Application of TKD poomsae in SD

[FearlessFreep]

Just throwing this out as something that goes through my head when discussions like this come up. Not aimed at anyone in particular but the thought was re-sparked by some earlier comments.

I've heard it said that on the street, nobody cares what belt you are. The dude about to take a swing at you doesn't care if you are if you are a black belt or a red belt or green or white. You are who you are and your belt won't save you if you can't use what you know.

Well a similar thought to me is that we never know the timeframe for when we will need, if ever, to apply these techniques. It could be in five years, it could be tonight after class.

So, my thought is, it doesn't do my much good if you show me a mechanic that will work eventually someday when I finally 'grok' it and my body catches up, if I get attacked tomorrow. Or rather, it doesn't do me much good if you show me a *bad* mechanic that's designed to force my body to move in a way that over time will make my body work in a good way; I may need to defend myself next week and all I will have at my disposal will be that bad mechanic you taught me.

Going to music, as I often do. if I teach you the intervals for a major scale... that is something you can use *right now*. Yes, there will be a lifetime of discovery to learn how to apply it all and how to relate to other theory and how look inside it and find new connections and all the things you can build off a major scale, but you can still use that major scale *tonight* at your gig, should you need to.

Self-defense is in many ways the same, but in many ways different. It is different in that we don't get to choose when we will need it, but it is the same in that we should be able to effectively apply what we learn to the best of our abilities at any given time.

It's a building process to master a technique (whether a punch or a kick or a block), but it's a building process that should proceed from "effective foundation" to "more effective" as we develop. It should not be "I will teach you something that doesn't work in order that eventually it will build something else that does work"


So if you are serious about teaching effective self-defense, you should probably keep in mind that "what I teach today, they may need before I see them again"

---------------
Now for forms, it seems to me from the above idea that ideas and mechanics learned should be effectively applicable upon learning that the progress of a curriculum of poomse, if it is intended to be for self-defense training, should proceed not from 'simple mechanic to complex mechanic' but rather from 'simple effective technique against most common scenarios' on to 'more complex effective techniques against both common and less common scenarios'

 

[FearlessFreep]

Note on my last post

1.I'm not saying I expect that on the first night of class that when you teach someone a technique they should be able to be good enough to immediately use it that day, but that I think the technique itself should be a good technique that they can build on. I know it will take time to improve technique, but don't start out with a bad mechanic under the theory that the mechanic will eventually morph into something good (whether stances or strikes or blocks)

2. I'm not intending to be talking to any given person or form, that's up to you

 

[terryl965]

FF I understand what you are saying but the thing is it does take time for people to get comfitable with doing proper techniques. I know I train all types of people athletic and those that are challenged a tad bit. We must always remember to take the time into consideration when teaching learning a few quick moves are possible in an hour but the time it takes to perfect those moves my take months or even years.

I know one thing is this is for sure we all know what we personnally need and we all know what we do not, we all have a timeframe for this to happen. So once again it would e up to each individual th how long something will take and when or if they would ever need it.

 

[Makalakumu]

The problem with forms is that we practice too many and that we have so many self defense techniques in each one.

With that being said, I think that you can overcome this by practicing the basics for one or two techniques in a form and then put them together and drill the hell out of them during one class period.

The end result is that over time, the student eventually learns all of the "real" techniques is a form. That student also learns how to actually apply it peice by peice and immediately after class if they need to.

FFs post really hits on the themes that caused me to take a critical look at what I was doing with my TSD curriculum. FWIW, the result of this process is here. I post it to show that I'm not just spewing out syntax on the internet on this.

 

[FearlessFreep]

FF I understand what you are saying but the thing is it does take time for people to get comfitable with doing proper techniques.

I know what you mean about time. Four years later I'm still working on techniques I learned in my first day of class when I was just in their in sweats and a t-shirt dropping off my kids and a friend of mine coaxed me to hop in and give it a try

What I mean thought is bad mechanics that are called "self defense". What I mean by bad mechanics is bad mechanics within the context of self-defense. Some mechanics are good for teaching the body certain things but when tried to be explained in a self-defense context make very little sense (or actually are dangerous). If you are trying to teach self-defense, don't teach bad self-defense. If you are teaching mechanics that have no applicability to self-defense, don't call it self-defense

and don't assume I have five years to get it right...I may need it to be 'good enough' much sooner than that.

