The Taeguek Cipher - Book Review
- Thread starter StuartA
- Start date
The problem I have with books like this:
Unless you were the one who designed, or helped design, the Taegeuk, Palgue, and Koryo forms, all you are really doing is second guessing the creators of the forms and trying to determine what those forms mean based on your theories and history.
It might be different if you sat Hae Man Park and his colleagues down, asked them what the techniques in each form are supposed to accomplish (and that's assuming you get past the language and cultural barriers), and diligently wrote down and committed to memory what he said and demonstrated. I'm assuming you have not.
Therefore, to me this book is simply your interpretation of what you think the forms are supposed to be doing, whether Taegeuk, Palgue, or Koryo. Some of it might be reasonably accurate. Some of it most likely is not, because you'd have to know what they were thinking and had in mind. And unless you got it from them personally, I highly doubt that.
I feel fortunate that my own instructor had personal relationships with senior instructors like Hae Man Park. If I want to know what a form is doing, I just ask.
Unless you were the one who designed, or helped design, the Taegeuk, Palgue, and Koryo forms, all you are really doing is second guessing the creators of the forms and trying to determine what those forms mean based on your theories and history.
It might be different if you sat Hae Man Park and his colleagues down, asked them what the techniques in each form are supposed to accomplish (and that's assuming you get past the language and cultural barriers), and diligently wrote down and committed to memory what he said and demonstrated. I'm assuming you have not.
Therefore, to me this book is simply your interpretation of what you think the forms are supposed to be doing, whether Taegeuk, Palgue, or Koryo. Some of it might be reasonably accurate. Some of it most likely is not, because you'd have to know what they were thinking and had in mind. And unless you got it from them personally, I highly doubt that.
I feel fortunate that my own instructor had personal relationships with senior instructors like Hae Man Park. If I want to know what a form is doing, I just ask.
YM so with this it means your instructor is giving there interpitation to said poomsae and on a side not you talk about only the Korean know for sure but you always call them forms why is that. There has been alot of research dowen by non Koreans about the Tae Gueks poomsae's and we are finally come from the shadows so why would you bot see what is out there. What is the name of your instructor by the way and his try's to Hae Man Park? See I have been doing this for a long time and over that time I have heard stories change for the betterment of TKD or so they say. Let say it is his interpitation of said poomsae's so it give new light and understanding to them. Some of it I can see others it just does make sense at this time to me, but over time I will either believe or throw it away but at anyrate if I do not see with both eye's open we cannot grow the Art.
Baring knowing what the form originators intended when the moves were designed, we do need to discover/decide what the techniques are within the forms, otherwise we are just doing a martial dance. It also takes off all restrictions, so no interpretation is incorrect Ā the one that speaks to you and you relate to is correct for you. To me, this brings the ĀartĀ back in martial arts. This discovery is what makes trying to understand the ĀcipherĀ interesting and an enjoyable journey. Otherwise, whatĀs the point? Why train in forms, obscure choreographed techniques with no meaning at all?
Personally, I love forms, and the study and decoding of the techniques contained within. Keeps it fun and interesting.
Your mileage may vary. I would love to see more similar books, and am glad Simon spent the time and effort to compile and share his information and ideas.
Personally, I love forms, and the study and decoding of the techniques contained within. Keeps it fun and interesting.
Your mileage may vary. I would love to see more similar books, and am glad Simon spent the time and effort to compile and share his information and ideas.
I apologise for my tone, but this response is one of the reasons why martial arts remain stagnate, indoctrinated and never evolve.. the early master were not gods, they were humans and thus make mistakes (and like most humans find it hard admit them) or miss things, or overlook things or are short-sighted etc etc. Only others make them god-like.. but under the facade, they are still human! Give them the respect they deserve, but remember they are human as well.
Personally, I suspect, that out of respect, Simon has actually given the Taeguek creators too much credit, when in reality, insight into SD related applicational knowledge bypassed them altogethor as it did with others... again, to repeat my earlier post, this isnt a stain on them, just the sign of the times & how it was back then!
Again, apologies...
Stuart
So... then the forms creator should have made it clearer what they are for.. or maybe they already did!! Which means Simons work is much required!
See above... there should be no need for that IMO... I think by now they would have shown there was more to them above and beyond p/k/b.. IF, to them, there was (see my previous post regarding Gen Choi & this area). The "language/cultural barriers" thing I have heard loads of times before as reasoning for not showing stuff, unfortunatly, actions speak louder than words.. and a photo can capture that easily, after all, it is worth a thousand words!
