This is the point I was attempting to make... which will teach me to post such things before I'm really awake.
Application of TKD poomsae in SD
- Thread starter exile
- Start date
This is the point I was attempting to make... which will teach me to post such things before I'm really awake.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Very true of the recently created Korean forms like Keumgang. Much less true for the Pyong Ahn patterns and its clear children the Chang Hon and Palgwe forms.
Well Well Well, I just do not know what to say. Poomsae are a teaching tool just like everything else in the dojaang, so of course it is to teach some SD as wel as balance and joint locks, speed control and of course the all mighty way of life. Poomsae are so much more than most relize. I for one look pass what my GM says and he encourage me to explore and come to my own discoveries about each and every application and find out what works for me and me alone. The grace and poise that one shows also shows the knowledge one has gained form the practice they have recieved.
OP
OP
Yes, I think this is a crucial point.
Even in the versions of Japanese kata that have been 'Koreanized', such as the particular version of Rohai that my lineage of SMK transmits, it's clear that somewhere along the line a number of decorative elements were included—very likely by either Byung-Jik Ro himself or else Joon Pye Choi; it would take a bit of digging into what happened to Rohai in other SMK lineages not deriving from Gm. JPC—which are very hard to see any possible defensive applications for; if they're there, they've been buried under a thick layer of stylization. The Pyung-Ahns, at least the versions I've been shown, are much closer to the O/J source (though there's some controversy, I know, about how much the Heians are really what Itosu taught as the Pinan set; I don't want to go there!) And if the originator of a forms just tells you, look, I put this in to make it 'look good', you probably should take them at their word.
But if you have no solid reason to think that that's the case, then simply deciding in advance that there's no direct martial content means that if you're wrong, you're never going to discover it, because you haven't tried looking for it. If you're given twenty pairs of numbers and asked what they have in common, you can simply assume that they're unrelated, and you'll never find out otherwise; but if you start from the assumption that they are all examples of the same function, you may well find that that's the case. At one point, you may well decide that they have no common source, but at least you can console yourself with the thought that if there had been one, you'd have found it. (And even so, there might be one there, that someone else finds).
On the contrary, Kacey and Youngman, I think there is a way to teach real purpose of the moves to gups. It just requires a different conception of what kinds of moves are basic. I would say that if you broke down each move into its peices, lumped together the peices that are redundant or similar, and then taught those as basics, then the actual, useful, applications the moves show can be addressed.
I would agree teaching is teaching, now with that being said every person no matter age will have some diffulculties in adapting the proper techniques.
Marginal
Senior Master
The two terms aren't actually independent. Calling it a martial system wouldn't introduce server maintenance as an excuse for various hand motions.
As I said, I teach different ranks differently, and don't teach everything at once. However, your assumption that I don't teach application is erroneous. I was responding to your statement that "chambering" is useless, and discussed only that portion of the thread. I teach application from the beginning - when the techniques are introduced, individually and in combinations, in line drills, in step and free sparring, and in tuls. Yes, I teach preparatory positions, and I insist that they be used, for the reasons I gave previously (among others). Yes, I expect movements to look differently in free sparring - I expect them to be varied to meet the needs of the situation, which requires an understanding of application, because you can't modify what you don't understand. I simply do it from a different perspective that you do - because I have a different understanding of the purposes of preparatory positions that you do. Not better, not worse - just different.
Can you explain the difference between the two? I'm not sure I understand why that would matter?
I apologize if I came off like that.
I wouldn't say that "chambering" is useless. I think that it has a specific purpose and it isn't chambering.
This is something that I have never understood. Why should the basics one practices look any different from what one would do in free sparring? IMHO, they shouldn't, and this relates right back to the whole point of this thread. There is a disconnect between the two catagories.
Kacey, I've been around MT a long time. You've read my arguments before and I truly think that they apply cross catagorically to most karate based KMAs.
We, ultimately, share the same lineage, we've got the same problems.
A lot of this is so hard to describe in this medium. I'll see if I can get a couple people who have worked out with me and gone to tournaments to post. One of my students, Kid, a fellow MT member, has taken first in every tournament he has entered. Other people here, MBuzzy for one, know me and know what I'm talking about.
I don't recall insulting you or making a personal attack. If you cannot discuss this maturely, politely, and professionally, I will have no further discussion with you.
Just because a form contains self-defense techniques, or can be applied, does not mean that training it solo, ie. dancing it, will enable you to perform those techniques against a live opponent.
Would you stand completely square to an opponent, in a narrow stance with your feet flat on the floor, one hand down, the other hand pulled to your hip in a fight?
The map is never the terrain.
The map is never the terrain, again. It is one of my teacher's favorite sayings.
