# Self defense from forms



## bluewaveschool (Jun 28, 2012)

Piggy backing off ATC's Name that Poomse thread, how many of you do form breakdown as a regular part of your class or testing?  For us, from purple onward all self defense movements for a test are applications of movements from the students current form.  For 1st and 2nd purple it's 5 movements per form, 1st and 2nd brown it's an application of every movement in their current form, and black it's testing panels choice of which form they breakdown.  And no, black belts aren't given any advanced notice of what form they will be doing.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 28, 2012)

Makes sense to me. Just the way it was intended............


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jun 28, 2012)

Yet I've been places that have never done it.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 28, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> Yet I've been places that have never done it.


When kata is done separate from training, then it is just a workout device used for promotions. When it is embraced, it becomes a very intricate part of the whole system. Every sport has certain drills that play into the sport being played. These drills hold the key to certain moves called principles. Even more important with an art of self defense. Schools that don't consider this are missing out, just my feelings along with many many others...............that feel the same way.


----------



## sopraisso (Jun 28, 2012)

This is just what I've thinking and reading about lately, and sounds like pure reason to me. But sadly I'd say forms breakdown has never been done in my gym since I joined them, and applications to techniques is something almost never mentioned (I basically study this by myself). I could probably say this is an almost unknown subject in the place where I live, no matter the taekwondo school, and it seems in other places and countries the same thing happens often (in my country this is probably the rule).
I believe this subject is as important as the forms themselves, but it's just frequently ignored. Taking self-defense from forms, breaking them down, finding applications -- as seasoned said: just the way it was intended. But I feel that even some respected people around here disagree that it was intended like that. I also feel that there's not an agreement about what the forms are for -- I don't think they have only one function, but I believe there are concrete and definite objectives for the use of forms in martial arts.
I hope I haven't talked too much, and I preffer to wait and see what other people can say.


----------



## Marcy Shoberg (Jun 29, 2012)

I fear this answer may be unpopular, but it is my opinion at this time that if forms do actually contain any moves that are useful is self-defense, forms are still not the best way to give a student the ability to use these moves in self defense.  Practice with actual things to strike or grab does a better job of this.  

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it's been my experience that forms contain mostly blocks and blocks are not as useful in self-defense as it at first seems to someone studying a martial art. I am one of those people who believe it's time for forms to stop trying to be self-defense training and just be performance art.  But, I do think understanding the "theoretical" applications of moves in forms can help one give a better performance, so I teach them to my students. 

One of my favorite ways to do this is have the student do the form while I run around them with two paddle targets using the paddle targets to hit them when they are supposed to block or as something for them to aim at when they are supposed to strike. It's good exercise for my body and brain to try to have the targets in the right place quickly enough that the student can do the form at their usual pace. I've never actually mangage to do it, but its fun to try.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 29, 2012)

Marcy Shoberg said:


> I fear this answer may be unpopular, but it is my opinion at this time that if forms do actually contain any moves that are useful is self-defense, forms are still not the best way to give a student the ability to use these moves in self defense.  Practice with actual things to strike or grab does a better job of this.


It isnt unpopular - Its missing one thing. Forms arent meant to be the one thing that teach You the application. They are more like Books, but made of Movement. They record methodologies and principles. Which are supposed to be practiced separately.



> Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it's been my experience that forms contain mostly blocks and blocks are not as useful in self-defense as it at first seems to someone studying a martial art. I am one of those people who believe it's time for forms to stop trying to be self-defense training and just be performance art.  But, I do think understanding the "theoretical" applications of moves in forms can help one give a better performance, so I teach them to my students.


1: Often the 'Blocks' are in fact Strikes, or Grabs. Or possibly just ways to angle Your body with a movement attached.
2: Forms are not intended to be a sole means of SD Training. Forms can however be used to record the idealogy of the method of SD in question.



> One of my favorite ways to do this is have the student do the form while I run around them with two paddle targets using the paddle targets to hit them when they are supposed to block or as something for them to aim at when they are supposed to strike. It's good exercise for my body and brain to try to have the targets in the right place quickly enough that the student can do the form at their usual pace. I've never actually mangage to do it, but its fun to try.


And when the 'Blocks' are not in fact blocks, but are only used as such because forms are done solo?
A better way might perhaps be to break down one small capsulised part of the form which is intended to be used, and work out how it was intended to be applied. Or read into the 'findings' of others.
Another example is when certain forearm blocks are meant to 'catch' or grab strikes in a sort of jointlocky way.

All that said, Im not a fan of Forms.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jun 29, 2012)

I believe forms achieve and end: they encourage us to question things. Questioning things in a logical way makes for good strategy development and martial methods.  It teaches critical thinking, and assists greatly in the learning process. 

In many traditional arts, we have been given this wonderful gift of forms containing movements the origins of which seem to be lost.  We can choose to look at them as we see fit; as pure art, as self defence or as a way of transmitting principles, cultural concepts and values. 

My view is that the thought process of analysing forms and the resulting 'light-bulb-clicks-on-I've-just-realised-something' moments are to some extent more important than the patterns themselves.  

If it makes you ask questions, good.  If it makes you think about what a pure movement might be able to do, then also good.  If you put those theories to the test, then even better.  If you can't find an application for a movement, maybe you will find out the meaning is symbolic or illustrates a principle, and further investigation will reveal a wealth of new information and concepts. 

Whichever approaches you choose to take,  study of forms will make you a better martial artist.

What I'm not sure that I agree with is people saying that movement definitively is one thing or another.  That path closes the questioning process without the added value of debate.   Debate and analysis is where the real gold is - it's the process of discovery that forces us to learn.



 Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 29, 2012)

Marcy Shoberg said:


> ...
> 
> Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it's been my experience that forms contain mostly blocks and blocks are not as useful in self-defense as it at first seems to someone studying a martial art. I am one of those people who believe it's time for forms to stop trying to be self-defense training and just be performance art. But, I do think understanding the "theoretical" applications of moves in forms can help one give a better performance, so I teach them to my students.
> 
> ...



I wonder if there isn't a lot of techniques hidden as "art" already?  And why would you want art, as in aesthetics, rather than useful techniques, in a martial art?  See below.



Gnarlie said:


> ...
> 
> In many traditional arts, we have been given this wonderful gift of forms containing movements the origins of which seem to be lost. We can choose to look at them as we see fit; as pure art, as self defence or as a way of transmitting principles, cultural concepts and values.
> 
> ...



I had a 4th Dan Tae Kwon Do student as a student who was learning Hapkido from me.  There were a number of times I would show him a technique and he would get a funny look in his eye and when I asked, he would tell me about a portion of a form that he had never understood, and usually just been told it was for "art."  If fact, he realized that it was the technique I had just showed, him, but changed a little, apparently as its meaning had been lost.  I sometimes see movements in forms that I don't know what they are for, but look suspiciously like some part of a defense technique I know.  Is it always?  I don't know, but based on my student's experience, there are indeed some that have been lost.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 29, 2012)

In the Chang Hon System there is a "Cycle" of TKD. Each element in the cycle has a purpose yet no element should be viewed in isolation . It is a system made up of parts.  As such part of the system is to use the fundamental techniques in forms and also in pre arranged step sparring which is a formal exercise but with an "oponent' as opposed to forms which have no opponent present. The techniques are modified for free sparring. 

Practicing the fundamental techniques in Patterns, pre arranged Sparring, and Step sparring help focus on the application for "Self Defense".


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 29, 2012)

Sounds good.  I have wondered, and in fact come to the conclusion, that forms are also a way of teaching multiple attacker defense.  Do you think that is so as well?


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jun 29, 2012)

I don't believe that there are blocks in forms.  As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block.  If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jun 29, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> I don't believe that there are blocks in forms.  As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block.  If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.



Could I please ask what brought you to that viewpoint?

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gnarlie (Jun 29, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I wonder if there isn't a lot of techniques hidden as "art" already?  And why would you want art, as in aesthetics, rather than useful techniques, in a martial art?  See below.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a 4th Dan Tae Kwon Do student as a student who was learning Hapkido from me.  There were a number of times I would show him a technique and he would get a funny look in his eye and when I asked, he would tell me about a portion of a form that he had never understood, and usually just been told it was for "art."  If fact, he realized that it was the technique I had just showed, him, but changed a little, apparently as its meaning had been lost.  I sometimes see movements in forms that I don't know what they are for, but look suspiciously like some part of a defense technique I know.  Is it always?  I don't know, but based on my student's experience, there are indeed some that have been lost.



I'd maybe say that the meanings have been lost in only some school and clubs.  Certainly from my perspective there has always been a strong self defence thread in the clubs I have trained with.  Even when that thread wasn't deliberately linked to the poomsae, it was never a massive leap of the imagination to realise what most of those movements in the patterns could represent. 

That said, I have met people coming into our club who said that they had never trained anything like what we are doing.  Just different focus I guess. 



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jaeimseu (Jun 29, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> I don't believe that there are blocks in forms.  As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block.  If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.


I believe that this is incorrect, at least from a Taekwondo perspective. It can be argued that all the techniques contained in the forms came from Karate, and that the "original" intent of those techniques was not block, punch, kick, etc, but the creators of Taekwondo poomse named the techniques for a reason. A low block is a low block. You could use the same motion for another purpose, but in Taekwondo it's still a low block.

I'm not saying that you couldn't reverse engineer or figure out hundreds of different applications. Even if you do that, it doesn't mean that the low block isn't a low block. Like literature, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the author knows his true intent. Some people argue that the creators of Taekwondo poomse weren't aware of the "true" applications for whatever reason. Whether that is true or not, from a pure Taekwondo perspective I believe that a block is a block, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2012)

Jaeimseu said:


> I believe that this is incorrect, at least from a Taekwondo perspective. It can be argued that all the techniques contained in the forms came from Karate, and that the "original" intent of those techniques was not block, punch, kick, etc, but the creators of Taekwondo poomse named the techniques for a reason. A low block is a low block. You could use the same motion for another purpose, but in Taekwondo it's still a low block.
> 
> I'm not saying that you couldn't reverse engineer or figure out hundreds of different applications. Even if you do that, it doesn't mean that the low block isn't a low block. Like literature, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the author knows his true intent. Some people argue that the creators of Taekwondo poomse weren't aware of the "true" applications for whatever reason. Whether that is true or not, from a pure Taekwondo perspective I believe that a block is a block, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.



This has come up from time to time.  In the majority of TKD, you are correct in saying a low block is just a low block (as one example).  However, not in the totality of TKD, just the majority.  TKD, as most will acknowledge, comes from Okinawan Karate.  Many TKD forms (and TSD) come from Karate kata.  Some were designed later, but used the same principles.  According the many Okinawan masters (read Itosu Sensei, Funakoshi Sensei and others) there are in-depth applications beyond block-punch-kick in kata (and Itosu Sensei did relabel the Pinan Katas for children's consuption thereby creating a sub-system i.e. children's karate).  Therefore TKD forms based upon Okinawan kata will have the same principles.  Additionally, TKD forms developed later (but still on the pattern or Okinawan kata) will also have in-depth applications, though not as pure.  Thus, a TKD form can and does contain locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing etc.

