Our style in Korean or English?

[JT_the_Ninja]

As amusing as negated identity tautologies are...you're still missing my point.

The fact that I don't speak Korean apart from counting to 59, various anatomical terms, technique/form names, and various concepts related to TSD means nothing. Remember; the verbal sign is just a sign.

And btw, your third point (looks so nice and simple when you pick apart quotes, doesn't it?) really defends me. Instead of pointing out that there are some people who don't understand, why not further the point of this forum and help to create more awareness?

Honestly people. If you're going to come to the TSD forum and do nothing but talk about how everything people do in TSD is either "wrong" or "a miscommunication," then you're not being productive.

I will say this bluntly. If you're not at TSD practitioner, and you only want to come here to bash us...leave. Now. You don't belong here.

 

[Makalakumu]

You assume too much, JT. Madmonk108 is ranked in TSD, he can share it with you if you wish. Also, it shouldn't matter if he studies it or not. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if that opinion is well presented with obvious background knowledge and research, then you are entitled to consider it. That's the flip side of the coin.

Now, it just so happens to be that I agree with what Madmonk108 has been saying. You know my background and you've known what I've written in the past about this. I re-examined everything that I did in TSD because I know that what I was doing was not being correctly taught and understood.

If you don't have the ability to do this or you don't agree that this is neccessary, just consider the idea for a while. No need to bash the messenger.

The bottom line is this...IMHO, there will be a day of reckoning when it comes to TSD. A day when no body is practicing this other then children. Adults on the outside looking in are already looking at what is being done there isn't any relationship to what happens in a real fight, that its not useful for self defense. And, in all honestly, this is what they should see. Itosu Sensei created the system FOR children.

We have to change. We all do. If TSD is going to be taken seriously as a martial art and not something that only kids do to build character, the whole nature of the system has to change.

We have the keys to do this, now we need the courage.

 

[Errant108]

The fact that I don't speak Korean apart from counting to 59, various anatomical terms, technique/form names, and various concepts related to TSD means nothing. Remember; the verbal sign is just a sign.

The verbal sign is more than a verbal sign to the ignorant. Again, reference those putting a cup in the doorway, which is the majority of Dangsudo practitioners. It promotes ignorance of technique and methodology.

And btw, your third point (looks so nice and simple when you pick apart quotes, doesn't it?) really defends me. Instead of pointing out that there are some people who don't understand, why not further the point of this forum and help to create more awareness?

That's kind of what I'm doing here. Making you aware of how much has been lost in translation, on a literal and figurative level. Correct terminology is intimately tied to correct application.

Honestly people. If you're going to come to the TSD forum and do nothing but talk about how everything people do in TSD is either "wrong" or "a miscommunication," then you're not being productive.

I realize that many of the things being discussed are controversial, but that's not my fault. I am not the only one discussing them here, and the conversation is taking place between people with a great deal of experience in Dangsudo. There is a growing group of people on this and other venues who are not content with what they have been taught, especially after having been exposed to things that were obscured in their system, either deliberately or through ignorance. These people do not want to move on to other systems, but rather, develop their Dangsudo. This discussion is part and parcel to that.

I will say this bluntly. If you're not at TSD practitioner, and you only want to come here to bash us...leave. Now. You don't belong here.

I'll leave it to the MODs to tell me where I can and cannot go. Controversy, criticism, and logic are not bashing.

 

[Errant108]

Madmonk108 is ranked in TSD, he can share it with you if you wish....Now, it just so happens to be that I agree with what Madmonk108 has been saying...

I think you're confusing me with someone else

 

[Makalakumu]

I realize that many of the things being discussed are controversial, but that's not my fault. I am not the only one discussing them here, and the conversation is taking place between people with a great deal of experience in Dangsudo. There is a growing group of people on this and other venues who are not content with what they have been taught, especially after having been exposed to things that were obscured in their system, either deliberately or through ignorance. These people do not want to move on to other systems, but rather, develop their Dangsudo. This discussion is part and parcel to that.

This can't be stressed enough. There is a growing number of people, myself included, who do not want to change arts, we want to grow our arts. For whatever reason, I'm not exactly sure myself, I don't want to quit. I want to make what I'm doing better.

