1. As far as the k/p/b applications and the 'distance' thing referred to in TG1- As an example, Part of learning TKD requires learning adequate distance. (how long your legs and arms are) Lest we forget 'real life' SD requires a constant re-assessment of the situation at hand and re-adjusting your distance, as the situation necessitates. In real life no technique will be 'textbook perfect'
I fully agree that nothing will be textbook perfect in real life. However, you would need to be proportioned like an orang-utan for the Taegeuk 1 rising block sequences to work Āas isĀ. The alternative would be to block at close range, jump back, kick, and jump forward again to punch. This does not seem particularly practical or efficient.
2. TKD is in fact, a striking art first!
Agreed.
There are 'some' take downs. The older GM, like GM Park, GM Uhm, GM Nam Tae HI and the Late Nam Suk Lee were taught either jujitsu or practiced hapkido and are competent if you get in close-they could throw you or break your arm with a wrist lock.
I agree, and this practice informed their KSD/TSD/TKD.
a beginning student (white-green) does not have the repetitions to throw someone.
Really? Surely that depends on whether you actually include throws in training or not.
3. Instead of the hours endless discussion, and point-counter point at the keyboard. To truly know the poomse- How about just practicing them. There has been, in my opinion, a lot of wasted time pontificating and speculating about things beyond k/p/b.
If youĀre happy to keep it K/B/P, fine. But IĀll ask you again, are you personally truly confident that every one of those K/B/P interpretations will resolve a physical conflict in your favour? To what extent have you pressure tested them against someone really trying to hit you with the type of attacks that are actually used in violent situations (i.e. not lunge punches)?
I think this is an interesting and useful discussion. And I donĀt think anybody is ĀpontificatingĀ on anything.
And that's one of my main points. Unless you've spoken with Hae Man Park and his colleagues and got it straight from them about what something is doing in a form, you're just using conjecture (this is what I believe this move is based on my interpretation). You may be correct or incorrect.
Do not say "I don't see the point for this move" unless you know for sure what it's doing and the reason behind it. I've practiced with GM Park, and it was a real eyeopener because what you may have thought a move was doing turned out to be different.
YoungMan,
YouĀve said that before, and I answered that yes, it is hypothesis (not conjecture, though Ā I trust you are aware of the difference). I asked you why in the world I shouldnĀt do it. You did not answer, so IĀll ask you again. On what authority are you telling me what I may and may not do regarding the poomses? Just because you have trained with GM Park? What makes you think he gave you, or any of your contemporaries, the full story?
I have a bit of a problem with this idea that we have some kind of moral obligation towards particular individuals, groups or Ā heaven forbid Ā nations, simply because they were the originators of a particular method or other phenomenon. To me, that is cult-like thinking. I have a particularly hard time when the material in question has been used in an intensely commercial fashion, and has Ā to my mind Ā been presented against all logic in such a way that could actual endanger peopleĀs physical well-being should they choose to trust the official K/B/P explanations and the Āit works if you train hard enoughĀ approach.
I do not need permission to use something which Ā letĀs be clear on this Ā has been sold to me, in whichever way I feel to be appropriate. I donĀt believe I am attacking or insulting anybody, and I do believe I am offering something which can in fact be useful and enjoyable to a lot of people.
Just a few thoughts.
Cheers,
Simon
