Waist movement

[Kung Fu Wang]

forms and techniques would both be foundational, drills and sparring would be application.

The concern is should you have 2 sets of training, 1 train for principle and 1 train for technique?

Should you spend 10 minutes in "horse stance" training and another 10 minutes in "hip throw" training?

Why can't you kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

This is my concern. In

- training, your body push your arm to achieve the maximum power.
- fighting, your arm pull your body to achieve the maximum speed.

If you want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, should you let your body (such as your waist) to push your arm, or should you let your arm to pull your body?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The concern is should you have 2 sets of training, 1 train for principle and 1 train for technique?

Should you spend 10 minutes in "horse stance" training and another 10 minutes in "hip throw" training?

Why can't you kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

This is my concern. In

- training, your body push your arm to achieve the maximum power.
- fighting, your arm pull your body to achieve the maximum speed.

If you want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, should you let your body (such as your waist) to push your arm, or should you let your arm to pull your body?

I think if you teach foundations and application as one, you would only ever really be doing sparring. Which is fine, but you never fully get a grasp on foundations. So some foundational work needs to be done, at least at first, and people can decide later how important they feel that is, and how much of it they want to do themselves.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you teach

1. foundation first (such as horse stance), your student won't know where they will go.
2. technique first (such as hip throw), your student will know how important their horse stance is needed.

IMO, 2 > 1.

When you are 80 years old, you can still train your horse stance. But you may not be able to train your hip throw. The foundation can be enhanced in the future.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you teach

1. foundation first (such as horse stance), your student won't know where they will go.
2. technique first (such as hip throw), your student will know how important their horse stance is needed.

IMO, 2 > 1.

When you are 80 years old, you can still train your horse stance. But you may not be able to train your hip throw. The foundation can be enhanced in the future.

Sure, in theory. In reality, nobody does it.

Foundation and technique first, followed by application. But the wait doesn’t need to be decades or years. However, once you move into application, you still, always, need to work on foundation and technique. Kata/forms are a very valuable tool for that.

 

[wab25]

This is, in my opinion, one of the biggest pitfalls of Taekwondo poomsae. They are pretty much about just copying the technique.

That is your opinion. However, most other TKD practitioners feel differently.

From this article:
Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings: A closer look at Poomsae training.

(Quote from Kukkiwon Textbook page 306 Training of Poomsae)
1) Pattern. The first step of training Poomsae is to learn the pattern. Concentration of spirit, eyes, angles of movement must be emphasized in addition to the accuracy of actions.
2) Significance. In the next step, the emphasis must be laid on the balance, strength and weakness, low or high speed, respiration and Poomsae line. The significance of movements, connection of pooms and the complete Poomsae must be learned correctly.
3) Practical use. One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability.
4) Self style. One must evaluate his findings about the effectiveness of what he has learned, comparing with his or her bodily structure, speed, strength, impulsive power, point of emphasis in training etc., and modorate the techniques into his own style.
5) Completion. One achieves a synthetic accomplishment of Poomsae training bye mastering the art of taekwondo techniques including taekwondo spirit (end quote).

Notice how this parallels the Shu Ha Ri pattern that Japanese arts like Karate use.

Some more on TKD Poomsae:
The Evolution of Tae Kwon Do Poomsae, Hyung and Tul-Part 1
Importance Of Poomsae In Taekwondo :: Taekwondo
https://msu.edu/~taekwon/Class Poomse.pdf
http://www.trosatkd.se/docs/107/2000/Poomsae.pdf

Notice how in all these articles, simply "copying the technique" is step 1. It is an important step. But, it is only step 1. There is a lot to learn after step 1. In fact, you must do step 1, learn the pattern, first before you can get to the other steps. But, there are other steps and more to the Poomsae... well according to the Kukkiwon anyway.

 

[wab25]

Skribs... are you disagreeing with the Kukkiwon? It's their textbook that lists all 5 steps, with "just copying the technique" being step 1. Is the Kukkiwon wrong to include the other 4 steps after "Pattern?"

