more realstic apps - in all of these 3... we are doing something we all do anyway - practicing forms... its just as you move from a to b to c - they ultimatly become more of a constructive exercise.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Jaeimseu said:


> When I ask the question "Why do you need the forms?" I'm referring only to the segment of instructors who say they teach only for self defense.


I think there is a misunderstanding here - I support realistic applications to forms.. but I don't jjust teach them for SD... students have to leanr them to a decent solo standard for grading, comps etc. even for pure technqiue... having realsitic applications just makes a great addition and their practice ultimatly more beneficial.

Stuart


----------



## Jaeimseu

StuartA said:


> I kind of feel a similar thing - that is that as forms are taught anyway... you have to do them for advancement, gradings, competition etc. Why not make them more than the sum of their parts... though Im sure a SD section would still be needed, by utilising something you already do - depending on what applications and how much you teach - then the SD element would be less and thus training time would be more prodctive overall and thus, more benficial to the student!
> 
> 
> 
> I actually feel studying and /or breaking down of forms (Hae Sul/Boon Hae) to be the domain of BB's who have much more time on their hands. For beginners, showing them an realsitic appliaction as part of their form makes sense... as it kills two birds with one stone! Its not all about self-defence TBH.. or that teaching forms is the better way of teaching SD techniques - just making something we all do (forms), more productive all round! If anyone in TKD wanted just pure self-defence, I would question why they remained in TKD and do not train with a pure self defence instructor anyway! I'm not sure if Im getting my point across, but in essence, its the marrying of the two - SD technqiues and forms - for the benefit of Taekwondo!
> 
> 
> 
> *Not sure I really understand you here - but you have a) teaching forms as a solo exercise with no thought towards anythng else but perfromance b) teaching forms with the basic apps c) teaching forms with more realstic apps - in all of these 3... we are doing something we all do anyway - practicing forms... its just as you move from a to b to c - they ultimatly become more of a constructive exercise.
> *
> Stuart
> 
> If the goal is to efficiently and effectively teach something, especially if the focus of your instruction is narrowed to something like self defense, I think that in this day and age there has got to be a better way to do it.
> 
> And I'd like to reiterate that I am not knocking those who choose to teach this stuff, it just seems to me there are better ways...


[/QUOTE]
I just want to make clear that I'm not arguing against forms. I practice and teach poomse, too. I think there are many justifiable reasons to practice poomse in a typical taekwondo program. I'm only talking about the use of forms in schools where people say that the primary or only purpose for training is self defense.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!
> 
> Stuart


Not getting into this Stuart.  I was referring to *this* discussion and other recent threads here.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> As I have said all along - you cannot purposely choose to include or exclude something you dont know about to begin with - so I'm sure they 'wernt' "designed with that in mind" - for sure. But is also does beg the question that, if that is so, why does the KKW website show forms applications online then? Or did (Havnt looked for quite a while)!!!  And this is irrelevant of whether they are good or bad.. the fact is they still showed them!


Some of the forms do have applications that go beyond what is visually presented (little grabs, pulls, etc.), though you don't see much in the way of that until around sajang, and even then, it is minimal.  Taegeuk chil jang has applications that aren't hidden but which make more sense if practiced with a partner.

In designing the teaching methodology, I don't think that it is a question of not knowing the applications, but I do think that a conscious choice was made to teach applications separately from the forms.



StuartA said:


> And this is one of my 'other' points about using realistic applications - students spend an inordanate amount of time practicing forms - so at the very least, learning a few beneficial applications to what they are practicing over and over, makes that practice much more benifical in the overall grand scheme of things - just an extra benefit IMO.


I agree with that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Jaeimseu said:


> When I ask the question "Why do you need the forms?" I'm referring only to the segment of instructors who say they teach only for self defense. I teach poomse for many reasons, as well,including the ones you mentioned. I think forms are useful also to get the student moving their various body parts in concert with one another. Learning to move the ams, legs, shoulders, and hips together in poomse makes doing similar things in kicking techniques easier, in my opinion. For example, counter rotation of the shoulders and arms with the hips and pivot foot when doing a round kick.
> 
> So I'm not arguing that forms have no purpose,


I knew you weren't.  Sorry if it seemed that I was implying that, as that wasn't my intent.



Jaeimseu said:


> just that I don't see why they are a big benefit for teaching self defense.


They aren't.  Bunkai from kata is a teaching methodology that some people like very much.  I don't see anything wrong with using it as a means of teaching self defense.  Not having any rank of consequence in karate, I have no comment or perspective as to the real world effectiveness of that kind of training, and I suspect that it has more to do with who is instructing than with the specific teaching method.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Jaeimseu said:
			
		

> I just want to make clear that I'm not arguing against forms. I practice and teach poomse, too. I think there are many justifiable reasons to practice poomse in a typical taekwondo program. I'm only talking about the use of forms in schools where people say that the primary or only purpose for training is self defense.



Speaking only for myself, looking at the forms from the point of view of in-depth applications really opened up a whole new world.  Now it's no secret I'm a SD guy.  But when I started looking at these applications I found a whole new treasure-trove of SD applications.  Some I already knew without the benefit of forms, and some I learned as a result of the forms.  I've always been of the opinion that if you go to a seminar, as an example, and learn only one new thing, or one way of doing something you already do better then it was well spent time and worth the effort.  Plus, I love history and things associate with it.  To me, it is like looking into the thought processes of these people in a by-gone era.  I really think that kind of stuff is cool as well as practical.


----------



## Gnarlie

I just want to make clear that I'm not arguing against forms. I practice and teach poomse, too. I think there are many justifiable reasons to practice poomse in a typical taekwondo program. I'm only talking about the use of forms in schools where people say that the primary or only purpose for training is self defense.[/QUOTE]

In schools where the focus is self defence, the practice of patterns brings all the same benefits as it does anywhere else, balance, co-ordination, the opportunity to develop feeling for the movement without a resistant opponent etc.  Most importantly they serve as a lovely mnemonic for remembering techniques and principles, which can then be practiced as isolated drills or applied live. 

But the school I train at isn't like that.  I practice patterns for many reasons apart from SD too.  I really do believe they hold SD teaching value though.  I've certainly learned a lot from conversations like this, which wouldn't happen if patterns weren't so ambiguous and enigmatic. 

One of the most important skills that the application approach to patterns teaches IMO is analytical free thought. The ability to improvise and develop ideas based on the principles and techniques demonstrated in patterns makes for some pretty solid martial foundations, and encourages less focus on technique in favour of principle.

I like to approach patterns from every angle available to me.  The only thing I rule out is ruling things out. 

Gnarlie


----------



## miguksaram

StuartA said:


> What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!
> 
> Stuart



While this is correct in many of the formal released books on TKD,  I believe Daniel was stating that there has not been any deniability of the connection here on MT.


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> I
> I never said they dont have bunkai (boon Hae).. they do.. they show the same applications as the karate applications do ie. block a punch etc.  Which was part of my point and pasrt of what you have just said above!


That's not what I said you said either.    OK, let me reword.  As I understand it, there's really not an official KKW position on bunkai or the existence of them one way or another within the poomsae.  We do have second hand testimony that one of the chief architects of the Taegeuk forms believes other things should be practiced first, before one starts looking for alternative applications in them.  Also, I have what was directly related to me by my current TKD teacher.  Coming from a karate background, I'm very much interested in alternative form applications, but I have been told that as he understands it, there is no bunkai in the poomsae.  None that were taught to him, a 6th dan.  None really either if you peruse any of the KKW learning materials such as their books and DVDs.  



StuartA said:


> I
> I didnt (and neither did any one else I think) say its a 'basic' component. My posts were simply on the subject of those that say.. they wernt there at the beginning, when created so they cannot be there at all! Plus the KKW taekwondo poomsae have not connection to karate kata!



If you are stating that the poomsae have no connection to karate kata, that would be refreshing.  Most believe there's some linkage though there is debate over how much meaning that has when speaking about studying and practicing poomsae.

Though by reading the rest of your post, I think you actually mean to say there is a link there.



StuartA said:


> I
> I dont have to.. I posted that to show the Karate connection that some seem to deny exsists!



No one here has denied a connection that I can see.  It would be rather foolish to do so given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.  But a nuanced perspective wouldn't be that TKD = karate either (not saying you are arguing that, Stuart).  Rather I think it reasonable to say that TKD is an evolving martial art with ties to karate, and the way in which it is trained can be similar or different depending on the aspect of TKD we are referring to.



StuartA said:


> I
> Actually, seeking out 'realsitic applications' isnt really a Karate persepctive, as for nearly 100 years they did exactly the same and never looked into more than the P/K/B applications



Yeah, we've argued this one too here.  Not all karate is the same.  Not all karate is Shotokan.  There are surely people from a variety of styles who learned and trained 'bunkai' overseas, whether it was called bunkai then or not,  and brought them to the west.  I assert not all form applications are reverse engineered nor are created in the last 20 years as a result of the recent interest in bunkai.



