# What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?



## skribs (Nov 26, 2018)

Lately, I've been trying to find the meaning of a lot of the various techniques in the Taekwondo forms.  I think some of those threads are still here.  But I thought I'd take a step back and try to look at the forms themselves.  Whether it's Taegeuks, Palgwes, the KKW black belt forms, or (from what I can tell) the ITF or ATA Taekwondo forms, they all seem to have a very similar style.  

You can correct me if I'm wrong about ATA or ITF, as I haven't trained those, but from what I can tell, all of these feature precise stances and movements, with little room for improvisation.  Mimicry is key, as you must mimic the form to have the proper stance and technique.  The forms are slow-paced, with a pause between each movement to show your balance and control with the move.  But, for the most part, each move is an explosion of speed and power.  

Now, I can't speak for the ITF or ATA patterns here, but I know with the Palgwe or Taegeuk forms, they increase in complexity as you go higher in belt.  In a lot of cases, what you end up learning are motions that don't really make sense in the context they're described, or don't have an apparent practical motion.  I've gone over my thoughts on the double-knife-hand block and asked questions about augmented blocks in other threads.  The crane stance diamond low-block in Keumgang is another.

It's been brought up in threads in the general section that forms can have various purposes.  In some cases, it can be to teach the techniques and concepts, but in other cases it can be for conditioning or for aesthetics.  Another thing that gets mentioned in a lot of these threads is the mind-body connection (particularly with regard to some of the flashier Kung Fu form styles).  Some people have expressed that the forms should teach general movements that can be applied in different ways when you move onto the next step of sparring or partner drills.  

So with all this in mind, I ask...what is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?  Is it...

To teach individual techniques to use when fighting
To condition the body for flexibility and balance
To teach general concepts of fighting
To work on the mind/body connection
To be aesthetically pleasing
Something else?


----------



## andyjeffries (Nov 27, 2018)

The primary reason for me is just an interesting way of practicing all of the techniques in their basic form. You then have to learn how to apply those techniques to real self-defence (Master Jeong In-Choul has done a lot of research on this and teaches it in his seminars).

It's not for me about mimicry, but accuracy. We need to be able to pass on the standard, international way of doing the movements to future generations. Then if they make their own changes in application of the individual movements, that's up to them, but they'll know the standard way to pass on too.

Otherwise Taekwondo would evolve into everyone doing their own thing and really then Taekwondo is a huge collection of everyone doing some strange variation on a theme instead of a unified martial art. If you look back at the history of Taekwondo, unification was a huge part of it.

For me sparring (one step and WT-competition) allows for freedom of expression, poomsae is about standardisation.

From my point of view (and it was part of the subject of my Kukkiwon 6th Dan thesis) the Kukkiwon poomsae progress in a more linear, building approach than either Karate katas or ITF hyung.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Nov 27, 2018)

Damned if i know. 


The only thing i could say is, its a fitness tool. that's at least supported factually by you building muscle and being able to exercise by doing patterns.    Maybe to help coordination as well, but i am counting that under fitness as it doesnt really go into "for combat application".   Thats at least the generic baseline for most martial art patterns. 

I would put some TKD forms down to the "aesthetically pleasing" category as well.   So those two are the only ones you can really say without a doubt apply to it. 

However in sparring i did a step back block, but that was basically free sparring so slow it might as well have been step sparring.  And it hurt my hand as it was a knife hand to his foot while he kicked.


Also i can say from at least doing GTUK and TAGB TKD  (former more than latter, latter was only 3 lessons)  i prefer the GTUK training/circulem at least at the school i went to.  From what i was exposed to anyway.   the TAGB place had you put your hand back to your belt for their self defence drills  which just seemed a pain and all that when i can strike one blow from belt then continue from guard etc.   Anyway, rambling aside. thats all i got.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

andyjeffries said:


> The primary reason for me is just an interesting way of practicing all of the techniques in their basic form. You then have to learn how to apply those techniques to real self-defence (Master Jeong In-Choul has done a lot of research on this and teaches it in his seminars).
> 
> It's not for me about mimicry, but accuracy. We need to be able to pass on the standard, international way of doing the movements to future generations. Then if they make their own changes in application of the individual movements, that's up to them, but they'll know the standard way to pass on too.
> 
> ...



For the most part, though, people DO do their own thing.  The school I'm at teaches the Palgwes instead of the Taegeuks.  And the Palgwes we learn are not the same Palgwes you'll find anywhere else.  Our #1 form has minor differences (i.e. whether it's an inside or outside block, whether it's back stance or front stance).  And when I look it up on YouTube, it seems every school has minor differences, too.  By the time you get to Palgwe 7 or 8, ours are so much different from the others I find, there's maybe one move in the whole form that's similar.  (I do think our advanced forms are more difficult than the others, they're just different).


----------



## Bruce7 (Nov 27, 2018)

Rat said:


> Damned if i know.
> 
> 
> The only thing i could say is, its a fitness tool. that's at least supported factually by you building muscle and being able to exercise by doing patterns.    Maybe to help coordination as well, but i am counting that under fitness as it doesnt really go into "for combat application".   Thats at least the generic baseline for most martial art patterns.
> ...



I was like you when I first started Taekwondo,  thinking how will this help in a real fight.
I started training in Taekwondo in 1973 and stop training in Martial Arts in 1985.
It was not until I train in other schools that I learn the value of my forms. My balance was better than the instructors and the precision of my punches and kicks were better than others in those schools.
Forms will only help you if they are done perfectly. Question, when you walk in a form do your feet move in circular movements?  Does your height stay the same as you move? Does your instructor watch you alone as you do your form and make you do the form perfect? Does he refuse to give a belt test unless the forms are done perfect?

After I stopped training I would do forms , when I needed to clear my mine and give myself a since of peace.
Please take forms seriously, What they do for you is not easily seen. The more perfect your forms the better Martial Artist you will become.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

Bruce7 said:


> I was like you when I first started Taekwondo,  thinking how will this help in a real fight.
> I started training in Taekwondo in 1973 and stop training in Martial Arts in 1985.
> It was not until I train in other schools that I learn the value of my forms. My balance was better than the instructors and the precision of my punches and kicks were better than others in those schools.
> Forms will only help you if they are done perfectly. Question, when you walk in a form do your feet move in circular movements?  Does your height stay the same as you move? Does your instructor watch you alone as you do your form and make you do the form perfect? Does he refuse to give a belt test unless the forms are done perfect?
> ...



My issue is that as you get to the more advanced forms, you start seeing techniques where the application isn't apparent, and in Taekwondo we don't usually do Bunkai.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 27, 2018)

If you are studying Japanese kata based systems, or systems heavily influenced by Japanese kata based systems like TKD, then it would be good to understand Shu-Ha-Ri. This is the method of transmission used for many Japanese arts, including the martial arts. Learning the kata is the first step, Shu. Diverting from the kata is the next step, Ha. Throwing away the kata is the third step, Ri. I have posted this link before, but it is a really good discussion on this method and how it works. Why are kata / forms studied in these martial arts? Because it is the first step in the Shu-Ha-Ri process.

Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai

Let me try a different way... Lets say you wanted to learn guitar as your very first musical instrument. You could go to a class that used this book to study from:
https://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-Gui...r=8-1-spons&keywords=how+to+play+guitar&psc=1

Or, you could take a class that studies from this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Hal-Leonard-...1543339707&sr=8-3&keywords=how+to+play+guitar

The first class will teach you to play these songs: Tom Dooley, Hes got the Whole World and Goin Down that Road. The second class will teach you these songs: Ode to Joy, Rockin Robin and Aura Lee. You will practice these songs, in these arrangements quite a bit in your class, until you can play them perfectly. Why do I have to play these? I want to play Stairway to Heaven or Unforgiven... or I want to play Jazz and improvise, or make my own arrangements... Why do I have to learn Tom Dooley or Aura Lee?

Learning these songs teaches you the basics. How to read the music, where the notes are on the guitar, how to play the notes on the guitar, proper fingering, proper timing... essentially all the basics to playing music. In all honesty, it doesn't matter whether you learn Aura Lee or Tom Dooley... you are learning the same basics, they only sound a bit different.

Yes, you can just go online and download the tablature for Stairway to Heaven, and practice picking it out. You will learn Stairway to Heaven much faster. But you will learn very little about music. And you will pick up a ton of bad habits that are very hard to break. (ask me how I know...) Getting from the self taught, tablature version of Stairway to Heaven, to improvising with a Jazz band or making your own arrangements is very hard to do. In fact, learning another song can be very hard as well. But, your Stairway to Heaven will still sound good. However, by learning the basics first and building... you may start slower, but you will soon start understanding and progressing much faster and much further.

In essence, the Shu-Ha-Ri method used by kata based systems is much like how we in the west, transmit musical ability. You learn to play these patterns, these notes, in these arrangements, exactly. In doing this, you learn all these other basics that are way more important than the song you are playing. Then you can start to tweak the songs you play, you can start to pick the arrangements you play and eventually you can do your own thing and play how and what you want. 

Yes, there are some people who can skip all that, and teach themselves. The rest of us would do better to follow the method. The problem we have is too many people trying to argue whether Aura Lee is better than Ode to Joy or vice versa. Then we have others trying to figure out exactly why Tom Dooley was chosen. Instead, maybe we should focus on what are the basics being taught by these songs... we might start understanding enough to get to the Ha or Ri stage. The rest of these arguments mean we are still squarely in the Shu stage, just copying.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

wab25 said:


> If you are studying Japanese kata based systems, or systems heavily influenced by Japanese kata based systems like TKD, then it would be good to understand Shu-Ha-Ri. This is the method of transmission used for many Japanese arts, including the martial arts. Learning the kata is the first step, Shu. Diverting from the kata is the next step, Ha. Throwing away the kata is the third step, Ri. I have posted this link before, but it is a really good discussion on this method and how it works. Why are kata / forms studied in these martial arts? Because it is the first step in the Shu-Ha-Ri process.
> 
> Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai
> 
> ...



What is the purpose of the kata at advanced belts, if the kata is designed to teach the basic concepts?  
What is the purpose of the more abstract motions that don't seem to have a definitive application?  It's hard to deviate if there isn't anything to deviate from.

I don't think this meets the criteria for that Japanese style of teaching, because I've not gone to a Taekwondo school that expands beyond the Shu step of the kata that you outlined above.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> What is the purpose of the kata at advanced belts, if the kata is designed to teach the basic concepts?


The first thing to understand is that "basic" does not mean "easy" or even "beginning." Think of "basic" as foundation or the basis of something. This is the core. It is basic, or the core of the thing, because everything else is built on top of it. Everything else is done, assuming you have the core or basis for the thing already.

This is a first lesson for guitar: FINGERSTYLE GUITAR LESSON 1 | GuitarNick.com It uses 2 strings, both played by the thumb, and very easy fingering. This is to teach beginners enough of a basis to learn and practice the beginning songs. This is where they learn to read the music, use their thumb, find the notes and hopefully some about timing.

This is a first lesson for finger style blues: THE 1st FINGERSTYLE BLUES Guitar Lesson: GuitarNick.com Again this is a basic lesson. However, if you have not done that first one (and quite a few more and a lot of practice to boot) This one will be very difficult. It uses most of the strings, plays them with most of the fingers, the fret work isn't so bad, but its the first step in separating the thumb of your picking hand from the fingers... they play in different rhythms, at the same time. It takes some time to get from the first lesson to the next one I posted. However, neither are songs. Neither are a thing you would want to play for someone, besides your teacher or practice. However, both teach you a basis for a different type of song. By practicing these basics and mastering these patterns first, it makes your transition into the songs you want to play much easier and actually opens the door so that you can play much more music. 

Again, they are both basics. However, there is an order to learn them and some are harder than others. Here is a basic lesson on Ghost notes: Ghost Notes guitar lesson 1: GuitarNick.com Nope, not a song at all. This one is just a collection of related techniques. However, without learning these, you will not be able to properly play this: Metallica, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS: Guitar Tab - GuitarNick.com which uses the techniques learned in the Ghost notes basic. (note you can play that song, without learning the Ghost note techniques, and even tweak it to sound good... it just won't be the same, and you won't be able to use Ghost notes in any song, until you take the time to learn them)

The first step, is learning the katas / forms abstract motions and all. Later, sometimes much later, you will find the reason for those abstract motions. Trust the master and trust the system. TKD has worked for lots of people, who eventually got it. I doubt anyone got it all at once though... it came a piece at a time. But adherence to the kata, and using careful divergence from the kata, at the right time will get you there faster.



skribs said:


> I don't think this meets the criteria for that Japanese style of teaching, because I've not gone to a Taekwondo school that expands beyond the Shu step of the kata that you outlined above.


Most Karate schools don't follow this style of teaching. They got the kata, and thought that was the end. A bunch of GIs went over to Japan and learned for a few years and came back, never fully understanding the Shu-Ha-Ri system they were being trained in. They weren't there long enough to even really learn the katas. They brought it back, and combined it with our western thinking... and many times missed the forest for the trees. 

To get an idea of how much things got changed around... look at the Shotokan Blocks. This is from Karate-Do Kyohan, written by Funakoshi, the founder of Shotokan Karate. http://www.jka-slovenija.si/varovana/Prirocniki/Karate - do kyohan-1.pdf


> Striking Block (Uchi-te). The striking block is used in both attack and defense.
> Attack vital points with the sword hand (shuto) or single-knuckle (ippon-ken)
> fist; *or, alternatively, strike with the sword hand (shuto) or wrist to knock an
> attacking fist or foot out of the way.* Once struck by a well-trained person who
> ...


Notice how the primary use of Uchi-te (upward block, down block, mid block, knife hand block...) in Shotokan Karate, according to its founder, is to strike a vital point. The alternate or secondary use is to knock a punch or kick away. Yet, when you go train Shotokan Karate here in the states, we are taught that the primary use of these techniques is to knock the opponents punch or kick away, and the vital point strikes are treated as an obscure, alternate use. This is directly opposite of what Funakoshi taught. To go further, when he discussed blocks in this text, the striking block is the very last one discussed. He first discusses pulling blocks, grabbing blocks, trapping blocks, pushing blocks... If you read his descriptions about the actual kata he says (step 12 in Bassai)


> 12. Always remember that when the hand is pulled back to the hip after blocking,
> as in this case, one must have the feeling of grasping the opponent and
> pulling him in.



He is saying that in all the kata, when the blocking hand returns to chamber, it should be pulling the opponent in. This is different to knocking the punch away from our face.

I bring this up to show how much got changed. How much got lost. Its not so important that what we now consider the primary use of a technique is something that the founder of the art considered an alternate, secondary use. Its more important that we lost the method of transmission. Well, we didn't actually lose it... we just need to learn about it. I don't know that TKD tried to follow this method intentionally or not. But, since they have the same techniques and very similar forms and so much other influence... it wouldn't hurt to approach it the same way. 

One key point here is that moving beyond the Shu (copying) step into Ha (diverging) step, is mostly on the student to do. Its for the student to explore, and seek input from the master. From Ha to Ri (throwing away) step, is entirely on the student. Note in the article I posted, this step does not mean that you stop doing the kata.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

wab25 said:


> The first thing to understand is that "basic" does not mean "easy" or even "beginning." Think of "basic" as foundation or the basis of something. This is the core. It is basic, or the core of the thing, because everything else is built on top of it. Everything else is done, assuming you have the core or basis for the thing already.
> 
> This is a first lesson for guitar: FINGERSTYLE GUITAR LESSON 1 | GuitarNick.com It uses 2 strings, both played by the thumb, and very easy fingering. This is to teach beginners enough of a basis to learn and practice the beginning songs. This is where they learn to read the music, use their thumb, find the notes and hopefully some about timing.
> 
> ...



That's all well and good.  But since we typically don't do all of that, that cannot be the purpose.  That is the purpose of the Karate kata, in those schools that follow that method of teaching.

What is the purpose of the forms in Taekwondo?


----------



## DaveB (Nov 27, 2018)

andyjeffries said:


> The primary reason for me is just an interesting way of practicing all of the techniques in their basic form. You then have to learn how to apply those techniques to real self-defence (Master Jeong In-Choul has done a lot of research on this and teaches it in his seminars).
> 
> It's not for me about mimicry, but accuracy. We need to be able to pass on the standard, international way of doing the movements to future generations. Then if they make their own changes in application of the individual movements, that's up to them, but they'll know the standard way to pass on too.
> 
> ...



I have to concur.

TKD patterns are just vehicles to practice techniques that have the added bonus of being mysterious enough for teachers to ascribe meaning and symbolism to them.


skribs said:


> My issue is that as you get to the more advanced forms, you start seeing techniques where the application isn't apparent, and in Taekwondo we don't usually do Bunkai.



Application was not a component of the martial arts training on which Taekwondo was based. It was specifically removed for various political reasons. Hence it is not present in Taekwondo patterns. 

The exception would be the modified Shotokan forms which I think you call the Palgwe. The trouble is that its highly likely that they were modified without applications in mind.

So from a combative perspective there is no point, outside of the coordination and balance mentioned by others. 

If you want to codify Taekwondo fighting you need to do it yourself,  or, swap to Ashihara Karate or Enshin Karate kata.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> What is the purpose of the kata at advanced belts, if the kata is designed to teach the basic concepts?
> What is the purpose of the more abstract motions that don't seem to have a definitive application?  It's hard to deviate if there isn't anything to deviate from.
> 
> I don't think this meets the criteria for that Japanese style of teaching, because I've not gone to a Taekwondo school that expands beyond the Shu step of the kata that you outlined above.


That presupposes that Taekwondo has a definitive and complete function for patterns as opposed to a vague idea of the benefits of forms as the basis for their inclusion.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Application was not a component of the martial arts training on which Taekwondo was based. It was specifically removed for various political reasons. Hence it is not present in Taekwondo patterns.
> 
> The exception would be the modified Shotokan forms which I think you call the Palgwe. The trouble is that its highly likely that they were modified without applications in mind.
> 
> ...



I'm not necessarily looking for the combative application.  But why do we do them, and what do we get out of them?


----------



## wab25 (Nov 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> That's all well and good. But since we typically don't do all of that, that cannot be the purpose.


Now I am confused. What part don't you do? Do you learn the forms? Do you practice the forms? Do you ever practice an application of one of the movements in the form?



skribs said:


> What is the purpose of the forms in Taekwondo?


I am not sure I understand why you keep asking this, thread after thread. People have given you many perfectly valid reasons for studying the forms, and you reject them all out of hand. Some of these people have been studying TKD longer than you and I both have been studying martial arts, a few have forgotten more than I will ever learn... but you don't accept any of the answers and ask the question again in a new way. What are you looking for? 

Maybe if you tell us what you think they are for, we can affirm it for you and you can move on?



skribs said:


> But why do we do them, and what do we get out of them?


Apparently, not much I guess.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Now I am confused. What part don't you do? Do you learn the forms? Do you practice the forms? Do you ever practice an application of one of the movements in the form?



We learn the forms.  We don't learn any application from the form.  Once you get past the basic forms, there isn't much connection between our forms and our practical training.  As far as the forms themselves go, we learn the movements and techniques, but that's it.  As @andyjeffries  said, we're going for accuracy in the form.  There isn't room to deviate, and there aren't applications drawn from it.  We never really get to a point where we question the form, experiment with the concepts in the form, or draw application from them.  We do the form...and then we move on to the next drill.

And from what I can tell, this is pretty consistent.  Because when I ask the question, people get confused.  When I look up the applications of the techniques, it's very hard to find discussion on it.  It seems I get a lot of best guesses and "we tried a bunch of things and this was closest to the result".  

The possibilities from this point are:


There is a practical application I am missing.
There is a training application I am missing.
The motions are chosen based on aesthetics more than any particular application
Some other reason I've missed
Some combination of the above
Now, don't get me wrong, several techniques have a very clear Motion -> Application.  Some are less clear, but once explained I can see how it works.  But there are lots of techniques as you get into the advanced forms which don't really seem to have a purpose, outside of potentially a scripted fight.  Augmented blocks, mountain blocks, double strikes, a lot of these things aren't something I can see being used outside of a movie.  So what is the purpose for these in a form?  



wab25 said:


> I am not sure I understand why you keep asking this, thread after thread. People have given you many perfectly valid reasons for studying the forms, and you reject them all out of hand. Some of these people have been studying TKD longer than you and I both have been studying martial arts, a few have forgotten more than I will ever learn... but you don't accept any of the answers and ask the question again in a new way. What are you looking for?
> 
> Maybe if you tell us what you think they are for, we can affirm it for you and you can move on?



I have engaged in good discussions with plenty of people in these threads.  Perhaps the problem isn't with my questions?

The problem I have is that, like I said above, I'm asking a question, and the answers I'm getting don't quite fit the question.  It's not about getting the answer I want, it's about getting the question I asked answered.

This is, in fact, a different question.  The previous questions have been regarding the practical uses of those techniques in a fight.  This is the purpose for training those techniques.

And, if I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking the question here, now would I?


----------



## wab25 (Nov 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> 1. There is a practical application I am missing.


Many people have shown many, many practical applications of the techniques within your form, if you go back and look at the past threads. There have been many videos showing many of the practical applications. But you dismissed all of them outright, because your master did not show you that.


skribs said:


> We learn the forms. We don't learn any application from the form.


So, apparently, there are no applications, since your master never showed you any. Or is he waiting for you to start finding them yourself... maybe move into the Ha stage?


skribs said:


> several techniques have a very clear Motion -> Application. Some are less clear, but once explained I can see how it works. But there are lots of techniques as you get into the advanced forms which don't really seem to have a purpose


Just as the less clear ones become clear, once you understand... the ones you don't get will eventually become less clear, and then clear... as you progress. 



skribs said:


> 2. There is a training application I am missing.


You have been shown many training applications in these threads. Balance, transition, power generation, flexibility, strength, combinations, flow, structure, accuracy, proper body movement.... And you dismiss all of those explanations, because your master didn't say it. Or could he be giving you the opportunity to discover some of these things yourself?



skribs said:


> 3. The motions are chosen based on aesthetics more than any particular application


Nope. At least in Shotokan, no. A few TKD people here seem to think that all the application was removed and watered down when they took it from Shotokan. I am not a TKD guy, so I don't know a lot about what was done with it. But, I had always thought that they kept the applications and that the slight differences to Shotokan were the influence of the older Korean arts. But what do I know...



skribs said:


> I have engaged in good discussions with plenty of people in these threads. Perhaps the problem isn't with my questions?


The problem is definitely not with your questions. The answers have been pretty good too. But, the answers have all been discarded out of hand because you don't do that at your school.



skribs said:


> And, if I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking the question here, now would I?


If you won't accept or entertain the answers you get, from people with many more years in martial arts and in TKD... why even ask the question? You asked before "what is this part of the knife hand block?" You then dismissed any answer that was not "It is a knife hand block, of a punch." But you knew that already. If you didn't want any other answer, why ask? There were many, many answers given, only to be dismissed, because you either don't do it that way in your school or your school has no time to do it, or because it was not a knife hand block.

If you really don't see any practical applications or training applications or any other applications or reasons for training the way you are, why are you doing it? Go take kickboxing. Why do you have this goal of being a master of something that you see no practical, training or other application for? 

My suggestion is to go back to those threads, re-read those answers. Work on them, try them out, experiment with them. Take the ideas your were given in this thread, apply them, look at your training differently. Martial arts is your own personal journey, that you have to take. Your master can't hand it to you... if he did, you wouldn't have 90% of it. Maybe your master doesn't say and do these things because he is allowing his students to explore and find them... that way the students get the most out of their training. (yes, that would be exactly like that Shu-Ha-Ri thing again... which you don't do)

Look, I know that you don't really appreciate my input. So, I will leave this thread alone now. I am sure I missed some reason why it doesn't work that way for you... But, my intention was always to just help out and share what few pieces I am working on myself. Ignoring my posts, there has been a lot of great knowledge shared in these threads, by people with a ton of experience and training. I have learned a bunch from reading their responses. The answers are there, they just might not be what you expected. Anyway, I hope you find what you are looking for.


----------



## Buka (Nov 27, 2018)

My guess would be they’re enjoyable to do.

I mean, you guys do enjoy them, ya?


----------



## paitingman (Nov 27, 2018)

When I asked my grandmaster told me that the application and bunkai from the way of fighting that was trained around the time of the unification was pretty much mostly forgotten or just not passed on by a lot of schools once tkd became the national sport and the sport of sparring became the direction. (contextually speaking about academies and sports clubs in the KTA/WTF circles in South Korea during the 70s and 80s).


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 27, 2018)

wab25 said:


> The first thing to understand is that "basic" does not mean "easy" or even "beginning." Think of "basic" as foundation or the basis of something. This is the core. It is basic, or the core of the thing, because everything else is built on top of it. Everything else is done, assuming you have the core or basis for the thing already.
> 
> This is a first lesson for guitar: FINGERSTYLE GUITAR LESSON 1 | GuitarNick.com It uses 2 strings, both played by the thumb, and very easy fingering. This is to teach beginners enough of a basis to learn and practice the beginning songs. This is where they learn to read the music, use their thumb, find the notes and hopefully some about timing.
> 
> ...



Great post.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> We learn the forms.  We don't learn any application from the form.  Once you get past the basic forms, there isn't much connection between our forms and our practical training.  As far as the forms themselves go, we learn the movements and techniques, but that's it.  As @andyjeffries  said, we're going for accuracy in the form.  There isn't room to deviate, and there aren't applications drawn from it.  We never really get to a point where we question the form, experiment with the concepts in the form, or draw application from them.  We do the form...and then we move on to the next drill.
> 
> And from what I can tell, this is pretty consistent.  Because when I ask the question, people get confused.  When I look up the applications of the techniques, it's very hard to find discussion on it.  It seems I get a lot of best guesses and "we tried a bunch of things and this was closest to the result".
> 
> ...


Dude, your questions have been answered many times by many different voices. You are just not hearing them for some reason. In answer to your numbered possibilities; number 2, definitely number 2. It would appear your point of view of TKD is very narrow. Maybe try working out at/with other people/schools/styles to get some perspective. That doesn't mean you are being disloyal as long as you do it the right way.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Nope. At least in Shotokan, no. A few TKD people here seem to think that all the application was removed and watered down when they took it from Shotokan. I am not a TKD guy, so I don't know a lot about what was done with it. But, I had always thought that they kept the applications and that the slight differences to Shotokan were the influence of the older Korean arts. But what do I know...



I think we've figured out the biggest part of the problem here.  I'm asking in this post about Taekwondo training methods, and not knowing Taekwondo, you can't answer this post.  You can't answer why Taekwondo does it this way or what applications Taekwondo gets out of it, because you have no experience here.  

That's not to say you don't know anything.  But I'm specifically looking at the reasons we do this in Taekwondo, and what the Taekwondo masters want us to learn from these.  If I were to ask you about Karate I'm sure it'd be different.



wab25 said:


> Many people have shown many, many practical applications of the techniques within your form, if you go back and look at the past threads. There have been many videos showing many of the practical applications. But you dismissed all of them outright, because your master did not show you that.



I didn't dismiss all of them.  I dismissed a lot of them.  And it's not because "my master did not show me that."  It's because the techniques as taught in the Kukkiwon forms (and from what I can tell, many Taekwondo or Karate forms) don't look like the techniques I saw.  And because in both Taekwondo and Karate videos I've seen, those techniques are named a certain way.

It's not about what my Master teaches, although it is.  It's about what I've seen in all of my research.  We have a movement.  We have several applications for similar movements, but not that particular movement or position.  And that movement and position is common across all the styles I looked at, but the application videos and discussion rarely fit that.

Any ideas that I rejected, I rejected not out of rejecting their experience.  I rejected because it didn't fit the motion.  I had good discussions with some people on how to fit an application to what is being taught.  I had bad discussions with people who wanted to discuss something different.



wab25 said:


> So, apparently, there are no applications, since your master never showed you any. Or is he waiting for you to start finding them yourself... maybe move into the Ha stage?



Again, this goes back to you not being a Taekwondo person.  There isn't room in the Taekwondo forms for interpretation.  I'm not saying you can't find application in them, but when you train the forms - you train them to be an exact replica of the way your Master does it.  Every detail is chosen, from where your toes point, exactly where each hand is, your timing, your breathing, everything is scripted in the form.



wab25 said:


> Just as the less clear ones become clear, once you understand... the ones you don't get will eventually become less clear, and then clear... as you progress.



