Choreography and its effects on the principles of stance and body mechanics

[JowGaWolf]

@skribs Why did you use the word Choreography? This is what I think of as. I'm curious about the word choice.

This isn't a dig on Aikido so please don't go overboard about what is shown here. Out of all the videos that we've seen of Aikido, none of them look like this, but it's a good example of Martial arts Choreography

 

[Oily Dragon]

Through Chinese history, the north always conquers the south.

You are such a funny guy.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You are such a funny guy.

It has to do with the weather. In the north, people have to hunt for food. Hunter always has better combat skill than farmer.

 

[Oily Dragon]

It has to do with the weather. In the north, people have to hunt for food. Hunter always has better combat skill than farmer.

Sure thing, dude.

 

[skribs]

@skribs Why did you use the word Choreography? This is what I think of as. I'm curious about the word choice.

What word would you use?

 

[HighKick]

The general theory is that TMA was developed in different areas and cultures likely originating in India / China and migrating to Okinawa, Japan and then Korea. Part of that theory is that forms / systems developed differently due to differing body types and even the terrain in the area. As we know the Korean forms were heavily based on the Shotokan forms which were based on the Okinawan Shorin and Shorei systems with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin. So, as some theories go the Chinese being leaner and lankier than the Okinawans favored arcing / circular motions to deflect and generate power whereas the Stockier Okinawans were better suited to attack and defend head on. Some also considered different terrain such as more mountainous areas favoring certain stances / techniques over flatter areas. So when the Koreans developed recent form systems whoever was in charge just picked what they liked from what they knew.

As we know the Korean forms were heavily based on the Shotokan forms which were based on the Okinawan Shorin and Shorei systems with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin.

Simplest answer to this much asked question I believe I have ever seen.

 

[HighKick]

My understanding Martial Arts is that all techniques are based on someone who is the same height as you. Strikes, punches and kicks, are based on my height. I don't have any techniques that are based on fighting someone who is much shorter or who is much taller than me.

I agree with this and we talk about it in class. There can be a bad engraining of targeting if a person is not careful. When they match up with a person who is 6" taller, it can be a real eye opener.

 

[HighKick]

I support TKD moving away from weight classes in favor of height classes.

It needs to be a ranged mixture of both.

 

[HighKick]

That makes sense I can see how the scoring would complicate things. If something lands, then it's a score even if it doesn't land flush. It's against the rule to catch the leg right?

An intentional catch is illegal. However, a leg that is held up is allowed as long as it is incidental and followed up with a counter in less than a 3-count (rather subjective on the referee's part). Trapping is not allowed.

 

[HighKick]

Abstract
In my newest school, we are learning more detail about how to use our hips to generate power in using the stance, than we did in my old school. One thought that occurred to me is that the choreography of the Taegeuk forms (which are the main forms at my current school, and more of an afterthought at my old school) being more forward-focused leads to more front stances, and therefore more nuance in the front stance is going to be learned.

As a simple example, in Koryo, you would perform the low knife block and arc strike in front stance, but with a slightly different angle of the body when doing each technique. The way I originally learned Koryo was with more of a Palgwe style, in which we would do the low knife block in back stance, and shift into front stance. This was based on the previous forms, in which there are more shifts forward and back.

Discussion
I've gone through three sets of eight forms, and analyzed them in terms of how often each stance is used. What I've done is count each technique* by what stance it is performed in. For example, in Taegeuk 4, the last step consisting of inside block and double punch would count as three instances of a technique in front stance. I've excluded most chambers, with a few exceptions (most notably in Taegeuk 7, the chamber for the low X block, after the double under punch). The main stances I covered are walking, front, kick*, back, and horse, and cat. Anything that is less than 5% of a form set, I lumped into "other". There are a lot of one-off stances (such as crossing stances) that all got lumped into the "other" category, regardless of form set. I counted kicks separately, because if you do a kick it's usually a transition between stances instead of a stance in itself.