As I said already, so what.. even if its another take on them (possibly a better one btw).. if it adds to the art then thats a good thing and one that should be embraced. Not giving them credence because hes not the creator who didnt chose to share the real appliactions or more likely didnt ahve any above p/k/b is short-sighted to say the least!
The Taegueks are documented, as are their official applications - I think its clear what they had in mind, and history shows this to be missing a few things consistant with what patterns/kata are for.. I think we are extremely lucky that they followed the same formula as Itsou etc., so we can rework them correctly now, in the 22nd century!
You shoudn't have to ask your instructor, to ask his instructor... if theres more to them from their creators above what is taught, then they should be the standard applications.. strangely enough, they are not!
Personally, I suspect, that out of respect, Simon has actually given the Taeguek creators too much credit, when in reality, insight into SD related applicational knowledge bypassed them altogethor as it did with others... again, to repeat my earlier post, this isnt a stain on them, just the sign of the times & how it was back then!
Again, apologies...
Stuart
Last edited:
Absolutely, DM.
The idea that all there is in a form is what the people who designed the form intended to be in there is questionable on several grounds. In the first place, it assumes that the originators were working from scratch, and creating movement sequences in a complete historical vacuum, in order to teach specific things. But in the case of TKD patterns, that's dead wrong: many of the subsequences of TKD hyungs are traceable back to Japanese, and earlier Okinawan kata, and still earlier Chinese xsing sequences. And we know in some cases that certain sequences in TKD/Japanese/wherever forms which are marketed a certain way were actually used differently in their sources. The infamous 'double block' in Palgwe Sa Jang at the very start, for example, and the next three moves after it, are lifted straight out of Pinan 1/Heian 2, and we have photos of Funakoshi actually performing this 'double block' in a combat sequence with Otsuka, founder of Wado-ryu as his opponent—but not as a block! In Higaki's book, a photo of Funakoshi in action shows him using the motion to go inside and deflect Otsuka's straight punch with the 'rising block' while using the inside-to-outside 'middle block' as a strike to the throat/lower jaw. It is a picture-perfect 'double' rising block, exactly the opening move of Palgwe Sa Jang, but as been pointed out in many places, the literal double rising application standard in literal karate bunkai for Pinan Shodan, and which I've heard repeatedly from TKDists, assumes extremely implausible circumstances, especially in the context of street violence. What Funakoshi demonstrates with the motion, on the other hand, is clear, direct, and devastatingly effective in the hands of a well-trained MAist, in just that kind of context. The fact that the move has that kind of combat applicability is inherent in the movements themselves, whether or not the creators of the Palgwes were aware of it by the time that project was initiated.
The second point is that there is always more to something genuinely great than the artist thought of. That's part of what makes art different from engineering. Successive generations of readers have found Shakespeare's or Milton's work highly relevant and meaningful, because even though those writers were men of their era, their greatness left plenty of insight in reserve that makes sense in our own time. So far as the kind of form-parsing that Stuart and Simon do with the TKD forms, what are we going to say—hey, those applications look effective, stand up to pressure testing, meets the conditions imposed by real street combat violence, but I'm not going to pay any attention to any of those applications because Hee Man Park or Bae Young Ki weren't aware of them? That, to me, sounds just plain self-defeating...
Last edited:
"Oh oh"... << jumps around with hand in the air>>
You beat me to it.
SJON
Blue Belt
YoungMan,
At no time have I categorically stated that what I propose is the only possibility as the true, original intention of the poomse composers. I think I make this clear in the book. I am proposing a hypothesis based on conclusions I have drawn from the sources available to me and from personal analysis, observation and experience. This is standard academic practice, and is something that historians do all the time. I happen to believe the hypothesis I propose, and I believe that I have every right to propose it.
The applications presented in the book are indeed my own interpretations - again, shaped by my own research and my experience - and are, I believe, valid as SD methods whether you believe that the founders intended something similar, something nothing like it, or something midway between the two.
Cheers,
Simon
At no time have I categorically stated that what I propose is the only possibility as the true, original intention of the poomse composers. I think I make this clear in the book. I am proposing a hypothesis based on conclusions I have drawn from the sources available to me and from personal analysis, observation and experience. This is standard academic practice, and is something that historians do all the time. I happen to believe the hypothesis I propose, and I believe that I have every right to propose it.
The applications presented in the book are indeed my own interpretations - again, shaped by my own research and my experience - and are, I believe, valid as SD methods whether you believe that the founders intended something similar, something nothing like it, or something midway between the two.
