# Purpose of naihanchi



## trueaspirer

The naihanchi forms were once described to me as examples of defense when your back is to a wall. Therefore, when bringing our hands back, we had to bring them at 180 to our body, i.e, our arms could go to where the backs of our bodies were, no futher. However, another instructor later explained to me that this was not the case, although he did not explain it further. 
Can anybody tell me which one is the truth?


----------



## Andrew Green

No, it's not.

Think about it, why on earth would you stand and fight with your back to the wall.  If you where back to the wall you should be getting off the wall, not standing and fighting 

Think more in terms of the types of movements and posture it teaches and how those carry over into the rest of the style.  The needing of a scenario for a kata I think is a western addition in most cases, it's teaching movement and posture, that's the purpose.


----------



## DavidCC

Shihan Evan Pantazzi has been working naihanchi applications in grappling for some time.  Maybe that is what's going on there... For example, the salutation with foot lifted makes an arm bar with an extremely painful rub attack on TW-11, if you picture it horizontally...


----------



## Andrew Green

My opinion on that sort of stuff, which I have seen before, is that it is rather silly.  Kata can work like ink blots, if you want to see something in there, you will.  But, there is no groundfighint in Naihanchi, that would make no sense.  Would have to be the least effective way to train groundfighting....


----------



## Makalakumu

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> My opinion on that sort of stuff, which I have seen before, is that it is rather silly. Kata can work like ink blots, if you want to see something in there, you will. But, there is no groundfighint in Naihanchi, that would make no sense. Would have to be the least effective way to train groundfighting....


 
Andrew, why can't the purpose of the kata grow and change?  If someone starts to interpret the kata so it includes groundfighting, so what?  Kata are really just mnemotic devices for simple and complex techniques.  

I don't see any problem with this evolution.  However, I do have a problem if people claim that it was always there.  That has yet to be substantiated.


----------



## Andrew Green

Whatever floats your boat I guess, but it's got to be one of the least effective training methods for learning groundfighting...


----------



## Makalakumu

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Whatever floats your boat I guess, but it's got to be one of the least effective training methods for learning groundfighting...


 
I suppose it might be...but I think that it will evolve into something more sophisticated and get better.  I'm not sure.  

I've seen some pretty interesting applications though.  And I've trained bunkai in some pretty interesting ways.  One thing to keep in mind is that kata do not contain everything one needs to know about stand-up fighting.  There are alot of auxillary concepts that need to be taught in order to put the bunkai into motion.  

Why would groundfighting be any different?

Here is an interesting little exercise for people who know naihanchi kata.  Try doing the form lying on your back and try doing it laying face down on the floor...


----------



## Ian wallace

the naihanchi form is exactly as your instructor explained, you are fighting as if you where againsted a wall,the reason you will practice alot of movements  to get yourself in a position to get off the wall is as we dont exactly know what technique will come from the opponent, so we practice alot to make it a reaction to their action kind of like in class we practice the same movement thousands and thousands of times on the understanding that it will create a natural reaction all the naihanchi forms where one befor but becouse it was so complicated to learn it was split between 3 forms.


----------



## marlon

The main importance of the Naihanchi kata imho is teaching the whipping motion needed to generate powerful strikes.  The reason most of the motion is done from the side is to help train this concept.  As for application ground and standing Naihanchi is replete with them...and i believe the ground grappling/jujistu aspect was always there although not as the mma way we look at grappling these days.  As for fighting with Naihanchi it is side on for beginners not with your back against a wall and the kata teach you how to evade your opponent and move behind them.  Chokoi Motubo used this kata often and his philosophy of the martial arts was that there was nothing as dangerous as a martial artist who could not fight.  He fought ofetn and not with his back against a wall

Respectfully,
Marlon
4th dan


----------



## Silverwing

My instructor explained the Naihanchi forms to me as having originally been on horseback.  In Nahanchi Cho Dan, for example, the first move according to him is getting into the saddle.  At various points changing horses or moving to one side of the horse for various purposes are other things he explained to us.


----------



## Makalakumu

Back against the wall?  Horseback?  Standing in a rice paddie?  All of those explanations are myths.  They built upon and passed because of a faulty understanding of the hyung.  Naihanchi and its applications can have attacks coming at you from any angle.  They can be striking, pulling or pushing all sorts of different areas of your body.  And your response can land you in numerous positions around your uke...including on the ground if you are creative enough.

These myths will only hold you back in your understanding of this kata.  The creators of this form and the original practicioners did not limit themselves with such myths?  And I don't think that we should either.


----------



## mtabone

You Go Upnorth!!!

Tang Soo!!!


----------



## BlackCatBonz

the name naifanchi or naihanchi comes from the posture used originally in the kata.
the name was changed by funakoshi to tekki, which means iron horse....not only did he change the name, he changed the posture of the kata from a mobile upright stance to a deeper, more rooted stance.
naihanchi is more akin to a sanchin posture.......the 3 characters can be translated to mean something like , inner, claw foot, soil........if you look at some old pictures of motobu, you will see that his posture is far different than funakoshi's.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Greetings to all,
The thing to understand when discussing Hyung/Kata is that every Grandmaster saw something unique and different and comprised his system based on HIS vision. When we ask the question; what is this technique really supposed to be? You have to ask the question; based on whos vision? 

Choki Motobu and Gichen Funakoshi both trained under Itosu (and others), but came from very different backgrounds with philosophies the were 180 degrees from one another. If you train under Choki Motobus lineage you are taught that the only kata that one needs is Naihanchi Cho Dan. This was his favorite kata, and if you understand his interpretation of the Bunkai, you will clearly understand why he felt as he did.

Funakoshi did not know the Bunkai, as was clearly stated by Shugeru Egami in his book, Karate-Do, Beyond Technique. Egami was one of Funakoshis senior most students, and stated in his book that; the master never taught us Bunkai, as he had not learned it from Itosu prior to traveling to Japan. As Tang Soo Do practitioners, we follow Hwang Kees vision. Hwang Kee learned from Funakoshis lineage, as he trained with other Koreans that returned from Japan after the war who had attained their training and rank from Funakoshi and his students. If Hwang Kee learned from Funakoshis lineage, and Funakoshi did not know the Bunkai, as was taught by Itosu, and others in Okinawa, then Hwang was, like so many others, left to see what he could for himself, and what he saw was the rudimentary applications that have been passed down that everyone sees as useless.

I have spent the past 35 years cross-training in Tang Soo Do, Shotokan, Isshinryu and Motobu-Ha Shito Ryu, as well as in Hakko-Ryu Ju Jutsu and Wing Chun Gung Fu. What the understanding that I have established as a result of this intense cross-training is; how each grandmaster established his vision of what technique is, and how it should be applied. 

For those who have trained with me, and many of you already have, you know what I am talking about, as you have scene me demonstrate these concepts, as each system has introduced and taught them. For those of you who have not trained with me yet, you are welcome to contact me at any time to set up a training session. 

John Kendrowski is setting up seminars with me for the weekend of November 17th. Everyone will be welcome to attend, and I will make it a point to go through Naihainchi Chodan.

With regard to the concept of moving from side to side with you back to a wall, this is a very real application, as the concept is that there are multiple assailants coming at you. Keeping you back to the wall allows you to keep from being attack from behind. Also, it allows you to use the wall as a striking surface to run your opponents heads, and hands into as they are charging and striking at you. 

If you have not yet read Bruce Claytons book, Shotokans Secret, this is a must read for everyone. It can be ordered on line for $16.95. In his book he sets up a supposition that makes better sense then any that I have read to date, and is based on the facts surrounding the time that the Okinawan masters were devising the kata that became Shotokan, Tang Soo Do, and other systems along the way


If you want to contact me directly, I can be reached at:
masterjayspenfil@yahoo.com
248-561-5700 (cell)


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil



TANG SOO!!!


----------



## tsdclaflin

Interesting...thank you.


----------



## mjd

Legend has it that all 5 Naihanchi katas was a single Kata, was then reversed order. a GREAT Master broke it into 5 katas and changed the order to make easier to teach.

You say Naihanchi Cho dan was the favorite, how does this legend fit into that picture, can you give more detail of this legend.

One more qestion? I have heard that naihanchi could also be viewed as ground fighting, have anyone else heard of this?


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

The Naihanchi Kata isn't part of that story...

You are referring to the proposition that Itosu Sensei took Kushanku Kata and devised the 5-Pinan Kata from it. There are others that believe that Itosu developed the Pinan's from Channan, another kata that has since been lost.

The Naihanchi kata are a completely different set of Kata.

Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!


----------



## DavidCC

I have a tape of Sensei Oyata of kansas City demonstrating Naihanchi bunkai.  I don't see anything that necessarily looks like back against a wall.  In fact in many techniques he steps backwards.  What I do see is a whole lot of very direct attacks to pressure points resulting in some very painful moments for his favorite uke's (you know a technique is going to be good when the clips starts with the uke in a helmet and a big crash mat on the floor behind him).  Also a good number of throws and locks... it's a real gold mine


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

David,
I also have Oyata Senseis tapes, and have watched them over and over again over the past ten years. Oyata has many students here in the Metro-Detroit area who I have trained with for the past thirty-plus years. 

I can remember in 1987 when I was preparing to move to Arizona, Sensei Bob White (an 8th Dan in Isshinryu Karate) came to the dojo of Sensei Burt Ross. That evening there were perhaps 20 senior Isshinryu black belts present for training. Sensei White gathered us all around to tell us about this amazing Okinawan instructor that he had been working with, and the mind-blowing Bunkai that he showed him for our katas.

Everyone was quite taken by what Sensei White showed us. Oyata has an awesome understanding of, and ability to perform technique and Bunkai. I am, however, not a fan of any instructor who knocks ukes out or damages them in any way for the purpose of demonstration. I demonstrate on students all over the country from different systems and organizations. You will never hear of anyone being injured by me. There is no need to hurt anyone in demonstration

One of my instructors had his heart stopped by Oyata at a seminar here in Detroit several years ago. The EMS team had to resuscitate his heart. He told me about it afterwards. 

I have personally not met him. Have you personally trained with Oyata? If yes, what was your experience like?


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil

TANG SOO!!!


----------



## DavidCC

No, I have not met him either.  I would like to learn what he knows but I am a bit afraid to LOL.  I understand MT member pstarr goes way back with him, from what I've read...

-d


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Learning his techniques are not hard if you have a clear understanding of human anatomy. I have all of my students pick up a copy of "Atlas of Anatomy" and we use it as a classroom text book. It can be purchased at Border's for $7.99, and is a great bargain.

This book is not as deep as "Grey's Anatomy", but unless you are a med school student, you really don't need "Grey's".

The illustrations are full color and easy to learn from. There is enough text to be informative, without loosing your attention.

We use it for bone structure, nerve and muscle locations and trails. We have all found it very useful.


Yours in Tang Soo Do,


Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!


----------



## DavidCC

I am not so much intimidated by the difficulty of the techniques, it's more like I don't really want that guy to hit me!


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

I don't blame you...

On one of the tapes that I have of him, he hits one of his uke's in the side of the neck so hard that after the uke hit the ground, Oyata stood there over him for a minute or two grunting at him to get up... Eventually, Oyata bent over to shake the uke. The uke did not respond, and Oyata looked over at the camera man and signaled him to cut off the camera with the universal signal... drawing his hand across his own throat, as if to say... "He's DEAD"

As I stated earlier, there is never a need to injure anyone to demonstrate a technique. I never have, and I never will. It is just plain wrong...

We have come a long way over the years, and with all that we have learned about human anatomy, and the kind of physical issues that people can be walking around with, and not even know about, the last thing we need to do is effect them in a way that will make their issue worse and cause them harm.


Maybe you can attend one of my seminars at some point in the future and we can share some good training together...


Yours in Tang Soo Do,

Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!


----------



## DavidCC

Master Jay S. Penfil said:
			
		

> I don't blame you...
> 
> On one of the tapes that I have of him, he hits one of his uke's in the side of the neck so hard that after the uke hit the ground, Oyata stood there over him for a minute or two grunting at him to get up... Eventually, Oyata bent over to shake the uke. The uke did not respond, and Oyata looked over at the camera man and signaled him to cut off the camera with the universal signal... drawing his hand across his own throat, as if to say... "He's DEAD"
> 
> As I stated earlier, there is never a need to injure anyone to demonstrate a technique. I never have, and I never will. It is just plain wrong...
> 
> We have come a long way over the years, and with all that we have learned about human anatomy, and the kind of physical issues that people can be walking around with, and not even know about, the last thing we need to do is effect them in a way that will make their issue worse and cause them harm.
> 
> 
> Maybe you can attend one of my seminars at some point in the future and we can share some good training together...
> 
> 
> Yours in Tang Soo Do,
> 
> Master Jay S. Penfil
> 
> 
> TANG SOO!!!


 
LOL! Of course that could have meant "stop the tape" too of course.


----------



## pstarr

I know Master Oyata fairly well - have trained with him on numerous occasions - even had him sleep on my couch!     He's a piece of karate history that's still out walking around...very knowledgeable, very highly skilled-


----------



## EmperorOfKentukki

I met Oyata Sensei back in 1985.  He is incredibly skilled.  He also is very personable.  I witnessed him to use a two finger strike to the neck of an uke demonstrating a Naihanchin bunkai.  The uke dropped like a lead weight and went into seizures.  Pretty scary sight.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

I completely agree with all that has been stated as to Oyatas knowledge, skill level and being a living legend. I have learned a great deal over the years, just dissecting his tapes. Please dont think for a minute that I have anything less then great respect for him in these areas, but as JH has just stated he took an uke from the seminar (possibly a complete stranger that PAID to be present) and cause him severe damage


*There is NO way that this can be justified, what so ever*


I had a long conversation with Josh P. yesterday morning regarding these issues. Josh has trained with Oyata closely and knows him very well. Josh stated that in recent years, due to a number of things, including his liver transplant, that Oyata has stopped teaching in that fashion, and is not interested in causing injuries any more. This was welcome information for me, and I am sure that it will help many of you to feel better about going to any future Oyata seminars in your area


Yours in Tang Soo Do,

Master Jay S. Penfil


TANG SOO!!!