Well, that's what I'm looking for!



wab25 said:


> You have been shown many training applications in these threads. Balance, transition, power generation, flexibility, strength, combinations, flow, structure, accuracy, proper body movement.... And you dismiss all of those explanations, because your master didn't say it. Or could he be giving you the opportunity to discover some of these things yourself?



So first off...I haven't dismissed these applications.  That you think I'm dismissing these is an error in judgment on your part.  I have not dismissed a single one of these.  In fact, in some cases, I'm saying I know these are training applications.  I haven't rejected them.  I understand them.  This is why I am saying "maybe the question isn't the problem."  You're getting upset with me for something I haven't even done.

What I'm asking is what is the reason the Taekwondo masters want us to do these.  Is it more aesthetics or training?  Is there something I'm missing or is there a technical application that I'm missing?



wab25 said:


> The problem is definitely not with your questions. The answers have been pretty good too. But, the answers have all been discarded out of hand because you don't do that at your school.



If you'll re-read my posts, you'll notice I've said it doesn't seem common in Taekwondo as a whole to take the form and find application in it.  But again, goes back to you not being a Taekwondo person.



wab25 said:


> If you won't accept or entertain the answers you get, from people with many more years in martial arts and in TKD... why even ask the question? You asked before "what is this part of the knife hand block?" You then dismissed any answer that was not "It is a knife hand block, of a punch." But you knew that already. If you didn't want any other answer, why ask? There were many, many answers given, only to be dismissed, because you either don't do it that way in your school or your school has no time to do it, or because it was not a knife hand block.
> 
> If you really don't see any practical applications or training applications or any other applications or reasons for training the way you are, why are you doing it? Go take kickboxing. Why do you have this goal of being a master of something that you see no practical, training or other application for?
> 
> ...



I did dismiss those answers.  You're right.  Not because I thought they were wrong, but because they were outside the scope of the question.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Dude, your questions have been answered many times by many different voices. You are just not hearing them for some reason. In answer to your numbered possibilities; number 2, definitely number 2. It would appear your point of view of TKD is very narrow. Maybe try working out at/with other people/schools/styles to get some perspective. That doesn't mean you are being disloyal as long as you do it the right way.



The first thing you need to understand me is that I almost always play Devil's Advocate, because it's the best way to draw out the best answers.  Me questioning someone's post doesn't mean I disagree with them or reject their idea.  I just want to fully understand the situation, and asking questions helps get more depth in those answers.

With that said, there are 7 voices in this thread other than my own.  Let's look at how those have gone:

The first voice talked about unification and standardization of the forms.  I asked how that applies when schools in the Kukkiwon are not required to do the Taegeuk forms, and you can do the forms your Master chooses.  

That's not to say the application he provided is wrong or that I "reject it".  It's just to dig a little deeper into that paradox.  Where yes, I agree accuracy in the form is important, but then why are we not all doing the same form?


The second voice talked about how forms give you a sense of balance, power and precision.  Which I understand how the basic forms help with that, but I'm iffy on how the advanced forms do that.

From this point, you can say "well here's how they do that" or you can say "well you reject this opinion so we might as well scold you."


The third voice was a discussion on Karate training methods.  Which, it is good information and I've read similar posts from @wab25 on other threads and agreed with it there.  But that's not the training model used at Taekwondo schools, so discussing that training model isn't relevant in this thread.

So yes, I reject this one.  But only because it doesn't address the question.


Then there's the fourth voice, which piggy-backed off the first voice.  He and I had a good discussion going.


The fifth and sixth voice I haven't even responded to yet.



The 7th voice is yours.  And you're complaining that I'm not listening to anyone.  Well, I've had a good discussion going with the 1st and 4th voice, I wanted to dig deeper with the 2nd voice.  And I haven't had a chance to respond to voices 5 & 6 yet.  The only one I've rejected is Voice 3.
And why do you think I'm asking here?  I can go to local schools and get ideas one at a time, or I can ask here and get advice from dozens of people.  This is a far more efficient way of gathering information.


----------



## skribs (Nov 27, 2018)

Buka said:


> My guess would be they’re enjoyable to do.
> 
> I mean, you guys do enjoy them, ya?



I do.  But I'm also getting to a point in Taekwondo where it feels we simply have more forms and patterns to learn.

Which is strange, because in our Hapkido class (taught by the same master) even at the orange belt level we're learning applications and modifications of the techniques we learn.



paitingman said:


> When I asked my grandmaster told me that the application and bunkai from the way of fighting that was trained around the time of the unification was pretty much mostly forgotten or just not passed on by a lot of schools once tkd became the national sport and the sport of sparring became the direction. (contextually speaking about academies and sports clubs in the KTA/WTF circles in South Korea during the 70s and 80s).



This is what it seems based on most of the discussions I've had.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> For the most part, though, people DO do their own thing.  The school I'm at teaches the Palgwes instead of the Taegeuks.  And the Palgwes we learn are not the same Palgwes you'll find anywhere else.  Our #1 form has minor differences (i.e. whether it's an inside or outside block, whether it's back stance or front stance).  And when I look it up on YouTube, it seems every school has minor differences, too.  By the time you get to Palgwe 7 or 8, ours are so much different from the others I find, there's maybe one move in the whole form that's similar.  (I do think our advanced forms are more difficult than the others, they're just different).


This makes your school an outlier. I'm in the same world as Andy Jeffries, and there's very much a standard for KKW TKD Poomsae. That is the 8 Taegeuk forms and the 9 KKW recognised Black Belt Poomsae Koryo to Ilyeo. Palgwae is no longer recognised as a set for testing purposes.

So yes, there are people out there doing their own thing, but they are not practising the KKW standard.

I think this factor contributes to your situation. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> My issue is that as you get to the more advanced forms, you start seeing techniques where the application isn't apparent, and in Taekwondo we don't usually do Bunkai.


For example?

There are some movements in Poomsae which are more suited to practical use than others. The KKW textbook makes that point explicitly.

That does not mean the less practically-suited motions do not have a purpose.

When looking for application, it's not about the way the movement looks, but the way it feels to perform. Most application of Taekwondo motions is smaller, faster, and more one-sided than the traditional stylised motion in the Poomsae. An applied motion can look completely different to the poomsae motion, but it feels similar to perform.

A good example is the 270 turn in Taegeuk 6 Jang. A high kick and a 270 turn to low block in Apkubi becomes a low leg sweep or kick and an arm drag takedown. Completely different in look but absolutely similar in feel. 







Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveB (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> We learn the forms.  We don't learn any application from the form.  Once you get past the basic forms, there isn't much connection between our forms and our practical training.  As far as the forms themselves go, we learn the movements and techniques, but that's it.  As @andyjeffries  said, we're going for accuracy in the form.  There isn't room to deviate, and there aren't applications drawn from it.  We never really get to a point where we question the form, experiment with the concepts in the form, or draw application from them.  We do the form...and then we move on to the next drill.
> 
> And from what I can tell, this is pretty consistent.  Because when I ask the question, people get confused.  When I look up the applications of the techniques, it's very hard to find discussion on it.  It seems I get a lot of best guesses and "we tried a bunch of things and this was closest to the result".
> 
> ...



TKD was invented as a way of reclaiming cultural identity that had barely survived being ground down by the Japanese. 

Forms are a common feature of martial arts so when TKD was formulated it had to have forms as well.

The benefits of forms as the early founders of TKD would have been taught, are:
A standard means of drilling and demonstrating techniques.
A grading standard that can differentiate ranks.
Balance and coordination enhancement. 
A means to instill discipline. 
Whatever spiritualism/mental attitudes  you want to teach can be bolted onto them.

That is why you do forms in TKD.

Higher grade forms exist to give masters something to teach.

Shotokan started this trend. It's why until recently high level Shotokan kata seminars were about increasingly fine performance details and almost nothing to do with applications. 

If this answer still misses the mark let me know.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 28, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Application was not a component of the martial arts training on which Taekwondo was based. It was specifically removed for various political reasons. Hence it is not present in Taekwondo patterns.
> 
> .



False,  General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

Gnarlie said:


> For example?
> 
> There are some movements in Poomsae which are more suited to practical use than others. The KKW textbook makes that point explicitly.
> 
> ...



There's tons of examples.  Some may be more limited to my school and the more obscure versions of the Palgwes that we do, but I've seen most of these techniques in other places:

Double knife-hand block (and it's derivatives)
Augmented outside block
Any double block (i.e. the scissor block in Taebaek, or from Keumgang: double outside block, double low block, diamond block, mountain block).
What do you mean by "more one-sided"?


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> False,  General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.



As in, he had bad applications?  Or he said "if you use this application, you're wrong."?


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

Gnarlie said:


> This makes your school an outlier. I'm in the same world as Andy Jeffries, and there's very much a standard for KKW TKD Poomsae. That is the 8 Taegeuk forms and the 9 KKW recognised Black Belt Poomsae Koryo to Ilyeo. Palgwae is no longer recognised as a set for testing purposes.
> 
> So yes, there are people out there doing their own thing, but they are not practising the KKW standard.
> 
> ...



Well, I have my KKW certificates, so I know that we can get our belts by learning the Palgwes instead.  The school I was at when I was a kid, I believe they did Kibons, Palgwes, Taegeuks, and then had their own mini-forms called Exercises.  So they did the Taegeuks, but did a lot of other stuff as well.

But...we were expected to do them the Master's way.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Well, I have my KKW certificates, so I know that we can get our belts by learning the Palgwes instead.  The school I was at when I was a kid, I believe they did Kibons, Palgwes, Taegeuks, and then had their own mini-forms called Exercises.  So they did the Taegeuks, but did a lot of other stuff as well.
> 
> But...we were expected to do them the Master's way.


I don't doubt your certification or ability; but the Palgwae set hasn't been a recognised grading set since the 70's and as such ia not used for that purpose in the majority of KKW registered Dojangs. There are some outliers.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> There's tons of examples.  Some may be more limited to my school and the more obscure versions of the Palgwes that we do, but I've seen most of these techniques in other places:
> 
> Double knife-hand block (and it's derivatives)
> Augmented outside block
> ...


I have plenty of practical applications that feel similar to those motions. They do not look the same, but they have a similar feel and knowing the basic motion from poomsae helps in understanding the applied motion. 

By one sided, I mean the hand pulled to the hip may not be present, and the focus is on the active hand. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

Gnarlie said:


> I have plenty of practical applications that feel similar to those motions. They do not look the same, but they have a similar feel and knowing the basic motion from poomsae helps in understanding the applied motion.
> 
> By one sided, I mean the hand pulled to the hip may not be present, and the focus is on the active hand.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Do you think that it is purely aesthetic, or is there a training purpose for the pulling hand?

EDIT to add:

I have 2 theories on this, I don't know how right they are.


The pulling hand is to help teach the proper body rotation to get power into the techniques.  This doesn't apply as much with a crossing motion like an outside block or down block, but it works for inside blocks and punches.
Focusing on the other hand forces you to think about that hand and not just leave it hanging.  This would actually kind of help explain a lot of the blocks I mentioned earlier that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.
Both of these go the mind-body connection aspect of training.


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Do you think that it is purely aesthetic, or is there a training purpose for the pulling hand?


Both. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

Gnarlie said:


> Both.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk



Can you elaborate on what that training purpose might be?

(Also note I edited my above post, probably while you were typing).


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> The first thing you need to understand me is that I almost always play Devil's Advocate, because it's the best way to draw out the best answers.  Me questioning someone's post doesn't mean I disagree with them or reject their idea.  I just want to fully understand the situation, and asking questions helps get more depth in those answers.
> 
> With that said, there are 7 voices in this thread other than my own.  Let's look at how those have gone:
> 
> ...



(First, as an aside, do you know of a website where I can learn how to reply to specific portions of a post the way a lot of people do? Its embarrassing to admit being in control & automation, but I just haven't taken the time to figure it out and I don't want to send a lot of spooged up post.)

Are you familiar with the phrase "paralysis by analysis"? You are frozen. You are trying to answer the question from a purely academic and theoretical approach. Terrible idea. You must get a real world perspective and do the work. Not until you understand that each move does have purpose and do a move until it is engrained muscle memory can you mentally move forward in your thinking and application. Until then it is just "Shu" and words on paper. Remember, Tae and Kwan come before the Do.

I do feel Kukkiwon is creating dis-unification and confusion with their "rules" on poomsae. As you said, they do not hold a hard line on the forms a school teaches, which is a good thing to me because I do not like the Taegueks very much. It adds to the whole confusion of what TKD is. Rant over.
The Taegueks are elemental, and are decent at building blocks. The same is true for the Kibon and Palgwe forms on through the Kukkiwon BB forms. 

I agree, it is frustrating that it is difficult to go online and get a group of opinions as to what an individual move in a Kukkiwon BB form is.  The (intentional?)lack of Shu Ha Ri in the Kukkiwon poomsae approach is confusing. It reeks of political dispute. Jumping over the Ha to totally leave the practitioner to figure out their own meaning is akin to Koreas way of advancing people to BB quickly then expecting them to advance into seasoned Martial Artists. 

So what is a form? If you must stay in the modern TKD vein, it is a necessary evil. A set of forms created to be able to say WT TKD is "traditional", if that means something to you. No one in Kukkiwon is concerned with creating a way to teach Ha because it is difficult to do with all the competing minds in Korean politics. The sport side is the intended end game of modern TKD, and will be its downfall if not changed.
If you are in a purely WT/Kukkiwon school that has zero other traditional influences, that is a very bad place to be. This is coming from a person who has been in the WTF for 34 years and made it to the Olympic Pregame Trials in 1988. So while I can say WT/Kukkiwon has been very good to me as a person, it is very apparent that organizationally they know there are huge holes that have never been filled and seem to be ok with that. 

The best example I can think of is a gymnast. They do some incredible moves whose names I do not know. Many of these moves are used purely to push the physical boundaries of a person. Some do them well other not so much. But they are there and available to the above average gymnast. Isn't that what a BB is supposed to be in the Martial Arts?

So what does a thinking mind do? Quit thinking purely academically. Get on the floor and do the move(s) you do not understand. Get with a partner and think. What attack is this used for? Some of the moves we do were created in a time when hand-to-hand combat was more prevalent and the double moves did make sense. They still can if you allow them and believe in the "what if" expression. Don't expect to be spoon fed if you are a BB of any rank. Don't try too hard to fast forward the process. If you just take everyone else's answer, how will you ever have your own?


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> (First, as an aside, do you know of a website where I can learn how to reply to specific portions of a post the way a lot of people do? Its embarrassing to admit being in control & automation, but I just haven't taken the time to figure it out and I don't want to send a lot of spooged up post.)



There's two ways.  The easy way is to highlight what you want to quote and click on the "+quote" button that appears.  Then highlight the next section and +quote that, and so on.

After you get all the things you want to talk about, you click "insert quotes".  All of the things you quoted will pop up and you confirm it, and voila!  This is what I usually do.

The other way is to type the code yourself.  Quote a whole piece.  Then after a section you want to talk about, type [./quote] (without the period).  Then put [.quote] (again, without the period) before the next section of the quote.  This is what I did this time.



> Are you familiar with the phrase "paralysis by analysis"? You are frozen. You are trying to answer the question from a purely academic and theoretical approach. Terrible idea. You must get a real world perspective and do the work. Not until you understand that each move does have purpose and do a move until it is engrained muscle memory can you mentally move forward in your thinking and application. Until then it is just "Shu" and words on paper. Remember, Tae and Kwan come before the Do.



Analysis Paralysis is usually something that occurs in the moment.  I'm not analyzing things like this when I spar.  I analyze things like this when I'm sitting at work waiting for patches to install, laying in bed trying to fall asleep, sitting in meetings trying NOT to fall asleep, driving, or when I'm practicing the forms at home.  

It's just like my approach to video games.  I do spreadsheets, read guides, and ask questions on forums.  But when I get into the game, I've already done my knowledge-seeking and I can play.  



> I do feel Kukkiwon is creating dis-unification and confusion with their "rules" on poomsae. As you said, they do not hold a hard line on the forms a school teaches, which is a good thing to me because I do not like the Taegueks very much. It adds to the whole confusion of what TKD is. Rant over.
> The Taegueks are elemental, and are decent at building blocks. The same is true for the Kibon and Palgwe forms on through the Kukkiwon BB forms.
> 
> I agree, it is frustrating that it is difficult to go online and get a group of opinions as to what an individual move in a Kukkiwon BB form is.  The (intentional?)lack of Shu Ha Ri in the Kukkiwon poomsae approach is confusing. It reeks of political dispute. Jumping over the Ha to totally leave the practitioner to figure out their own meaning is akin to Koreas way of advancing people to BB quickly then expecting them to advance into seasoned Martial Artists.
> ...



This is much the boat that I'm in right now.  I don't necessarily have a problem with the Taegeuks.  I think they're ok.  I just like our forms better, and so does my Master.  

I also wish our sparring wasn't completely focused on WT sparring (and lately we've been doing more freestyle light-contact sparring).  This is why I really like our Hapkido, because our sparring in that class is entirely practical, and we do get to focus heavily on the application of the techniques.



> So what does a thinking mind do? Quit thinking purely academically. Get on the floor and do the move(s) you do not understand. Get with a partner and think. What attack is this used for? Some of the moves we do were created in a time when hand-to-hand combat was more prevalent and the double moves did make sense. They still can if you allow them and believe in the "what if" expression. Don't expect to be spoon fed if you are a BB of any rank. Don't try too hard to fast forward the process. If you just take everyone else's answer, how will you ever have your own?



The problem with this approach is twofold:

Without some idea of where to start with some of these, there isn't really a way forward.  If the original Karate application for a "block" was a single-leg throw, for example, you would first have to get into a single-leg grab and then realize you could do that motion to do the throw.  How many iterations of techniques do you go through before you come to that conclusion?  Or is there a shortcut method to figuring these out?
This gets exacerbated by the fact that, as discussed, many of the motions in the form are stylized versions of the form, where the actual motion is smaller and quicker.  We have a red belt punch defense, which uses a double block similar to the mountain block in Keumgang (one inside block, one outside block).  But because they look different enough, the vast majority of our 2nd degree students don't really make that connection and they do a double outside block (because both hands end up in the same position, they assume both hands do the same block) and it takes several times correcting them before they get it.  And I'm not sure they connect the block in Keumgang to the block in our defense curriculum.
Now, maybe we're just not explaining it well.  Maybe it's a fault of the form being stylized that the motions feel different.  Maybe our curriculum feels too compartmentalized to try and connect them.  Maybe the forms feel so abstract that people don't bother looking for an application.  Or maybe because we don't teach people to find the application, we haven't learned to find it.

But I'm trying to find it.  And I'm trying to get pointed in that direction.  In order to do that, I need to know even what that direction is.  I'm trying to figure out what I should be looking for in the form, so that I'm not wasting my time chasing an application that doesn't exist, or going down the wrong rabbit trail.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 28, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> False,  General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.


Are there any examples available on the net?

My suspicion is that he learned and thus would show the Japanese psuedo applications that turned everything that wasn't a punch or obvious strike into a wired block. These were place holder explanations not actual combat methods.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 28, 2018)

Sorry... I couldn't help myself.... This will be the last one I promise.


skribs said:


> Without some idea of where to start with some of these, there isn't really a way forward. If the original Karate application for a "block" was a single-leg throw, for example, you would first have to get into a single-leg grab and then realize you could do that motion to do the throw. How many iterations of techniques do you go through before you come to that conclusion? Or is there a shortcut method to figuring these out?



First, what does your master say when you ask him? (I am kind of curious about the double knife hand block... what does your master say about that other hand?)

Second, do some research. 


Earl Weiss said:


> General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.


 Go read General Choi's texts. I have been studying Shotokan for only about 5 years now, I am a middle kyu rank (whatever the purple belt is), but I am already reading Funakoshi's writings. I am researching what he taught and why, and how his students taught and why. 

I keep bringing up Shotokan for a reason. It had a big influence on TKD. So researching what Shotokan did will help you understand the resulting influence on TKD. Also, go back a research the original Korean arts that Shotokan was blended with... get their take on things. Its a lot of book work here, but I find it useful.

Third, try some things. Experiment. If the move is a knife hand block to a punch... have you partner punch with the other hand. What changes to you have to make to block that punch? Have him throw hooks, and upper cuts and over hand punches... Figure out how to make that technique work for all those. Have him grab your wrist with one hand then the other. Will this move escape the grip? Can you make it lock up the other guy? Have him grab from the front, from the back.... Now move closer to the other guy and do the move...

You will find some things that work. Great! You will find other things that don't. When they don't work... look closer. Could you change your relationship to the other guy a bit to make it work? Is it a timing thing? In the end... you will be learning something more about the technique and more about you. I have found that just because I can not make it work, doesn't mean I was wrong... it usually means I am not doing something right. Many times, after progressing further, the application I couldn't make work, suddenly does. Sometimes it doesn't. But I have still learned a bunch about it, just by playing with it. I understand that you can't do this in your school because their is no time... You will have to find a way.

Fourth, talk to people, go to seminars... then experiment and try out the new ideas. (put me on ignore, go back to your older threads and try the stuff mentioned there... lots of good suggestions there... I did this, and learned a few things I would not have otherwise, from the suggestions made in your threads) Even if you don't see how it would work... try it out anyway. I have been surprised many times. Heck, train with people from other systems. (much of the Hapkido you are studying, is already in your TKD... the lunge punch is a hip throw...)

You keep telling Rat to go train. Same thing here. Go try this stuff, experiment with it, play with it. Take it out of the box. You may bring us back things we have not found yet.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> There's two ways.  The easy way is to highlight what you want to quote and click on the "+quote" button that appears.  Then highlight the next section and +quote that, and so on.
> 
> After you get all the things you want to talk about, you click "insert quotes".  All of the things you quoted will pop up and you confirm it, and voila!  This is what I usually do.
> 
> ...


The post taeguk poomsae I've seen is literally just jumbled up karate kata sequences with some small variations. In some cases the applications carry in others less so.

But since your hellbent on working with them the thing you need to do is find Iain Abernethy's website and look for his oldest podcasts and books etc.

His old stuff dealt with the process of deriving applications and he's the most comprehensive source for that kind of info (And the only one I remember by name).

Essentially you discern applications by understanding a few basic rules that took lots of people years to work out between old books and interviews with even older karateka. 

Once you have the rules applications will jump out at you and it's just for you to test them with ever increasing resistance and realism.

Once you've narrowed down the ones that work you figure out why they work and then you'll know everything you need to know to use them in a fight.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

DaveB said:


> The post taeguk poomsae I've seen is literally just jumbled up karate kata sequences with some small variations. In some cases the applications carry in others less so.
> 
> But since your hellbent on working with them the thing you need to do is find Iain Abernethy's website and look for his oldest podcasts and books etc.
> 
> ...



I'll take a look when I get home. 



wab25 said:


> Third, try some things. Experiment. If the move is a knife hand block to a punch... have you partner punch with the other hand. What changes to you have to make to block that punch? Have him throw hooks, and upper cuts and over hand punches... Figure out how to make that technique work for all those. Have him grab your wrist with one hand then the other. Will this move escape the grip? Can you make it lock up the other guy? Have him grab from the front, from the back.... Now move closer to the other guy and do the move...



So I should have them throw every technique we know at me and see what sticks?  What if the actual movement is different from the stylized movement?  Just based on these variables, that's a lot of iterations.  And that's assuming:

I do the techniques correctly
We think of every technique I might be countering
We know that in order for this technique to work, I have to grab a certain way or target a particular weak point on my opponent
Part of teaching is so that we can pass down information we've learned.  Take algebra for example.  Pythagoras (or someone before him) took the time to work out that A^2 + B^2 = C^2.  So we teach kids the Pythagorean Theorum, knowledge that has been passed down for eons, so they don't have to work it out.  What was a revolutionary discovery for him is intermediate math for us today.

We then turn around and teach the kids how to prove the theory correct.  But we're not expecting them to reinvent the wheel.  I think the same thing applies here.  There's a balance between relying on the wisdom of the people who came before you, and then being able to experiment on your own.  But there's also no need for me to reinvent what's already been invented.

EDIT TO ADD:  That's not to say I haven't found these applications.  But more often I've found them by accident, or I've found them when someone's attacked me in a certain way and I've found out what works.

There hasn't been a "let me try all of these motions from the forms" moment, and there hasn't been a "let me try this motion, and you attack me every different way and we'll see what works."  It's more been random luck that something that worked happened to resemble something from a form.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> There's a balance between relying on the wisdom of the people who came before you, and then being able to experiment on your own. But there's also no need for me to reinvent what's already been invented.


Then maybe rely on the wisdom of the people here, with much more martial arts experience than you have... and experiment with the examples they have given you in these threads. Do some research on the names given in this thread and see where they point you.


skribs said:


> Part of teaching is so that we can pass down information we've learned. Take algebra for example. Pythagoras (or someone before him) took the time to work out that A^2 + B^2 = C^2. So we teach kids the Pythagorean Theorum, knowledge that has been passed down for eons, so they don't have to work it out. What was a revolutionary discovery for him is intermediate math for us today.


There is a reason I gave a music example. Pick a song, go on youtube and see how many different arrangements and versions there are for it. They are all playing the same song, but none of them are wrong. You may like some better than others... But all those arrangements were made from the same song, using basics taught through different drills, that the artist did repeatedly. He then interpreted the situation (song) based on the forms (basics) that he practiced and or preferred. Some people block a punch to the inside, some to the outside, some parry it, some counter with a punch, some counter with a kick, some trap it... they are all right, they are all different. Some artists can play the same song in many different arrangements, depending on the situation. Sometimes they trap it, sometimes they block it to the outside...

You are a computer guy. So take the C++ code bases for Gran Turismo and Forza. If you were to look through the source code, these two games would look entirely different. Yet, they are both successful race car simulators. In fact, they both use Pythagorean's theorum quite a bit. In some places they may use it the same, in other places they may use it quite differently. They both use the same basics of physics and the same basics of coding and produce a successful outcome, even though they go about it in very different manners. The "Knife hand block" is not the theorum. The "knife hand block" is a mini game demonstrating the use of many theorums. The trick is to pick out the theorums, and see how those theorums are applied here... so that you can learn how to apply those theorums elsewhere, like in your game. You may find the same theorums in other mini games, used in other ways. Some people may focus on theorums in that mini game that you didn't. Other people may use those same theorums in ways you haven't thought of... other mini games may use those same theorums in different ways. It doesn't really matter how well you can play the mini game. What matters is how well you understand and can apply the theorums demonstrated in those mini games.

Many SDKs that you use in software development, come with sample applications that demonstrate the usage of different functions provided by that SDK. The DirectX SDK has a ton of graphics examples. However, those examples are not an exhaustive list of every way to use each function. Many times they are not even an optimum way to use the function. But they are great for introducing the programmer to the functions and features being provided, allowing the programmer to play with, test out and experiment with these features and functions in order to find out how best to use those in the application they are working on. You can also research and find out how other people used those same functions and features in different ways. You can use those if they fit with what you are doing, or you can further modify or use a similar idea somewhere else.

Do your research, keep an open mind, take it out of the box and play with it.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Then maybe rely on the wisdom of the people here, with much more martial arts experience than you have...



That's...why I'm asking these questions.  So I can get that wisdom.  And then when people share there wisdom, I try to dig deeper because I want more of their wisdom.



wab25 said:


> There is a reason I gave a music example. Pick a song, go on youtube and see how many different arrangements and versions there are for it. They are all playing the same song, but none of them are wrong. You may like some better than others... But all those arrangements were made from the same song, using basics taught through different drills, that the artist did repeatedly. He then interpreted the situation (song) based on the forms (basics) that he practiced and or preferred. Some people block a punch to the inside, some to the outside, some parry it, some counter with a punch, some counter with a kick, some trap it... they are all right, they are all different. Some artists can play the same song in many different arrangements, depending on the situation. Sometimes they trap it, sometimes they block it to the outside...



That's fine for the person doing the arranging.  The person doing the performance doesn't have that luxury in most cases.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 28, 2018)

Sorry. You are stuck. No one can help you here. The reason you are stuck is right here:


skribs said:


> That's fine for the person doing the arranging. The person doing the performance *doesn't have that luxury *in most cases.


I don't think there is anything I could disagree with more. Every person has that luxury.



skribs said:


> *That's...why I'm asking these questions.* So I can get that wisdom. And then when people share there wisdom, I try to dig deeper because I want more of their wisdom.


No it isn't. You ask these questions, you get the answers with the wisdom in it, then give the "*I don't have that luxury*, cause my master does it this way." Then you rephrase the question, and ask again.

