# Taegue Il Jang application



## Kong Soo Do

In another section we've been discussing bunkai in kata as far as interpretation.  I thought it would be interesting to examine applications here as well to see if there are different interpretations.  With that in mind, I'd thought the appropriate place to begin would be Taegue Il Jang.  Looking at just the first sequence after the opening;  The instructor begins to turn to his left while performing a down block with his left hand.  The down block is completed as he completes a full 90 degree turn to the left.  He then steps forward with his right foot and delivers a right straight punch to mid-section height.  

How do you view this sequence?  What is the purpose?  What is the interpretation as far as a self-defense movement?  Is there a SD movement?  No wrong answers and it is all based upon what you were taught that it means.  How do you view it and how do you teach it?


----------



## ralphmcpherson

we do the palgwe forms so Im not familiar with the taegeks, but Im very interested in applications of forms so I look forward to seeing some of the responses you get here. This seems a very basic form, is it one of the first in the taegek series?


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> I thought it would be interesting to examine applications here as well to see if there are different interpretations.  With that in mind, I'd thought the appropriate place to begin would be Taegue Il Jang.



Actually it is not interesting. Instead, I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time. My teacher also finds it an exercise in futility, and he was the chief editor of the taegeuk (not "taegue") poomsae. Another teacher of mine is the gentleman who is demonstrating taegeuk 1 jang in the video clip included in your original post. Can you tell me where that footage originally came from?


----------



## Dirty Dog

ralphmcpherson said:


> we do the palgwe forms so Im not familiar with the taegeks, but Im very interested in applications of forms so I look forward to seeing some of the responses you get here. This seems a very basic form, is it one of the first in the taegek series?



Our school also uses the palgwes, but I train with the taegeuks (and Chang Hon forms) as well. Il Jang is 'first chapter', same as palgwe il jang. They even share the same gwae (keon) and thus have the same meaning (heaven). The application is very simple. Learning the simplest stance (a walking stance), a basic block (low block, which can be used against attacks of various sorts aimed at targets from your armpit down) and a basic attack (middle punch, typically aimed at the solar plexus). Yes, a low block can also be considered a hammerfist blow, perhaps aimed at the groin, bladder, femoral nerve, common peroneal nerve... but that's not (as I understand it) the purpose of forms. They're intended to teach stances and specific movements, using both sides of the body.

I don't really think there are any secrets hidden in them, but it's fun and productive to consider applications for which the movements are suited.


----------



## Dirty Dog

puunui said:


> Actually it is not interesting.



Then you shouldn't do it. So why are you in this thread?



puunui said:


> Instead, I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time.



And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do it. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?

I find it fun, interesting and productive, and so does my teacher. So does his teacher. Some people seem unable to recognise that there is more than one path.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

Dirty Dog said:


> Then you shouldn't do it. So why are you in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do itSo. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?
> 
> I find it fun, interesting and productive, and so does my teacher. So does his teacher. Some people seem unable to recognise that there is more than one path.


So very very true. Both my instructor and GM also find it interesting and productive and we are encouraged to look at our forms this way.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Dirty Dog said:


> Then you shouldn't do it. So why are you in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do it. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?
> 
> I find it fun, interesting and productive, and so does my teacher. So does his teacher. Some people seem unable to recognise that there is more than one path.


To be fair, one reason he says he finds it a waste of time is that some of the men who helped put the Taeguek poomse together told him it was a waste of time and not to bother with it.

I don't care if someone wants to study applications for individual techniques found in the poomse, but if the men who created the poomse say it's a waste of time, then I feel like there are plenty of other things that I could practice that would be a better use of _my_ time. To each his own, obviously. If someone enjoys that type of thing, I say more power to them.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

Jaeimseu said:


> To be fair, one reason he says he finds it a waste of time is that some of the men who helped put the Taeguek poomse together told him it was a waste of time and not to bother with it.
> 
> I don't care if someone wants to study applications for individual techniques found in the poomse, but if the men who created the poomse say it's a waste of time, then I feel like there are plenty of other things that I could practice that would be a better use of _my_ time. To each his own, obviously. If someone enjoys that type of thing, I say more power to them.


Its not so much his opinion, but the fact that if this thread doesnt interest him, stay away. Going to a thread you have no interest in just to make a smart *** remark is just wasting everybody's time. If my GM (after 44years training) and my instructor (38years training) say there is much value in breaking down the forms for applications then thats good enough for me, and from my experience it opens up a whole new way of thinking when you start to view forms this way. I consider it progressive thinking, being too stuck in your ways becomes counter productive in martial arts in my opinion.


----------



## seasoned

There is a saying, "don't do what I do, but, do what I did to get here". 

I am also in the wrong thread, But, building blocks are the same across the arts, IMO.
I'm not sure about the form above, but it looks very basic, and perhaps some of the first building blocks within this system. 

What I have learned over the years is things sometimes never are what they appear to look like. Case in point are some of the basic high, middle, and low blocks. It is the movement that is important, not what it seems to be doing. Trying some of these blocks in sparring will prove a point very quickly. In GoJu all blocks can also be strikes, done the same way they are done in forms when assumed they were blocks. Also some of the open hand "blocks" are locks and traps, but still look and are taught as, "blocks" to the newer students. This is part of the building of a system, but I'm not sure how it is with other teachings.............. Sorry if I am off tract pertaining to the flow of this thread.


----------



## miguksaram

FWIW...that is an older version of Taeguk Il-jang that you are showing.  I would recommend this video which I believe is more recent. 




Yes, there are subtle differences and those differences may or may not change what you would do as how you interpret the boonsae.

Everyone will have their own interpretation.  Some will be basic (example: First move I'm blocking a kick then countering with punch), others will tend to be more in fancy technique mind set (example:  I'm stricking the ST36 point with my hammer fist and then countering with a blow to the CV6), and of course you will get those who will interpret every single move (example:  The first move is actually countering a right handed straight punch.  I am stepping to the outside blocking with my left hand while I strike with my right hand to the stomach.  Then I am doing a second strike with my left hand towards his carotid artery in a diagnol strike....that is how the Koreans disguised all their moves so that only they would know.  I found out because I am the last in the line of the secrety squirrel society which teaches these moves).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Here are some of my thoughts;

Karate kata can be viewed as either block-punch-kick or alternative applications.  Several founders of Karate Ryus have talked about this in their writings.  I've mentioned before that Itosu Sensei was credited with re-labeling the Pinan katas to a b-p-k format in order for it to be allowed into the Okinawan school curriculum.  Now, there is nothing wrong with the b-p-k method, and in many instances it is the simplest and most effective response to a violent altercation.  It has been noted;



			
				seasoned said:
			
		

> What I have learned over the years is things sometimes never are what  they appear to look like. Case in point are some of the basic high,  middle, and low blocks. It is the movement that is important, not what  it seems to be doing. Trying some of these blocks in sparring will prove  a point very quickly. In GoJu all blocks can also be strikes, done the  same way they are done in forms when assumed they were blocks. Also some  of the open hand "blocks" are locks and traps, but still look and are  taught as, "blocks" to the newer students.



Many different styles of Karate teach this methodology including the ones I took.  Blocks can be and are strikes or have other applications.  Furthering this thought, the father of TKD is Karate.  Since Karate kata can serve a dual purpose i.e. b-p-k and alternative applications, I submit that to an extent, so can TKD forms.  The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially very low level practitioners themselves with at least on exception I'm aware of.  Their levels of actual experience varied widely, but mostly they were of very low rank or even no rank.  That is just history and not meant to down play their contribution to the establishment of TKD.  

Many of the forms in certain Korean arts are simply renamed Okinawan kata.  Again, just stating the obvious.  However, to their credit, the Koreans did develop many forms of their own for the new art(s).  My suggestion is that since Korean forms use many/most of the same movement patterns of Okinawan kata, and since Okinawan kata contains both b-p-k and alternative or more advanced applications, that Korean forms will also contain them to an extent.   I do not believe the founders of TKD for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced applications.  They in turn would not understand these principles for the most part when developing their own forms.  As I've mentioned before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or discovered for themselves.  Some will point out that the creators of these forms suggest no deeper meanings, and they are correct.  They would not have known, again for the most part, the deeper meanings of Okinawan kata and therefore not understood what was going into the forms they were creating.  For example, if in an Okinawan kata a certain movement sequence contains a b-p-k and an advance application and that movement sequence is transplanted into a newly created Korean form, then it will have the same b-p-k and advanced applications even if only one is known and/or understood.

I see Okinawan kata as well-written and complete 'stories' so-to-speak.  Conversely, I see Korean forms, as far as advanced applications, as somewhat choppy.  In other words, most of the words are there but many of the sentences are somewhat broken, fragmentary or incomplete.  This is because some/many of the Korean forms were put together with purely b-p-k in mind because the more advanced applications weren't known.  Therefore some movement sequences were transplanted intact and some were altered to a lesser or greater extent to make the forms flow as far as b-p-k.  However, imo, sometimes the flow of the b-p-k is questionable which, too me, lends credence to the existence of a more advanced application within the sequence.

For an example of what I mean, take a look at the opening sequence of the form in the video.

The practitioner is looking forward initially.  As he begins the 'down block' he is also simultaneously looking towards his left.  Why?  If the attack is coming from the front, what is the attack?  What will the 'down block' do to that incoming frontal attack?  The follow up is a straight punch to mid-section height at a 90 degree angle to the starting position.  If the attack was frontal, what did that 'down block' specifically do to the attacker to cause their body to move a full 90 degrees to the practitioner's left in order to be in position to receive that straight punch to mid-section height?  

Or

If the attack is coming in from the left of the practitioner, how is he seeing what type of attack is coming?  Peripheral vision?  Possibly, but is that good enough to have already committed to a specific blocking strategy?  Why is he turning into the attack rather than moving laterally away from it to a position of advantage or better defense?  If indeed he was able to identify the mode of attack with peripheral vision, and respond to it simultaneously, is the 'down block' the best option?  I can see a down block deflecting a straight kick, but it is a very poor choice against a kick coming in from the side i.e. the radial bone isn't a match against a shin bone unless you've done a LOT of hard body conditioning to your arms.  Normally, TKD schools don't center on that type of arm conditioning.  Certainly not to the degree of specific Karate Ryus (I know, I've done it).  So the question becomes;  is this really a b-p-k defense from either the front or side?  Or are there better alternatives available using the movements indicated in the form?

Now take into account that writing this stuff may not be as effective as if we were all in a group and I was able to physically explain what I'm saying with a partner to assist.  Hopefully I've done a sufficient enough job explaining it to get the point across?  I'll come back later with some possible alternatives to offer, and I'd love to see others input on what they see as advanced applications.  And to me this is the most interesting parts of forms/katas.  They demonstrate more advanced principles and therefore give additional incentive for forms work.  Rather than learning a form per colored belt, one could literally spend a year dissecting just one form for all of the nuggets it contains.  If they were so inclined.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

As a side note, if/when anyone comes into the thread with negative comments/smart-aleck remarks/snipes etc, my suggestion is to simply ignore them and let the mods take care of it.  That way there are no rabbit trails and the thread doesn't get derailed (which is probably their intention in the first place).  Just ignore them and let's see what we can learn together.


----------



## oftheherd1

seasoned said:


> ...
> 
> What I have learned over the years is things sometimes never are what they appear to look like. Case in point are some of the basic high, middle, and low blocks. It is the movement that is important, not what it seems to be doing. Trying some of these blocks in sparring will prove a point very quickly. In GoJu all blocks can also be strikes, done the same way they are done in forms when assumed they were blocks. Also some of the open hand "blocks" are locks and traps, but still look and are taught as, "blocks" to the newer students. This is part of the building of a system, but I'm not sure how it is with other teachings.............. Sorry if I am off tract pertaining to the flow of this thread.



I have said before, there are movements in TKD, and probably Karate, the meaning of which has apparently been lost to most Master practitioners, and apparently some GM.  I had a student who was a 4th dan in TKD, who would point them out to me sometimes, and I have seen some which look to me like they should/could have been grabs, instead of the "art" they are often explained as.

As to whether or not you will be a better TKD practioner knowing that or not, I can't say.  Regardless of whether or not forms movements are sudo-grabs/locks, or kick defenses, in fact TKD doesn't teach those things, nor use them, unless some Master teacher or GM has decided to put them in.  

Even then, there may be no realization there is a form movement that expresses that same thing.  So maybe Puunui and his teachers are right after all.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> In another section we've been discussing bunkai in kata as far as interpretation. I thought it would be interesting to examine applications here as well to see if there are different interpretations. With that in mind, I'd thought the appropriate place to begin would be Taegue Il Jang. Looking at just the first sequence after the opening; The instructor begins to turn to his left while performing a down block with his left hand. The down block is completed as he completes a full 90 degree turn to the left. He then steps forward with his right foot and delivers a right straight punch to mid-section height.
> 
> How do you view this sequence? What is the purpose? What is the interpretation as far as a self-defense movement? Is there a SD movement? No wrong answers and it is all based upon what you were taught that it means. How do you view it and how do you teach it?


All of the taegeuk pumse are designed to draw one of the eight gwe (pal-gwe), the same as the palgwe pumse were.  So to a certain extent the turning from facing north to facing west is simply the beginning point of drawing that pattern, in this case, Keon, symbolizing Heaven, yang, and creation of all things in the universe.

Regarding the actual movment itself, you have a turn and putting forth of the left foot and arae makki followed by stepping with the right foot and executing dwit son jireugi, all performed in ap seogi.  I don't have the textbook with me, but if I remember correctly, the interpetation given is that of parrying ap chagi and stepping to deliver deit don jireugi to the solar plexus.  

Arae makki 'defends the self' against the ap chagi, so in the most basic sense, there is an action of self defense.  The pumse intent is not to emulate a real fight, but to teach movement and execution of basic technique within the frame work of Keon.  

Individual elements of the pumse, such as the parry/counter can be taken and placed into the context of a practical SD scenario, and further techniques can be drawn from the movments themselves.  Given that this is a basic level pumse (pal geub), I would not view it as anything more, on a physical level, than teaching transition from defensive to offensive techniques and walking in ap seogi, and transitioning from ap seogi to ap kubi, teaching transition from defensive to offensive techniques and moving in ap kubi.

Students at this level are not ready to be extrapolating practical SD from the pumse.  I was taught, and teach, separate techniques, such as falling, defenses against grabs, and utilizing grabs, pulls, sweeps, and takedowns, separately from pumse.  

I do not mix pumse with practical self defense, though I do connect things in practical self defense with techniques that the students have learned in the pumse when appropriate, though more to allow them to see the principles the pumse communicate rather than in bunkai fashion the way that it is done in some karate ryu.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

oftheherd1 said:


> I have said before, there are movements in TKD, and probably Karate, the meaning of which has apparently been lost to most Master practitioners, and apparently some GM.  I had a student who was a 4th dan in TKD, who would point them out to me sometimes, and I have seen some which look to me like they should/could have been grabs, instead of the "art" they are often explained as.
> 
> As to whether or not you will be a better TKD practioner knowing that or not, I can't say.  Regardless of whether or not forms movements are sudo-grabs/locks, or kick defenses, in fact TKD doesn't teach those things, nor use them, unless some Master teacher or GM has decided to put them in.
> 
> Even then, there may be no realization there is a form movement that expresses that same thing.  So maybe Puunui and his teachers are right after all.



Valid considerations.  Here are my thoughts;  we sometimes forget that masters, GM's, seniors, founders etc are still men.  They don't know everything, and probably would not claim to know everything.  Simply put, no one, knows everything.  Someone that develops a form in the 'modern era' is not the first person to develop a form.  Many forms already pre-existed.  If/since there are elements within many of those forms, any similar sequence of movements will also have those same elements whether or not the form creator had the insight, experience or training to recognize it.  In short, it doesn't matter whether a forms creator in the modern era claims there are no advanced applications or recognizes them.  It doesn't matter if this or that GM understands/recognizes these applications.  That would be up to the individual instructor.  In essence these applications simply are there if one wishes to use them.  If they don't wish to use them, no harm/no foul.  It is their choice.  If someone wishes to use them, research into them, reverse-engineer them or whatever, providing that it works for the intended purpose then that is their choice as well.

No right or wrong here, simply a matter of choices.  Too me, it is profitable to see others interpretations of a movement sequence as it may present options I had not previously considered.  Thus, my training advances.  If I can offer something they hadn't considered that benefits their training then that is great as well.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

If you don't mind my asking, what is your specific interest in this topic?  You don't use these forms yourself; presumably, you have your own forms and their associated applications in the IKSDA.  Or are you planning to teach Taegeuk pumse?

I don't see Shotokan, TSD, Goju, Tai Chi, or Kyokushin practitioners over here asking about our bunkai; they already have their own and engage in discussions thereof in their own forums.  You seem to be particularly interested in this; even people of other TKD styles don't post about Taegeuk applications with any frequency or at all, but you have posted serveral threads on the topic over the past year or so.

I don't care that you're asking, nor saying that you shouldn't; it is a public forum and there are no rules preventing you from doing so, but your posts come off as being dismissive of KKW pioneers in this matter (as evinced by your post above) and seem very focused on the subject as though it is some glaring oversight in the system.  Perhaps that is not your intent, but your posts on the subject do tend to read that way.  

It isn't an oversight; KKW schools simply do not teach SD in that fashion.  Layering of lessons in that way is cool, and if a KKW instructor opts to do so, then as far as I am concerned, more power to them.  But taekwondo is not karate and does not use the same teaching methodologies found in many karate ryu.

I know that you and some of the others here do not get on well with Puunui, but he is a senior in the art.  I see a distinct lack of respect for what he has to say on the subject.  If you want to dismiss everything he says about matters not KKW, that is understandable, but with regards to what is contained in the art and why it is contained or not, he is in a much more authoritative position than yourself or anyone else who has yet posted on this thread.

Dirty Dog asked him why he's in this thread.  I could ask any non KKW practitioner why they're in this thread and you why you're even in this section and not in whatever section Kong Soo Do would fall under (karate?).  But I've already given that answer in my own post: it is a public forum and there are no rules preventing you from doing so, so it would be just as silly for me to ask that as it was of Dirty Dog to ask it of Puunui.

Notice that aside from myself and Miguksaram (both KKW practitiones), none of the other posters have in any way answered the questions posed in your OP, but have either made very non specific comments or spent their time debating Puunui's right to post in this thread?

I don't mind that you post the topic; I wouldn't have participated earlier if I did.  But you do come across as looking down at the art and at its pioneers.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> If you don't mind my asking, what is your specific interest in this topic?



Sure.  I find it an interesting topic.  Secondly, I think others may find it interesting.  Thirdly, there is possibility to learn an application that I'm unfamiliar with by discussing it.

As you mentioned, it is a free forum and it is for the exchange of information regarding to a topic.  If any KKW practitioner finds no interest in the topic, they are under no obligation to post and will find a plethora of threads to their liking.  Indeed, this thread isn't to discuss 'if' so much as to discuss 'what'.  It is for those that see various applications, or would like to take a look at it openly.  If they don't wish to look at the topic of discussion, then they really should be on to other topics of interest to them.  

Being a KKW senior is of no relation to the topic if that senior doesn't have the experience necessary to discuss various applications of a more in-depth nature, or wished to believe they don't exist.  But again, this thread isn't designed for 'if' it is designed for 'what' and the conversation should remain on topic.  That is my request as the OP to avoid rabbit trails and derail attempts.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Dirty Dog asked him why he's in this thread.  I could ask any non KKW practitioner why they're in this thread and you why you're even in this section and not in whatever section Kong Soo Do would fall under (karate?).  But I've already given that answer in my own post: it is a public forum and there are no rules preventing you from doing so, so it would be just as silly for me to ask that as it was of Dirty Dog to ask it of Puunui.



Nothing silly about it. If you think this discussion is a waste of time, then wondering why you'd be involved in it seems an entirely reasonable question.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Notice that aside from myself and Miguksaram (both KKW practitiones), none of the other posters have in any way answered the questions posed in your OP, but have either made very non specific comments or spent their time debating Puunui's right to post in this thread?



Simply not true. I posted my opinions on the applications. Did you miss that, or dismiss that?


----------



## dancingalone

Although normally forms applications are a topic of high interest for me, I have avoided posting on this thread because frankly I am tired of the catty stuff all around.  Some stray thoughts from me:  

1)There's really no reason to bring up Tae Geuk Il-jang as a topic for discussion, considering the same opening movements are present in a bunch of other kata/hyung like Chonji or Pyung Ahn Chodan or Kibon/Kicho Hyung Chodan.  Why avoid the Tae Geuks?  Well, I would out of sensitivity for the KKW folks who no doubt are tired of the discussion of self-defense and its teaching method in their system.  It would be less antagonizing to showcase one of the other forms as an initial discussion point or at the very least give a spotlight on all of them and then request comment on any/all of them to look for commonality or differences in the approaches the MT participants have.

2) It's a valid perspective to say there is no bunkai in the KKW poomsae as intended by the forms inventers.  It's equally valid to say there could be if there is an interest in adding it retroactively and it's also fair to get into some discussion of WHY there is a lack of applications study in the KKW system.  However, as MT is a place for polite, friendly discussion, it would behoove all to stay above on the belt when talking about history, etc.

3) I would consider Kong Soo Do a form of taekwondo, not karate.  It apparently uses Korean terminology, so sticking to my definition of TKD as a melting pot of martial influences, I have no problems reading about KSD in the TKD section.

That's all I have to say for now.  Going to lunch on someone else's dime!  I'll be back in a few.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Dirty Dog said:


> Nothing silly about it. If you think this discussion is a waste of time, then wondering why you'd be involved in it seems an entirely reasonable question.


What he actually said is quoted below:



puunui said:


> Actually it is not interesting. Instead, *I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time*. My teacher also finds it an exercise in futility, and he was the chief editor of the taegeuk (not "taegue") poomsae. Another teacher of mine is the gentleman who is demonstrating taegeuk 1 jang in the video clip included in your original post. Can you tell me where that footage originally came from?


The fact that a senior in the art considers it a waste of time and that his instructor, who was the chief editor of the taegeuk pumse, found it to be an exercise in futility actually does contribute, though not in the way you, or the OP might like.  You may not agree with the point of view of either gentlman, but it is relevant to the topic.

The taegeuk pumse, unlike kata in some karate ryu, were not designed with hidden applications in mind and are meant to be taught and practiced in a specific way.  Do I personally think that it is a waste of time or an exercise in futility?  Depends on who's doing the reverse engineering and how they're teaching it.  

I can only tell you that I have read a lot of books by seniors in the art and I cannot recall any of them that get into pumse applications in any depth or at all.  Some of them have had specific self defense applications for techniques found in KKW taekwondo and in the pumse, but they weren't reverse engineering the pumse in order to communicate it.  

Personally, I see nothing wrong with pulling applications from or reverse engineering pumse.  Some people are just into that type of layered teaching methodology.  But it is not the norm for teaching self defense applications within the art.



Dirty Dog said:


> Simply not true. I posted my opinions on the applications. Did you miss that, or dismiss that?


Missed it.  Read it, thanked on it.  Good post!  Apologies for missing it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Sure. I find it an interesting topic. Secondly, I think others may find it interesting. Thirdly, there is possibility to learn an application that I'm unfamiliar with by discussing it.


Nothing wrong with that; I was curious as to your reasons.



Kong Soo Do said:


> As you mentioned, it is a free forum and it is for the exchange of information regarding to a topic. If any KKW practitioner finds no interest in the topic, they are under no obligation to post and will find a plethora of threads to their liking. Indeed, this thread isn't to discuss 'if' so much as to discuss 'what'. It is for those that see various applications, or would like to take a look at it openly. If they don't wish to look at the topic of discussion, then they really should be on to other topics of interest to them.


The same can be said of everyone else regarding everything else.  You have no interest in WTF sparring but are not shy about posting in threads about it.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Being a KKW senior is of no relation to the topic if that senior doesn't have the experience necessary to discuss various applications of a more in-depth nature, or wished to believe they don't exist. But again, this thread isn't designed for 'if' it is designed for 'what' and the conversation should remain on topic. That is my request as the OP to avoid rabbit trails and derail attempts.


Actually, it is of relation to the topic and Puunui has more than the necessary experience to discuss the applications.  So while the two of you may not get on all that well, his opinion on the topic is of value and relevant to your thread.    

As I said to Dirty Dog, the fact that a senior in the art considers it a waste of time and that his instructor, who was the *chief editor of the taegeuk pumse*, found it to be an exercise in futility actually does contribute, though not in the way you might like. You may not agree with the point of view of either gentlman, but it is relevant to the topic.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> 1)There's really no reason to bring up Tae Geuk Il-jang as a topic for discussion, considering the same opening movements are present in a bunch of other kata/hyung like Chonji or Pyung Ahn Chodan or Kibon/Kicho Hyung Chodan. Why avoid the Tae Geuks? Well, I would out of sensitivity for the *KKW folks who no doubt are tired of the discussion of self-defense and its teaching method in their system*. It would be less antagonizing to showcase one of the other forms as an initial discussion point or at the very least give a spotlight on all of them and then request comment on any/all of them to look for commonality or differences in the approaches the MT participants have.


That is the same reason that KKW folks don't generally go doing this in the Tang Soo Do or Shotokan sections.  Continued critique and discussion of self defense in their own system will raise eyebrows and be met with some reservation just as it is here.



dancingalone said:


> 2) It's a valid perspective to say there is no bunkai in the KKW poomsae as intended by the forms inventers. It's equally valid to say there could be if there is an interest in adding it retroactively and it's also fair to get into some discussion of WHY there is a lack of applications study in the KKW system. However, as MT is a place for polite, friendly discussion, it would behoove all to stay above on the belt when talking about history, etc.


Agree on all counts.



dancingalone said:


> 3) I would consider Kong Soo Do a form of taekwondo, not karate. It apparently uses Korean terminology, so sticking to my definition of TKD as a melting pot of martial influences, I have no problems reading about KSD in the TKD section.


While I don't agree with that assessment; I do not recall him ever identifying as taekwondo and what he describes sounds a lot more like tang soo do, it is a reasonable assessment to make.


----------



## oftheherd1

Daniel Sullivan said:


> ...
> 
> Actually, it is of relation to the topic and Puunui has more than the necessary experience to discuss the applications. So while the two of you may not get on all that well, his opinion on the topic is of value and relevant to your thread.
> 
> As I said to Dirty Dog, the fact that a senior in the art considers it a waste of time and that his instructor, who was the *chief editor of the taegeuk pumse*, found it to be an exercise in futility actually does contribute, though not in the way you might like. You may not agree with the point of view of either gentlman, but it is relevant to the topic.



I understand Puunui has much experience and has a lot to contribute.  I respect his experience and contributions.  But I do not however, agree that just because he and his teachers thought it a waste of time, that they can not be wrong.  I think my observations are valid as well, even though they seem to contradict what Puunui and his teachers think.

And I also stated that since TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in forms, perhaps it is a waste of time to TKD.  But I don't think that was what Puunui or his teachers meant.  Or was I wrong?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> For an example of what I mean, take a look at the opening sequence of the form in the video.
> 
> The practitioner is looking forward initially. As he begins the 'down block' he is also simultaneously looking towards his left. Why? If the attack is coming from the front, what is the attack? What will the 'down block' do to that incoming frontal attack? The follow up is a straight punch to mid-section height at a 90 degree angle to the starting position. If the attack was frontal, what did that 'down block' specifically do to the attacker to cause their body to move a full 90 degrees to the practitioner's left in order to be in position to receive that straight punch to mid-section height?
> 
> Or
> 
> If the attack is coming in from the left of the practitioner, how is he seeing what type of attack is coming? Peripheral vision? Possibly, but is that good enough to have already committed to a specific blocking strategy? Why is he turning into the attack rather than moving laterally away from it to a position of advantage or better defense? If indeed he was able to identify the mode of attack with peripheral vision, and respond to it simultaneously, is the 'down block' the best option? I can see a down block deflecting a straight kick, but it is a very poor choice against a kick coming in from the side i.e. the radial bone isn't a match against a shin bone unless you've done a LOT of hard body conditioning to your arms. Normally, TKD schools don't center on that type of arm conditioning. Certainly not to the degree of specific Karate Ryus (I know, I've done it). So the question becomes; is this really a b-p-k defense from either the front or side? Or are there better alternatives available using the movements indicated in the form?



As I explained earlier, this is not meant to emulate an attacker coming in from the front.  I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up; this isn't your first thread on the subject.  While the imaginary attack is from the left side, the form isn't designed to emulate you getting attacked from your side.  Facing ahead (north for the purposes of this discussion) is simply how the practitioner starts and bows in.  The block is intended against ap chagi, not dolyo chagi (roundhouse kick) or yubchagi (side kick).  There is no, 'out of your peripheral vision, you see your attacker, whom you turn to face...' in this form.  It is simply about teaching basic movements of the form.  

As has been said in previous threads on the topic, the form is not representative of a fight.  Attempts to make it into one fail because that is not the intent of the form.  Which is why this sort of thing isn't a big part of KKW taekwondo, particularly at this level.  

This form is learned by eighth geub students.  In other words, raw beginners.  Yes, you could pull all kinds of cool techniques out of the elements of this form.  But unless you are coming into the art with a fairly in depth background in another similar MA, you will not be ready to learn those techniques.

Later Taegeuk pumse do focus on more advanced techniques, though very little, if any is strategically hidden away.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

oftheherd1 said:


> I understand Puunui has much experience and has a lot to contribute. I respect his experience and contributions. But I do not however, agree that just because he and his teachers thought it a waste of time, that they can not be wrong. I think my observations are valid as well, even though they seem to contradict what Puunui and his teachers think.



I didn't say that they are infallable or can't be wrong. However, if a judo sensei or veteran judoka says that certain teaching methodologies are a waste of time judo, even though they may work very well in another similar grappling art, it is probably because they know more about it than you do.

I've already given my opinion on the form and on the usefulness of teaching taekwondo forms in a karate style teaching method. While I don't oppose it and am willing to see the results of an instructor's effort before declaring it a waste of time, I suspect that the people most intent on and comfortable with teaching this way are people who have a background in an art with that teaching methodology or who have experience in other arts that they view as applicable to and worth adding to KKW taekwondo. 

Again, what value it has is really determined by who is doing it and what the end product looks like. Since it isn't a codified part of the art, simply teaching in that way does not automatically mean that your efforts are more productive (or less) than the way that it is normally done.

Also, this is not the first go-around for this topic on this pumse. KSD has raised it, both separately, and within previous threads and has received a *lot* of detailed responses. He seems very intent on continuing to make critique about the direction of the attacker and the use of the radial bone. All of his criticisms have been addressed at length in other threads.



oftheherd1 said:


> And I also stated that since *TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in forms*, perhaps it is a waste of time to TKD. But I don't think that was what Puunui or his teachers meant. Or was I wrong?


He specifically said that reverse engineering the pumse to pull applications out of them that are not specifically in them is a waste of time. 

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part; when you say TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in the forms, do you mean the Taegeuk pumse? If so, then I would disagree with that statement. If you mean that WTF rules do not allow for any of the techniques that seem to be in the pumse, then I would say that that is not correct, but that a great many of the techniques taught as part of the pumse are either not permitted, not utilized or both in WTF sparring.


----------



## puunui

Dirty Dog said:


> And since you find it a waste of time, nobody should do it. You don't see the arrogance of such an attitude?



I might be if that is what I said, but it isn't. Again. And if you had asked me "why" I think it is a waste of time, I would have told you that it is because I also practice hapkido. In hapkido we practice defenses and applications in a logical structured fashion. We start with wrist grabs and work our way up the arm to the top of the head, then down the center of the body, then go to back facing defenses and so forth. Each area builds on the next to the point where when you reach 1st dan, you have a solid foundation in the art, as well as a conceptual framework from which to work off of. Once a student reaches hapkido 1st dan level, it is relatively easy to see applications in poomsae. They jump out at you. 

In contrast, learning applications through poomsae study and reverse engineering provides no such logical structured framework. Instead, what you are left with is a mish mash hodgepodge study of random techniques in no particular order. This is very inefficient to say the least and does not give the type of rounded curriculum that one can receive if the student studied an art which directly addresses those types of defenses or applications. If you are seriously interested in studying those types of techniques and defenses, when a better approach would be to separately study another art that did focus on such techniques, which would be presented within a logical structured framework. 

In other words, why waste time doing random easter egg hunts when there are arts out there that will give you the same thing in an orderly direct fashion? To do otherwise is a waste of time.


----------



## puunui

Jaeimseu said:


> I don't care if someone wants to study applications for individual techniques found in the poomse, but if the men who created the poomse say it's a waste of time



Actually he said it was an exercise in futility. The reason why he said that is his opinion that too many people, especially in the US, perform the poomsae movements incorrectly to start with, such that its meaning and applications are perverted. No sense hunting for applications if you are doing the poomsae in a technical incorrect fashion in the first place. He would much rather see students concentrating on performing the movements correctly than veering off half cocked on some tangent, hunting for easter eggs. How can you find applications when that person doesn't do the movements as they were intended to be done? Looking for applications using a distorted technical base would be an exercise in futility. Or at least that is what he said 15 or so years ago when this topic came up between us. Perhaps he would say something different to someone else today.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> Actually he said it was an exercise in futility. The reason why he said that is his opinion that too many people, especially in the US, perform the poomsae movements incorrectly to start with, such that its meaning and applications are perverted. No sense hunting for applications if you are doing the poomsae in a technical incorrect fashion in the first place. He would much rather see students concentrating on performing the movements correctly than veering off half cocked on some tangent, hunting for easter eggs. How can you find applications when that person doesn't do the movements as they were intended to be done? Looking for applications using a distorted technical base would be an exercise in futility. Or at least that is what he said 15 or so years ago when this topic came up between us. Perhaps he would say something different to someone else today.



This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae.  Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places.  It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form.  Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.


