The Taeguek Cipher - Book Review

[IcemanSK]

Are you saying that the techniques that SJON describes in this book are the hidden techniques of the Tae Guek poomsae that were intended by the designers? If so, one would imagine that the designers would have taught it someone.

Park, Hae Man is one of the designers of the Tae Guek poomsae. He travels the world giving seminars of these poomsae. Our own Miles is hosting him this weekend for the 2nd time that I call recall. I'm bettin' neither Miles nor his students will share in the "secret" techniques behind these poomsae. My GM is GM Park's direct student. I'd bet my last dollar that no "secret" techniques have been discussed between them.

I don't recall so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that some of Funakoshi's "hidden" techniques were in some of his books? If this is that case, why would successive generations feel the need to hide them from all but top students? How could they if the books are available to the world? Point being, how are they hidden if they're written in books available multiple languages?

I'd be very surprised if GM Park, Hae Man were to read SJON's book & say, "well yeah, that's what we really meant the boon hae to be for the Tae Guek's."

I do see possible value in some of the ideas & options that SJON came up with. "If I were in position X & moving to position Y, here are 2-3 things I could do in between" is an interesting thing to ponder. But to claim that these are the secret &/or hidden meanings of the Tae Guek poomsae deciphered by someone other than one of the designers is utter folly. IMO.

Reasoning it out, a hidden or secret technique in the Tae Gueks makes no sense to me. In older kata, perhaps. I wouldn't persume to speak to that issue. It would seem to me that some "masked master" would have blown the lid off of this to the complete embarassment of the designers & the KKW years ago for spite & much profit.

 

[exile]

]Are you saying that the techniques that SJON describes in this book are the hidden techniques of the Tae Guek poomsae that were intended by the designers?[/B] If so, one would imagine that the designers would have taught it someone.

No, not necessarily. As SJON points out, a lot of the component sequences that show up in the Taegeuks are found in the Okinawan/Japanese kata that the Kwan founders and their students studied, but whose content wasn't necessarily made clear to them by their teachers, for the reasons that the authors I cited summarize. The subsequences which make up the Palgwes, the Taegeuks and some of the black belt forms, and much of the Ch'ang Hon tuls, represent recombination of old kata elements (for the ITF forms, see Chris Thomas' terrific article, 'Did karate's Funakoshi found Taekwondo?' in Black Belt 21, 1988 (October issue)). And what SJON is suggesting is that the designers of the Taegeuks retained these subsequences, even though they recombined them and added to them, precisely because they were aware that there was significant combat information contained in them—without necessarily knowing in full just what that information was.

Park, Hae Man is one of the designers of the Tae Guek poomsae. He travels the world giving seminars of these poomsae. Our own Miles is hosting him this weekend for the 2nd time that I call recall. I'm bettin' neither Miles nor his students will share in the "secret" techniques behind these poomsae. My GM is GM Park's direct student. I'd bet my last dollar that no "secret" techniques have been discussed between them.

I don't recall so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that some of Funakoshi's "hidden" techniques were in some of his books?

No, I didn't say that. I said that Funakoshi's books contain illustrations and photos of grappling techniques, throws and the like, which Funakoshi was quite upfront about as being components of Okinawan karate. In Karate-do Kyohan, GF wrote that

in karate, hitting, thrusting and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are also included.​

—a point also echoed by Shigeru Egami in The Heart of Karate Do, where he specifically refers to karate's 'throwing techniques'. If you check my previous post, you'll see that I was talking about the use of grappling/pin &lock/throwing techs in the earlier karate that the Okinawan expatriates brought with them to Japan. I did not say that the 'hidden' techniques were in his books, and I'd be very surprised if he ever committed those apps, or the broader theory of kata interpretation called kaisai no genri in Japanese, to paper. I referred in the post you're alluding to to 'grappling, locks, pins and throws [being] simply taken for granted as technical elements'. I said that what's significant about the existence of these 'grappling' apps in traditional, old-era karate is that—given that they were envisaged as part of the system (or systems, since in Itosu's and Motobu's day, each kata was regarded as a separate style)—once that existence is recognized, their identification as part of the 'subtext' of kata—or the recombined kata elements that TKD hyungs comprise—is no longer anything controversial or even surprising. That's why people like Stuart, SJON, Abernethy, Patrick McCarthy and other bunkai theorists take pains to point out that in early-era karate, these controlling techs were taken for granted as combat resources. I most definitely did not say that these, or any other elements, were explicitly discussed as components of 'hidden' bunkai techs,—by Funakoshi or by anyone else, because those guys did not record those hidden applications in print.