----------



## Chizikunbo

Master Jay S. Penfil said:
			
		

> I completely agree with all that has been stated as to Oyatas knowledge, skill level and being a living legend. I have learned a great deal over the years, just dissecting his tapes. Please dont think for a minute that I have anything less then great respect for him in these areas, but as JH has just stated he took an uke from the seminar (possibly a complete stranger that PAID to be present) and cause him severe damage





			
				Master Jay S. Penfil said:
			
		

> *There is NO way that this can be justified, what so ever*
> 
> 
> I had a long conversation with Josh P. yesterday morning regarding these issues. Josh has trained with Oyata closely and knows him very well. Josh stated that in recent years, due to a number of things, including his liver transplant, that Oyata has stopped teaching in that fashion, and is not interested in causing injuries any more. This was welcome information for me, and I am sure that it will help many of you to feel better about going to any future Oyata seminars in your area
> 
> 
> Yours in Tang Soo Do,
> 
> Master Jay S. Penfil
> 
> 
> TANG SOO!!!




Hello all,
just to clear things up, I personally do not have any special relationship with Oyata sensei...but he live about 20 minutes away from my home he in Kansas City...as such I have known and been involved with many of the past and present senior Yudansha of Taika Oyatas. My personal instructors actually lived and worked in the hombu (HQ) dojo for 14 years. I have many great stories, and such about oyata sensei, and have been at his demonstrations and such in the past. But it is my teachers not myself that has (had) any special relationship with him. 
In any case, Oyata Taika's technique is unparalled, I have never met, or heard of anyone that can duplicate his technique. You see Oyata Sensei studied with two Ryukyu Bushi (Samurai) and was handed down complete family systems. He was taught, (trained) as a Samurai/Bushi unlike how we train today. His training was rough, and harsh. His teachers would maybe show him a technique once, and if he forgot it it was too bad for him. You see in post ww2 okinawa it was a kill or be killed situation. Taika was forced to use the deadly technique in order to save his life. In his later years, he shifted to a much more peaceful mindset, and thus Oyata Shin Shu Ho Ryu was born. Taika teaches Ryukyu martial arts for the betterment of society, and so people can build peaceful communities like the Ryukyu people lived in peace without weapons etc. 
Taikas method for teaching the meanins of forms is basically allow the student to develop the "inner eyes" for seeing the true contents of ryukyu protection arts. This is the best approach I have ever seen or heard of from any martial artist in regards to understanding the true protection arts. When I began to understand this, it was a whole new world as it was. You could study 1 single form your whole life, and never understand it. The art just gets deeper, and deeper not matter how far you delve into it. For every movement you see in a Kata/Hyung there should be at least 1000 true applications...for each of these there is an entire philosophical and spiritual reasoning, and background. To achieve true technique you really have to put your heart and soul into your limbs, and allow your spirit to flow out, as a true expression of protection technique. My personal instructor Shiro Shintaku Hanshi (9th dan) trained under Oyata Sensei as his personal student for 14 years eventually gaining a 7th dan. He translated his book, wrote for the magazines, drove to and from airport, helped with housework etc. While these things alone may not imporve physical technique in anyway, it did provide him a chance to get to know Oyata Sensei as a person, his dreams, goals, wishes, philosophy etc. Which greatly enhanced his understanding of the whole art. He was pretty much like a servent to Oyata Sensei, thus a true personal student, something only a few people can claim.  Through Shintaku Doshu, I have come to appriciate the true teachings of Oyata sensei, as well as other great martial artists as a complete way of life. I understand that there is a reason for everything Oyata sensei has done, but he is human and does make mistakes...he will tell you that. But everything he does is for the benefit of his students. It truly just brings him joy to show to true contents of Ryukyu protection arts. He learned this same way, it was maybe a test of heart to continue the training. But as I understand it, Taika Oyata keeps his students best intrest at heart, he just stems from a different era (he is almost 80), culture (post WW2 Okinawa) than we do and thus has a different vision of life. He even quite smoking not for himslef but for a student of his who has a severe eye condition and the smoke made him really sick... It is my personal opinion that Oyata Sensei truly just wants to help all people, and see the true protection arts passed on to the next generation. 
Tang Soo!
--josh


----------



## meanbean

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> I have spent the past 35 years cross-training in Tang Soo Do, Shotokan, Isshinryu and Motobu-Ha Shito Ryu, as well as in Hakko-Ryu Ju Jutsu and Wing Chun Gung Fu. What the understanding that I have established as a result of this intense cross-training is; how each grandmaster established his vision of what technique is, and how it should be applied.


 
You established all that by cross training all these different arts in just 35 years? 
...You have 'established' what each grandmasters vision of technique and how it should be applied?
How can you claim it was 'intense' cross training when there is more than a lifetimes knowledge and wisdom to learn in one style?
There is too much to know and learn in the Moo Duk Kwan style of Tang Soo Do to have time to train in other arts. If you claim you understand enough to be able to train in so many other styles then i would suggest you are more confused than understand the style you primarily studied.
In reading your posts there is no doubt that you are a very knowledgable person that has done a significant amount of research historically, but to truly understand, learn and develope one's art will take more than your life time.
I would suggest that you have simply learnt more head knowledge....but to 'establish' the fundementals and what is true to all these different arts and to understand them enough would be folly!    
You may, of course, suggest i should be more open minded to other styles and arts. Other styles and arts are perfectly fine for whoever wishes to study them, but to attempt to embrace many will only limit yourself in one!  

Regards

martin

Tang Soo!


----------



## Makalakumu

meanbean said:


> Other styles and arts are perfectly fine for whoever wishes to study them, but to attempt to embrace many will only limit yourself in one!


 
I completely disagree.  In fact, I would say that if you limit your study of TSD to just TSD, then you don't and will never really understand TSD.  All along TSD's syncretic lineage information was obscured or never learned.  Look at what is actually being discussed in this thread.  Without cross training, your hyung will never get beyond the level of interpretive dance.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

upnorthkyosa said:


> I completely disagree.  In fact, I would say that if you limit your study of TSD to just TSD, then you don't and will never really understand TSD.  All along TSD's syncretic lineage information was obscured or never learned.  Look at what is actually being discussed in this thread.  Without cross training, your hyung will never get beyond the level of interpretive dance.


I agree with mean bean, on the contrary. TSD is more than you think, if that's your perspective. It's a philosophy, a way of life. And just because GM Hwang Kee may not have learned the original application of some forms doesn't mean he was ignorant. The man was a genius. You can still discover more and more about the hidden meanings behind moves in hyung without going to another martial art. I have, just with my TSD training. In fact, I feel a great hesitancy about going to another martial art, because TSD does things differently from other martial arts. We're distinct. The way karate does things is perfectly legitimate, but it's not necessarily TSD.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

meanbean said:


> You established all that by cross training all these different arts in just 35 years?





meanbean said:


> ...You have 'established' what each grandmasters vision of technique and how it should be applied?
> How can you claim it was 'intense' cross training when there is more than a lifetimes knowledge and wisdom to learn in one style?
> There is too much to know and learn in the Moo Duk Kwan style of Tang Soo Do to have time to train in other arts. If you claim you understand enough to be able to train in so many other styles then i would suggest you are more confused than understand the style you primarily studied.
> In reading your posts there is no doubt that you are a very knowledgable person that has done a significant amount of research historically, but to truly understand, learn and develope one's art will take more than your life time.
> I would suggest that you have simply learnt more head knowledge....but to 'establish' the fundementals and what is true to all these different arts and to understand them enough would be folly!
> You may, of course, suggest i should be more open minded to other styles and arts. Other styles and arts are perfectly fine for whoever wishes to study them, but to attempt to embrace many will only limit yourself in one!
> 
> Regards
> 
> martin
> 
> Tang Soo!


 

Martin,
It always blows my mind when I read postings like the one that you made here

The statement used by many grandmasters and masters of the different martial arts systems that states; it will take you a lifetime to learn ONE system! was designed to keep their students from wondering off and joining other schools. After all, if you are my student and find that there is something out there that may be better; your money will stop flowing into my bank account.

Before there were all of these different systems of martial arts, before the different systems splintered apart and became separate associations as in Tang Soo Do, there were simply teachers, students and the bad guy with the sword that was intent on cutting off your head. Your teacher taught you everything that he could to keep that bad swordsman from accomplishing his goal. When you teacher felt that he could teach you no more, he arranged for you to travel to another instructor who had established a reputation for a specific WAY. He would send you to this other teacher to learn what you could and then you would return to him and share what you had learned with him. This program of being sent off to other teachers would continue over and over again until you had established enough knowledge and ability to devise your own WAY.

Then you would take on disciples and teach them youre WAY. This is how all of the systems that are taught today came to be. 

Do you think that KJN Hwang Kee had to spend a lifetime in one system to establish Tang Soo Do? KJN Hwang Kee studied many different systems before he devised his own art and system. By the way, if you check back in Tang Soo Do history you will see that Lee Won Kuk was one of many Koreans that traveled to Japan during the occupation and trained directly under Gichen Funakoshi. Both Lee Won Kuk and Choi Hong Hi earned their Nidan (2nd degree black belt) in Shotokan under Funakoshi prior to returning to Korea.

Lee Won Kuk taught what he learned from Funakoshi to KJN Hwang Kee. Prior to that time, KJN Hwang Kee was teaching Hwa Soo Do. His students didnt like the Hwan Soo Do and he had a difficult time keeping a consistent enrollment. When He started teaching the material that came from Funakoshi the students were drawn to it and he built his system using that material. That material was known as Shotokan.

KJN Hwang Kee did bring his own unique flavor to the system, making it his own, but I can tell you that it didnt take him a lifetime of study to put it all together.

From your profile page, it appears that you are an 2nd Dan in Soo Bahk Do. Is that correct? Where do you train? Who is your Sa Bom Nim?

I am a 7th Dan in Tang Soo Do, as well as having earned 1st Dan in both Isshinryu Karate and Hakko-Ryu Ju Jutsu. I have trained extensively in Shotokan, Motobu-Ha Shito Ryu and Wing Chun Gung Fu, but hold no rank in these systems. 

Each of the Karate-Based systems that I have trained in pre-dates Tang Soo Do as incorporated by KJN Hwang Kee. By learning these systems and establishing from that training what was understood and taught by each of the instructor that I trained with, based on what their grandmasters passed down to them I was able to better understand and make better use of that which we perform in Tang Soo Do. 


*You made this statement:*
In reading your posts there is no doubt that you are a very knowledgable person that has done a significant amount of research historically, but to truly understand, learn and develope one's art will take more than your life time.
I would suggest that you have simply learnt more head knowledge....but to 'establish' the fundementals and what is true to all these different arts and to understand them enough would be folly! 

You have no clue as to what amount of time I have spent training in these other systems, who my instructors are and what they bring to the table or what my ability to comprehend and compartmentalize what I am taught is. Your claim that what I state is no more than Folly is irresponsible on your part, and with the little experience that you bring to the table here, *you are in no position to be making such statements about me*

If you never step out of your Tang Soo Do box and expose yourself to what older systems in the lineage teach, you will never be in a position to discuss these issues intelligently. Take off the blinders, step out in the sunlight and learn


----------



## Victor Smith

Hi Martin,

I'm afraid I too disagree, especially that to understand and develop one's art takes more than one lifetime. Simply that is because there is on set definition on what it takes to develop one's art.

A martial art may be as simple as one technique, or another a handfull of moves, or as complex as Daito Ryu with 40 years of study to learn all of the techniques. It is a very open ended definition after all, hinging on the words 'ones' art'.

One of my instructors fellow students began training in Isshinryu in 1959 and then spent the rest of his life working on 8 forms application potential.  Towards the end of his life, when I met him he shared 800 applications for Isshinryu's 8 kata and that was only a portion of his art that he shared with his students. I'm referring to the late Sherman Harrill. 

On the other hand in my 35 years besides non-stop study of Isshinryu I've also trained with many others some for 30 years, some for 10 and some for other periods of study. This exposes you to what others may be doing, gives you a definate shape that may not be in your art to work to counter, and in no way inteferrs long term study in your art.

We are all in different relationships with our instructors. Some are in charge and then we're only students, other times we're on our own and work to pursue our training as long  as possible.

BTW those studies do nothing with history. Arts are worked on the floor, in sweat, new forms ,etc. At one time or another I've studied several hundreds of forms from many systems. That doesn't detract from my primary art, but gives tactile knowledge.

Many systems have been crafted by people with far less study. Many have been crafted by people with more study.

It's never important to do everything, it's important to do what you need to make your art work for you.


----------



## Victor Smith

Just to take this thread back to theme, of doing Naifanchi kata with one's back against the wall, I've always enjoyed those stories.

Yes of course, the sideways stepping of Naifanchi could be used in a limited situation with ones back against the wall. If you want to see a more modern example, the latest James Bond - Casino Royale - shows a fight scene hundreds of feet in the air on a crane and guess what, with their backs against the crane the movements look really like naifanchi.

I'm not sure about the rice paddy version as I understand Okinawa doesn't grow their rice in paddy's. But a modern equivalent is on a construction site you might use that stepping through a floor's rebar before a concrete pour.

Yes this gets a little off the wall.

Motobu Chokoi in his books on Karate in the 20's shows many applications from Naifanchi, and none were done with their backs against the wall.

Even more so if you goto Okinawabbtv and see how Okinawan Sumo (village wrestling) is done, it's not a stretch that many of naifanchi's leg techniques are counters for standing grappling, using the leg slices to off balance someone grabbing you and then continuing to the side to down them.

None of which btw require any pressure point more specific than the one that starts at the top of your head and bottoms on your toes. That point and afew decades pounding the maikawara give enough power to make all of the applications work.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Sensei Smith,
I am enjoying your contributions to this discussion board...

The grouping of Seisan video clips was great. Some of them I have scene, and others were new to me. I enjoyed the version from Morio Higaonna the most, and it was very timely, as he will be here in Michigan January 17-20, 2008 for a 4-day training camp. 


If you have that time available and would like to attend I can send you the info to sign up. It will be held in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


Note: For those of you who are not familiar with Sensei Higaonna, he is a world renowned Goju Ryu instructor from Okinawa. He was one of the featured instructors on the show; The Human Weapon. For those of you who saw the Okinawan segment, he was the 71 year old that was pounding on the rock. 


This training camp is open to everyone... 



