# Keumgang Poomsae



## dvcochran (Nov 15, 2019)

Keumgang has always been an intriguing form to me. As the typical student works up to 1st Gup and then to 1st Dan they are at or near the peak of their physical abilities. Tae Kwon Do, regardless of style, typically is thought to use a lot of kicks. A persons journey to 1st Dan will literally require performing thousands of kicks to become proficient. Simply put, kicking is as strong an emphasis in TKD as punching is in boxing. Being a very out fighting style, kicking skills are a main focus.
Of course there are many more techniques and skills a person will learn. Strikes, stances, and footwork are just a few. It takes the average student about 2 1/2 to 3 years to get to 1st Dan.
Most people "peak" at 1st Dan. Some have made getting a black belt the goal. Some people respond to the incremental progression of moving through the color belts and the excitement of reaching black belt. It is the pinnacle; the where point many people truly start their MA life as a journeyman. Experienced, but knowing there is much more to learn. This is highlighted in the progressive nature of most form sets. 
TKD as a whole uses several different form sets.  ITF,  WT/Kukkiwon, MDK, and the many other offshoots use various tools to train. The two most common 1st Dan black belt forms are Batsai, and Koryo. Koryo in particular highlights classic side kicks, front kicks and crescent kicks. So again, kicking is an emphasis. 
Then out of the blue come Keumgang. 
No kicks, primarily only one stance, and no new techniques. What the heck??? Boring? Yes, to many. It seems so out of place in the progressive nature of forms. On the surface, it is more akin to a Kicho or basic form. So what is the thinking of the TKD Masters who created it and placed it as the 2nd Dan form? What is the intent of this seemingly easy form at the 2nd Dan stage? 
There is quite a lot of historical perspective regarding the forms name and the pattern is associated with Chinese term for mountain. 
So, not in historical terms (which we can get into if anyone wishes) what do you feel it the logic behind Keumgang?


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 16, 2019)

I haven't seen @skribs post in a while. It would be great to hear form him/her.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 16, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Keumgang has always been an intriguing form to me. As the typical student works up to 1st Gup and then to 1st Dan they are at or near the peak of their physical abilities. Tae Kwon Do, regardless of style, typically is thought to use a lot of kicks. A persons journey to 1st Dan will literally require performing thousands of kicks to become proficient. Simply put, kicking is as strong an emphasis in TKD as punching is in boxing. Being a very out fighting style, kicking skills are a main focus.



Not AS much as punching is in boxing, or it would be the only striking taught.



> Of course there are many more techniques and skills a person will learn. Strikes, stances, and footwork are just a few. It takes the average student about 2 1/2 to 3 years to get to 1st Dan.



More like 8, in our system.



> Then out of the blue come Keumgang.
> No kicks, primarily only one stance, and no new techniques. What the heck??? Boring? Yes, to many. It seems so out of place in the progressive nature of forms. On the surface, it is more akin to a Kicho or basic form. So what is the thinking of the TKD Masters who created it and placed it as the 2nd Dan form? What is the intent of this seemingly easy form at the 2nd Dan stage?
> There is quite a lot of historical perspective regarding the forms name and the pattern is associated with Chinese term for mountain.



Keumgang is also the least "offensive" form, with only three palmheel strikes at the beginning. The rest of the movements are all taught as blocks (though they certainly have offensive uses as well). 
But I must disagree with other things you say.
Keumgang uses front, back, horse, and crane stances.
The double mountain block is new. As is the diamond low block. A single mountain block and diamond middle block are taught earlier, and I'll agree that the student should be able to extrapolate the double and low versions from that. But they are not explicitly taught.
Keumgang does mean mountain, and it evokes Mt Keumgang, which plays an important role in Korean mythology. But it also means diamond, unmoveable, unbreakable.
A proper horse stance is extremely solid and immobile, while a crane stance is far more unstable. 
At this point, the student needs to learn to become the mountain, as it were. Spending a large portion of the form in crane stance is a balance drill. 
As for why it's in the order it's in, I think that is, in part, arbitrary. But there is a LOT more to Keumgang than meets the eye. It is deceptively simple. Virtually every student I've ever taught it to has said it's a lot harder than it looks.


----------



## paitingman (Nov 18, 2019)

I'm pretty certain there is a relationship between Sip Soo/Jitte kata and Keumgang. 

As to the logic of the placement of the form, I have no idea. 
I've always loved Keumgang, but many students find it boring and can't wait to get to the next lol.

I agree with DD that balance and solid stance are obvious key points in this form.


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 18, 2019)

paitingman said:


> I'm pretty certain there is a relationship between Sip Soo/Jitte kata and Keumgang.
> 
> As to the logic of the placement of the form, I have no idea.
> I've always loved Keumgang, but many students find it boring and can't wait to get to the next lol.
> ...


Interesting. Is Jitte (Jitae in Kukkiwon) also a TSD form? Is Keumgang also done in TSD? We practice Sip Soo but do it with slight differences. I do see the connection with Sip Soo and Keumgang being predominately hand/stance movements.


----------



## paitingman (Nov 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Interesting. Is Jitte (Jitae in Kukkiwon) also a TSD form? Is Keumgang also done in TSD? We practice Sip Soo but do it with slight differences. I do see the connection with Sip Soo and Keumgang being predominately hand/stance movements.


I was referring to Jitte in Shotokan, which definitely is connected to Sip Soo in TSD.

I just like finding connections between he arts

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## paitingman (Nov 21, 2019)

@dvcochran 
I'm curious what applications and drills you may have been taught or worked out from Keumgang.

Any insights on the pivot steps and turning punches? If you even see them as punches

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 21, 2019)

paitingman said:


> @dvcochran
> I'm curious what applications and drills you may have been taught or worked out from Keumgang.
> 
> Any insights on the pivot steps and turning punches? If you even see them as punches
> ...


Good questions. I think it makes sense to think of each move individually. That way it can be broken down into basic punches and palm heel strikes, low, middle and high blocks. Which is how the form flows with few exceptions; the mountain block/low block combo for example. 
I can see the punch but it is a stretch in application; it's advanced application at the very least. You have to back up a move to see the whole picture, especially on the 2nd punch on the right side of the long line. After the mountain block and punch, you rotate Around the person you just punched and into another person. 
Did that answer your questions?


----------



## paitingman (Nov 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Good questions. I think it makes sense to think of each move individually. That way it can be broken down into basic punches and palm heel strikes, low, middle and high blocks. Which is how the form flows with few exceptions; the mountain block/low block combo for example.
> I can see the punch but it is a stretch in application; it's advanced application at the very least. You have to back up a move to see the whole picture, especially on the 2nd punch on the right side of the long line. After the mountain block and punch, you rotate Around the person you just punched and into another person.
> Did that answer your questions?


Yes. Similar to what I've experienced. 
I was also taught perhaps spinning around and individual after punch. Or even stepping behind and spinning them.

I have drilled keumgang makki to stepping down side punch as sleeve controlling sweep defense into a side punch or sweep of your own. Difficult for me to clearly type out. 
Sort of raising that leg to avoid a sweep and using the arm position as grabbing the opponents arms for balance and control. 
You can step down into a punch. Or if you have good footwork and jacket wrestling skill, a sweep of your own rather than it being a punch.

Either way a very fun and challenging way to drill Keumgang! I wish more students could try and enjoy learning from Keumgang. So many techniques to explore and movements that are not seen in other forms under kukkiwon 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Nov 22, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Yes. Similar to what I've experienced.
> I was also taught perhaps spinning around and individual after punch. Or even stepping behind and spinning them.
> 
> I have drilled keumgang makki to stepping down side punch as sleeve controlling sweep defense into a side punch or sweep of your own. Difficult for me to clearly type out.
> ...


It is a very underappreciated form. As you said, the opportunities are almost endless. I have always felt that is part of the reason it is a lower BB form. As a persons "ages" and expands their horizon and understand a wider variety of options, they see much more in Keumgang than what is typically seen on the surface. 

I hope more people jump in with their views.

I plan to continue the discussion with the other Yudanja poomsae.


----------



## skribs (Dec 17, 2019)

I've brought up a lot of this before.  I don't think the Taekwondo forms do a lick of good for teaching Taekwondo kicks the way they're to be used in Taekwondo.  I also think the Taekwondo forms are like Rorschach ink blots - you can derive from them what you want.  As I'm sure you're well aware, @dvcochran , I've spent the better part of 5 years trying to analyze the TKD poomsae and figure out what the various moves are supposed to mean.  And this is the conclusion I've come to.

*As to the kicks*, I believe that in the 8 Taegeuks and the 4 Yudanja forms I've learned, there are a total of 2 roundhouse kicks, 2 back kicks, 0 axe kicks or crescent kicks, 0 tornado kicks, and 0 hook kicks.  There is 0 use of the WT-style sparring stance, and 0 use of footwork you would see in a competition environment.  Even if you add in the extra forms we do at my school (our 5 Kibon forms, my school's unique version of the 8 Palgwe forms, and variants of 3 of the Yudanja forms), we have a total of 4 roundhouse kicks, 5 back kicks, 0 axe kicks, 4 crescent kicks, 1 tornado kick, and 1 spinning hook kick.  Our footwork is further from the WT-sparring style in these forms than the Taegeuks and Yudanja.  The disconnect between the forms and the sparring style has been one of my criticisms of both.

*As to the forms being like a Rorschach test*, I've scoured the forms looking for meaning.  To summarize what I've found, the techniques in the Karate forms were diluted to teach to children, diluted again for the Japanese to teach to the Koreans, and then chopped up and re-ordered into the TKD forms.  They are designed based on aesthetics, and the primary method of training the forms in KKW TKD is to copy what your Master teaches you.  As far as all of my research has gotten me, I have not been able to find official applications of the forms from KKW.  If there is an official application, it is not publicly available.

What I have found is a lot of interpretations.  "This move could be X, Y or Z" is a common thing I hear.  But this isn't official.  This is an interpretation.  If that's what they get out of it, that's fine for them.  I don't mean that in a passive-aggressive way.  I mean that genuinely.  And I mean both parts.  It's great that they're getting something out of it.  But that also is *for them.*  It doesn't mean that's what everyone gets out of it.

The final piece that led me down this road is the book "The Taegeuk Cipher", of which someone had done similar research to me (trying to find the application of the TKD poomsae) and his search led him to some Master in the Philippines (not even Korea), and how he was taught applications that were "lost".  It read to me like these applications were created by the Master in the Philippines, and were marketed as being ancient wisdom lost to time.  It was specifically stated that these weren't official.

The forms are designed for athletic and aesthetic purposes.  I can't find an *official* application of the poomsae as it relates to either WT sparring or self-defense.  Any which I do find (i.e. "blocking attacks from two different attackers) would be much better if you're training footwork to simply avoid one person, instead of trying to fight like a movie star.

*Now on to Keumgang itself.*  This form is deceptively simple.  There's a lot more balance involved in this form compared to the previous forms, especially with how long you're supposed to hold the crane stance.  I had a lot of trouble when learning this form, especially wearing the TKD shoes (which have a narrower sole and are harder to balance on).  The double block (with both arms in L-shape) takes quite a bit of practice to make look sharp and polished as well.  It's a form that you can really tell the difference between someone who just learned it a few months ago, and someone who's been training the form for years.

I think these are the primary applications of Keumgang - balance and dedication.  It's not as flashy as Koryo, but it has a lot more going on under the surface.

Taebaek Hyung (the 3rd Dan form) is the same way.  It looks fairly simple.  A lot of the stuff is similar to what we have in Palgwe #4 and #5, our blue belt forms.  But doing that form properly, with the correct amount of speed and power in my techniques and combinations, left me winded.  That one form tired me out more than any of the other forms I'd learned yet.  It looks easy, but there's just something about the way it works you that isn't.


----------



## pdg (Dec 17, 2019)

skribs said:


> As far as all of my research has gotten me, I have not been able to find official applications of the forms from KKW. If there is an official application, it is not publicly available



I have asked this sort of thing before when you've made this statement, but I'll try another way...

When taught your forms, are you not told what each move is? 

As in - are you told something like "turn left into walking stance and perform a low block" or is it more along the lines of "watch me and do what I do"?

If the former, is there no literature or teaching (through set sparring or the like) on what a low block is for?

To my mind, that would constitute your official application - whether it meets your specification or not is a different matter.

As for relationship with wt sparring, that would be difficult. From _my_ research that form of sparring is a very specific set of rules that are apparently only very loosely based on a small subset of the fundamentals of the art.


----------



## skribs (Dec 17, 2019)

pdg said:


> As in - are you told something like "turn left into walking stance and perform a low block" or is it more along the lines of "watch me and do what I do"?



The former.  And the literature is absolutely sparse on using the advanced techniques in the forms.

It's kind of like a tree.  At the basic level, the trunk, everything fits together.  For example, a yellow belt will drill punches and kicks with the same stance and style that are used in the forms, and a lot of the techniques translate over into our self defense as well.

At the basic level, the front stance and back stance are featured heavily in our forms, drills, and one-steps.  We'll practice our blocks moving forward and backward in front stance.  We'll do our forms, which are mostly punches, blocks, and front kicks, all with front stance.  Our one-steps are a simple block-and-counter, such as a knife-hand block and then a palm strike in back stance.  Most sparring at the basic level is non-contact, and a lot of time follows similar to our drills.  At this level, everything meshes pretty well with each other, and it fits what you're talking about.

At the advanced level, everything starts to branch off away from each other.

The forms start to use more complicated techniques, of questionable applicability.  The basic name of the technique is used (i.e. "double low block), but the application is never drilled.  I've seen most of these techniques described (for example "blocking two kicks from different attackers), but not *officially *demonstrated.  I've seen a lot of interpretations, but it's very clear that these are personal opinions of the demonstrator, and not the official application from KKW.
Our self-defense drills start to deviate from what is done in the forms.  At the advanced level, we really start to incorporate grabs, traps, joint locks, and take-downs.  Most of our one-steps end with us kneeling over our opponent and punching them, or standing over them and breaking their arm.  We don't use the complicated double-blocking techniques of the poomsae, and the techniques we do use are found nowhere in the forms.
Sparring starts to deviate towards WT-style sparring, which has nothing to do with the forms.
If I were to take all three sets of disciplines, and open up three different classes, a "Martial Arts class" which just teaches the forms, a "Self Defense class" which just teaches our one-steps, and a "Competition Sparring class" which focuses on WT sparring, you would assume these were 3 completely different martial arts.  



> As for relationship with wt sparring, that would be difficult. From _my_ research that form of sparring is a very specific set of rules that are apparently only very loosely based on a small subset of the fundamentals of the art.



Depends on who you talk to. Some people think WT sparring is the art, the forms are just patterns you do to get a belt, and anything else is fluff that takes away from kicking training.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 17, 2019)

@skribs nice to see you posting.

I may have missed it somewhere but what do you personally do with the movements you cannot find an official application for? How do you end up training them? 

I've never liked the mostly blocking interpretation for a lot of movements, such as blocking two kicks at once or whatever. I learned a lot of movements more grappling interpretation, but my first teacher had background in many combat sports like Judo and Ssireum during school years. 




Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 17, 2019)

paitingman said:


> @skribs nice to see you posting.
> 
> I may have missed it somewhere but what do you personally do with the movements you cannot find an official application for? How do you end up training them?
> 
> ...



Train the form, reap the physical and mental benefits of the exercise and memorization, and stop wasting time trying to find the application.


----------



## skribs (Dec 17, 2019)

I did just see an interesting take on the crane stance block as a setup for a rear-naked choke.  The down block is holding an arm (following a block and grab), the high block is reaching around the neck and pushing up on the chin, and the knee is into the back of their knee to collapse their structure for the choke to set.  

Makes a hell of a lot better explanation than "blocking a kick from one attacker and a punch from another attacker", which is (paraphrased) the description I've seen.  And it does fit the movements of the technique pretty well.

I kind of wonder how much better these forms would be if we could actually see the technique instead of it being purely about the performance.  If learning the techniques was about more than just learning a name to give you enough context to demonstrate the technique, instead of enough context to learn the technique.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 18, 2019)

skribs said:


> Train the form, reap the physical and mental benefits of the exercise and memorization, and stop wasting time trying to find the application.


I have said this often; if you take Any form and break it down into individual movements, you will find tons of application. A low/high/middle block is a low/high/middle block, no matter what "tweak" may be put on it. 
I do not feel a need to have a Single interpretation of every movement in every form. This mentality is often seen in a beginner who is grasping just to understand even a single movement. But for anyone seasoned, it is with a sense awareness that we see more in every movement/skill. One of the most fun parts of the journey.

