What are these techniques really for?

[dancingalone]

My Interpritation, is that since Chun-Ji, if Drawn to form its Shape, is Calligraphic for "The Scholar", if im not mistaken;
At its core, its really a Beginners Methodology. A Low Block could optionally be a Preperatory Stance, as oppose to being used as a Block unto itself. Whether or not it deals with a 2VS1 Mechanic is subject to Debate, much like other aspects of various Forms.

Absolutely. Forms can be as meaningful as we want them to be. The most basic level of training with them is simply as a way of remembering and practicing individual technique (calligraphy as you say).

 

[Cyriacus]

Absolutely. Forms can be as meaningful as we want them to be. The most basic level of training with them is simply as a way of remembering and practicing individual technique (calligraphy as you say).

More or less.

And of course, a Low Block can be followed up my a Lunge Punch. That just doesnt mean its the only Option.
The answer to the Mysteries of MA are not in Forms, but rather, the Application of Interpritation. And Forms can, to a degree, reflect somebody elses interpritation.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I hope you don't mind me playing and putting in my two cents worth: If we take the idea of pattern applications seriously, the two movements are for dealing with a specific threat, most likely from a single attacker, .

Don't mind, but IMNSHO you would be absolutley wrong (unless we go down the alternate application road but then we would have to cange the stated application which changes all the parameters.) reaon as to why you would be wrong follows at another time. I need to ask a follow up question first. The answer to that question expalins why you are wrong and why Cyriacus answer about being taught 2 opponnets is correct for the stated application. (Which is not meant to say that all stated applications are exclusive. )

 

[Earl Weiss]

Subjective to Interpritation. When I trained ITF, they claimed it was for Two People, so ill answer with that for Chang Hon.

For the Chang Hon system that would be the correct answer. But, knowing the correct answer without knowing the rationale does not really help much. Do you know why this is the correct answer? Again, for those who do not know the sysytem, apologies. But the reason this is the right answer applies to all pattern applications, irrespective of system.

 

[dancingalone]

Don't mind, but IMNSHO you would be absolutley wrong (unless we go down the alternate application road but then we would have to cange the stated application which changes all the parameters.) reaon as to why you would be wrong follows at another time. I need to ask a follow up question first. The answer to that question expalins why you are wrong and why Cyriacus answer about being taught 2 opponnets is correct for the stated application. (Which is not meant to say that all stated applications are exclusive. )

I await the conversation with great interest. Are you defining right as what General Choi outlined in his Encyclopedia?

 

[sopraisso]

Many of the classical movements DON'T make sense in a modern sparring context. It is not surprising that you are confused and skeptical if all the training you've been exposed to previous is all long range and competition-oriented at that [...].

Finally!
Sincerely, I was wondering if I was the only ever feeling skeptical about some of taekwondo techniques. By the way, I believe the same impression would've happened in other MA's contexts.
After the brief time I've been practicing (and also reading about martial arts and trying to learn from wherever I could), I seem to have come to the conclusion that simpler and faster in most of times is better (I don't mean all the times, and I can be wrong nevertheless). Some complex motions of taekwondo just puzzled me. I keep on practicing them as hard as I can, but it's impossible not to wonder: "would I ever be able to use this in a hypothetical real fight?". The issues about blocks lie mainly on this (once they seem to have much complex and long motions to be used in a real fight situation).
But since the beginning of this thread I've been feeling more confident in such techniques (say, most of them). Now I have the impression that most block (low, medium and high) motions maybe could be used mainly depending on where our arms would already be in the moment of the block (assuming our hands can't always stay in guard position). Also, off course, it depends what the attacker is aiming for and what I intend to do as a counter-attack. I still haven't had a great experience of couter-attack after blocking (maybe basic kicks and punchs). Someone now told me about using the backhand after a medium block. To me it seems a great idea. Others have come with many other examples that show a more realistic picture. Anyway, as I had speed concerns, now I consider that not every agressor would necessarily come with a torrent of punches, nor even they would always punch som fast (some, mainly the untrained ones, rely more on strength and reach) -- so in this case I think it'd be a nice idea to use low, medium or high blocks.
Some other achievement was to note that in a real fight the movements don't need to be exactly the way it should be in theory, as the situation may require more fluid and adapted response.
Anyway, I would highly appreciate if someone tells me if there's any wrong assumption on this.

If the only goal of training is comvbat self defense, you don't need a martial art. Most of your time and energy would be wasted. If your only goal of training is MMA sparring, you don't need a martial art. Again, most of your time will be wasted. If your only goal of training is a specific type of sparring, training in anything other than sparring techniques , strategies and conditioning is a waste of time.