The three sets of forms I covered are the Taegeuk forms, the official Palgwe forms (based entirely off of watching Youtube videos), and the unofficial Palgwe forms I learned at my last school. Each set is 8 forms, which tend to cover from a roughly intermediate level to the black belt test. Here is what I found:

Taegeuk

• Front Stance - 39%
• Walking Stance - 20%
• Kicks - 18%
• Back Stance - 10%
• Cat Stance - 6%
• Other - 7%

Palgwe

• Front Stance - 49%
• Back Stance - 28%
• Kicks - 12%
• Horse Stance - 6%
• Other - 5%

My Old School

• Front Stance - 44%
• Back Stance - 22%
• Kicks - 14%
• Horse Stance - 10%
• Other - 10%

Ratios
What I really want to highlight is the ratio of front stance to back stance. And, for the sake of this, I'm going to lump horse stance in with back stance, and walking stance in with front stance. This will make sense with the point I'm going to make in a minute. This gives you:

• Taegeuk - 59:12
• Palgwe - 49:34
• My old school - 44:32 (or 11:8)

What you'll notice is that while front stances dominate in all of these forms, it's roughly a 40% increase over bladed stances in the Palgwe style, and a 400% increase in the Taegeuk.

What This Means
I believe the Palgwe style of stances is more about teaching how to use weight distribution and momentum. There seems to be a greater emphasis placed on managing range through squaring up or blading off of your opponent. Most stance shifts happen off of the back foot.

The Taegeuk style of stances is more about teaching how to use smaller adjustments in the hips to generate power. There seems to be a greater emphasis placed on connecting the body together kinetically, where the Palgwe style is more about connecting the body structurally. Most stance shifts happen off of the front foot. There are a greater quantity of subtle range adjustments in doing so.

I think if someone were to take and try and do the Taegeuk forms in the Palgwe style, they would miss out on a lot. The Palgwe style is better suited for the stance shifts that just aren't in the Taegeuk forms in any great quantity. Doing the Taegeuk forms in the Palgwe style robs them of what they can teach you. If you're not doing the microadjustments that take advantage of the front stance, then you're just doing simple forms.

Similarly, I've recently tried applying the principles I'm learning in my new, Taegeuk-focused school into a Palgwe style of form. It does not have the same detrimental effect as the previous switch. However, what I found is that it seemed to flow better by eliminating the back stance and just going front stance heavy. For example, at my old school we had a beginner form called Kibon 4. (We had 5 Kibons). Kibon 4 had a line which consisted of many block-punch combos. Block in back stance, punch in front stance, step forward and repeat. Doing this line in the Taegeuk style, and it flowed better if blocks and punches were in front stance. After a couple of tries, I was able to make it flow somewhat with the stance shifts, but then you run into the problem that the momentum is lost.

But, let's put this into the context of my cross-training. I've done Hapkido, and recently started BJJ and Muay Thai. I find the Palgwe style to be much better for the grappling arts. The stances we use in Palgwe are more similar to the stances we use in Hapkido, and the weight distribution and momentum seems to help me better in BJJ. However, in Muay Thai, I find the more squared stances of the Taegeuk form help me better with the Muay Thai squared stance. My Muay Thai/MMA coach (who's also one of the BJJ black belts at my gym) has actually said that he thinks TKD stances translate better to MMA than Muay Thai does, so maybe the Palgwe style is helpful there as well.

So What's the Point?
This kind of goes to my general point about the "my martial art can beat up your martial art" discussions, in which a lot of thought is given to what I know, what I've trained, and why it was taught to me that way, without a lot of thought given to why someone else may have learned something in a different way.

And sometimes, maybe the answer to why someone didn't learn the same principles you did, is their forms teach different principles. Or at least were interpreted a different way.