----------



## puunui

So here is the real agenda of this thread, to once again attack and disparage the taekwondo pioneers: 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Many different styles of Karate teach this methodology including the ones I took.  Blocks can be and are strikes or have other applications.  Furthering this thought, the father of TKD is Karate.  Since Karate kata can serve a dual purpose i.e. b-p-k and alternative applications, I submit that to an extent, so can TKD forms.  *The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially very low level practitioners themselves* with at least on exception I'm aware of.  Their levels of actual experience varied widely, but *mostly they were of very low rank or even no rank*.  That is just history and not meant to down play their contribution to the establishment of TKD.
> 
> Many of the forms in certain Korean arts are simply renamed Okinawan kata.  Again, just stating the obvious.  However, to their credit, the Koreans did develop many forms of their own for the new art(s).  My suggestion is that since Korean forms use many/most of the same movement patterns of Okinawan kata, and since Okinawan kata contains both b-p-k and alternative or more advanced applications, that Korean forms will also contain them to an extent.   *I do not believe the founders of TKD for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced applications.* *They in turn would not understand these principles for the most part when developing their own forms.* *As I've mentioned before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or discovered for themselves.*  Some will point out that the creators of these forms suggest no deeper meanings, and they are correct.  *They would not have known, again for the most part, the deeper meanings of Okinawan kata and therefore not understood what was going into the forms they were creating. * For example, if in an Okinawan kata a certain movement sequence contains a b-p-k and an advance application and that movement sequence is transplanted into a newly created Korean form, then it will have the same b-p-k and advanced applications even if only one is known and/or understood.
> 
> I see Okinawan kata as well-written and complete 'stories' so-to-speak.  *Conversely, I see Korean forms, as far as advanced applications, as somewhat choppy.  In other words, most of the words are there but many of the sentences are somewhat broken, fragmentary or incomplete.  This is because some/many of the Korean forms were put together with purely b-p-k in mind because the more advanced applications weren't known.*  Therefore some movement sequences were transplanted intact and some were altered to a lesser or greater extent to make the forms flow as far as b-p-k.  However, imo, sometimes the flow of the b-p-k is questionable which, too me, lends credence to the existence of a more advanced application within the sequence.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> As has been said in previous threads on the topic, the form is not representative of a fight.  Attempts to make it into one fail because that is not the intent of the form.  Which is why this sort of thing isn't a big part of KKW taekwondo, particularly at this level.



Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor?  Or not?


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Being a KKW senior is of no relation to the topic if that senior doesn't have the experience necessary to discuss various applications of a more in-depth nature, or wished to believe they don't exist.  But again, this thread isn't designed for 'if' it is designed for 'what' and the conversation should remain on topic.  That is my request as the OP to avoid rabbit trails and derail attempts.



Actually you are the one who shows a lack of experience, especially of kukki taekwondo. You misspell, twice, and by extension mispronounce the very form that you are attempting to discuss here. Have you even learn taegeuk 1 jang, or is your "experience" in this area, once again limited to watching videos? Put another way, if you wish to discuss "experience" with taegeuk 1 jang, I figure I have done at least 12 to 15 thousand reps of that form over my lifetime, 6 thousand over a two year period alone, preparing for the kukkiwon instructor course. How many times have you done it?


----------



## puunui

Dirty Dog said:


> If you think this discussion is a waste of time, then wondering why you'd be involved in it seems an entirely reasonable question.



Again, that is not what I said. I said "I find the whole idea of reverse engineering applications into poomsae a complete waste of time." No mention about discussion. In the future, I would ask that you please read my posts more carefully, so that we can avoid these types of misunderstands in the future. Personally, I think the topic is worth discussing, for no other reason than to explain why we don't do such things in kukki taekwondo. If you go to the instructor course, which in korea is 40 hours long spread out over five days, plus a half day for testing, you will not be instructed in secret knockout pressure point applications, triple warmers and all of that. However, the class might get a lecture on the importance of doing the poomsae in a technically accurate fashion, which is what happened during my course. GM KIM Soon Bae was so disgusted at the perverted performances of some of the participants that he stood up from the testing board and began to lecture everyone on the actual movements of the particular poomsae being tested. The pioneers view "the american style" of poomsae, as they call it, a perversion and abomination of the technical, not to mention the mental and philosophical foundations of kukki taekwondo.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor? Or not?


Personally? No. I will defer to Puunui as to whether or not the pioneers intended it to be so.

I view it as building blocks of the art:



*Makki:* arae makki, momtong makki, and olgul makki
*chigi:* dwit jireugi and ap chagi
*seogi:* moa seogi, kibon junbi seogi, ap seogi, and ap kubi

These and movement and transition within and between them.  Each pumse builds on what came before it, particularly one through three.

I also view the pumse as representative of Confucian thought and philosophy.  Each one has a meaning.  After the taegeuk pumse, each yudanja pumse follows the line of a particular hanja, each carrying a specific meaning.


----------



## seasoned

dancingalone said:


> This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae.  Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places.  It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form.  Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.


Very good points. Kata is static and a real world fight is ever changing. So the kata can't be locked in pertaining to exact foot work or embusen rule' but ever flowing with the circumstances, as they are presented.

As I think about my comment above I am refering to my art and kata, which may not equate to the thread and Taegue Il Jang application that I know nothing about. But, I find it all very interesting.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> 1)There's really no reason to bring up Tae Geuk Il-jang as a topic for discussion, considering the same opening movements are present in a bunch of other kata/hyung like Chonji or Pyung Ahn Chodan or Kibon/Kicho Hyung Chodan.  Why avoid the Tae Geuks?  Well, I would out of sensitivity for the KKW folks who no doubt are tired of the discussion of self-defense and its teaching method in their system.  It would be less antagonizing to showcase one of the other forms as an initial discussion point or at the very least give a spotlight on all of them and then request comment on any/all of them to look for commonality or differences in the approaches the MT participants have.



Good point. See my earlier post above regarding my opinion as to the actual agenda of this thread. 




dancingalone said:


> 2) It's a valid perspective to say there is no bunkai in the KKW poomsae as intended by the forms inventers.



I never said there was no bunkai in the kukkiwon poomsae. There are, and if the poomsae are performed correctly, they jump out at you. 




dancingalone said:


> 3) I would consider Kong Soo Do a form of taekwondo, not karate.  It apparently uses Korean terminology, so sticking to my definition of TKD as a melting pot of martial influences, I have no problems reading about KSD in the TKD section.



Just because someone uses korean terminology and a korean name for their art doesn't make them a part of taekwondo. If that were true, changing my last name to Murphy would make me irish, which I am not.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> Just because someone uses korean terminology and a korean name for their art doesn't make them a part of taekwondo. If that were true, changing my last name to Murphy would make me irish, which I am not.


You mean you're not???


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor? Or not?



Please see my initial posting on this.  I believe people will see what they want to see in this.  Puunui's instructor hit it right on the head, if you are not doing the form correctly, then you are missing everything.  As I have been told by Sensei Sharkey in regards to kata, it is nothing more than a set of self-defenese moves strung together in a partterned shape.  Which is true.  While I believe bunkai does help me understand why I am doing what I am doing in the form, I do not start with bunkai and then try to  learn the form.  
To add to that, I take exception to a couple of things:


			
				ksd said:
			
		

> *The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially very low level practitioners themselves*


Explain low level?  They held 1st - 3rd dans.  At the time Funakoshi Sensei held a 5th dan.  So in today's standard a 1st -3rd may seem low, that was far from the case in their time. So saying they held low levels is misleading.


			
				ksd said:
			
		

> *I do not believe the founders of TKD for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced applications.* *They in turn would not understand these principles for the most part when developing their own forms.* *As I've mentioned before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or discovered for themselves*


So now you are are saying that they didn't know enough about their art?  I am confused, what classes did they miss?  Can you point out in any of Funakoshi's books about hidden meaning or advance applications in bunkai?  

I guess I am trying to see the point of all of this as well.  If it was to sit here and discuss boonhae of Taeguk Il-jang then by all means ask for different intepretations with others.  It seems more like a "Let's bash on the founders of TKD" type thread, because you bring up your view of shortcomings which have no relevance to the actual topic at hand.  I would also like to ask how much time have you spent with the any founders or 1st-3rd generation students of founders to know for sure what they know or don't know in relation to boonhae?  As I mentioned, I personally never seen a book from Funakoshi that points out all these "hidden" or "advance" applications.  So perhaps that type of thing may have been discussed within the class room itself and not something for that was meant to be written in his books.  So if there is no written work from the founder what would make you think that students would produce any written work?


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> I never said there was no bunkai in the kukkiwon poomsae. There are, and if the poomsae are performed correctly, they jump out at you.



I would be interested in an expansion of this statement if you are minded to write one.




puunui said:


> Just because someone uses korean terminology and a korean name for their art doesn't make them a part of taekwondo. If that were true, changing my last name to Murphy would make me irish, which I am not.



I think adoption of terminology is a good first step.  At the very least, it's a basic recognition of comity and could lead to more down the line.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> Please see my initial posting on this. I believe people will see what they want to see in this. Puunui's instructor hit it right on the head, if you are not doing the form correctly, then you are missing everything. As I have been told by Sensei Sharkey in regards to kata, it is nothing more than a set of self-defenese moves strung together in a partterned shape. Which is true. While I believe bunkai does help me understand why I am doing what I am doing in the form, I do not start with bunkai and then try to learn the form.
> To add to that, I take exception to a couple of things:
> 
> Explain low level? They held 1st - 3rd dans. At the time Funakoshi Sensei held a 5th dan. So in today's standard a 1st -3rd may seem low, that was far from the case in their time. So saying they held low levels is misleading.
> 
> So now you are are saying that they didn't know enough about their art? I am confused, what classes did they miss? Can you point out in any of Funakoshi's books about hidden meaning or advance applications in bunkai?
> 
> I guess I am trying to see the point of all of this as well. If it was to sit here and discuss boonhae of Taeguk Il-jang then by all means ask for different intepretations with others. It seems more like a "Let's bash on the founders of TKD" type thread, because you bring up your view of shortcomings which have no relevance to the actual topic at hand. I would also like to ask how much time have you spent with the any founders or 1st-3rd generation students of founders to know for sure what they know or don't know in relation to boonhae? As I mentioned, I personally never seen a book from Funakoshi that points out all these "hidden" or "advance" applications. So perhaps that type of thing may have been discussed within the class room itself and not something for that was meant to be written in his books. So if there is no written work from the founder what would make you think that students would produce any written work?


This is not the first thread in which he has made these statements either.  Not by a long shot.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae.  Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places.  It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form.  Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.



Exactly. I've seen some reverse engineered applications from forms that were so far removed from the actual movements themselves that I could hardly recognize it as being related. People stretch all sorts of applications into these forms, to the point of ridiculousness. 

My point, if you wish to study applications based on okinawan theories, then my suggestion would be to study those okinawan arts themselves, and keep them separate as much as possible. I study taekwondo and hapkido, and as much as possible, I keep them separate, which is easy for me to do, because my mind works like that. Compartmentalizing is a natural thing for me, work is work, home is home, martial arts is martial arts and I have no problems keeping them all separate. 

Here is another observation: Those who have the least understanding of kukki taekwondo are the ones most likely to veer off and adopt things from other arts to fill the gaps in their knowledge. It is only natural and I too was guilty of that early on. We all were. That's one of the reasons why I have so many books, being part of the bruce lee era, I and a lot of people who lived through that listened to Bruce's words "If it helps you in a fight, then you should use it, it doesn't matter where it comes from". We were all making chop suey back then, blending whatever we could into our own personal art. 

I did that mainly because I did not have access to very high level instruction, and therefore I was forced to teach myself. So Bruce Lee's permission in this regard was the sort of thing that I needed to hear. But ultimately, for me, Bruce's words were not right for me, because doing what he said I could do prevented me from seeing my chosen arts in the manner that they were meant to be seen, by the pioneers and creators of those arts. 

It's wasn't until I gained access to very high level practitioners in taekwondo and hapkido that my ideas started to change. It suddenly became important to me to understand these arts from the perspective of those pioneers, especially if I wanted to travel the long road that they themselves traveled. I started thinking less about myself and what was important to me and more about the arts in their pure form and what was important to that. Of course we all put our own signature on the arts that we study, the bottomline is that I wanted my arts to transform me, and not the other way around. 

Yet another way to view it: When study something like kukki taekwondo, or even itf taekwon-do, there is a framework and picture of what we are supposed to look like, and to a large extent, to think about. Our understanding of our art is to a large extent like building a giant jigsaw puzzle, and our job is to first understand what that puzzle looks like, and then put the pieces together in the right way so that we have an undistorted picture. 

Some people, a lot of people, maybe even most people, do not have all the pieces. But instead of seeking out more pieces of the puzzle, they instead grab pieces from another art and use those pieces to fill in the blank spaces. Do that too much, and you end up with a puzzle that looks completely different. Then when discussions such as these come up, you are looking at your puzzle, while I am looking at mine, and we each think we are looking at the same picture when in reality we are not. 

The people who most enjoy what I have to say and take to heart the things that I have to say, are the ones who, like me, are interested in seeing taekwondo or hapkido or whatever as they are meant to be seen, from the creators' eyes and viewpoint. To that end, I try to freely share concepts and philosophies as explained by those pioneers, so that people have a road map as to where they need to go, if they wish to follow in my footsteps. I try to as much as possible give them the cover to the box of the jigsaw puzzle so that they can see ahead of time what the picture will look like. 

Those who are "opposed" to me, like adding pieces from different puzzles, because frankly they don't care what the accurate picture of taekwondo is about. What they care about is their perspective, their american god given right to do whatever the hell they want to do and no one is going to tell them different.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

puunui said:


> Some people, a lot of people, maybe even most people, do not have all the pieces. But instead of seeking out more pieces of the puzzle, they instead grab pieces from another art and use those pieces to fill in the blank spaces. Do that too much, and you end up with a puzzle that looks completely different. Then when discussions such as these come up, you are looking at your puzzle, while I am looking at mine, and we each think we are looking at the same picture when in reality we are not.


Personally, I don't mind if people do that.  I've seen some very cool items come from that approach.  But if one chooses to do that, be honest about what you are doing, why you are doing, it and don't knock the donor arts that you selected in order to build your own art; they made it possible for you to do so.

And don't tell people who practice those donor arts, or arts that are contemporaries of your new art that your creation is superior to what they practice.  Your creation is your creation, and may have tons of merit.  Who knows?  Your students may want to spread your codified art and open schools in order to do so.  But antagonizing practitioners of the donor arts and that of your contemporaries shows immaturity and insecurity.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> I would be interested in an expansion of this statement if you are minded to write one.



You are a smart guy, you don't need for me to explain the applications in the kukki taekwondo poomsae. They jump out at you, don't they? One example, which is historical more than anything else since it isn't used so much anymore. The opening sequence in taegeuk 3 jang, the front kick followed by double punch, was a famous combination used by jidokwan members during the 60s at tournaments. It is said that that combination was GM YH Park, Sr's favorite, which he used during his days as an defeated korean national champion. Stuff like that.




dancingalone said:


> I think adoption of terminology is a good first step.  At the very least, it's a basic recognition of comity and could lead to more down the line.



I agree, if your intent is to become part of kukki taekwondo, then the adoption of korean terminology is a good first step. But frankly, I do not believe that is what is going on here. In other words, what you speak of I have no doubt is what is going on with you, but I wouldn't be so quick to extend the same to others.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae.  Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places.  It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form.  Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.



Excellent post.  Forms can be an excellent catalog of principles, tactics and strategies.  By recognizing these principles we can derive valuable material of a very practical nature.  

I've seen several interpretations in regards to the opening movements presented in the OP video.  


The left hand is a hammer fist to the lower body of the attacker during a grab/grapple attempt coming in from the left side.  Notice the left arm re-chambers as the next portion (straight punch) is set in motion.  Using more of a realistic movement pattern, rather than a stiff walking stance, the rechambering could entail and upward, reverse elbow with the left arm as it 'rechambers'.  This is a fluid follow up strike to a hammer fist strike to the lower body and will typically engage the upper torso area from the clavicle to the jaw area.  Or, as an alternative, the rechambered hand is grasping something (limb/clothing) of the attacker to off-balance him.  This is followed by a straight punch to the mid-section.  An alternative to this application would use the 'straight punch' as more of a forward-linear forearm strike to the collar bone or neck area as a probable target since the expected reaction of a hammer fist to the groin area would be for the attacker to be leaning over forward at the waist.
Basic forward take down.  The top portion of the 'down block' is actually is actually a jamming or impact motion to the left of the incoming attacker's center line.  In combatives circles, this is a common tactic referred to as a 'half-spear'.  On the down motion of the 'down block' the left hand comes in contact with the attacker's left side neck area.  Again, this is a common follow up tactic from a 'spear', 'half-spear', 'elbow spike' or forearm to brachial plexus strike.  The right hand meanwhile is grasping the left arm or closest available body part.  This 'hip chamber' movement in many Karate schools is explained as a grasping/pulling in and/or off-balancing movement.  For example it is conveyed as such in the Pinan and other katas.  The 90 degree turn would serve to off-balance the attacker, bringing them to a bending over position to your left and their right.  Their upper body would be roughly perpendicular to the ground.  Thrusting forward with the right foot while striking with the right hand/arm would open up the left side of the attacker, from the left temple to the left clavicle area as a striking target area.  The form demonstrates a straight punch which could be applicable to several soft body targets in this area or as an option, an open hand strike such as a spear hand or edge-of-hand or even the knife edged portion of the underside of the forearm to these target areas.  A conclusion type movement would open up for a sweep, kick to the lower extremities, or even into a hip throw or hip 'jam' or a plethora of other conclusions.
There are others but for the moment I'm running low on time.  The point is that this movement sequence can be expanded into principles of locking, throwing, off-balancing, continuous flow, follow up movements based upon the probable body positioning of the attacker at various stages of the sequence and conclusions.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae.  Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places.  It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form.  Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.



You are correct. This is a philosophical and fundamental difference in the way okinawan karate sees kata, and how japanese karate and taekwondo see forms. Okinawa is a relatively small place, where "everybody knows your name" so to speak, especially 100 or 200 years ago. Because of that, and also given the relaxed personality of the okinawan people, things are relaxed and individualized. There were no big large organizations dictating how do this or that, and all efforts to move in this direction has failed, because the people are just not into it. If you wish to do something, cool. Do whatever you want and change the form if you want. There are many different versions of the same kata, even among those who learned from the same teacher. But the schools and organizations are relatively small, with a tiny international following, if any. There was really no sparring, so this applied to kata mainly.

Japanese karate and the Japanese people are completely opposite. In Japanese culture there is a perfect way to do everything and there is no deviation from anything. They way the head of the organizations wants it is the way it will be, no questions asked. I don't know if it is the same today, but back in the day, you could walk into almost any JKA karate school and receive the same basic training using the same fundamentals if your teacher graduated from the JKA Instructor Course. This rigidity in thinking and technical standard held for both sparring and kata. Everyone looks the same, everyone wears the exact same uniform, bows the same way, starts and ends class the same way. Sparring and competition is heavily emphasized, in the model of judo and kendo. There is a strong warrior military mentality which is an undercurrent for everything. 

Taekwondo is an interesting blend of both, and in my opinion is modeled more after the american military than either japan or okinawa. Taekwondo has the same sort of free flow attitude within its art, but this is expressed mainly in kyorugi or sparring. You can do and train whatever you want, within the context of the rules. If you wish to specialize in head kicks, you can. You like body shots? No problem, if you can win with that, then go for it. Kyorugi is looked upon as the place in which to express one's individuality and creativity, in much the same way that generals have their own particular style and strategies for warfare. 

However, when it comes to poomsae, and other ritualized forms of the art, things become more unified, just like in the US military, where everyone salutes the same and does close order drill the same. Now does close order drill and rifle twirling and what the honor guard does have application to actual warfare? I suppose you could reverse engineer battlefield applications of those rifle twirls, but to me it would be a waste of time. My teacher would say that the close order drill done in the US is so perverted that he would rather see the soldiers performing close order drill correctly rather than in easter egg hunts for battlefield applications, which from his view would be an exercise in futility, since they miss the whole point of having standardized performance of these things in the first place. Poomsae, like close order drill and marching in formation and the like, is looked upon by the taekwondo pioneers and the US military as places of tradition, and are not to be changed. However, as far as actual field operations go, taekwondoin are constantly looking for more efficient and more advanced methods to carry out the mission, in much the same way the US military does the same thing.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes, a low block can also be considered a hammerfist blow, perhaps aimed at the groin, bladder, femoral nerve, common peroneal nerve...



I wanted to touch base on this as it is important.  A solid hammer fist (or other strike such as a knee spike) can be very effective against the targets underlined above in the quote.  The groin is often thought of as a great target, and it can be, but it often isn't a be-all-to-end-all target.  Many bouncers will tell you that simply grazing that target area as opposed to striking it can have a better result, particularly if the individual is intoxicated.  This portion of the form I feel offers a great tactic, against several possible targets.  And it is important to realize that in a chaotic fight you may not always have the luxury of seeing the target.

Thank you for pointing out those target areas.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Do you think the form is meant to have other meaning later on for more advanced taekwondoin like the peeling an onion metaphor?  Or not?



I do, but perhaps not in the way you think. I haven't really studied the philosophy of the taegeuk poomsae as deeply as I should. You have to ask mastercole about that. But the yudanja poomsae is written in levels, and they are embedded with the taekwondo journey from low to high rank. No other style has that as far as I know, certainly not the okinawan kata.


----------



## FieldDiscipline

dancingalone said:


> This is something to highlight as to the differences between TKD and karate and why bunkai might be a low yield effort at least with regard to KKW poomsae.  *Within the Okinawan karate I am familiar with, the motion within the kata are only regarded as starting places.  It is 'fine' to change up the directional flow or the bodily posture of the presenter to come up with a viable application of the form.*  Some of the explicit usages I've been taught in fact append footwork not even in the kata originally itself, and senior karate-ka even exhort their juniors to not be bound by the embusen of the form when seeking to master the meaning of the kata.



"Kata is practiced perfectly, real fight is another thing."  Funakoshi`s 18th precept.



miguksaram said:


> Can you point out in any of Funakoshi's books about hidden meaning or advance applications in bunkai?





> &#8220;In karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included &#8230; all these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata&#8221;



 Based on Puuni's insight and seniors I have spoken to over the years, bunkai such as is practiced from karate kata in some circles are sometimes there in KKW poomsae but imo more by accident than design, where sections of kata were borrowed across that contained it.  

I also have observed people twisting movements completely out of shape to fit an application to them where they are not there.  

  Is it worthwhile inventing stuff, or seeking out "bunkai" applications for sections that have it?  Individual preference.  These days there are almost certainly easier ways of developing these skills, as has been said.


----------



## Jaeimseu

I have a question for Kong Soo Do or anyone else who is into applications. Someone mentioned that the low block motion could be a hammerfist strike to the groin, followed by a punch to the now bent over opponent. Obviously, it could be that. You could throw a hammerfist from any number of angles or directions. I guess I'm wondering why you (generic you) would need to study form applications to get this concept. I think I learned this at a very young age, the first time I accidently hit my father in the crotch. So what do you need the form for? Several other targets were mentioned, but you don't need the form to get that information, either.

I'm legitimately curious as to why certain people are so interested in this method, when it seems like in many cases you're adding in unnecessary steps to the learning process. It is obvious, though, that the people who are into this stuff are REALLY into it. Is it just curiosity? Does it simply make forms practice more interesting? Why are you guys so into it?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

FieldDiscipline said:


> Based on Puuni's insight and seniors I have spoken to over the years, bunkai such as is practiced from karate kata in some circles are sometimes there in KKW poomsae but imo more by accident than design, where sections of kata were borrowed across that contained it.



Correct sir.  This was in my original premise and why I described some forms as 'choppy' in regards to the actual application(s).  The form is perfectly fine on the surface as far as b-p-k, and the flow proceeds as designed for its purpose.  The underlying application(s) i.e. that 'high block' was originally a shoulder lock, that 'outside middle block' was originally a bent arm bar etc may or may not have transitioned over as a complete package because what has been, as you put, borrowed is out of sequence or missing something.  Not always, but sometimes.  But I see enough complete principles to make forms work really exciting and valuable and not just a class-filler.  And in some schools unfortunately, it is only a class-filler i.e. learn a new form for the next colored belt.  It can be quite a bit more if one would like it to be.



> I also have observed people twisting movements completely out of shape to fit an application to them where they are not there.



Absolutely.  But it needs to be stressed that it is suppose to be a catalog of principles and not just movements that are engraved in stone so-to-speak.  It is to reflect a chaotic, free-flowing fight (at least as far as the underlying principles).  Much information can be gleaned from a specific sequence that isn't specifically in the form.  For example, the opening movements of Pinan Shodan demonstrate a very effective, and high % shoulder lock.  The form doesn't show a take down from that lock, but, extracting that shoulder lock principle from the form (from the catalog) allows us to then dissect that principle into its individual components and uses.  Thus it becomes a highly effective shoulder locking drill that can transition to the take down, transition to use from angles not represented in the form itself but useable in a real fight, transition to use on the ground etc.  All from a single sequence out of one form.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Jaeimseu said:


> I have a question for Kong Soo Do or anyone else who is into applications. Someone mentioned that the low block motion could be a hammerfist strike to the groin, followed by a punch to the now bent over opponent. Obviously, it could be that. You could throw a hammerfist from any number of angles or directions. I guess I'm wondering why you (generic you) would need to study form applications to get this concept. I think I learned this at a very young age, the first time I accidently hit my father in the crotch. So what do you need the form for? Several other targets were mentioned, but you don't need the form to get that information, either.
> 
> I'm legitimately curious as to why certain people are so interested in this method, when it seems like in many cases you're adding in unnecessary steps to the learning process. It is obvious, though, that the people who are into this stuff are REALLY into it. Is it just curiosity? Does it simply make forms practice more interesting? Why are you guys so into it?



You've asked some great questions.  As I mentioned in the above post, a form is a catalog of principles.  Not necessarily just techniques.  For example, you've mentioned the application with the hammerfist.  This is a good application for an attack coming in from the side, but it is simplistic and fairly straight-forward.  This particular principle gets the student use to the probable body reaction(s) to specific strikes so that an appropriate follow up can be used.  As you mentioned, a strike to the groin isn't exactly ancient mystical knowledge, but more importantly is what follows that movement in the form.  A way to describe it would be a Hollywood fight scene.  Sometimes they screw up and someone is hit one way, but flies six feet back a different way and you know that the body isn't going to react that way from that hit.  As this is a beginners form, we can begin to demonstrate that when you strike someone a specific way they will have a probable body reaction that we can then capitalize on with follow up strikes.  The form demonstrates this principle very well.  

Looking at the other application that I've mentioned, it offers principles of off-balancing an attacker as well as setting them up for follow up strikes as presented above.  Additionally, it offers a more realistic application of both parts of the 'down block' than the b-p-k application i.e. the initial 'check' or 'body ram' on the upchambered portion and the balance displacement on the 'down' part of the movement.  Realize that typing this just isn't as useful as standing with you and showing it in person.  

Too me, and I speak only for myself, I look at forms work quite differently now than at the beginning of my training.  Now, decades later I see these principles in the forms that I've actually been using against real bad guys and have found it an excellent way to convey this information to students who perhaps don't have to worry about fighting someone on a daily basis like I do.  That is why I get excited about it.  I look at a segment and recognize what the kata founders were conveying to future generations.  And while Korean forms perhaps weren't intended for that purpose, I can still look into them as 'see' the information that was transplanted.  So I don't have to worry about a thousand individual drills, I have all that is needed in a useful package.  From them I can extract an endless variety of drills based on principles contained therein.  I've also found that a student will begin visualizing what is actually happening in the form as they go through it.  That in and of itself is valuable training.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Jaeimseu said:


> I have a question for Kong Soo Do or anyone else who is into applications. Someone mentioned that the low block motion could be a hammerfist strike to the groin, followed by a punch to the now bent over opponent. Obviously, it could be that. You could throw a hammerfist from any number of angles or directions. I guess I'm wondering why you (generic you) would need to study form applications to get this concept. I think I learned this at a very young age, the first time I accidently hit my father in the crotch. So what do you need the form for? Several other targets were mentioned, but you don't need the form to get that information, either.



Really? You learned about strikes to the femoral nerve by junk punching your father? Give him my condolences.



Jaeimseu said:


> I'm legitimately curious as to why certain people are so interested in this method, when it seems like in many cases you're adding in unnecessary steps to the learning process. It is obvious, though, that the people who are into this stuff are REALLY into it. Is it just curiosity? Does it simply make forms practice more interesting? Why are you guys so into it?



For me, I find that forms make more sense as a series of techniques than as a series of random movements. One simple example: the high block. I see most new students performing this by moving the arm in an arc. At the top of the arc, their power is moveing more backwards than upwards. If the purpose of a high block is to redirect a strike at the face by moving it upwards, or to directly oppose a strike coming down on the top of the head, then this arc is not efficient. Focusing on the intended usage (or at least one of them) aids the learning process. If a student is making this curved movement, and stand in front of them and bring a hammerfist towards their head, they suddenly (and automatically) perform the technique properly.

Taekwondo is as much an intellectual as physical art, and as such, it seems to me that simply memorizing a series of gestures is less effective than understanding what the gestures are supposed to accomplish.


----------



## seasoned

Jaeimseu said:


> I have a question for Kong Soo Do or anyone else who is into applications. Someone mentioned that the low block motion could be a hammerfist strike to the groin, followed by a punch to the now bent over opponent. Obviously, it could be that. You could throw a hammerfist from any number of angles or directions. I guess I'm wondering why you (generic you) would need to study form applications to get this concept. I think I learned this at a very young age, the first time I accidently hit my father in the crotch. So what do you need the form for? Several other targets were mentioned, but you don't need the form to get that information, either.
> 
> I'm legitimately curious as to why certain people are so interested in this method, when it seems like in many cases you're adding in unnecessary steps to the learning process. It is obvious, though, that the people who are into this stuff are REALLY into it. Is it just curiosity? Does it simply make forms practice more interesting? Why are you guys so into it?


Hammer fist would be at it's most elementary application. The down block motion should mirror any application it could be used for. A close in fighting art as GoJu, would draw an opponent in, rather then simple just block/punch, and lose the contact. Since closed fist blocks are useless as demonstrated in any sparring, and body shifting would be more appropriate, leaving the hands free for traps and close strikes, then closed fist blocks are not what they seem to be within kata.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Dirty Dog said:


> Really? You learned about strikes to the femoral nerve by junk punching your father? Give him my condolences.



I learned about junk punching by junk punching. Obviously, I didn't learn about the femoral nerve. But I don't think anyone learned about the femoral nerve by reverse engineering poomse, either.



Dirty Dog said:


> For me, I find that forms make more sense as a series of techniques than as a series of random movements. One simple example: the high block. I see most new students performing this by moving the arm in an arc. At the top of the arc, their power is moveing more backwards than upwards. If the purpose of a high block is to redirect a strike at the face by moving it upwards, or to directly oppose a strike coming down on the top of the head, then this arc is not efficient. *Focusing on the intended usage (or at least one of them) aids the learning process. If a student is making this curved movement, and stand in front of them and bring a hammerfist towards their head, they suddenly (and automatically) perform the technique properly.*
> 
> Taekwondo is as much an intellectual as physical art, and as such, it seems to me that simply memorizing a series of gestures is less effective than understanding what the gestures are supposed to accomplish.


I do this as well. When I say I don't have time for applications I don't mean that I don't teach _any_ applications, just that I don't try to "extract" any hidden techniques. In my opinion, high block, low block, and middle block work pretty well as a high block, low block, and a middle block.


----------



## Jaeimseu

seasoned said:


> Hammer fist would be at it's most elementary application. The down block motion should mirror any application it could be used for. A close in fighting art as GoJu, would draw an opponent in, rather then simple just block/punch, and lose the contact. Since closed fist blocks are useless as demonstrated in any sparring, and body shifting would be more appropriate, leaving the hands free for traps and close strikes, then closed fist blocks are not what they seem to be within kata.


Honestly, I don't know (or particularly care) what a Goju guy would do, since I don't practice that style. I don't mean that to sound combative, so please don't take it that way. I prefer to keep applications simple and direct. I already have too many other skills to throw into a two hour class without "over-complicating" poomse. I think the biggest issue I would have is that only a small portion of the students would be really interested in that type of thing. By the same token, I wouldn't spend too much time hammering them with WTF competition rules, because pretty much none of our students are going to compete.

As far as closed fist blocks being useless, I'm not sure I would agree. While I wouldn't advocate doing a block with a full chamber during sparring, modified versions of those blocking techniques can be used in sparring. Actually, I remember visiting a Tang Soo Do school maybe 10 years ago, and their sparring looked just like their forms. They used the same stances, chambers, etc. when they were sparring as they did in their forms. It was really bizarre to me. I remember thinking that it was kind of interesting to watch, but that I would get killed at my own dojang sparring that way.


----------



## seasoned

First off, and I add this in because some are there, and all will be there some day. I am 69 years old, and have trained consistently for 45years. To do what I did and could do 40 years ago, was fine and dandy, then. But, I needed an art of self defense that could grow with me while I grew older. Instead of looking else where for some of the softer arts, I found to my surprise, that right there in front of me, within my art and it's kata, was what I was looking for, but did not see it as a young man.
My Sensei always said that kata held the key, and there was always a saying that went something like this, "martial arts is for everybody". Well when I was young I didn't need self defense as much as I would need it now, are you with me?

So I guess what I'm saying is, if you are studying an art, and enjoy it, and it is an old traditional art, there are provisions within the art to accommodate your elder years. And for this reason you need to look past the young persons art you are studying, and within that art and those techniques, you will find a complete other art. Oh, the movements will be the same, as you did all your training life, but you are now redirecting, shifting off center, using power from body mechanics instead of muscle. 

When we were young we could spar for hours, but in our 70s and 80s, what do we do, hang it up, I think not. 

If you are in an art worth it's salt, it is for young and old. But the techniques are done a little bit different as we older martial artist apply them. Nothing changes, only evolves. This, is what makes it, and we call it, an ART. 

I don't generally find myself straying away from the karate threads, and may have some reservations in the future. I do tend to stay open minded and learning all the time. I did learn and enjoyed the inter actions here, but had an uneasy feeling, and didn't see many of these   here. I would say, we could all stand to chill out a bit, and above all stay open minded and enjoy the learning experience you are getting here.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Correct sir.  This was in my original premise and why I described some forms as 'choppy' in regards to the actual application(s).



What is really choppy is trying to learning these reverse engineered applications within the context of forms, where the progression of techniques neither build upon nor lay a sufficient foundation for later learning. It would be like trying to learn your the alphabet by trying to read books. Who does that? 




Kong Soo Do said:


> The form is perfectly fine on the surface as far as b-p-k, and the flow proceeds as designed for its purpose.  The underlying application(s) i.e. that 'high block' was originally a shoulder lock, that *'outside middle block' was originally a bent arm bar *etc may or may not have transitioned over as a complete package because what has been, as you put, borrowed is out of sequence or missing something.