Thank you,


----------



## meanbean

upnorthkyosa said:


> I completely disagree. In fact, I would say that if you limit your study of TSD to just TSD, then you don't and will never really understand TSD. All along TSD's syncretic lineage information was obscured or never learned. Look at what is actually being discussed in this thread. Without cross training, your hyung will never get beyond the level of interpretive dance.


 
I understand your frustration...
but what is fundemental to Moo Duk Kwan TSD has been passed down, one doesn't need to cross train in other arts to discover this.
I totally respect those who wish to train in more than one art, but if you think you know all there is to know about the one art you study to then study others then you are gravely mistaken.
What you are all discussing here which relates to the origin of certain Hyungs is historically interesting, and revealing yet most of which is not known or set in stone, and this does not add anything to what can be passed down and taught to me through the art i study.
If you are not getting the  knowledge and wisdom through your art then i would question who it is who teaches you.

Finally, to say without cross training,  my hyung will never get beyond interpretive dance is a very silly and empty thing to say. A dancer would not know any application but to simply replicate moves for the sake of it.

regards

martin 

Tang Soo!


----------



## Lynne

meanbean said:


> I understand your frustration...
> but what is fundemental to Moo Duk Kwan TSD has been passed down, one doesn't need to cross train in other arts to discover this.
> I totally respect those who wish to train in more than one art, but if you think you know all there is to know about the one art you study to then study others then you are gravely mistaken.
> What you are all discussing here which relates to the origin of certain Hyungs is historically interesting, and revealing yet most of which is not known or set in stone, and this does not add anything to what can be passed down and taught to me through the art i study.
> If you are not getting the knowledge and wisdom through your art then i would question who it is who teaches you.
> 
> Finally, to say without cross training, my hyung will never get beyond interpretive dance is a very silly and empty thing to say. A dancer would not know any application but to simply replicate moves for the sake of it.
> 
> regards
> 
> martin
> 
> Tang Soo!


 
Hi Martin and welcome.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about "knowing all there is to know about one's art."  I have never read the words of any Master here stating that they knew all there was to know about their primary art. 

My understanding is that people study various arts so they can better understand and better apply their own art - build a wider knowledge base/enhanced applications.    I suppose you disagree with that?  Why?

I'm an 8th gup, only been studying 5 months and I can see where Tang Soo Do will be a lifetime journey, but at some point, why wouldn't another martial art enhance my performance of Tang Soo Do?  Do you think another art would detract in some way?  

Lynne


----------



## Lynne

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> Sensei Smith,
> I am enjoying your contributions to this discussion board...
> 
> The grouping of Seisan video clips was great. Some of them I have scene, and others were new to me. I enjoyed the version from Morio Higaonna the most, and it was very timely, as he will be here in Michigan January 17-20, 2008 for a 4-day training camp.
> 
> 
> If you have that time available and would like to attend I can send you the info to sign up. It will be held in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
> 
> 
> Note: For those of you who are not familiar with Sensei Higaonna, he is a world renowned Goju Ryu instructor from Okinawa. He was one of the featured instructors on the show; The Human Weapon. For those of you who saw the Okinawan segment, he was the 71 year old that was pounding on the rock.
> 
> 
> This training camp is open to everyone...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you,


I remember the segment where 71 year old Sensei Higaonna was pounding on the rock.  Very impressive!   You all are very lucky to learn under Sensei Higaonna.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Lynne said:


> Hi Martin and welcome.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about "knowing all there is to know about one's art."  I have never read the words of any Master here stating that they knew all there was to know about their primary art.
> 
> My understanding is that people study various arts so they can better understand and better apply their own art - build a wider knowledge base/enhanced applications.    I suppose you disagree with that?  Why?
> 
> I'm an 8th gup, only been studying 5 months and I can see where Tang Soo Do will be a lifetime journey, but at some point, why wouldn't another martial art enhance my performance of Tang Soo Do?  Do you think another art would detract in some way?
> 
> Lynne



I believe what he's saying, and something with which I would agree, is that, while training in another martial art might be beneficial for comparison, it's unnecessary. You can never really know all about TSD, because it's not just a set of forms passed down; it's a philosophy. There are always students who can surpass the master by gaining a greater knowledge and understanding of the underlying principles. I've no hope of that for myself, but do I think that because I don't train in karate or some other art that my knowledge of TSD will suffer or be incomplete? Certainly not. To talk as if one already knows everything is hubris, and to claim that just because one has studied several arts, even for as long as Master Jay has (very much worthy of respect, being no little feat), doesn't inherently mean anything other than that you've spread out quite wide. In fact, it can be dangerous, since as I said before each art does things slightly differently, and cross-influence can sometimes be a confusing factor rather than an enhancing factor. I personally feel a near-instinctive negative reaction whenever I hear someone claim to be a master or black belt in so many different arts. It's all down to the teacher, and it's all down to the student. There are McDojos all over if you want to get your black belt in a year. I don't doubt Master Jay's abilities or knowledge; I'm just explaining my perspective, which I gather meanbean shares.

EDIT: And yeah, Higaonna-sensei was really amazing. 

Tang Soo!


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

JT,
You are correct There are McDojos everywhere we turn. I have never studied in any of them myself, but they are out there.

In Isshinryu Karate for example, my instructors have been:
Grandmaster Willie Adams, 10th Dan
Hanshi Bill Pogue  8th Dan
Hanshi Sam Santilli- 8th Dan
Hanshi Eugene Woods- 8th Dan
Kyoshi George Reynolds- 7th Dan
Kyoshi Burt Ross- 8th Dan (Pass away Nov, 2005)

In Shotokan:
OSensei James V. Morrone, Jr.  7th Dan

In Motobu-Ha Shito Ryu:
Shihan Garner Train- 5th Dan 

In Hakko-Ryu Ju Jutsu:
Kaiden Shihan Garner Train  9th Dan

In Wing Chun Gung Fu:
Sifu Garner Train
Sifu Bruce Silver
Sifu Jeff Kolman is the Wing Chun instructor in my school

There are many others that I have worked with over the years, but these are the primary instructors that I have worked and trained under for the past 36 years.

You wont find any McDojos in this group of instructors.

You are also correct JT in that, taking your training wide can be a serious problem. My history with these systems goes back to 1972. I still have relationships with all of these instructors and still see them as time permits.

If you dont take your training deep, you may as well take up aerobics or basketball

As I have stated to you in the past; we can discuss these issues on a discussion board till we cant type anymore. The only way to move forward for someone like you, that has only a limited level of experience is to find a way to get together and train. That is the only way to make sense of this for you without going around in circles

Enough said,


----------



## Chizikunbo

trueaspirer said:


> The naihanchi forms were once described to me as examples of defense when your back is to a wall. Therefore, when bringing our hands back, we had to bring them at 180 to our body, i.e, our arms could go to where the backs of our bodies were, no futher. However, another instructor later explained to me that this was not the case, although he did not explain it further.
> Can anybody tell me which one is the truth?



I have to ask what is the purpose of any form? People dont question the foot patterns in the other forms as they do in Naihanchi...its just another form, and should be looked at as such...dont generalize it...we dont do that with other forms! For instance saying Naihanchi is against a wall, would be like saying well Kicho Il Bu follows and I Pattern so it is only used for fighting in a grocery store aisle...Its a form, look at it like other forms and it will play out ;-)
--josh


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Chizikunbo said:


> I have to ask what is the purpose of any form? People dont question the foot patterns in the other forms as they do in Naihanchi...its just another form, and should be looked at as such...dont generalize it...we dont do that with other forms! For instance saying Naihanchi is against a wall, would be like saying well Kicho Il Bu follows and I Pattern so it is only used for fighting in a grocery store aisle...Its a form, look at it like other forms and it will play out ;-)
> --josh



Nice. That's the quote of the week. I couldn't agree more. Tang Soo!


----------



## Victor Smith

Master Jay,

I'm glad those examples were useful to your study. It's interesting what is popping up on youtube. I have a larger personal collection from friends around the world, but they represent a fair sampling of what the art of Seisan encompaes.

The interesting thing is how arts are alive and have to change as instructors grow with them. The kata, kune, hung or form are just structured methods to develop specific energies. The stories are a way to help new students understand a little why they're doing them. The stories have a place in the study, but in time they must be set aside, just as the beginning explanations of what a technique is being used for was a tool to help the student to learn spatially where to place their body/limb and once they develop their movement potential, the study of those movements application potential moves in new places.

Kata's potential has changed a great deal in the last 30 or 40 years. When you break away from the intitial studies you end up with variable answers, what is a technique a series of moves, a single movement or a fractal of that movement? 

I.e. is the chambring hand being pulled back to make the other hand strike harder, is that hand being chambered to smash into the ribs of an attacker grabbing you from behind, is the chambering hand slicing across the face or the ribs of an attacker dicing them in the chambering process, is the chambering hand a slicing block against an attack, is the chambering hand one of a series of parry-grab-pull sequences possible?

And of course we haven't discussed the other hand, the role of stepping, stance, etc. or how your alignment, knee release and evey eye focus affect the technique performance. Nor did we discuss which part of the chambering hand first knuckle, middle knuckle or little knuckle are slicing/striking across a specified body part.

In fact the most important thing is an art MUST CHANGE time and time again as each generation tries to get a personal handle on what it must do.

Show me an art that isn't changing? I know many understand their art as it must be cast in stone to pass it along correctly? But all of the seniors chagned that art continually to get to now.

It is the truth that change must occur as an art lives which is the real mission.

But of course what is change? Not just a new movement or a new form, but change that drops someone more effectively.

That forms change is a given because the seniors really didn't do what is necessary to keep their arts unchaging.

But thats another topic.

Thanks for your invitation to visit in January, but teaching for free for 30 years most often ends up in negative cash flow for the arts (by a big margin) and even if my arthritis would let me, it's not in the cards.

These days my focus is totally on my students.

That an occasionally trying to find engaging discussion to make me think.


----------



## meanbean

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> Martin,
> It always blows my mind when I read postings like the one that you made here
> 
> The statement used by many grandmasters and masters of the different martial arts systems that states; it will take you a lifetime to learn ONE system! was designed to keep their students from wondering off and joining other schools. After all, if you are my student and find that there is something out there that may be better; your money will stop flowing into my bank account.
> 
> Before there were all of these different systems of martial arts, before the different systems splintered apart and became separate associations as in Tang Soo Do, there were simply teachers, students and the bad guy with the sword that was intent on cutting off your head. Your teacher taught you everything that he could to keep that bad swordsman from accomplishing his goal. When you teacher felt that he could teach you no more, he arranged for you to travel to another instructor who had established a reputation for a specific WAY. He would send you to this other teacher to learn what you could and then you would return to him and share what you had learned with him. This program of being sent off to other teachers would continue over and over again until you had established enough knowledge and ability to devise your own WAY.
> 
> Then you would take on disciples and teach them youre WAY. This is how all of the systems that are taught today came to be.
> 
> Do you think that KJN Hwang Kee had to spend a lifetime in one system to establish Tang Soo Do? KJN Hwang Kee studied many different systems before he devised his own art and system. By the way, if you check back in Tang Soo Do history you will see that Lee Won Kuk was one of many Koreans that traveled to Japan during the occupation and trained directly under Gichen Funakoshi. Both Lee Won Kuk and Choi Hong Hi earned their Nidan (2nd degree black belt) in Shotokan under Funakoshi prior to returning to Korea.
> 
> Lee Won Kuk taught what he learned from Funakoshi to KJN Hwang Kee. Prior to that time, KJN Hwang Kee was teaching Hwa Soo Do. His students didnt like the Hwan Soo Do and he had a difficult time keeping a consistent enrollment. When He started teaching the material that came from Funakoshi the students were drawn to it and he built his system using that material. That material was known as Shotokan.
> 
> KJN Hwang Kee did bring his own unique flavor to the system, making it his own, but I can tell you that it didnt take him a lifetime of study to put it all together.quote]
> 
> Firstly, allow me to apologise if you feel offended by any of my comments. They were not intended to disrespect you as a person and there certainly was not any intention of rudeness. My understanding is that this is an open forum and we are free to make our opinions known regardless of rank, which means if someone is a white belt in their art, they too can have words of wisdom here that we can all learn from.
> 
> Thankyou for syour response and Sorry to have to disagree with it.
> I don't know what experiences you've had with Grandmasters and masters desperate for your custom to keep money flowing into their bank accounts but i find myself constantly learning all the time.....why would i want to 'wander off' then?
> 
> Master Penfil, i do not dispute this is how many systems came into being, and I'm sure if i was embarking on the mission to develope my own system (own 'WAY') then what you're saying would apply, but i'm not, and if i were to get to the stage where my grandmaster could teach me no more...then i would be the grandmaster myself and i doubt this will happen.
> I am not disputing your historical knowledge on how the TSD system was devised, as i do not have enough knowledge on this myself, but i can only gather that your reason for mentioning that HWAN KEE changed his teaching material to keep students is to re-iterate that embracing other systems is not all bad.....that is not an issue here with me or the style i'm training in? If i was not drawn into TSD Moo Duk Kwan then i wouldn't be doing it and feel no pressure to have to do it if i didn't want to.
> 
> I guess this is a subject where there will be a lot of differences of opinions, i am only sharing from my perspective that i am learning so much all the time in my art, and have much more to learn, therefore to begin to learn others would simply either slow down and conflict with what i am currently learning which is working for me.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> Tang Soo!


----------



## Makalakumu

meanbean said:


> I understand your frustration...
> but what is fundemental to Moo Duk Kwan TSD has been passed down, one doesn't need to cross train in other arts to discover this.


 
Philosophically, MDK is a pretty deep art.  HK devoted entire books to developing his school of martial virtue.  Unfortuneately, many of these books are not going to translated into English anytime soon.  All of this is very interesting and valuable, but if my intent was to study philosophy, I could just as easily study a number of other books...which just so happen to be the ones that HK studied...and glean as much or more depth.  HK was very clever and creative, but he was no Buddha.

Technically, the MDK is pretty shallow.  Almost the entire curriculum has been imported form other sources where the context and usage of this or that technique has been preserved.  This information was not transmitted during its importation.



meanbean said:


> I totally respect those who wish to train in more than one art, but if you think you know all there is to know about the one art you study to then study others then you are gravely mistaken.