Or are you disagreeing with the parallel to Shu Ha Ri?

Shu is to copy the kata exactly. This easily maps to step 1, from the Kukkiwon, Pattern. It can also include step 2 Significance.

Ha is to diverge from the kata... but the kata must still be recognizable. This directly maps to step 3, from the Kukkiwon, Practicle use.

Ri is to throw away the kata, because you have internalized the things being taught in the kata. This is steps 4 and 5 from the Kukkiwon, Self Style and Completion.

The steps given by the Kukkiwon seem to be a similar break down, of the same process that the Japanese use. Are you disagreeing with the Kukkiwon process?

 

[skribs]

That is your opinion. However, most other TKD practitioners feel differently.

From this article:
Traditional Taekwondo Ramblings: A closer look at Poomsae training.



Notice how this parallels the Shu Ha Ri pattern that Japanese arts like Karate use.

Some more on TKD Poomsae:
The Evolution of Tae Kwon Do Poomsae, Hyung and Tul-Part 1
Importance Of Poomsae In Taekwondo :: Taekwondo
https://msu.edu/~taekwon/Class Poomse.pdf
http://www.trosatkd.se/docs/107/2000/Poomsae.pdf

Notice how in all these articles, simply "copying the technique" is step 1. It is an important step. But, it is only step 1. There is a lot to learn after step 1. In fact, you must do step 1, learn the pattern, first before you can get to the other steps. But, there are other steps and more to the Poomsae... well according to the Kukkiwon anyway.

I don't even know how to respond to this. On the one hand, those articles don't even make your point. On the other hand, it doesn't even matter, because if I remember right, you don't train TKD.

First, let's look at each article:

1. The Evolution of TKD Poomsae just talks about how the Japanese katas were watered down of application, and then the Koreans applied those moves into the TKD forms. It doesn't talk about modern training.
2. The Importance of Poomsae in TKD talks about the physical training benefits of poomsae, not application.
3. The MSU article literally is just how to copy the form. There is nothing beyond that. (And yes, how you breathe, how you perform each technique, is part of copying the form).
4. The last article is the only one that mentions practical applications. It mentions it once, and does not expand on how to do that. It feels thrown in there so that you don't feel wasteful in your training. The entire rest of the article is on how to copy the forms.

But in the end, it doesn't matter, because you don't train TKD. What you're doing is the same as a college student, who is insulated from reality, learning about a culture in a class of theirs, and then because they read a textbook and a few articles, think they know more about the culture than the people that actually live it. You know, the type of person who will go into a trailer park and start lecturing people on why they're in a lower socioeconomic class, or will argue with someone in another country about how things work in their country.

My opinion comes from:

• My experience in multiple TKD schools
• My research that failed to find results in the application of poomsae from Taekwondo schools (found a lot of videos for Karate)
• My questions that have gone without satisfactory answers on the application of specific techniques in Taekwondo poomsae
• Watching practical videos by TKD guys, where the lesson involves nothing that looks like the techniques in Taekwondo poomsae. For example, I was just watching videos of how to block, and they were purposefully eschewing the large blocks in the poomsae for more efficient parries from the guard position.
• The amount of practicioners I see online who do not understand poomsae, quit TKD because they think poomsae is useless, or who do poomsae begrudgingly because it is a belt requirement and don't see the point in it. Many schools don't even practice poomsae in class, you get shown it once and are expected to practice at home.

Yes, ideally the poomsae would teach us practical techniques. And I'm not saying there aren't practical techniques in there. However, the culture of TKD is that poomsae are meant to be copied exactly. Schools don't tend to encourage deviation from the poomsae in order to experiment or find application. It's simply not part of the training.

You can come up with all the articles you want, but the fact remains that if you are not part of the culture, you don't know it. You can form your opinions on TKD as much as you want. But don't think you know how it works if you don't train it.