Maybe its because I see TSD as an open venue. I see it as generic where lineage is a flimsy argument for continuing to do stupid things. To use a modern analogy, TSD is like open source software. You have the general idea and then you draw from the base of people around you to make it better.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Lexicon

1.a wordbook or dictionary, esp. of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. 2.the vocabulary of a particular language, field, social class, person, etc. 3.inventory or record: unparalleled in the lexicon of human relations. 4.Linguistics. a.the total inventory of morphemes in a given language. b.the inventory of base morphemes plus their combinations with derivational morphemes.

This definition, IMHO, is very important, because it frames the discussion we are having. How much does the correct pronounciation of the Korean matter when the techniques are misnamed in the first place? I think that we all agree that the techniques are misnamed...or at least their name doesn't encompass every aspect. Yet some people would wish to hold on to the names, at the very least, in favor of tradition.

My argument references the definition above because a name is not just a label that allows us to semotically define something. A NAME belongs to a lexicon, a system. There are ideas attached to names by the system. You cannot escape these because this is how humans talk to each other. Names are semiotic structures that we use to order our social lives. When a name is designed, there is a particular purpose that is attached to that name. If we keep using the same name, that purpose floods into our thinking unbidden. It doesn't matter what language you speak.

The simple fact of the matter is this...Itosu sensei specifically designed this lexicon in order to obfuscate what was really happening. Over time, the katas began to change in order to reflect this purpose. For us TSD people, if we really want to see how this system was originally supposed to be, we need to be like archeaologists. We need to peal back that layer of purpose and do some comparitive studies in order to make any sense of this thing.

This all starts with discarding Itosu Sensei's lexicon.

 

[MBuzzy]

I really think that the entire nomenclature comes from our teaching the style backwards. We teach a beginner a "low block" and it gives them the wrong idea. It is true that it may just be a label, but to a beginner, it is their entire understanding and in most cases, they go through much of their training believing that this is it. Its a low block. Then - when they are higher ranked and people introduce the idea that it might be something else, it is too entrenched to change. And THIS is how our style has perpetuated.

We teach backwards....we teach the beginners this very watered down version with no depth....just breadth. Teach all of these techniques, then when they get higher ranked, they can learn the depth of each technique. Unfortunately, it gets too entrenched and they get these blinders to the point that they don't want to hear about the depth. Wheras, if we taught the other way.....teach EVERYTHING about what we call a low block, so that a student has an intimate understanding. Then when you move on to "high block" or whatever you want to call it....it is easier to learn. You already have the building blocks. THEN, when they are higher ranked, teaching a new technique is easy, because they already have this basis of how to break down a technique and see what else is there.

What I keep coming back to on the naming question is...What is the alternative? I mean, we have this system of naming now - VERY entrenched. So what is the alternative? Rename everything? And if so, what do you call them? How can you encompass such a deep and complex idea with a simple name?

 

[Errant108]

What I keep coming back to on the naming question is...What is the alternative? I mean, we have this system of naming now - VERY entrenched. So what is the alternative? Rename everything? And if so, what do you call them? How can you encompass such a deep and complex idea with a simple name?

I think the alternative comes with the very issue that Upnorthkyosa is wrestling with...an entire curriculum restructuring is necessary.

 

[Makalakumu]

I hate to keep posting this for fear of vanity, but I think this is a pretty good alternative. I put a lot of thought into this, a lot of research, and a lot of myself banging around with a group of like minded guys. It doesn't have all of the answers, but its my best attempt thus far.

 

[MBuzzy]

I think the alternative comes with the very issue that Upnorthkyosa is wrestling with...an entire curriculum restructuring is necessary.

I agree with you, but eventually we get back to the idea of nomenclature - you have to have a name for something.....

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree with you, but eventually we get back to the idea of nomenclature - you have to have a name for something.....

Yes you do, but that requires that you rethink your conception of basic techniques. I had this same converation with Master Penfil. If a "hadanmahke" is a parry, a strike, a take down, a throw, a grap/release, etc, then each of those things can be named as such. There's no point in calling the movement what it was called because that wasn't what it really was.

