Application of TKD poomsae in SD

[exile]

Just looking at the textbook again shows a different thing altogether. It shows the double knifehand block simply blocking a midsection punch (no trapping involved) then the second side kick to the throat of the opponent.

So much for clarity.

That's not bunhae. That's the official KKW explanation, which has little to do with any actual analysis of the movements derived from Okinawan kata.

Bunhae does not mean "application".

Right, and this is all too commonly the case with the Korean forms... they have in many cases been changed to conform to an 'über-rule', a stylistic requirement that bears little or no relationship to combat reality, and therefore make little sense in terms of practical use (as per a lot of the 'official KKW explanations'). A good, very sobering exercise is to look at the Korean versions of the old Okinawan kata, such as Empi, which becomes Eunbi, and see how the superficial resemblance is underlain by certain critical differences that drastically reduce the combat effectiveness of the system and make no sense in those terms. The replacement of the knee-strike-to-abdomen/groin strike sequence in Empi with a high front kick (supposedly carried out while you're pulling the attacker close to your body!) is a perfect example... the inevitable outcome of the Okinawan-to-Korean form translation rule that you replace knee strikes with foot-strikes, and the higher the better.

I would really hope that this kind of thing could be reversed, but after seeing those vids of Chloe Bruce, and of the new KKW forms that were posted a few weeks ago, I think that if anything it's going to get way worse than it is now. As long as you stick with the WTF scoring protocols, this is what's going to happen...

 

[Ninjamom]

....... A good, very sobering exercise is to look at the Korean versions of the old Okinawan kata, such as Empi, which becomes Eunbi, and see how the superficial resemblance is underlain by certain critical differences that drastically reduce the combat effectiveness of the system and make no sense in those terms......

Ex, do you have links or refs to these early forms (or at least a list of names so I can google them), so that we can look at and compare variations?

Thanks!

 

[exile]

Ex, do you have links or refs to these early forms (or at least a list of names so I can google them), so that we can look at and compare variations?

Thanks!

Hi, NJM—I do, actually; let me dig around some....

OK: here's a nice performance of Empi. And here's a really nice, clear demo of the crucial bunkai oyo involving the point I brought up in my previous post. Lucid, simple, and nastily effective.

But in the Eunbi that I learned—and my instructor follows a very conservative line on hyungs—those abdominal knee strikes are turned into high front kicks. And I've seen Eunbi at tournaments, and it's the same story. But the whole range/balance story changes, in the direction of much greater implausibility, when you do that....

 

[IcemanSK]

Do you have a version of Eunbi, exile?

 

[exile]

Do you have a version of Eunbi, exile?

Only the one I've learned. I'll poke around in my 'library' of demo vids, though... I started doing this when trying to find a version of Rohai similar to the one I learned, and came up empty, but I encountered a lot of interesting Koreanizations of Okinawan/Japanese kata along the way... more soon, if I can turn up anything!

 

[Ninjamom]

........But the whole range/balance story changes....

Thanks for the links, and they make clear what you are saying.

In kendo, there is a critical concept called 'maai', the idea of maintaining a correct control of the distance/time between two opponents, or between attacker and target. Kendo practices three main ranges - you can think of them as short, mid, and long ranges. From the video, the karate kata appears to employ the short range almost exclusively, while the introduction of a snap kick into the equation forces the distance between the opponents to shift unnaturally between close and mid ranges.

In sparring, I usually 'jam up' a larger opponent by staying close enough to where their kicks are innefective. It appears in this example that the newer TKD form has unintentionally introduced just this kind of 'jamming up', but in such a way that its own kicks become inneffective.

Am I understanding correctly that this is what you are saying?

 

[exile]

Thanks for the links, and they make clear what you are saying.

