Keumgang Poomsae

[dvcochran]

Is there a problem? I was just asking

Have I offended you somehow?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you have not offended me at all. Is there something I missed or did not reply to?
I recently blocked a couple of people so I may have missed out on a conversation.

 

[paitingman]

Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you have not offended me at all. Is there something I missed or did not reply to?
I recently blocked a couple of people so I may have missed out on a conversation.

Ha no we're all good.

I recently blocked a few people as well lol. It gets confusing on here sometimes tho

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[skribs]

This forum is getting hilarious. I get blocked by someone who 2 weeks ago said "I miss skribs." Who referenced me in this thread specifically to ask my opinion, knowing my opinion on the subject, and then got offended when I finally came back to the forum and answered with that opinion.

Now I'm getting blocked because someone asked me about videos I was looking for, and I answered the status of my search is not looking. Somehow I was being mean. I guess?

 

[_Simon_]

The two issues that I have as it relates to this discussion is: 1) this is an article about Karate, not Taekwondo, and 2) there is a lot of "I believe," "I think," and similar other means which make this an opinion piece instead of curriculum discussion. Not that I have a problem with the concept in general, but this discussion is over the official KKW forms.

KKW does not do anything remotely related to Bunkai as part of their teaching or training. I have not even heard the word "Oyo" before, I don't even know what that is.

I'm not saying this stuff is bad. I wish the TKD forms were designed and taught with application in mind, and that we would teach and practice Bunkai. It's just the reality that in KKW TKD, it doesn't connect.

Fair enough, I know we're discussing TKD forms, just thought it was an interesting concept that may be applied across the board.

Forms are generally very specific within the said style, and are that way for a reason, but he seems to speak of Oyo as a way of bringing the principles of the form to life. So the application can look SIMILAR, doesn't have to be 100% perfectly spot on, but as long as it adheres to the principles that the form is trying to communicate. But yeah just an idea, thought it might spur on something helpful but all good!

And no he didn't say definites, which I sort of like. Leaves room for exploration

 

[_Simon_]

Could not be said better. Do you know it this article is accessible online?

I had a look absolutely everywhere mate and couldn't find it.. usually there's a back catalogue for these things! Am happy to take photos of the whole article to send you if you'd like!

Did find an interesting article which touches a bit on this:

André Bertel's Karate-Do: Real Kata is ruled by Oyo

 

[skribs]

Fair enough, I know we're discussing TKD forms, just thought it was an interesting concept that may be applied across the board.

Forms are generally very specific within the said style, and are that way for a reason, but he seems to speak of Oyo as a way of bringing the principles of the form to life. So the application can look SIMILAR, doesn't have to be 100% perfectly spot on, but as long as it adheres to the principles that the form is trying to communicate. But yeah just an idea, thought it might spur on something helpful but all good!

And no he didn't say definites, which I sort of like. Leaves room for exploration

What is Oyo?

 

[_Simon_]

What is Oyo?

What I wrote above and from what I understand in general, bunkai is the "taking apart the kata", disassembling it in order to analyse, and oyo is the extracted techniques/sequences and how they're applied, but specifically how the principles are brought to life and applied.

But I've heard it said that it's not just the application, but bringing them to life in an organic way to suit the context, and also YOUR particular body type and mechanics. It makes it more individual, so being able to apply the principles of the form within the confines of your body and movements. So that it is fluid and makes sense for you and how you can use it.

I don't know if that made sense haha.. I just scrawled through all my karate mags, I swear there was an article specifically about oyo but ugh couldn't find it...

Btw I am NO expert at all on this... but just from my research/practice and understanding. And I haven't seen this connection explored much in any dojos I've been in, it's usually just been "this is the application, or maybe this is the application".

I like how the idea of oyo takes something mechanical and concrete, and makes it more realistic and contextual. Life ain't an equation ay!

I wish I could come up with a specific example what this all entails haha. But I guess it allows for individual differences. Although our bodies are essentially the same, oyo is allowing alterations to be made in order to a) still utilise the principle communicated and b) respect the limitations and use the body in its max capacity according to how its built and how you function.

As long as the inherent principle is preserved and expressed, go nuts!

And to me I think some people go a liiiiittle crazy with forms interpretation at times, "this block could be a block, ORRRR it could be a whizzbangwoopdeewoop". Sometimes imagination goes a little far haha and it strays too far from the principle behind it.

That being said, there could be more than one principle behind a movement perhaps?