There is no original anything, at least the way you are doing it, which is reverse engineering applications which were never there to begin with.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Looking at the other application that I've mentioned, it offers principles of *off-balancing* an attacker as well as setting them up for follow up strikes as presented above.  Additionally, it offers a more *realistic* application of both parts of the 'down block' than the b-p-k application i.e. the initial 'check' or 'body ram' on the upchambered portion and the *balance displacement* on the 'down' part of the movement.



There is no off balancing and there is nothing realistic about practicing these "principles" in a form. Unlike for example, hapkido training, which involves one on one partner training, forms work is solo, doing movements in the air. What is realistic about that? And who are you unbalancing, your imaginary opponent? In hapkido we actually work against a partner, and can get a good feel of how to actually off balance someone, in a realistic fashion. In forms, you are by yourself imagining what you would do against a live opponent. Not the same thing.


----------



## puunui

Dirty Dog said:


> Taekwondo is as much an intellectual as physical art, and as such, it seems to me that simply memorizing a series of gestures is less effective than understanding what the gestures are supposed to accomplish.



Practicing poomsae is not simply for training "self defense". There are many other benefits from doing the movements in and of themselves, health benefits for example. While at the kukkiwon I asked the person featured in the videos above about why we do certain movements. His answer was there are many benefits from doing these motions, especially the twisting motions. Many of the movements in poomsae are done in a very specific way, in much the same way that yoga poses and movements are done if a very specific way, to gain benefits which do not include "self defense". Focusing on "self defense" only and whatever practical applications demonstrates a very low level of comprehension and understanding, at least according to instructors at the Kukkiwon.


----------



## puunui

Jaeimseu said:


> Actually, I remember visiting a Tang Soo Do school maybe 10 years ago, and their sparring looked just like their forms. They used the same stances, chambers, etc. when they were sparring as they did in their forms. It was really bizarre to me. I remember thinking that it was kind of interesting to watch, but that I would get killed at my own dojang sparring that way.



Actually, that is how sparring originally evolved, by taking form movements and attempting to apply them in a free form format. There was the movie Last of the Mohicans on recently, and it showed how armies fought back then, standing in a line, shooting in unison, and so forth. It looked very similar to what we would call close order drill today. Of course no one would think of approaching warfare like how the red coats did it back in the 18th century. But what would be the reaction if someone came here and said that there were "secret" stuff contained in those movements, which are "better" than today's modern warfare tactics, applications which modern soldiers are ignorant of, because they never learned them. 

That's pretty much how I see this reverse engineering of applications from forms, someone trying to convince me that the musket based red coat military methods which are hidden in close order drill is superior to today's modern warfare tactics and weaponry.


----------



## Dirty Dog

puunui said:


> Practicing poomsae is not simply for training "self defense".



If you actually read my post, you will notice that I never made any such claim. I'd appreciate it if you would address my actual comments, rather than invent arguements and positions for me. Thanks.


----------



## seasoned

puunui said:


> Practicing poomsae is not simply for training "self defense". There are many other benefits from doing the movements in and of themselves, health benefits for example. While at the kukkiwon I asked the person featured in the videos above about why we do certain movements. His answer was there are many benefits from doing these motions, especially the twisting motions. Many of the movements in poomsae are done in a very specific way, in much the same way that yoga poses and movements are done if a very specific way, to gain benefits which do not include "self defense". Focusing on "self defense" only and whatever practical applications demonstrates a very low level of comprehension and understanding, at least according to instructors at the Kukkiwon.



I feel there is a connection between arts, if not at the technical level, then at lease at the development level of health and strength.  
You mentioned "twisting motions" of which are also in my kata based art, and are there to directly involve tendon and ligament development which in turn adds more power from within our bodies. 



puunui said:


> in much the same way that yoga poses and movements are done if a very specific way, to gain benefits which do not include "self defense". Focusing on "self defense" only and whatever practical applications demonstrates a very low level of comprehension and understanding, at least according to instructors at the Kukkiwon.



I would agree that each and every move within kata is not geared toward self defense, but each and every move serves a very important function. The practice of martial arts produces a power that is unique to specific techniques within any given art. 
Could this be what instructors at the KuKKiwon are eluding to?

My intent is to dialog, and share, not to win a war on words.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## seasoned

Did everyone get banned or are we just resting ??

Oh, I forgot this......


----------



## d1jinx

Taeguek 1=Basic of all KKW Basic forms=taught to 4-60 year old beginners=white belts=basic introductory tkd movements=hidden meaning/applications?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

seasoned said:


> Did everyone get banned or are we just resting ??
> 
> Oh, I forgot this......



Incredibly busy weekend :ultracool


----------



## dancingalone

seasoned said:


> Did everyone get banned or are we just resting ??
> 
> Oh, I forgot this......



I actually have a lot more 'down time' during the work week these days since my job now is running my dojang.  Not too many lessons to give during the morning (yet - I hope).  I'll have some comments in a few hours to Jaeimseu's question.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

seasoned said:


> First off, and I add this in because some are there, and all will be there some day. I am 69 years old, and have trained consistently for 45years. To do what I did and could do 40 years ago, was fine and dandy, then. But, I needed an art of self defense that could grow with me while I grew older. Instead of looking else where for some of the softer arts, I found to my surprise, that right there in front of me, within my art and it's kata, was what I was looking for, but did not see it as a young man.
> My Sensei always said that kata held the key, and there was always a saying that went something like this, "martial arts is for everybody". Well when I was young I didn't need self defense as much as I would need it now, are you with me?
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is, if you are studying an art, and enjoy it, and it is an old traditional art, there are provisions within the art to accommodate your elder years. And for this reason you need to look past the young persons art you are studying, and within that art and those techniques, you will find a complete other art. Oh, the movements will be the same, as you did all your training life, but you are now redirecting, shifting off center, using power from body mechanics instead of muscle.
> 
> When we were young we could spar for hours, but in our 70s and 80s, what do we do, hang it up, I think not.
> 
> If you are in an art worth it's salt, it is for young and old. But the techniques are done a little bit different as we older martial artist apply them. Nothing changes, only evolves. This, is what makes it, and we call it, an ART.


While I agree with a lot of what you say in general, the art being a  young or old person's art is completely unrelated.  You are talking  about a difference in teaching methodology, not in what the art itself  has to offer.  I don't know how many times we have to say it, but in KKW  taekwondo, the sort of techniques that people are trying to extrapolate  from pumse are taught in partnered drills (one step sparring) that are  structured so as to make sense and build rather than being hidden  movements in pumse.  

Since the pumse were not designed to layer those teachings in the same  way that Goju kata are, they aren't used in that fashion.  

As for lack of posting over the weekend, I cannot speak for others, but I  really don't have anything more to add to the topic.  The three  paragraphs of KKW bashing at the beginning kind of soured the tone of  the thread anyway by guaranteeing that at least some of those who post  in this section will be immediately put on the defensive.  

Not to mention that the OP has gone down this route with this topic on  this form more than once and the nature of responses are pretty much the  same.



seasoned said:


> I don't generally find myself straying away from the karate threads, and may have some reservations in the future. I do tend to stay open minded and learning all the time. I did learn and enjoyed the inter actions here, but had an uneasy feeling, and didn't see many of these   here. I would say, we could all stand to chill out a bit, and above all stay open minded and enjoy the learning experience you are getting here.


This isn't an issue of open mindedness, Seasoned.  You are in the section of an art that you don't practice trying to tell us how it is.  The OP and some of the respondents don't even practice the form that is being debated or the form set that it is from, but are trying to "teach" those who do practice it how it should be done and taught.  That reflect being close minded, as you are unwilling to look at the art from the perspective of those who practice it and those who create it, but expect those who practice it to be open to the perspective of outsiders.  

Do you not see the problem there and why people might take exception to it?  

Why, if you are an Okinawan karateka do you stay away from karate threads may I ask?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

seasoned said:


> The down block motion should mirror any application it could be used for. A close in fighting art as GoJu, would draw an opponent in, rather then simple just block/punch, and lose the contact. Since closed fist blocks are useless as demonstrated in any sparring, and body shifting would be more appropriate, leaving the hands free for traps and close strikes, then closed fist blocks are not what they seem to be within kata.




Yes, there are many things called a block that just aren't really used as such in a chaotic fight, or even sparring.  Since a reaction is always slower than the action, the most commont thing is to cover and/or avoid the incoming strike.  Certain blocks that mimick normal or common movements can be used effectively.  I find this similar to the horse stance and 'chambering' from the hips.  Often taught, as mentioned, as a 'chambering' movement before the strike...you just don't see many people walking around in a horse stance, during a fight or in sparring with their hands chambered on their hips.  So, the horse stance and the 'chambering' must therefore have a more useful, practical purpose.  And they do.  The horse stance of course lowers your center of gravity which is useful in a plethora of defensive and offensive techniques.  The 'chambering' is grasping something, like a limb or clothing, and drawing it into your center thus off-balancing your attacker and setting them up for a plethora of techniques.  When taught this way, in my experience, the student has a whole world of practical applications open to them that are useful in an altercation from standing or on the ground.  From striking to grappling distance.


----------



## miguksaram

seasoned said:


> Did everyone get banned or are we just resting ??



I was out all weekend practicing my low block death touch from Taeguk Il-jang.  I have it down to where I can strike you in the calf causing at least on of your testicles to explode.  Still working on the other.


----------



## andyjeffries

miguksaram said:


> I was out all weekend practicing my low block death touch from Taeguk Il-jang.  I have it down to where I can strike you in the calf causing at least on of your testicles to explode.  Still working on the other.



This gave me a real deep chuckle!!!  Thanks!


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> You are talking about a difference in teaching methodology, not in what the art itself has to offer.
> 
> Since the pumse were not designed to layer those teachings in the same way that Goju kata are, they aren't used in that fashion.



The methodology depends upon the experience of the instructor and the focus of the school.  



> The three paragraphs of KKW bashing at the beginning kind of soured the tone of the thread anyway by guaranteeing that at least some of those who post in this section will be immediately put on the defensive.



?

As the OP I can state that no bashing was stated or issued.  If it is taken that way, it is the sole issue of the one receiving it that way.  



> Not to mention that the OP has gone down this route with this topic on this form more than once and the nature of responses are pretty much the same.



Many topics come up often or from time to time...so what?  The nature of the responses has been great, with the exception of the few that refuse to actually get into the spirit of the thread and instead drone on negatively about this or that.  Actually, when you ignore this stuff the thread has been fine.


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, there are many things called a block that just aren't really used as such in a chaotic fight, or even sparring.  Since a reaction is always slower than the action, the most commont thing is to cover and/or avoid the incoming strike.  Certain blocks that mimick normal or common movements can be used effectively.  I find this similar to the horse stance and 'chambering' from the hips.  Often taught, as mentioned, as a 'chambering' movement before the strike...you just don't see many people walking around in a horse stance, during a fight or in sparring with their hands chambered on their hips.  So, the horse stance and the 'chambering' must therefore have a more useful, practical purpose.  And they do.  The horse stance of course lowers your center of gravity which is useful in a plethora of defensive and offensive techniques.  The 'chambering' is grasping something, like a limb or clothing, and drawing it into your center thus off-balancing your attacker and setting them up for a plethora of techniques.  When taught this way, in my experience, the student has a whole world of practical applications open to them that are useful in an altercation from standing or on the ground.  From striking to grappling distance.



This topic was extensively discussed in two other threads, including this one (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...e-from-forms?p=1503863&highlight=#post1503863) 

Grabs while chambering for basic taekwondo closed fist blocks? Chambering for said block with open hands? You seriously believe and practice that and say you are doing some form of Kukkiwon taekwondo? Are those some of the things that you think the pioneers of Kukkiwon taekwondo did not learn and therefore could never  out of alleged ignorance   have envisioned when creating poomsae? Are those the things you now insist we must add to Kukkiwon taekwondo, in order to fill said gaps apparently left out by the pioneers?

What you describe here might work in the system you have created for the mayhem awaiting you in every corner, mean streets of your neighborhood and jails. That, however, is not basic Kukkiwon taekwondo kibon dongjak, which one would expect beginners to be learning. By extension its not part of any poom in Taeguk Il Jang and lots of other Kukkiwon poomsae.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Jaeimseu said:


> As far as closed fist blocks being useless, I'm not sure I would agree. While I wouldn't advocate doing a block with a full chamber during sparring, modified versions of those blocking techniques can be used in sparring. Actually, I remember visiting a Tang Soo Do school maybe 10 years ago, and their sparring looked just like their forms. They used the same stances, chambers, etc. when they were sparring as they did in their forms. It was really bizarre to me. I remember thinking that it was kind of interesting to watch, but that I would get killed at my own dojang sparring that way.



And this is a great point to look at.   The originators of kata (be they Chinese or Okinawan) knew what they were doing.  They wouldn't put something into a kata that was impractical.  As I mentioned above, most folks just don't fight with hands chambered on hips, nor do they block as is demonstrated in a form.  As you mentioned, some may use a 'modified' version, but then we've just changed the movement from the form itself.  Thus these movements have better applications associated with them.  

One doesn't have to use them, but they are there for those that wish to utilize them.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> The methodology depends upon the experience of the instructor and the focus of the school.


Teaching methodology in most arts tends to follow how the instructors were taught, not one's personal experience outside of the art.  While there are exceptions, the majority of instructors within a given art tend to use similar teaching paradigms.  Since you don't practice KKW taekwondo, I wouldn't consider you a good source for how forms are generally taught in KKW schools.

As I said earlier, I am not against finding alternative applications for movements in forms; it can be fun and if done well, can be a  nice enrichment for the class, but there are much more efficient ways of teaching self defense.



Kong Soo Do said:


> As the OP I can state that no bashing was stated or issued.  If it is taken that way, it is the sole issue of the one receiving it that way.


It wasn't your initial post, but it was on the first page:


Kong Soo Do said:


> Many different styles of Karate teach this  methodology including the ones I took.  Blocks can be and are strikes or  have other applications.  Furthering this thought, the father of TKD is  Karate.  Since Karate kata can serve a dual purpose i.e. b-p-k and  alternative applications, I submit that to an extent, so can TKD forms.   *The founders of TKD, as I've pointed out in the past, were initially  very low level practitioners themselves with at least on exception I'm  aware of.  Their levels of actual experience varied widely, but mostly  they were of very low rank or even no rank.  *That is just history and  not meant to down play their contribution to the establishment of TKD.
> 
> Many of the forms in certain Korean arts are simply renamed Okinawan  kata.  Again, just stating the obvious.  However, to their credit, the  Koreans did develop many forms of their own for the new art(s).  My  suggestion is that since Korean forms use many/most of the same movement  patterns of Okinawan kata, and since Okinawan kata contains both b-p-k  and alternative or more advanced applications, that Korean forms will  also contain them to an extent. *  I do not believe the founders of TKD  for the most part were experienced enough in their original training to  have any appreciable amount of in-depth knowledge about more advanced  applications.  They in turn would not understand these principles for  the most part when developing their own forms.  As I've mentioned  before, one can only teach what they've learned or researched or  discovered for themselves.  Some will point out that the creators of  these forms suggest no deeper meanings, and they are correct.  They  would not have known, again for the most part, the deeper meanings of  Okinawan kata and therefore not understood what was going into the forms  they were creating.  For example, if in an Okinawan kata a certain  movement sequence contains a b-p-k and an advance application and that  movement sequence is transplanted into a newly created Korean form, then  it will have the same b-p-k and advanced applications even if only one  is known and/or understood.*
> 
> I see Okinawan kata as well-written and complete 'stories' so-to-speak.*   Conversely, I see Korean forms, as far as advanced applications, as  somewhat choppy.  In other words, most of the words are there but many  of the sentences are somewhat broken, fragmentary or incomplete.  This  is because some/many of the Korean forms were put together with purely  b-p-k in mind because the more advanced applications weren't known.   Therefore some movement sequences were transplanted intact and some were  altered to a lesser or greater extent to make the forms flow as far as  b-p-k.  However, imo, sometimes the flow of the b-p-k is questionable  which, too me, lends credence to the existence of a more advanced  application within the sequence.*


This sort of post about an art's founders by an outsider to that art would not be well received in any other art's section on this forum.  For some reason, people seem to be permitted to get away with it in this section.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> And this is a great point to look at.   The originators of kata (be they Chinese or Okinawan) knew what they were doing.  They wouldn't put something into a kata that was impractical.  As I mentioned above, most folks just don't fight with hands chambered on hips, nor do they block as is demonstrated in a form.  As you mentioned, some may use a 'modified' version, but then we've just changed the movement from the form itself.  Thus these movements have better applications associated with them.
> 
> One doesn't have to use them, but they are there for those that wish to utilize them.


So when are you going to start posting threads like this about the forms you actually use, whatever they are?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Archtkd said:


> Grabs while chambering for basic taekwondo closed fist blocks? Chambering for said block with open hands? You seriously believe and practice that and say you are doing some form of Kukkiwon taekwondo?



When have I claimed to do KKW TKD?  I have simply stated that since various applications do exist in karate kata, that they will also exist in any form that uses the same movement sequences.



> Are those some of the things that you think the pioneers of Kukkiwon taekwondo did not learn and therefore could never  out of alleged ignorance  have envisioned when creating poomsae?



As I've stated previously, I don't believe the majority had the experience necessary, although I fully believe that at least a few did.  Regardless, this is not the direction they chose, and that is fine.  However, it doesn't mean that movement sequences don't exist simply because they don't know them, or chose not to teach them.  They are simply there if one chooses to use them.



> Are those the things you now insist we must add to Kukkiwon taekwondo, in order to fill said gaps apparently left out by the pioneers?



I don't recall insisting that anyone add this to their teaching or training.  Could you refresh my memory with a quote where I made this insistance please?  I do recall, numerous times, as stated above, that it exists should one wish to use it.  I don't see that as insistance though. 



> What you describe here might work in the system you have created for the mayhem awaiting you in every corner, mean streets of your neighborhood and jails. That, however, is not basic Kukkiwon taekwondo kibon dongjak, which one would expect beginners to be learning. By extension its not part of any poom in Taeguk Il Jang and lots of other Kukkiwon poomsae.



It has nothing to do with creating a system.  It was already there.  And actually, it is a part of at least some schools here in the U.S., in Australia and in Europe.  You may wish to contact Simon O'Neill and/or Stuart Anslow as they do teach various applications for different forms and have written as much.  It has also appeared in Totally Taekwondo as well, in several articles.  And once again, if one wishes not to use, recognize or teach these applications...they don't have to teach them.  If one does, then it is there for them to delve into.  I know my students have enjoyed it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Since you don't practice KKW taekwondo, I wouldn't consider you a good source for how forms are generally taught in KKW schools.



I never asked to be considered a good source for how forms are 'generally taught' in KKW schools.  I'm only commenting on what is contained within the forms for those that wish to learn them/teach them.  I am familiar with how they are taught in KKW schools though, which is why I choose the 'alternate application' method.  



> As I said earlier, I am not against finding alternative applications for movements in forms; it can be fun and if done well, can be a nice enrichment for the class, but there are much more efficient ways of teaching self defense.



Effectiveness of teaching SD is better determined by those with experience in SD.  Kata/forms can be a rich source and quite effective for SD.


> It wasn't your initial post, but it was on the first page:



Same answer, which I stand by completely.  



> This sort of post about an art's founders by an outsider to that art would not be well received in any other art's section on this forum. For some reason, people seem to be permitted to get away with it in this section.



I disagree.  I think some, including you, will try to make an issue of it to take away from the thread.  But I stand by all I posted.  It is ironic though that those same people who attempt to poo-poo the thread will then turn around and comment how nobody likes the thread or it hasn't progressed.  



> So when are you going to start posting threads like this about the forms you actually use, whatever they are?



I have.  But this one is about this one.  If you have some input on applications then post them.  If not, this just isn't the thread for you and as you yourself mentioned...you have nothing else to add.


----------



## oftheherd1

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I didn't say that they are infallable or can't be wrong. However, if a judo sensei or veteran judoka says that certain teaching methodologies are a waste of time judo, even though they may work very well in another similar grappling art, it is probably because they know more about it than you do.
> 
> I've already given my opinion on the form and on the usefulness of teaching taekwondo forms in a karate style teaching method. While I don't oppose it and am willing to see the results of an instructor's effort before declaring it a waste of time, I suspect that the people most intent on and comfortable with teaching this way are people who have a background in an art with that teaching methodology or who have experience in other arts that they view as applicable to and worth adding to KKW taekwondo.
> 
> Again, what value it has is really determined by who is doing it and what the end product looks like. Since it isn't a codified part of the art, simply teaching in that way does not automatically mean that your efforts are more productive (or less) than the way that it is normally done.
> 
> Also, this is not the first go-around for this topic on this pumse. KSD has raised it, both separately, and within previous threads and has received a *lot* of detailed responses. He seems very intent on continuing to make critique about the direction of the attacker and the use of the radial bone. All of his criticisms have been addressed at length in other threads.
> 
> 
> He specifically said that reverse engineering the pumse to pull applications out of them that are not specifically in them is a waste of time.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part; when you say TKD doesn't use or teach any of the techniques that seem to be in the forms, do you mean the Taegeuk pumse? If so, then I would disagree with that statement. If you mean that WTF rules do not allow for any of the techniques that seem to be in the pumse, then I would say that that is not correct, but that a great many of the techniques taught as part of the pumse are either not permitted, not utilized or both in WTF sparring.



Well, first let me clarify.  I am not a TKD practitioner.  I have related before I studied for a brief period of time under Jhoon Goo Rhee.  It was perhaps a year, give or take.  I don't recall for sure any more as that was a long time ago.  However, we really didn't do any known Hapkido moves.   From what I remember, during 3 step sparing, I think we were given some responses that might have been simple Hapkido moves.

However, since I have studied Hapkido, and taught it for a while to a few students in what was more a club than a school.  One of my students was a 4th dan TKD.  He would from time to time tell me that he suddenly understood a move from a form (I don't know if it was once kind or another), explaining what the move was in the form, and usually saying he had been told it was "art."  Not anything practically useful.

But it would seem Puunui has explained things very well in post #26 and 27.  According to him, there are indeed basic defense techniques there, from Hapkido, but not well performed, that is changed, so it is of little value to the TKD practioner.  That makes sense to me.  And also bears out what I said about those moves in the form being of little value to a TKD practioner, albeit, my reasoning was probably faulty.



puunui said:


> I might be if that is what I said, but it isn't. Again. And if you had asked me "why" I think it is a waste of time, I would have told you that it is because I also practice hapkido. In hapkido we practice defenses and applications in a logical structured fashion. We start with wrist grabs and work our way up the arm to the top of the head, then down the center of the body, then go to back facing defenses and so forth. Each area builds on the next to the point where when you reach 1st dan, you have a solid foundation in the art, as well as a conceptual framework from which to work off of. Once a student reaches hapkido 1st dan level, it is relatively easy to see applications in poomsae. They jump out at you.
> 
> In contrast, learning applications through poomsae study and reverse engineering provides no such logical structured framework. Instead, what you are left with is a mish mash hodgepodge study of random techniques in no particular order. This is very inefficient to say the least and does not give the type of rounded curriculum that one can receive if the student studied an art which directly addresses those types of defenses or applications. If you are seriously interested in studying those types of techniques and defenses, when a better approach would be to separately study another art that did focus on such techniques, which would be presented within a logical structured framework.
> 
> In other words, why waste time doing random easter egg hunts when there are arts out there that will give you the same thing in an orderly direct fashion? To do otherwise is a waste of time.


----------



## d1jinx

AND HERE WE GO.

Another _your pioneers were beginners and heres how i try an prove it_ thread that was started, so it seems, as that main purpose.


----------



## dancingalone

Jaeimseu said:


> I have a question for Kong Soo Do or anyone else who is into applications. Someone mentioned that the low block motion could be a hammerfist strike to the groin, followed by a punch to the now bent over opponent. Obviously, it could be that. You could throw a hammerfist from any number of angles or directions. I guess I'm wondering why you (generic you) would need to study form applications to get this concept. I think I learned this at a very young age, the first time I accidently hit my father in the crotch. So what do you need the form for? Several other targets were mentioned, but you don't need the form to get that information, either.
> 
> 
> I'm legitimately curious as to why certain people are so interested in this method, when it seems like in many cases you're adding in unnecessary steps to the learning process. It is obvious, though, that the people who are into this stuff are REALLY into it. Is it just curiosity? Does it simply make forms practice more interesting? Why are you guys so into it?




Jaemimesu, you have expressed a similar opinion before.  I'll try to explain my perspective(without writing a book) but the answer WILL involve discussing Goju-ryu karate since that is a martial art that uses forms extensively as its pedagogical methodology.  If that means you won't have any interest in reading further, then by all means skip the rest of my post.  I do hope however you and others will read on and and please do comment further if what I write doesn't make sense to you.


Personally I am not so much into forms applications as I am into a holistic training method with forms as an integrating and connecting activity.  When I studied Jhoon Rhee TKD as a kid, I always thought hyung practice was stupid.  It had nothing to do with our sparring or self-defense.  Truth be told, it really had little to do with our basics practice either.  We rarely practiced the classical knifehand positions or the upper block in isolation, preferring more 'practical' stuff like jabs, crosses, etc.  So forms definitely felt like a waste of time then to me.


Of course I was wrong about that, but I needed the experience of training a system that used and integrated forms in a systematic fashion to open my eyes to the value of forms.  This type of training goes far, far beyond Sensei telling you oh yeah you can also take this section of the kata as a hammerfist to the groin.  It's rather more integrated although the level of organization may not be apparent to both the teacher and participants all the time.  


In Goju-ryu karate, everything comes back to kata somehow.  I often describe it as a spoked wheel, where the individually performed kata is the middle, yet the other modes and drills of training connect directly to the heart and also to each other. 






Some of the notable 'spokes' within Goju-ryu include hojo undo, kihon, renzoku kumite, kakie, bunkai kumite, and oyo (for lack of a comprehensive term) bunkai.  Please note this is not an exhaustive list - I am touching on the highlights.  In my practice, each of these components are introduced and studied with diligence at each kyu and dan rank with appropriate variations and launching points for the relevant kata for the level.  I am sure the information is nothing new to most of us, but please bear with me as I offer a few basic definitions for the sake of clarity and completeness.

Hojo undo is the use of various traditional tools to develop physical strength and flexibility needed to have excellent karate.  Some of the movements can be adapted to practice simultaneously blocks and strikes and thus give awareness to particular focus points like where the elbow should be tucked and such even though things like speed and liveliness are removed from the drill.
​​Kihon is simply basics, since an upper block or a front kick.  These are practiced in the air and upon striking pads like makiwara, kicking shields, sometimes even with light to medium contact on partners for targeting and conditioning gains.  Done with partners, this is the seed of learning applications as we study, for example, the optimal way of securing an arm and then how to attack the elbow joint with the upward blocking motion.  Thus, the kata tells us that we can attack the elbow like so.  It is through structured kihon that we actually develop the capacity to do these fun things.
​​Renzoku kumite teaches flow, speed, and accuracy.  This video is a simple example of one of the earlier, more basic drills:​

[yt]EFxpfF-FO_s[/yt]​

​Renzoku kumite drills can also be more directly connected to a particular kata, like in this example using movements from one of the beginner Goju-ryu kata:​
​[yt]obPoDFz8khg[/yt]​

​Next, kakie is karate's answer to Wing Chun's sticky hands drills. It is also a way to teach flow and sensitivity. It's also another partner drill to practice close-in fighting techniques that frequently correspond to kata.  This is an example of kakie, but as the video was from an instructional series, it is rather slow-paced and methodical.  Advanced kakie practice looks nothing like it really.​
​[yt]x8l57jXXEUc[/yt]​

​Next, you can think of bunkai kumite as formal two man kata.  It is more structured than renzoku kumite and frequently follows one of the Goju kata from beginner to end, only with 2 people playing the designated attacker/defender roles switching appropriately as in the kata.  Bunkai kumite can look stiff because frankly it is hard to get two people to 'master' a form so that they can run it seamlessly, but performed correctly, it should be very smooth with the surface level meaning of the kata and its practical value apparent to all.  This is an example of a bunkai kumite set.  I tried to find a smoother, more fluent one, but alas...​
​[yt]vTlTb-Lq0bI[/yt]​

​The oyo bunkai can be regarded as the ultimate expression of Goju once a student has trained to a level of competency in the kata using all of the above mentioned methods adapted to that particular kata.  Various people disagree on the correct usage of the term, fyi, but I am using it here as many English-speaking karate-ka to mean the personal understanding of a kata, where a student can free-flow 1-to-n physical interpretations of a single sequence against another person.  This is where some of you are having a bit of fun talking about secret techniques and exploding testicles and such.  Suffice it to say, bunkai applications aren't that at all.​

As puunui has said, applications jump out at you after you study an art like hapkido. However the same can and does happen when you study karate in a structured fashion like above.  Creative and effective applications derived from forms are a natural consequence of studying and practicing with a good, organized teacher - they really aren't something you have to look too hard for or shouldn't be.  No 'ancient secrets'.  Nothing too arcane even if you add in vital point theory.  It shouldn't be contrived or unconvincing.  Rather, the applications should be realistic in conception, executable for all people within a reasonable range of size and ability, and relevant and practical for usage TODAY.  Good bunkai can be described as devastatingly simple and to the point. 


And forms applications are not necessarily chasing things down haphazardly either.  Whether by coincidence or not, IMO the Goju-ryu kata progression is very logical.  The skills and physical traits built through diligent praction of one kata becomes useful, perhaps even necessary in the next following ones.  It's just not written out in easy form for digestion for us, and so if we are mediocre practitioners, we never realize the beauty and function of the system in both conception and development.


Various researchers like Patrick McCarthy have made efforts to link traditional karate to the typical patterns of violence today (like that haymaker we've been talking about on the boards).  Some might see this as modernization.  I do not.  I think they're really just explaining karate in a context that we in the 'modern' era can easily relate to.  Karate hasn't changed really.  The techniques are the same.  People still punch, people still carry knives.  What was useful against a punch or knife 125 years ago is still useful today. 


I have offered above an explanation for my interest in forms applications.  It is not so much because they are neat or cool (they are).  Contrary to being inefficient, I argue that studying forms fully actually offers a comprehensive path to building efficient physical qualities and effective fighting skills.  Not necessarily in the 'get in a ring and kick butt' sense, but certainly for the usages karate was meant for, such as violence, unexpected or not, in the course of regular life.  Karate was never meant to be a sport, though clearly it can be adapted to be a sport.  Neither was it a military method to train soldiers and warriors.  Those were systems using swords before they became rifles, right?     


Now what does all this have to do with taekwondo?  To be sure, not much.  TKD simply hasn't developed along the same lines as Goju-ryu karate with regard to form-based teaching, and really that's fine.  If the people who created and developed taekwondo had different ways of doing things, who cares so long as they produce happy and capable students?


Conversely, if someone wants to build on top of the poomsae/hyung layers of martial education, I think that's great too.  It seems that most here are rather reasonable about it.  All they are saying is that if you do that you're not practicing KKW taekwondo.  Fair enough, you're not.


Where it gets interesting is that KSD seems to be trying to engage the KKW members in discussing something they have no interest in.  I understand where he is coming from with his interest in pattern applications and yet I don't know that the timing of this thread was best.  Maybe it's time to talk about Pyung Ahn Chodan instead (I'd be happy to participate) or wait a few weeks/months before trying again?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

oftheherd1 said:


> However, since I have studied Hapkido, and taught it for a while to a few students in what was more a club than a school.  One of my students was a 4th dan TKD.  He would from time to time tell me that he suddenly understood a move from a form (I don't know if it was once kind or another), explaining what the move was in the form, and usually saying he had been told it was "art."  Not anything practically useful.
> 
> But it would seem Puunui has explained things very well in post #26 and 27.  According to him, there are indeed basic defense techniques there, from Hapkido, but not well performed, that is changed, so it is of little value to the TKD practioner.  That makes sense to me.  And also bears out what I said about those moves in the form being of little value to a TKD practioner, albeit, my reasoning was probably faulty.


As I said earlier, I am not opposed to people finding applications.  Having studied and taught hapkido, I would find teaching self defense via kata to be highly inefficient and cumbersome.  Whether or not someone else does is between them and their students.

I find this particular topic to be almost pointless.  Not because the general question about applications in pumse is pointless, but because the form in question would be a poor choice to use.  It is a very, very basic form taught to raw beginners who are not ready for advanced applications.  

Within the Taegeuk pumse, I wouldn't even begin such a process until yukjang.  The first three forms, particularly the first two, do not lend themselves very well to this kind of teaching.  Yukjang would be a much better candidate to begin such a process.  It has open and closed hand elements and by that point, your students will have had the time to learn the basics and you will have had the time to have them work on things like falling and rolling.


----------



## d1jinx

dancingalone said:


> Where it gets interesting is that KSD seems to be trying to engage the KKW members in discussing something they have no interest in.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> I never asked to be considered a good source for how forms are 'generally taught' in KKW schools.  I'm only commenting on what is contained within the forms for those that wish to learn them/teach them. * I am familiar with how they are taught in KKW schools though*, which is why I choose the 'alternate application' method.


Your comments on Iljang indicate otherwise.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Effectiveness of teaching SD is better determined by those with experience in SD.  Kata/forms can be a rich source and quite effective for SD.


Of course.  Which is why I am quite able to determine effectiveness of teaching methodology of SD.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Same answer, which I stand by completely.



Since you keep repeating it, I would hope so.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree.  I think some, including you, will try to make an issue of it to take away from the thread.  But I stand by all I posted.  It is ironic though that those same people who attempt to poo-poo the thread will then turn around and comment how nobody likes the thread or it hasn't progressed.


Nope.  Though you may choose to take it that way if you wish.



Kong Soo Do said:


> I have.  But this one is about this one.  If you have some input on applications then post them.  If not, this just isn't the thread for you and as you yourself mentioned...you have nothing else to add.


Please link the thread or threads in question.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Where it gets interesting is that KSD seems to be trying to engage the KKW members in discussing something they have no interest in.  I understand where he is coming from with his interest in pattern applications and yet I don't know that the timing of this thread was best.  Maybe it's time to talk about Pyung Ahn Chodan instead (I'd be happy to participate) or wait a few weeks/months before trying again?