In kendo, there is a critical concept called 'maai', the idea of maintaining a correct control of the distance/time between two opponents, or between attacker and target. Kendo practices three main ranges - you can think of them as short, mid, and long ranges. From the video, the karate kata appears to employ the short range almost exclusively, while the introduction of a snap kick into the equation forces the distance between the opponents to shift unnaturally between close and mid ranges.

In sparring, I usually 'jam up' a larger opponent by staying close enough to where their kicks are innefective. It appears in this example that the newer TKD form has unintentionally introduced just this kind of 'jamming up', but in such a way that its own kicks become inneffective.

Am I understanding correctly that this is what you are saying?

Yes, exactly. And the problem, as I see it, is that that is going to happen a lot when a short-range leg tech like an abdominal knee strike is reinterpreted as a high kick, all other things being equal. More generally, the WTF acrobatic-kick ethic, imported into older TKD forms such as Koryo, is, inevitably I think, going to impose the kind of distortion of the combat content of those forms that people have been referring to.

 

[foot2face]

Right, and this is all too commonly the case with the Korean forms... they have in many cases been changed to conform to an 'über-rule', a stylistic requirement that bears little or no relationship to combat reality, and therefore make little sense in terms of practical use (as per a lot of the 'official KKW explanations'). A good, very sobering exercise is to look at the Korean versions of the old Okinawan kata, such as Empi, which becomes Eunbi, and see how the superficial resemblance is underlain by certain critical differences that drastically reduce the combat effectiveness of the system and make no sense in those terms. The replacement of the knee-strike-to-abdomen/groin strike sequence in Empi with a high front kick (supposedly carried out while you're pulling the attacker close to your body!) is a perfect example... the inevitable outcome of the Okinawan-to-Korean form translation rule that you replace knee strikes with foot-strikes, and the higher the better.

I would really hope that this kind of thing could be reversed, but after seeing those vids of Chloe Bruce, and of the new KKW forms that were posted a few weeks ago, I think that if anything it's going to get way worse than it is now. As long as you stick with the WTF scoring protocols, this is what's going to happen...

Exile, I’m sorry but you have consistently demonstrated that your understanding of TKD (especially with regards to KKW TKD) is extremely limited. From my perspective, comments like this are as accurate as someone saying that techniques of TKD come from ancient Korean MAs. Of course, to one who trains and learns how to apply O/J kata the later Korean forms seem less particle and combat related but that is because they come from an another style and represent a completely different understanding of MAs (not less practical just different). For one who properly trains and learns the philosophy behind the more recent Korean forms (Tae Geuk, Koryo and perhaps the two new poomse) they are extremely practical and combat effective. I’m sure to an outsider many CMA form may look like nothing more than a flowery dance, especially if their frame of reference is hard JMA kata, but in reality there are loads of useful applications within them. This is similar to what happens when someone with limited experience in the later TKD poomse try to judge their effectiveness.
Quibbling over the exact height of the second side kick is pointless. Those who participate in form completions may prefer to throw it higher (in order to impress with their physical ability) while those who are more SD oriented a bit lower. In actuality the exact height of both kicks isn’t important, what matters is that the first one is generally low and the second is generally high. The point of this technique in the poomse is to demonstrate the principle of low-high striking. A theory of multi-level combo striking where initial strikes are directed to the low region with the belief that it is generally less guarded and one has a higher success rate for landing a solid uncontested blow and that the low region offers numerous targets that when struck can stun or stammer you adversary, compromising their defenses allowing for an immediate blow to their much more desirable higher region. There are many useful applications for the double side kick technique in Koryo form. Trying to pigeonhole it into just one boon hae undermines the overall effectiveness of the poomse and is usually the first mistake made by those who try to reinterpret them as one would a JMA kata.

 

[exile]

Since this was raised, I really don't think I can avoid answering it. And I don't think it's at all irrelevant to the issues underlying the the point that the OP raised.

Exile, I’m sorry but you have consistently demonstrated that your understanding of TKD (especially with regards to KKW TKD) is extremely limited.