Drop the old lexicon and practice the peices of these movements as they really need to be used in combat. Allow the old movements in the kata to teach you how to put those movements into use. The footwork and the hand motions are all there. Fitting and Unbalancing are there too with hikite...grapple to your hearts content.

If you try to hold on to the old terminology, the purpose of the old lexicon creeps in and poisons your understanding. Look at the seminar we went to. A "low block" was ten other things, but nobody got better at those things because everyone was hung up on the name. Everyone was like, "how can we practice this "thing" better to get better at these ten other things?"

That's the exact opposite way to handle it, IMHO.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

Nomenclaturism is a very silly idea, but I agree that a lot of people might be led astray by it. That's why I said that when I learned "hadan mahkee," I learned "hadan mahkee." Of course the first application I was shown was the low block version of it, but the more I learn, the more I'm shown different uses for moves that were enigmas to me before.

And I agree with MBuzzy about your proposed revised system, upnorth; it has a name for everything...and mostly, from what I can tell, in Japanese. So you're substituting one foreign language for another? I think you have a lot of good ideas, but that's always been a bit of a sticking point between us.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't schools out there that need to get in gear and start teaching right. I see it all the time. But you know what, that's not a problem with TSD. That's a problem with the people teaching it. The system, as it is, has the potential to teach very effective methods of self-defense. A large part of the focus in my dojang in particular is making things effective for fighting by understanding what you're doing and understanding how things fit together.

I'm gonna be the first one to speak against, if not ridicule, some schools who don't teach anything beyond "kick and punch." But I'm not gonna extend that to my art. TSD has a very solid foundation, because, while it has a bit of a mixed background, where a lot of misinformation was present at first, TSD is not just "kick and punch." It is not a sport. It is a philosophy. And when you have that philosophy, you will go after the things that will make those techniques better.

Now, as to why I think that it's a good idea to introduce things to students slowly...I don't want my school to become a McDojang. My belt means something. It means I've put in years of effort and dedication to TSD. There's a saying that once you become a cho dan, you become a beginner. You're ready to start to learn. Everything before that is the preliminaries. Until you learn how to move, you can't crawl. Until you learn how to crawl, you can't learn how to walk. When you learn how to walk, then you can learn how to fight. I'm glad that I was trained via "I don't care how you want to do a block, do it the right way!" I learned that my instructor was right, because now I'm learning the applications behind various techniques beyond anything I ever imagined at the gup levels.

When you're ready to learn, then you can start to learn.

And as to my harsh comments, I stand by them. I came to this forum expecting to join in a great discussion of TSD practitioners "talking shop" and benefiting from mutual experience. What I see is an overwhelming flood of people talking about how TSD does so many things wrong, and TSD really can't stand without understanding Okinawan Karate, and TSD instructors really don't know what they're teaching...all by TSD people, who seem to encourage others to come in and join in the bashing. As a TSD student, that offends me deeply. I agree a little offense is useful now and again, but all you are so willing to capitulate and self-berate that it disgusts me sometimes. I respect all the masters and higher ranks a lot, and that just makes it worse.

Tang Soo!

 

[Master K]

I would ask the following question:

If "gedan barai" is translated to mean down block or lower level block, then are we to draw the conclusion that those that practice Okinawan/Japanese karate suffer with the same issues that MDKTSD folks suffer with "hadan mahkee"???

Any thoughts?

 

[MBuzzy]

I would ask the following question:

If "gedan barai" is translated to mean down block or lower level block, then are we to draw the conclusion that those that practice Okinawan/Japanese karate suffer with the same issues that MDKTSD folks suffer with "hadan mahkee"???

Any thoughts?

I really think that this depends completely on the teaching style. IMHO, if taught correctly, the name is nothing more than a label and doesn't matter as much. Just like, when you get high enough and start to realize the depth of techniques, you start to build your own internal definition of "hadan mahkee." TO YOU, it is no longer simply low block, but you will still refer to it as that, because the actual technique has trenscended into more than just the label. If students are started with the depth and application, they can more quickly get beyond the label and naming.

If you get to a certain point in your training, you could call "hadan mahkee" anything....and it would be the same technique, because you've built your own tacit understanding of the actual usage of the technique.

