What Makes a TKD Pattern/Tul/Form Such?

[Deleted member 39746]

So this is a semi breakaway from another thread about 4 directional blocking/punching being/not being a pattern. All are welcome to hope in as always, the title may have been a little off, but the fundamental question is the same.

I will post my argument for why 4 directional is a Pattern now:

"It has no demonstrable difference to what is listed as a pattern, it is a sequence of movement for apparently the same purposes as the rest of them exist for fundamentally. "

That is a trimmed down version of it, cutting away the filler, consider this a restart for a new thread dedicated to the topic. If anyone can provide me a clear cut reason why 4D isn't a pattern yet the rest are, that would be appreciated. Or the finer working of what makes one a pattern and the other not, as thats another way to word it.

Addendum: if Pattern, Tul & form aren't synonymy can someone edit them out of the title for me?

 

[pdg]

ITF doesn't have forms, it's not a term used.

There are 24 patterns recognised. There have been 2 others - one was removed completely before the figure of 24 was decided upon and one was replaced (and in some places the replacement was removed and the original reinstated, and there's been a bunch of messing with the names of those particular two). The number 24 has a meaning attached to it.

The exercises aren't recognised as patterns, they're recognised as exercises.

It's a naming convention if you want to term it as such.

I could perform a kkw poomsae (or a karate kata, or a cma form) in class if I wanted to - it wouldn't be a pattern or tul though, because it's not recognised as such.

I could make up my own sequence of moves - but it wouldn't be a pattern/tul until or unless it was formally recognised by the ITF.

If you're wanting to have or join a discussion about the ITF (Chang Hon) pattern set, it's best to know what constitutes a pattern and what doesn't (unless, as in this thread, you are making an enquiry about what a pattern is).

 

[Deleted member 39746]

ITF doesn't have forms, it's not a term used.

for the sake of this point, Organization doesn't matter so much.

My fundamental issue with such is. for all intents and purposes the 4D's are patterns, and there isn't anything inherent in the meaning of the word to exclude them but include the others.

Im perfectly aware of the need for definitions etc, there just wasn't a clear one given other than semi arbitrary they aren't but they are besides them being grouped differently. I would group them as a pattern like i would use pattern to describe cma forms, kata etc. They wouldn't be official TKD ones, but they would be them. (unless you run the organization and then make them official ones)

If the only reason they arent deemed patterns is because the naming system of TKD specifically names something else, i would reserve the right to call them a pattern as they meet the definition for it, instead of having to write the exception. It is peculiar.

 

[pdg]

As a generic term used by you, I don't care what you call them.

Call them squirrels for all the difference it makes to me.

But if you're going to join or start a discussion about ITF patterns, you'll need to stick to the accepted and recognised definitions otherwise nobody knows what you're on about, or they'll assume (more likely and probably correctly) that you don't know what you're on about.

Same as if you join or start a conversation about the kkw poomsae - calling them patterns or tul is incorrect.


In the same sort of way, ITF has no roundhouse kick. There's a turning kick which is the same technique, but it carries a different name.

There's also no axe kick. Again, the technique exists but it's a downward kick.

i would reserve the right to call them a pattern

In essence, whatever. You have the personal right to call them what you like, but it's wrong.

Just as if you call your Panasonic vacuum cleaner a "Hoover".

It's not a Hoover, it's a Panasonic.

Join a vacuum cleaner enthusiast forum and see how that works out.

 

[Earl Weiss]

f I would group them as a pattern like i would use pattern to describe cma forms, kata etc. They wouldn't be official TKD ones, but they would be them. (unless you run the organization and then make them official ones)

.

Why Saju / 4 direction is not a "Pattern" in the Chang Hon System.

1. The founder says it's a fundamental exercise.
2. The founder had a reason for creating 24 Patterns.
3. The patterns have names with philosophical or historic connections as do some moves in some patterns as well as the pattern diagram and number of motions. (Saju does not)
4. All Patterns have you Blocking and attacking while moving in at least 2 directions. Saju has you turning in only one direction.
5. It is stated (Although not strictly adhered to) that patterns have you practice equally with both sides / limbs. Saju has you repeat the attack / block with the same limb.

Maybe more reasons will come to me later.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

4. All Patterns have you Blocking and attacking while moving in at least 2 directions. Saju has you turning in only one direction.

See now that is the closest to a objective measure/definition for why it isn't considered a pattern and the others are.