In order for you to get unstuck, and move forward, you need to realize that *you do have that luxury*. Until you realize that, you are stuck. The holes you are trying to figure out will only get bigger, until you get unstuck.

Note, and this is important, *no one here has ever asked you to change how you do your forms*. In fact, we have encouraged you to do your forms, exactly as your master showed you. What we have asked you to do, is to play with how you apply the techniques found in your forms and play with what you can learn as you do the form. You may have to do this exploration outside of class.

But by hiding under the "I don't have that luxury" blanket, you will remain stuck. (it doesn't matter if the number on your black belt goes up, if you are still stuck with these questions... then you are still stuck) The only way out, is to throw away the "I can't because..." attitude and explore some things on your own. 

I had another analogy to share, I was going to give you examples of people arranging and playing their own versions of songs... but you will just come up with another list of excuses. There is no point. Until you set the excuses aside, you won't find the answers you are asking for.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Sorry. You are stuck. No one can help you here. The reason you are stuck is right here:
> I don't think there is anything I could disagree with more. Every person has that luxury.
> 
> No it isn't. You ask these questions, you get the answers with the wisdom in it, then give the "*I don't have that luxury*, cause my master does it this way." Then you rephrase the question, and ask again.
> ...





wab25 said:


> Sorry. You are stuck. No one can help you here. The reason you are stuck is right here:
> I don't think there is anything I could disagree with more. Every person has that luxury.
> 
> No it isn't. You ask these questions, you get the answers with the wisdom in it, then give the "*I don't have that luxury*, cause my master does it this way." Then you rephrase the question, and ask again.
> ...



The two things that are clear from your post are:


You don't train Taekwondo, but you assume that the classes are just like Karate.  They are different arts, with different teaching styles and philosophies.  You keep treating this like it is Karate.  If you want to get into a discussion on Karate vs. Taekwondo, that's fine.  But you're just assuming that our classes should be the same, and then telling me what I should be doing based on what you would do in Karate.  


You assume that because I reject your advice, that I reject all advice in this thread.  You say I keep hiding behind excuses.  No.  I just simply don't feel much of your advice applies, or that your advice is very helpful.  I've had good feedback from lots of people in this thread.  Which means the question has garnered answers.  Answers I'm looking for and want to explore further.  You're the only person in this thread I'm arguing with.  And yet, you continue to throw it back on me.  It can't be that your advice is bad.  It can't be that you don't understand my question.  The only possible conclusion in your mind is that you're giving me the wisdom of the sages, and that if I do not 100% agree with your advice, accept it all and internalize it all, that it's because I'm an idiot.

Well, guess what.  There have been several voices in this thread I've heard and agreed with.  Several voices that have offered opinions and ideas I've liked.  Several voices that I've wanted to hear more from.  So the problem is clearly not me giving excuses.  The problem is clearly not that I reject all advice and wisdom given to me.  The problem is that there are pieces of advice I don't understand, and I want to understand more.  There are pieces of advice I disagree with, and I do reject and ignore them.  

That's...actually part of that critical thinking you seem to think I lack.  The ability to pick out what works for me and what doesn't in my training?  The same applies to advice.  I've picked what advice works for me and what doesn't.  You're just upset because your advice falls into the later category.
Now, don't get me wrong.  I've seen lots of your posts, and I do think you know quite a bit.  We've discussed Shu-Ha-Ri before and I found it interesting.  In this thread, it is out of place.  I like the idea and wish that's the way we did our forms.  I wish we did Bunkai in Taekwondo.  (Or whatever the Korean word for that would be).  I wish there were more parallels in our training, but there are not.  Now, those exist in your system - cool!  Maybe some day I'll try Karate.  For now, I'm happy at my school, even though I wish the curriculum was different some times.

In fact, I've been tempted to put you on "ignore" several times in these threads.  But then, I've seen lots of your advice in other threads, and I've seen you do have a lot of wisdom to offer.  So while I may butt heads with you sometimes, I think of you as a valuable resource.  Valuable enough that even if we butt heads, I'd rather keep you around (so to speak).  If you've had it with me and just want to be done with me and my insane posts, you can put me on ignore.  Then you don't have to deal with it anymore.  But know that I do value your opinion, even if I reject some of them.

But instead of trying to look at a different way of doing the curriculum (because that is something I cannot change), I am looking to understand better the curriculum I am being taught.  And knowing what Karate does might be cool, but understanding elements of the Karate curriculum that are not present in Taekwondo doesn't really help me.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 28, 2018)

Alright... here is a peace offering. Since I don't know anything about TKD, I found this guy that does. There are 8 short videos that he has, showing and explaining some of the TKD form applications. The first one is just him talking about the background on the TKD forms.






Now, he starts talking about applications of some of the moves.





I suggest that you watch all 8, but I will only include one more... because I like arm bars.





I never suggested changing your curriculum. Just how you think about it, and what you can learn from your curriculum. Enjoy...


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> There's two ways.  The easy way is to highlight what you want to quote and click on the "+quote" button that appears.  Then highlight the next section and +quote that, and so on.
> 
> After you get all the things you want to talk about, you click "insert quotes".  All of the things you quoted will pop up and you confirm it, and voila!  This is what I usually do.
> 
> ...





skribs said:


> How many iterations of techniques do you go through before you come to that conclusion? Or is there a shortcut method to figuring these out?


Relevant to the specific form I am working on would identify the move I am working on. Otherwise it would get overwhelming. 


skribs said:


> This gets exacerbated by the fact that, as discussed, many of the motions in the form are stylized versions of the form, where the actual motion is smaller and quicker. We have a red belt punch defense, which uses a double block similar to the mountain block in Keumgang (one inside block, one outside block). But because they look different enough, the vast majority of our 2nd degree students don't really make that connection and they do a double outside block (because both hands end up in the same position, they assume both hands do the same block) and it takes several times correcting them before they get it. And I'm not sure they connect the block in Keumgang to the block in our defense curriculum.


This sounds like a teaching/repetition issue. The worst and most common thing for many people is to go through a curriculum too fast and not really learn it. That said, I do not feel we are expected to absorb everything as we go through the color belts. If so what would be the purpose of the Dan rankings?

I walked through Sipjin and Jitae because, for me, they are the hardest to understand. There are several very slow moves that do not seem to have much to do with balance. I am going to do some research and see what I can find out from the inter-web.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Alright... here is a peace offering. Since I don't know anything about TKD, I found this guy that does. There are 8 short videos that he has, showing and explaining some of the TKD form applications. The first one is just him talking about the background on the TKD forms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really?  Your "peace offering" is advice in the same vein that's caused us to butt heads already?

Once again, I'm going to reject this as an application of the technique in the form.  For example, one of his videos is on the application of the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang.:





Let's take  look:

The inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang is not part of a combination.  He is adding a LOT of motions to make it work as an "application" of Taegeuk Il Jang.  It reminds me of the meme about math:  what the teacher teaches is 1 + 1.  What's on the homework is 72 * 34.  What's on the test is Log(42X/Z^2) * e^pi = 11i.  That's not to say you can't apply the technique in that way or use it in that combination.  But in no way, shape, or form, does Taegeuk Il Jang teach that application.   So he's not finding an application on the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang.  He's expanding on how it can be used in different ways.

I've done things like this myself, mostly for expanding on or modifying the self defense drills that we practice.  But that comes from combining the techniques from those drills in different ways.  For example, in one of our white belt defenses, we have a chop to the neck.  In one of our green belt defenses, we have a position where you've grabbed the neck and do a throw.  So I've mixed and matched those, doing the white belt one with the throw, the green belt one with the next step of the white belt, and experimented with what I can do from there.  

But I did this with the knowledge of how they work from what I was taught.  You don't need Taegeuk Il Jang and then expect the class to figure out all that other stuff.  In fact, I'm pretty sure this guy didn't think that way, since he made a series of DVDs teaching the subject.

Why is this an important distinction?  Because if you're practicing a knife-hand block into an armbar, into a pull and an elbow strike, you should practice that!  Or at the very least, pieces of that combination should show up in other forms. 


Because he is using the motion of the inside block, he is creating an arm bar that is not very effective.  (This was my big criticism in the double-knife-hand block thread about calling the knife-hand block a strike, you're creating a less effective strike).  If he used a slightly different motion, that arm bar would have a lot better effect.  But because he's limiting himself to applying the motion of the inside block, he's limiting the effectiveness of the technique.

A much more effective arm bar will have a downward motion on the elbow, and an upward motion on the wrist.  He seems content with an inward motion on the elbow and downward motion on the wrist, which is why the uke has the leverage to easily disengage in the videos you linked.
Don't get me wrong.  I think it's good information (mostly) and I think it's a good exercise to do.  Like I said, I've done it for the techniques I understand.  I've seen other techniques and had "aha" moments as to how those apply.

Now, I could take any form and find some sort of meaning behind any motion by saying "it's kind of like this" and call it a day.  But I don't feel that would be intellectually honest with myself.  As I said in point #2, by using the motion that exists in the form, he has a weak armbar that's easily countered.  He even admitted as much.  He has to have several follow-up moves because it's easy for the person to counter it.

This is the reason I have such high standards for the Form -> Application questions I have.  Because I don't want "good enough" answers.  If I'm going to be okay with an answer that kind of hits the mark, then I might as well not even ask the question.  I might as well not even think too much into it, and just keep going.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Relevant to the specific form I am working on would identify the move I am working on. Otherwise it would get overwhelming.



Iterations, meaning how many times do you parse through?  For example, if I'm trying to find the application of a scissor block, how would I find that application outside of "just punch me every way you know and we'll see if it works.  Now kick me every way you know.  Now grab me every way you know.  Now do every combination of punches, kicks, and grabs you know, and we'll see what sticks."

I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.



dvcochran said:


> This sounds like a teaching/repetition issue. The worst and most common thing for many people is to go through a curriculum too fast and not really learn it. That said, I do not feel we are expected to absorb everything as we go through the color belts. If so what would be the purpose of the Dan rankings?
> 
> I walked through Sipjin and Jitae because, for me, they are the hardest to understand. There are several very slow moves that do not seem to have much to do with balance. I am going to do some research and see what I can find out from the inter-web.



How have you come to answers for things in the older forms?  I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Iterations, meaning how many times do you parse through?  For example, if I'm trying to find the application of a scissor block, how would I find that application outside of "just punch me every way you know and we'll see if it works.  Now kick me every way you know.  Now grab me every way you know.  Now do every combination of punches, kicks, and grabs you know, and we'll see what sticks."
> 
> I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.
> 
> ...





skribs said:


> How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.





skribs said:


> Iterations, meaning how many times do you parse through?  For example, if I'm trying to find the application of a scissor block, how would I find that application outside of "just punch me every way you know and we'll see if it works.  Now kick me every way you know.  Now grab me every way you know.  Now do every combination of punches, kicks, and grabs you know, and we'll see what sticks."
> 
> I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.
> 
> ...





skribs said:


> I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.


If a block will work for an attack to your middle, then would it not work for any kind of attack to your middle? I would start my approach in this way, globally. Then as I am exposed to more types of attacks I can reason whether a certain block would work for that attack. I shouldn't have to test the block against every kind of attack, at least as a beginner. Yes, as you go higher in rank and learning it can become a challenge. What I am trying to say, for example, is a high block is intended to protect my head, whatever is coming at it. 
That said, using the high block as an example, why do we use open hand high blocks? To allow the block to quickly be followed up with a grab. I agree it would really be helpful it most forms followed open hand techniques with their intended purpose. If that is always the case, I am not aware of it. 



skribs said:


> How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.


Keumgang is a wildcard to me. I truly think it is to test the patience of a new BB. With no kicks it is much more akin to an Okinawan form. All about balance and power. For me at least, it really test my concentration because it can lull me into thinking it is a really easy form. It is not. As far as practical application, it has a lot to do with developing your Ki and applying power. I can see application for the mountain blocks, however extreme the situation would have to be, but I can also see an offensive posture to the advancing, outside arm. The Keumgang block is tough to noodle out. Below is an excerpt from a jang do kwan blog I read. It has some different points of view but I feel is it pretty accurate. 

"In both the first part and the second part of this rant I have repeatedly stated that sometimes when the same "technique" or perhaps I should say "movement" appears several times in one form it could mean that the function is different despite the fact that the movement looks the same without an opponent. Remember that when it comes to Poomsae we only observe "form"; what the movements look like, we do not see "function" what the purpose of the movement is. Nothing strange about it since we do our Poomsae solo without an opponent. The "Keumgang Makki" appears 4 times in that Poomsae. The reason for this might be several. Maybe:

The number 4 is somehow "special" in buddhism? In Asia it is often considered an unlucky number like 13 is to us westernes so I dismiss this right now.
Keumgang Makki was considered a cool pose by the forms creator(s).
Keumgang Makki represents a difficult technique that the creators thought we should focus on so he/they included it 4 times in one form so we train it a lot.
Keumgang Makki is a versitale movement that can be used in a great many different ways. Therefore each Keumgang Makki is for different situations.
My view is that Keumgang Makki represents a concept that can be used both offensivly, and defensivly and that is why it is included so many times in this form. The essence remains the same however. If you look at the picture below you might just grasp the essence of "Keumgang Makki".



This illustration is from the Okinawan Bubishi. A text 100s of years old and we know that Funakoshi and Mabuni both had access to it and used it in their research and I do not think it is that far fetched that Toyama Kanken also had a copy since his teacher Itosu also had a copy. Funakoshi, Mabuni and Kanken are the Karate roots of Taekwondo, so to look at what they had of resources is very important to understand Taekwondo too.

Look closely at the hand positions. This is a movement frosen in time, but if it was completed the hand holding the leg would be lifted up and the other hand is already nearly in the Arae Makki (low block) position. The only thing that is different from our Keumgang Arae Makki as performed in Keumgang Poomsae is that we perform it in Hakdari Seogi/One legged stance. What if the person on the left on the illustration above were to move his closest leg to his oponent toward his own knee as a sweep to help facilitate the takedown/throw he is doing? Then if we freze the motion at its completion we would be standing in a picture perfect Keumgang Arae Makki! Just like in the form... Look below:




Do you see it? The "high section block" is lifting one of the opponents legs while the other is pushing the oponents upper body out of balance and his foot has been used to sweep up the leg the opponent was standing on.

This is the "essence" of the movement and can be used as a takedown (you should use a strike or two to soften up the opponent first), or as a defense against all kicks toward groin height or higher. I jokingly call Keumgang Poomsae as the "Anti-Taekwondo form" because the signature move is so well designed to put any "modern" or "mainstream" Taekwondo student on the floor. You move inside or outside depending on  his kick and do the take down. You can of course do small changes to the application to make it more brutal. For instance the lower block motion can be used as a hair grab or ear grab (rest of the application stays the same), or you can use the lower block motion to first do an elbow strike to the face before pushing the upper body out of balance (rest of the application stays the same).

Is this an unlikely use of Keumgang Arae Makki? I do not think so. It is taught in Traditional Taekwondo Union as part of our Self defense techniques against kicks (it is not linked back to the pattern but I made the connection so I am sure others do too), it was written in the Textbook of our teachers teachers (Except Moo Duk Kwan all Kwan founders had extensive training with one or more of the following: Toyama Kanken, Funakoshi, and Mabuni.). And simular techniques were illustrated in Choi Hong Hi`s 1965 publication "Taekwondo" as well.

What I see as an unlikely application to Keumgang Makki is this: Defense against two opponents at once: One striking toward your face, another kicking low at your side. The lifted leg in the one legged stance? Just so you are ready to kick, or to avoyd a foot sweep. I do not see any reason as to why you block low with your arm if the kick is so low that you have to lift your leg up though.. This is the mainstream application belonging to the kick, block punch hard style Taekwondo. 

While the kick block punch applications have its good sides (especially in the beginning of students study) it becomes rather absurd the more you study and get promoted to higher levels. The Taegeuk Poomsae series do for the most part fit in with old hard style, kick block punch applications but even they have their absurd moments, especially when you get closer to black belt.."
Let me know what you think.


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> If a block will work for an attack to your middle, then would it not work for any kind of attack to your middle? I would start my approach in this way, globally. Then as I am exposed to more types of attacks I can reason whether a certain block would work for that attack. I shouldn't have to test the block against every kind of attack, at least as a beginner. Yes, as you go higher in rank and learning it can become a challenge. What I am trying to say, for example, is a high block is intended to protect my head, whatever is coming at it.
> That said, using the high block as an example, why do we use open hand high blocks? To allow the block to quickly be followed up with a grab. I agree it would really be helpful it most forms followed open hand techniques with their intended purpose. If that is always the case, I am not aware of it.



The problem is then finding a situation where I would choose to go for a scissor block over going for a down block or outside block.  If just one hand works, why is two better?  In order for me to make sense of the technique, I would need to find situations in which the single block is not sufficient.  Then try the scissor block there.

Regarding Keumgang...at my school we call the other block "Keumgangmaki" (the one with an inside block and outside block, where each of your arms makes an L).  I also think if the person in the first picture continues to the point you see in the second picture, he's going to kick himself in the face with his opponent's foot 

I'm wondering if the purpose for these double-hand techniques is to force us to work on both hands together, and to force our posture.  For example, in our version of Palgwe #8, there are double outside blocks similar to the ones in Keumgang (the one just before the double low block), only we do those in front stance.  If your shoulders are square, then the blocks will be symmetrical, but if your shoulders are not square, the blocks will be uneven.  So it might be a way of forcing the right posture in order for the form to look right.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> The two things that are clear from your post are:
> 
> 
> You don't train Taekwondo, but you assume that the classes are just like Karate.  They are different arts, with different teaching styles and philosophies.  You keep treating this like it is Karate.  If you want to get into a discussion on Karate vs. Taekwondo, that's fine.  But you're just assuming that our classes should be the same, and then telling me what I should be doing based on what you would do in Karate.
> ...


I'm confused.

You are asking questions about things not taught in your curriculum in TKD, but you only intend to do what is taught in your tkd curriculum?

Neither your questions nor your reasoning behind what you take on/ignore are very clear.

Bunkai was not commonly taught in karare either. It still isn't in many places. But the one truth of all arts with forms is that they are for personal study. People have worked hard and researched a lot to gain an understanding of forms and how to decode them. I can't understand why you feel unable to do what wab25 is describing?


----------



## DaveB (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Really?  Your "peace offering" is advice in the same vein that's caused us to butt heads already?
> 
> Once again, I'm going to reject this as an application of the technique in the form.  For example, one of his videos is on the application of the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang.:
> 
> ...



There're two problems with your reasoning: 

you didn't invent the forms.
Taeguk forms were not designed with tried and tested fighting applications in mind.
You're ideas about what is or is not intellectually honest have no bearing on how applications were encoded into forms.
For example your ideas about the knife hand block/strike applications we're logical, but wrong. 

And because you got stuck on what you thought about effective techniques you didn't consider that there may be other factors to the technique or its proper usage that mitigate whatever downsides you saw.

As long as you insist on such a limited way of viewing techniques your explorations will be stunted and fruitless. 

But all this is moot because there are no sensible applications for most TKD forms as they were made for political and not practical reasons. Again not really clear about your objectives and limitations.


----------



## andyjeffries (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> With that said, there are 7 voices in this thread other than my own.  Let's look at how those have gone:
> 
> 1. The first voice talked about unification and standardization of the forms.  I asked how that applies when schools in the Kukkiwon are not required to do the Taegeuk forms, and you can do the forms your Master chooses. That's not to say the application he provided is wrong or that I "reject it". It's just to dig a little deeper into that paradox. Where yes, I agree accuracy in the form is important, but then why are we not all doing the same form?



Sorry, I didn't reply to your post. It seemed more of an informative "we do this in my school" rather than a question.

Just to be clear for recommending people to Kukkiwon rank instructors ARE required to follow Kukkiwon syllabus, including Taegeuk poomsae. This is talked about on both the Kukkiwon Master Instructor Course and the Kukkiwon Poom/Dan Examiner Course (and it's in the Kukkiwon promotion rules and regulations).

The Kukkiwon doesn't restrict what other content you ADD to the grading (e.g. if you want to add Palgwae forms or weapons, you can) as long as you do at least their minimum and the Kukkiwon simply doesn't care about coloured belt gradings, they only get interested at 1st Dan/Poom level.

So your dojang choosing to do Palgwae forms is up to them, the Kukkiwon doesn't teach them on their official course, don't require them for black belt promotions, considers them to be completely deprecated and outdated - but your dojang also shouldn't apply for students' Kukkiwon rank unless they know and perform the correct forms as a minimum.

However, this does open up another can of worms - what is to physically stop an instructor from making students do just a 5 mile run, 100 push ups and then putting in for their first dan (i.e. completely ignoring the syllabus)? Nothing! This is an area where the Kukkiwon doesn't really enforce it's requirements very well at all and a lot of people would like that to change.

I would propose; I think it would be reasonable with modern smart phones to say that a condition of being a Kukkiwon recommender is that you need to video every test and keep the videos for say 1 year. If during that time someone makes a complaint, you must send it to Kukkiwon or the rank will be revoked along with your recommender privileges. Maybe they could also then ask for say up to five videos from each recommender per year, as a spot test. I don't know whether my opinion would be popular, but I'd be happy if they did that.

On the examiner course though, one instructor did ask (in a way asking about us who are independent from the WT MNA) how should he handle it if he thinks someone else has a lower standard for their gradings than they do; the Kukkiwon's answer was "you worry about what happens in your own house, let them worry about theirs".


----------



## andyjeffries (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Regarding Keumgang...at my school we call the other block "Keumgangmaki" (the one with an inside block and outside block, where each of your arms makes an L)



This is incorrect. The block you are describing is called Santeulmagki. Keumgangmagki is the simultaneous rising block and side low block.

*Santeulmagki*
산틀막기 - Google Search

*Keumgangmagki*
금강막기 - Google Search


----------



## andyjeffries (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> I wish we did Bunkai in Taekwondo.  (Or whatever the Korean word for that would be).



Bunhae/boonhae (depending on how you want to romanise it) - 분해


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> As in, he had bad applications?  Or he said "if you use this application, you're wrong."?



His bad application examples would be explained in several ways Examples are. A. If you do it this way you are exposed for a counterattack. B. If you do this the reach of the technique is inadequate. C. If you do this your balance will be bad.   That type of thing.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 29, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Are there any examples available on the net?
> 
> .



His 15 Volume Encyclopedia is available on the net.   8 of those volumes contain the 24 patterns. Almost every move is illustrated with Examples of application.   However people mistakenly assume that the examples were meant to be all encompassing or exclusive.   Further the Fundamental techniques are in 2 volumes and he also states a purpose of the techniques. One of the "training secrets" (Note: "secret" in this context being a term of art) is to understand the purpose of the technique. In his course he felt this was the most important. aspect.   In his course he also covered the idea of alternate applications. I will not relate how that took place at this time. Suffice it to say the bottom line was if the application wored he considered it a good application irrespective of whether it was one stated in the book.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Your "peace offering" is advice in the same vein that's caused us to butt heads already?


My peace offering was to find a TKD instructor presenting his views on the forms and their purpose, and some applications he has found in them, from a TKD perspective. 


skribs said:


> You don't train Taekwondo, but you assume that the classes are just like Karate. They are different arts, with different teaching styles and philosophies. You keep treating this like it is Karate. If you want to get into a discussion on Karate vs. Taekwondo, that's fine. But you're just assuming that our classes should be the same, and then telling me what I should be doing based on what you would do in Karate.


So, now I got interested and did some research. I looked into Lee Won Kuk and Choi Hong Hi. I understand these men had something to do with the development of TKD, especially since Choi is considered the father of TKD.

Shuri-Te - arenakarate
Lee Won Kuk trained under Funakoshi, learning his Shotokan, earning a black belt from him. (he also trained Goju-ryu Karate under its founder Sensei Hunagoshi ) So, it would seem that Lee was familiar with the Japanese system of transmission, as well as Funakoshi's applications from the kata. He learned them directly from Funakoshi.

Choi also trained under Funakoshi, earning his nidan from him. Choi then began teaching Shotokan Karate. Again, we can infer that he knew and understood Funakoshi's application of the kata... as he learned from Funakoshi directly. He would also be familiar with the Japanese method of transmission being used. Choi then began teaching Shotokan Karate.

Taekwon-Do Founder - General Choi Hong Hi

So it would seem that looking to Funakoshi and Shotokan to try to understand TKD is not so out of line. Kind of like going to your master's master. Many of the masters that created TKD, were direct students of Funakoshi, earning black belt ranks from him. They took those teachings to Korea, originally keeping them pretty intact. My understanding is that the original TKD forms were the Shotokan kata, with Korean names. Passai from TKD was Bassai from Shotokan, for example. Then for reasons outside the scope of this thread, they took the building blocks apart and rearranged them. However, it is important to remember, that the men doing the rearranging, understood how the katas were intended to be used, and they understood Funakoshi's view of the applications of those movements. Could they have changed things and added to what they learned? Absolutely. Understanding the building block should be useful to understanding the final product.

I will be honest... I look at TKD to help understand Shotokan. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see just how related the 2 arts are.



skribs said:


> Because he is using the motion of the inside block, he is creating an arm bar that is not very effective. (This was my big criticism in the double-knife-hand block thread about calling the knife-hand block a strike, you're creating a less effective strike). If he used a slightly different motion, that arm bar would have a lot better effect. But because he's limiting himself to applying the motion of the inside block, he's limiting the effectiveness of the technique.
> 
> A much more effective arm bar will have a downward motion on the elbow, and an upward motion on the wrist. He seems content with an inward motion on the elbow and downward motion on the wrist, which is why the uke has the leverage to easily disengage in the videos you linked.


Ok... So fix it. Use what you saw there as a starting point, then make the fixes you, just found. Maybe, you can do it using the same block he did, or maybe you find a better block or other movement to use in its place. If so, change it. Now when you do your forms, and come to that movement, you can visualize the arm bar or the block. 

You keep talking about the huge number of combinations to brute force try everything. Why not start with the text referenced above, written by Mr Choi, where he details the applications? (if anyone has a link, I will be looking for that text very soon) After that, why not look to the applications that Mr Choi's master had, Mr Funakoshi? Look at their applications, make the same analysis as you did to those videos I posted, and make the corrections and changes needed to make it work for you.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 29, 2018)

wab25 said:


> So, now I got interested and did some research. I looked into Lee Won Kuk and Choi Hong Hi. I understand these men had something to do with the development of TKD, especially since Choi is considered the father of TKD.



Nope. Wrong. The General is considered the father of ITF Taekwon-Do. As the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF this is understandable. 
But he is not, nor should he be, considered the father of TKD. In the eyes of the Moo Duk Kwan, for example, the father of our art would be GM HWANG, Kee, as he is the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan.
Both of the above statements are also wrong, however, since the truth is that no one man fathered either TKD system. They founded the schools, yes, but the systems were developed by a group of people working together.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 29, 2018)

Skribs, speaking as a non-TKD fellow myself, but as someone who practices a traditional Chinese method that has a heavy emphasis on forms, I wonder if your expectations of what is intended to be learned from the forms is erroneous.

From my experience, there are no Answers with a capital A in the forms.  Rather, there are answers with a small a, as well as suggestions and options.  What you find in the forms helps to broaden your perspective on what is possible.  However, you need to develop your own ability to use it in a way that is effective and meaningful for you.  That may well differ from what others come up with.  This is the effort and time you ought to be putting in, away from your school.  Working privately with classmates to develop these skills is very useful.  That is where you dig through and try everything to see what works for you.  And I agree with Wab25 in that you do have the luxury to do that.  That is what training is all about, if you want to be able to really use what you have learned.  In fact, it is your responsibility to do this.  We all must take responsibility for our own training.  Our teachers guide us toward the answers, they do their best to help us understand the principles and the strategies and proper technique, but often cannot simply give us the functional answers on a silver platter.  It just does not work that way because we all will have our own ways of applying what we have learned.

But the bottom line is, there is a lot of ambiguity in forms but they are still a useful tool for extracting functional ideas.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 29, 2018)

Well... now that I am interested...


Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. Wrong. The General is considered the father of ITF Taekwon-Do. As the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF this is understandable.
> But he is not, nor should he be, considered the father of TKD. In the eyes of the Moo Duk Kwan, for example, the father of our art would be GM HWANG, Kee, as he is the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan.
> Both of the above statements are also wrong, however, since the truth is that no one man fathered either TKD system. They founded the schools, yes, but the systems were developed by a group of people working together.


