Keumgang Poomsae

[dvcochran]

It's much more of an issue imo if an instructor takes that mindset.

Disinterest shows, and if you're trying to show someone else something that you have absolutely no interest in, or understanding of, then what are the chances they're going to get anything else out of it either?

Agree. If a budding instructor does not fully understand a form (who really does?) how they deliver the information to a learning student is paramount. I suspect it they show disinterest in a form, they likely do it in other things as well. The devil Is in the details but that is where some of the greatest fun begins. IMHO

 

[skribs]

It's much more of an issue imo if an instructor takes that mindset.

Disinterest shows, and if you're trying to show someone else something that you have absolutely no interest in, or understanding of, then what are the chances they're going to get anything else out of it either?

My experience is that this isn't an instructor problem, but a problem with KKW TKD as a whole. From what I can tell, the number of schools that practice anything besides the motions in the form themselves is relatively small, and 0 of those applications come from KKW. Every piece of research I've found (articles, books, videos) has been personal opinions and local curriculums.

I am saying there are variants within the specific move. An example, the Mountain block could be two inside blocks, two outside blocks, one in one out, two high blocks, a forearm strike, and more. It is one of the representative movements I was talking about, supporting the forms name and history. Is there application in that? I am not certain but it does have value.

Put aside the variants for the moment. Does the move as done in the form make sense?

 

[skribs]

Agree. If a budding instructor does not fully understand a form (who really does?) how they deliver the information to a learning student is paramount. I suspect it they show disinterest in a form, they likely do it in other things as well. The devil Is in the details but that is where some of the greatest fun begins. IMHO

If nobody really does, then how does anyone teach?

You can show interest in a form and in the details without finding the direct application. I am big on attention to detail, in my opinion that's one of the biggest benefits of the forms. I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions.

 

[pdg]

I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions

That's part of what I was on about.

If you consider the motions meaningless then odds are you'll teach them as such, and subsequently pass that mindset on to your students, who later pass it on to theirs, and so on and so forth... This is possibly suggestive of this 'issue' being the product of multiple generations of instructors who had no interest in anything other than "forms for tests" and wt rules sparring.

I've said before that we share many moves and techniques and also said how we drill and work with them, which you dismissed out of hand because "that's not how my master teaches". The research you've said you've conducted - have you similarly written off everything that may be useful because it conflicts with what you've been told?

In some of the itf literature I've seen mention about training (or getting information from) other teachers and even other arts - generally it's encouraged but comes with the caveat that if it conflicts with what your own teacher considers correct that you either disregard it or change teachers (or study it outside of your class time and not let it interfere).

So, I understand you disregarding any info you may get in external research if the above holds true - but if that's the case and you're going to continue to ignore or berate anything that doesn't completely agree with your teacher then it seems massively counterproductive to research in any fashion other than, well, asking your teacher.

 

[paitingman]

If nobody really does, then how does anyone teach?

You can show interest in a form and in the details without finding the direct application. I am big on attention to detail, in my opinion that's one of the biggest benefits of the forms. I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions.

Do you really find them meaningless?
Is their anything wrong with the meaning YOU find in them?

It would be nice to have a perfect explanation from KKW that fits with what I think, but

I encourage people to explore forms with their own body and mind. I mean they are YOUR skills.

I love to get info from KKW but their word is not law in regards to my Taekwondo journey.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[dvcochran]

If nobody really does, then how does anyone teach?

You can show interest in a form and in the details without finding the direct application. I am big on attention to detail, in my opinion that's one of the biggest benefits of the forms. I've learned to focus on the details instead of trying to find some hidden meaning in meaningless motions.

Why do you try to make it something mystic and mysterious? It is not. A learned martial artist will realize there are many ways to apply the same movement. That is part of the beauty in the details.

 

[dvcochran]

My experience is that this isn't an instructor problem, but a problem with KKW TKD as a whole. From what I can tell, the number of schools that practice anything besides the motions in the form themselves is relatively small, and 0 of those applications come from KKW. Every piece of research I've found (articles, books, videos) has been personal opinions and local curriculums.



Put aside the variants for the moment. Does the move as done in the form make sense?

Yes.

 

[skribs]

Why does everyone keep putting the words in my mouth that "it's not what my Master teaches so I disregard it."

That's not why I disregard anything. I have a very simple standard when I'm looking for the application from a form: take the motion of the technique, as done in the form, and apply it. Not the motion that kinda sorta looks like the form. Not the technique in the form with a bunch of extra stuff that's never been in any form. Just take the motion of the form, as done in the form, and apply it.