If this is that case, why would successive generations feel the need to hide them from all but top students? How could they if the books are available to the world? Point being, how are they hidden if they're written in books available multiple languages?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that these techniques and methods of analysis are fully present in the published work of Funakoshi or anyone else. I did point out that certain general principles were presented in Toguchi's book, specifically, three general principles that he described as 'basic rules'. Kane & Wilder discuss these in detail in their book; if you're interested, see their Chapter 4 for their discussion of what Toguchi said, and what the combat content of those principles was. But the details of the full theory of kata decipherment appeared neither in Funakoshi's books nor anyone else's. As Higaki notes repeatedly, it was orally transmitted, and only to senior students (Choki Motobu effectively makes the same point in one of his books, and suggests that Funakoshi wasn't senior enough to be entrusted with the full monty; see below). That's why they are hidden.

I'd be very surprised if GM Park, Hae Man were to read SJON's book & say, "well yeah, that's what we really meant the boon hae to be for the Tae Guek's."

See my foregoing comments, which are largely a reprise of SJON's conclusions—in a nutshell, that (i) certain deeper applications of karate kata movement were made available to Park Hae Man, Kim Soon Bae and the other members of the Taegeuk formation committee, based on their seniority under their own instructors who, O' Neill argues, probably themselves had received a certain amount of oral instruction in the hidden bunkai for the kata elements that fed into later TKD hyungs; and (ii) that, as he says,

there are two feasible explanations for the contradiction between the desire to break with Japanese tradition and produce an art superior to Karate, and the conservation of the bulk of the Karate syllabus [in the Kukki hyungs]. One is that the founding masters really believed that the simplistic 'kick-block-punch' interpretation was a practical fighting system, and that a superficial makeover would suffice to convince the world that they had invented a new, superior martial art. The other is that that they recognized the old Karate forms for what they were—codifications of highly effective vital point and grappling techniques—and were loathe to tamper with these contents beyond making a few judicious modifications and additions, and reorganizing them to some extent in order to grade them for difficulty. This second hypothesis goes a long way to validating the patterns as realistic self-defense systems...​

Notice that in order for SJON's 'second hypothesis' to be true, it isn't necessary in the least that the Palgwe and Taegeuk designers themselves saw all, or even most, of the concealed techs that SJON has parsed out of these hyungs. The key point is that the form designers were aware that there were potent applications within the source forms, just as Higaki became aware of this because of what Kubota told him.

I do see possible value in some of the ideas & options that SJON came up with. "If I were in position X & moving to position Y, here are 2-3 things I could do in between" is an interesting thing to ponder. But to claim that these are the secret &/or hidden meanings of the Tae Guek poomsae deciphered by someone other than one of the designers is utter folly. IMO.

Reasoning it out, a hidden or secret technique in the Tae Gueks makes no sense to me. In older kata, perhaps. I wouldn't persume to speak to that issue.

The point of much of SJON's work is, however, that the Taegeuks, and much if not most of the KKW hyungs historically, are recombinations of sequences from the Pinans and other classic Okinawan kata sets. So if they were present in the 'older kata', as you say, then they would be preserved in the hyungs themselves. It's the subsequences that preserve the short, effective two and three move SD applications, after all.

It would seem to me that some "masked master" would have blown the lid off of this to the complete embarassment of the designers & the KKW years ago for spite & much profit.

I don't follow this last conclusion. One of SJON's points is that the KKW hyungs preserve much of the combat instruction set of older karate, but that the composers of these hyungs, while aware that the ingredients for their new hyungs had very different applications beyond the literal, combat-impractical ones, did not know the full system for decoding those older meaning. Going back a generation, Motobu himself claimed that Funakoshi didn't fully understand the bunkai for the Okinawan kata he taught, because neither Itosu nor GF's other teachers entrusted him with the full analysis. The recovery of these techniques has largely been the result of the hints and the few explicit suggestions and instructions offered by the pioneer karateka and early TKD masters, including the one whom SJON cites in his introduction:

The process [of my research] began when I read an interview with a well-known Malaysian Taekwondo master, who mentioned that the patterns contained many soft, circular motions, joint locks and other hidden applications, and demonstrated them in photos.​

To 'blow the lid off this', one would have to do the painstaking reconstruction work that people like Stuart Anslow, SJON and others have carried out on the details of pattern application in the karate based arts. And these people are, in effect, 'blowing the lid off this' by publishing the results of their research. I don't really see where the contradiction is.