So, this was the first research I have done into history of TKD. I started with Choi, as he was mentioned here as an authority. The many articles I found on him, refer to him as the father of TKD, but also talk about how he gathered together others, and how they worked together. (I understand that these articles were most  likely written by Choi proponents...)

If I understand what you are saying, Choi is the father of ITF TKD. Hwang Kee would be another in that group that created TKD? From my reading Lee Won Kuk was also involved... am I understanding correctly? Who all was in that group of people working together?

There was a third guy I came across (but lost that particular link) who helped in the development of TKD, who also trained under Funakoshi. Would that have been Hwang Kee?

As long as I am learning this stuff... I might as well get it right.


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2018)

DaveB said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> You are asking questions about things not taught in your curriculum in TKD, but you only intend to do what is taught in your tkd curriculum?
> 
> ...



I want to know why it's in the TKD curriculum and what the people who put that into the curriculum want us to get out of it.  It has nothing to do with whether or not I can do what wab25 is suggesting.  It's just that it doesn't help me answer my questions.



DaveB said:


> There're two problems with your reasoning:
> 
> you didn't invent the forms.
> Taeguk forms were not designed with tried and tested fighting applications in mind.
> ...



You say I'm wrong, but I have yet to see proof that I'm wrong.  Just because you disagree with me, doesn't make me wrong.

Maybe lumping them together makes it easier for you to train, because you only train one motion instead of two separate ones.  So what you're doing is purposefully reducing the effect of one technique in order to make it easier on yourself.  Alternatively, maybe you train both motions but say they're the both motion.  In that case, you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself, or you're creating an artificial group where one doesn't exist.

Regarding the video, you're right.  I didn't invent the Taegeuks.  But if you look at the "application" of what is taught in the Taegeuks, you have to look at what is taught in the Taegeuks.  If the application has several concepts that are NOT present in the form, then that application cannot have come from the form.  They would have to come from somewhere else in the curriculum or instruction.  But to show the "application" of what you've learned in the Taegeuk and have it only contain 10% moves from Taegeuks...I'm thinking of a Welch's Grape Juice commercial now.



wab25 said:


> So it would seem that looking to Funakoshi and Shotokan to try to understand TKD is not so out of line. Kind of like going to your master's master. Many of the masters that created TKD, were direct students of Funakoshi, earning black belt ranks from him. They took those teachings to Korea, originally keeping them pretty intact. My understanding is that the original TKD forms were the Shotokan kata, with Korean names. Passai from TKD was Bassai from Shotokan, for example. Then for reasons outside the scope of this thread, they took the building blocks apart and rearranged them. However, it is important to remember, that the men doing the rearranging, understood how the katas were intended to be used, and they understood Funakoshi's view of the applications of those movements. Could they have changed things and added to what they learned? Absolutely. Understanding the building block should be useful to understanding the final product.



Your assumption of what happened when the forms were rearranged is not congruent with most of what I've read.  It doesn't even match the description in the videos you posted.  In those videos, he says the martial application was removed or dumbed down to make it acceptable to teach to kids.  

Most of what I've read has said the building blocks were rearranged in large part to make it different from the original, and that in many cases the application was lost by doing so.

Since those forms were rearranged, looking at the purpose of the forms before the rearrangement is an okay thought process, but what the rearrangers thought the purpose was is now the proximal question.  And the newest forms were further removed from that original curriculum.

If we're going to go back several generations of forms, we might as well just ignore Karate and go back to the Kung Fu forms.  We'll get just about as good an answer out of those than we will out of the Kata that are a few arrangements behind the Poomse.  



wab25 said:


> Ok... So fix it. Use what you saw there as a starting point, then make the fixes you, just found. Maybe, you can do it using the same block he did, or maybe you find a better block or other movement to use in its place. If so, change it. Now when you do your forms, and come to that movement, you can visualize the arm bar or the block.



Everything I do would be different if I were doing an arm bar.  With the exception of maybe 3 of my joints.  It is two completely different motions, even if they look similar.  Everything from how I control my balance, how I shift my weight, the motion of my shoulders and head, the motions in my arms, the way my hips are aligned.  Every thing that goes into making a good arm bar would make my block have a slower follow-up, and everything that goes into making my block effective would mean a weak armbar.

I don't have to "fix" the armbar in Taegeuk Il Jang, because it's not an arm bar.  I could change the form.  I could expand on the form and transition from the block to an armbar.

And if I have to "fix" the form, then that just shows further there's something wrong with the form.



Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. Wrong. The General is considered the father of ITF Taekwon-Do. As the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF this is understandable.
> But he is not, nor should he be, considered the father of TKD. In the eyes of the Moo Duk Kwan, for example, the father of our art would be GM HWANG, Kee, as he is the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan.
> Both of the above statements are also wrong, however, since the truth is that no one man fathered either TKD system. They founded the schools, yes, but the systems were developed by a group of people working together.



And then there's KKW/WTF, which purposefully changed things specifically to make them not ITF, after the political fallout between the South Korean government and the General.



andyjeffries said:


> Sorry, I didn't reply to your post. It seemed more of an informative "we do this in my school" rather than a question.
> 
> Just to be clear for recommending people to Kukkiwon rank instructors ARE required to follow Kukkiwon syllabus, including Taegeuk poomsae. This is talked about on both the Kukkiwon Master Instructor Course and the Kukkiwon Poom/Dan Examiner Course (and it's in the Kukkiwon promotion rules and regulations).
> 
> ...



Well, I have a problem with saying teaching Palgwes instead of Taegeuks is a "lower standard."  We have a similar amount of forms, with similar difficulty to the Taegeuks, and we have a lot on the curriculum that are not on the Taegeuks.

And since it's not enforced, then it feels more like the Pirate's Code, according to Barbosa:  it's not really rules, per se...more like a set of guidelines.


----------



## Balrog (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Lately, I've been trying to find the meaning of a lot of the various techniques in the Taekwondo forms.  I think some of those threads are still here.  But I thought I'd take a step back and try to look at the forms themselves.  Whether it's Taegeuks, Palgwes, the KKW black belt forms, or (from what I can tell) the ITF or ATA Taekwondo forms, they all seem to have a very similar style.
> 
> You can correct me if I'm wrong about ATA or ITF, as I haven't trained those, but from what I can tell, all of these feature precise stances and movements, with little room for improvisation.  Mimicry is key, as you must mimic the form to have the proper stance and technique.  The forms are slow-paced, with a pause between each movement to show your balance and control with the move.  But, for the most part, each move is an explosion of speed and power.


Reasonably accurate, except that ATA's forms are far more complex than any of the other styles.  They were designed that way to challenge the students more at every level.


> Now, I can't speak for the ITF or ATA patterns here, but I know with the Palgwe or Taegeuk forms, they increase in complexity as you go higher in belt.  In a lot of cases, what you end up learning are motions that don't really make sense in the context they're described, or don't have an apparent practical motion.  I've gone over my thoughts on the double-knife-hand block and asked questions about augmented blocks in other threads.  The crane stance diamond low-block in Keumgang is another.


The forms in ATA (Songahm Taekwondo) are based on self-defense.  Yeah, we have one-legged stuff and tension moves, but those are thrown in to help improve balance and timing.
Otherwise, every technique has a practical application of some sort.


> It's been brought up in threads in the general section that forms can have various purposes.  In some cases, it can be to teach the techniques and concepts, but in other cases it can be for conditioning or for aesthetics.  Another thing that gets mentioned in a lot of these threads is the mind-body connection (particularly with regard to some of the flashier Kung Fu form styles).  Some people have expressed that the forms should teach general movements that can be applied in different ways when you move onto the next step of sparring or partner drills.
> 
> So with all this in mind, I ask...what is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?  Is it...
> 
> ...


The answer is yes.  

Seriously, forms should challenge the mind and the body.  I teach forms with the basic concept that every move (except the tension moves) should earn you the right to do the next move.  If your block is weak, your opponent just hit you.  You don't get to do the next move.  If your punch or your kick is weak, you don't get to do the next move because your opponent is still standing.  By emphasizing this, I get the students thinking about combinations, timing, focus, balance, power, etc., as a means to an end:  self-defense.


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Well... now that I am interested...
> 
> So, this was the first research I have done into history of TKD. I started with Choi, as he was mentioned here as an authority. The many articles I found on him, refer to him as the father of TKD, but also talk about how he gathered together others, and how they worked together. (I understand that these articles were most  likely written by Choi proponents...)
> 
> ...



Keep in mind, I'm very bad at history.  But from what I understand, it went something like this (and people can fill in the blanks and correct me where needed):


During WW2, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, Koreans were not allowed to practice Korean martial arts, as part of an effort to replace Korean culture with Japanese culture.  They did learn Japanese martial arts.
After WW2, the Koreans created several different martial arts schools based on what they had learned from the Japanese.  These were called Kwans.
The original 9 Kwans unified.  General Choi led one of the Kwans and was heavily involved in the unification.  
Due to disagreements with the unification association and South Korean government, General Choi left, eventually ending up in Canada.  He was still in charge of the ITF.
South Korea created the Kukkiwon and World Taekwondo Federation to govern and promote Taekwondo throughout the world.

This video seems to have some of the best answers I've found on the subject.  (Most of which are researched, and not just "what I've heard" or "probably" type of answers).  It's probably not 100% accurate, but should give you an idea of how politics shaped the forming of Taekwondo and the various federations.



> As long as I am learning this stuff... I might as well get it right.



Now you understand where I'm coming from.  As long as I'm learning...might as well get it right.



Flying Crane said:


> Skribs, speaking as a non-TKD fellow myself, but as someone who practices a traditional Chinese method that has a heavy emphasis on forms, I wonder if your expectations of what is intended to be learned from the forms is erroneous.
> 
> From my experience, there are no Answers with a capital A in the forms. Rather, there are answers with a small a, as well as suggestions and options. What you find in the forms helps to broaden your perspective on what is possible. However, you need to develop your own ability to use it in a way that is effective and meaningful for you. That may well differ from what others come up with. This is the effort and time you ought to be putting in, away from your school. Working privately with classmates to develop these skills is very useful. That is where you dig through and try everything to see what works for you. And I agree with Wab25 in that you do have the luxury to do that. That is what training is all about, if you want to be able to really use what you have learned. In fact, it is your responsibility to do this. We all must take responsibility for our own training. Our teachers guide us toward the answers, they do their best to help us understand the principles and the strategies and proper technique, but often cannot simply give us the functional answers on a silver platter. It just does not work that way because we all will have our own ways of applying what we have learned.
> 
> But the bottom line is, there is a lot of ambiguity in forms but they are still a useful tool for extracting functional ideas.



From what I've been learning about how the Chinese forms work, I understand there are two main styles - one focused on big motions for the mind-body connection, and one focused on the shorter motions for speed and accuracy.  Which is it that you train?  (I have follow-up questions from there, but I'll ask different questions depending on where this one takes us).


----------



## wab25 (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> I want to know why it's in the TKD curriculum and what the people who put that into the curriculum want us to get out of it.


Then looking at the history of the curriculum would help. Where did it come from? Why were the changes made? What knowledge and experience did the people have who were making the changes?



skribs said:


> In those videos, he says the martial application was removed or dumbed down to make it acceptable to teach to kids.


Funakoshi was the one doing the dumbing down for the kids. Since he was dumbing it down, he would be a pretty good resource for what applications were that we was removing. Choi and Lee were his direct students, and therefore most likely learned the real, non dumbed down applications from Funakoshi himself. 



skribs said:


> Most of what I've read has said the building blocks were rearranged in large part to make it different from the original, and that in many cases the application was lost by doing so.


This would be an argument for looking at the original source. How do you know what changed, if you don't know what they started with?


skribs said:


> Since those forms were rearranged, looking at the purpose of the forms before the rearrangement is an okay thought process, but what the rearrangers thought the purpose was is now the proximal question.


Comparing the original, to the changed versions would be very informative here. When they moved the down block, from the 1st move in the pattern to 6th move, did they also intend to remove the throwing application from that movement? 


skribs said:


> If we're going to go back several generations of forms, we might as well just ignore Karate and go back to the Kung Fu forms.


Great idea! Well, except the part about ignoring Karate. Go back to the Kung Fu, and trace the lineage through Karate, noting the changes, then to TKD and all the changes made there, again noting what changed. Looking at the history of what these were originally for, and learning why and how the changes were made, will give a person a good understanding of why things are the way they are. 



skribs said:


> Most of what I've read has said the building blocks were rearranged in large part *to make it different from the original*


If this is true, that the primary reason for the change, was to make it different... then they did not intend to remove the throwing application from the down block. If the primary reason for the change, is to dumb it down for children, that would explain the removal of the throwing application. Note, that though Funakoshi dumbed down the kata, for the children, he also taught (presumably to adults) the true applications that may have been hidden from the children.

All of your arguments here, point to learning the history more. I am sorry that that history goes through Karate and Kung Fu...


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2018)

Balrog said:


> The forms in ATA (Songahm Taekwondo) are based on self-defense. Yeah, we have one-legged stuff and tension moves, but those are thrown in to help improve balance and timing.
> Otherwise, every technique has a practical application of some sort.



So I have two follow-up questions for you (and maybe you're not using these techniques in ATA forms).

1.  Can you elaborate on how tension moves improve timing?
2.  Does ATA have double-blocks?  What I mean by this is, for example, we have in our forms:


An outside block to the side with one hand and a high block with the other.  (Taebaek step 9 or 14-2)
A down block to the side with one hand and a high block with the other.  (Keumgang step 8, 15, 18, and 25)
An inside block and outside block to the sides (Mountain Block)
A down block and outside block at the same time (Scissor block, Taebaek steps 23 and 25)

http://www.taekwondobible.com/trainings/poomsae/Keumgang.html
http://www.taekwondobible.com/trainings/poomsae/taebaek.html
Mountain Block

Would you see a purpose to these techniques?



Balrog said:


> Seriously, forms should challenge the mind and the body. I teach forms with the basic concept that every move (except the tension moves) should earn you the right to do the next move. If your block is weak, your opponent just hit you. You don't get to do the next move. If your punch or your kick is weak, you don't get to do the next move because your opponent is still standing. By emphasizing this, I get the students thinking about combinations, timing, focus, balance, power, etc., as a means to an end: self-defense.



I may have to steal this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Keep in mind, I'm very bad at history.  But from what I understand, it went something like this (and people can fill in the blanks and correct me where needed):
> 
> 
> During WW2, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, Koreans were not allowed to practice Korean martial arts, as part of an effort to replace Korean culture with Japanese culture.  They did learn Japanese martial arts.
> ...


I don’t know that there are two main approaches in Chinese martial arts.  There are many many different methods from China and I would be surprised if they can be classified within two approaches.

My method is a long fist method, meaning we train large movements as a mechanism for learning to get full-body connection. I don’t really know about “mind/body”.

Within that context, we have lots of application within the forms.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 29, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Well... now that I am interested...
> 
> So, this was the first research I have done into history of TKD. I started with Choi, as he was mentioned here as an authority. The many articles I found on him, refer to him as the father of TKD, but also talk about how he gathered together others, and how they worked together. (I understand that these articles were most  likely written by Choi proponents...)



Exactly. They're written by ITF people from an ITF perspective. The suggestion that General Choi was the motivating force behind the unification movement, is, frankly, ridiculous.
The motivating force behind the unification movement was the Korean government saying 'you guys should get together and work out a Korean art, instead of teaching renamed Japanese stuff.' That happened in 1952. Three years before General Choi would found the Oh Do Kwan.
The five orignal Kwan were the Chung Do Kwan, Sung Moo Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, Jido Kwan and Chang Moo Kwan. General Choi was (if memory serves) a Chung Do Kwan student at the time.
The Han Moo Kwan, Oh Do Kwan (which General Choi had, by then, founded), Kang Duk Kwan and Jung Do Kwan came around later.
The unified art was original called Tae Soo Do, although Tae Kwon Do was also considered and, eventually, adopted.
General Choi didn't like how the unification was being handled, so he left the KTA and founded the ITF. The ITF descended from those who left the KTA with General Choi.
He wasn't the only one, of course. GM Hwang, for example, left even earlier and taught Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan, and then eventually changed the name to Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan. TSD and SBD schools are descended from students who left the unification with GM Hwang. TKD MDK schools (such as ours) are descended from GM LEE, Kang Ik and those others who stayed with the KTA after GM Hwang left.



> If I understand what you are saying, Choi is the father of ITF TKD. Hwang Kee would be another in that group that created TKD? From my reading Lee Won Kuk was also involved... am I understanding correctly? Who all was in that group of people working together?



Lee Won Kuk was the founder of the Chung Do Kwan, the first Kwan founded after the liberation of Korean from Japanese occupation.

There were many many people involved in the unification efforts, and to my knowledge there is no complete listing. This is understandable, given how many groups and individuals joined and then left, and given that the efforts were pretty effectively derailed by the Korean War.



> There was a third guy I came across (but lost that particular link) who helped in the development of TKD, who also trained under Funakoshi. Would that have been Hwang Kee?



Doubtful. Like many of the founders, his history is clouded. For example, GM Hwang claimed to have studied Tae Kyon as a child. This is extremely doubtful, given the near-total destruction of Korean culture at that time. His training was primarily Chinese, specifically Kuk Sool. His system was originally called Hwa Soo Do, but this has changed several times, first to Tang Soo Do, then to Tae Soo Do (during the unification), then back to Tang Soo Do, then Soo Bahk Do.



> As long as I am learning this stuff... I might as well get it right.



Good luck with that. There are not a lot of good records about the early days. And those that exist do tend to be from very specific viewpoints.
But it's safe to say that no one person can claim to be "the" father of TKD.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 29, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> The motivating force behind the unification movement was the Korean government saying 'you guys should get together and work out a Korean art, instead of teaching renamed Japanese stuff.' That happened in 1952. Three years before General Choi would found the Oh Do Kwan.
> .



What, when and where was this event?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 29, 2018)

Back to the OP. I thought  I saw an article in TKD Times on the topic. Here it is https://1c47d0f0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...hjs9XeEdlWm8DGwb2kLOr-AoF--qc=&attredirects=0

Some years later there was an updated version in Totally TKD .


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 29, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> What, when and where was this event?



Good question. I don't know, precisely. It reportedly happened in the early 1950's (I want to say '52 or '53, but chemo brain...) when the President watched a martial arts demo on a military base. I don't have any idea which one.
That report would tend to be supported, I think, by the governments continual push to have only one style of TKD (Kukkiwon) recognized. And by the virtually complete control over the Kukkiwon exercised by their government.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say General Choi was not important to the early development of TKD. I'm saying that it's incorrect to consider *any* single individual "the" father of TKD. A specific Kwan, certainly. But not TKD as a whole. I'm also saying that hard facts regarding those early days are more than a little muddled. That, despite having talked (as you have) to more than one person who was present and involved in the goings-on.


----------



## DaveB (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> I want to know why it's in the TKD curriculum and what the people who put that into the curriculum want us to get out of it.  It has nothing to do with whether or not I can do what wab25 is suggesting.  It's just that it doesn't help me answer my questions.



Except that one of the main purposes of forms is self study. Self study seems to be what Wab25 is suggesting. 



> You say I'm wrong, but I have yet to see proof that I'm wrong.  Just because you disagree with me, doesn't make me wrong.



Actually it does. Not on everything. But on this, yes it does. 

Like when a kid says "maybe I could become Spiderman from my spider bite! You don't know!"

In this case you'd be the kid, and I'd be the molecular cell biologist who specialises in Arachnids and has a side interest in cross species mutation effects for work on a project to create super humans.




> Maybe lumping them together makes it easier for you to train, because you only train one motion instead of two separate ones.  So what you're doing is purposefully reducing the effect of one technique in order to make it easier on yourself.  Alternatively, maybe you train both motions but say they're the both motion.  In that case, you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself, or you're creating an artificial group where one doesn't exist.



Amazing. Every word you just said, was completely wrong. Option 3, perhaps you just don't know enough to form an opinion.



> Regarding the video, you're right.  I didn't invent the Taegeuks.  But if you look at the "application" of what is taught in the Taegeuks, you have to look at what is taught in the Taegeuks.  If the application has several concepts that are NOT present in the form, then that application cannot have come from the form.  They would have to come from somewhere else in the curriculum or instruction.  But to show the "application" of what you've learned in the Taegeuk and have it only contain 10% moves from Taegeuks...I'm thinking of a Welch's Grape Juice commercial now.



I didn't watch the video and wasn't using it as a base for my comment. This one you are right on though... from one perspective. 

One of the primary schools of thought around karate kata, was to use the postures in a form as jumping off points. That way helps the student think through the tactical concerns of developing combinations and builds improvisational skills, helping to move from dead pattern to live fight.

If the TKD founders had been taught that, it might explain some of the more unrealistic sequences. It also would explain applications that evolve beyond the base pattern.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 29, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Good question. I don't know, precisely. It reportedly happened in the early 1950's (I want to say '52 or '53, but chemo brain...) when the President watched a martial arts demo on a military base. I don't have any idea which one.
> .


  I have an idea - 1954 . 
https://1c47d0f0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...P23jCCR30mSXLoHUiTu1bmJxoqvMU=&attredirects=0

President Rhee told General Choi who was standing next to him during the demo  and whom he knew to have an MA background that they needed to teach this to the troops.   At the time there were 28 infantry divisions and  he let General Choi form a 29th  and recruit top talent for the division among them Nam Tae Hi and Han Cha Kyo  who were part of the demonstration.   he then used that talent to develop the new system, develop instructors for the system, came up with a name for the system, Lobby tirelessly for the use of the name TKD, used military transports to take people from the Oh Do Kwan as the gym for the division was named (Nicknamed "Fist " division) . ultimately dispatch instructors throughout the world to teach the system, use his military travels to recruit Korean instructors in other parts of the world (Jhoon Rhee being one of the noteables)  to adopt  the name TKD and teach the system.  (HU Lee and He Il Cho among others) spreading TKD to 60+ countries all before the WTF was formed.    What other individual during the first 20 years of TKD existance even came close to that.?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 29, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I have an idea - 1954 .
> https://1c47d0f0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ntkdacad/files/NamTaeHiTKDTimesJan.2000.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqEEbzwdtnSvxcDtUVHQc2xR_A02Pfq54UYjtChjeZI68O1JqQ5FaQhWnWcmjcPlJlHQk1veFm5AC1qEnqUXQUZVtRn8nKmpUl3lQwWFgV1_rgkwCByq1008_39L-l1CTz9WnvpAcSnqzpiSqf-AUSHZJD65-js4smCdaUwSgIMdadkBwV5nNEUiekuQJZNLZ_i58Kf7hV9c9HYbqGOE0P23jCCR30mSXLoHUiTu1bmJxoqvMU=&attredirects=0
> 
> President Rhee told General Choi who was standing next to him during the demo  and whom he knew to have an MA background that they needed to teach this to the troops.   At the time there were 28 infantry divisions and  he let General Choi form a 29th  and recruit top talent for the division among them Nam Tae Hi and Han Cha Kyo  who were part of the demonstration.   he then used that talent to develop the new system, develop instructors for the system, came up with a name for the system, Lobby tirelessly for the use of the name TKD, used military transports to take people from the Oh Do Kwan as the gym for the division was named (Nicknamed "Fist " division) . ultimately dispatch instructors throughout the world to teach the system, use his military travels to recruit Korean instructors in other parts of the world (Jhoon Rhee being one of the noteables)  to adopt  the name TKD and teach the system.  (HU Lee and He Il Cho among others) spreading TKD to 60+ countries all before the WTF was formed.    What other individual during the first 20 years of TKD existance even came close to that.?



So you're saying President Rhee should be considered the father of TKD?


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> The problem is then finding a situation where I would choose to go for a scissor block over going for a down block or outside block. If just one hand works, why is two better? In order for me to make sense of the technique, I would need to find situations in which the single block is not sufficient. Then try the scissor block there.


One of the purposes of a scissors block is to disarm or break an opponents attack as the arms intersect each other. Think in more dimensions instead of singular purpose.



> Regarding Keumgang...at my school we call the other block "Keumgangmaki" (the one with an inside block and outside block, where each of your arms makes an L).


Keumgang Makki is the high/low block done as you go up and down the long line.


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> One of the purposes of a scissors block is to disarm or break an opponents attack as the arms intersect each other. Think in more dimensions instead of singular purpose.



I'm having trouble visualizing that.



DaveB said:


> Actually it does. Not on everything. But on this, yes it does.
> 
> Like when a kid says "maybe I could become Spiderman from my spider bite! You don't know!"
> 
> In this case you'd be the kid, and I'd be the molecular cell biologist who specialises in Arachnids and has a side interest in cross species mutation effects for work on a project to create super humans.



Right now you're reminding me of a professor I had in college, who made these exorbitant claims and when the entire class called her out on it, pulled the "I've studied longer than you so I know more than you" card.



DaveB said:


> Amazing. Every word you just said, was completely wrong. Option 3, perhaps you just don't know enough to form an opinion.



And how am I wrong?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Keumgang Makki is the high/low block done as you go up and down the long line.



Actually, I think that would be Keumgang Arae Makki (Diamond Low Block), to differentiate it from Keumgang Momtong Makki (Diamond Middle Block) such as is taught in Palgwae 4. What skribs is describing is Santeulmakki (Mountain Block).


----------



## Gnarlie (Nov 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> Do you think that it is purely aesthetic, or is there a training purpose for the pulling hand?
> 
> EDIT to add:
> 
> ...





skribs said:


> Can you elaborate on what that training purpose might be?
> 
> (Also note I edited my above post, probably while you were typing).


Depends on what is incoming and from what angle, if at all. 

One of the main issues with application is people get too fixated on the idea of doing a set move.

You need to look holistically, and realise that it can either be a response (in which case how it is applied is determined by the attack), or a preempt (in which case the application is determined by how the opponent is standing).

Think about sparring: if you only pay attention to what you are doing, and not what your opponent is doing, it is very difficult to successfully apply the simplest of motions.

Pulling hand applications depend absolutely on context. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveB (Nov 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> Right now you're reminding me of a professor I had in college, who made these exorbitant claims and when the entire class called her out on it, pulled the "I've studied longer than you so I know more than you" card.
> 
> And how am I wrong?



That's about right.

Your views are based on assumptions about how and why techniques are presented in forms that are wrong.

I said that you were incorrect because you didn't invent the forms, but you didn't stop to consider the implications of that.

The logic you would apply to creating a kata is not the logic that they used in Okinawa 130 years ago. The culture that the forms came from was different.

This is why people have had to look at old books and old interviews and in some cases train in old regional kung fu systems to help understand the processes that went into encoding techniques.

The considerations you raise are only a part of the picture. And fair enough, you are not training in karate, it's not wholly necessary for you to learn the systematic elements of a technique not systematic to your art (though i explained some of it to you anyway in the thread on this topic, but you were too busy trying to pick holes to take it in). But the idea that you can by theory alone debunk methods that have been studied and tested relentlessly for the the last 20 years, in the modern context of mma, specifically with intent towards practical usage is pretty arrogant.

Just out of interest, what was your professor's subject and what exorbitant claims did he make?

Since you are looking for Taekwondo answers to the problem of Taekwondo Patterns, especially newer one's, your only hope is some kind of Kukkiwon poomsae course. And I suspect that the answers you get will be based on the kind of "1-step sparring reality" that most 20th century martial arts lived in. The stuff that the people in this thread have all left behind because it was so unrealistic.

Its not that TKD people learned and encoded no applications,  it's that at the time no one was learning the real applications of karate techniques. They learned place holder "block-counter" applications, which I suspect is what Choi' s book shows.

The unrealistic nature of these techniques spurred karateka to look deeper, but tkd had become it's own animal in terms of fighting.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> If we're going to go back several generations of forms, we might as well just ignore Karate and go back to the Kung Fu forms.  We'll get just about as good an answer out of those than we will out of the Kata that are a few arrangements behind the Poomse.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Very true. General Choi references the Shorin and Shri systems as being the roots, and Shorin was the Okiawin erivation of Shorei.   The book "Bubishi" Bible of Karate, is manly focused on Chinese origins.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 30, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> So you're saying President Rhee should be considered the father of TKD?


 No, he was more like a "Matchmaker." A motivating force.   He selected the "Father"   the government provided the resources.   To Dave B.   You can keep using the term "Father"   It is a difference of perspective.    The KKW party line iit was some sort of Group effort. This was part of the KKW / Government genius.   Without having anyone individual in control or getting  most of the credit the KKW and the government could maintain control.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Nov 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm having trouble visualizing that.
> 
> 
> ?