Bashing the art and its founders on the first page and in numerous previous threads is hardly engaging.   

And before he was ever posting on this board, this topic was discussed at length, so I'd say that you are mistaken in saying that KKW members have no interest in.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel,

My thought is that KSD is indeed poking some here, hence his choice in forms to discuss.  Bad doggie.  

But for that matter, you could use some chill time too.  I think your response to Seasoned was a little unjustified and you're letting your ire at KSD spread to other people.

I am getting more and more turned off by MT these days.  This isn't meant to attack anyone in particular... But all this meaningless conflict is unappealing to me as a member.  Let's calm down and go hit the heavy bags for a bit.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> I disagree. I think some, including you, will try to make an issue of it to take away from the thread.


Yet, you brought it up in the first place and the opinoin had no relevance in the thread, yet you had to make a comment about the founding fathers which, is based on personal opinoin. Unless you have trained with these "low ranked" students as you called them, you really do not know what it is they learned or taught. Perhaps it would have been better to just stick to the original topic that you posted instead of interjecting pieces of opinoin which is irrelevant to the discussion. You opened up the can, don't accuse others of simply picking that the worms that spilt out.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> I do, but perhaps not in the way you think. I haven't really studied the philosophy of the taegeuk poomsae as deeply as I should. You have to ask mastercole about that. But the yudanja poomsae is written in levels, and they are embedded with the taekwondo journey from low to high rank. No other style has that as far as I know, certainly not the okinawan kata.



Indeed.  To my knowledge, Sanchin being a notable exception, the karate kata were always more about development of physical skills and qualities.  There is no surviving document that would tell us differently, though certainly this too could be retrofitted to the kata if desired.  Some Tang Soo Do organizations already do this to an extent when they attribute various animal traits to the forms.


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> As I have been told by Sensei Sharkey in regards to kata, it is nothing more than a set of self-defenese moves strung together in a partterned shape.  Which is true.  While I believe bunkai does help me understand why I am doing what I am doing in the form, *I do not start with bunkai and then try to  learn the form*.



To be clear, that is not the approach in Okinawan karate either.  Students generally learn the form in isolation first.  Then they learn the surface meaning through partner drills.  Over time, they develop personal understanding and the shape and expression of their oyu/okuden (I use both to avoid arguing about definition semantics) bunkai can look different from one student to the next.


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> Absolutely.  But it needs to be stressed that it is suppose to be a catalog of principles and not just movements that are engraved in stone so-to-speak.  It is to reflect a chaotic, free-flowing fight (at least as far as the underlying principles).  Much information can be gleaned from a specific sequence that isn't specifically in the form.  For example, the opening movements of Pinan Shodan demonstrate a very effective, and high % shoulder lock.  The form doesn't show a take down from that lock, but, extracting that shoulder lock principle from the form (from the catalog) allows us to then dissect that principle into its individual components and uses.  Thus it becomes a highly effective shoulder locking drill that can transition to the take down, transition to use from angles not represented in the form itself but useable in a real fight, transition to use on the ground etc.  All from a single sequence out of one form.



How is the learning progression within Kong Soo Do made for that shoulder lock?  How do you get a white belt from point A to point Z?  Do you follow the Okinawan karate training methodology?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> Where it gets interesting is that KSD seems to be trying to engage the KKW members in discussing something they have no interest in. I understand where he is coming from with his interest in pattern applications and yet I don't know that the timing of this thread was best. Maybe it's time to talk about Pyung Ahn Chodan instead (I'd be happy to participate) or wait a few weeks/months before trying again?



Just to clarify, I'm not trying to engage KKW members with this thread, rather I'm trying to engage martial artists regardless of afflitation.  And I appreciate very much those that have responded to the topic.  And if you would like to toss in Pyung Ahn Chodan then please do!


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> How is the learning progression within Kong Soo Do made for that shoulder lock? How do you get a white belt from point A to point Z? Do you follow the Okinawan karate training methodology?



We have one standard form, consisting of 25 movement sequences.  The progression is to learn the basics in a static format (line drills) then move into dynamic format (drills) and then breaking the form into five separate segments.  Each seqment is a dynamic drill in-and-of-itself which leads to multiple variations based on the students strengths.  As an example, that particular shoulder lock is the #2 movement sequence of the fourth segment.  By this time the student is well versed in various locks, balance displacement, throws etc.  It is a building block format.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> Just to clarify, I'm not trying to engage KKW members with this thread, rather I'm trying to engage martial artists regardless of afflitation. And I appreciate very much those that have responded to the topic. And if you would like to toss in Pyung Ahn Chodan then please do!


By being form specific IE Taeguk Il-jang then you segregate part of the TKD population who do not practice the form. Having those people chime in on boonsae for Taekguk Il-jang is exactly what puunni was talking about, reverse engineering. Shouldn't one have actual basic knowlege of the form prior to going and trying to discover the hidden meanings of its techniques? Lastly, the video of the Taeguk Il-jang that you posted is out dated. So you are already starting the conversation off in the wrong direction by trying interpret a form that is no longer standard.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> Just to clarify, I'm not trying to engage KKW members with this thread, *rather I'm trying to engage martial artists regardless of afflitation*.  And I appreciate very much those that have responded to the topic.  And if you would like to toss in Pyung Ahn Chodan then please do!


Perhaps you should be posting these things in the general MA section then?  You might get a broader response.  Here, it is pretty much the same people responding with the same answers and getting into the same conflicts.


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> Just to clarify, I'm not trying to engage KKW members with this thread, rather I'm trying to engage martial artists regardless of afflitation.  And I appreciate very much those that have responded to the topic.  And if you would like to toss in Pyung Ahn Chodan then please do!



  I would suggest avoiding the Taegeuk and Palgwe for a time then.  Really the Chang Hon patterns too.  The karate forms however have been 'open sourced' and are unlikely to draw any negative attention from any.

Returning to the idea of the down block and step through punch... as an example of personalized bunkai,  I learned the 'heaven and earth' throw from Goju-ryu well before I got into aikido and discovered it was one of the signature techniques in aiki.

It's this throw.  Skip to 59 seconds in.

[yt]A2B1wRcEnT4[/yt] 

In Goju-ryu, the beginning kata Gekisai Dai Ichi starts out with a upper block and step through punch that seeds the heaven and earth throw.  You can flip it around with a down block and step through punch as well to get to Pyung Ahn Chodan.

Now people who haven't trained Okinawan karate methodically will see this as 'reverse engineered' since upon cursory glance the throw looks foreign, if all one has trained is the down block and step through punch.  The difference is that there should be plenty of intermediary partner-based drills (that hapkido/aikido/jujutsu thing) that develops the student to where they realize this particular technique as simply closing in and then applying leverage on uke once you are connected to each other.  That is an example of how structured karate training likewise leads to hapkido-like (lite  ?) skills in an organized fashion.


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> We have one standard form, consisting of 25 movement sequences.  The progression is to learn the basics in a static format (line drills) then move into dynamic format (drills) and then breaking the form into five separate segments.  Each seqment is a dynamic drill in-and-of-itself which leads to multiple variations based on the students strengths.  As an example, that particular shoulder lock is the #2 movement sequence of the fourth segment.  By this time the student is well versed in various locks, balance displacement, throws etc.  It is a building block format.



Thanks for the answer.  If you have a video, I would be interested in seeing the form.

I do recall you saying you on'y have a single form.  Wow, that's a throwback to the old days for sure.  I must have flightier students than you do.  I almost had rebellion on my hands when I wanted to focus my Goju-ryu students on just Sanchin for 3 months.  LOL.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Daniel,
> 
> My thought is that KSD is indeed poking some here, hence his choice in forms to discuss.  Bad doggie.
> 
> But for that matter, you could use some chill time too.  I think your response to Seasoned was a little unjustified and you're letting your ire at KSD spread to other people.
> 
> I am getting more and more turned off by MT these days.  This isn't meant to attack anyone in particular... But all this meaningless conflict is unappealing to me as a member.  Let's calm down and go hit the heavy bags for a bit.


How was it unjustified?  There was no ire whatsoever directed to him and honestly, I have no ire for KSD either.  To be honest, for the most part this thread has been fairly ire free.  

Not sure where you're getting ire from: I agreed with the general thrust of Season's post: that the art should not be just a young man's art, but one for men and women of all ages; I simply don't think that it applies to the topic, or the debate about the topic, which at heart is a difference in teaching methodology.  He doesn't practice the art.  That isn't a slam.  He's telling someone else who does practice how the art should be, but as an outsider, he really doesn't know what the art is, particularly with regards to how it is an art that one may grow with.  Bunkai doesn't fit into that subject.

I also asked him why he's hesitant to post on karate forums.  That is a reasonable question, seeing as he saw fit to mention it in his post.

As I said before, this is the same territory being explored again and again, and the content of the posts isn't overly different.  Some people like bunhae, some people find it a waist of time.  I'm neutral to the idea; I'm more inclined to judge the finished product than I am the idea of it.


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> By being form specific IE Taeguk Il-jang then you segregate part of the TKD population who do not practice the form. Having those people chime in on boonsae for Taekguk Il-jang is exactly what puunni was talking about, reverse engineering. *Shouldn't one have actual basic knowlege of the form prior to going and trying to discover the hidden meanings of its techniques?*



That is a good question IMO.  To play devil's advocate, does it matter, if we are merely analysing the poomsae at the base, physical level?  Left walking stance, left down block, right walking stance, right lunge punch.  Do we need to know more than that to pose alternative meanings of what those 4 discrete techniques can mean in conjunction?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> I would suggest avoiding the Taegeuk and Palgwe for a time then. Really the Chang Hon patterns too.



Oh, I don't think it would matter if it was now or six months.  



> Now people who haven't trained Okinawan karate methodically will see this as 'reverse engineered' since upon cursory glance the throw looks foreign, if all one has trained is the down block and step through punch. The difference is that there should be plenty of intermediary partner-based drills (that hapkido/aikido/jujutsu thing) that develops the student to where they realize this particular as simple closing in and then applying leverage on uke. That is an example of how structured karate training likewise leads to hapkido-like (lite  ?) skills in an organized fashion.



Bingo!  I've always found it a very logical, orderly progression.  I really think this gives tremedous credit to the various kata founders.



> Thanks for the answer. If you have a video, I would be interested in seeing the form.



We're in the process of making one.  I'd be happy to let you know when it's done to seek your input.




> I do recall you saying you on'y have a single form. Wow, that's a throwback to the old days for sure. I must have flightier students than you do. I almost had rebellion on my hands when I wanted to focus my Goju-ryu students on just Sanchin for 3 months. LOL.



I know exactly what you're saying.  I remember the stories of Uechi Kanbun Sensei discussing the Uechi/Pangainoon version of Sanchin in that he worked exclusively on the opening movements of Sanchin for three full months.  Can you imagine this today!  

By the way, have you read the book, "Way of Sanchin Kata" by (IIRC Kris Wilder)?  Good book.  He concentrates more on the Goju version, but much will apply to the Uechi version as well.  I enjoyed this and the other book, "Way of Kata".


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> How was it unjustified?



Maybe it is just a matter of perspective.  I've always welcomed the relationship between karate and TKD and so I've always felt any comments coming from Seasoned and other non-taekwondoin were fine and even interesting/relevant at times.

If I inferred more from your post than I should have, I apologize.


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> We're in the process of making one.  I'd be happy to let you know when it's done to seek your input.



Cool!



Kong Soo Do said:


> By the way, have you read the book, "Way of Sanchin Kata" by (IIRC Kris Wilder)?  Good book.  He concentrates more on the Goju version, but much will apply to the Uechi version as well.  I enjoyed this and the other book, "Way of Kata".



I own a copy of both books but honestly haven't read much from either.  They're dense reading, for my puny brain anyway, and I have ample enough to work on without introducing more influences on my karate, even if it is only in the back of my mind.  I want to say I have actually met Mr. Wilder in person if he's the same guy I think he is though this was years before he wrote his books.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Maybe it is just a matter of perspective.   I've always welcomed the relationship between karate and TKD and so I've  always felt any comments coming from Seasoned and other non-taekwondoin  were fine and even interesting/relevant at times.


I welcome it as well.  In his post, he made a comment about being open minded, but the sense that I get from his post is that he views not training in bunkai as somehow neglecting older students, which I don't really see how one could say about Kukki taekwondo if one doesn't practice it.  If you are looking at taekwondo from the perspective of a karateka and arriving at those conclusions then you are starting in the wrong place.  Just as looking at Goju ryu from a Kukki taekwondo perspective and arriving at those conclusions would be starting in the wrong place.



dancingalone said:


> If I inferred more from your post than I should have, I apologize.


You have nothing to apologize for.


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> That is a good question IMO. To play devil's advocate, does it matter, if we are merely analysing the poomsae at the base, physical level? Left walking stance, left down block, right walking stance, right lunge punch. Do we need to know more than that to pose alternative meanings of what those 4 discrete techniques can mean in conjunction?


What most people see is exactly what you described, left down block, right walking stance, right lunge punch.  What they sometimes fail to see are the intricate subtle moves in transition from point 'A' to point 'B' which is also an important part of the technique.  If I want to take apart a car and then try to reassemble it in a different way, shouldn't I understand how that particular car is supposed to function in the first place?


----------



## puunui

seasoned said:


> Could this be what instructors at the KuKKiwon are eluding to?



Something like that.


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> What most people see is exactly what you described, left down block, right walking stance, right lunge punch.  What they sometimes fail to see are the intricate subtle moves in transition from point 'A' to point 'B' which is also an important part of the technique.  If I want to take apart a car and then try to reassemble it in a different way, shouldn't I understand how that particular car is supposed to function in the first place?



OK.  That ties back to what was said a while back in the thread about following the one correct way as defined to perform a form versus the idea when or if it becomes OK to personalize things.  Two entirely valid approaches depending on the art.  For KKW, it's the first one.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> I find this similar to the horse stance and 'chambering' from the hips.  Often taught, as mentioned, as a 'chambering' movement before the strike...you just don't see many *people walking around in a horse stance,* during a fight *or in sparring *with their hands chambered on their hips.  So, the horse stance and the 'chambering' must therefore have a more useful, practical purpose.  And they do.  The horse stance of course lowers your center of gravity which is useful in a plethora of defensive and offensive techniques.



First of all, there is no "horse stance" in kukki taekwondo. There is juchum seogi, which is similar, and it is used extensively (or at least used to), not so much for the lowering of the center of gravity more so that it allows someone to easily move in any direction. And while the hands are not "chambered at the hips", they are down a lot of time by one's side. Your comments above, again underline the point that you have little, if any, experience with taekwondo competition, which is ironic since you constantly criticize and attack it. How can you make comments about something that you know nothing about?


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> And this is a great point to look at.   The originators of kata (be they Chinese or Okinawan) knew what they were doing.  They wouldn't put something into a kata that was impractical.  As I mentioned above, most folks just don't fight with hands chambered on hips, nor do they block as is demonstrated in a form.



Maybe not today, but can you say for sure that isn't how people fought way back when? Like Revolutionary War tactics, no one would fight like that today, stand in a line, powder up and load their musket and then fire in unison against another group that was doing the exact same thing. But that is what they did back then.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> When have I claimed to do KKW TKD?



Don't know if you ever claimed to "do KKW TKD", but you do claim lineage through the Han Moo Kwan, whose kwan jang supports 100% the kukkiwon curriculum, and always has. In addition, you also claim relatively high rank in taekwondo and stated that while you do not have kukkiwon dan certification, you could easily get that if you wanted to. And given your prior statements about how you feel that someone should know the curriculum before getting the rank, in particular kukkiwon rank, the inference is that you understand and practice kukki taekwondo such that you are deserving of such rank. So yes, you have claimed that you "do KKW TKD". You have made a lot of claims on MT over the years. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> As I've stated previously, I don't believe the majority had the experience necessary, although I fully believe that at least a few did.  Regardless, this is not the direction they chose, and that is fine.  However, it doesn't mean that movement sequences don't exist simply because they don't know them, or chose not to teach them.  They are simply there if one chooses to use them.



The irony, again, of your position is that you never claim to know the actual secret moves contained in the forms; what you claim is that the movements must have meaning, and therefore we should go on easter egg hunts to find these hidden meanings and reverse engineer them into the forms. You have no idea whether these applications that you have created are the actual intended applications traced down from the form creators. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> It has nothing to do with creating a system.  It was already there.  And actually, it is a part of at least some schools here in the U.S., in Australia and in Europe.  You may wish to contact Simon O'Neill and/or Stuart Anslow as they do teach various applications for different forms and have written as much.  It has also appeared in Totally Taekwondo as well, in several articles.  And once again, if one wishes not to use, recognize or teach these applications...they don't have to teach them.  If one does, then it is there for them to delve into.  I know my students have enjoyed it.



Is that where you got your secret applications, from reading books and magazines?


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> I never asked to be considered a good source for how forms are 'generally taught' in KKW schools.



No, you just stated that the taekwondo pioneers were too inexperienced to understand and know what you and your friends have come up with through reverse engineering.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> The originators of kata (be they Chinese or Okinawan) knew what they were doing.



And the originators of the Kukkiwon poomsae also knew what they were doing.


----------



## puunui

oftheherd1 said:


> But it would seem Puunui has explained things very well in post #26 and  27.  According to him, there are indeed basic defense techniques there,  from Hapkido, but not well performed, that is changed, so it is of  little value to the TKD practioner.



That's not what I said. I would never say something like that.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Personally I am not so much into forms applications as I am into a holistic training method with forms as an integrating and connecting activity.  When I studied Jhoon Rhee TKD as a kid, I always thought hyung practice was stupid.  It had nothing to do with our sparring or self-defense.



If I were so inclined, I could pick out many concepts and theories contained in the kukkiwon poomsae that are applicable for sparring. For example, the opening sequence in taeguek 3 jang has a front kick followed by two punches. For sparring, we would replace the kick with a punch and vice versa, so you would end up with a cover punch (instead of a block/kick) to stop your opponent as he was moving forward, and then double kick off that, instead of double punching. This also underlines a basic principle of taekwondo (and hapkido), which is we do with our feet, what other karate based arts do with their hands, and vice versa. 




dancingalone said:


> Some of the notable 'spokes' within Goju-ryu include hojo undo, kihon, renzoku kumite, kakie, bunkai kumite, and oyo (for lack of a comprehensive term) bunkai.



Do these come from Miyagi Sensei, or were they added by someone further down the chain?



dancingalone said:


> Creative and effective applications derived from forms are a natural consequence of studying and practicing with a good, organized teacher - they really aren't something you have to look too hard for or shouldn't be.  No 'ancient secrets'.  Nothing too arcane even if you add in vital point theory.



That is a good topic in itself, the vital point theories. In fact, I believe that was the original way these hidden movements were brought out, by Dillman Sensei and his teacher Oyata Sensei, that the kata contained specific information about pressure point attacks, done in combination, and in the correct order, which would lead to a knockout. But it seems that rather critical point has been lost in favor of the all out easter egg hunt, making up all kinds of applications which may or may not have anything to do with vital point knockouts. Now, it seems anyone with an overactive imagination can claim to know the "secrets" by making up some applications and reverse engineering them into some form, whatever form. 



dancingalone said:


> And forms applications are not necessarily chasing things down haphazardly either.  Whether by coincidence or not, IMO the Goju-ryu kata progression is very logical.  The skills and physical traits built through diligent praction of one kata becomes useful, perhaps even necessary in the next following ones.  It's just not written out in easy form for digestion for us, and so if we are mediocre practitioners, we never realize the beauty and function of the system in both conception and development.



That's good and if that is what is going on as far as Goju Ryu is concerned, then great. I think the problem lies in trying to take that and then adding it to kukki taekwondo and then pronouncing it has the lost information that the pioneers were too inexperienced to understand. 



dancingalone said:


> Various researchers like Patrick McCarthy have made efforts to link traditional karate to the typical patterns of violence today (like that haymaker we've been talking about on the boards).  Some might see this as modernization.  I do not.  I think they're really just explaining karate in a context that we in the 'modern' era can easily relate to.  Karate hasn't changed really.  The techniques are the same.  People still punch, people still carry knives.  What was useful against a punch or knife 125 years ago is still useful today.



But is it, really? Do you really believe that the okinawan karate teachers put all that time and effort into prevailing in a self defense situation, which admittedly were few and far in between, given the disposition and nature of the Okinawan people? We are not talking about some inner city danger zone, where catching the subway is a risky proposition. Instead we are talking about a kind, generous, non violent people who do not raise their voice to each other, much less fight. 




dancingalone said:


> I have offered above an explanation for my interest in forms applications.  It is not so much because they are neat or cool (they are).  Contrary to being inefficient, I argue that studying forms fully actually offers a comprehensive path to building efficient physical qualities and effective fighting skills.  Not necessarily in the 'get in a ring and kick butt' sense, but certainly for the usages karate was meant for, such as violence, unexpected or not, in the course of regular life.  Karate was never meant to be a sport, though clearly it can be adapted to be a sport.  Neither was it a military method to train soldiers and warriors.  Those were systems using swords before they became rifles, right?



Was it meant for such individual violence? Who would be attacking these Okinawan masters, with their huge knuckles? Would you?




dancingalone said:


> Where it gets interesting is that KSD seems to be trying to engage the KKW members in discussing something they have no interest in.  I understand where he is coming from with his interest in pattern applications and yet I don't know that the timing of this thread was best.  Maybe it's time to talk about Pyung Ahn Chodan instead (I'd be happy to participate) or wait a few weeks/months before trying again?



He wouldn't be able to participate in a pyung ahn chodan discussion either because he never learned that form either. The only karate that gets consistently mentioned by him whenever karate is brought up is Uechi Ryu, which doesn't have the Pinan kata as part of their system.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Indeed.  To my knowledge, Sanchin being a notable exception, the karate kata were always more about development of physical skills and qualities.



And you don't feel the kukkiwon poomsae address physical skills and qualities? Also how is sanchin embedded with karate's journey?


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> I own a copy of both books but honestly haven't read much from either.  They're dense reading, for my puny brain anyway, and I have ample enough to work on without introducing more influences on my karate, even if it is only in the back of my mind.  I want to say I have actually met Mr. Wilder in person if he's the same guy I think he is though this was years before he wrote his books.



I have both books as well, though I can't say I have met Mr. Wilder. Never read either one either, although I have flipped through both. I just buy to buy at this point, although if someone refers to a book and quotes from it, I can whip it out and check the citation.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> Do these come from Miyagi Sensei, or were they added by someone further down the chain?



I don't know, though it's not for lack of asking!  My teacher was a student of Miyazato Sensei who learned from Miyagi Sensei.  He says the bulk of what he taught me and my karate brothers was taught at the Jundokan when he studied there, though he took the liberty of formalizing some of the exercises more so than they were.  Still, I only have his say so along with what I caught from a visit from one of his sempai.  Ultimately, it's second hand information though.



puunui said:


> But it seems that rather critical point has been lost in favor of the all out easter egg hunt, making up all kinds of applications which may or may not have anything to do with vital point knockouts. Now, it seems anyone with an overactive imagination can claim to know the "secrets" by making up some applications and reverse engineering them into some form, whatever form.



I agree to an extent.  Lots of people taking advantage of the bunkai fad.  It can be a good thing, so long as they are honest about what they have and they have a good way of eating their own dog food to see how good it is.



puunui said:


> That's good and if that is what is going on as far as Goju Ryu is concerned, then great. I think the problem lies in trying to take that and then adding it to kukki taekwondo and then pronouncing it has the lost information that the pioneers were too inexperienced to understand.



Yeah, I think it's all water under the bridge anyway.  There are plenty of karate styles founded by men of relative youth, but we give them a pass on the experience thing.  Considering how TKD has endured and grown, it's time to give it its correct due.



puunui said:


> But is it, really? Do you really believe that the okinawan karate teachers put all that time and effort into prevailing in a self defense situation, which admittedly were few and far in between, given the disposition and nature of the Okinawan people? We are not talking about some inner city danger zone, where catching the subway is a risky proposition. Instead we are talking about a kind, generous, non violent people who do not raise their voice to each other, much less fight.
> 
> 
> Was it meant for such individual violence? Who would be attacking these Okinawan masters, with their huge knuckles? Would you?



We don't have recorded crime statistics for Okinawa during the historical period in which karate was developed, first of the Shuri lineage and then the Naha style.  What we do have are legends, lore, and possibly apocryphal stories passed on about the various old masters and the fights, some deadly, they were involved in.  Some of these guys were quarrelsome, probably not totally nice people, despite the generally sunny disposition of Okinawans to be sure.

So no, I don't know for sure that all this training passed down to me had an entirely combative origin to it.  I can extrapolate to an extent from at least 3 sources:  1) the overt information given directly to me from my teacher and 2) the information he HASN'T given me if that makes sense and finally 3) what I can gather through reading books & articles from other karate-ka, older and younger, from multiple lineages or even speaking to them directly.

SOME karate perhaps had self-development elements introduced into it, and perhaps this type of karate is most popular and prevalent now.  I've even studied Matsubayashi-ryu, one of the styles said to be influenced by Okinawan folk dance along with Nagamine Sensei's idea that karate should be a vehicle for enlightenment and peaceful resolution of conflict.  But not all karate is in the same boat IMO.  Back to my teacher... he made his living as a Doctor of Oriental Medicine and acupunturist.  He knows plenty of ways to help people heal, yet his karate was always about destruction foremost. 

I can also gauge to a degree through my students.  Some of them have been in violent encounters and they have acquitted themselves well using what I taught them.  I don't pretend to be a reality-based SD instructor.  I'm a karate/TKD guy.  I teach karate and TKD, yet my students have been able to protect themselves and others using the exact stuff practiced in my dojo.  To me, that's good evidence that system I pass down was designed for fighting in the first place. 



puunui said:


> He wouldn't be able to participate in a pyung ahn chodan discussion either because he never learned that form either. The only karate that gets consistently mentioned by him whenever karate is brought up is Uechi Ryu, which doesn't have the Pinan kata as part of their system.



KSD can speak for himself, but I gathered he's been very much influenced by Iain Abernethy or at least Abernethy's videos and books.  Mr. Abernethy is a Wado stylist and seems to use the Pinan kata extensively as part of his material.


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> OK. That ties back to what was said a while back in the thread about following the one correct way as defined to perform a form versus the idea when or if it becomes OK to personalize things. Two entirely valid approaches depending on the art. For KKW, it's the first one.


Like Daniel, I have no problem against boonsae.  Being from a Okinawa karate background myself, I do see its value.  Not only is can it help you understand what you are doing in the form in a more "live" type environment, but it can help understand the overall mechanics of the form itself.    It is also fun to go outside the box and play around with the the moves to find a possible other use.  I believe I posted some time ago about utilizing the knife hand block in a totally different manner. However you must first know the form technically on its own merit before moving on to such things.  I also caution against statements like the pioneers of TKD never fully understood forms when they were taught them.  Unless a person was in their class learning at the same time or if a person has taken classes directly from them, then a person cannot possibly know what they did or did not know about forms.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> And you don't feel the kukkiwon poomsae address physical skills and qualities? Also how is sanchin embedded with karate's journey?



Certainly the poomsae have a physical aspect to them.  I'd argue that's the main point of them in fact, even if I might sound like a heretic.  TKD is a physical art after all.

Sanchin is translated as Three Battles and people often say it's about unifying the Body, Mind, and Spirit so that they work together rather than as separate and conflicting parts of ourselves.  One of the few times my teacher spoke about 'self-improvement' was during a Sanchin lesson.  He said Sanchin was about mastering ourselves, to control our bodies, to rid our minds of distractions, to remove self-doubt and fear.  He would say ki boils down to breathing and that Goju is Air foremost, followed by Fire.  I still wonder what the hell he means by that since it is counter-intuitive to what I think, but maybe I'll get it some day.

Anyway, I don't think karate kata had any meanings or signposts to them as you described in your thesis existing within the TKD poomsae.  Or if they ever did, this is lost to antiquity.  I'm afraid to countless other karate-ka they're mostly about exercise and checking off a requirement to gain a belt.  A smaller though fortunate number also know the kata as a vehicle to learn fighting skills.


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> Sanchin is translated as Three Battles and people often say it's about unifying the Body, Mind, and Spirit so that they work together rather than as separate and conflicting parts of ourselves. One of the few times my teacher spoke about 'self-improvement' was during a Sanchin lesson. He said Sanchin was about mastering ourselves, to control our bodies, to rid our minds of distractions, to remove self-doubt and fear. He would say ki boils down to breathing and that Goju is Air foremost, followed by Fire. I still wonder what the hell he means by that since it is counter-intuitive to what I think, but maybe I'll get it some day.


I love Sanchin kata.  Perhaps it is because it was the first karate kata I ever saw performed, but to me that is the ipidomy of what a karate kata is.


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> I love Sanchin kata.  Perhaps it is because it was the first karate kata I ever saw performed, but to me that is the ipidomy of what a karate kata is.



I horrified my wife the first time she saw me practicing Sanchin.  In those days, I ran the kata much harder than I do now with clenched muscles and forceful hissing of my breath.  As an aikido-ka, she thought it was appalling and she wondered if I was OK.

My TKD students don't get it either.  They are simultaneously fascinated and turned off as well.


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> I horrified my wife the first time she saw me practicing Sanchin. In those days, I ran the kata much harder than I do now with clenched muscles and forceful hissing of my breath. As an aikido-ka, she thought it was appalling and she wondered if I was OK.
> 
> My TKD students don't get it either. They are simultaneously fascinated and turned off as well.


Right.  After a long class of kata training, Sensei makes us finish the evening by running this kata hard, three times.  During our Shorei black belt test it is the last form you run after all your other Shorei kata (this includes running them with bunkai) and weapons kata, and, if you have a black belt in another system, you have to run those (I had to run my Taeguk poomsae and Kumdo poomsae, I'm glad he forgot about my bb in TSD or I would have been dead since I do not remember any of them).  After all that....you get to run Sanchin.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> We don't have recorded crime statistics for Okinawa during the historical period in which karate was developed, first of the Shuri lineage and then the Naha style.



We might. I called the Okinawan Cultural Center here and spoke to a lady who said she will look into it. We have a large Okinawan population here, with a cultural center, stores and also at least one restaurant. Okinawan food is very different from Japanese food, although there are some similarities. Rice for example, but even with that I think the preferred and more starch is Okinawan sweet potato. Okianwans also feature bittermelon, which I tend to associate more with filipino food more than japanese. 

Anyway, the lady at the Okinawan Center said that in her opinion, Okinawa's people are very mild, and violent crime wasn't a major concern of the people. We spoke about how fifty years ago and even in certain neighborhoods today, no one locks their doors, even when they leave and no one is home or at night. She said that the only concern would be from outsiders like US military on Okinawa today. I am sure there were some ill tempered people from Okinawa, especially when drinking is involved. Also, those who traveled outside of Okinawa 100 years ago may have experience discrimination such that they would need to learn self protection methods. But it seems like over kill to me to engage in all this hard core training, including but not limited to makiwara training, just so you can defend yourself from a drunk neighbor or some rascal kids. 




dancingalone said:


> I can also gauge to a degree through my students.  Some of them have been in violent encounters and they have acquitted themselves well using what I taught them.  I don't pretend to be a reality-based SD instructor.  I'm a karate/TKD guy.  I teach karate and TKD, yet my students have been able to protect themselves and others using the exact stuff practiced in my dojo.  To me, that's good evidence that system I pass down was designed for fighting in the first place.



I think your experiences or the experiences of your students go mainly to the idea that it really is not that difficult to defend one self in an encounter, and because of that, it cannot serve as the life long focus for martial arts training. There has to be more than just that low level goal driving you. Take yourself. Is your main motivation for studying the martial arts to development deadly self defense skills for yourself and your students above all else, that their lives and your life as well as the life of your family and their family utterly depend upon what you teach them? Or are people there primarily for other reasons? 

I think if everyone were honest they would say that self defense was not the main focus of their training, although perhaps in the very beginning, it was. 




dancingalone said:


> KSD can speak for himself, but I gathered he's been very much influenced by Iain Abernethy or at least Abernethy's videos and books.  Mr. Abernethy is a Wado stylist and seems to use the Pinan kata extensively as part of his material.



That opens up a whole different can of worms, learning secret hidden applications from forms that one does not practice.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> I horrified my wife the first time she saw me practicing Sanchin. In those days, I ran the kata much harder than I do now with clenched muscles and forceful hissing of my breath. As an aikido-ka, she thought it was appalling and she wondered if I was OK.
> 
> My TKD students don't get it either. They are simultaneously fascinated and turned off as well.



I've experienced this myself with the Uechi version.  Particularly when you have four BB's systematically striking/kicking you while you perform the kata.  I don't know if Goju practitioner's do this as well?  I think I posted a couple of links to Sanchin in the karate section, though in each of those their is only one instructor testing the student.  It is just part of that hard body conditioning many styles practice.  

It can give those that aren't familiar with it a 'good gravy' moment

Btw, in addition to discussing Pyung Ahn Chodan applications, really this thread could be for any form that someone would like to share their thoughts on in regards to applications.


----------



## seasoned

seasoned said:


> First off, and I add this in because some are there, and all will be there some day. I am 69 years old, and have trained consistently for 45years. To do what I did and could do 40 years ago, was fine and dandy, then. But, I needed an art of self defense that could grow with me while I grew older. Instead of looking else where for some of the softer arts, I found to my surprise, that right there in front of me, within my art and it's kata, was what I was looking for, but did not see it as a young man.
> My Sensei always said that kata held the key, and there was always a saying that went something like this, "martial arts is for everybody". Well when I was young I didn't need self defense as much as I would need it now, are you with me?
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is, if you are studying an art, and enjoy it, and it is an old traditional art, there are provisions within the art to accommodate your elder years. And for this reason you need to look past the young persons art you are studying, and within that art and those techniques, you will find a complete other art. Oh, the movements will be the same, as you did all your training life, but you are now redirecting, shifting off center, using power from body mechanics instead of muscle.
> 
> When we were young we could spar for hours, but in our 70s and 80s, what do we do, hang it up, I think not.
> 
> If you are in an art worth it's salt, it is for young and old. But the techniques are done a little bit different as we older martial artist apply them. Nothing changes, only evolves. This, is what makes it, and we call it, an ART.
> 
> I don't generally find myself straying away from the karate threads, and may have some reservations in the future. I do tend to stay open minded and learning all the time. I did learn and enjoyed the inter actions here, but had an uneasy feeling, and didn't see many of these   here. I would say, we could all stand to chill out a bit, and above all stay open minded and enjoy the learning experience you are getting here.