5. It is stated (Although not strictly adhered to) that patterns have you practice equally with both sides / limbs. Saju has you repeat the attack / block with the same limb.

unless i misread/understood, dont you attack/block with both sides? that might have just been how i was taught it and could not be the standard.

 

[W.Bridges]

Saju Jirugi and Saju Maki does have you to practice left side then a right side but not at the same time. And when you are doing the left side your left foot is a pivot point for the 4 directions. Then you go back to ready stance before doing the other side

 

[skribs]

As a generic term used by you, I don't care what you call them.

Call them squirrels for all the difference it makes to me.

But if you're going to join or start a discussion about ITF patterns, you'll need to stick to the accepted and recognised definitions otherwise nobody knows what you're on about, or they'll assume (more likely and probably correctly) that you don't know what you're on about.

Same as if you join or start a conversation about the kkw poomsae - calling them patterns or tul is incorrect.


In the same sort of way, ITF has no roundhouse kick. There's a turning kick which is the same technique, but it carries a different name.

There's also no axe kick. Again, the technique exists but it's a downward kick.

I'm going to partially disagree with you.

• If there is an established term, that term needs to be used correctly. (This we agree on).
• If there is not an established term, that term cannot be used incorrectly.

For example, if you call the KKW Poomsae "patterns", I have no problem with that. We don't call them patterns, but because we don't have anything else called "patterns", I'm not going to get confused, because I can apply it. If you call them "tul" I'll be very confused, because I have no idea what a tul is (until this thread).

Similar, if I call it an axe kick, I'm sure you know what I mean, even if it doesn't fit your curriculum.

I do agree 100% that using the established terms is a very good way to show you know what you're talking about in the discussion. One of the scariest moments of my life is sitting in the chair at the orthodontist and hearing him talk to his assistant. "Pass me the doohickey. Now the thingamajig. I need the thingamabob."

 

[pdg]

For example, if you call the KKW Poomsae "patterns", I have no problem with that. We don't call them patterns, but because we don't have anything else called "patterns", I'm not going to get confused, because I can apply it. If you call them "tul" I'll be very confused, because I have no idea what a tul is (until this thread).

I was under the impression that the generally accepted translation from "poomsae" was "forms" - because that's what everyone kkw (about 5 people ) I've ever spoken to calls them.

My impression may have been wrong, and I'm more than willing to accept that.

Now, the whole point is that if I joined a conversation about poomsae, but called them tul or patterns I would expect and accept a correction.

Likewise, you have spoken/enquired about ITF 'forms', been informed of the terms and pretty much apply them.

What neither of us appear to do is dispute the naming convention by saying "well, that's not what I call them"...

 

[pdg]

If there is not an established term, that term cannot be used incorrectly.

Oh, and about this.

There are established terms for the activities under discussion, and op is arguing that he doesn't want to use them because it's his 'right' to call them whatever he feels fits his description.

 

[skribs]

I was under the impression that the generally accepted translation from "poomsae" was "forms" - because that's what everyone kkw (about 5 people ) I've ever spoken to calls them.

My impression may have been wrong, and I'm more than willing to accept that.

Now, the whole point is that if I joined a conversation about poomsae, but called them tul or patterns I would expect and accept a correction.

Likewise, you have spoken/enquired about ITF 'forms', been informed of the terms and pretty much apply them.

What neither of us appear to do is dispute the naming convention by saying "well, that's not what I call them"...

You're right. I only heard the word "poomsae" during competition. To be honest, I just thought that was the Korean word for "form", I didn't realize that other forms of TKD don't use the word poomsae. I think "form" is just the English translation. We call them forms at my school, but if someone was talking about patterns I'd talk about our "patterns", and if someone were talking about kata I'd talk about our "kata."

Now if someone calls a two-punch combo a "form" I'd take exception to that!

One thing I have to ask is that you pay attention to what may be school-specific terminology vs. association terminology. I can't speak for ITF, but I know in KKW, some schools say "tornado kick" and others say "turning roundhouse kick". If I go to another school that calls it a "turning roundhouse kick", I just gotta deal with that.

Oh, and about this.

There are established terms for the activities under discussion, and op is arguing that he doesn't want to use them because it's his 'right' to call them whatever he feels fits his description.

I am not going to argue with you about the specific case. I am speaking more generally.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

op is arguing that he doesn't want to use them because it's his 'right' to call them whatever he feels fits his description.

