Application of TKD poomsae in SD

[shesulsa]

ADMIN NOTE:

Off-topic posts regarding TKD pattern effectiveness have been moved from Koryo Problems to here. Please continue this discussion in this thread.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Admin.

 

[JWLuiza]

I know I could be convinced and I'd love to hear the explanation for the side kicks in Eunbi. My school does high front kicks and I'm not sure the bunkai make sense to me there, but Youngman, it would be nice to be given an example instead of ad hominem attacks.

 

[exile]

All right, let's get back to this.

Exile,
I have watched repeated footage of Taekkyon practitioners on Youtube (I don't live in Korea so it's the closest I can get), and all of them do the things you claim Taekkyon doesn't do (high kicks, jumping, jump spinning etc.).Maybe it is you, with your "research", who is mistaken. Don't ask me how Taekwondo, with its supposed Shotokan roots, got a hold of these techniques. Maybe the truth isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. I just know what my eyes saw. Maybe Taekkyon wasn't as dead as people thought. If it were dead, it wouldn't be on Youtube showing techniques I see in modern Taekwondo.

According to Song Duk Ki, the man declared a Living Cultural Asset in 1987 by the Korean government for essentially single-handedly preserving the old 19th century folk game of taekkyon—as he himself identifies it explicitly in his book (see the page references given in the link I gave you)—there were only three or four people in all at the time of his one-man performance in front of Syngman Rhee in 1958 who knew taekyon. He couldn't find anyone to demonstrate with. There were a grand total of ten or so earlier in the 20th century. At the time of the Rhee demonstration, there were hundreds of TKD dojangs in Korea, and kicks had been getting steadily higher from the early days of the post-Occupation. On the basis of what? A village folk competition (this is from SDK himself, remember?) in which, according to SDK's chief student and Chairman of the Taekyon Research Association Lee Yong-bak (quoted in Young 1993 from a recorded personal interview with LYB), the primary kicking techs in traditional taekyon were low attacks on the opponent's knees and feet)?? And if, between 1958 and the middle of the first decade of the 2ist century, we suddenly see an influx of techniques that look very much like that of the dominant Korean MAs, huge even at a time when taekkyon was on the verge of extinction, and now probably the most practiced MA in the world, you are going to say that the presence of those high, spinning TKD-like kicks in taekkyon is—contrary to what the last practitioners of traditional taekyon say about it—the source those high kicks in a MA that grew explosively on Korean soil after the Kwan founders returned from Japan?

Think again about what those modern taekyon videos you're looking at contain. There are four possibilities that are each compatible with the kicks those videos display:

(i) TKD got its kicks from modern taekyon;
(ii) modern taekyon got its kicks from TKD;
(iii) both modern taekyon and TKD independently invented those kicks;
(iv) modern taekyon and TKD got their high kicks from some third source, possibly different in each of the two cases.

All four possibilities are combatible with what you're seeing on those videos. So the fact that they're on those videos cannot by itself determine which of (i)–(iv) is correct. We need additional facts. In the link I posted, and in the brief, incomplete summary I gave a couple of paragraphs back, the documented facts are almost impossible to square with (i), given what the taekyon pioneers from the early 20th century themselves say about their art, in their own books and personal interviews. (iii) is possible, but given the enormous prestige and influence of TKD and the relatively marginal status of taekyon on the current KMA scene, just how plausible is that? And in the case of (iv), we have no candidates, none, for the mysteriously missing sources of the kicks in both taekyon and TKD independently. (ii) has all the facts, and all the plausibility, going for it. So why on earth would you conclude that (i), which has to contradict the testimony of the taekyon pioneers themselves, must be the answer?? And I also cannot figure out why you put the word research in scare quotes, when what I've cited is the currently best-vetted assembly of facts, and careful informed analysis of them, in the whole KMA historical literature, and hinges largely on the testimony of Song Duk-ki himself, and his own senior students.

As for Koryo, it reflects how the Koreans perceive self defense and their approach to technique.[It is not a "mistranslation" of Empi and not intended to be.

YM... I'm just shaking my head, and, I have to say, your credibility just took a major hit. I never said that Empi and Koryo were related in any way. I said that the Eunbi hyung was derived from the Okinawan Kata Empi, that its name is a literal transliteration, and that hyung itself is virtually identical to Empi except that in Eunbi the abdominal knee strikes of Empi have been converted to high kicks without any concomittant changes in the rest of the Empi-->Eunbi translation. Got that? And the reason I brought that up was because the same translation rule that applied to the original Okinawan Empi to produce Eunbi seems to have been applied in the judging practice in the Koryo performances that Terry was complaining about. Do you understand? I said, I think quite clearly, that in effect the judges are doing the same thing in evaluating the Koryo standard that was done by the Kwan instructors to the Empi standard when this was incorporated into the TKD hyung set as Eunbi. Do you see how totally off the mark your version of what I was saying was, sheerly in terms of what I had actually said, on the one hand, and what you turned that into, on the other?

It is what it is. You seriously think techniques in the form would not have been changed had they been thought ineffective? Give the Koreans a little credit. It is not supposed to be a "translation" of a Japanese form. It is a Korean form with its own merits and weaknesses, as is any form. It also undergoes changes to make it better.

Now do you see how absurd this whole passage reads? Eunbi is, completely, a translation of an originally Okinawan form, Empi, whose name was retained subject to the usual pronunciation changes; we learn it in my Song Moo Kwan lineage because a lot of Okinawan forms were incorporated, and passed down via the Shotokan connection—Byung Jik Ro was a fourth dan under Funakoshi—into the SMK that BJR founded. We do the Pinans, we do Rohai and several other classic kata in their TKDified versions. Of course Koryo isn't a translation analogue of Empi, or any other kata. Who ever said it was???

