What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[skribs]

That's what I mean about them being indirect applications. If I were a TKD teacher (which would presume I knew at least a little TKD ), I'd encourage students at a certain level to start exploring the forms by adjusting them to those kinds of indirect applications. I do that (probably too early) with the forms I teach.

Right. And I have no problem with encouraging people to explore and see what they come up with. I have no problem with "down block and then grab the leg" as a lesson. I also have no problem with "this is what we learned in the form, here's what you can do after that block."

What I have a problem with is when people take a single motion in the form, and tell you that the motion teaches you a combination that includes half a dozen other things.

We teach a Jab-Reverse-Hook-Uppercut combination. I can't just teach a jab and say "now you know this whole combination." I can teach a jab, and then say "here are some combinations that use the jab" and then show the whole combo. But in order for it to be effective, I'd also have to teach the reverse punch, hook punch, and uppercut.

I can't just say "go do 1000 jabs" and expect the other 3 punches to be there.

 

[Gnarlie]

Skribs, it's worth considering something here: you are from a highly literal, highly explicit culture where direct expression is preferred over metaphor, simile, and context sensitivity, and singular clarity is preferred over ambiguity.

MA forms, on the other hand, stem from cultures where the opposite of those things is true.

If you look at forms through one cultural lens, you'll see one thing. Through another lens, another.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Earl Weiss]

The primary thing I disagree with is this statement:
EARL WEISS SAID: ↑
So, if I teach something the student should never have to ask "Sir, you teach this and the materials show that."

I think there absolutely should be cases where the student (who looks at that old reference material) needs to ask that. It probably shouldn't be a large portion of the material that's different (then you're probably teaching a different, new style), but there should be differences.

I guess there is where we will agree to disagree and it likely comes from my experience. It made us crazy when we had hardly any reference materials and the "Pioneers" all told us different stuff about what we should do. My first instructor was a school teacher and when we got the first reference material and pointed out differences in what these pioneers taught and what we were doing he decided that the best way to have uniformity in the system was to use that which was taught in the reference material as the standard. This was not to say we couldn't learn and do other stuff as well. In fact just s General Choi mentions in his text we were encouraged to visit other gyms as well.

You seem to find it undesirable to have a standard core from which thinks can be modified etc. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I have a question. Does anybody know how many techniques are taught in TKD that are not in any of the forms? Just curious.

I think the first issue would be to decide when is a technique so different that it is not in the forms. If only a middle block is shown in the form and it can be done high is this a different technique? If only done in forms as a rear leg technique turning backward but can be done as a lead leg or turning forward is this different?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Well, as I said originally (you did read that post, right?), ...... If you can't think of a way to apply a movement other than the obvious applications that are used to explain the movements in forms, your understanding is not mature.

Hmmmmmm I guess this guy's understanding was not "Mature" (BTW I agree with the continuum thing)

"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick.
After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick.
Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."
-- Bruce Lee

 

[pdg]

Hmmmmmm I guess this guy's understanding was not "Mature" (BTW I agree with the continuum thing)

"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick.
After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick.
Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."
-- Bruce Lee

I'd have to ask him as to context really...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Right. And I have no problem with encouraging people to explore and see what they come up with. I have no problem with "down block and then grab the leg" as a lesson. I also have no problem with "this is what we learned in the form, here's what you can do after that block."

What I have a problem with is when people take a single motion in the form, and tell you that the motion teaches you a combination that includes half a dozen other things.

This goes to the "fit" I was talking about in the "new school" thread. The indirect applications are a concept. Some folks tend toward conceptual thinking, and others tend toward more direct/literal thinking. I'm highly conceptual, so what I see as apparent, logical, and easily acceptable might not be any of those things to you, and that doesn't have much to do with maturity in training. If the conceptual stretch of finding indirect applications doesn't work for you now (some folks do learn to find them more readily, even if they aren't naturally conceptual), then just don't worry about that link. Practice the forms for the movement, exercise, and discipline - the things we can see directly in the forms. Practice the techniques and applications. And don't worry too much about the link unless and until the link works for you.