Good post. I really like the analytics. Based on these, I have some take aways that I feel would be tangential to the OP so I will leave them out of my comments.
My biggest takeaways are this:
I have always been told by several Korean GM's that the Taegueks are built to teach children a modicum of footwork and pattern retention and follow a more natural path on stances. The addition and simplicity of adding a walking stance is problematic and was later discovered to have an unintended connection to WT sparring, which is the tall fighting stance.
Where the Taegueks fall apart and where a portion of your comparison could be missing is the strong influence and benefit of stance work and footwork in the older forms like the Palgwe's. Maybe there was not enough emphasis put on this in your earliest training? I don't think there can be any argument that a back stance and horse stance are much stronger defensive postures. And this is greatly compounded if you consider there could be more than one offensive attack coming at you at the same time. Something seldom considered in this day and age of martial arts training, especially in the sport setting. Instead, forms are looked at as a pre-rehearsed pattern of movements that have little substance because the form is seldom broken down into constituent parts and taught how each can be used, specific to the before and after movements in the form as well as any other applications. This allows the form and movements to take on a completely new meaning.
You are spot on when you mention weight distribution and momentum. I would also consider the value of body position of some stances. This alone is a defensive gesture. For example, the closed upper body position of a back stance can be its own weapons defense, say for a knife strike, even if there is no footwork involved due to expediency. Learning this through the repetition of forms is invaluable, but of course the thought process of the attack has to be part of the training. This is the biggest difference between rote memorization learning of a form and actually knowing the form. This often falls apart when the person teaching the form doesn't know themselves. And this is way too common today.
I don't subscribe to the takeaway that the intent of the Taeguek's is to learn power through smaller adjustments. I have a hard time visualizing the mechanics of that. However, they do streamline the movement, effectively resulting in a faster movement, but only specific or applicable to WT sparring for the most part.
I think the kinetic vs. structural comparison is spot on. Given that the older forms were created in a time when they were at or near battlefield use where handheld weapons were prevalent, it makes sense that more emphasis was given to structure. Conversely, I suppose it could be argued that the Taegueks were created with nothing but sport competition in mind.
Can you give an example of the 'micro-adjustments you are referring to? I am having a hard time following the train of thought on doing one set of forms in the stance/footwork of another set. To be fair, wouldn't this be hugely subjective based on the persons historical training? Also, some of your comment again reinforces that the Taegueks are simply easier, more basic forms. But the value of the movement is greatly reduced. It has less application because it has become a static movement in a basic form and not an offensive/defensive, practical movement.
It makes total sense to me that the stance work in the Palgwe's are more applicable in Hap, BJJ, and even Muay Thai. Largely because of the way they hopefully were taught to you. In short, I think your Palgwe training is more 'complete'.
I try very hard to stay out of the "my training/style is better than yours" debate. It is a singular mindset as reflected in the bolded words in your comments. "My car is better than yours". "My (insert word/item) is better than yours. These are most often comments made out of ignorance, since the person saying them usually knows little about what they are comparing to. And, considering the gross effects, the differences you refer to is what makes up the different styles of martial arts.
Your last sentence is spot on and could be a post of its own. It could simply speak to the differences in style due to the many reasons already mentioned or it could speak to the dilution and amalgamation going on the martial arts. Who knows.

 

[skribs]

Can you give an example of the 'micro-adjustments you are referring to?

I am going to give numbers here, which are degrees of rotation. For example, 0 is squared to target, 90 is bladed, -15 means the rear-side shoulder is rotated forward slightly.

In a typical Palgwe style combination, you might do a down block in back stance at 60, and then a reverse punch in front stance at 0. Or, you might do an in block, reverse punch, lead punch combo all at close to 0.

In a Taegeuk style combination, your lead techniques will be at 15, and rear-hand techniques at -15.

Additionally, the way I'm learning the Taegeuks now, my GM is having us do a snap at the hip as well as the snap with our arms. When our foot lands into the stance, we're off about 30 degrees from our ending stance, and we snap into place.

This works very well when the entire technique is done in front stance. But it takes away from the momentum when doing things in a more Palgwe style with more overt stance shifts.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What word would you use?