If you think it's all folly, well, I doubt that anything I've written here will convince you otherwise, Ice. Everyone who reads the book will draw their own conclusion; I myself find SJON's overall perspective, as well as his detailed analyses, extremely plausible.

 

[StuartA]

I myself find SJON's overall perspective, as well as his detailed analyses, extremely plausible.

As do I... however, I feel it is fair for IcemanSK to be skeptical, as though there is evidence towards 'more' in kata/patterns, the main issue is the glaring hole in the time period when applications of more than a p/b/k nature were not taught generally and how more recent stuff (such as both Simons & my book) suggest that certain revered Masters either didnt know this stuff or held it back... which, considering the way these Masters are held in such high regard can be hard to swallow and that is understandable.

But I have another view that make make things easier to digest for some and it differs from Simons, although mine is in regards to Gen Choi and the Ch'ang Hon patterns, so I cant say this is the case for those that Simon has researched regarding the Taegueks, as his research and evidence is very good and add much credibility for the founders (and is probibly a better/nicer way to look at it all than mine).

First of all, my thoughts work on the fact that most believe that the patterns of TKD largely follow the trend of Japanese karate, stemming from the shotokan taught by Funakoshi, following the way they are put togethor and many of the combinations in them.. I think this is clear for all.

Now Choki Motobu is known to have derided Funakoshi for not knowing the in-depth nature of the Kata he taught and evidence has been presented of what many refer to as the "School System" of Karate differing from the original Karate in many ways when it went to mainland Japan from Okinawa - Funakoshi was caught up in this time period and my take on it, from what I have read, is that Funakoshi didnt have the gaps filled in and in fact learnt the "School System" or at least a system that was incomplete in many important areas (such as the real bunkai). There were reasons why this occured but too much to go into here. A compelling book to read about this is "Shotokans Secret".

So Funakoshi learnt (or decided to teach if you prefer to believe that version) the slimmed down version to the Japanese. In turn, these taught Choi, who wiggled and jiggled a few things and then in turn taught TKD to others (like me). In my book I compared it to being given a colour by numbers picture, but with no numbers - so for many years the outline was the picture, until someone decided to colour it in, but then they didnt have the numbers so were free (and challenged) to do this as they felt it was meant to be. Coupled with the fact that the Japanese term which is now refered to as "block" was a mistranslation (whether deliberatly or not) from the Okinawan word for the same action, which mean "to recieve"

The question here is why wasnt Gen Choi teaching in-depth applications and the answer (to me) is simple - because he didnt learn them.

The next question is - well , why didnt he question them? The answer is again pretty simple.. because firstly back then you never questioned the master.. it just wasnt the done thing period (many still wont dare do that today this is clear) and TBH, there was no reason to question the masters anyway as the majority (like today) were happy with what they had.

However, following the lines of history from Itsou to Funakoshi to Choi and Okinawa to Japan to korea the colours may not have been passed along correctly, but the picture still was (albiet in various guises) and it only takes a couple of people to start questioning things, have a light bulb moment, notice something similar in another art maybe and then begin researching, both history and applications and it becomes clear - whether they were past along in step by step detail or not IS NOT the question, the real question is are they still with us and as all patterns are basically rewrites of the original Okinawas kata, the answer is an astounding yes.. and as long as you accept that, then you can accept there is more to the movements and sequences than what we once learnt and thus, chose to or not to work on that area more to give what you do more depth.

Point being, we shouldnt deny their exsistance because our own teachers or masters didnt show them, it is acceptable and understandable they didnt know them and were none the wiser... its not a taint on them, it just how it was back then; they never had multiple books to cross-reference, the internet, arts were closed with regards to discussing the finer details, no one questioned seniors etc etc.