 
Let me put it this way.  I study Tang Soo Do.  That's it.  I have trained in a whole bunch of other arts and I have rank in them, but my understanding of those arts is applied back to my TSD training.  This multiple perspective view allows me to see what I study in greater depth.



meanbean said:


> What you are all discussing here which relates to the origin of certain Hyungs is historically interesting, and revealing yet most of which is not known or set in stone, and this does not add anything to what can be passed down and taught to me through the art i study.


 
This is foolish.  This isn't just a discussion about the historical origins of the hyungs, its a discussion about their technical usage and application.  It's about learning how to actually use the hyungs to fight...like they were meant to in the first place.  All of that wasn't taught in the MDK.  Hwang Kee learned the hyungs from books and knew none of the applications.  If he had, then the curriculum of TSD would look very different then what it is now...and we would be left with much less philosophy of Martial Virtue.



meanbean said:


> If you are not getting the knowledge and wisdom through your art then i would question who it is who teaches you.


 
With a top down hierarchical structure extant in most KMA, I wouldn't necessarily single out your teacher as being solely responsible for the transmission of an art's "knowledge" and "wisdom".  Other people set the curriculum and standardize it.  Other people choose what they think is important and make people below them do that.  

And then, I think you really need to define what "knowledge" and "wisdom" you think you are learning.  Pretty much every technique that you would need to defend yourself in most situations can be found in naihanchi.  Do you practice this form with that much depth?



meanbean said:


> Finally, to say without cross training, my hyung will never get beyond interpretive dance is a very silly and empty thing to say. A dancer would not know any application but to simply replicate moves for the sake of it.


 
Unfortunately, its too true in too many dojangs.  Most students have no clue regarding application to their forms and just practice the moves to practice the moves.  It's an interpretive dance.  

With that being said, lets do a little test, what do you know about naihanchi?

upnorthkyosa

PS - I apologize if all this seems confrontational, it is, but I think we as Tangsoodoin need to be challenged more on the depth of our technical knowledge in order to understand the gaps in our curriculum.  I'm not trying to pick a fight or be mean-spirited, I'm trying to help my fellow brothers of the spear.


----------



## MBuzzy

Just as a note, I moved from a Tang Soo Do, unstandardized curriculum into the highly standardized and regimented curriculum of the US SBD Fed...and I must say, the Ill Soo Sik and Ho Sin Sul all come DIRECTLY from the forms.  Since I'm currently studying in a federation school, I won't comment further on the federation itself, but their "evolution" has significantly involved applications and some creative thinking in terms of hyung translation.  Much more than the TSD curriculum that I trained with in Korea.



upnorthkyosa said:


> With that being said, lets do a little test, what do you know about naihanchi?


 
UpNorth,

To answer your question....not nearly enough.  I believe that we've all heard the stories....fighting with your back against a wall, on a horse, in a rice paddy, a syllabus for ground fighting, etc....who knows what is the actual TRUTH.  History can be hard to follow accurately in asian cultures.  We were discussing this in my last class....and I feel that whichever of these stories that you subscribe to - if any can yield different applications.  There is a lot in the seemingly simple movements of this hyung and depending how you look at it, the interpretation changes DRASTICALLY.  Even if you add in that the forms were at one point performed as one can change the interpretation.  

Personal opinion....if you can find an application out of a form - that's AWESOME and it doesn't matter to me WHICH story, history, or interpretation you used to do it...if it is a viable technique, you've accomplished something.


----------



## Makalakumu

MBuzzy said:


> Personal opinion....if you can find an application out of a form - that's AWESOME and it doesn't matter to me WHICH story, history, or interpretation you used to do it...if it is a viable technique, you've accomplished something.


 
And that is the PERFECT example as to why I think training in other arts is essential.  Learn how to see it from as many perspectives as possible.


----------



## robertmrivers

Hello all

I believe that the kata can be whatever you want them to be. I believe that the applications of the kata must evolve. 

But, you MUST understand the ORIGINAL intent of the kata if you are going to evolve the techniques in it. Evolution implies that there is something substantial to evolve FROM.

If you are still executing the middle blocks and down blocks within the form as blocks, if you are still riding a horse, fighting with your back against a wall, or fighting in one of those Okinawan rice patties (have you ever been to Okinawa? No rice patties...not many horses either) then you have absolutely no business trying to figure out what the applications in a form are. 

One of the principle concepts in OKinawan karate (and we are talking about OKinawan karate because it is the root art of which everyone is talking about) is the "Kata Matrix". Imagine 10 individual techniques that needed to be recorded for history's sake. These could be written down, video taped, drawn, or reviewed orally. Or they were compiled in physical "book form" (kata/ hyung) where technique 1 is page 1, technique 2 is page 2 etc. The movement from one technique to another is the "turning of the page" or transition. It is this transition that determines the pattern of the form. Everyone is getting too hung up on the pattern.  Naihanchi was compiled differently than other kata...that's it.  This is why Motobu Choki said Naihanchi is the only kata you need. Nearly every technique found in any of the other kata can be found in Naihanchi. If you are training correctly, ie: not thinking about the pattern, then there is really no difference between Naihanchi 1 and 2 and the other bazillion kata that are done. 

Do Naihanchi Shodan and Nidan. Then pick another kata...say Pinan Yondan. Then try to find the commonalities. If you find differences, then you have more to learn. You should be able to translate every technique in any Pinan kata, Passai, whatever to  Naihanchi 1 and 2.  If you can't, ask yourself why. Also ask why most Okinawan Karate instructors in Okinawa can...

There are so many videos and seminars out there now featuring Okinawan instructors who have trained in the direct lines of the founders of modern karate, yet, nobody seems to be willing to check them out. Everybody would just rather make up their own stuff and pass it on as truth using the "it can be whatever you want it to be" philosophy. It can be whatever you want it to be AFTER you have learned wht it is SUPPOSED to be!! NOBODY in Okinawa practices Naihanchi against a wall. You are trying to figure out what something is based on what it LOOKS like. You can't do this. You have to know the internal principles if you want to get closer to the truth. I ask, why are you practicing this and other false presumptions and defending the teaching of people who DO NOT know the truth when so many people who live, have lived, have trained, still train in the root art from the birthplace of YOUR art keep telling you all over that everything you are doing is taking you in the wrong direction?

I have trained for almost 20 years and have heard it all. I have trained in Motobu Chosei's (son of Motobu Choki) Motobu Kempo for over three years now so that I could get even closer to the truth. Motobu Sensei 's teachings echo every other thing I have learned from my Okinawan karate teachers. So please listen to me...turn around...you're going the wrong way...

Rob Rivers
www.virginiakempo.com


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Sensei Rivers,
Thank you for your input here. There are some who are listening, and others who will hear what you are saying and at some point in their future, will at that time come to understand, and those who will hear what you are saying and choose to think that you are speaking in a language that they don't want to learn.

Change is among the hardest things to take on in the lives of many. I have always maintained an open mind in my martial arts life. If someone had something to share with me that could potentially "make me better tomorrow than I was yesterday", I have always listened and watched to see what they wanted to show me. If it turned out that what they had to share didnt work, or was flawed, I could, and would thank them just the same and moved on

If what they had to share made sense, and I could better my way of applying my technique as a result, I would take it and incorporate it into my curriculum.

Meeting and training with Kaiden-Shihan Garner Train brought on (as you are familiar) a huge growth in my martial understanding, but for those here in cyberspace who choose to live in ONE dojang and then in front of their computer key board, and choose never to venture out to meet and train with those who have, will forever be stuck in that place of being unaware. If that is where they want to be, that is their right to choose

One of the association leaders that brought me out to do a seminar for his students said of me; Master Penfil, you are like Morphious from Matrix, and you are holding two pills in your hand, a blue pill that will send you forward with the understanding of what technique is supposed to be, and a red pill that will send you back to thinking that what has been passed down by the Korean instructors from 1945 and on is all that there is, and all that you need to know 

The question becomes; *which pill will you take?*

It is sad to know that there are so many who would choose the red pill

When I work with KJN Charles Ferraro, and members of the Mi Guk Kwan I feel good because they have a broad understanding of what is, and what was, due to the leadership that KJN Ferraro has brought to this great association. 

I have not worked with, or spent time with SBN Fred Scott since the 1980s, but I have heard that he has a firm understanding of these principles and concepts in training as well.

I would like to see others come out and share the knowledge of the older systems as well. In time they may


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Good arguments all, and I don't mean at all to invalidate other styles or deny the origins of TSD hyung. However, I'm still of the opinion that you don't need to study other martial arts in order to gain a better understanding of the hyung in TSD. 

Not saying it wouldn't be useful to know the mindset that went into the creation of the form, but study of hyung isn't just learning to perform all the moves perfectly and in sequence. Just from my own experience helping my juniors with anything from il soo sik to ho sin sul to weapon defense, I find myself more and more drawing from the hyung, especially the pyung ahn hyung, to illustrate a point. I've never studied any other martial art, but I'm finding more and more applications, even beyond the ones we practice in class (we have pyung ahn il soo sik, et al., for that express purpose). 

Again, not saying it wouldn't be great to learn how the forms came into being, but that seems like too much of an easy solution to me. Real knowledge of one's martial art doesn't come from how many people have taught you, but from how much you've learned and discovered through your own patience and effort. I'm hardly even close to a master, but I'd rather get there the better way than the easier way.


----------



## 14 Kempo

Just my two cents ... after spending time with Chosei Motobu Sensei last Sunday, October 7th, I can say the form, although it can be done with your back to a wall, the application of movements is much greater. Yes, throughout the form the hips do not rotate much, if at all, but in reality, when Motobu Sensei was showing bunkai, his hips rotated into proper position for the movements. 

As an example, the movement where the left arm is extended to the left side, and the right arm is across the solar plexus was shown as  a left outward block of the opponents right punch, using the right arm to back the block, doubling its strength. Bringing the right arm across in this manner not only doubles the power of the block, but makes the shoulders square up and positions the right arm to respond immediately to a follow up left punch that is most likely coming.

There were no ground fighting technics, however, I am one that finds various application for each and every movement, not simply one and therefore I could see how people could apply certain movements to the ground. One of Choki Motobu's fighting concepts was to never move backwards ... ever ... to the extent that he removed the cat stance out of his cirriculum, stating that it was defensive.

That is just one example of the bunkai given by Motobu Sensei. I hope I was able to give you all an image with how I wrote it, but I can't be sure. Oh how much easier is it to show something than it is to explain in in spoken language, which is much easier than is written language.

I'm out ...


----------



## DavidCC

JT_the_Ninja said:


> Good arguments all, and I don't mean at all to invalidate other styles or deny the origins of TSD hyung. However, I'm still of the opinion that you don't need to study other martial arts in order to gain a better understanding of the hyung in TSD.
> 
> Not saying it wouldn't be useful to know the mindset that went into the creation of the form, but study of hyung isn't just learning to perform all the moves perfectly and in sequence. Just from my own experience helping my juniors with anything from il soo sik to ho sin sul to weapon defense, I find myself more and more drawing from the hyung, especially the pyung ahn hyung, to illustrate a point. I've never studied any other martial art, but I'm finding more and more applications, even beyond the ones we practice in class (we have pyung ahn il soo sik, et al., for that express purpose).
> 
> Again, not saying it wouldn't be great to learn how the forms came into being, but that seems like too much of an easy solution to me. Real knowledge of one's martial art doesn't come from how many people have taught you, but from how much you've learned and discovered through your own patience and effort. I'm hardly even close to a master, but I'd rather get there the better way than the easier way.




JT, IMHO, what you are saying about "discovering for yourself" is not a contradiction to what the others wrote,  In some sense, the distinction you make between "in your art" and "not in your art" is really artificial... and honestly your assumption that it's any easier is mistaken, it's just a different kind of hard


----------



## Makalakumu

I think that one thing that people need to keep in mind is that studying another art that uses the same forms, especially an art that has a deeper lineal connection, is not neccessarily studying another art.  You've only peeled away another layer of the onion.  

With that being said, I think that it must be noted that the Korean layer is inheritly limited and full of red herrings.  You can practice naihanchi and here lots of deep philosophical concepts from Korean teachers, but as far as the nuts and bolts of what is actually going on, what the techniques were actually intended to do...

Well, that's just another layer of the art that you need to explore.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

*Greetings, again*
*Let me state it like this for JT, and anyone else who doesnt fully understand the need for cross training in other, older systems of our lineage.*

*JT,*
*1) **Have you ever met and or trained with KJN Hwang Kee? *
2) *Do you have you a copy of Tang Soo Do Soo Bahk Do?*
3) *Did you get a chance to read my response to Patrick Kennedys thread; When is Tang Soo Do no longer Tang Soo Do?*
*I did have the opportunity to spend some time with KJN Hwang Kee, I did take the time to ask him (thru his translator) some questions concerning training, and I have a copy of his master text, and use it in my training and teaching.*

*For someone who wants to follow the grandmasters way, you dont know much about his views or the way that he thought. Read his book, or read my posting to Patrick and you will come to understand that, to KJN Hwang Kee, it is ALL Tang Soo Do. *

*KJN Hwang Kee wrote:*
1.Tang Soo Do (weaponless fighting) began with the first human on earth.
Note: He didnt write; the first Korean human on earth, he wrote; the *FIRST HUMAN.*

2.Regardless of when and where, combat ultimately originated with Tang Soo Do.
Note: He didnt write; Regardless of when or where *in Korea*

3.Tang Soo Do is the ultimate art because weapons are temporary instruments at any time and place. 
Note; he didnt end this statement with; time and place *in Korea.*

4.Tang Soo Do itself has no rules and regulations, and is free. It is infinite in technique
Note: He didnt end this statement with; as long as it comes from a *Korean instructor!!!*

5.Tang Soo Do is the instinctive martial art of the human, which is the ability to use the body like a weapon.
Note: He didnt define here; of the *KOREAN human*.

6.Tang Soo Do is an art eternally inseparable from the human body
Note: He didnt define here; of the *KOREAN human body.*

The fact is, JT, without learning what was intended in earlier systems that devised these forms, you are practicing without the true translation of the intent. To practice these hyung with the mind-set that each technique should look perfect, and to do so without the understanding that we have been trying to share with you all along is truly fruitless, but without knowing what we know, you will never come to understand the how or why of this discussion/argument. 

