What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[skribs]

Nope. At least in Shotokan, no. A few TKD people here seem to think that all the application was removed and watered down when they took it from Shotokan. I am not a TKD guy, so I don't know a lot about what was done with it. But, I had always thought that they kept the applications and that the slight differences to Shotokan were the influence of the older Korean arts. But what do I know...

I think we've figured out the biggest part of the problem here. I'm asking in this post about Taekwondo training methods, and not knowing Taekwondo, you can't answer this post. You can't answer why Taekwondo does it this way or what applications Taekwondo gets out of it, because you have no experience here.

That's not to say you don't know anything. But I'm specifically looking at the reasons we do this in Taekwondo, and what the Taekwondo masters want us to learn from these. If I were to ask you about Karate I'm sure it'd be different.

Many people have shown many, many practical applications of the techniques within your form, if you go back and look at the past threads. There have been many videos showing many of the practical applications. But you dismissed all of them outright, because your master did not show you that.

I didn't dismiss all of them. I dismissed a lot of them. And it's not because "my master did not show me that." It's because the techniques as taught in the Kukkiwon forms (and from what I can tell, many Taekwondo or Karate forms) don't look like the techniques I saw. And because in both Taekwondo and Karate videos I've seen, those techniques are named a certain way.

It's not about what my Master teaches, although it is. It's about what I've seen in all of my research. We have a movement. We have several applications for similar movements, but not that particular movement or position. And that movement and position is common across all the styles I looked at, but the application videos and discussion rarely fit that.

Any ideas that I rejected, I rejected not out of rejecting their experience. I rejected because it didn't fit the motion. I had good discussions with some people on how to fit an application to what is being taught. I had bad discussions with people who wanted to discuss something different.

So, apparently, there are no applications, since your master never showed you any. Or is he waiting for you to start finding them yourself... maybe move into the Ha stage?

Again, this goes back to you not being a Taekwondo person. There isn't room in the Taekwondo forms for interpretation. I'm not saying you can't find application in them, but when you train the forms - you train them to be an exact replica of the way your Master does it. Every detail is chosen, from where your toes point, exactly where each hand is, your timing, your breathing, everything is scripted in the form.

Just as the less clear ones become clear, once you understand... the ones you don't get will eventually become less clear, and then clear... as you progress.

Well, that's what I'm looking for!

You have been shown many training applications in these threads. Balance, transition, power generation, flexibility, strength, combinations, flow, structure, accuracy, proper body movement.... And you dismiss all of those explanations, because your master didn't say it. Or could he be giving you the opportunity to discover some of these things yourself?

So first off...I haven't dismissed these applications. That you think I'm dismissing these is an error in judgment on your part. I have not dismissed a single one of these. In fact, in some cases, I'm saying I know these are training applications. I haven't rejected them. I understand them. This is why I am saying "maybe the question isn't the problem." You're getting upset with me for something I haven't even done.

What I'm asking is what is the reason the Taekwondo masters want us to do these. Is it more aesthetics or training? Is there something I'm missing or is there a technical application that I'm missing?

The problem is definitely not with your questions. The answers have been pretty good too. But, the answers have all been discarded out of hand because you don't do that at your school.

If you'll re-read my posts, you'll notice I've said it doesn't seem common in Taekwondo as a whole to take the form and find application in it. But again, goes back to you not being a Taekwondo person.

If you won't accept or entertain the answers you get, from people with many more years in martial arts and in TKD... why even ask the question? You asked before "what is this part of the knife hand block?" You then dismissed any answer that was not "It is a knife hand block, of a punch." But you knew that already. If you didn't want any other answer, why ask? There were many, many answers given, only to be dismissed, because you either don't do it that way in your school or your school has no time to do it, or because it was not a knife hand block.

If you really don't see any practical applications or training applications or any other applications or reasons for training the way you are, why are you doing it? Go take kickboxing. Why do you have this goal of being a master of something that you see no practical, training or other application for?