If evasive footwork enables you to perform the given technique much more effectively, why ignore it? After all, evasive footwork is the hallmark of Gukgi Taegwondo, developed through decades of alive sparring? Why segregate sparring and self-defense drawn out through pumsae?
On the contrary, I am looking at the entirety of the technique in that given sequence, from the pivot (evasion), the right hand going low while the left hand comes high, the hands sliding past each other as the left hand low blocks and the right hand slides back toward the waist, then the body shifts forward as the hands trade positions, kicking forward with the right foot and punching with the right hand as the left is pulled backward.
There is a whole lot more going on there than "low block, kick, punch".
The function of forms is to provide the blue print for self-defense training, which is the one thing that posters such as Exile, Upnorthkyosa, foot2face, etc have been able to agree upon. Knowing the blueprint does not enable you to defend yourself. Learning how to apply those given theories, concepts, techniques, and tactics against a live opponent and continually training them in this fashion does.
The problem here is that is essentially the elementary school explanation of chambering, as taught by those who were never taught the actual contents of the kata/pumsae/tul they were practicing.
Keep in mind that for the sake of this discussion, we are only concerned with self-defense, ie. shiljeon, "real combat". Aesthetic discussion of forms, etc, is not a concern of such matters.
Can chambering help learn gross body motion?
Yes.
Is it necessary?
In no way, shape, or form. In fact, it actually hinders the student once they try to integrate their pumsae technique into sparring.
Note here, that I am only referring to chambering as pulling the hand back to the hip before or after a technique, such as punching.
Transitional movements are a different, but related topic.
The hand should never come back to your hip if it is not grasping something of your opponent's, a sleeve, a forearm, their shirt, etc.
Transitional movements are much more complex, however, if in looking at a given form you are only concerned with final positions/techniques (like looking at a form play by play in a book), you've only dealt with a 10th of the form.
1) This was never the original intent of the chambering motion.
2) It is unnecessary and teaches the students bad habits. If they will not be punching like this in application, they do not need to begin this way. Boxers and other arts learn to punch fine without first learning how to chamber punches.
Let me put it to you this way.
There is no Okinawan term for chambering a punch.
They refer to it as 引手. This is read as "hikite". In Korean terminology, Insu. It means the hand that grasps and draws out.
The linguistics clearly show that any explanation for this technical methodology that does not involve a grasp and pull with the withdrawing hand is incorrect.
Thanks.
I think part of the problem is that my "chamber" is different than yours, and has a different purpose. Bringing the hand back to the belt is for power - which isn't always the purpose in sparring.
Because patterns (tul, poomsae, hyung, whatever you do) are effectively static. You are performing the techniques to an imaginary opponent, who, conveniently, is exactly the right height, weight, and distance for the technique you are doing. If you're not visualizing your opponent while practicing forms, you're wasting your time. Nonetheless, compared to free sparring, forms are not interactive; they are set, in a fashion not possible in free sparring. Patterns are a toolbox intended to provide the tools necessary for self-defense - but how much of your self-defense looks exactly like sparring, anyway? The aims of sparring and self-defense are different - sparring is a game, and the name of the game is to score points, while self-defense is just that, defense of self, without regard to hitting "legal" target areas or avoiding unnecessary injury - so they look different. Should we, then, not spar, either, since it doesn't look like self-defense? Perhaps we should just go out looking for trouble and find out what works by jumping into fights... but that's a topic for another thread. My point is that we do plenty of things in training that are not identical to what occurs in self-defense - so why do them? Unless, of course, there is some relationship to self-defense in those techniques, even if we can't always see it.
As I said, it's all based on perspective, which, in turn, is based on experience and training. My sahbum, and his, have given me explanations that I find to be valid; you apparently do not agree with their validity. Thus, we can only agree to disagree at this point.
As I said, tournament sparring is a game, and doesn't look like self-defense... or those who spar in tournaments would be causing one hell of a lot more damage to their opponents. And yet, we still spar, and compete in tournaments, even though that doesn't look like real self-defense, which is the purported purpose of training... isn't it?
So say you; I say differently. As I said to upnorthkyosa, my training - and thus my perspective - is different from yours. Chambering, as a gross muscle movement, is teaching students to move their body in a certain way. Can it be taught other ways? Certainly... this is just the one I started with, which I understand, and which I teach. As I said, the movement is damped down - reduced to the minimum needed to get the desired effect - as students improve their muscular control. I have tried teaching just the final product, the minimal movement - and my students don't understand it, and therefore cannot produce it correctly. Perhaps that's a facet of my understanding, of the way I was trained... on the other hand, I've seen plenty of practitioners who are so set on the idea that one must be grabbing something if one is extending one's hand that they steadfastly refuse to admit any other explanation might exist, and therefore lose quite a few potential applications, because they have closed their minds to anything but a grab when in that particular position. I refuse to limit myself, or my students, in that manner.
