Facts, Fiction, Lies and actual accounts

[Daniel Sullivan]

Then we are in disagreement on this point. But I'd ask how much research you've done on 'the other side' if any.

I've answered previously, but I will restate.

About eight months or so of Tangsudo at the recreational department through TKA and about four years during the school year only; totals out to about three, of Shotokan in high school by one of the teachers there. No dan grade. Aside from that reading up on the subject.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I've answered previously, but I will restate.

About eight months or so of Tangsudo at the recreational department through TKA and about four years during the school year only; totals out to about three, of Shotokan in high school by one of the teachers there. No dan grade. Aside from that reading up on the subject.

Have you read any books or articles from Mr. O'Neill, Master Anslow or Master Abernethy? Have you seen any of the DVD presentations or attended a seminar that addresses what I've been discussing?

To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang. From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head. This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread. I do not claim mine is the only or best. But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch. That is an interpretation, I do not feel it is the best interpretation. I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind. As I stated, and this isn't a shot at them, they did the best they could with the training they had at the time of the forms development. This does not negate the principles that are held within the form that can be linked to similar movements with Karate kata.

Il Jang for those not interested in SD can simply stand 'as is'. For those interested in SD, Il Jang like Pinan Shodan can contain a wealth of information. I could easil spend six months with a student on just this form and at the end they will have learned defenses from both typical arms length fighting distance and grappling distance. They would have learned CQC, balance displacement, throws, locks and numerous other principles of value to a SD practitioner. Il Jang would not be a 'beginners' form to quickly learn for the next colored belt. It would be a catalog of valuable principles, tactics and strategies upon which they can build. I agree with much of what Masters Abernethy and Anslow as well as Mr. O'Neill propose.

That is my viewpoint, that is how I teach.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Heian shodan:

Taegeuk Iljang:

While I would say that the latter was certainly influenced by the former, I would not say that it is a reworked version of the former.

Heian Sandan:

Taegeuk Samjang:

I would say that there is really no similarity between the two.

Heian Godan:

Taegeuk Ohjang:

No similarity here either.

Regardless of which kata you prefer, think superior, or whatever, I fail to see how anyone can watch these back to back and say that the latter are reworked versions of the former.

If anything, I'd say that the Taegeuk pumse are fairly bare bones by comparison to the Shotokan Heian kata.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Have you read any books or articles from Mr. O'Neill, Master Anslow or Master Abernethy? Have you seen any of the DVD presentations or attended a seminar that addresses what I've been discussing?

To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang. From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head. This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread. I do not claim mine is the only or best. But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch. That is an interpretation, I do not feel it is the best interpretation. I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind. As I stated, and this isn't a shot at them, they did the best they could with the training they had at the time of the forms development. This does not negate the principles that are held within the form that can be linked to similar movements with Karate kata.

Il Jang for those not interested in SD can simply stand 'as is'. For those interested in SD, Il Jang like Pinan Shodan can contain a wealth of information. I could easil spend six months with a student on just this form and at the end they will have learned defenses from both typical arms length fighting distance and grappling distance. They would have learned CQC, balance displacement, throws, locks and numerous other principles of value to a SD practitioner. Il Jang would not be a 'beginners' form to quickly learn for the next colored belt. It would be a catalog of valuable principles, tactics and strategies upon which they can build. I agree with much of what Masters Abernethy and Anslow as well as Mr. O'Neill propose.

That is my viewpoint, that is how I teach.

I have not expressed any opinion of your comments about how self defense applications can be brought forth from forms. No offense, but I've known about that long before there was an internet to discuss things on.

What I have disagreed with you about is your statements about the Taegeuk pumse being reworked 'karate kata,' presumably shotokan, and about your descriptions of usage of arae makki against the shin bone being found in Taegeuk Iljang (or any of the Taegeuk pumse) when it simply is not there. That and your evaluation of the head turning.

And yes, I have questioned your knowledge of the system and your answers have not been at all compelling in this regard and indicate a peripheral knowledge of Kukki taekwondo.