Cheers,
Simon
First, I'll just say that it look to me as if an awful lot of posters on this threadĀthe great majority, in factĀare interested in the result of the research carried out by Simon and Stuart, and see a definite value in their findings (with the always-valid proviso that these findings need to be critically examined and probed as part of their own 'pressure-testing'). Those who see no interest or value in this work will simply ignore it, as is their right. I'm therefore assuming that the continuation of discussion in this thread will be carried out by MAists who are receptive to this line of inquiry, and so I'd like to shift the discussion somewhat from the direction it's been going in to a different issue, one which assumes the validity of this kind of analysis.
My question is, when you guys look at a new form, how do you get started with the analysis?
I know that bunkai analysts following the approach that Stuart and Simon adoptĀwhat I think of as the Abernethy pictureĀtypically have a number of guidelines, rules, rules of thumb, call 'em what you will, which represent criteria that must be satisfied by any plausible 'realistic' bunkai analysis. But these rules of thumb sort of apply after the factĀthey don't tell you in particular how to think of a given interpretation for a set of moves; what they give you is a kind of vetting checklist for a given interpretation of a hyung subsequenceĀa way to assess any pre-given bunkai analysis. They don't tell you how to come up with a range of such interpretations in the first place.
So what I want to know is, when you see a form for the first time, what do you start with in getting a handle on its combat content? Do you have some other procedures, rules of thumb, guidelines or the like that point you, reliably, in the right direction? A lot of us, I think, hope to learn from your work how to construct and test our own form application analyses. But how to get started, how to 'sight-read' a new form and construct various alternative possibilities... those are the questions. What do you chaps actually do, confronted with a new form to analyze?
My question is, when you guys look at a new form, how do you get started with the analysis?
I know that bunkai analysts following the approach that Stuart and Simon adoptĀwhat I think of as the Abernethy pictureĀtypically have a number of guidelines, rules, rules of thumb, call 'em what you will, which represent criteria that must be satisfied by any plausible 'realistic' bunkai analysis. But these rules of thumb sort of apply after the factĀthey don't tell you in particular how to think of a given interpretation for a set of moves; what they give you is a kind of vetting checklist for a given interpretation of a hyung subsequenceĀa way to assess any pre-given bunkai analysis. They don't tell you how to come up with a range of such interpretations in the first place.
So what I want to know is, when you see a form for the first time, what do you start with in getting a handle on its combat content? Do you have some other procedures, rules of thumb, guidelines or the like that point you, reliably, in the right direction? A lot of us, I think, hope to learn from your work how to construct and test our own form application analyses. But how to get started, how to 'sight-read' a new form and construct various alternative possibilities... those are the questions. What do you chaps actually do, confronted with a new form to analyze?
Look, I'm not saying a book about what the applications of the Taegeuk forms is not useful. However, none of you created them. Hae Man Park and his colleagues did. Therefore, unless he writes a book as the creator of the forms and describes what the forms are doing, a book by anyone other than the creator of the forms is second-guessing what the intent of the forms is.
Now, if it is established at the beginning that the author has not spoken with Hae Man Park and the book is simply his attempt to decipher what the forms mean, and he could be wrong, that's fine. But don't try to tell people "this is what this form is most likely doing" if you haven't spoken with the form's creators.
And definitely don't tell me what the Taegeuks are trying to accomplish because you've studied the Japanese forms and this what they do. I could care less what the Japanese forms do. I don't practice karate.
Now, if it is established at the beginning that the author has not spoken with Hae Man Park and the book is simply his attempt to decipher what the forms mean, and he could be wrong, that's fine. But don't try to tell people "this is what this form is most likely doing" if you haven't spoken with the form's creators.
And definitely don't tell me what the Taegeuks are trying to accomplish because you've studied the Japanese forms and this what they do. I could care less what the Japanese forms do. I don't practice karate.
SJON
Blue Belt
Good morning.
Correct, although I prefer to think of it as applying a set of academic and technical criteria rather than just Āsecond guessingĀ.
Nobody is claiming otherwise.
Why ever shouldnĀt I?
I have not studied Japanese forms. I have evaluated the very considerable influence of a particular set of Okinawan forms, along with a number of other influences, on this set of Korean forms.
Fair enough. Each to his own.