Not a KKW guy but I teach an application like this  Face opponent and have them grab both lapels . Use one of your arms going down and the other going up like a scissor block motion cracking down with your forearm onto their same side forearm while cracking up with the other.   Helps if you step straight back while you do this  A swift kick to the shin before you do it can help more.    An interesting aspect of the brain and this technique is the difficulty to resist the forces moving in opposite directions on each arm . Try it.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 30, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, I think that would be Keumgang Arae Makki (Diamond Low Block), to differentiate it from Keumgang Momtong Makki (Diamond Middle Block) such as is taught in Palgwae 4. What skribs is describing is Santeulmakki (Mountain Block).


Agree, but I do not think I have ever heard them specifically separated. I have heard the one block called a middle block before but have never really understood that. It is over your head so why is it not a high block, unless it considers the motion as you raise the arm up in front of your body?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 30, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Agree, but I do not think I have ever heard them specifically separated. I have heard the one block called a middle block before but have never really understood that. It is over your head so why is it not a high block, unless it considers the motion as you raise the arm up in front of your body?




The diamond block can be middle or low.

Diamond Middle Block (the students left arm is a little low in this picture...)

 

Diamond Low Block
 

Admittedly, these blocks are really just a combination of a high block and outside middle or low block. Two simultaneous blocks, rather than a unique block. But it's convenient to have a specific name for the combination.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 1, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> The diamond block can be middle or low.
> 
> Diamond Middle Block (the students left arm is a little low in this picture...)
> View attachment 21929
> ...



Interesting history on what you call Diamond middle Block. Chang Hon term is Twin Outer forearm Block. In the Chang Hon system  texts 1983 and later the chamber is with the forearms crossed at the chest with the lead arm motion imitating that of a middle (top of fist shoulder level) outer forearm block, and top arm rising outer forerarm block,.  This was different in the 1972 text and earlier and how the CDK people did it which was to have both fists near the rear hip moving in a diagonal fashion to the final position.   This changes the purpose / application to defending 2 different types of Attacks, one more or less traveling toward you in a horizontal fashion intercepted by the lead arm and the top arm intercepting a downward type attack from an application perhaps were the lead arm intercepts an attack and the top arm being an attack like an overhand punch. .


----------



## Bruce7 (Dec 1, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Exactly. They're written by ITF people from an ITF perspective. The suggestion that General Choi was the motivating force behind the unification movement, is, frankly, ridiculous.
> The motivating force behind the unification movement was the Korean government saying 'you guys should get together and work out a Korean art, instead of teaching renamed Japanese stuff.' That happened in 1952. Three years before General Choi would found the Oh Do Kwan.
> The five orignal Kwan were the Chung Do Kwan, Sung Moo Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, Jido Kwan and Chang Moo Kwan. General Choi was (if memory serves) a Chung Do Kwan student at the time.
> The Han Moo Kwan, Oh Do Kwan (which General Choi had, by then, founded), Kang Duk Kwan and Jung Do Kwan came around later.
> ...



It seems you have been around for a long time and know a lot.
Could you tell me who taught Hwang Sae Jin (Jack Hwang) 
Please, Information seem to be hard to find.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 1, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Interesting history on what you call Diamond middle Block. Chang Hon term is Twin Outer forearm Block. In the Chang Hon system  texts 1983 and later the chamber is with the forearms crossed at the chest with the lead arm motion imitating that of a middle (top of fist shoulder level) outer forearm block, and top arm rising outer forerarm block,.  This was different in the 1972 text and earlier and how the CDK people did it which was to have both fists near the rear hip moving in a diagonal fashion to the final position.   This changes the purpose / application to defending 2 different types of Attacks, one more or less traveling toward you in a horizontal fashion intercepted by the lead arm and the top arm intercepting a downward type attack from an application perhaps were the lead arm intercepts an attack and the top arm being an attack like an overhand punch. .



No techniques exist for the purpose of blocking attacks from different origins. That is one of the signatures of post-Okinawa karate: where almost every movement was interpreted as a block or a strike.

The movement your looking at is taken from the first technique of the first Pinan kata (second Hiean kata). 






The opponent is attacking from straight in front of you as you are in ready stance.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 1, 2018)

DaveB said:


> No techniques exist for the purpose of blocking attacks from different origins. That is one of the signatures of post-Okinawa karate: where almost every movement was interpreted as a block or a strike.
> 
> .



I am confused by your post.  
 You state "No techniques exist for the purpose of blocking attacks from different origins"    
So, this seems to indicate no techniques is for blocking and then you state: 
" That is one of the signatures of post-Okinawa karate: where almost every movement was interpreted as a block or a strike."    
 Do you mean to state any individual technique can be a block or a strike?   Something else? 
_
"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick._
_After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick._
_Now that I _understand_ the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."_
-- Bruce Lee


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Interesting history on what you call Diamond middle Block. Chang Hon term is Twin Outer forearm Block. In the Chang Hon system  texts 1983 and later the chamber is with the forearms crossed at the chest with the lead arm motion imitating that of a middle (top of fist shoulder level) outer forearm block, and top arm rising outer forerarm block,.  This was different in the 1972 text and earlier and how the CDK people did it which was to have both fists near the rear hip moving in a diagonal fashion to the final position.   This changes the purpose / application to defending 2 different types of Attacks, one more or less traveling toward you in a horizontal fashion intercepted by the lead arm and the top arm intercepting a downward type attack from an application perhaps were the lead arm intercepts an attack and the top arm being an attack like an overhand punch. .



We teach the chamber (as best I can tell from words only...) in much the same manner as the CDK. As far as application goes, we teach it both as attack and block.



Bruce7 said:


> It seems you have been around for a long time and know a lot.
> Could you tell me who taught Hwang Sae Jin (Jack Hwang)
> Please, Information seem to be hard to find.



I honestly don't have any idea. But I can ask around, and if I can find any information I will forward it to you.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 1, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I am confused by your post.
> You state "No techniques exist for the purpose of blocking attacks from different origins"
> So, this seems to indicate no techniques is for blocking and then you state:
> " That is one of the signatures of post-Okinawa karate: where almost every movement was interpreted as a block or a strike."
> ...


Good quote, Mr Lee was dead right.

I mean if a move looks like you are doing two blocks at once, you can be absolutely sure you are not meant to be blocking two different attacks from two different people that happen to have occurred simultaneously. 

Such interpretations were place holders, common in early Japanese karate because teaching karate was for building character not for fighting. 

Many of the techniques in karate kata have other uses, but during this period they were only taught as blocks. 

A great example is the reinforced block being interpreted as a regular middle section forearm block just done with two hands. No reason why you suddenly need two hands against the same punch you just used one to defend from.
In actuality the movement has other uses, other reasons for its inclusion at that point in the form than duplicating the effect of another technique but less efficiently.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2018)

Bruce7 said:


> It seems you have been around for a long time and know a lot.
> Could you tell me who taught Hwang Sae Jin (Jack Hwang)
> Please, Information seem to be hard to find.



I asked my Kwan Jang Nim. He knew GM Hwang, and says he was one of  the pioneers of TKD MDK in America, but he does not know who his specific teacher(s) were. I'm sorry to say that he also tells me GM Hwang died a few years ago, in OK.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 2, 2018)

Having read the the posts I would like to offer a slightly different perspective I alluded to but not really addressed on this board.   The forms teach you how to move.   Any stated purpose is a tool to hep you understand the motion.  Once you can perform the motion in an efficient, powerful, well balanced manner, then how you apply it or morph it for any particular application is limited only by practical concerns,   (We cannot discount aesthetic or symbolic meanings which may have been purposefuly included)    So, the purpose is to teach you how to move. This is not a unique perspective. The original Karate Kid movies "Wax on Wax Off" etc. had the student learn how to move . Once this was learned he was taught applications.    So, while the initial learning can focus on any particular stated application  to facilitate learning, continuing to focus on  any particular application be it stated, alternative, hidden or lost   is like "Focusing on the finger. "
*“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”*

― Bruce Lee,


----------



## Bruce7 (Dec 2, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> I asked my Kwan Jang Nim. He knew GM Hwang, and says he was one of  the pioneers of TKD MDK in America, but he does not know who his specific teacher(s) were. I'm sorry to say that he also tells me GM Hwang died a few years ago, in OK.



Thank you for your help.

I am *guessing *his early teachers were Japanese since he was born in 1931 and knew Karate and Judo.
Since I can not find information on his teachers in Korea,  I am *guessing* he may have learn MDK in the Army.      
Jack Hwang served as an instructor and military officer in the South Korean Army and fought for the freedom of his country along with the American soldiers during the Korean war. He was a guerrilla fighter and was sent behind enemy lines in North Korea to gather intelligence. During several of these missions some of the American soldiers who were lost or separated from their regiment were directed or led to safety by Jack Hwang. Jack Hwang developed his fighting techniques from years of difficult training and military service.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 2, 2018)

skribs said:


> So I have two follow-up questions for you (and maybe you're not using these techniques in ATA forms).
> 
> 1.  Can you elaborate on how tension moves improve timing?


Both hands have to move in time with each other and end movement at exactly the same time.  A lot of our tension moves are also done in a one-legged stance, which improves balance; they're a lot harder to get that timing on as a result.


> 2.  Does ATA have double-blocks?  What I mean by this is, for example, we have in our forms:
> 
> 
> An outside block to the side with one hand and a high block with the other.  (Taebaek step 9 or 14-2)
> ...


We have similar blocks.
For example, this is SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) performing what we call a square block in an X-stance.  It's an outer forearm block combined with a high block.






> Would you see a purpose to these techniques?


A functional purpose?  Probably not.  It would be a rare situation indeed where one would have to block two simultaneous attacks in real life.  However, correct execution of these techniques improves our overall performance and capability.  Anything that challenges us like that will.


> I may have to steal this.


Feel free.  I got it from one of our Chief Master at a sparring fundamentals seminar.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 2, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> .<snip> ultimately dispatch instructors throughout the world to teach the system, use his military travels to recruit Korean instructors in other parts of the world (Jhoon Rhee being one of the noteables)  to adopt  the name TKD and teach the system.  (HU Lee and He Il Cho among others)


An interesting side note.  When H. U. Lee immigrated to the USA and later founded the ATA, he was teaching the Chang Hon forms that he learned from General Choi.  His notes that he took while training with General Choi are in the ATA Headquarters museum.  

Lee started working on his own style in the early 1980s, and introduce the first three forms of the Songahm style at the instructor camp in 1983.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 2, 2018)

As stated by GM Vitale  "At some point a demonstration of Korean Karate was performed for the 1st ROK President (Rhee) in 1954. This provided the motivation for a new name that would not be connected to Japan, like Tang Soo Do or Kong Soo Do. By this time, the Daejon area was where the 29th Infantry “Fist” Division was located. This was where Taekwon-Do was born, according to the new name being conceived and put forth initially, as well as the 1st 2 Korean TKD Patterns, Hwa-Rang and Chung-Moo were created!"'


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 2, 2018)

Balrog said:


> An interesting side note.  When H. U. Lee immigrated to the USA and later founded the ATA, he was teaching the Chang Hon forms that he learned from General Choi.  His notes that he took while training with General Choi are in the ATA Headquarters museum.
> 
> Lee started working on his own style in the early 1980s, and introduce the first three forms of the Songahm style at the instructor camp in 1983.


 A side note to the side note.   HU Lee and General Choi must have remained in close contact. I have a a video from NK  (General Choi us ke a copy of his copy) where HU Lee took an ATA group for  a demo (Which was followed by the NK demo team) and HU Lee and General Choi are watching the demo together.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 2, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> A side note to the side note.   HU Lee and General Choi must have remained in close contact. I have a a video from NK  (General Choi us ke a copy of his copy) where HU Lee took an ATA group for  a demo (Which was followed by the NK demo team) and HU Lee and General Choi are watching the demo together.


I would love to have a copy of that!


----------



## andyjeffries (Dec 3, 2018)

skribs said:


> Well, I have a problem with saying teaching Palgwes instead of Taegeuks is a "lower standard."  We have a similar amount of forms, with similar difficulty to the Taegeuks, and we have a lot on the curriculum that are not on the Taegeuks.



Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that Palgwae are a lower standard, I was making a separate remark about an experience I had when the Kukkiwon's reply was basically "just mind your own business" when asked about other dojangs doing things differently or having different standards. 

Palgwae are acknowledged by the creators of them to be deprecated and aren't current official curriculum, but I'm not commenting on their relative difficulty in performing.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 3, 2018)

DaveB said:


> I mean if a move looks like you are doing two blocks at once, you can be absolutely sure you are not meant to be blocking two different attacks from two different people that happen to have occurred simultaneously.



The only thing I am "Absolutely sure of"   is not to be absolutely sure of anything.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 3, 2018)

andyjeffries said:


> Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that Palgwae are a lower standard, I was making a separate remark about an experience I had when the Kukkiwon's reply was basically "just mind your own business" when asked about other dojangs doing things differently or having different standards.
> 
> Palgwae are acknowledged by the creators of them to be deprecated and aren't current official curriculum, but I'm not commenting on their relative difficulty in performing.


Our Dojang teaches Palgwae, Taegueks, and Pyong An forms. The Palgwae are, by far, a more comprehensive set of forms. IMHO. We are a Kukkiwon/WT school so I get the "official" moniker if you compete. But I strongly recommend you dig deeper in your TKD journey. I think you will find there is  a lot really good stuff to discover out there.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 3, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> The only thing I am "Absolutely sure of"   is not to be absolutely sure of anything.



That's a fine sentiment until it becomes a defence against reality. Climate change comes to mind. 

Or to bring it back to MA, I often encountered traditional Shotokan schools who would learn applications for kata but never train towards functional skill in using them, because "There are infinite applications to kata". A phrase that simultaneously exalted the central pillar of the training culture, while making deliberate focus on something other than normal training routine seem pointless.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 4, 2018)

DaveB said:


> That's a fine sentiment until it becomes a defence against reality. Climate change comes to mind.
> 
> .



Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing.    Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose.   Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering  anew ice age.    Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed.   Modeling reasons is another story.    Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy.   Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 4, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Having read the the posts I would like to offer a slightly different perspective I alluded to but not really addressed on this board.   The forms teach you how to move.   Any stated purpose is a tool to hep you understand the motion.  Once you can perform the motion in an efficient, powerful, well balanced manner, then how you apply it or morph it for any particular application is limited only by practical concerns,   (We cannot discount aesthetic or symbolic meanings which may have been purposefuly included)    So, the purpose is to teach you how to move. This is not a unique perspective. The original Karate Kid movies "Wax on Wax Off" etc. had the student learn how to move . Once this was learned he was taught applications.    So, while the initial learning can focus on any particular stated application  to facilitate learning, continuing to focus on  any particular application be it stated, alternative, hidden or lost   is like "Focusing on the finger. "
> *“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”*
> 
> ― Bruce Lee,





Balrog said:


> A functional purpose? Probably not. It would be a rare situation indeed where one would have to block two simultaneous attacks in real life. However, correct execution of these techniques improves our overall performance and capability. Anything that challenges us like that will.



If the goal of a kata is to develop overall body control and movement capability, but the specific movements and body dynamics don't map directly on to application, then would it be just as (or more) valuable for the student to practice gymnastics, dance, or rock climbing as a supplement to their martial skill?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 4, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I bolded what I think is an important point. Every so often I see people speculating on the idea that a warmer global climate might be okay or even desirable. In the abstract, that's probably correct. The problem is the transition - for humans we've built our coastal cities and our agricultural resources around the climate we have now. For other species, they've spend tens of thousands of years adapting to the current climate. Now we have changes happening in decades that normally would take centuries or millennia and no one is ready to adapt that quickly.
> 
> (Kind of getting away from the subject of TKD forms, though.  )



The link is people making excuses to ignore information that doesn't confirm their current way of doing things.

Training culture, especially around traditional elements like forms, are a lot like climate change in this regard.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 5, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> If the goal of a kata is to develop overall body control and movement capability, but the specific movements and body dynamics don't map directly on to application, then would it be just as (or more) valuable for the student to practice gymnastics, dance, or rock climbing as a supplement to their martial skill?


In a way, yes.  It seems to me that anything that we do that enables us to gain more self-control and use our body effectively would be an enhancement.


----------



## skribs (Dec 6, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> If the goal of a kata is to develop overall body control and movement capability, but the specific movements and body dynamics don't map directly on to application, then would it be just as (or more) valuable for the student to practice gymnastics, dance, or rock climbing as a supplement to their martial skill?



My parents and I love TKD.  My sister says it's basically just a fancy style of dance.  Although she is perfectly fine letting her husband be the uke for my Mom when she needs to practice throwing someone around.  

One thing I see the forms doing is enforcing certain habits.  For example, when you're dancing, you're not worried about keeping a tight fist.  And while some of the moves might be stylized, or not really have a practical application, the others do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 6, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> If the goal of a kata is to develop overall body control and movement capability, but the specific movements and body dynamics don't map directly on to application, then would it be just as (or more) valuable for the student to practice gymnastics, dance, or rock climbing as a supplement to their martial skill?


You have a valid point.  I’ve said for a long time that not all kata/forms/poomsae are created equally.  Some are designed well, and include good material within the practice.  Others are filled with bad ideas and were very poorly thought out. Still others simply do not add anything that you would not already get from practicing the other elements of the system.  Other times the forms may be quality in and of themselves, but they were poorly taught or are poorly understood so their practice does not give any benefits.

When people insist that forms practice is a waste of time, the truth of the matter is that they could be correct under certain circumstances.  It really does depend.


----------



## Denoaikido (Dec 6, 2018)

practice makes perfect in any martial art period is just my two cents


----------



## wab25 (Dec 6, 2018)

Denoaikido said:


> practice makes perfect in any martial art period is just my two cents


Not really. Practice makes *permanent*. If you practice the technique wrong, you get better at doing it wrong. It makes doing it right even harder, as you have to now break your bad habits. *Perfect practice makes perfect*.

The discussion here is about finding the most efficient way to practice. Some ways of practice will make you better faster than others. If the purpose of forms, is just a light warm up... why are we spending so much time on them? If they make you better at multiple things all at once, maybe we should spend more time on them. If you have no idea what they are about, then you might as well do something else. But, different people see and get different things from the forms... Reading this thread with an open mind, has given me plenty more to get from my forms, thus making my forms practice a bit more efficient than before.


----------



## Denoaikido (Dec 7, 2018)

well with out practicing wrong  you will never get good practice right expertise comes average bad or not so good into the best you can be no practice means its probably also not gonna work the most effectively esp in martial arts


----------



## andyjeffries (Dec 7, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Our Dojang teaches Palgwae, Taegueks, and Pyong An forms. The Palgwae are, by far, a more comprehensive set of forms. IMHO. We are a Kukkiwon/WT school so I get the "official" moniker if you compete. But I strongly recommend you dig deeper in your TKD journey. I think you will find there is  a lot really good stuff to discover out there.



I'm sure there is, but to be honest, my preferences go more towards passing on the official curriculum without wanting to add anything to it (or remove anything from it). I feel there's more than enough in current KKW curriculum to keep our classes busy and students minds full.


----------



## pdg (Dec 7, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> But I strongly recommend you dig deeper in your TKD journey. I think you will find there is a lot really good stuff to discover out there.





andyjeffries said:


> I'm sure there is, but to be honest, my preferences go more towards passing on the official curriculum without wanting to add anything to it (or remove anything from it). I feel there's more than enough in current KKW curriculum to keep our classes busy and students minds full.



This shows the difference between passing on the system and your "personal journey".

To instruct, to be a teacher - that's where pretty much sticking to the official curriculum is good. You're passing the system to a group.

Deeper delving is a personal thing imo, it doesn't really have much of a place in normal open lessons because (as stated) they're full enough with the official stuff.

There can be crossover, you can seek further information from your instructor, and your students can do likewise with you. 

If even a tenth of the stuff I personally research was covered in class I'd bet 90% of the students would leave and/or there just wouldn't be time for the fundamentals, let alone normal development. There's stuff that I've dug up that my instructors have no inkling of (and more than likely more in the other direction).

And this kinda leads into where the whole 'purpose of forms/patterns' thing comes in as well. Anything over and above what is "in the book" is for the individual to discover.

The instructor should show you the form, explain the basics of interpretation and help with your development - but not to just try to insert all the possible meanings into your head.

What works for them is unlikely to work for you, or me, and is it really possible for any one person to have all the answers anyway?

Put simply, you can't break down and decide every movement and expect a single coherent outcome - you more need to feel the movement and find where you can use it, or not. That's not something an instructor or a bunch of random internet people can do for you.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 7, 2018)

pdg said:


> This shows the difference between passing on the system and your "personal journey".
> 
> To instruct, to be a teacher - that's where pretty much sticking to the official curriculum is good. You're passing the system to a group.
> 
> ...


It is always a "personal journey". It is an individual art/sport.

You are just thinking about the evolution of learning a form wrong. Most forms are an amalgamation and there is a lot of overlap in nearly every form I have ever done, regardless of set, system, or style. 

We are each taught a down block. While each may have slight differences the purpose is the same. So, physical issues aside, the "what works for you doesn't work for someone else" is not true in forms. It means more time needs to be spent on the form/move. 

Excluding the Yudanja forms, there is no "stylization" in the color belt forms, all moves are practical. Even true of the moves in the Taegueks where the transitions often make no sense.   

Especially when first learning a form, trying to visualize every outcome of a move has nothing to do with it.


----------



## wab25 (Dec 7, 2018)

Denoaikido said:


> well with out practicing wrong  you will never get good practice right expertise comes average bad or not so good into the best you can be no practice means its probably also not gonna work the most effectively esp in martial arts


MT is currently having a 2 for 1 sale on periods and commas... Maybe pick up a few while they are cheap and use them... its very hard to figure out what you are saying.

I never said you shouldn't practice. As you point out, you need to practice. But the process of practice, does not produce perfect. It ingrains the actions you are practicing. If those actions are wrong, they will not magically become right, through repetition.

In the context of this thread... its more about what to practice. If you want to learn Aikido, then practicing guard passing and Shotokan katas... will take a long time to teach you Aikido. It would be much more efficient to practice the Aikido katas to learn Aikido. If you want to fight in the UFC, learning Aikido will take you a very long time to get there. Aikido is not the most efficient type of practice, to learn the skills needed in an MMA fight.

Whatever you practice, will become permanent. What you choose to practice has a great deal to do with what you get good at. If practicing something does not move a person closer to their goal, its a waste of time, for that person. The point of this thread, was for those who do practice forms or kata, to share what they get from that practice. As evidenced here, we all get different things. However, by taking in new ideas, you can make your form / kata practice more efficient, by teaching you more in that same time. The trick is to identify your goals, and pick the ideas to work on, that move you in that direction.


----------



## pdg (Dec 7, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> It is always a "personal journey". It is an individual art/sport.
> 
> You are just thinking about the evolution of learning a form wrong. Most forms are an amalgamation and there is a lot of overlap in nearly every form I have ever done, regardless of set, system, or style.
> 
> ...



I think you're misunderstanding my point really - which may be on me for my explanation, or on you for reading with preconceptions - whatever 

Anyway...

That down block - yeah, sure, there's _an_ explanation for it. There's a movement, and a chamber position, and a transition in and out of position.

It's the teacher's job to show you the movement and give you a possible application ("this is to block a snap kick").

I firmly believe it's not the teacher's job to explain why the chamber is there or it's purpose (other than "preparatory position"). Or what you can do with the lead in and lead out. Or what else you can use that "block" motion/position for.

They should be able to help you find your answers to those questions, but any answer they just hand you is no answer at all.

Memorisation comes from instruction and repetition. Learning comes from discovery.

This specific part **So, physical issues aside, the "what works for you doesn't work for someone else" is not true in forms** is only correct if your sole purpose of doing a form is to learn the form...

Case in point - I can perform a takedown using what is presented in a pattern as a "punch followed by a turn into a low block". I'm using the same movements and the same transition. Present that as an alternative application to a 9th kup instead of "punch, block" and it'll only serve to confuse. It doesn't mean they need to practice the form more, it means they need to evolve their understanding of what is possible.


----------



## wab25 (Dec 7, 2018)

pdg said:


> It's the teacher's job to show you the movement and give you a possible application ("this is to block a snap kick").
> 
> I firmly believe it's not the teacher's job to explain why the chamber is there or it's purpose (other than "preparatory position"). Or what you can do with the lead in and lead out. Or what else you can use that "block" motion/position for.
> 
> They should be able to help you find your answers to those questions, but any answer they just hand you is no answer at all.


I agree with most of this. But, I think that additionally, the instructor needs to open the door for the student to see that there is stuff to discover beyond the first possible application. The instructor needs to teach the movement. And the teacher needs to get the student on that path of discovery to see what is there. Just like the instructor should not hand you all the answers... they should at least get you to find the door. Its a fine balance there. They may need to show a few other uses of a movement, with the goal of getting the students to look for themselves. Unfortunately, there are too many students learning these movements, that don't even know there is a door there. As you say, the learning does not start until the student goes through that door and starts their own discovery process. Otherwise, they are just copying movement for the sake of copying. Might as well be dance choreography or a cheer routine.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 7, 2018)

pdg said:


> It's the teacher's job to show you the movement and give you a possible application ("this is to block a snap kick").



The only nit I'd pick with what you're saying is that, as teachers, we should be saying something more like "one use is to [...]" because all too often students will assume that is the *only* application. I think it's best to have them thinking of alternate applications from day one.


----------



## pdg (Dec 7, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> The only nit I'd pick with what you're saying is that, as teachers, we should be saying something more like "one use is to [...]" because all too often students will assume that is the *only* application. I think it's best to have them thinking of alternate applications from day one.



Certainly, I can support that one.


----------



## pdg (Dec 7, 2018)

wab25 said:


> But, I think that additionally, the instructor needs to open the door for the student to see that there is stuff to discover beyond the first possible application.



That's why I said "to help you find your own answers".

As above - plant a seed, if it sprouts help it grow.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 8, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> We are each taught a down block. While each may have slight differences the purpose is the same. .



Is it? Some consider it a "Block"  for a linear attack directed to the same side lower abdomen.   Some may say it's only used against a kick. Some my say it could also be used if an opponent dropped down and was trying to punch,  and I have seen other camps claim it was to release from a same side wrist grab.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 8, 2018)

pdg said:


> . Present that as an alternative application to a 9th kup instead of "punch, block" and it'll only serve to confuse. It doesn't mean they need to practice the form more, it means they need to evolve their understanding of what is possible.



"Even a thirsty man can't drink from a Firehose."


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 8, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's why I said "to help you find your own answers".
> 
> As above - plant a seed, if it sprouts help it grow.



Yes, but how it grows depends on, if, how much, and what type of fertilizer you use.   Some manure is better than others.


----------



## pdg (Dec 8, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, but how it grows depends on, if, how much, and what type of fertilizer you use.   Some manure is better than others.



Too much too soon can burn a seedling though.

And some is just manure


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Is it? Some consider it a "Block"  for a linear attack directed to the same side lower abdomen.   Some may say it's only used against a kick. Some my say it could also be used if an opponent dropped down and was trying to punch,  and I have seen other camps claim it was to release from a same side wrist grab.


Yes, to all your examples. In the beginning it is enough to understand it is a block against, whatever, of the lower region. As a person learns and expands so can the block. General to specific.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

pdg said:


> I think you're misunderstanding my point really - which may be on me for my explanation, or on you for reading with preconceptions - whatever
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...





pdg said:


> firmly believe it's not the teacher's job to explain why the chamber is there or it's purpose (other than "preparatory position"). Or what you can do with the lead in and lead out. Or what else you can use that "block" motion/position for.


Disagree. We have to be on a different page. It is the teacher's most principal job to teach what the chamber and lead in/out is and how to do them. Yin Yang and all that is associated with it. It is much more elemental than you describe. For most people, we are slow to digest information in way we can process it. Finding what triggers the process people is difficult but as a teacher we have to try. I can come at the same person with the same information from different angles/perspectives and see the light come on. It takes time. 



pdg said:


> Case in point - I can perform a takedown using what is presented in a pattern as a "punch followed by a turn into a low block". I'm using the same movements and the same transition. Present that as an alternative application to a 9th kup instead of "punch, block" and it'll only serve to confuse. It doesn't mean they need to practice the form more, it means they need to evolve their understanding of what is possible.


