What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[skribs]

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.

I'll take a look when I get home.

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...

So I should have them throw every technique we know at me and see what sticks? What if the actual movement is different from the stylized movement? Just based on these variables, that's a lot of iterations. And that's assuming:

• I do the techniques correctly
• We think of every technique I might be countering
• We know that in order for this technique to work, I have to grab a certain way or target a particular weak point on my opponent

Part of teaching is so that we can pass down information we've learned. Take algebra for example. Pythagoras (or someone before him) took the time to work out that A^2 + B^2 = C^2. So we teach kids the Pythagorean Theorum, knowledge that has been passed down for eons, so they don't have to work it out. What was a revolutionary discovery for him is intermediate math for us today.

We then turn around and teach the kids how to prove the theory correct. But we're not expecting them to reinvent the wheel. I think the same thing applies here. There's a balance between relying on the wisdom of the people who came before you, and then being able to experiment on your own. But there's also no need for me to reinvent what's already been invented.

EDIT TO ADD: That's not to say I haven't found these applications. But more often I've found them by accident, or I've found them when someone's attacked me in a certain way and I've found out what works.

There hasn't been a "let me try all of these motions from the forms" moment, and there hasn't been a "let me try this motion, and you attack me every different way and we'll see what works." It's more been random luck that something that worked happened to resemble something from a form.

 

[wab25]

There's a balance between relying on the wisdom of the people who came before you, and then being able to experiment on your own. But there's also no need for me to reinvent what's already been invented.

Then maybe rely on the wisdom of the people here, with much more martial arts experience than you have... and experiment with the examples they have given you in these threads. Do some research on the names given in this thread and see where they point you.

Part of teaching is so that we can pass down information we've learned. Take algebra for example. Pythagoras (or someone before him) took the time to work out that A^2 + B^2 = C^2. So we teach kids the Pythagorean Theorum, knowledge that has been passed down for eons, so they don't have to work it out. What was a revolutionary discovery for him is intermediate math for us today.

There is a reason I gave a music example. Pick a song, go on youtube and see how many different arrangements and versions there are for it. They are all playing the same song, but none of them are wrong. You may like some better than others... But all those arrangements were made from the same song, using basics taught through different drills, that the artist did repeatedly. He then interpreted the situation (song) based on the forms (basics) that he practiced and or preferred. Some people block a punch to the inside, some to the outside, some parry it, some counter with a punch, some counter with a kick, some trap it... they are all right, they are all different. Some artists can play the same song in many different arrangements, depending on the situation. Sometimes they trap it, sometimes they block it to the outside...

You are a computer guy. So take the C++ code bases for Gran Turismo and Forza. If you were to look through the source code, these two games would look entirely different. Yet, they are both successful race car simulators. In fact, they both use Pythagorean's theorum quite a bit. In some places they may use it the same, in other places they may use it quite differently. They both use the same basics of physics and the same basics of coding and produce a successful outcome, even though they go about it in very different manners. The "Knife hand block" is not the theorum. The "knife hand block" is a mini game demonstrating the use of many theorums. The trick is to pick out the theorums, and see how those theorums are applied here... so that you can learn how to apply those theorums elsewhere, like in your game. You may find the same theorums in other mini games, used in other ways. Some people may focus on theorums in that mini game that you didn't. Other people may use those same theorums in ways you haven't thought of... other mini games may use those same theorums in different ways. It doesn't really matter how well you can play the mini game. What matters is how well you understand and can apply the theorums demonstrated in those mini games.

Many SDKs that you use in software development, come with sample applications that demonstrate the usage of different functions provided by that SDK. The DirectX SDK has a ton of graphics examples. However, those examples are not an exhaustive list of every way to use each function. Many times they are not even an optimum way to use the function. But they are great for introducing the programmer to the functions and features being provided, allowing the programmer to play with, test out and experiment with these features and functions in order to find out how best to use those in the application they are working on. You can also research and find out how other people used those same functions and features in different ways. You can use those if they fit with what you are doing, or you can further modify or use a similar idea somewhere else.

Do your research, keep an open mind, take it out of the box and play with it.

 

[skribs]

Then maybe rely on the wisdom of the people here, with much more martial arts experience than you have...

That's...why I'm asking these questions. So I can get that wisdom. And then when people share there wisdom, I try to dig deeper because I want more of their wisdom.

There is a reason I gave a music example. Pick a song, go on youtube and see how many different arrangements and versions there are for it. They are all playing the same song, but none of them are wrong. You may like some better than others... But all those arrangements were made from the same song, using basics taught through different drills, that the artist did repeatedly. He then interpreted the situation (song) based on the forms (basics) that he practiced and or preferred. Some people block a punch to the inside, some to the outside, some parry it, some counter with a punch, some counter with a kick, some trap it... they are all right, they are all different. Some artists can play the same song in many different arrangements, depending on the situation. Sometimes they trap it, sometimes they block it to the outside...