So - if other styles are teaching in the way we are discussing, I believe they will run into the same problem.

 

[jehja43679]

If you're really hung up on this, why not just describe the action with the name that is appropriate for the particular application you are illustrating or teaching in that particular section of your lesson?

If the intention is to deflect an oncoming strike, call it a Ha Dan Mahkee.

If the intention is to strike the groin, call it a Ha Dan Kwon Do Kong Kyuk to the Kowan...

If you want to use your motion to perform an arm bar, call it a Ha Dan Hwaltong Pal Kodong Ki Sool... (Lowering action arm pain technique)

Just a few examples.

Another point you could argue is that every technique we teach is Mahkee... considering the only reason we'd perform any movement to inflict damage or simply deflect a person's oncoming energy is to keep them from inflicting damage upon us, then a punch to the nose is just a preemptive defense.

 

[Errant108]

That's why I said that when I learned "hadan mahkee," I learned "hadan mahkee." Of course the first application I was shown was the low block version of it, but the more I learn, the more I'm shown different uses for moves that were enigmas to me before.

The question is, why continue to train this way?

If a given motion is a standing armbar, a shoulder throw, a wrist release, and a reverse hip toss, it is much more effective to develop a curriculum training those moves, rather than an esoteric "hadan makgi" based curriculum.

And I agree with MBuzzy about your proposed revised system, upnorth; it has a name for everything...and mostly, from what I can tell, in Japanese. So you're substituting one foreign language for another? I think you have a lot of good ideas, but that's always been a bit of a sticking point between us.

Dangsudo comes from Japanese karate, and the majority of Korean terms in that are are either transliterations or substitutions of the Japanese terms. If Upnorthkyosa wishes, I could easily provide him with the Korean equivalents of the Japanese terms he is using.

Would that alleviate your contention?

The system, as it is, has the potential to teach very effective methods of self-defense.

No one is arguing that it isn't.

What we are saying is that it can be more effective in combat. Some things have been lost, others misconstrued, others not developed upon.

It is a philosophy. And when you have that philosophy, you will go after the things that will make those techniques better.

Dangsudo is not a philosophy in any way, shape, or form.

Now, as to why I think that it's a good idea to introduce things to students slowly...I don't want my school to become a McDojang. My belt means something. It means I've put in years of effort and dedication to TSD. There's a saying that once you become a cho dan, you become a beginner. You're ready to start to learn. Everything before that is the preliminaries. Until you learn how to move, you can't crawl. Until you learn how to crawl, you can't learn how to walk. When you learn how to walk, then you can learn how to fight. I'm glad that I was trained via "I don't care how you want to do a block, do it the right way!" I learned that my instructor was right, because now I'm learning the applications behind various techniques beyond anything I ever imagined at the gup levels.

Teaching effective techniques from day one does not turn your school into a McDojang. If anything, it lessens the chance of being a McDojang, because you have now integrated the rigid rod of reality into your training. Instead of spending months learning hadan makgi in order to learn how to perform a shoulder throw, you begin drilling and learning how to perform a shoulder throw. You can very quickly learn how to apply it statically, and then, through alive training, spend months perfecting your ability to apply it in sparring.

When you're ready to learn, then you can start to learn.

You're ready to learn from day one, you may just have to build some preliminaries. That stage is not as long as many say.

And as to my harsh comments, I stand by them. I came to this forum expecting to join in a great discussion of TSD practitioners "talking shop" and benefiting from mutual experience. What I see is an overwhelming flood of people talking about how TSD does so many things wrong, and TSD really can't stand without understanding Okinawan Karate, and TSD instructors really don't know what they're teaching...all by TSD people, who seem to encourage others to come in and join in the bashing. As a TSD student, that offends me deeply. I agree a little offense is useful now and again, but all you are so willing to capitulate and self-berate that it disgusts me sometimes. I respect all the masters and higher ranks a lot, and that just makes it worse.

If you respect all the masters and higher ranks a lot, then do you not respect it when masters and higher ranks, who have more experience than you, seek to think critically about their training methodology?

