Exploring hidden techs.

[StuartA]

I'm wondering why it might be that the Koreans didn't know these bunkai (boon hae) details that their Japanese/Okinawan counterparts knew.

Personally I dont think the Okinawans taught the Japanese cos of the occupaton of their country.

I'm wondering how much the fact that weren't natives had to do with this. Perhaps, they just weren't seen as "worthy" (for lack of a better word) to be considered as a close "disciple" of their masters.

Probibly. IF the japanese were taught them (which I doubt as a general thing, thoug there may have been exceptions), then this would certainly have played a part.

Perhaps it could be that they didn't stay long enough & went back to Korea to teach before they could be taught these details.

Unlikely IMO.. more likely your above point.

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Interesting story for you. About 2 weeks ago I was teaching patterns to a friend of mine who has been a 3rd degree for quite a while and is look to eventually garde for his 4th. We were going through pattern Yoo-Sin (amongst others) and whilst doing so, I told him the ITF 'standard' applications as taught and my 'interpretation' of the applications... lets call them app #1 and app #2 (to keep it short).

Anyways, a week later he trained with a Shotokan stylist, who obviosuly studies bunkai and low and behold, he did the pattern in front of him and the Karate guy said "thats moves a throw", thats moves a "trap" - the exact same applications I gave him!

Point is, lost, hidden, removed, forgotten... who cares, as long as they work, are realistic and make what we do more than they were before!

Stuart

 

[Decker]

Considering what has been said (that the Koreans didn't really know the deeper bunkai when they made TKD), would it be accurate to say that overall, the Japanese/Okinawan karate kata might contain a wider variety of moves with practical combat applications than the Korean TKD poomsae/tuls?

I understand that a particular technique can have many different interpretations (75 Down Blocks), but a given technique could be either more or less practical than another technique, and probably, said technique could have more, useful interpretations than another, correct?

Also, regarding the ROK Marines' usage of taekwondo in Vietnam as an example to show the art's effectiveness, I'd just like to ask, what was so effective about it? The training methods? The particular strikes taught (that probably overlap with lots of other striking martial arts' strikes)? Could it be the Marines' proficiency with the real, killing bunkai? Or was it just their ferocity?
If it were the last two combined, would/could the results have been the same if they learnt, say, karate instead?

Hmm... should I have started a new thread, perhaps?

Thank you very much.

 

[IcemanSK]

Personally I dont think the Okinawans taught the Japanese cos of the occupaton of their country.


Probibly. IF the japanese were taught them (which I doubt as a general thing, thoug there may have been exceptions), then this would certainly have played a part.


Unlikely IMO.. more likely your above point.

Stuart

In hindsight, I should not have lumped the Okinawans in with the Japanese in my thought. It makes sense that there would be strain due to the occupation.

 

[exile]

Good questions, D. My thoughts:

Considering what has been said (that the Koreans didn't really know the deeper bunkai when they made TKD), would it be accurate to say that overall, the Japanese/Okinawan karate kata might contain a wider variety of moves with practical combat applications than the Korean TKD poomsae/tuls?

Well, a lot of the TKD forms are really just recombinations of subsequences from classical O/J katas, so they bunkai/boon hae would be the same. There have probably been some modifications (in the direction of a more athletic, decorative style)—knee strikes replaced by higher kicks is not uncommon—but since each subsequence in a kata corresponds to a 'complete' tech (starting with the attacker's aggressive move and ending with his, um, elimination from the fight), as long as those sequences are preserved, the information in the kata is still available. What changed is the knowledge of the practical interpretations. There's just as many apps in the opening moves of Palgwe Sa Jang as in those of Pinan Shodan—because the openings are literally identical—but I suspect that Itosu and his students have very different ideas about what those initial movements were to be used for in a fight than the first, and certainly second generation of Korean karate students.

I understand that a particular technique can have many different interpretations (75 Down Blocks), but a given technique could be either more or less practical than another technique, and probably, said technique could have more, useful interpretations than another, correct

I'd agree. If you look through Clark's catalogue of techs, some look a good deal more robust than others.

Also, regarding the ROK Marines' usage of taekwondo in Vietnam as an example to show the art's effectiveness, I'd just like to ask, what was so effective about it? The training methods? The particular strikes taught (that probably overlap with lots of other striking martial arts' strikes)? Could it be the Marines' proficiency with the real, killing bunkai? Or was it just their ferocity?
If it were the last two combined, would/could the results have been the same if they learnt, say, karate instead?

Training and inherent ferocity/toughness of the Korean military probably had a lot to do with it. But from what I understand from Simon O' Neil's writings, the military application of ROK TKD emphasized killing techs—neck breaks, all-out throat strikes and so on—suitable for the extreme conditions on a battlefield at close quarters.

 

[Makalakumu]

Training and inherent ferocity/toughness of the Korean military probably had a lot to do with it. But from what I understand from Simon O' Neil's writings, the military application of ROK TKD emphasized killing techs—neck breaks, all-out throat strikes and so on—suitable for the extreme conditions on a battlefield at close quarters.

Considering the presence of US during the inception of the ROK, I wonder how much all of that came from a standard Marine combative manual. How much can honestly be attributed to TKD?

When one considers that Shotokan was imported to Korea in order to become TKD, you would HAVE to supplement it in order to make it a battle field art.

 

[StuartA]

Considering what has been said (that the Koreans didn't really know the deeper bunkai when they made TKD), would it be accurate to say that overall, the Japanese/Okinawan karate kata might contain a wider variety of moves with practical combat applications than the Korean TKD poomsae/tuls?

This is one of the best questions I've heard for a long time. I actally feel that Okinawan kata had simply 1 bunkai for each technique.. its just that no one can know for sure which is the right one! Due to the 'cut & paste' nature of Korean forms, I think the whole premise of it being a reworking allows us to be more open with Boon hae and not feel that maybe we havnt got the right one.. as there was never really a 'right one' in Korean forms!

I understand that a particular technique can have many different interpretations (75 Down Blocks), but a given technique could be either more or less practical than another technique, and probably, said technique could have more, useful interpretations than another, correct?

Indeed. As Bruce Lee said, "Keep what is useful, Discard what is not" - the way I see it is that not all apps work for everyone, as we are all different, so keep and train the ones that work for you best!

Also, regarding the ROK Marines' usage of taekwondo in Vietnam as an example to show the art's effectiveness, I'd just like to ask, what was so effective about it? The training methods? The particular strikes taught (that probably overlap with lots of other striking martial arts' strikes)? Could it be the Marines' proficiency with the real, killing bunkai? Or was it just their ferocity?

All.. it was the final combination of the above that mattered!! Like in todays society, one without the other doesnt make it work... the ingredients make the cake after all!

If it were the last two combined, would/could the results have been the same if they learnt, say, karate instead?

Yes... the Phillipinos did the same!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Considering the presence of US during the inception of the ROK, I wonder how much all of that came from a standard Marine combative manual. How much can honestly be attributed to TKD?

Most of it TBH.. the US was still very stand offish from koreans from what I understand. The end result was that lots of Americans learnt, brought back and taught TKD - the same cannot be said the other way round eh!

JMHO

Stuart