If you're going to make comments as broad-brush as this, f2f, I would expect you to provide some correspondingly wide justification for them. Are there any here? Let's see....

From my perspective, comments like this are as accurate as someone saying that techniques of TKD come from ancient Korean MAs.

There is by now an enormous documentary base for the argument that TKD does not come from ancient KMAs, a point I've been making almost from the time I started posting on MT. So presumably, you're claiming that there are comparably strong pieces of evidence that the kind of case I raise, the translation of Empi into Eunbi, really is underlain by bunkai principles and applications of considerable robustness, and that the evidence is out there. Well, is it? Can you point me to some examples of the robust, plausible application of the sequences in Eunbi which are cognate with those of the Empi that Eunbi derives from? I've provided demos of Empi and of the oyo for Empi; will you reciprocate, and support your comments above about my inferior understanding of TKD, by showing me just how the substitution of the high kick for the knee abdominal knee strike in the Empi --> Eunbi translation makes at least as much sense as the bunkai for Empi, taking into account my exchange with Ninjamom above, and our basis for the reservations we share about the substitution of leg techs?

Of course, to one who trains and learns how to apply O/J kata the later Korean forms seem less particle and combat related but that is because they come from an another style and represent a completely different understanding of MAs (not less practical just different). For one who properly trains and learns the philosophy behind the more recent Korean forms (Tae Geuk, Koryo and perhaps the two new poomse) they are extremely practical and combat effective.

Then maybe you can provide some concrete examples of cases where the substitution of a high kick for a knee or lower leg strike—with much of the rest of the form retained the same, as in the case I raised—makes just as much combat sense? Empi came first, with the kind of businesslike bunkai that is all over the place in Okinawan forms once realistic and sensible interpretation principles are applied; the TKD version, Eunbi, derives from it, but the principal alteration was the substitution of high kicks for the knee strikes in Empi. Exactly how do the hikite/retractions aspects of the first part of the sequence in question connect with the high kick and then with the faithful reproduction of the `cross punch'? followup? A high kick at very close range, knocking the attacker way out of range, followed by a one step movement in to attack his groin? Surely not! So what are the effective bunkai for this combat subsequence in the form?

I’m sure to an outsider many CMA form may look like nothing more than a flowery dance, especially if their frame of reference is hard JMA kata, but in reality there are loads of useful applications within them.

We are not talking about CMA forms, which do not look in the least flowery to me. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing them in, but they represent a straw man. No one is talking about CMAs, or FMAs for that matter.

This is similar to what happens when someone with limited experience in the later TKD poomse try to judge their effectiveness.

Reread what I have said, f2f, and you'll notice that what I was explicitly referring to was the tendency to reflexively substitute high kicks for other leg techs in the O/J source forms that the KMAs have incorporated, without corresponding changes in the rest of the form to accomodate the changes made. Read again the first paragraph in the text you quoted from me. I was talking about a particular form-substitution ethic and gave Empi/Eunbi as an example. And you have yet to provide a single argument that the substitutions made in the translation, which leave almost all the other moves intact but change the height of the kicks, are combat-effective or even combat-rational.

My comments in the second paragraph you quote from me reflect my sense that that the mania for high flashy kicks in TKD-specific forms reflect glitz over combat substance—Chloe Bruce's XMA 'hyung' that we saw several months ago is a perfect example—and I'm far from alone in that view. Whether that reflects an 'extremely limited' understanding of TKD, or simply one that diverges from your own, is of course an open question. You're not the first person in the KMA section to insist that any disagreement with your own technical assessment reflects negatively on everyone but you, and I suspect you won't be the last. But the point is, you've given no arguments at all to back up your wholesale negative comments—something simple courtesy, I would have thought, would require you to do.

Now let me connect this with Terry's OP, because there is, I think, a definite connection. The source of the TKD forms was in Okinawan kata, via Japan, and while a good deal of the combat significance of the Okinawan forms seems to have gone by the wayside in the Japanese context, the applications were still there, and are still there, and are there as well in the subcomponents of the hyungs. The height of the kicks, and of the leg techniques in those forms in general, was determined by severe practicality. The same logic which in the case of Empi/Eunbi systematically changed knee jams to the abdoment into head-high kicks at knee-strike range has also decreed that Korean forms which originally involved low or middle kicks should be high kicks, regardless of their practical value. To my way of thinking, the question you have to ask yourself is, given that this is the case, what is the purpose of competing in tournaments under those judging conditions? What purpose does it serve? If the original purpose of the forms was to encode practical self-defense techniques, and the showmanship aspects of competition have driven the height of the kicks up regardles of their canonical form, what does tournament victory actually mean, even if you achieve it? If you are going to have to alter Koryo, and probably other classic hyungs, in this way just to have a chance of winning a medal, what good is being served? To me it looks as though there really isn't much point, and it's not at all clear just what value that medal would reflect. And that's probably going to be the case as long as you have to compete under WTF judging conventions. If that's a correct view of the case, then I think far less harm is done—so far as your students' contact with the Koryo hyung and its possible role in their training are concerned—if you do the form in the canonical, traditional way. The benefit for them learning to do it correctly will be much greater than the temporary satisfaction of a bit of glitter in their hand...

 

[e ship yuk]

Do you have a version of Eunbi, exile?

The form as I learned it, which may be slightly, though not completely, different from the one exile learned. In this video, which is myself and my instructor going over the form several years ago, we are throwing sidekicks, as I was prepping for a tournament, and the thrusting kick looked better. Unlike exile, the kick we "traditionally" threw was a roundhouse.

 

[IcemanSK]

The form as I learned it, which may be slightly, though not completely, different from the one exile learned. In this video, which is myself and my instructor going over the form several years ago, we are throwing sidekicks, as I was prepping for a tournament, and the thrusting kick looked better. Unlike exile, the kick we "traditionally" threw was a roundhouse.

Thank you for this! It's different than the one I know as well, but it's close.

 

[YoungMan]

I remember going over forms with Hae Man Park years ago, and he would demonstrate the techniques to show what you were doing. Nothing like seeing a demo by GM Park to make you understand what forms like Koryo are supposed to be accomplishing.
Before you brush off Korean forms as ineffective due to "ineffective translation", make sure you understand what the Korean techniques are doing. Quite an eyeopener watching a true master showing why the forms are the way they are. There is a reason for those techniques, and it's not just to kick high.
For the record, we have always taught Koryo as low-high side kick. I would never change my form just to win a medal.

 

[exile]

Before you brush off Korean forms as ineffective due to "ineffective translation", make sure you understand what the Korean techniques are doing. Quite an eyeopener watching a true master showing why the forms are the way they are. There is a reason for those techniques, and it's not just to kick high.

I specified exactly why I thought the translation of Empi, into Eunbi, essentially intact except for the replacement of the abdominal knee strikes by high kicks (with no further adjustments in the preceding and following moves) presented serious application problems. And now perhaps you'll reciprocate by explaining just what the 'reason for those techniques' is, yes? You assure me there is one; well, let's have it. Why don't you tell me exactly what the Korean modification to the old Okinawan form added in the way of effectiveness in the bunkai. Your post implies you have a story to tell about that; otherwise, the fingerwaving and tone of wise admonition would be inappropriate. So please tell me: just what is the combat application of the modification that represents value added to the original Empi kata? I'm listening....

 

[exile]

Before you brush off Korean forms as ineffective due to "ineffective translation", make sure you understand what the Korean techniques are doing. Quite an eyeopener watching a true master showing why the forms are the way they are. There is a reason for those techniques, and it's not just to kick high.

I specified exactly why I thought the translation of Empi into Eunbi—essentially intact except for the replacement of the abdominal knee strikes by high kicks (with no further adjustments in the preceding and following moves)—presented serious application problems. And now perhaps you'll reciprocate by explaining just what the 'reason for those techniques' is, yes? You assure me there is one; well, let's have it. Why don't you tell me exactly what the Korean modification to the old Okinawan form added in the way of effectiveness in the bunkai. Your post implies you have a story to tell about that; otherwise, the fingerwaving and tone of wise admonition would be inappropriate. So please tell me: just what is the combat application of the modification that represents value added to the original Empi kata? I'm listening....

 

[YoungMan]

You know exile, asking you about Taekwondo and its history and methods would be like asking a judo practitioner about kung fu. Considering your background, I really don't see you as much of an authority on the effectiveness on Taekwondo forms.

 

[exile]

You know exile, asking you about Taekwondo and its history and methods would be like asking a judo practitioner about kung fu. Considering your background, I really don't see you as much of an authority on the effectiveness on Taekwondo forms.

Now that you've gotten that off your chest, YoungMan, please back up your earlier post and explain to us exactly what the applications that are incorporated in the translation modifications to the original Empi kata are. And you're not asking me, YM. I'm asking you: please back up what you just posted in your prior message.

This is also known as, put up or shut up, and one thing you should know about MartialTalk: its members can recognize bluffing and posturing when they see it. You posted a message that was predicated on a claim about your knowledge of effective combat applications of the translation moves. Snide non sequiturs won't help you here. Would you please explain exactly what you were getting at in your previous post? Show us how much of an authority you are. We're all waiting to hear what you have to say...

 

[YoungMan]

I have nothing to prove to you, and am certainly not going to waste my time making a point to someone who would not be convinced anyway. You obviously don't think much of the combat effectiveness of Taekwondo. That's your right. I'm certainly not to waste valuable time looking over old texts and quoting people who lived 50 years ago (or centuries ago) just to make some arcane point about what a technique in Koryo is supposed to do. Simply put, Taekwondo has more than established its effectiveness, and it doesn't need your approval, or any other person who is convinced of the superiority of Japanese/Okinawan styles, to be validated.
Don't think Taekwondo is combat effective or has lost something in its so-called translation from Japanese styles? Fine. Keep practicing Karate, where its obvious you've found your niche.

 

[exile]

I have nothing to prove to you, and am certainly not going to waste my time making a point to someone who would not be convinced anyway. You obviously don't think much of the combat effectiveness of Taekwondo. That's your right. I'm certainly not to waste valuable time looking over old texts and quoting people who lived 50 years ago (or centuries ago) just to make some arcane point about what a technique in Koryo is supposed to do. Simply put, Taekwondo has more than established its effectiveness, and it doesn't need your approval, or any other person who is convinced of the superiority of Japanese/Okinawan styles, to be validated.
Don't think Taekwondo is combat effective or has lost something in its so-called translation from Japanese styles? Fine. Keep practicing Karate, where its obvious you've found your niche.

I don't do karate. I do Taekwondo, Song Moo Kwan lineage (which contains a number of important karate kata, and did so from the time of Byung Jik Ro himself), in a dojang which emphases realistic combat techniques, and I focus on effective bunkai based on the work of TKDists like Simon O'Neil, Stuart Anslow and the TKD 'subgroup' of the British Combat Association and try to apply their methods, based on the recovery of bunkai techniques pioneered in Japanese karate by people like Iain Abernethy, Rick Clark, and Bill Burgar. I've posted enough about the effectiveness of TKD as employed in the RoK military in two wars to make it clear to anyone who's read any of the threads on TKD's combat effectiveness carefully just how committed I am to TKD as a combat art, and how much I resent the efforts of the sports federations which try to denature that effectiveness by going in the XMA direction. I've probably posted a dozen or so posts on that subject along in the year and a half I've been on the board. So once again, your comments have little relationship to any facts that are relevant.