That would not be the case, i have yet to see a definitive definition given for the term which doesn't include 4D's but does the others. All i have gotten is mainly "because it isnt" the previous quotation is the closest to a objective/definitive definition i have gotten which doesn't encompass 4D's while encompassing the rest. And if such a thing did exist i would imagine someone would have grabbed the definitive definition by now and copied it here with a citation to where it came from. (and as skribs put which is very accurate unless it is established, it cannot be used wrong)

Also for the vacuum cleaner comment, they would both agree they are vacuums, they wouldn't say a hoover vacuum isnt one vice versa. And there is no demonstrable difference between the two's function and purpose. I don't see how this has much relevance.

Also for notation, my argument is listed at the top of this thread, to which i gave a valid argument as to why they should be called forms. (to which valid has no refrence to if i am right or not, it just denotes i have made the argument correctly.)

Now i will re read what is posted here to double check i have read everything correctly and respond accordingly and make revisions to what has been previously posted etc.

 

[pdg]

Also for the vacuum cleaner comment, they would both agree they are vacuums, they wouldn't say a hoover vacuum isnt one vice versa. And there is no demonstrable difference between the two's function and purpose. I don't see how this has much relevance.

You are not understanding this at all are you?

 

[skribs]

That would not be the case, i have yet to see a definitive definition given for the term which doesn't include 4D's but does the others. All i have gotten is mainly "because it isnt" the previous quotation is the closest to a objective/definitive definition i have gotten which doesn't encompass 4D's while encompassing the rest. And if such a thing did exist i would imagine someone would have grabbed the definitive definition by now and copied it here with a citation to where it came from. (and as skribs put which is very accurate unless it is established, it cannot be used wrong)

Also for the vacuum cleaner comment, they would both agree they are vacuums, they wouldn't say a hoover vacuum isnt one vice versa. And there is no demonstrable difference between the two's function and purpose. I don't see how this has much relevance.

Also for notation, my argument is listed at the top of this thread, to which i gave a valid argument as to why they should be called forms. (to which valid has no refrence to if i am right or not, it just denotes i have made the argument correctly.)

Now i will re read what is posted here to double check i have read everything correctly and respond accordingly and make revisions to what has been previously posted etc.

He's talking about how an apple is a fruit, but a fruit isn't necessarily an apple. And if you pick up a banana and call it an apple, you're gonna get some funny looks.

 

[pdg]

That would not be the case, i have yet to see a definitive definition given for the term which doesn't include 4D's but does the others. All i have gotten is mainly "because it isnt" the previous quotation is the closest to a objective/definitive definition i have gotten which doesn't encompass 4D's while encompassing the rest. And if such a thing did exist i would imagine someone would have grabbed the definitive definition by now and copied it here with a citation to where it came from. (and as skribs put which is very accurate unless it is established, it cannot be used wrong)

The terms for fundamental exercises and patterns are established within the organisation that uses those terms, quite honestly there is no further reasoning necessary.

And because of that acceptance and state of being established, you are using the term incorrectly.

It doesn't matter whether it fits your definition, or the dictionary definition, or Bob's definition. What matters in this particular instance is the definition given by the organisation.

 

[pdg]

Also for notation, my argument is listed at the top of this thread, to which i gave a valid argument as to why they should be called forms.

Call all the exercises and patterns forms if you like - then you'll be wrong in every single instance.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The people who developed the curriculum defined their terms. That's reason enough.
You can mumble dogface off to the banana patch ozzie pankcake shiznit.

 

[pdg]

About the Hoover thing.

Colloquially, a vacuum cleaner is called a Hoover irrespective of who actually made it, because the Hoover company dominated the market for years. Nobody ever calls one a "Hoover vacuum".

People refer to "hoovering the floor".

But correctly, it's a vacuum cleaner.

 

[skribs]

About the Hoover thing.

Colloquially, a vacuum cleaner is called a Hoover irrespective of who actually made it, because the Hoover company dominated the market for years. Nobody ever calls one a "Hoover vacuum".

People refer to "hoovering the floor".

But correctly, it's a vacuum cleaner.

I wonder if that's a local thing. I've never heard of Hoover being the colloquial replacement for a vacuum. Is it kind of like "Xerox" for copies?

 

[Flying Crane]

About the Hoover thing.

Colloquially, a vacuum cleaner is called a Hoover irrespective of who actually made it, because the Hoover company dominated the market for years. Nobody ever calls one a "Hoover vacuum".

People refer to "hoovering the floor".

But correctly, it's a vacuum cleaner.

In England, yes. Not in the States. We call it a vacuum. We vacuum the floor.