Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts

[Kong Soo Do]

Except that you really don't know what is generally taught or accepted.

Your assumption is incorrect Daniel. In addition to my own training, I've trained with and taught those that were very proficient in KKW TKD. You may not agree with me, but don't tell me what I know, what I've trained in or the training of those I've worked with.

The application for blocks against kicks all involve striking the side of the lower leg, which would be a deflection, not a block.

No, they don't. Not every angle of kick is going to allow you to get close to the side of the lower leg. And since your reaction is going to be slower than their action, you'll will have to take what you can get as far as a block. Claiming that you are going to be able to strike the side of the lower leg, with any degree of accuracy in a chaotic fight, with a determined attacker, as a response under duress is fallacy. You might get lucky once, depending upon the type of kick and the attackers level of skill, but it isn't something to build a sound strategy around. That is why it isn't a block or deflection movement. It is a close in strike from grappling range. Has nothing at all to do with a block/deflection of an incoming kick.

Take a look at Il Jang for an example. I've seen the down block in this form most often performed by performing the 'block/deflection' without first turning the head to the side towards the incoming threat. This means that the individual is relying upon peripheral vision to turn, execute a downward block/deflection as a reaction response to an attack that has already been launched by an attacker from the side. If the attacker is said to be attacking from the front, then you've turned your side to him while he's still in the front with a block/deflection that isn't going to take a full grown man to the side, yet the follow up is a straight punch to the side...and he isn't going to be there. A much better interpretation is you and the attacker are at grappling range, such as a clinch i.e. you've been jumped. You turn your body into him while striking with a hammer fist into his groin followed by the punch where he is going to be hunched over. It is difficult to put the movements into words and much easier to show the form and then show this interpretation live. This is not the only interpretation, I've also seen it used to demonstrate a knife hand strike and balance displacement throw. Either one demonstrates a valid principle that is a much higher % defensive movement that that of the b/p/k explanation.

This is not to say that the b/p/k interpretation for some movements are incorrect. Many are fine as presented. I prefer to look for principles of both as it provides the most meat for the student to train with. More bang for the buck. Do I expect everyone to accept my position? No, I do not. And trying to put into words what is a dynamic continuous motion isn't easy so I'll accept the blame if what I'm saying isn't coming across. I've had interpretations explained in writing to me that don't make sense but then see the demonstration and it all clicks.

With respect.

 

[Archtkd]

Take a look at Il Jang for an example. I've seen the down block in this form most often performed by performing the 'block/deflection' without first turning the head to the side towards the incoming threat. This means that the individual is relying upon peripheral vision to turn, execute a downward block/deflection as a reaction response to an attack that has already been launched by an attacker from the side. If the attacker is said to be attacking from the front, then you've turned your side to him while he's still in the front with a block/deflection that isn't going to take a full grown man to the side, yet the follow up is a straight punch to the side...and he isn't going to be there.

I'm a little lost. Could you elaborate on this further. I can't figure out if what you are describing is how you learned Taeguk Il Jang, teach or understand it.

This is (

) is the official Kukkiwon version of taeguk Il Jang, including an example of how it might be applied. It's performed by LEE Chong-Kwan, 8th Dan, general manager of the Academic Department of the Kukkiwon, vice president of Poomsae Special Committee of the WTF.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Your assumption is incorrect Daniel. In addition to my own training, I've trained with and taught those that were very proficient in KKW TKD. You may not agree with me, but don't tell me what I know, what I've trained in or the training of those I've worked with.

I don't have to tell you what you've trained in. Frankly, I don't care. I base my assessment on what you post. I am very familiar with KKW taekwondo and I can tell that you are not by what you post.

No, they don't. Not every angle of kick is going to allow you to get close to the side of the lower leg. And since your reaction is going to be slower than their action, you'll will have to take what you can get as far as a block. Claiming that you are going to be able to strike the side of the lower leg, with any degree of accuracy in a chaotic fight, with a determined attacker, as a response under duress is fallacy. You might get lucky once, depending upon the type of kick and the attackers level of skill, but it isn't something to build a sound strategy around. That is why it isn't a block or deflection movement. It is a close in strike from grappling range. Has nothing at all to do with a block/deflection of an incoming kick.

I made no claims about guarantees of what one can or cannot do in a fight. Don't change the subject. You made a specific statement about a specific technique that you claim is taught in the pumse. It isn't taught in the pumse.