I believe there are some instructors who don't teach these links, because the links don't work for them. They're just more direct/literal than that. I don't really think that's a problem. I like finding links like that, but I'm not sure there's a distinct advantage to training things as applications from movement in a form, versus just training them as applications to a technique.

We teach a Jab-Reverse-Hook-Uppercut combination. I can't just teach a jab and say "now you know this whole combination." I can teach a jab, and then say "here are some combinations that use the jab" and then show the whole combo. But in order for it to be effective, I'd also have to teach the reverse punch, hook punch, and uppercut.

I can't just say "go do 1000 jabs" and expect the other 3 punches to be there.

All that said, let me clarify something I think I said in another thread. I don't think anyone is saying that the forms are teaching the combinations that aren't in the forms. I think the assertion is that the form teaches movements that can be used within those combinations - perhaps all of the movements, or perhaps the form only contains key movements. That's that conceptual stretch I was talking about.

So, think of it more like you've taught the jab, 5 kicks, the reverse, 7 blocks, a hook, and an uppercut. You've also taught some basic footwork. You tell your students, "We're going to work a combination now. You've worked all of these pieces, though not quite this way. Notice that the starting point for the reverse is different (because we're starting at the end of the jab). And you'll have to end that hook a bit differently to have access to the uppercut. Now, let's look at the footwork adjustments you'll need to link those together."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I guess there is where we will agree to disagree and it likely comes from my experience. It made us crazy when we had hardly any reference materials and the "Pioneers" all told us different stuff about what we should do. My first instructor was a school teacher and when we got the first reference material and pointed out differences in what these pioneers taught and what we were doing he decided that the best way to have uniformity in the system was to use that which was taught in the reference material as the standard. This was not to say we couldn't learn and do other stuff as well. In fact just s General Choi mentions in his text we were encouraged to visit other gyms as well.

You seem to find it undesirable to have a standard core from which thinks can be modified etc. We will have to agree to disagree.

This, too, might link to some of what I was just saying to @skribs. To me, having different instructions from different people simply opens up good questions of "why". I actually know the two best active technicians in NGA teach some very specific differences in Classical techniques (short forms). I actually like that - it gives me something to dig into.

Personally, I'm not much interested in uniformity, except at a high level (meaning, the same basic fundamentals - perhaps the same technique, but not necessarily the same detail in the techniques). Mind you, I don't think I'm the norm in that, and it can be easier for early students when they see uniformity among instructors at a seminar, for instance.

In the Aikido world, there's a situation similar to yours. Saito Morihiro trained directly under the founder of that art (Ueshiba Morihei). He strived to teach exactly as his instructor taught, including finally getting access to old manuals that supported that he had changed nothing. While I think that's fascinating, I also wonder how much his students missed out on because Saito never added any of his own knowledge and understanding. Saito was by all reports an excellent instructor, so I can't say there was anything wrong with what he did - I just wonder how much progress the art missed out on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'd have to ask him as to context really...

Agreed. I think Lee often gave sound bites he knew would work well. I'm not entirely convinced all of them were as deep as they sounded.

This one, though, I've long thought was both deep and simple. But that's me reading my interpretation into it (which, perhaps, was what he intended...see above).

 

[skribs]

Skribs, it's worth considering something here: you are from a highly literal, highly explicit culture where direct expression is preferred over metaphor, simile, and context sensitivity, and singular clarity is preferred over ambiguity.

MA forms, on the other hand, stem from cultures where the opposite of those things is true.