That's fine for the person doing the arranging. The person doing the performance doesn't have that luxury in most cases.

 

[wab25]

Sorry. You are stuck. No one can help you here. The reason you are stuck is right here:

That's fine for the person doing the arranging. The person doing the performance doesn't have that luxury in most cases.

I don't think there is anything I could disagree with more. Every person has that luxury.

That's...why I'm asking these questions. So I can get that wisdom. And then when people share there wisdom, I try to dig deeper because I want more of their wisdom.

No it isn't. You ask these questions, you get the answers with the wisdom in it, then give the "I don't have that luxury, cause my master does it this way." Then you rephrase the question, and ask again.

In order for you to get unstuck, and move forward, you need to realize that you do have that luxury. Until you realize that, you are stuck. The holes you are trying to figure out will only get bigger, until you get unstuck.

Note, and this is important, no one here has ever asked you to change how you do your forms. In fact, we have encouraged you to do your forms, exactly as your master showed you. What we have asked you to do, is to play with how you apply the techniques found in your forms and play with what you can learn as you do the form. You may have to do this exploration outside of class.

But by hiding under the "I don't have that luxury" blanket, you will remain stuck. (it doesn't matter if the number on your black belt goes up, if you are still stuck with these questions... then you are still stuck) The only way out, is to throw away the "I can't because..." attitude and explore some things on your own.

I had another analogy to share, I was going to give you examples of people arranging and playing their own versions of songs... but you will just come up with another list of excuses. There is no point. Until you set the excuses aside, you won't find the answers you are asking for.

 

[skribs]

Sorry. You are stuck. No one can help you here. The reason you are stuck is right here:
I don't think there is anything I could disagree with more. Every person has that luxury.

No it isn't. You ask these questions, you get the answers with the wisdom in it, then give the "I don't have that luxury, cause my master does it this way." Then you rephrase the question, and ask again.

In order for you to get unstuck, and move forward, you need to realize that you do have that luxury. Until you realize that, you are stuck. The holes you are trying to figure out will only

Sorry. You are stuck. No one can help you here. The reason you are stuck is right here:
I don't think there is anything I could disagree with more. Every person has that luxury.

No it isn't. You ask these questions, you get the answers with the wisdom in it, then give the "I don't have that luxury, cause my master does it this way." Then you rephrase the question, and ask again.

In order for you to get unstuck, and move forward, you need to realize that you do have that luxury. Until you realize that, you are stuck. The holes you are trying to figure out will only get bigger, until you get unstuck.

Note, and this is important, no one here has ever asked you to change how you do your forms. In fact, we have encouraged you to do your forms, exactly as your master showed you. What we have asked you to do, is to play with how you apply the techniques found in your forms and play with what you can learn as you do the form. You may have to do this exploration outside of class.

But by hiding under the "I don't have that luxury" blanket, you will remain stuck. (it doesn't matter if the number on your black belt goes up, if you are still stuck with these questions... then you are still stuck) The only way out, is to throw away the "I can't because..." attitude and explore some things on your own.

I had another analogy to share, I was going to give you examples of people arranging and playing their own versions of songs... but you will just come up with another list of excuses. There is no point. Until you set the excuses aside, you won't find the answers you are asking for.

The two things that are clear from your post are:

1. You don't train Taekwondo, but you assume that the classes are just like Karate. They are different arts, with different teaching styles and philosophies. You keep treating this like it is Karate. If you want to get into a discussion on Karate vs. Taekwondo, that's fine. But you're just assuming that our classes should be the same, and then telling me what I should be doing based on what you would do in Karate.
   
   
2. You assume that because I reject your advice, that I reject all advice in this thread. You say I keep hiding behind excuses. No. I just simply don't feel much of your advice applies, or that your advice is very helpful. I've had good feedback from lots of people in this thread. Which means the question has garnered answers. Answers I'm looking for and want to explore further. You're the only person in this thread I'm arguing with. And yet, you continue to throw it back on me. It can't be that your advice is bad. It can't be that you don't understand my question. The only possible conclusion in your mind is that you're giving me the wisdom of the sages, and that if I do not 100% agree with your advice, accept it all and internalize it all, that it's because I'm an idiot.
   
   Well, guess what. There have been several voices in this thread I've heard and agreed with. Several voices that have offered opinions and ideas I've liked. Several voices that I've wanted to hear more from. So the problem is clearly not me giving excuses. The problem is clearly not that I reject all advice and wisdom given to me. The problem is that there are pieces of advice I don't understand, and I want to understand more. There are pieces of advice I disagree with, and I do reject and ignore them.
   