As far as Geumgang; I do agree there is a good bit of representation in some moves, such as the Mountain blocks; however, I do think they are functional. Needing to two at the same time? Yes, a stretch, but one makes the other stronger within the motion of the block. Crane stance, mostly a balance and leg check movement to me. I often think more about what a movement/skill can NOT do.  
I often say you will know from the first time a person does Geumgang  whether they are practiced in their stances. To me, this is a big, big part of the form. Someone moving through the belts too fast can be really humbled by this form. It is 'easy' as far as having no kicks, but there is sooo much more to the form than what is seen on the surface.


----------



## skribs (Dec 18, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I have said this often; if you take Any form and break it down into individual movements, you will find tons of application. A low/high/middle block is a low/high/middle block, no matter what "tweak" may be put on it.
> I do not feel a need to have a Single interpretation of every movement in every form. This mentality is often seen in a beginner who is grasping just to understand even a single movement. But for anyone seasoned, it is with a sense awareness that we see more in every movement/skill. One of the most fun parts of the journey.
> 
> As far as Geumgang; I do agree there is a good bit of representation in some moves, such as the Mountain blocks; however, I do think they are functional. Needing to two at the same time? Yes, a stretch, but one makes the other stronger within the motion of the block. Crane stance, mostly a balance and leg check movement to me. I often think more about what a movement/skill can NOT do.
> I often say you will know from the first time a person does Geumgang  whether they are practiced in their stances. To me, this is a big, big part of the form. Someone moving through the belts too fast can be really humbled by this form. It is 'easy' as far as having no kicks, but there is sooo much more to the form than what is seen on the surface.



There is a difference between having a primary application and having a single application.  When I'm judging a technique in a form, I'm judging it based on that primary application - what is the exact movement we're doing, and what is it we are being told we are doing?  The reason I judge them this way is because if the motion fits something else better, then we should call it that.  And if the motion could be done better, we should do that.

Using the motion in Keumgang of that double mountain block as an example, there are a few situations I could see doing something similar:

A double inside block to an arm, followed by grabbing their arm with one hand and striking their neck with the other.  However, that follow-up isn't in the form, and the hands are way too far apart for that application.
A Figure-4 throw.  My right arm would be in the same position, and I'd be digging my elbow into their shoulder.  But my left hand would be wrapped around my right arm, and the footwork is all wrong.  So basically 1 out of 4 limbs fits.
A roundhouse kick followed by a hook punch.  Okay, I'm really stretching here (but this is the kind of thing I see).  Instead of a stomp and a double block, I could be doing a kick and a punch.  Except now I've got 2 limbs that are doing some motion that vaguely is in the same direction as the form, and my left arm is just kinda there.
If I wanted to make a form to teach any of those applications, I would include techniques that actually resemble those applications.  If the goal is to teach people, I'd want to give them something they could learn.  In fact, the only reason I know those applications is because I've learned those techniques (and not from the forms).

So I go back to: train the form, reap the physical and mental benefits, and stop wasting my time trying to find the application.

I'll learn the applications when I learn the applications.  I'll just use the forms to get my muscles used to moving somewhat in that direction.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> There is a difference between having a primary application and having a single application.  When I'm judging a technique in a form, I'm judging it based on that primary application - what is the exact movement we're doing, and what is it we are being told we are doing?  The reason I judge them this way is because if the motion fits something else better, then we should call it that.  And if the motion could be done better, we should do that.
> 
> Using the motion in Keumgang of that double mountain block as an example, there are a few situations I could see doing something similar:
> 
> ...



The three listed possibilities are done off/after the specific movement in the form, so that too could be near endless. 
I am saying there are variants within the specific move. An example, the Mountain block could be two inside blocks, two outside blocks, one in one out, two high blocks, a forearm strike, and more. It is one of the representative movements I was talking about, supporting the forms name and history. Is there application in that? I am not certain but it does have value. 

To your last statements; yes, forms practice done effectively is a great aerobic exercise. So is strenuous dancing but it noting in regards to learning self defense. My point being that if a person takes the mindset that a form is just a bunch of moves put together in a Pattern, that is all it will ever be. Naturally, there is added value in strength, balance, and coordination from poomsae practice which improves individual movements/skills and muscle memory. Great benefits. But the sound of your mindset is worrisome. There IS more, much more.


----------



## pdg (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> if a person takes the mindset that a form is just a bunch of moves put together in a Pattern, that is all it will ever be



It's much more of an issue imo if an instructor takes that mindset.

Disinterest shows, and if you're trying to show someone else something that you have absolutely no interest in, or understanding of, then what are the chances they're going to get anything else out of it either?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> It's much more of an issue imo if an instructor takes that mindset.
> 
> Disinterest shows, and if you're trying to show someone else something that you have absolutely no interest in, or understanding of, then what are the chances they're going to get anything else out of it either?


Agree. If a budding instructor does not fully understand a form (who really does?) how they deliver the information to a learning student is paramount. I suspect it they show disinterest in a form, they likely do it in other things as well. The devil Is in the details but that is where some of the greatest fun begins. IMHO


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

pdg said:


> It's much more of an issue imo if an instructor takes that mindset.
> 
> Disinterest shows, and if you're trying to show someone else something that you have absolutely no interest in, or understanding of, then what are the chances they're going to get anything else out of it either?



My experience is that this isn't an instructor problem, but a problem with KKW TKD as a whole. From what I can tell, the number of schools that practice anything besides the motions in the form themselves is relatively small, and 0 of those applications come from KKW.  Every piece of research I've found (articles, books, videos) has been personal opinions and local curriculums.



dvcochran said:


> I am saying there are variants within the specific move. An example, the Mountain block could be two inside blocks, two outside blocks, one in one out, two high blocks, a forearm strike, and more. It is one of the representative movements I was talking about, supporting the forms name and history. Is there application in that? I am not certain but it does have value.



Put aside the variants *for the moment.*  Does the move as done in the form make sense?


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. If a budding instructor does not fully understand a form (who really does?) how they deliver the information to a learning student is paramount. I suspect it they show disinterest in a form, they likely do it in other things as well. The devil Is in the details but that is where some of the greatest fun begins. IMHO



If nobody really does, then how does anyone teach?

You can show interest in a form and in the details without finding the direct application.  I am big on attention to detail, in my opinion that's one of the biggest benefits of the forms.  I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions.


----------



## pdg (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions



That's part of what I was on about.

If you consider the motions meaningless then odds are you'll teach them as such, and subsequently pass that mindset on to your students, who later pass it on to theirs, and so on and so forth... This is possibly suggestive of this 'issue' being the product of multiple generations of instructors who had no interest in anything other than "forms for tests" and wt rules sparring.

I've said before that we share many moves and techniques and also said how we drill and work with them, which you dismissed out of hand because "that's not how my master teaches". The research you've said you've conducted - have you similarly written off everything that may be useful because it conflicts with what you've been told?

In some of the itf literature I've seen mention about training (or getting information from) other teachers and even other arts - generally it's encouraged but comes with the caveat that if it conflicts with what your own teacher considers correct that you either disregard it or change teachers (or study it outside of your class time and not let it interfere).

So, I understand you disregarding any info you may get in external research if the above holds true - but if that's the case and you're going to continue to ignore or berate anything that doesn't completely agree with your teacher then it seems massively counterproductive to research in any fashion other than, well, asking your teacher.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> If nobody really does, then how does anyone teach?
> 
> You can show interest in a form and in the details without finding the direct application.  I am big on attention to detail, in my opinion that's one of the biggest benefits of the forms.  I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions.


Do you really find them meaningless? 
Is their anything wrong with the meaning YOU find in them? 

It would be nice to have a perfect explanation from KKW that fits with what I think, but

I encourage people to explore forms with their own body and mind. I mean they are YOUR skills. 

I love to get info from KKW but their word is not law in regards to my Taekwondo journey.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> If nobody really does, then how does anyone teach?
> 
> You can show interest in a form and in the details without finding the direct application.  I am big on attention to detail, in my opinion that's one of the biggest benefits of the forms.  I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions.


Why do you try to make it something mystic and mysterious? It is not. A learned martial artist will realize there are many ways to apply the same movement. That is part of the beauty in the details.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> My experience is that this isn't an instructor problem, but a problem with KKW TKD as a whole. From what I can tell, the number of schools that practice anything besides the motions in the form themselves is relatively small, and 0 of those applications come from KKW.  Every piece of research I've found (articles, books, videos) has been personal opinions and local curriculums.
> 
> 
> 
> Put aside the variants *for the moment.*  Does the move as done in the form make sense?


Yes.


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

Why does everyone keep putting the words in my mouth that "it's not what my Master teaches so I disregard it."

That's *not* why I disregard anything.  I have a very simple standard when I'm looking for the application from a form:  *take the motion of the technique, as done in the form, and apply it.*  Not the motion that kinda sorta looks like the form.  Not the technique in the form with a bunch of extra stuff that's never been in any form.  Just take the motion of the form, as done in the form, and apply it.

I reject anything that doesn't meet that standard.  It has nothing to do with what my Master taught me.  It has everything to do with a simple question:  why do we do X technique this way?

If the version in the form does not make sense in application, then there isn't an application.  If you have to modify the technique to make it work in any application, then there are two possibilities:  1) the form was not intended for direct application, or 2) the technique in the form is bad.

Let's look at another technique that's in forms - front kick.  This one is easy to apply.  Now, I may need to modify my front kick.  I may want to kick higher or lower, I may need to adjust my footwork to be in range.  But the basic front kick as done in the forms is an effective technique.  It is very easy to see how that technique would work without modification.

Going back to Keumgang, I am going to disagree with you @dvcochran that the move makes sense as done in the form.  (Feel free to offer more evidence than "yes" to the contrary).  There are *similar* motions that make sense, but then why doesn't the form use the version that makes sense?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the forms are performance-based, not application-based.  It's the same as when I do a 540 kick.  There's 0 application in being able to jump and spin around a time and a half before executing a spin hook kick.  It looks cool.  I think it makes my spin hook kick better, because I have to do it in a smaller window of time.  I think it helps with my body control, and it encourages me to keep my body in shape so I can continue to do cool things.  It's good for my leg and core muscles.  But those techniques have 0 application.  They are performance-based techniques.


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Why do you try to make it something mystic and mysterious? It is not. A learned martial artist will realize there are many ways to apply the same movement. That is part of the beauty in the details.



You speak of details.  There are many ways to apply *similar *movements.  There's generally very few ways to apply the same movement.

And even then, the base movement has to make sense.  Otherwise, you would base it off of one of the similar movements that makes more sense.


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Do you really find them meaningless?
> Is their anything wrong with the meaning YOU find in them?
> 
> It would be nice to have a perfect explanation from KKW that fits with what I think, but
> ...



Well, considering KKW is the governing body by which I am certified, their opinion at least kind of matters.

I find drawing application from the forms meaningless.  I don't find training the forms meaningless.  There are lots of benefits to be had by training the forms.  I just think once you start getting into the fancier techniques, application loses ground to flair.


----------



## Buka (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> Why does everyone keep putting the words in my mouth that "it's not what my Master teaches so I disregard it."
> 
> That's *not* why I disregard anything.  I have a very simple standard when I'm looking for the application from a form:  *take the motion of the technique, as done in the form, and apply it.*  Not the motion that kinda sorta looks like the form.  Not the technique in the form with a bunch of extra stuff that's never been in any form.  Just take the motion of the form, as done in the form, and apply it.
> 
> ...



I had misses your posts like this. I like good reading concerning anything, but especially Martial Arts.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 19, 2019)

@skribs what about basic blocking techniques? Do you execute them with the full chamber and everything? Or reverse punch?

if so, I would like to see that. I love seeing people pull stuff like that off but it has never been a goal of mine. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

paitingman said:


> @skribs what about basic blocking techniques? Do you execute them with the full chamber and everything? Or reverse punch?
> 
> if so, I would like to see that. I love seeing people pull stuff like that off but it has never been a goal of mine.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk



Sometimes, it depends where they are in the combination.  What was I doing before the technique, and what am I going to do after it?  If I have my guard up and I just need a quick parry then no, I won't do the full chamber.  If I've just thrown a hook and you're going to kick, then there's no reason not to do a full chamber for my down block.  If I'm throwing an inside block with intent to set up a strike, I want to chamber to get the full power into that block.  If I have a chance to move my feet, I have a chance to chamber.

I do see your point.  And I'd say there are two pieces to this: the chamber of the block itself, and the chamber of the other hand.  Let's say I'm doing a down block with the left hand.  My left hand is making the big motion from my shoulder to the down block position.  This serves 4 purposes (as far as I can tell):

To demonstrate the direction of travel better than a small parry would
To exaggerate the motion, since people tend to shrink the motion from practice to application
To exercise the muscles that are used in that technique
To look good (compared to a shorter motion)
In forms, the right hand will start under the left arm, and be pulled to my side.  This is purely aesthetic and barely functional.  The only function I can find is that it gives you another detail to pay attention to, that it teaches you to control your whole body and not just the one arm doing the block.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> You speak of details.  There are many ways to apply *similar *movements.  There's generally very few ways to apply the same movement.
> 
> And even then, the base movement has to make sense.  Otherwise, you would base it off of one of the similar movements that makes more sense.


True, but isn't that largely what coming up through the color belts is all about?
Like I said, I was directing my comments at seasoned students.


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> True, but isn't that largely what coming up through the color belts is all about?
> Like I said, I was directing my comments at seasoned students.



If anything, I think being seasoned I would think makes it go the other way.  A lot of the pieces I said to @paitingman as for how the basic blocks work in forms are things that would benefit a beginner more than a seasoned martial artist.  The beginner belts are to lay the foundation, the advanced belts should be learning how to apply it.

With the KKW TKD forms, I feel that as the forms get more advanced, you don't get much more in the way of application, but you get a lot more in terms of what you have to memorize, and how detailed your movements need to be.  The forms look better and are more impressive, but that's the extent of the advancement you get.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 19, 2019)

skribs said:


> Why does everyone keep putting the words in my mouth that "it's not what my Master teaches so I disregard it."


I am not sure who this is directed at but I never said anything of the sort.



skribs said:


> I reject anything that doesn't meet that standard. It has nothing to do with what my Master taught me. It has everything to do with a simple question: why do we do X technique this way?


I cannot count the times I have watched two people do the exact same for, each doing the form correctly, and one person's for just looking wrong. They each did the same movements correctly. But they look completely different. It was technically and functionally correct. Should I reject the persons effort because if looks different? How can I say their move is wrong?



skribs said:


> If the version in the form does not make sense in application, then there isn't an application. If you have to modify the technique to make it work in any application, then there are two possibilities: 1) the form was not intended for direct application, or 2) the technique in the form is bad.


There are a few one steps I would Never use as my first move. But I am glad I have those moves in my pocket. Same logic applies.



skribs said:


> Let's look at another technique that's in forms - front kick. This one is easy to apply. Now, I may need to modify my front kick. I may want to kick higher or lower, I may need to adjust my footwork to be in range. But the basic front kick as done in the forms is an effective technique. It is very easy to see how that technique would work without modification.


This Exactly what I am saying! You hit the nail on the head. As we do a movement/skill more we see/learn more ways to apply the move/skill. 



skribs said:


> The only conclusion I can draw is that the forms are performance-based, not application-based. It's the same as when I do a 540 kick. There's 0 application in being able to jump and spin around a time and a half before executing a spin hook kick. It looks cool. I think it makes my spin hook kick better, because I have to do it in a smaller window of time. I think it helps with my body control, and it encourages me to keep my body in shape so I can continue to do cool things. It's good for my leg and core muscles. But those techniques have 0 application. They are performance-based techniques.


That is an unfruitful way to look at doing any part of a curriculum. I have to step back sometimes and remember that WT(F)/Kukkiwon are an amalgamation of all the dominant forms of TKD. A great many GM's of the time are responsible for the Kukkiwon form sets. Have they done a poor job in communication every detail or the minusha of forms? Possibly, but I think with some purpose in mind, at least originally. A big part of what I feel has happened is the unexpected explosion of TKD. It caused a runaway effect and a good amount of information has not been expressed, or more accurately expressed incorrectly by the wrong people. True of all martial arts, a lot is made up along the way and expressed differently from the original ideology.
I have been doing this a long time and certainly don't think I have it all figured out. For me, that is a good thing. Gives me something to work for. 
I still feel it will be helpful to not rush to a conclusion on some of this. I am certain your front kick conclusion is a product of having done exponentially more front kicks (and it's byproducts). Your peripheral is much wider with front kicks. In time it will be the same for other movements/skills


----------



## skribs (Dec 19, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am not sure who this is directed at but I never said anything of the sort.