Haha. Yeah. Anyway, my goal is not an only one, as probably the others don't have a single goal, as well. But along with various goals, those don't exclude the one about learning to fight (in a rather realistic way, if possible). But I'll explain something about in the next thread I'd like to initiate.

Thank you already for the feedback.

 

[Cyriacus]

For the Chang Hon system that would be the correct answer. But, knowing the correct answer without knowing the rationale does not really help much. Do you know why this is the correct answer? Again, for those who do not know the sysytem, apologies. But the reason this is the right answer applies to all pattern applications, irrespective of system.

Im going to answer retrospectively. My Chang Hon is a bit rusty

You begin with a Low Block, to Prepare. Perform a Lunging Punch to Hit the First Guy. Spin around with a Middle Inner Forearm Block (Note how this is different to before. Thats because im going into more detail, as per your request), and another Lunging Punch.

The Theory, is that from a Low Block, you can switch to a Raising Block, to block a Punch; Otherwise, the Low Block will deflect a Kick. Circumventing BASIC Attacks. Then, coming around with the Forearm does something similar. Except that you can switch it to a Palm Heel Block.
Then Lunge Punch.

All I was told directly under Chang Hon was that it was for Two People, and that the first movement was more of a Guard than a Block.

 

[Cyriacus]

If the only goal of training is comvbat self defense, you don't need a martial art. Most of your time and energy would be wasted. If your only goal of training is MMA sparring, you don't need a martial art. Again, most of your time will be wasted. If your only goal of training is a specific type of sparring, training in anything other than sparring techniques , strategies and conditioning is a waste of time.

And what if the Specified Martial Art is highgeared toward Combat and Self Defense? By Definition, a Style designed for Combat is technically a Martial Art.
Unless you go and take Self Defense Classes, which *can* be a slight gamble. But thats another topic.

 

[Earl Weiss]

And what if the Specified Martial Art is highgeared toward Combat and Self Defense? By Definition, a Style designed for Combat is technically a Martial Art.
Unless you go and take Self Defense Classes, which *can* be a slight gamble. But thats another topic.

Then you get into "What is a Martial Art". There is no universaly accepted definition. Years ago, long before Krav MAga was expanded for the mass market I asked an Israeli if he learned "The MArtial Art" of Krav Maga" in the military. he saud "What "Art" there is nothing artistic about kneeing someone in the nuts". Smilarly Peyton quinn of Rocky Mountain Combat Application training who does padded assailant, adrenal stress stufff says he doesn't teach a martial art. So, i submit that for combat purposes you don't need typical elements of MAs like philosophy, esthetic qualities, competition standards. FWIW, all those things are elements of an MA to be taught and practiced to a greater and lesser extent, and without them you have something that might be better called something other than a Martial art like a martial discipline.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I await the conversation with great interest. Are you defining right as what General Choi outlined in his Encyclopedia?

Depends on perspective. Pattern techniques can be morphed for "Alternate Applications" However when you morph them to a certain degree they no longer resemble the pattern technique. Now it is a principle espoused bu General Choi that "5. You need to become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." This is not a concept unique to general choi. I have heard others like George Dilman say the same or similar things. (OK I know dilman has issues but I agree with some of his stuff.)

Angle and distance. That is what patterns teach you. How you employ the "Technique" has any number of possibilities so long as angle, distance (and level) are used with practical efficiency. General Choi would make this point while teaching as well.

Now for #s 1&2 of Chon Ji. It is a common misperception that you block the first attack from person #1 and then step and punch him. You can try this exercise but you must follow the motions as described in the pattern to see if or how they will work. A common attack "blocked" for move #1 is a front kick to the left lower abdomen (Could be other attack to the left lower abdomen but try this one for now). Position attacker to the left so that when he kicks and you turn to your left to a left waliking stance low outer forearm block your forearm intercepts his leg in the shin to calf range so it is still far enough away so as to not have hit you, (not so far that you miss) and then move to #2 without the attacker moving forward, and step forward to #2 Right walking stance punch. You will be well past where the punch would work properly. So, it cannot be to the original attacker.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I await the conversation with great interest. Are you defining right as what General Choi outlined in his Encyclopedia?

Depends on perspective. Pattern techniques can be morphed for "Alternate Applications" However when you morph them to a certain degree they no longer resemble the pattern technique. Now it is a principle espoused bu General Choi that "5. You need to become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." This is not a concept unique to general choi. I have heard others like George Dilman say the same or similar things. (OK I know dilman has issues but I agree with some of his stuff.)

