# Boon Hae



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2010)

For those of you who practice the old Okinawan/Japanese hyung sets, Pyung Ahn's, Bassai, Naihanchi's, Chinto, Kong Sang Koon, etc.. . 

How do you feel your Boon Hae differs from the Okinawan/Japanese Bunkai?  Obviously we as TKD/TSD practicioners kick to the head, where our karateka brethren kick to the waist (or knees) in the same movements.  Do we have a deeper meaning to these movements, or is it merely a show of athleticism?  

IMHO, I see the use of both the Okinawan and Japanese approaches to these applications as exteremly effective.  I also see applications to the head kicks, but they are obviously different applications than the Okinawan/Japanese bunkais.  Mainly the difference I see is the range in which the boon hae/bunkai differs.

Anyone out there on this thread have an opinion?  I would love to hear it!


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 19, 2010)

It would have to be to show off better athletic ability, the Korean way is to always be superior to everyone else.


----------



## dortiz (Jan 19, 2010)

I think that changes the form though. A low kick moves you in to a differnt position than a head kick so something is now going down a different path.

Dave O.


----------



## UpTheIrons (Jan 19, 2010)

One thing I've learned in my experience with Taekwondo, especially learning under very accomplished instructors, is that EVERY technique in form has a reason. Sometimes that reason is philosophical, sometimes physical, sometimes self defense, often a follow up to a previous technique. However, I've never been told a technique is simply for athletic value. The reasoning behind Korean forms is also much deeper than many people give it credit for.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2010)

My personal belief is that every move in every form that I have been taught has a specific application as I have been taught.  I know that these forms are of Okinawan and Japanese origins, but I also know that the Koreans that adopted these forms added their own interpretations that blend the indigenous Korean styles with the Okinawan/Japanese.  

I posed this question to see how everyone feels on the subject, because when talking boon hae/bunkai with martial artists of Okinawan and Japanese arts, they often have problems understanding the use of these changes.  Mainly, IMHO, it is because it fundamentally changes the type of movement found within the form, i.e. closed quarter/clinch grapple with strike changed to wrist lock with a side kick to the face.  These fundamental changes are extremely different in nature, but I see how both of there similarities, differences and that both of them are extremely effective when executed properly.  

I also know that many TKD/TSD schools do not teach boon hae, so I was curious how many of you all out there practice the application aspect of hyungs.

Thanks for the posts, and please keep them comin'


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 20, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I posed this question to see how everyone feels on the subject, because when talking boon hae/bunkai with martial artists of Okinawan and Japanese arts, they often have problems understanding the use of these changes.  Mainly, IMHO, it is because it fundamentally changes the type of movement found within the form, i.e. closed quarter/clinch grapple with strike changed to wrist lock with a side kick to the face.*  These fundamental changes are extremely different in nature, but I see how both of there similarities, differences and that both of them are extremely effective when executed properly.  *



This is a good topic for discussion.  Thanks for starting the thread.

I'm afraid I'm one of those Okinawan stylists that believe the changes made in the Korean versions of the forms actually detract from the effectiveness of the applications.  A common example is the use of sidekicks in the Pyung Ahn forms instead of front kicks as in the older versions.  Going to a side kick almost forces an assumption that any grappling application would come from the same side that kick comes from - in contrast, a front kick used as an entry technique still leaves you the flexibility of turning or shifting to either side to complete a takedown.

Thoughts?  Most of the applications I have seen from a Korean perspective generally are of the block and then kick/punch variety.  The main exception I can think of is Stuart Anslow's book, and unfortunately he's hardly "mainstream".


----------



## 72ronin (Jan 20, 2010)

Yes the Pyong-Ahn (Moo Duk Kwan) and the Heian (Shotokan) are the same.
              I actually just started MDK TKD a little over 5 months ago and have trained Shotokan for several years now and still do.

               From gitcho ilboo right through we practice the same forms in Shotokan. In Shotokan Gitcho ilboo would be pronounced as taikyoku shodan and so on.

              I should add that Shotokan uses a side snap kick (high section) where MDK TKD uses a thrust. 

               However, as the forms are the same, i dont think the applications will vary that much. 

               Another difference is with the knifehand gaurding block, with the chambering of it, In Shotokan we shoot the chambering arm out first then complete the block with other hand.
In MDK the knife hand block both hands swing back then forward.

                Difference with upper block also, its more of a capture and break in Shotokan, generally speaking ofcourse.
               Small differences like these will lead to different applications. 

                 The MDK club im training with also requires we learn the WTF poomse aswell.  (Moons TKD.com.au) 

                 Yes, it keeps me very busy lol.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2010)

Yes, as 72ronin has said, I am familiar with the fact that Shotokan and the Moo Duk Kwan's early forms are extremely similar in nature, including the side kick in the Pyung Ahn/Pinan/Heian forms.  I am not certain who and why changed the front kick to a side kick, and I certainly see a difference in these applications.  