I think it was either Clayton or kane who posted a picture of a brightly painted vase, with a nice pattern on its sides and flowers sticking out the top - to most it looked like a nice funky vase.. upon closer inspection (and stepping back to see it clearly) it was actually a hand grenade with the firing mechanism taken out.. his point being that an object of detruction can be seen and used as totally different things depending on the perspective of the person looking at it - and one would only question it if they were a) very insightful or more likely b) they had a small inkling that that wasnt its main purpose

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Following on from my last post I have one final thing to say regarding applications to patterns.

Simon and others back up the alternative use by way of history, but, even if he didnt, even if he just re-engineered the Taegueks and found other alternatives to their movements, as long as these applications were pragmatic and added to the students training, they should not be dismissed but rather embraced, as even in that sense he is adding to the art and forwarding it - and this is the way of martial artists - not to stagnate, but to be progressive.. we can still retain the roots and the traditions and be progressive at the same time - the one good thing about it all is that we are able to add to our current systems and give them an even fuller figure... maybe its just me, but I like that!

Stuart

 

[rmclain]

I just wanted to add that according to Grandmaster Kim Soo, Yudo was a mandatory PE class in his high school. I don't know if this was all high schools or not. But, I was told that while striking arts were banned from being practiced by Koreans in Korea during the Japanese occupation, Judo (Yudo) in the school system was normal and allowed.

R. McLain

 

[Mark Lynn]

The question here is why wasnt Gen Choi teaching in-depth applications and the answer (to me) is simple - because he didnt learn them.


The next question is - well , why didnt he question them? The answer is again pretty simple.. because firstly back then you never questioned the master.. it just wasnt the done thing period (many still wont dare do that today this is clear) and TBH, there was no reason to question the masters anyway as the majority (like today) were happy with what they had.

Stuart good post, I edited it due to only having time to address this one issue.

I too believe that he and the other Korean Masters didn't learn the bunaki or applications from the forms as well. But then niether did the many of the current and past Japanese and then in turn western masters either. Reading in Jose Fargus's book on Karate Masters(?) I found that many of the older Japanese masters of Shotokan and other styles didn't learn applications of the forms as forms of self defense really, they were taught instead the basic block, punch and kick applications.

And a key reason for this was that it was being taught to hot blooded young men in universities who wanted to test themselves in matches against one another. So a shift occured away from self defense to sparring. Who wants to practice a form for three years and dig for the meanings when I can get out and test my self and fight instead. And if I have a good fighting school then I help spread the art through tournaments and such. I think this shift took place much to the dismay of Okinawan masters who brought the arts to Japan in the first place.

Now I seem to remember that in that book that the western masters/leaders of the MAs who trained in Okinawa learned the applciations and placed more of a priority of training in them.

In regards to the Korean Masters, I believe they were in the same classes (time frame) as the (now) Japanese Masters (when they were students) and they probably learned the block, kick and punch method as well. When they made the forms they rearranged segments probably looking at them as more of sparring combinations that can be rearranged at will than a detailed fighting method that taught how to defend yourself in different ranges etc. etc.

To back up this view I offer the following.
1) The shift from up right stances (more natural, more in line with self defense) to the lower deeper more powerful foreward stances that you practice in basics. The shift is really evident in the early photos of Funakoshi and the later Shotokan versions of the same moves in the forms.

2) The basic same applications of techniques found in the earlier TKD manuals and the same applications or very similar in the Japanese system manuals.

3) In the early versions of TKD which were very much based on Japanese karate systems there were the same elongated stances and the same basic blocks and kicks.

4) In regards to sparring both TKD and karate adopted the roundhouse kick in the late 30's or early 40 time period. Which came form the chinese systems to Japan not form Okinawa to Japan. Again mainly due to sparing techniques.

Mark

 

[StuartA]

Hi Mark (Boar man),

Seems we are in agreement. As far as Shotokan, the buck stopped with Itsou (so to speak) and all else is a knock on effect from there.

The 'hot blooded young male' thing is a good reason, as is the 'school' system, as is perhaps not wanting to divulge the 'essense' with those that oppressed them for so long perhaps (ie. okinawans to japanese)... perhaps even a combination of these.

I concur with all your points... though I would like to know the reference to the 4th one, as from my research, strangly enough, taek Kwon didnt really have much reaching consequences into TKD above and beyond that it was Korean, had a similar name & had lots of kicks in it.. but previous to that, it was one of the few Korean arts pre-karate that got exported to China (in parts).. ie. the Chinese took some of the kicks and infused them into their systems.. perhaps it came full circle!!