   That's...actually part of that critical thinking you seem to think I lack. The ability to pick out what works for me and what doesn't in my training? The same applies to advice. I've picked what advice works for me and what doesn't. You're just upset because your advice falls into the later category.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've seen lots of your posts, and I do think you know quite a bit. We've discussed Shu-Ha-Ri before and I found it interesting. In this thread, it is out of place. I like the idea and wish that's the way we did our forms. I wish we did Bunkai in Taekwondo. (Or whatever the Korean word for that would be). I wish there were more parallels in our training, but there are not. Now, those exist in your system - cool! Maybe some day I'll try Karate. For now, I'm happy at my school, even though I wish the curriculum was different some times.

In fact, I've been tempted to put you on "ignore" several times in these threads. But then, I've seen lots of your advice in other threads, and I've seen you do have a lot of wisdom to offer. So while I may butt heads with you sometimes, I think of you as a valuable resource. Valuable enough that even if we butt heads, I'd rather keep you around (so to speak). If you've had it with me and just want to be done with me and my insane posts, you can put me on ignore. Then you don't have to deal with it anymore. But know that I do value your opinion, even if I reject some of them.

But instead of trying to look at a different way of doing the curriculum (because that is something I cannot change), I am looking to understand better the curriculum I am being taught. And knowing what Karate does might be cool, but understanding elements of the Karate curriculum that are not present in Taekwondo doesn't really help me.

 

[wab25]

Alright... here is a peace offering. Since I don't know anything about TKD, I found this guy that does. There are 8 short videos that he has, showing and explaining some of the TKD form applications. The first one is just him talking about the background on the TKD forms.

Now, he starts talking about applications of some of the moves.

I suggest that you watch all 8, but I will only include one more... because I like arm bars.

I never suggested changing your curriculum. Just how you think about it, and what you can learn from your curriculum. Enjoy...

 

[dvcochran]

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.

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?

Relevant to the specific form I am working on would identify the move I am working on. Otherwise it would get overwhelming.

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.

This sounds like a teaching/repetition issue. The worst and most common thing for many people is to go through a curriculum too fast and not really learn it. That said, I do not feel we are expected to absorb everything as we go through the color belts. If so what would be the purpose of the Dan rankings?

I walked through Sipjin and Jitae because, for me, they are the hardest to understand. There are several very slow moves that do not seem to have much to do with balance. I am going to do some research and see what I can find out from the inter-web.

 

[skribs]

Alright... here is a peace offering. Since I don't know anything about TKD, I found this guy that does. There are 8 short videos that he has, showing and explaining some of the TKD form applications. The first one is just him talking about the background on the TKD forms.

Now, he starts talking about applications of some of the moves.

I suggest that you watch all 8, but I will only include one more... because I like arm bars.

I never suggested changing your curriculum. Just how you think about it, and what you can learn from your curriculum. Enjoy...

Really? Your "peace offering" is advice in the same vein that's caused us to butt heads already?

Once again, I'm going to reject this as an application of the technique in the form. For example, one of his videos is on the application of the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang.:

Let's take look:

1. The inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang is not part of a combination. He is adding a LOT of motions to make it work as an "application" of Taegeuk Il Jang. It reminds me of the meme about math: what the teacher teaches is 1 + 1. What's on the homework is 72 * 34. What's on the test is Log(42X/Z^2) * e^pi = 11i. That's not to say you can't apply the technique in that way or use it in that combination. But in no way, shape, or form, does Taegeuk Il Jang teach that application. So he's not finding an application on the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang. He's expanding on how it can be used in different ways.
   
   I've done things like this myself, mostly for expanding on or modifying the self defense drills that we practice. But that comes from combining the techniques from those drills in different ways. For example, in one of our white belt defenses, we have a chop to the neck. In one of our green belt defenses, we have a position where you've grabbed the neck and do a throw. So I've mixed and matched those, doing the white belt one with the throw, the green belt one with the next step of the white belt, and experimented with what I can do from there.
   
   But I did this with the knowledge of how they work from what I was taught. You don't need Taegeuk Il Jang and then expect the class to figure out all that other stuff. In fact, I'm pretty sure this guy didn't think that way, since he made a series of DVDs teaching the subject.
   
   Why is this an important distinction? Because if you're practicing a knife-hand block into an armbar, into a pull and an elbow strike, you should practice that! Or at the very least, pieces of that combination should show up in other forms.
   
   
2. Because he is using the motion of the inside block, he is creating an arm bar that is not very effective. (This was my big criticism in the double-knife-hand block thread about calling the knife-hand block a strike, you're creating a less effective strike). If he used a slightly different motion, that arm bar would have a lot better effect. But because he's limiting himself to applying the motion of the inside block, he's limiting the effectiveness of the technique.
   