And yes, I consider my own knowledge of Shotokan to be peripheral. Which is why I don't go posting authoritatively in the karate section.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Heian shodan:

Taegeuk Iljang:

While I would say that the latter was certainly influenced by the former, I would not say that it is a reworked version of the former.

Heian Sandan:

Taegeuk Samjang:

I would say that there is really no similarity between the two.

Heian Godan:

Taegeuk Ohjang:

No similarity here either.

Regardless of which kata you prefer, think superior, or whatever, I fail to see how anyone can watch these back to back and say that the latter are reworked versions of the former.

If anything, I'd say that the Taegeuk pumse are fairly bare bones by comparison to the Shotokan Heian kata.

I did not say that Il Jang was a reworked Pinan Shodan. I mentioned Pinan Shodan as an example of the opening movement having an alternate interpretation that what is commonly presented in Shotokan or arts that use the kata. I compared this to the opening movements of Il Jang having alternate interpretations. Again, I did not say they were one in the same.

 

[dancingalone]

As to Itosu's Pinan katas being for "children", I think that is another fallacy when really looked at. Itosu did alter some things to make karate more accessible. He created the Pinan kata series for ALL his students. The adults learned these kata as well, and we know that they were based on other existing kata.

Do we know the exact timeline of the creation of the Pinan kata as well as which students started as adults and learned the Pinan as their primary formative kata? I ask because all the sources I've read state that Itosu did in fact intend the Pinan to be an introductory vehicle for youth. The adults at the time already had the Naihanchi kata to serve the same purpose.

Funakoshi would have been well into his thirties before I think the Pinan were taught. Chibana and Mabuni would have been in their teens I believe relative to the same event.

In any case, I don't doubt the Pinan eventually evolved to be goods for the adults too. That is the current reality with the forms taught in many different karate ryu. This was a natural consequence over time as the children that learned them grew up and begin teaching themselves. But if you can point me to any source material about Itosu's original intentions towards adults with the Pinan, I'd appreciate the cite.

I think the pendelum on TKD history is swinging back the other way. When it was first used when Gen. Choi promoted it, we know that they were honest that it was mainly japanese karate, then the push that it was taekyon and that TKD was suddenly an ancient martial art. Now, with the advent of better research and more connection between countries and schools, people are again looking at it's history differently. So depending on who/how you were taught this might not be anything new, or you may wonder why they made up their history.

I agree!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I did not say that Il Jang was a reworked Pinan Shodan. I mentioned Pinan Shodan as an example of the opening movement having an alternate interpretation that what is commonly presented in Shotokan or arts that use the kata. I compared this to the opening movements of Il Jang having alternate interpretations. Again, I did not say they were one in the same.

Please see your own post below.

This is what started this whole thing:

I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms. Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms.

And this is what prompted me to say that you were 'taking a swipe.'

I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form. Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I have not expressed any opinion of your comments about how self defense applications can be brought forth from forms. No offense, but I've known about that long before there was an internet to discuss things on.

What I have disagreed with you about is your statements about the Taegeuk pumse being reworked 'karate kata,' presumably shotokan, and about your descriptions of usage of arae makki against the shin bone being found in Taegeuk Iljang (or any of the Taegeuk pumse) when it simply is not there. That and your evaluation of the head turning.

And yes, I have questioned your knowledge of the system and your answers have not been at all compelling in this regard and indicate a peripheral knowledge of Kukki taekwondo.

And yes, I consider my own knowledge of Shotokan to be peripheral. Which is why I don't go posting authoritatively in the karate section.

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't feel you have the qualifications currently to properly understand what I've presented. That, and you're not reading what I'm posting correctly. As I mentioned above, I didn't say the opening movements of Pinan Shodan and Il Jang were the same. I simple stated that the opening movements of both have alternate interpretations. Same with the second set of movements and so forth. Same with your links of Heian Sandan and Samjang....I never mentioned either one of them or compared them to each other. You're either putting into the conversation something that isn't there, or you're not fully understanding what I've posted.

I've posted already what I mean by 'reworked kata' and it is not what you have interpreted it to mean. I feel I was sufficiently clear in that explanation. If not, ask me and I'll try to clarify it further.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Please see your own post below.

This is what started this whole thing:

I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms. Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms.