The question then becomes, how many Koreans knew these applications as opposed to just the block-punch-kick.  I believe at least some knew, but the majority did not.  Thus the creator of a particular Korean form likely did not know more in-depth applications.  And since you can't teach what you don't know...it didn't get passed on.  It doesn't invalidate the applications being present however despite any lack of ability to convey this knowledge.  Remember, the majority of Korean 'seniors' were very low level Dans (or no Dans) with at least one exception.  

And this is a shame really because it has limited TKD as a whole from what it could actually be (and what some of us teach it as).  TKD could in many ways be a very close cousin of HKD because of the information that can be gleened from the forms.  

Take what I'm saying as it is intended.  In no way am I slamming TKD, or the seniors the founded it.  Some had a deeper understanding of their base art (Karate or whatever) than others.  And one can only put into the development of TKD what they themselves have received.  However, it is worth noting that TKD is an easier art to teach as b-p-k.  Particularly to children.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 29, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> However, it is worth noting that TKD is an easier art to teach as b-p-k. Particularly to children.



Or those crazy little kiddies in the ROK army who joined the Oh Do Kwan and were some of the most feared fighters in Viet Nam.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Or those crazy little kiddies in the ROK army who joined the Oh Do Kwan and were some of the most feared fighters in Viet Nam.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Chris,

That is an apples & oranges comparison. Nothing I posted could be construed as 'TKD is ineffective for SD'. That wasn't my point at all. First, b-p-k is easier to teach than locks, throws, balance displacement etc. Secondly, b-p-k is therefore easier for children to learn, which TKD does have a lion's share of the market. That isn't a jab at TKD, just stating fact. Thirdly, the ROK has a highly respected, and earned, reputation. And while much of that training can be in the b-p-k- venue, it can't quite be compared to what a child is learning in a typical TKD dojang.

My main point above is that one can legitimately state that TKD is b-p-k. But one can also state that TKD can contain many techniques/priciples one would normally think of as Hapkido. To me, that shows the rich diversity of the art of TKD. It doesn't mean one is 'better' than the other or that one 'sucks' and the other is superior. It all has to be taken within the scope and context of the focus of training. If one, for example, has a focus on sport-only training methodology then they don't really need in-depth applications to forms. Perhaps interesting, but not a necessity to the goal they're training for in-and-of-itself. On the otherhand, if one has more of a SD focus then the techniques/principles contained in forms can add tremendous depth and richness to the art. Just one form, taught with the contained techniques/principles beyond b-p-k could provide months if not years of hard core, indepth training. Again, this reflects well on the art of TKD and should be a highlight that is stressed. In otherwords it has something for everyone.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 29, 2012)

It's not an apples and oranges comparison, and I was saying you were implying Taekwon-Do is ineffective for self-defense. I was pointing out that despite being "basic" (which it's not) Taekwon-Do is extremely effective and good for people besides kids. 

I've said it before, and I'm sure I will again. I've done "alterative applications" since nearly day one. It's hardly new. (But these topics, like many others, come up because the nature of online forums are cyclical.) I know several people who are much more into reverse engineering than I am. Some of them are very impressive with what they can do. Wish I had the training time to devote to it. Some of them are _bad_ and can't handle a resisting opponent. Yet they will talk about how "ineffective" high kicks are. It's not the type of technique you use so much as the training you put into it. I'd take a ROK army soldier from the Oh Do Kwan back in the day over a guy working on reverse engineering Chon-Ji pretty much any day.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's not an apples and oranges comparison, and I was saying you were implying Taekwon-Do is ineffective for self-defense.



I don't know what to tell you Chris, I've been pretty clear as to the point(s) I've stated.  No where in either of my above posts did I say TKD is ineffective for SD.  Now, too be clear, some venues of TKD i.e. sport training methodology TKD is generally VERY ineffective for SD.  It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, it wasn't designed for it.  But that wasn't anywhere in the point(s) I made above, and I believe I was very clear.  My comments were strictly on the use of forms.



> I was pointing out that despite being "basic" (which it's not) Taekwon-Do is extremely effective and good for people besides kids.



Within the context of the focus of training I never stated anything to the contrary.



> I've said it before, and I'm sure I will again. I've done "alterative applications" since nearly day one. It's hardly new


.

It isnt' new at all, in fact, it goes back centuries for some forms.  But this doesn't mean everyone is aware of alternate applications or even, as I pointed out above, has a use for alternate applications.  They are simply there.



> Yet they will talk about how "ineffective" high kicks are.



A bit off topic, but well worth commenting on.  A high kick can certainly be effective...if it connects.  But that begs the question; will it connect?  Training to high kick someone, in a controlled environment, in loose fitting clothing, while warmed up/stretched out, on a dry, flat, level surface, in well-lit conditions, under pre-arranged rule sets is quite different than attempting to high kick someone in a chaotic fight, in street clothes, at a time that is very probably disadvantageous to you (read: you're not warmed up/stretched out/in a loose fitting Gi), in an environment that could be closed in (read: elevator, stairwell, alley, between parked cars, traffic, innocent by-standers), on a surface that could be sloping, wet, loose, probably in dim-light conditions where the attacker is under no obligations to allow you to pull off your favorite move.  This doesn't even take into consideration an officer with a duty belt that weighs around 30lbs plus a vest or a soldier with the typical equipment they usually/often wear including holding a rifle.

With no offense intended, I would prefer someone versed in realistic fighting skills at a variety of ranges and proficent in gross-motor skills to someone trying to use a refined-motor skill movement designed for sport.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 29, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't know what to tell you Chris, I've been pretty clear as to the point(s) I've stated. No where in either of my above posts did I say TKD is ineffective for SD.



I know, and as I said before I was pointing out that it was effective (and easy to teach) for people other than kids. I've posted before while Gen. Choi probably developed Taekwon-Do the way he did and moving it away from a self-defense aspect certainlty doesn't apply. 



> Now, too be clear, some venues of TKD i.e. sport training methodology TKD is generally VERY ineffective for SD. It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, it wasn't designed for it. But that wasn't anywhere in the point(s) I made above, and I believe I was very clear. My comments were strictly on the use of forms.



Yes, and my comments had nothing to do with sport training either.



> It isnt' new at all, in fact, it goes back centuries for some forms. But this doesn't mean everyone is aware of alternate applications or even, as I pointed out above, has a use for alternate applications. They are simply there.



Which is why I pointed out the cyclical nature of posts in online forums. 



> A bit off topic, but well worth commenting on. A high kick can certainly be effective...if it connects. But that begs the question; will it connect?



 The same can be asked for joint locks, sweeps, throws, pressure point strikes, indeed any technique. If you train for it then your chances of using it effectively increase dramatically. I've seen people's wrists just collapse when hitting the heavy bag with a basic punch because they don't train enough. But I'm not going to suggest punching isn't effective. 



> Training to high kick someone, in a controlled environment, in loose fitting clothing, while warmed up/stretched out, on a dry, flat, level surface, in well-lit conditions, under pre-arranged rule sets is quite different than attempting to high kick someone in a chaotic fight, in street clothes, at a time that is very probably disadvantageous to you (read: you're not warmed up/stretched out/in a loose fitting Gi), in an environment that could be closed in (read: elevator, stairwell, alley, between parked cars, traffic, innocent by-standers), on a surface that could be sloping, wet, loose, probably in dim-light conditions where the attacker is under no obligations to allow you to pull off your favorite move.



 Speaking from personal experience, yes they will work in self-defense situations even if you're pulled off balance or taken by surprise or in an enclosed space like a narrow hallway. I certainly wasn't in a uniform standing in class doing line drills.    



> With no offense intended, I would prefer someone versed in realistic fighting skills at a variety of ranges and proficent in gross-motor skills to someone trying to use a refined-motor skill movement designed for sport.



Me too. Which is why the ROK army guy is going to destroy the alternative applications dude 99% of the time. A high turning kick is a gross motor movement and is quite capable of knocking someone for a loop (even from a sitting position on a couch). I know.

The more refined skills can be very effective, like I said before. But it's a question of putting the training time in. I know alternative applications people who simply don't do so. There are also some who come up with applications that I would say are at least as ineffective as the "traditional" applications they critisize. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 29, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> I know, and as I said before I was pointing out that it was effective (and easy to teach) for people other than kids.



I just don't know what to tell you Chris. I feel like you're reading "I like Pepsi and dry environments" when I've clearly stated "I like pina colodas and getting caught in the rain". :uhyeah:



> The same can be asked for joint locks, sweeps, throws, pressure point strikes, indeed any technique. If you train for it then your chances of using it effectively increase dramatically.



Yes, but only if you train with the proper training methodology for the intended purpose. Otherwise you're needlessly handicapping yourself. I think you're confusing hard training with correct training. One can train hard till their blue in the face, if it isn't using the correct training methodology for the intended result they're going to have to rely on luck.



> Speaking from personal experience, yes they will work in self-defense situations even if you're pulled off balance or taken by surprise or in an enclosed space like a narrow hallway. I certainly wasn't in a uniform standing in class doing line drills.



Umm...can you offer documentation or verification of this event(s)? It isn't my intent to call you out, but if you're going to put forth this sort of thing as back up to a comment you're going to have to supply something more substantial. To say you can pull off a refined motor skill high kick in street clothes against a determined, violent attacker, when caught by surprise is well...sorry, I've got to call BS. Unless you were very lucky or the guy was really drunk. The best you're going to be able to pull off after being surprised is a 'flinch response' and that doesn't cover a refined motor-skill high kick.  Since you speak from personal experience on this matter, can you back it up?



> The more refined skills can be very effective, like I said before. But it's a question of putting the training time in



No, it is a matter of delivering the skill on target during a chaotic fight, when refined motor skills go out the door due to adrenaline dump and loss of manual dexterity in the extremities i.e. it is a matter of luck or a very unskilled attacker. To keep this squarely within the scope of the thread, it is these gross motor skills that are presented in the forms, for those interested in learning them. They worked then, they work now.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 29, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> I don't believe that there are blocks in forms.  As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block.  If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun.



Really? You can't think of any instance where you may want to block an attack? You never block when you spar?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 29, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Umm...can you offer documentation or verification of this event(s)? It isn't my intent to call you out, but if you're going to put forth this sort of thing as back up to a comment you're going to have to supply something more substantial. To say you can pull off a refined motor skill high kick in street clothes against a determined, violent attacker, when caught by surprise is well...sorry, I've got to call BS.



Sorry, I don't have a police report from defending myself for you. My apologies.



> Unless you were very lucky or the guy was really drunk.



Neither time the aggressor was drunk. Whether I was lucky, who can say? I did use techniques that I had learned in class pretty much exactly as I learned them. As it turns out, however, I learned that I can kick someone pretty damn hard when I need to. 