That was directed at pdg's post.  Although for some reason I was thinking of you when I read his post.



dvcochran said:


> I cannot count the times I have watched two people do the exact same for, each doing the form correctly, and one person's for just looking wrong. They each did the same movements correctly. But they look completely different. It was technically and functionally correct. Should I reject the persons effort because if looks different? How can I say their move is wrong?



First, a question:  is this a KKW school or another discipline?  If it's another discipline, I have no answer for you.
If it's a KKW school, the answer is:  One of them is wrong.  The KKW forms are like Bach's music:  you don't interpret them, you play them exactly as they're written.  If two people look different doing the form, one of them is missing key details that are prescribed in the performance.



> This Exactly what I am saying! You hit the nail on the head. As we do a movement/skill more we see/learn more ways to apply the move/skill.



Except there's one piece I'm saying that you're not.  There are *more *ways to apply a skill, yes.  The word "more" implies that the way we are doing it is applicable.  In the case of most of the fancy techniques in the advanced TKD forms, there are ways to apply a skill different than shown in the form, but the way shown in the form is not applicable.



> I have been doing this a long time and certainly don't think I have it all figured out. For me, that is a good thing. Gives me something to work for.
> I still feel it will be helpful to not rush to a conclusion on some of this.



I didn't rush to this conclusion.  I spent 4-5 years researching the application of forms, digging into articles, asking questions on here and getting into *very *heated debates, and buying and reading books on the subject before I came to this conclusion.  This is my well-researched, well-documented conclusion that I put a significant amount of thought, effort, and energy toward.

I came to the conclusion that that thought, effort, and energy would be better spent on other pursuits.  Like actually messing around with the applicable techniques I know and figuring out how to beat them, instead of trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Except there's one piece I'm saying that you're not. There are *more *ways to apply a skill, yes. The word "more" implies that the way we are doing it is applicable. In the case of most of the fancy techniques in the advanced TKD forms, there are ways to apply a skill different than shown in the form, but the way shown in the form is not applicable.


This is the same circular argument you have been making the whole time. I hope in time you see it different. 



skribs said:


> I didn't rush to this conclusion. I spent 4-5 years researching the application of forms, digging into articles, asking questions on here and getting into *very *heated debates, and buying and reading books on the subject before I came to this conclusion. This is my well-researched, well-documented conclusion that I put a significant amount of thought, effort, and energy toward.


I realize you do not understand this but that is not very long at all. I feel certain with your drive and attitude you will figure this out in time. 



skribs said:


> I came to the conclusion that that thought, effort, and energy would be better spent on other pursuits. Like actually messing around with the applicable techniques I know and figuring out how to beat them, instead of trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.


Then this is what you need to run with. Leave WT/Kukkiwon, return all your certification. Leave TKD and go learn how to do ballet. It is a repetitive sport with zero interpretation of application. Should fit to a tee for what you want to do. 
Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?


----------



## skribs (Dec 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> This is the same circular argument you have been making the whole time. I hope in time you see it different.



It's not a circular argument.  A circular argument is where A is true because of B, and B is true because of A.  That's not what I'm doing.

You have a movement in a form.  If that movement is not directly applicable, there is no direct application from the movement.  

It's a very simple ask.  People just get upset because they believe the forms to have application, but when put to a *very *simple test, that falls apart.   Their solution is (like yours) to get defensive and try and poke all sorts of holes in my argument.  But my position has remained the same.  I have *one* simple standard for deriving application, and the forms fall short of that standard.



dvcochran said:


> I realize you do not understand this but that is not very long at all. I feel certain with your drive and attitude you will figure this out in time.



I've been pretty exhaustive in my research.  I think it's a perfectly fine duration of time to come to that conclusion.  I'm not wasting more time by chasing dead ends.  I can make better use of my time finding application where it exists, than searching in the dark for something that was never there in the first place.



dvcochran said:


> Then this is what you need to run with. Leave WT/Kukkiwon, return all your certification. Leave TKD and go learn how to do ballet. It is a repetitive sport with zero interpretation of application. Should fit to a tee for what you want to do.
> Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?



Like I said, the training is compartmentalized.  I do get application training when we train application.  I find it amusing that you missed me so much you had to post in multiple threads about it, and you're already trying to run me out of martial arts again.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 20, 2019)

No Skribs, I am not trying to run you off at all. Is this what you want to feel like people are doing to you? Myself, like almost everyone here, are just trying to help others. 
There is value in the forms. It amazes me how summarily you have come to your conclusion yet I can hear in this and other threads that you have the ability to find it.


----------



## skribs (Dec 20, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> No Skribs, I am not trying to run you off at all. Is this what you want to feel like people are doing to you? Myself, like almost everyone here, are just trying to help others.
> There is value in the forms. It amazes me how summarily you have come to your conclusion yet I can hear in this and other threads that you have the ability to find it.



Value and application are two different things.
Direct application of the movement and secondary applications of similar movements are two different things.

Every single piece of application I've got from something other than the forms.  Every time I go and look at a form and say "it's kinda like this application", it's because I know that application from another source of information.  And more likely because there's only so many ways the human body can move and it coincidentally looks like move in the form, than that the form is expected to teach it.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Value and application are two different things.
> Direct application of the movement and secondary applications of similar movements are two different things.
> 
> Every single piece of application I've got from something other than the forms.  Every time I go and look at a form and say "it's kinda like this application", it's because I know that application from another source of information.  And more likely because there's only so many ways the human body can move and it coincidentally looks like move in the form, than that the form is expected to teach it.


I think your standard is nearly impossible for modern KKW poomsae to live up to. Forms were revamped and standardized with transparent, international competition in mind. 

The strict standards that rolled out years ago brought a paradigm shift in Taekwondo competition. Serious forms competition was basically not a thing before. 

Judging more traditional MDK style forms is often subjective and understandably difficult. Trying to compete with forms based on application and various training principles has always been a ridiculous notion to me anyway. 
But competing with forms and techniques designed for elite competition just plain makes sense. 

At a seminar with Kang Suji and her father Grandmaster Kang, this is basically what was related to me when questions about the old style and stances were brought up. 
Granted, my Korean is not great and their English at the time was pretty minimal. But Grandmaster Kang basically responded, "Old is good, but this way any random child from any country can train hard and have a pathway to becoming world champion." Clear technical standards for INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. 
Which I love the notion and enjoy sport poomsae a lot for all the doors it opened for different type of students, but I don't believe application is what was driving the why's and how's of the new standards at all. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 20, 2019)

paitingman said:


> I think your standard is nearly impossible for modern KKW poomsae to live up to.
> ...
> At a seminar with Kang Suji and her father Grandmaster Kang, this is basically what was related to me when questions about the old style and stances were brought up.
> Granted, my Korean is not great and their English at the time was pretty minimal. But Grandmaster Kang basically responded, "Old is good, but this way any random child from any country can train hard and have a pathway to becoming world champion." Clear technical standards for INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION.
> Which I love the notion and enjoy sport poomsae a lot for all the doors it opened for different type of students, but I don't believe application is what was driving the why's and how's of the new standards at all.



That's kind of my point.

However, that standard *only* applies to deriving application from the forms.  It's not a standard for the form's usefulness as a whole.  Which is why I still do the forms, in spite of their lack of application.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's kind of my point.
> 
> However, that standard *only* applies to deriving application from the forms.  It's not a standard for the form's usefulness as a whole.  Which is why I still do the forms, in spite of their lack of application.


I figured. 

Did you ever practice old style taegueks? 

I guess my question is if we're talking about application, why even bring up or train sport style poomsae? 
What's wrong with MDK way or YOUR way? Why care so much about official KKW?
Do you like to compete sport poomsae? or do you just really like to be aligned with KKW?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 20, 2019)

paitingman said:


> I figured.
> 
> Did you ever practice old style taegueks?
> 
> ...



I mean...I'm in a KKW school.  I don't really understand the point of the question.  It would be like me walking into a wrestling gym and asking them why they like pinning people, or walking into a boxing gym and asking why everyone is so obsessed with wearing gloves when they practice.  

I'm not in a MDK school.  I don't know what the MDK way is.  I have 0 opinion of it, either positive or negative.  It's frankly irrelevant to my training.  

I *was *searching for application, because I was under the assumption that's what the forms are for.  My research has caused me to change my expectations.

I think I answered the rest of your question earlier in the thread.  I like them for the same reason I like doing 540 kicks.  I'm good at them, and I enjoy doing them.  I actually enjoy them more now that I'm not struggling with their meaning.

My degree is in psychology.  One of my favorite theories that helped me deal with my own issues in the past is Carl Roger's idea of the Perceived Self, Ideal Self, and Real Self.  Put simply, there's what you think you are, what you want to be, and what you actually are.  When the three are aligned, you are self-actualized, which is the goal.  If the three are not aligned, then you have to adjust them until they are.  This could mean adjusting your perceived self by fixing your delusions, adjusting your ideal self to more manageable goals, or adjusting your real self so you can better meet those goals.

I apply the same concept here.  My perception of the forms was that the forms were there to teach me fighting, and I struggled for 5 years because reality didn't match that perception.  I feel a lot better about the forms now that I've brought my perception in line with reality - the forms are a performance art, with various physical and mental benefits.  The forms are not a way to teach applicable technique or strategy.  I've accepted that, and now I enjoy the forms *more*, because I'm not trying to make them something that they're not.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> I mean...I'm in a KKW school.  I don't really understand the point of the question.  It would be like me walking into a wrestling gym and asking them why they like pinning people, or walking into a boxing gym and asking why everyone is so obsessed with wearing gloves when they practice.
> 
> I'm not in a MDK school.  I don't know what the MDK way is.  I have 0 opinion of it, either positive or negative.  It's frankly irrelevant to my training.
> 
> ...


Yeah but how long have you been with KKW? How long have you been training TKD? did you ever practice old style taegueks? 

I've always been part of a KKW school as well... 
I have no idea what your school is like so I ask. 


Your analogy works if we're only talking about sports.
It's like I walk into a MARTIAL ARTS school and say, "why are you only practicing sport rules? Are you training to compete?" 
You're confining yourself to the ruleset. 
The only ones I know who do that are only focused on competing. 

You already know Taekwondo goes far beyond just the Olympic style sparring matches. There is also more to it than just the sport poomsae ruleset. 



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## paitingman (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm not in a MDK school.  I don't know what the MDK way is.  I have 0 opinion of it, either positive or negative.  It's frankly irrelevant to my training.
> 
> .



I just say MDK way because most old style taeguek I saw was some local schools version of the MDK way. It's just a clear standard amongst the old style to point to. 
Have you only ever practiced sport poomsae? 
I was trying to ask you whether you had practiced any old style poomsae. I don't know your training background so please excuse me if it's frankly irrelevant to your training.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> Carl Roger's idea of the Perceived Self, Ideal Self, and Real Self. Put simply, there's what you think you are, what you want to be, and what you actually are. When the three are aligned, you are self-actualized, which is the goal. If the three are not aligned, then you have to adjust them until they are. This could mean adjusting your perceived self by fixing your delusions, adjusting your ideal self to more manageable goals, or adjusting your real self so you can better meet those goals.



I don't remember which graduate degree it was but I had to take a psychology class and read a Carl Rogers book, the one about the 3 core conditions if I recall correctly. I could not connect with much of it but I still remember where he talks about changing you own self to meet goals; I really aligned with that part. The other logic just rings very loudly of making compromise for lack of not being willing to put in the work. 
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Yeah but how long have you been with KKW? How long have you been training TKD? did you ever practice old style taegueks?
> 
> I've always been part of a KKW school as well...
> I have no idea what your school is like so I ask.
> ...





dvcochran said:


> I don't remember which graduate degree it was but I had to take a psychology class and read a Carl Rogers book, the one about the 3 core conditions if I recall correctly. I could not connect with much of it but I still remember where he talks about changing you own self to meet goals; I really aligned with that part. The other logic just rings very loudly of making compromise for lack of not being willing to put in the work.
> "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison



Some of personal growth is realizing that your expectations for yourself are too high, or that you're in denial of your capabilities.

There have been plenty of examples of this happening in my life.  One is that I was burning myself out by being at the dojang too much.  I had this perception of myself as someone who could handle the workload.  And I was getting sick 6-8 times a year.  I'm talking respiratory infections that would last 2-3 weeks.  For 5 years, I spent at least 3-4 months of the year sick.  I had no sick leave at work, I burned all of my annual leave on being sick, and there were a lot of times I was either working from home, or going to work sick, because I had no time left to spare.

Six months ago I had a talk with my Master, who had been saying for a long time that I should cut back my hours for my health.  I always took it as an insult, that he didn't think I was strong enough or dedicated enough to teach as much as I was.  Finally, I told him "you're right, I need to cut back."  I kept trying to push myself to meet that goal of being the guy who teaches 20 hours a week, and it was killing me.  I cut back to 5 hours a week.  I'm sick right now, but it's the first time I've been sick in those 6 months.  I'm a lot healthier and a lot stronger now.

I had to temper my expectations of myself and bring them more in line with what I am realistically capable of.

An example from fiction is from The Big Bang Theory, when Howard wanted to dump his exceptional girlfriend because he was holding out for Angelina Jolie or Katie Sackoff.  It was a huge piece of character growth for him to realize that he needed to set more realistic goals in his love life.  So he put aside his superficial desire for a superstar, and instead went with this girl he actually knew, who was smart and beautiful, and they had several seasons of a great relationship.  It's fiction, but it happens in reality, too.

The last example I can think of (whether it's reality or fiction, you decide) is most of the problems on Kitchen Nightmares.  People are in such delusion that their food is fine, their management style is fine, or their restaurant's lack of hygiene is fine, that they *cannot* learn to change, because their hubris is holding them back.  In this case, their perceived self was this virtuoso of cuisine, when in reality they were lazy hacks.  Once they were broken of that hubris, they were able to actually learn how to function in the business.

Yes, sometimes you need to push yourself.  But sometimes you need to evaluate yourself, and sometimes you need to evaluate your goals.


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

@paitingman 

We learn the Palgwe forms, but we learn them in the same teaching style as the Taegueks (here's the form, copy it).  This is true of both my current school and my new school.

I have never trained in MDK.  I wouldn't even know what MDK was if it wasn't for this forum, and to be honest all I know about it is the name.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I don't remember which graduate degree it was but I had to take a psychology class and read a Carl Rogers book, the one about the 3 core conditions if I recall correctly. I could not connect with much of it but I still remember where he talks about changing you own self to meet goals; I really aligned with that part. The other logic just rings very loudly of making compromise for lack of not being willing to put in the work.
> "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison



You disagree with what? I


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You disagree with what? I



That the only way to get better mental health is to work harder.  Burnout and unrealistic goals both exist.  Sometimes you need to re-evaluate your goals and expectations.


----------



## pdg (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> That the only way to get better mental health is to work harder.  Burnout and unrealistic goals both exist.  Sometimes you need to re-evaluate your goals and expectations.



Sometimes it's sensible to re-evaluate goals.

Too often though too many people only ever set easy goals that they know they can meet with the absolute minimum effort.


I've had arguments with my daughter's teachers before about the complexity of the homework she's been set, especially in maths - 20 questions that are only actually 3 questions in different orders aren't anything of a challenge. It doesn't make her feel good and she gets bored and easily distracted. The attitude seems to be that the teacher doesn't want the kids to get questions wrong because it might demotivate them (and it affects her stats...)

Ok, my daughter is 7 - but she gets far more out of being challenged than she gets from repeating things she knows.

That sort of thing can track through your whole life - if you never set high goals and never challenge yourself then can you ever say you've really achieved anything?


----------



## pdg (Dec 21, 2019)

Oh, and it can be small things too.

Like a little earlier this evening, it was dark, cold and raining - could've put the heating on and sat on the sofa with a blanket and watched TV. Easy.

Instead, went out cycling with my son.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> That the only way to get better mental health is to work harder.  Burnout and unrealistic goals both exist.  Sometimes you need to re-evaluate your goals and expectations.


I can agree with that. Knowing yourself and knowing the situation definitely helps a lot.

Maybe off topic, but how much time do you have got for straight up training versus teaching these days? 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

paitingman said:


> I can agree with that. Knowing yourself and knowing the situation definitely helps a lot.
> 
> Maybe off topic, but how much time do you have got for straight up training versus teaching these days?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk



I train 2-3 hours of TKD, 1 hour of Hapkido in class.  A bit outside of class.  I've recently started hitting the gym again, 3 days a week.  I started that 2 months ago, and I fear that may be why I'm ill now.  Just overdoing it again.  As far as martial arts training goes, it's the same number of classes I was taking even when I was teaching every day.

