The Taeguek Cipher - Book Review

As this thread is getting quite large and mainly concerns Simons book and the Taegueks, I feel it would be a good idea to (re)clarify my position on all this and my reasons for that reasoning, as I dont want it to look like its a witch hunt of Hae Man Park or any other masters.

First of all there are two influences involved in this. The things that influenced Taekwon-do as a whole and the things that purely influenced the patterns. For Taekwon-do there are any number of influences, this is clear from my own research of the Ch'ang hon system and though TKD is by and large influenced by Shotokan, it also has influence in varying degrees and guises from Judo, Hapkido, Taek Kwon and other arts.

However, the patterns fo Ch'ang Hon are by and large influenced by Shotokan (with WTF patterns being influenced by Ch'ang Hon and thus by design, also Shotokan) and not other arts. They have the Korean twist on them, but they are still following the same template of Shotokan and it is this area, and this area alone that we are discussing here.

Okay, now I strongly believe that there is a black hole in Shotokans history regarding kata applications. It isnt just a belief, but fact backed up by lots of reseach and evidence, both by myself and the Karate researchers.

According to research, pre-shotokan Karate was the arts practiced only by the palace guards for defence of the King of Okinawa and as such it was top secret. The king died in 1879 and thus the 'official secrecy' sworn by all who studied was disolved. Funakoshi was a body guard in training, he was not a full bodyguard and as such had not learnt the full bodyguarding system and when the king died, his training was not completed. He had learnt Itsous kata, but not the fine details, which were only filled in when a body guard was to take it up as an official duty/job and then sworn to the same secrecy of the others.

So Funakoshi didnt learn the finer details of the patterns, just the shell (p/k/b).. Itsou, set about redesigning the Karate system for the Okinawa schools, thus it took a less lethal approach, untilizing blocks rather than grab/break than techniques. Funakoshi then took Karate to Japan in the same mode as Itsous "school system", thus indepth/dangerous applications didnt travel across from Itsou to Funakoshi, Itsou to the schools and Okinawa to Japan. the buck stopped with Itsou and started again with Funakoshi in a different guise. Plus there is the added thoughts that perhaps the oppressed (Okinawans) didnt want to teach the oppressors their system, so again, gave them the "school system".

Okinawa>Japan>Korea = Taekwondo. However, though the finer details were not transmitted across, the basic buidling blocks of kata were. These were remodelled by many Karate systems and of course TKD. However, they were still used/modelled with the same outlook as Funakoshi had and thus the p/k/b variety continued in various forms & guises, carry all the while the building blocks for a deeper understanding of them.

Anyone who was instrumental in forming kata from 1901 to 1998 (give of take) used the Funakoshi Shotokan model (Im refering to TKD & Karate here). Therefore, they were all based on the p/k/b mentality, but all carried with them the building blocks to make them more than the sum of thier parts - if they had verved away from this, it wouldnt have been possible in the same way.

So when I talk of masters not knowing the deeper applications to patterns, I am not refering to a single master, but to all that fall into the time period I gave mentioned above. Like it or not, as patterns carry forward, whether conciously or not, certain attributes were carried along with them... and its these attributes that allow people like Iain Abernethy and Simon to either unlock them, or make them more than they previously were. Its not a slight on the masters that didnt know/realise or their martial knowledge.. Ch'ang for example teaches many throwing techniques, there are sections in Gen Chois manuals on them.. but ion the surface, these are not in the patterns, not as standard applications put forth by the guys that created them.. though when digging a little deeper they are there, many JJ guys easily recognise them! So the martial knowledge was there, just not with regards to applying it in the patterns (IMO.. as Simons opinion differs).

It doesnt mean individuals didnt utilize them in a more pragmatic manner, Im sure certain karate instructors did, I know TKD drill instructors did, Dillman and others did.. but the issue was that due to communication at the time, these were relatively small instances compared to the wave of p/k/b kata/patterns going around. Its only now, with modern technology, that insights, theories, research, evidence etc. can be shared and discussed openly that the relativness of it all becomes more of a force to be reckoned with and of course we need those that are willing to question and go against the docterines of the last 100 years. In essense, Karate & TKD have come full circle and I (and others) feel its time to embrace that and throw away the shackles of the past 100+ years!