StuartA said:


> I never said you couldnt call it a 'fun game'... I simply said for those that study this side, its not a game... it can be fun though



Actually you said "_Sure.. but its also not a __'fun game' - this kind of research is based on sound historical reasoning and sure, if you don't like it, thats fine.. but it cannot be dismissed with just a "GM So & So said no" type of mentality."  
_
I did take a little umbrage at that remark, considering my training background in a martial art that honestly is far more steeped in kata applications than TKD.   So when I call it a game, certainly my perspective about the Taegeuk lacking bunkai is formed from a lot more than hearing that some GM said something.  

By the way,  about the usage of the word 'boonhae'.  Where did this term come from?  Is it simply a translation of 'bunkai' to Korean or has this word even been used before by people involved in the development of taekwondo?



StuartA said:


> Where have I told anyone that the way they do things are wrong? I simply express my opinion on the connection and building blocks of all forms, which include the KKW poomsae. And nor is it about trying to force people to 'translate their methods'.. its simply information and evidence that points in the direction that they (the poomsae) hold more than is/was known... its not telling anyone they HAVE to go this route... simply saying that you can't deny it exsists is all!



We're talking across each other to an extent.  If you read my clarification above, it's clear why I say there's no bunkai in KKW forms.  You're sticking to your perspective about karate/gong fu, which is fair enough and really leaves us with no disagreement.  Yeah, you could look at the poomsae in that way.




StuartA said:


> As it is in ITF too.. and even with decent Boon Hae it can be as well.. but that doesnt change any of the facts. Perhaps if better hosinsul techniques were found in the patterns earlier on, hosinsul would of used them!



Well, I just take that as further evidence that taking TKD forms and using them to study SD would be a recent movement.  Which is fine and all.



StuartA said:


> Again... this is because, when created they wernt really capable of that IMO... if they knew then what we know now, it may have been a whole different ball game. But that can change IF people want it to.. again thats up to them, as the poomsae certainly contain all the right tools from what Ive seen!* What are the poomsae meant to teach then btw?*



As I understand it, basics and movement, both solo and in combination.  There's a certain philosophical level of meaning too.



StuartA said:


> Not even sure what you mean by this!



I think it was clear enough.  I'll quote myself "The poomsae are not meant to teach SD within KKW TKD. Your mileage may vary when talking about other forms of TKD or other arts altogether."  

Umm, so that means the forms in KKW TKD are not meant to teach self-defense.  But this could be different if you are talking about other types of TKD or other martial arts.  



StuartA said:


> See, we do agree on something - I feel the same about Gen Choi's books etc. And your right, why should we expect to see more realistic examples - we wont on a bigger level, cos those up top dont wat to do or acknowledge this stuff - but it still doent make it NOT there! Like I said, research shows that this area is there and exsists for those that want it!
> 
> As far a patterns/poomsae go - it wasnt there sure.. because you cannot add soemthing or not add something that you don't know about! As i have said already!



Then you're really arguing about nothing (with me anyway).  I don't have a problem with any of that, other than the semantic that KKW poomsae do not contain bunkai which does not clash at all with that idea that you can't add something that you don't practice (or as you word it, don't know about).  



StuartA said:


> Yes it does, because its more than a few spots and its intrinsic to the way the patterns and poomsae were built!



Not at all.  If you don't practice the forms with an intent to break it up and development actually fighting skills using discrete parts of the form, you're simply not practicing bunkai at all.  It doesn't matter how similar your form is to Itosu's.  If you use forms primarily for aerobics or for 'art', you're doing something else entirely.

Stuart, you personally might be able to link your hyung practice to good fighting sequences.  Not all do.  And for those people, it's silly to say the brutal ideas from Okinawan kata are present in their forms.  



StuartA said:


> On your first part - yes, of course, it does take someone to bring them out, as the P/K/B method is too ingrained and now we have new knowledge, but again,* it wasnt knowledge that was there when the creators created them*!



Yeah, again I didn't say the highlighted part either.  Who are you arguing with?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> If you are stating that the poomsae have no connection to karate kata, that would be refreshing.  Most believe there's some linkage though there is debate over how much meaning that has when speaking about studying and practicing poomsae.


I think that there is linkage in the sense that the pumsae creators were versed in karate, and certainly the rank structure, use of belts, and the idea of having multiple kata (as opposed to a single long form or just teaching techniques with no forms at all) was all influenced by karate.

On the other hand, I do not think that the pumsae are "reworked" or whatever other term one wishes to use karate kata, though I do think that there is a good deal of shared technical content.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think that there is linkage in the sense that the pumsae creators were versed in karate, and certainly the rank structure, use of belts, and the idea of having multiple kata (as opposed to a single long form or just teaching techniques with no forms at all) was all influenced by karate.
> 
> On the other hand, I do not think that the pumsae are "reworked" or whatever other term one wishes to use karate kata, though I do think that there is a good deal of shared technical content.



I think there is a certain amount of contention/tension over the term 'reworked'.  I've used that term and perhaps I could/should have come up with a better term to illustrate my point(s).  So allow me to back that term down, instead, I like your phrase '_shared technical content_'.  It is appropriate and covers what I mean better.  Kata and pumsae share much as far as actual movement sequences are concerned.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> On the other hand, I do not think that the pumsae are "reworked" or whatever other term one wishes to use karate kata, though I do think that there is a good deal of shared technical content.



I think the point about them being reworked or not is too single-minded.  People try to connect TKD forms with karate kata in that way because they see it as evidence that the Korean forms should follow a certain model or be used in a specific fashion. I've been guilty of this in the past.  But it is a false syllogism.

People can take the same form and use it for tournaments, for exercise, for 'art', for bunkai training, for whatever really.  Or they could have a number of goals, some at cross purposes with each other!  Really, if we accept that taekwondo-in are diverse and that they train for a multitude of reasons, the idea that TKD forms MUST retain some link back to one of its roots is easily seen as nonsensical.

I could tell a student at a competing dojang that this movement in Taegeuk 1 is similar to this movement in Pinan Nidan.  So what?  It means nothing to him if he doesn't have the contextual training for the idea to make a difference.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think there is a certain amount of contention/tension over the term 'reworked'.  I've used that term and perhaps I could/should have come up with a better term to illustrate my point(s).  So allow me to back that term down, instead, I like your phrase '_shared technical content_'.  It is appropriate and covers what I mean better.  Kata and pumsae share much as far as actual movement sequences are concerned.


Wow.  We agree 100%.  That hasn't happened in over a year.  Today is a good day.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Wow.  We agree 100%.  That hasn't happened in over a year.  Today is a good day.



:cheers:


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Not getting into this Stuart. I was referring to *this* discussion and other recent threads here.


Sure, I hear ya and its good that people think that way. I think it was more in response to such things from some posters such as:

_"We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here."

"That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms. Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective is the principle which runs through both taekwondo and hapkido, which is, we do with our feet what others do with their hands."

_- trying to imply that the Karate roots have/had no effect on Poomsae, when clearly they do/did!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Some of the forms do have applications that go beyond what is visually presented (little grabs, pulls, etc.), though you don't see much in the way of that until around sajang, and even then, it is minimal. Taegeuk chil jang has applications that aren't hidden but which make more sense if practiced with a partner.


maybe.. but my reference to that was into response to whoever said "Poomsae are designed that way, with applications in mind" - so if thats the case.. why are there "some" at all!



> In designing the teaching methodology, I don't think that it is a question of not knowing the applications, but I do think that a conscious choice was made to teach applications separately from the forms.


Yes, you are right - it has a lot to do with teaching methodolgy - those that don't know or never learned them, tend to stick with the P/K/B 'standard apps' (if any) taught - those with more open minds change their methodology. Don't get me wrong, I was brought up exactly the same - this block is for this etc. etc.  so I can see exactly where some folks are coming from, even if I disagree with their stance nowadays!




> I agree with that.


Its a pertinant point right? 

Stuart


----------



## Earl Weiss

Jaeimseu said:


> but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?
> 
> ...



You don't need to learn forms for self defese, nor do you need to learn a "Martial Art" (notice the quotation marks) for self defense.


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> That's not what I said you said either.


Sorry :-(




> OK, let me reword. As I understand it, there's really not an official KKW position on bunkai or the existence of them one way or another within the poomsae. We do have second hand testimony that one of the chief architects of the Taegeuk forms believes other things should be practiced first, before one starts looking for alternative applications in them. Also, I have what was directly related to me by my current TKD teacher. Coming from a karate background, I'm very much interested in alternative form applications, but I have been told that as he understands it, there is no bunkai in the poomsae. None that were taught to him, a 6th dan. None really either if you peruse any of the KKW learning materials such as their books and DVDs.


That doesnt mean a thing sorry. My instructors a 7th degree.. he wasnt taught them either - does it mean they CANNOT be there - nope! Gen Choi's books do not have the same applications I teach.. does it mean they CANNOT be there - nope! So if your instructors a 6th degree, mines a 7th degree, the creators of both the Ch'ang hon forms and the KKW poomsae NEVER taught such 'alternative' applications.. how can they not be correct?  Are they wrong?  Well.. no, they are not wrong and they are not correct either - because, when they learnt forms they wernt privvy to such info.. and when they formulated new ones, they based them on what they knew, not what they didnt know. Why is that?  Because 'realistic' Bunkai wasnt transferd from okinawa to Japan.. the Shotokan in japan was the 'dumbed down' school system and all that follwed used that as a template!