Angle and distance. That is what patterns teach you. How you employ the "Technique" has any number of possibilities so long as angle, distance (and level) are used with practical efficiency. General Choi would make this point while teaching as well.

Now for #s 1&2 of Chon Ji. It is a common misperception that you block the first attack from person #1 and then step and punch him. You can try this exercise but you must follow the motions as described in the pattern to see if or how they will work. A common attack "blocked" for move #1 is a front kick to the left lower abdomen (Could be other attack to the left lower abdomen but try this one for now). Position attacker to the left so that when he kicks and you turn to your left to a left waliking stance low outer forearm block your forearm intercepts his leg in the shin to calf range so it is still far enough away so as to not have hit you, (not so far that you miss) and then move to #2 without the attacker moving forward, and step forward to #2 Right walking stance punch. You will be well past where the punch would work properly. So, it cannot be to the original attacker.

 

[dancingalone]

Depends on perspective. Pattern techniques can be morphed for "Alternate Applications" However when you morph them to a certain degree they no longer resemble the pattern technique. Now it is a principle espoused bu General Choi that "5. You need to become familiar with the correct angle and distance for attack and defense." This is not a concept unique to general choi. I have heard others like George Dilman say the same or similar things. (OK I know dilman has issues but I agree with some of his stuff.)

Angle and distance. That is what patterns teach you. How you employ the "Technique" has any number of possibilities so long as angle, distance (and level) are used with practical efficiency. General Choi would make this point while teaching as well.

Now for #s 1&2 of Chon Ji. It is a common misperception that you block the first attack from person #1 and then step and punch him. You can try this exercise but you must follow the motions as described in the pattern to see if or how they will work. A common attack "blocked" for move #1 is a front kick to the left lower abdomen (Could be other attack to the left lower abdomen but try this one for now). Position attacker to the left so that when he kicks and you turn to your left to a left waliking stance low outer forearm block your forearm intercepts his leg in the shin to calf range so it is still far enough away so as to not have hit you, (not so far that you miss) and then move to #2 without the attacker moving forward, and step forward to #2 Right walking stance punch. You will be well past where the punch would work properly. So, it cannot be to the original attacker.

Ah. We simply come from different frames of references with regard to pattern training. The fundamental rules about kata interpretation for practical application that I follow include 1 idea that is relevant here so I will state it. "We should NOT be trapped nor misled by the embusen or kata movement lines." Following this maxim, the distancing problem you mentioned above doesn't necessarily exist at all. First, the 90 degree turn to the left doesn't mean that we are turning to face an attack from the side. Secondly, the down block doesn't necessarily mean we are defending from a kicking attack at long range with the accompanying long stances/strides to make up ground. One of the applications I teach to Chon-Ji has the attack as right hand midsection punch from straight ahead. The defender uses a downward sweeping motion to parry the blow away before initiating a clinch and driving an overhand right to the head or midsection himself.

Beyond that I would refer back to the idea of tactical soundness in pattern analysis. I said above that it is unsound to block one attacker without also counterattacking him before we move onto a second opponent, as we have left unaddressed the initial 2-1 disadvantage. So it is with that in mind that I generally think of the initial opening 2 movements in Chon-Ji as applying to a SINGLE attacker rather than two, unless we add in a few movements in between to remedy the missing counter.

For myself, I freely admit the TKD I teach is influenced by other arts, notably karate, aikido, and judo, and it is this perspective from which our kata study flows from. Other people will undoubtedly have different ideas about forms based on their ideological heritage, and hopefully without offending anyone by saying this, I would argue that the native Korean sources in this area are immature at best, nonexistent at worst.

 

[StudentCarl]

I find the enbusen rule compelling... the idea that direction changes in forms should be considered contrived to fit the activity into a small space, and not a tactical approach to dealing with multiple attackers. To me it does not fit common sense that the very first form studied would approach the issue of multiple opponents. It makes much more sense that the idea is to perform the techniques with both sides of the body to train the brand new student in a balanced way to aid development of coordination.

Carl

 

[dancingalone]

I find the enbusen rule compelling... the idea that direction changes in forms should be considered contrived to fit the activity into a small space, and not a tactical approach to dealing with multiple attackers. To me it does not fit common sense that the very first form studied would approach the issue of multiple opponents. It makes much more sense that the idea is to perform the techniques with both sides of the body to train the brand new student in a balanced way to aid development of coordination.

Carl

The rule is a tool to help analyze patterns for possible applications. It doesn't come into play at all for beginners who are still learning to move, and 'thinking' tools like these were rarely shared by my teacher to any of his students who weren't likewise teachers themselves. He didn't teach them to me until I came upon a similar passage in a book of Toguchi, Seikichi's and I asked him about the topic.