It reminds me of a TV advert I saw. Say I was a caveman and aliens felt it would be good for us to have the wheel, they they dropped some stone circles with holes in them and in one they put an axel, thinking its quite simple to make the leap from stone circle to cart. However, i have never seen a wheel, or a cart and the wheel was lying flat with a pole sticking out the centre... great I thought, must be a new washing line (like i have seen already) - so I connected the pole with vine and hung my lion clothes out to dry! Point is, it would take almost a 'vision' for someone to realise in the 1950s to 1970s, that patterns, evolved with more more than p/k/b until modern technology, openess and sharing, walls and barriers coming down (plus the odd light bulb moment) allowed someone to gather evidence to the contary when they finally went "a-ha... I wonder"!

Anyway, thats my take on things and why I argue against certain issues. I just dont want anyone to think I dislike a certain person or art, because I hold the pioneers and masters in great respect, I just see things differently, as 'our time' allows me to do so.

Stuart

Ps. there is also evidence to support that those since 1901 kata/patterns are used as a mass training system for large groups, originally, before Itsou introduced them to the schools of okinawa, kata were a more personal thing. One instructor would teach one or two students his kata, they would then amend and change the kata to suit their fighting style etc. etc. Uniformed group practice is another area that has travelled across, when in fact, this wasnt the original intention either - but again, many do not know this and thus it continued as the 'way it was meant to be'

PPs. If we kept to the doctrines of people on the premise that they are a high authority and thus know better, we would still believe the earth was flat and that babies should sleep on their fronts to avoid cot deaths (and old and new example of why it is good to question)
 
Last edited:
Great discusson all round.

Exile,

Interesting point about “stylistic priority”, and one which I agree with to an extent. I do think that the Koreans added a higher percentage of kicks in their patterns, and this could have been either in order to consciously emphasise the national identity of the art, or just because they liked using kicks in self-defence.

Even so, kicks in the Chang Hon and Taegeuk patterns are only present in relatively few sequences – about 10% and 30% respectively, if I recall rightly – and the ones that are present are mainly front kicks and side kicks (mainly the former in the Taegeuks). What I mean is, while it’s true that the Korean patterns feature more kicks than the Okinawan ones, it’s not as if every second move is a kick.

This is a bit like the “lots of high stances to more accurately represent natural fighting stances” myth. OK, there are a few high stances in the first three Taegeuks, but I don’t think it has much to do with imitating free sparring. But let’s leave that for another conversation … ;)

Getting back to kicks, and your point about the high snap kicks being used as knee strikes in the older version of Wansu, this is actually something I touch on in the book. I think (in fact, I’ve been told by some high-ranking Koreans, if that makes any difference), that kicks in patterns are generally delivered high (a) for aesthetic reasons and (b) because if you master the high kick then the low version is easy – I don’t actually agree with this last statement, but again, let’s leave that one for another day. I also think that movements which follow a similar trajectory can and should be adapted to the range encountered, and in the applications in the book I use the front kick as a knee strike, a forward stamp, a forward thrust and a snap kick.


Kwanjang,

About the title, I am aware of the definition you quote, but obviously the usage here is the “secret code” one, which is the one most people associate with the word. Plus, it sounds much cooler, not to mention somewhat more professional, than “My Take on the Taegeuks”. Am I claiming to have unlocked them? Well, I don’t like the word “claim”, as it has rather a negative connotation, as in the phrase “outrageous claims” (as it happens, my academic background is as a linguist and linguistician). But yes, the implication is that I’m unlocking something that I believe was locked at some time, partly consciously, partly by not keeping the lock oiled. Don’t read too much into that, though … it’s just a word ;).

I fully concur with Stuart regarding use of pattern sequences as K/B/P for real self-defence. Sure, you can probably use individual K/B/P movements from a pattern for self-defence – for example, high outwards forearm block plus reverse punch – but surely the idea of the pattern is to show whole sequences that work as presented?

I’ll tell you what, why not do an experiment? Take the first of the two “rising block” sequences in Taegeuk 1, which is supposed to be a defence and counter against a high line strike. Have a partner throw a full-speed, committed haymaker or overhand right at your head, with plenty of forward impetus. Respond with the K/B/P pattern sequence, without stepping back first or making any other major changes, and see how well it not only stops the attack but puts him out of action so he can’t continue attacking. You might want to wear a mouthguard and helmet.
Next, try the first sequence I propose in the book for Taegeuk 1 (i.e. the first down block and punch sequence) against the same attack, making sure you spear him hard on your elbow on first contact (have him wear a chest protector and helmet). Simple and effective. If you do it full force, he’ll end up hurting, on the ground and maybe unconscious … all at the same time!
Compare and let us know which is more “street-worthy”.

I’m encouraged by the fact that GM Park hinted at “other plausible applications” to you. However, I’d like to ask you the same questions I asked Iceman in my previous post.