If you look at forms through one cultural lens, you'll see one thing. Through another lens, another.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:

1. For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
2. To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
3. To catalog techniques and concepts for future instructors to ensure a preservation of the curriculum
4. To build muscle memory in techniques and concepts to be used later
5. To be used as a building-off point for experimentation and variation that students can use to apply the techniques

Now, a lot of the people suggesting that a down block isn't just a down block, it's a down block, grab, and sweep, are suggesting that the forms are being used like the 5th point above. Where the forms are taught, and then gone back on to explore how the techniques in the form can be used in combination with each other and in combination with other techniques in order to teach a greater number of concepts.

I don't disagree that this is a good teaching method, and I don't disagree that schools do this with some of the basic techniques in the forms. While we don't explicitly state it, the stances and blocks we use in our self defense come from our forms. However, there are a lot of blocks we use in the forms, which are not expanded on in our self defense. For the most part, every single-hand block we use will come up. We use the knife-hand block, outside block, inside block, high block, down block, and palm blocks in our self defense. We even use the combo inside/outside block from Keumgang and the low X-block and high X-block (not sure if they come from the other Palgwe forms but they're in our Palgwe 7). So in this sense, I can see that the techniques are being applied in this way.

But it is not universal. Scissor block, double-knife hand block, augmented outside block, double outside block (the first technique after the kiyhap in Keumgang), double low block (the next technique in Keumgang), diamond low block and diamond middle block (the crane stance block in Keumgang and the first part of the combo in Taebaek)...none of these are used.

There's also the weird case with some of these that the cart comes before the horse. For example, we use the X blocks in our orange belt curriculum, but they don't come into a form until high red belt (usually 2 years later). We teach the basic chop as low as purple belt, but it doesn't show up in a form until red belt.

So while our beginner and intermediate forms seem to be used in this way, where the stances and the basic blocks are used in combination with other techniques, the advanced forms don't appear to follow this mold. Once you get to blue belt, the majority of the new techniques in each form don't really show up outside of the form.

I could take 95% of the techniques in our first 8 forms (5 kibons and 3 palgwes) and use them as the start of a combo, or as a prominent piece of a combo. It drops significantly for any of the forms after that.

So, think of it more like you've taught the jab, 5 kicks, the reverse, 7 blocks, a hook, and an uppercut. You've also taught some basic footwork. You tell your students, "We're going to work a combination now. You've worked all of these pieces, though not quite this way. Notice that the starting point for the reverse is different (because we're starting at the end of the jab). And you'll have to end that hook a bit differently to have access to the uppercut. Now, let's look at the footwork adjustments you'll need to link those together."

The problem here is that most of these other pieces aren't in the forms.

That's not to say they can't be taught and then combined with what's in the forms. But you can't say that the application comes from the forms, when you have to add a lot to what the forms teach in order to make the application work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:

1. For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
2. To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
3. To catalog techniques and concepts for future instructors to ensure a preservation of the curriculum
4. To build muscle memory in techniques and concepts to be used later
5. To be used as a building-off point for experimentation and variation that students can use to apply the techniques

Now, a lot of the people suggesting that a down block isn't just a down block, it's a down block, grab, and sweep, are suggesting that the forms are being used like the 5th point above. Where the forms are taught, and then gone back on to explore how the techniques in the form can be used in combination with each other and in combination with other techniques in order to teach a greater number of concepts.

I don't disagree that this is a good teaching method, and I don't disagree that schools do this with some of the basic techniques in the forms. While we don't explicitly state it, the stances and blocks we use in our self defense come from our forms. However, there are a lot of blocks we use in the forms, which are not expanded on in our self defense. For the most part, every single-hand block we use will come up. We use the knife-hand block, outside block, inside block, high block, down block, and palm blocks in our self defense. We even use the combo inside/outside block from Keumgang and the low X-block and high X-block (not sure if they come from the other Palgwe forms but they're in our Palgwe 7). So in this sense, I can see that the techniques are being applied in this way.

But it is not universal. Scissor block, double-knife hand block, augmented outside block, double outside block (the first technique after the kiyhap in Keumgang), double low block (the next technique in Keumgang), diamond low block and diamond middle block (the crane stance block in Keumgang and the first part of the combo in Taebaek)...none of these are used.