 

[foot2face]

That's pretty much the case, however, given that nothing else has been released officially does not lend much credence to the idea that another official application training system exists other than the elementary school explanations.

I’ve said it before, the KKW has dropped the ball regarding many aspects of the art. They just don’t put out good enough material. Anyone who studies in a good Kukki TKD school will tell you that their training is so much more in depth and comprehensive than any reference material officially released by the KKW.

The fact that the great majority of instructors I've met have no other explanation also casts doubt.

That should be no surprise at all. Direct applications of the forms has never been a major training component of the system. 3-1 step, hosinsool drills, and free sparing have always taken precedence. Again, it also has a lot to do with the preferences of the instructors. Most don’t teach every little aspect of the art but focus on what they value the most . A major reason why direct applications of the forms are not often trained. The poomse are actually just a collection of 1-step and hosinsool techniques that demonstrate key principles and philosophies but these elements are typically taught separate from the forms and are seldom linked with them.

Elimate the ones least effective, select the ones easiest to train.

Least effective and easiest trained are very subjective. Different body types and temperaments perform various applications better than others. For example, I’m on the muscular side and favor explosive applications that exploit my strength. Slighter practitioners often do better with applications that rely on finesse. I’m also not that slick with takedowns, they just don’t “click” for me no matter how much I train them. I preferred much more, applications that rely on strategic striking. Others I trained with were the opposite. They were very good at takedowns, if you got near them and tied them up in any way they would instantly dump you on your back, putting you in a position to be stomped into the ground. You must also consider the stature of you attacker. There are thing you can easily do to someone who is smaller than you that you can’t do to someone that is larger than you and vice versa. The temperament of your attacker should be accounted for as well. You have to respond differently to someone who is wildly aggressive and violent vs. some one who is measured and more strategic. Sure you could compromise and select applications that are generally effective when applied by student across the board and sort of work against attackers of various body types and temperaments but then you run into the same old problem. There will be practitioners who say “these applications are OK, but not great” and thus the search for new and better applications will begin. The beauty of the forms is that they contain a wide verity of applications allowing the practitioner to select the ones that suit them best. This is probably one of the few practical reasons why forms are still part of the system and have not been completely abandoned.

The problem there is that you waste time by the teaching the kick to the punch defense. The whole idea of using it as a preparatory to the kicking against the knife is a waste of time. Just train the kick to the knife. There's no need for the "foundational teaching" you mentioned.

Though there are extremely gifted students able to skip ahead to more advance techniques and principles many, including myself, have benefited from taking thing slowly and progressing one step at a time. You also have to keep in mind that in South Korea TKD training is directed towards the youth. Not that it’s a child’s art, they just start training young. Some might not find it appropriate to have 10 year olds lunging at each other with a training knife or bayonet. Better to let them get the basic idea by intercepting punches and bring out the blades when they get a bit older.

The idea of interception, outside movement, circular versus linear, can be taught through gyorugi.

It most often is. Many of the movements in the forms demonstrate principles that are integral to the system but they’re not trapped in the forms. They are supposed to be applied to the other part of the art. There is a lot of overlap in training that is meant to tie things together the problem is that these ties aren’t always made apparent.

That mind-body link is much better developed through reaction drills, through the gyorugi training that KKW TKD is so known for.
You can't train a form for instinctive reaction. In order to train reaction, you must have a stimulus to react upon. This is one of the modern sports science methodology that has made the KKW so famous.

I don’t know…It’s real tough to learn how to clear your mind and just react only by sparing, especially for beginners. When faced with the pressures of sparring most are plagued by a hectic inner monologue, hastily debating with themselves about what to do. Thinking about how to attack, how to defend, trying to quickly decide which technique to use next. This slows reaction time. It can be difficult to overcome and often separates people who are good from people who are great. If their minds do go black, it’s usually a bad thing, it means they froze, and are now getting pummeled or they‘re just swinging wildly. Reaction drills are real good but only part of the solution. If you really on them too much you can fall into a very predictable stimulus/reaction Pavlovian response. That is not optimal. Ideally, what is wanted is a state where your mind can quickly analyze what is going on and select the best course of action without having to consciously mull it over. Practicing the poomse as a form of active meditation helps establish that empty mind active body state that is an essential foundation for subconscious action. Allowing your brain to tell your body what to do without the burden of conscious thought. This combined with other training methods help build extremely fast instinctive analyses and responses.