Cheers,

Simon
 
A little off-topic, but I'm sure I remembered that caveman advert differently... turns out I was right :lol:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcJTSBzdIA
btw great discussion going on here.

Now, I'm not the voice of authority on this subject by any means, but my take on this is as follows:

I often hear people say things along the lines of "the real journey starts at black belt". Before this you're learning the fundamentals of your system, e.g. theory, techniques, applications etc from your instructor verbatim. But surely, once you get to black belt you know enough that you can take your knowledge and start to ask meaningful questions like SJON etc are doing? You should now have enough knowledge that you can start to seek the answers to these questions yourself without having to be spoon-fed what is right and wrong. Will your answers be the same as other people's? Probably not. Does that make them wrong? Only if they don't work for what they're intended for.
At this level, to say you're wrong because someone higher in rank thinks you're wrong seems to me an archaic viewpoint that propagates the kind of stagnation that leads people to believe that k/b/p is a legitimate self-defense strategy in and of itself.

As long as you're doing the same poomsaes, who cares what you think the moves really represent? Surely everyone is entitled to their own opinion in this regard? Now if someone were to say that the poomsaes were all a load of tosh and make their own without the proper expertise, yes that would be problematic but that isn't what's happening here.

Just my 0.02.

Oh and SJON, I'd just like to say thanks for writing the book. The history section on its own was fascinating, and although I'm pretty junior in TKD it's given me lots to think about.
 
In the pursuit of full disclosure...I'm a fan and supporter for modern form/poomse/kata sd application theory. I come from an Aikido background...so no forms, but drilling inclose throws, locks, etc. I'm in kukkiown affiliated school. I do not know my Kwan lineage (our GM is one GM Soon Ho Chang)...and thus I feel i am in a more neutralposition in regards to history and TKD development issues. Bottom line is I am very interested in the whoel art, specifically where the art cabn be both beautifulto watch, fun to participate in (training and psort aspects alike) and useful as a means of self-defense.

Like others, I feel that it is good to try to find new echniques in the poomses. For me, it adds a feeling of aliveness and relenvance to my solo poomse practice. If that is not what the developers of the Taeguks had in mind, oh well...it's working for me and improving my TKD. I don;t think one could argue that this is a bad thing.

On a more specific note, I took about 45 minutes the other day to run thriough the 10 applications from Taeguk Il jang from Mr. o'Neils book. My son got to be me partner. We'd go slow at first as I tried to get the specific moves down, then gradually speed up to about 80% full power. This was fun. What I found useful is that the faster we went, the harder Zak went down. This was the same for good Aikido practice back in the day. He wasn't getting to me anybetter, just hitting the ground harder. If< as sometimes happened, I wasn't perfect on my technique (particualrlay on the entry)...I was still in a position to not get hit hard and the take down still often happened. That's a good sign too.

Finally, when we were done and it was time to stat comp team, Zak mentioned that he was feeling a bit tender in the torso and might have to go easier in sparring (he didn't...drama)...those elbows in the defensive entry really took their toll. next time we pratcice, we'll either keep it to 50% power OR i'll have him pad up more.

Bottom line, I'm finding thes techniques to be realistic in workable and I try them. My current goal is to continue having ipromptu workout sessions with my son to practice this stuff. I'm also going to see if I can get some of the other adult blackbelts to work with me. Once I get a better handle on doing this stuff physically, I;m going to ask my Sabumnim for permission to run a seminar or brief series of classes at the school about this. For me, this stuff is proving useful. As always, YMMV.

I just thought all of you would like to hear from someone who has tried some mild pressur etesting of this stuff. So far so good.

Peace,
Erik
 
Ah ... ahem ... yes ...

I don't think I stressed in the book - and I should have done - that if you're going to go hard on those applications from Taegeuk Il Chang, a chest protector is a good idea, particularly the new kind which have more protection round the collar bones and shoulders. The "attacker" will essentially be spearing himself on the elbows in most of those apps, and indeed, the harder he comes in, the more it will hurt.

Taegeuk Il Chang is a very gratifying poomse when applied this way, because it addresses the typical first big worry that students have - i.e. what do I do if someone just wades in and swings at me? - and shows how easy it is to do something about it. And, of course, it's a great feeling when, as Erik observes, the harder they attack, the harder they hit the ground, even with imperfect or partial execution.

Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying it. Try to get to a good level of competence on each pattern (apps) before moving on to the next one. That way you get a feel for the overall point of the pattern and you can build on it as you move on.

Cheers,

Simon
 
Yeah, we're going to pad up next time. Also, Zak needs a turn throwing me about. It'll be intersting to see hwo that goes, I've got about 110 lbs on him. I expect he should be able to perform the techniques on me no problem though.