 

[skribs]

Skribs... are you disagreeing with the Kukkiwon? It's their textbook that lists all 5 steps, with "just copying the technique" being step 1. Is the Kukkiwon wrong to include the other 4 steps after "Pattern?"

Or are you disagreeing with the parallel to Shu Ha Ri?

Shu is to copy the kata exactly. This easily maps to step 1, from the Kukkiwon, Pattern. It can also include step 2 Significance.

Ha is to diverge from the kata... but the kata must still be recognizable. This directly maps to step 3, from the Kukkiwon, Practicle use.

Ri is to throw away the kata, because you have internalized the things being taught in the kata. This is steps 4 and 5 from the Kukkiwon, Self Style and Completion.

The steps given by the Kukkiwon seem to be a similar break down, of the same process that the Japanese use. Are you disagreeing with the Kukkiwon process?

Shu Ha Ri is irrelevant to a discussion on Taekwondo training. What I think of it is irrelevant to how most TKD classes are run.

You can quote whoever you want to say that application is taught. Your information is wrong. That's not how it actually works in the schools. I don't care if you're reading publications from the Kukkiwon. I've trained in multiple schools, I've done the research in several ways. I've watched people taking the Masters course, and the only thing they go over is how to copy the technique exactly.

People want to feel like the poomsae aren't worthless. So they have this idea that the next step is to find application. But that next step never materializes in class, is never encouraged, and in fact people who do their poomsae as if they are thinking about an application are generally discouraged. For example, if you do a realistic reverse punch instead of a stylized one, you get criticized.

What you're reading are hopes and platitudes, not how training is applied in most TKD schools. This is from the students and instructors at the schools, not the politicians in the HQ.

 

[Flying Crane]

The blocking skill is all about the "waist movement". If you move your waist

- to your right/left, your waist will guide your arm to your left/right.
- clockwise/counter-clockwise, your waist will guide your left/right arm as outside in circle.

If you only think about your waist, and let your waist to control your arms, the body movement can be simplified.

A right arm outside in block can be as simple as to move your waist to your right.

Your thought?

What is not being mentioned here is the feet and legs. They need to brace against the ground and push in order to drive the turning of the waist. It is possible to turn the waist by pulling at the shoulders, but this lacks the power that the legs can provide. In fact, pulling from the shoulders can cause the waist and feet to act like anchors, slowing the turn and robbing it of power.

What I have seen, if the role of the feet and legs is not explicitly explored and deliberately trained, then people tend to turn from the shoulders instead. The legs and feet become nothing more than a platform to stand on, and get excluded from the technique.

Superficially, it can look the same to an untrained eye. So people believe that they are turning the waist. Well yes, they are. But everything about how they are turning the waist is wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

In either of my kem/npos, the forms are not a direct one to one relation from techniques, although i can easily see how that would happen. What i have learned is forms are dor principle and foundation, while techniques are for application. And then about five years ago, i made a personal discovery that, while some of the application is crap, they still teach the foundational stuff (if you ignore the fluff).

If i were to ever teach kempo (i wouldn't, at least not as it's own thing), forms and techniques would both be foundational, drills and sparring would be application.

You’ve had training in Parker -lineage kenpo, yes?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You’ve had training in Parker -lineage kenpo, yes?

My primary is an offshoot of parker, same principles (from what ive heard), but different techniques/forms. I did train epak for a little under a year, but generally dont consider it when i discuss my training.

 

[Flying Crane]

My primary is an offshoot of parker, same principles (from what ive heard), but different techniques/forms. I did train epak for a little under a year, but generally dont consider it when i discuss my training.

Fair enough. Did you learn any of the forms at Short Three or higher, at least through Form Five? Those were largely made up of the SD Techs from the belt lists, some with modifications to fit the choreography, but still definitely the same Techs. Tracy has Mass Attack as well, also made from the Lists, but other lineages may not have that one.

I didn’t learn form Six or higher, and I think in Tracy lineage those Six and higher may be different. But Short Three through Form Five are practically identical with other Parker derived lineages.