   A much more effective arm bar will have a downward motion on the elbow, and an upward motion on the wrist. He seems content with an inward motion on the elbow and downward motion on the wrist, which is why the uke has the leverage to easily disengage in the videos you linked.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's good information (mostly) and I think it's a good exercise to do. Like I said, I've done it for the techniques I understand. I've seen other techniques and had "aha" moments as to how those apply.

Now, I could take any form and find some sort of meaning behind any motion by saying "it's kind of like this" and call it a day. But I don't feel that would be intellectually honest with myself. As I said in point #2, by using the motion that exists in the form, he has a weak armbar that's easily countered. He even admitted as much. He has to have several follow-up moves because it's easy for the person to counter it.

This is the reason I have such high standards for the Form -> Application questions I have. Because I don't want "good enough" answers. If I'm going to be okay with an answer that kind of hits the mark, then I might as well not even ask the question. I might as well not even think too much into it, and just keep going.

 

[skribs]

Relevant to the specific form I am working on would identify the move I am working on. Otherwise it would get overwhelming.

Iterations, meaning how many times do you parse through? For example, if I'm trying to find the application of a scissor block, how would I find that application outside of "just punch me every way you know and we'll see if it works. Now kick me every way you know. Now grab me every way you know. Now do every combination of punches, kicks, and grabs you know, and we'll see what sticks."

I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.

This sounds like a teaching/repetition issue. The worst and most common thing for many people is to go through a curriculum too fast and not really learn it. That said, I do not feel we are expected to absorb everything as we go through the color belts. If so what would be the purpose of the Dan rankings?

I walked through Sipjin and Jitae because, for me, they are the hardest to understand. There are several very slow moves that do not seem to have much to do with balance. I am going to do some research and see what I can find out from the inter-web.

How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.

 

[dvcochran]

Iterations, meaning how many times do you parse through? For example, if I'm trying to find the application of a scissor block, how would I find that application outside of "just punch me every way you know and we'll see if it works. Now kick me every way you know. Now grab me every way you know. Now do every combination of punches, kicks, and grabs you know, and we'll see what sticks."

I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.



How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.

How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.

Iterations, meaning how many times do you parse through? For example, if I'm trying to find the application of a scissor block, how would I find that application outside of "just punch me every way you know and we'll see if it works. Now kick me every way you know. Now grab me every way you know. Now do every combination of punches, kicks, and grabs you know, and we'll see what sticks."

I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.



How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.

I could spend days just doing scissor blocks playing a guessing game if that's how I'm going about it.

If a block will work for an attack to your middle, then would it not work for any kind of attack to your middle? I would start my approach in this way, globally. Then as I am exposed to more types of attacks I can reason whether a certain block would work for that attack. I shouldn't have to test the block against every kind of attack, at least as a beginner. Yes, as you go higher in rank and learning it can become a challenge. What I am trying to say, for example, is a high block is intended to protect my head, whatever is coming at it.
That said, using the high block as an example, why do we use open hand high blocks? To allow the block to quickly be followed up with a grab. I agree it would really be helpful it most forms followed open hand techniques with their intended purpose. If that is always the case, I am not aware of it.

How have you come to answers for things in the older forms? I'd love to hear what you've found for the moves in Keumgang and Taebaek.

Keumgang is a wildcard to me. I truly think it is to test the patience of a new BB. With no kicks it is much more akin to an Okinawan form. All about balance and power. For me at least, it really test my concentration because it can lull me into thinking it is a really easy form. It is not. As far as practical application, it has a lot to do with developing your Ki and applying power. I can see application for the mountain blocks, however extreme the situation would have to be, but I can also see an offensive posture to the advancing, outside arm. The Keumgang block is tough to noodle out. Below is an excerpt from a jang do kwan blog I read. It has some different points of view but I feel is it pretty accurate.

"In both the first part and the second part of this rant I have repeatedly stated that sometimes when the same "technique" or perhaps I should say "movement" appears several times in one form it could mean that the function is different despite the fact that the movement looks the same without an opponent. Remember that when it comes to Poomsae we only observe "form"; what the movements look like, we do not see "function" what the purpose of the movement is. Nothing strange about it since we do our Poomsae solo without an opponent. The "Keumgang Makki" appears 4 times in that Poomsae. The reason for this might be several. Maybe:

• The number 4 is somehow "special" in buddhism? In Asia it is often considered an unlucky number like 13 is to us westernes so I dismiss this right now.
• Keumgang Makki was considered a cool pose by the forms creator(s).
• Keumgang Makki represents a difficult technique that the creators thought we should focus on so he/they included it 4 times in one form so we train it a lot.
• Keumgang Makki is a versitale movement that can be used in a great many different ways. Therefore each Keumgang Makki is for different situations.