From your own answer here, which is roughly what I expected, it's evident that in spite of your implicit claim to have an actual combat application of the translation moves in Empi/Eunbi, you actually have nothing to offer, just as your recycled dojang folklore about taekkyon has no legs, in the face of repeated presentations of the state of the historical art on taekkyon (e.g., that cited here). You call on evidence you don't have, you ignore the available historical evidence on historical issues that you insist on discussing, and you can't even get the MA background of other people in the discussion right....You might consider just what kind of impression you're making, so far.

 

[YoungMan]

Exile,
I have watched repeated footage of Taekkyon practitioners on Youtube (I don't live in Korea so it's the closest I can get), and all of them do the things you claim Taekkyon doesn't do (high kicks, jumping, jump spinning etc.). Maybe it is you, with your "research", who is mistaken. Don't ask me how Taekwondo, with its supposed Shotokan roots, got a hold of these techniques. Maybe the truth isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. I just know what my eyes saw. Maybe Taekkyon wasn't as dead as people thought. If it were dead, it wouldn't be on Youtube showing techniques I see in modern Taekwondo.
Don't tell me Hapkido, because Hapkido originally didn't look much like it does today either.
As for Koryo, it reflects how the Koreans perceive self defense and their approach to technique. It is not a "mistranslation" of Empi and not intended to be. It is what it is. You seriously think techniques in the form would not have been changed had they been thought ineffective? Give the Koreans a little credit. It is not supposed to be a "translation" of a Japanese form. It is a Korean form with its own merits and weaknesses, as is any form. It also undergoes changes to make it better.
But I dislike as well the downward slide of Taekwondo from effective self defense to sport and circus act. We agree on that. I think the next couple of years are going to see some big changes in Taekwondo's direction.

 

[exile]

Exile,
I have watched repeated footage of Taekkyon practitioners on Youtube (I don't live in Korea so it's the closest I can get), and all of them do the things you claim Taekkyon doesn't do (high kicks, jumping, jump spinning etc.). Maybe it is you, with your "research", who is mistaken. Don't ask me how Taekwondo, with its supposed Shotokan roots, got a hold of these techniques. Maybe the truth isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to think. I just know what my eyes saw. Maybe Taekkyon wasn't as dead as people thought. If it were dead, it wouldn't be on Youtube showing techniques I see in modern Taekwondo.
Don't tell me Hapkido, because Hapkido originally didn't look much like it does today either.

I won't tell you Hapkido. I'll tell you that none of the kicking techniques that the Taekyonists of the 20th centuries explicitly identify as the essence of Taekkyon were high or even middle kicks, as I cited in the post I referred you to, and which you apparently have not taken in. I'll tell you that at the time when thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of Koreans were doing Taekkyon, there were a grand total of four known taekkyonists in Korea, mostly quite elderly, practicing those low kicks and unbalancing techniques, and that the growth of Taekkyon to the several thousand who now do it happened long after TKD was already experimenting with increasingly high kicks. All of that is cited in my post. I'll tell you that when you see a late-developming martial art, 'nouveau Taekkyon', which grows from nowhere in the shadow of what was becoming the most popular MA in the world, and then you see the same kicks in the nouveau art that you do in what had been around, and developing for at least a generation previously from its Kwan roots, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what the direction of transmission had to have been. And the research you put in scare quotes is not mine, but the work of professional MA historians who actually have read Song Duk Ki's book, and can show exactly why, from what he and his senior students themselves say, there is no connection between the kicking techs in established TKD vs. those of the nouveau taekkyon you've seen a few vids of. Why, why is this point so difficult? :idunno:

I'm not blowing off the rest of your post, YM, but we have to leave for a bit and I can't get back to the rest till later in the day.... I really think you are not getting my point about Empi/Eunbi, or what Terry's actual complaint about Koryo judging is (the form hasn't changed, but the judging criteria have!) but we'll have to let it go till then...