And this is what prompted me to say that you were 'taking a swipe.'

And I stand by what I stated. No where in that statement did I say Pinan Shodan was the same as Il Jang. I spent a considerable amount of time explaining what I meant as well.

 

[dancingalone]

Regardless of which kata you prefer, think superior, or whatever, I fail to see how anyone can watch these back to back and say that the latter are reworked versions of the former.

The overall argument of reworked or not is unimportant to me, but I would add that taking the pro side (i.e. yes they are reworked) does not necessarily mean you have to map Heian 1 to Taegeuk 1 or Heian 5 to Taegeuk 5. The relationships can be more eclectic than that, juxtaposing and transposing elements from one to many or many to one or many to many.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't feel you have the qualifications currently to properly understand what I've presented. That, and you're not reading what I'm posting correctly. As I mentioned above, I didn't say the opening movements of Pinan Shodan and Il Jang were the same. I simple stated that the opening movements of both have alternate interpretations. Same with the second set of movements and so forth. Same with your links of Heian Sandan and Samjang....I never mentioned either one of them or compared them to each other. You're either putting into the conversation something that isn't there, or you're not fully understanding what I've posted.

You have posted nothing that is particularly complex or advanced. If you think that you're posting esoteric or difficult to understand material, then you are deluding yourself.

I've posted already what I mean by 'reworked kata' and it is not what you have interpreted it to mean. I feel I was sufficiently clear in that explanation. If not, ask me and I'll try to clarify it further.

If you have, please quote it.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You have posted nothing that is particularly complex or advanced. If you think that you're posting esoteric or difficult to understand material, then you are deluding yourself.

I never claimed to post something complex or advanced. In fact, I mentioned several time about simple, gross motor skills. True SD principles are never complex, complexity is the antithesis of SD. Your inability to understand what I've posted is not my responsibility. On this very page you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of what I've posted by stating Il Jang is = to Pinan Shodan and Samjang = Heian Sandan. I certainly didn't say anything of the kind and never mentioned Samjang/Heian Sandan at all.

If you have, please quote it.

No, you take a breath, put your offense on hold and reread my posts with some objectivity with an eye towards comprehension. And instead of the little juvenile zingers as a retort, if you have a question then ask for a clarification before you get your feathers ruffled. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, in-depth if you can leave out the emotion.

For now, I'm going out for pizza with my son. Peace out.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I never claimed to post something complex or advanced. In fact, I mentioned several time about simple, gross motor skills. True SD principles are never complex, complexity is the antithesis of SD. Your inability to understand what I've posted is not my responsibility. On this very page you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of what I've posted by stating Il Jang is = to Pinan Shodan and Samjang = Heian Sandan. I certainly didn't say anything of the kind and never mentioned Samjang/Heian Sandan at all.



No, you take a breath, put your offense on hold and reread my posts with some objectivity with an eye towards comprehension. And instead of the little juvenile zingers as a retort, if you have a question then ask for a clarification before you get your feathers ruffled. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, in-depth if you can leave out the emotion.

For now, I'm going out for pizza with my son. Peace out.

Take your own advice. We've already been back and forth over the same territory and neither one of us is going to budge. I've read your posts, and as I said previously, there is nothing compelling in what you have to say.

I really have no further comment for you or see any need for further conversation.

Enjoy your pizza and your time with your son.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The overall argument of reworked or not is unimportant to me, but I would add that taking the pro side (i.e. yes they are reworked) does not necessarily mean you have to map Heian 1 to Taegeuk 1 or Heian 5 to Taegeuk 5. The relationships can be more eclectic than that, juxtaposing and transposing elements from one to many or many to one or many to many.

I'd say that at that point, you've gone beyond reworking but are still well within 'influenced by.'

 

[d1jinx]

Please see your own post below.

This is what started this whole thing:

Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do I will strongly disagree, with respect Daniel, about your comment on forms. Again, in my opinion (personal and professional) they are reworked karate forms.


And this is what prompted me to say that you were 'taking a swipe.

Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do I do NOT feel those that put them together, generally speaking, knew exactly the information they could/should contain or the true value of the form. Or, at least felt that that knowledge wasn't needed for the agenda they wished to pursue.'