My suggestion is to go back to those threads, re-read those answers. Work on them, try them out, experiment with them. Take the ideas your were given in this thread, apply them, look at your training differently. Martial arts is your own personal journey, that you have to take. Your master can't hand it to you... if he did, you wouldn't have 90% of it. Maybe your master doesn't say and do these things because he is allowing his students to explore and find them... that way the students get the most out of their training. (yes, that would be exactly like that Shu-Ha-Ri thing again... which you don't do)

Look, I know that you don't really appreciate my input. So, I will leave this thread alone now. I am sure I missed some reason why it doesn't work that way for you... But, my intention was always to just help out and share what few pieces I am working on myself. Ignoring my posts, there has been a lot of great knowledge shared in these threads, by people with a ton of experience and training. I have learned a bunch from reading their responses. The answers are there, they just might not be what you expected. Anyway, I hope you find what you are looking for.

I did dismiss those answers. You're right. Not because I thought they were wrong, but because they were outside the scope of the question.

 

[skribs]

Dude, your questions have been answered many times by many different voices. You are just not hearing them for some reason. In answer to your numbered possibilities; number 2, definitely number 2. It would appear your point of view of TKD is very narrow. Maybe try working out at/with other people/schools/styles to get some perspective. That doesn't mean you are being disloyal as long as you do it the right way.

The first thing you need to understand me is that I almost always play Devil's Advocate, because it's the best way to draw out the best answers. Me questioning someone's post doesn't mean I disagree with them or reject their idea. I just want to fully understand the situation, and asking questions helps get more depth in those answers.

With that said, there are 7 voices in this thread other than my own. Let's look at how those have gone:

1. The first voice talked about unification and standardization of the forms. I asked how that applies when schools in the Kukkiwon are not required to do the Taegeuk forms, and you can do the forms your Master chooses.
   
   That's not to say the application he provided is wrong or that I "reject it". It's just to dig a little deeper into that paradox. Where yes, I agree accuracy in the form is important, but then why are we not all doing the same form?
   
   
2. The second voice talked about how forms give you a sense of balance, power and precision. Which I understand how the basic forms help with that, but I'm iffy on how the advanced forms do that.
   
   From this point, you can say "well here's how they do that" or you can say "well you reject this opinion so we might as well scold you."
   
   
3. The third voice was a discussion on Karate training methods. Which, it is good information and I've read similar posts from @wab25 on other threads and agreed with it there. But that's not the training model used at Taekwondo schools, so discussing that training model isn't relevant in this thread.
   
   So yes, I reject this one. But only because it doesn't address the question.
   
   
4. Then there's the fourth voice, which piggy-backed off the first voice. He and I had a good discussion going.
   
   
5. The fifth and sixth voice I haven't even responded to yet.
6. 
   
   
7. The 7th voice is yours. And you're complaining that I'm not listening to anyone. Well, I've had a good discussion going with the 1st and 4th voice, I wanted to dig deeper with the 2nd voice. And I haven't had a chance to respond to voices 5 & 6 yet. The only one I've rejected is Voice 3.

And why do you think I'm asking here? I can go to local schools and get ideas one at a time, or I can ask here and get advice from dozens of people. This is a far more efficient way of gathering information.

 

[skribs]

My guess would be they’re enjoyable to do.

I mean, you guys do enjoy them, ya?

I do. But I'm also getting to a point in Taekwondo where it feels we simply have more forms and patterns to learn.

Which is strange, because in our Hapkido class (taught by the same master) even at the orange belt level we're learning applications and modifications of the techniques we learn.

When I asked my grandmaster told me that the application and bunkai from the way of fighting that was trained around the time of the unification was pretty much mostly forgotten or just not passed on by a lot of schools once tkd became the national sport and the sport of sparring became the direction. (contextually speaking about academies and sports clubs in the KTA/WTF circles in South Korea during the 70s and 80s).

This is what it seems based on most of the discussions I've had.

