I have a love/hate relationship with the I-shape forms
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
It ain't loading.
I’ve found there isn’t much agreed on in Martial Arts. In my opinion, this one’s easy.
Boxing, yes, a specialized and limited Martial Art, but quite effective.
Tae-Bo definitely not, nor was it designed to be.
Cardio kickboxing, no. A fun workout for some, but not a Martial Art.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
It was the clip of Elvis doing his dance moves I tried to import from that thread that I replied to.
All forms are poomsae. That's literally what the word means.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
I'm going to be "that guy":
Poom only means "technique"/"movement".
Sae means "shape"/"appearance".
It's a compound word of two characters: 품새.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
Agree. Straight-out a mashup of words to be part of 'their own creation'.I'm going to be "that guy":
Poom only means "technique"/"movement".
Sae means "shape"/"appearance".
It's a compound word of two characters: 품새.
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
If you bifurcate a compound word, you can certainly arrive at a different meanings than what the accepted meaning of that word. Take "Airplane " as an example . I expect the same might apply to other languages.I'm going to be "that guy":
Poom only means "technique"/"movement".
Sae means "shape"/"appearance".
It's a compound word of two characters: 품새.
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Sort of...
Airplane requires even a native English speaker to intuit idiomatic shifts of the words "air" and "plane" to specifically mean a vehicle that flies. Plane refers to a dimension (and not even one related to traversal)... a non native speaker could equally assume it to mean "the sky" or a place to do with "air", and not objects of travel. It could mean a mathematical graph that plots data on a plane about air quality.
Whereas in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese characters, a lot of that meaning is built into the orthography which makes inferencing meaning of the word a lot easier. Single characters convey entire concepts, unlike the English alphabet.
Last edited:
SirKicksAlot
Yellow Belt
I wonder why the Koreans felt the need to use different terms while describing the same thing? Hyung, Tul, Poomsae. Do these Korean terms have nuances that differentiate them, or is it just the need of one organization trying to be new and innovative over another?
Haruhiko
Green Belt
Politics. You're pretty much bang on the money when it comes to organisations. After some digging and looking at the etymology of the idiograms, the terms certainly carry the sensibilities of each federation.
Hyung (形) means “shape” or “form” in Korean, traditionally used in older martial arts like Tang-Soo-Do. It tends to focus on the external shape and precision of movements, similar to the Japanese "kata."
Poomsae (품勢) combines “quality” (품) and “force” (새), emphasising movements. Usually referring to performance and competition, highlighting flow and power, used in modern WTF Taekwondo.
Tul (틀) means “frame” or “mold” in native Korean, used in ITF Taekwondo, prioritising precision and disciplined practice over aesthetics.
It's to distinguish one school from another. Pride and politics.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
Good question.
Good answer, I think
. Have tried to know a little as possible about the intricacies of Korean MA politics.Government and big organizations seldom make things better, simpler, or easier.
Like English isn't absolutely LOADED with synonyms?
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
It is also filled/inundated/saturated/crammed/over-flowing and awash with them.
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
General Choi from time to time would refine terminology used if he found a word that better expressed what he wanted to convey. Initially patterns in his system were called Hyung and later Tul. He felt "Hyung" described a pattern similar to seeing a Checkerboard or stripe patter on something and Tul better described the diagram or map of the directions the movements traveled such as the "I" "+" "--" etc.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
Terminology is something I had initially wanted to pin down. What exactly is a skip kick, slide kick, step kick, pop kick, drag kick, swing kick, etc. In the first iterations of my curriculum design they had specifically defined meanings, so that I could give commands in class and they would be followed exactly.
In testing that with an untrained friend of mine, it seemed counterproductive. It took more time to correct his terminology mistakes than it did to actually drill the moves. And in the end, knowing how to do them yourself is more important than knowing what to do when someone tells you to do it.
Then I started BJJ. Half the time the Professor will demonstrate a move, and someone will ask what it's called. He'll ask someone else for the name. Half the time the name they give him is made up on the spot.
I'll get caught in something by one of the coaches and ask, "What did you get me with?"
"A choke." They don't have anything more specific than that. There was a collar to be had, so they grabbed it and yoinked it, and it got the tap. It may have a name. It may not. It's just what was there at the time.
I've also realized that the more I have specified in a curriculum, the harder it's going to be for people to assimilate to my curriculum. The more open it is, the easier it is for upper belts to transfer in and start helping out.
I'm becoming much less focused on precise terminology, and much more focused on a general vision that I want for my school when I open it.
In testing that with an untrained friend of mine, it seemed counterproductive. It took more time to correct his terminology mistakes than it did to actually drill the moves. And in the end, knowing how to do them yourself is more important than knowing what to do when someone tells you to do it.
Then I started BJJ. Half the time the Professor will demonstrate a move, and someone will ask what it's called. He'll ask someone else for the name. Half the time the name they give him is made up on the spot.
I'll get caught in something by one of the coaches and ask, "What did you get me with?"
"A choke." They don't have anything more specific than that. There was a collar to be had, so they grabbed it and yoinked it, and it got the tap. It may have a name. It may not. It's just what was there at the time.
I've also realized that the more I have specified in a curriculum, the harder it's going to be for people to assimilate to my curriculum. The more open it is, the easier it is for upper belts to transfer in and start helping out.
I'm becoming much less focused on precise terminology, and much more focused on a general vision that I want for my school when I open it.
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
IMO quite to the contrary. "If you want to command the troops you must use precise commands" General Choi Again it supports portability and and efficient classroom instruction if it is the same on a widespread basis . Now, it was not always so. My Tk-D instructors called different stuff different things and it created some confusion as to what exactly we should do. When I went to my first class with people from several countries I saw how I needed to get on board with the designated terminology for that system. Similarly when I learned only the Japanese term for certain Judo techniques I had to pay really close attention to what was shown when the instructor used the English terminology. One of my JJ Instructors who had several Tk-D people in his class embarked upon a project to codify his rank syllabus and when looking for terms to describe the striking had the Tk-D terminology suggested and usually used. Then you have BJJ people teaching the Kimura and Americana which were new names for old techniques.
OP
OP
skribs
Grandmaster
That works great as long as people stay in my system. It makes it more difficult to bring in people from outside my system. That includes a few different situations:
- "Hi, I just moved to the area. I used to train ATA back home, I'm looking for a new TKD school now that I'm here." It's going to be more important to make this person feel engaged in class than to feel like he's learning a whole new language just to do the punches and kicks he already knows how to do. This is how I felt moving into a new school that had a lot of scripted, standardized material. I had to learn their ceremonies, and it felt like a huge barrier to entry just to train.
- Similar issue, but further compounded when the person is coming in to help instruct. When I launch my school it's likely going to be me and whoever has experience in the neighborhood. It's going to be very difficult to get onto one specific set of terminology when that happens.
- I'd like to be able to bring in folks from outside my school to do seminars. It's something that we've done in my BJJ gym with great success. I plan to incorporate grappling heavily into my curriculum, so in addition to bringing in my Master and/or some upper belts from my old school (who may have slightly different terminology), or bringing in others that I know (i.e. there's a couple of high-level TKD guys at my BJJ gym), or if I were to bring in folks to do a BJJ or Muay Thai seminar, then they're going to use different terminology. I'd rather have my students used to a bit of chaos, because then it's not going to be a major culture shock when they hear something different.
Similar threads