Your statement regarding Better vs. Easier was ridiculous. It is thru the education that comes from such cross-training that gives you the tools to decipher what we are talking about. 

Your statement regarding; not being nearly a "master" yet was completely on the money.

By maintaining your current thought process, when the time comes that Chun Jae Nim C.S. Kim does make you a member of his Kodanja, you will only have mastered the basics and hyung as he teaches them, and that is the problem that so many have come face to face with, causing them to leave ITF for greener pastures. 

You really need to get out and smell the coffee. KJN Hwang Kee never intended any of us to live in a box, but so many of his followers have broken off and build themselves boxes for students like you to fall into for the purpose of ownership, and nothing more.

Keep training in your box, and stop reading what those of us who know write. You will be much happier that way. 

Take the red pill and go back to sleep


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

(1) No, but I've trained under someone who did and who goes back to train at his old school regularly. 

(2) No. You can't learn martial arts from books. 

(3) Yes.

(4) I wasn't saying Korean. Heck, I've never trained in Korea and never plan to do so. But if it's all TSD anyway, then why do I need to go outside of TSD? 

My main problem with training in martial arts is that, in basics, they are oftentimes very much _not_ the same. The way a karateka moves is not necessarily the way a tangsoodoin will move, and I have seen this from firsthand observation. 

By your argument, even if I go to another style, it's no good unless I'm learning directly from the authors of the styles themselves. _That's_ what's ridiculous, sir.

I think you get the wrong picture of my training. I don't just learn "kick and punch," as Master C.S. Kim often calls the wrong goal for a martial artist. I learn hyung only as part of my training, and not even a majority, although the hyung have direct application in every other part. It's not as if the true meaning of the hyung is some mystical, impossibly hidden thing that only a few can grasp. I learn to apply them in il soo sik; I learn to apply them in ho sin sul (although neither of those are limited only to hyung moves). I learn how to defend myself. I learn how to better myself. Your attitude about training, from what I can tell, seems to be that the ultimate goal is to attain more head-knowledge and more body-knowledge, that all you need to do is learn from every respected master and accumulate all this knowledge. No. Self-defense is easy. GM Hwang Kee was right; it is all reducible to the first human. But neither Itosu nor Funakoshi nor whoever else was that first human. So if you don't disqualify them, who it is inarguable learned from others before them, you cannot disqualify either C.S. Kim or my sa bum nim from being able to train me. You are truly very, very disrespectful to TSD, if I take your meaning right in this.

I will take neither your red pill nor your blue pill, sir. They are poison.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

JT,
You are not listening

It is not my intent to disrespect Tang Soo Do, and I dont want to cause anyone to feel that I do.

As usual, you are not hearing the message. The message is that it is ALL Tang Soo Do (according to KJN Hwang Kee). Regardless of the system or its origin. What all of these seniors on the board have been trying to get you to hear for as long as you have been here has been intended to help you see that, but you wont allow it to sink in

I didnt intend for you to learn Tang Soo Do from KJN Hwang Kees book, but to read what KJN Hwang Kee wrote to get a feeling for what he intended us to come to understand. The direction that the Federation has taken over the past couple of decades wasnt what he would have wanted, and all of the separation has only made matters worse.

Tang Soo Do is my primary system, and has been since before you were born. The depth of understanding that I have established has been shared with TSDists all over the country, and for those who I have worked with, it has proven to be a good thing. 

As I said in my last post, it isnt your desire to mover in the direction that the majority of us have, lets end this here and now have a nice day.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

(1) GM Hwang Kee was a great man, but he didn't create TSD. I can't speak for what he'd want, having never met him, so I can only glean what I can from one of his students, the president of my federation. It's his vision I'm trying to follow, regardless of how you feel I should go. 

(2) You didn't read my post. It's often the case that even the basic movements are different across styles. How can I learn from someone who's telling me to do A when I know to do B for my style? The sense I get from your quote of GM Hwang Kee is that he meant TSD in a general sense. All fighting is inherently TSD, yeah, but I don't think you can leap from that to saying that all fighting styles are part of TSD. If I want to become more skilled at playing the piano, I don't learn how to play a guitar. It's all music, and it all has the same principles behind it, and I may very well benefit from learning how another instrument makes its music, but in the long run...why don't I just practice the piano?

(3) You love to believe you speak for the majority...arrogance is not part of TSD. But if you want to end this debate here and now, fine by me.


----------



## Chizikunbo

> The message is that it is ALL Tang Soo Do (according to KJN Hwang Kee).



Indeed sir.
KJN would not have written so often if he did not want to get his point across. JT you are right, you cannot learn system from a book, but there IS much you can learn from one in addition to what you are getting from an instructor.
Reread *Master* Penfil's post. and then examine TSD. KJN WROTE THESE WORDS FOR ALL TANG SOO DO PRACTICIONERS TO READ AND APPLY, OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN THEM, AND THE ARE THERE. 
KJN Hwang Kee indeed borrowed from _many_ sources in the formation of his expression of Tang Soo Do, there is Taiji, Shoalin Long Fist (Kung Fu), as well as Japanese and Okinawan Karate.
Grandmaster only had limited access to information when he was forming his Moo Duk Kwan, he had books by Funakoshi which did not tell squat other than form execution and basic techniques, why? Because Funakoshi did not write about it (and he did not know it) and looking at GM Hwang Kee's own writing (i.e. A 50th Anniversary History of The Moo Duk Kwan) we know he learned the Japanese/Okinawan forms from BOOKS. Do you think that is GM had the opportunity/knowledge to understand the original intent of the forms he used he would have applied that knowledge? I bet he would have! The thing is he didn't, he had the superficial understanding made available in books at that time.So he innovated with what he had. Tang Soo Do is unique in its ability to apply knowledge of other systems freely, and still keep true to the art. Indeed, GM Hwang Kee adapted and changed his art as his knowledge increased, look at the SBD forms ;-)

The point it YOU have the book (the hyung) you can choose how to read it, you can look at the cover and assume (the superficial movements, and thus the superficial understanding) or you can read and reason from the book, study it, and gain the its actual contents, which will no doubt greatly increase your technique, and pugilistic ability. 

I will close with a question, our ancestors were often treated when ill, with medicine that was more detrimental to their health than it was helpful. Its all they had, but they did try. Just because its all they had does it mean its all we can have as well? I think not.

Step out of the box my friend, its small and cramped in there.

FWIW,
--josh


----------



## Chizikunbo

JT_the_Ninja said:


> (1) GM Hwang Kee was a great man, but he didn't create TSD. *I can't speak for what he'd want, having never met him, so I can only glean what I can from one of his students*, the president of my federation. It's his vision I'm trying to follow, regardless of how you feel I should go.


But you can read the words of instruction he left for students of his art. You again state you want to follow his art, but choose not to apply his philosophy?



> (2) You didn't read my post. It's often the case that even the basic movements are different across styles. How can I learn from someone who's telling me to do A when I know to do B for my style? The sense I get from your quote of GM Hwang Kee is that he meant TSD in a general sense. All fighting is inherently TSD, yeah, but I don't think you can leap from that to saying that all fighting styles are part of TSD. If I want to become more skilled at playing the piano, I don't learn how to play a guitar. It's all music, and it all has the same principles behind it, and I may very well benefit from learning how another instrument makes its music, but in the long run...why don't I just practice the piano?



This really is not Tang Soo Do to Brazilian Jujutsu, its Tang Soo Do to Karatedo the hanja/kanji are the same. The movements are very similar, and I know from experience you can appy the principles to your own forms. A low block is a low block, a high block a high block, not much variation, the end result is the same when executing the movement solo, yes?
KJN ysed the information about Okinawa/Japanese karate he had (which was limited thanks to Gichin Funakoshi also having limited knowledge) it was and it Karate and Karate. 



> (3) You love to believe you speak for the majority...arrogance is not part of TSD. But if you want to end this debate here and now, fine by me.



JT, Master Penfil is not being arrogant. He is legitimately trying the share the knowledge and insight he has gained over a lifetime of study in the art. You and I are no where close to his level of understanding. I have spent hours discussing martial arts with Master Penfil and know this to be true.

In the end, it all comes down to following your path, there are more doors out there, you can choose to go through them or not. 

Best wishes in your training.
--josh


----------



## robertmrivers

Nobody is saying that one has to change styles, instructors or that you can't learn things from the forms.

My point is that the forms...in their current forms, were devised a certain way, in a certain pattern, with a set key to unlocking the original intent of the form. If you are practicing these forms, you really should have an understanding of all of this in order to maximize your training with them.

Let's say JT never trained in martial arts. He joins the military. Learns the most kick butt techniques a fighting man could ever learn...he can kill you with his little finger in 25 different ways. Now, JT is going to devise a way of remembering these forms. He chooses to do them in the air against an imaginary opponent. There are so many complex methods, but, he decides to streamline some of the movements so that he can remember them. He has a set of internal "cues" that remind him of where the techniques can change and the "kick buttedness" of the techniques can increase exponentially. Now...imagine some 16 year old is watching JT walk through this imaginary fight sequence. Without knowing JT's internal principles and cues, he tries to decipher what the movements mean and creates his own set of self defense techniques. The techniques will probably work because the kid is creative, but they are not right. He is trying to use stances and techniques based on the form that don't match his personal fighting methodology.

When you are practicing the Pinans or any other OKinawa based form, you are buying into their methodology...at least until you learn what the meanings truly are and what the cues to deciphering the true techniques are.

As an example, how many people start self defense one- steps from the forward stance-down block-hand chambered on the hip position? This is the prime example of how someone saw the kata and interpreted this move incorrectly. Nobody would start a fight in this position or use this as a fighting stance at ANY point in a fight...

Rob


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Chizikunbo said:


> Do you think that is GM had the opportunity/knowledge to understand the original intent of the forms he used he would have applied that knowledge? I bet he would have! The thing is he didn't, he had the superficial understanding made available in books at that time.So he *innovated with what he had.* Tang Soo Do is unique in its ability to apply knowledge of other systems freely, *and still keep true to the art*.




Exactly. TSD incorporates, in its teaching, things from many other martial arts. I respect that and admire that about my art. But the fact remains that I can learn these without having to study or cross-train with another martial art.




> The point it [sic] YOU have the book (the hyung) you can choose how to read it, you can look at the cover and assume (the superficial movements, and thus the superficial understanding) or you can read and reason from the book, study it, and gain the its actual contents, which will no doubt greatly increase your technique, and pugilistic ability.



My point is I most certainly do *not* just look at the cover! Have you been reading me with any kind of attention at all? I have stated more times than I'd have the patience to count how much I look at the hyung and find out how they apply. You all seem to be of the opinion that I'm saying I'm happy just to go through the motions of the form and not find out what they mean! But I DO FIND OUT WHAT THEY MEAN!!!!!!! Do you think ITF instructors only go to ITF seminars? Do you think all that knowledge is hidden and locked up within all those styles from which it borrows? *NO!* My instructors, in accordance with Master C. S. Kim's will, are diligent to teach me how to apply what I learn from forms. My sa bum nim is always showing me different ways to interpret moves. I would be among the _first_ to criticize any school that only showed students how to go through the motions of the hyung, without showing them the meaning behind it. 




			
				robertmrivers said:
			
		

> Let's say JT never trained in martial arts. He joins the military. Learns the most kick butt techniques a fighting man could ever learn...he can kill you with his little finger in 25 different ways. Now, JT is going to devise a way of remembering these forms. He chooses to do them in the air against an imaginary opponent. There are so many complex methods, but, he decides to streamline some of the movements so that he can remember them. He has a set of internal "cues" that remind him of where the techniques can change and the "kick buttedness" of the techniques can increase exponentially. Now...imagine some 16 year old is watching JT walk through this imaginary fight sequence. Without knowing JT's internal principles and cues, he tries to decipher what the movements mean and creates his own set of self defense techniques. The techniques will probably work because the kid is creative, but they are not right. He is trying to use stances and techniques based on the form that don't match his personal fighting methodology.



Thank you for honoring me with the vote of confidence that I could devise an entire system...but you know what, I still find that a bit skewed. Who but a martial artist would only shadowbox? In any case, that 16-year-old isn't going to stop there. He's going to learn as much as he can about martial arts. He's going to look to other sources. He's going to train in at least one martial art and learn how the body can be used. He's going to do what GM Hwang Kee did! You forget that the venerable GM wasn't a clueless newbie when he picked up a book on karate. He was a martial artist. After picking that up, what do you think he did? Just repeat the same things over and over again, never questioning what they were? I don't think so. What can be encoded can be decoded. The fact that he was able to come up with his own hyung, plural, is testament to his diligence in that matter, I believe. So don't tell me on one hand GM Hwang Kee was a great man who should be studied with reverence and on the other hand that he didn't know what he was doing. 

Anyway, anyone who's read my previous post knows that Master Jay and I have decided to end the debate. Why I'm bothering to post a rebuttal, I don't know. You people never seem to know or care when an argument's over. And if I hear any more comments to "step out of the box" or "take the red pill"....honestly, could you be any more condescending? 

That said, argument over. Again.

Tang Soo!


----------



## exile

JT_the_Ninja said:


> That said, argument over. Again.



There's a point at issue, JT. Whether you and JSP have decided it's not worth your while talking to each other about it or not, the issue is still one of crucial importance to our understanding of the best approach to MA training. So the issues feeding the argument are still on the table, eh?

In looking over JT's posts, I couldn't help noticing something kind of odd. 
One the one hand, we have:



JT_the_Ninja said:


> But the fact remains that *I can learn these without having to study or cross-train with another martial art.*



But then, in the same post, we also have the following:



JT_the_Ninja said:


> *Do you think ITF instructors only go to ITF seminars?*





JT_the_Ninja said:


> In any case, that 16-year-old isn't going to stop there. *He's going to learn as much as he can about martial arts. He's going to look to other sources.*



Is it just me who sees some kind of contradiction here between the statement in red and those in green? If you're `going to learn as much as [you] can about martial arts [and] look to other sources', and if you're stating with evident approval that ITF instructors don't restrict themselves to just the fare they would get at ITF seminars... doesn't this seem to undercut the blanket statement in red that suggest that someone can gain an adequate understanding of their art completely from the inside, _with_ getting an outside view that would come from at least studying what the people who created the hyungs you study, in their ancestral form, have to say about the logic of their movements?