 

[Gnarlie]

For the most part, though, people DO do their own thing. The school I'm at teaches the Palgwes instead of the Taegeuks. And the Palgwes we learn are not the same Palgwes you'll find anywhere else. Our #1 form has minor differences (i.e. whether it's an inside or outside block, whether it's back stance or front stance). And when I look it up on YouTube, it seems every school has minor differences, too. By the time you get to Palgwe 7 or 8, ours are so much different from the others I find, there's maybe one move in the whole form that's similar. (I do think our advanced forms are more difficult than the others, they're just different).

This makes your school an outlier. I'm in the same world as Andy Jeffries, and there's very much a standard for KKW TKD Poomsae. That is the 8 Taegeuk forms and the 9 KKW recognised Black Belt Poomsae Koryo to Ilyeo. Palgwae is no longer recognised as a set for testing purposes.

So yes, there are people out there doing their own thing, but they are not practising the KKW standard.

I think this factor contributes to your situation.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Gnarlie]

My issue is that as you get to the more advanced forms, you start seeing techniques where the application isn't apparent, and in Taekwondo we don't usually do Bunkai.

For example?

There are some movements in Poomsae which are more suited to practical use than others. The KKW textbook makes that point explicitly.

That does not mean the less practically-suited motions do not have a purpose.

When looking for application, it's not about the way the movement looks, but the way it feels to perform. Most application of Taekwondo motions is smaller, faster, and more one-sided than the traditional stylised motion in the Poomsae. An applied motion can look completely different to the poomsae motion, but it feels similar to perform.

A good example is the 270 turn in Taegeuk 6 Jang. A high kick and a 270 turn to low block in Apkubi becomes a low leg sweep or kick and an arm drag takedown. Completely different in look but absolutely similar in feel.







Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[DaveB]

We learn the forms. We don't learn any application from the form. Once you get past the basic forms, there isn't much connection between our forms and our practical training. As far as the forms themselves go, we learn the movements and techniques, but that's it. As @andyjeffries said, we're going for accuracy in the form. There isn't room to deviate, and there aren't applications drawn from it. We never really get to a point where we question the form, experiment with the concepts in the form, or draw application from them. We do the form...and then we move on to the next drill.

And from what I can tell, this is pretty consistent. Because when I ask the question, people get confused. When I look up the applications of the techniques, it's very hard to find discussion on it. It seems I get a lot of best guesses and "we tried a bunch of things and this was closest to the result".

The possibilities from this point are:

1. There is a practical application I am missing.
2. There is a training application I am missing.
3. The motions are chosen based on aesthetics more than any particular application
4. Some other reason I've missed
5. Some combination of the above

Now, don't get me wrong, several techniques have a very clear Motion -> Application. Some are less clear, but once explained I can see how it works. But there are lots of techniques as you get into the advanced forms which don't really seem to have a purpose, outside of potentially a scripted fight. Augmented blocks, mountain blocks, double strikes, a lot of these things aren't something I can see being used outside of a movie. So what is the purpose for these in a form?



I have engaged in good discussions with plenty of people in these threads. Perhaps the problem isn't with my questions?

The problem I have is that, like I said above, I'm asking a question, and the answers I'm getting don't quite fit the question. It's not about getting the answer I want, it's about getting the question I asked answered.

This is, in fact, a different question. The previous questions have been regarding the practical uses of those techniques in a fight. This is the purpose for training those techniques.

And, if I knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking the question here, now would I?

TKD was invented as a way of reclaiming cultural identity that had barely survived being ground down by the Japanese.

Forms are a common feature of martial arts so when TKD was formulated it had to have forms as well.

The benefits of forms as the early founders of TKD would have been taught, are:
A standard means of drilling and demonstrating techniques.
A grading standard that can differentiate ranks.
Balance and coordination enhancement.
A means to instill discipline.
Whatever spiritualism/mental attitudes you want to teach can be bolted onto them.

That is why you do forms in TKD.

Higher grade forms exist to give masters something to teach.

Shotokan started this trend. It's why until recently high level Shotokan kata seminars were about increasingly fine performance details and almost nothing to do with applications.

If this answer still misses the mark let me know.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Application was not a component of the martial arts training on which Taekwondo was based. It was specifically removed for various political reasons. Hence it is not present in Taekwondo patterns.

.

False, General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.

 

[skribs]

For example?