So, nope, not a topic for beginners 'traditionally'. Indeed any pattern, even the dan level ones, could be left at simply the physical level of performance for practicing basics as well as challenging the body for speed, strength, and balance.

 

[StudentCarl]

Indeed any pattern, even the dan level ones, could be left at simply the physical level of performance for practicing basics as well as challenging the body for speed, strength, and balance.

Those are certainly worthy of training for just that, but lately I've been reading into applications. There's little written on the Taekwondo side, much more from karate, but I think the karate ideas are relevant to TKD. I do think it's healthy to look at how these movements can be applied, but agree it's not beginner stuff.

 

[dancingalone]

Those are certainly worthy of training for just that, but lately I've been reading into applications. There's little written on the Taekwondo side, much more from karate, but I think the karate ideas are relevant to TKD. I do think it's healthy to look at how these movements can be applied, but agree it's not beginner stuff.

There's a few stray discussions between SahBuhNimRush, Manakaumna (sp) and myself about when it is appropriate to teach pattern applications to beginners if anyone is interested in dredging them up. We more or less came to a consensus that it needs to happen early on otherwise the students become too engrained in what now passes for traditional TKD/TSD/karate where their idea of combat means standing in long range and exchanging kicks and punches.

If you come across anything interesting from a Korean arts perspective, I'd appreciate a cite or a link. I've looked into sources like the KKW forms books and General Choi's Encyclopedia and the various old books like GM Duk Son Song's. Believe it or not the best pattern analysis stuff I've seen comes from that free online TKD magazine Mr. Weiss occasionally contributes to: Totally TKD. There's a Brit contributor who uses his judo experience to explain alternate explanations to the movements in the KKW patterns. The magazine's editor, another Brit, has his own book out that does much the same for the Chang Hon patterns. I own a copy and I don't completely like everything he does, but it's certainly one of the few resources on the subject, other than one's teachers, and I suspect there is little study there by and large across the TKD world.

Would LOVE to see a good effort from a Korean resource that approaches the problem from a TKD pattern side rather than someone just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

Beyond that I would refer back to the idea of tactical soundness in pattern analysis. I said above that it is unsound to block one attacker without also counterattacking him before we move onto a second opponent, as we have left unaddressed the initial 2-1 disadvantage. So it is with that in mind that I generally think of the initial opening 2 movements in Chon-Ji as applying to a SINGLE attacker rather than two, unless we add in a few movements in between to remedy the missing counter.

...

I don't know the form you are referring to, since my exposure to TKD was only to 8th Green many years ago, but it sounds like the first two moves of our first H-form. Regardless, in regard to saying you must counter attack a first opponent before engaging a second, I was wondering if you had considered that the initial attacker probably needs to recover, and the other attacker may be doing just that, attacking. I think that is a real possibility. In that case, a block and turn to the other attacker for a block while the orginal attacker is recovering his stance. One needs to try and separate multiple attackers, and get them on one's own rhythm rather than theirs.

...

Would LOVE to see a good effort from a Korean resource that approaches the problem from a TKD pattern side rather than someone just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung.

Not sure what "... just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung." means. And from a TKD pattern at that? There are many body types, but they mostly all have two arms and legs, a head, neck, and other things that are attackable. There are only so many ways to attack those body parts, granted they may be in the hundreds. Do think the TKD inventers started from scratch sir?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Ah. We simply come from different frames of references with regard to pattern training. The fundamental rules about kata interpretation for practical application that I follow include 1 idea that is relevant here so I will state it. "We should NOT be trapped nor misled by the embusen or kata movement lines." Following this maxim, the distancing problem you mentioned above doesn't necessarily exist at all. .

Our frames of reference are not so different. I am a firm believer in alternate applications. However, beginners have a tough time learning how to do the basic one(s) correctly so the last thing I am going to do is show them any number of variations. In fact I have some great ones for moves 1-3 In Chon Ji. (I have Rick Clark's book "75 Down Blocks" Showing 75 applications for the low outer forearm block.)

That being said, if you are learning a pattern, any pattern with stipulated distance and direction and you think that if you perform it as stipulated the techniques as stipulated will work to impractical distance / directions, then you are wrong. (So, from this perspective "Correct as outlined in the encyclopedia" is the proper frame of reference His patterns, his parameters. )

I think the stipulated distance / direction / angle / level / tool is a method to teach the beginner how to move in a certain fashion with balance, power, speed, efficiencies, if they can't do it and don't understand what and why they are doing it morphing the stipulated parameters to any number of permutations and combinations, in a fashion which makes the original unrecognizeable will not help.