 

[wab25]

I don't even know how to respond to this. On the one hand, those articles don't even make your point. On the other hand, it doesn't even matter, because if I remember right, you don't train TKD.

Let's be fair... even if I did train TKD, you would discount my point of view. My training in TKD or not has nothing to do with whether you agree or not. How many years would I need to spend in TKD, before you would listen to my opinion?

You have an interesting read on these articles:

The Evolution of TKD Poomsae just talks about how the Japanese katas were watered down of application, and then the Koreans applied those moves into the TKD forms. It doesn't talk about modern training.

Funakoshi did not bring his karate to Japan until 1922 while in his early fifties. Yet through a concerted effort by him and his third son, Gigo (1906-1945), who immigrated to Tokyo in 1923 at the age of seventeen, significant changes were made to the traditional methods of teaching Okinawan karate. By way of example, in an attempt to simplify the pronunciation of the Pinan kata, Funakoshi rechristened the nomenclature to Heian while altering certain prescribed stances and kicks. Likewise, Gigo is credited with the creation of ritual one-step sparring and the three Taikyoku, or Kihon kata that virtually mirror the Kicho patterns used today in traditional Tae Kwon Do. The Taikyoku set was generally used as a precursor to the more complex Heian kata.

Recognizing the vital roles that Itosu, Azato and Funakoshi played in the proliferation of formal exercises brings us ever closer to the nexus of the correlation between Okinawan/Japanese kata and contemporary Tae Kwon Do poomsae, hyung or tul. Indisputably, Korean formal exercises were heavily influenced by events that occurred in neighboring countries shortly before, or concurrent with, the Japanese Occupation of the nation during the years of 1910 to 1945. Clearly, the practice of karate required a deep understanding and respect for kata, which continues to stand as a centerpiece of its practice to this day. This principle must surely have been inculcated in the minds of Chung Do Kwan founder Won Kook Lee (1907-2003), Byung In Yoon (1920-1983) of the Chang Moo Kwan, Hwang Kee (1914-2002) father of the Moo Duk Kwan and Choi Hong Hi (1918-2002) creator of the Oh Do Kwan, while studying in Japan under the direction of either Shudokan karate founder Kanken Toyama (1988-1966) or Funakoshi. All of these innovators, soon destined to promote enduring martial traditions within the borders of their native land, returned home from abroad undoubtedly with practical knowledge of the Taikyoku, Pinan, Bassai, Jitte, Empi and Tekki kata—all considered traditional formal exercises—that would ultimately evolve into the Kicho, Pyung-Ahn, Balsek, Sip Soo, Yunbee and Chul-Ki hyung respectively of Tae Kwon Do.

The founders of TKD were very familiar with Karate and the Japanese system of Shu Ha Ri. When creating TKD they started by actually teaching the Karate Kata, then changed the katas, but kept the over arching process. Which is why even the Kukkiwon discusses the process of studying forms so similar to the Japanese process. If you are going to study calculus, its good to study arithmetic, algebra, geometry and trig first. Yes you can teach a first grader to do a derivative by taking the little number, multiplying it by the big number and then subtracting 1. They can copy that process all day, everyday... but until they do some research, they will never understand what they are doing. Which means they won't find it useful, at all. But, they can demonstrate that they can memorize and even do it quite fast.

The Importance of Poomsae in TKD talks about the physical training benefits of poomsae, not application.

It is important to practice and improve all poomsae not just the one you are concentrating on for your next grade. Students should practice one poomsae after another with only the breathing junbi exercises in-between. Then the student will truly understand the first steps of poomsae.

Poomsae are truly a way of understanding and practicing every aspect of your martial art; basic technique, breathing control, balance, co-ordination and concentration. The mind and body can work together in striving for perfection of technique that can never be achieved. Taekwondo is meaningless without poomsae.