And now maybe you should note something about what Terry's actual complaint was: he was objecting because his students are penalized by the judges for performing Koryo according to the WTF standard, because the judges want to see high kicks. The WTF hasn't changed the standard. The KKW hasn't changed the standard. The judges simply want to see high kicks instead of mid kicks even though the latter are in the description standard for the Koryo hyung. Do you see? Application, bunkai, boon hae, none of that is relevant; the judges want to see high kicking even though the specs themselves do not sanction those kicks as high kicks!

I'm just baffled at the number of ways you've managed to misconstrue what Terry was saying, what I was saying...

 

[terryl965]

I know I could be convinced and I'd love to hear the explanation for the side kicks in Eunbi. My school does high front kicks and I'm not sure the bunkai make sense to me there, but Youngman, it would be nice to be given an example instead of ad hominem attacks.

Youngman I too would love for you to explain Bunkai in Eunbi? I'am not trying to be judgemental but would love to hear and see your views.

 

[newGuy12]

Youngman I too would love for you to explain Bunkai in Eunbi? I'am not trying to be judgemental but would love to hear and see your views.

Right. Me too! I would very much love to hear of the application that you know. Irregardless of how the argument of history turns out (or does not turn out), please add my name to the list of users who wish to know the application of the double side kick in the form.

I can see in my mind the jamming of the kick with the first low kick and then the kick to the body with the second kick. I did not jump on board earlier because of the argument (I do not wish to engage in that, I only wish to know of the application that you know of).

Regards,

Robert

 

[exile]

Youngman I too would love for you to explain Bunkai in Eunbi? I'am not trying to be judgemental but would love to hear and see your views.

Right. Me too! I would very much love to hear of the application that you know. Irregardless of how the argument of history turns out (or does not turn out), please add my name to the list of users who wish to know the application of the double side kick in the form.

I can see in my mind the jamming of the kick with the first low kick and then the kick to the body with the second kick. I did not jump on board earlier because of the argument (I do not wish to engage in that, I only wish to know of the application that you know of).

Regards,

Robert

Wait, guys, read my preceding post... YoungMan confused Koryo with Eunbi in what I was saying and thought (I cannot figure out he got there, but he did ) that I was saying that Koryo was the Koreanization of Empi (whereas you can clearly see, I think, that I was saying that Eunbi is the descendent). And Eunbi does not have side kicks, at least the version I learned. So what you're asking YM for would have to apply instead to Koryo: 'what is the SD function of the high side kicks, as Terry described it, in the judges' preferences for Koryo performance?'

 

[foot2face]

Keep in mind, I’m doing this as someone who was taught how use Korean poomse, specifically the Tae Geuk., and my interpretation of this segment, I believe you refer to them as subsequences, is based upon that; just as your interpretation of the forms are based on a JMA bunkai perspective, which is why I think you don’t always see the value of the Korean forms.
I don’t practice Eunbi, I’m not familiar with it at all, based on the video you provided of Empi and you description, this is how I envision the segment; you begin by stepping into a left front stance as you perform a low block with your left arm, you follow with an upward rising punch with your right fist then deliberately open your hand. Now in Empi this is where a knee strike is delivered but according to your description it was changed to a high front kick in Eunbi. You step down from the kick moving forward and landing in a cross stance while you bring you outstretched arm, with an open hand, over to your left shoulder, executing a low punch with your left fist. You then adjust you position transitioning into a reverse front stance/side stance as you execute a low block/hammer fist with your right arm. This is the description I am going to base my following application on, I hope it is accurate. Before I begin, let me discuss my approach. The TKD I was taught is predominantly a striking system, I want as little contact with my adversary as possible, preferably just my weapons with their vulnerable targets. Its not a grab on to my adversary and beat them at close range system, which many karate, especially Okinawan ones, can be. Tactically, I strive to crate space, allowing for movement and generation of power. My goal is to prevent extreme proximity and smothering, inhibiting my adversaries ability to grab and clinch. This is in line with what I discussed in the multiple attackers thread, of how my system seeks simplicity. Employing tactics that allow one to apply their skills across a variety of situations. Fighting like this would allow me to defend against a single attacker but is also useful when dealing with more than one attacker by creating space and facilitating moment, an important factor when attempting to deal with multiples. It also helps when facing someone with a knife. The benefit in fighting up close in a clinch is that it increase your control over your advisers position and it mitigates their strikes by smothering them, tuning otherwise damaging blows into relatively harmless shoves and slaps. This advantage goes out the window when your attacker has a knife, the slightest flick of the wrist can cause a devastating wound with a sharp blade. Now on to the application. My version begins the same way the one in the video you linked does. The attacker grabs your right wrist you respond by breaking the hold with a low block you them execute an upward rising punch to the throat area, catching under the jaw driving the head back, again just like in the video. Here is were it becomes different, if you don’t grab and hold your adversary, their body will follow were their head goes causing them to step back, creating space. This is very similar to an application I describe in another tread for Tae Geuk Yuk Jang where you deliver an upward rising knife hand strike to the side of your opponents neck, catching under the jaw, driving them back. Instead of immediately grabbing your attacker the open hand can be used as a body check, nudging them in their upper chest adding to their backward momentum. At this point they should be just beyond arms length, in perfect range for a front kick to the solar plexus. This is a powerful, stunning blow done outside your attacker reach lessening the chance that they might collapse on top of you and grab hold, as they could if it were a close in knee which isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you train for it but it dose add some risk and as I mentioned before my system avoids this type of situation. Now your arm is still outstretched with an open hand, as you step down into a low cross stance you grab their left wrist which presumably would be covering their throat, a very common reaction to being struck there, or at least up guarding their upper region after just being hit there twice. As you step in low to deliver a low punch to their groin/belly region (a type of blow that will typically cause you target to double over lowering and exposing their head, very much in line with the low to high striking I wrote of earlier) you pull their left arm to the outside of your left shoulder. This repositions their torso just to the outside of you so they cant wrap you up as they collapse from the low blow. You now adjust your stance, sliding in with the side stance, (remaining just behind their left arm as oppose to stepping in front of it as in the video, again lessening the chance that they can wrap you up) delivering a finishing blow to their now exposed lowered head rather than their groin.