And if the statements in green are to be taken seriously, then doesn't it seem as though there really isn't any incompatibility between what JT is saying here, and what JSP, UpN, Rob Rivers and other have been sayingthat an important part in gaining an understanding of these TSD hyungs is precisely to `look to other sources', especially the sources that can tell you what the principles were that led to these hyungs having the particular structure they havethe Okinawan practitioners who still know the original bunkai? Surely `learn[ing] as much as [you] can about martial arts' would very logically encompass learning as much as you can about the interpretations that have been devised for these movements, even those that wouldn't necessarily be taught at `ITF seminars?' You can find plenty of meaning in _Hamlet_ without knowing Shakespeare's intentions, granted; but if you wanted learn as much as you could about the play, you wouldn't turn down a chance to ask him about it if one miraculously arose, eh? That's what the passages in green in JT's post seems to be saying, and that's what the people on the other side of the argument seem to be saying... so why is there an argument?


----------



## DavidCC

You know, I think JT is just saying - "my instructor knows everything I am going to need to learn so why would I go to anyone else"

so what's wrong with that?


----------



## exile

DavidCC said:


> You know, I think JT is just saying - "my instructor knows everything I am going to need to learn so why would I go to anyone else"
> 
> so what's wrong with that?



As I pointed out in my previous post, he _also_ seems to be saying that to effectively learn a skill set in the MAs, it is advisable to learn as much as you can about the MAs and to go _beyond_ what your own instructor knows. That was exactly the _point_ of my citing those passages in green from his post. If he believes those passages, as I assume he does, then where is there a conflict between what JSP et al. are saying and what JT believes?


----------



## JT_the_Ninja

Fine, one last comment by me, because you love to keep these things going...

For exile:
(1) ITF does not equal TSD. And seeing a demonstration by another MA does not equal cross-training. 

(2) I wasn't illustrating what I want to do. I was illustrating how GM Hwang Kee came to be able to create MDK TSD. Don't take me out of context.

For DavidCC:
(3) No, I'm not saying that, exactly. I'm saying that I can learn more about TSD and mature in my skills therein without having to go to another MA to learn it. TSD is rich enough that it can stand by itself, if you're dedicated enough to going beyond the surface. 


There...that's it. Unless you want to go back to the actual topic, my contributions to this thread are done.


----------



## exile

JT_the_Ninja said:


> Fine, one last comment by me, because you love to keep these things going...



Yes, I do like to keep discussions going when there is an important point at issue that I think further discussion bears on constructively.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> For exile:
> (1) ITF does not equal TSD. And seeing a demonstration by another MA does not equal cross-training.



I don't think I mentioned cross-training. And I don't believe cross-training in the standard sense is implied at all in anything Mssrs. Penfil, Rivers or UpN are saying. They are saying, take the trouble to learn the thinking that went into the creation of the forms practiced in TSD. Not, stop studying TSD and learn Okinawan karate. Not, keep doing TSD but also become an Okinawan karateka. Just: learn what the Okinawans thought was the correct bunkai set for the kata they created, which you have learned a descendent variant of.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> (2) I wasn't illustrating what I want to do. I was illustrating how GM Hwang Kee came to be able to create MDK TSD. Don't take me out of context.



Sorry, I've no idea what you're talking about here. The context of your quotes was in fact a thought experiment about a young kid who is learning a set of forms based on someone's creation of an effective fighting system. In the course of it, you say certain things that seem to be entirely compatible with what I take certain of the other participants in the discussion to be sayingthe statements in green that I highlighted . And I asked where there was a conflict. Nothing you've said seems to constitute an answer for that, but that's fine: by your own choice, you're out of the discussion.

The original thread topic implicitly brings these issues to the table. Going to the source of a form to understand its purpose is hardly a side issue in discussion of that purpose. There was a reason why, before an apprentice in a mediæval craft could become a master, he had to leave his guild and city and go off on his own, typically to work with and study under masters in another city. There is a reason why the top graduate programs in any given field rarely take their own undergraduate students into their programs, but instead try to get them into _other_ top-ranked programs. No matter how good you are, there is always something you are not going to be able to get by staying `inside' your own craft, discipline, MA style. No one says you have to cross-train or become an adept in another art; but it is ultimately self-defeating to cut yourself off from knowledge that others arts can bring to youespecially in the historical context at issue.


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Exile,
Thank you for your input in this thread you have done a great job of dissecting JTs statements and making sense of this quagmire. 

I can relate what you have outlined here to another subject that many will be able to appreciate. Instead of using Martial Arts as the learning program, lets discuss learning a different language and being able to apply it in real life.

How many of you have learned the words of another language well enough to know what they are when you hear them, and speak them to a certain degree. Learning the words of that language is only half of the challenge. If you learn the words, but not the *"sentence structuring"* of those whose language you are learning, the meaning can be quite different from what might have been originally intended. 

*For example: (true story)*
My friend Steve met a girl (Ruth) from Israel, fell in love and got married. When they came to the states for the first time we made a party for them. At the party I found myself sitting at the table next to Ruth with Steve sitting on the other side of her. To get a conversation started with me, Ruth smiled and asked me; 

*Jay, how long are you?*
I said; Ruth, that is a very personal question. Maybe you should ask Steve.

Ruth turned to Steve and, in Hebrew (her native tongue), she told him what she had asked me.

Steve laughed and stated; Ruth meant, *How old are you?*

From this conversation we can come to understand that, although Ruth had learned some words in the English language, without understanding *"sentence structure"*, and the proper use of the words as with regard to our *thought process*, the original question that she asked me; Jay, how long are you? had quite a different meaning.

Watching someone performing a hyung/kata, or seeing the pictures in a book teach us nothing more than the shell of the system. Without the guidance of an instructor who is knowledgeable in the original intent is, and will always be fruitless.

This takes us back to the question of; whose way do you follow? Do we follow our instructor, his instructor, KJN Hwang Kee, Funakoshi, Motobu, Itosu, Matsumura, and so on, and so on. The further back we are able to go, the better we will understand the answers to the questions asked.

I have had a great many great discussions with my dear friend, KJN Charles Ferraro on this topics, and the one consistent thing that KJN Ferraro reminds me of is; in using the words *ORIGINAL INTENT*, you are stating that what you are demonstrating was absolutely the intent of the founder of the hyung/kata, and with every generation that comes and goes, the slightest difference of interpretation by each and every instructor that passes along the material will in some way dilute, or change to some degree what that ORIGINAL INTENT might have been. Even if it is close, it cant at this point be exactly, to the letter, what was originally intended.

To this end, I can safely say that, by learning from hard core traditionalists whose up-line instructors have worked hard to pass along as close as possible, that which was given to them, from generation to generation has lead me to where I am today. When I meet with others whose history and seriousness is in line with my own, and in some cases, greater, I feel confident that I am on the correct path, and will continue to meet with and share with all who are interested in doing the same.

When we look at the manor in which a given association (Tang Soo Do or any system) performs their techniques we dont like to say this way is right, and that way is wrong. Each way has its purpose, and each grandmaster had his reason for constructing his way the way that he did. We rather ask; what is your purpose for doing what you do, the way that you do it? The problems always surface when the individual cant answer this question, and that is where the egos start to flare and you find those who will fight to make others respect their way. If they could simply answer the questions asked with purpose, and demonstrate the principles and philosophies of the techniques, as asked to, there wouldnt be a problem; just good sharing of good information.

Every stance has multiple purposes, as does every technique. When KJN Hwang Kee received the material that he used to incorporate Tang Soo Do, he got it thru the lineage of Gichen Funakoshi. When Funakoshi put it all together and passed it along in both his classes and his books, he didnt have anything more than the shell of the system. Hence, without going back further in the lineage to those who understood (if you will) the *sentence structuring* that the Okinawans had grown up with and used in their systems you will forever be staring at these techniques and wondering what they really are. Without learning the language that the hyung/kata were conceived in you may as well do what they do in open forms divisions at tournaments and _*just make up your own*_


----------



## exile

Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> Exile,
> How many of you have learned the words of another language well enough to know what they are when you hear them, and speak them to a certain degree. Learning the words of that language is only half of the challenge. If you learn the words, but not the *"sentence structuring"* of those whose language you are learning, the meaning can be quite different from what might have been originally intended. [/SIZE]



This is an excellent analogy. Learning a language truly requires the ability to internalize the structural rules of that language, which are often far from obvious. Different structures correspond to very different meanings. In a lot of respects, learning a form in a MA which is a descendent of another MA, without taking into account what the structure and interpretation of the form is in the latter, is very much like trying to learn to speak, and communicate meaning in, a second language without knowing the structural rules which determine the deep organization of sentences. If one is offered a chance to learn those rules `free of charge', so to speak, what could possibly be a good reason to reject it? Same with the MAs...



Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> For example: [/I](true story)
> My friend Steve met a girl (Ruth) from Israel, fell in love and got married. When they came to the states for the first time we made a party for them. At the party I found myself sitting at the table next to Ruth with Steve sitting on the other side of her. To get a conversation started with me, Ruth smiled and asked me; [/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Jay, how long are you?
> 
> I said; Ruth, that is a very personal question. Maybe you should ask Steve.
> 
> Ruth turned to Steve and, in Hebrew (her native tongue), she told him what she had asked me.
> 
> Steve laughed and stated; Ruth meant, How old are you?"



:rofl: :rofl:




Master Jay S. Penfil said:


> To this end, I can safely say that, by learning from hard core traditionalists whose up-line instructors have worked hard to pass along as close as possible, that which was given to them, from generation to generation has lead me to where I am today. When I meet with others whose history and seriousness is in line with my own, and in some cases, greater, I feel confident that I am on the correct path, and will continue to meet with and share with all who are interested in doing the same...
> 
> ...When we look at the manor in which a given association (Tang Soo Do or any system) performs their techniques we dont like to say this way is right, and that way is wrong. Each way has its purpose, and each grandmaster had his reason for constructing his way the way that he did. We rather ask; what is your purpose for doing what you do, the way that you do it? The problems always surface when the individual cant answer this question, and that is where the egos start to flare and you find those who will fight to make others respect their way. If they could simply answer the questions asked with purpose, and demonstrate the principles and philosophies of the techniques, as asked to, there wouldnt be a problem; just good sharing of good information...
> 
> ...Every stance has multiple purposes, as does every technique. When KJN Hwang Kee received the material that he used to incorporate Tang Soo Do, he got it thru the lineage of Gichen Funakoshi. When Funakoshi put it all together and passed it along in both his classes and his books, he didnt have anything more than the shell of the system. Hence, without going back further in the lineage to those who understood (if you will) the *sentence structuring* that the Okinawans had grown up with and used in their systems you will forever be staring at these techniques and wondering what they really are. Without learning the language that the hyung/kata were conceived in you may as well do what they do in open forms divisions at tournaments and *just make up your own*



Very well said, Master Penfil! I'm always perplexed by anyone rejecting available knowledge that could better inform their own understanding of what they're doing...  but clearly, it happens, for whatever reason. I think the important thing is that others who are thinking about this question, in connection with this thread and maybe some others pertaining to kata, realize the value in seeking out the historical source of these forms and the associated technical analysis that went into their construction. The knowledge is there, and available; why turn your back on it?


----------



## Chizikunbo

> Exactly. TSD incorporates, in its teaching, things from many other martial arts. I respect that and admire that about my art. *But the fact remains that I can learn these without having to study or cross-train with another martial art.*



JT, the statement in *bold* if flat out untrue. I could not teach you another language if I did not speak it. To expand on Master Penfil's post, learning martial arts and bunkai is like learning a new language, we can use English as an example. The English language is a composite of many different languages, latin for one plays a huge role, in being the root of many of our modern words. Now if we look at a word, _Psychology_ for instance. I live in a somewhat rural area of Missouri, outside of Kansas City, I have heard many people use the word _Psychology_ in conversational speech, and I know that many of those people could not tell me exactly what _Psychology_ is actually all about, they sort of know, and can reference it in speech, but without an actual study of the word you cannot know exactly what it is. If we research and know the roots of the word, we get _psycho_ and _logos_. _psycho_ is a latin word meaning "mind" and _logos_ is a latin word meaning "the study of", so this would define _Psychology_ as "the study of the mind". We dont use the word PSYCHOLOGOS of course, as that would be Latin, we speak English, and we use our modern English counterpart PSYCHOLOGY, but with an understanding of the root word it means the same thing. 
This is similar to Tang Soo Do and Karate, Tang Soo Do is our martial art, Karate is the root. Many people can show me "Tang Soo Do" (use the word Psychology), many fewer people could actually show me Tang Soo Do bunseok properly (what exactly Psychology is with an understanding of its roots) We do not have to speak Latin to apply the knowledge of the root words to better our understanding of our current language, but we do have to study it, and apply it. 
I practice Tang Soo Do, I have also practiced Okinawan Karate, I apply the principles of the root to better understand my current variation, and how we got there. 
The problem is, and this is a big problem, to begin most Tangsoodoin do not understand the root, they can perform their hyung, but that can not break it down in accordance with its root principles. The reasoning is twofold, first the knowledge was not there initially, as most Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do trace back to Funakoshi, so the teacher could not teach the student the original intent and so on and so forth. 
Rivers Sensei and Master Penfil have described this more eloquently than I. I really liked both examples of the student working with something he did not understand (Karate) [and from here the vicious cycle continues in that if they did not know it we can not pass it on]and making his own (Tae Kwon Do and Tang Soo Do). You do not have to change your style, but you do have to gain accurate knowledge of the root, and apply it...Its the difference between being a general practicioner and an excellent practicioner, likewise you dont have to speak Latin to speak English. Likewise you can ignore Latin, and just speak English with a conceptual understanding, or you can delve deeper, understand the roots, and apply them to your knowledge, and become an excellent linguist. I hope this weird  example gets my points across ;-)

JT, it is important to note this is NOT a debate, it is simply other practicioners trying the share their accumulated knowledge after many years of practice. Many of us went down the same road you are on now (I know I did, until after some convincing I was pointed down a different path), but somewhere along the line looked at the bigger picture.