There are some movements in Poomsae which are more suited to practical use than others. The KKW textbook makes that point explicitly.

That does not mean the less practically-suited motions do not have a purpose.

When looking for application, it's not about the way the movement looks, but the way it feels to perform. Most application of Taekwondo motions is smaller, faster, and more one-sided than the traditional stylised motion in the Poomsae. An applied motion can look completely different to the poomsae motion, but it feels similar to perform.

A good example is the 270 turn in Taegeuk 6 Jang. A high kick and a 270 turn to low block in Apkubi becomes a low leg sweep or kick and an arm drag takedown. Completely different in look but absolutely similar in feel.

There's tons of examples. Some may be more limited to my school and the more obscure versions of the Palgwes that we do, but I've seen most of these techniques in other places:

• Double knife-hand block (and it's derivatives)
• Augmented outside block
• Any double block (i.e. the scissor block in Taebaek, or from Keumgang: double outside block, double low block, diamond block, mountain block).

What do you mean by "more one-sided"?

 

[skribs]

False, General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.

As in, he had bad applications? Or he said "if you use this application, you're wrong."?

 

[skribs]

This makes your school an outlier. I'm in the same world as Andy Jeffries, and there's very much a standard for KKW TKD Poomsae. That is the 8 Taegeuk forms and the 9 KKW recognised Black Belt Poomsae Koryo to Ilyeo. Palgwae is no longer recognised as a set for testing purposes.

So yes, there are people out there doing their own thing, but they are not practising the KKW standard.

I think this factor contributes to your situation.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Well, I have my KKW certificates, so I know that we can get our belts by learning the Palgwes instead. The school I was at when I was a kid, I believe they did Kibons, Palgwes, Taegeuks, and then had their own mini-forms called Exercises. So they did the Taegeuks, but did a lot of other stuff as well.

But...we were expected to do them the Master's way.

 

[Gnarlie]

Well, I have my KKW certificates, so I know that we can get our belts by learning the Palgwes instead. The school I was at when I was a kid, I believe they did Kibons, Palgwes, Taegeuks, and then had their own mini-forms called Exercises. So they did the Taegeuks, but did a lot of other stuff as well.

But...we were expected to do them the Master's way.

I don't doubt your certification or ability; but the Palgwae set hasn't been a recognised grading set since the 70's and as such ia not used for that purpose in the majority of KKW registered Dojangs. There are some outliers.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Gnarlie]

There's tons of examples. Some may be more limited to my school and the more obscure versions of the Palgwes that we do, but I've seen most of these techniques in other places:

• Double knife-hand block (and it's derivatives)
• Augmented outside block
• Any double block (i.e. the scissor block in Taebaek, or from Keumgang: double outside block, double low block, diamond block, mountain block).

What do you mean by "more one-sided"?

I have plenty of practical applications that feel similar to those motions. They do not look the same, but they have a similar feel and knowing the basic motion from poomsae helps in understanding the applied motion.

By one sided, I mean the hand pulled to the hip may not be present, and the focus is on the active hand.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[skribs]

I have plenty of practical applications that feel similar to those motions. They do not look the same, but they have a similar feel and knowing the basic motion from poomsae helps in understanding the applied motion.

By one sided, I mean the hand pulled to the hip may not be present, and the focus is on the active hand.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Do you think that it is purely aesthetic, or is there a training purpose for the pulling hand?

EDIT to add:

I have 2 theories on this, I don't know how right they are.

1. The pulling hand is to help teach the proper body rotation to get power into the techniques. This doesn't apply as much with a crossing motion like an outside block or down block, but it works for inside blocks and punches.
2. Focusing on the other hand forces you to think about that hand and not just leave it hanging. This would actually kind of help explain a lot of the blocks I mentioned earlier that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.

Both of these go the mind-body connection aspect of training.

 

[Gnarlie]

Do you think that it is purely aesthetic, or is there a training purpose for the pulling hand?

Both.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[skribs]

Both.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Can you elaborate on what that training purpose might be?

(Also note I edited my above post, probably while you were typing).