 

[newGuy12]

So what you're asking YM for would have to apply instead to Koryo: 'what is the SD function of the high side kicks, as Terry described it, in the judges' preferences for Koryo performance?'

Yes, this is the information that I wanted. I do not practice the other forms mentioned (Embi and Eunbi). I am not familiar this these.

The TKD I was taught is predominantly a striking system, I want as little contact with my adversary as possible, preferably just my weapons with their vulnerable targets. Its not a grab on to my adversary and beat them at close range system, which many karate, especially Okinawan ones, can be. Tactically, I strive to crate space, allowing for movement and generation of power.

Yes! This is how we were taught -- to prefer the kicking range, no grabbing. You try to kick the opponent, hopefully in a vital point, like the temple or the solar plexus.

I am intrigued by the applications that are spoken of by Exile, but we were not taught these things. We do not wish to grab anyone if that can be avoided, and we avoid close range if we can!

 

[Kwan Jang]

Foot2Face,
I would like to thank you for your analysis, it was very well thought out. It also shows how little you (and most KMA practitioners, so don't feel too bad or insulted) understand about the basics of your own art. Much of this problem lies in the fact that the Okinawans rarely taught anything other than the "schoolchildren's art" to ANYONE under 3rd dan (or less than a decade of training before the kyu/dan system was adopted), even their own people (including family members). They were even more restrictive in teaching the mainland Japanese and even worst when it came to those of "an inferior race" like the Koreans (note: I am not agreeing with the Japanese imperialistic attitudes, just mentioning that they existed at the time the Kwan founders were training in Japan).

By only learning the "children's art" that Itosu created in Okinawa and his student Funakoshi exported to Japan, the critical elements of kyusho and tuite (keupso in Korean) are omitted. These are the elements that give traditional basics and the forms they compose their effectiveness. This is the grab and strike, jointlock, ect. portion of TKD and it has been handed down from TKD's O/J roots. When I began TKD over 30 years ago, my instructors taught in alongside Hapkido and Yudo and I had previously trained in Jujitsu up to 1st kyu as a child (when my first instructor quit teaching), so I had an easier time than most connecting the dots. AND accepting the truth about what dots were being connected since I already had quite a bit of experience with making a lot of those type of techniques work in practical application.

Most KMA instructors don't teach the proper applications because they(and even their instructors) were never taught them. They may have been told they were important or even essential to their art, but most were never shown why. This (IMO) was more of the fault and the disgrace of the O/J instructors than the Koreans, BTW. Still in any pattern, regardless if it is an O/J original or the re-spliced versions of the Koreans; if you know what you are looking at, if the hand is at the hip, it's grabbed something. Also, if it is in a pattern, it's combat intention is NOT a block.

 

[foot2face]

There are those in this forum who often lament, and rightly so, the reluctance of others within the TKD community to accept the fact that the roots of TKD are predominately JMAs. Conversely, a good number of those who eagerly embrace this fact are unwilling to accept the possibility that the Koreans made meaningful changes to the system and developed their own philosophies and understandings regarding the MAs.

Foot2Face,
I would like to thank you for your analysis, it was very well thought out. It also shows how little you (and most KMA practitioners, so don't feel too bad or insulted) understand about the basics of your own art. Much of this problem lies in the fact that the Okinawans rarely taught anything other than the "schoolchildren's art" to ANYONE under 3rd dan (or less than a decade of training before the kyu/dan system was adopted), even their own people (including family members). They were even more restrictive in teaching the mainland Japanese and even worst when it came to those of "an inferior race" like the Koreans (note: I am not agreeing with the Japanese imperialistic attitudes, just mentioning that they existed at the time the Kwan founders were training in Japan).
By only learning the "children's art" that Itosu created in Okinawa and his student Funakoshi exported to Japan, the critical elements of kyusho and tuite (keupso in Korean) are omitted. These are the elements that give traditional basics and the forms they compose their effectiveness.

Absolutely everything you wrote here (with the glaring exception that I understand little about the basics of my art) is 100% correct. The Kwan-era masters did not have a sophisticated understanding of how to apply their forms, which is why they and latter generations developed their own. Eunbi is not a more recent Korean form, the kicks were certainly not added to reflect a “sporting” aspect. So the question remains, why were they put there? Some might respond “Nationalism…The Koreans wanted to disguise the form’s JMA origin.“ This doesn’t make much sense to me. Why keep everything exactly the same except for substituting a few knees for kicks? It doesn’t seem like much of a disguise, it’s right up there with Superman putting on a pair of glasses to become Clark Kent. Besides, if they really didn’t understand the forms or how to apply them effectively and deeply resented their Japanese origin, why not get rid of them all together? Perhaps the answer is that forms like Eunbi represent a transitional period where Korean MAist began moving away from the O/J kata which they didn’t have a deep understanding of towards creating ones they did.

When I began TKD over 30 years ago, my instructors taught in alongside Hapkido and Yudo and I had previously trained in Jujitsu up to 1st kyu as a child (when my first instructor quit teaching), so I had an easier time than most connecting the dots. AND accepting the truth about what dots were being connected since I already had quite a bit of experience with making a lot of those type of techniques work in practical application.