What is the book you refer to.. have you a link as I could find it on Amazon?

Regards,

Stuart

Ps. One further point for readers of this thread. Changing karate to fit the schools happened before it was exported to japan.. it happen on Okinawa first, following the emporers death and thus making it legal to teach it openly as his death meant they were no longer bound by secrecy. Terefore, in theory, the change could have been a) to make it more accpetable for children to learn b) all the above myself and other have submitted as evidence or c) a pure business move ie. make it more popular for the masses

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

Found it:

 

[SJON]

Hello.

Many thanks for the interest in the book and the kind comments. There's some great discussion going on here. I'm really impressed with the knowledge that I'm seeing and the cordial tone that's being used. I also see a few familiar faces!

Give me a bit of time to read back over the thread, and I'll be back.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[exile]

Hello.

Many thanks for the interest in the book and the kind comments. There's some great discussion going on here. I'm really impressed with the knowledge that I'm seeing and the cordial tone that's being used. I also see a few familiar faces!

Give me a bit of time to read back over the thread, and I'll be back.

Best regards,

Simon

Welcome to MartialTalk, Simon!

 

[terryl965]

Hello.

Many thanks for the interest in the book and the kind comments. There's some great discussion going on here. I'm really impressed with the knowledge that I'm seeing and the cordial tone that's being used. I also see a few familiar faces!

Give me a bit of time to read back over the thread, and I'll be back.

Best regards,

Simon

Welcome Simon glad to have you here, one quick question why and how did the book come to be?

 

[SJON]

Hello.

OK, I’ll try to address some of the points raised, in no particular order and with a none-too-clear head (it’s late and I have a cold).

First of all, did somebody mention pressure points? As far as I’m concerned, the whole vital point thing is far less of a big deal than people make out. I remember when I was a schoolkid back in Liverpool, we all knew lots of vital points like (1) strike the jaw (2) grind a knuckle under the ear (3) punch the solar plexus (4) kick the balls (5) knee the outer thigh. Add to that some "adult tough guy" targets like the base of the skull, the eyes, the throat, the collar bones, the floating ribs and the knees. Add to that some grappling targets such as the sides of the neck and some gripping points on the arms. And now you have a full set of pressure points for use in developing an unarmed combat method. I suspect similar knowledge was to be had on the streets of Naha, Nanjing, Busan or Tokyo at any time you care to choose over the last 100 or 500 years.

Regarding the Taekwondo patterns, the big question is – as you have been discussing – whether the early KSD/TSD masters ever really knew the “deeper” applications of the forms they learned, or whether they were only familiar with the K/B/P versions. Here I think there are two things to consider.

One is that what we now look at as “hidden secrets” may not have been such a big deal (as has already been mentioned on the thread). I think that using grips to tie up the opponent in order to facilitate striking has always been present in the striking arts, as has the tendency to throw him to the ground once you’ve struck him, possibly in order to stomp on him some more. Combine this with a grappling culture comparable to that of high-school wrestling in the US. I don’t think this stuff was ever consciously concealed. I think it just fell by the wayside as soon as the striking arts began to emerge as a commercial phenomenon, simply because self-defence was never a big enough business. The paying masses just wanted to spar and the associations wanted to promote their arts to as large a public as possible. So the gripping aspects of the striking arts were emphasised less and less, and any connection between this and the patterns was lost to the collective memory.