 

[dvcochran]

The first thing you need to understand me is that I almost always play Devil's Advocate, because it's the best way to draw out the best answers. Me questioning someone's post doesn't mean I disagree with them or reject their idea. I just want to fully understand the situation, and asking questions helps get more depth in those answers.

With that said, there are 7 voices in this thread other than my own. Let's look at how those have gone:

1. The first voice talked about unification and standardization of the forms. I asked how that applies when schools in the Kukkiwon are not required to do the Taegeuk forms, and you can do the forms your Master chooses.
   
   That's not to say the application he provided is wrong or that I "reject it". It's just to dig a little deeper into that paradox. Where yes, I agree accuracy in the form is important, but then why are we not all doing the same form?
   
   
2. The second voice talked about how forms give you a sense of balance, power and precision. Which I understand how the basic forms help with that, but I'm iffy on how the advanced forms do that.
   
   From this point, you can say "well here's how they do that" or you can say "well you reject this opinion so we might as well scold you."
   
   
3. The third voice was a discussion on Karate training methods. Which, it is good information and I've read similar posts from @wab25 on other threads and agreed with it there. But that's not the training model used at Taekwondo schools, so discussing that training model isn't relevant in this thread.
   
   So yes, I reject this one. But only because it doesn't address the question.
   
   
4. Then there's the fourth voice, which piggy-backed off the first voice. He and I had a good discussion going.
   
   
5. The fifth and sixth voice I haven't even responded to yet.
6. 
   
   
7. The 7th voice is yours. And you're complaining that I'm not listening to anyone. Well, I've had a good discussion going with the 1st and 4th voice, I wanted to dig deeper with the 2nd voice. And I haven't had a chance to respond to voices 5 & 6 yet. The only one I've rejected is Voice 3.

And why do you think I'm asking here? I can go to local schools and get ideas one at a time, or I can ask here and get advice from dozens of people. This is a far more efficient way of gathering information.

(First, as an aside, do you know of a website where I can learn how to reply to specific portions of a post the way a lot of people do? Its embarrassing to admit being in control & automation, but I just haven't taken the time to figure it out and I don't want to send a lot of spooged up post.)

Are you familiar with the phrase "paralysis by analysis"? You are frozen. You are trying to answer the question from a purely academic and theoretical approach. Terrible idea. You must get a real world perspective and do the work. Not until you understand that each move does have purpose and do a move until it is engrained muscle memory can you mentally move forward in your thinking and application. Until then it is just "Shu" and words on paper. Remember, Tae and Kwan come before the Do.

I do feel Kukkiwon is creating dis-unification and confusion with their "rules" on poomsae. As you said, they do not hold a hard line on the forms a school teaches, which is a good thing to me because I do not like the Taegueks very much. It adds to the whole confusion of what TKD is. Rant over.
The Taegueks are elemental, and are decent at building blocks. The same is true for the Kibon and Palgwe forms on through the Kukkiwon BB forms.

I agree, it is frustrating that it is difficult to go online and get a group of opinions as to what an individual move in a Kukkiwon BB form is. The (intentional?)lack of Shu Ha Ri in the Kukkiwon poomsae approach is confusing. It reeks of political dispute. Jumping over the Ha to totally leave the practitioner to figure out their own meaning is akin to Koreas way of advancing people to BB quickly then expecting them to advance into seasoned Martial Artists.

So what is a form? If you must stay in the modern TKD vein, it is a necessary evil. A set of forms created to be able to say WT TKD is "traditional", if that means something to you. No one in Kukkiwon is concerned with creating a way to teach Ha because it is difficult to do with all the competing minds in Korean politics. The sport side is the intended end game of modern TKD, and will be its downfall if not changed.
If you are in a purely WT/Kukkiwon school that has zero other traditional influences, that is a very bad place to be. This is coming from a person who has been in the WTF for 34 years and made it to the Olympic Pregame Trials in 1988. So while I can say WT/Kukkiwon has been very good to me as a person, it is very apparent that organizationally they know there are huge holes that have never been filled and seem to be ok with that.