There's also the weird case with some of these that the cart comes before the horse. For example, we use the X blocks in our orange belt curriculum, but they don't come into a form until high red belt (usually 2 years later). We teach the basic chop as low as purple belt, but it doesn't show up in a form until red belt.

So while our beginner and intermediate forms seem to be used in this way, where the stances and the basic blocks are used in combination with other techniques, the advanced forms don't appear to follow this mold. Once you get to blue belt, the majority of the new techniques in each form don't really show up outside of the form.

I could take 95% of the techniques in our first 8 forms (5 kibons and 3 palgwes) and use them as the start of a combo, or as a prominent piece of a combo. It drops significantly for any of the forms after that.



The problem here is that most of these other pieces aren't in the forms.

That's not to say they can't be taught and then combined with what's in the forms. But you can't say that the application comes from the forms, when you have to add a lot to what the forms teach in order to make the application work.

I'm busy getting ready to bake, so will have to come back for the rest - wanted to give a thought on this one. I wouldn't say those applications come from the forms, but that they are applications of movements found in the forms. They require other information, and the link isn't necessary.

For comparison, in NGA, this:

is taught as an application of this:

You'll notice much of the movement - indeed the actual method of applying the arm bar - isn't in the Classical form. But the principle is. So we can't at all say the Classical form teaches that application. You'd never get to that by just practicing the Classical form. But studying the Classical form will reinforce something about it (in the NGA example, the principle of the lock - in the TKD example, a part of the movement and perhaps the balance and transition with it).

As I said, if the link doesn't work for you, just ignore it. Use the form for what it works for, for you. You can absolutely learn the "applications" without the tie to the form (just as I could - and sometimes do - teach the wrap-around Arm Bar without the Classical form).

 

[skribs]

I'm busy getting ready to bake, so will have to come back for the rest - wanted to give a thought on this one. I wouldn't say those applications come from the forms, but that they are applications of movements found in the forms. They require other information, and the link isn't necessary.

For comparison, in NGA, this:

is taught as an application of this:

You'll notice much of the movement - indeed the actual method of applying the arm bar - isn't in the Classical form. But the principle is. So we can't at all say the Classical form teaches that application. You'd never get to that by just practicing the Classical form. But studying the Classical form will reinforce something about it (in the NGA example, the principle of the lock - in the TKD example, a part of the movement and perhaps the balance and transition with it).

As I said, if the link doesn't work for you, just ignore it. Use the form for what it works for, for you. You can absolutely learn the "applications" without the tie to the form (just as I could - and sometimes do - teach the wrap-around Arm Bar without the Classical form).

I think there's a difference, too, in that you're working with another person in your form, so you can work on principles like leverage and feeling the joint manipulation.

Taekwondo forms are solo (unless done as part of a group demonstration), so the only thing you can get out of it is the movements that you do, and not how an opponent responds.

We do this a lot in Hapkido. We have 27 "forms" for our white belt, which start off with someone grabbing you, and then you have to reverse the grab, take them down, and make them tap. At the white belt level, you're expected to follow the script. And if they don't fall the right way, you might get some advice on how to modify the technique, but you're not expected to be good at that yet.

As a green belt, I've seen enough different situations that if someone falls a different way than I expect, I can modify it without much trouble most of the time. We also do scenarios, and we will apply techniques for one type of grab in a different way. (In class yesterday, my Master was very impressed with one of the white belts who did a great job of doing this).

But these are forms where we're working with another person, and techniques that we already see how they work in practice. Typically we'll just apply them in a different way. That's different from having a lot of techniques that are arbitrary and don't really serve a purpose.

---

Off-topic a bit, but regarding those two videos:

The first video, I really like that technique and I'm going to have to try it. The only issue I have is that in our hapkido, we try to be in positions where you don't have to worry about that other hand punching, but it looks like an effective technique and is not one I've seen.