Agree. But if the student is never taught the fundamental elements correctly how can you ever expect them to understand the takedown, how to do it and when to apply it? You are jumping several steps forward in your example.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2018)

- My explanation of a karate technique.
- Skribs' response.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I mix-used a term here.  Ice shelf is already floating on the ocean.  So if ice shelf melts/collapses it does not really contribute to rise in sea level, but it is indicative of warming in the ocean which causes it to collapse.  However, ice shelf acts as a buttress to keep the landed ice sheets from sliding into the ocean, which would contribute to sea level rise.  When ice shelf collapses, it makes it easier for landed ice sheets to slip.
> 
> So when I said ice shelf above in my previous post, I should have said ice sheet.


So the prediction was way wrong. Welcome to science.


----------



## skribs (Dec 8, 2018)

pdg said:


> This shows the difference between passing on the system and your "personal journey".
> 
> To instruct, to be a teacher - that's where pretty much sticking to the official curriculum is good. You're passing the system to a group.
> 
> ...



This is kind of what I was going for.  I get that it's a personal journey and I can find my own meanings.  But...what is the point of teaching me the moves in the form?  As a teacher, what is it that the organization as a whole would want my students to get out of the forms?

When we're looking at it at this level, it's not about what my Master wants, so much as it is what the person who made the policy that every school will learn the forms that have these moves.  And whether it's Taegeuks or not at my school, we follow the KKW curriculum for the black belt forms.  

What I get from the forms is partially on me, partially on my Master, partially on the person that created the forms, and partially on the person telling my Master we have to teach the forms at my school.  When I teach the forms to other students at my school, we've now added a 5th person in the mix.  I can figure out what I get, I can ask my Master what he wants us to get, but the other pieces are what I'm asking for.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 8, 2018)

Folks, I'm going to suggest that the debate on climate change has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it's going to continue it needs it's own thread.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 9, 2018)

skribs said:


> As a teacher, what is it that the organization as a whole would want my students to get out of the forms?
> 
> .



As a teacher of a system part of my job is to teach the system so the student understands the system according to what the system is intended to convey and if they go anywhere in the wold to a school that teaches the same system they will fit right in.  This is not to say I cannot also teach what I disagree with and why. However, I take care not to  confuse students wit too much information, particularly at the lower ranks.


----------



## skribs (Dec 9, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> As a teacher of a system part of my job is to teach the system so the student understands the system *according to what the system is intended to convey* and if they go anywhere in the wold to a school that teaches the same system they will fit right in.  This is not to say I cannot also teach what I disagree with and why. However, I take care not to  confuse students wit too much information, particularly at the lower ranks.



Hence: this thread.


----------



## pdg (Dec 9, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> understands the system according to what the system is intended to convey



Is your interpretation of what the system is intended to convey able to be defined within the confines of this particular medium (i.e. a thread on a forum)?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 9, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, I'm going to suggest that the debate on climate change has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it's going to continue it needs it's own thread.


Would it be possible to have the relevant posts split into a new thread, so we don’t lose the train of the discussion?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 9, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, I'm going to suggest that the debate on climate change has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If it's going to continue it needs it's own thread.


Agree. I tapped out yesterday.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 9, 2018)

skribs said:


> Hence: this thread.


I'll posit a valid question relevant to this thread. What is your definition of a "system"?


----------



## skribs (Dec 9, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I'll posit a valid question relevant to this thread. What is your definition of a "system"?



In this case, the system is whatever organization is in charge of determining the forms that are used in a large number of Taekwondo dojangs.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 10, 2018)

pdg said:


> Is your interpretation of what the system is intended to convey able to be defined within the confines of this particular medium (i.e. a thread on a forum)?


First and foremost in my case it should not be my interpretation. I teach General Choi's system.He left us 15 Volumes for reference and video reference.    So, if I teach something the student should never have to ask "Sir, you teach this and the materials show that." (This was often the case with instructors had less reference materials in the 1970'). Further, having been thru 7 instructor courses with the system founder I was able to fix close to 200 items I had misinterpreted or been taught differently.    There are a few  occasions where the materials  may have gaps, errors and are subject to interpretations and having officiated and participated in several international events I can tell the student those infrequent occasions where different instructors do things differently.  Being near O'Hare airport I get frequent visitors and transfers.  Over the years these people are from more than 10 countries and numerous states, and they fit right in    I asked a visitor once to watch 6 people perform a pattern and then say where they learned it - different countries / states.   The visitor commented that he thought they were all my students from white belt because their technique was so similar.   (Does this answer your question?)


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 10, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> This is not meant to stir the pot. I found it a very interesting article in a weekly cattlemen's memo email. 5 Deadly Diseases Emerging from Global Warming
> I have seen several times where we have received cattle from or shipped cattle to other states and they get sick. It always surprises me how a distance of say <1000 miles can have such affects but I know it is real. It is certainly believable there are unknown bacteria in ice that is 1000's of years old.


Good catch.  Very interesting and potentially terrifying.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 10, 2018)

Gentle folk,

Posts on climate change have been moved to their own thread in The Study: Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

Please remember, no politics & keep it respectful.  You've done a great job so far... don't stop!

jks9199
Administrator


----------



## wab25 (Dec 12, 2018)

Been thinking about this thread some more...

Martial Arts are supposed to make us better and give us more options. That is, they make us faster, stronger, more flexible, give us better balance... They give us more options, punches, kicks, throws, locks... Forms and Katas are tool used to do just that... to increase our abilities and give us more options to use.

When we start using the Martial Art or the form / kata to put fences up and take things away... we are doing it wrong. They are not there to say "you can't do that technique... we are studying x art and y form." They are supposed to say: "here are some things that will help you do your stuff better, and have you thought of this yet... well, now lets make it better."

The sports are a little different. They are sports, and by definition, do have fences put up. They have created a game to play, and rules to use when playing. The mistake is to use the sport (the subset of the art) to define the art itself. 

If you are going to play the sport... you need to know the rules, and practice those things within the rules. If you are going to study the art... then there are no fences or boundaries. Your forms / katas and other training techniques should only be adding and making you better... increasing your abilities. There is some overlap between the sport and the art... but they are not the same.


----------



## skribs (Dec 13, 2018)

wab25 said:


> When we start using the Martial Art or the form / kata to put fences up and take things away.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> So he's not finding an application on the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang. He's expanding on how it can be used in different ways.


I'm just getting around to digging through this thread, so ignore my posts if I'm repeating something already covered in the intervening 2 weeks. What you describe in the second sentence is my definition of "application" in a MA context. Perhaps part of the frustration here is a difference in usage of terms?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> The problem is then finding a situation where I would choose to go for a scissor block over going for a down block or outside block.  If just one hand works, why is two better?  In order for me to make sense of the technique, I would need to find situations in which the single block is not sufficient.  Then try the scissor block there.
> 
> Regarding Keumgang...at my school we call the other block "Keumgangmaki" (the one with an inside block and outside block, where each of your arms makes an L).  I also think if the person in the first picture continues to the point you see in the second picture, he's going to kick himself in the face with his opponent's foot
> 
> I'm wondering if the purpose for these double-hand techniques is to force us to work on both hands together, and to force our posture.  For example, in our version of Palgwe #8, there are double outside blocks similar to the ones in Keumgang (the one just before the double low block), only we do those in front stance.  If your shoulders are square, then the blocks will be symmetrical, but if your shoulders are not square, the blocks will be uneven.  So it might be a way of forcing the right posture in order for the form to look right.


We have similar blocks (we call them "cross-blocks") in NGA. I've reduced to teaching only one of them (originally there were 4) because I don't see them as all that beneficial. However, in extreme cases (caught off guard, can't shift out of the way of a power strike, so have to go force-on-force), they have potential application. I don't think the application gets much deeper than that, unless you look for non-blocking uses.

Something to consider: maybe some of the techniques in forms are - as you start to ponder at the end of this post - for building movement, rather than direct application. If I can get you to successfully move your arms in different operations at the same time, your ability to deal with combination attacks probably improves. And it's a harder thing to do, so I'm helping build your overall movement ability, which is good for you, even if there's no direct application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

Denoaikido said:


> practice makes perfect in any martial art period is just my two cents


*Perfect practice


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> I think you're misunderstanding my point really - which may be on me for my explanation, or on you for reading with preconceptions - whatever
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...


I have to say I disagree, PDG. As an instructor, I don't want my students to have to rediscover anything important entirely on their own. I want to teach them to discover, but I want them to be able to make more progress than I did, so I provide them some help (sometimes answers, sometimes just clues). So, if I were teaching TKD and had any idea what the purpose of that chamber was, I'd teach it. I might not teach it to beginners, but once they've got that basic movement down, it's time to give them some purpose to a chamber that really doesn't serve a purpose in live use (you need to keep that guard up, so the chamber can't be fully used). And if the motion of the block has other uses, I want to introduce some of them.

Why take away that early discovery? Because if I give them a better start than I had, they can develop better skill in some areas than I could. And that's always my goal as an instructor: help them find something they can do better than me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> First and foremost in my case it should not be my interpretation. I teach General Choi's system.He left us 15 Volumes for reference and video reference.    So, if I teach something the student should never have to ask "Sir, you teach this and the materials show that." (This was often the case with instructors had less reference materials in the 1970'). Further, having been thru 7 instructor courses with the system founder I was able to fix close to 200 items I had misinterpreted or been taught differently.    There are a few  occasions where the materials  may have gaps, errors and are subject to interpretations and having officiated and participated in several international events I can tell the student those infrequent occasions where different instructors do things differently.  Being near O'Hare airport I get frequent visitors and transfers.  Over the years these people are from more than 10 countries and numerous states, and they fit right in    I asked a visitor once to watch 6 people perform a pattern and then say where they learned it - different countries / states.   The visitor commented that he thought they were all my students from white belt because their technique was so similar.   (Does this answer your question?)


I'm not a fan of this. Here's my view: I've never met an instructor who was entirely satisfied with the way they taught. They were still learning, and using that learning to adjust their delivery.

I assume that to be true of the founder/codifier of any given system, as well. (I'm wrong at least sometimes, I assume, but shouldn't be.) If they were still tweaking for better effect, why should that stop when they are no longer available to teach (either because you're teaching far away, or because they have died)? You know something today that General Choi did not. Your students should benefit from that by adjustments in what is taught and how.

So, my strongly held view is that when teaching an art for effectiveness (at competition, at defensive fighting, at board breaking, whatever), the learning over time and generations should change things. I would _want_ to see that changes exist, as evidence that the system hasn't stagnated. The only times I could see following it exactly is if it's done purely for historical preservation (people in civil war reenactments don't upgrade their gear to modern stuff), or if it's being used just for the joy of learning something, without any plan to use if for context. (That latter case could still argue for changes to improve learning, but let's ignore that for the sake of keeping things simple.)


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm just getting around to digging through this thread, so ignore my posts if I'm repeating something already covered in the intervening 2 weeks. What you describe in the second sentence is my definition of "application" in a MA context. Perhaps part of the frustration here is a difference in usage of terms?



Looking at the way it can be used is an application.  The issue I have is with the claim that the form "teaches" that application, if 90% of the application is not in the form.

We have a kick combination at my school that is a front kick followed by a 360 hook kick.  Could I claim that our basic form #2, which includes a front kick, teaches you that application?  No, because the 360 hook isn't in there.  I can say "here's a way to follow up that front kick" but I can't claim that the form teaches it.



gpseymour said:


> We have similar blocks (we call them "cross-blocks") in NGA. I've reduced to teaching only one of them (originally there were 4) because I don't see them as all that beneficial. However, in extreme cases (caught off guard, can't shift out of the way of a power strike, so have to go force-on-force), they have potential application. I don't think the application gets much deeper than that, unless you look for non-blocking uses.
> 
> Something to consider: maybe some of the techniques in forms are - as you start to ponder at the end of this post - for building movement, rather than direct application. If I can get you to successfully move your arms in different operations at the same time, your ability to deal with combination attacks probably improves. And it's a harder thing to do, so I'm helping build your overall movement ability, which is good for you, even if there's no direct application.



This is one of the theories I had, and I wanted to see if anyone else came up with the same idea - that the double blocks are more about teaching you to focus on both hands instead of just one.



gpseymour said:


> *Perfect practice



The one I hear is "practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent."  (Although usually that's followed with "perfect practice makes perfect").



gpseymour said:


> I have to say I disagree, PDG. As an instructor, I don't want my students to have to rediscover anything important entirely on their own. I want to teach them to discover, but I want them to be able to make more progress than I did, so I provide them some help (sometimes answers, sometimes just clues). So, if I were teaching TKD and had any idea what the purpose of that chamber was, I'd teach it. I might not teach it to beginners, but once they've got that basic movement down, it's time to give them some purpose to a chamber that really doesn't serve a purpose in live use (you need to keep that guard up, so the chamber can't be fully used). And if the motion of the block has other uses, I want to introduce some of them.
> 
> Why take away that early discovery? Because if I give them a better start than I had, they can develop better skill in some areas than I could. And that's always my goal as an instructor: help them find something they can do better than me.



This is basically why humans have dominated the planet.  It also shows up in monkeys and dolphins.  The ability to pass down knowledge is how we make progress.  Sometimes you want people to critically think about things and sometimes you want people to come up with their own answers.  

The accuracy that Taekwondo aims for in the forms suggests to me that at the very least, there are specific reasons why those motions are used.  If there wasn't a reason to do it the way it's done, then it wouldn't matter if you vary the form to fit yourself.  Now that's not to say you can't go on and find your own applications.  But someone doesn't demand you copy their moves exactly, without having a reason to copy those moves exactly.  Just like in Karate Kid, when Daniel started on any of the chores, and Mr. Miyagi corrected the way he was waxing, sanding, or painting.  He had a specific reason for Daniel to do the chores in the motions that he used, and that reason became apparent when he showed Daniel the application.  So it seems to me if we're training this way, there's an answer, and not a discovery as to why we are.

(As an aside, I've always been bad at riddles that are just all metaphors.  You have to know what the metaphor the riddler is using in order to guess the riddle, and not being psychic I could never figure those out.  This may be part of why I have more of an issue than others with "here is a motion, figure out how it is used").

There's a guy I used to work with that had the attitude of "I had to figure everything out when I started here and nobody helped me, so if you want to be good at this job, you need to figure things out for yourself."  I butted heads with him a lot, because every time I'd go to him for advice he'd make me feel like an idiot for not knowing things.  I, on the other hand, write a white paper any time I figure something out that would be useful for multiple people, because I'd rather they didn't have to spend the extra time trying to figure out something that we as a team should already know.

I get that you have to give people room to discover and explore, but that doesn't mean that's ALL you give them.  You have to give some guidance, and sometimes if someone is stuck on something, you just have to give them the answer and move on.


----------



## Denoaikido (Dec 14, 2018)

Your view is a interesting one I am not a  teacher by any means so I can't really say both sides .I will  give my students perspective point of view I do  think one should learn the art in is all before trying to recreate or make changes to it that being said use what works for you...... You can learn the exact ways and then make them your own when you have fully trained  a majority of them most the times guys are looking for easier ways and that is fine i just think you should be very experienced in doing so first


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

Denoaikido said:


> Your view is a interesting one I am not a  teacher by any means so I can't really say both sides .I will  give my students perspective point of view I do  think one should learn the art in is all before trying to recreate or make changes to it that being said use what works for you...... You can learn the exact ways and then make them your own when you have fully trained  a majority of them most the times guys are looking for easier ways and that is fine i just think you should be very experienced in doing so first



One of the things I've been learning about teaching is "teach the rules, then teach the exceptions."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> Looking at the way it can be used is an application.  The issue I have is with the claim that the form "teaches" that application, if 90% of the application is not in the form.


Yeah, I'm never a fan of the phrase "the form teaches". It might reinforce (by giving you a chance to repeat a movement), but a form doesn't teach. It's just a tool used for teaching and learning. To me, it's like saying "the mirror teaches..." or "the heavy bag teaches...".



skribs said:


> We have a kick combination at my school that is a front kick followed by a 360 hook kick.  Could I claim that our basic form #2, which includes a front kick, teaches you that application?  No, because the 360 hook isn't in there.  I can say "here's a way to follow up that front kick" but I can't claim that the form teaches it.


Agreed. We could accurately say that the front kick in that combination is an application of the front kick in the form, assuming we use my definition of "application".


skribs said:


> The one I hear is "practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent."  (Although usually that's followed with "perfect practice makes perfect").


Agreed. 



skribs said:


> This is basically why humans have dominated the planet.  It also shows up in monkeys and dolphins.  The ability to pass down knowledge is how we make progress.  Sometimes you want people to critically think about things and sometimes you want people to come up with their own answers.


Agreed. In fact, part of what we can teach is how to get to some of those discoveries faster - perhaps by teaching students to ask better questions than we did. A friend of mine encapsulated this principle as the slogan for his style: "Now how. Why." I've also heard this as a quote, which I'll leave unattributed (because I've forgotten who I'm quoting), translated sometimes as, "Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the masters of old. Seek, instead, what they sought."



skribs said:


> The accuracy that Taekwondo aims for in the forms suggests to me that at the very least, there are specific reasons why those motions are used.  If there wasn't a reason to do it the way it's done, then it wouldn't matter if you vary the form to fit yourself.  Now that's not to say you can't go on and find your own applications.  But someone doesn't demand you copy their moves exactly, without having a reason to copy those moves exactly.  Just like in Karate Kid, when Daniel started on any of the chores, and Mr. Miyagi corrected the way he was waxing, sanding, or painting.  He had a specific reason for Daniel to do the chores in the motions that he used, and that reason became apparent when he showed Daniel the application.  So it seems to me if we're training this way, there's an answer, and not a discovery as to why we are.


I'll suggest another possibility for the precision demanded in forms, though it's no more or less likely than your own supposition. It's possible the precision is the point, in and of itself. To help students develop that attention to detail and the discipline to get things "right". My understanding of Asian cultures is that this is a commonly prized characteristic, so it would make sense that it would be incorporated in martial arts development. Perhaps you and I seek too much meaning in things that were, in fact, their own purpose.

Or maybe it's both. Or we're both wrong, and it's neither.



skribs said:


> (As an aside, I've always been bad at riddles that are just all metaphors.  You have to know what the metaphor the riddler is using in order to guess the riddle, and not being psychic I could never figure those out.  This may be part of why I have more of an issue than others with "here is a motion, figure out how it is used").


Some of this, too, comes from the traditional teaching methods used in Asia, I've been told. Apparently, it wasn't at all unusual for an instructor to demonstrate a technique (perhaps a throw) once, then simply leave the mats for the students to work it out on their own. That wouldn't be unreasonable with experienced students (I've heard this said about Ueshiba's early teaching), though it leverages their existing knowledge more than it adds to it. But it would pu them on the path to learning to dig on their own. I'm a fan of giving this kind of challenge to experienced folks, but not to (most) beginners.



skribs said:


> There's a guy I used to work with that had the attitude of "I had to figure everything out when I started here and nobody helped me, so if you want to be good at this job, you need to figure things out for yourself."  I butted heads with him a lot, because every time I'd go to him for advice he'd make me feel like an idiot for not knowing things.  I, on the other hand, write a white paper any time I figure something out that would be useful for multiple people, because I'd rather they didn't have to spend the extra time trying to figure out something that we as a team should already know.


I've run into that attitude, as well. And there's some good reason to it (again, if we assume the hardship involved is about developing characteristics that aren't directly related to fighting skill). But it ignores that we know some teaching/learning methods work more consistently well than others. Things like never giving the trainee a handout (in modern context, probably electronically available on a web site), and making them take all the notes. It's good for character building, but means the person who least understands the topic is writing the summary, which will slow the learning process in many cases.



skribs said:


> I get that you have to give people room to discover and explore, but that doesn't mean that's ALL you give them.  You have to give some guidance, and sometimes if someone is stuck on something, you just have to give them the answer and move on.


This, mostly. I'll adjust the last point to say that sometimes even then they don't need the answer, but a better question to work with. And sometimes, the best answer is just to give them an answer so they can move on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

Denoaikido said:


> Your view is a interesting one I am not a  teacher by any means so I can't really say both sides .I will  give my students perspective point of view I do  think one should learn the art in is all before trying to recreate or make changes to it that being said use what works for you...... You can learn the exact ways and then make them your own when you have fully trained  a majority of them most the times guys are looking for easier ways and that is fine i just think you should be very experienced in doing so first


I have a very hard time following that with so little punctuation and some (I think) grammatical errors or word swaps. Can you clarify what you're saying?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> One of the things I've been learning about teaching is "teach the rules, then teach the exceptions."


Agreed. One of my personal weaknesses as an instructor is that I tend to get into the exceptions too quickly. Something I'm still working on.


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'll suggest another possibility for the precision demanded in forms, though it's no more or less likely than your own supposition. It's possible the precision is the point, in and of itself. To help students develop that attention to detail and the discipline to get things "right". My understanding of Asian cultures is that this is a commonly prized characteristic, so it would make sense that it would be incorporated in martial arts development. Perhaps you and I seek too much meaning in things that were, in fact, their own purpose.



This makes a lot of sense to me.



gpseymour said:


> Some of this, too, comes from the traditional teaching methods used in Asia, I've been told. Apparently, it wasn't at all unusual for an instructor to demonstrate a technique (perhaps a throw) once, then simply leave the mats for the students to work it out on their own. That wouldn't be unreasonable with experienced students (I've heard this said about Ueshiba's early teaching), though it leverages their existing knowledge more than it adds to it. But it would pu them on the path to learning to dig on their own. I'm a fan of giving this kind of challenge to experienced folks, but not to (most) beginners.



I think it goes in line with what I've discussed in other threads as the way you learn techniques.  You start with the rote memorization and muscle memory, then you drill without resistance, then you drill with resistance, then drill for failure, and then spar, apply, and experiment with it.  

Beginners are obviously in the rote memorization and muscle memory stage.  The more advanced students should be in the later stages.

It kind of pops up with the black belt curriculum, too.  Our purple belts, for example, do 80-90% of their test requirements every day, and every 2 weeks will see all their testing stuff at least once.  Black belts, we may go months without seeing certain things, or we may be just a few weeks before the test and he'll show us a form once and expect us to do it on the test day based on that.


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. One of my personal weaknesses as an instructor is that I tend to get into the exceptions too quickly. Something I'm still working on.



It's also something that happens in Youtube videos a lot.  Where the video on a technique is filled with rabbit trails of when you can't use it or how to modify the technique, before they've finished explaining the technique!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> It's also something that happens in Youtube videos a lot.  Where the video on a technique is filled with rabbit trails of when you can't use it or how to modify the technique, before they've finished explaining the technique!


One of my personal pet peeves with videos (and some instructors) is failing to show what the technique looks like before you start describing the steps. Describing the steps almost invariably involves some things to avoid (don't step too deep here, or you'll....). So now the picture the student is trying to form is muddied by all these things (and by those rabbit trails). Show it once, first, without commentary, then they have an accurate picture to use when they're following an explanation of the steps.


----------



## wab25 (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> This is basically why humans have dominated the planet. It also shows up in monkeys and dolphins. The ability to pass down knowledge is how we make progress. Sometimes you want people to critically think about things and sometimes you want people to come up with their own answers.
> 
> The accuracy that Taekwondo aims for in the forms suggests to me that at the very least, there are specific reasons why those motions are used. If there wasn't a reason to do it the way it's done, then it wouldn't matter if you vary the form to fit yourself. Now that's not to say you can't go on and find your own applications. But someone doesn't demand you copy their moves exactly, without having a reason to copy those moves exactly. Just like in Karate Kid, when Daniel started on any of the chores, and Mr. Miyagi corrected the way he was waxing, sanding, or painting. He had a specific reason for Daniel to do the chores in the motions that he used, and that reason became apparent when he showed Daniel the application. So it seems to me if we're training this way, there's an answer, and not a discovery as to why we are.


So... if passing down information is a valuable thing... why not take the information passed down? Why reject it outright? 

I have shown you where the katas that became your forms fit into the Japanese system of transmission. Funakoshi used it, and taught that way when he taught General Choi and other "founders" of TKD. They thought that the kata part of that system was important enough to keep, even if they rearranged the movements. The answer to what use are the forms, would start there.

As far as applications of moves... again I showed you Funakoshi. I could have shown you Okazaki or Kano or Gracie... but they do not have the same relationship as Funakoshi to TKD. Again, Funakoshi taught Choi and other TKD "founders" Shotokan karate. They brought those katas to Korea and taught those katas before rearranging the moves a bit. Therefore, the start of that knowledge base (or white papers) would include Funakoshi's applications. I linked in the text of one of Funakoshi's books where he details the one steps (kihon) and his katas, including application. All of which you reject out of hand. Another poster mentions General Choi's volumes of texts, explaining the forms and their applications. If passing down information is something you value, then maybe starting with Funakoshi's work, then reading Choi's work and comparing the two, would give you a really good start, and a lot of base applications, beyond "a block is a block." Looking at what Funakoshi was getting at and why, and then understanding Choi's point of view and why he made any changes he did should prove very useful in a search.

If it were me... I would start with learning the kata or form.Next learn your instructors applications. Then learning what Funakoshi thought the application was. From a TKD stand point, you may want to start with Choi's applications first, then look at Funakoshi's. These would be that good starting point that Mr Seymour was talking about... if I understand him correctly. But you seem to reject any application that does not follow the name exactly. So here we are. The white papers were written and they are available. Learning to see the movements in the forms, in the way the founders of those arts saw them, should be a very valuable insight.


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

wab25 said:


> So... if passing down information is a valuable thing... why not take the information passed down? Why reject it outright?
> 
> I have shown you where the katas that became your forms fit into the Japanese system of transmission. Funakoshi used it, and taught that way when he taught General Choi and other "founders" of TKD. They thought that the kata part of that system was important enough to keep, even if they rearranged the movements. The answer to what use are the forms, would start there.
> 
> ...



If I was taking Karate, what Karate wants me to learn would apply.  If I was learning ITF forms, what General Choi wanted me to learn would apply.  As I am learning KKW forms, what the KKW wants me to learn is what is applicable to the question.

I have asked the question more open-ended and asked what other arts get out of their forms.  I have asked on the Karate forums what Karate gets out of these types of moves.  I have looked at this answer.  What I'm looking for now is what does the KKW want me to learn from these forms?

The problem you have is that you see a question I like and assume that's the only question I'm asking.  It's not.  I compartmentalize my threads because I ask targeted questions aimed at discovering specific answers.  Sometimes my questions are more generalized, and sometimes they are more specific.  If I am asking a specific question and I get generalized answers, that doesn't help me answer the specific question. 

You are under the false assumption that this is the only question I am asking.  This is why you think I'm asking the wrong questions.  I am also asking the questions you think I need to.  I'm just not doing it in this thread.  There's tons of things you think I'm not doing, and I am.

You say I need to look at Karate - I do!  I watch Karate application videos, read Karate blogs, and post on the Karate forums some of my questions.  So I am doing that.
You say I need to look at what Choi says.  In this case, I actually don't so much.  I do get advice from ITF trainers, but I don't go to the "source" in this case, because my organization has evolved since Choi founded the art.
You say I need to experiment with the forms.  I do!  But that doesn't tell me what the creator wanted me to learn.  Are you familiar with the blind men and the elephant?  Essentially, they each touch a different part of the elephant and get a different idea of what it's like (ear -> blanket, trunk -> snake, leg -> tree, side -> wall, tail -> rope, tusk - > horn, etc.).  So I can go in blind and come up with my own ideas, and that's fine, but that doesn't tell me what the KKW wants me to learn.
I get that you're trying to help, I really do.  But you should probably take a step back.  You're worried about the questions I'm not asking, well I didn't list the other questions I ask in this thread.  To be perfectly honest, I don't really know that you can help me in this thread, because I'm asking questions specific to my art that you don't have the experience in.  The information you are providing is off-topic for this thread.  That doesn't mean I think it's bad information.  It's just not the answer I'm looking for in this thread.

EDIT TO ADD:  The biggest reason I've been so negative on the advice you've given in this thread, is because the advice you gave started off as criticism that we're not using the methods you use in Karate.  You seemed surprised we don't train the same way.

This had two effects:  first, it made it clear that you do not have first-hand knowledge of Taekwondo training methods.  You just assumed that because Taekwondo evolved out of Karate, that we must be the same.

Second, it did kind of create a bit of animosity, that you're telling me my methods are wrong because I'm not following the methods you do.

Because of this, I am wary to accept your input on this thread, because your input is not coming from experience, and your input is coming from what I see as a point of condescension and arrogance - that I would be a complete failure if it wasn't for your guidance.  And that if I reject your guidance I am doomed to failure.  

The rest of our discussion in this thread has basically been you trying to convince me that I need your guidance.