You strike upon the core of the matter here, which is what many have criticized KKW TKD for. It is not a holistic system. Pumsae have nothing to do with gyorugi. Gyorugi has nothing to do with hoshinsul. Hoshinsul has nothing to do with gyeokpa.

But it is a holistic system. The various aspects of the art mesh together seamlessly. The problem is not with the system but with how it is most often taught. For various reasons most instructors don’t teach students how to tie things together.

More than anything else, it's this political and technical disjointedness that has hindered Gukgi Taegwondo from developing.

Yes, this is a problem but I’m not sure if it can be helped, at least not yet. There are a lot of big egos in the TKD world and I believe the KKW has been somewhat vague regarding certain aspects of the art so as not to completely alienate the older generation of masters. I think this has led to the political and technical disjointedness you wrote of. Perhaps in the future when the older generation has moved on the KKW will tighten things up and better define the system in an official manner.

 

[foot2face]

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....

But you are assuming there was a connection in KMAs between the original kata that was practiced and practical combat tactics in the first place. We’ve discussed in the past how the Kwan era masters learned a child-school version of Karate and that their understanding of the kata was elementary. They practiced them as exercises that reinforced basic movements. The applications of the movements were simple and direct. A punch was a punch and a block was just a block, type of interpretation. Despite this simple understanding, that lacked the practical combat tactics of Okinawan bunkai, TKD proved itself effective. So why the urge to include them now? Over the years the forms were modified, rearranged and created anew. Many believe that these changes were not made for practical reasons and at best represent the same simple understanding inherited from the earlier katas. I don’t subscribe to this belief. To me the changes demonstrate an attempt by the Koreans to make use of the forms in a more significant manner and it led to a different understanding of how forms fit into a MA system and how they are applied. I believe you do yourself a huge disservice by looking for Karate kata solutions to TKD poomse problems. Its been said before but TKD really isn’t Karate. You risk injecting philosophies and methods that were never part of the system and may very well conflict with the existing philosophies and methods that have made TKD effective. Though the search for Okinawan bunkai is a valid pursuit for a Karateka I fear it will just add to the dissolution of TKD. Further separating the various aspects of the art until no cohesive system exists. I’m confounded by “traditionalist” who reject the modern sport and seek to preserve “real” TKD by incorporating Okinawan concepts and methods that were never part of the system. Or “practical MAist” who claim that in order to be really “street effective“, TKD needs to rediscover the Okinawan bunkai hidden in it’s forms. Completely oblivious to the fact that TKD has a well established record of effectiveness in some of the harshest conditions possible in spite of these bunkai. The problems that TKD faces today with it’s effectiveness as a viable MA system being called to question has little to do with the lack of boon hae training and everything to do with a general lack of quality and/or thorough instruction. Instead of looking to other systems to solve the problems we may have with our art shouldn’t we look inward, examining what we have and strive to make it work? Rather then seeking the knowledge of masters from other arts can’t we find pure TKD instructors who know how to make it work and learn for them?
Perhaps it’s indicative of our differing perspectives on TKD and probably our training but to me TKD is all about “hard-edged two-person drills”. The practical combat tactics that were missed from the forms were accounted for through various types of sparring, which has always been a crucial component of TKD.
It has 1-step, which was what?……Very simple no nonsense block/strike counters to common attacks that directly targeted to most vulnerable point on your attacker. Though it follows a very strict etiquette and is prearranged it can be quite intense with the attack coming at full speed and power. Then there’s hosinsool drills which at their core were close range infighting techniques, always practiced with a training partner. It’s basic grappling with a lot of break holds and simple but solid joint locks, traps, takedowns and weapon disarming. Intensity ranges from complete compliance for beginners to full on resistance for advanced practitioners. Finally, you had tons of free sparring, an attempt to simulate a “live” fight, which eventually became full contact. It’s responsible for honing the fast, aggressive and free flowing power striking TKD is known for and what I believe to be the core of practical TKD training. If trained properly and more impotently tied together these make for a very effective and complete combat system, even without the forms.