> If you are stating that the poomsae have no connection to karate kata, that would be refreshing. Most believe there's some linkage though there is debate over how much meaning that has when speaking about studying and practicing poomsae.


No.. the exact opposite. They arev very much linked IMO!



> No one here has denied a connection that I can see. It would be rather foolish to do so given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. But a nuanced perspective wouldn't be that TKD = karate either (not saying you are arguing that, Stuart). Rather I think it reasonable to say that TKD is an evolving martial art with ties to karate, and the way in which it is trained can be similar or different depending on the aspect of TKD we are referring to.


Well.. when someone states "These are poomsae... they are Kata and the rules don't apply" - its a sort of denial of the source IMO. Sure... TKD the art is different in many aspects, but the Tuls, Poomsae etc still were built on the same premise of the kata! thats all im saying!




> Yeah, we've argued this one too here. Not all karate is the same. Not all karate is Shotokan.


Sure.. except what we now know as TKD, in the main followed on from Shotokan AFAIA.



> There are surely people from a variety of styles who learned and trained 'bunkai' overseas, whether it was called bunkai then or not, and brought them to the west. I assert not all form applications are reverse engineered nor are created in the last 20 years as a result of the recent interest in bunkai.


Not many TBH, as the 'main' styles were many offshoots of Shotokan. I know there are soem styles that kept bunkai, but they are not related to TKD AFAIA.



> Actually you said "_Sure.. but its also not a __'fun game' - this kind of research is based on sound historical reasoning and sure, if you don't like it, thats fine.. but it cannot be dismissed with just a "GM So & So said no" type of mentality."
> _
> I did take a little umbrage at that remark, considering my training background in a martial art that honestly is far more steeped in kata applications than TKD. So when I call it a game, certainly my perspective about the Taegeuk lacking bunkai is formed from a lot more than hearing that some GM said something.


Apologies for that.. i didnt mean to be rude.. I was simply saying that for some of us, we invest alot of time and effort into this research, so its not a 'fun game' for us, but of some importance. I dont know you background and history, but I do find a lot of TKD'er dismiss things "Just because it wasnt there to begin with" without looking further into the facts of it all and why people feel this way now!



> By the way, about the usage of the word 'boonhae'. Where did this term come from? Is it simply a translation of 'bunkai' to Korean or has this word even been used before by people involved in the development of taekwondo?


Yes and no. Its the korean term for Bunkai, but in korean means less: it means something simple like to 'take apart and dismantle' or similar and doesnt exactly edify what 'Bunkai' means to japanase. I use the term 'hae Sul' for research, which means 'Indepth analysis' - but when teaching applications, no matter which type, once known, the term is 'boon hae'. 



> We're talking across each other to an extent. If you read my clarification above, it's clear why I say there's no bunkai in KKW forms. You're sticking to your perspective about karate/gong fu, which is fair enough and really leaves us with no disagreement. Yeah, you could look at the poomsae in that way.


Okay.. thats cool. Yes you could... its simply those that say you shouldnt I disagree with!



> Well, I just take that as further evidence that taking TKD forms and using them to study SD would be a recent movement. Which is fine and all.


Yes it is.. as disgussed already. As it in in Shotokan as well etc.




> As I understand it, basics and movement, both solo and in combination. There's a certain philosophical level of meaning too.


What "philosophical level"! Please explain it to me? That said, I will say its funny how similar they are built in relation to kata no?!  



> I think it was clear enough. I'll quote myself "The poomsae are not meant to teach SD within KKW TKD. Your mileage may vary when talking about other forms of TKD or other arts altogether."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, so that means the forms in KKW TKD are not meant to teach self-defense. But this could be different if you are talking about other types of TKD or other martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 'milage' bit i didnt get. Yes ACCORDING to the founders, you are correct... because they knew no different.. again, its besides the point IMO.. they inadvertantly included the fact 'they could be used' even if they didnt know it at the time! Just how it is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're really arguing about nothing (with me anyway). I don't have a problem with any of that, other than the semantic that KKW poomsae do not contain bunkai which does not clash at all with that idea that you can't add something that you don't practice (or as you word it, don't know about).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well yes/no. You POV is that they don't contain apps, but you can find them if you want. My POV is that the very way they were constructed means they do contain this info  and just cos the KKW says they don't, doesnt make that fact any different!  If my mum tells me not to drive the car on the driveway, its still a car!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. If you don't practice the forms with an intent to break it up and development actually fighting skills using discrete parts of the form, you're simply not practicing bunkai at all. It doesn't matter how similar your form is to Itosu's. If you use forms primarily for aerobics or for 'art', you're doing something else entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure... people see forms that way these days.. again, it doesnt change the facts. denying the exsistance of the facts, doesnt change it either. Just cos someone says NO.. again, it doesnt change the facts! Though I agree, people can practice Poomsae for whatever they want nowadays, but again, it doesnt change the fact of their evolution into Poomsae's!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stuart, you personally might be able to link your hyung practice to good fighting sequences. Not all do. And for those people, it's silly to say the brutal ideas from Okinawan kata are present in their forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, its not silly.. because its true IMO - real facts support it. People just need to learn this side is all. problem is, most clubs won't/don't teach it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again I didn't say the highlighted part either. Who are you arguing with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt say you did.. i was just making a point (again)!
> 
> Stuart
Click to expand...


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> I think the point about them being reworked or not is too single-minded. People try to connect TKD forms with karate kata in that way because they see it as evidence that the Korean forms should follow a certain model or be used in a specific fashion. I've been guilty of this in the past. But it is a false syllogism.
> 
> People can take the same form and use it for tournaments, for exercise, for 'art', for bunkai training, for whatever really. Or they could have a number of goals, some at cross purposes with each other! Really, if we accept that taekwondo-in are diverse and that they train for a multitude of reasons, the idea that TKD forms MUST retain some link back to one of its roots is easily seen as nonsensical.
> 
> I could tell a student at a competing dojang that this movement in Taegeuk 1 is similar to this movement in Pinan Nidan. So what? It means nothing to him if he doesn't have the contextual training for the idea to make a difference.



I agree, mostly, with this.. forms/patterns/poomsae can be , in this day and age, a tool for whatever purpose you want them to be. My only point is that to deny their 'linkage' or that they can have a better use (SD wise) than was originally knew/understood.. is to do them, and training them a disservice!

Stuart


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Earl Weiss said:


> You don't need to learn forms for self defese, nor do you need to learn a "Martial Art" (notice the quotation marks) for self defense.



Very true.  All one would really need is something like Fairbairn/Applegat/Sykes/O'Neill WWII combatives.  Simple, brutal and effective.


----------



## Gnarlie

Right, just need to break up the flow for a moment, sorry.  For those of you that have the time and the inclination, here are a collection of Youtube vids that show applications that fit both Shotokan and KKW TKD Poomsae.  I've collected these over a number of months investigating the relationship between the 2 arts.  Enjoy.  If anything's not clear, let me know.

Those of you familiar with the Taegeuk Poomsae and the KKW Yudanja Poomsae will recognise applications for Jebipoom Mokchigi from Taegeuk Sa Jang, The final backfist and return to Joonbi from Taegeuk O Jang, Keumgang Makki, Uppercut, Side Punch from Taebaek, and Low Block Punch from Taegeuk Il Jang in this Shorin-Ryu bunkai collection:






Some further thoughts on Keumgang Makki from Taebaek can be seen in the following bunkai collection from Shotokan, Heian Nidan.  Also in this clip is an application for the side kick / side fist from Taegeuk O Jang.  If the height of the side kick is dropped to attack the rear leg kneecap or modified as a snap kick to the groin, the side fist distance is right for the head.  Also in the clip are the opening moves of Sa Jang, twin knife hand block, covered spear hand thrust, as a twin wrist grab release:






Here at 1:40 is an interesting application for double scissor block from Taegeuk Chil Jang, which also appears in the Shotokan Kata, Jion.  With this technique, a lot of how you can apply it depends on the angle you take to the attack.  I&#8217;ve also seen this convert to a chicken wing lock on the second scissor (I think from Stuart who&#8217;s posting here!), a technique which requires less deviation from the Poomsae:






In Shotokan&#8217;s Heian Godan at 4:50 in this video, you&#8217;ll recognise the side backfist/target crescent kick/target elbow strike combination.  I favour the crescent kick replaced with a leg sweep, which brings the back of the opponents head down perfectly to the height of the target elbow.  Nobody says we have to kick high for SD.  A target elbow to the back of the head also lends itself joyously easily to replacing with or following up with a rear naked choke:






1:25 this time for Shotokan&#8217;s Heian Yodan illustrating an application that&#8217;s fairly easily adapted to Taegeuk Chil Jang&#8217;s wedging block / knee strike / twin upset combination:






Although my favourite application for that sequence is using the wedging block between the punch and the neck, knee risking to solar plexus, which causes the opponent to bend forward.  Then using the twin upset and low X block as a collar grab (the forward motion of the upset representing the reach under the opponent&#8217;s chest) and sliding lapel strangle (bringing the hands holding the dobok collar up to the back of the prone opponent&#8217;s neck and pressing down to cut of the blood supply).  Works well, and I&#8217;ve never liked X blocks as blocks .  Here&#8217;s the Gi Choke I&#8217;m referring to:






Vince Morris covers the cat stance twin knife hand from Pal Jang:






Shotokan&#8217;s Kanku Dai, illustrating a possible application for the turn / High Middle Block / Punch combination from Taegeuk Yuk Jang.  See 5:04:






Recurring &#8216;side kick with side hammer blow&#8217; followed by target elbow strike from O Jang, Tae Baek, Pyong Won.  Side hammer blow possibly = held wrist of opponent, meaning that the target elbow strike could be to the elbow of the opponent as a joint break or elbow control to ground.   The target hand never opens, as it is holding the grab, but the grip of this hand changes in a similar way.  See Heian Yodan, 1:00 for a demonstration:






This side hammer blow can also be interpreted as a blocking action to the opponent&#8217;s punch, simultaneous with a side kick to the ribs, followed by a scoot in, target elbow to the same area.  See Shotokan&#8217;s Kanku-dai 3:12, where this motion is used twice in succession quite effectively, once inside the arm and once outside, with a low side kick and target elbow to the back of the head.  Vicious:






At 2:30 in the same video, we can see a possible application for Koryo&#8217;s Spear hand groin strike followed by pulling back to short stance low block.  Groin strike, chamber hand is blocking to the outside of the attacker&#8217;s punch.  After the strike, the striking hand is moved to the outside of the attacker&#8217;s lead leg for a throw, lifting the leg whilst the other arm performs the low block action across the opponent&#8217;s neck.
Keum Gang&#8217;s back spinning Large Hinges.  A method to practice the stepping and wrist turning actions required for a gooseneck wristlock (for example from a collar grab) with an elbow control to ground.  This would be based around a wrist grab.  See Heian Godan, 1:00






By the way, I'm not saying these ARE the applications, I'm saying they COULD BE.  Even when you want them to be, it takes a lot of work to make some of them viable as SD.


----------



## Earl Weiss

Jaeimseu said:


> So perhaps it is a question of "Degree' how "big" is "big".
> 
> Is speedbag work a "Big" benefit for boxers? How about jump rope? Shadowboxing? Running?


----------



## Earl Weiss

Analogy time. 

Person abandoned  as an 3 year old who can talk but has not yet learned the alphabet on an island as the sole human . (Survived a plane crash parents died in and raised by apes. )

When he is 10 a box washes ashore. Inside is a box of alphabet cereal and a magazine.  He finds the arrangement of letters in the magazine interesting and he arranges letters from the box of cereal to match. 

When he's rescued the rescuers find the cereal arrangements and are amazed that the prson taught himslef to spell words. 
The person says "Those are not words because that was not what I intended". This makes sense because?


----------



## andyjeffries

Earl Weiss said:


> Analogy time.
> 
> Person abandoned  as an 3 year old who can talk but has not yet learned the alphabet on an island as the sole human . (Survived a plane crash parents died in and raised by apes. )
> 
> When he is 10 a box washes ashore. Inside is a box of alphabet cereal and a magazine.  He finds the arrangement of letters in the magazine interesting and he arranges letters from the box of cereal to match.
> 
> When he's rescued the rescuers find the cereal arrangements and are amazed that the prson taught himslef to spell words.
> The person says "Those are not words because that was not what I intended". This makes sense because?



A slightly better analogy would be a book rather than a magazine, magazines are more visual and would give more clues to the original intended meaning.  

If you replace magazine with a book in your analogy it fits the debate from a Kukki-Taekwondoin point of view.

That way, the arrangement of letters may mean something else to him as he just saw an arrangement of letters copied it and gave it a meaning that he liked; so "drive" to us means a verb to move a mechanical object, to him it may mean a fish.  Same arrangement of letters, his choice of meaning with no hidden meaning (in his language) to the other meaning.

We have sets of movements, they may have other meanings in other languages (arts) but in Kukkiwon Taekwondo they are our choice of meaning 

I'm interested in applications for other arts and their forms in the same was as I'm interested in the etymology of words in other languages (Looking for a Mr Kim in Seoul is a very good book about Korean expressions and meanings).  I just don't want to infer that the same meanings apply in Kukki-Taekwondo just because the same arrangement of letters exists in other languages.


----------



## Gnarlie

The word 'Gift' in German means 'poison' in English.  I am able to understand, appreciate the meaning of, and gain benefit from using the word 'gift' in both languages.  Knowing that one word serves me equally well in both.   It's still the same word, it just carries 2 meanings for me.

And I've even managed to avoid accidentally poisoning the mother in law when trying to give her a present.  Or vice versa. 

Gnarlie


----------



## dancingalone

Earl Weiss said:


> A
> When he's rescued the rescuers find the cereal arrangements and are amazed that the prson taught himslef to spell words.
> The person says "Those are not words because that was not what I intended". This makes sense because?



Because different systems and organizations get to choose what they prefer to practice or emphasize.  It doesn't have to get any more complex than that.

I mean we could make all sorts of criticisms about why each style does or doesn't do something:  like what is up with those useless deep stances in Shotokan or why does ITF has that ugly sinewave or why does Goju have the crazy breathing, etc.

To people from the outside with different perspectives none of those things make sense.  From the inside, maybe it does.  Food for thought?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> Sure, I hear ya and its good that people think that way. I think it was more in response to such things from some posters such as:
> 
> _"We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here."
> 
> "That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms. Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective is the principle which runs through both taekwondo and hapkido, which is, we do with our feet what others do with their hands."
> 
> _- trying to imply that the Karate roots have/had no effect on Poomsae, when clearly they do/did!
> 
> Stuart


That actually isn't what he was implying, and since the thread is titled "Korean forms," it is not limited to pumsae.  What he was implying was that pumsae are not karate kata and are not designed with hidden or layered applications in mind the way that karate kata are.  There was also questioning the OP's experience with Korean forms from the same poster, but I'm not going to get into that either.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> maybe.. but my reference to that was into response to whoever said "Poomsae are designed that way, with applications in mind" - so if thats the case.. why are there "some" at all!



I think you meant to say "pumsae are *not* designed that way"

And this:


StuartA said:


> Yes, you are right - it has a lot to do with teaching methodolgy -



Does not correlate to this:


StuartA said:


> *those that don't know or never learned them*, tend to stick with the P/K/B 'standard apps' (if any) taught - those with more open minds change their methodology. Don't get me wrong, I was brought up exactly the same - this block is for this etc. etc.  so I can see exactly where some folks are coming from, even if I disagree with their stance nowadays!


Not teaching applications as part of the forms does not imply a lack of knowledge of applications.  Could be that they liked how it was done in hapkido, aikido, and judo better; applications taught as applications rather than as part of a form.


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> Well.. when someone states "These are poomsae... they are Kata and the rules don't apply" - its a sort of denial of the source IMO. Sure... TKD the art is different in many aspects, but the Tuls, Poomsae etc still were built on the same premise of the kata! thats all im saying!



Puunui has talked many times about the relationship between karate and TKD.  I wouldn't say that he denies karate as one of the sources of KKW TKD, rather he speaks a lot about the 'pioneers' and how they set up to create something different over time that was intended to represent Korean ethos and culture.



StuartA said:


> Sure.. except what we now know as TKD, in the main followed on from Shotokan AFAIA.
> 
> Not many TBH, as the 'main' styles were many offshoots of Shotokan. I know there are soem styles that kept bunkai, but they are not related to TKD AFAIA.



Actually when I made the initial reference here that you responded to, I was referring to karate styles not TKD styles.  I would argue that bunkai has never been a meaningful part of ANY TKD system, thought obviously that is changing.  TKD bunkai is new, arguably reverse engineered for the most part.  That differs in some respects from certain karate styles which is the point I was making above.



StuartA said:


> Apologies for that.. i didnt mean to be rude.. I was simply saying that for some of us, we invest alot of time and effort into this research, so its not a 'fun game' for us, but of some importance. I dont know you background and history, but I do find a lot of TKD'er dismiss things "Just because it wasnt there to begin with" without looking further into the facts of it all and why people feel this way now!



We're cool.  I was being a little sensitive myself.



StuartA said:


> Yes and no. Its the korean term for Bunkai, but in korean means less: it means something simple like to 'take apart and dismantle' or similar and doesnt exactly edify what 'Bunkai' means to japanase. I use the term 'hae Sul' for research, which means 'Indepth analysis' - but when teaching applications, no matter which type, once known, the term is 'boon hae'.



To your knowledge does anyone at the KKW or in any of the other larger organizations use this term?  I ask because if they do, it can be a sign that bunkai or 'boon hae' may actually become part of the official book, so to speak.



StuartA said:


> What "philosophical level"! Please explain it to me? That said, I will say its funny how similar they are built in relation to kata no?!



Just because two things are similar or that they come from similar roots does not mean they must evolve along the same paths.  If I have a brother and our parents are teachers, does my brother must become a teacher if I choose to follow our parents' path?  Of course not.  It's like that with kata and poomsae.  