My view is that Keumgang Makki represents a concept that can be used both offensivly, and defensivly and that is why it is included so many times in this form. The essence remains the same however. If you look at the picture below you might just grasp the essence of "Keumgang Makki".

This illustration is from the Okinawan Bubishi. A text 100s of years old and we know that Funakoshi and Mabuni both had access to it and used it in their research and I do not think it is that far fetched that Toyama Kanken also had a copy since his teacher Itosu also had a copy. Funakoshi, Mabuni and Kanken are the Karate roots of Taekwondo, so to look at what they had of resources is very important to understand Taekwondo too.

Look closely at the hand positions. This is a movement frosen in time, but if it was completed the hand holding the leg would be lifted up and the other hand is already nearly in the Arae Makki (low block) position. The only thing that is different from our Keumgang Arae Makki as performed in Keumgang Poomsae is that we perform it in Hakdari Seogi/One legged stance. What if the person on the left on the illustration above were to move his closest leg to his oponent toward his own knee as a sweep to help facilitate the takedown/throw he is doing? Then if we freze the motion at its completion we would be standing in a picture perfect Keumgang Arae Makki! Just like in the form... Look below:


Do you see it? The "high section block" is lifting one of the opponents legs while the other is pushing the oponents upper body out of balance and his foot has been used to sweep up the leg the opponent was standing on.

This is the "essence" of the movement and can be used as a takedown (you should use a strike or two to soften up the opponent first), or as a defense against all kicks toward groin height or higher. I jokingly call Keumgang Poomsae as the "Anti-Taekwondo form" because the signature move is so well designed to put any "modern" or "mainstream" Taekwondo student on the floor. You move inside or outside depending on his kick and do the take down. You can of course do small changes to the application to make it more brutal. For instance the lower block motion can be used as a hair grab or ear grab (rest of the application stays the same), or you can use the lower block motion to first do an elbow strike to the face before pushing the upper body out of balance (rest of the application stays the same).

Is this an unlikely use of Keumgang Arae Makki? I do not think so. It is taught in Traditional Taekwondo Union as part of our Self defense techniques against kicks (it is not linked back to the pattern but I made the connection so I am sure others do too), it was written in the Textbook of our teachers teachers (Except Moo Duk Kwan all Kwan founders had extensive training with one or more of the following: Toyama Kanken, Funakoshi, and Mabuni.). And simular techniques were illustrated in Choi Hong Hi`s 1965 publication "Taekwondo" as well.

What I see as an unlikely application to Keumgang Makki is this: Defense against two opponents at once: One striking toward your face, another kicking low at your side. The lifted leg in the one legged stance? Just so you are ready to kick, or to avoyd a foot sweep. I do not see any reason as to why you block low with your arm if the kick is so low that you have to lift your leg up though.. This is the mainstream application belonging to the kick, block punch hard style Taekwondo.

While the kick block punch applications have its good sides (especially in the beginning of students study) it becomes rather absurd the more you study and get promoted to higher levels. The Taegeuk Poomsae series do for the most part fit in with old hard style, kick block punch applications but even they have their absurd moments, especially when you get closer to black belt.."
Let me know what you think.

 

[skribs]

If a block will work for an attack to your middle, then would it not work for any kind of attack to your middle? I would start my approach in this way, globally. Then as I am exposed to more types of attacks I can reason whether a certain block would work for that attack. I shouldn't have to test the block against every kind of attack, at least as a beginner. Yes, as you go higher in rank and learning it can become a challenge. What I am trying to say, for example, is a high block is intended to protect my head, whatever is coming at it.
That said, using the high block as an example, why do we use open hand high blocks? To allow the block to quickly be followed up with a grab. I agree it would really be helpful it most forms followed open hand techniques with their intended purpose. If that is always the case, I am not aware of it.

The problem is then finding a situation where I would choose to go for a scissor block over going for a down block or outside block. If just one hand works, why is two better? In order for me to make sense of the technique, I would need to find situations in which the single block is not sufficient. Then try the scissor block there.

Regarding Keumgang...at my school we call the other block "Keumgangmaki" (the one with an inside block and outside block, where each of your arms makes an L). I also think if the person in the first picture continues to the point you see in the second picture, he's going to kick himself in the face with his opponent's foot

I'm wondering if the purpose for these double-hand techniques is to force us to work on both hands together, and to force our posture. For example, in our version of Palgwe #8, there are double outside blocks similar to the ones in Keumgang (the one just before the double low block), only we do those in front stance. If your shoulders are square, then the blocks will be symmetrical, but if your shoulders are not square, the blocks will be uneven. So it might be a way of forcing the right posture in order for the form to look right.