Dancings opinion on the advantage of the front kick over the side kick is a valid and useful point.  As with most attacks from the similar position as the side kick, it leaves less openings for the opponent to take advantage of, whereas in a body position of the front kick, much more of the torso is exposed.  Could this be the reason they were changed?  Or did the person who changed it not have a full understanding of the application of the original technique?  OR did they have a separate application beyond the two?  

As for an understanding of applications in the way that I have been taught to perform the Pyung Ahn side kick, the comes out simultaneously with the kick comes from a chambered position.  If this stacked chamered position is applied as a wrist lock, then the extension of this arm simultaneously with the kick opens your opponent to recieve the kick.  I am sure there are other applications to this move, and I am not familiar with the bunkai of these forms in the Shotokan style.


----------



## dortiz (Jan 20, 2010)

"Another difference is with the knifehand gaurding block, with the chambering of it, In Shotokan we shoot the chambering arm out first then complete the block with other hand.
In MDK the knife hand block both hands swing back then forward."

Great example! For me its 101 on where little changes lose the path. That move is a classic wrist release which has morphed in to the korean version of blocking to the rear as a gaurd before using the knife blocks to the front.
In its traditional sense you are close and keeping those hands  on your attacker. The Korean block story walks far away from close quarted fighting that lies within these techniques. 
They are good blocks mind you but very different than what was originally there.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2010)

dortiz said:


> "Another difference is with the knifehand gaurding block, with the chambering of it, In Shotokan we shoot the chambering arm out first then complete the block with other hand.
> In MDK the knife hand block both hands swing back then forward."
> 
> Great example! For me its 101 on where little changes lose the path. That move is a classic wrist release which has morphed in to the korean version of blocking to the rear as a gaurd before using the knife blocks to the front.
> ...


 
While the "block story walks far away" from the original application, I have found extremely effective boon hae from the way that I was taught to perform the knife "block."  We wrap up differently than the ITF and WTF styles, the "blocking" hand wraps to our ear, while the other hand wraps behing our back.  When applying this movement in response to a strike, the hand that comes behind the back traps the wrist and locks the opponents elbow across your chest, while the blocking hand strikes the throat.  IMHO, it is quite similar to the Okinawan/Japanese applications of the knife hand block, and it is only the movement of the rear hand that changes (and even that fulfills a similar use).  I have been shown a couple of boonhae from the knife hand blocks that both arms wrap upward near the head (ITF, WTF).  Some have been used as a trap and elbow lock, or a throw, although I have limited exposure to these applications since we do not practice our knife hand techniques in this manner.


----------



## dortiz (Jan 20, 2010)

Good point. In about 1984 or so the WTF side stopped doing that and went to the farther back rear block saying it was protecting from a kick attack.

Dave O.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 26, 2010)

Are any of you familiar with Iain Abernethy's work?  Tez3 suggested I look at his bunkai/boon hae.  His ideas are interesting, but it is unclear to me where exactly he got his information.  Did he just pull it out of his *$& (is he really *that* enlightened?) or is he basing this off of something already taught?  

I have never heard the belief that the Pyung Ahn Hyungs were ordered with specific emphasis on specific types of combat.  He suggests that Pyung Ahn Ee Dan is based on the first exchange of blows, Pyung Ahn Cho Dan is based on breaking grabs/grips, Pyung Ahn Sahm Dan is based on throws, and Pyung Ahn Sah Dan and Oh Dan are more advanced combinations of the three prior forms.  While this is a very interesting point of study, I saw no references to his theory.  Is he reading into these forms more deeply than there actually is?

I am genuinely curious about this subject, and I am wondering what you all have to say about it.  I agree that his bunkai work, but where did he get his foundation?


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 6, 2010)

Abernethy is coming from a Wado background, so he has a grappling perspective to begin with in terms of his bunkai. I've trained in both JJ and TSD so I can see the thought process that would lead him down that route. the Okinawan guys I know think it is funny since they've been doing similar stuff and never "lost" the bunkai.

My personal approach is to de-Korean-ify for bunkai analysis. Kicks are stomach high at most, and more likely to knee or groin. My assumption is that the altercations that are being trained in hyung/kata begin at grappling distance not sparring distance. Not fighting, but responding to an attack and controlling/knocking out.

I love Abernethy's approach: Find the head, hit it. Often. And hard.