The best example I can think of is a gymnast. They do some incredible moves whose names I do not know. Many of these moves are used purely to push the physical boundaries of a person. Some do them well other not so much. But they are there and available to the above average gymnast. Isn't that what a BB is supposed to be in the Martial Arts?

So what does a thinking mind do? Quit thinking purely academically. Get on the floor and do the move(s) you do not understand. Get with a partner and think. What attack is this used for? Some of the moves we do were created in a time when hand-to-hand combat was more prevalent and the double moves did make sense. They still can if you allow them and believe in the "what if" expression. Don't expect to be spoon fed if you are a BB of any rank. Don't try too hard to fast forward the process. If you just take everyone else's answer, how will you ever have your own?

 

[skribs]

(First, as an aside, do you know of a website where I can learn how to reply to specific portions of a post the way a lot of people do? Its embarrassing to admit being in control & automation, but I just haven't taken the time to figure it out and I don't want to send a lot of spooged up post.)

There's two ways. The easy way is to highlight what you want to quote and click on the "+quote" button that appears. Then highlight the next section and +quote that, and so on.

After you get all the things you want to talk about, you click "insert quotes". All of the things you quoted will pop up and you confirm it, and voila! This is what I usually do.

The other way is to type the code yourself. Quote a whole piece. Then after a section you want to talk about, type [./quote] (without the period). Then put [.quote] (again, without the period) before the next section of the quote. This is what I did this time.

Are you familiar with the phrase "paralysis by analysis"? You are frozen. You are trying to answer the question from a purely academic and theoretical approach. Terrible idea. You must get a real world perspective and do the work. Not until you understand that each move does have purpose and do a move until it is engrained muscle memory can you mentally move forward in your thinking and application. Until then it is just "Shu" and words on paper. Remember, Tae and Kwan come before the Do.

Analysis Paralysis is usually something that occurs in the moment. I'm not analyzing things like this when I spar. I analyze things like this when I'm sitting at work waiting for patches to install, laying in bed trying to fall asleep, sitting in meetings trying NOT to fall asleep, driving, or when I'm practicing the forms at home.

It's just like my approach to video games. I do spreadsheets, read guides, and ask questions on forums. But when I get into the game, I've already done my knowledge-seeking and I can play.

I do feel Kukkiwon is creating dis-unification and confusion with their "rules" on poomsae. As you said, they do not hold a hard line on the forms a school teaches, which is a good thing to me because I do not like the Taegueks very much. It adds to the whole confusion of what TKD is. Rant over.
The Taegueks are elemental, and are decent at building blocks. The same is true for the Kibon and Palgwe forms on through the Kukkiwon BB forms.

I agree, it is frustrating that it is difficult to go online and get a group of opinions as to what an individual move in a Kukkiwon BB form is. The (intentional?)lack of Shu Ha Ri in the Kukkiwon poomsae approach is confusing. It reeks of political dispute. Jumping over the Ha to totally leave the practitioner to figure out their own meaning is akin to Koreas way of advancing people to BB quickly then expecting them to advance into seasoned Martial Artists.

So what is a form? If you must stay in the modern TKD vein, it is a necessary evil. A set of forms created to be able to say WT TKD is "traditional", if that means something to you. No one in Kukkiwon is concerned with creating a way to teach Ha because it is difficult to do with all the competing minds in Korean politics. The sport side is the intended end game of modern TKD, and will be its downfall if not changed.

If you are in a purely WT/Kukkiwon school that has zero other traditional influences, that is a very bad place to be. This is coming from a person who has been in the WTF for 34 years and made it to the Olympic Pregame Trials in 1988. So while I can say WT/Kukkiwon has been very good to me as a person, it is very apparent that organizationally they know there are huge holes that have never been filled and seem to be ok with that.

This is much the boat that I'm in right now. I don't necessarily have a problem with the Taegeuks. I think they're ok. I just like our forms better, and so does my Master.

I also wish our sparring wasn't completely focused on WT sparring (and lately we've been doing more freestyle light-contact sparring). This is why I really like our Hapkido, because our sparring in that class is entirely practical, and we do get to focus heavily on the application of the techniques.