When I began studying TKD as a child nearly two decades ago, I didn’t need to have the prior knowledge of another style in order to glean the applications of my forms. My master taught them to me. They were defiantly practical and I believe them to be authentic to TKD considering that he was a KKW 9th Dan, a combat instructor while serving in the Korean military in the early 60’s and a National Champion in the late 60’s.

Also, if it is in a pattern, it's combat intention is NOT a block.

I completely disagree with this. While it’s true that in many applications blocks are much more than a block, there are also various applications where they are just that. In the first few Tae Geuk poomse, for instance, there are numerous examples of simple SD maneuvers, very basic defensive flinches. A response to a surprise attack; you’re walking down the street MYOB and someone just grabs or swings at you out of the blue type of situation. Your goal is to simply cover the area they’re attacking with the block and drive them back with a strike.

 

[dancingalone]

I completely disagree with this. While it’s true that in many applications blocks are much more than a block, there are also various applications where they are just that. In the first few Tae Geuk poomse, for instance, there are numerous examples of simple SD maneuvers, very basic defensive flinches. A response to a surprise attack; you’re walking down the street MYOB and someone just grabs or swings at you out of the blue type of situation. Your goal is to simply cover the area they’re attacking with the block and drive them back with a strike.

I would agree the Tae Geuk patterns probably were designed with those intentional blocking applications in mind. However, the deprecated forms of Okinawan/Japanese origin should be studied within the context of karate theory as they obviously contain tuite and kyusho bodywork within them. This is a sweeping statement, but I nonetheless think it's true.

 

[Kwan Jang]

Foot2Face,
Allow me to clarify a few things from my post and then address some of your comments. First, when I mentioned the basics of TKD, I really meant the traditional basic techniques that were adopted from the O/J arts. If you are performing sundan maki or anuro maki (as examples) as blocks, you really don't understand them. These are the "children's art"(karate-do) interpretation. I think it is safe to assume that when you spar, you don't block in a front stance and have your hand at your hip so that you can elbow the guy sneaking up behind you. Does your sparring or self defense strongly resemble your forms? If not, then you don't understand the real application of the techniques that are often termed the "basics of TKD".

When I mentioned that I had studied Daito-ryu JJ as a child prior to TKD and was trained in Hapkido along with TKD, it was not to say these are superior arts. It's just that the movements for these system strongly reminded me of the basic "blocks" in TKD. There was a strong resemblence that was not too hard to connect the dots. When I later had the oppurtunity to train in Small Circle JJ with Wally Jay and then later with my friend Leon (Wally's son and the current Grandmaster of SCJJ since his father's retirement), I noticed that the "basic blocks" of TKD were exactly the same movements in MANY cases as the grab and strikes and the joint manipulations in SCJJ, just with a different application.

The fact that your instructor is a former military combat instructor, Korean national champion and 9th dan are all reasons that you should be proud of him and feel quite fortunate to train with him. However, despite how qualified he is at certain aspects of TKD, if he does not understand the original kyusho and tuite that is the basis of the "basics" of what the forms are really all about, then he doesn't understand this aspect of the art either. It's not his fault or to his discredit that he was never taught this, it's just a gap in the knowledge that was passed down.

My traditional base is the KMA's, not the Okinawan or the Japanese. I am more of a MMA'er and cross trainer these days, but I never have cut away my roots in the KMA's. If I felt the O/J MA's were superior, I would have made them my base instead. I have had the oppurtunity to train with and have some close training relationships and friendships with both masters and grandmasters of those arts. I share with them and they share with me, but I really do enjoy kicking people in the head. I agree with you that the KMA's have made very worthwhile additions to their root arts in their evolution. If I didn't feel that way, I would have shifted my base over a long time ago. (Off the record, if I were to shift over under one GM I know, I would be ranked at 7th dan under him well before my instructor will promote me. My instructor is notoriously stingy about rank...and no, I will never change).

Even within the O/J MA's, the vast majority of the practitioners are never introduced to or thoroughly trained in the kyusho or tuite. It would be rare within those systems as well to be part of the "in crowd" and to really learn those skills, yet without this, forms/pattern practice really is mostly a waste of time. The main differnce between the O/J MA's and the KMA's toward forms is at least in the O/J MA's, at least the top people know what they are doing and what is really going on regarding this area of training. Still, if they are unwilling to share it with their students, it does little good and just is wasting the student's time and energy.

My concern is that because of how many instructors and masters withhold this info, most martial art practitioners view forms as either a waste of time or as something that is "part of the art and part of the tradition". The truth is that forms/patterns are a very good syllabus that you can work from for very effective and practical self defense against common attacks giving you many different principles and combos to work from. BTW, if you ask someone the question of "why do we do that" and they give the awnser that it's part of "the art" or "it's tradition", you can instantly translate that into meaning they don't know the awnser.

F2F, I will concede that the tae geuk patterns probably do contain blocks since they don't really contain much if any of the kyusho or tuite within them. As such, I really don't pay them any attention and regard them as a case of the blind leading the blind. At least the ITF patterns were re-spliced versions of the earlier O/J katas (as were the pal gwes), so if you want to break them down, there is still a lot of value to be dug out of them. IMO, the tae geuks really are just the waste of time that many who don't understand the real purpose behind patterns think all forms are. At least in XMA you are demonstrating athletic ability.

 

[foot2face]

Foot2Face,
Allow me to clarify a few things from my post and then address some of your comments. First, when I mentioned the basics of TKD, I really meant the traditional basic techniques that were adopted from the O/J arts. If you are performing sundan maki or anuro maki (as examples) as blocks, you really don't understand them. These are the "children's art"(karate-do) interpretation. I think it is safe to assume that when you spar, you don't block in a front stance and have your hand at your hip so that you can elbow the guy sneaking up behind you. Does your sparring or self defense strongly resemble your forms? If not, then you don't understand the real application of the techniques that are often termed the "basics of TKD".