The second video, I can't help but think "why doesn't the uke just pull his hand back?" There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him compliant with the technique, except the fact that he's not resisting or countering.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think there's a difference, too, in that you're working with another person in your form, so you can work on principles like leverage and feeling the joint manipulation.

Agreed. When I reference the forms I teach (in this thread, anyway), I'm referring to the long forms I created. They haven't been around long, but I already have seen some of the differences in students' approach to them. For mine, at least, I have the advantage that specific techniques are literal in each kata, though the flow from one to the next is similar to what someone else described here - no good reason why you'd be able to follow that flow in an actual fight.

Taekwondo forms are solo (unless done as part of a group demonstration), so the only thing you can get out of it is the movements that you do, and not how an opponent responds.

And this makes the applications inherently less direct in most cases. Personally, though when I created the forms I included specific techniques to encourage folks to use them and practice them, I don't think most of the striking in those forms can be applied the way it is in the forms - for the exact reasons you suggest.

We do this a lot in Hapkido. We have 27 "forms" for our white belt, which start off with someone grabbing you, and then you have to reverse the grab, take them down, and make them tap. At the white belt level, you're expected to follow the script. And if they don't fall the right way, you might get some advice on how to modify the technique, but you're not expected to be good at that yet.

As a green belt, I've seen enough different situations that if someone falls a different way than I expect, I can modify it without much trouble most of the time. We also do scenarios, and we will apply techniques for one type of grab in a different way. (In class yesterday, my Master was very impressed with one of the white belts who did a great job of doing this).

But these are forms where we're working with another person, and techniques that we already see how they work in practice. Typically we'll just apply them in a different way. That's different from having a lot of techniques that are arbitrary and don't really serve a purpose.

This is pretty similar to our Classical forms (with some bleed-over into what we'd consider "applications").

---

Off-topic a bit, but regarding those two videos:

The first video, I really like that technique and I'm going to have to try it. The only issue I have is that in our hapkido, we try to be in positions where you don't have to worry about that other hand punching, but it looks like an effective technique and is not one I've seen.

The second video, I can't help but think "why doesn't the uke just pull his hand back?" There doesn't seem to be anything keeping him compliant with the technique, except the fact that he's not resisting or countering.

The first video is the Classical form, so it starts from a neutral position. The rollover into the grip, done properly, puts uke's shoulder in his own way, so the other hand couldn't reach anything except your hands. Mind you, I don't think that point is often emphasized by other instructors - many don't consider the entry (the motions that come before the actual Arm Bar) to have separate importance, and only matter so far as they lead to the technique in question.

With the application, you'd have to see it with some speed and intent. The instructor is showing it with a lazy attack, to people who already know it. They're exploring a specific aspect of the lock in that session. My favorite use for it is when I over-enter - usually because I chose to enter from outside kicking distance at the same time they decided to step in and punch - and find myself inside that arm. The wrap is done quickly, essentially an over-hook they pull back on. You end up at the elbow if they don't get away, and can lock them out from there. Once the wrap is around the arm and reaches your own forearm, there's no pulling out - the lock is on. But you do have to keep worrying about that other hand, unless you use the lock to get a takedown, or apply enough pressure to submit them (in the street, probably just a destruction).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:

1. For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
2. To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
3. To catalog techniques and concepts for future instructors to ensure a preservation of the curriculum
4. To build muscle memory in techniques and concepts to be used later
5. To be used as a building-off point for experimentation and variation that students can use to apply the techniques

Now, a lot of the people suggesting that a down block isn't just a down block, it's a down block, grab, and sweep, are suggesting that the forms are being used like the 5th point above. Where the forms are taught, and then gone back on to explore how the techniques in the form can be used in combination with each other and in combination with other techniques in order to teach a greater number of concepts.