This thread was about waist movement. I had mentioned that kata / forms are a good place to study that waist movement. This article agrees... poomsae are great for studying basic technique, breathing control, balance, co-ordination and concentration. Let's say I am wrong, and TKD poomsae are meant to be Korean Step Dance only. While practicing your step dance... it is still a great place to study the co-ordination of your waist movement with your hand and foot movement. It's almost like it would be a good way to understand and practice many aspects of the martial art.

The MSU article literally is just how to copy the form. There is nothing beyond that.

Knowledge of the Poomse – It is important to learn as much as possible about the particular form. The student should know the pattern, stances and techniques in as much detail as possible. Some of the motions in Poomse can appear to be very “abstract” and the practitioner must train hard to understand the motion. Knowing the history, Chinese character pattern and Palgwe idea inspires the student in practice and adds enrichment to the experience.

So, some motions can appear to be abstract and knowing the history and other ideas contained in the poomsae will help the student understand the motion. So, bringing in the history of the art appears to be valid in trying to understand it.

There is a great amount of historical, philosophical, physiological and practical information stored in Poomse.

The article here discusses much of this and is worth the read. But its more than "just copy it." It actually suggests that the students study and figure it out, rather than blindly copy.

The last article is the only one that mentions practical applications. It mentions it once, and does not expand on how to do that. It feels thrown in there so that you don't feel wasteful in your training.

Then, what is the Taekwondo poomsae? The poomsae is the style of conduct which expresses directly or indirectly mental and physical refinements as well as the principles of offense and defense resulting from cultivation of Taekwondo spirit and techniques.

Sounds like there are principles beyond just copying.

A completion of poomsae can be achieved through hard training following the 5 steps :
1. Pattern The first step of training poomsae is to learn the pattern. Concentration of spirit, eyes, and angles of movements must be emphasized in addition to the accuracy of actions.
2. Significance In the next step, the emphasis must be laid on the balance, strength and weakness, low or high speed, respiration and poomsae line. The significance of movements, connection of pooms and the complete poomsae must be learned correctly. 3. Practical Use One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability.
4. Self Style One must evaluate his findings about the effectiveness of what he has learned, comparing with his bodily structure, speed, strength, muscle strength, impulsive power, points of emphasis in training, etc ., and moderate the techniques into his own style.

Again with that pattern again... The one suggesting more than to just copy.

Just because I don't actively train TKD doesn't mean I can't appreciate it. It also doesn't mean that I don't actively train with people who do train TKD. I cross train with TKD folks all the time. And I learn a lot from them. And they don't just copy their forms... they all study their forms, quite actively. They are able to get much more out of the poomsae than a memorization of a routine. I find there is a lot to the various forms practiced in TKD, a lot to be learned from them and a lot to study while doing them. Sorry that I object to the poomsae as being nothing more than patterns to be copied and nothing more. I don't even train TKD and yet I value the TKD forms as more than a step dance. If I had the time and opportunity, I would definitely train TKD, specifically to study those forms as the Kukkiwon text book suggests.

 

[skribs]

@wab25

Let me be clear - it's not that I don't value your opinion. It's that there are certain things that you don't understand because you haven't experienced it. Just like I can't tell you what it's like to live in Europe, because I've never been to Europe. Sure, it's a Western culture, just like America. Sure, there's a lot in common with the US. But there are also a lot of things that are probably different, and I won't know what those are until I'm there.

Now, I hinted above that I value your opinion, and that's true. I value your opinion of the efficacy of training models. I would welcome a discussion on the differences between your training in Karate and my training in Taekwondo, and the pros and cons of each. I've learned a ton from people who have no Taekwondo training. I've been watching a lot of videos lately from Jesse Enkamp (karate), Ginger Ninja Trickster (ITF TKD, which I take KKW TKD), Chewjitsu (BJJ), and I don't remember the name but there was a really good 50-minute course on Muay Thai clinches I was watching. On this forum, I get tons of advice from several people. Half of them I don't know what art they train, and half of the remainders don't train TKD.