*cue dramatic, enigmatic exit music*

 

[_Simon_]

Another interesting article, sort of a different take in a way:

Bunkai and Oyo – Shinkyu Martial Arts

 

[skribs]

What I wrote above and from what I understand in general, bunkai is the "taking apart the kata", disassembling it in order to analyse, and oyo is the extracted techniques/sequences and how they're applied, but specifically how the principles are brought to life and applied.

But I've heard it said that it's not just the application, but bringing them to life in an organic way to suit the context, and also YOUR particular body type and mechanics. It makes it more individual, so being able to apply the principles of the form within the confines of your body and movements. So that it is fluid and makes sense for you and how you can use it.

I don't know if that made sense haha.. I just scrawled through all my karate mags, I swear there was an article specifically about oyo but ugh couldn't find it...

Btw I am NO expert at all on this... but just from my research/practice and understanding. And I haven't seen this connection explored much in any dojos I've been in, it's usually just been "this is the application, or maybe this is the application".

I like how the idea of oyo takes something mechanical and concrete, and makes it more realistic and contextual. Life ain't an equation ay!

I wish I could come up with a specific example what this all entails haha. But I guess it allows for individual differences. Although our bodies are essentially the same, oyo is allowing alterations to be made in order to a) still utilise the principle communicated and b) respect the limitations and use the body in its max capacity according to how its built and how you function.

As long as the inherent principle is preserved and expressed, go nuts!

And to me I think some people go a liiiiittle crazy with forms interpretation at times, "this block could be a block, ORRRR it could be a whizzbangwoopdeewoop". Sometimes imagination goes a little far haha and it strays too far from the principle behind it.

That being said, there could be more than one principle behind a movement perhaps?

*cue dramatic, enigmatic exit music*

Keep in mind that I'm coming at this from the perspective of a TKD guy, but I thought that's what bunkai is.

 

[_Simon_]

Keep in mind that I'm coming at this from the perspective of a TKD guy, but I thought that's what bunkai is.

Yeah alot of people use bunkai and oyo interchangeably, but I like what oyo tries to convey.

But alright fair enough. All I'm saying is there can be variances in applying the form as long as it doesn't stray from the principle it's teaching.

 

[pdg]

KKW does not do anything remotely related to Bunkai as part of their teaching or training.

I mentioned a while ago about the possibility of me getting in touch with the most local to me kkw school, and last week I spoke to the instructor on the phone.

I actually asked him directly about this, and at least in this particular school they do drill the movements in the forms against variable resistance...

I'm probably visiting them at some point, so I may be in a position to compare and expand on it.

The two issues that I have as it relates to this discussion is: 1) this is an article about Karate, not Taekwondo, and 2) there is a lot of "I believe," "I think," and similar other means which make this an opinion piece instead of curriculum discussion. Not that I have a problem with the concept in general, but this discussion is over the official KKW forms.

So, as above, there exist kkw schools who do work forms application as part of their curriculum.

Ok, I've only contacted one (and don't know precisely how deep they go with it), but if it were truly endemic to kkw as a whole to ignore application then I must've greatly beat the odds by having the only school I've contacted, which is by chance the nearest to me, being the exception to that rule.

I don't understand your position on this to be honest.

In 'my' itf school, we also work application. Some applications are also contained within the encyclopaedia.

But I also look to other arts for more possibilities - if a movement is close enough to something I already train then I can put that to the instructors and work it with them and other students. I've taken stuff from videos of techniques within karate*, kung fu*, aikido*, tai chi* and others and experimented with that as extensions or interpretations of tkd moves. I've found more than a few times that I can pull off moves from other sources more reliably than I can apply the single written example, and I've never been told it's wrong to do so (I self moderate with low belts, it's not good to flood them).

What is stopping you doing similar?

You surely can't be alone in identifying a disconnect here, so seek out like minded people and work the problem.

You appear very stuck with the attitude that if it's not handed to you by your master then it's not part of your version of the art.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but you also seem very dissatisfied at the same time and are constantly searching for more.

Again, nothing wrong with searching for more, but your two apparent specifications (1. it must be part of what you consider the curriculum, and 2. you want more than the curriculum as you see it contains) are directly at odds with each other.

You're seriously going to have to drop one and choose what you want - either stick with the purity of containing yourself to what your master shows you, or alternatively look further afield.

That doesn't mean ditching your current training, but more expanding and potentially modifying.

The thing you shouldn't do is continue to ask questions about application and viability and go on to dismiss any opinions offered because "it's not kkw approved" or "that's not what my master teaches" (paraphrased). That's only going to continue to frustrate you and alienate you from others who were previously willing to offer opinions and guidance.




*Generic terms as I either can't remember or can't identify sub-types and derivatives due to lack of specific knowledge.