> The best you're going to be able to pull off after being surprised is a 'flinch response' and that doesn't cover a refined motor-skill high kick. Since you speak from personal experience on this matter, can you back it up?



What would you like me to do? Let you surprise attack me? Seriously, your question is more than a bit odd. I will say, however, that your characterization of a turning kick (i.e. roundhouse) as a "refined-motor skill" is inaccurate, at least the way I understand the term. It's no where near as complicated as trying to put a joint lock on someone who is intent on messing you up. 



> No, it is a matter of delivering the skill on target during a chaotic fight, when refined motor skills go out the door due to adrenaline dump and loss of manual dexterity in the extremities i.e. it is a matter of luck or a very unskilled attacker. To keep this squarely within the scope of the thread, it is these gross motor skills that are presented in the forms, for those interested in learning them. They worked then, they work now.



Which is, as I mentioned, dependent on putting the training time in to become sufficiently proficient with them. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 29, 2012)

Jaeimseu said:


> I believe that this is incorrect, at least from a Taekwondo perspective. It can be argued that all the techniques contained in the forms came from Karate, and that the "original" intent of those techniques was not block, punch, kick, etc, but the creators of Taekwondo poomse named the techniques for a reason. A low block is a low block. You could use the same motion for another purpose, but in Taekwondo it's still a low block.
> 
> I'm not saying that you couldn't reverse engineer or figure out hundreds of different applications. Even if you do that, it doesn't mean that the low block isn't a low block. Like literature, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but only the author knows his true intent. Some people argue that the creators of Taekwondo poomse weren't aware of the "true" applications for whatever reason. Whether that is true or not, from a pure Taekwondo perspective I believe that a block is a block, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.


For fun, get someone to do a midsection front kick at you. Block it with a Low Block, then keep doing it until youre no longer blocking - Because in forms, its mostly means to be a strike. Most middle forearm blocks can be used to grab arms or legs and trap them.
As for the part about the creators of TKD - Theyre called Blocks in Karate as well. Do they not know what Theyre talking about when They discuss how Their system is used?


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jun 29, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> Really? You can't think of any instance where you may want to block an attack? You never block when you spar?




Of course there are blocks in TKD.  I teach the same punch/kick/block type drills that I'm sure most of the rest of you have/do train with.  And there are plenty of times that you would need to block.  But when I'm working breakdown, I try to look for more than just "I block a punch".  Now, you also have to be careful getting overly creative.  I've seen moves overthought into something that just isn't workable.

Thinking about it, I suppose there are a few instances that I use the block as a block, but I generally keep the appendage in question as part of the movement.  For example, the opening movement of Do-San, as I block the punch I grab the arm (sleeve if possible, overwise the wrist) so they can't escape, and pull them towards me as I deliver the punch.  However, in Chun-Ji, I don't use any of the down block to 'block a roundhose'.  We all know people that have the sort of roundhouse that would break your arm if you tried such a thing.  I've got a wristlock, an armbar and a strike that I teach off the top of my head.


----------



## Marcy Shoberg (Jun 30, 2012)

I once started to read a book about the secret hidden meanings behind the blocks in the Tae Geuk forms.  (These are the current forms used by the World Taekwondo Federation.) It supported many of the ideas presented by people in this thread (blocks are actually hapkido-like moves, not blocks).  The name of the book was the Tae Geuk Cipher.  I'm somewhat embarrased to say that I never finished it.  It was terribly interesting but about half way through I decided it was too much work to figure out the explanations for how each move in each form could be applied to a throwing/grappling type move and decided that, even if the writer's hypotheses were true, I was not successfully taught grappeling/throwing as I learned Tae Geuk forms since I did not know I was learning these things.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 30, 2012)

Originally Posted by *bluewaveschool*

I don't believe that there are blocks in forms.  As in, the true meaning of the movement is never a block.  If nothing else, it makes figuring out forms fun."





bluewaveschool said:


> .  However, in Chun-Ji, I don't use any of the down block to 'block a roundhose'.  We all know people that have the sort of roundhouse that would break your arm if you tried such a thing.  I've got a wristlock, an armbar and a strike that I teach off the top of my head.



So are you saying you may have over generalized somewhat? 

First and foremost I will say that stated patttern applications for the Chang Hon system are not meant to be exclusive, but are examples. 
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with morphing techniques. I have a whole article addressing his in Totally TKD. 
Third, the low outer forearm Block in Chon Ji Tul is not traditionaly intended to "Block a roundhouse"  Stated application is to protect the same side lower abdomen from an attack to the same side lower abdomen. It could be a punch, Side Percing Kick, or front snap kick. So, your issues with Blocking a roundhouse fall well outsisde the stated applications. Further, traditional stylist use Dallyon as part of the training which involves conditioning and strengthenin the contact surface making your concerns even less relevant for the traditional application (s).


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 30, 2012)

chrispillertkd said:


> Neither time the aggressor was drunk. Whether I was lucky, who can say? I did use techniques that I had learned in class pretty much exactly as I learned them. As it turns out, however, I learned that I can kick someone pretty damn hard when I need to.



Look Chris, I'm not trying to hassle you here.  And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But if you were caught by surprise and were able to get off a high kick that landed, it was not a committed attack.  A high kick, even by a well-seasoned professional, fully aware of the situation and involved in a chaotic fight with a determined attacker is a low % move at best.  And actually landing it without getting dumped is even lower % unless the guy is drunk, fighting with his eys closed or fighting in slow motion.  Again, I'm not busting your chops, at least that isn't my intention, but no, I can't believe a determined attacker caught you by surprise and you were able to get off a high kick that saved the day.  There is more to the story.  



> It's no where near as complicated as trying to put a joint lock on someone who is intent on messing you up.



Another reason I can't quite believe you've been in any real altercation with a determined, committed attacker.  Why in the world would you even try for a joint lock in this situation!?!  Locks are situational and can only be applied when some measure of control has been established or the attacker has been placed in a position of disadvantage (read:  they've been stunned).  And even then, only by someone proficient in using them in real situations.  All this choreographed hogwash people put on videos where they are locking up/throwing people around (who are waiting their turn to attack) is just that...hogwash.  



> Which is, as I mentioned, dependent on putting the training time in to become sufficiently proficient with them.
> 
> And again, only when trained with the proper methodology.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jun 30, 2012)

I prefer to not be there when someone throws a sidekick at me.  Miss on the block and get knocked off your feet, that's been my experience with the sidekick.  Literally.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 30, 2012)

Marcy Shoberg said:


> I once started to read a book about the secret hidden meanings behind the blocks in the Tae Geuk forms. (These are the current forms used by the World Taekwondo Federation.) It supported many of the ideas presented by people in this thread (blocks are actually hapkido-like moves, not blocks). The name of the book was the Tae Geuk Cipher. I'm somewhat embarrased to say that I never finished it. It was terribly interesting but about half way through I decided it was too much work to figure out the explanations for how each move in each form could be applied to a throwing/grappling type move and decided that, even if the writer's hypotheses were true, I was not successfully taught grappeling/throwing as I learned Tae Geuk forms since I did not know I was learning these things.



Marcy, 

That was written by Simon O'Neill, a friend of mine. I would not classify these interpretations as secret, just not generally known. As I stated before, TKD seniors were limited to teaching only that which they themselves were taught. Not meant as a slam, but they were not as knowledgeable as their Okinawan contemporaries (for the most part, as I mentioned, there was a least one exception). For the most part, they had only the basic understanding of karate (yes, what I term as the children's sub-system). Not a slam on Korean seniors, most Allied G.I.'s were taught the children's sub-system of karate as well or at the least, didn't have time to learn the 'adult' version before returning to their own countries. 

It isn't a secret that karate contains all/most the same techniques/principles of say, Hapkido or Jujutsu. It isn't a secret that these more advance principles take more effort than b-p-k to learn to a level of proficiency. And since you just don't generally teach these sorts of things to children (which is why Itosu Sensei relabled the Pinan Katas in the first place i.e. convert them to b-p-k) and TKD can legitimately be thought of as an art that in large part caters to children, any vestige of this nature to its karate roots was lost/overlooked in favor of b-p-k by the majority.

I know some will take it as an insult to suggest that TKD is (as a majority) basically a children's sub-system of karate. It is what it is. But that sub-system 'can' be pretty damn brutal and all that is necessary for many/most SD situations IF trained using the proper methodology. The majority of TKD, at least in certain organizations doesn't use a SD training methodology and generally is NOT effective for SD. However, if the focus isn't SD then no problem exists. There are segments of TKD that are VERY effective for SD, some use the sub-system (with the proper methodology) and some use the more in-depth elements from the parent art of karate. 

Again, this simply highlights the diversity of TKD. It's a sport to those training for sport. It is SD for those training for SD. It can be a social outlet, part of an exercise program, a means for those with a competitive nature or a means to go home safe. As long as the methodology for each isn't confused with proper training for the other, it has something for everyone and everyone has a reason to be happy.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 30, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> ... Theyre called Blocks in Karate as well. Do they not know what Theyre talking about when They discuss how Their system is used?




Well, this is a subject of some discussion among karate-ka.  Some argue that the term 'uke' generally translated as 'block' into English actually means 'to receive' which can imply something very different than a hard style forceful deflection of an incoming strike.  And then there are the people who say Okinawan karate-ka had no standardized terminology like soto uke, etc, until the Japanese added them, instead eschewing them for perhaps good reasons. 

Vocabulary shapes understanding.  If I call a certain motion a block, my new students will inevitably understand the motion as a block, unless I take pains to explain other alternative meanings.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 30, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> Really? You can't think of any instance where you may want to block an attack? You never block when you spar?



My karate sensei believes blocking to be an inefficient tactic, unless combined/integrated with other motion.  This is a 1,2 count I am referring to (block, counter) that he 'dislikes'. 

It is sometimes unavoidable of course, but he consistently prefers other options if available.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 30, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> My karate sensei believes blocking to be an inefficient tactic, unless combined/integrated with other motion.  This is a 1,2 count I am referring to (block, counter) that he 'dislikes'.
> 
> It is sometimes unavoidable of course, but he consistently prefers other options if available.



What do you think? Do you see a difference between combat and sparring. 

I think before this matter can be intelligently discussed, perhaps we would need to agree on exactly what is, and what is not a block.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 30, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> What do you think? Do you see a difference between combat and sparring.
> 
> I think before this matter can be intelligently discussed, perhaps we would need to agree on exactly what is, and what is not a block.



Definitely there is a huge difference between sparring and combat.  If I wasn't clear, I was speaking from the latter perspective.  Blocking, even if it is only covering up in your guard, is completely unavoidable in virtually every sparring rule set out there.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 30, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Look Chris, I'm not trying to hassle you here. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you were caught by surprise and were able to get off a high kick that landed, it was not a committed attack.



Well, since you were there you're qualified to ... wait, what? 

It's a matter of your training. 