 

[Errant108]

I would ask the following question:

If "gedan barai" is translated to mean down block or lower level block, then are we to draw the conclusion that those that practice Okinawan/Japanese karate suffer with the same issues that MDKTSD folks suffer with "hadan mahkee"???

Any thoughts?

Gedan barai,下段払, means lower sweep, not block. The alternate term,下段受, gedan uke, means lower reception. Thus, when I say there is no such thing as a block, that the concept of blocking does not exist, I mean that to be literally the case.

In answer to your question, yes many that practice Okinawan and Japanese karate suffer from the same issues, because they are focused on the "elementary school" adaptation of karate that was fostered by Itosu and those who followed after him.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

Errant: I'm going to institute a policy of ignoring people who use the quote-pick-apart method from now on, because I've realized that, even when I use it, it's just to take things out of context and distort whatever the person was saying. That's why I'm not even quoting you here.

Anyway, Tang Soo Do is a philosophy, as I train in it. Do you train in the same style I do, then? Ask yourself that.

And as to why I'm okay with first learning only the block interpretation of hadan mahkee (eventually we'll need another standard move example; this one is getting old), if you ever bothered to pay attention to what I said, you'd know I already answered that. It's because you have to learn to move before you learn to crawl before you learn to walk. I started at age 13, which is unusual; most students start at age 5. Even then, I didn't have the instinctual knowledge of how the body moves that I aspire to gain through training (Perhaps you forget being a 10th gup; perhaps you just choose to ignore that fact). Learning that it was a downward blocking motion helped me grasp the way I should move. I was shown the move, shown how it should go, and had it drilled into me until I got it right. You don't question the teacher when she tells you how you're supposed to make your letters, do you? It's only later that you learn to write creatively. Same story here. The gup levels are about learning how to move. Like I said before, everything before cho dan is preliminaries; cho dan means "beginner" (pragmatically! I don't care for a literal gloss from Korean with an explanation of what shodan means in Japanese).

Therefore...you teach the pre-beginners how to move for four years, and then, when their bodies are ready, you show them what they can do with what they've been taught and had drilled into their heads. This is why I'm constantly correcting my juniors on the basic moves, crossing, pulling back your fist to your ribs, blocking correctly, paying attention to hit targets, and even basic things like walking correctly and basic stances. When I got my cho dan rank, almost four years ago, it was with the understanding that now all of that was supposed to be internalized, automatic. I can now learn Tang Soo Do.

If you don't prepare, you can't learn properly. If you think the stage isn't as long as I say, you haven't seen some of the kids I have to correct repeatedly - kids need more instruction than that, and it's largely kids that make up the gup levels. I work with adults and even teens at gup levels with more higher-level stuff, like the different ways a move can be used, but kids? You're not a teacher if you don't know what kids can and can't do when they only show up to maybe two classes a week.

 

[Errant108]

JT,

I use quick quote because it allows me to directly address the points you make and stay on topic, rather than drift. If you feel I've taken you out of context somewhere, please point it out and I'll try to rectify that. It also helps make sure that I get to everything in a discussion. You missed a couple of my questions in the previous post.

Remember when you asked us not to talk about linguistics, because that was your speciality? I have a degree in philosophy and am currently engaged in a live-in study in a Zen monastery. Dangsudo is not a philosophy, unless you are using the most liberal definition of the term.

Your following comments make me think you don't quite understand what I've been saying. My fault, so let me try and elaborate.

My problem is not with teaching the "low block" of hadan makgi first, or learning to crawl before walking, etc. It's the way the curriculum is constructed. Let me try and walk you through an example of a lesson plan that will hopefully explain what I'm getting at. Let's look at the idea of a low block or sweep. (I concur, it does get tedious to talk about just this one, but it's the easiest.)