----------



## wab25 (Dec 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> If I was learning ITF forms, what General Choi wanted me to learn would apply. As I am learning KKW forms, what the KKW wants me to learn is what is applicable to the question.


KKW came from the Korea Taekwondo Association. The first president of the Korea Taekwondo Association was General Choi, before he left to start the ITF. It would seem that his influence would be in your lineage, with Un Yong Kim between you and him. 

(Korea Taekwondo Association - Wikipedia)


> The Kukkiwon and the World Taekwondo Federation(WTF) were created by the KTA in the early 1970s.






skribs said:


> *You say I need to look at what Choi says. In this case, I actually don't so much.* I do get advice from ITF trainers, but I don't go to the "source" in this case, because my organization has evolved since Choi founded the art.
> 
> You say I need to experiment with the forms. I do! *But that doesn't tell me what the creator wanted me to learn.*



Funakoshi taught Choi and a few others who brought the art to Korea and modified it. Who exactly is the creator, from whom you want to learn this stuff? These moves have not been new for a long time... they are much older than Funakoshi and his teachers even. If you want to know what the original creators wanted you to learn... that line would take you through Funakoshi and Choi and the other Koreans who trained under Funakoshi, before creating TKD. If your creator is someone more recent... then your creator's lineage and where he learned things also would come through that same line. But, you don't want to look at any of them, and still want to know what the creator wanted you to learn... Ok. You will have to be specific about who you consider the creator to be.



skribs said:


> The biggest reason I've been so negative on the advice you've given in this thread, is because the advice you gave started off as criticism that we're not using the methods you use in Karate. You seemed surprised we don't train the same way.


I am not surprised at all that you don't train the same way as Karate. I am surprised that you claim to train differently than any other TKD school or practitioner I have ever trained with or talked with. (its been quite a few... I spent 3-4 years training in a TKD dojang... but would frequently train with the TKD class as well... The TKD master and I were pretty good friends and would cross train with each other quite a bit... and talk about what we were learning and how... additionally I have been on both sides of the US training with TKD guys in various fashions, and have a great deal of respect for TKD)



skribs said:


> Because of this, I am wary to accept your input on this thread, because your input is not coming from experience, and your input is coming from what I see as a point of condescension and arrogance - that I would be a complete failure if it wasn't for your guidance. And that if I reject your guidance I am doomed to failure.


In this case you are reading into things, what isn't there. The only guidance I ever wanted to give you was to look to the founders of your system, and see what they wanted to teach you in your forms. Apparently, I have not been able to decipher who the "creator" was. But, once I find out, the only guidance I would try to give, is to find out what he thought that answers were and maybe look to where he learned from. And then explore from there. Many of the things I have shared are things that I have learned from TKD people (masters and students) that helped me start looking for the same answers you are looking for.


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

wab25 said:


> In this case you are reading into things, what isn't there. The only guidance I ever wanted to give you was to look to the founders of your system, and see what they wanted to teach you in your forms. Apparently, I have not been able to decipher who the "creator" was. But, once I find out, the only guidance I would try to give, is to find out what he thought that answers were and maybe look to where he learned from. And then explore from there. Many of the things I have shared are things that I have learned from TKD people (masters and students) that helped me start looking for the same answers you are looking for.



This is...what I'm asking.  Now your advice is to do what I am doing.

Again, you are so arrogant to think I couldn't figure this out without you.  But yet, I'm asking the questions you want me to ask.


----------



## pdg (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I have to say I disagree, PDG. As an instructor, I don't want my students to have to rediscover anything important entirely on their own. I want to teach them to discover, but I want them to be able to make more progress than I did, so I provide them some help (sometimes answers, sometimes just clues). So, if I were teaching TKD and had any idea what the purpose of that chamber was, I'd teach it. I might not teach it to beginners, but once they've got that basic movement down, it's time to give them some purpose to a chamber that really doesn't serve a purpose in live use (you need to keep that guard up, so the chamber can't be fully used). And if the motion of the block has other uses, I want to introduce some of them.
> 
> Why take away that early discovery? Because if I give them a better start than I had, they can develop better skill in some areas than I could. And that's always my goal as an instructor: help them find something they can do better than me.



If the options are exactly what I said or exactly what you said, I'll have to disagree and agree with both viewpoints 

As a student I don't like being handed too many "answers", especially if I didn't ask a question.

I don't mind at all being given a possible explanation/application - as long as it's accepted that I may very well come up with other possibilities. I don't do well at all with the somewhat dogmatic stance I see many take.


----------



## wab25 (Dec 14, 2018)

Nine Kwans
Five of these guys have Karate instructors (very good ones). Three were under Funakoshi. Following is Karate relationship:
Anko Itosu

    Funakoshi
        General Choi
        Won Kuk Lee
        Byung Jick Ro

    Kanken Toyoma
        Byung In Yoon

    Kenwa Mabuni
        Kwe Byung

Further, reading from this book, "Taekwondo: From a Martial Art to a Martial Sport" by Udo Moenig... He is also suggesting looking at Karate manuals in an investigation of TKD. (Taekwondo)
(I hope the link works) Scroll up a little and read the whole section titled "Karate and taekwondo literature," its not very long. He explains how studying Funakoshi's works would be necessary because of his relationship with several of TKDs founders. (he suggests that other Karate instructor's works would not apply, as they had no relation with the founders of TKD)

I don't think I am off base when suggesting that finding out what the creators wanted a student to learn from the forms in TKD, would involve looking at what Funakoshi taught.

But, I will bet that I am wrong again, and that this is all irrelevant, again.


----------



## skribs (Dec 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> I don't mind at all being given a possible explanation/application - as long as it's accepted that I may very well come up with other possibilities. I don't do well at all with the somewhat dogmatic stance I see many take.



I think both are important.  Both given the "answer" and then being allowed to explore.  It's just like anything else.  When you teach kids art, the first thing you do is teach them to color inside the lines.  Then you teach them to make their own lines.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

wab25 said:


> KKW came from the Korea Taekwondo Association. The first president of the Korea Taekwondo Association was General Choi, before he left to start the ITF. It would seem that his influence would be in your lineage, with Un Yong Kim between you and him.
> 
> (Korea Taekwondo Association - Wikipedia)
> 
> ...


Unless I'm misremembering, the current KKW forms are relatively new. They wouldn't have been created by even the founder of that branch of the art, but by one or more senior folks in the organization at the time. I think that's what @skribs is getting at. He's wondering what the current KKW leadership (or perhaps those who created the current forms, if that's different) intends as the purpose of the forms as they currently exist. That intention can't be gotten by going into past generations.

For comparison, if someone wanted to find the purpose of the forms I teach in NGA, even talking to my primary instructor wouldn't help. He has no idea what the purpose of those forms is, because he doesn't use them and never has. You could find much out about NGA by talking to him, but not about anything I've changed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 14, 2018)

pdg said:


> If the options are exactly what I said or exactly what you said, I'll have to disagree and agree with both viewpoints
> 
> As a student I don't like being handed too many "answers", especially if I didn't ask a question.
> 
> I don't mind at all being given a possible explanation/application - as long as it's accepted that I may very well come up with other possibilities. I don't do well at all with the somewhat dogmatic stance I see many take.


That last part is probably the easiest thing to agree with I've read in days.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Unless I'm misremembering, the current KKW forms are relatively new. They wouldn't have been created by even the founder of that branch of the art, but by one or more senior folks in the organization at the time. I think that's what @skribs is getting at. He's wondering what the current KKW leadership (or perhaps those who created the current forms, if that's different) intends as the purpose of the forms as they currently exist. That intention can't be gotten by going into past generations.



Correct. The KTA was formed around 1955. A unified curriculum (using the Palgwae forms) wasn't implemented until 1965 or so. The Taeguk forms were developed by a group (I believe it was one representative of each of the Kwan that were currently part of the KTA) and then implemented in the early 1970's.
So, forms by committee. And it's always been made perfectly clear by those who developed the Palgwae, Taegeuk, and Yudanja forms that there is no hidden techniques built into them. Yes, a movement or series of movements will likely have multiple applications, but the developers didn't hide anything in the forms, as is commonly believed to be the case with Japanese kata.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 15, 2018)

From the Kukkiwon website:

Taekwondo Poomsae is the style of conduct which expresses directly of indirectly mental and physical refinements as well as the principles of offense and defense resulting from cultivation of Taekwondo spirit and techniques.

So poomsae exist in Kukkiwon Taekwondo to 

Cultivate techniques 
Cultivate spirit 
Express the principles of offence and defence 
Express mental and physical refinement.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 15, 2018)

DaveB said:


> From the Kukkiwon website:
> 
> Taekwondo Poomsae is the style of conduct which expresses directly of indirectly mental and physical refinements as well as the principles of offense and defense resulting from cultivation of Taekwondo spirit and techniques.
> 
> ...


So to expand on the above:


Cultivate technique, suggests getting good at the techniques through practice. 
Cultivate the spirit, I tend to think of this in terms of determination aided by the exacting discipline of attention to detail and physical practice. 
Express the principles of offence and defence, well the principle is the underpinning idea, so...  Get out of the way, get something in the way, hit back, hit in combination...  These are all expressed in the forms.
Express mental and physical refinement, well as you get stronger, faster, more flexible, etc it shows in your technique. As you get more disciplined you remember the forms better and become more polished in your performance. 
So this appears to be the answer for Kukkiwon. 

It is consistent with the general explanations of both general poomsae practice and specific technical detail that I have encountered. 

It's also consistent with my reading of the history, which differs from Wab's in that I believe in the period that Koreans were being taught Shotokan, the Japanese were not teaching deeper application for a variety of political reasons. 

This is further corroborated by Dirty Dog's statement above, that the builders of the modern forms explicitly stated that the poomsae they created were not encoded with anything other than surface level applications, ie it is what it's called. 

So the only question that remains, does this answer satisfy Skribs?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a fan of this. Here's my view: I've never met an instructor who was entirely satisfied with the way they taught. They were still learning, and using that learning to adjust their delivery.
> 
> I assume that to be true of the founder/codifier of any given system, as well. (I'm wrong at least sometimes, I assume, but shouldn't be.) If they were still tweaking for better effect, why should that stop when they are no longer available to teach (either because you're teaching far away, or because they have died)? You know something today that General Choi did not. Your students should benefit from that by adjustments in what is taught and how.
> 
> )



The part you ad quoted and that you disagree with was a follow up to this in a prior post: :

"This is not to say I cannot also teach what I disagree with and why. However, I take care not to confuse students wit too much information, particularly at the lower ranks." 

It also does not say anything about "How" things are taught, nor does it limit teaching anything in addition to what the system contains.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Look into Coaches Eye.





Dirty Dog said:


> Correct. The KTA was formed around 1955. A unified curriculum (using the Palgwae forms) wasn't implemented until 1965 or so. The Taeguk forms were developed by a group (I believe it was one representative of each of the Kwan that were currently part of the KTA) and then implemented in the early 1970's.
> So, forms by committee. And it's always been made perfectly clear by those who developed the Palgwae, Taegeuk, and Yudanja forms that there is no hidden techniques built into them. Yes, a movement or series of movements will likely have multiple applications, but the developers didn't hide anything in the forms, as is commonly believed to be the case with Japanese kata.





DaveB said:


> From the Kukkiwon website:
> 
> Taekwondo Poomsae is the style of conduct which expresses directly of indirectly mental and physical refinements as well as the principles of offense and defense resulting from cultivation of Taekwondo spirit and techniques.
> 
> ...





DaveB said:


> So to expand on the above:
> 
> 
> Cultivate technique, suggests getting good at the techniques through practice.
> ...



Based on these three posts, I'd tend to say there aren't likely to be many direct applications to sequences in the forms. So a given combination is not necessarily meant to be used as that same sequence outside the form. But the transitions that exist (getting from one end position to the next technique) probably have applications, as do the individual movements and the principles used (which I usually refer to as indirect applications).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> The part you ad quoted and that you disagree with was a follow up to this in a prior post: :
> 
> "This is not to say I cannot also teach what I disagree with and why. However, I take care not to confuse students wit too much information, particularly at the lower ranks."
> 
> It also does not say anything about "How" things are taught, nor does it limit teaching anything in addition to what the system contains.


The primary thing I disagree with is this statement:


Earl Weiss said:


> So, if I teach something the student should never have to ask "Sir, you teach this and the materials show that."


I think there absolutely should be cases where the student (who looks at that old reference material) needs to ask that. It probably shouldn't be a large portion of the material that's different (then you're probably teaching a different, new style), but there should be differences.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Based on these three posts, I'd tend to say there aren't likely to be many direct applications to sequences in the forms.



One of the things the developers explicitly stated about these forms is that they are *not* to be considered as choreographed fights. 

A good example. The beginning of Palgwae II is a left front stance with a high block, followed by a rear leg front snap kick, then stepping down into a right front stance and doing a middle punch.

It doesn't take an advanced degree in physiology to notice that if you're close enough to do the high block, you're too close to throw the front snap kick (well, ok, you could kick them in the ankle...), let alone stepping forward into the punch. The ranges are all wrong. 

If you were trying to use something similar to this in practice, you'd throw the kick with the front leg, and even then it would be at a fairly low target (probably no higher than the beltline). Higher would be possible, depending on the exact conditions at the time. Stepping forward would make an elbow a more likely follow up move than a punch.

On the other hand, the same basic series of motions can be used, if we want to.

The high block would have to be done much farther out from the body than is taught in forms. Consider someone moving towards you, reaching for a grab. The block would (in this example) be more circular, turning it into a wrist grab. 
As you're moving/grabbing their wrist, you could throw a rear leg kick (though, again, it probably would not be high). Then stepping forward would allow you to either strike with one hand while controlling their arm from the wrist grab, or perform various grapples.

As you can see, using the series as it's presented in the form requires you to think about movements, not techniques, since the ranges and details of the movements are quite different than the stylized movements used in forms.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> One of the things the developers explicitly stated about these forms is that they are *not* to be considered as choreographed fights.
> 
> A good example. The beginning of Palgwae II is a left front stance with a high block, followed by a rear leg front snap kick, then stepping down into a right front stance and doing a middle punch.
> 
> ...


That's interesting to me, DD. In my own forms, I've purposely given some options for variance (a different strike can be used in some cases) specifically to try to help students not get too tied up in the exact techniques they're practicing, but thinking more about using the sequence of movements/transitions. Mine are far less polished (I'm really hoping none of my students goes on to use them exactly as I created them - someone has to make them better!), but it sounds like there's some similar thought behind them.


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> As you can see, using the series as it's presented in the form requires you to think about movements, not techniques, since the ranges and details of the movements are quite different than the stylized movements used in forms.



This is the kind of disconnect that I see.  Similarly, in Palgwe 1, the form consists of 16 blocks and 4 strikes (as named in the form).  The form even ends on a block.

The problem is that I don't really see that type of thought process with the forms as something that's really encouraged within the art.  Go look on Youtube for form application videos, and you'll find far more results for Karate than for Taekwondo.  I wonder if part of the reason that application isn't taught as much as to do with the fact it wasn't taught to the Koreans by the Japanese - that because they didn't learn the application, it wasn't deemed an important part of the form, and thus that tradition was started.

I play a LOT of games - board games, video games, etc.  And in those games I like to run spreadsheets and analyses to figure out the best ways to build my characters or the best build order for a strategy game.  This is the mentality that I'm bringing here.  If there is a motion we are being taught, I'm assuming there is a reason for it.  There is a situation where that motion will be used.  And if there isn't, then there must be another purpose behind that motion.  If there isn't a situation in which that motion is better than another one we know, then it becomes superfluous.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> This is the kind of disconnect that I see.  Similarly, in Palgwe 1, the form consists of 16 blocks and 4 strikes (as named in the form).  The form even ends on a block.
> 
> The problem is that I don't really see that type of thought process with the forms as something that's really encouraged within the art.  Go look on Youtube for form application videos, and you'll find far more results for Karate than for Taekwondo.  I wonder if part of the reason that application isn't taught as much as to do with the fact it wasn't taught to the Koreans by the Japanese - that because they didn't learn the application, it wasn't deemed an important part of the form, and thus that tradition was started.
> 
> I play a LOT of games - board games, video games, etc.  And in those games I like to run spreadsheets and analyses to figure out the best ways to build my characters or the best build order for a strategy game.  This is the mentality that I'm bringing here.  If there is a motion we are being taught, I'm assuming there is a reason for it.  There is a situation where that motion will be used.  And if there isn't, then there must be another purpose behind that motion.  If there isn't a situation in which that motion is better than another one we know, then it becomes superfluous.



The application process while talked about historically was rediscovered by enterprising individuals who went beyond their class teaching to find answers their teachers eventually admitted to not having. It wasn't just another part of the art handed out in class though the goal is to make it so now.

I imagine It's not such a big deal in tkd because of the heavy sport focus. Few tkd people that I've met don't give a second thought to patterns or basics outside of a grading requirement. TKD is about kicking and most folks are happy with that.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> This is the kind of disconnect that I see.  Similarly, in Palgwe 1, the form consists of 16 blocks and 4 strikes (as named in the form).  The form even ends on a block.



I don't see it as a disconnect. I see it as a maturity thing. When you start, you're going to think in terms of techniques, and you're going to think of those techniques as being exactly as shown in the forms. That is normal and as it should be. As you mature in your understanding of the art, this changes. You'll realize that Palgwae I actually has 20 strikes. And 20 blocks. And some grappling.
I'm not sure how much of that can be taught, honestly. Yes, I advocate teaching application, but I'm not sure if you can really teach people to move beyond the specified applications. You can teach 3, or 4, or 5... but can they come up with others on their own?
If there is anything in the TKD world that hampers development of this maturity in the art, I think it's possibly the trend towards baby black belts, or black belts being awarded after only a few years of training. Maturity takes time. And if you're a black belt in a year, or two years or three, then I wouldn't expect real maturity in the system to appear until high Dan ranks.

That's not meant as a slam at any system. In most systems that have baby black belts or Dan ranks in 2-3 years, teaching ranks don't start until mid- to high- Dan levels. And that is how it should be, I think, if your system has rapid advancement.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> If there is anything in the TKD world that hampers development of this maturity in the art, I think it's possibly the trend towards baby black belts, or black belts being awarded after only a few years of training. Maturity takes time. And if you're a black belt in a year, or two years or three, then I wouldn't expect real maturity in the system to appear until high Dan ranks.



I think some of that is true, some less so.

Young kids getting Dan rank - I don't think they necessarily have the maturity to have earned it fully.

Getting BB in a few years - that's a little more contentious really.

If everyone gets promoted to BB after a short time then I can see a potential issue.

But likewise, if everyone is expected to do 10 years, it gets a bit too much like simply serving time. Is that 10 years of once a month? Twice a year? 3 times a week?

Surely it should be an individual thing - where each person is treated as an individual case and assessed as such. Some kids can show astounding maturity and understanding, and some adults never learn...

If someone puts in the effort and progresses properly to (whatever is deemed) BB level in 2-3 years, why is that a lower standard than someone who takes 15 years because they don't put the same effort in?

Time does not always equal knowledge, or maturity.


----------



## Buka (Dec 15, 2018)

I have a question. Does anybody know how many techniques are taught in TKD  that are not in any of the forms? Just curious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> I play a LOT of games - board games, video games, etc. And in those games I like to run spreadsheets and analyses to figure out the best ways to build my characters or the best build order for a strategy game.


Entirely OT - you'd slaughter me. I just build by "feel".


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> I think some of that is true, some less so.
> 
> Young kids getting Dan rank - I don't think they necessarily have the maturity to have earned it fully.
> 
> Getting BB in a few years - that's a little more contentious really.



Not really, unless you're confusing maturity within the art with physical/emotional maturity in general. They're not at all the same.



> But likewise, if everyone is expected to do 10 years, it gets a bit too much like simply serving time. Is that 10 years of once a month? Twice a year? 3 times a week?



Obviously there is variation by individual, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who had a mature understanding of an art in less than 6-8 years, at a minimum. And most take longer than that.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Obviously there is variation by individual, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who had a mature understanding of an art in less than 6-8 years, at a minimum. And most take longer than that.



What is required for you to consider someone's understanding 'mature'?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> What is required for you to consider someone's understanding 'mature'?



Well, as I said originally (you did read that post, right?), in this context being able to move beyond "technique" and into "movement" would be a good sign. If you still think movements have to be exactly like they are in forms, your understanding is not mature. If you can't think of a way to apply a movement other than the obvious applications that are used to explain the movements in forms, your understanding is not mature.
Like most things, it's not totally a cut and dried thing; just like other forms of maturity, maturity in a martial art is a continuum, not a point.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, as I said originally (you did read that post, right?), in this context being able to move beyond "technique" and into "movement" would be a good sign. If you still think movements have to be exactly like they are in forms, your understanding is not mature. If you can't think of a way to apply a movement other than the obvious applications that are used to explain the movements in forms, your understanding is not mature.
> Like most things, it's not totally a cut and dried thing; just like other forms of maturity, maturity in a martial art is a continuum, not a point.



Yeah, I read the other post - it's just nice sometimes to have a little summary to confirm interpretation.

By those criteria, I appear to have at least a partially mature understanding of the art (tkd).

That's nice to know too


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> Yeah, I read the other post - it's just nice sometimes to have a little summary to confirm interpretation.



Yeah, I didn't need to word things that way. I apologize.



> By those criteria, I appear to have at least a partially mature understanding of the art (tkd).
> 
> That's nice to know too



I think my own is only partial, too.


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

Regarding time-in-grade, I think a lot of people are forgetting that a black belt in most TKD schools means that someone has a foundational understanding of the art.  If someone gets a black belt in 3-4 years, that means they've got the foundations.  It's not til 2nd or 3rd degree (probably 7-12 years for 3rd degree) before people have a real solid understanding.



Dirty Dog said:


> I don't see it as a disconnect. I see it as a maturity thing. When you start, you're going to think in terms of techniques, and you're going to think of those techniques as being exactly as shown in the forms. That is normal and as it should be. As you mature in your understanding of the art, this changes. You'll realize that Palgwae I actually has 20 strikes. And 20 blocks. And some grappling.
> I'm not sure how much of that can be taught, honestly. Yes, I advocate teaching application, but I'm not sure if you can really teach people to move beyond the specified applications. You can teach 3, or 4, or 5... but can they come up with others on their own?
> If there is anything in the TKD world that hampers development of this maturity in the art, I think it's possibly the trend towards baby black belts, or black belts being awarded after only a few years of training. Maturity takes time. And if you're a black belt in a year, or two years or three, then I wouldn't expect real maturity in the system to appear until high Dan ranks.
> 
> That's not meant as a slam at any system. In most systems that have baby black belts or Dan ranks in 2-3 years, teaching ranks don't start until mid- to high- Dan levels. And that is how it should be, I think, if your system has rapid advancement.



In my experience, if I find a motion in a form can be used in another application, its usually by accident.  It's usually that I'm using the other application already, and I realize it's similar to that in the form.  In that case, I find that maybe the muscle memory from the form helps.  In some cases it doesn't really help, because even though the motion looks similar - it's different enough or I'm looking for something a little bit different and it takes just as long to get it from there.

I have more thoughts, but I'll discuss these more after I address what @Buka said.



Buka said:


> I have a question. Does anybody know how many techniques are taught in TKD  that are not in any of the forms? Just curious.



I am speaking for my school, which the curriculum is considerably different than a lot of other schools.  As I've mentioned, our versions of the Palgwe forms are different, and we don't do the Taegeuks.  However, most of the same techniques show up in our forms, if even in a different order.  We also have our own set of self defense techniques, I'm not sure what my Master brought straight from Taekwondo, and what comes from his training in Hapkido, Judo, and Tuk Kong.  So take what I say with that grain of salt.  

With that said, outside of forms, the primary things we teach at my school are self defense and sparring.  So I'll look at how the stuff from the forms is used in either of them, and how much from those is not in the forms.

Blocks - We actually learn more blocks than we use in sparring or in self defense.  There are several blocks that never pop up in our defense scenarios.  There's a huge thread I have about the double-knife-hand block (we use the regular knife-hand, but not the double).  We never use scissor block, the low diamond block in Keumgang kind of appears in one of our hand grabs (but is not done with the crane stance), we never really do the double outside blocks or double low blocks you see in Keumgang.  The inside/outside block in Keumgang (where the kiyhap is) we actually do use, but much less stylized.


Punches - We learn several punches that don't end up making it into our forms.  In particular, the low underpunch, the vertical punch (some of our basic punches), and the spinning chop don't appear.  There's also the jab without stepping, as well as the hook punch (uppercut kind of appears in Taebaek, but not in the way it would typically be used).  What you find even less of is punch combinations.  Jab-reverse, hook-uppercut, the normal 1-2-3-4 (jab-reverse-hook-uppercut) combo, reverse-backfist, etc.  There's a few cases where you get multiple reverse punches back to back, or else an elbow and then a chop, but for the most part, punch combinations aren't there.


Kicks - There are a TON of front kicks in our forms, a few side kicks, and then a few other kicks get sprinkled in here or there.  (I have another thread about this, about developing kicking forms).  There's very little in the way of roundhouse kicks and back kicks, and none of the jumping versions of those.  Hook kicks are pretty much non-existent, except our alternate version of Keumgang has a 360 hook kick in it.  We have a few crescent kicks, no ax kicks, and no tornado kicks.  If I were to teach one person only our forms and another person only our kicks, they might both have a good front kick, but other than that have completely different skill sets.  Now, if the purpose of the form is to document the list of techniques, then those meager appearances of back kicks and side kicks is okay.  But if the purpose is to build muscle memory, then you won't learn much about the kicks doing the forms (again, except for front kick).


Footwork - We do step-behind kicks in practice that don't show up in our forms (same with step-behind hook kicks).  There's a lot of different slides and jumps that don't show up in our forms.  The footwork in our forms is mostly steps, turns, and stance changes.  These show up somewhat in our self defense, but the footwork for Taekwondo sparring is completely not there.


Grappling - The forms do not teach leg sweeps or hip throws.  They do not include techniques to get someone off-balance in a body grab.  There is absolutely no ground-fighting, and no techniques that would work on a downed opponent.  We have plenty of different hand grabs at my school, and having done 36 hand grabs and 5 body grabs by the time we get our black belt, I can comfortably say that there is very little overlap in the techniques between the forms and the self defense training.  Part of this may be in the way the footwork is done, a big part is how they're stylized.  But unless you consider the forms to be a Rorschach Ink Blot in terms of how vague each motion can be interpreted, the grappling isn't there.
Now, I think the forms apply more to our self defense than to our sparring.  The style of our self defense is to stay more grounded, with deeper stances and a lot of the same blocks.  However, a lot of the nuances (such as how to develop leverage) aren't there.  If you do the motions as the form teaches them, it would not be very good.

If I compare this to some of the motions I've seen in Kung Fu forms, I definitely see how the Kung Fu forms teach the motions to properly generate leverage.  Even if those are stylized a bit, I look at some of those and definitely see the types of movement in the hips and shoulders that I would use to get my opponent off balance and/or to make a throw.

So, @Dirty Dog , this is why I don't see a grappling application.  It's a combination of the hand motions being slightly off, and the details of the footwork and body control are all wrong for grappling.  Plus, the forms don't have anything to follow up.  Even if the forms aren't supposed to be scripted, there are 0 takedowns, and 0 techniques you would use on a downed person.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> So, @Dirty Dog , this is why I don't see a grappling application.  It's a combination of the hand motions being slightly off, and the details of the footwork and body control are all wrong for grappling.  Plus, the forms don't have anything to follow up.  Even if the forms aren't supposed to be scripted, there are 0 takedowns, and 0 techniques you would use on a downed person.



Thank you for providing this example of exactly what I've been saying.
The Palgwae forms certainly do include grappling. You don't see them. That's ok. You'll get there eventually.


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Thank you for providing this example of exactly what I've been saying.
> The Palgwae forms certainly do include grappling. You don't see them. That's ok. You'll get there eventually.



I have to say, we've been doing a mix of grappling and striking in our self defense since I started.  I have 3 years wrestling experience from when I was a kid.  And I've got a green belt in hapkido after taking it for 3 years.  I don't see any crossover in what I've learned in the forms vs. what I've learned in any of my grappling experience.

Can you elaborate on how the grappling is in there?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> I have to say, we've been doing a mix of grappling and striking in our self defense since I started.  I have 3 years wrestling experience from when I was a kid.  And I've got a green belt in hapkido after taking it for 3 years.  I don't see any crossover in what I've learned in the forms vs. what I've learned in any of my grappling experience.
> 
> Can you elaborate on how the grappling is in there?