It appears to me that you’re the one who doesn’t have a full understanding of TKD. The applications from the TKD forms aren’t meant to be the core of the fighting system, as with many O/J arts. The applications from the forms are just one of several tools in the box and are more in line with hosinsool drills, very specific techniques that are meant to counter very specific attacks, complementing ones ability to fight by filling in various little gaps.

When I mentioned that I had studied Daito-ryu JJ as a child prior to TKD and was trained in Hapkido along with TKD, it was not to say these are superior arts. It's just that the movements for these system strongly reminded me of the basic "blocks" in TKD. There was a strong resemblence that was not too hard to connect the dots. When I later had the oppurtunity to train in Small Circle JJ with Wally Jay and then later with my friend Leon (Wally's son and the current Grandmaster of SCJJ since his father's retirement), I noticed that the "basic blocks" of TKD were exactly the same movements in MANY cases as the grab and strikes and the joint manipulations in SCJJ, just with a different application.
The fact that your instructor is a former military combat instructor, Korean national champion and 9th dan are all reasons that you should be proud of him and feel quite fortunate to train with him. However, despite how qualified he is at certain aspects of TKD, if he does not understand the original kyusho and tuite that is the basis of the "basics" of what the forms are really all about, then he doesn't understand this aspect of the art either. It's not his fault or to his discredit that he was never taught this, it's just a gap in the knowledge that was passed down.

My master was there is the 50s, back in the days when TKD was “Korean Karate.” He remained an active member of the KMA community, witnessing and participating in the progression of the art before emigrating to the U.S. in the late 70s. If anyone is in a position to truly understand the Korean methods for applying TKD poomse, it’s him.
You, on the other hand, give a detailed explanation as to why the vast majority of TKDist (myself included and perhaps my master) don’t truly understand our system because we lack the knowledge of authentic Okinawan bunkai. You however, have this knowledge, not because you had the good fortune of training under one of the very few Korean TKD masters who have this understanding or because you were the long time student of a competent Okinawan karate instructor who showed you the true intent of these movements, but because you have some experience in a third, completely unrelated style. Are you serious….or are you just pulling my leg? Have you ever considered the possibility that your prior experience with another art altered, not enhanced you perspective on TKD. That many MAs share similar movements simply due to basic human mechanics. That perhaps you were biased by your JJ training, recognizing application similar to what you already knew but were unreceptive to different yet equally effective uses for those movements.

The truth is that forms/patterns are a very good syllabus that you can work from for very effective and practical self defense against common attacks giving you many different principles and combos to work from.

This is one area where you and I are in complete agreement.

F2F, I will concede that the tae geuk patterns probably do contain blocks since they don't really contain much if any of the kyusho or tuite within them. As such, I really don't pay them any attention and regard them as a case of the blind leading the blind. At least the ITF patterns were re-spliced versions of the earlier O/J katas (as were the pal gwes), so if you want to break them down, there is still a lot of value to be dug out of them. IMO, the tae geuks really are just the waste of time that many who don't understand the real purpose behind patterns think all forms are. At least in XMA you are demonstrating athletic ability.

This is a typical response from someone who has limited experience with the Tae Geuk poomse or has been spoon fed the fallacious propaganda of other organizations and styles that wish to belittle my style of TKD. You should refrain from making such foolish statement as it does your argument no good.
You have expressed several assumptions about me and my style of TKD that are way of the mark. Before we continue this discussion you should read my past posts, especially those regarding the use of forms, so that you will have a more accurate view of me and my methods.

 

[Kwan Jang]

Foot2Face,
First, I am not bashing TKD, I hold a master's rank in it (5 dans higher than you according to your profile), if you happen to be one who puts much value in rank. I also did quite well in TKD competiton years ago (including the state, national and even international level), though I found the politics involved and the restrictions/limitations of the sport version not to my liking (while I love kicking people in the head, I like punching faces and tying people in knots as well. Also, I have seen TKO'ed Koreans declared winners simply on the basis of their nationality). I have clasmates that were medalists in the world championships and the Olympics in TKD (they are also either BLACK BELT Hall of Fame or TKD Hall of Fame members as well). One of my black belts put together a vid of me on youtube that is basically all TKD techniques under KJN David Hughes, if you want to get a look at how I do at "your style" that you feel I'm bashing.

My instructor/GM is a BLACK BELT Hall of Fame instructor and I happen to be one of his highest ranked students. (When I say this, it is not to say that instructors who haven't been honored as such are lesser instructors, BTW.) His status simply has opened doors for me to cross train and share with some of the legendary masters, GM's, and world champions from all styles of martial arts. Another thing is that he encourages his senior students to cross train and bring things back "home". He is always pushing us to learn, grow and evolve. I won't bore you with the laundry list of top level people we've trained with over the last few decades, many on a regular basis for years, but it is extensive.

I have trained with masters and GM's in the Okinawan systems, not as a student, but as masters sharing for over a decade. They come over to my school and do seminars, I go over to theirs and do the same. We go out to eat and play for the weekend. As someone they consider a peer, they have shared things with me on the kyusho and tuite that they do not share with any of their own students under master level and that few in the Okinawan lineage ever learn. It has been suggested by at least one of the 8th dans that he and I do joint seminars on this when he does regular seminar tours in Europe and that we do DVD's on this subject with a focus on TKD forms/patterns.

My earlier point was that coming from a JJ background (especially the JJ system that Choi created Hapkido from), I noticed that the techniques that were called "basics" in TKD were very similar movements to many techniques that I learned as a child. In Hapkido, we scratched the surface at least, of some of the applications of these movements. So when I began learning the kyusho and tuite within the bunkai from the Okinawan stylists, I was very open to it and not closing my mind to the applications that were far more usable and effective, let alone made much more sense than the ones usually passed down from karate-do via Korean TKD masters.