I don't disagree. I simply go about teaching it differently than you do.
OP
OP
This observation ties in very well with what I see, in all the karate-based MAs, as a very powerful and useful principle, that I've seen expressed somewhere as Each hand action is actively engaged in setting up the target for the other hand. In Japanese terminology, the term I've seen applied in the realization of this principle is muchimi: the striking hand becomes the controlling hand, and what had been the controlling hand becomes the striking hand. A grab (or a deflected punch) which is trapped by the 'chambering' retraction sets up the pin and the series of elbow and fist strikes I mentioned earlier; but once that final hammer-fist is delivered to the attacker's throat, say, it then can become the new gripping hand—and the previously chambering hand, brought close to the attacker's face by a new forward-stance movement to the inside, is then in perfect position to deliver a hard punch or palm-heel strike to the attacker's cheek/jaw; once that strike has been delivered, the striking hand, in its turn, grips the attacker's hair or ear, and can, in tandem with the current gripping hand, and a 180º pivoting motion, supply the force to throw the attacker to the ground on the other side, where he can be put out of action completely, if he isn't already. In this sort of approach—which requires little in the way of complex motions or fine judgment, and which keeps the defender on the outside till the attacker has been damaged sufficiently to the point that going inside isn't much of a risk anymore—each hand is engaged in setting up the attacker for a strike or unbalancing move powered by the other one. And this sort of scenario represents just one of a number of possibilities which are as safe and efficient in their use of the defender's resources as you're going to be able to get.
In this kind of approach, it's really important to stress there's no contradiction whatever between the trapping/countergripping view of chambering applications and the 'torque' set-up explanation that's often given; the fact is that once you've imposed the arm pin and hyperextension on the attacker's lead arm, you can then 'cash in' that coiled-back position of the trapping hand when the other hand shifts its role to gripping and fixing the target in its own turn. The cooperation between the two hands, if it's carried out effectively, means that the attacker is always being controlled and attacked and then recontrolled, with no chance to break away. And sure, it's not going to look like a dance. But form practice is really something that ideally involves a partner, moderately compliant at the outset and becoming less and less compliant as you develop proficiency (of course, practice becomes a bit more dangerous as that happens, but that's another story...) My understanding is that two-person form 'pressure testing' (as one of our members, Kwan Jang, puts) was the norm both in Okinawan karate and in the jiujutsu that many Japanese MAists (and certain Korean MAists who were able to study jiujutsu in Korea, where it was taught for a while by Japanese MAists during the Occupation, as Henning mentions in his 2000 JAMA article) were exposed to.
I've come to the conclusion that the focus on solo form performance, rather than partnered form study and application, is probably the biggest single factor for the detachment of both the KMAs and much of the JMAs from the arena of combat. It's like in anything: when theory is no longer subject to the verdict of hard experiment, it can turn in on itself and lose its focus on practicality—as per one of our recent threads, one of the things that's killing current theoretical physics, where mathematical æsthetics has replaced predictive success as the main criterion of accomplishment. Once that sort of thing happens, the rots sets in....
I’m sorry but I can’t provide you with an exact answer. It’s my understanding that what I was taught represent an understanding that came about during the developmental years of TKD. If I had to pick a time when it came to fruition and was prevalent I would probably guess the 70s.
I don’t feel comfortable with giving my instructors name. I haven’t seen him in over a decade. He his a very old-fashioned and private man. I’m certain that he would not appreciate me divulging what he would probably consider personal information in such a public forum. Besides, I won’t share my own name, I don’t think it would be fair to share his. I do intend to return to my home town with in a year or so. One of the first palaces I visit will be my old school and with his permission I will proudly introduce him to the MT community.
I think you have it backwards here. I never criticized anyone’s methods as invalid because they were unKorean. I related my interpretation of movements within a particular form. Others criticized my application because it strayed from the strict original Okinawan interpretation and was there by significantly less effective. My following post were a defense of my position. I’ll agree that it wasn’t the most artful argument and seemed rather simplistic but my point was simple and I didn’t see the need to over bourdon it with a longwinded explanation. My point was this, there exist methods that were developed and practiced in Korea for applying the forms that differ from the original Okinawan interpretation of kata, to varying degrees, and they are indeed effective.
This brings up another interesting topic for discussion. It was my understanding that MDK founder Hwang Kee never had any formal O/JMA training and that the kata he practice was learned from Shotokan books. Were these seemingly Okinawan inspired bunkai brought in from other practitioners who had experience in different MAs…or were they developed by MDK practitioners own interpretations of the movements within the forms?