I reject anything that doesn't meet that standard. It has nothing to do with what my Master taught me. It has everything to do with a simple question: why do we do X technique this way?

If the version in the form does not make sense in application, then there isn't an application. If you have to modify the technique to make it work in any application, then there are two possibilities: 1) the form was not intended for direct application, or 2) the technique in the form is bad.

Let's look at another technique that's in forms - front kick. This one is easy to apply. Now, I may need to modify my front kick. I may want to kick higher or lower, I may need to adjust my footwork to be in range. But the basic front kick as done in the forms is an effective technique. It is very easy to see how that technique would work without modification.

Going back to Keumgang, I am going to disagree with you @dvcochran that the move makes sense as done in the form. (Feel free to offer more evidence than "yes" to the contrary). There are similar motions that make sense, but then why doesn't the form use the version that makes sense?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the forms are performance-based, not application-based. It's the same as when I do a 540 kick. There's 0 application in being able to jump and spin around a time and a half before executing a spin hook kick. It looks cool. I think it makes my spin hook kick better, because I have to do it in a smaller window of time. I think it helps with my body control, and it encourages me to keep my body in shape so I can continue to do cool things. It's good for my leg and core muscles. But those techniques have 0 application. They are performance-based techniques.

 

[skribs]

Why do you try to make it something mystic and mysterious? It is not. A learned martial artist will realize there are many ways to apply the same movement. That is part of the beauty in the details.

You speak of details. There are many ways to apply similar movements. There's generally very few ways to apply the same movement.

And even then, the base movement has to make sense. Otherwise, you would base it off of one of the similar movements that makes more sense.

 

[skribs]

Do you really find them meaningless?
Is their anything wrong with the meaning YOU find in them?

It would be nice to have a perfect explanation from KKW that fits with what I think, but

I encourage people to explore forms with their own body and mind. I mean they are YOUR skills.

I love to get info from KKW but their word is not law in regards to my Taekwondo journey.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Well, considering KKW is the governing body by which I am certified, their opinion at least kind of matters.

I find drawing application from the forms meaningless. I don't find training the forms meaningless. There are lots of benefits to be had by training the forms. I just think once you start getting into the fancier techniques, application loses ground to flair.

 

[Buka]

Why does everyone keep putting the words in my mouth that "it's not what my Master teaches so I disregard it."

That's not why I disregard anything. I have a very simple standard when I'm looking for the application from a form: take the motion of the technique, as done in the form, and apply it. Not the motion that kinda sorta looks like the form. Not the technique in the form with a bunch of extra stuff that's never been in any form. Just take the motion of the form, as done in the form, and apply it.

I reject anything that doesn't meet that standard. It has nothing to do with what my Master taught me. It has everything to do with a simple question: why do we do X technique this way?

If the version in the form does not make sense in application, then there isn't an application. If you have to modify the technique to make it work in any application, then there are two possibilities: 1) the form was not intended for direct application, or 2) the technique in the form is bad.

Let's look at another technique that's in forms - front kick. This one is easy to apply. Now, I may need to modify my front kick. I may want to kick higher or lower, I may need to adjust my footwork to be in range. But the basic front kick as done in the forms is an effective technique. It is very easy to see how that technique would work without modification.

Going back to Keumgang, I am going to disagree with you @dvcochran that the move makes sense as done in the form. (Feel free to offer more evidence than "yes" to the contrary). There are similar motions that make sense, but then why doesn't the form use the version that makes sense?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the forms are performance-based, not application-based. It's the same as when I do a 540 kick. There's 0 application in being able to jump and spin around a time and a half before executing a spin hook kick. It looks cool. I think it makes my spin hook kick better, because I have to do it in a smaller window of time. I think it helps with my body control, and it encourages me to keep my body in shape so I can continue to do cool things. It's good for my leg and core muscles. But those techniques have 0 application. They are performance-based techniques.

I had misses your posts like this. I like good reading concerning anything, but especially Martial Arts.

 

[paitingman]

@skribs what about basic blocking techniques? Do you execute them with the full chamber and everything? Or reverse punch?

if so, I would like to see that. I love seeing people pull stuff like that off but it has never been a goal of mine.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[skribs]

@skribs what about basic blocking techniques? Do you execute them with the full chamber and everything? Or reverse punch?

if so, I would like to see that. I love seeing people pull stuff like that off but it has never been a goal of mine.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Sometimes, it depends where they are in the combination. What was I doing before the technique, and what am I going to do after it? If I have my guard up and I just need a quick parry then no, I won't do the full chamber. If I've just thrown a hook and you're going to kick, then there's no reason not to do a full chamber for my down block. If I'm throwing an inside block with intent to set up a strike, I want to chamber to get the full power into that block. If I have a chance to move my feet, I have a chance to chamber.