> Again, I'm not busting your chops, at least that isn't my intention, but no, I can't believe a determined attacker caught you by surprise and you were able to get off a high kick that saved the day. There is more to the story.



You're right. There's him almost being knocked out and me getting the hell out of there. 



> Another reason I can't quite believe you've been in any real altercation with a determined, committed attacker. Why in the world would you even try for a joint lock in this situation!?! Locks are situational and can only be applied when some measure of control has been established or the attacker has been placed in a position of disadvantage (read: they've been stunned). And even then, only by someone proficient in using them in real situations. All this choreographed hogwash people put on videos where they are locking up/throwing people around (who are waiting their turn to attack) is just that...hogwash.



You can believe whatever you want to believe. I will point out, however, that you've misread my post at least about this. I certainly didn't say I tried a joint lock. I pointed out that a kick is a gross motor movement - the kind of movement that you said were more effective - while a joint lock is not. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Marcy Shoberg (Jul 1, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Marcy,
> 
> It isn't a secret that karate contains all/most the same techniques/principles of say, Hapkido or Jujutsu..



Forgive my ignorance of karate.  At what point (certain degree of black belt maybe?) does a typical karate student know that the forms they have been taught, which at first appeared to be b-p-k to them, relate to hapkido or jujutsu moves as explained in your friend's book? 
I assume this varies from instructor to instructor, but can you give me a rough idea?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 1, 2012)

Marcy Shoberg said:


> Forgive my ignorance of karate. At what point (certain degree of black belt maybe?) does a typical karate student know that the forms they have been taught, which at first appeared to be b-p-k to them, relate to hapkido or jujutsu moves as explained in your friend's book?
> I assume this varies from instructor to instructor, but can you give me a rough idea?



Not sure about the 'relating to hapkido etc' bit but as a karate student we were taught from the first kata that it contained the techniques that are to be used for self defence. In karate it's called Bunkai, there are other ways to learn the contents of katas but we've always known, though some I suppose don't teach it, that katas/forms are for learning self defence.
I've always been taught that the uke was the 'receiver' and that 'blocks' while they can be used as such are never as simple as that and are often a less effective technique when used as a block.


----------



## Gorilla (Jul 1, 2012)

Your opinion stated as fact!!!  Much of what you say is correct and then you go off the deep end!!!! 





Kong Soo Do said:


> This has come up from time to time.  In the majority of TKD, you are correct in saying a low block is just a low block (as one example).  However, not in the totality of TKD, just the majority.  TKD, as most will acknowledge, comes from Okinawan Karate.  Many TKD forms (and TSD) come from Karate kata.  Some were designed later, but used the same principles.  According the many Okinawan masters (read Itosu Sensei, Funakoshi Sensei and others) there are in-depth applications beyond block-punch-kick in kata (and Itosu Sensei did relabel the Pinan Katas for children's consuption thereby creating a sub-system i.e. children's karate).  Therefore TKD forms based upon Okinawan kata will have the same principles.  Additionally, TKD forms developed later (but still on the pattern or Okinawan kata) will also have in-depth applications, though not as pure.  Thus, a TKD form can and does contain locks, throws, balance displacement, cavity pressing etc.The question then becomes, how many Koreans knew these applications as opposed to just the block-punch-kick.  I believe at least some knew, but the majority did not.  Thus the creator of a particular Korean form likely did not know more in-depth applications.  And since you can't teach what you don't know...it didn't get passed on.  It doesn't invalidate the applications being present however despite any lack of ability to convey this knowledge.  Remember, the majority of Korean 'seniors' were very low level Dans (or no Dans) with at least one exception.  And this is a shame really because it has limited TKD as a whole from what it could actually be (and what some of us teach it as).  TKD could in many ways be a very close cousin of HKD because of the information that can be gleened from the forms.  Take what I'm saying as it is intended.  In no way am I slamming TKD, or the seniors the founded it.  Some had a deeper understanding of their base art (Karate or whatever) than others.  And one can only put into the development of TKD what they themselves have received.  However, it is worth noting that TKD is an easier art to teach as b-p-k.  Particularly to children.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 1, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Well, this is a subject of some discussion among karate-ka.  Some argue that the term 'uke' generally translated as 'block' into English actually means 'to receive' which can imply something very different than a hard style forceful deflection of an incoming strike.  And then there are the people who say Okinawan karate-ka had no standardized terminology like soto uke, etc, until the Japanese added them, instead eschewing them for perhaps good reasons.
> 
> Vocabulary shapes understanding.  If I call a certain motion a block, my new students will inevitably understand the motion as a block, unless I take pains to explain other alternative meanings.


My experience with Karate is short - Im grateful for the expanded insight 

A lack of standardised terminology would explain it. I was mostly thinking in terms of the motion being a block, but its uses being more extensive.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 1, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> I prefer to not be there when someone throws a sidekick at me.  Miss on the block and get knocked off your feet, that's been my experience with the sidekick.  Literally.


In my experience, it depends on the type of person. I for one, and certainly not a fan of dodging for my own use. But i can block almost anything.
I imagine for others, moving out of the way is simply better.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 1, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> What do you think? Do you see a difference between combat and sparring.
> 
> I think before this matter can be intelligently discussed, perhaps we would need to agree on exactly what is, and what is not a block.



Though not directed at me, I'd like to comment if I may.  Sparring, as used in the majority of dojangs/dojos, remains within the confines of a specific rule set.  Certain movements are allowed, others are not.  For example, in a typical TKD dojang, sparring probably wouldn't include ground fighting as it is generally outside of the parameters that are taught.  Various rules are enforced as well.  Combat on the otherhand, is a free-flowing, chaotic event wherein no rule set exists (at least upon the part of the attacker), nor are specific techniques not allowed.  Combat can/does usually take place in situations/environments that are not trained for in typical dojangs i.e. enclosed spaces, outdoors, dim light, sloping surfaces, improvised weapons etc.

Perhaps, for the perspective of TKD, a 'block' can best be defined as a 'movement to intercept and/or deflect an incoming attacking movement'.  Would this be an acceptable starting point?  The only problem that I see with it, is that while a 'block' can be done on occassion in combat under the above definition it still at a distict disadvantage since a reacton will always be slower than an action.  The karate phrase, 'there are no blocks in karate' bears close examination.  It can be true, though somewhat misleading depending on how you view it.  Typically, when training in Okinawan karate, I was always taught that a 'block' is actually a strike while often offering protection from an incoming attack.

As an example, the S.P.E.A.R. technique or the elbow jab cover are both protective covers (block) but also offensive strikes.  Either of these 'blocks' effectively protect the head from an incoming attack such as a haymaker using what is termed the 'flinch response'.  But at the same time, they are devestating counter-attacks designed to allow multiple follow up strikes (if necessary) in the shortest amount of time in a very brutal, fight-ending manner.  They are so effective that they have been adopted in MANY L.E. training programs, including ours.  The S.P.E.A.R. is fully capable of fracturing the clavicle, breaking the jaw, breaking the nose and fracturing the eye socket in rapid succession in just over a second.  It will damage those specific parts of the body to a greater/lesser degree based upon the force used in the defense.  In short, it is desgned to end the fight now.  Karate, at least the arts I was taught, was very much the same way.  A fight was suppose to be over in just a few seconds (typically an attack is statistically over in 7 seconds with injury occuring in the first 3 seconds) and the attacker was suppose to be broken and physically unable to continue the attack.

In this light, we can take a movement such as the one usually labeled a 'low block'.  This is typically taught as a defense against a low punch or an incoming kick.  I've discussed at length that a low block is an extremely poor choice of defense against an incoming kick.  However, the 'low block' makes a particularly devestating movement (read: hammer fist) to the lower anatomy of an attacker at close range.  

What I'm saying is that a 'block' should not be something that in-and-of-itself is a purely defensive movement.  It needs to be defensive-offensive in nature and execution.  In otherwords, the block itself should be capable of ending the fight or at the very least, in addition to causing damage to the attacker also set up additonal attacking movements.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 1, 2012)

Marcy Shoberg said:


> Forgive my ignorance of karate. At what point (certain degree of black belt maybe?) does a typical karate student know that the forms they have been taught, which at first appeared to be b-p-k to them, relate to hapkido or jujutsu moves as explained in your friend's book?
> I assume this varies from instructor to instructor, but can you give me a rough idea?



To back up what Tez stated in her reply, we learned this beginning on day one.  But yes, it can/does vary from instructor to instructor.  Remember that an instructor is only human and can only teach what they themselves have learned.  

For us, it started with the very first 'horse stance'.  This is often taught as a position to strengthen the legs (it can) and that the hands on the hips is the 'chambering postition' (it isn't).  That is a postition that has lowered your center of gravity, engaged your hips for increased power and a movement that allows you to off-balance the attacker.  In otherwords, it isn't a martial-arty stance to do your line drills (that came later), it is a movement that allows you to do brutal harm to the attacker.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 1, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> I prefer to not be there when someone throws a sidekick at me.  Miss on the block and get knocked off your feet, that's been my experience with the sidekick.  Literally.


When I was young and in my prime I would side kick all the time (high and to the ribs). But, now that I am old and gray i'll pick a knee, any old day. "The way they were intended".


----------



## Master Dan (Jul 1, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Marcy,
> 
> That was written by Simon O'Neill, a friend of mine. I would not classify these interpretations as secret, just not generally known. As I stated before, TKD seniors were limited to teaching only that which they themselves were taught. Not meant as a slam, but they were not as knowledgeable as their Okinawan contemporaries (for the most part, as I mentioned, there was a least one exception). For the most part, they had only the basic understanding of karate (yes, what I term as the children's sub-system). Not a slam on Korean seniors, most Allied G.I.'s were taught the children's sub-system of karate as well or at the least, didn't have time to learn the 'adult' version before returning to their own countries.
> 
> ...



Probably this is one of the best definitions you have given related to this subject that is objective and acurate in a simple form. Problem comes with people training in only one small portion of TKD or under instructors who only have a limited knowledge base thinking that is all there is.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 1, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> In this light, we can take a movement such as the one usually labeled a 'low block'.  This is typically taught as a defense against a low punch or an incoming kick.  I've discussed at length that a low block is an extremely poor choice of defense against an incoming kick.  However, the 'low block' makes a particularly devestating movement (read: hammer fist) to the lower anatomy of an attacker at close range.
> 
> What I'm saying is that a 'block' should not be something that in-and-of-itself is a purely defensive movement.  It needs to be defensive-offensive in nature and execution.  In otherwords, the block itself should be capable of ending the fight or at the very least, in addition to causing damage to the attacker also set up additonal attacking movements.



  Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would assume most people posting in the taekwondo forum know and understand what a good block is. Here's what the Kukkiwon instructor manual -- provided to folks who've taken the Kukkiwon master instructor courses -- states. The text is taken from page 164 of the manual. The English is not the best and there are typos, but it's clear what the message is:

"4. 