So, if you say take this technique and change the angle , level, and distance so you can do this other application will make it work is like saying if we take motorcycle, add the correct wings and put on a propeller detaching power from the wheel and transferring it to a propeller than a motorcycle can fly, is it really still a motorcycle>

 

[dancingalone]

I don't know the form you are referring to, since my exposure to TKD was only to 8th Green many years ago, but it sounds like the first two moves of our first H-form.

Chon-Ji. The first full hyung as taught by General Choi. Jhoon Rhee used these Choi forms for a long time with his colored belts.

Regardless, in regard to saying you must counter attack a first opponent before engaging a second, I was wondering if you had considered that the initial attacker probably needs to recover, and the other attacker may be doing just that, attacking. I think that is a real possibility. In that case, a block and turn to the other attacker for a block while the orginal attacker is recovering his stance. One needs to try and separate multiple attackers, and get them on one's own rhythm rather than theirs.

I don't view the pattern as addressing multiple attackers at all. But if you want to take that assumption, there are survival considerations I would rank far higher in the order of precedence than a down block and then a TURN to face another attacker. Things such as full blown running for example (two people cannot enclose a person entirely without also using terrain or surrounds to their advantage). IMO, the lessons taught through exploring a down block, lunge punch sequence are better aligned with goals like closing in quickly to neutralize a single hostile foe, and I would use other opportunities outside of Chon-Ji to work on multiple attacker scenarios.

Not sure what "... just glomming some information from hapkido and retrofitting it into the hyung." means. And from a TKD pattern at that? There are many body types, but they mostly all have two arms and legs, a head, neck, and other things that are attackable. There are only so many ways to attack those body parts, granted they may be in the hundreds. Do think the TKD inventers started from scratch sir?

No, the TKD founders did not start from scratch. Arts like karate, judo, and even kwon bup all played differing degrees of influence depending on which TKD founder you are talking about. And yes we all have two arms and two legs, and there are only so many ways you can hurt another person. Regardless of either point, I'm not referring to either when I made my remark about retrofitting [hapkido] into the hyung.

It means that I would like to see the current leaders of TKD make pattern applications a relevant and harmonious part of their respective systems. Harmonious in this case means that ideally they would not simply look to other arts for ideas to borrow verbatim, regardless of any historical connection TKD may have to them. Instead IMO it's far preferable to review their expressions of TKD holistically and invent/create applications that are indelibly TKD in conception and movement. This approach has the advantage of making the entire system as a whole logical to understand and arguably easier to learn and execute physically.

 

[dancingalone]

Our frames of reference are not so different. I am a firm believer in alternate applications. However, beginners have a tough time learning how to do the basic one(s) correctly so the last thing I am going to do is show them any number of variations. In fact I have some great ones for moves 1-3 In Chon Ji. (I have Rick Clark's book "75 Down Blocks" Showing 75 applications for the low outer forearm block.)

Beginners have difficulty with everything, starting with tying their belts. I believe it's better to expose people to the myriad usages of a discrete movement early on, else their conception of martial arts becomes rigid and they become trapped in the visible appearance of what a motion is. This type of instruction works best in small class settings where instructors can spend a lot of time individually with each student though.

That being said, if you are learning a pattern, any pattern with stipulated distance and direction and you think that if you perform it as stipulated the techniques as stipulated will work to impractical distance / directions, then you are wrong. (So, from this perspective "Correct as outlined in the encyclopedia" is the proper frame of reference His patterns, his parameters. )

General Choi gave his patterns to the world, and from that moment the patterns changed by instructor by instructor. I definitely understand General Choi left instructions as to how he believed the forms should be performed, perhaps even used. That said, a host of teachers crossing multinational lines don't feel constrained by them, nor should they. In the end, martial arts are all personal expressions anyway.

I think the stipulated distance / direction / angle / level / tool is a method to teach the beginner how to move in a certain fashion with balance, power, speed, efficiencies, if they can't do it and don't understand what and why they are doing it morphing the stipulated parameters to any number of permutations and combinations, in a fashion which makes the original unrecognizeable will not help.

So, if you say take this technique and change the angle , level, and distance so you can do this other application will make it work is like saying if we take motorcycle, add the correct wings and put on a propeller detaching power from the wheel and transferring it to a propeller than a motorcycle can fly, is it really still a motorcycle

The patterns are merely tools. People can use tools in different ways with different goals, purposes, and outcomes in mind.

I personally am not looking to develop Taekwon-Do students. I hope to teach people useful combat skills using a piece of General Choi's work, suitably modified by myself, as a training methodology.