Best Wishes In Your Training,
--Josh


----------



## Victor Smith

Hi Rob,

Nice to meet you. I read your comment with interest, "As an example, how many people start self defense one- steps from the forward stance-down block-hand chambered on the hip position? This is the prime example of how someone saw the kata and interpreted this move incorrectly. Nobody would start a fight in this position or use this as a fighting stance at ANY point in a fight..."

Of course I beg to differ with you, but that's what makes life interesting.

The use of the formal low block position for begining two person drills of course is a device to warn your partner your attack is coming. Initial training is to build technique and confidence against a standard attack, a beginning building block.

On the other hand, depending on the attack being offered I would very much use the low block as my response and in very traditional stances. If you're ever in the area I'd be welcome to share how the chamber of the low block alongside the ear is a slicing strike into an arm offered by an attacker and how the low strike that follows adjusts lower ribs, and other choice targets as well as the option of the stance destablizing the attackers lead leg with a knees strike into the thigh.  Of course my intention of using this technique to start is to immediately finish so there is no fight.

We must have very different expriences. In the same light the same technique is a counter for a suprise bear hug from behind, but in that case the opening movement is the chambering hand smashing it's elbow into their ribs for an opening.

pleasantly,


----------



## exile

Victor Smith said:


> On the other hand, depending on the attack being offered I would very much use the low block as my response and in very traditional stances. If you're ever in the area I'd be welcome to share how the chamber of the low block alongside the ear is a slicing strike into an arm offered by an attacker and how the low strike that follows adjusts lower ribs, and other choice targets as well as the option of the stance destablizing the attackers lead leg with a knees strike into the thigh.  Of course my intention of using this technique to start is to immediately finish so there is no fight.



VictorI'm very happy to see I'm not the only one who assumes this line of bunkai for, say, taikyoku shodan/TKD kicho Il Jang! See here for a very similar story (the discussion of (i)' and (ii)' specifically)...


----------



## Makalakumu

All of this has me wondering.  Lets say that one really did decide to not look any deeper and just trained with their Korean (or Korean lineage) instructors their entire martial arts career.  Would the "Korean way" of doing forms provide enough "meat" to sustain a person with a desire to study in depth and long term?  Do KMA, ultimately, have the depth to really enrich their advance practice?


----------



## exile

upnorthkyosa said:


> All of this has me wondering.  Lets say that one really did decide to not look any deeper and just trained with their Korean (or Korean lineage) instructors their entire martial arts career.  Would the "Korean way" of doing forms provide enough "meat" to sustain a person with a desire to study in depth and long term?  Do KMA, ultimately, have the depth to really enrich their advance practice?



Good question, UpN.

I'll defer to those of you who've been doing KMAs for a good deal longer than the measely five years I've been doing TKD. What's you folks' take on this question?


----------



## JWLuiza

exile said:


> Good question, UpN.
> 
> I'll defer to those of you who've been doing KMAs for a good deal longer than the measely five years I've been doing TKD. What's you folks' take on this question?



I've been at it for 16 years and I'd say around 10 years into it, most of our black belts start researching other arts to fill in the gaps.  The shotokan tapes that show bunkai are more for technique than application.  The Korean applications are simple, but there is sooooo much more.  For my friends third degree, he created a form using Chin na, Long Fist, Tang Soo Do, and Goju principles and he created a traditional form.  I think doing this is a great way to start thinking about the traditional forms... Since he worked from applications to Form for his own, it added depth to the knowledge for working from form to application.  

BTW, Master Penfil, I'm working on getting you a copy of this advanced exam...


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

upnorthkyosa said:


> All of this has me wondering. Lets say that one really did decide to not look any deeper and just trained with their Korean (or Korean lineage) instructors their entire martial arts career. Would the "Korean way" of doing forms provide enough "meat" to sustain a person with a desire to study in depth and long term? Do KMA, ultimately, have the depth to really enrich their advance practice?


 
Good question John...

I'll answer it with a couple of questions; 
(A) When is the last time you saw a KMA practitioner spar with the techniques that came out of their hyung?

(B) Why spend so many years learning the hyung, training them to death, but never using the contents to fight with (in or out of the dojang)?


There are thousands of practitioners out there just like JT that feel (*based on their relatively short-lived experience*), following those who have "*not much more extensive knowledge than their own*", that believe that they are learning from the pinnacle of excellence and will never need to venture elsewhere. Again, it goes back to having a need to defend that which we are familiar with and have come to trust. If you have a solid relationship with your instructor, trust him/her and have come to believe that they are as good as it gets and someone comes along and exposes you to something that makes more sense, it is natural to want to defend your family and the way they do thing. 

*SIDE NOTE:*​What did I mean by; (*based on their relatively short-lived experience*)?

JT, you are an Eedan. How many years have you been training 4,5,6? 
This statement is in no way intended as a put-down. We have all been beginners, and many of us still see ourselves as such, but in comparison, you have relatively "short-lived experience".

What did I mean by; "*not much more extensive knowledge than their own*"?
JT, In the ITF structure (as well as most TSD associations), what I have experienced by training all over is that these association dont ever get past the principles of Block, Kick, Strike. In the progression up the rank ladder the practitioners learn/memorize new hyung, Il Soo Sik, Ho Sin Sul, etc., but it all becomes a matter of compounding memorization on top of more memorization of the same techniques over and over again. 

Your up-line instructors have memorized more material at this time than you have, and they have perfected the basics that make up the material better than you as a result of there extended years of training, but ultimately, you will catch up with them because the system, as it is being passed down to you is superficial in comparison to the earlier variants.

Your instructors are further along than you, but you are closer to them than you realize



Unfortunately, this mind-set is damaging to long-term growth. I have worked with many TSD associations. In every situation I have seen the same material as I get to know what each association does, and I get the same *my eyes have been opened* response. When a practitioner is exposed to the concepts, principles and philosophies that Sensei Rob Rivers, Sensei Victor Smith and I have been introducing to others for decades, they have a similar feeling come over them that is demonstrated in the V-8 juice commercials; 
*WOW, I COULD HAVE HAD A V-8*​ 


What we discuss isnt *Rocket Science*, but initially it seems like it is. The more you are exposed to it, and the more you work with it, the more you realize that unless someone took the time to share it with you, you would never have figured it out for yourself. This is why I am so persistent when it comes to traveling and doing seminars. Until you are there, first-hand, and experience it, it wont have an impact on you, and you will continue to fight the inroads of good knowledge. 


JT,
Gene Garabowsky spent 22 years directly under Chun Jae Nim C.S. Kim. SBN Garabowsky earned from 9th Guep to 4th Dan directly under Chun Jae Nim C.S. Kim. He knows Chun Jae Nim C.S. Kim and the ITF system of training as well as anyone could. SBN Garabowsky is in awesome physical condition and is the example that everyone should strive to be in martial training. SBN Garabowsky traveled to Michigan in April for the grand opening of my dojang and spent an hour being introduced to the concepts, principles and philosophies that we discuss here. After *ONE HOUR* with me and several of my students SBN Garabowsky was able to access the importance of the material that I teach and engaged me in a number of discussions to better understand what it is all about. We will get together as often as time and finances allow to continue sharing of good material and great training.


I am not in any way suggesting that you leave ITF, as that would be wrong, but as you stated in you posting; *Do you think ITF instructors only go to ITF seminars?*. If it is permissible with Chun Jae Nims will to participate in non-ITF seminars, contact SBN Garabowsky at: *412-418-3688* to arrange to participate in the upcoming seminars that he has in the planning stages. He is right there in your home town, and enjoys working with serious minded people like you.


Ask SBN Garabowsky about his personal experience with me, and how his vision of what TSD is all about has expanded in a positive way. You will find that, like all others who have chosen to be exposed, they ALL continue to teach Tang Soo Do. None of them are changing systems or instructors. They have simply been given a different vantage point to see into their system and have walked away feeling better about their training, and their teaching.





PS: This weekend SBN Garabowsky is hosting a seminar with Grandmaster Andy Ah Po. GM Ah Po is among the finest TSD practitioners in the world. GM Ah Po was the closest person on earth to KJN Hwang Kee right up until his passing (outside of his immediate family).

If you are truly a serious Tang Soo Do practitioner and you have an opportunity to meet and train with GM Ah Po, you wont pass it up, even if you have to beg for or borrow the funds to attend. This man hold more knowledge in his left pinky than I have in my entire body (and he is right handed).

PSS: For anyone that is in driving distance of Pittsburgh or can fly, contact SBN Garabowsky and make the investment in your own martial life.

Every time I have been exposed to GM Ah Po there have been lessons learned that have positively enhanced me, and all who were in attendance!!!

*Take the time, make the investment, *
*learn from one of the worlds best *
*TANG SOO!!!*​


----------



## MBuzzy

upnorthkyosa said:


> All of this has me wondering. Lets say that one really did decide to not look any deeper and just trained with their Korean (or Korean lineage) instructors their entire martial arts career. Would the "Korean way" of doing forms provide enough "meat" to sustain a person with a desire to study in depth and long term? Do KMA, ultimately, have the depth to really enrich their advance practice?


 
I definately know people who have.  My instructor has studied the same KMA for 35 years and has not cross trained AT ALL.  He is EXCELLENT at his style and is completely happy.  I think it just depends on the person and what they are looking for.


----------



## Makalakumu

MBuzzy said:


> I definately know people who have. My instructor has studied the same KMA for 35 years and has not cross trained AT ALL. He is EXCELLENT at his style and is completely happy. I think it just depends on the person and what they are looking for.


 
And that's what I'm trying to figure out.  I know so many people who are like that.  What is the draw?  How are people able to sustain themselves intellectually on something that so obviously has much more depth?  Or am I missing the actual depth of the korean syncreticism of these forms?

Maybe the fact that I cross trained for ten years before I got into TSD just gives me a different perspective.  I've been doing TSD for 10 years now, martial arts for 20 years, and I feel like a lot of what I do and call TSD wouldn't even be recognized by most tangsoodoin unless they looked at our forms.  

Further, all of this makes me wonder about the next rank I've been working so hard for.  In many ways, my teacher and I have diverged.  As my understanding of TSD has deepened, I've taken this knowledged and actually radically altered some of the "traditional" ways of teaching.  He definitely has not done this to the extent that I have.  

Even though he has no problem with this, I'm left to wonder how long it will take for us to be practicing totally different arts.

upnorthkyosa

ps - knowing my teacher, he would be proud to be reading this conversation...btw.  

Ryu-pa.


----------



## MBuzzy

upnorthkyosa said:


> And that's what I'm trying to figure out. I know so many people who are like that. What is the draw? How are people able to sustain themselves intellectually on something that so obviously has much more depth? Or am I missing the actual depth of the korean syncreticism of these forms?
> 
> Maybe the fact that I cross trained for ten years before I got into TSD just gives me a different perspective. I've been doing TSD for 10 years now, martial arts for 20 years, and I feel like a lot of what I do and call TSD wouldn't even be recognized by most tangsoodoin unless they looked at our forms.
> 
> Further, all of this makes me wonder about the next rank I've been working so hard for. In many ways, my teacher and I have diverged. As my understanding of TSD has deepened, I've taken this knowledged and actually radically altered some of the "traditional" ways of teaching. He definitely has not done this to the extent that I have.
> 
> Even though he has no problem with this, I'm left to wonder how long it will take for us to be practicing totally different arts.
> 
> upnorthkyosa
> 
> ps - knowing my teacher, he would be proud to be reading this conversation...btw.
> 
> Ryu-pa.


 
Seems like psychology to me....Everyone is different.  There are people who don't see the need to look outside their art.  There are people who are perfectly happy with doing the way that they have always done things without any more analyzing or depth.  There are people who are capable to take that and create their own depth.  Even advancing the understanding of what they do know helps.  I will personally always look deeper and try to find more meaning and get more out of things.  But not everyone needs or wants that.  

I have spoken to many people in many styles who are happy with the style that they are in and have no desire or need to go outside of it.  I've even talked to some that don't even care about applications, they're perfectly happy to just learn the motions.  Everyone is different and everyone is looking for different things.  Its like a Martial Arts heirarchy of needs....some people never make it to the top of the pyramid - some people don't want to......and I feel personally that if they are happy with that, that is great.  

(and that isn't meant to offend or be condescending to anyone who feels that way.....different people are happy with different things, that is what makes people interesting)


----------



## exile

OK, so here's what I've been thinking as I read this development of the thread...

I think there is a very powerful resonance of the original Okinawan techniques in the ancestral arts, the ones that were forged out of necessity, in the KMA hyungs. The technical depth is there, frozen and latent, so to speak, in the TSD and TKD hyungs, which in many cases are literally karate kata, and in other cases are rearranged and permuted versions of those kata, with the `minimal combat subsequences' themselves preserved intact. The problem is getting _at_ that. 

This is where some people have, I believe, may have come to the needlessly extreme conclusion that they are being pressured to cross-train in other arts, in order to obtain the `skeleton' keys that would enable to them to gain access to these deeper layers. Definitely, exposure to the older related arts is necessary to derive the subtle but often crucial information about what this or that sequence in a hyung is `really' about. But the key, I think, is the limit implicit in the word `exposure'&#8212;not that you abandon your own (K)MA, but that you learn the right methods of analyzing the formal patterns of your art, methods which a _bit_ of contact with the `source arts' can give you. Go to seminars, seek out experts, get their take, integrate it with your own. I believe that that's what Masters Penfil, Rivers and others who've posted on this thread have been urging us to do. Don't abandon your art, but _enrich_ it with information from the outside. And if you do this...