Exile, in my case, getting started analysing a sequence is usually a combination of some or all of the following:
Ā· being aware of certain general characteristics of the art, e.g. whether there is a general preference towards a particular approach
Ā· seeing which way the weight is shifting as per stance and turn
Ā· taking into account a number of habitual uses for certain ĀtechniquesĀ, e.g. low block for dragging something down or as a low hammer strike
Ā· likely kind of attack, e.g. more likely a haymaker than a backfist
Ā· likely kind of solution Ā e.g. striking, gripping Ā in the context of the pattern as a whole
Ā· seeing what the hands are doing at all stages of the movement, i.e. not only at the beginning and end
Ā· knowing what a whole lot of techniques actually look like, particularly throws, takedowns and joint manipulations
Ā· assuming that at least one hand is going to be gripping the opponent most of the time
Ā· taking into account certain generally desirable results, e.g. unconsciousness, broken limb, opponent on the ground
Cheers,
Simon
Correct, although I prefer to think of it as applying a set of academic and technical criteria rather than just Āsecond guessingĀ.
Nobody is claiming otherwise.
Why ever shouldnĀt I?
I have not studied Japanese forms. I have evaluated the very considerable influence of a particular set of Okinawan forms, along with a number of other influences, on this set of Korean forms.
Fair enough. Each to his own.
Exile, in my case, getting started analysing a sequence is usually a combination of some or all of the following:
Ā· being aware of certain general characteristics of the art, e.g. whether there is a general preference towards a particular approach
Ā· seeing which way the weight is shifting as per stance and turn
Ā· taking into account a number of habitual uses for certain ĀtechniquesĀ, e.g. low block for dragging something down or as a low hammer strike
Ā· likely kind of attack, e.g. more likely a haymaker than a backfist
Ā· likely kind of solution Ā e.g. striking, gripping Ā in the context of the pattern as a whole
Ā· seeing what the hands are doing at all stages of the movement, i.e. not only at the beginning and end
Ā· knowing what a whole lot of techniques actually look like, particularly throws, takedowns and joint manipulations
Ā· assuming that at least one hand is going to be gripping the opponent most of the time
Ā· taking into account certain generally desirable results, e.g. unconsciousness, broken limb, opponent on the ground
Cheers,
Simon
Actually, I didnt follow any guidelines of Iains, in fact I hadnt seen them before I did my book. But, I have been told Kris Wilders book contains the ABC method for deciphering kata.. but again, Ive havnt read the book, just the PDF preview he posted.
First of all, the forms I delved into were not new.. I have been practing them for near on 20 years and already had some applications I utilized (many of which made it into the book). For me, my further analysis was based on how I viewed things, historical context etc (as explained in the book). For example, though applications can be many and varied, I set myself the MO (in the book) to ensure I kept to a steady path and because I wasnt trying to go beyond TKD back to Okinawa, but wanted to view them as the TKD Drill Instructors did (these are the ones that first started coming up with alternative applications to the forms, albiet sequences, not whole forms AFAIA).
Regarding the Ch'ang hon patterns, there are really 3 types of applications:
1. Those Gen Choi percieved (and hence put in his books)
2. Those that exsisted prior to the formulation of the patterns, that go back to Okinawa and beyond - much/all records of which were lost in the bombing of Okinawa (these can be further split into two areas - the Itsou/Matsumura era ie. hard style, and beyond that to China/Kung fu ie. soft style)
3. Those alternatives that the TKD Drill instructors came up with based on their own perceptions as well as those who did the initial pattern design work (many of whom remain unknown).
It was No.3 I wanted to get at.. No.1 has already been detailed quite in-depth, No.2 are already being explored by Iain and the Karate guys and even though they do cross over, many a move have been changed making findings here more historical and less relevant to TKD, furthermore as I dont believe they were conciously carried across, though are there through luck anyway, it means things wernt altered for a reason, but simply because! Hence No.3 for me.
Though I didnt follow an ABC method, the biggest research area for me was my cross-training with other arts/instructors, through (and before) IAOMAS as this allowed me to see things that someone who soley studied one art may not have seen, then these were tried out, tested etc. all the while they had to fit the original MO. I strongly believe all the arts are connect somewhere, even those that look really different, for example I trained with a BJJ instructor and found stand up techniques in the TKD patterns, that were virtually identical to BJJ ground stuff.. connected, as I said.
Therefore, it is important to draw from a bigger a picture as possible, you cant see a throw if you dont know what a throw looks like to begin with etc.
