Working on the older material

terryl965

<center><font size="2"><B>Martial Talk Ultimate<BR
MTS Alumni
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
41,259
Reaction score
341
Location
Grand Prairie Texas
Dan Anderson posted some video of him doing some of the older forms form Korea like sipsu, Bassia and so forth. I was wondering how many of us old timers still go over those form form time to time? I really like them alot better than the Tae Gueks but that is just me. Looking forward to some great converstation on why or why not any of us do them anymore.

For me it is hard to break old habits like deeper and wider stances since they really came from Okinawa and Shotokan in the beginning, I know the principle behind the newer forms and so on but the simplicity of the Kata was so beyond what we do today and they always had alot of input on techs behind them.
 
Terry, do you think it's contradictory for a modern taekwondoist to work this material? Why bother if your one-steps or your free-sparring don't even begin to resemble the ideas codified within the old forms?
 
Bakc in the 80's we in Jido Kwan performed Palgwes, I learned them all from 1 to Koryo, however one year before my BB test we change to Taeguks patters so i had to memorice all taeguks in one year to do my BB test.

Since then (1986) I haven't practiced Palgwes so I can't recall them, I only have some backflashses but I really like the most the palgwes than the Taeguks, I feel the Palgwes are more beautiful but Taeguks are bettre to memorice.

I would like in the future relearn the palgwes as a personal thing.

Manny
 
Terry, do you think it's contradictory for a modern taekwondoist to work this material? Why bother if your one-steps or your free-sparring don't even begin to resemble the ideas codified within the old forms?

I do them just because it was the ways of my GM and my family does them to please me I suppose. I have only a few students that I even brother teaching the old ways.
 
Terry, do you think it's contradictory for a modern taekwondoist to work this material? Why bother if your one-steps or your free-sparring don't even begin to resemble the ideas codified within the old forms?

Or might the problem be that the one-steps and free-sparring departed the foundation that the old forms gave you?
 
Or might the problem be that the one-steps and free-sparring departed the foundation that the old forms gave you?


I've seen many one-steps where the counter to a punch is a block followed by a punch and then a spinning back or side kick. This would seem to go against the application theory I learned myself where the goal is to CLOSE with the opponent rather than disengage. Just an example... Ideally of course, all the drills/one-steps/sparring/forms/self-defense should reinforce one another conceptually.
 
I've seen many one-steps where the counter to a punch is a block followed by a punch and then a spinning back or side kick. This would seem to go against the application theory I learned myself where the goal is to CLOSE with the opponent rather than disengage. Just an example... Ideally of course, all the drills/one-steps/sparring/forms/self-defense should reinforce one another conceptually.

True but if you was able to give some distance between you and the attracker by using a kick, it would allow you time to get away in alot of cases. Now with that being said I believe in CQC approach as well.
 
True but if you was able to give some distance between you and the attracker by using a kick, it would allow you time to get away in alot of cases. Now with that being said I believe in CQC approach as well.

Well, I don't know what the intent is with the Taeguk forms, etc. However the older forms likely never had any idea of disengagement and escape embodied within them. It's pretty much all 'destroy your opponent'. Very unsanitized and unvarnished stuff compared to self-defense taught today.
 
Well, I don't know what the intent is with the Taeguk forms, etc. However the older forms likely never had any idea of disengagement and escape embodied within them. It's pretty much all 'destroy your opponent'. Very unsanitized and unvarnished stuff compared to self-defense taught today.

I can only agree, it had a barberic approach to fighting. I can see you and I pretty much agree alot with application.
 
I'm not an old-timer, but these are forms all students practice in Chayon-Ryu. But, I'm not a TKD person and may not fall into the respondents you were targeting with the discussion.

I just tested and was promoted to 5th Dan in Chayon-Ryu by Grandmaster Kim Soo. So, my new form requirements for the new rank are: Jinsoo, Oh Ship Sa Bo, Ship Pal, and General Jua Bu CHong's Bong Sul Hyung.

R. McLain


Dan Anderson posted some video of him doing some of the older forms form Korea like sipsu, Bassia and so forth. I was wondering how many of us old timers still go over those form form time to time? I really like them alot better than the Tae Gueks but that is just me. Looking forward to some great converstation on why or why not any of us do them anymore.

For me it is hard to break old habits like deeper and wider stances since they really came from Okinawa and Shotokan in the beginning, I know the principle behind the newer forms and so on but the simplicity of the Kata was so beyond what we do today and they always had alot of input on techs behind them.
 
I work on the pyung-ahn series, bassai, and naihanchi hyung but not consistently. I don't teach these to my students as I'd prefer that they have a deeper understanding of the required material before working with supplemental information.
 
Back
Top