I was trying to set up a study group with the other 3rd degree black belts to get a bit more practice in, but it's been hard finding the right time.



> I've had arguments with my daughter's teachers before about the complexity of the homework she's been set, especially in maths - 20 questions that are only actually 3 questions in different orders aren't anything of a challenge. It doesn't make her feel good and she gets bored and easily distracted. The attitude seems to be that the teacher doesn't want the kids to get questions wrong because it might demotivate them (and it affects her stats...)



I agree with your daughter's teacher, for two reasons:

You don't build a skill by doing it once.  You build a skill by repetition.  As a martial artist, you should know this.  So her getting the same questions over and over again is building her skill in that material.  I didn't do my times tables once and have them memorized.  We had daily quizzes in math that went over the same types of problems for months so that we could memorize how to do them.
When I first started teaching, I tried to be strict and keep everyone to a high standard of discipline.  Even little kids, even white belts.  Within the first 6 months, we had several new students that ended up leaving class crying, never to return, because I pushed them too hard.  My Master had a talk with me and explained how confidence is more important than discipline for white belts, and how to control the class without being so strict.  You definitely don't want students to feel overwhelmed and like they can't do something.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> I train 2-3 hours of TKD, 1 hour of Hapkido in class.  A bit outside of class.  I've recently started hitting the gym again, 3 days a week.  I started that 2 months ago, and I fear that may be why I'm ill now.  Just overdoing it again.  As far as martial arts training goes, it's the same number of classes I was taking even when I was teaching every day.
> 
> I was trying to set up a study group with the other 3rd degree black belts to get a bit more practice in, but it's been hard finding the right time.
> 
> ...



PDG was talking about out of class homework, not the day to day classroom practice that you mentioned. 
If there is zero chance of failing because the curriculum is too easy and handed to a person on a platter, where is the fun and challenge in that? It would get boring rather quick; a definite symptom of the bigger problems in some classrooms.


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> PDG was talking about out of class homework, not the day to day classroom practice that you mentioned.
> If there is zero chance of failing because the curriculum is too easy and handed to a person on a platter, where is the fun and challenge in that? It would get boring rather quick; a definite symptom of the bigger problems in some classrooms.



It's hard to quantify. I don't really have a set schedule for when I practice.  Memorization and seeing patterns has always come real easy for me, as has understanding things conceptually.  So it's very easy for me to piece together the curriculum.  I probably practice as much outside of class as I do inside of class.

Lately my out-of-class training time has focused more on strength and cardio.  But that's where I fear I'm overdoing it again.  When I recover from this cold, I'm gonna get back into it.  If I get sick again in 2 months I don't know what I'm gonna do, but I'm not going to be able to do both TKD and working out.


----------



## pdg (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> I agree with your daughter's teacher, for two reasons:
> 
> You don't build a skill by doing it once.  You build a skill by repetition.  As a martial artist, you should know this.  So her getting the same questions over and over again is building her skill in that material.  I didn't do my times tables once and have them memorized.  We had daily quizzes in math that went over the same types of problems for months so that we could memorize how to do them.
> When I first started teaching, I tried to be strict and keep everyone to a high standard of discipline.  Even little kids, even white belts.  Within the first 6 months, we had several new students that ended up leaving class crying, never to return, because I pushed them too hard.  My Master had a talk with me and explained how confidence is more important than discipline for white belts, and how to control the class without being so strict.  You definitely don't want students to feel overwhelmed and like they can't do something.



Repetition doesn't build skill, it reinforces it. Once you have a thing 'down' then repeating it doesn't build on it - if each repetition shows a marked improvement, you haven't got it yet.

To build a skill you have to keep moving and changing. The thing you change can cause improvements to the preceding thing while setting you up for what comes next.

From an ma perspective, you could look at something like stances - a newcomer won't get them right, and that's ok. You use repetition to reinforce the bits that are right and get ever smaller improvements to the rest.

As they move on, the other skills that start being added help with the understanding of those first things.

If you were to hold back every white belt from proceeding until they have that first stance perfect most will get bored, lose concentration and motivation and likely leave. You might have one or two that stick with it and then have the best white belts ever after a year or so, but others who proceeded 'normally' will be better because they've had the extra skill building.

So let's say you get shown how to put a brick onto mortar.

If you just repeat putting down the same brick over and over again, after 6 months all you've got is a brick on the floor.

It might be nicely aligned and level, but it's still just a brick on the floor.

If you change that, and you then learn how to put another next to it, and what to do to go around a corner, and how to align the next course, and how to cut in gaps and lintels, and accommodate timbers, and joint in returns - before you know it you have a house.


----------



## pdg (Dec 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> PDG was talking about out of class homework, not the day to day classroom practice that you mentioned.
> If there is zero chance of failing because the curriculum is too easy and handed to a person on a platter, where is the fun and challenge in that? It would get boring rather quick; a definite symptom of the bigger problems in some classrooms.



That's totally it.

I've noticed that boredom is a huge factor in my daughter's academic progression.

The first time she had the set of questions (say, 8x3=, 3x8=, 24/8=, 24/3=, repeat 5 times in a different order) she went straight through, 100% correct.

After a month of having that set twice a week (the insistence on constant repetition of the same skill) she was so bored she was barely looking at the screen (online homework) and making silly mistakes like hitting letters instead of numbers or the wrong number, getting wrong answers and getting frustrated.

Her teacher interpreted that as needing more practice on the same questions...

My solution was to introduce her to things like dividing a negative by a decimal - or to look up the spec of her tablet and figure out the current draw to run it based on battery capacity and run time.

The same basic mathematics, but changed sufficiently to actually classify as building a skill.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 21, 2019)

pdg said:


> My solution was to introduce her to things like dividing a negative by a decimal - or to look up the spec of her tablet and figure out the current draw to run it based on battery capacity and run time.
> 
> The same basic mathematics, but changed sufficiently to actually classify as building a skill.



That is a smart 7 year old. Some of the best examples of learning how to Apply knowledge I can think of. 
Excellent work as a parent.


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

@pdg you are correct that you do need to be conscious about improving the skill.  But there's also repetitions.  There's a time to go over the same stuff over and over again to reinforce it in your memory.

Let's take for example when I'm learning a song on the bass.  There are times my instructor stops me and says "hey, you're missing this part" or "you're coming in late here."  There are times I spend time trying to memorize the bass line or get my fingers used to playing it.  There are times I focus on improving my timing and technique.  But there's also times I just play.  I just turn on the song and play.  And those are the times when I get the most out of playing it.  It's not a straight climb.  You don't improve and struggle every iteration of practice.  Sometimes it's just to get your body used to it.

In the case of the assignment you're talking about, that shows the relationship between 3, 8, and 24, and reinforces it in different ways.  The fact that she is getting things wrong suggests the opposite of what you thought.  For one, you say it's impossible to fail, but yet she's failing the assignment.  Whether it's because she's not paying attention or doesn't know the answer is irrelevant.  She's getting sloppy and making mistakes.  I can't think of a single job I've ever had where you can brush off an assignment because you're too good to do it.

It's a lesson I had to learn when I was doing addition and subtraction.  I was supposed do questions like what she had.  I was supposed to do 10 + 8 = ?, and then I was supposed to check my work by doing a subtraction problem.  Well, sometimes I'd mess up.  But rather than do what I was supposed to do and check my work, I would just rewrite the problem.  So 10 + 8 = 16, then I'd just write 16 - 8 = 10.  Every single problem I got wrong I messed up both times, and it was because I rushed through it to get it done.  It was hard for me to slow down and do it right.  It's the same concept in martial arts that basics and fundamentals should never be considered beneath you.

It reminds me of a student of mine.  When he was a green belt, he was struggling to remember his green belt stuff.  He'd punch with the wrong arm, mix up the kicks, and do his forms really sloppy.  But he was convinced he knew his stuff, and also the green belt 1-stripe stuff as well.  He begged every class to do the green 1-stripe kicks and punches and forms, and every time I'd have him sit down.  Finally, one day he was begging to do the more advanced stuff, so I told him to prove to me that he could do the regular stuff.  Where I'm normally encouraging, this time I called him out for every single mistake.  He realized how much work he had to do on his stuff, and he pushed himself.

The last thing you have to realize is how many parents nowadays will complain to the teacher when their kid gets bad grades.  Good for the teacher for sticking to her guns instead of caving when a parent comes in and tells them they don't how to grade.  Nowadays most teachers just give the kid an A to get the parents off their back.


----------



## pdg (Dec 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> That is a smart 7 year old. Some of the best examples of learning how to Apply knowledge I can think of.
> Excellent work as a parent.



Cheers.

She doesn't always fully understand the application or the reasons for someday possibly needing the knowledge, but seeing that stuff can be applied in diverse ways plants seeds of curiosity and definitely helps with motivation.

Too often I hear things like "why do you want to know that?" or "ask google"...


----------



## pdg (Dec 21, 2019)

skribs said:


> In the case of the assignment you're talking about, that shows the relationship between 3, 8, and 24, and reinforces it in different ways. The fact that she is getting things wrong suggests the opposite of what you thought. For one, you say it's impossible to fail, but yet she's failing the assignment. Whether it's because she's not paying attention or doesn't know the answer is irrelevant. She's getting sloppy and making mistakes. I can't think of a single job I've ever had where you can brush off an assignment because you're too good to do it.



Firstly, I didn't say it was impossible to fail...

I know what the point of the exercise was, and she completed the exercise perfectly many times before she just got bored of the simplistic repetition and total lack of challenge. We were having to force her to sit and do it over and over again and continually explain that she knows it and just has to get it out of the way.

Go back to it after a period of weeks or months and she's back to snapping through it easily and correctly.

Translated to later in her life:

There are people who can do that sort of thing for a living, they can sit in a factory and press the same button 2,000 times a day for 40 years and be relatively fine. Some can even take pride in it.

That's good, society needs people like that.

I think, given her creativity and curiosity, that would absolutely destroy her and I'll do everything I can to help her avoid that. Same goes for my son - I honestly can't see either of them being fulfilled by "a job".

That's also good - without creative thinkers that aren't satisfied with "just the same" we stagnate.

I've done that sort of job in the past, and I managed 3 weeks before I told the line manager that I'd finish the shift and never set foot on the premises again.

Now, I don't brush off assignments because I think I'm above them - but what I do is choose what I accept. This is because I've chosen to not have a boss and therefore nothing gets assigned to me. If I go to look at a job and don't want it, I can either walk away or alternatively quote a high enough price to compensate. Then I do it that once and never have to do it again if I so choose.

I get there's just sometimes things you have to do, but I (and they) need that tempered by just more. I don't enjoy doing my tax returns, but I get it done because it's a means to an end - keeping it in prepped so I can complete it once a year I can do - I couldn't do it again and again because it would bore me to tears yet some people make a career of it.

If the assignment for her was "do these three identical calculations in different orders 250 times" then I'm actually pretty happy for her to fail, because I don't think she's wired that way. I'd be equally happy with her to pass it, if it was the way she worked.





skribs said:


> The last thing you have to realize is how many parents nowadays will complain to the teacher when their kid gets bad grades. Good for the teacher for sticking to her guns instead of caving when a parent comes in and tells them they don't how to grade. Nowadays most teachers just give the kid an A to get the parents off their back.



We don't have grades as such, we do get term reports though. Instead of being based on a one time test they're a summary of the term. For both kids they're pretty consistently "exceeds expectations" and that's nothing to do with any influence I may project onto the teachers.

In fact, it's the opposite.

If they're exceeding your expectations then raise your expectations - the ones you have now are obviously too easy for them.

If it were a test or exam I'd expect them to do quite well as that's an assessment of what has been learned and retained - the rest of the time there should be an element of challenge and of meeting that challenge.


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

@pdg wow...just wow.  So many thoughts while reading that...

It's a good thing you're your own boss, because otherwise it would suck to be your coworkers or your boss.  It definitely sounds like it would suck to be your subordinate if you think things are beneath you.  You remind me of a coworker of mine nobody wants to go to meetings with because they always get more work - the things they expected him to do that he just didn't want to do.  The attitude also remind me of the chefs or restaurant owners on Hell's Kitchen that have filthy restaurants and are like "why would *I* clean?  I have staff for that."
You would be happy for your daughter to fail at something if she wasn't good at it?  Instead of working to overcome that limitation?  In Taekwondo, we tell our students to work on their weaknesses, both in class and outside.  To get rid of your bad habits.  When I was in school I had a fear of public speaking.  I "wasn't wired that way."  Well, I re-wired myself by taking public speaking classes 3 quarters in a row to get over it.  I wouldn't be able to teach martial arts today if I hadn't done that.
There are a lot of jobs that require creativity where you still have daily tasks and a supervisor.  And unless you just want to support your kids until they can start their own business, they're probably going to need jobs at some point.  If not, you're making a strong case for the Affluenza defense.
I have no idea how well she is doing this far into the thread.  You say it's too easy.  Then you say she does them wrong.  Then you say the teacher says she needs more practice.  Then you say she's exceeding expectations.  Is she messing up one test here or there and otherwise doing great?  Or is she just sloppy all the time and yet the teacher gives her a great grade anyway?  Your position on how well she has doing seems to have changed from post to post.  I make a comment about what you say, and then you tell me the exact opposite situation.  You say she can't fail.  So I comment on why teachers would do that, and you say she fails fairly regularly.  Then I comment on that and you say she's getting exceeds expectations.  If she's indeed getting "exceeds expectations", then why are you upset?


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 21, 2019)

pdg said:


> There are people who can do that sort of thing for a living, they can sit in a factory and press the same button 2,000 times a day for 40 years and be relatively fine. Some can even take pride in it.


I have said nearly the exact same thing many, many times! I am thankful for people who can happily do the same repetitive task day after day. They are literally building the essentials for most of the world's lifestyle.
I have done such work and realized it was not for me. I 'do' the same things within the confines of the type of work I do. Industrial automation consists of a lot of programming and most control systems have similar components. But I get to oversee the projects, often design the systems and I program with my own unique features. We also have a cattle operation and while you do punch cattle much the same you never quite know what is next. As the business owner, you always have the choice to walk away and come back to something later. No @skribs, that does not mean I ignore my priorities. I would not be in business after 26 years if I done that. I have expanded, expanded again, and contracted my 2 of my businesses as my focus and priorities have changed. The ability to choose to do this is empowering, true freedom.
I am pretty certain that is not what pdg was saying either. More that, if you are good at your job, you can easier pick and choose what you do, not be slaved to a schedule.
I find more than enough differences in my day to day to keep me satisfied.

Bashing a 7 year old is bad form. IMHO


----------



## skribs (Dec 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I am pretty certain that is not what pdg was saying either. More that, if you are good at your job, you can easier pick and choose what you do, not be slaved to a schedule.
> I find more than enough differences in my day to day to keep me satisfied.



So anyone with a boss isn't good at what they do?  Give me a break.



> Bashing a 7 year old is bad form. IMHO



I'm not bashing a 7 year old.  I'm bashing the parent who would raise their child to be unfit to employ, and think that their lack of employ-ability is somehow a positive trait.  The martial artist who doesn't believe in working on weaknesses, repeating basic things to build competency, or following the authority of a boss.  Because that's what I've gotten out of this thread: a ton of arrogance on his part.  He's better than the teacher.  He's better than people who work jobs that are "beneath him."  His daughter (an extension of him) is better than the curriculum.  His daughter and son will be better than the common folk that do menial tasks.  That's what I've gotten from this thread, and that's what I'm talking about.


----------



## pdg (Dec 22, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> They are literally building the essentials for most of the world's lifestyle



Exactly, and more in a way - which I'll go into more detail about later.


As to the rest, especially the reply from @skribs - I have some counter responses to that but it's going to take a little more time than I have available right now to type it coherently, so I'll do it later on - a family activity is a lot more important to me.


----------



## skribs (Dec 22, 2019)

pdg said:


> Exactly, and more in a way - which I'll go into more detail about later.
> 
> 
> As to the rest, especially the reply from @skribs - I have some counter responses to that but it's going to take a little more time than I have available right now to type it coherently, so I'll do it later on - a family activity is a lot more important to me.



Come on, which is more important, family or martial talk?  Get your priorities straight


----------



## pdg (Dec 24, 2019)

Well, a few minutes here and there is what I have, so I'll just randomly splat stuff in the thread...


So, I'm happy for my daughter to fail this sort of assignment - yes.

Not because she just doesn't like it, but because she's not suited to it.