 

[dvcochran]

Very well said @pdg .

 

[skribs]

So, as above, there exist kkw schools who do work forms application as part of their curriculum.

Ok, I've only contacted one (and don't know precisely how deep they go with it), but if it were truly endemic to kkw as a whole to ignore application then I must've greatly beat the odds by having the only school I've contacted, which is by chance the nearest to me, being the exception to that rule.

You'll have to see if they can actually back up what they claim. I've found plenty of videos, even books that describe the application of the forms. But they invariably fail in at least one of these categories:

1. The application presented is garbage
2. The application presented does not actually use the technique in the form, and has to heavily modify it to make it actually work in any scenario. If there's one point in the technique that looks like the one in the form, or if you've got a limb or two moving in vaguely the same direction, it gets called an application of the technique, and that's setting a low bar of success.
3. The application presented uses one technique from the form, and a bunch of techniques that are not in the form (it would be like teaching someone how to sift flour and then saying that lesson taught them how to bake a cake)

I don't remember who it was, but in another one of these threads someone posted a link to KKW stating that there is self-defense taught in the forms. But as far as I could tell, that was empty rhetoric for the sake of advertisement, which is not backed up by the KKW curriculum.

I don't understand your position on this to be honest.

My position is to be realistic about what the forms teach me. That I wasted my time searching for an application when there was none to be found. So I found what the forms do well, and I apply my forms training to that. They're good for memorization, attention to detail, and dexterity.

In 'my' itf school, we also work application. Some applications are also contained within the encyclopaedia.

That's great. It's also and ITF school with ITF forms.

But I also look to other arts for more possibilities - if a movement is close enough to something I already train then I can put that to the instructors and work it with them and other students. I've taken stuff from videos of techniques within karate*, kung fu*, aikido*, tai chi* and others and experimented with that as extensions or interpretations of tkd moves. I've found more than a few times that I can pull off moves from other sources more reliably than I can apply the single written example, and I've never been told it's wrong to do so (I self moderate with low belts, it's not good to flood them).

What is stopping you doing similar?

I did. I looked to Karate for a lot of the similar moves. I didn't get very far there on the more complicated moves, either.

You surely can't be alone in identifying a disconnect here, so seek out like minded people and work the problem.

Spent 5 years doing that. That's how I came to my conclusion.

You appear very stuck with the attitude that if it's not handed to you by your master then it's not part of your version of the art.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but you also seem very dissatisfied at the same time and are constantly searching for more.

Again, nothing wrong with searching for more, but your two apparent specifications (1. it must be part of what you consider the curriculum, and 2. you want more than the curriculum as you see it contains) are directly at odds with each other.

You're seriously going to have to drop one and choose what you want - either stick with the purity of containing yourself to what your master shows you, or alternatively look further afield.

That doesn't mean ditching your current training, but more expanding and potentially modifying.

The thing you shouldn't do is continue to ask questions about application and viability and go on to dismiss any opinions offered because "it's not kkw approved" or "that's not what my master teaches" (paraphrased). That's only going to continue to frustrate you and alienate you from others who were previously willing to offer opinions and guidance.

Where have I ever said "that's not what my master teaches"? That's a phrase that got put into my mouth a long time ago by someone who couldn't read my posts properly, and for some reason has stuck as a stigma against me ever since. I've repeatedly stated that my source for my opinion is from several articles, multiple masters that I have trained under, videos I have seen, books, and replies to the questions I've asked on multiple forums. And yet, people keep getting stuck on "well that's not what my master teaches."

No.

If you're going to criticize me, please criticize me, and not some made-up version of me that someone who couldn't even read came up with.

To further illustrate this point, my position (as has been made very clear in this thread) is that I recognized that disconnect between #1 and #2, and I have made the adjustment. The adjustment just doesn't sit well with the people on this forum, because the adjustment is to see that disconnect and stop looking for the application. Now, the reason I'm here in this thread is because I was specifically mentioned by name by @dvcochran . He was literally asking for my opinion on the subject. So I came to offer it. If you're searching for application in the Keumgang Poomsae, you're not going to find it. Those moves are chosen for artistic purposes and have no place in actual combat without heavy modification. Then he took offense with my opinion, because my opinion is in violation of his claims that there is an application there. One which, when I asked what it was, he simply said "yes" and failed to actually provide it.

So no, I haven't come in here to ask those questions. I don't ask those questions any more. I've got my answer. When someone asks for opinions on the forms, I provide my opinions. If people can prove me wrong, then by all means do so. But so far, the only proof I've had meets a very low bar for success, a bar which I have set higher with a simple standard: if a form is going to teach applicable technique, then the technique taught in the form must be directly applicable. It's a simple standard, and honestly not a very high bar to set if the forms are designed to teach application.