Well, let's take the simple "low block" as an example. By simply rotating the forearm and wrist, you can catch a kick on the inner surface of the forearm. Allow the elbow to flex a bit, and you've just trapped the leg. Now step into your opponent. If they don't fall down, you're probably fighting Stretch Armstrong.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Thank you for providing this example of exactly what I've been saying.
> The Palgwae forms certainly do include grappling. You don't see them. That's ok. You'll get there eventually.



I would click "agree" to this, but I don't know the palgwae forms enough (at all) to be able to do so legitimately.


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, let's take the simple "low block" as an example. By simply rotating the forearm and wrist, you can catch a kick on the inner surface of the forearm. Allow the elbow to flex a bit, and you've just trapped the leg. Now step into your opponent. If they don't fall down, you're probably fighting Stretch Armstrong.



You realize that about half the technique you mentioned is NOT in the form, right?  In fact, everything that takes it from a block and makes it a grappling application is NOT in the form.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Yeah, I didn't need to word things that way. I apologize.



No apology necessary.



Dirty Dog said:


> think my own is only partial, too.



Is it, honestly, possible for anyone to say they have ever fully matured within the context of a martial art?

To me, saying that would imply that there is absolutely nothing left to learn or develop - which is either patently false or indicative of a very restrictive definition (i.e. "I've memorised the book").


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> You realize that about half the technique you mentioned is NOT in the form, right?  In fact, everything that takes it from a block and makes it a grappling application is NOT in the form.



That's because you're exclusively focusing on 'technique', which is emphasised in previous posts.

It appears that if you aren't told that a movement is actually technique X, it can't therefore be technique X (and Y, as well as B and S).


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> Regarding time-in-grade, I think a lot of people are forgetting that a black belt in most TKD schools means that someone has a foundational understanding of the art. If someone gets a black belt in 3-4 years, that means they've got the foundations. It's not til 2nd or 3rd degree (probably 7-12 years for 3rd degree) before people have a real solid understanding.



How long have you been practicing, and what grade are you?


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's because you're exclusively focusing on 'technique', which is emphasised in previous posts.
> 
> It appears that if you aren't told that a movement is actually technique X, it can't therefore be technique X (and Y, as well as B and S).



That's because the movement for the rest of it does not exist in the forms.  At least in no way connected to the down block.


----------



## pdg (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> That's because the movement for the rest of it does not exist in the forms.  At least in no way connected to the down block.



I can't speak as to the content of your forms, because I don't know them.

But, one of our very first patterns includes a set of "techniques" that is a low block followed by stepping forward with a punch.

To me, that can be directly repurposed to be that "catch-drop" movement, even including the chambering of the reaction hand for the punch...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> You realize that about half the technique you mentioned is NOT in the form, right?  In fact, everything that takes it from a block and makes it a grappling application is NOT in the form.



Thank you for proving my point. You'll get there eventually.


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Thank you for proving my point. You'll get there eventually.



If it's not in the form, you can't say the form teaches it.  I'm not saying you can't expand on what's in the form.  But you can't claim it comes from the form.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, let's take the simple "low block" as an example. By simply rotating the forearm and wrist, you can catch a kick on the inner surface of the forearm. Allow the elbow to flex a bit, and you've just trapped the leg. Now step into your opponent. If they don't fall down, you're probably fighting Stretch Armstrong.


That sounds similar to one of our techniques. I'll try to find a video of it and send it to you, see if it's what you're talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> You realize that about half the technique you mentioned is NOT in the form, right?  In fact, everything that takes it from a block and makes it a grappling application is NOT in the form.


That's what I mean about them being indirect applications. If I were a TKD teacher (which would presume I knew at least a little TKD ), I'd encourage students at a certain level to start exploring the forms by adjusting them to those kinds of indirect applications. I do that (probably too early) with the forms I teach.


----------



## skribs (Dec 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That's what I mean about them being indirect applications. If I were a TKD teacher (which would presume I knew at least a little TKD ), I'd encourage students at a certain level to start exploring the forms by adjusting them to those kinds of indirect applications. I do that (probably too early) with the forms I teach.



Right.  And I have no problem with encouraging people to explore and see what they come up with.  I have no problem with "down block and then grab the leg" as a lesson.  I also have no problem with "this is what we learned in the form, here's what you can do after that block."

What I have a problem with is when people take a single motion in the form, and tell you that the motion teaches you a combination that includes half a dozen other things.

We teach a Jab-Reverse-Hook-Uppercut combination.  I can't just teach a jab and say "now you know this whole combination."  I can teach a jab, and then say "here are some combinations that use the jab" and then show the whole combo.  But in order for it to be effective, I'd also have to teach the reverse punch, hook punch, and uppercut.  

I can't just say "go do 1000 jabs" and expect the other 3 punches to be there.


----------



## Gnarlie (Dec 16, 2018)

Skribs, it's worth considering something here: you are from a highly literal, highly explicit culture where direct expression is preferred over metaphor, simile, and context sensitivity, and singular clarity is preferred over ambiguity. 

MA forms, on the other hand, stem from cultures where the opposite of those things is true.

If you look at forms through one cultural lens, you'll see one thing. Through another lens, another.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The primary thing I disagree with is this statement:
> EARL WEISS SAID: ↑
> So, if I teach something the student should never have to ask "Sir, you teach this and the materials show that."
> 
> I think there absolutely should be cases where the student (who looks at that old reference material) needs to ask that. It probably shouldn't be a large portion of the material that's different (then you're probably teaching a different, new style), but there should be differences.



I guess there is where we will agree to disagree and it likely comes from my experience. It made us crazy when we had hardly any reference materials and the "Pioneers" all told us different stuff about what we should do. My first instructor was a school teacher and when we got the first reference material and pointed out differences in what these pioneers taught and what we were doing he decided that the best way to have uniformity in the system was to use that which was taught in the reference material as the standard.   This was not to say we couldn't learn and do other stuff as well. In fact just s General Choi mentions in his text we were encouraged to visit other gyms as well.  

You seem to find it undesirable to have a standard core from which thinks can be modified etc. We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 16, 2018)

Buka said:


> I have a question. Does anybody know how many techniques are taught in TKD  that are not in any of the forms? Just curious.


I think the first issue would be to decide when is a technique so different that it is not in the forms. If only a middle block is shown in the form and it can be done high is this a different technique?  If only done in forms as a rear leg technique turning backward but can be done as a lead leg or turning forward is this different?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 16, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, as I said originally (you did read that post, right?), ...... If you can't think of a way to apply a movement other than the obvious applications that are used to explain the movements in forms, your understanding is not mature.


Hmmmmmm I guess this guy's understanding was not "Mature" (BTW I agree with the continuum thing)

_"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick._
_After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick._
_Now that I _understand_ the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."_
-- Bruce Lee


----------



## pdg (Dec 16, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Hmmmmmm I guess this guy's understanding was not "Mature" (BTW I agree with the continuum thing)
> 
> _"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick.
> After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick.
> ...



I'd have to ask him as to context really...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> Right.  And I have no problem with encouraging people to explore and see what they come up with.  I have no problem with "down block and then grab the leg" as a lesson.  I also have no problem with "this is what we learned in the form, here's what you can do after that block."
> 
> What I have a problem with is when people take a single motion in the form, and tell you that the motion teaches you a combination that includes half a dozen other things.



This goes to the "fit" I was talking about in the "new school" thread. The indirect applications are a concept. Some folks tend toward conceptual thinking, and others tend toward more direct/literal thinking. I'm highly conceptual, so what I see as apparent, logical, and easily acceptable might not be any of those things to you, and that doesn't have much to do with maturity in training. If the conceptual stretch of finding indirect applications doesn't work for you now (some folks do learn to find them more readily, even if they aren't naturally conceptual), then just don't worry about that link. Practice the forms for the movement, exercise, and discipline - the things we can see directly in the forms. Practice the techniques and applications. And don't worry too much about the link unless and until the link works for you.

I believe there are some instructors who don't teach these links, because the links don't work for them. They're just more direct/literal than that. I don't really think that's a problem. I like finding links like that, but I'm not sure there's a distinct advantage to training things as applications from movement in a form, versus just training them as applications to a technique.



> We teach a Jab-Reverse-Hook-Uppercut combination.  I can't just teach a jab and say "now you know this whole combination."  I can teach a jab, and then say "here are some combinations that use the jab" and then show the whole combo.  But in order for it to be effective, I'd also have to teach the reverse punch, hook punch, and uppercut.
> 
> I can't just say "go do 1000 jabs" and expect the other 3 punches to be there.


All that said, let me clarify something I think I said in another thread. I don't think anyone is saying that the forms are teaching the combinations that aren't in the forms. I think the assertion is that the form teaches movements that can be used within those combinations - perhaps all of the movements, or perhaps the form only contains key movements. That's that conceptual stretch I was talking about.

So, think of it more like you've taught the jab, 5 kicks, the reverse, 7 blocks, a hook, and an uppercut. You've also taught some basic footwork. You tell your students, "We're going to work a combination now. You've worked all of these pieces, though not quite this way. Notice that the starting point for the reverse is different (because we're starting at the end of the jab). And you'll have to end that hook a bit differently to have access to the uppercut. Now, let's look at the footwork adjustments you'll need to link those together."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> I guess there is where we will agree to disagree and it likely comes from my experience. It made us crazy when we had hardly any reference materials and the "Pioneers" all told us different stuff about what we should do. My first instructor was a school teacher and when we got the first reference material and pointed out differences in what these pioneers taught and what we were doing he decided that the best way to have uniformity in the system was to use that which was taught in the reference material as the standard.   This was not to say we couldn't learn and do other stuff as well. In fact just s General Choi mentions in his text we were encouraged to visit other gyms as well.
> 
> You seem to find it undesirable to have a standard core from which thinks can be modified etc. We will have to agree to disagree.


This, too, might link to some of what I was just saying to @skribs. To me, having different instructions from different people simply opens up good questions of "why". I actually know the two best active technicians in NGA teach some very specific differences in Classical techniques (short forms). I actually like that - it gives me something to dig into.

Personally, I'm not much interested in uniformity, except at a high level (meaning, the same basic fundamentals - perhaps the same technique, but not necessarily the same detail in the techniques). Mind you, I don't think I'm the norm in that, and it can be easier for early students when they see uniformity among instructors at a seminar, for instance.

In the Aikido world, there's a situation similar to yours. Saito Morihiro trained directly under the founder of that art (Ueshiba Morihei). He strived to teach exactly as his instructor taught, including finally getting access to old manuals that supported that he had changed nothing. While I think that's fascinating, I also wonder how much his students missed out on because Saito never added any of his own knowledge and understanding. Saito was by all reports an excellent instructor, so I can't say there was anything wrong with what he did - I just wonder how much progress the art missed out on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

pdg said:


> I'd have to ask him as to context really...


Agreed. I think Lee often gave sound bites he knew would work well. I'm not entirely convinced all of them were as deep as they sounded.

This one, though, I've long thought was both deep and simple. But that's me reading my interpretation into it (which, perhaps, was what he intended...see above).


----------



## skribs (Dec 16, 2018)

Gnarlie said:


> Skribs, it's worth considering something here: you are from a highly literal, highly explicit culture where direct expression is preferred over metaphor, simile, and context sensitivity, and singular clarity is preferred over ambiguity.
> 
> MA forms, on the other hand, stem from cultures where the opposite of those things is true.
> 
> ...



The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:

For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
To catalog techniques and concepts for future instructors to ensure a preservation of the curriculum
To build muscle memory in techniques and concepts to be used later
To be used as a building-off point for experimentation and variation that students can use to apply the techniques
Now, a lot of the people suggesting that a down block isn't just a down block, it's a down block, grab, and sweep, are suggesting that the forms are being used like the 5th point above.  Where the forms are taught, and then gone back on to explore how the techniques in the form can be used in combination with each other and in combination with other techniques in order to teach a greater number of concepts.

I don't disagree that this is a good teaching method, and I don't disagree that schools do this with some of the basic techniques in the forms.  While we don't explicitly state it, the stances and blocks we use in our self defense come from our forms.  _*However,*_ there are a lot of blocks we use in the forms, which are not expanded on in our self defense.  For the most part, every single-hand block we use will come up.  We use the knife-hand block, outside block, inside block, high block, down block, and palm blocks in our self defense.  We even use the combo inside/outside block from Keumgang and the low X-block and high X-block (not sure if they come from the other Palgwe forms but they're in our Palgwe 7).  So in this sense, I can see that the techniques are being applied in this way.

But it is not universal.  Scissor block, double-knife hand block, augmented outside block, double outside block (the first technique after the kiyhap in Keumgang), double low block (the next technique in Keumgang), diamond low block and diamond middle block (the crane stance block in Keumgang and the first part of the combo in Taebaek)...none of these are used.  

There's also the weird case with some of these that the cart comes before the horse.  For example, we use the X blocks in our orange belt curriculum, but they don't come into a form until high red belt (usually 2 years later).  We teach the basic chop as low as purple belt, but it doesn't show up in a form until red belt.

So while our beginner and intermediate forms seem to be used in this way, where the stances and the basic blocks are used in combination with other techniques, the advanced forms don't appear to follow this mold.  Once you get to blue belt, the majority of the new techniques in each form don't really show up outside of the form.

I could take 95% of the techniques in our first 8 forms (5 kibons and 3 palgwes) and use them as the start of a combo, or as a prominent piece of a combo.  It drops significantly for any of the forms after that.



gpseymour said:


> So, think of it more like you've taught the jab, 5 kicks, the reverse, 7 blocks, a hook, and an uppercut. You've also taught some basic footwork. You tell your students, "We're going to work a combination now. You've worked all of these pieces, though not quite this way. Notice that the starting point for the reverse is different (because we're starting at the end of the jab). And you'll have to end that hook a bit differently to have access to the uppercut. Now, let's look at the footwork adjustments you'll need to link those together."



The problem here is that most of these other pieces aren't in the forms.

That's not to say they can't be taught and then combined with what's in the forms.  But you can't say that the application comes from the forms, when you have to add a lot to what the forms teach in order to make the application work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:
> 
> For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
> To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
> ...


I'm busy getting ready to bake, so will have to come back for the rest - wanted to give a thought on this one. I wouldn't say those applications come from the forms, but that they are applications of movements found in the forms. They require other information, and the link isn't necessary.

For comparison, in NGA, this:





is taught as an application of this:





You'll notice much of the movement - indeed the actual method of applying the arm bar - isn't in the Classical form. But the principle is. So we can't at all say the Classical form teaches that application. You'd never get to that by just practicing the Classical form. But studying the Classical form will reinforce something about it (in the NGA example, the principle of the lock - in the TKD example, a part of the movement and perhaps the balance and transition with it).

As I said, if the link doesn't work for you, just ignore it. Use the form for what it works for, for you. You can absolutely learn the "applications" without the tie to the form (just as I could - and sometimes do - teach the wrap-around Arm Bar without the Classical form).


----------



## skribs (Dec 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm busy getting ready to bake, so will have to come back for the rest - wanted to give a thought on this one. I wouldn't say those applications come from the forms, but that they are applications of movements found in the forms. They require other information, and the link isn't necessary.
> 
> For comparison, in NGA, this:
> 
> ...



I think there's a difference, too, in that you're working with another person in your form, so you can work on principles like leverage and feeling the joint manipulation.

Taekwondo forms are solo (unless done as part of a group demonstration), so the only thing you can get out of it is the movements that you do, and not how an opponent responds.  

We do this a lot in Hapkido.  We have 27 "forms" for our white belt, which start off with someone grabbing you, and then you have to reverse the grab, take them down, and make them tap.  At the white belt level, you're expected to follow the script.  And if they don't fall the right way, you might get some advice on how to modify the technique, but you're not expected to be good at that yet.

As a green belt, I've seen enough different situations that if someone falls a different way than I expect, I can modify it without much trouble most of the time.  We also do scenarios, and we will apply techniques for one type of grab in a different way.  (In class yesterday, my Master was very impressed with one of the white belts who did a great job of doing this).

But these are forms where we're working with another person, and techniques that we already see how they work in practice.  Typically we'll just apply them in a different way.  That's different from having a lot of techniques that are arbitrary and don't really serve a purpose.

---

Off-topic a bit, but regarding those two videos:

The first video, I really like that technique and I'm going to have to try it.  The only issue I have is that in our hapkido, we try to be in positions where you don't have to worry about that other hand punching, but it looks like an effective technique and is not one I've seen.

The second video, I can't help but think "why doesn't the uke just pull his hand back?"  There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him compliant with the technique, except the fact that he's not resisting or countering.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> I think there's a difference, too, in that you're working with another person in your form, so you can work on principles like leverage and feeling the joint manipulation.


Agreed. When I reference the forms I teach (in this thread, anyway), I'm referring to the long forms I created. They haven't been around long, but I already have seen some of the differences in students' approach to them. For mine, at least, I have the advantage that specific techniques are literal in each kata, though the flow from one to the next is similar to what someone else described here - no good reason why you'd be able to follow that flow in an actual fight.



> Taekwondo forms are solo (unless done as part of a group demonstration), so the only thing you can get out of it is the movements that you do, and not how an opponent responds.


And this makes the applications inherently less direct in most cases. Personally, though when I created the forms I included specific techniques to encourage folks to use them and practice them, I don't think most of the striking in those forms can be applied the way it is in the forms - for the exact reasons you suggest.



> We do this a lot in Hapkido.  We have 27 "forms" for our white belt, which start off with someone grabbing you, and then you have to reverse the grab, take them down, and make them tap.  At the white belt level, you're expected to follow the script.  And if they don't fall the right way, you might get some advice on how to modify the technique, but you're not expected to be good at that yet.
> 
> As a green belt, I've seen enough different situations that if someone falls a different way than I expect, I can modify it without much trouble most of the time.  We also do scenarios, and we will apply techniques for one type of grab in a different way.  (In class yesterday, my Master was very impressed with one of the white belts who did a great job of doing this).
> 
> But these are forms where we're working with another person, and techniques that we already see how they work in practice.  Typically we'll just apply them in a different way.  That's different from having a lot of techniques that are arbitrary and don't really serve a purpose.


This is pretty similar to our Classical forms (with some bleed-over into what we'd consider "applications").



> ---
> 
> Off-topic a bit, but regarding those two videos:
> 
> ...



The first video is the Classical form, so it starts from a neutral position. The rollover into the grip, done properly, puts uke's shoulder in his own way, so the other hand couldn't reach anything except your hands. Mind you, I don't think that point is often emphasized by other instructors - many don't consider the entry (the motions that come before the actual Arm Bar) to have separate importance, and only matter so far as they lead to the technique in question.

With the application, you'd have to see it with some speed and intent. The instructor is showing it with a lazy attack, to people who already know it. They're exploring a specific aspect of the lock in that session. My favorite use for it is when I over-enter - usually because I chose to enter from outside kicking distance at the same time they decided to step in and punch - and find myself inside that arm. The wrap is done quickly, essentially an over-hook they pull back on. You end up at the elbow if they don't get away, and can lock them out from there. Once the wrap is around the arm and reaches your own forearm, there's no pulling out - the lock is on. But you do have to keep worrying about that other hand, unless you use the lock to get a takedown, or apply enough pressure to submit them (in the street, probably just a destruction).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:
> 
> For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
> To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
> ...


I'm not really sure how to explain this, but I think that you are trying to categorize and define things a lot more than they were intended to.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> If it's not in the form, you can't say the form teaches it.  I'm not saying you can't expand on what's in the form.  But you can't claim it comes from the form.



Again, thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Hmmmmmm I guess this guy's understanding was not "Mature" (BTW I agree with the continuum thing)
> 
> _"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick.
> After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick.
> ...



Do you think this quote is in the context of this discussion, to whit, the usefulness of forms for teaching movement? I sort of doubt it since, if I recall correctly, JKD doesn't use forms.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 16, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Do you think this quote is in the context of this discussion, to whit, the usefulness of forms for teaching movement? I sort of doubt it since, if I recall correctly, JKD doesn't use forms.


Yes, although not limited to "Forms"  he also used the term  "classical Mess" to describe standardized ways of doing things in martial arts.  IMO this referred to classical systems being locked into a certain way of doing things for a certain specified purpose. My thought is that when he said this he as also limiting that which might be inferred .


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 16, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> One of the things the developers explicitly stated about these forms is that they are *not* to be considered as choreographed fights.
> 
> A good example. The beginning of Palgwae II is a left front stance with a high block, followed by a rear leg front snap kick, then stepping down into a right front stance and doing a middle punch.
> 
> ...



One food for thought way I heard a MDK Master explain the first Palgwae II move is that the high block is for an attack coming from behind concurrent with turning to attack with the kick & punch. Makes it more workable on the surface but I agree, it is about building foundational movements, not choreographed fighting. If a mental image makes it easier for a person to noodle out, all the better.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 16, 2018)

Earl Weiss said:


> Yes, although not limited to "Forms"  he also used the term  "classical Mess" to describe standardized ways of doing things in martial arts.  IMO this referred to classical systems being locked into a certain way of doing things for a certain specified purpose. My thought is that when he said this he as also limiting that which might be inferred .



So, you think he meant a literal, picture perfect correlation between forms and application doesn't exist. I'd agree with him. 



dvcochran said:


> One food for thought way I heard a MDK Master explain the first Palgwae II move is that the high block is for an attack coming from behind concurrent with turning to attack with the kick & punch. Makes it more workable on the surface but I agree, it is about building foundational movements, not choreographed fighting. If a mental image makes it easier for a person to noodle out, all the better.



Seems a stretch to me, honestly. In such a situation, especially in such a basic form, it seems unlikely you'd be performing a blind block. Especially since it's exceptionally unlikely that an attack from behind would be stopped by that block; the attack would need to be way way forward, rather than simply smacking the back of the head.


----------



## Gnarlie (Dec 17, 2018)

skribs said:


> The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:
> 
> For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
> To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
> ...


I feel like my post fell on deaf ears. Just saying. 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 17, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not really sure how to explain this, but I think that you are trying to categorize and define things a lot more than they were intended to.



I'm looking at different ways forms are used and different benefits you can get out of them, and trying to look at the techniques in the forms from those perspectives.


----------



## Shawchert (Dec 20, 2018)

For me personally forms are a great muscle memory. I am learning what each technique is used against in an imaginary opponent. Like a mid section block and a kick right after would be me defending and then countering that attack. So it helps with muscle memory.

It helps with discipline as well. You learn to do that form and continue to do it. with ITF you are required to remember all your previous forms before that one (I'm not sure exactly what the rules for that are in WT and ATA). So you have to practice, over and over, put your foot in the right spot and your techniques the right way without blowing through it just to get it done and over with

and it helps me with my power, I don't just limply do it. I make sure when I do my forms they are done the way I was taught and with the power needed to defend myself from a real opponent. It can certainly help with tension. Of course nothing beats conditioning drills!! but that's just how you can take a hit as opposed to how you tense yourself at the right time! 

I know everyone has different opinions on how a form should be seen as but this is me.


----------



## skribs (Dec 20, 2018)

Shawchert said:


> For me personally forms are a great muscle memory. I am learning what each technique is used against in an imaginary opponent. Like a mid section block and a kick right after would be me defending and then countering that attack. So it helps with muscle memory.



So what do you imagine when you're doing the techniques you find in the higher level forms?


----------



## skribs (Dec 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm busy getting ready to bake, so will have to come back for the rest - wanted to give a thought on this one. I wouldn't say those applications come from the forms, but that they are applications of movements found in the forms. They require other information, and the link isn't necessary.
> 
> For comparison, in NGA, this:
> 
> ...



I tried out that first move in Taekwondo class today.  It really impressed my classmates.


----------



## Shawchert (Dec 20, 2018)

skribs said:


> So what do you imagine when you're doing the techniques you find in the higher level forms?



I'm pretty certain from every form I have learned, I also learn why its being used, so I don't see why my answer would change from it's previous state. I am only a blue belt (I have not changed my photo been quite busy these last few months) and I have a good 5 months to go at least to be an advanced belt, though I've seen the forms and still think the same thing. I can see great benefit in continuing to do each and every form I learn.


----------



## skribs (Dec 27, 2018)

I was watching this video about what weapons 4-armed creatures would use:






In his discussion starting at 3:30 about how much individual control people have over 2 hands, and how our hands tend to play off each other, and doing different things with each hand can be something that takes a lot of effort (i.e. patting the head and rubbing your belly).  I wonder if this part of the reason for a lot of those techniques that I am having trouble finding an application for:  to give both hands something to do so you train each hand individually.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> I was watching this video about what weapons 4-armed creatures would use:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a possibility (the purpose in the last sentence, not the 4-armed people). There are things I put in forms just to force people to work on something - no direct application, just building a base ability for use.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Dec 28, 2018)

[QUOTE="gpseymour, post: 1942864]  There are things I put in forms just to force people to work on something - no direct application, just building a base ability for use.[/QUOTE]
Saw a movie with something like this once.   "Wax On Wax off"  Learn how to move. . Then see how you can apply it.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> I was watching this video about what weapons 4-armed creatures would use:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you video of the forms you are looking at?


----------



## DaveB (Dec 28, 2018)

Found this on taeguk applications. 

Note the various changes made to correct the distancing.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Found this on taeguk applications.
> 
> Note the various changes made to correct the distancing.


I would like to see how he follows the double middle strike at 2.33. It has always been one of those moves I do not see as practical application.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I would like to see how he follows the double middle strike at 2.33. It has always been one of those moves I do not see as practical application.



Are you talking about the double uppercut to the belly? It's application as a strike should be obvious, but it can also be a push, to create distance.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Are you talking about the double uppercut to the belly? It's application as a strike should be obvious, but it can also be a push, to create distance.


Yes, I get that it is a strike. The landing with one foot behind and the fact that the double uppercut to the middle leaves the head totally open leaves questions about it's application. I can see where the forward motion with the whole body should makes the strikes powerful enough to knock the opponent back so sure, it could work. The next logical step to me would be to step back and set the back foot, away from a front facing opponent. I know the move is in one or more of our Poomsae but a drawing a blank on which one(s) at the moment.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Yes, I get that it is a strike. The landing with one foot behind and the fact that the double uppercut to the middle leaves the head totally open leaves questions about it's application. I can see where the forward motion with the whole body should makes the strikes powerful enough to knock the opponent back so sure, it could work. The next logical step to me would be to step back and set the back foot, away from a front facing opponent. I know the move is in one or more of our Poomsae but a drawing a blank on which one(s) at the moment.



Crossing the feet could be a way to close distance and, added with the momentum of the jump, lets you uncross the stance and keep moving forward. Especially if you're doing it as a push.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Crossing the feet could be a way to close distance and, added with the momentum of the jump, lets you uncross the stance and keep moving forward. Especially if you're doing it as a push.


I think of a really good driving uppercut, especially when I am on one foot would at least cancel out my forward motion if not backwards slightly. That is why I said I see the next move being a step back. Also, your raised foot is already behind the other. The move is in Hansoo as you start up the first angle. The next move is a step back to a low block.


----------



## skribs (Dec 31, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Found this on taeguk applications.
> 
> Note the various changes made to correct the distancing.



At 2:10 there's a collective "ooohhhh" from the audience.  Now, I can hear this one of two ways.  One way is "*oh*, that looks like it hurts."  But the way I heard it is "*oh*, that's what that is!"

Because I haven't seen a light knee strike get that kind of reaction from people who know what it is.  That's part of the issue for me.  I think that for a lot of students, just like myself, these movements seem to be more abstract.  Even if you're thinking "block" or "grab" but you're not really sure how to apply it, or when you would apply it, it's just a movement.  And that makes it harder to remember and harder to understand why you work on the details that you do.

Don't get me wrong.  I like doing the forms.  I'm just getting to a point (as are others at my rank at my dojang) where we're not really sure what we get out of learning more forms, instead of more direct application.  There's been discussion in other threads on learning the techniques, and it starts with drilling with no resistance, but the resistance has to move up.  Forms are the absolute least resistance that you can get.

All of us in that group (of senior black belts who want to move on from forms) take Hapkido at my school, too.  That class is entirely dedicated to self defense training, and the more advanced you get the better you're able to incorporate the curriculum together.  The further you get into the curriculum, the easier it is to make sense of everything because you have more tools available and you find more places where your tools will apply.

I feel the further I make it in Taekwondo, the harder it is to make sense of everything, because you're being given a lot of techniques and then left to your own devices to figure out where they go, or if they're even supposed to go anywhere.


----------