The other is whether General Choi and later the KTA Poomse Committee ever actually built the “deeper” applications into their patterns. I must say, I really believe they did. Remember that we’re talking about something that wasn’t such a big deal, not something mystical based on meridians, chi flow at certain times of day, the destructive cycle of elements, etc.
Now, I won’t claim to know much about the Chang Hon patterns, and maybe General Choi was even guilty of including a few sequences because he thought they looked cool, or because he saw a certain non-combative physical training value in them, but I think the man had a very clear combative idea of what he was doing in the majority of them. Have a look at the 7th Chang Hon pattern Toi-Gye. At the beginning there are a couple of sequences with a low inverted spear hand strike followed by a drawing back into high stance accompanied by a kind of half low block and a simultaneous rear backfist. To me this is clearly a groin grab and pull, ideal for maiming and upending an adversary in a military or civilian context. The funny thing is, something similar appears in Pinan Godan and in Kushanku, although Choi decided to modify the final stance, presumably to get more of an upward jerk into the proceedings. There is nothing mystical here, no super-secret pressure point applications, just a very practical, nasty sequence that ceased to be taught as such because people were having too much fun (and earning too much money) doing high kicks.
I think the above is just as true, if not even more so, of the Taegeuk patterns. On the whole, they are less flashy than the Chang Hon set, and a lot more repetitive. And if you consider the background of their composers, those apparently impractical K/B/P sequences start to look like something else altogether.
Now, would Park Hae Man, if challenged, suddenly say, “OK guys, you got me there. We really did design ‘deeper meanings’ into the patterns”. I doubt it. I wouldn’t presume to comment on his character and motivations, as I do not know him and it would be rude to do so. However, I would not be surprised if (a) he chose to maintain the pact of silence referred to in earlier posts (b) he did not feel inclined to suddenly contradict 40 years of the official K/B/P version, with all the emotional/institutional investment that this entails. On the other hand, I would certainly be tempted to ask him if he or a trusted student could convincingly demonstrate the efficacy of the standard K/B/P applications of the high block sequences in Taegeuk 1, the last sequence in Taegeuk 5, the backfist sequences in Taegeuk 7 and the high/low block sequences in Taegeuk 8 against a committed attacker, and then tell me that the original intention wasn’t something different …


Why did the book come to be? Because – like Stuart, I suspect – I thought, “Damn, there must be something more to this …” … and years later, here we are.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[bluekey88]

Welcome to MT Mr. O'Neil!. Let me say that I've spent th epast week reading your book (on my 3rd go through). I'm really enjoying it. I've been asking for something like this for the Taeguk patterns for years now.

I spent about 30 minutes this evening playing around with the apps from Taeguk Il Jang...my son (we'll call him uke Zak) now hates you . It's a lot of fun working these sequences and getting the nuances of footwork and timing down.

Two things I'd like to see in future iterations of th ebook...larger photographs. I'm sure cost constraints had to be part of your equation in getting this out. It would be nice to see greater detail in the photos to make it easier to follow along. Also, notations between ohitis to indicate turn directions. Iknwo they ar ein the application descriptions, but a hand drawn arrow would also help the end user make easier sense of the material.

That being said, an educated practictioner should have little problem figuring out what to do with the amterial presented as it is in the book.

Finally, do you have any plans on doing a book on the blackblet kukkiwon patterns (koryo, keumgang, etc.)? If not, can you point me in thte direction of information to do some of that work myself?

Thanks.

Peace,
Erik

 

[exile]

Finally, do you have any plans on doing a book on the blackblet kukkiwon patterns (koryo, keumgang, etc.)?

And the Palgwes... pleeeeeze... :waah:

Though in all seriousness, I view books like Stuart's and Simon's as not just expositions of specific analyses, but as guides to the general method of form analysis. If one reads these books and makes the connections between the formal patterns and the application techs themselves, one should eventually be able to replicate the same method of analysis. It's like looking at a bunch of worked examples in a math or physics textbook, and then confronting a new equation or problem to solve... if you've paid attention to the worked examples, and absorbed the procedure and way of thinking that they lay out for you, you should be able to extend what you've learned to new materials and 'sight-read', as the musicians say, any form that's put in front of you. I'm hoping that over time, I'll develop reasonable analysis skills from work of this sort that I'll then be able to pressure test with not-particularly-compliant partners...

 

[bluekey88]

I see that. Where I've struggled is trying to learn th ebasics of forms analyses based on forms I don't know. I've personally found that to be very challenging. The stuff being done my Mr. Anslow and Mr. Abernathy made snese to me on a conceptual level...but I struggled because I wa snot fmailar with the forms form which they drew their examples. It wasn't until i started studying the Pinan katas that Mr. Abernathy's stuff started making more sense ot me.

I'm sure in time my analyses skills will improve. But at this time, I need more support.

Peace,
Erik

 

[exile]

I see that. Where I've struggled is trying to learn th ebasics of forms analyses based on forms I don't know. I've personally found that to be very challenging. The stuff being done my Mr. Anslow and Mr. Abernathy made snese to me on a conceptual level...but I struggled because I wa snot fmailar with the forms form which they drew their examples. It wasn't until i started studying the Pinan katas that Mr. Abernathy's stuff started making more sense ot me.