I do see your point. And I'd say there are two pieces to this: the chamber of the block itself, and the chamber of the other hand. Let's say I'm doing a down block with the left hand. My left hand is making the big motion from my shoulder to the down block position. This serves 4 purposes (as far as I can tell):

1. To demonstrate the direction of travel better than a small parry would
2. To exaggerate the motion, since people tend to shrink the motion from practice to application
3. To exercise the muscles that are used in that technique
4. To look good (compared to a shorter motion)

In forms, the right hand will start under the left arm, and be pulled to my side. This is purely aesthetic and barely functional. The only function I can find is that it gives you another detail to pay attention to, that it teaches you to control your whole body and not just the one arm doing the block.

 

[dvcochran]

You speak of details. There are many ways to apply similar movements. There's generally very few ways to apply the same movement.

And even then, the base movement has to make sense. Otherwise, you would base it off of one of the similar movements that makes more sense.

True, but isn't that largely what coming up through the color belts is all about?
Like I said, I was directing my comments at seasoned students.

 

[skribs]

True, but isn't that largely what coming up through the color belts is all about?
Like I said, I was directing my comments at seasoned students.

If anything, I think being seasoned I would think makes it go the other way. A lot of the pieces I said to @paitingman as for how the basic blocks work in forms are things that would benefit a beginner more than a seasoned martial artist. The beginner belts are to lay the foundation, the advanced belts should be learning how to apply it.

With the KKW TKD forms, I feel that as the forms get more advanced, you don't get much more in the way of application, but you get a lot more in terms of what you have to memorize, and how detailed your movements need to be. The forms look better and are more impressive, but that's the extent of the advancement you get.

 

[dvcochran]

Why does everyone keep putting the words in my mouth that "it's not what my Master teaches so I disregard it."

I am not sure who this is directed at but I never said anything of the sort.

I reject anything that doesn't meet that standard. It has nothing to do with what my Master taught me. It has everything to do with a simple question: why do we do X technique this way?

I cannot count the times I have watched two people do the exact same for, each doing the form correctly, and one person's for just looking wrong. They each did the same movements correctly. But they look completely different. It was technically and functionally correct. Should I reject the persons effort because if looks different? How can I say their move is wrong?

If the version in the form does not make sense in application, then there isn't an application. If you have to modify the technique to make it work in any application, then there are two possibilities: 1) the form was not intended for direct application, or 2) the technique in the form is bad.

There are a few one steps I would Never use as my first move. But I am glad I have those moves in my pocket. Same logic applies.

Let's look at another technique that's in forms - front kick. This one is easy to apply. Now, I may need to modify my front kick. I may want to kick higher or lower, I may need to adjust my footwork to be in range. But the basic front kick as done in the forms is an effective technique. It is very easy to see how that technique would work without modification.

This Exactly what I am saying! You hit the nail on the head. As we do a movement/skill more we see/learn more ways to apply the move/skill.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the forms are performance-based, not application-based. It's the same as when I do a 540 kick. There's 0 application in being able to jump and spin around a time and a half before executing a spin hook kick. It looks cool. I think it makes my spin hook kick better, because I have to do it in a smaller window of time. I think it helps with my body control, and it encourages me to keep my body in shape so I can continue to do cool things. It's good for my leg and core muscles. But those techniques have 0 application. They are performance-based techniques.

That is an unfruitful way to look at doing any part of a curriculum. I have to step back sometimes and remember that WT(F)/Kukkiwon are an amalgamation of all the dominant forms of TKD. A great many GM's of the time are responsible for the Kukkiwon form sets. Have they done a poor job in communication every detail or the minusha of forms? Possibly, but I think with some purpose in mind, at least originally. A big part of what I feel has happened is the unexpected explosion of TKD. It caused a runaway effect and a good amount of information has not been expressed, or more accurately expressed incorrectly by the wrong people. True of all martial arts, a lot is made up along the way and expressed differently from the original ideology.
I have been doing this a long time and certainly don't think I have it all figured out. For me, that is a good thing. Gives me something to work for.
I still feel it will be helpful to not rush to a conclusion on some of this. I am certain your front kick conclusion is a product of having done exponentially more front kicks (and it's byproducts). Your peripheral is much wider with front kicks. In time it will be the same for other movements/skills

 

[skribs]

I am not sure who this is directed at but I never said anything of the sort.