An assignment such as "answer this set of 3 questions 200 times in different orders" is nothing more or less than an aptitude test. You either have the aptitude to do it, or you don't.

Berating a 7 year old (well, any age) for not being compatible with the activity and trying to force them to comply until they sit and do it without question or complaint is a form of social engineering that I cannot and will not support.

It's supposed to be an assessment of how they work and learn, not a tool for changing their natural personality.



I've done a few aptitude tests for various work over the years...

One of them, the room of about 35 potential apprentices was informed at the beginning that the test is designed so it's not possible to complete it in the time given and this was repeated in the information blurb on the cover page.

Two of us took that as a challenge and completed it with a perfect score.

Later, we were told that the true intent of the test is to not only find those who can work out the answers under a bit of time pressure, but also those who don't just accept that something isn't possible. It was one of the tools used to get 30 successful candidates of the 500+ applicants they got every year (and those were the ones to get through the initial stages).


Another, I 'failed' by completing it and getting every question right - the test was designed such that the ones who do correctly complete it are the most likely to be unsuitable for the job in question.

I didn't get the job that the test was for, but I did get offered one at a higher level - unfortunately it was a case of 'details kept on file' and I'd got different employment by then.



It's not a case of me being better than the stereotypical factory worker, just different.

They are better suited to that work than I am.

I'm better suited to different work than they are.


----------



## pdg (Dec 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> So anyone with a boss isn't good at what they do? Give me a break.



I don't believe that's what he's saying at all - at least I hope not.

You can be incredibly good at what you do and have a boss.

You can also be incredibly good at what you do and still fail miserably at being your own boss.

You can also be incredibly good at what you do and fail miserably under some form of management and only find success without any boss other than yourself.

Or you can be great, or mediocre, or terrible in any of the above situations, or myriad others.

Everyone is different.

Sometimes those differences are small enough that you can happily modify yourself to fit in a slightly different box and fit well.

Sometimes those differences are so great that trying to modify yourself only brings frustration and unhappiness.


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 29, 2019)

Yo! Just been reading some of my old MA mags and came across this article @skribs , whether it's of any interest or sheds any light I'm don't know (Hopefully it's readable!).

But I found it particularly interesting when he talks about 'Oyo', and its distinction from bunkai.

"Beyond the bunkai is oyo, and this I understand to be the application of those principles that some people call bunkai.

Oyo has movement, life, expression and interpretation. Oyo is not bound by the exact movements found in the kata, but, for me, is instead the conduit by which the ideas in the kata find their way into my understanding."

Almost like the kata simply present the principles, the conceptual framework. Oyo brings it to life and is not the exact formula, but it moves from those principles gleaned in forms. In the fluid, organic, non-predictable way that is like life


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

_Simon_ said:


> Yo! Just been reading some of my old MA mags and came across this article @skribs , whether it's of any interest or sheds any light I'm don't know (Hopefully it's readable!).
> 
> But I found it particularly interesting when he talks about 'Oyo', and its distinction from bunkai.
> 
> ...



Could not be said better. Do you know it this article is accessible online?


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2019)

_Simon_ said:


> Yo! Just been reading some of my old MA mags and came across this article @skribs , whether it's of any interest or sheds any light I'm don't know (Hopefully it's readable!).
> 
> But I found it particularly interesting when he talks about 'Oyo', and its distinction from bunkai.
> 
> ...



The two issues that I have *as it relates to this discussion* is:  1) this is an article about Karate, not Taekwondo, and 2) there is a lot of "I believe," "I think," and similar other means which make this an opinion piece instead of curriculum discussion.  Not that I have a problem with the concept in general, but this discussion is over the official KKW forms.

KKW does not do anything remotely related to Bunkai as part of their teaching or training.  I have not even heard the word "Oyo" before, I don't even know what that is.  

I'm not saying this stuff is bad.  I wish the TKD forms were designed and taught with application in mind, and that we would teach and practice Bunkai.  It's just the reality that in KKW TKD, it doesn't connect.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> The two issues that I have *as it relates to this discussion* is:  1) this is an article about Karate, not Taekwondo, and 2) there is a lot of "I believe," "I think," and similar other means which make this an opinion piece instead of curriculum discussion.  Not that I have a problem with the concept in general, but this discussion is over the official KKW forms.
> 
> KKW does not do anything remotely related to Bunkai as part of their teaching or training.  I have not even heard the word "Oyo" before, I don't even know what that is.
> 
> I'm not saying this stuff is bad.  I wish the TKD forms were designed and taught with application in mind, and that we would teach and practice Bunkai.  It's just the reality that in KKW TKD, it doesn't connect.


Any luck finding that old KKW footage?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Any luck finding that old KKW footage?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk



Huh?


----------



## paitingman (Dec 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Huh?


It must've been whatever other thread we talked about sport poomsae.

You said you believed KKW hadn't changed how forms were taught and referenced some videos you had seen.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2019)

paitingman said:


> It must've been whatever other thread we talked about sport poomsae.
> 
> You said you believed KKW hadn't changed how forms were taught and referenced some videos you had seen.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk



They're available on Youtube.  I wasn't looking for them.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> They're available on Youtube.  I wasn't looking for them.


Is there a problem? I was just asking

Have I offended you somehow?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Is there a problem? I was just asking
> 
> Have I offended you somehow?
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk



I was simply correcting your expectations of me.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 29, 2019)

paitingman said:


> Is there a problem? I was just asking
> 
> Have I offended you somehow?
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you have not offended me at all. Is there something I missed or did not reply to?
I recently blocked a couple of people so I may have missed out on a conversation.


----------



## paitingman (Dec 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you have not offended me at all. Is there something I missed or did not reply to?
> I recently blocked a couple of people so I may have missed out on a conversation.


Ha no we're all good. 

I recently blocked a few people as well lol. It gets confusing on here sometimes tho

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Dec 29, 2019)

This forum is getting hilarious.  I get blocked by someone who 2 weeks ago said "I miss skribs."  Who referenced me in this thread specifically to ask my opinion, knowing my opinion on the subject, and then got offended when I finally came back to the forum and answered with that opinion.

Now I'm getting blocked because someone asked me about videos I was looking for, and I answered the status of my search is not looking.  Somehow I was being mean.  I guess?


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> The two issues that I have *as it relates to this discussion* is:  1) this is an article about Karate, not Taekwondo, and 2) there is a lot of "I believe," "I think," and similar other means which make this an opinion piece instead of curriculum discussion.  Not that I have a problem with the concept in general, but this discussion is over the official KKW forms.
> 
> KKW does not do anything remotely related to Bunkai as part of their teaching or training.  I have not even heard the word "Oyo" before, I don't even know what that is.
> 
> I'm not saying this stuff is bad.  I wish the TKD forms were designed and taught with application in mind, and that we would teach and practice Bunkai.  It's just the reality that in KKW TKD, it doesn't connect.



Fair enough, I know we're discussing TKD forms, just thought it was an interesting concept that may be applied across the board.

Forms are generally very specific within the said style, and are that way for a reason, but he seems to speak of Oyo as a way of bringing the principles of the form to life. So the application can look SIMILAR, doesn't have to be 100% perfectly spot on, but as long as it adheres to the principles that the form is trying to communicate. But yeah just an idea, thought it might spur on something helpful but all good!

And no he didn't say definites, which I sort of like. Leaves room for exploration


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 30, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Could not be said better. Do you know it this article is accessible online?


I had a look absolutely everywhere mate and couldn't find it.. usually there's a back catalogue for these things! Am happy to take photos of the whole article to send you if you'd like!

Did find an interesting article which touches a bit on this:

André Bertel's Karate-Do: Real Kata is ruled by Oyo


----------



## skribs (Dec 30, 2019)

_Simon_ said:


> Fair enough, I know we're discussing TKD forms, just thought it was an interesting concept that may be applied across the board.
> 
> Forms are generally very specific within the said style, and are that way for a reason, but he seems to speak of Oyo as a way of bringing the principles of the form to life. So the application can look SIMILAR, doesn't have to be 100% perfectly spot on, but as long as it adheres to the principles that the form is trying to communicate. But yeah just an idea, thought it might spur on something helpful but all good!
> 
> And no he didn't say definites, which I sort of like. Leaves room for exploration



What is Oyo?


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> What is Oyo?


What I wrote above and from what I understand in general, bunkai is the "taking apart the kata", disassembling it in order to analyse, and oyo is the extracted techniques/sequences and how they're applied, but specifically how the principles are brought to life and applied.

But I've heard it said that it's not just the application, but bringing them to life in an organic way to suit the context, and also YOUR particular body type and mechanics. It makes it more individual, so being able to apply the principles of the form within the confines of your body and movements. So that it is fluid and makes sense for you and how you can use it.

I don't know if that made sense haha.. I just scrawled through all my karate mags, I swear there was an article specifically about oyo but ugh couldn't find it...

Btw I am NO expert at all on this... but just from my research/practice and understanding. And I haven't seen this connection explored much in any dojos I've been in, it's usually just been "this is the application, or maybe this is the application".

I like how the idea of oyo takes something mechanical and concrete, and makes it more realistic and contextual. Life ain't an equation ay!

I wish I could come up with a specific example what this all entails haha. But I guess it allows for individual differences. Although our bodies are essentially the same, oyo is allowing alterations to be made in order to a) still utilise the principle communicated and b) respect the limitations and use the body in its max capacity according to how its built and how you function.

As long as the inherent principle is preserved and expressed, go nuts!

And to me I think some people go a liiiiittle crazy with forms interpretation at times, "this block could be a block, ORRRR it could be a whizzbangwoopdeewoop". Sometimes imagination goes a little far haha and it strays too far from the principle behind it.

That being said, there could be more than one principle behind a movement perhaps?

*cue dramatic, enigmatic exit music*


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 30, 2019)

Another interesting article, sort of a different take in a way:

Bunkai and Oyo – Shinkyu Martial Arts


----------



## skribs (Dec 30, 2019)

_Simon_ said:


> What I wrote above and from what I understand in general, bunkai is the "taking apart the kata", disassembling it in order to analyse, and oyo is the extracted techniques/sequences and how they're applied, but specifically how the principles are brought to life and applied.
> 
> But I've heard it said that it's not just the application, but bringing them to life in an organic way to suit the context, and also YOUR particular body type and mechanics. It makes it more individual, so being able to apply the principles of the form within the confines of your body and movements. So that it is fluid and makes sense for you and how you can use it.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that I'm coming at this from the perspective of a TKD guy, but I thought that's what bunkai is.


----------



## _Simon_ (Dec 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> Keep in mind that I'm coming at this from the perspective of a TKD guy, but I thought that's what bunkai is.


Yeah alot of people use bunkai and oyo interchangeably, but I like what oyo tries to convey.

But alright fair enough. All I'm saying is there can be variances in applying the form as long as it doesn't stray from the principle it's teaching.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> KKW does not do anything remotely related to Bunkai as part of their teaching or training.



I mentioned a while ago about the possibility of me getting in touch with the most local to me kkw school, and last week I spoke to the instructor on the phone.

I actually asked him directly about this, and at least in this particular school they do drill the movements in the forms against variable resistance...

I'm probably visiting them at some point, so I may be in a position to compare and expand on it.



skribs said:


> The two issues that I have *as it relates to this discussion* is: 1) this is an article about Karate, not Taekwondo, and 2) there is a lot of "I believe," "I think," and similar other means which make this an opinion piece instead of curriculum discussion. Not that I have a problem with the concept in general, but this discussion is over the official KKW forms.



So, as above, there exist kkw schools who do work forms application as part of their curriculum.

Ok, I've only contacted one (and don't know precisely how deep they go with it), but if it were truly endemic to kkw as a whole to ignore application then I must've greatly beat the odds by having the only school I've contacted, which is by chance the nearest to me, being the exception to that rule.

I don't understand your position on this to be honest.

In 'my' itf school, we also work application. Some applications are also contained within the encyclopaedia.

But I also look to other arts for more possibilities - if a movement is close enough to something I already train then I can put that to the instructors and work it with them and other students. I've taken stuff from videos of techniques within karate*, kung fu*, aikido*, tai chi* and others and experimented with that as extensions or interpretations of tkd moves. I've found more than a few times that I can pull off moves from other sources more reliably than I can apply the single written example, and I've never been told it's wrong to do so (I self moderate with low belts, it's not good to flood them).

What is stopping you doing similar?

You surely can't be alone in identifying a disconnect here, so seek out like minded people and work the problem.

You appear very stuck with the attitude that if it's not handed to you by your master then it's not part of your version of the art.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but you also seem very dissatisfied at the same time and are constantly searching for more.

Again, nothing wrong with searching for more, but your two apparent specifications (1. it must be part of what you consider the curriculum, and 2. you want more than the curriculum as you see it contains) are directly at odds with each other.

You're seriously going to have to drop one and choose what you want - either stick with the purity of containing yourself to what your master shows you, or alternatively look further afield.

That doesn't mean ditching your current training, but more expanding and potentially modifying.

The thing you shouldn't do is continue to ask questions about application and viability and go on to dismiss any opinions offered because "it's not kkw approved" or "that's not what my master teaches" (paraphrased). That's only going to continue to frustrate you and alienate you from others who were previously willing to offer opinions and guidance.




*Generic terms as I either can't remember or can't identify sub-types and derivatives due to lack of specific knowledge.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 16, 2020)

Very well said @pdg .


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> So, as above, there exist kkw schools who do work forms application as part of their curriculum.
> 
> Ok, I've only contacted one (and don't know precisely how deep they go with it), but if it were truly endemic to kkw as a whole to ignore application then I must've greatly beat the odds by having the only school I've contacted, which is by chance the nearest to me, being the exception to that rule.



You'll have to see if they can actually back up what they claim.  I've found plenty of videos, even books that describe the application of the forms.  But they invariably fail in at least one of these categories:

The application presented is garbage
The application presented does not actually use the technique in the form, and has to heavily modify it to make it actually work in *any *scenario.  If there's one point in the technique that looks like the one in the form, or if you've got a limb or two moving in vaguely the same direction, it gets called an application of the technique, and that's setting a low bar of success.
The application presented uses one technique from the form, and a bunch of techniques that are *not* in the form (it would be like teaching someone how to sift flour and then saying that lesson taught them how to bake a cake)
I don't remember who it was, but in another one of these threads someone posted a link to KKW stating that there is self-defense taught in the forms.  But as far as I could tell, that was empty rhetoric for the sake of advertisement, which is not backed up by the KKW curriculum.



> I don't understand your position on this to be honest.



My position is to be realistic about what the forms teach me.  That I wasted my time searching for an application when there was none to be found.  So I found what the forms do well, and I apply my forms training to that.  They're good for memorization, attention to detail, and dexterity.



> In 'my' itf school, we also work application. Some applications are also contained within the encyclopaedia.



That's great.  It's also and ITF school with ITF forms.  



> But I also look to other arts for more possibilities - if a movement is close enough to something I already train then I can put that to the instructors and work it with them and other students. I've taken stuff from videos of techniques within karate*, kung fu*, aikido*, tai chi* and others and experimented with that as extensions or interpretations of tkd moves. I've found more than a few times that I can pull off moves from other sources more reliably than I can apply the single written example, and I've never been told it's wrong to do so (I self moderate with low belts, it's not good to flood them).
> 
> What is stopping you doing similar?



I did.  I looked to Karate for a lot of the similar moves.  I didn't get very far there on the more complicated moves, either.



> You surely can't be alone in identifying a disconnect here, so seek out like minded people and work the problem.



Spent 5 years doing that.  That's how I came to my conclusion.



> You appear very stuck with the attitude that if it's not handed to you by your master then it's not part of your version of the art.
> 
> There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but you also seem very dissatisfied at the same time and are constantly searching for more.
> 
> ...



Where have I *ever* said "that's not what my master teaches"?  That's a phrase that got put into my mouth a long time ago by someone who couldn't read my posts properly, and for some reason has stuck as a stigma against me ever since.  I've repeatedly stated that my source for my opinion is from several articles, *multiple* masters that I have trained under, videos I have seen, books, and replies to the questions I've asked on multiple forums.  And yet, people keep getting stuck on "well that's not what my master teaches."

No.

If you're going to criticize me, please criticize *me*, and not some made-up version of me that someone who couldn't even read came up with.  

To further illustrate this point, my position (as has been made *very *clear in this thread) is that I recognized that disconnect between #1 and #2, and I *have* made the adjustment.  The adjustment just doesn't sit well with the people on this forum, because the adjustment is to see that disconnect and stop looking for the application.  Now, the reason I'm here in this thread is because I was specifically mentioned by name by @dvcochran .  He was literally asking for my opinion on the subject.  So I came to offer it.  If you're searching for application in the Keumgang Poomsae, you're not going to find it.  Those moves are chosen for artistic purposes and have no place in actual combat without heavy modification.  Then he took offense with my opinion, because my opinion is in violation of his claims that there is an application there.  One which, when I asked what it was, he simply said "yes" and failed to actually provide it.