Have the Korean martial arts added things of value since they have evolved the base they started with? Of course. Olympic style is full contact rather than the no contact point sparring that the Japanese karate-do systems used. My main complaint is that to seek olympic acceptance, it became more of a speed game than the KO/power based sport it used to be. Plus IMO, it has too many restrictions that take it too far from being viable training for combat (no combat sport is completely there, but MMA and MT come quite a bit closer IMO). While this may be true for sport tae kwon, the same does not hold true for the combat art of TKD, though. The arsenal of kicking is far more comprehensive and fighting from the outside range is far superior to the root arts that TKD evolved from as well.

 

[exile]

Foot2Face,
... it has too many restrictions that take it too far from being viable training for combat (no combat sport is completely there, but MMA and MT come quite a bit closer IMO). While this may be true for sport tae kwon, the same does not hold true for the combat art of TKD, though. The arsenal of kicking is far more comprehensive and fighting from the outside range is far superior to the root arts that TKD evolved from as well.

Hey KJ, I wonder if I could get you to elaborate on the point I've bolded. Are you saying that fighting from the outside range is in general a superior strategic principle to the typical karate strategy of closing the distance, or are you instead saying that TKD's capabilities for relatively distant combat are superior to the distant-combat technical arsenal of the O/J arts that TKD is based on? And whichever it is, can you give more detail about your thinking on the point?

 

[matt.m]

Well, what a debate we have here. It seems that these types of debates will never die either. Look, the Japanese and the Koreans used different footwork. For example I will use Kendo and Kumdo, Aikido and Hapkido, Karate and Tae Kwon Do for example. Even Judo vs. Yudo. Technically I am a 2nd dan Yudo, I say this because I teach with the stronger pull, deeper entry and hip deeper, even though the certificate says U.S.J.A.

From what I have seen of hapkido and aikido they are similiar but at the core they are totally different arts.

Anyway, the entry and application styles as well as philosophies are different. Period end of story. But it is all good. Just train hard and perservere. It's all good.

Here are 2 links that I hope will help prove my point, or at least point you guys in the right direction of the point I am trying to make.

Aikido:

Hapkido:

I have been considerate to show two extremely notable figures in each art.

 

[Kwan Jang]

I was referring to TKD's (in general) greater emphasis on the outside ranges. As you know, the majority of real fights and self defense situations start in a closer range, so infighting skills are a neccesity. These are an inherent part of TKD as part of the system though through the forms, IF (and only if) you put it into practice. There has been some people who claim that they practice their grappling by doing their forms, yet just working it in the air is far from being enough.

I like to make a distinction between some of the different types of fighting. There are sport fights with a wide range of different rules and methods, From point fighting, to olympic TKD, to boxing, to judo, to MMA, ect. In this type of fighting, you have two athletes who are fighting under a certain set of rules to achieve a victory in an athletic contest. There are playground fights, which can be li'l Joey and Bobby at recess ("I call you out") or their uncles at the bar. With this type of fight, it's much more about asserting dominance. And though it can easily escalate into real combat, usually the intent is rarely to cause serious permanant damage to one's opponent. Finally, there is real combat or self defense. These can vary from simple stun and runs to soldiers on the battlefield. Often in these situations, you are in reaction to an aggressor. Also attackers like to use weapons, they like to use numbers and they prefer to attack wehn you are off guard (or blinded by your own blood).

In any fight, set point control is probably the most powerful and dominant quality, if it is used. The oppurtunity to use it is more likely to occur in sport or playgroud fights since you are less in reaction and have the oppurtunity to "square off" against your opponent. A good kicker can use lead leg probing strikes to set and control the critical distance/firing line from the outside ranges and thus control the fight. In boxing, the jab is used for the same purpose. To awnser your question, if you are good at this, then the outside range CAN be superior.

My point on the topic of patterns/forms is that there is a signifcant and growing percentage of practioners of the martial arts in general and TKD in particular that feel that forms are a time buster and just a filler. And that they could be using their training time to better use. A popular point that is brought up is that you would never fight for real in a static front or horse stance with your hand at your hip when you block or punch. Practitioners will often question why spend time practicing "basics" that do not resemble the striking that you would use in a real fight. The way you train is the way you react.

To me, this is a VERY valid point...if you are going by the karate-do bunkai or the Korean-ized variation of it. Neither is anywhere close to being realistic and I would hope that no one around here would actually try to fight or defend themselves in such a manner. I have actually seen people who tried to do this and thought that they were being "true to their art" by trying to fight that way. I had one guy at the gym I worked out at who spent months trying to sell me the virtues of this type of fighting everytime he saw me there.

Contrast this with the applications/bunkai when you include the kyusho and tuite including the close quarter joint locks, grab and strikes, ect. This system is very similar to many schools of JJ and has a very strong proven track record both in combat and in self defense. If you break this down, then build it up through the scales of force and resistance with a partner, then the movements in your form become a syllabus for giving much greater depth to your TKD practice. IMO, if you use the forms the way they were originally intended, they are a valid and important part of your training and if you master the material in this syllabus, then TKD (and karate-do) become far more complete combative systems rather than just kick/punch systems.

I am not trying to "bash" TKD, but I do see some wrong turns that it has taken IMO. There are things that are already part of the system that most students have already had training in, but few practioners are putting it to effective use. Low kicks, sweeps, takedowns, elbow and knee strikes, joint locks, trapping and infighting,... these are all a part of TKD. However, I see so many instructors only giving a token effort or ignoring all these altogether. Many TKD students even know much of this even exists in their art, all some of them know how to do is slap a hogu with a cut kick.