I was trying to get some insight into Taegue Il Jang application, by giving the thread some insight into my back ground, to see if there was any common ground to dialog on. I truly did not come here to be miss understood, but to merely share in the spirit of the arts.  



seasoned said:


> I feel there is a connection between arts, if not at the technical level, then at lease at the development level of health and strength. You mentioned "twisting motions" of which are also in my kata based art, and are there to directly involve tendon and ligament development which in turn adds more power from within our bodies.
> 
> I would agree that each and every move within kata is not geared toward self defense, but each and every move serves a very important function. The practice of martial arts produces a power that is unique to specific techniques within any given art.
> Could this be what instructors at the KuKKiwon are eluding to?
> 
> My intent is to dialog, and share, not to win a war on words.  Thanks in advance.



In the above I was being agreeable, but at the same time inquisitive pertaining to the comment about "twisting motions" as mentioned in a previous post. Also my last sentence mentions this, "My intent is to dialog, and share, not to win a war on words.  Thanks in advance".



Daniel Sullivan said:


> While I agree with a lot of what you say in general, the art being a  young or old person's art is completely unrelated.  You are talking  about a difference in teaching methodology, not in what the art itself  has to offer.  I don't know how many times we have to say it, but in KKW  taekwondo, the sort of techniques that people are trying to extrapolate  from pumse are taught in partnered drills (one step sparring) that are  structured so as to make sense and build rather than being hidden  movements in pumse.
> 
> Since the pumse were not designed to layer those teachings in the same  way that Goju kata are, they aren't used in that fashion.
> 
> As for lack of posting over the weekend, I cannot speak for others, but I  really don't have anything more to add to the topic.  The three  paragraphs of KKW bashing at the beginning kind of soured the tone of  the thread anyway by guaranteeing that at least some of those who post  in this section will be immediately put on the defensive.
> 
> Not to mention that the OP has gone down this route with this topic on  this form more than once and the nature of responses are pretty much the  same.
> 
> 
> This isn't an issue of open mindedness, Seasoned.  You are in the section of an art that you don't practice trying to tell us how it is.  The OP and some of the respondents don't even practice the form that is being debated or the form set that it is from, but are trying to "teach" those who do practice it how it should be done and taught.  That reflect being close minded, as you are unwilling to look at the art from the perspective of those who practice it and those who create it, but expect those who practice it to be open to the perspective of outsiders.
> 
> Do you not see the problem there and why people might take exception to it?
> 
> Why, if you are an Okinawan karateka do you stay away from karate threads may I ask?



Above, you are reading me wrong, and make it very clear that you feel that I am trespassing, so to speak, on issues I know nothing about. This was not my intent, and I really don't want to get invalved in the infighting I perceive that is taking place.

Your words Daniel, "Why, if you are an Okinawan karateka do you stay away from karate threads may I ask"?

My words, "I don't generally find myself straying away from the karate threads, and may have some reservations in the future". 

The meaning of my words, "and may have some reservations in the future". 

Answer, "of straying away from the, karate threads". I will stay there where I have done well for 5 years, with ANY verbal conflict.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've experienced this myself with the Uechi version.  Particularly when you have four BB's systematically striking/kicking you while you perform the kata.  I don't know if Goju practitioner's do this as well?



Kukki taekwondoin do that too. We call them hogu drills. Have you ever done any?


----------



## seasoned

miguksaram said:


> I was out all weekend practicing my low block death touch from Taeguk Il-jang.  I have it down to where I can strike you in the calf causing at least on of your testicles to explode.  Still working on the other.


Case in point. This is the dialog I can do without.


----------



## puunui

seasoned said:


> Above, you are reading me wrong, and make it very clear that you feel that I am trespassing, so to speak, on issues I know nothing about. This was not my intent, and I really don't want to get invalved in the infighting I perceive that is taking place.




There is no infighting, just one non kukki taekwondo outsider wanting to discuss applications from a kukkiwon form he never learned.


----------



## andyjeffries

Can we all please write it as Taegeuk not Taegue. If we're going to be discussing a specific pattern we should all at least spell it correctly.

Mispronunciation is one of my pet peeves and this is number two behind people pronouncing our art as Thai-kwondo rather than t'eh kwondo (or tay kwondo if they must).


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've experienced this myself with the Uechi version.  Particularly when you have four BB's systematically striking/kicking you while you perform the kata.  I don't know if Goju practitioner's do this as well?  I think I posted a couple of links to Sanchin in the karate section, though in each of those their is only one instructor testing the student.  It is just part of that hard body conditioning many styles practice.
> 
> It can give those that aren't familiar with it a 'good gravy' moment



Goju does indeed have shime though in my experience it should be more about checking correct posture and muscular tension than outright beating up the student.  I have heard of some dojo in the sixties and seventies on the east coast overdoing shime as more of a hazing ritual or to test conditioning.  

If you're an Uechi man, let me say I'm very much impressed with Shinjo Sensei and the entire Shinjo clan in general.  I've seen him break baseball bats with his forearm, and he is not exactly large.


----------



## puunui

andyjeffries said:


> Can we all please write it as Taegeuk not Taegue.



When I think of "taegu" I think of either the city in South Korea, or a type of pan chun (korean side dish) that is served with meals. I don't really think about poomsae when I hear or see that word.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Maybe it is just a matter of perspective.  I've always welcomed the relationship between karate and TKD



Too much of that is not good though, because you begin to start thinking gojuryu thoughts in a taekwondo context. I took karate before taekwondo as well, and it was a constant struggle to not think karate when doing taekwondo. Finally I made a decision to let go of my karate mindset, so that I could progress in taekwondo. I did keep one thing from karate, which is the analytical eye and appreciation for detail that sometimes korean martial arts lack.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

seasoned said:


> Case in point. This is the dialog I can do without.


Unfortunately you will come accross that sort of dialogue here in the tkd section. Many here feel "everyone is out to get them", and that there is an "alterior motive" behind each thread. The paranoia runs deep here my friend


----------



## Jaeimseu

puunui said:


> Maybe not today, but can you say for sure that isn't how people fought way back when? Like Revolutionary War tactics, no one would fight like that today, stand in a line, powder up and load their musket and then fire in unison against another group that was doing the exact same thing. But that is what they did back then.



This reminds me of what I said before about watching a Tang Soo Do class spar. They sparred exactly like they did forms, with complete hip chambered punches and "traditional" blocking motions. They called themselves traditional. I think "traditional," like many other words, means different things to different people, but I also remember thinking to myself, "If that's traditional, I'm glad I'm not." That is one of the beautiful things about Kukki Taekwondo: it's not static. The "traditional" elements are held onto through poomse, but sparring techniques and strategies are in constant evolution.


----------



## Jaeimseu

andyjeffries said:


> Can we all please write it as Taegeuk not Taegue. If we're going to be discussing a specific pattern we should all at least spell it correctly.
> 
> Mispronunciation is one of my pet peeves and this is number two behind people pronouncing our art as Thai-kwondo rather than t'eh kwondo (or tay kwondo if they must).


I agree. Unfortunately, it was pretty widespread when I was in the states. Even with the correct English spelling, people will more often than not mispronounce the words. People tend to pronounce English letters with English sounds, which leads to incorrect pronunciation. When things are spelled wrong it just makes it that much more difficult to get it right.


----------



## puunui

Jaeimseu said:


> I agree. Unfortunately, it was pretty widespread when I was in the states. Even with the correct English spelling, people will more often than not mispronounce the words. People tend to pronounce English letters with English sounds, which leads to incorrect pronunciation. When things are spelled wrong it just makes it that much more difficult to get it right.



And the thing about that is, if someone cannot or will not take the time to learn the proper pronunciation and spelling, then what is the probability that they are doing the movements correctly? Spelling and pronunciation are infinitely easier than doing physical moves, so there is a block there, then you know there are other more major blocks all over the place. We tend to reveal ourselves in small almost unnoticeable ways....


----------



## ralphmcpherson

puunui said:


> And the thing about that is, if someone cannot or will not take the time to learn the proper pronunciation and spelling, then what is the probability that they are doing the movements correctly? Spelling and pronunciation are infinitely easier than doing physical moves, so there is a block there, then you know there are other more major blocks all over the place. We tend to reveal ourselves in small almost unnoticeable ways....


I agree wholeheartedly that people should pronounce these terms correctly, but suggesting that the way someone pronounces the moves, forms etc somehow correlates to their level of skill is drawing a very long bow. Theres a guy I train with who Ive mentioned here many times, who is easily the best martial artist Ive seen in the flesh, who has flawless technique and is just inspirational to watch, but his pronunciation of all things tkd leaves a lot to be desired. Listening to the way he pronounces the word "palgwe" is just hillarious and drives my instructor (who speaks fluent korean and lived for years in korea) crazy.


----------



## Jaeimseu

ralphmcpherson said:


> I agree wholeheartedly that people should pronounce these terms correctly, but suggesting that the way someone pronounces the moves, forms etc somehow correlates to their level of skill is drawing a very long bow. Theres a guy I train with who Ive mentioned here many times, who is easily the best martial artist Ive seen in the flesh, who has flawless technique and is just inspirational to watch, but his pronunciation of all things tkd leaves a lot to be desired. Listening to the way he pronounces the word "palgwe" is just hillarious and drives my instructor (who speaks fluent korean and lived for years in korea) crazy.


I don't know that I would draw a correlation to a person's skill, but perhaps to their attention to detail? If a person is unwillingly to correct simple things like spelling, there's a good chance they may not pay attention to other details. 

On a side note, in my experience 99% of westerners pronounce Korean words incorrectly. But many people make no effort to do so (pronounce things correctly). If they are an instructor, then they create a new generation of students who will pronounce things wrong, but be convinced they are correct, because, "my instructor did it this way."


----------



## andyjeffries

Jaeimseu said:


> I don't know that I would draw a correlation to a person's skill, but perhaps to their attention to detail? If a person is unwillingly to correct simple things like spelling, there's a good chance they may not pay attention to other details.
> 
> On a side note, in my experience 99% of westerners pronounce Korean words incorrectly. But many people make no effort to do so (pronounce things correctly). If they are an instructor, then they create a new generation of students who will pronounce things wrong, but be convinced they are correct, because, "my instructor did it this way."



I absolutely agree with this.  I think the mark of a good instructor is attention to detail and a willingness to strive for correctness and accuracy.

I'm absolutely positive that I mispronounce some Korean words, but when I hear the word pronounced correctly (Kukkiwon or WTF DVDs, Korean instructors, my Grandmaster, etc) then I try my best to replicate that pronunciation.  The same way I do with my movements, I'm sure I make lots of mistakes, but every time I see a difference between Kukkiwon standards and what I'm doing, I repeat to try and nail it (and ensure to pass the corrected version on to my students).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

ralphmcpherson said:


> Unfortunately you will come accross that sort of dialogue here in the tkd section. Many here feel "everyone is out to get them", and that there is an "alterior motive" behind each thread. The paranoia runs deep here my friend



I see this as more of an 'us vs. them' mentality unfortunately. You can use this thread as a good example for this as there are about four members who have been consistent in their non-participation of the topic itself, yet you'll see they have tried to dominate the thread to keep it as far off topic as possible. You see a trend developing where if you're not TKD, or more specifically 'their' brand of TKD...well you're not welcome here. This has been developing over a number of threads they don't like for quite a while. And of course, the little shots here and there mixed with some, shall we less than truthful comments. For example, I misspelled Taegeuk in the title. Now the fact that I've spelled it correctly in other threads is overlooked as this is a great opportunity to put in a dozen or so posts about it to take the thread off-track. Very friendly indeed.

I've seen several declare that I don't know this or that form. Yet they've never met me. They've never seen me train. They've never asked if I know this or that form. They simply doesn't know, yet they feels fit to state it as though it is a fact. It is simply a bait to get me to respond so they can further the rabbit trail. It is difficult to engage in conversation with those who aren't exactly concerned with truthfulness. Again, very friendly indeed. 

I believe their ultimate goal, beyond avoiding actual on-topic participation, is to have the thread closed. I suppose they would see this as some sort of perverse victory. This is why I have simply chosen to no longer engage them directly in conversation. It is a waste of time and counter-productive. Now they'll come back and pick this post apart and put a spin on it as they can get several more derail posts in to bogg down the thread. So be it. Most here know their M.O or are discovering it. As for me, I'm enjoying the thread and skipping over the few that refuse to participate makes it easy.

My advice, ignore them.



			
				seasoned said:
			
		

> My words, "I don't generally find myself straying away from the karate threads, and may have some reservations in the future".



Don't let them chase you out sir, I have enjoyed talking with you and I've appreciated your input.  As I mentioned, just ignore them.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

dancingalone said:


> Goju does indeed have shime though in my experience it should be more about checking correct posture and muscular tension than outright beating up the student. I have heard of some dojo in the sixties and seventies on the east coast overdoing shime as more of a hazing ritual or to test conditioning.



This kind of conditioning can definately be overdone.  An instructor has to know what he/she is doing and have the best interest of the student in mind.  When done correctly, it produces a very strong individual indeed.  I've not seen this sort of toughness outside of the Ryus that incorporate this type of training.  



> If you're an Uechi man, let me say I'm very much impressed with Shinjo Sensei and the entire Shinjo clan in general. I've seen him break baseball bats with his forearm, and he is not exactly large.



Yes, very impressive!  He and others have had 2x4's broken over their outstretched forearms, shins and abdomens as well.  In addition to hard body drills, we use to kick tires, use bowling pins, closet dowels, windlass etc for conditioning.  It has to be done right though.


----------



## d1jinx




----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, very impressive!  He and others have had 2x4's broken over their outstretched forearms, shins and abdomens as well.  In addition to hard body drills, we use to kick tires, use bowling pins, closet dowels, windlass etc for conditioning.  It has to be done right though.



He has some students in the US and visits every third year or so.  I know a couple of them and they're excellent karate-ka themselves.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

seasoned said:


> Above, you are reading me wrong, and make it very clear that you feel that I am trespassing, so to speak, on issues I know nothing about. This was not my intent, and I really don't want to get invalved in the infighting I perceive that is taking place.


Not trespassing; you seemed to make characterizations about the art that may or may not be correct, but that a non practitioner would have no means of knowing.  If I am reading you wrong, which is certainly possible, then my apologies.

Unfortunately, there is a general pattern of non KKW and non taekwondoin (the OP, for example) who spend the bulk of their time here posting about KKW taekwondo, frequently in fashion of putting it down.  In and of itself, it wouldn't be a problem, except that their put downs are generally not grounded in fact and they are unwilling to listen when told otherwise.  At the same time, they get upset of their appraisals are not given weight.



seasoned said:


> Your words Daniel, "Why, if you are an Okinawan karateka do you stay away from karate threads may I ask"?
> 
> My words, "I don't generally find myself straying away from the karate threads, and may have some reservations in the future".
> 
> The meaning of my words, "and may have some reservations in the future".
> 
> Answer, "of straying away from the, karate threads". I will stay there where I have done well for 5 years, with ANY verbal conflict.


Certainly did read you wrong here.  Apologies.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Unfortunately, there is a general pattern of non KKW and non taekwondoin (the OP, for example) who spend the bulk of their time here posting about KKW taekwondo, frequently in fashion of putting it down.



Here is a good example of what I'm talking about.  Though I'm not KKW Daniel, I do have rank in TKD, so your characteriziation is innacurate.  Is it deliberate or ignorance?  Same thing for your comment on me spending the bulk of my time 'putting down' the KKW, it is innacurate.  Most of my time has been spent discussing various aspects of SD.  So unless you have a break down of the number of posts I've made in relation to the number of times I've discussed the KKW, it is either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to make an inaccurate statement.  And in regards to 'putting it down', the truth is often painful to those that wish to ignore it.  But everything you've claimed above is bunk with the exception of my being non-KKW.  So back up your statements or stop whinning the same nonsense.


----------



## d1jinx




----------



## miguksaram

seasoned said:


> Case in point. This is the dialog I can do without.


It was meant as a joke to make light of the discussion.

Now go relax or I will send a Taeguk I-jang ahp-chagi death touch of this internet through the forum and give you spider veins in your ankle.


----------



## miguksaram

andyjeffries said:


> Can we all please write it as Taegeuk not Taegue. If we're going to be discussing a specific pattern we should all at least spell it correctly.
> 
> Mispronunciation is one of my pet peeves and this is number two behind people pronouncing our art as Thai-kwondo rather than t'eh kwondo (or tay kwondo if they must).


Only if you spell 'color' the correct way and drop that annoying 'u' in it.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> We might. I called the Okinawan Cultural Center here and spoke to a lady who said she will look into it. We have a large Okinawan population here, with a cultural center, stores and also at least one restaurant ...



Love to hear if she comes up with anything.  My understanding is that crime stats simply weren't kept for that era, circa 1850 - 1910 when when first Matsumura and then Higashionna were in their prime, matured, and took disciples.



puunui said:


> Anyway, the lady at the Okinawan Center said that in her opinion, Okinawa's people are very mild, and violent crime wasn't a major concern of the people. We spoke about how fifty years ago and even in certain neighborhoods today, no one locks their doors, even when they leave and no one is home or at night. She said that the only concern would be from outsiders like US military on Okinawa today. I am sure there were some ill tempered people from Okinawa, especially when drinking is involved. Also, those who traveled outside of Okinawa 100 years ago may have experience discrimination such that they would need to learn self protection methods. But it seems like over kill to me to engage in all this hard core training, including but not limited to makiwara training, just so you can defend yourself from a drunk neighbor or some rascal kids.



It's not like they had TV to watch.    My thought is that the older karate masters trained hard primarily because of their work ethic and overriding interest in karate, but also because frankly they didn't have the same distractions we have today:  tv, travel, whatever.  

I'm also only guessing, but picture yourself as someone a century or more ago, living on a few small islands that have been invaded over and over again over the centuries.  Why wouldn't there be more of a warrior ethos present where it was thought important to be capable of defending yourself?  You're from the islands... What about all these tough Polynesian guys we hear about?  

I also think the art itself played a role.  I think the training was serious back then.  You weren't likely to get into karate as a 2 hour a week hobby like it is frequently the case now.  Men like Matsumura and his student Itosu finely honed their fighting skills since they were court officials.  Matsumura in particular was the Ryukyu king's chief bodyguard.  Arguably the bulk of the various karate ryu flow from them lineage-wise, and presumably any particular attention to intent and effectiveness of the art would likewise have passed down.  I think the same argument could be applied to the later Naha style which descended from Fukien Crane, and there's no indication that Crane was trained casually as a matter of course back then either.  It was supposed to be serious stuff.



puunui said:


> I think your experiences or the experiences of your students go mainly to the idea that it really is not that difficult to defend one self in an encounter, and because of that, it cannot serve as the life long focus for martial arts training. There has to be more than just that low level goal driving you. Take yourself. Is your main motivation for studying the martial arts to development deadly self defense skills for yourself and your students above all else, that their lives and your life as well as the life of your family and their family utterly depend upon what you teach them? Or are people there primarily for other reasons?
> 
> I think if everyone were honest they would say that self defense was not the main focus of their training, although perhaps in the very beginning, it was.



Oh, I think it depends on the situation and the person if we're talking about how easy it is to defend ourselves.  One of the students I was thinking about is into law enforcement and he gets to use what we study in class at least once or twice a week (yeah, we're a major crime area, LOL).

I would agree that SD is probably not the primary reason people sign up for karate/TKD classes now these days.  Certainly not at my schools.  On my survey form, most check off exercise, SD, & fun activity in some combination though.  I should probably reword the survey if I really wanted a real answer on why they join, but I suspect exercise is probably the top real reason for adults, and fun (or get the kids out of my hair for an hour) is the real answer for the children.

But when I ran my hardcore Goju class out of my home, I can say a much greater percentage of people were there because they wanted to learn fighting skills.  And I in fact started MA as a kid because I got into some scraps and I wanted (or Dad wanted) for me to get an edge.  I still get a good share of kids in who are bullied at school.  In the past we used to teach them how to punch the bully in the nose - now we focus on conflict management and getting to a safe place.



puunui said:


> That opens up a whole different can of worms, learning secret hidden applications from forms that one does not practice.



It's not so unlikely if one is a trained martial artist already.  If someone showed me a good application from a totally foreign style to me, I could probably find a way to internalize it within the framework I understand already, given sufficient time.  It wouldn't be the original rendition likely, but that wouldn't be my overriding concern.


----------



## miguksaram

> Maybe it is just a matter of perspective. I've always welcomed the relationship between karate and TKD


I had a bit of a problem with this at the Hanmadang.  When I performed Taebaek, I ended up with a silver medal.  When I stepped off one of my friends, said that I executed a beautiful karate version of Taebaek with my stances.   I find the hardest thing for me from time to time is to remember the proper level of my stances.


----------



## dancingalone

Jaeimseu said:


> This reminds me of what I said before about watching a Tang Soo Do class spar. They sparred exactly like they did forms, with complete hip chambered punches and "traditional" blocking motions. They called themselves traditional. I think "traditional," like many other words, means different things to different people, but I also remember thinking to myself, "If that's traditional, I'm glad I'm not." That is one of the beautiful things about Kukki Taekwondo: it's not static. The "traditional" elements are held onto through poomse, but sparring techniques and strategies are in constant evolution.



Where was this, in Korea?  Sparring in that way would be silly unless it was done at half-speed with an intent to study classical form (not necessarily a bad thing).  The moment one participant breaks the compact and shortens his motions, he would gain an immediate advantage.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

dancingalone said:


> Puunui said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opens up a whole different can of worms, learning secret hidden applications from forms that one does not practice.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so unlikely if one is a trained martial artist already.  If someone showed me a good application from a totally foreign style to me, I could probably find a way to internalize it within the framework I understand already, given sufficient time.  It wouldn't be the original rendition likely, but that wouldn't be my overriding concern.
Click to expand...

It's all in how it is presented.  Saying, 'Taegeuk Iljang opens with a turn left, a down block, and a revere punch.  What sort of applications do taekwondoists find can be drawn from this' and leaving out follow up posts that critique the experience of the art's founders would be fine; it isolates the techniques in question and sets up a more universal discussion rather than inferring knowledge about forms and an art one doesn't practice.


----------



## dancingalone

miguksaram said:


> I had a bit of a problem with this at the Hanmadang.  When I performed Taebaek, I ended up with a silver medal.  When I stepped off one of my friends, said that I executed a beautiful karate version of Taebaek with my stances.   I find the hardest thing for me from time to time is to remember the proper level of my stances.



Absolutely.  I spent almost a year trying to purge Goju traits when I ran the Chang Hon forms.  I was nowhere near total success despite trying very, very hard to do so.  That's why I've always been puzzled when people say they practice multiple sets of TKD forms but perform them according to each individual standard.

I guess it could be done if one has a lot of time and is really, really talented.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> I see this as more of an 'us vs. them' mentality unfortunately. You can use this thread as a good example for this as there are about four members who have been consistent in their non-participation of the topic itself, yet you'll see they have tried to dominate the thread to keep it as far off topic as possible.


 I offered a couple of insights, first the different versions of what you will find when bringing up this type of topic. Secondly I showed you that you are using the wrong version of Taeguk Il-jang to even start this conversation of with in the first place. Yet you still insist on referring to the original video that you posted which is outdated. If you are going to exam a poomsae, then at least exam the most recent version. It's like trying to do an analysis of a Windows OS by taking a look at Win95 version.

I believe it was you who decided to put in your own $.02 worth on what you felt the pioneers know or don't know about poomsae. This had no relevance to the original topic. So in actuallity you started this derailing process. Then when called on that, you start saying we are trying to derail, when in fact you opened the worms in the first place. Once again you throw yourself up as a victim in these discussions.



> You see a trend developing where if you're not TKD, or more specifically 'their' brand of TKD...well you're not welcome here.


 No what has been said in this discussion if you don't know the full mechanics of this poomsae then perhaps trying to put together any type of boonsae is not the best idea. Especially if you are going to do the far fetched type boonsae such as saying a low block is actually a hammer fist strike. 



> This has been developing over a number of threads they don't like for quite a while. And of course, the little shots here and there mixed with some, shall we less than truthful comments. For example, I misspelled Taegeuk in the title. Now the fact that I've spelled it correctly in other threads is overlooked as this is a great opportunity to put in a dozen or so posts about it to take the thread off-track. Very friendly indeed.


I believe that the person who is correcting the spelling was correcting someone else who was posting not you. You keep throwing up that victim card, which can also be seen in a number of threads.



> I've seen several declare that I don't know this or that form. Yet they've never met me. They've never seen me train. They've never asked if I know this or that form. They simply doesn't know, yet they feels fit to state it as though it is a fact. It is simply a bait to get me to respond so they can further the rabbit trail. It is difficult to engage in conversation with those who aren't exactly concerned with truthfulness. Again, very friendly indeed.


I believe you said yourself that you were not the best resources on knowledge of the Taeguk forms. When was the last time you practiced the most recent versions of these forms, or when was the last time you practiced these forms at all? What truthfulness are you referring to? You understanding of what the pioneers knew when they trained? If it is true, then please site your references to such truths. Is it through your own experience with them? Is it through your own experience working with one of their direct students? Is it something you read? Is it something you heard from a student? Or is it something you are throwing out there because there is no evidence to contrary? I'm curious as to where you are basing your truths from.




> I believe their ultimate goal, beyond avoiding actual on-topic participation, is to have the thread closed. I suppose they would see this as some sort of perverse victory. This is why I have simply chosen to no longer engage them directly in conversation. It is a waste of time and counter-productive. Now they'll come back and pick this post apart and put a spin on it as they can get several more derail posts in to bogg down the thread. So be it. Most here know their M.O or are discovering it. As for me, I'm enjoying the thread and skipping over the few that refuse to participate makes it easy.


I am not sure what the other members goals are, but I can tell you that I am not shooting to get this closed down. I am shooting for actual information based on facts not opinions to come out. I am looking for intellegent conversation based on ones experience on the topic. Not a guesstimate based on watching a video (did I mention that the video was outdated?). 



> Don't let them chase you out sir, I have enjoyed talking with you and I've appreciated your input. As I mentioned, just ignore them.


I doubt Seasoned is going to let anyone chase him out, nor is anyone looking to chase him out.


----------



## miguksaram

Double post


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> I doubt Seasoned is going to let anyone chase him out, nor is anyone looking to chase him out.


Nobody is looking to chase anyone out.  Not even Kong Soo Do.


----------



## miguksaram

daniel sullivan said:


> it's all in how it is presented. Saying, 'taegeuk iljang opens with a turn left, a down block, and a revere punch. What sort of applications do taekwondoists find can be drawn from this' and leaving out follow up posts that critique the experience of the art's founders would be fine; it isolates the techniques in question and sets up a more universal discussion rather than inferring knowledge about forms and an art one doesn't practice.


qft!


----------



## miguksaram

dancingalone said:


> Absolutely. I spent almost a year trying to purge Goju traits when I ran the Chang Hon forms. I was nowhere near total success despite trying very, very hard to do so. That's why I've always been puzzled when people say they practice multiple sets of TKD forms but perform them according to each individual standard.
> 
> I guess it could be done if one has a lot of time and is really, really talented.


It is a matter of setting your mind to do it correctly, without falling back on your instincts.  I really wasn't planning on competing in traditional forms, and it was a last minute decision.  In hind-sight when I was practicing I should have paid more attention to my stances.  Though they 'felt' right, I should have picked up that they felt right because I was doing it "karate" style.   Oh well...back to the topic.


----------



## Jaeimseu

dancingalone said:


> Where was this, in Korea?  Sparring in that way would be silly unless it was done at half-speed with an intent to study classical form (not necessarily a bad thing).  The moment one participant breaks the compact and shortens his motions, he would gain an immediate advantage.


No, this was at a YMCA club in the US, and they were going as full speed as you can go (though not full contact) performing the techniques that way. To be fair, I only saw one class, so I don't know if they did it that way all the time.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> Yet you still insist on referring to the original video that you posted which is outdated.



I've 'insisted' on using the video? Where did I insist on it? It is just a sample video off youtube to use as an example for the movement sequences. Current or outdated is not the point, the discussion is on movement sequences.



> I believe it was you who decided to put in your own $.02 worth on what you felt the pioneers know or don't know about poomsae.



I stated that, which exceptons, they were low or no rank karateka. Is this an error? I also stated that an instructor, any instructor cannot teach what they themselves do not know? Is this in error? Do you teach things you don't know Jeremy? I also stated that I don't believe that, in general, they had the experience to know any/most/all of the nuances contained in kata which was then reflected in their interpretations of the forms they created (certainly not to the extend of their karate seniors). Is this in error? This isn't 'putting them down'. This is simply stating fact(s). And as mentioned previously, I've stated quite clearly that no 'put down' was intended. And since I'm the one stating that, to take it any other way is solely the responsibility of the reciever. 



> I am looking for intellegent conversation based on ones experience on the topic.





> Especially if you are going to do the far fetched type boonsae such as saying a low block is actually a hammer fist strike.



Are you looking for intelligent conversation based on ones experience on the topic? Others have commented on this movement being an effective hammer fist based upon their experience. I have as well. Why then would you then disrespect their experience simply because it isn't your own? Respectfully put, why not have simply chosen to discuss the merits of the application in question and seek further input from the experience of others? That would have produced more intelligent conversation than the method of 'jokes and derogatory remarks' you've chosen.



> What truthfulness are you referring to?



Your friend stated that I did not know a particular TKD form. He's never met me, he's never seen me train, he's never asked if I knew that particular form or not. What level of truthfulness would you consider his statement that I don't know the form? Some have 'suggested' that I and others shouldn't be posting here because we are non-TKD. But yet, I do have TKD rank and you yourself have talked with my TKD instructor in years past. What level of truthfulness would you consider statements to the contrary? 



> I'm curious as to where you are basing your truths from.



I have plainly stated this from the beginning of the thread. Karate kata contain movement sequences that on the surface appear to be 'blocks' and other movements but also, or more appropriately are different applications. Since other applications exist in karate kata, the same movement sequences, if used in Korean forms, will have the same applications. Whether or not the form creator intended this or not, whether they knew this or not is moot. If a movement sequence in a kata means 'ABC' then that same movement sequence in a Korean form will also mean 'ABC' even if the creator says it means 'XYZ'. It can and is both simultaneously. One does not have to use one or either. Do you find this an unreasonable suggestion Jeremy? 



> I am not sure what the other members goals are, but I can tell you that I am not shooting to get this closed down.



This is good to know and something we can agree on and work towards. I'd like to see it become more productive. I'd like to see discussion on the form, or any other form where a member says something like, "in X form I see the following application(s)" and then discussion can ensue on that interpretation. That way, perhaps things are put out there that increases another members knowledge base. To me, that is a lot more productive than much that has been offered to this point. 

Then if becomes a win-win thread.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've 'insisted' on using the video?  Where did I insist on it?  It is just a sample video off youtube to use as an example for the movement sequences.  Current or outdated is not the point, the discussion is on movement sequences.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that, which exceptons, they were low or no rank karateka.  Is this an error?  I also stated that an instructor, any instructor cannot teach what they themselves do not know?  Is this in error?  Do you teach things you don't know Jeremy?  *I also stated that I don't believe that, in general, they had the experience to know any/most/all of the nuances contained in kata which was then reflected in their interpretations of the forms they created (certainly not to the extend of their karate seniors).  Is this in error?  This isn't 'putting them down'.  This is simply stating fact(s).  And as mentioned previously, I've stated quite clearly that no 'put down' was intended.  And since I'm the one stating that, to take it any other way is solely the responsibility of the reciever. *
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for intelligent conversation based on ones experience on the topic?  Others have commented on this movement being an effective hammer fist based upon their experience.  I have as well.  Why then would you then disrespect their experience simply because it isn't your own?  Respectfully put, why not have simply chosen to discuss the merits of the application in question and seek further input from the experience of others?  That would have produced more intelligent conversation than the method of 'jokes and derogatory remarks' you've chosen.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your friend stated that I did not know a particular TKD form.  He's never met me, he's never seen me train, he's never asked if I knew that particular form or not.  What level of truthfulness would you consider his statement that I don't know the form?*  Some have 'suggested' that I and others shouldn't be posting here because we are non-TKD.  But yet, I do have TKD rank and you yourself have talked with my TKD instructor in years past.  What level of truthfulness would you consider statements to the contrary?
> 
> 
> 
> I have plainly stated this from the beginning of the thread.  Karate kata contain movement sequences that one the surface appear to be 'blocks' and other movements but also, or more appropriately are different applications.  Since other applications exist in karate kata, the same movement sequences, if used in Korean forms, will have the same applications.  Whether or not the form creator intended this or not, whether they knew this or not is moot.  If a movement sequence in a kata means 'ABC' then that same movement sequence in a Korean form will also mean 'ABC' even if the creator says it means 'XYZ'.  It can and is both simultaneously.  One does not have to use one or either.  Do you find this an unreasonable suggestion Jeremy?
> 
> 
> 
> This is good to know and something we can agree on and work towards.  I'd like to see it become more productive.  I'd like to see discussion on the form, or any other form where a member says something like, "in X form I see the following application(s)" and then discussion can ensue on that interpretation.  That way, perhaps things are put out there that increases another members knowledge base.  To me, that is a lot more productive than much that has been offered to this point.
> 
> Then if becomes a win-win thread.



With respect, have you ever met the Kukkiwon seniors, seen them train, or asked them about the nuances contained in kata? If you have, then I apologize, but it looks like you're doing exactly what you accuse other posters of doing...


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Jaeimseu said:


> With respect, have you ever met the Kukkiwon seniors, seen them train, or asked them about the nuances contained in kata? If you have, then I apologize, but it looks like you're doing exactly what you accuse other posters of doing...



Yes sir, I have. On MW we had several members that were between fourth and seventh Dan that discussed this topic at length. These were people that had trained directly with different Korean GM's and had those discussions with them as well. And there were Masters from Tang Soo Do and Hapkido participating in that thread as well. In fact, it was one of the longest running threads ever on MW and led, in part, to much of the content of Mr. O'Neills book (you can see a list of many of the participants in the forward portion of the book. It's been several years, but I believe Jeremy was a part of that discussion. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I'd have to go back and look at the whole thing.


----------



## d1jinx

11 pages to discuss the meaning behind:

down block Punch
down block Punch
down block Punch
Inside middle block punch
inside middle block punch
down block Punch
high block front snap kick punch
high block front snap kick punch
down block
punch.

yup. hidden meaning there. or NOT.