I'm sure in time my analyses skills will improve. But at this time, I need more support.

Peace,
Erik

I know exactly what you mean, Erik, 'cause I'm in the same boat. I know the Pinans in a kind of rough and ready way, but the forms I know best are the Palgwes, and, as you say, it's very different when you're looking at forms you know only indirectly, on the basis of others' performance and a second-hand knowledge of the movement sequences, as vs. ones you've internalized completely. That's why I really do wish that we could have a book-length treatment of the Palgwes—it would help me internalize the method of analysis much more quickly, having as the basis of comparison (between the form and the bunkai for that form) something I know well.

 

[terryl965]

All I know is this not taking anything away from this book and its contexts, lets remember it is there interpetation of said form, poomsae or Kata and not to be picking or anything but since we are talking poomsae's here can we call them that. It always kills me when we are talking about a korean poomsae it gets called a kata that is the japanese side of things.

I was wondering how did you come up with some of the S.D principle lets say in Tae Guek Oh jang movement 10-11-15-13-14-15 in particular, not starting but trying to undrstand your perception of said poomsae. Looking forward to your response. Bu the way is has always been my favorite of all the Tae Gueks.

 

[terryl965]

Just a side note here OK I am enjoying the book, but would like to keep everything grouded until we have a full understanding of his feelings towards his work and the reason behind his interpitation of all the poomsae's.

 

[SJON]

Good morning.

At the moment I'm taking a break before embarking on another book, not least because my wife would kill me otherwise. My intention is for the next one to be on the BB patterns, followed by the Palgwes. This could take a while, but I think the second one will be quicker than the first.

In the meantime, yes, the principles shown in this book (and in Stuart's and Iain Abernethy's) are perfectly applicable to other pattern sets, although the focus and specific methods of each set do tend to be a little different.

I take note of the comments regarding clarity and size of photos.

Terry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding movements 10-15 of Taegeuk 5 (the two knifehand/elbow sequences, I gather). Do you mean how did I come up with the specific application/technique, or what wider concept/principle I'm trying to illustrate?
The theme of the poomse is that of dealing with the clinch in a rather "nastier" fashion than in previous patterns, in the sense that not only do you take your man down, but you make sure you break something while you're at it.
The wristlocks were apparent to me for a number of reasons, such as (a) at this range the hands are generally fixed and are easily located and grabbed (b) the "elbow strike" is at the wrong height for a strike and the rear hand adds nothing (c) the transition between the arm positions of the two movements really looks like a wristlock (to me, anyway!).
Generally I tend to think that the same movement performed on both sides is often not "once against a left attack, once against a right attack", but a conceptually similar solution applied to the inside and the outside of the same attack. Notice that in this case the right wrist is attacked both times.

I hope that answers your question.

Best regards,

Simon

 

[terryl965]

Good morning.

At the moment I'm taking a break before embarking on another book, not least because my wife would kill me otherwise. My intention is for the next one to be on the BB patterns, followed by the Palgwes. This could take a while, but I think the second one will be quicker than the first.

In the meantime, yes, the principles shown in this book (and in Stuart's and Iain Abernethy's) are perfectly applicable to other pattern sets, although the focus and specific methods of each set do tend to be a little different.

I take note of the comments regarding clarity and size of photos.

Terry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean regarding movements 10-15 of Taegeuk 5 (the two knifehand/elbow sequences, I gather). Do you mean how did I come up with the specific application/technique, or what wider concept/principle I'm trying to illustrate?
The theme of the poomse is that of dealing with the clinch in a rather "nastier" fashion than in previous patterns, in the sense that not only do you take your man down, but you make sure you break something while you're at it.
The wristlocks were apparent to me for a number of reasons, such as (a) at this range the hands are generally fixed and are easily located and grabbed (b) the "elbow strike" is at the wrong height for a strike and the rear hand adds nothing (c) the transition between the arm positions of the two movements really looks like a wristlock (to me, anyway!).
Generally I tend to think that the same movement performed on both sides is often not "once against a left attack, once against a right attack", but a conceptually similar solution applied to the inside and the outside of the same attack. Notice that in this case the right wrist is attacked both times.

I hope that answers your question.

Best regards,

Simon

Yes it did thank you like I said not trying to put anything down just asking questions.