However, nobody is trying to tell me what is taught in my class, as if they know better than me what I've been doing for the last 6 years, and 10 years total in my life. None of them tell me that I don't know how my art is taught, when I've been mentored in how to teach it for the last 5 years. They tell me their experiences, and compare our experiences, instead of just assuming that they know everything about my art.

So if you want to talk about the difference in approach between simply rote copying technique, vs. working out applications through bunkai, be my guest. If you want to tell me that you prefer Karate because of it, be my guest. But don't tell me that you know more about the culture and classes of my art, when you've read a few articles and I've been doing it for a third of my life.

Let me be perfectly clear. I've read your posts in the past on the Karate approach to forms, and I've liked it. I've wished that's the way forms were done in Taekwondo, and they're not. So I would accept these (or others like them) as valid opinions:

1. I prefer Karate because we follow the Shu Ha Ri method
2. Karate is better because we follow the Shu Ha Ri method
3. Taekwondo should follow the Shu Ha Ri method
4. You could use the Shu Ha Ri method, even if you don't train it in class
5. You could use the Shu Ha Ri method in your school, even if other schools don't
6. You should use the Shu Ha Ri method (instead of "could" for #4 and #5)
7. Here are the pros and cons of the Shu Ha Ri method, as compared to what you describe
8. I don't understand how you can learn without the Shu Ha Ri method

The only one I don't accept is: "You say you don't train this method, but you do."

This is the problem. You're either treating me like I am lying about my experience, or that I'm too stupid to even know what my experience is. You are not listening to what I say, or considering my experience as valid. You can express all sorts of opinions on why your way of training is better, or what I can gain by incorporating some of your learning into mine. I'm perfectly okay with that. My problem is that when I tell you how it works in real TKD classes, you just completely dismiss everything I say, because it doesn't match with an article you read.

Sounds like there are principles beyond just copying.

These are just copying. You copy the movement, which includes every part of you. When you step and punch, you copy:

• The way you step
• How hard you land when you step
• The stance you land in
• The direction and power of the punch
• The exact chamber and finishing position of the punch
• The timing of the technique
• The breathing during the execution of the technique
• All of the other little details, like where your eyes are, where your shoulders and hips point, your toes, everything

The more advanced you get, the more details you learn. But they're details that you copy. You copy the step, the punch, the stance, the timing, the breathing.

What you don't do is take the beats in the form and apply them. We never:

• Go over the combos in the forms with a partner and see how they would apply
• Incorporate the patterns in the forms into our self defense or sparring training (including the hand combinations or footwork)
• Discuss the possible applications of techniques in the forms
• Expand on parts of a form, i.e. take steps 1-6 and use them in a practical setting
• Discuss more practical versions of techniques (for example, going from a hard block to a soft parry)

From most discussions I've had, these things simply don't happen in Taekwondo training. Now, we do all of those things, but not in relation to the forms. We have applicable combos and patterns. We have self defense and sparring drills. We train against each other with practical techniques. We do figure out how to take the foundational techniques and use them in more efficient ways. But if you completely removed the forms from the equation, nothing else would be impacted, because those techniques and drills can be taught on their own, and the drills look nothing like the form.

So yes, it is completely about copying. The deeper you get into a form, the more you learn how to copy 100% of what your instructor or Master is doing. This is what I gleaned from watching videos of people going through the Master's course. These are 4th and 5th degree black belts, going over the KKW Black Belt forms curriculum. And what are they learning? How to copy the Master Instructor who is teaching the class. How to exactly do the movements in the form, how to copy what they're doing.

That's why I think you're wrong about how things work. These are the people training Master candidates from Kukkiwon, and their training is 100% in Step 1. Copy. How to copy better. Everything about my poomsae training in both schools I've been, has been how to copy. If you look at videos online of the Taegeuks or black belt forms, they all look the same. There is only discussion of the technique, only what to copy. There is no discussion of variation or application, just the precise motions you are supposed to make.