Maybe its in the stances.

let see:

walking stance
walking stance

walking stance
walking stance


Forward stance

walking stance
walking stance

walking stance
walking stance

Forward stance

walking stance
walking stance

walking stance
walking stance

forward stance 
forward stance

nope still nothing.

how about the turns?

lets see:

L
R
F
R
L
F
L
R
B
B


Hmmm, still dont see it.

maybe if i take the 3rd letter of each word, arrange them in a pattern, then pick out what I "think" it may be I can come up with... nope still nothing.


WHAT AM I MISSING???? besides the point?


(I used the ENGLISH terms for those who are not familiar with the Korean terminology.)


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've 'insisted' on using the video? Where did I insist on it? It is just a sample video off youtube to use as an example for the movement sequences. Current or outdated is not the point, the discussion is on movement sequences.


I do owe you one appology, the second reference to the outdated video was not made by you, but someone quoting your original posting which showed the video.   So for saying you are insisting on using an outdated video, I apologize.  

Now current or outdated is the point because you are making reference to a specific poomsae. One which has subtle move changes that could effect how one interprets the boonsae.



> I stated that, which exceptons, they were low or no rank karateka. Is this an error?


 Yes, by giving the image that because they held 1st through 3rd dans they were low rank.  Back then the highest rank was 5th dan held by Funakoshi Sensei.  So a first dan would not have been a low rank.  You are viewing it through today's eyes where 1st dan, on the scale of 10 possible dans, would be a low rank.


> also stated that an instructor, any instructor cannot teach what they themselves do not know? Is this in error?


 On its own, you are correct.  However, you were were not making a general statement, but referring to the pioneers of TKD.  


> Do you teach things you don't know Jeremy? I also stated that I don't believe that, in general, they had the experience to know any/most/all of the nuances contained in kata which was then reflected in their interpretations of the forms they created (certainly not to the extend of their karate seniors). Is this in error?


It is an error, because you really do not know what they know.  So you are guessing at best.  You are basically doing to them what you are accusing others on this list of doing to you.  Making non-informative statements of what someone does or does not know.  



> This isn't 'putting them down'. This is simply stating fact(s). And as mentioned previously, I've stated quite clearly that no 'put down' was intended. And since I'm the one stating that, to take it any other way is solely the responsibility of the reciever.


Is it a put down?  You tell me.  How do you feel when people make this uninformative statements about your knowledge in the martial arts?  Let's make it even more simple, how do you feel when someone makes at statement regarding your possible lack of knowledge on Taeguk Il-jang?  You say fact, but fact based on what evidence?



> Are you looking for intelligent conversation based on ones experience on the topic? Others have commented on this movement being an effective hammer fist based upon their experience. I have as well. Why then would you then disrespect their experience simply because it isn't your own? Respectfully put, why not have simply chosen to discuss the merits of the application in question and seek further input from the experience of others? That would have produced more intelligent conversation than the method of 'jokes and derogatory remarks' you've chosen.


Nice try, but I have already submitted proof that I am open to interpretation of movements.  Please refer to my thread about double knife hand executions.  So it is not the topic of bunkai that I am questioning.  I would like to discuss the main topic with people  who have actually practiced the form in its entirety from someone who knows the purpose and mechanics, not from watching a video of the form.  Hell I understand bunkai/boonsae.  I can even make a bunkai out of picking my nose.  At least my jokes stayed on topic of application of the form based on the mechanics of what the technique was meant to do and not some guess because of what it looked like on a video.  Can you point out where I was derogatory and to who?



> Your friend stated that I did not know a particular TKD form. He's never met me, he's never seen me train, he's never asked if I knew that particular form or not. What level of truthfulness would you consider his statement that I don't know the form? Some have 'suggested' that I and others shouldn't be posting here because we are non-TKD. But yet, I do have TKD rank and you yourself have talked with my TKD instructor in years past. What level of truthfulness would you consider statements to the contrary?


How is this different from you bringing into question what the pioneers knew?  I guess this answers my questions about how you feel about people making uninformative remarks about your training and knowledge.



> I have plainly stated this from the beginning of the thread. Karate kata contain movement sequences that one the surface appear to be 'blocks' and other movements but also, or more appropriately are different applications. Since other applications exist in karate kata, the same movement sequences, if used in Korean forms, will have the same applications. Whether or not the form creator intended this or not, whether they knew this or not is moot. If a movement sequence in a kata means 'ABC' then that same movement sequence in a Korean form will also mean 'ABC' even if the creator says it means 'XYZ'. It can and is both simultaneously. One does not have to use one or either. Do you find this an unreasonable suggestion Jeremy?


No but only if you know the form correctly.  You have to take in consideration transitioning from one move to the next and not just the end move.  Bunkai/Boonsae is more than just the end move and its intention.  To understand the full picture you need to be sure to include all the pieces of the puzzle not just the corner pieces because they fit together the easiest.



> This is good to know and something we can agree on and work towards. I'd like to see it become more productive. I'd like to see discussion on the form, or any other form where a member says something like, "in X form I see the following application(s)" and then discussion can ensue on that interpretation. That way, perhaps things are put out there that increases another members knowledge base. To me, that is a lot more productive than much that has been offered to this point.
> 
> Then if becomes a win-win thread.


I have no problem discussing this type of topic.  If you truely want to help increase knowledge base then those discussing it should understand the subject to its full potential and not just a quick snapshot.  Case in point is my thread about the Koryo dynasty.  It debunks the snapshot that the Silla dynasty, which many TKD practitioners are lead to believe, was such a great time in Korean history.  Why?  Because we only got a snap shot of the surface.  Upon reading you find out that the Silla dynasty was pretty much full of corruption and internal strife and a lot of opporession of the poor.  Not quite the romantic era that many of us are taught through our TKD studies.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

d1jinx said:


> 11 pages to discuss the meaning behind:
> 
> down block Punch
> down block Punch
> down block Punch
> Inside middle block punch
> inside middle block punch
> down block Punch
> high block front snap kick punch
> high block front snap kick punch
> down block
> punch.
> 
> yup. hidden meaning there. or NOT.
> 
> Maybe its in the stances.
> 
> let see:
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> 
> Forward stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> Forward stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> forward stance
> forward stance
> 
> nope still nothing.
> 
> how about the turns?
> 
> lets see:
> 
> L
> R
> F
> R
> L
> F
> L
> R
> B
> B
> 
> 
> Hmmm, still dont see it.
> 
> maybe if i take the 3rd letter of each word, arrange them in a pattern, then pick out what I "think" it may be I can come up with... nope still nothing.
> 
> 
> WHAT AM I MISSING???? besides the point?
> 
> 
> (I used the ENGLISH terms for those who are not familiar with the Korean terminology.)


I've said this earlier and will say it again; this is a basic form taught to white belt students.  There really isn't a whole lot to work with as far as hidden applications.  As a hapkidoist, I can redirect some of those movements to get a grapple here or a lock there, but the level of student for whom iljang is designed for would be far from ready to explore such things.  

Yijang isn't really any better, with the only substantive difference being a greater variety of targets.  Even samjang, which incorporates open hand  parrying and more than two shifts in stance, would be a poor choice; at this level the  students are still learning to correctly execute those techniques.


Taegeuk sajang would be a much better candidate for this.  It contains a variety of open and closed hand offenses and defenses, a greater variety of kicks, and a greater variety of stances.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes sir, I have. On MW we had several members that were between fourth and seventh Dan that discussed this topic at length. These were people that had trained directly with different Korean GM's and had those discussions with them as well. And there were Masters from Tang Soo Do and Hapkido participating in that thread as well. In fact, it was one of the longest running threads ever on MW and led, in part, to much of the content of Mr. O'Neills book (you can see a list of many of the participants in the forward portion of the book. It's been several years, but I believe Jeremy was a part of that discussion. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I'd have to go back and look at the whole thing.


Don't recall...been kicked out of there a few months ago.  However, I don't recall any seniors coming on to MW.  I would recommend that perhaps you join TKD.net and bring up this topic.  There are plenty of seniors/pioneers on that list that may give some insight.  At least they have always been helpful to me whenever I approached them.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> How is this different from you bringing into question what the pioneers knew?  I guess this answers my questions about how you feel about people making uninformative remarks about your training and knowledge.


Unfortunately, he is making an apples to oranges comparison.  The pioneers that he critiqued were not making evaluations of Okinawan kata.    
My assessment of his lack of knowledge regarding the taegeuk pumse is based on his flawed descriptions of them, which included incorrect characterizations of the nature of certain movements, an incorrect statement about which part of the arm/hand was used in makki, and what the makki was being applied against.  

This is the equivalent of him saying he's been somewhere he hasn't, then giving travel advice to others, but a local resident is pointing out that the location doesn't look like that and that the roads are not laid out in that manner.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> Don't recall...been kicked out of there a few months ago.



You've never been kicked out of MW Jeremy.  You created two accounts but only posted with one of them.  The one you've never used was removed, but this has no effect on the one that you have and can use.


----------



## d1jinx

miguksaram said:


> Don't recall...been kicked out of there a few months ago. However, I don't recall any seniors coming on to MW. I would recommend that perhaps you join TKD.net and bring up this topic. There are plenty of seniors/pioneers on that list that may give some insight. At least they have always been helpful to me whenever I approached them.




I am a KKW 5th Dan who has trained with some Korean seniors, would that not count as merit here? it seemed to count over there! 

After all, the BEST statement ever told to me was from GM Hwa Chong: "AH BULL-CHIT"


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> I do owe you one appology, the second reference to the outdated video was not made by you, but someone quoting your original posting which showed the video. So for saying you are insisting on using an outdated video, I apologize.



Accepted and not a problem. 



> Now current or outdated is the point because you are making reference to a specific poomsae.



Then let me clarify, my point is on the actual movement sequence regardless of what form it may be contained in. 



> Yes, by giving the image that because they held 1st through 3rd dans they were low rank. Back then the highest rank was 5th dan held by Funakoshi Sensei.



Shotokan isn't the only art involved, some others did go to 10th Dan.  However, in regards to Shotokan specifically I'm willing to see the point your making.  If it will make the thread flow smoother, and soothe the feelings of some individuals then I'll simply ask that that portion of my comments be disregarded and consider it retracted.  



> Case in point is my thread about the Koryo dynasty. It debunks the snapshot that the Silla dynasty, which many TKD practitioners are lead to believe, was such a great time in Korean history. Why? Because we only got a snap shot of the surface. Upon reading you find out that the Silla dynasty was pretty much full of corruption and internal strife and a lot of opporession of the poor. Not quite the romantic era that many of us are taught through our TKD studies.



I'm well aware of your research, which is why you had your own section on MW devoted entirely to your research.  It was appreciated then and still is appreciated.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> You've never been kicked out of MW Jeremy. You created two accounts but only posted with one of them. The one you've never used was removed, but this has no effect on the one that you have and can use.


Actually I was kicked out.  When I went to log in some time ago it told me that the adminstrator has disabled my account.  I had only one account there under the same user name that I use where ever I go on these forums.


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> Accepted and not a problem. [/quoted]
> Cool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then let me clarify, my point is on the actual movement sequence regardless of what form it may be contained in.
> 
> 
> 
> Which I can accept, but again the point is that we are looking at one specific poomsae.  If we are to break it down then we need to look at the most recent version.  Things were changed for a reason, and knowing that reason and what the changes are could have an impact on how interprets the boonsae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shotokan isn't the only art involved, some others did go to 10th Dan. However, in regards to Shotokan specifically I'm willing to see the point your making. If it will make the thread flow smoother, and soothe the feelings of some individuals then I'll simply ask that that portion of my comments be disregarded and consider it retracted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of your research, which is why you had your own section on MW devoted entirely to your research. It was appreciated then and still is appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about Martial Warriror here right?  I don't recall a section devoted to that but then again, I have been kicked in the head so many times I some times don't recall my breakfast so....cool.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> Actually I was kicked out. When I went to log in some time ago it told me that the adminstrator has disabled my account. I had only one account there under the same user name that I use where ever I go on these forums.



I took a look to make sure, the Miguk70, which has the same email listed as your miguksaram account was disabled since it was an never-used account.  The miguksaram should be fine if/when you use it.  If it still isn't, shoot me a msg but it looks to be fine.



> Which I can accept, but again the point is that we are looking at one specific poomsae. If we are to break it down then we need to look at the most recent version. Things were changed for a reason, and knowing that reason and what the changes are could have an impact on how interprets the boonsae.



Perhaps you know of an updated video to post for discussion?  And as I mentioned, if anyone wants to submit a video or link or whatever, to any form they'd like to discuss, they should feel free.  



> We are talking about Martial Warriror here right? I don't recall a section devoted to that but then again, I have been kicked in the head so many times I some times don't recall my breakfast so....cool.



Wasn't that you that had a section where they were posting articles for different publications?  I don't recall the name of it off hand...


----------



## miguksaram

Kong Soo Do said:


> I took a look to make sure, the Miguk70, which has the same email listed as your miguksaram account was disabled since it was an never-used account. The miguksaram should be fine if/when you use it. If it still isn't, shoot me a msg but it looks to be fine.


I just checked the miguksaram again and it seems to work now...cool.



> Perhaps you know of an updated video to post for discussion? And as I mentioned, if anyone wants to submit a video or link or whatever, to any form they'd like to discuss, they should feel free.


Already posted on the first page in my first response.  I believe that is the most recent version of the form.  At least I hope it is because that is what I have been teaching my students. 



> Wasn't that you that had a section where they were posting articles for different publications? I don't recall the name of it off hand...


I saw a section in there under TKD that had Dan Burdick's information in there, but nothing that I have posted.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> I see this as more of an 'us vs. them' mentality unfortunately.



If there is an "us vs. them" mentality, it is because you and other non kukki taekwondo people set it up that way. Kukki taekwondo is about unification and acceptance. Those that are opposed to kukki taekwondo by definition are not, with their complaints and criticizing of everything. One of the reasons why I am posting again is to prevent future abuse of kukki taekwondoin in this forum. It stops now. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> I've seen several declare that I don't know this or that form. Yet they've never met me. They've never seen me train. They've never asked if I know this or that form.



No one needs to ask you. You have already stated that you are not kukki taekwondo. It is evident in the things that you post. There was a story you told about a form which you didn't know the name of which had double side kicks in it. Your point was that you felt the first side kick would be to the knee and would bring the opponent down to his knees, and the second one would be a low kick to the head of the kneeling opponent. Overlooking the fact that your "application" of the double side kick is completely wrong, more revealing is the fact that you didn't know the name of that form with the double side kick in it, someone which every 1st poom in korea who got their rank in one year knows. Things like that.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> This kind of conditioning can definately be overdone.  An instructor has to know what he/she is doing and have the best interest of the student in mind.  When done correctly, it produces a very strong individual indeed.  I've not seen this sort of toughness outside of the Ryus that incorporate this type of training.



This comment again shows your lack of experience with kukki taekwondo in general, and the modern competition training methods in particular. Many practitioners who do hogu drills for the first time end up feeling beat up and extremely winded within a matter of minutes. Do hogu drills for a while and perhaps you will see this type of training exist "outside of the Ryus".


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> I just checked the miguksaram again and it seems to work now...cool.



Good deal 



> I saw a section in there under TKD that had Dan Burdick's information in there, but nothing that I have posted.



I could be wrong.  I just seem to remember you in a special section with Bruce Sims, and a Steve (can't remember last name) who had a combatives section.  Point is that as far back as I remember you've always been welcome.

I completely missed your vid posting, I'll have to take a look.  Thank you.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Love to hear if she comes up with anything.  My understanding is that crime stats simply weren't kept for that era, circa 1850 - 1910 when when first Matsumura and then Higashionna were in their prime, matured, and took disciples.



Here is a quote from a book entitled Customs and Culture of Okinawa, first published in 1955: 

*

Psychology

Psychologists and sociologists marvel at the Okinawans' amiable disposition. Though living under crowded conditions, these people have a remarkably low crime rate, a high birth rate, and suicides are practically unknown in the long history of the island. Blood pressure is generally low, perhaps due to excessive amounts of rice consumed in their diet, and insanity is rare. The people are not easily frustrated or excited by chimeras, as is so common in our Western world. Most of the babies are breast fed and constantly tended by the mother or an older brother or sister, which results in a great feeling of security as the child attains maturity.

Because of the training which they receive at home and their religious beliefs, which teach them to respect their elders and venerate their forefathers, the Okinawan children cause their teachers practically no discipline problems. So thoroughly has obedience to one's superiors been inculcated into their lives, it is a common sight to see a group of several hundred children on a field trip or an excursion causing almost no noise or commontion.

*

Does that sound like a culture that would put self defense training at the forefront of their minds?  I would think these types of cultural and psychological factors would have just as much or more of an influence on "applications" than westernized attitudes with regard to personal safety and the need for self defense.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> I stated that, which exceptons, they were low or no rank karateka. Is this an error? I also stated that an instructor, any instructor cannot teach what they themselves do not know? Is this in error? Do you teach things you don't know Jeremy? I also stated that I don't believe that, in general, they had the experience to know any/most/all of the nuances contained in kata which was then reflected in their interpretations of the forms they created (certainly not to the extend of their karate seniors). Is this in error? This isn't 'putting them down'. This is simply stating fact(s). And as mentioned previously, I've stated quite clearly that no 'put down' was intended. And since I'm the one stating that, to take it any other way is solely the responsibility of the reciever.



No problem with your position, as long as you realize the same when people point out your inexperience and lack of knowledge in an area.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Absolutely.  I spent almost a year trying to purge Goju traits when I ran the Chang Hon forms.  I was nowhere near total success despite trying very, very hard to do so.  That's why I've always been puzzled when people say they practice multiple sets of TKD forms but perform them according to each individual standard.



Did you have the same issue when learning Goju Ryu, having to purge your Jhoon Rhee habits? What are you purging now as you incorporate the kukkiwon poomsae into what you do?


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes sir, I have. On MW we had several members that were between fourth and seventh Dan that discussed this topic at length. These were people that had trained directly with different Korean GM's and had those discussions with them as well. And there were Masters from Tang Soo Do and Hapkido participating in that thread as well. In fact, it was one of the longest running threads ever on MW and led, in part, to much of the content of Mr. O'Neills book (you can see a list of many of the participants in the forward portion of the book. It's been several years, but I believe Jeremy was a part of that discussion. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I'd have to go back and look at the whole thing.



Sorry, but your comments early in this thread spoke about the kwan founders who studied karate in Japan, and they being of low rank and therefore too inexperienced to have learned the stuff you and your cohorts discussed on MW. So no, you have not spoken to any of those that studied in Japan and came back to open dojang in the 1940s, and therefore you once again have no experience in this area.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

puunui said:


> No problem with your position, as long as you realize the same when people point out your inexperience and lack of knowledge in an area.



And you as well.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> Did you have the same issue when learning Goju Ryu, having to purge your Jhoon Rhee habits? What are you purging now as you incorporate the kukkiwon poomsae into what you do?



The transition from Jhoon Rhee TKD to Goju wasn't hard to make, probably because I had paid very little attention to the small details up until that point.  I don't want to bag on my first instructor, but the level of training I received was night and day different.  I didn't just take class from my sensei - I received a martial education from him.

As for the KKW poomsae, let's just say it is a process.  One I expect to last for years if not the rest of my life.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> Does that sound like a culture that would put self defense training at the forefront of their minds?



Perhaps not, but I certainly haven't said that a majority of the people in the Ryukyu Islands practiced Te.  I'm sure it was an activity sought after by a small segment of the population...Unless you have different information?  I do argue that the guys in the late 1800s took their karate seriously and it was very much for developing fighting skills rather than any other purpose.



puunui said:


> I would think these types of cultural and psychological factors would have just as much or more of an influence on "applications" than westernized attitudes with regard to personal safety and the need for self defense.



I don't completely follow what you are saying here, but I can say my teacher from that same culture taught me umpteen ways to break joints, smash bones, and generally cause pain and other physical trauma.  I'm fairly confident that was the purpose of karate before the 1910s or so when the "Do" aspects began to be emphasized.


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> Perhaps not, but I certainly haven't said that a majority of the people in the Ryukyu Islands practiced Te. I'm sure it was an activity sought after by a small segment of the population...





> I don't completely follow what you are saying here, but I can say my teacher from that same culture taught me umpteen ways to break joints, smash bones, and generally cause pain and other physical trauma. I'm fairly confident that was the purpose of karate before the 1910s or so when the "Do" aspects began to be emphasized.



I was under the impression that the majority of martial arts were not "marketed" for popular consumption until rather recently. I have not heard that the Okinawans did so until somewhat recently when karate was introduced into the physical education curriculum in schools. Do you have any idea of the relationship between the introduction of the "Do" aspect of things and the trend to popularize training? 

Also, do you know of any karate ryu that didn't "sign on" to the idea of karate becoming karate-_do_? 

From my experience in CMA it seems that a greater emphasis is placed on students being virtuous to be accepted for training rather than training making one a better person (though this idea isn't completely absent). In Taekwon-Do there is a much greater emphasis on developing certain character traits through the training itself than I experienced in Kung-Fu. I'd be interested in hearing your thought on how Okinawan karate addresses this.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone

chrispillertkd said:


> I was under the impression that the majority of martial arts were not "marketed" for popular consumption until rather recently. I have not heard that the Okinawans did so until somewhat recently when karate was introduced into the physical education curriculum in schools. Do you have any idea of the relationship between the introduction of the "Do" aspect of things and the trend to popularize training?



I don't know anything other than the broad details most know about already.  Itosu Sensei already was heading in that direction some say with the introduction of his Pinan kata, these forms intended to be easier to learn for kids still in school (picture 9th grade on, not primary school).  If you read his famous letter however, the one in which the 10 Precepts are written, it's apparent that karate was no mere exercise vehicle for him, though as he states it is an important benefit.


1.* Karate is not merely practiced for your own benefit; it can be used to protect one's family or master.* It is not intended to be used against a single assailant but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.

​2.* The purpose of karate is to make the muscles and bones hard as rock and to use the hands and legs as spears.* If children were to begin training naturally in military prowess while in elementary school, then they would be well suited for military service. Remember the words attributed to the Duke of Wellington after he defeated Napoleon, Today's battle was won on the playing fields of our schools.

​3. *Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues.* If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will see a change in physique. *Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate.*​
4. In karate, training of the hands and feet are important, so you should train thoroughly with a sheaf of straw (#). In order to do this, drop your shoulders, open your lungs, muster your strength, grip the floor with your feet, and concentrate your energy into your lower abdomen. Practice using each arm one to two hundred times each day.

​5. When you practice the stances of karate, be sure to keep your back straight, lower your shoulders, put strength in your legs, stand firmly, and drop your energy into your lower abdomen.

​6. Practice each of the techniques of karate repeatedly. Learn the explanations of every technique well, and decide when and in what manner to apply them when needed. Enter, counter, withdraw is the rule for torite.​
7. *You must decide if karate is for your health or to aid your duty.*​
8. *When you train, do so as if on the battlefield.* Your eyes should glare, shoulders drop, and body harden. You should always train with intensity and spirit as if actually facing the enemy, and in this way you will naturally be ready.

​9. If you use up your strength to excess in karate training, this will cause you to lose the energy in your lower abdomen and will be harmful to your body. Your face and eyes will turn red. Be careful to control your training.​
10. In the past, many masters of karate have enjoyed long lives.* Karate aids in developing the bones and muscles. It helps the digestion as well as the circulation*. If karate should be introduced, beginning in the elementary schools, then we will produce many men each capable of defeating ten assailants.

​Chojun Miyagi Sensei was also part of the evolution to "Do".  He participated in creating a few kata along with Shosin Nagamine Sensei that were meant to be universal kata unifying the Shorin & Shorei branches of karate as a bridging  pathway to the other kata and I believe these hookiyu kata likewise were meant for usage in schools before the outbreak of war ended the project.

Miyagi wrote an essay that has been translated through the efforts of some Hawaiian historians (I believe puunui has said he knows them well).  In it he makes some interesting remarks about this transition in karate.  http://seinenkai.com/articles/sanzinsoo/outline.html

3. Karate circles in the past​We also do not know origin of the name "karate", but it is true that the name "karate" was made recently. In the old days it was called "Te". At that time people used to practice karate secretly, and a masters taught a few advanced Kata out of all the Kata only to his best disciple. If he had no suitable disciple, he never taught them anyone, and eventually such Kata have completely died out. As a result, there are many Kata which were not handed down. *In about middle of Meiji period (1868-1912), prominent karate masters abolished the old way of secrecy. Karate was opened to the public, so it was soon recognized by society. It was dawn in the development of karate. In accordance with the rapidly progressing culture, karate was also recognized as physical education, and it was adopted as one of the teaching subjects at school. Therefore, at last karate has won the social approval.*​​4. How we teach karate at present.​​*According to oral history, in the old days, the teaching policy of karate put emphasis on self-defence techniques. With just a motto of "no first attack in karate", teachers showed their students the moral aspects. However, I heard that in reality they tended to neglect such moral principles.* So gradually the teaching policy was improved with the change of the times. Now we discontinued and abolished the wrong tradition of so-called "body first, and mind second", and we made our way toward Tao of fighting arts or the truth of karate. *Eventually we have obtained the correct motto "mind first, and body second" which means karate and Zen are the same.*​





chrispillertkd said:


> Also, do you know of any karate ryu that didn't "sign on" to the idea of karate becoming karate-_do_?



It's hard to say really without having trained in all of them under a senior native master.  I'm sure you've noticed the karate brought back to the United States by westerners tends to be full of the personal development stuff.  Whether that was emphasized by their Asian teachers or evolved over time in the US in response to business needs, I can't say with any surety.  I do think some styles like Shotokan and Wado have been more influenced by Zen, notwithstanding the previous bit about Goju-ryu from Miyagi Sensei, and it's not uncommon to see teachers of these styles adopt and promulgate some aspects of Zen in their classes.

Personally, although we had a dojo kun in own line of Goju-ryu and we recited it before most classes, it really wasn't analysed in any great way.  In fact, I can count on 1 hand the number of times my sensei said anything about the dojo kun at all.  

I am planning a trip to Okinawa next year for a three week stay and I am setting up training opportunities judiciously with senior karate-ka.  It will be interesting to see what they choose to show me.  In my inquiries I'm asking for them to give me the regular training experiences someone on the islands would receive, rituals and all.



chrispillertkd said:


> From my experience in CMA it seems that a greater emphasis is placed on students being virtuous to be accepted for training rather than training making one a better person (though this idea isn't completely absent). In Taekwon-Do there is a much greater emphasis on developing certain character traits through the training itself than I experienced in Kung-Fu. I'd be interested in hearing your thought on how Okinawan karate addresses this.



Well, all I have is personal experience.  My teacher did not accept new students casually.  Only if he had room, only if he thought you would be diligent.  In fact, he would turn away people I thought would have made great additions to our group based on their physical attributes and prior experience.  I don't think he was looking for any moral qualities.  With that said our training included nothing remotely like Zen Buddhism, nothing like seen in ATA TKD schools where students are encouraged to be positive, kind people.

As I said, Okinawan karate in the US is filled with this type of stuff.  Is it purely a western construct, an American thing in reaction to our cultural needs to educate youth in civility and good character?  I don't know.  Anecdotally, I believe it is from what I have observed in my own training along with what I have seen in dojo run by people also with close ties to a living Okinawan.  I hope to learn more about it when I travel next year.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> 1.* Karate is not merely practiced for your own benefit; it can be used to protect one's family or master.* It is not intended to be used against a single assailant but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.
> 
> ​2.* The purpose of karate is to make the muscles and bones hard as rock and to use the hands and legs as spears.* If children were to begin training naturally in military prowess while in elementary school, then they would be well suited for military service. Remember the words attributed to the Duke of Wellington after he defeated Napoleon, Today's battle was won on the playing fields of our schools.
> 
> ​3. *Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues.* If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will see a change in physique. *Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate.*​
> 4. In karate, training of the hands and feet are important, so you should train thoroughly with a sheaf of straw (#). In order to do this, drop your shoulders, open your lungs, muster your strength, grip the floor with your feet, and concentrate your energy into your lower abdomen. Practice using each arm one to two hundred times each day.
> 
> ​5. When you practice the stances of karate, be sure to keep your back straight, lower your shoulders, put strength in your legs, stand firmly, and drop your energy into your lower abdomen.
> 
> ​6. Practice each of the techniques of karate repeatedly. Learn the explanations of every technique well, and decide when and in what manner to apply them when needed. Enter, counter, withdraw is the rule for torite.​
> 7. *You must decide if karate is for your health or to aid your duty.*​
> 8. *When you train, do so as if on the battlefield.* Your eyes should glare, shoulders drop, and body harden. You should always train with intensity and spirit as if actually facing the enemy, and in this way you will naturally be ready.
> 
> ​9. If you use up your strength to excess in karate training, this will cause you to lose the energy in your lower abdomen and will be harmful to your body. Your face and eyes will turn red. Be careful to control your training.​
> 10. In the past, many masters of karate have enjoyed long lives.* Karate aids in developing the bones and muscles. It helps the digestion as well as the circulation*. If karate should be introduced, beginning in the elementary schools, then we will produce many men each capable of defeating ten assailants.​




These sound like his karate is geared towards warfare or military uses, and not personal self defense. He sounds like his martial arts is comparable to samurai arts, thinking and philosophy. ​


----------



## ralphmcpherson

d1jinx said:


> 11 pages to discuss the meaning behind:
> 
> down block Punch
> down block Punch
> down block Punch
> Inside middle block punch
> inside middle block punch
> down block Punch
> high block front snap kick punch
> high block front snap kick punch
> down block
> punch.
> 
> yup. hidden meaning there. or NOT.
> 
> Maybe its in the stances.
> 
> let see:
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> 
> Forward stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> Forward stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> walking stance
> walking stance
> 
> forward stance
> forward stance
> 
> nope still nothing.
> 
> how about the turns?
> 
> lets see:
> 
> L
> R
> F
> R
> L
> F
> L
> R
> B
> B
> 
> 
> Hmmm, still dont see it.
> 
> maybe if i take the 3rd letter of each word, arrange them in a pattern, then pick out what I "think" it may be I can come up with... nope still nothing.
> 
> 
> WHAT AM I MISSING???? besides the point?
> 
> 
> (I used the ENGLISH terms for those who are not familiar with the Korean terminology.)


the only reason this thread has gone for eleven pages is because certain people continually drag it off topic. You have posted cartoon pictures, and yet cant see the irony in your post. If people just stuck to the topic the thread would have gone two pages.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> The transition from Jhoon Rhee TKD to Goju wasn't hard to make, probably because I had paid very little attention to the small details up until that point.  I don't want to bag on my first instructor, but the level of training I received was night and day different.  I didn't just take class from my sensei - I received a martial education from him.



You need to find someone that can do the same for you in kukki taekwondo. Until then, it will be a constant struggle for you.


----------



## puunui

Kong Soo Do said:


> And you as well.



The difference is that I don't openly disrespect the founders of my chosen martial art the way that you do, by calling them inexperienced and lacking in knowledge that you claim to have.


----------



## d1jinx

ralphmcpherson said:


> You have posted cartoon pictures, and yet cant see the irony in your post. If people just stuck to the topic the thread would have gone two pages.



Actually every picture I posted said exactly what I thought even the cartoon.

My above post is sarcasm mate.

Perhaps it is others who can not see the irony that the kukki taekwondo practicioners are the ones who feel this is rediculous yet the non/anti kukki basher decides to discuss the first most basic form as if there was some real life application or better yet to point out his beliefs on how kukkitaekwondo is based off of nonexperienced low ranking karateca wannabees (paraphrased of course]

When every post / thread contains a poke at taekwondo pioneers why would any true kukki taekwondo-ist wants to support or educate them?

But on the other hand when we stop participating, the non-kukki person begins to speak about something they do not understand and portray a false sense of knowledge and those who do seek truth or help will believe the imposter.

Sure, its open discussion. All free to examine and critic or try to find an application for themselves.  But you can't speak on how something is the way it is, bash any founders, and try to use it as another justification of your belief.

Why not discuss a black belt form? One that does have meaning and applications within. Say jitae or chonkwan? Or does that exceeed the YMCA's curriculum and have techniques above the skill level of most?

Just my opinion of course. And I'm free to not participate of course, which I choose not to do much of anymore.
But I am positive if I went to the gungfu section and analized their techniques and commented on how weak their kicks are due to lack of chamber I would hav my *** handed to me and be cast out.

With so many variations of korean martial arts, studying 1 does not make you all knowing of each style. Yet people think because they studied their version of taekwondo, they are an expert of all taekwondo.

Well, I can tell you from experience they are not all the same. And have taken different paths only keeping the name.


So, feel free t continue discusions about it. But when the true practitioners of that style who have dedicated their lives to their version of the art speak, it shouldn't be so easily disguarded just because so and so said so in a book he wrote because he heard from so and so about so and so who knew so and so.


If you want to know the truth about kukki taekwondo poomse buy the books and dvds from kukkiwon and learn it there.  Don't. Rely on some form of suggestion from someones idea or interpretations.

Sent from my epic 4g


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Disregard


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Perhaps not, but I certainly haven't said that a majority of the people in the Ryukyu Islands practiced Te.  I'm sure it was an activity sought after by a small segment of the population...Unless you have different information?