Defense

1) Makki (blocking) 

The makki (defense or blocking) techniques are to protect oneself from being attacked by one&#8217;s opponent. Averting the opponent&#8217;s attack by escaping is another means of protecting oneself. It is often said that running away from danger is the best technique for self-defense.

 However it is important to master the techniques of blocking (makki) the opponent&#8217;s attach in case of a face-to-face confrontation. A man of good defense techniques may not necessarily provoke a fighting, although he is capable of winning. To the contrary, a man of insufficient defense capabilities would prove himself stupid if he dares a fighting. Defending oneself from attacks alone could not lead to a final solution, if the other party continues attacking; therefor it is necessary  to apply techniques of weakening the opponent&#8217;s offensive. That is why most makki taekwondo techniques are designed to hurt the opponent in the course of defending oneself by using the wrists or hand blades, which if trained hard my inflict impacts on the other party&#8217;s vital points, making the latter&#8217;s arms and legs incapacitated. 

Therefore, makki techniques must be trained hard that they function equally as offensive techniques. ..... For that reason taekwondo training is planned to begin with makki techniques which will be follows by offensive techniques."


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 1, 2012)

seasoned said:


> When I was young and in my prime I would side kick all the time (high and to the ribs). But, now that I am old and gray i'll pick a knee, any old day. "The way they were intended".



I remember my instructor relaying a story years ago when he was one of the judges at a competition. I don't recall which form was being demonstrated, the the young man did a couple of side kicks, one waist high and the second head high. It was well done, but the form called for knee high followed by waist high. When asked, the young man stated that his instructor had told him to kick waist/head as it looked flashier. And it did look flashier...but it was wrong as far as the form went. My instructor explained the application of that part of the form to him i.e. the first kick to the knees will bring the attacker's upper torso down due to the way the body works (Okinawan/Japanese/Korean seniors knew how the body works i.e. body mechanics) thus the second waist high kick was likely to be to the head of the attacker...because he'd be bent over with his head waist high. Doing it the 'flashier' way would have the second kick going off into thin air as the upper torso wouldn't be there. 

Even from a b-p-k perspective, the forms (generally) are set up in a way that makes complete sense from the perspective of body mechanics. If I hammer fist someone in the groin, the likely body mechanic is to bend forward at the waist and grab for the injured area. Thus a form using this movement would anticipate the probable reaction and have the follow up be a movement that capitalizes on that reaction. 

Bottom line is that this is a martial art, and function should weigh heavier than flash.  Particularly if SD is any kind of consideration.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 1, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Probably this is one of the best definitions you have given related to this subject that is objective and acurate in a simple form...



Thank you.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 1, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I remember my instructor relaying a story years ago when he was one of the judges at a competition. I don't recall which form was being demonstrated, the the young man did a couple of side kicks, one waist high and the second head high. It was well done, but the form called for knee high followed by waist high. When asked, the young man stated that his instructor had told him to kick waist/head as it looked flashier. And it did look flashier...but it was wrong as far as the form went. My instructor explained the application of that part of the form to him i.e. the first kick to the knees will bring the attacker's upper torso down due to the way the body works (Okinawan/Japanese/Korean seniors knew how the body works i.e. body mechanics) thus the second waist high kick was likely to be to the head of the attacker...because he'd be bent over with his head waist high. Doing it the 'flashier' way would have the second kick going off into thin air as the upper torso wouldn't be there.
> 
> Even from a b-p-k perspective, the forms (generally) are set up in a way that makes complete sense from the perspective of body mechanics. If I hammer fist someone in the groin, the likely body mechanic is to bend forward at the waist and grab for the injured area. Thus a form using this movement would anticipate the probable reaction and have the follow up be a movement that capitalizes on that reaction.
> 
> Bottom line is that this is a martial art, and function should weigh heavier than flash.  Particularly if SD is any kind of consideration.


Okinawan GoJu always targets low, with the side kick. But, because we did go to tournaments, mid level side kick was used. I remember this one time when I was setting this guy up for a left front cross over side kick, he moved from a left foot forward stance to a right forward stance, and my left side kick targeted straight into his ribs. Long story short, he blocked my kick down right into his hip which in turn took him right off his feet and down. He laid there for the longest time, and when he did stand up he had trouble walking. 
That day, we both became a believer.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jul 1, 2012)

I was sparring another black belt, and I heard the instructor say stop.  He didn't.  I saw his skip in side kick about 1/2 second before it hit me straight in the chest.  I didn't have time to tense up, so like a drunk in a car wreck I wasn't hurt when I flew 3 feet backwards and landed flat on my back.  It was a beautiful kick though.


----------



## Marcy Shoberg (Jul 5, 2012)

I still think it's highly possible that we are not all having the same conversation here.  
Take for example the fist move of Tae Geuk 1 (WTF yellow belt form).  It is a low block.  We put our left hand up to our right ear, then move it down by our left knee quickly.  I was always taught to think of this as stopping a strike aiming at my left side.  I can see how I could easily be hitting the person's leg hard enough with my forearm, or even with the side of my fist, to cause them pain while I block.  

But, what Simon O'Neill, the friend of Kong Soo Do, says in his book the Taegeuk Cipher is that this move actually represents hitting an opponent in the shoulder and pushing him towards the floor.  That's a really big difference. 

Kong Soo Do said something in an earlier post on this thread that I took to mean that this is pretty common knowledge in Karate that what we call a low block is actually a strike to the shoulder that pushes the person towards the floor.  I took months of Karate as a kid and was never taught this.  That is not much of a surprise, of course.  But, what I want to know is at what age/rank does the average karate practicioner get to be let in on the secret that what they were once told was a block is actually a grappling move?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 6, 2012)

People who say a move is "Really This" exclusively as opposed to that or the other thing are drinking the Kool Aid. Rick Clark in one of his "Real Applications" books admits the people who knew the original intent are long dead. The stuff is now reverse engineered, and as he says, he doesn't know what the "Real Application" was, only that his stuff works. 

I had an article published about this recently, which basicaly says that in the early stages you learn an application as a tool for focusing on proper motion, but once proper motion is learned it can be used in any number of applications.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 6, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> People who say a move is "Really This" exclusively as opposed to that or the other thing are drinking the Kool Aid. Rick Clark in one of his "Real Applications" books admits the people who knew the original intent are long dead. The stuff is now reverse engineered, and as he says, he doesn't know what the "Real Application" was, only that his stuff works.
> 
> I had an article published about this recently, which basicaly says that in the early stages you learn an application as a tool for focusing on proper motion, but once proper motion is learned it can be used in any number of applications.



The problem is that some of us will debate to the death about what basic "proper motion" is, in any martial art.  

As far as Kukkiwon taekwondo is concerned, taeguk forms are only 40 years old. There are living sources -- who helped develop the forms in 1972 -- to educate us on  what basic blocks and strikes are. Then again, some of us believe those living sources do not/did not know what they were doing. Some of us will refer to early 19th Century texts, diagrams, fiction, hearsay, pre-World War II Japanese history and rumors, upon which they continue to rely when learning, practicing and teaching parts of a Korean martial art, which are younger than they are.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> As far as Kukkiwon taekwondo is concerned, taeguk forms are only 40 years old. There are living sources -- who helped develop the forms in 1972 -- to educate us on  what basic blocks and strikes are. Then again, some of us believe those living sources do not/did not know what they were doing.



Is this what you believe?  I'd have to say you're incorrect.  Within the confines of the knowledge that they themselves received, many of them are highly proficient.  Not all of them, as I've stated before, were advanced practitioners of an art (be it Shotokan or whatever) prior to teaching in Korea.  Most of them were of very low level with, as I've stated, at least one exception (of 5th to 7th Dan depending upon the source and holding the position of a head instructor in Japan). Thus, they very probably did not learn the 'base' art to a high level as opposed to an Okiwawan or Japanese practitioner who would have stayed with the base art in question longer.  And of course, racial discrimination was a factor to differing degrees.  All in all they did the best with what they had to work with.  Is TKD generally the 'complete' art that it could be (i.e. having more depth besides b-p-k)?  No, generally it isn't.  But those Korean seniors should not be blamed for what was beyond their ability to control.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Is this what you believe?  I'd have to say you're incorrect.  Within the confines of the knowledge that they themselves received, many of them are highly proficient.  Not all of them, as I've stated before, were advanced practitioners of an art (be it Shotokan or whatever) prior to teaching in Korea.  Most of them were of very low level with, as I've stated, at least one exception (of 5th to 7th Dan depending upon the source and holding the position of a head instructor in Japan). Thus, they very probably did not learn the 'base' art to a high level as opposed to an Okiwawan or Japanese practitioner who would have stayed with the base art in question longer.  And of course, racial discrimination was a factor to differing degrees.  All in all they did the best with what they had to work with.  Is TKD generally the 'complete' art that it could be (i.e. having more depth besides b-p-k)?  No, generally it isn't.  But those Korean seniors should not be blamed for what was beyond their ability to control.



I think practice rather than believe is the term I might prefer when it comes to how I approach the Kukkiwon taekwondo forms. I have never thought that it's beneficial, necessary or relevant to look at pre-World War 11 Japanese or Okinawan martial arts  history in order to learn, practice and understand Kukkiwon taekwondo poomsae and basic technique. In that regard, I don't see what the Japanese/Okiniwan martial art rank of the kwan founders in the 1930s and 1940s, has to do with the the current Kukkiwon poomsae created in 1972.  I am not saying that the history should be ignored or obfuscated, but misapplied history can become a big burden and problem.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 8, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I think practice rather than believe is the term I might prefer when it comes to how I approach the Kukkiwon taekwondo forms. I have never thought that it's beneficial, necessary or relevant to look at pre-World War 11 Japanese or Okinawan martial arts  history in order to learn, practice and understand Kukkiwon taekwondo poomsae and basic technique. In that regard, I don't see what the Japanese/Okiniwan martial art rank of the kwan founders in the 1930s and 1940s, has to do with the the current Kukkiwon poomsae created in 1972.  I am not saying that the history should be ignored or obfuscated, but misapplied history can become a big burden and problem.



Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue.  I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit.  YMMV


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 8, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue.  I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit.  YMMV



 I think this a very interesting and quite sober discussion under development.  From a practical point of view at what stage do you think a taekwondo practitioner should be looking back at the pre-kwan development era? I am at the level of taekwondo practice where  I am still a long way to go before I can fully grasp the current Kukkiwon poomsae and other areas of the art. I think looking back, which is not what the creators of the current poomsae where doing, would hinder my progress. I  sometimes pursue the history, but it's purely for intellectual purposes.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 9, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue.  I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit.  YMMV



I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 9, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I think this a very interesting and quite sober discussion under development.  From a practical point of view at what stage do you think a taekwondo practitioner should be looking back at the pre-kwan development era? I am at the level of taekwondo practice where  I am still a long way to go before I can fully grasp the current Kukkiwon poomsae and other areas of the art. I think looking back, which is not what the creators of the current poomsae where doing, would hinder my progress. I  sometimes pursue the history, but it's purely for intellectual purposes.