As for the philosophy behind the KKW poomsae, I'm not really the one to ask about such things.  This thread is a decent starting place http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/29244-So-what-exactly-IS-a-Taeguek-anyway, and there is quite a bit of writing about it on MT from people much more knowledgeable about it if you are curious enough to search for it.



StuartA said:


> Yes ACCORDING to the founders, you are correct... because they knew no different.. again, its besides the point IMO.. they inadvertantly included the fact 'they could be used' even if they didnt know it at the time! Just how it is!
> 
> Well yes/no. You POV is that they don't contain apps, but you can find them if you want. My POV is that the very way they were constructed means they do contain this info  and just cos the KKW says they don't, doesnt make that fact any different!  If my mum tells me not to drive the car on the driveway, its still a car!!
> 
> Sure... people see forms that way these days.. again, it doesnt change the facts. denying the exsistance of the facts, doesnt change it either. Just cos someone says NO.. again, it doesnt change the facts! Though I agree, people can practice Poomsae for whatever they want nowadays, but again, it doesnt change the fact of their evolution into Poomsae's!
> 
> No, its not silly.. because its true IMO - real facts support it. People just need to learn this side is all. problem is, most clubs won't/don't teach it!



I have nothing more to say on this particular line that I haven't already.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Just because two things are similar or that they come from similar roots does not mean they must evolve along the same paths.  If I have a brother and our parents are teachers, does my brother must become a teacher if I choose to follow our parents' path?  Of course not.  It's like that with kata and poomsae.


I'd say that this pretty much hits the heart of the matter.


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> That actually isn't what he was implying, and since the thread is titled "Korean forms," it is not limited to pumsae. What he was implying was that pumsae are not karate kata and are not designed with hidden or layered applications in mind the way that karate kata are. There was also questioning the OP's experience with Korean forms from the same poster, but I'm not going to get into that either.



1. Thats how it comes across to me - hey, I just read what was written after all!
2. We have already discussed that they 'wernt designed' with that in mind - as they couldn't of been due to the circumstances at the time. But again, that doesnt change the facts.
3. I feel that questioning the OP experience of Korean forms is simply a way to say "hay, you don't know diddly" - and is actually kind of poor IMO. I have nearly 25 years experince of Korean forms and have researched them most in-depth - yet people still disagree with me (which is fine, as it creates discussion) - IMO.. one doesnt even need an inate knowledge of the forms to make the opinion that they contain more - they just have to read and open thier ears and mind to whats offered!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I think you meant to say "pumsae are *not* designed that way"


yes... typo.. sorry.



> And this:
> 
> 
> Does not correlate to this:
> 
> Not teaching applications as part of the forms does not imply a lack of knowledge of applications. Could be that they liked how it was done in hapkido, aikido, and judo better; applications taught as applications rather than as part of a form.


Actually I think it does, and one cannot teach something a) they did niot know about to begin with   or b) Now know about, but refuse to acknowledge because it may make them look bad!  I guess your quote could be c).. but i doubt it! JMHO.

Stuart


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> 3. I feel that questioning the OP experience of Korean forms is simply a way to say "hay, you don't know diddly" - and is actually kind of poor IMO.


Unfortunately, this thread is actually an extension of several others in which the OP and the poster in question have had major differences.



StuartA said:


> I have nearly 25 years experince of Korean forms and have researched them most in-depth - yet people still disagree with me (which is fine, as it creates discussion) - IMO.. one doesnt even need an inate knowledge of the forms to make the opinion that they contain more - they just have to read and open thier ears and mind to whats offered!


Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am of the opinion that until you are familiar with the forms and practice them long enough to have some depth of knowledge about them, you shouldn't go posting about what they actually do and do not contain or make technical assessments about them; technical assessments have been made that are simply wrong.  

Lack of familiarity with the forms prevents you from knowing details that are not readily apparent to the eye when watching solo forms (such as which part of the arm is being used as the striking surface in arae makki).  

After all, one cannot know what you have not learned.


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> Puunui has talked many times about the relationship between karate and TKD. I wouldn't say that he denies karate as one of the sources of KKW TKD, rather he speaks a lot about the 'pioneers' and how they set up to create something different over time that was intended to represent Korean ethos and culture.


As i said in my last post - I can only read what I saw in the thread and thats how I read it! And I know they wanted something 'Korean' - yet they still used the building blocks of something 'Okinawan' and thus retained its DNA! 




> Actually when I made the initial reference here that you responded to, I was referring to karate styles not TKD styles. I would argue that bunkai has never been a meaningful part of ANY TKD system, thought obviously that is changing. TKD bunkai is new, arguably reverse engineered for the most part. That differs in some respects from certain karate styles which is the point I was making above.


I would agree the same... for reasons dicsussed already! Doesnt change the facts IMO.





> We're cool. I was being a little sensitive myself.


Cool then 




> To your knowledge does anyone at the KKW or in any of the other larger organizations use this term? I ask because if they do, it can be a sign that bunkai or 'boon hae' may actually become part of the official book, so to speak.


I dont think bunkai/boon hae will ever be part of a larger orgs teachings TBH... they are too set in their ways to acknowledge this area.. sure, they change some things (mainly sport rules or a move adjustment in patterns/poomsae) but its never something in this area, that IMO, could really benefit the art in the way I see things!  I do know Drill instructors in Vietnam, Master BS Han (RIP) and Master Willie Lim ALL teach/taught applications to patterns (ITF) pre-1980s and even earlier, but whether they used the term 'boon hae' I am not sure - I will ask Master Lim next time I see him.




> Just because two things are similar or that they come from similar roots does not mean they must evolve along the same paths. If I have a brother and our parents are teachers, does my brother must become a teacher if I choose to follow our parents' path? Of course not. It's like that with kata and poomsae.


I think thats a bad example, as people 'evolve'. Forms, poomsae, Tule are basically copies of Kata with a bit of regigging IMO! If they wernt, why not make them totally unique like the Ram muay or something!



> As for the philosophy behind the KKW poomsae, I'm not really the one to ask about such things. This thread is a decent starting place http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/29244-So-what-exactly-IS-a-Taeguek-anyway, and there is quite a bit of writing about it on MT from people much more knowledgeable about it if you are curious enough to search for it.


No offence, but as you posted it, I thought you would be able to explain it. in fact, if its so different and unique and ingained surely every KKW'er with a few years behind them should be able to explain it! One thing i have seen through my research over the years is that things are copied, changed a little and then some 'reason' is put on them - after the fact however!




> I have nothing more to say on this particular line that I haven't already.


Okay. TBH.. it does seem some repetition is creeping in LOL.. guess thats just how these discussion go!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Unfortunately, this thread is actually an extension of several others in which the OP and the poster in question have had major differences.


So they have differences.. so one tries to belittle the other in order to make his point seem more sound... hmmm, hardly the actions of a martial artists who follows the tenets IMO!




> Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am of the opinion that until you are familiar with the forms and practice them long enough to have some depth of knowledge about them, you shouldn't go posting about what they actually do and do not contain or make technical assessments about them; technical assessments have been made that are simply wrong.
> 
> Lack of familiarity with the forms prevents you from knowing details that are not readily apparent to the eye when watching solo forms (such as which part of the arm is being used as the striking surface in arae makki).


So.. where would I stand in this regards?  My response was to what you said about this thread being on 'Korean forms', but I havnt studied the KKW forms as deeply as the ITF ones - but does that matter, or does that make my thoughts irrelevant?  My thoughts arent based on the forms themselves, but from the foundation they were build upon!



> After all, one cannot know what you have not learned.


Good quote for those that say theres no bunkai in poomsae   (Joke)

Stuart


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> Actually I think it does, and one cannot teach something a) they did niot know about to begin with   or b) Now know about, but refuse to acknowledge because it may make them look bad!


Look bad or look Japanese?



StuartA said:


> I guess your quote could be c).. but i doubt it! JMHO.


Based on what?

Honestly, if I were putting together a self defense class (not an MA class), I wouldn't use forms from any art.  Teaching SD with forms is inefficient and extraneous.  I would definitely teach applications and use scenarios as a basis rather than teaching off of forms.

Forms are a nice way to practice techniques and maintain flexibility and fitness, plus whatever philosophical element a particular form set embodies, so I do consider them useful and beneficial.  But for teaching SD, pulling applications out of forms is simply inefficient.  If you want to teach people how to defend against wrist grabs, throw people, or defend against punches, then it is most efficient to simply teach them those techniques without the added pomp and circumstance of forms.