I have a bit of an obsessive personality, in case you couldn't tell by my post count or the length of my posts on this forum. If practicing the applications of forms was common in Taekwondo, I would have found it by now. Trust me. I've been asking these questions for the last 6 years, and I haven't found many references of this being done in Taekwondo. Those which I have, have either been sketchy, or aren't even applying the techniques they say they are (i.e. the application of an outside block using an inside motion).

I think I know what is taught in Taekwondo. If you want to argue about what should be taught, or why your training is better because of what you get out of it, I'm perfectly open to that debate. If you want to lament the fact that "application of forms" is basically a marketing shtick in KKW documentation and other articles, because it doesn't actually happen in TKD, go for it. Or if you know of an online community where applications of forms is being discussed (and I'm talking real application, not supposition or armchair warriors), then I'd love to have that reference.

The only conversation I don't want to have, is for you to simply tell me that my experiences are false.

 

[wab25]

However, nobody is trying to tell me what is taught in my class, as if they know better than me what I've been doing for the last 6 years, and 10 years total in my life. None of them tell me that I don't know how my art is taught, when I've been mentored in how to teach it for the last 5 years.

I am not trying to tell you what experiences you have or had not had in your classes. I have not experienced your classes, in either school.

It's that there are certain things that you don't understand because you haven't experienced it.

I agree. And there are certain things you don't understand because you have not experienced them. I have never experienced a TKD school that teaches copy only. I have however experienced many TKD schools that teach copy first, then go deeper, then find applications, then find principles, then use these to study different aspects. The longest time I spent was when we were renting mat space from a TKD school for about 2 1/2 years. I would cross train a couple times a week, where forms were taught, then broken down. I never signed up as a student, as I did not have the time to devote to it and do my own training at the same time... But as one of the instructors at the school, I had many discussions with the TKD master there. I have also taken classes at many other TKD places, and seen the same pattern.

I am not saying that you are wrong about the two schools you attended. I am sure they are as you describe. I am saying that those two schools are not like any of the TKD schools I have seen or trained in. You don't say "in my school, we only copy." You say that "TKD, collectively as an Art, only copies their forms." That is not true. I can name 4 TKD schools right now in Florida that do not teach the copy only method. I can name 1 up in North Carolina, and another 4 or 5 out in California... all of which dive in much deeper than copying. These are all schools I have taken classes in, on the mat and received the deeper explanations and break downs. I have trained on different mats with TKD people from many more TKD schools that teach and feel the same. Maybe the schools I experienced were the outliers... but I have experienced enough to say that not all TKD schools are copy only schools.

What you don't do is take the beats in the form and apply them. We never:

• Go over the combos in the forms with a partner and see how they would apply
• Incorporate the patterns in the forms into our self defense or sparring training (including the hand combinations or footwork)
• Discuss the possible applications of techniques in the forms
• Expand on parts of a form, i.e. take steps 1-6 and use them in a practical setting
• Discuss more practical versions of techniques (for example, going from a hard block to a soft parry)

From most discussions I've had, these things simply don't happen in Taekwondo training.

I agree completely... that in your school, this is an accurate statement. However, that cannot be applied to all TKD schools. Do all TKD schools go deeper? Nope. But, many do.

Let me be perfectly clear. I've read your posts in the past on the Karate approach to forms, and I've liked it. I've wished that's the way forms were done in Taekwondo, and they're not. So I would accept these (or others like them) as valid opinions:

1. I prefer Karate because we follow the Shu Ha Ri method
2. Karate is better because we follow the Shu Ha Ri method
3. Taekwondo should follow the Shu Ha Ri method
4. You could use the Shu Ha Ri method, even if you don't train it in class
5. You could use the Shu Ha Ri method in your school, even if other schools don't
6. You should use the Shu Ha Ri method (instead of "could" for #4 and #5)
7. Here are the pros and cons of the Shu Ha Ri method, as compared to what you describe
8. I don't understand how you can learn without the Shu Ha Ri method

The only one I don't accept is: "You say you don't train this method, but you do."