I think it depends upon the focus of the individual TKD practitioner.  If one is in TKD as a social interaction venue, it may be intellectually interesting, but not needed.  Same for a TKD practitioner that is only interested in sport/competition.  They would concentrate their time on training that is allowed by the rule set they compete in, thus again it isn't 'needed'.  For someone looking for a more 'complete' art (read one that goes beyond striking/kicking into locks, throws etc) then looking into what is contained in forms can be exceptionally rewarding.  For those TKD practitioners to which that applies, white belt.  It isn't far-off mystical knowledge, rather it is simply practical information that is readily useable.  Just as a Hapkido or Jujutsu student begins learning balance displacement principles early on, so could the TKD student (if it is of interest).  

As mentioned earlier, TKD can/does contain something for everyone.  Perhaps it is in a unique place within the martial community because of this.  Imagine, a strong sport component for those wishing to compete while being an excellent physical pursuit for those looking to get off the couch while simultaneously being a strong and complete 'fighting' art for those that want/need more principles beyond b-p-k.  One would not be superior to the other, rather the training is tailored to the needs/wants of the student.  And best of all....the actual training in-and-of-itself doesn't change on iota.  Forms, as they stand right now, can serve both camps even within the same school.  And from a business standpoint, a TKD instructor (that has legitimately spent time learning alternate applications) can now offer both if the student base wants it.  And the forms don't change.  That's the best and most unique thing that could really elevate TKD beyond even where it is now!  



			
				Earl Weiss said:
			
		

> I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them?



Although other arts had their imprint on TKD, Shotokan is often thought of as 'the' parent art.  I would suggest the writings of Funakoshi Sensei as a good starting point.  Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others).  Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill.  Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well).  Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles.  This would be a good first start.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 9, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> Yet I've been places that have never done it.


The whole idea of hiding techniques within the form comes from a teaching methodology that utilizes a layered curriculum.  There are numerous reasons for using the method, the most basic of which is that it works well for the instructor and is usually how the instructor was taught.  Another reason was to keep rival schools from knowing the whole system by watching someone practice a form.

KKW taekwondo (cannot speak for ITF or other systems) typically does not do much in the way of 'hidden techniques' or layered teaching.  The form is taught as part of the art, has a symbolic meaning related to the palgwe (the eight divination symbols, also called bagua in Chinese) or to specific hanja (in the case of yudanja pumse).  

Hapkido uses no forms whatsoever, yet the techniques get communicated.  Most taekwondo schools, regardless of organization from what I gather, that teach self defense just teach self defense rather than trying to tie it into the forms.  

I think that using the forms to teach self defense can be effective, but there are other ways to teach self defense.  Using forms to keep one's art a guarded secret is no longer a factor for the most part, so there is no actual *need* to teach self defense that way aside from that you happen to like it and that it works for you.  Which are both good reasons.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 9, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them?



You won't find anything too specific about 'bunkai' from the likes of 'founders' like Matsumura or Higashionna.  They are long dead and they didn't leave much if any writings behind them.  Their direct students like Itosu or Miyagi didn't write a lot either.

The best we can get is from several generations down through people like Funakoshi or TOGUCHI Seikichi or the various Japanese & Americans who learned from SOKEN Hohan.  Or the very available western students of SHINJO Uechi-ryu.  Or Mario McKenna who studies the Higashionna line of karate unfiltered through Goju-ryu/Miyagi lens.

I am sure I am leaving out a bunch of other resources, some perhaps easily found than others.  I think the point is that if we want to learn the finer points and verbally transmitted details of esoteric karate, we have to seek it out in person.  It's not easily wrapped up in a Black Belt magazine article for us to read, perhaps unfortunately.  

Another point is that karate has many diverse perspectives given the different sources each ryu came from.  Shotokan is not the only kind of karate there is though certainly it is probably the most relevant for taekwondoin.  I do not believe it is universally correct to state that ALL kata applications are reverse-engineered.  What Mr. Rick Clark says is not necessarily accurate for Goju-ryu or Uechi-ryu or Ryuei-ryu or Isshin-ryu, etc. when it comes to kata/bunkai or indeed anything else.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 9, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Although other arts had their imprint on TKD, Shotokan is often thought of as 'the' parent art.  I would suggest the writings of Funakoshi Sensei as a good starting point.  Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others).  Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill.  Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well).  Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles.  This would be a good first start.



Those gentlemen while probably very good reads definitely fall into the "reverse engineered" camp.  If anyone is interested in pursuing combat tactics and techniques developed under the 'karate' umbrella with perhaps a longer lineage will have to look elsewhere.  Most likely in person.  (I have given a few hints above.)  

Patrick McCarthy has a few interesting DVDs and books out based on his research in Okinawa and Japan, though ultimately his stuff too has been adapted for modern times & usages (probably not a bad thing at all if we are most concerned about practical things).


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 9, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Those gentlemen while probably very good reads definitely fall into the "reverse engineered" camp.



I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they _can_ be reverse engineered.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 9, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they _can_ be reverse engineered.



Absolutely.  That can be a lot of fun if one has the inclination.  It can often be constructive to run through a form you know already with an expert from another style that studies the same form.  The underlying assumptions they make in their rendition can help us improve ourselves when we do it our way.

However I got the impression that Mr. Weiss was interested in a snapshot of what 'original' karate was like with a possible aim to compare to the current image of both karate and TKD.  If so, I think he would be better served by making a few personal contacts rather than reading/watching Abernethy, et al.  There's good, authentic karate in the West now from students and students of students who learned from the likes of Shinjo, Toguchi, Miyazato, Soken, etc.  They can teach karate as it was taught post WWII, maybe even earlier, when teaching methodology was still small group based and the arcane aspects were more likely to be transmitted.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Although other arts had their imprint on TKD, Shotokan is often thought of as 'the' parent art.  I would suggest the writings of Funakoshi Sensei as a good starting point.  Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others).  Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill.  Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well).  Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles.  This would be a good first start.



Wait, I thought Funakoshi was one of the guys the "Rewal Application " guys critiqued for having dumbed down the art to teach children and not teaching the real aaplications. Besides, Funakoshi's system was , as he said based on the Shorin and Shorei systems so he would not be a founder of a parent art. 
I have a couple of mhis books and don't recall any radical departues from the BPK applications.

 Any other sources?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others).  Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill.  Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well).  Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles.  This would be a good first start.



I have Mr. Anslows book. As I recall O'Neill did the "Taeguk Cipher" Did he do others? I have read some of Abernathy's stuff. 
I know Mr. Anslow does not claim to have any firsthand knowledge from any founders of Parent Arts.  The Taeguks are part of  any parent art. I don't recall Abernathy citing firsthand info from founders. 
I read Rick Clarks' stuff. I think he's the most forthright.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> You won't find anything too specific about 'bunkai' from the likes of 'founders' like Matsumura or Higashionna.  They are long dead and they didn't leave much if any writings behind them.  Their direct students like Itosu or Miyagi didn't write a lot either.
> 
> The best we can get is from several generations down through people like Funakoshi or TOGUCHI Seikichi or the various Japanese & Americans who learned from SOKEN Hohan..



I think this is the more accurate perspective. No one really knows what the founders intended.  And, quite frankly, as addressed in my "Pattern Paradigm" article (others address this as well) other than beginning practice, if you focus on a single supposedly originaly intended application your focus is too narrow.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> What Mr. Rick Clark says is not necessarily accurate for Goju-ryu or Uechi-ryu or Ryuei-ryu or Isshin-ryu, etc. when it comes to kata/bunkai or indeed anything else.



Does that make it inaccureate? 
Is what anyone else claims is the true or real intent of those system neccessarily accurate?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they _can_ be reverse engineered.



Do you think reverse engineering is the same as knowing the true intent of the founders?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> However I got the impression that Mr. Weiss was interested in a snapshot of what 'original' karate was like with a possible aim to compare to the current image of both karate and TKD.  If so, I think he would be better served by making a few personal contacts rather than reading/watching Abernethy, et al.  .



I have been to seminars with Dilman, Taika Oyata, Vince Morris, and a couple  of Dilman's top guys.  (Chris Thoma and I believe the other one's name was "Birch" it was a while ago. I would have to check my archives.)


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> Does that make it inaccureate?
> Is what anyone else claims is the true or real intent of those system neccessarily accurate?



It does.  Some lines of Okinawan karate can claim with validity that some of their system has been passed down with little change for at least 3-4 generations.  In karate, that's as good as it gets.

Mr. Rick Clark is a Shotokan man, I believe.  I think what he says about reversed engineered applications is reasonable enough within the context of Shotokan karate, but not necessarily so with all forms of karate.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> I have been to seminars with Dilman, Taika Oyata, Vince Morris, and a couple  of Dilman's top guys.  (Chris Thoma and I believe the other one's name was "Birch" it was a while ago. I would have to check my archives.)



None of those guys would I consider 'super traditional' with regard to their karate lineage, though I think Dillman comes the closest which might surprise some here.

[edit]  I was thinking of Tak Kubota... Dillman of course flows from the Taika Oyata tree (or did - not sure what he currently claims on his lineage chart). [/edit]

IMO, the 'real' karate men don't do the bunkai seminar circuit really.  You have to join their schools and train with them to get the good stuff.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Absolutely. That can be a lot of fun if one has the inclination. It can often be constructive to run through a form you know already with an expert from another style that studies the same form. The underlying assumptions they make in their rendition can help us improve ourselves when we do it our way.
> 
> However I got the impression that Mr. Weiss was interested in a snapshot of what 'original' karate was like with a possible aim to compare to the current image of both karate and TKD. If so,* I think he would be better served by making a few personal contacts rather than reading/watching Abernethy, *et al. There's good, authentic karate in the West now from students and students of students who learned from the likes of Shinjo, Toguchi, Miyazato, Soken, etc. They can teach karate as it was taught post WWII, maybe even earlier, when teaching methodology was still small group based and the arcane aspects were more likely to be transmitted.



If it's of any interest Iain will be in Kansas from 28th to 30th September this year for seminars.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> If it's of any interest Iain will be in Kansas from 28th to 30th September this year for seminars.



<shrugs>  If I had a craving for Cajun food, a Porterhouse steak, no matter how good, wouldn't do.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> ]<shrugs>[/B] If I had a craving for Cajun food, a Porterhouse steak, no matter how good, wouldn't do.



Ok so I provide a piece of information that I know quite a few people would be interested in and you can only post a sulky reply? I'd expect better on this site, might not be your thing but it's others, there's no need to disrepect.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Ok so I provide a piece of information that I know quite a few people would be interested in and you can only post a sulky reply? I'd expect better on this site, might not be your thing but it's others, there's no need to disrepect.



Sulky?  I used an analogy, Tez, to help explain the point that you seemed to have missed, namely that Mr. Weiss seems to be interested in some rather particular information instead of just a modern bunkai framework, no matter how effective it can be. 