I don't disagree that this is a good teaching method, and I don't disagree that schools do this with some of the basic techniques in the forms. While we don't explicitly state it, the stances and blocks we use in our self defense come from our forms. However, there are a lot of blocks we use in the forms, which are not expanded on in our self defense. For the most part, every single-hand block we use will come up. We use the knife-hand block, outside block, inside block, high block, down block, and palm blocks in our self defense. We even use the combo inside/outside block from Keumgang and the low X-block and high X-block (not sure if they come from the other Palgwe forms but they're in our Palgwe 7). So in this sense, I can see that the techniques are being applied in this way.

But it is not universal. Scissor block, double-knife hand block, augmented outside block, double outside block (the first technique after the kiyhap in Keumgang), double low block (the next technique in Keumgang), diamond low block and diamond middle block (the crane stance block in Keumgang and the first part of the combo in Taebaek)...none of these are used.

There's also the weird case with some of these that the cart comes before the horse. For example, we use the X blocks in our orange belt curriculum, but they don't come into a form until high red belt (usually 2 years later). We teach the basic chop as low as purple belt, but it doesn't show up in a form until red belt.

So while our beginner and intermediate forms seem to be used in this way, where the stances and the basic blocks are used in combination with other techniques, the advanced forms don't appear to follow this mold. Once you get to blue belt, the majority of the new techniques in each form don't really show up outside of the form.

I could take 95% of the techniques in our first 8 forms (5 kibons and 3 palgwes) and use them as the start of a combo, or as a prominent piece of a combo. It drops significantly for any of the forms after that.



The problem here is that most of these other pieces aren't in the forms.

That's not to say they can't be taught and then combined with what's in the forms. But you can't say that the application comes from the forms, when you have to add a lot to what the forms teach in order to make the application work.

I'm not really sure how to explain this, but I think that you are trying to categorize and define things a lot more than they were intended to.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If it's not in the form, you can't say the form teaches it. I'm not saying you can't expand on what's in the form. But you can't claim it comes from the form.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Hmmmmmm I guess this guy's understanding was not "Mature" (BTW I agree with the continuum thing)

"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick.
After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick.
Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."
-- Bruce Lee

Do you think this quote is in the context of this discussion, to whit, the usefulness of forms for teaching movement? I sort of doubt it since, if I recall correctly, JKD doesn't use forms.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Do you think this quote is in the context of this discussion, to whit, the usefulness of forms for teaching movement? I sort of doubt it since, if I recall correctly, JKD doesn't use forms.

Yes, although not limited to "Forms" he also used the term "classical Mess" to describe standardized ways of doing things in martial arts. IMO this referred to classical systems being locked into a certain way of doing things for a certain specified purpose. My thought is that when he said this he as also limiting that which might be inferred .

 

[dvcochran]

One of the things the developers explicitly stated about these forms is that they are not to be considered as choreographed fights.

A good example. The beginning of Palgwae II is a left front stance with a high block, followed by a rear leg front snap kick, then stepping down into a right front stance and doing a middle punch.

It doesn't take an advanced degree in physiology to notice that if you're close enough to do the high block, you're too close to throw the front snap kick (well, ok, you could kick them in the ankle...), let alone stepping forward into the punch. The ranges are all wrong.

If you were trying to use something similar to this in practice, you'd throw the kick with the front leg, and even then it would be at a fairly low target (probably no higher than the beltline). Higher would be possible, depending on the exact conditions at the time. Stepping forward would make an elbow a more likely follow up move than a punch.

On the other hand, the same basic series of motions can be used, if we want to.

The high block would have to be done much farther out from the body than is taught in forms. Consider someone moving towards you, reaching for a grab. The block would (in this example) be more circular, turning it into a wrist grab.
As you're moving/grabbing their wrist, you could throw a rear leg kick (though, again, it probably would not be high). Then stepping forward would allow you to either strike with one hand while controlling their arm from the wrist grab, or perform various grapples.