We hear about how karate was accepted into the Okinawan school system back at the turn of the last century. I wonder if that is how it is today. I sense not, that judo and kendo are more popular. Perhaps you can ask on your trip next year. I don't know how open your teacher and seniors are to these types of inquiries. There are Book Off stores here (Japanese used bookstore) that I frequent. I went last week and met a clerk there who was born and raised in Okinawa but is here for college. Perhaps I will go back and ask him about how popular karate is there or if it is a specialized activity. He said there were many bookoffs in Okinawa, large ones, and it made me want to go check out the martial arts books there. I went to the huge one in Manhattan last year and walked out with an armload of martial arts books. Two bags.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

d1jinx said:


> Actually every picture I posted said exactly what I thought even the cartoon.
> 
> My above post is sarcasm mate.
> 
> Perhaps it is others who can not see the irony that the kukki taekwondo practicioners are the ones who feel this is rediculous yet the non/anti kukki basher decides to discuss the first most basic form as if there was some real life application or better yet to point out his beliefs on how kukkitaekwondo is based off of nonexperienced low ranking karateca wannabees (paraphrased of course]
> 
> iWhen every post / thread contains a poke at taekwondo pioneers why would any true kukki taekwondo-ist wants to support or educate them?
> 
> But on the other hand when we stop participating, the non-kukki person begins to speak about something they do not understand and portray a false sense of knowledge and those who do seek truth or help will believe the imposter.
> 
> Sure, its open discussion. All free to examine and critic or try to find an application for themselves.  But you can't speak on how something is the way it is, bash any founders, and try to use it as another justification of your belief.
> 
> Why not discuss a black belt form? One that does have meaning and applications within. Say jitae or chonkwan? Or does that exceeed the YMCA's curriculum and have techniques above the skill level of most?
> 
> Just my opinion of course. And I'm free to not participate of course, which I choose not to do much of anymore.
> But I am positive if I went to the gungfu section and analized their techniques and commented on how weak their kicks are due to lack of chamber I would hav my *** handed to me and be cast out.
> 
> With so many variations of korean martial arts, studying 1 does not make you all knowing of each style. Yet people think because they studied their version of taekwondo, they are an expert of all taekwondo.
> 
> Well, I can tell you from experience they are not all the same. And have taken different paths only keeping the name.
> 
> 
> So, feel free t continue discusions about it. But when the true practitioners of that style who have dedicated their lives to their version of the art speak, it shouldn't be so easily disguarded just because so and so said so in a book he wrote because he heard from so and so about so and so who knew so and so.
> 
> 
> If you want to know the truth about kukki taekwondo poomse buy the books and dvds from kukkiwon and learn it there.  Don't. Rely on some form of suggestion from someones idea or interpretations.
> 
> Sent from my epic 4g


this is the paranoia i spoke of in a previous post. I. Certainly dont see any kkw bashing going on. I have a few close friends who train kkw tkd and they are very good martial artists. I certainly dont bash kkw tkd, it has its faults as as all martial arts do, but to say people are kkw bashing is just straight out paranoia.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

ralphmcpherson said:


> this is the paranoia i spoke of in a previous post. I. Certainly dont see any kkw bashing going on. I have a few close friends who train kkw tkd and they are very good martial artists. I certainly dont bash kkw tkd, it has its faults as as all martial arts do, but to say people are kkw bashing is just straight out paranoia.



No, there is not KKW-bashing taking place.  Just some hurt feelings persisting on the parts of some.


----------



## miguksaram

puunui said:


> You need to find someone that can do the same for you in kukki taekwondo. Until then, it will be a constant struggle for you.


What I did to help me in this manner is to go step by step from Taeguk Il-jang up to my highest form and watch my stances.  If they were too wide, or shall we say, too karate, I would shorten them and then start over until I made it feel right for taekwondo.  The mistake I made at the Hanmadang was not practicing my traditional form like I should have.  One big help I did receive, afterwards, was talking with the Task Force Committee members who do this on a daily basis under their instructors such as GM Mayes or GM Ahn and have them correct me where I was off in the form.


----------



## miguksaram

I do have an actual poomsae question for puunni or any other person who is in the "know" about the change in Taeguk forms.  If you look at the videos on Pg 1 of this thread there is the old version and the new version of Il-jang.  When they tansition from the foward stance reverse punch to the walking stance middle block, they changed the way they transition the arms. In the older video both arms go back and then block.  In the newer video the person extends one arm forward while the other arm goes back and then blocks.  Do you know why the change?  Thank you.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

miguksaram said:


> I do have an actual poomsae question for puunni or any other person who is in the "know" about the change in Taeguk forms.  If you look at the videos on Pg 1 of this thread there is the old version and the new version of Il-jang.  When they tansition from the foward stance reverse punch to the walking stance middle block, they changed the way they transition the arms. In the older video both arms go back and then block.  In the newer video the person extends one arm forward while the other arm goes back and then blocks.  Do you know why the change?  Thank you.



Good question.  I'd be interested in the answer as well.


----------



## andyjeffries

miguksaram said:


> I do have an actual poomsae question for puunni or any other person who is in the "know" about the change in Taeguk forms.  If you look at the videos on Pg 1 of this thread there is the old version and the new version of Il-jang.  When they tansition from the foward stance reverse punch to the walking stance middle block, they changed the way they transition the arms. In the older video both arms go back and then block.  In the newer video the person extends one arm forward while the other arm goes back and then blocks.  Do you know why the change?  Thank you.



I don't know why it changed but it at least seems consistent (both sides the middle block is done with the non-blocking arm in front of the chest rather than extended out).  We've always done our inward blocks in this "new" style (so that's at least since 1986) so we haven't had to change this.  There are other movements that we have had to change (lots of them) but fortunately this isn't one of them.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Originally Posted by *d1jinx* 


_Actually every picture I posted said exactly what I thought even the cartoon.

My above post is sarcasm mate.

Perhaps it is others who can not see the irony that the kukki taekwondo practicioners are the ones who feel this is rediculous yet the non/anti kukki basher decides to discuss the first most basic form as if there was some real life application or better yet to point out his beliefs on how kukkitaekwondo is based off of nonexperienced low ranking karateca wannabees (paraphrased of course]

iWhen every post / thread contains a poke at taekwondo pioneers why would any true kukki taekwondo-ist wants to support or educate them?

But on the other hand when we stop participating, the non-kukki person begins to speak about something they do not understand and portray a false sense of knowledge and those who do seek truth or help will believe the imposter.

Sure, its open discussion. All free to examine and critic or try to find an application for themselves. But you can't speak on how something is the way it is, bash any founders, and try to use it as another justification of your belief.

Why not discuss a black belt form? One that does have meaning and applications within. Say jitae or chonkwan? Or does that exceeed the YMCA's curriculum and have techniques above the skill level of most?

Just my opinion of course. And I'm free to not participate of course, which I choose not to do much of anymore.
But I am positive if I went to the gungfu section and analized their techniques and commented on how weak their kicks are due to lack of chamber I would hav my *** handed to me and be cast out.

With so many variations of korean martial arts, studying 1 does not make you all knowing of each style. Yet people think because they studied their version of taekwondo, they are an expert of all taekwondo.

Well, I can tell you from experience they are not all the same. And have taken different paths only keeping the name.


So, feel free t continue discusions about it. But when the true practitioners of that style who have dedicated their lives to their version of the art speak, it shouldn't be so easily disguarded just because so and so said so in a book he wrote because he heard from so and so about so and so who knew so and so.


If you want to know the truth about kukki taekwondo poomse buy the books and dvds from kukkiwon and learn it there. Don't. Rely on some form of suggestion from someones idea or interpretations.

Sent from my epic 4g_


ralphmcpherson said:


> this is the paranoia i spoke of in a previous post. I. Certainly dont see any kkw bashing going on. I have a few close friends who train kkw tkd and they are very good martial artists. I certainly dont bash kkw tkd, it has its faults as as all martial arts do, but to say people are kkw bashing is just straight out paranoia.



I've seen some paranoia in this thread, but I don't think this is an example of it. The original post did seem to take a dig at the Kukkiwon pioneers (intentional or not). Maybe "bashing" is too strong a word, but I've noticed that people who are "bashing" the Kukkiwon never see any Kukkiwon bashing going on. I'm not accusing you of anything, just saying that the people who engage in "bashing" never seem to either realize or admit that they are/were bashing.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

ralphmcpherson said:


> this is the paranoia i spoke of in a previous post. I. Certainly dont see any kkw bashing going on.


The bashing in this thread has been primarily limited to one post, which was quoted and pointed out.  

The issues with picking apart iljang for hidden or expanded applications have been addressed separately.   



ralphmcpherson said:


> I have a few close friends who train kkw tkd and they are very good martial artists. *I certainly dont bash kkw tkd*,


No, you don't, in my opinion at least.



ralphmcpherson said:


> it has its faults as as all martial arts do, but to say people are kkw bashing is just straight out paranoia.


Calling it paranoia is going too far.  There certainly is a tension that is perpetuated by a number of factors, likely on both sides of the aisle. 

 As for faults, I think that it is less an issue of faults than that each martial art has its peculiarities and its specialties.  The key is to appreciate each art for what it is and to not go telling practitioners of those arts what there arts are and are not.  



djinx said:


> But I am positive if I went to the gungfu section and *analized their  techniques and commented on how weak their kicks are due to lack of  chamber* I would hav my *** handed to me and be cast out.


This is the sort of thing that goes on here frequently.  It is not paranoia.  It is there in black and white, and the posts in question are always quoted when they are made.  And Djinx is correct; it would not be and is not tolerated in other sections of MT, but it is seemingly approved of, or at least overlooked, by the powers that be for this section.


----------



## dancingalone

puunui said:


> These sound like his karate is geared towards warfare or military uses, and not personal self defense. He sounds like his martial arts is comparable to samurai arts, thinking and philosophy.
> [/INDENT]



Itosu might have had some household/courtly security role for the Ryukyu king, so that observation could be very accurate.


----------



## seasoned

Guy's, between everyone here, we have to bring this whole thread back into some assemblance of order. The fact it has gone so long, (198) posts, just means there is a lot to read and go through. We can't base any action taken on the part of the MT staff, relevant to just a few posts. It has to be the big picture. 
As a mentor, I can only suggest appropriate avenues to consider, and hope we are all big enough martial artists to do the right thing. This post is directed toward, not all, but a few that are fanning the flames, and not dropping issues of understandings, that could pertain, to just a particular art.
I have learned a lot myself while posting briefly, and that is, that all arts don't look at things the same way. What may seem logical to one system, may not fit into someone else's  understanding of fact within their art.
So, for the sake of all involved, lurking or other wise, please stop the digs and sniping toward each other.
Martial arts is much bigger then this, with life lessons to learn. What are we teaching to the casual reader of our interaction here at MT.

I will leave it with a PLEASE and THANK YOU.................


----------



## miguksaram

Seasoned,

Just noticed your Marcinko quote.  Very nice.  I have enjoyed his books and highly recommend them for those wishing to learn more leadership skills.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

seasoned said:


> Guy's, between everyone here, we have to bring this whole thread back into some assemblance of order. The fact it has gone so long, (198) posts, just means there is a lot to read and go through. We can't base any action taken on the part of the MT staff, relevant to just a few posts. It has to be the big picture.
> As a mentor, I can only suggest appropriate avenues to consider, and hope we are all big enough martial artists to do the right thing. This post is directed toward, not all, but a few that are fanning the flames, and not dropping issues of understandings, that could pertain, to just a particular art.
> I have learned a lot myself while posting briefly, and that is, that all arts don't look at things the same way. What may seem logical to one system, may not fit into someone else's  understanding of fact within their art.
> So, for the sake of all involved, lurking or other wise, please stop the digs and sniping toward each other.
> Martial arts is much bigger then this, with life lessons to learn. What are we teaching to the casual reader of our interaction here at MT.
> 
> I will leave it with a PLEASE and THANK YOU.................



Excellent observations and suggestions.  Here is what I'm going to do, I will start a new thread dedicated simply to the applications of any and all Korean forms.  My suggestion is the if ANYONE has a beef with anything stemming from this thread, or any other thread to take it to email or PM and leave that thread EXCLUSIVELY for the discussion of the topic.  No snide remarks, no sarcasm, no stupid off-topic pictures just discussion of forms applications ONLY.  Again, if anyone has a heartache with anyone else, take it to email or PM.  You shouldn't need an audience and the thread should remain free of drama.  I'll add one thing, if anyone does carry over grief then it means they need an audience and have an agenda.

I'll echo the please and thank you


----------



## Archtkd

Kong Soo Do said:


> Excellent observations and suggestions.  Here is what I'm going to do, I will start a new thread dedicated simply to the applications of any and all Korean forms.  My suggestion is the if ANYONE has a beef with anything stemming from this thread, or any other thread to take it to email or PM and leave that thread EXCLUSIVELY for the discussion of the topic.  No snide remarks, no sarcasm, no stupid off-topic pictures just discussion of forms applications ONLY.  Again, if anyone has a heartache with anyone else, take it to email or PM.  You shouldn't need an audience and the thread should remain free of drama.  I'll add one thing, if anyone does carry over grief then it means they need an audience and have an agenda.
> 
> I'll echo the please and thank you



I don't think there's need for PMS or e-mails to discuss MT topics if they are posted in the right forums. Your new thread ought to be in the General Korean martial arts section. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/52-Korean-Martial-Arts-General


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Archtkd said:


> I don't think there's need for PMS or e-mails to discuss MT topics if they are posted in the right forums. Your new thread ought to be in the General Korean martial arts section. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/52-Korean-Martial-Arts-General



Whinning, bitching, complaining, sniping, sarcastic remarks, stupid little pictures and hurt feelings aren't MT topics.  Someone having a beef with someone else isn't a MT topic.  Inserting them into a thread over and over is a juvenille need for attention and an audience.  So yes, if someone doesn't like someone else, take it to email or PM and hash it out off-board.  That way the topic stays clutter-free.  I can't imagine ANYONE feeling otherwise.

And if a mod thinks the General KMA section is a more appropriate place then I encourage them to move it there.  In fact, that is a good idea so other arts can join in as well.  Thank you for the suggestion.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Kong Soo Do said:


> And if a mod thinks the General KMA section is a more appropriate place then I encourage them to move it there.  In fact, that is a good idea so other arts can join in as well.  Thank you for the suggestion.


Normally, I might say that that general kma is more appropriate, and from a technical standpoint it is.  But you'll probably get more participation if it is posted in the TKD section.


----------



## puunui

Don't both of these constitute whining, bitching, complaining and sniping? 



Kong Soo Do said:


> Whinning, bitching, complaining, sniping, sarcastic remarks, stupid little pictures and hurt feelings aren't MT topics.  Someone having a beef with someone else isn't a MT topic.  Inserting them into a thread over and over is a juvenille need for attention and an audience.  So yes, if someone doesn't like someone else, take it to email or PM and hash it out off-board.  That way the topic stays clutter-free.  I can't imagine ANYONE feeling otherwise.
> 
> And if a mod thinks the General KMA section is a more appropriate place then I encourage them to move it there.  In fact, that is a good idea so other arts can join in as well.  Thank you for the suggestion.





Kong Soo Do said:


> Excellent observations and suggestions.  Here  is what I'm going to do, I will start a new thread dedicated simply to  the applications of any and all Korean forms.  My suggestion is the if  ANYONE has a beef with anything stemming from this thread, or any other  thread to take it to email or PM and leave that thread EXCLUSIVELY for  the discussion of the topic.  No snide remarks, no sarcasm, no stupid  off-topic pictures just discussion of forms applications ONLY.  Again,  if anyone has a heartache with anyone else, take it to email or PM.  You  shouldn't need an audience and the thread should remain free of drama.   I'll add one thing, if anyone does carry over grief then it means they  need an audience and have an agenda.
> 
> I'll echo the please and thank you



I disagree with your assessment and feel that this topic has been very informative.


----------



## puunui

dancingalone said:


> Chojun Miyagi Sensei was also part of the evolution to "Do".  He participated in creating a few kata along with Shosin Nagamine Sensei that were meant to be universal kata unifying the Shorin & Shorei branches of karate as a bridging  pathway to the other kata and I believe these hookiyu kata likewise were meant for usage in schools before the outbreak of war ended the project.
> 
> Miyagi wrote an essay that has been translated through the efforts of some Hawaiian historians (I believe puunui has said he knows them well).  In it he makes some interesting remarks about this transition in karate.  http://seinenkai.com/articles/sanzinsoo/outline.html



I wouldn't say that I know him "very well", but we know each other. How that came about was he had a copy of GM HWANG Kee's Tangsoodo Kyobon published in 1958. Dr. He Young Kimm was visiting during his 70th birthday celebration here with his family so I took him to see Goodin Sensei so we could look at the book. We examined it, Dr. Kimm made all kinds of comments explaining this and that, and so Goodin Sensei was kind enough to burn a copy of the book on a cd for us. 

But I was looking at the translation,  http://seinenkai.com/articles/sanzinsoo/outline.html and noticed at the very first line, it says:"What is karate? It is the art we exercise mind and body for health  promotion in daily life, but in case of emergency it is the art of  self-defence without any weapon."

So according to Miyagi Sensei, karate is "for health  promotion in daily life" primarily, and only "in case of emergency it is the art of  self-defence without any weapon." 

This by the way, parallels GM LEE Won Kuk's philosophy, summed up in his famous calligraphy "Hwal In Taekwondo", which means Taekwondo is a vehicle of health and long life. So perhaps GM Lee is not as inexperienced as some would like us to believe, that the "applications" of taegeuk 1 jang and all poomsae in taekwondo are there to promote health and long life primarily, and not all these secret hidden reverse engineered applications which were never in there in the first place. Or at least that is what I believe would be GM Lee's response to this thread and the applications of taegeuk 1 jang, which again is in line with Miyagi Sensei's beliefs on the matter, Itosu Sensei's militaristic comments not withstanding.


----------



## puunui

miguksaram said:


> I do have an actual poomsae question for puunni or any other person who is in the "know" about the change in Taeguk forms.  If you look at the videos on Pg 1 of this thread there is the old version and the new version of Il-jang.  When they tansition from the foward stance reverse punch to the walking stance middle block, they changed the way they transition the arms. In the older video both arms go back and then block.  In the newer video the person extends one arm forward while the other arm goes back and then blocks.  Do you know why the change?  Thank you.



I don't know. Never really asked about it. If I had to guess, I would say they wanted to standardize the poomsae even more, because I know that stick the non blocking arm straight out thing is in other poomsae now as well. I prefer the old way, because it makes for a smoother transition in my opinion.


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> I don't know anything other than the broad details most know about already. Itosu Sensei already was heading in that direction some say with the introduction of his Pinan kata, these forms intended to be easier to learn for kids still in school (picture 9th grade on, not primary school). If you read his famous letter however, the one in which the 10 Precepts are written, it's apparent that karate was no mere exercise vehicle for him, though as he states it is an important benefit.



Itosu is an interesting figure, from the little I know of him. I believe he was something of an accomplisherd calligrapher and came from an educated background (having studied Chinese Neo-Confucianism). This is, substantially, the same type of education Gen. Choi received, before going to Japan. I wonder if it is coincidence that many of their ideas on martial arts training are similar or the result of their studies.

I have not read his Ten Precepts before. My thoughts, such as they are, interspersed below.



> 1.* Karate is not merely practiced for your own benefit; it can be used to protect one's family or master.* It is not intended to be used against a single assailant but instead as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.​




Very interesting. While Gen. Choi mentions the health benefits of Taekwon-Do training he also talks about it being for self-defense, and even for protecting other people. 




> 2.* The purpose of karate is to make the muscles and bones hard as rock and to use the hands and legs as spears.* If children were to begin training naturally in military prowess while in elementary school, then they would be well suited for military service. Remember the words attributed to the Duke of Wellington after he defeated Napoleon, &#8220;Today's battle was won on the playing fields of our schools&#8221;.




This reminds me a lot of Gen. Choi's emphasis on _dallyon_, the forging of attacking and blocking tools. I've had some pretty interesting lessons from my own instructor as well as some other Masters on this topic. Probably not as much as some karateka, but interesting, nonetheless. I do daily _dallyon training, although not as much as, say, Morio Higaonna  I did have an older Asian gentleman ask me "Do you practice Okinawan karate" not too long ago after he saw my hands. We had an interesting discussion. He had practiced Shito Ryu for a while and seemed surprised that Taekwon-Do encompassed some of the same supplementary training methods. 

__



3. *Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues.* If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will see a change in physique. *Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate.*

Click to expand...



Nothing really to add here but just to say, isn't that the truth? Consistent practice leads to all sorts of insights eventually._​_




			4. In karate, training of the hands and feet are important, so you should train thoroughly with a sheaf of straw (#). In order to do this, drop your shoulders, open your lungs, muster your strength, grip the floor with your feet, and concentrate your energy into your lower abdomen. Practice using each arm one to two hundred times each day.
		
Click to expand...


I assume he is referring to the makiwara here when he says "sheaf of straw." It is interesting that, all things considered, he recommends a somewhat low amount of strikes. I have read accounts of early Shotokan/JKA training in Japan where guys would really go to town on the makiwara. I'd rather see the conditioning be built up over time to give the body time to adjust and not suffer serious injuries.

​



			5. When you practice the stances of karate, be sure to keep your back straight, lower your shoulders, put strength in your legs, stand firmly, and drop your energy into your lower abdomen.
		
Click to expand...


Similar to what Gen. Choi specifies for posture and some stances (especially sitting stance, IIRC).

​



			6. Practice each of the techniques of karate repeatedly. Learn the explanations of every technique well, and decide when and in what manner to apply them when needed. Enter, counter, withdraw is the rule for torite.
		
Click to expand...


This is very similar to one of Gen. Choi's Training Secrets. It is "To understand the purpose and method of each movement clearly." Another one states: "To choose the appropriate attacking tool for each vital spot," and another one says, "To become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." Both Gen. Choi and Itosu seem much concerned with proper application.




			7. *You must decide if karate is for your health or to aid your duty.*

Click to expand...


Interesting. I think that, in light of #1 above there isn't necessarily a conflict between one's health and "aid to your duty." It seems, rather, a difference in emphasis. YMMV, of course. ​



			8. *When you train, do so as if on the battlefield.* Your eyes should glare, shoulders drop, and body harden. You should always train with intensity and spirit as if actually facing the enemy, and in this way you will naturally be ready.
		
Click to expand...


Yep. If karate was only for one's health I don't know that Itosu would suggest training "as if on the battlefield," especially mentioning that you should do so "as if actually facing the enemy," which results in you being "naturally ready" (to defend oneself).

​



			9. If you use up your strength to excess in karate training, this will cause you to lose the energy in your lower abdomen and will be harmful to your body. Your face and eyes will turn red. Be careful to control your training.
		
Click to expand...


How do you see this as squaring with the practice of Hojo Undo? Some of the exercises are specifically designed to enhance physical strength, not just the hardening of attacking and blocking tools. ​



			10. In the past, many masters of karate have enjoyed long lives.* Karate aids in developing the bones and muscles. It helps the digestion as well as the circulation*. If karate should be introduced, beginning in the elementary schools, then we will produce many men each capable of defeating ten assailants.
		
Click to expand...


You know, I just checked a version of this letter online that had Itosu saying such practice would greatly help not only the people engaging in the training be able to defeat ten men (!), but the military as well. The rather understandable desire to de-emphasize militarism post WW II in Japan aside, that is another similarity between Itosu and Gen. Choi. He was very interested in having Korean soldiers benefit from Taekwon-Do training.

​



			Chojun Miyagi Sensei was also part of the evolution to "Do". He participated in creating a few kata along with Shosin Nagamine Sensei that were meant to be universal kata unifying the Shorin & Shorei branches of karate as a bridging pathway to the other kata and I believe these hookiyu kata likewise were meant for usage in schools before the outbreak of war ended the project.
		
Click to expand...


Very interesting. I wasn't aware that he developed kata like this. Are these kata part of the Goju curriculum? 




			Miyagi wrote an essay that has been translated through the efforts of some Hawaiian historians (I believe puunui has said he knows them well). In it he makes some interesting remarks about this transition in karate. http://seinenkai.com/articles/sanzinsoo/outline.html3. Karate circles in the past​We also do not know origin of the name "karate", but it is true that the name "karate" was made recently. In the old days it was called "Te". At that time people used to practice karate secretly, and a masters taught a few advanced Kata out of all the Kata only to his best disciple. If he had no suitable disciple, he never taught them anyone, and eventually such Kata have completely died out. As a result, there are many Kata which were not handed down. *In about middle of Meiji period (1868-1912), prominent karate masters abolished the old way of secrecy. Karate was opened to the public, so it was soon recognized by society. It was dawn in the development of karate. In accordance with the rapidly progressing culture, karate was also recognized as physical education, and it was adopted as one of the teaching subjects at school. Therefore, at last karate has won the social approval.*​

Click to expand...



It's interesting that Miyagi identifies the adoption of karate as a method of physical education as the time when it "won social approval." Before that, when it wasn't seen as such, not so much.​


			4. How we teach karate at present.
		
Click to expand...





​*According to oral history, in the old days, the teaching policy of karate put emphasis on self-defence techniques. With just a motto of "no first attack in karate", teachers showed their students the moral aspects. However, I heard that in reality they tended to neglect such moral principles.* So gradually the teaching policy was improved with the change of the times. Now we discontinued and abolished the wrong tradition of so-called "body first, and mind second", and we made our way toward Tao of fighting arts or the truth of karate. *Eventually we have obtained the correct motto "mind first, and body second" which means karate and Zen are the same.*​

Click to expand...



The link between not only karate but martial arts in general and Zen is an interesting one. I suppose given the development of certain attitudes and abilities it's not necessarily a surprise. Gen. Choi makes the point, however, when he discusses meditation in Taekwon-Do that such meditation is decidely unlike Zen meditation. That being said, one of his calligraphies reads "Self-confidence through intuitive awareness," which is a state of mind at times associated with Zen.​





			It's hard to say really without having trained in all of them under a senior native master. I'm sure you've noticed the karate brought back to the United States by westerners tends to be full of the personal development stuff. Whether that was emphasized by their Asian teachers or evolved over time in the US in response to business needs, I can't say with any surety. I do think some styles like Shotokan and Wado have been more influenced by Zen, notwithstanding the previous bit about Goju-ryu from Miyagi Sensei, and it's not uncommon to see teachers of these styles adopt and promulgate some aspects of Zen in their classes.
		
Click to expand...


With Taekwon-Do the idea of self-development is emphasized to a certain degree simply because Gen. Choi included the Tenets in his books, as well as Moral Culture and the Student Oath. But I have experienced only a very few times when these things received explication as part of class. Recitation of the tenets and student oath, yes. Long lectures on them? No. GM Choi, Jung Hwa will occasionally give a brief talk on Taekwon-Do philosophy during his seminars, but that's something a bit different, IMNSHO (not the least difference being that GM Choi is actually something of as philosopher - pen and sword, who knew?). It's a large group of Taekwon-Doin coming together for a special training. It's not the same thing as a regular class. In the context of the relationship between student and teacher more is caught than taught. And that is maybe not such a bad thing. Seeing one's seniors and how they interact with others, including their instructors, can be quite enlightening if you take the time to watch and learn. 




			Personally, although we had a dojo kun in own line of Goju-ryu and we recited it before most classes, it really wasn't analysed in any great way. In fact, I can count on 1 hand the number of times my sensei said anything about the dojo kun at all.
		
Click to expand...


This is very similar to my experience. I've had some pretty indepth discussions with people about Taekwon-Do philosophy and etiquette (and they were the kind of people who lived it 24/7) but that was all done outside of class. 




			I am planning a trip to Okinawa next year for a three week stay and I am setting up training opportunities judiciously with senior karate-ka. It will be interesting to see what they choose to show me. In my inquiries I'm asking for them to give me the regular training experiences someone on the islands would receive, rituals and all.
		
Click to expand...


Very cool. Are you planning on just training with other Goju Ryu people, or folks from other styles, too?




			Well, all I have is personal experience. My teacher did not accept new students casually. Only if he had room, only if he thought you would be diligent. In fact, he would turn away people I thought would have made great additions to our group based on their physical attributes and prior experience. I don't think he was looking for any moral qualities. With that said our training included nothing remotely like Zen Buddhism, nothing like seen in ATA TKD schools where students are encouraged to be positive, kind people.

As I said, Okinawan karate in the US is filled with this type of stuff. Is it purely a western construct, an American thing in reaction to our cultural needs to educate youth in civility and good character? I don't know. Anecdotally, I believe it is from what I have observed in my own training along with what I have seen in dojo run by people also with close ties to a living Okinawan. I hope to learn more about it when I travel next year.
		
Click to expand...


My own instructors will let anyone sign up, but eventually the people who aren't into it just stop coming. Nothing is said overtly, really (or very rarely). But then again, neither is there an overt kind of rah-rah attitude when it comes to being "positive." I've seen a little of that at some schools (not ITF schools) and was always a bit put off by it. That could be because of my personality, my own experience in Taekwon-Do training, or whatever but it kind of struck me as not fake, but ... immature, maybe. I don't know. Hard to explain. Hmmm.

Pax,

Chris_


----------



## Jaeimseu

8. *When you train, do so as if on the battlefield.* Your eyes should glare, shoulders drop, and body harden. You should always train with intensity and spirit as if actually facing the enemy, and in this way you will naturally be ready.

To me, this matches up very well with sports philosophy. It's very similar to the expression "practice like you play."
The battlefield comparison probably made more sense at that time, but I don't know how relevant the battlefield is today's students, the vast majority of which have never and will never set foot on a battlefield.


----------



## dancingalone

I enjoyed reading your comments about General Choi and Taekwon-Do.



chrispillertkd said:


> How do you see this as squaring with the practice of Hojo Undo? Some of the exercises are specifically designed to enhance physical strength, not just the hardening of attacking and blocking tools.​



I don't necessarily think he was referring to hojo undo.  I think he was referring more to esoteric stuff like iron shirt and some elements of qi training.



chrispillertkd said:


> _Very_ interesting. I wasn't aware that he developed kata like this. Are these kata part of the Goju curriculum?



Yes.  During the development process, Nagamine Sensei designed Fukyugata Dai Ichi and Miyagi Sensei designed Fukyugata Dai Ni.  Both forms are still used in their respective systems.  Fukyugata Dai Ni by Miyagi is better known now in Goju-ryu as Gekisai Dai Ichi.  He later added a Gekisai Dai Ni which is almost the same form but adds open handed techniques and a cat stance.  Both Fukyugata forms are frequently used as the first kata in some Shorin-ryu lines, Matsubayashi-ryu obviously being one of them.  



chrispillertkd said:


> Very cool. Are you planning on just training with other Goju Ryu people, or folks from other styles, too?



I plan to see Taira Sensei from Goju-ryu for sure.  I am close to him lineage-wise and he is an innovator, so I've got to see his stuff in person.  Still making inquiries about other opportunities.  I am not adverse to seeing other styles (Matsubayashi maybe which I also have a BB in), but I think I would get the most benefit obviously from seeing 1-3 super senior people in Goju and having multiple sessions with them.  I've always wanted to learn the Yagi-line kata which are outside of my lineage.  Maybe I can arrange to learn one during the trip.


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> I enjoyed reading your comments about General Choi and Taekwon-Do.



Thanks, I figured I'd try to actually relate what I asked about to Taekwon-Do  Seriously, though, I was rather surprised about the similarities between Gen. Choi and Itosu, both in regards to their backgrounds and their attitudes towards training. I don't have the 1965 book with me right now since I'm not at home at the moment but there are some things in it whcih I'll be interested in checking when I get the chance. 



> I plan to see Taira Sensei from Goju-ryu for sure. I am close to him lineage-wise and he is an innovator, so I've got to see his stuff in person. Still making inquiries about other opportunities. I am not adverse to seeing other styles (Matsubayashi maybe which I also have a BB in), but I think I would get the most benefit obviously from seeing 1-3 super senior people in Goju and having multiple sessions with them. I've always wanted to learn the Yagi-line kata which are outside of my lineage. Maybe I can arrange to learn one during the trip.



When you mention the Yagi-line of Goju, I presume you mean the one going back via Yagu Meitatsu? I read an article or two on him many years ago. From an outsider's perspective Okinawan karate seems more akin to how CMA are. There's lots of styles and within them there are lots of lineages. In Praying Mantis, for example, a friend of mine and I were recently discussing a very big difference in how some pretty basic techniques were performed between the Wong Hun Fun line and the Chiu Chi Man line. Even in the ITF(s), which is very, _very_ insistent on standardization you can see differences in the way certain things are performed. If you know where to look you can identify the IX dans people have spent a lot of time training under, too ) Not huge differences, but they're there if you know where to look.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## dancingalone

chrispillertkd said:


> When you mention the Yagi-line of Goju, I presume you mean the one going back via Yagu Meitatsu? I read an article or two on him many years ago.


 
That's the one.  There is an old Journal of Asian Martial Arts article about these kata.  Someone who trains in Meibuken Goju-ryu from Australia has stated I was incorrect factually however when I paraphrased what I read from the Journal.  The article says Yagi Sensei created the forms and apparently they are actually connected to older Chinese forms if this gentleman is right (I have no reason to assume he is not - he trains in the Meibuken organization).



chrispillertkd said:


> From an outsider's perspective Okinawan karate seems more akin to how CMA are. There's lots of styles and within them there are lots of lineages. In Praying Mantis, for example, a friend of mine and I were recently discussing a very big difference in how some pretty basic techniques were performed between the Wong Hun Fun line and the Chiu Chi Man line.



Indeed.  Goju at least retains a bunch of influences from gong fu, though naturally they have evolved and been corrupted simultaneously over the years.  There is extensive use of a hook hand in one of the higher dan kata, though it looks nothing like mantis's (I wouldn't expect it to, since Goju owes its parentage to crane). 



chrispillertkd said:


> Even in the ITF(s), which is very, _very_ insistent on standardization you can see differences in the way certain things are performed. If you know where to look you can identify the IX dans people have spent a lot of time training under, too ) Not huge differences, but they're there if you know where to look.



That doesn't surprise me despite your group's desire for standardization.  In Goju-ryu, much the same happens.  I can tell if someone has trained Jundokan, Meibuken, or Shoreikan.  There are certain signatures developed in long-standing practitioners.


----------



## miguksaram

puunui said:


> I don't know. Never really asked about it. If I had to guess, I would say they wanted to standardize the poomsae even more, because I know that stick the non blocking arm straight out thing is in other poomsae now as well. I prefer the old way, because it makes for a smoother transition in my opinion.



I would agree with that.  I felt better touque and power as well.  I can see a bit why they would have the arm out as well, if you look at the philosophy of push pull to equate proper power.  You would be pulling back that extended arm into the chamber producing "equal" power in the block itself.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> Puunui said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Never really asked about it. If I had to guess, I would say they wanted to standardize the poomsae even more, because I know that stick the non blocking arm straight out thing is in other poomsae now as well. I prefer the old way, because it makes for a smoother transition in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with that. I felt better touque and power as well. I can see a bit why they would have the arm out as well, if you look at the philosophy of push pull to equate proper power. You would be pulling back that extended arm into the chamber producing "equal" power in the block itself.
Click to expand...

I originally learned that form the old way, and while I found it more intuitive, I do practice it the current way.

The only practical reason that I can personally think of for it comes out of my kendo background, which is turning to a new direction and maintaining 'guard' by keeping the point up and directed at the opponent one is currently facing.  