Are you sulking?  I know you train with Mr. Abernethy and more power to you for it, but it's apples to oranges.  The answer to all bunkai questions is not Iain Abernethy.   In this case, we're not even really discussing bunkai.  We're discussing historical intent of kata of the  'founders' which while related is not the same thing.  

Sorry if that bugs you.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 10, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they _can_ be reverse engineered.



I don't know about other systems/styles, but reverse engineering has never been part of Kukkiwon poomsae instruction and practice, in so far as its top practitioners -- the teachers at the Kukkiwon -- are concerned. I can't imagine what it would like if I faced Grandmasters PARK Hae Man, KIM Soon Bae or LEE Chong Woo -- who are alive and were involved with development of Kukkiwon poomsae -- and told them I was performing taeguk so and so in a particular way, because I have altered it using my own knowledge, knowledge gleaned from what I believe is a "base" art or information I lifted from a book authored by an Englishman. 

It could be that I misunderstand the term, "reverse engineer," but even if I took it to mean that I have used Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsaee to create a self defense technique, there would be a problem if I misinterpreted the basic movements in the poomsae . That misinterpretation of techniques would show up in how I perform, practice and teach the poomsae. If, for example, I decided that an augmented back fist in a form is actually an augmented outside inside middle block (for perceived historical accuracy and self defense purposes), that misinterpretation would become evident in the way I perform the form.

Maybe a bigger question in all this is whether we should try to reverse-engineer something we have not mastered in taekwondo and still claim we are practicing taekwondo.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> It could be that I misunderstand the term, "reverse engineer," but even if I took it to mean that I have used Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsaee to create a self defense technique, there would be a problem if I misinterpreted the basic movements in the poomsae . That misinterpretation of techniques would show up in how I perform, practice and teach the poomsae. If, for example, I decided that an augmented back fist in a form is actually an augmented outside inside middle block (for historical accuracy self defense purposes), that misinterpretation would become evident in the way I perform the form.



That is the conundrum.  Pattern applications, reverse-engineered or not, need to fit with the knowledge base and tactical tree of the system itself.  It does no good to proclaim that there is a hidden arm drag to shoulder control within a kata to a practitioner unless he understands what such things are in the first place.  It is not just a matter of saying it's in the kata - we must train the basics also outside of the kata (like arm drags in the above example)... and in so doing, are we still training our system as it was intended in the first place or have we become a mix-and-match system with no thought behind it?

Without being too biased I hope, I think some karate styles have managed to keep their kata-based pedagogy both traditional and practical at the same time.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> Maybe a bigger question in all this is whether we should try to reverse-engineer something we have not mastered in taekwondo and still claim we are practicing taekwondo.



Another good question.  This IS something I have taught in the past with students with some success.  Was it still taekwondo?  Well, I would say yes, given the perspective that the early TKD men often had backgrounds in both karate and judo.  Was it KKW taekwondo?  I would freely admit not.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 10, 2012)

Earl Weiss said:


> Wait, I thought Funakoshi was one of the guys the "Rewal Application " guys critiqued for having dumbed down the art to teach children and not teaching the real aaplications.



I don't understand what 'rewal applications' are?  I'm unfamiliar with this term.  You're thinking of Anko Itosu Sensei, who was Funakoshi Sensei's teacher in Okinawa.  Itosu Sensei is the one that relabeled the Pinan Katas.  Although 'dumbed down' could be applied I suppose, it isn't quite accurate.  He took out the more dangerous applications as inappropriate for children.  Although a kick or punch 'could' be deadly from a child, it probably isn't as probable as a movement that could easily maim someone/kill someone even if done incorrectly/unintentionally.  



> Besides, Funakoshi's system was , as he said based on the Shorin and  Shorei systems so he would not be a founder of a parent art.



Funakoshi founded Shotokan, which traces its roots directly back to Shuri Te in large part.  Thus, he is the founder of a parent art of TKD.  



> I have Mr. Anslows book. As I recall O'Neill did the "Taeguk Cipher" Did he do others? I have read some of Abernathy's stuff.
> I know Mr. Anslow does not claim to have any firsthand knowledge from  any founders of Parent Arts.  The Taeguks are part of  any parent art. I  don't recall Abernathy citing firsthand info from founders.



Since Mr. O'Neill became a father, I don't know if he's had time for another book 

How much is 'some' of Abernethy's 'stuff'?  He cites Funakoshi (among others) in his books/articles.  Including photos and excerpts from earlier writings.  



> Do you think reverse engineering is the same as knowing the true intent of the founders?



In some cases, it can be inferior and in other cases it can be superior.  It depends in large part on the knowledge base of the 'founder' vs. that of the person doing the reverse engineering.  As long as the principle of the movement is sound then it can/should be trained.  It may or may not be the 'original' intent, but if it works, and works well then it is/can be valid.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Sulky?  I used an analogy, Tez, to help explain the point that you seemed to have missed, namely that Mr. Weiss seems to be interested in some rather particular information instead of just a modern bunkai framework, no matter how effective it can be.
> 
> Are you sulking?  I know you train with Mr. Abernethy and more power to you for it, but it's apples to oranges.  The answer to all bunkai questions is not Iain Abernethy.   In this case, we're not even really discussing bunkai.  We're discussing historical intent of kata of the  'founders' which while related is not the same thing.
> 
> Sorry if that bugs you.



No offense intended, but I have to agree with Tez that your reply really wasn't necessary and added nothing to the thread.  Although some of the flow of the thread has drifted to historical intent (and that is well and fine), the OP is SD from forms, which Abernathey Sensei is a pretty recognized authority.  Whether one agrees with his premise or not is moot, what he teaches has had excellent results in real confrontations, the students are learning and enthusiasm is high for what he has to offer.  That is a pretty good 'thumbs up' for what he offers and more than many.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 10, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> I don't know about other systems/styles, but reverse engineering has never been part of Kukkiwon poomsae instruction and practice, in so far as its top practitioners -- the teachers at the Kukkiwon -- are concerned.



Once again, as I've mentioned several times, a person cannot teach what they themselves did not learn.  That is NOT a slam on any TKD senior, just stating, once again, fact.  


> I can't imagine what it would like if I faced Grandmasters PARK Hae Man,  KIM Soon Bae or LEE Chong Woo -- who are alive and were involved with  development of Kukkiwon poomsae -- and told them I was performing taeguk  so and so in a particular way, because I have altered it using my own  knowledge, knowledge gleaned from what I believe is a "base" art or  information I lifted from a book authored by an Englishman.



If he is a good teacher, truly interested in your personal development, he's take an honest, hard look at what you've done.  He'd evaluate it with his experience.  If what you offered was beyond his experience, but looked viable, he'd consult with someone that was versed in the principles you've extracted from the form(s).  If it was then valid, he should commend you for expanding the art for the betterment of your students.  As I've mentioned, again many times, Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming stated in the JAMA that the highest honor a student could do for their instructor is to surpass their knowledge.  Many unfortunately just don't understand the depth of that statement.  



> It could be that I misunderstand the term, "reverse engineer," but even  if I took it to mean that I have used Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja  poomsaee to create a self defense technique, there would be a problem if  I misinterpreted the basic movements in the poomsae . That  misinterpretation of techniques would show up in how I perform, practice  and teach the poomsae. If, for example, I decided that an augmented  back fist in a form is actually an augmented outside inside middle block  (for perceived historical accuracy and self defense purposes), that  misinterpretation would become evident in the way I perform the form.



You have misunderstood the term.  Reverse engineering does not change the movement, it provides an alternate application using the movement.  For example;  Low block...what is more effective for this movement, blocking a kick or using it as an attack to the lower body of an attacker while grappling?  From a SD perspective the answer is obvious.  Same movement, different applications.  Some applications are better than others.



> Maybe a bigger question in all this is whether we should try to  reverse-engineer something we have not mastered in taekwondo and still  claim we are practicing taekwondo.



Depends upon whom you mean when you say 'we'.  People that have an understanding of both b-p-k and more in-depth principles can have the ability to reverse engineer.  An interest in doing so is a different question.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Another good question.  This IS something I have taught in the past with students with some success.  Was it still taekwondo?  Well, I would say yes, given the perspective that the early TKD men often had backgrounds in both karate and judo.  Was it KKW taekwondo?  I would freely admit not.



Agreed.  

TKD is and/or can be block/punch/kick/lock/throw/choke/cavity press/misplace bone-tendon etc.

KKW TKD cannot be based upon the present, accepted teaching methodology and focus towards competition.  Doesn't make KKW TKD inferior.  Just means the focus lies along a different path.  

I stress that people need to remember this isn't a 'this vs. that' sort of thing.  As mentioned, TKD can be, and is, quite diverse.  Which is a good thing.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 10, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No offense intended, but I have to agree with Tez that your reply really wasn't necessary and added nothing to the thread.  Although some of the flow of the thread has drifted to historical intent (and that is well and fine), the OP is SD from forms, which Abernathey Sensei is a pretty recognized authority.  Whether one agrees with his premise or not is moot, what he teaches has had excellent results in real confrontations, the students are learning and enthusiasm is high for what he has to offer.  That is a pretty good 'thumbs up' for what he offers and more than many.



I think my comment was relevant.  Mr. Weiss was asking for sources about how the 'founders' (I think he meant people 1-2 steps up from Itosu) and my previous posts have addressed this along with the acknowledgement that there is a dearth of historical karate records from that span and before.   

Mentioning that Iain Abernethy is visiting Kansas in light of the subject of the interest (not modern re-engineering) seems unhelpful to me regardless of what level of value one attaches to his material.  It can be great stuff.  So what?  It's still not what is being sought.  If I ask you where the local Enterprise car rental is, are you going to point me to the taxi cab company instead?  Come on.

No offense by the way.  I generally think your posts are productive and worth reading.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I think my comment was relevant.  Mr. Weiss was asking for sources about how the 'founders' (I think he meant people 1-2 steps up from Itosu) and my previous posts have addressed this along with the acknowledgement that there is a dearth of historical karate records from that span and before.
> 
> Mentioning that Iain Abernethy is visiting Kansas in light of the subject of the interest (not modern re-engineering) seems unhelpful to me regardless of what level of value one attaches to his material.  It can be great stuff.  So what?  It's still not what is being sought.  If I ask you where the local Enterprise car rental is, are you going to point me to the taxi cab company instead?  Come on.
> 
> No offense by the way.  I generally think your posts are productive and worth reading.



Thank you, I understand what you're saying.  I'd simply like to point out that Abernethy (and other MA'ists) had been mentioned throughout the thread in terms of SD applications for forms.  I appreciated Tez's post about him teaching here in the U.S. and just wish it was closer.  This is something I would have been interesting in doing, if closer.  