Regarding individual patterns, in the book I sub-name them ie. the elbow breaking pattern.. this is because I would look through them over and over, first finding stuff that jumped out at me or that I already used, then researching other techniques out etc. and to me, if the first 6 combinations found (though not nessecarily in order) led to a joint break, it was quite likely the more obscure ones did as well.. though I remained open-minded and that is why I did the alternative applications section at the end of each chapter.
So, in summary:
1. Utilize as much 'outside' knowledge as possible - other arts often contain the answers (more so as many of the originators trained in other arts)
2. For me, the applications had to fit the MO of the period I was looking at - in most cases that mean 'finishing' the opponent by way of kill, break, main or incapacitate
3. As the historical contexts was not carried forward (in the Ch'ang hon tuls).. pragmatic is more important than historic IMO.. so if it works and does what its meant to.. thats great. If they do carry some historic (pre-TKD) relevance than thats a bonus.
4. A fist is not always a fist, but a 'tight grip'
5. Regarding the Ch'ang hon tuls.. a turn may be part of the application or it might not be (see point 3)
6. TKDs national identity must be taken into account.. things were added to make a disctinction that this is Korean, rather than Japanese (like the high kicks)
7. The start and end of as 'block' doesnt dictate the start and end of an application, in fact, mmuch of the end parts are follow through to ensure an application works, much like a punch should have follow through
8. If it works under pressure, then it is not wrong, even General Choi acknowledge this often!
There was a guy on the book forum who refused to acknowledge that fighting without pulling your hand back to the hip on every technique was clearly wrong/dangerous.. simply because Gen Choi had not said so and endorsed this practice in his book.. to him (the guy) this was the pinnicle of fighting, something to admire and try to get to.. to me & others, when striking, its a dam stupid and dangerous practice and because he couldnt accept Gen Choi didnt have the whole picture whilst formulating the patterns, to him, it meant it couldnt be so.. where as to others, once you understand what the reaction hand is for.. a whole load of possibilities open up.
Stuart
Youngman you still did not answer my question, have you or your instructor sit down and talk to Hae Man Park and get everything from his mouth? I practice TKD as well but I still remember its roots came from Okinawa Karate, I do look beyond what others have said about poomsae because in no time in my life have I ever got a real honest answer in to regards all application for the set of poomsae. The best we ever have gotten is a tidbit of the real application. My lord we do not even get notice of changes until the Koreans feel fit to tell us minutes before competition, because they keep so much info. bottle up so they have better chances to win.
What is it you are scared of change or truth about the all mighty poomsae;s of old.
Terry,
I am fortunate to have an instructor who practiced under both Hae Man Park and Mr. Uhm. Aditionally, Hae Man Park has conducted seminars on form and Taekwondo technique for our organization.
I have seen my instructor demonstrate various techniques from the Palgue forms, and there is no doubt in my mind he knows what the techniques are used for. Personally, I don't think he needs to ask Hae Man Park what each form does. He has practiced the art for 50 years, working with some of the most senior Kukkiwon masters alive. I think his forms knowledge is pretty solid.
I am fortunate to have an instructor who practiced under both Hae Man Park and Mr. Uhm. Aditionally, Hae Man Park has conducted seminars on form and Taekwondo technique for our organization.
I have seen my instructor demonstrate various techniques from the Palgue forms, and there is no doubt in my mind he knows what the techniques are used for. Personally, I don't think he needs to ask Hae Man Park what each form does. He has practiced the art for 50 years, working with some of the most senior Kukkiwon masters alive. I think his forms knowledge is pretty solid.
Out of interest... were these more than the block/punch/kick variety?
Any photos/video of his seminars?
Cheers,
Stuart
Well I have been practicing for 45 years and have trained oversea's and till this very moment I stilll have question that cannot or will not be answered, my GM has been doing it since the beginning as well and knows all the great Master's and like he says we American get what they will allow us to have. Who is your G.M. was he at the conception of the Tae Gueks has ne been behind the close doors when all the application have been expanded on over the last twenty years, what changes have been made since the conception of the Tae Dueks? Yopu see youngman I have to been in TKD for a longtime and relize that we get everything well after the conception and sometimes we only get a tidbeit of what is truely meant. I have been to Korea five times to train with some great people there and haver done the KKW course but we still dio not get any priviledges to the real application. I have been told 7 different application for the same movement in TG #5 by five different people all learned from the very best and sometime that was the very same person how is this possible?
All I know is you train here in America which means we only get a tidbit of what really is and if your GM is that close he only gives a tidbit because he has to by order of the KKW. Sorry if you do not believe this but it is true.
Similar threads