Form, kata , sequence, steps. When zi think of choreography. I think of an expression of movement and not function of movement.

What is it called in TKD?

 

[skribs]

Form, kata , sequence, steps. When zi think of choreography. I think of an expression of movement and not function of movement.

What is it called in TKD?

I'm talking about the choreography of the form or kata. That's why I chose the word. Design, areangement, etc. could also work.

In TKD, the word for kata depends on the style. ITF calls them patterns, KKW calls them poomsae, others call them hyungs or I believe Tuls.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Form, kata , sequence, steps. When zi think of choreography. I think of an expression of movement and not function of movement.

I'm talking about the choreography of the form or kata. That's why I chose the word. Design, areangement, etc. could also work.

I suppose kata can be said to be choreographed since the movements are preplanned, especially two-man forms, but I don't like that word. As JowGa said, it does not take function into account. Form without function is not much more than dance.

The other problem I have with that word is that while we know in kata what the next moves will be, they should be executed as if they were spontaneous counters to an attack and not just some rote series of moves. This was the original purpose of kata. A form executed this way looks much different than just a "choreographed" routine.

An interesting anecdote: A TKD 5th degree was sitting in on my most recent dan test, after which she asked, "Why don't your forms begin and end at the same spot?" As I was barely coherent at the end of the test, I had no immediate answer. It was a couple of days later when the correct response came to me - "Why do your forms do so?" Or, better yet, "Why should they?"

The simple answer to that question is that the TKD (and others') forms were designed (choreographed) that way. From a combat function viewpoint there is no reason why a form has to begin and end at the same spot. It may be easier to teach many people in a limited space that way, or look more symmetrical for competition, but these have nothing to do with the form itself or its function.

I will admit that while my Okinawan kata are not necessarily bound to begin and end at the exact same spot (some are close, some are three or four steps off), their embusen, or footprint, is generally symmetrical. Some shapes are T, +, \I/, \, and other more complex variations I'm unable to reproduce on my keyboard. It is useful to practice both sides and learn angles and movement in different directions, and really helps to remember the moves, but for the actual functionality of the form (or more accurately, of the individual series in the form) the embusen is not really important.

So, "choreography" may be a convenient description for some aspects of forms, for lack of a better word we can relate to, but it's not really accurate. I think seeing forms in terms of this word is counter-productive to the original purpose of kata combat functionality that they were created for.

 

[skribs]

"Why do your forms do so?" Or, better yet, "Why should they?"

It's an indicator of consistency in your stances. If someone ends on the wrong spot, it's because their stances are not consistent, and they need to improve. This is something that's also true for most folks, regardless of what type of stances you're capable of.

If you're capable of anime levels of flexibility where your stances are so low you could sit on the ground, two steps forward and two steps back should land you on the same spot. If you're so stiff you can barely get one foot in front of the other, two steps forward and two steps back should land you on the same spot.

It's also a pretty big indictor if you forgot something, turned the wrong way, etc. If you end up way off, you did something very wrong.

The other problem I have with that word is that while we know in kata what the next moves will be, they should be executed as if they were spontaneous counters to an attack and not just some rote series of moves. This was the original purpose of kata. A form executed this way looks much different than just a "choreographed" routine.

I've never trained this way. In fact, it's just the opposite. I train forms to connect one move smoothly to the next.

 

[HighKick]

I am going to give numbers here, which are degrees of rotation. For example, 0 is squared to target, 90 is bladed, -15 means the rear-side shoulder is rotated forward slightly.

In a typical Palgwe style combination, you might do a down block in back stance at 60, and then a reverse punch in front stance at 0. Or, you might do an in block, reverse punch, lead punch combo all at close to 0.

In a Taegeuk style combination, your lead techniques will be at 15, and rear-hand techniques at -15.

Additionally, the way I'm learning the Taegeuks now, my GM is having us do a snap at the hip as well as the snap with our arms. When our foot lands into the stance, we're off about 30 degrees from our ending stance, and we snap into place.