That was directed at pdg's post. Although for some reason I was thinking of you when I read his post.

I cannot count the times I have watched two people do the exact same for, each doing the form correctly, and one person's for just looking wrong. They each did the same movements correctly. But they look completely different. It was technically and functionally correct. Should I reject the persons effort because if looks different? How can I say their move is wrong?

First, a question: is this a KKW school or another discipline? If it's another discipline, I have no answer for you.
If it's a KKW school, the answer is: One of them is wrong. The KKW forms are like Bach's music: you don't interpret them, you play them exactly as they're written. If two people look different doing the form, one of them is missing key details that are prescribed in the performance.

This Exactly what I am saying! You hit the nail on the head. As we do a movement/skill more we see/learn more ways to apply the move/skill.

Except there's one piece I'm saying that you're not. There are more ways to apply a skill, yes. The word "more" implies that the way we are doing it is applicable. In the case of most of the fancy techniques in the advanced TKD forms, there are ways to apply a skill different than shown in the form, but the way shown in the form is not applicable.

I have been doing this a long time and certainly don't think I have it all figured out. For me, that is a good thing. Gives me something to work for.
I still feel it will be helpful to not rush to a conclusion on some of this.

I didn't rush to this conclusion. I spent 4-5 years researching the application of forms, digging into articles, asking questions on here and getting into very heated debates, and buying and reading books on the subject before I came to this conclusion. This is my well-researched, well-documented conclusion that I put a significant amount of thought, effort, and energy toward.

I came to the conclusion that that thought, effort, and energy would be better spent on other pursuits. Like actually messing around with the applicable techniques I know and figuring out how to beat them, instead of trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.

 

[dvcochran]

Except there's one piece I'm saying that you're not. There are more ways to apply a skill, yes. The word "more" implies that the way we are doing it is applicable. In the case of most of the fancy techniques in the advanced TKD forms, there are ways to apply a skill different than shown in the form, but the way shown in the form is not applicable.

This is the same circular argument you have been making the whole time. I hope in time you see it different.

I didn't rush to this conclusion. I spent 4-5 years researching the application of forms, digging into articles, asking questions on here and getting into very heated debates, and buying and reading books on the subject before I came to this conclusion. This is my well-researched, well-documented conclusion that I put a significant amount of thought, effort, and energy toward.

I realize you do not understand this but that is not very long at all. I feel certain with your drive and attitude you will figure this out in time.

I came to the conclusion that that thought, effort, and energy would be better spent on other pursuits. Like actually messing around with the applicable techniques I know and figuring out how to beat them, instead of trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.

Then this is what you need to run with. Leave WT/Kukkiwon, return all your certification. Leave TKD and go learn how to do ballet. It is a repetitive sport with zero interpretation of application. Should fit to a tee for what you want to do.
Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

 

[skribs]

This is the same circular argument you have been making the whole time. I hope in time you see it different.

It's not a circular argument. A circular argument is where A is true because of B, and B is true because of A. That's not what I'm doing.

You have a movement in a form. If that movement is not directly applicable, there is no direct application from the movement.

It's a very simple ask. People just get upset because they believe the forms to have application, but when put to a very simple test, that falls apart. Their solution is (like yours) to get defensive and try and poke all sorts of holes in my argument. But my position has remained the same. I have one simple standard for deriving application, and the forms fall short of that standard.

I realize you do not understand this but that is not very long at all. I feel certain with your drive and attitude you will figure this out in time.

I've been pretty exhaustive in my research. I think it's a perfectly fine duration of time to come to that conclusion. I'm not wasting more time by chasing dead ends. I can make better use of my time finding application where it exists, than searching in the dark for something that was never there in the first place.

Then this is what you need to run with. Leave WT/Kukkiwon, return all your certification. Leave TKD and go learn how to do ballet. It is a repetitive sport with zero interpretation of application. Should fit to a tee for what you want to do.
Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

Like I said, the training is compartmentalized. I do get application training when we train application. I find it amusing that you missed me so much you had to post in multiple threads about it, and you're already trying to run me out of martial arts again.

 

[dvcochran]

No Skribs, I am not trying to run you off at all. Is this what you want to feel like people are doing to you? Myself, like almost everyone here, are just trying to help others.
There is value in the forms. It amazes me how summarily you have come to your conclusion yet I can hear in this and other threads that you have the ability to find it.