Not "hadan makgi" in a general sense, but that literal movement of using your hand to sweep a lower attack. Your arm sweeps across your body, normally to prevent an linear attack to your midsection. For the sake of this example, your students have already learned how to throw a front kick. Demonstrate with one of the other instructors or a senior student, how to sweep aside a front kick, possibly combined with evasive footwork based on the relation of size with you and your opponent. Have them partner up, one person throws controlled front kicks, the other practices sweeping them aside. Rotate through the students several times so they learn how to apply it against different types of opponents. Put the sparring gear on and liven things up a little bit. Have the attackers use random rhythm and greater intensity. In addition to learning a basic movement, how to sweep aside a linear attack toward their trunk, they're also learning distancing and timing, since they need to guage how close they are to the incoming attack, as well as training their reactions to handle the time it takes to react to the spontaneous attack. They learn balance as they are forced to move back and forth, side to side as they and their partner trade kicks. It won't take very many training sessions for this lower sweep to become ingrained, especially since they are now able to use it against an alive opponent.

What was completely skipped was "hadan makgi". Teaching a "form", an idealized, perfect motion learned in isolation.

Children very quickly latch onto this alive training, because they are able to see results very quickly. Their creativity is triggered as they try to see how they can mix up and apply what they know. True, some learn at a slower curve than others, myself being one of them, but the benefit of alive training means that you have constant positive reinforcement. You see exactly where you are lacking, what you are missing, and what you need to work on. You are involved in the learning process, rather than just repeating a movement by rote.

It doesn't take four years to develop the foundation for future learning, but it takes a lifetime to keep striving for perfection. If Do means path, then you start down the path of Dangsudo from your first lesson, you don't have to wait four years to be ready. However, you learn that it is a path that takes a lifetime to walk.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

If I missed any points, it was because I'd already addressed them, or simply didn't see them.

TSD is a philosophy in that it teaches a set of principles, beyond how to fight, toward how to approach life. At least, my style does. We have ten Articles of Faith, as well as a whole list of other aspects of training that extend into the philosophical. It may not be your definition of a philosophy, a theory with well-defined terms and logical structures, but I'd hardly call it the "loosest" definition of a philosophy.

Anyway, we do have sparring practice, you know. I'm not saying you only teach forms. That would be ludicrous, especially because so much of the forms is encoded information that isn't necessarily taken literally, at surface value. I agree completely with the idea of that kind of exercise. This whole argument was about what to call techniques, remember. Look at the thread title if you've forgotten.

I also think you're giving the average student a bit too much credit. Remember what I said about the majority of gup belts being kids under age ten? Yeah. And they come, on average, two nights a week. And a good third of them confuse left and right, back and front, even midway through the gup levels. But beyond the gaining of movement knowledge, it takes four years to become a cho dan because that means you've earned the right to begin. I agree that a dedicated student, maybe around the age I was when I started (13), could get the basics of movement in a month of classes. But remember what I said about it being a philosophy? You can't teach that in a month of classes, or even a year of classes. I'm still working on that, even as an e dan. Patience, dedication, discipline: that is why it takes four years to be able to test to become a beginner.

So...now that we have that out of the way, should we turn the discussion back to language choice, or have we debated the issue ad nauseam?

 

[Master K]

Errant108,

I do not have the char set on this computer, so I cannot comment on the characters you put up there. When you translated the characters, what language did you translate them from? The reason I ask, is that several native Japanese speakers I know would argue that the term I posted is translated correctly from my post. This doesn't necessarily mean I am correct. I am just posting my opinion based on my experience.

The issue shouldn't be with Itosu and those that followed after him. The issue is with the instruction (how it's taught) and the student. For instance, if the instructor only teaches the student the standard low block application of blocking a kick and never any other interpretations of the movement, then shame on the instructor.

The student is responsible for keeping an open mind and expanding his/her knowledge. If the student doesn't keep an open mind, then the student is no better than the instructor.

I find that many 1st thru 3rd degree black belts only understand the basic applications. As you progress as a martial artist your understanding of the techniques should progress as well. For instance, low block evolves from blocking a kick to parrying and striking or whatever other interpretation the instructor has shown.

It is my humble opinion that the system isn't the issue, but rather the instructors and students. It is the responsibility of the instructor to teach the many applications of the techniques so that the student may progress. If not then the student walks away with a watered down understanding of the techniques. The student has the responsibility of being open-minded. This matter is further complicated by the fact that most instructors encourage their black belt students between 1st and 3rd to go out and open their own school/program and teach. But that is a whole other issue entirely.