This works very well when the entire technique is done in front stance. But it takes away from the momentum when doing things in a more Palgwe style with more overt stance shifts.

This sounds like a more traditional TKD type of motion (MDK maybe). There is heavy use of the hips and shoulders/arms to make power. To get an idea, find some video of old school TKD Pinan forms.
Depending on the direction of the strike, it is different creating power in a back or horse stance. For me doing a reverse punch with good power from a back stance is difficult. But what you have to think about is why you would do that. You would never do it if the person was far away from you. I compare the range to a jab (if going toward the front foot).
Do you think there is more emphasis on footwork with the Palgwe or Taeguek forms?

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's an indicator of consistency in your stances. If someone ends on the wrong spot, it's because their stances are not consistent, and they need to improve

I'm not sure about this. Kung fu doesn't use much symmetry in forms. Stances vary in height and length but our forms begin and end in the same direction. I can adjust my stances in desired to finish on the same spot I started in. In kung fu the right side doesn't always repeat the left side.

One of the benefits is that it helps to detect errors where a student will face in the wrong direction st the end. This let's the student know that they screwed up somewhere. This is extremely helpful when forms are made of 200 movements.

I'm big on footwork so I often do forms in small areas to force my footwork to adjust. Practicing forms on the side of a hill has the same effect.

 

[skribs]

This sounds like a more traditional TKD type of motion (MDK maybe). There is heavy use of the hips and shoulders/arms to make power. To get an idea, find some video of old school TKD Pinan forms.
Depending on the direction of the strike, it is different creating power in a back or horse stance. For me doing a reverse punch with good power from a back stance is difficult. But what you have to think about is why you would do that. You would never do it if the person was far away from you. I compare the range to a jab (if going toward the front foot).
Do you think there is more emphasis on footwork with the Palgwe or Taeguek forms?

Front foot footwork taegeuk. Back leg footwork palgwe.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not sure about this. Kung fu doesn't use much symmetry in forms.

TKD doesn't either, in most cases. A lot of the lower forms are symmetrical, but none of the Yudanja forms are, really. The designers liked to draw characters on the floor with the footwork, typically something related to the philosophy behind the form.
For example, if you watch Keumgang from above, the practitioner will seonbae on the floor, which means "a learned man" or "a man of virtue".

The first part "drawn" is the center of the 3 parallel strokes. The form is symmetrical in the sense that you go out and back over each of the strokes of the character, and end up back where you started, but that's just the movement. The techniques performed are asymmetrical; what you do on the way "out" is not the same as what you do when you reverse the direction.
There is a degree of symmetry, but other than at the most basic level, it's by no means complete.

Stances vary in height and length but our forms begin and end in the same direction. I can adjust my stances in desired to finish on the same spot I started in.

Forms competition is ubiquitous in TKD schools. In our case, we use it for (amoung other things) rank within a given belt rank. If you want to promote, you need to be at the top of your belt rank. One of the things you do to move up within your belt rank is to challenge the student ahead of you to a forms competition. Students understand how to adjust their stances to ensure ending in the proper place very early. Generally by 8th geup, certainly by 7th.

 

[isshinryuronin]

It's an indicator of consistency in your stances. If someone ends on the wrong spot, it's because their stances are not consistent, and they need to improve.

One doesn't need to end up at the beginning point - just end up where you're supposed to. If I consistently finish my kata one step to the rear and left of where I started, I know my stances and steps were consistent and didn't forget any.

I train forms to connect one move smoothly to the next.

Me too, especially within a given series. But if you put too much emphasis on the above quote, I think that can lead to overemphasizing form (choreography) over function. Some parts of a form are smooth, others are more explosive. I try to let the combat applications guide my movements. Smoothness is usually good as it generally allows good technique execution, speed, and other good stuff. Done for visual aesthetics is contrary to the purpose of the form, IMO. While my kata is quite good, I don't practice them for tournament success.