----------



## StuartA

Weird.. just on FB and came across this:

&#8220;&#46907;&#51004;&#47196; &#54400;&#51008; &#46041;&#51089;&#44284; &#48277;&#51012; &#49892;&#51204; &#49324;&#50857;&#51060; &#44032;&#45733;&#54616;&#44172; &#49688;&#47144;&#54616;&#50668; &#51649;&#51217;&#51201;&#51004;&#47196; &#49892;&#51204;&#50640; &#51201;&#50857;&#54620;&#45796;.&#8221;
&#8220;One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability.&#8221;
*Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook p. 306

*


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> Daniel Sullivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, perhaps not, but I am of the opinion that until you are  familiar with the forms and practice them long enough to have some depth  of knowledge about them, you shouldn't go posting about what they  actually do and do not contain or make technical assessments about them;  technical assessments have been made that are simply wrong.
> 
> Lack of familiarity with the forms prevents you from knowing details  that are not readily apparent to the eye when watching solo forms (such  as which part of the arm is being used as the striking surface in arae  makki).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So.. where would I stand in this regards?  *My response was to what you said about this thread being on 'Korean forms', but I havnt studied the KKW forms as deeply as the ITF ones - but does that matter, or does that make my thoughts irrelevant?  My thoughts arent based on the forms themselves, but from the foundation they were build upon!
Click to expand...

Depends on what you have to say.  I don't dismiss a post out of hand based on the background of the poster, but based on the content.

In terms of the big picture, I'd say that you, any karateka, and any KKW taekwondoist could have general discussions about any number of forms and all offer valid points.

Suppose, however, that I made the assessment of sanshin (sanshou?) that apparently has some muscle flexing section, that doing a pose down for your attacker is silly and reflects some lack of knowledge on the part of the creator.  Apparently, that section is meant to show muscular control, so my assessment would be incorrect due to lack of details that go beyond what I can see on youtube.  

I'm not overly familiar with that form, so the analogy may not be all that good.  Dancingalone explained it and I'm sure knows which form I'm talking about.


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Look bad or look Japanese?


Look bad! The japanese thing is just a 'get out clause' because the original kata wern't even japanese anyway and the Okinawans were just as oppressed as Koreans were - they actually have a lot in common! In fcat, to say that.. means they acknowledge the Japanese roots to poomsae if you think about it!




> Based on what?
> 
> Honestly, if I were putting together a self defense class (not an MA class), I wouldn't use forms from any art. Teaching SD with forms is inefficient and extraneous. I would definitely teach applications and use scenarios as a basis rather than teaching off of forms.


This has been discussed - Its not about SD - its simply about making forms (which everyone does alot) more productive and more than the sum of their parts were originally!



> Forms are a nice way to practice techniques and maintain flexibility and fitness, plus whatever philosophical element a particular form set embodies, so I do consider them useful and beneficial. But for teaching SD, pulling applications out of forms is simply inefficient. If you want to teach people how to defend against wrist grabs, throw people, or defend against punches, then it is most efficient to simply teach them those techniques without the added pomp and circumstance of forms.


And how does a person practice wrist grab releases etc. with out a partner - hmmmmm... forms! 

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Suppose, however, that I made the assessment of sanshin (sanshou?) that apparently has some muscle flexing section, that doing a pose down for your attacker is silly and reflects some lack of knowledge on the part of the creator. Apparently, that section is meant to show muscular control, so my assessment would be incorrect due to lack of details that go beyond what I can see on youtube.
> 
> I'm not overly familiar with that form, so the analogy may not be all that good. Dancingalone explained it and I'm sure knows which form I'm talking about.


I get ya... but Sanchin is a very different kata to most and is about Ki development. the poomsae are not, and are simply 'versions' of whats been before, as are the ITF tul... and a simple look at them shows this!

Heres something wierd for ya - I had a little discussion witha  student the otehr day, about how stances have changed and they made a joke about the 'short' stances seen in some KKW poomsae and I told them, they may actually be closer to the 'original' than we are (meaning the Okinawan forms), as they used short stances as well and the long stances were a japanese development!

Stuart


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> And how does a person practice wrist grab releases etc. with out a partner - hmmmmm... forms!


Or you can just practice wrist grab release motions.  You don't need a kata for that.  We don't use forms in hapkido at all, so apparently - hmmmmm.... not forms.

Besides, if you practice wrist grab releases without a partner, you really aren't practicing wrist grab releases.  It's like shooting baskets with a basketball but no basket.  You can pretend that you've got a backboard and hoop, but without one, you're just throwing the ball.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

StuartA said:


> I get ya... but Sanchin is a very different kata to most and is about Ki development. the poomsae are not, and are simply 'versions' of whats been before, as are the ITF tul... and a simple look at them shows this!


Not the point.  And if you get me, then the rest of this is just argument for its own sake. 

If  you think that you can get every detail, every subtlety from just looking, then I respectfully disagree with you.  It doesn't matter what the subtlety is, be it ki development or variations of how a particular technique is performed; there are certain things that you simply won't get unless you practice something.  And a simple look will not show this.  



StuartA said:


> Heres something wierd for ya - I had a little discussion witha  student the otehr day, about how stances have changed and they made a joke about the 'short' stances seen in some KKW poomsae and I told them, they may actually be closer to the 'original' than we are (meaning the Okinawan forms), as they used short stances as well and the long stances were a japanese development!
> 
> Stuart


That was actually said by Puunui and Dancingalone in a conversation a while back.


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> I think thats a bad example, as people 'evolve'. Forms, poomsae, Tule are basically copies of Kata with a bit of regigging IMO! If they wernt, why not make them totally unique like the Ram muay or something!



Actually forms evolve too, based on individual practitioners.  This should be readily evident when looking at any of the permutations of the Okinawan kata Passai or for a simpler timeline we can compare Seibuken Pinan Nidan to Shito-ryu Pinan Nidan to Heian Shodan to Pyung Ahn Chodan.

Forms mean nothing without the people that practice them.  Any meanings, usages, or technical parameters to them come solely from their users.  And so as the users go, so too does the form go.  So in your hands, a hyung could perhaps be the starting point for some neat practical usages.  Practiced by someone else, it might just be a way of defining fundamental stances, blocks, and strikes.  Neither perspective is 'wrong', but certainly individuals and organizations can decide what is 'right' for them.



StuartA said:


> No offence, but as you posted it, I thought you would be able to explain it. in fact, if its so *different and unique and ingained* surely every KKW'er with a few years behind them should be able to explain it! One thing i have seen through my research over the years is that things are copied, changed a little and then some 'reason' is put on them - after the fact however!



Reading the highlighted words, it seems like you are manufacturing a strawman or that you have negative bias against the poomsae in the first place.  Did anyone say the philosophy behind the poomsae was 'different, unique, or engrained'?  I didn't.  I did say the poomsae embody certain ideas intentionally.  This should be self-evident given their names (Taegeuk, Palgwe, and so on).  Heck, didn't General Choi pick certain names for his tuls to teach both lessons historical and philosophical to his students?  Why should the same not be true for the poomsae regardless of my willingness or ability to explain on a message board what they are?

 And for the record, I've been practicing KKW poomsae for less than a year.


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> I get ya... but Sanchin is a very different kata to most and is about Ki development.



IMO Sanchin primarily is about learning structural stability through aligning stance, posture, and muscular tension.  It also can be iron vest training which includes some aspects of qi building.


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> Actually forms evolve too, based on individual practitioners. This should be readily evident when looking at any of the permutations of the Okinawan kata Passai or for a simpler timeline we can compare Seibuken Pinan Nidan to Shito-ryu Pinan Nidan to Heian Shodan to Pyung Ahn Chodan.


they did.. but they don't now unless its via a KKW or ITF IIC (or similar).. sorry, but... oh, wait! Im gonna say this on my next line so...



> Forms mean nothing without the people that practice them.


Except 99.9% of the people, practice them as the org tells them too... its not like it was originally. I would love this to be true,.. but its not. period.



> Any meanings, usages, or technical parameters to them come solely from their users. And so as the users go, so too does the form go.



If that was so,... why do 99.9% simply quote the exact same applications as they learn in a manual (or via their instructors who learnt from a manual etc.)?



> So in your hands, a hyung could perhaps be the starting point for some neat practical usages. Practiced by someone else, it might just be a way of defining fundamental stances, blocks, and strikes. Neither perspective is 'wrong', but certainly individuals and organizations can decide what is 'right' for them.


I never said they are wrong... unless they deny the connection.. people can use them for what they want.. but should also realise.. if they want.. there is more to them than an 'org' will say!



> Reading the highlighted words, it seems like you are manufacturing a strawman or that you have negative bias against the poomsae in the first place.


Not sure why you would think that or what I said to make you feel that! Ive nothing against any type of forms... I just want ALL TKD'ers to understand theres more to them and utilize them IF THEY WANT! 



> Did anyone say the philosophy behind the poomsae was 'different, unique, or engrained'? I didn't.


You made a stance that theres a philosophical difference.. but when asked to explain what that was.. you redirected me... but surely if its that self-evident.. all would know!



> I did say the poomsae embody certain ideas intentionally. This should be self-evident given their names (Taegeuk, Palgwe, and so on). Heck, didn't General Choi pick certain names for his tuls to teach both lessons historical and philosophical to his students? Why should the same not be true for the poomsae regardless of my willingness or ability to explain on a message board what they are?


Yes he did... but the names (IMO) have no relation to the patterns... they are simply a Korean history lesson (interesting none the less).. could it not be the same with WTF Pommsae?




> And for the record, I've been practicing KKW poomsae for less than a year.


