Dynamic forms

Since the karate developers were fighting men, they did not learn the arts for spiritual, exercise or sporting purposes. They studied for practical combat. Period. At the time, there was no such thing as "deeper" applications - there was only one application - fighting.

The whole concept of deeper/hidden applications only came about in the post 1930 era after karate was popularized and non-fighting purposes evolved. This was when some of the true combat meaning of kata began to be lost and other purposes for them were stressed.
So this all comes down to how we define "deeper/hidden applications."

If we take the deeper meanings to be things like: perfection of character, self improvement, self control..... then, I agree completely. These things were added later, as you point out.

At a surface level, a lunge punch is a set of moves done in the kata. The application is punching your enemy who is at a distance. The deeper/hidden bits, from a fighting perspective would be understanding that this movement is also a set of joint locks, a set of throws.... The fighting perspective would also look deeper into what the non-punching hand is doing... plenty of fighting applications for that as well.... also the combination of one side pulling and the other side thrusting.

Going further, this set of movements helps to learn how to close distance very fast, without giving warning. It teaches how to explode from stillness. There is a bunch of work on power generation, structure, body coordination, balance, body control (not over extending).... all of these things directly relate to fighting and are taught in this movement.

Going further, the kata forces you to emphasize how you move your body. The motions are big. These teach your body the order of movement, how to move your hips, how to control your center..... No one fights with these big movements.... but the movements you learn can be made smaller and more internal, until the outside observer sees little motion at all, yet you are still able to generate a lot of power, very quickly, in a very small area and focus it where you need it.... be it a strike, a thrust, a throw, a joint destruction... This training helps improve all of your fighting techniques... they are now done more efficiently and with more speed and power.

When you add the moves together, as in a kata, you get more lessons about strategies, tactics, ways to flow from one situation to the other, ways to control your body.... In his book, Funakoshi talks about this stuff. The "blocks" are also joint destructions, strikes to vital points, throws, ....

The Kata were not put together some much as here are the 10 moves we do.... no others, but these..... They were put together more like, here are martial ideas and concepts, everything from the way to teach a beginner, to tactics, and strategies to be understood by the more advanced. Here are a set of fighting principles that will give you the ability to fight, but also the ability to adapt in a combat situation.

You can go deep into the martial / fighting applications, which I believe were there for quite a while or you can go deep into the spiritual, self development, perfection of character stuff that came along much later. (or you can do both...)
 
If you want to teach Taekwondo, then I believe maintaining the "official" sequence and moves of the forms is essential, not because there is anything amazingly special about Taekwondo forms, but rather for the historical purpose. If you are teaching your own art, then that is your call.
Which "official" sequence did you have in mind? There are lots. And whatever you choose to teach is "official". In your system.
That's the root problem with this line of thought.
 
This is a valid question, but somewhat non sequitur. A few relevant facts:

.
Not non sequitur since it references the point about Okinawan's withholding information from the Japanese. This would logically follow that the Chinese withheld information from the Okinawans. and that each who learned from someone else were too stupid to figure out the real stuff although granted if the information in Bubishi is to be believed prisoners of war were experimented on to determine the effects of strikes to various targets. and this testing is not so readily replicated.
 
If you want to teach Taekwondo, then I believe maintaining the "official" sequence and moves of the forms is essential, not because there is anything amazingly special about Taekwondo forms, but rather for the historical purpose. If you are teaching your own art, then that is your call.
Okay. Which official forms should I use? ITF forms? KKW forms? ATA forms? For this art that has less than a century of tradition.
 
Okay. Which official forms should I use? ITF forms? KKW forms? ATA forms? For this art that has less than a century of tradition.
Depends on your goal. If you wish to have "Portability" for incoming and outgoing students teach the forms as set forth by whatever organization or authority where you want the portability to lie. If your goal is to be unique in the world then of course it foes not matter.
 
Depends on your goal. If you wish to have "Portability" for incoming and outgoing students teach the forms as set forth by whatever organization or authority where you want the portability to lie. If your goal is to be unique in the world then of course it foes not matter.
Thanks, but it was a rhetorical question aimed at the advice of, "Do what's traditional in your art."
 
Okay. Which official forms should I use? ITF forms? KKW forms? ATA forms? For this art that has less than a century of tradition.
Sounds like "tradition" is something not very important to you. So, throw it all out, teach your own striking art, and don't call it Taekwondo?
 
Thanks, but it was a rhetorical question aimed at the advice of, "Do what's traditional in your art."
I understand - now, but perhaps since you received genuine responses you might consider that some think an offering of "Traditional" or "official" curriculum to whatever extent has some value from any number of perspectives. Then again there is plenty of opportunity for non TMA offerings.
 
Sort of thought the videos and literature put out by the Kukkiwon would determine "official?"
If you're training Kukkiwon, yes. I'm pretty sure that most ITF folks don't give a rat's behind what Kukkiwon considers official.
Sounds like "tradition" is something not very important to you. So, throw it all out, teach your own striking art, and don't call it Taekwondo?
The point of my comment went over your head entirely.
 
If you're training Kukkiwon, yes. I'm pretty sure that most ITF folks don't give a rat's behind what Kukkiwon considers official.

The point of my comment went over your head entirely.
Your point being Taekwondo has a very dubious tradition? Is that your point?
 
Which "official" sequence did you have in mind? There are lots. And whatever you choose to teach is "official". In your system.
That's the root problem with this line of thought.
Probably the official sequence you were taught. The official one for your beloved Moo Duk Kwan?
 
Your point being Taekwondo has a very dubious tradition? Is that your point?
My point that there isn't one official tradition for all of Taekwondo. There's ITF, KKW/WT, ATA, some of the older Kwans, some other organizations. They each have their own traditions.
 
Only if you're the sort of silly git who thinks the Kukkiwon is the be all and end all of TKD.
Hint: it's not.
I expect the poster is not seeking to include anyone with links to some Korean who was Kicking and punching and decided to call what they do T K D or some variation thereof as considering KKW technical parameters to be "Official" for anyone using the T K D moniker, but if you are looking for what is official for the KKW system, that would be the place to look.

As an aside IMO that was part of the genius of the KKW. Whereas General Choi required that a single system be used to be TK-D, (Which alienated many) the KKW was accepting everyone for a long time, taking the long view about converting them to a system over time.
 
Back
Top