...then I think that the KMAs do have the depth we're all looking for, because they are, when you get down to it, the local (Korean) variant of a a very deep MA, karate. I think I'm trying to say that the KMAs suffer from is not a lack of depth in their technical resources, but rather in their training of those resources, in the literalness of the kind of training that we've inherited from the Kwan founders. I'm now convinced that UpN is right in a remark he made long ago, in a post quite early in my MT `career', where he said that he had grave doubts about the Kwan founders' knoweldge of form analysis. Since then, all of the research I've pursued has tended to confirm that doubt. The Kwan founders may have learned what Mater Penfil called the `shell' of Shotokan and certain other karate styles, but they almost certainly did not learn form applications that were much deeper than the simplified, stripped-down versions that Funakoshi and his senior students taught to their mass classes in Tokyo and elsewhere. Gennosuke Higaki, in his remarkable new book _Hidden Karate: the True Bunkai for the Heian Katas and Naihanchi_, reports that is was a well-understood rule amongst the Okinawan expats teaching karate to the Japanese that the deepest applications would not be taught to the citizens of the oppressive occupier nation. And if Choki Motubu is to be believed&#8212;a delicate question!&#8212;Funakoshi himself had not been inducted into the elite group of Okinawan karateka to whom the great masters had shown the deepest bunkai. So the Kwan founders were probably three degrees of separation (at least) removed from the original applications that guided the formation of the kata which became their curriculum. It shouldn't be surprising that a serious disconnect exists between the modern practitioners in the schools they founded, on the one hand, and that most profound, advanced interpretation of the hyungs which the Kwan-era kata sets became.

So the answer to UpN's question might well be, yes, the KMAs potentially have the technical depth, because their material preserves, even in rearranged form (as in much of TKD) the deep discoveries of the Okinawan masters. What they _don't_ have is the pedagogical/analytic tradition of analysis, and experimental practice geared at recovering that deep level, that the Okinawan, and to a more limited extent the Japanase, karate traditions preserve. That's why the rediscovery of the `decoding' principles, by people like Iain Abernethy, Rick Clark and other karateka, and the explicit application of those methods to the KMAs, particularly TKD, by people like Simon O'Neil and Stuart Anslow, is so encouraging and important. If those valid methods of bunkai are recovered, and applied to the KMA hyungs, why should not the KMAs have the same technical depth as other karate-based styles?


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

Exile,
*Again, I like your thinking*

Many KMA practitioners have read my postings and heard me speak on this subject and have accused me of disrespecting the KMAs and their founders. Such is a complete misunderstanding of what I state. To further answer the question at hand regarding KMAs vs JMAs and OMAs with regard to their individual values in the area of application, they all have the value locked away deep within.

The question should not be about the national origin of the kwan/ryu, it should be directed to the individual instructors of the given kwan/ryu. Just like in many of the KMAs, I have met many of the others who in truth, had no more depth than those of the KMAs. 

When we ask a practitioner; are you happy and content with the system you train in, and that individual has never been elsewhere, what else is he/she going to say? How many times have you visited a martial arts school where the head instructor stands before the class and in a loud booming voice asks; *WHAT IS THE BEST MARTIAL ARTS SYSTEM ON THE PLANET???* , only to have the entire class respond with the name of the system taught in that school? 

When a practitioner doesnt have the exposure to other systems or even to other schools in the same system that have the depth of understanding that others have, they (*the individual practitioner*) has nothing to compare his/her training to and will always side with his/her own instructor. As stated earlier; *this is simple human nature*.

Almost every time I have worked with practitioners that had only been taught the shell system I have watched their eyes open wide as they experienced the deeper understanding of the techniques, and thru partner training on the individual sections of the hyung/kata, came to realize what was missing. On rare occasions I have been told by individual practitioners that; while what I was showing them was cool, or interesting, they liked what they were already doing better. 

You have to realize that when someone comes to understand that what they have been working on for 10, 20, 30+ years is missing important pieces of the puzzle, and they have, in their specific system, attained a given rank and have students numbering in the hundreds and or thousands doing what they have been taught and teach, it is hard to turn around and do something that contradicts what they have paid to learn from those who they have great respect for, and charge for teaching to those who respect and trust them.

This is why even those with high rank and large associations are reluctant to adopt new (*to them*) information to incorporate into their curriculum. Many fear that by making changes they will find disgruntled members that will up and leave them all together. This is to me, a bad thing.

I have always moved forward with an open mind in my training. I believe that, as I have stated in other posting in other threads that; 

(A) If I am exposed to material that can make be better tomorrow than I was yesterday, and I choose to incorporate it into my curriculum, this is a demonstration of the integrity that I have in all that I do, as the students that respect, trust and look up to me expect me to deliver to them the very best material that I know exists. This is in my mind, being responsible and true to my students and to myself.

(B) If I am exposed to something that can make me better tomorrow than I was yesterday and I choose to *ignore it* and continue to teach what has been the standard in my curriculum as passed down by my instructor because he would frown on me if I dont; I see that as being false to myself, and *more importantly*, to those who look up to me and expect me to pass down to them the best material that I know exists.

If I raise my students to always look for the *UP-GRADE*, and guide them with the understanding that we are in a system that is; *a work in progress*, it is always easier to introduce new material without the backlash of rebellion.

One of my long-term students comes to class for a couple of month and than takes off for a year or two at a time because of work obligations. When ever he comes back after a long time away he is confused because we continue to shape and reshape our way of doing things on a consistent basis. The students that have, over the years maintained their training, are right there with me, and are able to apply every technique that I teach to an extremely high level. He always looks at what we are doing and says; *that isnt what you showed me two years ago*". I generally respond with; and if you leave again today and return a couple of years from now, what I will show you at that point in the future may be different than what I am showing you today.

*A work in progress*

If you train in a system, or with an association, federation, etc. that has a curriculum that is and has been written in stone, your technique will at some point become obsolete. If you are simply training for a fun, extra curricular activity and your goals *do not* include the learning of and honing of *true tactical defense skill*, than I can see you being satisfied training in a school that only teaches the shell of the system. 


However, for many of todays martial arts practitioners, among the initial reasons they walked into a martial arts school in the first place (*whether they will admit it or not*) was to some degree defensive tactical education. 

If they had the knowledge of what to look for in the first place and went to many schools in search of an instructor that had the deeper understanding to pass on to them I will bet just about anything that, given a choice of starting from DAY #1 with:


(A) a school with only the shell system, or 
(B) a school with the deeper knowledge base; 


they would choose (A) every time.

*How many practitioners that had no previous *
*experience actually knew what to look for?* ​ 

A layperson walks into a martial arts school, meets an instructor who presents him/her self in a friendly and professional manor and lays a sales pitch on them. This professional may be a great person with great interpersonal skill. They may be a member of any one of or even several *Professional Martial Arts Management* associations/companies with access to great marketing materials and training on sales and *student retention*. 

Presented with such a great front-line presentation this Newbe signs up, gets involved in his/her training and over a period of time establishes great relationships with the instructor(s), other members, and is hooked. It doesnt matter what great level of knowledge another instructor brings to the table; that student has become a serious practitioner of whatever that school teaches, and that is where they will stay.

*Again*, all things being equal, if the prospective student had guidance in advance of DAY #1, and came to understand that for their time and money they could have either invest in learning a system (from an instructor) that: 

(A) is nothing more than a shell, and may at a time when they are physically attacked in real life cause them or their loved ones to be compromised, or

(B) learn a system that is rich and deep in its understanding and ability to truly prepare him/her for that real life assault in a way that will seriously give them a fighting chance to survive and be able to continue to be there for those who rely on them.

(I have used the word SYSTEM in this example, 
but my intent is to bring attention to the instructor 
and his/her understanding and ability to teach)​


----------



## robertmrivers

Smith Sensei,

While I appreciate your comment, I believe I said nobody would start a fight from that position. I didn't say anything about training. There are people in this world who start jiyu kumite (free sparring), not practicing ippon kumite (pre-arranged one-step sparring) in this position. I've been doing this for a while now... I have seen Korean stylists as well as Karate stylists break down into this forward stance/ down block positions (gedan no kamae) prior to defending themselves in a practical exercise or during sparring practice. This is not the intent of the technique. Your comment about what the down block "could" be in your training actually backs up my point. This gedan no kamae is NOT a static fighting stance. It is the complete defensive technique. Of course BEGINNERS use the format to practice their techniques in all styles. The problem is when a 3rd or 4th dan is still using a "down block" as a block... the transition to a higher understanding of the kata should have been started by then.

You offer some nice examples of the gedan barai tichiki (hogen for application)... condescending, but nice (I am sure you didn't mean it like that...). Of course I could go the tuite route and apply kansetsu waza at the elbow (maybe throw a little triple warmer pressure in there) as my application or any number of wrist locks, or I could go the kyusho route and apply the covering hand as a strike to the liver point at the ribs as I grab underneath to the large intestine point on the forearm, pull him off balance creating a sympathetic reaction exposing gall bladder 20 striking it with the inside of the forearm as the "block" comes up to the ear and then striking stomach 5 at the jawline as the "block" comes down. We haven't got time to discuss the implications of moving forward vs. turning 90 degrees vs. turning 180 degrees.

Perhaps we are training differently as you are still trying to introduce the chambering motion of the block as a rear elbow...I didn't know we had any orange belts in this discussion... just kidding. I have a 7th dan in Sarcasm.

Of course no disrespect is meant in any of these comments... I think we all enjoy a little debate and love to "toot our own horn" every now and then. Our experiences ARE different, we are in different regions of the country. But, I have a curriculum vitae a mile long...just as you do with names like Motobu Chosei, Bill Hayes, Angi Uezu, Ko Uehara, and others on it. I think a mistake people make is they try to assume one's training level based on a topic specific forum discussion. I respect you and your accomplishments. But, the things you describe and the material you teach in your ryu ha are not unique... they are foreign to people who have not had similar exposure to good instructors, but from a traditional karate point of view, these are all concepts that anyone practicing the forms should be exposed to early on in the training. 

JT, bro, keep doing what you're doing...don't listen to any of us any more. Its got to be confusing. But...you will find yourself asking some pretty hard questions at some point in your training. You can just chalk it up to experience when the time comes.

Best

Rob


----------



## Victor Smith

Hi Rob and all,

Appreciate the dialogue. I wasn't trying to be condescending but to create further discussion. There is only so much you can do writing something that gets a point across. I find when I go into greater detail (such as the older analysis of what I use Sanchin kata for on the Karate forum) it normally does not generate response.

I tend not to deal in absolutes about anything, except what happens when your fist meets my nose, and how I can try to work to keep that from happpening.  

I rarely use non-english terminology simply because all of my inctructors, regardless of country of origin, have always used as much English as possible and I feel it promotes stronger communications for my students into the future. If one is dealing on the international stage I'm sure there is a lot of validity using other terminology. So in my case I was just trying to suggest some of the low blocks possiblities.

I'm not a connect the points kind of guy. I knew of George Dillman (competing at his tournamnts) before he met Oyata Sensei. I was being trained in striking (where he hits and you go OWIEEEEE) by my Indonesian insructor before George came over to him at a tournament and describe his meeting Oyata Sensei and trying to invite him to attend a clinic.  More of a vital points versus a kyusho approach.

One of my Isshinryu instructors made a  better explaination. After his own personal decades of makiwara work he only used one pressure point, one that started at the top of the head and ended at the feet, and felt if you hit hard enough anywhere you should get the correct result if you train hard enough. For him we were always on the bruising end, and I do believe that point.

As far as technique study I'm neutral, if you can do it and pull it off, it's the correct application. Once I felt things like elbow strikes to the rear were trival too, after all I'm 6'1" and the chances I would have to fend off such an attack were trivial. But one of the women I've trained set me straight,what do you feel 'we' actually have to deal with. Guys grabbing us.

It made me think that simplicity that fits the student is the highest goal so I rarely discount much.

On the whole in most martial arts discussions or MA literature because I see there are often too many absolutes that really can't be proven. 

In an earlier post the point was being made about Funakoshi Sensei's knowledge or abilities. I can't prove anything of course but  having trained under a gentleman whose father trained under Funakoshi, and whose Shotokan is both Shotokan and totally different from all the other descriptions I see bandied about, I'm sure that its difficult to know the truth.

Yes one can quote Motobu Chokoi, but there is a case that he is hardly a neutral source either.

On the other hand Funakoshi, Motobu, Mabuni and Miyagi (among others) worked very hard to gain recognition in their day with their arts. They taught, created books, and worked for recognition in the Japanese martial arts establishment.

Funakoshi essentially created the University Karate training program as I see it. His students likely were all from backgrounds that they already were trained in Judo, for such reason and the fact you probably had them for what 4 years before they moved on in life, and the fact thay Funakoshi established multiple university programs so he must have regularily been on the move, how much you can fit into such a program is limited. It would be nice to say, yes he didn't know, or yes he consciously dropped material.

It would seem to me that instead he consciously considered what would make sense to teach to university and Naval War College students in the given time frame. Considering many had a judo background, no need to emphasize throws and locks, instead concentrate on striking and kicking.

I've been working at teaching for 30 years. Depending on the time the student can put at it, and the time you can spend with them, there is a limited amount you can accomplish.

And as one of his supporters was Dr. Kano, who wanted the MA as a way to develop young bodies, it's not impossible that he was influenced in that way what karate should be for his teachings too.

The students gradutated and went on to fun carrears as admnistrators in Korea, Mancuria and overseeing other fun Japanese military war activities. Some of them filtered back and saw the program was changing for various reasons such as Funakoshi's son and the other new instructors designs. He was getting older, then lost his son, then the war and he was the figurehead at the end.

His Karate-do Koyan contained a lot of material that hte JKA eventually edited out as their interests evolved, originally showing more applications for example. He did share some of the Bubishi material in the original Chinese (so much for hiding Chinese origins) as did Mabuni Sensei sharing even more in their 1920's and 1930's publications.

On the whole I consider he did OK, he crafted a karate tradition to fit the needs he saw and did a great deal to share with the world.

Students of his also contributed, and not just within the JKA. When Taria Shinken wanted to branch out into kobudo he directed his student to Mabuni Sensei and a great deal of Ryukyu Kobudo was saved in his efforts.

Others former students such as Mutsu traveled to Okinawa and in his own way published much of the later JKA kata curriculum before the Karate-do Koyan was published. Mutsu also saved a ton of karate application studies in that 1933 work.

There is little question the Okinawan arts are very different from their Japanese cousins, but true to the real karate traditions, who really knew what remains hidden.

I also have come to understand why any Korean is reluctant to talk about Japanese sources. It's simple after what the Japanese did to Korea during the 50 years of application they have no reason to have polite feelings in that direction. Such strong emotions will not allow much to be said.

Again full historical understanding will remain hidden.

All can be evaluated neutrally, and if you can do it that's all that matters in the end.

Just a few thoughts from an aging martial artist. I hope it inspires some further discussion.

pleasantly,


----------