So no, I haven't come in here to ask those questions.  I don't ask those questions any more.  I've got my answer.  When someone asks for opinions on the forms, I provide my opinions.  If people can prove me wrong, then by all means do so.  But so far, the only proof I've had meets a very low bar for success, a bar which I have set higher with a simple standard:  if a form is going to teach applicable technique, then the technique taught in the form must be directly applicable.  It's a simple standard, and honestly not a very high bar to set *if the forms are designed to teach application*.  

And I'm not going to lower my bar to alleviate the risk of alienating people.  That's not a compromise I'm willing to make.  I'd rather keep my standards than capitulate to someone who settled.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> That's great. It's also and ITF school with ITF forms.



From my (admittedly cursory) investigations so far, the techniques in kkw and ITF curricula have far more in common than they have differences.

The actual names differ, sometimes significantly, but once you get past that part then the similarities are there.

I can readily accept that the intent often differs too, but that's a matter of how the training is conducted and not the technique itself.

As to the patterns vs the forms, well, there's a massive amount shared there too.

The pattern/form will have a different name, and the sections will likely be in different orders and even chopped up and spread through multiple patterns, but every single kkw form I've seen has sections that are also present in ITF patterns.

As I'm of the opinion that any pattern/form is a collection of sections and not a full script, there's no reason whatsoever to not apply the "ITF" applications to the kkw forms.

Likewise, if I do visit the kkw school I'll happily integrate anything I find them doing that is useful.

Same with what I've done with bits of karate et al. The movements are similar enough that I'm technically already practising them, so amalgamating their application/bunkai is a logical step to me.

That's where my assessment of your attitude comes from.

There are multiple instances where an application has been offered to you that you have rejected because the application is sourced from a non-kkw art - if I have to I'm prepared to find some of the multiple instances where you've written something off out of hand because "I'm looking for the official kkw application, your xyz style version doesn't count".


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> From my (admittedly cursory) investigations so far, the techniques in kkw and ITF curricula have far more in common than they have differences.
> 
> The actual names differ, sometimes significantly, but once you get past that part then the similarities are there.
> 
> ...



And the reason for that is the way in which the forms are taught.  Not just by my Master, but by my former Master at my old school, and by the people teaching the Master's course at KKW.

People just paraphrase it as "that's not what my master taught me", because it's easier to dismiss my position if my only source is my Master.

The forms are taught by replication, and you are specifically trained to do the moves in a specific way.  If that specific way has no direct application, then you cannot say that specific technique has application.

I can't speak for other styles of TKD or for Karate.  I don't know if they train their forms the same way we train ours.  All I can say is the KKW forms are trained based on how you look when doing the form, and not so much on what you're doing.  

I can also say that if people do find meaning and add it to their curriculum, that's not a problem.  But if that meaning doesn't make sense to me (for the reasons I outlined in my previous reply) then I personally can't agree with it.  I can also train the applications they are drawing, without artificially connecting it to the forms.  And I say "artificially", because if the application doesn't represent exactly what is in the forms, then the application is a best guess, as far as I can tell.  You can stretch any technique to meet any other motion if you do enough mental gymnastics.

You can train application without training forms.  And I do.  So I do not feel that I am lacking in applicable training if I don't connect the forms to application.  Instead, I connect the forms to exercise and performance, and I train my application separate.  In fact, many martial arts *don't* use forms at all.  If it was necessary to get application from the forms, then arts like boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and BJJ would all suck.  (Hint: they don't).

What I actually found is that I enjoyed the forms more once I got over trying to find an application.  Because instead of constantly thinking "why am I doing X, Y, or Z?" I'm just doing the form.  And I can focus on perfecting the form and doing my best at it, and then I can focus on the application when I'm training that.

I wish they were more directly applicable.  But then they wouldn't look as good.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

Short quote for reasons...



skribs said:


> In fact, many martial arts *don't* use forms at all. If it was necessary to get application from the forms, then arts like boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and BJJ would all suck. (Hint: they don't)



You say they don't use forms, and in a way you're right - they don't have things they call forms.

But, they have drills and combinations.

Go into a boxing gym and pounds to pennies there will be people doing something like "jab, cross, hook" against mitts, a bag or the air. Some of them will be doing it slowly to work on position (at which point it won't look like the application).

The amount of times that specific combination arises in a match are tiny, yet it's still practiced often.

Short form 1?


BJJ, there's going to be people doing the same sort of thing, working on techniques, breaking them down into components, doing them slower than normal to get the the feel for position - I'll warrant there's even a bit of solo work somewhere in there.

Not a codified form, but even a simple move can be broken into parts which can be taken in isolation.

And in all of those there's going to be other stuff added to make the application work - probably called something like 'entry' or 'setup'.





It's true in other sports too - tennis players work on their serve all the time. That's a 3-5 move form being practiced. They'll often do it slowly with exaggerated movements too (at least they do at my local tennis club).

Then to that, in real time, they'll add things like assessment of wind and surface conditions which may cause them to modify their technique, and how to move following the serve to reach the return - a serve in isolation is somewhat like a punch in a form, by itself it doesn't mean much.

Golf - I've seen players be filmed and analyse the footage in slow motion to find tiny details they can improve on, which they isolate and work.

I don't think you're likely to find anyone in any of those areas who will say they never practice - they might categorically state they never practice forms, but that's simply a matter of interpretation.


In that context, application without forms is just "have at it, see who wins"

Why should the tkd forms be any different? You're using exaggerated movements to practice, upon which you can add setup and situational modification. You have multiple combinations and techniques bundled together so that you can adapt them to a situation and transition from almost any one to almost any other. Expecting an application to look exactly identical to a full form is quite frankly a bit silly.


Now, that said, there is actually a situation that I really can't see is actually the case that is sanctioned and propagated by the governing organisation, but it may happen - that of forms just being a demonstration dance and competitive sparring being entirely disconnected, all the while having no concern toward any sort of connection between the two.

I may have asked before, but I can't remember - do you not have set sparring drills? The "you do x and I counter with y" kind of things? 

If you do, surely you can see the connection to moves in the forms (attacks, blocks and counters)?


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> What I actually found is that I enjoyed the forms more once I got over trying to find an application. Because instead of constantly thinking "why am I doing X, Y, or Z?" I'm just doing the form



Now this part in particular, I actually agree with that.

When teaching/learning patterns, often there will be an example simple application given - "this is to block a punch/kick" or "this is attack to this area" - which is a visualisation aid.

So when someone has a high block that's too low, you can say something like "that's to block a punch coming at your face, your block is too low".

I can't see much value in teaching someone a pattern with the sort of thing like "move left arm outward and stop it here" - maybe that really is how you've been taught though.

But, concentrating too hard on that single application isn't great either, it's a starting point for that move.

I never go through performing a pattern thinking "I'm doing X because Y".

What I do find happens a lot however is that I'll use a move, or a transition, from a pattern in free sparring without thinking about it until afterwards. Because of doing it in the pattern it's become part of my catalogue of body movements and while it may not be exactly as the description would suggest, it's the same move.

For example, I wouldn't be there thinking "here comes a fist, I'll do move 19 from the fifth pattern".

After the fact, especially if it's filmed, I'll identify that's actually what it was though.


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> Short quote for reasons...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's the difference - what you drill when your punching pads or rolling with a partner is the *same* technique you would use in a live situation.  What you do in a TKD form, especially the more complicated the techniques in the form, is *not* what you would do in a live situation.

Using Keumgang as an example, I can't see a situation in which the crane stance and diamond low block, or the horse stance and double mountain block would be used as they are done in the form.  Looking at the double mountain block in particular, I even asked the question here (in this thread) - can it be used exactly as done in the form, without any modification.  The answer was "yes."  When I asked how, I got no response.  

A boxer isn't going to have one type of jab they use for punching pads and another type of jab they use for sparring.  They're not going to duck one way when a pad comes towards them in a drill, and a different way when a punch is coming at them in the ring.  Now they may have to aim higher or lower, and they may modify the jab to fit the situation.  But the jab they train or drill is going to be the jab they fight with.

Similarly, a golfer is going to drill by hitting the ball, so that they can hit the ball better.  They aren't going to drill to hit the ball over and over and over again in the driving range, and then use a completely different swing on the fairway.  They may adjust for distance or to hook or slice the ball, but they've drilled on how to do that, too.  

Going from the KKW forms to the application is more like learning to swing a baseball bat or hit a hockey puck, and then using the principles there to go and golf.  There are similar principles in terms of grip and energy transfer, but they are completely separate techniques.  Coming back to Keumgang and the double mountain block, it's a move that looks strong, but has no practical purpose as done.  Unlike a punch combo on pads, which will be executed just as it was performed on the pads.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> Similarly, a golfer is going to drill by hitting the ball, so that they can hit the ball better.



Actually, that's not strictly true.

It's very very common that a golfer will drill their swing without a ball in sight, likewise a putt.

Same with a tennisser as well - they'll often practice a serve, or a backhand, or a type of step, without a ball.

Also often, the practice they do does look different to how they go and apply it if the applied version is analysed in slow-mo side by side.

And look very closely at a boxer against a pad and against an opponent - there are often differences in technique that only come to light in application, which are sometimes then worked on with further practice.



skribs said:


> Using Keumgang as an example, I can't see a situation in which the crane stance and diamond low block, or the horse stance and double mountain block would be used as they are done in the form. Looking at the double mountain block in particular, I even asked the question here (in this thread) - can it be used exactly as done in the form, without any modification. The answer was "yes." When I asked how, I got no response.



Firstly, I'd have to look up what those moves are, because if they're present in my curriculum (highly likely) then they'll have different names.

Thing is though, why the insistence on the application being exactly as done in the form?

Stances for instance - in a form (and a pattern) they're treated like a pose, you assume it and freeze for a variable time for that snapshot. You can't apply it like that, a stance is a transitory thing - it happens and is gone, but there's value and importance in understanding how to get into and out of them.

Doing a technique in that stance doesn't mean you can only do those things in combination - it's commonly practiced that we'll do a bending stance (apparently pretty much what you call a crane stance) in conjunction with a block that is held. You'd never use it exactly like that though because it's a preparatory position that is moved fluidly through in application.


To be completely honest, I'm coming to think that what you actually want is something that doesn't exist - in any art.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> To be completely honest, I'm coming to think that what you actually want is something that doesn't exist - in any art.



Sorry, maybe that should be "what you actually wantED"?


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> Now this part in particular, I actually agree with that.
> 
> When teaching/learning patterns, often there will be an example simple application given - "this is to block a punch/kick" or "this is attack to this area" - which is a visualisation aid.
> 
> ...


I only get stuck on a single application if it doesn't  make sense. 

How often do you find that you used one of the more advanced or intricate moves of the form?


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> Actually, that's not strictly true.
> 
> It's very very common that a golfer will drill their swing without a ball in sight, likewise a putt.
> 
> ...



The KKW forms are in youtube, as well as documented in image form elsewhere.  You can look up keumgang and hopefully pick up contextually which techniques I am referring to. Of course, 70% of the form is artsy techniques.

What you describe about the forms being snapshots and poses is exactly the problem I'm talking about. There isn't any discussion on how to accurately use these techniques or how to use them in combination. They're chosen for how good the poses look, and your training in the form is how to make the poses look better.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> I only get stuck on a single application if it doesn't  make sense.
> 
> How often do you find that you used one of the more advanced or intricate moves of the form?



It varies (obviously). I don't use all the moves all the time and I don't always use them with the 'introductory' application (I've never heard of anyone saying a rising block is designed to be used against an axe kick, but it's entertainingly effective and they tend to not try an axe kick again for a while), but they're there and they get used.

With one notable exception, I quite honestly can't think of a single move (or exceedingly close derivative thereof) in any of the patterns up to my level (and a good few contained in patterns above) that I haven't used in either free sparring or improvisational step sparring that didn't feel forced, at least not after a bit of work on timing and the like. I usually have to force things a couple of times until I find the flow, but then they're generally pretty repeatable, more or less.

I have to say at this point that I've had multiple 3rd+ Dan grades say that they like sparring with me, but hate it at the same time - because they never know what I'm going to do either in defence or attack (or combination) - they're so used to almost everyone sticking with side kick / turning kick / side block and very little else and then along comes me with my ridiculous combinations of moves that "never work" and then I'm helping them back to their feet... Most comedy comment: "why can't I kick you???"

It's not that I'm better than them as such, it's that I'm unpredictable and allegedly very difficult to lead or feint.



skribs said:


> The KKW forms are in youtube, as well as documented in image form elsewhere. You can look up keumgang and hopefully pick up contextually which techniques I am referring to. Of course, 70% of the form is artsy techniques.



I think this is where that one notable exception above comes in - as far as I can make out mountain block = w shaped block (your arms form the shape of a w in line with shoulders either side of your head)?

If that's the correct parallel move, then it's the only one I know (so far) where any practical application utterly escapes me...

The given application is something like "blocking two attacks from opposite directions".

Now, I can make the outward traveling block work just fine - ditto the inward traveling one.

Doing both just because it's a move but against one attack?

No.

Actually using against two separate attacks?

No. (Maybe if the timing of the two attacks was absolutely perfect and I was pretty much expecting it, but 'live'? Nope)


Other techniques that come with the "two attacks" tag, those I do use but it'll be one block with whichever is secondary used as a primer for a counter.


The rest of the form - yeah, used pretty much all of it. Including the "crane stance and twin block", but as I hinted at that would be a flowing move (blocking against a lowish turning kick while going through that stance into a side kick).

I'd put maybe 10% of the form as "artsy" myself.


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> It varies (obviously). I don't use all the moves all the time and I don't always use them with the 'introductory' application (I've never heard of anyone saying a rising block is designed to be used against an axe kick, but it's entertainingly effective and they tend to not try an axe kick again for a while), but they're there and they get used.
> 
> With one notable exception, I quite honestly can't think of a single move (or exceedingly close derivative thereof) in any of the patterns up to my level (and a good few contained in patterns above) that I haven't used in either free sparring or improvisational step sparring that didn't feel forced, at least not after a bit of work on timing and the like. I usually have to force things a couple of times until I find the flow, but then they're generally pretty repeatable, more or less.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's the block.

Your attitude toward that block is my attitude towards most of the techniques.   Even where you say it might be a block and counter, well then why not teach it that way?!?!

In the flowing block, why would your other hand be back over your head instead of between you and your opponent?


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> What you describe about the forms being snapshots and poses is exactly the problem I'm talking about. There isn't any discussion on how to accurately use these techniques or how to use them in combination. They're chosen for how good the poses look, and your training in the form is how to make the poses look better.



If that really is how it's done throughout kkw tkd then I would agree it can be construed as an issue.

As a comparison (and this is something I may have said before) we do the patterns for the sake of doing the patterns. We'll analyse the snapshot moments and work on improving how we look at each point compared to the model of that 'pose'. The training of the pattern is to get better at that pattern

The subsequent stages are what you seem to lack though.

We then also go through the pattern against pads or an opponent offering attacks.

And, we break down sections of the patterns, working those sections against an opponent.

And, we take smaller combinations or individual moves and put them against an opponent in various drills.

And, we'll bundle sections or moves from one pattern with bits of another to work on the available transitions between moves - sometimes combining so that there's actually no discernible transition.


All the while, we'll be doing the pattern for the sake of doing the pattern without actively thinking X because Y - that should become a subconscious aspect.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> You'll have to see if they can actually back up what they claim.  I've found plenty of videos, even books that describe the application of the forms.  But they invariably fail in at least one of these categories:
> 
> The application presented is garbage
> The application presented does not actually use the technique in the form, and has to heavily modify it to make it actually work in *any *scenario.  If there's one point in the technique that looks like the one in the form, or if you've got a limb or two moving in vaguely the same direction, it gets called an application of the technique, and that's setting a low bar of success.
> ...



This summation is on you and you alone. It is Not the general consensus.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> Yeah, that's the block.
> 
> Your attitude toward that block is my attitude towards most of the techniques. Even where you say it might be a block and counter, well then why not teach it that way?!?!



Currently, with my level of understanding where it is, I consider that particular block to be the only technique that is actually unteachable from an application perspective.

I've asked about it a few times, and asked for the application to be demonstrated and it's turned out that it's either an inward or outward block with the other hand in a completely impractical and unusable position, or it's failed completely.