Which goes back to my comment about one user calling anothers 'lack of training in KKW forms' into question.. who cares.. your opinion is based on what you know... and though I`ve put my experience down.. I am happy to discuss things with you - even if we don't change our minds. I will not belittle you like that post tried to do, in order to say "I know cos of what I know... and my predigree .. and that makes you wrong" -  this is just a discussion thread after all!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> IMO Sanchin primarily is about learning structural stability through aligning stance, posture, and muscular tension. It also can be iron vest training which includes some aspects of qi building.


Though I`m not a Goju guy.. ive studied this for a bit.. as part of an article about Ki in TKD and why we dont have an 'internal' kata.. and I know a Goju BB 


For the record: http://www.raynerslanetkd.com/ARTICLES_internalpattern.html

Stuart


----------



## dancingalone

StuartA said:


> they did.. but they don't now unless its via a KKW or ITF IIC (or similar).. sorry, but... oh! Im gonna say this on my next libne so...
> 
> 
> Exceppt 99.9% of the people, practice them as the org tells them too... its not like it was originally. I would love this to be true,.. but its not. period.
> 
> 
> 
> If that was so,... why do 99.9% simply quote the exact same applications as they learn in a manual (or via their instructors who learnt from a manual)?
> 
> 
> I never said they are wrong... unless they deny the connection.. people can use them for what they want.. but should also realise.. if they want.. there is more to them than an 'org' will say!
> 
> 
> Not sure why you would think that or what I aid to make you feel that! Ive nothing against any type of forms... I just want ALL TKD'ers to understand theres more to them and utilize them IF THEY WANT!



I'm starting to think you're an idiot savant in this respect.  (No insult intended.)  You don't understand what I've been trying to say, do you?  You're so invested in the idea that TKD forms must have combat application that you can't conceptualize any other perspective as being valid even though they're coming from entirely different starting points than yours and so the destination might be different too.



StuartA said:


> You made a stance that theres a philosophical difference.. but when asked to explain what that was.. you redirected me... but surely if its that self-evident.. all would know!



I gave you a link that would have given you basic knowledge about the very topic that you asked about.  The connection of the poomsae to Korean philosophy is self-evident is you knew what Taegeuk is or what the trigrams are, which it seems that you don't.  Reading the link would have given this knowledge and you would be better equipped to seek further readings and discussions, assuming you have genuine interest in the topic.



StuartA said:


> Yes he did... but the names (IMO) have no relation to the patterns... they are simply a Korean history lesson (any interesting one no less).. could it not be the same with WTF Pommsae?



So there are no philosophical or cultural lessons to be learned from discussing such words as juche or tong-il?  Or subtextual meanings attached to names like Eui-am which might be more accessible perhaps to a Korean?



StuartA said:


> Which goes back to my comment about one user calling anothers 'lack of training in KKW forms' into question.. who cares.. your opinion is based on what you know... and though I`ve put my experience down.. I am happy to discuss things with you - even if we don't change our minds. I will not belittle you like that post tried to do, in order to say "I know cos of what I know... this is just a discussion thread after all!



Indeed.  If we disagree, we disagree.  It happens.



StuartA said:


> Though I`m not a Goju guy.. ive studied this for a bit.. as part of an article about Ki in TKD and why we dont have an 'internal' kata.. and I know a Goju BB



OK.  I would suggest that the form still is more about structure than it is about qi.  Tell your friend what I said when you have spare time and see what he says.


----------



## Earl Weiss

dancingalone said:


> I'
> So there are no philosophical or cultural lessons to be learned from discussing such words as juche or tong-il? Or subtextual meanings attached to names like Eui-am which might be more accessible perhaps to a Korean?
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Tong - Il has symbolic meaning attached to certain moves. There may be more but here are some:
> #1 - one country
> #2 - Divided
> #3 Suddenly attacked
> 
> #38 Breaking the 38th Parallel.
> 
> The pattern diagram (the manner in which your steps lay out on the floor)  for Ju Che stands represents the Baekdu mountain.
> 
> So, the above are examples of a symbolic intent rather than martial intent.


----------



## andyjeffries

StuartA said:


> Weird.. just on FB and came across this:
> 
> &#46907;&#51004;&#47196; &#54400;&#51008; &#46041;&#51089;&#44284; &#48277;&#51012; &#49892;&#51204; &#49324;&#50857;&#51060; &#44032;&#45733;&#54616;&#44172; &#49688;&#47144;&#54616;&#50668; &#51649;&#51217;&#51201;&#51004;&#47196; &#49892;&#51204;&#50640; &#51201;&#50857;&#54620;&#45796;.
> One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability.
> *Kukkiwon Taekwondo Textbook p. 306
> 
> *



I think this is bending a quote to your meaning though. Reading this quote with a kukkiwon head on, I would take to mean using those sequences in other places, e.g. Step sparring, or using the philosophies learnt in a practical way (e.g. The speed and fluidity of Taebaek). I wouldn't read it as changing the movements beyond the obvious...

On the next page it refers to the practicable techniques as:

"This includes practically used techniques only, which are classified into a series of chigi techniques, a series of makki techniques and a balanced combination of chigi and makki techniques".

(I can't be bothered to type the hangul on my iPad, but if it's important I can type it out tomorrow night)

Note, there's no talk of makki techniques (blocks) becoming chigi (strikes) or grabs.


----------



## andyjeffries

StuartA said:


> So they have differences.. so one tries to belittle the other in order to make his point seem more sound... hmmm, hardly the actions of a martial artists who follows the tenets IMO!



They've niggled at each other for ages, don't pick on this one incident and believe it's one-sided.

Also, while you may disagree with what was said, surely you can agree that if you are going to talk about nuances, subtleties and techniques in a pattern then your level of experience in it is relevant.

Anyway as the poster is unable to reply to defend himself, maybe we can all agree to drop the ragging on him (regarding whether he follows the ITF tenets or not, still comes across as an insult).

Disclaimer: while I have spoken to Puunui on many occasions, I haven't since his expulsion (co-incidence) and my defensive comments here are because I respect his experience and willingness to share the insights he's had from the founders/seniors of our art and feel that while he may be abrasive to some, that doesn't deserve attacks where he can't defend himself.


----------



## StuartA

dancingalone said:


> I'm starting to think you're an idiot savant in this respect. (No insult intended.)


So you think i`m mentaly handicapped witha good memory!!!! Err.. okay...




> You don't understand what I've been trying to say, do you? You're so invested in the idea that TKD forms must have combat application that you can't conceptualize any other perspective as being valid even though they're coming from entirely different starting points than yours and so the destination might be different too.


Actually its the reverse... I can understand poomsae can have different useages.. and those ae valid... I just disagree that SD useage isnt there! So yes, i understand what you are trying to say.. simply disgree.. and for that you label me "idiot savant"! LOL




> I gave you a link that would have given you basic knowledge about the very topic that you asked about. The connection of the poomsae to Korean philosophy is self-evident is you knew what Taegeuk is or what the trigrams are, which it seems that you don't.


Actually I do... its just, like most other cases in KMA.. a meaning give after, rather than based upon it for real!



> Reading the link would have given this knowledge and you would be better equipped to seek further readings and discussions, assuming you have genuine interest in the topic.


thats not the point. You made out it was some "special" thing.. yet you didnt feel equiped enough to explain it - how rooted is that then!!!! I can happily explain the forms I do til the cows come home - technqiues, definitions, philopophy behind them - the whole hog - its not hard if you know waht your talking about (no offence intended)




> So there are no philosophical or cultural lessons to be learned from discussing such words as juche or tong-il? Or subtextual meanings attached to names like Eui-am which might be more accessible perhaps to a Korean?


Sure.. but do they have a REAL relation to the patterns.. Tong-Il aside, as a maybe.. no.. what has the perfromance of Juche got to do with the realization of Juche.. no much, apart from af ew postures on Kim, Il Sung and the diagram representing a mountain where a BS story of where "Juche idea" was formed- that isnt even true anyway except in NK folklore.... ask any ITF'er what a 'dodging reversing turning kick' has to do with NK or the BS idea of Juche and I bet your simply hear - Blank! Tong-Il is meant to have some meaning of the moves.. wow.. the first 3 and last... what about all the others if its so ingrained! Its easy to put meaning to odd moves etc... thats not the whole pattern... and so it is with the KKW forms AFAIC. And even if there is.. it STILL doesnt change the DNA facts on how they were built up!





> OK. I would suggest that the form still is more about structure than it is about qi. Tell your friend what I said when you have spare time and see what he says.


No need. I asked him when I wrote that article as I like to research as thorughly as I can... he concured.. he's a Goju 2nd dan btw

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

andyjeffries said:


> I think this is bending a quote to your meaning though. Reading this quote with a kukkiwon head on, I would take to mean using those sequences in other places, e.g. Step sparring, or using the philosophies learnt in a practical way (e.g. The speed and fluidity of Taebaek). I wouldn't read it as changing the movements beyond the obvious...


I didnt bend it for any meaning.. its just weird it appear whilst i was involved in this thread is all. Though I do fnd the words 'practical' et al interesting - it reminds me of those who say Gen Choi said at his seminars that "_if it works, its a good application" _- which to me always seemed like a get out clause for.. _i don't know.. but if you can make it work, its cool!
_
Stuart


----------



## StuartA

andyjeffries said:


> They've niggled at each other for ages, don't pick on this one incident and believe it's one-sided.