As you can see, using the series as it's presented in the form requires you to think about movements, not techniques, since the ranges and details of the movements are quite different than the stylized movements used in forms.

One food for thought way I heard a MDK Master explain the first Palgwae II move is that the high block is for an attack coming from behind concurrent with turning to attack with the kick & punch. Makes it more workable on the surface but I agree, it is about building foundational movements, not choreographed fighting. If a mental image makes it easier for a person to noodle out, all the better.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yes, although not limited to "Forms" he also used the term "classical Mess" to describe standardized ways of doing things in martial arts. IMO this referred to classical systems being locked into a certain way of doing things for a certain specified purpose. My thought is that when he said this he as also limiting that which might be inferred .

So, you think he meant a literal, picture perfect correlation between forms and application doesn't exist. I'd agree with him.

One food for thought way I heard a MDK Master explain the first Palgwae II move is that the high block is for an attack coming from behind concurrent with turning to attack with the kick & punch. Makes it more workable on the surface but I agree, it is about building foundational movements, not choreographed fighting. If a mental image makes it easier for a person to noodle out, all the better.

Seems a stretch to me, honestly. In such a situation, especially in such a basic form, it seems unlikely you'd be performing a blind block. Especially since it's exceptionally unlikely that an attack from behind would be stopped by that block; the attack would need to be way way forward, rather than simply smacking the back of the head.

 

[Gnarlie]

The way that I see it, in general, forms can be used in a few ways:

1. For physical purposes, such as exercise, to build strength and flexibility, coordination and balance, etc.
2. To directly teach techniques and concepts to students
3. To catalog techniques and concepts for future instructors to ensure a preservation of the curriculum
4. To build muscle memory in techniques and concepts to be used later
5. To be used as a building-off point for experimentation and variation that students can use to apply the techniques

Now, a lot of the people suggesting that a down block isn't just a down block, it's a down block, grab, and sweep, are suggesting that the forms are being used like the 5th point above. Where the forms are taught, and then gone back on to explore how the techniques in the form can be used in combination with each other and in combination with other techniques in order to teach a greater number of concepts.

I don't disagree that this is a good teaching method, and I don't disagree that schools do this with some of the basic techniques in the forms. While we don't explicitly state it, the stances and blocks we use in our self defense come from our forms. However, there are a lot of blocks we use in the forms, which are not expanded on in our self defense. For the most part, every single-hand block we use will come up. We use the knife-hand block, outside block, inside block, high block, down block, and palm blocks in our self defense. We even use the combo inside/outside block from Keumgang and the low X-block and high X-block (not sure if they come from the other Palgwe forms but they're in our Palgwe 7). So in this sense, I can see that the techniques are being applied in this way.

But it is not universal. Scissor block, double-knife hand block, augmented outside block, double outside block (the first technique after the kiyhap in Keumgang), double low block (the next technique in Keumgang), diamond low block and diamond middle block (the crane stance block in Keumgang and the first part of the combo in Taebaek)...none of these are used.

There's also the weird case with some of these that the cart comes before the horse. For example, we use the X blocks in our orange belt curriculum, but they don't come into a form until high red belt (usually 2 years later). We teach the basic chop as low as purple belt, but it doesn't show up in a form until red belt.

So while our beginner and intermediate forms seem to be used in this way, where the stances and the basic blocks are used in combination with other techniques, the advanced forms don't appear to follow this mold. Once you get to blue belt, the majority of the new techniques in each form don't really show up outside of the form.

I could take 95% of the techniques in our first 8 forms (5 kibons and 3 palgwes) and use them as the start of a combo, or as a prominent piece of a combo. It drops significantly for any of the forms after that.



The problem here is that most of these other pieces aren't in the forms.

That's not to say they can't be taught and then combined with what's in the forms. But you can't say that the application comes from the forms, when you have to add a lot to what the forms teach in order to make the application work.

I feel like my post fell on deaf ears. Just saying.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk