I hope this isn't in too bad of taste. I'm not trying to be overly disrespectful or start a fight, but I just wanted to make a point here. I bought this book some years back called "Tang Soo Do" by Kang Uk Lee. Here's the cover.


http://images.booksamillion.com/covers/bam/0/86/568/170/0865681708.jpg

Does anyone here seriously consider this to be an application of the knife-hand technique? I mean, really? If someone were to ask me what they could do should someone try to kick them (with a front kick without using their hips properly, no less), I think one of the last things I might tell them to do is deflect the kick with a knife hand block in back stance but bring your rear hand into the knife hand at your chest as well just for style points. I mean, I guess maybe they just wanted to get a picture of the TSD knife hand for the cover, but ehy then have the kicker there? To highlight two techniques? If so, then why make it look like he's trying to use the knife hand in defense of the kick?

I read this book forever ago and used it for re-learning my forms when I was rusty. Now that I've learnt so much about the history of MA and TSD and I've really begun an examination of TSD hyung and techniques this book just seems like a waste of time. I know that's a harsh critique, but there's no way to sugarcoat it. For a book that claims to be 'the ultimate guide to the Korean martial art' it lacks in just about every category...

Thoughts?

I found the book to be quite "average". The picture was probably staged and not a true application (I hope). But I don't think good applications are found in many TSD books. It's like the people who say Pyung Ahn Ee dan's opening is blocking two punches.... or the jump in Pyung Ahn O Dan is jumping over a bong staff.

HA!

I have the same book, Astro, in a later edition with a fashionably blurry version of the same photo on the cover as you have in an unmutated version (doesn't look quite so lame in the blurred version, I suppose :rolleyes:).

The photos inside are grainy and unclear, there is absolutely no discussion of SD applications, and the same tired, utterly bogus, long discredited 'physical evidence' for ancient TSD is given that the WTF/KKW has pushed for 'ancient' (= Three Kingdoms era) TKD. I agree, the thing as a whole is a bit of a disappointment (although my mania for collecting reference sources for the MAs would probably lead me to buy it again if I ever lost this copy—the problem is, there just isn't that much published about TSD on a monograph scale). We need maunakunu to get that danged book of his started, and then finished!

I also own the book - both versions actually.

Just to defend the "other side" here. I have found the book useful. I wouldn't say invaluable...but useful. You have to remember that when this was published, it was one of the very few TSD references and probably the first to be very widely and publicly available. For me, it had the forms and the movements that I needed. Going back now, years later, I see that much of the history and techniques may not be the best or the most accurate, but look at the audience this is indented for....

This book was not written for the 20 year martial artists or for the people who are in search of the truth, true history, etc. It was written for people in Lee, Kang Uk's organization to have a quick reference to the things that HIS ORGANIZATION required. Granted, he does say that it is the Ultimate guide....but so does everyone else, so I won't fault him for that.

As for the picture on the front....I guarantee that someone with a Dan Bon of 70 isn't kidding himself into thinking that a formal knife hand block is the way to go about defending a front kick....but again, look at the audience. Also, if you were writing a TSD reference manual for beginning members and lower gups - or to make publicly available (i.e. have shelf appeal), would you pick two cool looking "representative" movements and throw them together, or would you pick an Abernathy style complex application that the average practitioner won't be exposed to for years, let alone be able to figure out on their own right away...or from a book. Again...audience. Honestly, if I was selling a book and trying to make money, I'd target the non educated MA audience, not the half of a percent who care enough to research of the few percent who actually do have some knowledge and training.

Also - go ahead, TRY to tell me that you have never picked up a book like this to rememeber "that pesky move in that form you havent' done for a few months."

I could go on here, but let's be honest. All the older Koreans made up their version of history. Very few MA textbooks or references have the kind of stuff that we're talking about (If you doubt that, do an Amazon search for Tae Kwon Do or visit a bookstore and look at their selection of TKD versions of this book). And lastly....not to put too fine a point on it, but we're not who he was trying to sell the book to.....So Lee, Kang Uk probably doesn't really care about our opinions of it as he counts his stacks upon stacks of thousands that he's made off of this book.

oh, just to throw this in....I'm not saying that I fully agree with how the book is written or presented or that I think it is great - just being devil's advocate.

(Plus, the book has a special place in my heart, since it was my first reference when I got back into TSD after a years long hiatus.)

Maybe it's an outside/inside crescent kick??

I agree with MBuzzy - not the best book, but at the time it was published it was a basic cheep reference book on TSD when there was very little to choose from (that wasn't $95). I had mine delivered for about $12.

Maybe it's an outside/inside crescent kick??

Could be...I still wouldn't block it like that! :) Although, I don't think that I'd EVER do a formal knife hand in a real SD situation. And I'm sure that Lee, Kang Uk knows that too.

I agree with MBuzzy - not the best book, but at the time it was published it was a basic cheep reference book on TSD when there was very little to choose from (that wasn't $95). I had mine delivered for about $12.

And it is STILL a good low price quick reference book. I will always keep it on the shelf for when I need a quick reminder of something. There really isn't that much else on the market in a comparable price category. Not not much else, I mean nothing.

Just to throw in a different perspective on the picture.

Unless I'm seeing it wrong, he's making contact with the leg with his forearm, not his hand. I'm in 100% agreement that I'd never do that either. It's a really good way to draw back a busted hand. BUT... to my point, he's making contact with his forearm. In CMA (where TSD claims a degree of roots if I'm not mistaken), we would call that "bridging". We tend to not make force on force contact with that because it doesn't matter what the technique is, 9 out of 10 times, the leg wins handily. Ask Frank Shamrock about trying that with Cung Le. With a "bridging" motion, rather than trying to stop it or forcefully move it, the bridge allows deflection & contact to enter the opponent & control their center or move the kick off it's intended target (me) and control the leg, again taking control of their balance & ultimately, their center.

With a front kick (in the pic)thrown that high, my first instinct is to bridge & enter, get into his personal space, offset balance & strike all at the same moment.

I know this is staged for the pic, but there's a possible other aspect he's addressing without necessarily "addressing" the masses.

Just to throw in a different perspective on the picture.

Unless I'm seeing it wrong, he's making contact with the leg with his forearm, not his hand. I'm in 100% agreement that I'd never do that either. It's a really good way to draw back a busted hand. BUT... to my point, he's making contact with his forearm. In CMA (where TSD claims a degree of roots if I'm not mistaken), we would call that "bridging". We tend to not make force on force contact with that because it doesn't matter what the technique is, 9 out of 10 times, the leg wins handily. Ask Frank Shamrock about trying that with Cung Le. With a "bridging" motion, rather than trying to stop it or forcefully move it, the bridge allows deflection & contact to enter the opponent & control their center or move the kick off it's intended target (me) and control the leg, again taking control of their balance & ultimately, their center.

With a front kick (in the pic)thrown that high, my first instinct is to bridge & enter, get into his personal space, offset balance & strike all at the same moment.

I know this is staged for the pic, but there's a possible other aspect he's addressing without necessarily "addressing" the masses.

I see that as a great interpretation and application, but I don't think that it is part of the traditional TSD techniques. TSD is a pretty heavy striking art - more of a block/counter mindset than a block/move in mindset.

Again, the principles that you're talking about are solid principles which I happen to agree with, but in terms of a TSD reference, I doubt that is what he was trying to get to.

Thank you all for your comments!

Like I said, I purchased this book for the same reason. I couldn't find another cheap text that had step-by-step images of TSD hyung back when I was just getting back into TSD after a few years hiatus.

I agree with Exile here, I'm excited for Maunakuma's book. TSD needs to continue in its evolution and that means a reconciliation with true history, a movement away from ego and politics, and an open approach to martial arts while maintaining some tradition. I read and hear a lot about how TKD/TSD schools have become over McDojangified, but I really don't think this needs to be the case. I'm proud of my knowledge of TSD. I think that our art has a lot to offer, especially when the instructor's approach is more about a love of martial arts and self-defense and less about money or power.

I hope the upcoming generations of TSD practitioners will have more accurate texts to work with when they're looking for some reference to their style.

Astro - I very much agree with you. It will be wonderful when the true history and effective applications catch up to the publishing world.

I do think that books like this are a STEP in the right direction. When I started in the art, there was nothing.....basically it was either "Authentic Tang Soo Do" or Hwang Kee's texts and even until fairly recently, those were hard to get your hands on. We are getting more texts out there, by more people...which mean competition, which means the requirement for BETTER material to succeed. I'm hoping that as TSD grows, we will see more texts, some will be good, some will be crap, but the more that are out there, the higher probability of good stuff.

I hope this isn't in too bad of taste. I'm not trying to be overly disrespectful or start a fight, but I just wanted to make a point here. I bought this book some years back called "Tang Soo Do" by Kang Uk Lee. Here's the cover.






It seems like a photoshop. The angle of the kick doesn't match and a lot of things don't seem quite right. Maybe the photo was shot in a rush without thinking too much about it.

Some kicks can be blocked and countered, but as I was taught, it's better to get out of the way and let them pass.

It seems like a photoshop. The angle of the kick doesn't match and a lot of things don't seem quite right. Maybe the photo was shot in a rush without thinking too much about it.

Some kicks can be blocked and countered, but as I was taught, it's better to get out of the way and let them pass.

I know what you mean, M. There was something very odd about the way the figures are positioned in space... as though they were taken from two separate photos and superimposed. But why would anyone bother to do something like that, when it would be so much easier just to get a couple of MAists doing the kind of (fairly unrealistic) kick/block exchange depicted? :idunno:

I do not have that book as it is just about the same material that is in Hwang Kee's textbook. For me, the book is a moment in time. It's a picture of what TSD was and of what was handed down. Mbuzzy is right when he says that no body practices it like this. Hardly anyone really takes the hokey applications, the Ill Soo Shik, the Ho Sin Shul, or the bogus history seriously. My teacher calmly brushed all of that aside. My teacher's teacher, a 6th dan in SBD and Regional Examiner to boot, taught it because he was required, and then calmly moved on to material that was effective. This material came from his law enforcement background. My teacher's teacher's teacher taught the material and then folded in material from his wide experience in cross training. When you did a clinic with him, he was teaching several other MA on top of TSD.

The point is this, over the generations in my lineage, TSD has evolved. From teacher to teacher, people have not passed it down exactly as it was laid down in this book. They have made changes and have interpretted it as they saw fit in order to attempt to make what they did handy for self defense. I'll wager that this was the impetus behind the big standardization push in the MDK back in 1986. People were practicing TSD differently all across the country and no one knew what to expect when you went from one MDK dojang to another.

According to my teacher, when the first wave of standardized techniques came down the pipe from the Federation, people were like, "what the hell is this?" Even the old timers were surprised because they had never seen this stuff before. It wasn't the TSD that was taught to them. They lost a lot of members. As more and more stuff came down the pipe, the Kool Aide drinkers rose to the top and began to force out others. Now we've gotten to the point where there are more people outside of the Federation then in it and they are still bleeding membership.

It's all changing before our eyes and that book is just a reflection of a certain point in time.

At the Hawaii Karate Museum they have a book that was written in 1957 about TSD. The curator of the museum says its the very first book penned on TSD. When it's done being scanned and preserved, I'm going to go and take a look because I'm curious to see if what came in later volumes really was what was being taught back then.

We need maunakumu to get that danged book of his started, and then finished!

I'm ten chapters in and plan to have a draft with pictures completed by this summer. The photoshoots will be interesting with beautiful mountain and beach back drops.

At the Hawaii Karate Museum they have a book that was written in 1957 about TSD. The curator of the museum says its the very first book penned on TSD. When it's done being scanned and preserved, I'm going to go and take a look because I'm curious to see if what came in later volumes really was what was being taught back then.

That sounds awesome! I appreciate your insight into the history of TSD; you've definitely done a lot of research. When you get a chance, share what you see in that book with the rest of us. Thanks!

I do not have that book as it is just about the same material that is in Hwang Kee's textbook. For me, the book is a moment in time. It's a picture of what TSD was and of what was handed down. Mbuzzy is right when he says that no body practices it like this. Hardly anyone really takes the hokey applications, the Ill Soo Shik, the Ho Sin Shul, or the bogus history seriously. My teacher calmly brushed all of that aside. My teacher's teacher, a 6th dan in SBD and Regional Examiner to boot, taught it because he was required, and then calmly moved on to material that was effective. This material came from his law enforcement background. My teacher's teacher's teacher taught the material and then folded in material from his wide experience in cross training. When you did a clinic with him, he was teaching several other MA on top of TSD.

The point is this, over the generations in my lineage, TSD has evolved. From teacher to teacher, people have not passed it down exactly as it was laid down in this book. They have made changes and have interpretted it as they saw fit in order to attempt to make what they did handy for self defense. I'll wager that this was the impetus behind the big standardization push in the MDK back in 1986. People were practicing TSD differently all across the country and no one knew what to expect when you went from one MDK dojang to another.

According to my teacher, when the first wave of standardized techniques came down the pipe from the Federation, people were like, "what the hell is this?" Even the old timers were surprised because they had never seen this stuff before. It wasn't the TSD that was taught to them. They lost a lot of members. As more and more stuff came down the pipe, the Kool Aide drinkers rose to the top and began to force out others. Now we've gotten to the point where there are more people outside of the Federation then in it and they are still bleeding membership.

It's all changing before our eyes and that book is just a reflection of a certain point in time.

At the Hawaii Karate Museum they have a book that was written in 1957 about TSD. The curator of the museum says its the very first book penned on TSD. When it's done being scanned and preserved, I'm going to go and take a look because I'm curious to see if what came in later volumes really was what was being taught back then.

All excellent points - and I think that this entire situation grows out of the fact that the book was written (or more likely commissioned) by Dan Bon #70. He is teaching what he knew growing up in the art and passing it down not only how he knows/knew it, but more importantly, how he WANTS it to be done in HIS organization.

I think that the biggest take-away from this book analysis is that ANY MA book that is written, TSD or otherwise, should be read with the understanding that the material contained within is how the Instructor who wrote it wants it done. To others outside the organization, it is nothing more than a quick general reference and a look into the world of another organization.

It's a £15 - £20 book for god sake the price of 3 packets of cigarettes in the UK what more do you want for your money. It's meant more for a reference book for those in his organization. I wonder how many of the people critising actually have real valuable fighting experience and in live or die situations - I know for a fact Grandmaster KU Lee has.

It's a £15 - £20 book for god sake the price of 3 packets of cigarettes in the UK what more do you want for your money. It's meant more for a reference book for those in his organization.

I have some excellent books in that same price range or less whose technical content, photography and analysis are impeccable—works by Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Geoff Thompson, Lorne Christiansen, Simon O'Neil, Stuart Anslow.... almost every MA book I have is in that price range. So exactly how does what I've bolded in the above quote from your post have any bearing on the criticisms that people have made earlier in this thread? You're saying that, for the equivalent of $30–$40 U.S., don't expect much? That's supposed to be a credible defense??

I wonder how many of the people critising actually have real valuable fighting experience and in live or die situations - I know for a fact Grandmaster KU Lee has.

So what? What does that have to do with the fact that the book includes totally bogus KMA history of the usual fantasy kind; that it has virtual no SD realistic applications, and that the photography is inferior? We're supposed to go by these supposed 'live or die' situations you attribute to the author, rather than what is actually there, eh? Sort of like a international ski racer who knocks out an uninformative books about ski technique—you can't complain about the book because, hey, the guy is a major slalom competitor on the World Cup circuit? Or any number of similar cases where someone with relevant life experience in some domain of activity failed to produce a high-quality publication about that activity? :rolleyes:

Like I said it's probably more of a reference book for those within his association, I also this there are some inferior copies out there, I've seen them on ebay etc that do seem to have dodgey pictures. Sorry it sounds like some of you have them. My copy is fine, with clear pictures, it's original. The book should mostly be used when learning hyung away from class but not to replace instruction from a qualified instructor. When establishing the credentials of the author this was aimed at some of the coments along the lines of "I wouldn't do that block there" etc. You're critising probably the highest ranking student left alive of the founder, If we're doing anything differently to what he does then surely thats an addition and a diviation from the original style. I've actually used soo do blocks in real fights not hypothetical fights. I've also used them against people with weapons, always with sucess. It just seems too easy to knock others these days, we should be supporting each other in an Art where there are already too many divisions and too much politics.

Tang Soo

In a nutshell, I think what people are saying is that there is more too it then what is shown in the books. A lot more.

What you learned (and what I initially learned) was certainly good enough to pull me through some sticky situations, but there is more. Karate has the potential to teach you how to protect yourself in almost all empty handed self defense situations. It has the potential to be the only empty handed art you need to know.

KUL may be a skilled tangsoodoin, but from the outside looking in, and from the perspective of having intensively cross trained in other styles and in other styles of karate, there are many misconceptions that were passed down through the lineage and passed off as tradition. Some of these misconceptions are down right dangerous when it comes to self defense. I am positive that there are things that you do in class that you would NEVER attempt in a real fight. I can look at that TSD book or any TSD book for that matter and find the same things ubiquitously spread among the texts.

This is where the bogus history comes in. If you really understand where TSD comes from, who learned what from who, and for how long, you'll understand why it looks the way it does today. These answers are completely obfuscated by the "2000 year old fantasy" and provide one of the largest roadblocks to change in this art.

Most KMA dojangs I know operate piecemeal willy nilly when it comes to curriculum. There is no organizing structure and most teachers pull in from other sources to create a package that they think will meet their objectives. They know that the organization's material just doesn't cut it in all cases and are sensitive to the need to supplement.

TSD doesn't have to operate this way. TSD's roots lie in a complete self defense system that people trusted to protect themselves in all situations. The first step lies in tossing away the 2000 year old and really understanding the Founder's and/or grandmaster's CV for the first time.

I think most people now would understand that TSD does share a lot of technique with Karate (there are differences though), as has Karate borrowed from TSD and TKD in modern times. When I first started to get interested in Japanese Karate many years ago there where not the vararity of kicks that you have today. My TSD instructor used to teach Karate instructors how to kick, they used to go to him privately and pay through the nose for the privilage. Some of the forms found in TSD can be found elsewhere not just Karate. I can speak only for Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (Soo Bahk Do) as I know some people are doing things differently.

I think most people now would understand that TSD does share a lot of technique with Karate (there are differences though), as has Karate borrowed from TSD and TKD in modern times. When I first started to get interested in Japanese Karate many years ago there where not the vararity of kicks that you have today. My TSD instructor used to teach Karate instructors how to kick, they used to go to him privately and pay through the nose for the privilage. Some of the forms found in TSD can be found elsewhere not just Karate. I can speak only for Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (Soo Bahk Do) as I know some people are doing things differently.


Surely it's the other way around? Much of TSD has come from karate. There's less kicks in the TSD I do than in the Wado Ryu karate I did and they've been there since Wado was created by Otsuka Sensei. The forms are taken from the karate kata, the names are even similiar.

It's true that Japanese karateka have been borrowing KMA kicks for the past decade or so... but for reasons unconnected to combat. They have been introducing the kicks that tournament versions of the KMAs were pioneering several decades ago into Shotokan and other Japanese styles for the simple reason that, increasingly, the JKA karate format has come to be based on the same martial sport ethic as KKW/WTF TKD (and some of the TSD orgs too, I'm love to bet!) High flashy complex kicks wow spectators, increase audience viewership, and promote the 'popularity' of karate; hence they're rewarded with greater points than more workmanlike techs are... it's an increasingly tired old story.

But so far as combat effectiveness is concerned, the original kicking techs of Okinawan and early-era Japanese karate are plenty effective, especially because of the way they're linked to upper-body strikes at close quarters. The effective use of knee strikes, distorted in TKD versions of karate katas, are increasingly being distorted the same way in karate versions of karate katas, by being turned into mid-to-high kicks for athletic/gymnastic appeal, and to hell with the appropriateness of such kicks in the context of the preceding and following moves. This has been a curse and plague in TKD too, of course—big time—but one might have hoped that TSD would stay closer to the combatively effective karate that was its source. If that's to happen, then I think writers and senior practitioners in the art need to make their publications reflect that traditional combat emphasis. One of my complaints about the book we're talking about is that it's no better in this respect than any number of tournament-oriented TKD sources....

I think most people now would understand that TSD does share a lot of technique with Karate (there are differences though), as has Karate borrowed from TSD and TKD in modern times. When I first started to get interested in Japanese Karate many years ago there where not the vararity of kicks that you have today. My TSD instructor used to teach Karate instructors how to kick, they used to go to him privately and pay through the nose for the privilage. Some of the forms found in TSD can be found elsewhere not just Karate. I can speak only for Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan (Soo Bahk Do) as I know some people are doing things differently.

It's more then this. What I'm talking about is the fundamental ethos (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethos) of karate and how that should influence its pathos (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pathos).

When you begin to look at this, you can notice in one class, from practicing basics, how well these two connect. The basics are the fundamental expression of an arts ethos. They are its physical representation, its pathos. When we talk about this technique or that technique what we are really talking about is the greater picture regarding the purpose of the art.

There is no greater measure of purpose in a martial art then its basics.

So, what does this book show? The book displays a martial art that can be used for self defense and for self improvement and it displays techniques, forms, and concepts. If you take a step back and analyze it critically, you can see the disconnection of its ethos and pathos. You can feel it every time you try certain techniques in a live sparring situation.

This disconnect is based off of a series of misconceptions, obfuscations, and cultural changes that were passed off as tradition and then covered up by a 2000 year fantasy. When we talk about this art doing this or that art doing that and we all practice roughly the same forms, we are not talking about this disconnect, because chances art, these other arts share that too.

In my experience, karate, all along its syncretic lineage, suffers from this disconnect to a varying degree. Even in some Okinawan styles that I've had the recent opportunity to experience, this is present (I believe in a copy cat form of Japanese karate). Ultimately, the result of this is that the art becomes not worth your time. If you go into an art looking for a particular ethos and its pathos is designed for something different, then you've got a fundamental irreconcilable problem when it comes to learning.

You are NOT going to learn what you think you are learning. You WILL learn the ethos that shaped the pathos whether you like it or not. So, this book, while I wouldn't say its "not worth your time" I would say that it may not be valuable depending on what you are looking for.

The book is a reference book. I think you're looking for too much. live, train, get out more.

I think you're looking for too much.

No. All I've done is point out what is really there and point out what people weren't taught and what people don't know. We can know these things through diligent study and experience. We can know these things if we wish too. It's not looking for too much. It's about adding real depth to the art.

The main criticism that people are leveling are that without the things that people are talking about, the book has no depth.

I can see where some people are coming from in this thread. Maybe this book would be worth your time if what you're interested in is seeing how TSD was taught at a certain period in time in a certain place or if you were a student of K.U. Lee and wanted to see his past work.

As far as being a 'reference', the history presented in this book is known to be false and the presentation of technique lacks any depth. I can't figure out why so many KMA practitioners still want to uphold that 2000 year history chant. When I began really learning the history of TSD and learning the approach other arts take in SD applications, it opened my eyes to the real effectiveness of TSD. TSD has so much more to offer than what I was taught in my first school; so much more than what is shown in this book.

astrobiologist: I agree with your interpretation of the cover. The knife hand position in a (semi) backstance is not one I would use to defend against a front kick. While I agree with clfsean that the right hand position is similar to "bridging" Lee, Kang Uk's stance is not in a desirable position to move or counter with the opposite hand. I also practice traditional TSD and we heavily practice lateral movement fighting drills in which the front arm slightly deflects a kick as insurance--the real defensive technique is the lateral movement ~45 degrees and toward the opponent. The arm deflects primarily as insurance against a double pump roundhouse, for instance. We do these drills in a shortened bent leg front stance for mobility. The block/counter drills start at beginner level and the lateral movement drills start at intermediate level. The lateral movement drills are necessary to later teach the trapping/sweeping component.

It is always interesting to me to look at the various books on TSD. I agree that they are often a reference guide and tool meant mostly for the students of that particular school or organization. However, as more are published and improved layouts, photography, and increased content is offered, the quality of the books will improve in the same way competitors benefit from tournaments. Publishing a book is a long, tedious process--and in the end, you are always left with a mind racing full of things that could be improved and added.

On the topic of application in these texts, I agree with Mbuzzy that you should keep in mind the intended audience. When it comes to forms, beginners can be very overwhelmed by multiple applications and scenarios. It is more important that they begin to condition themselves to the training, learn the basic angles of defense and distance control, and how to adjust to the teaching methodology. The application can be shown as their understanding and ability grows. If a students asks the application, we always present a few. But to use the knife hand example from earlier, we could have spent PAGES going over all the various offensive and defensive applications and scenarios of grabbing, striking, and blocking that exist. These applications can be over the beginner's head and are much better shown in class (or on video)-- and as a living Art, "new applications may be developed and old ones rediscovered." There is also a certain amount of responsibility when it comes to covering application--the conditioning necessary to actually use the techniques! In the end, we decided to address application more heavily in the advanced text and the companion DVD where we could also address the finer points of conditioning.

I'm new to the forum, so I don't want to break any rules with a blatant plug. I was browsing through the discussions and couldn't resist replying. If you are interested in the text or have any questions, let me know.

Tang Soo!

EMST - first off, welcome to MT! Be sure to stop by the Meet and Greet forum to introduce yourself. I'm always thrilled to have another TSD member around here. Especially because newer members bump old threads and spur new conversation!

I do think that the market is almost ready for a TSD application book, but you're right, there is a lot to pack in there and it always changes. It would have to be a separate, stand alone book from any kind of basics and technique book.

I agree to a point. It is definitely time for a good applications book (or several) for TSD. However, I think teaching applications should begin from the get-go. Little bits at a time as the student progresses. Once their muscle memory and knowledge builds they will be able to take on more. I personally don't like the idea of teaching a technique without teaching what that technique can mean. If I teach someone a form, I then would like to teach them some possible applciations for the sets of movements in that form. But we are all free to have a different approach to our teaching styles and how we look at the martial arts.