What's interesting is that one dones't NEED a lot of strength to make this stuff work. That entry with the elbows is really relying on good posture and structure, then the opponenet incoming momentum plus the defender forward momentum turn into a nasty elbow strike...followed by variious throws/locks/strikes. I'd say that just the entry alone could be enough to take the wind out of the sails of a determined attacker.

My next purchase will be some of Iain Abernathy's stuff on the Heian kata (as I'm learning those and am more familiar) followed by Stuart's book. My goal is to try my hand at tackling Koryo and Keumgang and try my hand at analyses. First i need to get comfortable with the application and deciphering process though.

Peace,
Erik
Peace,
Erik
 
Hey Dan,

Is this the same Dan Anderson that was a top fighter in the late '70s or so? If so, I remember seeing you a lot in mags such as Karate Illistrated, etc.

Which kata do you go over in your book?

Regards,
Mac
 
I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. I was just reading the book & noticed that SJON uses the knife hand block sequence frequently as a strike. My GM (Edward Sell) refers to this technique as a "face chop" & calls it a strike, rather than a block, as most others do. He says that how he was taught. Perhaps a connection has been made on that point.
 
Hey Dan,

1.Is this the same Dan Anderson that was a top fighter in the late '70s or so? If so, I remember seeing you a lot in mags such as Karate Illistrated, etc.

2.Which kata do you go over in your book?

Regards,
Mac
Hi Mac,

1. Yes, tis I. I had hair then. :)

2. Naihanchi Shodan, Matsumura Seisan & Sepai (from Okinawan Goju).

Yours,
Dan Anderson
 
Something which is really important for people to realize is that early on, when the 'traditional' martial arts were taking their modern forms, the kind of rigid lockstep brand loyalty (and hostility to ideas from any other source) that some people in the current MAs display was unknown. Things just didn't work like that. Karateka all know (or should know) the story of Matsumura learning the fighting technique of a marooned Chinese sailor named Chinto and capturing it in the kata of that name; there's a lot of argument about whether or not the story is historically accurate, but that isn't the point, in this context anyway. What's important is that it shows a completely relaxed attitude toward the idea that the founder of modern linear karate would try hard to master a set of CMA techniques he hadn't encountered before, simply because they had proven effective against him in single combat. The great pioneers of the MAs as we know them were pragmatists and would have laughed up their sleeves, no question, at some dude X who, say, refused to take advice from a TSD practitioner about how to apply some move in a form because X was a TKD or HKD adept. To them, this would have made no sense.

As SJON points out, the KMAs were saturated with Japanese ideas&#8212;saturated!&#8212;in the early part of the 20th century. How could it be otherwise? The Occupation had flooded the Korean peninsula with Japanese military combat experts, many of whom had judo/jiujitsu expertise; Korean kids were bound to be exposed to it; and one of the earliest pre-TKD dojangs in Korea had been a Yudo (=judo) dojang previously. That kind of knowledge&#8212;of throws and pins, of pressure points, of controlling moves&#8212;was everywhere. It all got packaged together, along with the linear karate that the Kwan founders with only one exception learned in Japan (along with various CMA circular techs, as SJON documents, in certain cases)...

... and all of that went into the final product that emerged from the shadows of the Occupation. I was very struck by Stuart's point that many of the techs latent in the Ch'ang Hon forms are immediately recognizable by the JJ guys he knows, because it's exactly what I noticed, and posted about a year back, after attending a seminar on Combat HKD that Drac and Father Greek put together near Cleveland featuring instruction by Gm. Pellegrini. A lot of the moves in CHKD reproduce exactly the movement in a number of TKD hyungs that I either know, or at least recognize. And the same thing would have been true several generations ago in the formation of the karate techniques, built into the forms, that Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Rick Clark and others have brought to light: the early karateka, as per the story about Chinto, were open to any technique that worked. They didn't turn up their noses and scoff at new ideas as being 'not karate'; they grabbed whatever worked and incorporated it. This whole stylistic chauvinism thing came much later, and has much more to do with marketing than combat effectiveness, whereas for the great pioneers of karate, it was combat effectiveness that was the gold standard. And I doubt very much whether the Kwan founders were any different.

So if the identification of these diverse elements in the technique sets that can be recovered by careful study of the TKD hyungs turns out to bear similarities to judo, or jiujitsu, or HKD or anything else, there's no reason at all to be surprised, eh? Me, I'd be surprised if that weren't the case.
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. I was just reading the book & noticed that SJON uses the knife hand block sequence frequently as a strike. My GM (Edward Sell) refers to this technique as a "face chop" & calls it a strike, rather than a block, as most others do. He says that how he was taught. Perhaps a connection has been made on that point.