 

[DaveB]

The two things that are clear from your post are:

1. You don't train Taekwondo, but you assume that the classes are just like Karate. They are different arts, with different teaching styles and philosophies. You keep treating this like it is Karate. If you want to get into a discussion on Karate vs. Taekwondo, that's fine. But you're just assuming that our classes should be the same, and then telling me what I should be doing based on what you would do in Karate.
   
   
2. You assume that because I reject your advice, that I reject all advice in this thread. You say I keep hiding behind excuses. No. I just simply don't feel much of your advice applies, or that your advice is very helpful. I've had good feedback from lots of people in this thread. Which means the question has garnered answers. Answers I'm looking for and want to explore further. You're the only person in this thread I'm arguing with. And yet, you continue to throw it back on me. It can't be that your advice is bad. It can't be that you don't understand my question. The only possible conclusion in your mind is that you're giving me the wisdom of the sages, and that if I do not 100% agree with your advice, accept it all and internalize it all, that it's because I'm an idiot.
   
   Well, guess what. There have been several voices in this thread I've heard and agreed with. Several voices that have offered opinions and ideas I've liked. Several voices that I've wanted to hear more from. So the problem is clearly not me giving excuses. The problem is clearly not that I reject all advice and wisdom given to me. The problem is that there are pieces of advice I don't understand, and I want to understand more. There are pieces of advice I disagree with, and I do reject and ignore them.
   
   That's...actually part of that critical thinking you seem to think I lack. The ability to pick out what works for me and what doesn't in my training? The same applies to advice. I've picked what advice works for me and what doesn't. You're just upset because your advice falls into the later category.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've seen lots of your posts, and I do think you know quite a bit. We've discussed Shu-Ha-Ri before and I found it interesting. In this thread, it is out of place. I like the idea and wish that's the way we did our forms. I wish we did Bunkai in Taekwondo. (Or whatever the Korean word for that would be). I wish there were more parallels in our training, but there are not. Now, those exist in your system - cool! Maybe some day I'll try Karate. For now, I'm happy at my school, even though I wish the curriculum was different some times.

In fact, I've been tempted to put you on "ignore" several times in these threads. But then, I've seen lots of your advice in other threads, and I've seen you do have a lot of wisdom to offer. So while I may butt heads with you sometimes, I think of you as a valuable resource. Valuable enough that even if we butt heads, I'd rather keep you around (so to speak). If you've had it with me and just want to be done with me and my insane posts, you can put me on ignore. Then you don't have to deal with it anymore. But know that I do value your opinion, even if I reject some of them.

But instead of trying to look at a different way of doing the curriculum (because that is something I cannot change), I am looking to understand better the curriculum I am being taught. And knowing what Karate does might be cool, but understanding elements of the Karate curriculum that are not present in Taekwondo doesn't really help me.

I'm confused.

You are asking questions about things not taught in your curriculum in TKD, but you only intend to do what is taught in your tkd curriculum?

Neither your questions nor your reasoning behind what you take on/ignore are very clear.

Bunkai was not commonly taught in karare either. It still isn't in many places. But the one truth of all arts with forms is that they are for personal study. People have worked hard and researched a lot to gain an understanding of forms and how to decode them. I can't understand why you feel unable to do what wab25 is describing?

 

[DaveB]

Really? Your "peace offering" is advice in the same vein that's caused us to butt heads already?

Once again, I'm going to reject this as an application of the technique in the form. For example, one of his videos is on the application of the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang.:

Let's take look:

1. The inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang is not part of a combination. He is adding a LOT of motions to make it work as an "application" of Taegeuk Il Jang. It reminds me of the meme about math: what the teacher teaches is 1 + 1. What's on the homework is 72 * 34. What's on the test is Log(42X/Z^2) * e^pi = 11i. That's not to say you can't apply the technique in that way or use it in that combination. But in no way, shape, or form, does Taegeuk Il Jang teach that application. So he's not finding an application on the inside block in Taegeuk Il Jang. He's expanding on how it can be used in different ways.
   
   I've done things like this myself, mostly for expanding on or modifying the self defense drills that we practice. But that comes from combining the techniques from those drills in different ways. For example, in one of our white belt defenses, we have a chop to the neck. In one of our green belt defenses, we have a position where you've grabbed the neck and do a throw. So I've mixed and matched those, doing the white belt one with the throw, the green belt one with the next step of the white belt, and experimented with what I can do from there.
   
   But I did this with the knowledge of how they work from what I was taught. You don't need Taegeuk Il Jang and then expect the class to figure out all that other stuff. In fact, I'm pretty sure this guy didn't think that way, since he made a series of DVDs teaching the subject.
   
   Why is this an important distinction? Because if you're practicing a knife-hand block into an armbar, into a pull and an elbow strike, you should practice that! Or at the very least, pieces of that combination should show up in other forms.
   