In the current practice of iljang, in that sequence, as you turn to face the new opponent, you extend the right arm in the direction of the attacker who's incoming punch you are about to block with your left hand.  If there is a reason for this beyond aesthetics, however, I do not know.


----------



## puunui

miguksaram said:


> I would agree with that.  I felt better touque and power as well.  I can see a bit why they would have the arm out as well, if you look at the philosophy of push pull to equate proper power.  You would be pulling back that extended arm into the chamber producing "equal" power in the block itself.



The chamber with the bent arm is the same in my opinion from the straight arm, because the elbow of the pulling arm travels the same distance whether your arm is bent or straight.


----------



## puunui

chrispillertkd said:


> This reminds me a lot of Gen. Choi's emphasis on _dallyon_, the forging of attacking and blocking tools.



General Choi did very little, if any, training on the makiwara. There are pictures of General Choi's featuring his hands on desks, but his knuckles were not developed with a makiwara. Instead what he used to do was put out cigarettes on his knuckles to give the appearance of having done makiwara work. That is just one example of the many things wrong with your comparison of General Choi to Itosu Sensei.


----------



## shesulsa

Since the OP wants to analyze application and has claimed Korean Hyung are simply Okinawan kata renamed ... perhaps it would be helpful if we can view a Korean hyung and it's alleged Japanese original version side-by-side, I'd like to respectfully ask Kong Soo Do to please post a video of two examples:  One Korean Hyung and the Japanese cousin.

This would help folks like me whose heritage research is limited.

Thank you in advance!


----------



## miguksaram

shesulsa said:


> Since the OP wants to analyze application and has claimed Korean Hyung are simply Okinawan kata renamed ... perhaps it would be helpful if we can view a Korean hyung and it's alleged Japanese original version side-by-side, I'd like to respectfully ask Kong Soo Do to please post a video of two examples: One Korean Hyung and the Japanese cousin.
> 
> This would help folks like me whose heritage research is limited.
> 
> Thank you in advance!


The Taeguks are not rehashed Okinawa forms.  The Palgues would be better for that type of comparison or possibly the ITF tul.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

shesulsa said:


> Since the OP wants to analyze application and has claimed *Korean Hyung are simply Okinawan kata renamed *... perhaps it would be helpful if we can view a Korean hyung and it's alleged Japanese original version side-by-side, I'd like to respectfully ask Kong Soo Do to please post a video of two examples: One Korean Hyung and the Japanese cousin.
> 
> This would help folks like me whose heritage research is limited.
> 
> Thank you in advance!


That was addressed a few months ago when the OP made that claim before.  I did post video.  This has been addressed multiple times.

Also, Kukkiwon forms are pumsae, not hyeong/hyung.  It may seem like quibbling to a non KKW practitioner, but there is a difference, however subtle.  Hyeong &#54805; is the Korean rendering of the kanji: &#24418;, which is pronounced 'kata' in Japanese, and means pattern, like the pattern a tailor would use to make a garment.

Pumsae (&#54408;&#49352;) has the following hanja: &#21697;&#21218;, and means "quality forms of strength."  Pumsae does is not a Korean rendering of kata and is not a synonym for hyeong.  

I don't know what hanja is used for 'Tul' so I have no comment on that.


----------



## shesulsa

So in KKW, are Hyung (as I understand what you said, *patterns*) shorter in length than Hyung (quality forms of strength)?  And what is Tul?


----------



## andyjeffries

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Pumsae (&#54408;&#49352;) has the following hanja: &#21697;&#21218;, and means "quality forms of strength."  Pumsae does is not a Korean rendering of kata and is not a synonym for hyeong.



Sorry to say this Daniel but you're slightly incorrect; the old term poomse (&#54408;&#49464 had that hanja, the term was renamed in 1987 to be poomsae and this is a completely Korean work with no hanja equivalent.

Here's a link from "mastercole" which shows an except from a Kukkiwon magazine:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/grandmastercole/5837213335/in/pool-1667737@N25


----------



## miguksaram

shesulsa said:


> So in KKW, are Hyung (as I understand what you said, *patterns*) shorter in length than Hyung (quality forms of strength)? And what is Tul?


Tul means 'pattern' and is a distinctive Korean word which is used to describe something that is "ready made"  think cookie cutter.  You press a cookie cutter down and you get a 'tul'.  

For the most part the Taekguk use shorter stances than that of there predecessors, Palgue.  They were designed for a couple of purposes, one in particular is that each on introduces techniques that the student will be learning at their particular rank.  So if you look at Taeguk Il-jang you will see that it focuses in on basic blocks, punch and front snap kick as well as it starts the user off with their basic walking stance and forward stance.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

andyjeffries said:


> Sorry to say this Daniel but you're slightly incorrect; the old term poomse (&#54408;&#49464 had that hanja, the term was renamed in 1987 to be poomsae and this is a completely Korean work with no hanja equivalent.
> 
> Here's a link from "mastercole" which shows an except from a Kukkiwon magazine:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/grandmastercole/5837213335/in/pool-1667737@N25


While I am aware of this, my point is that Taegeuk pumsae are not Okinawan kata, renamed or otherwise.  And regardless of the timing of the hanja change (25 years ago, which is literally half of the existence of the art), they never were.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

shesulsa said:


> So in KKW, are Hyung (as I understand what you said, *patterns*) shorter in length than Hyung (quality forms of strength)?


Hyung = pattern
Poomsae = quality forms of strength

No bearing on the length of the form in question.



shesulsa said:


> And what is Tul?


Chang hon TKD terminology for forms.  No idea of its actual translation or hanja.


----------



## andyjeffries

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While I am aware of this, my point is that Taegeuk pumsae are not Okinawan kata, renamed or otherwise.  And regardless of the timing of the hanja change (25 years ago, which is literally half of the existence of the art), they never were.



I agree with this.


----------



## clfsean

shesulsa said:


> Since the OP wants to analyze application and has claimed Korean Hyung are simply Okinawan kata renamed ... perhaps it would be helpful if we can view a Korean hyung and it's alleged Japanese original version side-by-side, I'd like to respectfully ask Kong Soo Do to please post a video of two examples:  One Korean Hyung and the Japanese cousin.
> 
> This would help folks like me whose heritage research is limited.
> 
> Thank you in advance!



I know I'm not the one with the dog in this fight but-->

This is what I learned in TKD (notice her top too) ... 

Pyung ahn 1

[video=youtube_share;8oR8a_VoimU]http://youtu.be/8oR8a_VoimU[/video]

This is Shotokan

Heian 1


----------



## shesulsa

clfsean said:


> I know I'm not the one with the dog in this fight but-->
> 
> This is what I learned in TKD (notice her top too) ...
> 
> Pyung ahn 1
> 
> [video=youtube_share;8oR8a_VoimU]http://youtu.be/8oR8a_VoimU[/video]
> 
> This is Shotokan
> 
> Heian 1



ZOMG, they're the same!!!!


----------



## clfsean

In OMA's like Shorin or Shito-ryu, that's actually Pinan 2. Funakoshi switched #1 & #2. 

But anyway...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

clfsean said:


> I know I'm not the one with the dog in this fight but-->
> 
> This is what I learned in TKD (notice her top too) ...
> 
> Pyung ahn 1
> 
> [video=youtube_share;8oR8a_VoimU]http://youtu.be/8oR8a_VoimU[/video]
> 
> This is Shotokan
> 
> Heian 1


I'm trying to follow what this has to do with Taegeuk pumsae.  

Pyung ahn forms aren't even taekwondo, but tang soo do, and so far as I know, pyung ahn is the Korean pronunciation of Pinan, which is what the Heian kata were called prior to Funakoshi's relabeling, at least that is how I understand it.


----------



## clfsean

Well ... I studied TKD from 1981 until 1991/2 ish actively. I learned those forms. I didn't study TSD.

And pyung-ahn is Korean for Pinan, but #1 & #2 are switched like Shotokan Heians.

Just info... 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog

shesulsa said:


> Since the OP wants to analyze application and has claimed Korean Hyung are simply Okinawan kata renamed ... perhaps it would be helpful if we can view a Korean hyung and it's alleged Japanese original version side-by-side, I'd like to respectfully ask Kong Soo Do to please post a video of two examples:  One Korean Hyung and the Japanese cousin.
> 
> This would help folks like me whose heritage research is limited.
> 
> Thank you in advance!



I don't think such a claim could be supported. Certainly *some* KMA use Japanese/Okinawan Kata (I'm thinking of the turtle forms used by some Tang Soo Do/Soo Bak Do programs) but it's equally certain that not all of them are renamed imports.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think such a claim could be supported. Certainly *some* KMA use Japanese/Okinawan Kata (I'm thinking of the turtle forms used by some Tang Soo Do/Soo Bak Do programs) but it's equally certain that not all of them are renamed imports.



Correct sir, some Korean forms are renamed kata.  Some are of Korean creation.  The point I've made is that when a Korean form has the same 'A,B,C' movement sequence as an Okinawan kata it will have the same applicaiton.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Kong Soo Do said:


> Correct sir, some Korean forms are renamed kata.  Some are of Korean creation.  The point I've made is that when a Korean form has the same 'A,B,C' movement sequence as an Okinawan kata it will have the same applicaiton.


Perhaps it would be better to say that it _can_ have the same applications(s).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Jaeimseu said:


> Perhaps it would be better to say that it _can_ have the same applications(s).



I don't see an issue to say that it _will_ contain the same applications.  Whether an individual wishes to use the application(s) is up to them.


----------



## StuartA

puunui said:


> General Choi did very little, if any, training on the makiwara. There are pictures of General Choi's featuring his hands on desks, but his knuckles were not developed with a makiwara. Instead what he used to do was put out cigarettes on his knuckles to give the appearance of having done makiwara work. That is just one example of the many things wrong with your comparison of General Choi to Itosu Sensei.


Was just browsing this thread and came across this. I`m not sure about how much or little he trained on the Dollyo-jang (Makiwara) personally - though there is pictures of his students doing it as standard 'basic' training for everyone.. but I know from those close to him that he was mad (bordering on obsessive) on conditioning work. Apparently, even when travelling he use to wake up those he was with in the morning by pounding walls, posts, columns etc. You can also see him do it, aged 70/80 (I`m not sure) on one of the DVD's about him.

I recall someone who had met him in the mid eighties, saying his hands were like rocks!

I know its not really to do with the thread, but just posted as I don't feel what has been says is fair, or even correct TBH. In fact it seems deliberatly misleading.

Stuart


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Putzing around on YT and saw this as one instructors application.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

two defences against a wrist grab in palgwe 4, followed with an attack.


----------



## andyjeffries

Kong Soo Do said:


> Putzing around on YT and saw this as one instructors application.



This is exactly what I mean though.  This is imagining "if you bastardise this movement, and completely obliterate this one, it kinda looks like you can do this".  If you do Taegeuk Il Jang correctly (as the Kukkiwon defines it) then it looks nothing like that video.  There's no opening of fists in Taegeuk 1 and the movement from the second move to the third is just completely ballsed-up in the wrong direction.

If there is a direct application as the Kukkiwon DVDs show, then I'm all for teaching it, but to change the movements (including opening the hand, circling the wrist, etc) is just then making up your own movements instead of applying Taegeuk 1.

I would never say to another instructor "you can't do that", what they choose to do with their bodies and their students is up to them, but what they are doing is not a part of Kukki-Taekwondo and they should certainly never sell it as "let me show you the hidden applications of Taegeuk poomsae as they came from Karate kata".  I can see and agree with someone saying "look how I can apply the movements of Taegeuk 1 if I just change them a bit, there, isn't that fun?!", but these things aren't interpretations of the Taegeuk movements they are new sequences using some similar movements to Taegeuk 1.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

I agree Andy that the 'flow' has been changed i.e. no turn to the left per the form etc.  As I mentioned, I was just surfing through YT and came across this video.  However, if you take the principle(s) demonstrated from Il Jang i.e. a down block and a straight punch you can see those elements in the video as examples of applications from those specific movements.   It is important to note that once the principle of the application has been understood, it may be possible to use this principle in positions outside of what the form demonstrates movement-wise.  

All in all though, I personally prefer the movements to mirror the form exactly as the various movements, even small ones can have tremendous meaning.  But it was fun just to see some down _blocking_ applications.  I'm going to have to get out the camera anyway as I've been wanting to tape our KSD form, I might try to do some various block applications and perhaps touch on this portion of Il Jang as well.


----------



## andyjeffries

Don't get me wrong, I'd be interested to see some forms where the movements exactly as prescribed do other things (without needing to change them at all).  I don't believe these are present in Kukki-Taekwondo forms, maybe other arts/forms, but they would be interesting.


----------



## Gnarlie

Whether the hands are represented open or closed or grabbing or not in the pattern isn't that important in my mind, as when trying to apply any movement from a pattern, if you forbid the option of grabbing or pulling you're seriously going to limit the possibilities. 

I view the patterns as stylised representations of principles anyway.  Really, who low blocks against a kick with a full chamber?  It would be quite risky.  But the idea in the pattern does get across the concept of protecting the lower quarters of the body in a stylised way. 

That said, I have a couple of good applications for the opening of Il Jang where the fists can stay closed.

It works well against an opposing wrist grab to the left hand, leaving a nice turned over elbow and the kidneys as targets for the punch.   It also works well as a mid range technique to the side of the neck, bending rhe attacker forward and then punching to the temple or floating ribs.   It even lets you cause them to trip in the step through. 

Gnarlie


----------



## seasoned

IMO it is all subjective. 
We are limited by the way our art was presented to us, and what we expected to get from it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

andyjeffries said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'd be interested to see some forms where the movements exactly as prescribed do other things (without needing to change them at all).  I don't believe these are present in Kukki-Taekwondo forms, maybe other arts/forms, but they would be interesting.



I understand what you're saying Andy.  Let me put it another way by asking you a question;  if an Okinawan kata contains a movement sequence using a down block, and that movement sequence has an application other than just blocking something, would it not also have the same application if found in a Korean form?  

I'm suggesting that it will...or perhaps more appropriately that it _might_ but will add the caveat that it depends on the movements before and after that sequence as well.  Will KKW forms _flow_ as easily as Okinawan kata as far as applications?  I personally don't think it would in every case, in every movement sequence.  But by and large I think the KKW forms are sufficient to contain a wealth of information _if_ it was of interest to the one teaching/learning the forms _if_ the interest was geared towards SD.  Admittedly that may well be a small %.  But I think that's fine as well. 

We are in agreement that changes, for the most part, shouldn't be needed.  The only exception I'd add is when taking that principle and using it in a different situation.  For example, a movement sequence contains a lock and demonstrates that lock from a certain position.  Let's be more specific and say it demonstrates a shoulder lock.  Now the kata/form may not demonstrate a take down using that shoulder lock, but taking the principle that kata/form has demonstrated, we can then take it out of the kata/form and use it as a stand alone drill in which we can then further extrapolate further uses such as a take down, transporter, use from an angle not demonstrated specifically in the kata/form etc.  

Although I don't know the two guys in the video, this is how I would understand their thought process.  I personally wouldn't have called it applications from Il Jang but rather down blocking applications.  That may be splitting hairs, but perhaps it would avoid confusion for those looking for more of a specific movement flow to what their doing.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gnarlie said:


> Whether the hands are represented open or closed or grabbing or not in the pattern isn't that important in my mind, as when trying to apply any movement from a pattern, if you forbid the option of grabbing or pulling you're seriously going to limit the possibilities.
> 
> I view the patterns as stylised representations of principles anyway.  Really, who low blocks against a kick with a full chamber?  It would be quite risky.  But the idea in the pattern does get across the concept of protecting the lower quarters of the body in a stylised way.
> 
> That said, I have a couple of good applications for the opening of Il Jang where the fists can stay closed.
> 
> It works well against an opposing wrist grab to the left hand, leaving a nice turned over elbow and the kidneys as targets for the punch.   It also works well as a mid range technique to the side of the neck, bending rhe attacker forward and then punching to the temple or floating ribs.   It even lets you cause them to trip in the step through.
> 
> Gnarlie



Yes, the step through imo is a very important part of the sequence.  It can add some energy to the punch, if used solely for a punch (as you mentioned to the kidneys, side of neck etc) or a great trip/hip bump if used in combination.  

It would be great if a bunch of us could toss up a quick video explaining/demonstrating some of the things we've discussed.  As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and a quick video even more.  It beats trying to put dynamic steps into word format.


----------



## seasoned

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, the step through imo is a very important part of the sequence.  It can add some energy to the punch, if used solely for a punch (as you mentioned to the kidneys, side of neck etc) *or a great trip/hip bump* if used in combination.


The above is every so prevalent in some arts and explains why, in a close in fighting art, we will suddenly step deep into our invisible opponent. 

(Side note: This opponent in kata is only invisible to the observer, never the person doing the kata.

This needs to be at lease investigated, even if not excepted as valid, because some believe, that a kata, as with life, is ever changing while remaining static in (solo) practice............


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

clfsean said:


> Well ... I studied TKD from 1981 until 1991/2 ish actively. I learned those forms. I didn't study TSD.
> 
> And pyung-ahn is Korean for Pinan, but #1 & #2 are switched like Shotokan Heians.
> 
> Just info...
> 
> Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2


Not sure what federation/style of TKD you studied, but Kukkiwon taekwondo hasn't used pyung ahn hyung for at least the past four decades.  And *so far as I know*, pyung ahn forms are not reworked forms; they are pinan kata with Korean pronunciation.  In Shotokan, Funakoshi changed the names of the Pinan kata to Heian kata to make it more 'Japanese' so that he could get it into the educational system.  He also changed the kanji for 'karate' from one that meant China hand to the current 'empty hand' kanji.

While they may have been practiced in Kwan era taekwondo and may still be practiced in some taekwondo schools, they are not taekwondo forms; they were not created by any of the TKD founders, regardless of which federation.  These are karate kata.  

In any case, the assertion of reworked Shotokan forms was made about the Taegeuk pumsae, the first of which is discussed in this thread,  which is why I wondered what this had to do with the subject.


----------



## miguksaram

shesulsa said:


> ZOMG, they're the same!!!!


Yes, because they are MDKTSD forms, which is directly based from Okinawa forms.  These are not Taeguk forms.


----------



## miguksaram

clfsean said:


> Well ... I studied TKD from 1981 until 1991/2 ish actively. I learned those forms. I didn't study TSD.
> 
> And pyung-ahn is Korean for Pinan, but #1 & #2 are switched like Shotokan Heians.
> 
> Just info...


My guess is that your instructor was from Moo Duk Kwan-Taekwondo family or has some roots in Moo Duk Kwan.  Why he did not teach Palgue or Taeguk is anyone's guess.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

miguksaram said:


> My guess is that your instructor was from Moo Duk Kwan-Taekwondo family or has some roots in Moo Duk Kwan.  Why he did not teach Palgue or Taeguk is anyone's guess.


His teacher probably didn't feel like changing and taught him the same form set, and he saw no reason to change, so he taught the same form set.

Nothing inherently wrong with that; Pyung ahn hyung are cool forms.  But from an organizational standpoint, it does create some confusion when one moves beyond the dojang level.


----------



## miguksaram

Daniel Sullivan said:


> His teacher probably didn't feel like changing and taught him the same form set, and he saw no reason to change, so he taught the same form set.
> 
> Nothing inherently wrong with that; Pyung ahn hyung are cool forms. But from an organizational standpoint, it does create some confusion when one moves beyond the dojang level.



Agreed.  I learned them when I was in TSD.  I have forgotten them since, but then, when learning the Shototkan forms, I had flashbacks of them.   Generally speaking I love all the different forms from different sects of the Korean arts.  So while some people may think that I am anti-anything not KKW, that is far from the truth.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Daniel Sullivan said:


> His teacher probably didn't feel like changing and taught him the same form set, and he saw no reason to change, so he taught the same form set.
> 
> Nothing inherently wrong with that; Pyung ahn hyung are cool forms. But from an organizational standpoint, it does create some confusion when one moves beyond the dojang level.


This leads back to the question "What is Taekwondo?" If taekwondo is an umbrella term, then ok, but different people mean different things when they say taekwondo. 
It's like food in different countries. An American coming to Korea and ordering pizza might be in for a surprise when they get a pie with sweet potatoes, corn, mayo, and mustard. It's called pizza, but it's like no pizza they've ever seen before.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

Jaeimseu said:


> This leads back to the question "What is Taekwondo?" If taekwondo is an umbrella term, then ok, but different people mean different things when they say taekwondo.


While it is a fair question and could be interesting to discuss, I am not offering an answer to nor entertaining the topic.  It has been entertained before and always results in drama, sniping, and locked threads.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

> Originally Posted by *Daniel Sullivan*
> 
> 
> 
> His teacher probably didn't feel like changing  and taught him the same form set, and he saw no reason to change, so he  taught the same form set.
> 
> Nothing inherently wrong with that; Pyung ahn hyung are cool forms. But  from an organizational standpoint, it does create some confusion when  one moves beyond the dojang level.





Jaeimseu said:


> This leads back to the question "What is Taekwondo?" If taekwondo is an umbrella term, then ok, but different people mean different things when they say taekwondo.
> It's like food in different countries. An American coming to Korea and ordering pizza might be in for a surprise when they get a pie with sweet potatoes, corn, mayo, and mustard. It's called pizza, but it's like no pizza they've ever seen before.



This kind of makes TKD unique in the martial arts.  Why did one (or more) GM stick with a particular set of forms and another (or group) develop a new set?  What was their motivation?  What was their vision?  Perhaps much of it has too do with the varied background of the TKD pioneers themselves.  Although TKD can be generally said to come from Shotokan karate, this isn't true all the way around.  Some early pioneers had training that differed.  Yet this training was brought into the mix as well.  Look at the names used by the original arts i.e. Kwon Bup, Kong Soo Do, Tang Soo Do etc.  

This really puts TKD as a whole on a pretty cool level.  It can be sport.  It can be a hobby.  It can be SD.  It can stick predominately as a striking art.  It can have locks, throws etc.  Very interesting.


----------



## Jaeimseu

Daniel Sullivan said:


> While it is a fair question and could be interesting to discuss, I am not offering an answer to nor entertaining the topic. It has been entertained before and always results in drama, sniping, and locked threads.



I agree with you completely.


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> This kind of makes TKD unique in the martial arts.  Why did one (or more) GM stick with a particular set of forms and another (or group) develop a new set?  What was their motivation?  What was their vision?



I don't think there's that much in-depth reasoning behind it.  I think it just simply represents one's organizational membership or the affiliation/membership at the time the curriculum was codified.  

There are some schools in the US that call themselves Moo Duk Kwan TKD or Chung Do Kwan TKD without current ties to the KKW.  They use the karate forms.

There are some ATA offshoots from both before and after the ATA started using their own unique Songahm forms.  Almost all of them use a variation of the Chang Hon patterns since that is what the ATA used.

And then there's some non-affiliated schools that use the Palgwe or Taegeuk series.  Probably these people have relatively recent ties to the KKW but have broken off at some point.  Ralph Mcpherson's group comes to mind.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Perhaps much of it has too do with the varied background of the TKD pioneers themselves.  Although TKD can be generally said to come from Shotokan karate, this isn't true all the way around.  Some early pioneers had training that differed.  Yet this training was brought into the mix as well.  Look at the names used by the original arts i.e. Kwon Bup, Kong Soo Do, Tang Soo Do etc.



Yes.  I can think of two small groups that use the karate forms AND the Kwon Bup forms like Do Ju San, etc.  Interesting mixes.


----------



## dancingalone

Daniel Sullivan said:


> And *so far as I know*, pyung ahn forms are not reworked forms; they are pinan kata with Korean pronunciation.



They are not identical to the pinan kata as performed by the various Shorin-ryu groups.  Examples of changes include substitutions of side kicks for front kicks, differing knifehand chambers, etc.  Whether this fits anyone's definition of 'reworking' or not, I think unimportant, but certainly these adaptions do have rather dramatic implications in my opinion when analysing closely related applications to the movements.

Some of these changes were made within Shotokan karate and the Koreans picked up by way of Japan.  It should also be noted that there's no universal way of running the Pinan kata.  There is variation in them even across the different Shorin-ryu and Okinawan Kenpo groups.


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> I don't think there's that much in-depth reasoning behind it. I think it just simply represents one's organizational membership or the affiliation/membership at the time the curriculum was codified.



When I was training at a KKW school in college the instructor was a Korean who was very into WTF competition, was an international referee, etc. But besides the Taeguk poomse he also taught the Chang Hun tul. When one of the students asked why he taught the ITF patterns he said, "Better patterns," and left it at that. His affiliation with the KKW (and, at the time, USTU) didn't enter in to him teaching _additional_ patterns.  

Interestingly, the instructor was also from the Ji Do Kwan, which has had a bit of a history of rivalry with the Oh Do Kwan. But that didn't stop him from using Gen. Choi's patterns.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

chrispillertkd said:


> When I was training at a KKW school in college the instructor was a Korean who was very into WTF competition, was an international referee, etc. But besides the Taeguk poomse he also taught the Chang Hun tul. When one of the students asked why he taught the ITF patterns he said, "Better patterns," and left it at that. His affiliation with the KKW (and, at the time, USTU) didn't enter in to him teaching _additional_ patterns.
> 
> Interestingly, the instructor was also from the Ji Do Kwan, which has had a bit of a history of rivalry with the Oh Do Kwan. But that didn't stop him from using Gen. Choi's patterns.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


Personally, I like the Chang Hon tul that I have seen.  Not overly familiar with them, but whenever you or another ITF-er posts video of them, I like what I see.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

chrispillertkd said:


> When I was training at a KKW school in college the instructor was a Korean who was very into WTF competition, was an international referee, etc. But besides the Taeguk poomse he also taught the Chang Hun tul. When one of the students asked why he taught the ITF patterns he said, "Better patterns," and left it at that. His affiliation with the KKW (and, at the time, USTU) didn't enter in to him teaching _additional_ patterns.
> 
> Interestingly, the instructor was also from the Ji Do Kwan, which has had a bit of a history of rivalry with the Oh Do Kwan. But that didn't stop him from using Gen. Choi's patterns.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I like this, no ego or politics preventing the use of something he felt was better for his students.  Thumbs up.


----------



## dancingalone

chrispillertkd said:


> When I was training at a KKW school in college the instructor was a Korean who was very into WTF competition, was an international referee, etc. But besides the Taeguk poomse he also taught the Chang Hun tul. When one of the students asked why he taught the ITF patterns he said, "Better patterns," and left it at that. His affiliation with the KKW (and, at the time, USTU) didn't enter in to him teaching _additional_ patterns.
> 
> Interestingly, the instructor was also from the Ji Do Kwan, which has had a bit of a history of rivalry with the Oh Do Kwan. But that didn't stop him from using Gen. Choi's patterns.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Chris, have you ever heard of the Unified TKD group?  Some years ago I made the acquaintance of a guy that belongs to the organization.  Apparently they created some forms using stylistic choices from BOTH the KKW and ITF forms, supposedly as a bridge for the two groups to work together and perhaps eventually unify.

I thought the forms were meh, but the idea was interesting.


----------



## andyjeffries

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Personally, I like the Chang Hon tul that I have seen.  Not overly familiar with them, but whenever you or another ITF-er posts video of them, I like what I see.



The funny thing is I don't like them.  That may be because to me ITF Taekwon-do looks like Karate to my eyes.

What I would like to see is a decent Kukki-Taekwondoin poomsae practitioner perform the Chang Hon tul in a Kukkiwon style.  I'm not worried about whether the stance changes make them finish on the same spot or not, but seeing the movements done in Kukkiwon or WTF-style.


----------



## dancingalone

andyjeffries said:


> What I would like to see is a decent Kukki-Taekwondoin poomsae practitioner perform the Chang Hon tul in a Kukkiwon style.  I'm not worried about whether the stance changes make them finish on the same spot or not, but seeing the movements done in Kukkiwon or WTF-style.



What would that accomplish though?  Just an aesthetics deal?


----------



## andyjeffries

dancingalone said:


> What would that accomplish though?  Just an aesthetics deal?



Exactly that.  As a Kukki-Taekwondoin, I would like to see the movements with the same name performed in the Kukkiwon or WTF style and the stances/stepping done likewise.  Then I can consider what I think of the pattern without having thoughts like "OMG, why are you bouncing up and down" and "What on earth are your feet doing zig-zagging in and out" (and many others) screaming at the forefront of my mind.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

andyjeffries said:


> The funny thing is I don't like them.  That may be because to me ITF Taekwon-do looks like Karate to my eyes.


I don't really think about it that way.  I try to just look at them as Chang Hon tul.



andyjeffries said:


> What I would like to see is a decent Kukki-Taekwondoin poomsae practitioner perform the Chang Hon tul in a Kukkiwon style.  I'm not worried about whether the stance changes make them finish on the same spot or not, but seeing the movements done in Kukkiwon or WTF-style.


It would be interesting.  Not sure what it would accomplish, but it would be interesting.


----------



## chrispillertkd

dancingalone said:


> Chris, have you ever heard of the Unified TKD group? Some years ago I made the acquaintance of a guy that belongs to the organization. Apparently they created some forms using stylistic choices from BOTH the KKW and ITF forms, supposedly as a bridge for the two groups to work together and perhaps eventually unify.



If you are referring to the group that is based out of Canada (UTI, Unified Tae Kwon Do International) then I have heard of them. I wouldn't say I'm _familiar_ with them as I've only seen a bit of their stuff, but I know who they are. The notion that they were going to serve as a bridge for the ITF and WTF/KKW, which I have heard before, is ... intersting, to say the least.



> I thought the forms were meh, but the idea was interesting.



I've only seen a couple of their forms but I agree with your assessment. They are performed akin to an older ITF style, as opposed to anything from even perhaps the 1980's, and I wouldn't say they were very close to KKW guidelines either. YMMV if you've seen more than a few demonstrations of them.

I have seen _very few_ people actually perform both ITF and KKW Taekwon-Do in any meaningful way when they say they do both styles. Usually they do both pattern sets but in an identical way or end up bring a mish-mash of both styles. This is problematic in the sense that each has a different manner of generating power, moving the body, chambering for techniques, executing kicks, etc. It's not problematic in that people aren't free to do it, it's problematic _for me_ in that I don't know what they're trying to accomplish or, rather, I don't know if it's possible to any great extent. I tend to think of Taekwon-Do and Taekwondo as two different martial arts, though I know that's not necessarily popular to do these days. At the very least they are different styles of a common system. How does one perform sine wave while moving in KKW stances? Which chambers should you perform when executing blocks, especially knife-hand guarding blocks? What happens to the twist in a yop cha girigi when KKW folks do "side kicks"? Andy says he views ITF Taekwon-Do as being more karate like when he sees its patterns but to me KKW TKD forms appear more karate-ish in how they are performed. (Maybe we're both right in some sense?) 

I suppose the UTI's idea of taking elements from both would be like a karate group deciding it's going to combine elements of disparate systems. Mabuni pulled it off in Shito Ryu. But I don't know how successful the UTI has been, speaking as an outsider. I know I couldn't make any sort of meaningful rapproachment between the two styles. To do so would, I think, would require years of study and a very high level of proficiency in each. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## miguksaram

chrispillertkd said:


> His affiliation with the KKW (and, at the time, USTU) didn't enter in to him teaching _additional_ patterns.


Exactly.  It has been said before that KKW does not dictate what you can and cannot teach, it only dictates what is required from you to recevie their certification.  It is cool to know that your former instructor was able to instruct in KKW and ITF forms.


----------



## dancingalone

chrispillertkd said:


> I've only seen a couple of their forms but I agree with your assessment. They are performed akin to an older ITF style, as opposed to anything from even perhaps the 1980's, and I wouldn't say they were very close to KKW guidelines either. YMMV if you've seen more than a few demonstrations of them.



What I noticed is that they do run their forms, not unlike how I learned the Chang Hon forms myself.  But they had a more modern kicking method than I did with shorter chambers all around.  I've only see the one gentleman and his students in person, so I don't know if my observation is accurate to the entire group.



chrispillertkd said:


> I suppose the UTI's idea of taking elements from both would be like a karate group deciding it's going to combine elements of disparate systems. Mabuni pulled it off in Shito Ryu. But I don't know how successful the UTI has been, speaking as an outsider. I know I couldn't make any sort of meaningful rapproachment between the two styles. To do so would, I think, would require years of study and a very high level of proficiency in each.



The funny thing about that is as a Goju-ryu guy I'd say Shito-ryu strays closer to Itosu karate than to Higashionna karate.  Makes sense.  They usually learn the Pinan series earlier on and no doubt that influences everything else.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Gnarlie posted this video along with several others on the forms application thread.  Thank you Gnarlie for all the videos!  As I was looking at them, this video caught my attention for its application for Il Jang.  Starting at the :29 second mark and on, you'll recognize the movement sequence discussed in this thread.  He adds in a second punch with the left blocking arm that isn't in Il Jang but it doesn't have to be added if going strictly by the forms movements.  The movement after the punch is the continuation into the next sequence i.e. the 180 degree turn + down block.


----------



## dancingalone

Kong Soo Do said:


> Starting at the :29 second mark and on, you'll recognize the movement sequence discussed in this thread.



I have seen the down block used as a release vs. a wrist/lapel/arm/shoulder grab many times in TKD/TSD hosinsul.  Then it's immediately followed up with a strike or series of strikes before running away.  This could be interpreted as a form application as the gentleman in the video displays.  Or not.  

In any case with or without bunkai, practicing the form teaches the student how to use waist and shoulder turns to make his downward smash effective.


----------



## Gnarlie

dancingalone said:


> I have seen the down block used as a release vs. a wrist/lapel/arm/shoulder grab many times in TKD/TSD hosinsul.  Then it's immediately followed up with a strike or series of strikes before running away.  This could be interpreted as a form application as the gentleman in the video displays.  Or not.
> 
> In any case with or without bunkai, practicing the form teaches the student how to use waist and shoulder turns to make his downward smash effective.



True true true.  For some people, the relationship between poomsae movements and hosinsul is implicit.  Searching for and suggesting applications merely makes the link explicit.  Some people need this, as they are unable to make the link for themselves.  

There have been a number of occasions where students have been drilling hosinsul and I've said something like, "you know, just like that forearm block from Yuk Jang!", and suddenly a little light goes on, as they discover for themselves that poomsae has taught them something practical as well as philosophical. 

Gnarlie


----------