Daniel, we must be working from the same brain. there were a few other comments that added to my frustration and enough for me to comment.

I think it would be of benefit to most to simply look at the bottom line as far as TKD:

• TKD history has been rewritten. Attempts have been made to sanitize it and make it into something it isn't.
• If you wish to discover its true history...good luck. My advice is to get as many sources as possible, realizing none of them are going to be fully spot on accurate. I don't care who wrote what or when. It is influenced by the views and/or agenda of the author(s). Simply choose one...but don't you dare argue, fuss or whine on internet boards if someone else comes along and disagrees. They just might be a 'little' more right than you, but still not spot on. They may claim to know seniors, have autographed books from them, slept on their floor, used their toothbrush or whatever. The bottom line is that they've made a choice of who to believe but it may not have been the right choice. Or it might be partially correct but laced with that particular 'seniors' agenda.
• And last but not least, despite the false information, despite the giant egos, despite the 'founders' really had very little experience for the most part (certainly not equal to their seniors in Japan/Okinawa at that time)...

this is his opinion that he is passing off as "WHAT IT IS" and then goes to tell you and I the meanings behind the KKW poomse and how thier application is not practical and just an overall atitude that taekwondo is Inferior to "HIS' true art that he founded, created... what ever. All this "opinions" from his Interpretation of an art he does not practice, but only reads american translated tkd history books that are biased toward the view and agenda of the author.

so if the Koreans took peices form various styles and mainly JAPANESE KARATE to make up their own watered down karate, then why would any art made up be expected to be more superier when it is based off of "books", a few seminars, taking a weekend course etc etc etc.

its almost like guessing a Math question. You can blurt out numbers and will usually get atleast 1 digit right, but eventually through shear statistics you may get it correct, eventually, once and a while.

 

[Archtkd]

To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang. From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head. This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread. I do not claim mine is the only or best. But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch. That is an interpretation, I do not feel it is the best interpretation. I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind.

Your interpretation is based on the wrong premise that the forearm proper is used in Taeguk Il Jang or any basic Kukkiwon taekwondo block. Serious taekwondoin with basic knowledge of Kukkiwon taekwondo know that the wrist (palmok) -- no more that 1 1/2 inches down from the wrist joint -- or the hand blade (sonnal) are the primary parts used in blocking in Taeguk poomsae, self defense and sparring (not the hand blade). Kukkiwon texts and all teachers I've known make specific warning about blocking with the forearm because it can be easily broken.

Of course one can use any part of their body to do anything they want, but it would be misleading for them to say they are applying or teaching a technique based on a Kukkiwon style form or technique that they misunderstood or rewrote. Were you taught to block with your forearm in Taekwondo or you learned it in other martial arts?

 

[d1jinx]

Your interpretation is based on the wrong premise that the forearm proper is used in Taeguk Il Jang or any basic Kukkiwon taekwondo block. Serious taekwondoin with basic knowledge of Kukkiwon taekwondo know that the wrist (palmok) -- no more that 1 1/2 inches down from the wrist joint -- or the hand blade (sonnal) are the primary parts used in blocking in Taeguk poomsae, self defense and sparring (not the hand blade). Kukkiwon texts and all teachers I've known make specific warning about blocking with the forearm because it can be easily broken.

Of course one can use any part of their body to do anything they want, but it would be misleading for them to say they are applying or teaching a technique based on a Kukkiwon style form or technique that they misunderstood or rewrote. Were you taught to block with your forearm in Taekwondo or you learned it in other martial arts?

It would be too easy to refer to the Official Kukkiwon textbooks and teachings than read others interpretations and base your own opinion but some choose not to do that. And there seems to be the same continuity from the kukkiwon textbook published in 1973 and the kukkiwon textbook published today.