   
2. Because he is using the motion of the inside block, he is creating an arm bar that is not very effective. (This was my big criticism in the double-knife-hand block thread about calling the knife-hand block a strike, you're creating a less effective strike). If he used a slightly different motion, that arm bar would have a lot better effect. But because he's limiting himself to applying the motion of the inside block, he's limiting the effectiveness of the technique.
   
   A much more effective arm bar will have a downward motion on the elbow, and an upward motion on the wrist. He seems content with an inward motion on the elbow and downward motion on the wrist, which is why the uke has the leverage to easily disengage in the videos you linked.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's good information (mostly) and I think it's a good exercise to do. Like I said, I've done it for the techniques I understand. I've seen other techniques and had "aha" moments as to how those apply.

Now, I could take any form and find some sort of meaning behind any motion by saying "it's kind of like this" and call it a day. But I don't feel that would be intellectually honest with myself. As I said in point #2, by using the motion that exists in the form, he has a weak armbar that's easily countered. He even admitted as much. He has to have several follow-up moves because it's easy for the person to counter it.

This is the reason I have such high standards for the Form -> Application questions I have. Because I don't want "good enough" answers. If I'm going to be okay with an answer that kind of hits the mark, then I might as well not even ask the question. I might as well not even think too much into it, and just keep going.

There're two problems with your reasoning:

1. you didn't invent the forms.
2. Taeguk forms were not designed with tried and tested fighting applications in mind.

You're ideas about what is or is not intellectually honest have no bearing on how applications were encoded into forms.
For example your ideas about the knife hand block/strike applications we're logical, but wrong.

And because you got stuck on what you thought about effective techniques you didn't consider that there may be other factors to the technique or its proper usage that mitigate whatever downsides you saw.

As long as you insist on such a limited way of viewing techniques your explorations will be stunted and fruitless.

But all this is moot because there are no sensible applications for most TKD forms as they were made for political and not practical reasons. Again not really clear about your objectives and limitations.

 

[andyjeffries]

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?

Sorry, I didn't reply to your post. It seemed more of an informative "we do this in my school" rather than a question.

Just to be clear for recommending people to Kukkiwon rank instructors ARE required to follow Kukkiwon syllabus, including Taegeuk poomsae. This is talked about on both the Kukkiwon Master Instructor Course and the Kukkiwon Poom/Dan Examiner Course (and it's in the Kukkiwon promotion rules and regulations).

The Kukkiwon doesn't restrict what other content you ADD to the grading (e.g. if you want to add Palgwae forms or weapons, you can) as long as you do at least their minimum and the Kukkiwon simply doesn't care about coloured belt gradings, they only get interested at 1st Dan/Poom level.

So your dojang choosing to do Palgwae forms is up to them, the Kukkiwon doesn't teach them on their official course, don't require them for black belt promotions, considers them to be completely deprecated and outdated - but your dojang also shouldn't apply for students' Kukkiwon rank unless they know and perform the correct forms as a minimum.

However, this does open up another can of worms - what is to physically stop an instructor from making students do just a 5 mile run, 100 push ups and then putting in for their first dan (i.e. completely ignoring the syllabus)? Nothing! This is an area where the Kukkiwon doesn't really enforce it's requirements very well at all and a lot of people would like that to change.

I would propose; I think it would be reasonable with modern smart phones to say that a condition of being a Kukkiwon recommender is that you need to video every test and keep the videos for say 1 year. If during that time someone makes a complaint, you must send it to Kukkiwon or the rank will be revoked along with your recommender privileges. Maybe they could also then ask for say up to five videos from each recommender per year, as a spot test. I don't know whether my opinion would be popular, but I'd be happy if they did that.

On the examiner course though, one instructor did ask (in a way asking about us who are independent from the WT MNA) how should he handle it if he thinks someone else has a lower standard for their gradings than they do; the Kukkiwon's answer was "you worry about what happens in your own house, let them worry about theirs".

 

[andyjeffries]

Regarding Keumgang...at my school we call the other block "Keumgangmaki" (the one with an inside block and outside block, where each of your arms makes an L)

This is incorrect. The block you are describing is called Santeulmagki. Keumgangmagki is the simultaneous rising block and side low block.

Santeulmagki
산틀막기 - Google Search

Keumgangmagki
금강막기 - Google Search

 

[andyjeffries]

I wish we did Bunkai in Taekwondo. (Or whatever the Korean word for that would be).

Bunhae/boonhae (depending on how you want to romanise it) - 분해

 

[Earl Weiss]

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

His bad application examples would be explained in several ways Examples are. A. If you do it this way you are exposed for a counterattack. B. If you do this the reach of the technique is inadequate. C. If you do this your balance will be bad. That type of thing.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Are there any examples available on the net?