I dont need to look into their past. the simple fact one called something so -irrelevant to make himself "seem correct" speaks volumes IMO. Its not about history .. its simply about the forms (KMA ones) in question - the fact the poster (who I dont know) seemed fit to do that, shwos an insecurity in his argument!



> Also, while you may disagree with what was said, surely you can agree that if you are going to talk about nuances, subtleties and techniques in a pattern then your level of experience in it is relevant.


Sure. But then others have said certain _peoples _experience is relevant!!!



> Anyway as the poster is unable to reply to defend himself, maybe we can all agree to drop the ragging on him (regarding whether he follows the ITF tenets or not, still comes across as an insult).Disclaimer: while I have spoken to Puunui on many occasions, I haven't since his expulsion (co-incidence) and my defensive comments here are because I respect his experience and willingness to share the insights he's had from the founders/seniors of our art and feel that while he may be abrasive to some, that doesn't deserve attacks where he can't defend himself.


Im not ragging on him - I dont know the guy or gal.. i was asked to explain why I thought some deny the historical connection to Shoyokan and I gave examples from this thread.. its not my fault the guy/gal got himself banned!!!

Stuart


----------



## shesulsa

How about everyone takes a breather here and let's see if we can continue the discussion on a day when we can focus on the topic itself?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## seasoned

dancingalone said:


> IMO Sanchin primarily is about learning structural stability through aligning stance, posture, and muscular tension.  It also can be iron vest training which includes some aspects of qi building.


Agreed, plus harmoniously combining breath with all the above to form the whole package.


----------



## StuartA

Sorry.. a typo in my last post (which I can't edit) leads me to say.. how much experience within a form makes a posters opinions relevant or irrelevant?

My opinions here, are based on the ITF forms.. but I have some understanding of the KKW forms to a point.. but I think the general concensus for KKW guys (which, TBH is understandable to a point) is that.. if you don't train them.. you don't know them! I would however add.. in some of my books I included GM Park, Jung Tae's forms... and though "I don' train them' I immediatly understood them and those who have brought Vol 2 of my most recent book, will see I don't include them, where-as I did in my solo patterns books - theres a reason for that - and that is that they are too far removed from things we are discussing here.. but, despite things, I dont think the KKW forms are!

Stuart


----------



## Archtkd

StuartA said:


> Sorry.. a typo in my last post (which I can't edit) leads me to say.. how much experience within a form makes a posters opinions relevant or irrelevant?
> 
> My opinions here, are based on the ITF forms.. but I have some understanding of the KKW forms to a point.. but I think the general concensus for KKW guys (which, TBH is understandable to a point) is that.. if you don't train them.. you don't know them! I would however add.. in some of my books I included GM Park, Jung Tae's forms... and though "I don' train them' I immediatly understood them and those who have brought Vol 2 of my most recent book, will see I don't include them, where-as I did in my solo patterns books - theres a reason for that - and that is that they are too far removed from things we are discussing here.. but, despite things, I dont think the KKW forms are!
> 
> Stuart



We are hawking books now? How about buying an ad?


----------



## Archtkd

StuartA said:


> What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!
> 
> Stuart


 This subject has come up several times and the answer remains the same. The Kukkiwon does not deny and has never denied that taekwondos has ties to Japanese/Okinawan Karate. Here, once again, are some excerpts from the Kukkiwon master instructor texbooks, stating the facts. The discussion appeared in this thread. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/102926-Facts-Fiction-Lies-and-actual-accounts/page6


"... Modern days Taekwondo is influenced by many other Martial Arts. The most important one of these arts is Japanese Karate. This is because Japan dominated Korea for 45 years.

... The best place to start the story of the modern development of Taekwondo is just after Koreas liberation from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II in 1945. In the period between 1944 and 1947, the five main schools that would later combine to become Taekwondo were opened ... At that time, these schools used various names to describe what they were teaching .... As can be seen from this names not much at that time was given to foot techniques ....

... In the 1950s, taekwondo sparring still resembled the system used by Japanese Karate: the entire body was considered a target and not (sic) a contact was allowed. That reflected the belief that Taekwondo was first and foremost a method of self-defense where the entire body was a weapon and that contract (sic) between opponents would result in serious injury.

... Modern days Taekwondo is influenced by many other Martial Arts. The most important one of these arts is Japanese Karate. Thi is because Japan dominited Korea for 45 years.

... The best place to start the story of the modern development of Taekwondo is just after Koreas liberation from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II in 1945. In the period between 1944 and 1947, the five main schools that would later combine to become Taekwondo were opened ... At that time, these schools used various names to describe what the were teaching .... As can be seen from this names not much at that time was given to foot techniques ....

... In the 1950s, taekwondo sparring still resembled the system used by Japanese Karate: the entire body was considered a target and not (sic) a contact was allowed. That reflected the belief that Taekwondo was first and foremost a method of self-defense where the entire body was a weapon and that contract (sic) between opponents would result in serious injury.

... In the early 1960s, however, some Taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the traditional Korean game, taekkyon .... "


----------



## Dirty Dog

StuartA said:


> Sorry.. a typo in my last post (which I can't edit) leads me to say.. how much experience within a form makes a posters opinions relevant or irrelevant?
> 
> My opinions here, are based on the ITF forms.. but I have some understanding of the KKW forms to a point.. but I think the general concensus for KKW guys (which, TBH is understandable to a point) is that.. if you don't train them.. you don't know them! I would however add.. in some of my books I included GM Park, Jung Tae's forms... and though "I don' train them' I immediatly understood them and those who have brought Vol 2 of my most recent book, will see I don't include them, where-as I did in my solo patterns books - theres a reason for that - and that is that they are too far removed from things we are discussing here.. but, despite things, I dont think the KKW forms are!
> 
> Stuart





Archtkd said:


> We are hawking books now? How about buying an ad?



I don't really think he's trying to sell books with that statement, and I doubt you really think he is. Hell, I've made mention of my own books a time or two, and certainly never expected anybody to buy them based on those mentions. He's merely trying to show (I think) that he's spent a fair bit of time studying this subject.

On a general note, and specifically NOT referring to any individual poster:
I think we all would be well advised to take a step back, take a minute to inhale deeply, let it out slowly, and relax. The potshots are not going to do anything useful.


----------



## Archtkd

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't really think he's trying to sell books with that statement, and I doubt you really think he is. Hell, I've made mention of my own books a time or two, and certainly never expected anybody to buy them based on those mentions. He's merely trying to show (I think) that he's spent a fair bit of time studying this subject.
> 
> On a general note, and specifically NOT referring to any individual poster:
> I think we all would be well advised to take a step back, take a minute to inhale deeply, let it out slowly, and relax. The potshots are not going to do anything useful.



I don't want to make this a big deal, but I really was asking a legit question, albeit bluntly?


----------



## shesulsa

Archtkd said:


> I don't want to make this a big deal, but I really was asking a legit question, albeit bluntly?



And how does that question help in the thread topic, exactly? 

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gnarlie

Kong Soo Do said:


> This thread is for the discussion of any/all Korean forms and the applications you as an instructor and/or student teach or have been taught associated with them.  No right or wrong answers.  Post a video or link to the form you'd like to discuss and give us a post describing what you believe to be the application associated with the movement segment in question.  Thank you in advance for staying on topic and respecting others opinions, experience and training.



Just to remind everyone what the original thread theme was, so we can all stay on topic. 
The thread is not for arguing the case for or against the existence of applications in KMA.   It's for posting examples of those applications that you teach or have taught.  Conversations about the existence or otherwise of applications have become repetitive and are not adding anything constructive or educational to the thread. 

Many posts ago, I posted a number of links to videos suggesting applications for the Taegeuk and KKW Yudanja Poomsae.   Nobody has commented on any of those suggestions.  It seems people here don't actually want positive constructive conversation about applications, they just want to be right and prove other people wrong.  This kind of divisive attitude is one of the reasons why TKD is in the fragmented state that it is in today.

I wish people wouldn't stick so dogmatically to their opinions, would open their minds and concede the possibility that another opinion might have value.

Call me when the arguments are over, I'll be over here in the corner.

Gnarlie


----------



## StuartA

Archtkd said:


> We are hawking books now? How about buying an ad?


Eh!  I wasnt trying to 'hawk' any books.. it was a point to do with the dicussion is all - if that breaks the TOS, then a mod can/should delete it, as that wasnt my intention at all!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA

Archtkd said:


> This subject has come up several times and the answer remains the same. The Kukkiwon does not deny and has never denied that taekwondos has ties to Japanese/Okinawan Karate. Here, once again, are some excerpts from the Kukkiwon master instructor texbooks, stating the facts.


Well, I thought we (meaning this thread/discussion) wern't gonna get into this! But anyway, its good that at least one book (out of many) has a bit of acknowledgement 

Though the same/similar doesnt seem to appear on the Official KKW web site: http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/viewfront/eng/data/taekwondo_history.jsp

Stuart


----------



## jks9199

*Admin Note:

Thread closed for staff review.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator
*


----------