And I appreciate your posts as well.  And I think, regardless of the members perspective that the thread is very interesting and productive.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 10, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> [edit] I was thinking of Tak Kubota... Dillman of course flows from the Taika Oyata tree (or did - not sure what he currently claims on his lineage chart). [/edit]
> 
> IMO, the 'real' karate men don't do the bunkai seminar circuit really. You have to join their schools and train with them to get the good stuff.



That is why I went to see Oyata, after seeing Dilman. Dilman apparently had made some claims about being taught by Oyata, I had heard Oyata did not look favorably on this and I was cautioned not to mention Dilman when I was at the Oyata seminar, or I might find myself being the Uke ---repeatedly.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jul 10, 2012)

To clarify a few things - while we do try to 'reverse engineer' some of our SD from the forms, I do NOT change or allow my students to change the true movements of the form.  If Mr. Weiss came to my school, he would certainly recognize my students as doing Chang Hon forms, not something similar to Chang Hon forms.  

We also teach plenty of SD that has nothing to do with forms.  The forms deal is more of a challenge - to see the student start to think for themselves, and not just blindly follow everything we teach them.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 11, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Once again, as I've mentioned several times, a person cannot teach what they themselves did not learn.  That is NOT a slam on any TKD senior, just stating, once again, fact.



I'm not quite sure that it's a fact the pioneers who created the Kukkiwon and yudanja poomsae did not learn/know enough of the elements of kata in Okinawan/Japanese martial arts. If it's indeed a fact please let us know where we can find material in which those pioneers, especially Grandmasters PARK Hae Man,  KIM Soon Bae and LEE Chong Woo, detail their training regimen and discuss their philosophical thoughts on the creation of Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsae.  This folks made very deliberate choices to create poomsae they way they did. I believe they did so from a position of superior knowledge, not lack thereof as some might argue. Here's are excerpts from  Kang Won Sik and Lee Kyong Myong's "A Modern History of Taekwondo," which sheds some light on what the piooneers knew. It's lengthy but worth the read. Wouldn't be great if there was video of the event:

"The first Promotion Test was held at the Kuk Min Hwe Eui Dang on November 11, 1962. The Korea Taesoodo
Association supported the event, along with the Korean Amateur Sports Association (KASA), the Daehan
Jaekeon Kukmin Un Dong Bonbu (political party) and the Dae Han Ilbo Sa (Korea Newspaper Company). There
were 25 judges and they included: CHOI Myung Shin, LEE Nam Suk, LEE Chong Woo, UHM Woon Kyu, PARK
Chul Hee, LEE Young Sup, HYUN Jong Myun, HONG Jong Pyo, KIM Soon Bae, KIM Soo Jin, LEE Byung Ro, KO Jae Chun, LEE Kyo Yun, BAEK Joon Ki, among others.....

HONG Jong Pyo (72 years old in 1999) kept the paperwork for the event and stated: 'For 3rd Dan promotion
and higher, the three areas tested were Hyung (forms), Taeryun (sparring) and Nonmun (written examination).
The 1st Dan candidates were required to perform hyung from the 5 Pyong Ahn Hyung, Chul Ki Chodan Hyung
(Chul Ki #1), Naebojin Chodan Hyung (Naebojin #1), Ja Won Hyung, and Hwarang Hyung.' ....

With respect to the Hyung (form) portion of the examination, the examinees chose two forms from the
following group:

2nd Dan forms: 
Balhan Hyung Dae
Chul Ki E Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #2);
Naebojin E Dan Hyung (Naebojin #2);
Kima E Dan Hyung (Kima #2); Choong Moo Hyung

3rd Dan forms: 
Ship Su Hyung
Pal Sae Hyung
Yon Bi Hyung
Dan Kwon Kyung
No Pae Hyung
Ge Baek Hyung
Ul Ji Hyung

4th Dan forms: 
Chul Ki Sam Dan Hyung (Chul Ki #3)
Naebojin Sam Dan Hyung (Naebojin #3)
Kima Sam Dan Hyung (Kima #3)
Ja Un Hyung; Jin Soo Hyun
Am Hak Hyung
Jin Dong Hyung        

5th Dan forms: Kong Sang Kun Hyung
Kwan Kong Hyung
Oh Ship Sa Hyung
Ship Sam Hyung
Ban Wol Hyung
Pal Ki Kwon Hyung

At the time, the Hyung (Poomse) were adapted from Karate as was the Daeryun (Kyoruki). In the 1950's, CHOI
Hong Hee's Chang Hon Ryu forms Ge Baek and Choong Moo used at the Oh Do Kwan was included in this
promotion test.

Sam Il Hyung
Jang Kwon Hyung

Candidates for 3rd Dan and above also had a Nonmun, or written examination requirement. The 1st Exam
question was "Please explain the importance of the unification and standardization of the different Hyung." As
the question shows, the biggest problem of the Korea Taesoodo Association was the unification of the different
Kwan methods. However, as time went on, the written examination was taken out of the testing requirements.
During this time period, the main focus of every Kwan was to foster the attitude of the martial artist, as well as
develop the basic techniques, movement and philosophy of each Kwan. The training of Hyung was from Karate,
and Daeryun or sparring techniques and specialties varied depending on each Kwan's specialty...."


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 11, 2012)

Someone who chooses not to identify themselves put this in my reputation. I think it's a cowardly act, particularly in this discussion, where every poster has really been serious and elevated the intellectual discourse to a level we've not seen in a long, long time: "Nothing you quote from the Modern History book supports your assertion about the level of knowledge the Kwan heads had." 

Let it be noted that I've never hidden my identity in any open or closed post on MT.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jul 11, 2012)

How do I even see reputation?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 11, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> Someone who chooses not to identify themselves put this in my reputation. I think it's a cowardly act, particularly in this discussion, where every poster has really been serious and elevated the intellectual discourse to a level we've not seen in a long, long time: "_Nothing you quote from the Modern History book supports your assertion about the level of knowledge the Kwan heads had_."
> 
> Let it be noted that I've never hidden my identity in any open or closed post on MT.


I guess that somebody doesn't like it when you support your position with solid documentation.  If you annoy someone like that, then it means that they have nothing to offer in rebuttal, but don't want to say what they said publicly and do not wish to risk receiving bad rep in response.  Thus the secrecy.

Recently, someone who chooses not to identify themselves did something similar to me on another thread, taking the time to write a lengthy accusing me of acting Puunui and Mastercole.  I took it as a compliment.

My last rep to you was 'Fantastic!'  But you'd already know that because I signed my name. 



Bluewaveschool said:


> How do I even see reputation?


Go to settings and scroll down past recent threads/subscriptions, and you should see a section of reputation given followed by a section of reputation received.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 11, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *Archtkd*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree.  This happened to me a couple of times.  Just dismiss it.  I think it should be a function of giving 'rep' that you identify yourself.  I would help if there were a way to thank someone as well when they give you a thumbs up.  I've gotten some positive rep but don't know who it was and no way to say thank you.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 11, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I agree.  This happened to me a couple of times.  Just dismiss it.  I think it should be a function of giving 'rep' that you identify yourself.  I would help if there were a way to thank someone as well when they give you a thumbs up.  I've gotten some positive rep but don't know who it was and no way to say thank you.



Everybody has been fairly good in this thread so far. Many of us will disagree, but I believe learning is taking place on all sides and that's why we all keep coming back.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jul 11, 2012)

I guess I assumed that giving rep somehow identified you.  So I've given rep (positive) without id'ing myself before.  Thanks for whoever +rep me in this thread.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jul 11, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I agree.  This happened to me a couple of  times.  Just dismiss it.  I think it should be a function of giving  'rep' that you identify yourself.  I would help if there were a way to  thank someone as well when they give you a thumbs up.  I've gotten some  positive rep but don't know who it was and no way to say thank  you.





bluewaveschool said:


> I guess I assumed that giving rep somehow identified you.  So I've given rep (positive) without id'ing myself before.  Thanks for whoever +rep me in this thread.


Some forums (Kendoworld, for example) do identify the giver of reputation, be it positive or negative. 

Personally, I don't care if someone does a phantom rep, be it negative or positive; its the internet and how many green or red dots somebody has under their name does not alter the quality of their posting, be it good or bad.  

But if they're going to write a paragraph of rebuttal to the post that they're negging, it's pointless; nobody will see what they have to say and they will never receive a response from me.  They could have saved themselves the time and left it blank.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 11, 2012)

Archtkd said:


> Everybody has been fairly good in this thread so far. Many of us will disagree, but I believe learning is taking place on all sides and that's why we all keep coming back.



Seven pages so far and no one seems to be bent out of shape, pretty good


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jul 11, 2012)

>>>





 Originally Posted by *Kong Soo Do* 

 
Then we'll simply have to be in disagreement on this particular issue. I think looking at the parent arts, founders of those parent arts and their views can be an enriching pursuit. YMMV
I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them? <<<

In a nutshell we have diferent schools of thought and certainly reasoneable minds can disagree.  Kong Soo Do seems to subscribe to the school of thought that views of founders can be an enriching pursuit vis a vis self defense applications. 

While I think it would be enriching, so far all evidence that I consider credible is lost to antiquity vis a vis the founders who first established pattern motions.  Certainly you can believe that somehow they were handed down thru the generations without alteration. I am sorry but I don't consider Fuankoshi a founder of a parent art, although the term may have some technical accuracy when you use the term founder and parent art directly I think it implies originators, not those who formulated modern day arts based heavily on the predecessors. 

Similarly, to borrow an analogy from General Choin no one person or country can claim to have invented the wheel or discovered fire. In all likelyhood similar developments developed simaltaneously.  As was most likey the case with any number of "Blocks" and all their various "real' or alternate applications. 

In any event, at the end of the day what is really important? Is it some "Real" or alternate application.  I submit theat any stated application is but a tool which helps develop what is much more important. Efficient, powerful, well balanced, motion. Once that is done that motion can be used in any number of fashions. 

The current issue of Totally TKD has an article by Michael Munyon which calls this the "Master Key" concept. The prior issue has my article on the "Pattern Paradigm". 

In summery you can think of Danial San  learning "Wax on, Wax Off"  was he really learning the application, or the motion?


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 11, 2012)

Folks, one of the rules around here is that we don't discuss rep in threads.  If you've got a problem with rep you've received, notify a staff member.  We don't have a policy requiring you to sign rep, positive or negative, that you issue, and the current settings don't automatically reveal who's issued it, but it is considered polite to "sign" when you issue rep, at least with your username.

For those wondering how to see their rep, there are a couple of ways.  It's on your Settings page.  You should also get a Notification at the top of the window telling you about it, and possibly an email depending on how you've set your options.


----------



## Archtkd (Jul 11, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Folks, one of the rules around here is that we don't discuss rep in threads.  If you've got a problem with rep you've received, notify a staff member.  We don't have a policy requiring you to sign rep, positive or negative, that you issue, and the current settings don't automatically reveal who's issued it, but it is considered polite to "sign" when you issue rep, at least with your username.



Apologies. I was not aware of the rep rule and I don't think the one I posted about is a problem worth reporting.


----------