 

[exile]

I was referring to TKD's (in general) greater emphasis on the outside ranges. As you know, the majority of real fights and self defense situations start in a closer range, so infighting skills are a neccesity. These are an inherent part of TKD as part of the system though through the forms, IF (and only if) you put it into practice. There has been some people who claim that they practice their grappling by doing their forms, yet just working it in the air is far from being enough.

As you probably know by now, we are 110% in agreement on all this.

I like to make a distinction between some of the different types of fighting. There are sport fights with a wide range of different rules and methods, From point fighting, to olympic TKD, to boxing, to judo, to MMA, ect. In this type of fighting, you have two athletes who are fighting under a certain set of rules to achieve a victory in an athletic contest. There are playground fights, which can be li'l Joey and Bobby at recess ("I call you out") or their uncles at the bar. With this type of fight, it's much more about asserting dominance. And though it can easily escalate into real combat, usually the intent is rarely to cause serious permanant damage to one's opponent. Finally, there is real combat or self defense. These can vary from simple stun and runs to soldiers on the battlefield. Often in these situations, you are in reaction to an aggressor. Also attackers like to use weapons, they like to use numbers and they prefer to attack wehn you are off guard (or blinded by your own blood).

In any fight, set point control is probably the most powerful and dominant quality, if it is used. The oppurtunity to use it is more likely to occur in sport or playgroud fights since you are less in reaction and have the oppurtunity to "square off" against your opponent. A good kicker can use lead leg probing strikes to set and control the critical distance/firing line from the outside ranges and thus control the fight. In boxing, the jab is used for the same purpose. To awnser your question, if you are good at this, then the outside range CAN be superior.

Right. The trick is getting the chance to keep the fight at that range. As you say, and as is well-supported by statistics on street violence of the kind reported in John Titchen's recent book on the Pinan/Heian kata, fights generally start close, and get closer very quickly.

My point on the topic of patterns/forms is that there is a signifcant and growing percentage of practioners of the martial arts in general and TKD in particular that feel that forms are a time buster and just a filler. And that they could be using their training time to better use. A popular point that is brought up is that you would never fight for real in a static front or horse stance with your hand at your hip when you block or punch. Practitioners will often question why spend time practicing "basics" that do not resemble the striking that you would use in a real fight. The way you train is the way you react.

And if anyone doubted that this is an issue, just thrash through any of a couple of dozen MT threads in the past few years on kata effectiveness....

To me, this is a VERY valid point...if you are going by the karate-do bunkai or the Korean-ized variation of it. Neither is anywhere close to being realistic and I would hope that no one around here would actually try to fight or defend themselves in such a manner. I have actually seen people who tried to do this and thought that they were being "true to their art" by trying to fight that way. I had one guy at the gym I worked out at who spent months trying to sell me the virtues of this type of fighting everytime he saw me there.

Right. You're talking about the standard punch-kick-block-and-that's-the-lot story, what guys like Abernethy call the 'standard story' that, as they show in their books and videos, is often absurdly impractical because the packaging of the movements is taken literally....

Contrast this with the applications/bunkai when you include the kyusho and tuite including the close quarter joint locks, grab and strikes, ect.

Simon O'Neil's book on TKD should be out soon, and is full of reanalyses of TKD movements along just these lines: traps, pins, controlling moves... the lot. I was at a Combat Hapkido seminar last year around this time, and was struck by how similar a lot of the CH moves were to TKD moves that go by the name of 'chamber' or 'retraction'. The big difference of course is that TKD and the other karate-based arts are much more likely to be using the trap/lock/pin/etc. to set up a strike, rather than using joint controlling movements as the primary combat moves in themselves. I like striking much better than controlling, but I'll happily do the latter if it gives me a chance to set up the former in a very effective way.

This system is very similar to many schools of JJ and has a very strong proven track record both in combat and in self defense. If you break this down, then build it up through the scales of force and resistance with a partner, then the movements in your form become a syllabus for giving much greater depth to your TKD practice.

Noncompliant training.... no, there's no substitute for that. (The trick is finding people who are willing to do that sort of training in a serious way...)

IMO, if you use the forms the way they were originally intended, they are a valid and important part of your training and if you master the material in this syllabus, then TKD (and karate-do) become far more complete combative systems rather than just kick/punch systems.

I see this as the essence of the 'new paradigm' in TKD (as it has proven to be in karate). But a lot of critical reevaluation of many techs displayed in the hyungs is going to be necessary to see the movements in the forms for what they are, and what kind of information they contain.

I am not trying to "bash" TKD, but I do see some wrong turns that it has taken IMO. There are things that are already part of the system that most students have already had training in, but few practioners are putting it to effective use. Low kicks, sweeps, takedowns, elbow and knee strikes, joint locks, trapping and infighting,... these are all a part of TKD. However, I see so many instructors only giving a token effort or ignoring all these altogether. Many TKD students even know much of this even exists in their art, all some of them know how to do is slap a hogu with a cut kick.

One of the things which seems to be a persistent part of the historical background literature on the karate which contributed its technique set to TKD is that most of the karateka in both Okinawa and Japan had been exposed to jujitsu methods, which were part of widespread training in both Japan and Korea in the early 20th century. That means that for many karate practitioners, there would have been no question that certain movements that were taught in Okinawan and, later on, Japanese forms would have consisted of the sort of thing I've bolded in the preceding. Abernethy has suggested that the Satsuma budo-jutsu techniques, involving a lot of that sort of thing (some people have claimed that the Minamoto-era samurai's 'home' empty hand MA was Daito ryu Aiki-jutsu, which was also applicable to sword and other weapon methods) diffused, through intermarriage between the locals and the Satsuma overlords, through Okinawa by the time Matsumura began developing 'linear' karate. It's pretty clear that those elements were crucial in the original 'basis' art of Japanese and, later, Korean karate.