----------



## MasterPistella (Feb 7, 2010)

I agree with the comment Master Rush said about having to change the meaning of the following techniques. (not quoted) With the side kick that was changed from a front kick. If you look at it, yes it does change the way the following technique would be interpreted, but......Even with the front kick, are you only looking at the follow up as being one way? To go completely back to basics...the first move in gicho hyung il bu/taikiyoku sho dan. What is it? I teach my white belts "do a low block to your left with your left hand." Can't it also be a take down? Maybe an arm lock defense for a wrist grab? Each individual move has many interpretations. If you make a change (or if the GM's had made changes) are they acceptable as long as you can explain their application? In my opinion, yes, they are. I don't think we "improved" on the Okinawan/Japanese way, but I also don't think we made it worse.

BTW Master Rush. I didn't know you were with GM Kang. I was with  C S Kim & went to a few tournaments in Charleston. Nice to meet you.


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 7, 2010)

I think the main thing that is missing from most training is the repetition of the movement principles in high numbers and in a variety of situations.

I start teaching Heian Nidan/Pinan Ee Dan but using the opening sequence as a defense against chokes, jabs, crosses. Anything that has a linear projection of attack. It begins the conversation about control, knock outs, and why we train forms. Heck, the first two opening sequences can take a month of training just to get an idea of how those patterns can be utilized in a self defense situation. 

I even did two hours on straight variations of applications of Fugal sudo/shuto uke.

I think any bunkai is better than none.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 17, 2010)

MasterPistella said:


> I agree with the comment Master Rush said about having to change the meaning of the following techniques. (not quoted) With the side kick that was changed from a front kick. If you look at it, yes it does change the way the following technique would be interpreted, but......Even with the front kick, are you only looking at the follow up as being one way? To go completely back to basics...the first move in gicho hyung il bu/taikiyoku sho dan. What is it? I teach my white belts "do a low block to your left with your left hand." Can't it also be a take down? Maybe an arm lock defense for a wrist grab? Each individual move has many interpretations. If you make a change (or if the GM's had made changes) are they acceptable as long as you can explain their application? In my opinion, yes, they are. I don't think we "improved" on the Okinawan/Japanese way, but I also don't think we made it worse.
> 
> BTW Master Rush. I didn't know you were with GM Kang. I was with C S Kim & went to a few tournaments in Charleston. Nice to meet you.


 
Very nice to meet you as well.  I take it that you are not under C.S. Kim now, did you branch out on your own?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 17, 2010)

All very well put comments on the subject everyone!  

I agree, that these were not "lost" so much as glazed over applications in many lineages.  I also agree that the Korean-ization of the forms do not lack application, they are merely _different, _and IMHO no less effective.  I think that studying bunkai from all arts that practice these forms would provide more insight and applications to the forms.  Certainly different arts approach things with varying degrees of emphasis, so I would think that one would get alot out of taking a close look at other arts interpretations of the movements.  

I would also like to point out that I really do not care about which applications are "pure."  Especially since I don't believe anyone could prove to me that it would truly be the case.  But I really enjoy looking at and learning new boon hae/bunkai.  

Thank you all again for your comments!


----------



## CDKJudoka (Feb 17, 2010)

I started breaking down our hyung recently after picking up a book called Taekwondo Grappling Techniques, which shows what grappling *could* be in the bunkai of our Hyung. As for where we kick, in forms we go as high as chest level, as there is no reason to go higher. And we are an old style Chung Do Kwan school.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Feb 17, 2010)

DarkPhoenix said:


> I started breaking down our hyung recently after picking up a book called Taekwondo Grappling Techniques, which shows what grappling *could* be in the bunkai of our Hyung. As for where we kick, in forms we go as high as chest level, as there is no reason to go higher. And we are an old style Chung Do Kwan school.


 

I have heard of/seen this book, but I have not read it.  I agree there is no functional reason to kick straight in the air, unless you are fighting 8' tall mutants!  

I'll have to check out the book, thanks.


----------



## CDKJudoka (Feb 18, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I have heard of/seen this book, but I have not read it.  I agree there is no functional reason to kick straight in the air, unless you are fighting 8' tall mutants!
> 
> I'll have to check out the book, thanks.




No problem, sir.

If I am going against an 8' tall mutant, I am going with judo. Get under his centre of gravity and smash him with the planet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 18, 2010)

I actually wrote a book about this very topic.  You can find it in my signature.  The short of it is that when you start to study bunkai, it changes your entire practice.  The Korean's modified the forms without an understanding of bunkai.  Often, if you want to make use of certain sequences, you need to go back to the source forms or it simply doesn't make sense.  Or more simply, there are a few times where you could kick a standing opponent in the head.  It's not enough to be portrayed as much as it is in TSD/TKD forms.  In SD, head kicks are rare techniques.  In a SD system, your forms should reflect this, otherwise you are dealing with techniques that are done merely for show.


----------