So what does a thinking mind do? Quit thinking purely academically. Get on the floor and do the move(s) you do not understand. Get with a partner and think. What attack is this used for? Some of the moves we do were created in a time when hand-to-hand combat was more prevalent and the double moves did make sense. They still can if you allow them and believe in the "what if" expression. Don't expect to be spoon fed if you are a BB of any rank. Don't try too hard to fast forward the process. If you just take everyone else's answer, how will you ever have your own?

The problem with this approach is twofold:

1. Without some idea of where to start with some of these, there isn't really a way forward. If the original Karate application for a "block" was a single-leg throw, for example, you would first have to get into a single-leg grab and then realize you could do that motion to do the throw. How many iterations of techniques do you go through before you come to that conclusion? Or is there a shortcut method to figuring these out?
2. This gets exacerbated by the fact that, as discussed, many of the motions in the form are stylized versions of the form, where the actual motion is smaller and quicker. We have a red belt punch defense, which uses a double block similar to the mountain block in Keumgang (one inside block, one outside block). But because they look different enough, the vast majority of our 2nd degree students don't really make that connection and they do a double outside block (because both hands end up in the same position, they assume both hands do the same block) and it takes several times correcting them before they get it. And I'm not sure they connect the block in Keumgang to the block in our defense curriculum.

Now, maybe we're just not explaining it well. Maybe it's a fault of the form being stylized that the motions feel different. Maybe our curriculum feels too compartmentalized to try and connect them. Maybe the forms feel so abstract that people don't bother looking for an application. Or maybe because we don't teach people to find the application, we haven't learned to find it.

But I'm trying to find it. And I'm trying to get pointed in that direction. In order to do that, I need to know even what that direction is. I'm trying to figure out what I should be looking for in the form, so that I'm not wasting my time chasing an application that doesn't exist, or going down the wrong rabbit trail.

 

[DaveB]

False, General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.

Are there any examples available on the net?

My suspicion is that he learned and thus would show the Japanese psuedo applications that turned everything that wasn't a punch or obvious strike into a wired block. These were place holder explanations not actual combat methods.

 

[wab25]

Sorry... I couldn't help myself.... This will be the last one I promise.

Without some idea of where to start with some of these, there isn't really a way forward. If the original Karate application for a "block" was a single-leg throw, for example, you would first have to get into a single-leg grab and then realize you could do that motion to do the throw. How many iterations of techniques do you go through before you come to that conclusion? Or is there a shortcut method to figuring these out?

First, what does your master say when you ask him? (I am kind of curious about the double knife hand block... what does your master say about that other hand?)

Second, do some research.

General Choi's texts have numerous examples of applications. It also has numerous examples of bad applications or what he considered incorrect applications.

Go read General Choi's texts. I have been studying Shotokan for only about 5 years now, I am a middle kyu rank (whatever the purple belt is), but I am already reading Funakoshi's writings. I am researching what he taught and why, and how his students taught and why.

I keep bringing up Shotokan for a reason. It had a big influence on TKD. So researching what Shotokan did will help you understand the resulting influence on TKD. Also, go back a research the original Korean arts that Shotokan was blended with... get their take on things. Its a lot of book work here, but I find it useful.

Third, try some things. Experiment. If the move is a knife hand block to a punch... have you partner punch with the other hand. What changes to you have to make to block that punch? Have him throw hooks, and upper cuts and over hand punches... Figure out how to make that technique work for all those. Have him grab your wrist with one hand then the other. Will this move escape the grip? Can you make it lock up the other guy? Have him grab from the front, from the back.... Now move closer to the other guy and do the move...

You will find some things that work. Great! You will find other things that don't. When they don't work... look closer. Could you change your relationship to the other guy a bit to make it work? Is it a timing thing? In the end... you will be learning something more about the technique and more about you. I have found that just because I can not make it work, doesn't mean I was wrong... it usually means I am not doing something right. Many times, after progressing further, the application I couldn't make work, suddenly does. Sometimes it doesn't. But I have still learned a bunch about it, just by playing with it. I understand that you can't do this in your school because their is no time... You will have to find a way.