Eventually this will all become widely known and applied, I believe...

 

[foot2face]

if you want to get a look at how I do at "your style" that you feel I'm bashing.

Allow me to clarify, when I refer to my style I’m writing of KKW TKD which relies heavily on the Tae Geuk poomse that you were very dismissive of.
The term style is not the most accurate, perhaps variant would more appropriate. Variants that represent TKD during different points of its evolution as well as variants that reflect the preferences of different Kwans and organizations, such as KKW/WTF Kukki TKD, ITF Ch’ang H’on TKD, ATA Song Ahm TKD and so on.

I believe the issue of different variants of TKD is relevant to the discussion. Older variants of TKD tend to be more receptive to the Okinawan methods for applying the forms. Ironically, many who practice later variants of TKD and would be more likely to embrace the Korean methods tend to focus predominantly on the sporting aspect of the art, relegating the forms to nothing more than formal exercises done for tradition sake. If they do wish to learn how to apply their forms they often look to practitioners of older variants. This is one of several problems plaguing TKD.

I was referring to TKD's (in general) greater emphasis on the outside ranges. As you know, the majority of real fights and self defense situations start in a closer range, so infighting skills are a neccesity. These are an inherent part of TKD as part of the system though through the forms, IF (and only if) you put it into practice. There has been some people who claim that they practice their grappling by doing their forms, yet just working it in the air is far from being enough.

Yes exactly, and the majority of the Korean TKD applications are infighting techniques but are more conducive to the art as they facilitate the effective “outside range” fighting of TKD that you referred to in your earlier post. The Okinawan bunkai tend to be geared towards controlling and dominating the close range with traps, locks, pressure point and inside striking however the Korean TKD applications are geared towards driving the attacker back or away allowing one to engage at a more beneficial(for a typical TKDist) range. They are not just simple block/strike combos, they include a lot of grappling or more precisely anti-grappling.

I really feel we could have a much more productive conversation if you read some of my previous post where I discuss how I was taught to use the forms. Below I linked to a few such post. I’m looking forward to your comments.

post 1

post 2

post 3

post 4

 

[Kwan Jang]

Oh, the WTF...yeah, I kind of remember them. Wasn't my instructor their national lightweight champion and a medal winner at the 1977 world championships, as well as the captain of their USA TKD team? Wasn't his instructor, GM Dan Kyu Choi not only a WTF 9th dan, but also the head coach of the USA TKD team that year (BTW, I did study under GM Choi as well prior to his retirement, but I mostly recieved my instruction from his two top students. Back then they were 2nd dans and KJN Ernie Reyes, Sr. and KJN Tony Thompson are still my instructors to this day). I vaguely seem to recall that my classmate Dianne Murray was the captain of the USA Olympic TKD team and a silver medalist at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. I kind of remember that another classmate of mine, Greg Fears was the silver medalist at both the '77 and the '78 WTF world championships (at a time that non-Koreans would never win no matter how badly they beat the gold medalists. If you think this is sour grapes, at least one of the gold medalists will admit in public that Greg pwned him).

As I seem to recall, didn't I win a gold medal at the WTF's first junior olympics when I was 16? And didn't I place in the adult divisions at the nationals that year? Hmm, I seem to recall something about getting back into USTU (then the WTF affiliate for the USA) competiton in 1999 having caught a case of Olympic fever, and won the TN. state championship and went on to the nationals. Unfortunately, I tore the miniscus in my knee a week earlier and had to withdraw from competion between matches after my knee swelled to the size of a grapefruit and locked up after I was stupid enough to insist on fighting anyway. Oh, and didn't they issue me a master's pass at that tournament.

OK, all sarcasm and attempts at humor aside, my point is simply that just because I am critical of the tae geuks as patterns doesn't mean I am "bashing your style". I have had conversations on the topic of the tae gueks with three seperate WTF 9th dans and they have even less regard for them than I do. BTW, they were the ones who brought up the subject, not me and these were seperate conversations years apart. They have a high regard for the original pinan forms they were taught while they were coming up and even the palgwe series, but they too see the tae geuks as a watered down series of patterns. Does this make them bashers of WTF/KKW TKD in your mind as well?

In fairness though, I can see by the posts you provided the links for that this subject means a lot to you and that you have invested some time and energy here. I honestly don't want to step on your toes here, but I do feel that the bunkai used by the Okinawan systems WHEN they include the kyusho and tuite applications are far more combat worthy though. I did respect the time and dedication you put into your posts enough to review the tae geuks and it has been many years since I have been motivated to do so. My conclusion (FWIW) is that your applications are still basically an outer range/Korean-ized variation of the Karate-do (school children's art) interpretation of the patterns. Unlike some other versions of forms used in TKD, it's harder to even constuct something that would truly be combat effective from this. In a way though, you should see this as a good thing. It means that "your TKD" has within the scope of it's traditional curriculum a much broader base than you ever knew. This means you can stay within your traditional style and not have to be a cross trainer like me to be effective in more ranges.

Let me make a suggestion, if I may. Try pressure testing the applications that you posted against a fully resisting, non-compliant opponent who is both larger and stronger than you. If you can break it down into segements and make it work under these conditions with such a training partner, then you will know that it is at least viable under the conditions that you describe and are not just accepting blindly what has been passed down to you. Even if it turns out to be viable, if you don't actively apply it and practice it under these conditions, it will be of no real use to you. I do the same with the applications I endorse all the time, except for the bigger and stronger part. When you are my size and can bench nearly 600lbs raw(no suit) and squat over 800 lbs, finding someone bigger and stronger to pressure test things against is actually a challenge, though my students do presure test aginst bigger and stronger partners all the time.