Maybe one day I'll actually stumble across a way to really use it (holding someone horizontally above my head and spinning them to throw them? ) but apart from fantasy I honestly doubt it.

The other moves that have the superficial "two direction block" but are actually more sensible as a block and counter or block and setup - we're free to do that and some are also taught as such.



skribs said:


> In the flowing block, why would your other hand be back over your head instead of between you and your opponent?



At least a bit of this will probably come across as unreasonable, and it does sound that way until you manage to do it reliably - which I'm fine with.

Well, one example is as a distraction.

I've found that lifting one arm takes attention away from my legs - blocking a turning kick and lifting one arm has meant my leg lifting and going into a side kick goes completely unchallenged and unnoticed until contact is made.

I've also had it work the other way - I raised my arm as a distraction but they didn't notice because they saw my leg lift and went to counter a kick. At that point, a bit of a twist with putting my foot back down resulted in an unchallenged side fist (hammer fist?). This has also been the case when they landed from their blocked kick too close for me to side kick in return.

As I said, those explanations look silly in writing and take way longer to read than to actually do (which doesn't help matters) but I have had them work.

I've also had them fail - but there's no such thing as a 100% move or there'd be no need to learn anything else anyway


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

So, @dvcochran - this w shaped (/mountain) block...

Do you have any possible explanation of a sensible application for it?


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> If that really is how it's done throughout kkw tkd then I would agree it can be construed as an issue.
> 
> As a comparison (and this is something I may have said before) we do the patterns for the sake of doing the patterns. We'll analyse the snapshot moments and work on improving how we look at each point compared to the model of that 'pose'. The training of the pattern is to get better at that pattern
> 
> ...



This has not been my experience at either KKW school, nor has it been common according to the research I have done.

We do the things you talk about - just not with the stuff in the forms.  For example, our red belt test includes things like turning a palm block into a v-lock (not in the forms), grabbing a side kick, sweeping the leg, and then doing a leg lock (not in the forms), and defending a rear body grab with a pick sweep (also not in the forms).  We train the application...just not from the forms.



pdg said:


> At least a bit of this will probably come across as unreasonable, and it does sound that way until you manage to do it reliably - which I'm fine with.
> 
> Well, one example is as a distraction.
> 
> ...



I could see that, except with your body turned the way it is, the hand is out of the way.  



dvcochran said:


> This summation is on you and you alone. It is Not the general consensus.



It's not just me.  Lots of people have noticed the disconnect between the forms and the other aspects of Taekwondo.  
Abandoning poomse. : taekwondo

The general consensus here (from many posters) is that Poomsae is a technical and artistic exercise, and not a way to teach application.

[Book review] Taekwondo: From a martial art to a martial sport : taekwondo

This post is a book review from someone who came to the same conclusion as me.  In particular...
_"In short, one of Moenig's central arguments is that taekwondo today is a mashup of incoherent contradictions and mutually incompatible ideas. It's a Japanese/Korean hybrid art that insists on its Korean purity by clinging desperately (and paradoxically) to its most Japanese elements: kata/poomsae. At the same time, modern sport taekwondo is arguably the only true indigenous Korean taekwondo. But even so, the majority of WT schools today fail to embrace that realization and instead rely on a muddled soup of forms/one-step self defense/sparring where the techniques and philosophy taught during one part of a class have absolutely nothing to do with what students might be doing 5 minutes later (Chapter 8 documents the fundamental incompatibilities in stance, technique, and execution during taekwondo forms and taekwondo sparring). And the lessons from MMA have shown that the traditional ideas about self defense are obsolete anyway. The reason why things persist like this is pretty apparent: making taekwondo "all things to all people" is the easiest/cheapest way for instructors to pay the bills."
_
And this is from people who *LIKE *Taekwondo.  If you ask people who are part of what I call the MMA cult (guys who think all TMAs are rubbish), they'll cite our unrealistic and impractical forms as one of the reasons why people should avoid TKD.  Their attitude towards TKD black belts can be summed up as "whooptie-freakin doo, you did some dances and got a belt."  Now, I don't personally hold this opinion (that all a black belt did is some dances).  But I certainly see the disconnect between poomsae and application.

You are trying to say I'm the only person who thinks this way, so that you can just completely dismiss me.  It is not just me. You are ignoring entire communities if you think it's just me.  Get your head out of the sand.  Deal with the arguments presented instead of just trying to handwave them away, or find a way to agree to disagree.  But don't sit there and tell me I'm the only person who thinks this way, because I clearly am not.

I like Taekwondo.  I still train forms.  I see the benefits of forms.  But if I try and tell people lies about what the forms teach, and they talk to someone who trains another art without forms, the other person is going to see through my bullcrap and tell the other person not to train at my dojang.  If I tell people honestly what the forms teach and the benefits of them, then people can still have their negative opinions, but at least they can't honestly call me a liar.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> I could see that, except with your body turned the way it is, the hand is out of the way.



That's where the twist comes into play.

That raised leg in front goes down behind, and that hand out of the way behind your head is then in position to strike diagonally downward and forward.

It's also a possible counterweight to aid balance...



skribs said:


> I like Taekwondo. I still train forms. I see the benefits of forms. But if I try and tell people lies about what the forms teach, and they talk to someone who trains another art without forms, the other person is going to see through my bullcrap and tell the other person not to train at my dojang. If I tell people honestly what the forms teach and the benefits of them, then people can still have their negative opinions, but at least they can't honestly call me a liar.



Given that there is so much crossover between the actual techniques contained in kkw forms and ITF patterns, telling people they can be applied is only a lie if you don't understand the application and can't demonstrate how that application can work.

You definitely have some of the benefits on board (balance, movement, etc.) but that's not all there is to it.

If, based on how the forms have been relayed to you, you believe there is nothing applicable that is taught by forms then I wouldn't call you a liar, but I would call you underinformed.

You're not lying about the potential of forms, but you're not exploiting all the benefits and therefore neither are the students you teach.

If anyone was to say that just doing forms by themselves will teach you all you need to handle any altercation, then that would indeed be a lie imo (possibly not an intentional lie, it's entirely possible that in the same way you were taught no application that they were taught that opinion as fact, believed it and transmitted it to others).

Maybe that's another highlight-able difference - ITF sparring looks nothing like kkw sparring in almost all cases, so maybe (again) it could actually be seen as beneficial that ITF hasn't moved it's competition sparring rules so far that it's not recognisable as the same art. Certainly as an outsider, watching a kkw sparring match and watching a kkw form even I wouldn't consider it as being derived from the same curriculum.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I don't remember which graduate degree it was but I had to take a psychology class and read a Carl Rogers book, the one about the 3 core conditions if I recall correctly. I could not connect with much of it but I still remember where he talks about changing you own self to meet goals; I really aligned with that part. The other logic just rings very loudly of making compromise for lack of not being willing to put in the work.
> "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison


I'm not reading through this whole thread, because honestly I have little interest in it. But I was skimming and wanted to comment on this. My apologies if this was already addressed. Also probably going on a huge tangent.

Both parts are equally important. If your goal is x, then you theoretically should be changing yourself to fit those goals. But when that becomes impossible, or detrimental, then you need to change the goals as well. I'll use basketball as an example. I love basketball, and love playing it. Let's say that I want my goal to become in the NBA. I can spend all my time focusing on it, but I may just not be talented enough for it, especially starting at 26 and being 5'7". So I can change my goals to something that's possible.

Let's pretend for a second that I do have enough talent to become an NBA player, with enough hard work. That might involve me quitting my job to train more often, with the hope that I will get drafted, or to join the gleague. The amount that I practice might also ruin my relationship with my fiancee because I'm not around as much. Or I might end up using steroids to achieve my goal. With these, I might get my goal, but the amount I lost might not be worth it. 

Now, having thought that through, my new goal is to be on an intramural team with some friends, and we win the championship. I still have something that I'm striving for, I'm keeping up my relationships/not losing my job over it, and it's actually possible. My mental health is a lot better because of that, and I'm still achieving something.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 16, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not reading through this whole thread, because honestly I have little interest in it. But I was skimming and wanted to comment on this. My apologies if this was already addressed. Also probably going on a huge tangent.
> 
> Both parts are equally important. If your goal is x, then you theoretically should be changing yourself to fit those goals. But when that becomes impossible, or detrimental, then you need to change the goals as well. I'll use basketball as an example. I love basketball, and love playing it. Let's say that I want my goal to become in the NBA. I can spend all my time focusing on it, but I may just not be talented enough for it, especially starting at 26 and being 5'7". So I can change my goals to something that's possible.
> 
> ...



I think I get your point. But to be fair, there is a lot of 'I' and 'my' in your thread. So what you see as (self) sacrifice others may not. As an example, someone may have known from a young age that the NBA was their dream. So most all of their life would align around the goal First. Everything else would have been secondary to the goal instead of deciding the NBA was the goal After a lot of other life circumstances were already in place.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I think I get your point. But to be fair, there is a lot of 'I' and 'my' in your thread. So what you see as (self) sacrifice others may not. As an example, someone may have known from a young age that the NBA was their dream. So most all of their life would align around the goal First. Everything else would have been secondary to the goal instead of deciding the NBA was the goal After a lot of other life circumstances were already in place.


Absolutely. The I and my is part of the point though. For me, where I am in my life, that's an unrealistic goal that would be detrimental to pursue. For James Wiseman, probably not. If he came to me for career advice I'd tell him to train his *** off and keep doing what he's doing. Hell, even if I decided at 8 or 9 years old that's what i want to do, it might have been a good goal. But that's why part of it is evaluating your own ideal self and how realistic it is for you.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> This has not been my experience at either KKW school, nor has it been common according to the research I have done.
> 
> We do the things you talk about - just not with the stuff in the forms.  For example, our red belt test includes things like turning a palm block into a v-lock (not in the forms), grabbing a side kick, sweeping the leg, and then doing a leg lock (not in the forms), and defending a rear body grab with a pick sweep (also not in the forms).  We train the application...just not from the forms.
> 
> ...



Where has anyone said you were the only one with that opinion? 
You dumbfound most of us because you consistently argue against yourself. Who ever said ALL of TKD training is in forms which is what you always imply with this tilted point of view? Hopefully no one else. 
There are far more writings that support application in forms than that do not. There will always be outliers (like yourself).  

I sincerely hope you figure some of this out soon rather than later. You are too high in rank to have the narrow view you have about training.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> So, @dvcochran - this w shaped (/mountain) block...
> 
> Do you have any possible explanation of a sensible application for it?



Yeah, that one can be a stretch at face value. It has a lot of representation in regards to the Keumgang mountain chain. Obviously is can be two high outside blocks for two attacker at the same time. Yes, a stretch. Some schools teach it as a twisting inside and outside blocking motion; the inside motion can also be an attack. Still directed at two attackers. In everyday society it is hard (hopefully) for most people to wrap their head around the idea of one attacker, let alone two.
Keumgang is one of the first forms where hands/arm are doing the same (or different) movements in the same fluid motion. So a lot more coordination is involved in the form than what is apparent at face value. I think this is a big, big reason it is the 2nd Dan form. All too often new BB's want to do a more 'exciting' for like Koryo or even Taebaek. I can tell right away if a person has good stances when watching them do Keumgang. It can really teach patience and footwork.  

Does Every move in every form have direct application in them? Yes. It is sometimes hard to see in a direct application. What is direct is how every motion I have ever done in a form helps me somewhere in learning application.

The 'I want it and I want it now' generation has a hard time with this.


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Where has anyone said you were the only one with that opinion?
> You dumbfound most of us because you consistently argue against yourself. Who ever said ALL of TKD training is in forms which is what you always imply with this tilted point of view? Hopefully no one else.
> There are far more writings that support application in forms than that do not. There will always be outliers (like yourself).
> 
> I sincerely hope you figure some of this out soon rather than later. You are too high in rank to have the narrow view you have about training.





dvcochran said:


> This summation is on you and you alone. It is Not the general consensus.



You said it.  In the post I was replying to.

And I never said all of TKD training is in forms.  When have I ever said that?

Your argument doesn't even seem grounded in reality anymore.  You're denying things you've said, and you're saying I've said things that I have not.


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yeah, that one can be a stretch at face value. It has a lot of representation in regards to the Keumgang mountain chain. Obviously is can be two high outside blocks for two attacker at the same time. Yes, a stretch. Some schools teach it as a twisting inside and outside blocking motion; the inside motion can also be an attack. Still directed at two attackers. In everyday society it is hard (hopefully) for most people to wrap their head around the idea of one attacker, let alone two.
> Keumgang is one of the first forms where hands/arm are doing the same (or different) movements in the same fluid motion. So a lot more coordination is involved in the form than what is apparent at face value. I think this is a big, big reason it is the 2nd Dan form. All too often new BB's want to do a more 'exciting' for like Koryo or even Taebaek. I can tell right away if a person has good stances when watching them do Keumgang. It can really teach patience and footwork.
> 
> Does Every move in every form have direct application in them? Yes. It is sometimes hard to see in a direct application. What is direct is how every motion I have ever done in a form helps me somewhere in learning application.
> ...



There are a TON of techniques in forms as early as Taegeuk Sa Jang where both hands are doing the motions?

I've never seen this attitude towards Keumgang by a black belt.  Our black belts do all of the forms with similar gusto.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yeah, that one can be a stretch at face value. It has a lot of representation in regards to the Keumgang mountain chain. Obviously is can be two high outside blocks for two attacker at the same time. Yes, a stretch. Some schools teach it as a twisting inside and outside blocking motion; the inside motion can also be an attack. Still directed at two attackers. In everyday society it is hard (hopefully) for most people to wrap their head around the idea of one attacker, let alone two



The only time I can that particular block being of any practical value is if it was a common event for a pair of attackers to coordinate simultaneous attacks.

Without near perfect timing from those two assailants though, it fails - but who knows, maybe a pincer type move from a pair of muggers or something was a popular method of assault.

If something like that is even remotely possibly the case (and having just thought about that, I'm actually willing to consider it may have been a method used in say narrow alleys which would negate side escape) then y'know, I'm not against keeping it and practicing it - I'm still unlikely to use it outside of a demo though because it's no longer really relevant except in that very low likelihood event.

I still think it's probably the lowest value move 



dvcochran said:


> Keumgang is one of the first forms where hands/arm are doing the same (or different) movements in the same fluid motion. So a lot more coordination is involved in the form than what is apparent at face value. I think this is a big, big reason it is the 2nd Dan form



This block under discussion is introduced in the pattern Toi Gye, the one learned at 3rd kup - but for us is not the first pattern to introduce double or twin arm moves (some you call assisted or augmented blocks?) - we also have at least a few moves in the colour belt patterns where the arms and legs are doing different, but complementary, actions (notably, a grab/pull into a side kick).

I'll have to have a sit and watch of the list of poomse again at some point, I can't recall the vast majority of any of them...


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> The only time I can that particular block being of any practical value is if it was a common event for a pair of attackers to coordinate simultaneous attacks.
> 
> Without near perfect timing from those two assailants though, it fails - but who knows, maybe a pincer type move from a pair of muggers or something was a popular method of assault.
> 
> ...



Yes, that is a good point that there are complementary or supplemented moves like the augmented blocks you mention in lower forms. Check me, but I think Keumgang is one of the first forms where each hand/arm is doing its own thing, largely independent of each other. 
Thinking about it, there are several exceptions in Pinan form set. I cannot think of any in the Palgwae or Taeguek sets but entirely possible.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> There are a TON of techniques in forms as early as Taegeuk Sa Jang where both hands are doing the motions?
> 
> I've never seen this attitude towards Keumgang by a black belt.  Our black belts do all of the forms with similar gusto.



I am not sure to what motions you are referring to in Taeguek 4. 

The augmented spearhands in the beginning? As described, this is done With the spear hand as supplement. 

The double blocks at the end? These moves are done in Sequence, not at the same time.

What are you referring to?


----------



## paitingman (Jan 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I am not sure to what motions you are referring to in Taeguek 4.
> 
> The augmented spearhands in the beginning? As described, this is done With the spear hand as supplement.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the knifehand high block + chop movement? 
Idk what name yal use. Korean name is too long lol
What should that move be called? 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2020)

@skribs, I am going to tolerate your childish ramblings a little longer because they are good for a laugh. I hope you realize NOBODY sees your input as intellectual value and assume you spew your kneejerk reactionary  blather as a form of humor. It is usually very funny. 

I have said this before; You really, really need to get out or you dojang and experience MA from other perspectives. Like Way out. Like out or your state or even your country. It seems to be a very different kind of stupid you have going on there. 