I never said that you do. You say that you don't and I wouldn't argue with that at all.

I would never say that TKD should follow Shu Ha Ri. I would say that TKD students should follow the 5 step process that the Kukkiwon discusses. In learning more about that process, knowing about Shu Ha Ri will be helpfull. The TKD could be seen as an iteration on the Shu Ha Ri process. The TKD founders studied Shu Ha Ri and brought it to Korea with the other Karate Kata, which they then changed and iterated on. As a Karate Student, looking at the TKD process as an iteration helps to further understand the Shu Ha Ri method. Its the same process, but iterated on and broken down into 5 steps, rather than 3... and it was iterated on by very good martial artists.

If you tell me your school does not practice that process as laid out... I am not telling you otherwise. I am saying that that does not reflect TKD in general... or at least some TKD schools do actually follow that process. (even if they don't point it out by name and page number)

I think I know what is taught in Taekwondo.

You know what is taught in your two schools.

Or if you know of an online community where applications of forms is being discussed (and I'm talking real application, not supposition or armchair warriors), then I'd love to have that reference.

Really? (you are looking at one) If I did know of such a place, you would point out how their pinky is a millimeter out of place, therefore the application is not in the form. (or maybe their tongue is in the wrong position or their big toe is up...) The Kukkiwon says: One must adapt what he has learned to his practical use, finding out the practicability. Your objections are to people who are on or discussing step 3 in the process laid out by the Kukkiwon, as the way to study the forms.

I think it is unfair to paint all TKD schools as schools that teach some worthless set of steps to copy for the sake of copying... steps that have no martial training value. You can say that the schools you train at are that way, I believe you. You can say you train that way, I believe you. You can say that when you are master and running your own school, thats how you will train. But you can't say that all TKD schools train that way, because they don't. Even the governing organizations say that the schools should go beyond copying. Does every school go beyond copying? No. If you say yours don't... I am not arguing. But, many schools do go beyond copying.

I am not saying that you train any other way than how you state. I am saying that many other TKD schools and practitioners train differently. I am saying that those who founded TKD and who run it now, train it differently.

If you really do think the forms are so worthless... why are you training a system that spends so much time on them? Why not train in a system that has none of the "worthless fluff" and "marketing shtick?"

 

[skribs]

Really? (you are looking at one)

Martial arts yes. Specifically TKD forms, not so much.

you would point out how their pinky is a millimeter out of place, therefore the application is not in the form.

You're exaggerating the points I made in other threads. And you're ignoring the good advice I got from everyone else that I agreed with, or at least continued to discuss further. You're ignoring that advice, because you'd rather me be bad at taking advice, than you be bad at giving it.

I think it is unfair to paint all TKD schools as schools that teach some worthless set of steps to copy for the sake of copying... steps that have no martial training value. You can say that the schools you train at are that way, I believe you. You can say you train that way, I believe you. You can say that when you are master and running your own school, thats how you will train. But you can't say that all TKD schools train that way, because they don't. Even the governing organizations say that the schools should go beyond copying. Does every school go beyond copying? No. If you say yours don't... I am not arguing. But, many schools do go beyond copying.

Again. This isn't just what I've seen at my two schools. This is what I've seen at my 2 schools, and over 6 years of research. But you read an article, so you must know more than me.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Fair enough. Did you learn any of the forms at Short Three or higher, at least through Form Five? Those were largely made up of the SD Techs from the belt lists, some with modifications to fit the choreography, but still definitely the same Techs. Tracy has Mass Attack as well, also made from the Lists, but other lineages may not have that one.

I didn’t learn form Six or higher, and I think in Tracy lineage those Six and higher may be different. But Short Three through Form Five are practically identical with other Parker derived lineages.

I dont believe i reached form three, and at the particular school i went to, we focused on the techniques moreso than the forms. This was a while ago, i was around 15 at the time, training in it until i found another SKK school, so my memory of that school is hazy to begin with.