From what I gather the applications that have been published to date are simply entry level applications that are meant to introduce someone to using the poomse. The movement within the forms have multiple applications. It would be extremely laborious to compile a comprehensive collection of all the applications with the explanatory philosophies and principles that make them effective. The “elementary school explanations” are just that, very simple foundational teachings that are meant to be built upon. For example, “a crescent kick to block a punch that was too far away to strike you anyway” establishes the premise behind more advance applications. The idea is to intercept thrusting linear attacks. A more advance application would be intercepting a thrusting attack from someone with a knife or bayonet who is making use of the reach advantage their weapon provides and is just beyond the range of your strikes. There are several reason as to why this application is thought to be effective. It put to use your greatest range weapon against theirs, allowing to intercept the attack as far from your core as possible. An advantage when dealing against an edge weapon where a minor secondary attack or even unintentional contact can cause great harm. It puts forth a shoed foot as opposed to a bare hand, offering an other level of protection. It also makes use of the layered attack/defense rational of emphasized kicking. If the attack gets past my kick I can still defend with my hands, allowing for two chances to respond to a single attack. Kicks are generally more powerful than hand strikes and offer the best chance to completely derail the attack knocking it away far off line, instead of just deflecting it, from your body allowing ample opportunity to close the distance and step in with a powerful attack such as an elbow smash to the head.
No…the majority of KKW instructors don’t teach applications because they are just not a highly emphasized aspect of the art. Boon Hae aren’t the fundamental core of TKD as with some other MAs. Other aspects take precedence. The applications aren’t usually taught until well after one receives a BB. At the color belt level the forms are more like active meditation. Stressing crisp technique and fluid movement with focus but not necessarily conscious thought. This helps build that mind body link that allows for instinctive reactions. Most instructor leave it at that. Many of the principles, philosophies and techniques that are contained within the forms are taught separate from them and are never liked to the poomse. It also has a lot to do with the personal preferences of your instructor. Very few, if any, teach the whole complete system. They shape their instruction based on their preferences, of which form application is seldom a priority. It’s like with kyukpa, I’ve herd many masters sate that kyukpa is a fundamental aspect of TKD. “One needs a well conditioned weapon in order to effectively deliver TKD’s powerful blows.” To this I’ve seen plenty of TKDist who can punch through marble slabs and kick through concrete blocks…but how many do? Many instructors are content with having their students occasionally break a few boards and do not develop these skill any further. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing and doesn’t reflect poorly on their ability to defend themselves. They may be extremely capable fighters, just not the stone crushers with hands and feet of iron that you might find in some other schools. It’s the same way with the forms. You must consider, especially when discussing KKW TKD, that many of the masters from the older generation haven’t fully embraced the all the “newer” methods and still teach some things the “old way”. This is most evident in how they view the forms. Younger masters from more recent times tend to focus on the sport and have little interest in or understanding of form application.
There is a distinct possibility that if you and I got together and trained, you would recognize what I do. It wouldn’t seem so unfamiliar to you. Often, so much gets lost in translation over the internet. It’s very difficult to condense knowledge gained over years of studying into a short paragraph. It’s likely that I’m describing things you already know but from an angle your are not used to hearing them from.
This type of thing is usually addressed by hosinsul drill training and is unfortunately, seldom linked to the forms.
Here is the crux of the issue though.
The linguistics are self-explanatory. Insu is using the hand to grasp and pull. That is the purpose of this motion. That is the only explanation for it, because that is what it was created for, what is was intended for.
Now, you may use it for other purposes. You may ascribe other meanings to it, but those hung up on the idea of grasping and pulling are not "stuck", they're using it for what it was intended for. Rather than being stuck, they use this for grasping and pulling. They train punching, by learning how to punch.
If you wish to use chambering in your teaching, that's absolutely fine. Like you said, that's how you learned. Just remember that's not what the motion was intended for, and when analyzing forms, intent is central.
OP
OP
Right, and that's a big part of the reason for the disconnection between forms and practical combat tactics over the past several decades. It's really too bad, because a lot of people knock forms (how many 'kata are useless' threads, and individual post, have we all been subject to since we joined MT
) without realizing that hard-edged two-person drills were a crucial component of MA training in the early days. Again, it's important for people to realize that it's not just the KMAs that have been subject to this disconnection; it started in Japan in the 30s, and it's something you constantly read karate bunkai advocates complaining about—that people now think of kata training almost exclusively as a solo perfomance. We're pretty much all in the same boat, these days....I found your earlier question about Hwang Kee very apt. In his last book on the history of the MDK, published in 1995, HK explicitly identifies the source of his forms knowledge as Japanese volumes on karate that he got from the book collection of the railroad station where he worked. It's definitely a good question then as to where the MDK bunkai got their Okinawan quality. So far as anyone knows, what 'live' MA HK was actually exposed to was Chinese...
Similar threads