Fourth, talk to people, go to seminars... then experiment and try out the new ideas. (put me on ignore, go back to your older threads and try the stuff mentioned there... lots of good suggestions there... I did this, and learned a few things I would not have otherwise, from the suggestions made in your threads) Even if you don't see how it would work... try it out anyway. I have been surprised many times. Heck, train with people from other systems. (much of the Hapkido you are studying, is already in your TKD... the lunge punch is a hip throw...)

You keep telling Rat to go train. Same thing here. Go try this stuff, experiment with it, play with it. Take it out of the box. You may bring us back things we have not found yet.

 

[DaveB]

There's two ways. The easy way is to highlight what you want to quote and click on the "+quote" button that appears. Then highlight the next section and +quote that, and so on.

After you get all the things you want to talk about, you click "insert quotes". All of the things you quoted will pop up and you confirm it, and voila! This is what I usually do.

The other way is to type the code yourself. Quote a whole piece. Then after a section you want to talk about, type [./quote] (without the period). Then put [.quote] (again, without the period) before the next section of the quote. This is what I did this time.



Analysis Paralysis is usually something that occurs in the moment. I'm not analyzing things like this when I spar. I analyze things like this when I'm sitting at work waiting for patches to install, laying in bed trying to fall asleep, sitting in meetings trying NOT to fall asleep, driving, or when I'm practicing the forms at home.

It's just like my approach to video games. I do spreadsheets, read guides, and ask questions on forums. But when I get into the game, I've already done my knowledge-seeking and I can play.



This is much the boat that I'm in right now. I don't necessarily have a problem with the Taegeuks. I think they're ok. I just like our forms better, and so does my Master.

I also wish our sparring wasn't completely focused on WT sparring (and lately we've been doing more freestyle light-contact sparring). This is why I really like our Hapkido, because our sparring in that class is entirely practical, and we do get to focus heavily on the application of the techniques.



The problem with this approach is twofold:

1. Without some idea of where to start with some of these, there isn't really a way forward. If the original Karate application for a "block" was a single-leg throw, for example, you would first have to get into a single-leg grab and then realize you could do that motion to do the throw. How many iterations of techniques do you go through before you come to that conclusion? Or is there a shortcut method to figuring these out?
2. This gets exacerbated by the fact that, as discussed, many of the motions in the form are stylized versions of the form, where the actual motion is smaller and quicker. We have a red belt punch defense, which uses a double block similar to the mountain block in Keumgang (one inside block, one outside block). But because they look different enough, the vast majority of our 2nd degree students don't really make that connection and they do a double outside block (because both hands end up in the same position, they assume both hands do the same block) and it takes several times correcting them before they get it. And I'm not sure they connect the block in Keumgang to the block in our defense curriculum.

Now, maybe we're just not explaining it well. Maybe it's a fault of the form being stylized that the motions feel different. Maybe our curriculum feels too compartmentalized to try and connect them. Maybe the forms feel so abstract that people don't bother looking for an application. Or maybe because we don't teach people to find the application, we haven't learned to find it.

But I'm trying to find it. And I'm trying to get pointed in that direction. In order to do that, I need to know even what that direction is. I'm trying to figure out what I should be looking for in the form, so that I'm not wasting my time chasing an application that doesn't exist, or going down the wrong rabbit trail.

The post taeguk poomsae I've seen is literally just jumbled up karate kata sequences with some small variations. In some cases the applications carry in others less so.

But since your hellbent on working with them the thing you need to do is find Iain Abernethy's website and look for his oldest podcasts and books etc.

His old stuff dealt with the process of deriving applications and he's the most comprehensive source for that kind of info (And the only one I remember by name).

Essentially you discern applications by understanding a few basic rules that took lots of people years to work out between old books and interviews with even older karateka.

Once you have the rules applications will jump out at you and it's just for you to test them with ever increasing resistance and realism.

Once you've narrowed down the ones that work you figure out why they work and then you'll know everything you need to know to use them in a fight.