Take a look at Il Jang for an example. I've seen the down block in this form most often performed by performing the 'block/deflection' without first turning the head to the side towards the incoming threat. This means that the individual is relying upon peripheral vision to turn, execute a downward block/deflection as a reaction response to an attack that has already been launched by an attacker from the side. If the attacker is said to be attacking from the front, then you've turned your side to him while he's still in the front with a block/deflection that isn't going to take a full grown man to the side, yet the follow up is a straight punch to the side...and he isn't going to be there. A much better interpretation is you and the attacker are at grappling range, such as a clinch i.e. you've been jumped. You turn your body into him while striking with a hammer fist into his groin followed by the punch where he is going to be hunched over. It is difficult to put the movements into words and much easier to show the form and then show this interpretation live. This is not the only interpretation, I've also seen it used to demonstrate a knife hand strike and balance displacement throw. Either one demonstrates a valid principle that is a much higher % defensive movement that that of the b/p/k explanation.

Except that that isn't how the pumse is taught. And not just by my instructors over the course of thirty years. You're simply making a straw man to knock down and then pontificating about it.

This is not to say that the b/p/k interpretation for some movements are incorrect. Many are fine as presented. I prefer to look for principles of both as it provides the most meat for the student to train with. More bang for the buck. Do I expect everyone to accept my position? No, I do not. And trying to put into words what is a dynamic continuous motion isn't easy so I'll accept the blame if what I'm saying isn't coming across. I've had interpretations explained in writing to me that don't make sense but then see the demonstration and it all clicks.

Again, this has nothing to do with your position. Your position about forms in general is fine, as it is your position to have.

You have, however, made statements about the taegeuk pumse which are simply not correct, which is unrelated to your position.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'm a little lost. Could you elaborate on this further. I can't figure out if what you are describing is how you learned Taeguk Il Jang, teach or understand it.

This is (

) is the official Kukkiwon version of taeguk Il Jang, including an example of how it might be applied. It's performed by LEE Chong-Kwan, 8th Dan, general manager of the Academic Department of the Kukkiwon, vice president of Poomsae Special Committee of the WTF.

You're lost because what he's describing isn't there.

What he's claiming is that the pumse is taught with the person turning their body without first turning their head to face an attacker from the side, executing arae makki. Notice that the head begins to turn, prior to the body beginning to turn; this is exactly what he claims isn't happening. Obviously, it is happening.

And his comment about the block and a full grown man and straight punches to the side is inaccurate as well.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I'm a little lost. Could you elaborate on this further. I can't figure out if what you are describing is how you learned Taeguk Il Jang, teach or understand it.

This is (

) is the official Kukkiwon version of taeguk Il Jang, including an example of how it might be applied. It's performed by LEE Chong-Kwan, 8th Dan, general manager of the Academic Department of the Kukkiwon, vice president of Poomsae Special Committee of the WTF.

Thank you for the video link. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. In the form, he is facing 'us' at the beginning. He then makes a 90 degree turn to what would be his left. That is where the down block is executed as well as the straight punch. However, in the application portion at the end of the video he is blocking/deflecting a straight kick from the front and then punching. Where is the 90 degree turn before the down block and strike? It isn't there. So why would it be in the form? I submit it isn't there for looks, that it has a purpose. A purpose that hasn't been accounted for or included in the application. Now, let me stop for just a moment and address the application as presented in the video. It looks great! Might even work....as long as it is a straight kick that isn't followed up with any other form of attack. In otherwords, if the attacker straight kicks you with no thought to follow up or forward momentum then you've got a great movement. However, if he does any other type of kick, such as turning his hip so that the kick is coming in, shin first, from the side to plow into your knee, common peronial, hip or floating ribs then or if he's coming in hard with momentum (read: actual attack) and a follow up attack then this movement is going to get the you hurt. It won't defend against that type of kick, nor does it take into account momentum of follow up attacks. So this movement is a one trick pony. And you (general you) will have to determine, under duress, as a reaction to his already committed action what type of kick he has already launched and whether or not their is a follow up with his hands and/or weapon to then decide if this is the proper movement to consider using. In otherwords, it is a low % movement, dependent upon a certain form of attack.

This may very well, and of course is the type of interpretation that is offered in the majority of schools when a 'front' attack is considered. I've seen it from the 'side' as well which considers the 90 degree turn prior to the block. Either way I would not do this in a chaotic fight, nor would I ever teach a student to do this.

Thus I submit that it has an alternate interpretation/application. Not one put forth by 'official' sources. I don't believe they consider it either due to simply not knowing it or not wanting to acknowledge it as it isn't the direction they wish the art to go, or a combination. And they are free to offer any application they wish, but I submit that this is 'more show and no go' as far as a real fight based upon what I've tried to explain. I submit that this type of movement can be found in Karate kata i.e. down block and straight punch. Therefore I submit that if it has an alternate non-b/p/k application in Karate kata then it will have the same/similar application in Korean forms whether they form originator designed it that way or not. I submit that the application may not be as 'clean' in a Korean form as in the Karate kata because somethings are lost in the carry-over. But I also submit that a Korean form can be viewed objectively and that information extracted and used to form principles, tactics and strategy that isn't normally associated with a typical TKD school curriculum.

For this particular movement I've already tried to describe on application and state their is another application. And let me tell you, it isn't easy to describe a dynamic set of movements for a chaotic set of events! But I submit that one alternate application for this opening movement is as I describe in my above post up the page. It takes into account the 90 degree turn the form clearly shows, but that the b/p/k application doesn't. It demonstrates a more realistic application for the down block, which is actually a very effective hammer fist to a vulnerable portion of the attacker's anatomy. It demonstrates the effectiveness of the follow up straight punch, again a high % strike in this circumstance. It takes into account the body position of the attacker coming in from the side in a realistic attack.

The alternate application I've seen, as presented by Simon O'Neill is also highly effective in a chaotic fight and demonstrates an effective balance displacement technique. Consider this; right now Il Jang is a required form to reach the next colored belt. That's fine for children. But for adults, why not make it something more than a cookie-cutter requirement for the next colored belt. This form can be fleshed out with a plethora of gross motor skill movement applications that would expand the students knowledge base a hundred-fold over what it is currently. Movement applications that are much higher % movements in a fight. This is a viable teaching method even if the student isn't SD focused. And for those that are more inclined to SD in their training, it turns TKD more into something akin to Hapkido/Jujutsu just as Karate that is focused on SD is more akin to Jujutsu and not just b/p/k. Look at the writings of Karate pioneers. See what they say about 'blocks'. You'll find information in some resources from pioneers stating that blocks are actually strikes. I'd suggest taking a look at what people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill offer and then see if it is of any interest to you (general you). If not, simply discard the information and you're no worse for the wear. But then, like me, you might see kata/forms in a whole new light that takes your training to an entirely new level. Rather than taking Il Jang and using it for a month or two to get to the next students colored belt, you could take it and have a year or more worth of training beyond the b/p/k methodology.

Peace

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Thank you for the video link. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. In the form, he is facing 'us' at the beginning. He then makes a 90 degree turn to what would be his left. That is where the down block is executed as well as the straight punch. However, in the application portion at the end of the video he is blocking/deflecting a straight kick from the front and then punching. Where is the 90 degree turn before the down block and strike? It isn't there. So why would it be in the form? I submit it isn't there for looks, that it has a purpose. A purpose that hasn't been accounted for or included in the application. Now, let me stop for just a moment and address the application as presented in the video. It looks great! Might even work....as long as it is a straight kick that isn't followed up with any other form of attack. In otherwords, if the attacker straight kicks you with no thought to follow up or forward momentum then you've got a great movement. However, if he does any other type of kick, such as turning his hip so that the kick is coming in, shin first, from the side to plow into your knee, common peronial, hip or floating ribs then or if he's coming in hard with momentum (read: actual attack) and a follow up attack then this movement is going to get the you hurt. It won't defend against that type of kick, nor does it take into account momentum of follow up attacks. So this movement is a one trick pony. And you (general you) will have to determine, under duress, as a reaction to his already committed action what type of kick he has already launched and whether or not their is a follow up with his hands and/or weapon to then decide if this is the proper movement to consider using. In otherwords, it is a low % movement, dependent upon a certain form of attack.

This may very well, and of course is the type of interpretation that is offered in the majority of schools when a 'front' attack is considered. I've seen it from the 'side' as well which considers the 90 degree turn prior to the block. Either way I would not do this in a chaotic fight, nor would I ever teach a student to do this.

Thus I submit that it has an alternate interpretation/application. Not one put forth by 'official' sources. I don't believe they consider it either due to simply not knowing it or not wanting to acknowledge it as it isn't the direction they wish the art to go, or a combination. And they are free to offer any application they wish, but I submit that this is 'more show and no go' as far as a real fight based upon what I've tried to explain. I submit that this type of movement can be found in Karate kata i.e. down block and straight punch. Therefore I submit that if it has an alternate non-b/p/k application in Karate kata then it will have the same/similar application in Korean forms whether they form originator designed it that way or not. I submit that the application may not be as 'clean' in a Korean form as in the Karate kata because somethings are lost in the carry-over. But I also submit that a Korean form can be viewed objectively and that information extracted and used to form principles, tactics and strategy that isn't normally associated with a typical TKD school curriculum.

For this particular movement I've already tried to describe on application and state their is another application. And let me tell you, it isn't easy to describe a dynamic set of movements for a chaotic set of events! But I submit that one alternate application for this opening movement is as I describe in my above post up the page. It takes into account the 90 degree turn the form clearly shows, but that the b/p/k application doesn't. It demonstrates a more realistic application for the down block, which is actually a very effective hammer fist to a vulnerable portion of the attacker's anatomy. It demonstrates the effectiveness of the follow up straight punch, again a high % strike in this circumstance. It takes into account the body position of the attacker coming in from the side in a realistic attack.

The alternate application I've seen, as presented by Simon O'Neill is also highly effective in a chaotic fight and demonstrates an effective balance displacement technique. Consider this; right now Il Jang is a required form to reach the next colored belt. That's fine for children. But for adults, why not make it something more than a cookie-cutter requirement for the next colored belt. This form can be fleshed out with a plethora of gross motor skill movement applications that would expand the students knowledge base a hundred-fold over what it is currently. Movement applications that are much higher % movements in a fight. This is a viable teaching method even if the student isn't SD focused. And for those that are more inclined to SD in their training, it turns TKD more into something akin to Hapkido/Jujutsu just as Karate that is focused on SD is more akin to Jujutsu and not just b/p/k. Look at the writings of Karate pioneers. See what they say about 'blocks'. You'll find information in some resources from pioneers stating that blocks are actually strikes. I'd suggest taking a look at what people like Iain Abernethy, Geoff Thompson, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill offer and then see if it is of any interest to you (general you). If not, simply discard the information and you're no worse for the wear. But then, like me, you might see kata/forms in a whole new light that takes your training to an entirely new level. Rather than taking Il Jang and using it for a month or two to get to the next students colored belt, you could take it and have a year or more worth of training beyond the b/p/k methodology.

Peace

Even with the video, you are incapable of rendering a coherent evaluation of this pumse. Again, your posts betray your lack of knowledge.

 

[miguksaram]

I have enough on my plate practicing TKD, HKD and Kendo without evaluating and critiquing other styles, styles that I don't know enough about to evaluate and critique anyway.

I have an undying urge to give you a guy hug right now.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Even with the video, you are incapable of rendering a coherent evaluation of this pumse. Again, your posts betray your lack of knowledge.

What a well thought out reply. I don't think you're seeing what I have to offer for the same reason a thief doesn't see a policeman...he isn't really looking. Your loss Daniel.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What a well thought out reply. I don't think you're seeing what I have to offer for the same reason a thief doesn't see a policeman...he isn't really looking. Your loss Daniel.

Sorry David, you don't know what you're looking at. You're grasping at straws trying to maintain your carefully invented persona. But this isn't larping. The man's head clearly turns prior to his body turning. And that doesn't change no matter how many paragraphs of nonsense you choose to post.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Whatever Daniel. You may not understand the point(s) I've made, but despite your trying to paint a negative picture of me to cover the weakness of your argument, somebody will objectively look at what I'm saying and look into it for themselves and then make an informed decision for themselves. It was for them that I'm willing to take the flak from those that don't want to peek outside their comfort zone.

I'm stepping out of this thread now Daniel. I've stated what I intended to state for others consideration. Feel free to zing me all you wish.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Whatever Daniel. You may not understand the point(s) I've made, but despite your trying to paint a negative picture of me to cover the weakness of your argument, somebody will objectively look at what I'm saying and look into it for themselves and then make an informed decision for themselves. It was for them that I'm willing to take the flak from those that don't want to peek outside their comfort zone.

Uh huh. Sorry Mr. Shultz, but it is your argument that is lacking. You're just pouting because you've been found out.

I'm stepping out of this thread now Daniel. I've stated what I intended to state for others consideration. Feel free to zing me all you wish.

No interest in zinging you, Mr. Schultz. You've done that to yourself. If you are truly stepping out of this thread, then the topic will move on. I have already responded to your TKD fiction and lies with facts.

 

[dancingalone]

It seems to me that the two of you are simply talking about different things from different perspectives. Bah, enough said.

 

[d1jinx]

It seems to me that the two of you are simply talking about different things from different perspectives. Bah, enough said.

but only 1 of them is right and is making sure to tell us that and profess his knowledge of all that is KKW TKD, when he himself is not.

 

[Archtkd]

Thank you for the video link. This is a great example of what I'm talking about. In the form, he is facing 'us' at the beginning. He then makes a 90 degree turn to what would be his left. That is where the down block is executed as well as the straight punch. However, in the application portion at the end of the video he is blocking/deflecting a straight kick from the front and then punching. Where is the 90 degree turn before the down block and strike? It isn't there. So why would it be in the form? I submit it isn't there for looks, that it has a purpose. A purpose that hasn't been accounted for or included in the application. Now, let me stop for just a moment and address the application as presented in the video. It looks great! Might even work....as long as it is a straight kick that isn't followed up with any other form of attack. In otherwords, if the attacker straight kicks you with no thought to follow up or forward momentum then you've got a great movement. However, if he does any other type of kick, such as turning his hip so that the kick is coming in, shin first, from the side to plow into your knee, common peronial, hip or floating ribs then or if he's coming in hard with momentum (read: actual attack) and a follow up attack then this movement is going to get the you hurt. It won't defend against that type of kick, nor does it take into account momentum of follow up attacks. So this movement is a one trick pony. And you (general you) will have to determine, under duress, as a reaction to his already committed action what type of kick he has already launched and whether or not their is a follow up with his hands and/or weapon to then decide if this is the proper movement to consider using. In otherwords, it is a low % movement, dependent upon a certain form of attack.

Someone who's wise recently told me something about us Americans that I thought was very enlightening: We can walk into the best sushi restaurant in the world -- in Tokyo -- and when we are served with the mouth watering offerings that the establishmenthas has to offer we will wonder why the waitress forgot to provide us with ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, barbeque source, cayenne, or some other bizzare condiment that we are accustomed to splattering on our pink slime laden hamburgers. Some of us might get so miffed from the bitter experience at the Tokyo hole-in-the wall that when we get back home we decide o open up our own "sushi grills." In those grills we can serve charcoal-smoked and flame-seared "sushi" smothered in Louisiana hot sauce and hog oil, "the way it was suppossed to be done," by the chefs in Japan.

 

[punisher73]

http://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Ciphe...6026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336413705&sr=8-1

Since the book was referenced, Mr. O'Neill's book the "Taegeuk Cipher" talks about how these forms were based on the japanese kata and since many of the sequences were the same had the same applications. What is interesting, is the assumption that the applications were not known or ever shown.

As to Itosu's Pinan katas being for "children", I think that is another fallacy when really looked at. Itosu did alter some things to make karate more accessible. He created the Pinan kata series for ALL his students. The adults learned these kata as well, and we know that they were based on other existing kata. I would say that the Pinan's are just a more distilled version of his complete system and the study of the other kata fleshed out things highlighted in the Pinan. Then we move to Funakoshi and how he changed karate for children when teaching in Japan. What did that mean? I don't think it meant the techniques themselves in all cases. When Funakoshi was teaching in Japan, they were building their imperial army, so teaching children meant teaching them the military way. Look at how Japanese karate is trained and it is pure military style.

I think the pendelum on TKD history is swinging back the other way. When it was first used when Gen. Choi promoted it, we know that they were honest that it was mainly japanese karate, then the push that it was taekyon and that TKD was suddenly an ancient martial art. Now, with the advent of better research and more connection between countries and schools, people are again looking at it's history differently. So depending on who/how you were taught this might not be anything new, or you may wonder why they made up their history.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

It seems to me that the two of you are simply talking about different things from different perspectives. Bah, enough said.