I'm pleased to hear that. At least two Asian masters of mine taught me that "blocks" should frequently be used as strikes, and not just in the sense of "damaging the attacking limb".

This is an example of what I meant by elements falling into disuse rather than necessarily being "secret contents" concealed by the pattern composers. If this technique was commonly used as a strike in the early kwans, then it casts a whole new light on, for example, the knifehand block sequences in Taegeuk Sam Chang, doesn't it?

If you think about it, the "knifehand blocks" display mechanics far better suited to striking than to blocking. You can get tremendous power into a lead hand knifehand strike by using the "block" movement in more of a forward direction, coinciding with sliding forwards into the "back stance".
 
If you think about it, the "knifehand blocks" display mechanics far better suited to striking than to blocking. You can get tremendous power into a lead hand knifehand strike by using the "block" movement in more of a forward direction, coinciding with sliding forwards into the "back stance".
Let's take it one step further. If a person is going to hit you, why do you step forward to block their hit? They are coming TO YOU. They aren't going to the middle and wait for you to show up. They'll come to you.

As to the knife hand "block" isn't it interesting that the formation and angle of the "blocking arm" is set up to slide under the angle of the jaw for a strike to the neck?

Your Honor, I rest my case.

Yours,
Dan Anderson
 
Let's take it one step further. If a person is going to hit you, why do you step forward to block their hit? They are coming TO YOU. They aren't going to the middle and wait for you to show up. They'll come to you.

Suppose someone is swinging a baseball bat at your head. Do you wait for them to 'come to you', or to you step forward early to catch them inside the radius of the swing? Isn't the idea the same, with maybe a bit less peril, in the case of a roundhouse punch to the defender's head? By the time they actually come to you, you are in their crosshairs, if you wait. If you move in while the blow is just getting started, you're no longer in the target rangeq, and they're committed to the strike, meaning it's harder for them to avoid your striking moves. This is the point, is it not, of what SJON calls the 'defensive entry'?
 
Suppose someone is swinging a baseball bat at your head. Do you wait for them to 'come to you', or to you step forward early to catch them inside the radius of the swing? Isn't the idea the same, with maybe a bit less peril, in the case of a roundhouse punch to the defender's head? By the time they actually come to you, you are in their crosshairs, if you wait. If you move in while the blow is just getting started, you're no longer in the target rangeq, and they're committed to the strike, meaning it's harder for them to avoid your striking moves. This is the point, is it not, of what SJON calls the 'defensive entry'?
The coming inside the radius of a curved swing is part & parcel of FMA but the rising block or the knife hand block - nope.

Yours,
Dan Anderson
 
The coming inside the radius of a curved swing is part & parcel of FMA but the rising block or the knife hand block - nope.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

Wait... I'm confused, I think I've missed something here... I thought the question was, why would you step into the attack; and what I said in my response was just sort of the standard rationale for closing the distance on the attacker to render his attack not just harmless but self-destructive. But judging by your answer, there seems to be something at issue about the rising block/knife hand on the one hand and something about Filipine MAs on the other. It wasn't clear to me that SJON was saying anything about the FMAs, but only that it's more combat-realistic to treat the movements he mentioned as strikes, rather than as literal blocks....

As I say, I'm clearly not getting something—can you walk me through the line of reasoning here? I feel as if there's some crucial assumption or claim or something that someone made in one of the earlier posts that I just flat-out missed.... :idunno:
 
Haha, no, indeed I wouldn't presume to be in a position to comment on an FMA connection at this point!

As Exile correctly observes, the idea of what I call the "defensive entry" is to move forwards inside the range of the attack (which will almost always either be curved or on a slight diagonal, even if it is a "straight" attack), and block the body rather than the attack itself. The hand attack is dealt with as a kind of by-product of this movement. Regarding blocks, off the top of my head I can only think of one instance in the whole book in which a movement conventionally referred to as a block is used as something resembling a block rather than a strike or manipulation.
 
Hi Mac,

1. Yes, tis I. I had hair then. :)

2. Naihanchi Shodan, Matsumura Seisan & Sepai (from Okinawan Goju).

Yours,
Dan Anderson

Master Anderson, it’s an honor and pleasure sir. If I were to order a copy of your book, would you be able to autograph it for me?
I understand about the hair thing…. I don’t have much left on top now either.
Mac
 
Remember FMA and TKD are two different approaches to fighting, what could work for them nay not work for us.
 
Back
Top