.

His 15 Volume Encyclopedia is available on the net. 8 of those volumes contain the 24 patterns. Almost every move is illustrated with Examples of application. However people mistakenly assume that the examples were meant to be all encompassing or exclusive. Further the Fundamental techniques are in 2 volumes and he also states a purpose of the techniques. One of the "training secrets" (Note: "secret" in this context being a term of art) is to understand the purpose of the technique. In his course he felt this was the most important. aspect. In his course he also covered the idea of alternate applications. I will not relate how that took place at this time. Suffice it to say the bottom line was if the application wored he considered it a good application irrespective of whether it was one stated in the book.

 

[wab25]

Your "peace offering" is advice in the same vein that's caused us to butt heads already?

My peace offering was to find a TKD instructor presenting his views on the forms and their purpose, and some applications he has found in them, from a TKD perspective.

You don't train Taekwondo, but you assume that the classes are just like Karate. They are different arts, with different teaching styles and philosophies. You keep treating this like it is Karate. If you want to get into a discussion on Karate vs. Taekwondo, that's fine. But you're just assuming that our classes should be the same, and then telling me what I should be doing based on what you would do in Karate.

So, now I got interested and did some research. I looked into Lee Won Kuk and Choi Hong Hi. I understand these men had something to do with the development of TKD, especially since Choi is considered the father of TKD.

Shuri-Te - arenakarate
Lee Won Kuk trained under Funakoshi, learning his Shotokan, earning a black belt from him. (he also trained Goju-ryu Karate under its founder Sensei Hunagoshi ) So, it would seem that Lee was familiar with the Japanese system of transmission, as well as Funakoshi's applications from the kata. He learned them directly from Funakoshi.

Choi also trained under Funakoshi, earning his nidan from him. Choi then began teaching Shotokan Karate. Again, we can infer that he knew and understood Funakoshi's application of the kata... as he learned from Funakoshi directly. He would also be familiar with the Japanese method of transmission being used. Choi then began teaching Shotokan Karate.

Taekwon-Do Founder - General Choi Hong Hi

So it would seem that looking to Funakoshi and Shotokan to try to understand TKD is not so out of line. Kind of like going to your master's master. Many of the masters that created TKD, were direct students of Funakoshi, earning black belt ranks from him. They took those teachings to Korea, originally keeping them pretty intact. My understanding is that the original TKD forms were the Shotokan kata, with Korean names. Passai from TKD was Bassai from Shotokan, for example. Then for reasons outside the scope of this thread, they took the building blocks apart and rearranged them. However, it is important to remember, that the men doing the rearranging, understood how the katas were intended to be used, and they understood Funakoshi's view of the applications of those movements. Could they have changed things and added to what they learned? Absolutely. Understanding the building block should be useful to understanding the final product.

I will be honest... I look at TKD to help understand Shotokan. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see just how related the 2 arts are.

Because he is using the motion of the inside block, he is creating an arm bar that is not very effective. (This was my big criticism in the double-knife-hand block thread about calling the knife-hand block a strike, you're creating a less effective strike). If he used a slightly different motion, that arm bar would have a lot better effect. But because he's limiting himself to applying the motion of the inside block, he's limiting the effectiveness of the technique.

A much more effective arm bar will have a downward motion on the elbow, and an upward motion on the wrist. He seems content with an inward motion on the elbow and downward motion on the wrist, which is why the uke has the leverage to easily disengage in the videos you linked.

Ok... So fix it. Use what you saw there as a starting point, then make the fixes you, just found. Maybe, you can do it using the same block he did, or maybe you find a better block or other movement to use in its place. If so, change it. Now when you do your forms, and come to that movement, you can visualize the arm bar or the block.

You keep talking about the huge number of combinations to brute force try everything. Why not start with the text referenced above, written by Mr Choi, where he details the applications? (if anyone has a link, I will be looking for that text very soon) After that, why not look to the applications that Mr Choi's master had, Mr Funakoshi? Look at their applications, make the same analysis as you did to those videos I posted, and make the corrections and changes needed to make it work for you.

 

[Dirty Dog]

So, now I got interested and did some research. I looked into Lee Won Kuk and Choi Hong Hi. I understand these men had something to do with the development of TKD, especially since Choi is considered the father of TKD.

Nope. Wrong. The General is considered the father of ITF Taekwon-Do. As the founder of the Oh Do Kwan and the ITF this is understandable.
But he is not, nor should he be, considered the father of TKD. In the eyes of the Moo Duk Kwan, for example, the father of our art would be GM HWANG, Kee, as he is the founder of the Moo Duk Kwan.
Both of the above statements are also wrong, however, since the truth is that no one man fathered either TKD system. They founded the schools, yes, but the systems were developed by a group of people working together.