To call what anyone else is doing "wrong" is simply lack of perspective IMHO. It either works or it doesn't work, and an art would have no use for something if it did not work. I am not a KKW practitioner, although I will admit I have had increasing interest since my short time here on MT, but I would not dare to say anything a KKW practitioner did was wrong. Arts and styles have different focuses and different intentions for things, so what?

Can I glean a different focus or intent by watching or learning what other arts/styles do with a similar technique? ABSOLUTELY! But I wouldn't dare attempt to tell them that their intent/focus/purpose is wrong.

I greatly appreciate everyone's perspectives. I try to keep my mind more open than my proverbial mouth on here, so I may not post as much, but I get a great deal of knowledge from everyone on here (yes, especially those who have chosen to leave recently).

75 Down blocks? or just one? That is entirely up to you, your style/art, your instructor. I teach many applications in my self defense and 1 step sparring that come directly from movements found in our forms, and I refer to them as such. But when I teach the form, it is basically taught as a "down block." I know many on here that teach from both extremes (one basic application - many, many, many applications) and from somewhere in between. My instructor never taught that a down block was anything other than a down block when it came to forms, others do. I do my best to introduce Boonhae with my students for each of their new forms, but I introduce it in SD and 1 step, not in the form itself. Just my particular way of doing things, and I don't think how anyone else does it is wrong or right (really it is none of my business).

The application at the end of the KKW Taeguk Il Jang works, what's wrong with that? Are their others? SURE.

This one is similar (not quite the same, but the closest thing I found on YT) in nature to one that I teach, that deals with the turning movement, as found in the first movement of a form:

Anyway, MY point is, I appreciate everyone's POV on here, and I'd hate to see more of my MTer's go the way of Puunui and Mastercole because of heated debates.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Thank you. I would offer this link http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/articles

Specifically the Pinan/Heian series and the Basics of Bunkai series for anyone wishing to research additional information. I agree with his premise. I would also recommend the Pinan/Heia DVD as well. One can then make a more informed decision to either look into it further or disregard it completely as they see fit. Stuart Anslow also has a book on it (I forget the name sorry) as well as the Totally TKD e-magazine. He is a member here and can be contacted in several places. They do a much better job than I do of explaining this line of thought.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

http://www.amazon.com/Taegeuk-Ciphe...6026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336413705&sr=8-1

Since the book was referenced, Mr. O'Neill's book the "Taegeuk Cipher" talks about how these forms were based on the japanese kata and since many of the sequences were the same had the same applications. What is interesting, is the assumption that the applications were not known or ever shown.

It should be noted that there isn't any debate on this thread (so far) about whether or not taekwondo has its roots in karate. We all pretty much agree.

Nor is there any debate that taekwondo is not overly strong with regards to applications to the forms. The forms simply are not taught in that way. I've trained in more than one taekwondo school and I have never seen the forms consistently broken down the way that they are in karate bunkai.

Schools where I have trained have relied a lot on one steps to teach those applications. Not a question of better or worse; simply a different way of teaching it.

I do not agree, however, that the Taegeuk pumse are just 'reworked karate kata.'

Regarding the Taegeuk cipher, I have heard nothing but praise for the content, though I have heard that the photography is not best in class.

 

[Archtkd]

Nor is there any debate that taekwondo is not overly strong with regards to applications to the forms. The forms simply are not taught in that way. I've trained in more than one taekwondo school and I have never seen the forms consistently broken down the way that they are in karate bunkai.

It's for that reason that Kukkiwon taekwondo training under many good teachers is always broken up into five key and distinct elements: basics (kibon dongjak); forms (poomsae); sparring (kyorugi), breaking (kyupka) and self defense (hoshinsul).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Nor is there any debate that taekwondo is not overly strong with regards to applications to the forms. The forms simply are not taught in that way.

Yes, this is what I'm trying to convey.

I have never seen the forms consistently broken down the way that they are in karate bunkai.

Again yes, this is what I'm trying to convey.

I do not agree, however, that the Taegeuk pumse are just 'reworked karate kata.'

Then we are in disagreement on this point. But I'd ask how much research you've done on 'the other side' if any.

Regarding the Taegeuk cipher, I have heard nothing but praise for the content, though I have heard that the photography is not best in class.

I consider Simon a good friend and an excellent TKDin. He was a regular contributor on my board for a long time. He was kind enough to mention me (and others) in his book based upon my contributions and our talks.