Yet people still choose to read Americans interpretations and base opinions solely off of that. Not saying theres anything wrong with another persons interpretations. But when you begin to argue a point against whats actually in print from the source... well these 'debates' happen.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do


To touch on Mr. O'Neill's book, page 68 looks at the opening movement of Il Jang. From his perspective, it is an effective forearm strike to the upper torso of an attacker, followed by a balance displacement technique to off-balance the attacker and a forearm strike to the back of the attacker's head. This is not the only interpretation of this movement, I have described my own in this thread. I do not claim mine is the only or best. But I will state my opinion that it, as well as Mr. O'Neill's interpretation is a much higher % movement against a determined attacker than what is offered in the above link to the form video i.e. down block against a front kick and straight punch. That is an interpretation, I do not feel it is the best interpretation. I do not say, again, that my interpretation or Mr. O'Neill's is what the TKD pioneers had in mind.

Your interpretation...

Why are you calling this my interpretation? I clearly stated that this interpretation is from Mr. O'Neill's book and provided the page number where it can be found. It is a sound interpretation however. Have you read the book?

 

[Gnarlie]

I've read the book. I found it an interesting viewpoint, and it's certainly added a few new tactics and strategies to my SD arsenal. In my view, it sits quite comfortably with the KKW curriculum. I guess it just depends how you look at movements.

To my mind, Mr O'Neill wasn't suggesting anything so radically different to what we were already doing with our applications of poomsae in our classes. Just because it's called a block, doesn't mean that's all it has to be. For example, I've been using momtong bakkat makki as a brachial stun, and momtong an makki as a press to the rubbing point behind the elbow during an arm lock, for a long long time and have never been questioned by any master on it.

The application in the KKW textbook is one of many possible - the same textbook recommends exploration and selection of techniques and applications that work for the individual.

You make what you want to make of it. That's the beauty of Poomsae.

 

[punisher73]

Do we know the exact timeline of the creation of the Pinan kata as well as which students started as adults and learned the Pinan as their primary formative kata? I ask because all the sources I've read state that Itosu did in fact intend the Pinan to be an introductory vehicle for youth. The adults at the time already had the Naihanchi kata to serve the same purpose.

Funakoshi would have been well into his thirties before I think the Pinan were taught. Chibana and Mabuni would have been in their teens I believe relative to the same event.

In any case, I don't doubt the Pinan eventually evolved to be goods for the adults too. That is the current reality with the forms taught in many different karate ryu. This was a natural consequence over time as the children that learned them grew up and begin teaching themselves. But if you can point me to any source material about Itosu's original intentions towards adults with the Pinan, I'd appreciate the cite.

Give me a bit. In an issue of Classical Fighting Arts (I believe #21), they had an interview with Pat Nakata (who was a student of Chibana Sensei). In that interview he states that Itosu created the first Pinan kata to be a "kihon kata" for younger students. According to Nakata as told to him by Chibana, Itosu then created the other Pinan with a different intent to be inclusive of the other katas and a complete structure. Nakata also talks about the application/bunkai and the three levels taught. The first level was the simple block/punch/kick applications and the second level was the joint locks/throws etc. The third level was not taught openly, but took level two up a couple notches so the throws instead of being grabs to clothing were now grabbing the groin/throat etc. to do a throw (example given). This is going off of memory, so I will look when I am home and be able to give more specifics.

So, if we go back to Gen. Choi's first book in Korean he states that the forms were japanese karate and that he didn't know the applications. Later, this edition was reprinted and that was taken out. I don't think that Gen. Choi meant that he didn't know any applications, I think he was referring to what Nakata Sensei would call levels 2&3. As to the Korean forms being "reworked", again the definition is everything. I think that Gen. Choi used sequences found in the japanese katas with added touches of what he was refining and creating with his vision of TKD, when he created the Taeguk series. But, I don't think that they are a move for move rendering. If by "reworked" we mean that they are the same, just scrambled around in a different order I would disagree with that statement. If by "reworked" we mean that they are influenced by and find many sequences the same and someone looking at it would recognize it as Kata X, then I think we would say that they were "reworked".

To use a non-TKD example, here is what I would consider a "reworked kata".

Seibukan Seisan (very close to what Chotoku Kyan taught)

Shotokan Hangetsu

And finally, Tatsuo Shimabuku's Seisan (taken from Kyan's lineage)

So, I don't think that the Korean forms are just "reworked". I do however feel that they were based on their japanese counterparts and have lots of sequences the same, but not the overall strategy/concept that the base kata had.