My apologies to the moderators. I am not elegant, or patient enough to communicate with certain people via the internet in a manner that is always 'nice'. I actually have a life taking place.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2020)

paitingman said:


> Perhaps the knifehand high block + chop movement?
> Idk what name yal use. Korean name is too long lol
> What should that move be called?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


I can see that. 
I think your description of the move is correct.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> The augmented spearhands in the beginning? As described, this is done With the spear hand as supplement.



So that's an augmented move for you?

So you have the attacking hand doing a fingertip thrust (spearhand) - do you have a purpose for the other hand that finishes under the elbow (and do you have that palm down)?



dvcochran said:


> The double blocks at the end? These moves are done in Sequence, not at the same time.



I didn't see anything that I'd classify as a double block near or at the end in the grainy video I just watched - should I look for another?


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I am not sure to what motions you are referring to in Taeguek 4.
> 
> The augmented spearhands in the beginning? As described, this is done With the spear hand as supplement.
> 
> ...



Double knife-hand block.
Supported spearhand.
Simultaneous high block and chop.  (Although this one I do see the practical application of, it's very similar to our first set of punch defense drills).

That's just in the first 5 moves.



dvcochran said:


> @skribs, I am going to tolerate your childish ramblings a little longer because they are good for a laugh. I hope you realize NOBODY sees your input as intellectual value and assume you spew your kneejerk reactionary  blather as a form of humor. It is usually very funny.
> 
> I have said this before; You really, really need to get out or you dojang and experience MA from other perspectives. Like Way out. Like out or your state or even your country. It seems to be a very different kind of stupid you have going on there.
> 
> My apologies to the moderators. I am not elegant, or patient enough to communicate with certain people via the internet in a manner that is always 'nice'. I actually have a life taking place.



Once again, you resort to belittling me in order to attack my argument.  This pretty much just tells me I'm right.  You don't have an answer for what I say, so you just insult me.

If you want to actually convince me that I'm wrong, do it by actually debating the points I present, instead of by huffing and puffing. 

You're also showing your true colors.  You never missed me for me.  You missed me for your own sick entertainment.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yes, that is a good point that there are complementary or supplemented moves like the augmented blocks you mention in lower forms. Check me, but I think Keumgang is one of the first forms where each hand/arm is doing its own thing, largely independent of each other.
> Thinking about it, there are several exceptions in Pinan form set. I cannot think of any in the Palgwae or Taeguek sets but entirely possible.



That depends on how you define "largely independent of each other".  The block-and-chop in Taegeuk #4 certainly qualifies.  If it doesn't, then nothing in Keumgang does, because they're done at the same time.  

I think the scissor blocks in Taegeuk #7, as well as the front section of Taegeuk #8 (the low block/outside block and then the slow uppercut).  Arguably the spearhand in Koryo as well.  



pdg said:


> So that's an augmented move for you?
> 
> So you have the attacking hand doing a fingertip thrust (spearhand) - do you have a purpose for the other hand that finishes under the elbow (and do you have that palm down)?
> 
> ...



I have no clue what he means, either.  I've never thought of the spearhand as a supplement when doing that form (or any other form with the spear-hand).  In some of our other forms, we do a palm block and then an augmented spearhand, but the spearhand is still the primary technique when executed.

There are blocks and 1-2 punches at the end of Taegeuk #4.  Maybe he's thinking of #5?


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> You missed me for your own sick entertainment.


Sounds about right. 


No matter how anyone replies to your queries you counter with endless blather instead to 'listening' to what people say. This is exactly why I seldom answer your posts at length. You make it pointless.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> So that's an augmented move for you?
> 
> So you have the attacking hand doing a fingertip thrust (spearhand) - do you have a purpose for the other hand that finishes under the elbow (and do you have that palm down)?
> 
> ...



The augmentation is for protecting the elbow. A spear hand is done palm up (mostly), with the elbow locked and facing down so it is potentially exposed to an upward strike (like a front kick). The free hand is used to protect the locked elbow. The back of your hand is nearest the elbow. 
A more advanced way to use the free hand position is After the spearing hand has made contact in the event the arm is grabbed.

Let me get a count on the moves to see what number they are and I will get back to you to see if we are on the same page.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Sounds about right.
> 
> 
> No matter how anyone replies to your queries you counter with endless blather instead to 'listening' to what people say. This is exactly why I seldom answer your posts at length. You make it pointless.



This entire thread has been proof that you don't listen.

The difference between you and me is that when I disagree with someone, I look at their points and see what is it about they said that doesn't make sense based on my research and experience.  When someone disagrees with you, and you have no answer, you find a way to make their argument less potent by insulting them or explaining why you're better than them and thus they should listen to you.

You complain about my "endless blather".  What I provide is explanation of why I think I'm right, and ask questions why the other person thinks they're right.  When I ask these questions of you, you become defensive and resort to attacking my experience or my character, instead of addressing the points I bring up.  In that sense, it is pointless, because you're not making for a very good debate.



dvcochran said:


> The augmentation is for protecting the elbow. A spear hand is done palm up (mostly), with the elbow locked and facing down so it is potentially exposed to an upward strike (like a front kick). The free hand is used to protect the locked elbow. The back of your hand is nearest the elbow.
> A more advanced way to use the free hand position is After the spearing hand has made contact in the event the arm is grabbed.
> 
> Let me get a count on the moves to see what number they are and I will get back to you to see if we are on the same page.



Maybe you phrased it wrong earlier, because you said the spearhand was the support (which would imply the palm is the primary focus of the technique).

I'm pretty sure that spearhand (Taegeuk #4, the source of that discussion) is done with a vertical hand and not with the palm up.  The only palm-up spearhand I know in the KKW forms is in Koryo, and the other hand isn't under the elbow at that point.

Out of curiosity - how do you count the moves?  Because depending on how you count you may end up on a very different page.  (i.e. if you count the down block and punch in Taeguek #1 as 5a-5b or 5-6 you're going to have anywhere from 16 to 20 moves in that form).


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2020)

There is more to the reason(s) people get short with you. I hope you figure this out. 



skribs said:


> I'm pretty sure that spearhand (Taegeuk #4, the source of that discussion) is done with a vertical hand and not with the palm up. The only palm-up spearhand I know in the KKW forms is in Koryo, and the other hand isn't under the elbow at that point.



What is your target when performing a spear hand?



skribs said:


> Out of curiosity - how do you count the moves? Because depending on how you count you may end up on a very different page. (i.e. if you count the down block and punch in Taeguek #1 as 5a-5b or 5-6 you're going to have anywhere from 16 to 20 moves in that form).



As a general rule, we count any double moves on one count, (the second move in Pinan 2 or connecting moves in Taeguek 1 for example). Often when a person is first learning  a form I will do each move on a single count at first.


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> The augmentation is for protecting the elbow. A spear hand is done palm up (mostly), with the elbow locked and facing down so it is potentially exposed to an upward strike (like a front kick). The free hand is used to protect the locked elbow. The back of your hand is nearest the elbow.
> A more advanced way to use the free hand position is After the spearing hand has made contact in the event the arm is grabbed.
> 
> Let me get a count on the moves to see what number they are and I will get back to you to see if we are on the same page.



There's another difference.

For the type shown in the video of taegeuk4 - which we would refer to as a fingertip thrust (we don't have spearhand as a regular use term) - the attacking hand is vertical.

The orientation of the hand depends on the target (more below).

The secondary hand, the one that finishes under the elbow, palm down, lands there having travelled in an arc motion - kind of performing a high downward palm block (say to an incoming punch) - then the attack goes over the top. These aren't generally visually discernible as separate moves.

The 'advanced' bit, that could still follow - so sweepy block to a punch combined with thrust over it, grabbing the hand you've blocked to pull into another move...

At least, that's how we do it.



dvcochran said:


> What is your target when performing a spear hand?



The type shown in T4 - target would be mid section, so solar plexus area or thereabouts. Always vertical, palm to the side.

A high section (eyes, septum area, throat) would generally be a "flat fingertip" which is horizontal hand, palm down.

Low section (stomach, groin) would be "upset", so horizontal again, palm up.



skribs said:


> I'm pretty sure that spearhand (Taegeuk #4, the source of that discussion) is done with a vertical hand and not with the palm up.



That's how I take it too.


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Out of curiosity - how do you count the moves? Because depending on how you count you may end up on a very different page. (i.e. if you count the down block and punch in Taeguek #1 as 5a-5b or 5-6 you're going to have anywhere from 16 to 20 moves in that form).





dvcochran said:


> As a general rule, we count any double moves on one count, (the second move in Pinan 2 or connecting moves in Taeguek 1 for example). Often when a person is first learning a form I will do each move on a single count at first.



This depends on how you mean to count the moves.

If it's looking at a pattern and counting moves, then each move is a separate entity - the sole exception being stuff like a true double block or similar.

Something like a double punch with fast motion, or two blocks with connecting motion - that's two techniques so are separately counted.


Performing to count, that's different.

The majority are one count, one move.

But, anything in fast motion is generally linked to one count (double punch), same with connecting motion (low block followed by high block using the same arm with no step).

Things that aren't practical to stop on count (in one pattern, high right turning kick, high left turning kick, land into forearm guarding block) are done as a set on one count - so there are multiple sets of 2,3 and 4 moves done to one count.


The amount of moves are constant, as per written description. The number of moves is also part of it's meaning...

But, it means that to count, a pattern that has say 30 moves you may only count to 25, due to the linkages.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2020)

pdg said:


> There's another difference.
> 
> For the type shown in the video of taegeuk4 - which we would refer to as a fingertip thrust (we don't have spearhand as a regular use term) - the attacking hand is vertical.
> 
> ...



I like the arcing motion idea. I don't think I have heard it put in such explicit terms relative to a 'standard' spear hand. There are two TSD forms that do exactly what you describe but more as two separate moves done on the same step. I know you said it is not discernable but is this hand slightly leading the spearing hand? I envision that it would have to so as not to get in the way. Maybe I am seeing it wrong. 

I suppose saying mostly palms up is easily misunderstood. We practice a middle strike (solar plexus) or low strike (iliohypogastric nerve bundle) more palm up, at about a 45° angle for two reasons. The first is simply the natural 'lay' or rotation of the forearm/wrist/hand in an outreaching motion. The second is if the spear hand is followed with a gripping motion so that an upward & outward pull is easier. 

I have heard it said that a vertical palm is weaker but know of little to prove this. I do see logic in the open part of the hand being turned upward, the same way grip strength is stronger when pushing in toward the palm and/or against the natural folding motion of the fingers.

An upper spear hand is not something we actively practice but I have seen it performed at other schools.  It naturally has a reach advantage but I do not feel the fingers (mine anyway) are ideal against anything hard, like the eye socket or collar bone, in the event of a near miss. Whereas, a fist is still going to have a strong effect to these areas even in a near miss. 
That said, a spear hand to the eye or windpipe would be one hell of an effective strike.


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I know you said it is not discernable but is this hand slightly leading the spearing hand? I envision that it would have to so as not to get in the way. Maybe I am seeing it wrong



No, you're seeing it right - it does ever so slightly lead. Just not enough to be anything like two moves.



dvcochran said:


> I have heard it said that a vertical palm is weaker but know of little to prove this



I can't see how it's weaker, it's a natural orientation for me at mid section.

We don't really do angled - it's either flat or vertical.



dvcochran said:


> It naturally has a reach advantage but I do not feel the fingers (mine anyway) are ideal against anything hard, like the eye socket or collar bone, in the event of a near miss



Part of it is how you hold your fingers.

Dead straight and it'll hurt you.

Slightly bent means the risk of bending the joints the wrong way is massively reduced.

Not many at the club are prepared to do it, but I like breaking with a fingertip thrust - because it looks cool  I'm 'only' up to the 3/4" rebreakable board with it...

It definitely takes practice though, and it's up to the individual whether that's justifiable or they'd rather use the time on more 'useful' stuff - personally, given I really don't think I'm likely to get called on to defend myself, I like working on stuff I find entertaining.


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> There are two TSD forms that do exactly what you describe but more as two separate moves done on the same step



Do you know what these are called?

Maybe I can find a video or something to see if it's similar...


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I know you said it is not discernable but is this hand slightly leading the spearing hand? I envision that it would have to so as not to get in the way. Maybe I am seeing it wrong.



Some more...

It's subtle, if the performer is any good you have to be really looking for it.

Ok, in this one - move 6 at about 0:13


----------



## skribs (Jan 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> There is more to the reason(s) people get short with you. I hope you figure this out.



A lot of people get along with me.  You seem to think that number is lower than it is.



dvcochran said:


> What is your target when performing a spear hand?



In T4, at the solar plexus.  In Koryo, the groin.  My Master had an interesting comment about that one the other day, his advice was "grab the ball and rip it out."



dvcochran said:


> As a general rule, we count any double moves on one count, (the second move in Pinan 2 or connecting moves in Taeguek 1 for example). Often when a person is first learning a form I will do each move on a single count at first.



The reason I asked (and I'm glad I did) is because that's how we might generally count it, but that doesn't appear the way @pdg counts.  I'm glad I asked to make sure you're really on the same page.

Kind of like how the Bible uses chapter and verse instead of page #, because different page sizes and fonts could mean wildly different page numbers for the same content 



pdg said:


> The secondary hand, the one that finishes under the elbow, palm down, lands there having travelled in an arc motion - kind of performing a high downward palm block (say to an incoming punch) - then the attack goes over the top. These aren't generally visually discernible as separate moves.



In *my school's *Palgwe forms (which differ from the ones I find online) spearhand strikes are usually following a palm block, and not done simultaneously.  This is the application that made the most sense to me when I started learning T4.


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> The reason I asked (and I'm glad I did) is because that's how we might generally count it, but that doesn't appear the way @pdg counts. I'm glad I asked to make sure you're really on the same page.
> 
> Kind of like how the Bible uses chapter and verse instead of page #, because different page sizes and fonts could mean wildly different page numbers for the same content



Well, it appears that 'I' actually count the same as you, as well as different to you.

Say there's "front snap kick, double punch".

In description, that would be 3 moves, numbered individually and described separately, i.e. (numbers for illustration only):

7. Perform a right front snap kick landing in right walking stance
8. Perform an obverse middle section punch upon landing in right walking stance
9. Perform a reverse middle section punch in right walking stance (these moves are performed with fast motion)


When doing it to instructor's count, you'd do all three on one count.


If required, I'll go through T4 to illustrate how it'd differ...


----------



## skribs (Jan 18, 2020)

@dvcochran @pdg 

My recommendation for you two at this point is to find a picture representation of the form with the techniques counted, so you can just say "Step 14 of the image."

Something like this


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> @dvcochran @pdg
> 
> My recommendation for you two at this point is to find a picture representation of the form with the techniques counted, so you can just say "Step 14 of the image."
> 
> Something like this



I detest those personally. But I know others like them - I just wouldn't ever choose to use them.

I also dislike the practice of adding suffixes to numbered moves.


Do you have separate terms and descriptions for different styles of motion and the transitions between moves?

For example, we have things like slow (self explanatory hopefully) but also things like fast, connecting and continuous motion to describe the transitions.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 18, 2020)

pdg said:


> I detest those personally. But I know others like them - I just wouldn't ever choose to use them.
> 
> I also dislike the practice of adding suffixes to numbered moves.
> 
> ...


Agree; they are hard to look at if you have never done the form.

@pdg ,I felt you and I were understanding pretty well. If that is not the case let me know.


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I felt you and I were understanding pretty well. If that is not the case let me know



I think we're mainly on the same page at the mo - a bit of clarification here and there, partly due to terminology differences and partly because of the format of conversation, but it seems to be working out.

It would seem we're both managing to spot where any confusion is happening.


----------



## skribs (Jan 18, 2020)

pdg said:


> I detest those personally. But I know others like them - I just wouldn't ever choose to use them.
> 
> I also dislike the practice of adding suffixes to numbered moves.
> 
> ...



It's a tool.  It serves the specific purpose of helping you guys figure out which technique you're talking about.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 19, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's a tool.  It serves the specific purpose of helping you guys figure out which technique you're talking about.


I don't think we are having any problems understanding each other. 
Maybe someone else needs the diagram?


----------



## skribs (Jan 19, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I don't think we are having any problems understanding each other.
> Maybe someone else needs the diagram?



I'm just saying.  You guys were mentioning counting steps to make sure you're talking about the same move.  This is a way to make sure you're referring to the same steps.

Instead of one of you counting something as Step 14a and someone else has it as Step 18 (or something like that).  If you say move 18, he might be looking at something different.

And since you each have mentioned different ways of counting in different contexts, I think it makes sense to have the same source for the numbers.


----------