And I'm not going to lower my bar to alleviate the risk of alienating people. That's not a compromise I'm willing to make. I'd rather keep my standards than capitulate to someone who settled.

 

[pdg]

That's great. It's also and ITF school with ITF forms.

From my (admittedly cursory) investigations so far, the techniques in kkw and ITF curricula have far more in common than they have differences.

The actual names differ, sometimes significantly, but once you get past that part then the similarities are there.

I can readily accept that the intent often differs too, but that's a matter of how the training is conducted and not the technique itself.

As to the patterns vs the forms, well, there's a massive amount shared there too.

The pattern/form will have a different name, and the sections will likely be in different orders and even chopped up and spread through multiple patterns, but every single kkw form I've seen has sections that are also present in ITF patterns.

As I'm of the opinion that any pattern/form is a collection of sections and not a full script, there's no reason whatsoever to not apply the "ITF" applications to the kkw forms.

Likewise, if I do visit the kkw school I'll happily integrate anything I find them doing that is useful.

Same with what I've done with bits of karate et al. The movements are similar enough that I'm technically already practising them, so amalgamating their application/bunkai is a logical step to me.

That's where my assessment of your attitude comes from.

There are multiple instances where an application has been offered to you that you have rejected because the application is sourced from a non-kkw art - if I have to I'm prepared to find some of the multiple instances where you've written something off out of hand because "I'm looking for the official kkw application, your xyz style version doesn't count".

 

[skribs]

From my (admittedly cursory) investigations so far, the techniques in kkw and ITF curricula have far more in common than they have differences.

The actual names differ, sometimes significantly, but once you get past that part then the similarities are there.

I can readily accept that the intent often differs too, but that's a matter of how the training is conducted and not the technique itself.

As to the patterns vs the forms, well, there's a massive amount shared there too.

The pattern/form will have a different name, and the sections will likely be in different orders and even chopped up and spread through multiple patterns, but every single kkw form I've seen has sections that are also present in ITF patterns.

As I'm of the opinion that any pattern/form is a collection of sections and not a full script, there's no reason whatsoever to not apply the "ITF" applications to the kkw forms.

Likewise, if I do visit the kkw school I'll happily integrate anything I find them doing that is useful.

Same with what I've done with bits of karate et al. The movements are similar enough that I'm technically already practising them, so amalgamating their application/bunkai is a logical step to me.

That's where my assessment of your attitude comes from.

There are multiple instances where an application has been offered to you that you have rejected because the application is sourced from a non-kkw art - if I have to I'm prepared to find some of the multiple instances where you've written something off out of hand because "I'm looking for the official kkw application, your xyz style version doesn't count".

And the reason for that is the way in which the forms are taught. Not just by my Master, but by my former Master at my old school, and by the people teaching the Master's course at KKW.

People just paraphrase it as "that's not what my master taught me", because it's easier to dismiss my position if my only source is my Master.

The forms are taught by replication, and you are specifically trained to do the moves in a specific way. If that specific way has no direct application, then you cannot say that specific technique has application.

I can't speak for other styles of TKD or for Karate. I don't know if they train their forms the same way we train ours. All I can say is the KKW forms are trained based on how you look when doing the form, and not so much on what you're doing.

I can also say that if people do find meaning and add it to their curriculum, that's not a problem. But if that meaning doesn't make sense to me (for the reasons I outlined in my previous reply) then I personally can't agree with it. I can also train the applications they are drawing, without artificially connecting it to the forms. And I say "artificially", because if the application doesn't represent exactly what is in the forms, then the application is a best guess, as far as I can tell. You can stretch any technique to meet any other motion if you do enough mental gymnastics.

You can train application without training forms. And I do. So I do not feel that I am lacking in applicable training if I don't connect the forms to application. Instead, I connect the forms to exercise and performance, and I train my application separate. In fact, many martial arts don't use forms at all. If it was necessary to get application from the forms, then arts like boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and BJJ would all suck. (Hint: they don't).

What I actually found is that I enjoyed the forms more once I got over trying to find an application. Because instead of constantly thinking "why am I doing X, Y, or Z?" I'm just doing the form. And I can focus on perfecting the form and doing my best at it, and then I can focus on the application when I'm training that.

I wish they were more directly applicable. But then they wouldn't look as good.

 

[pdg]

Short quote for reasons...

In fact, many martial arts don't use forms at all. If it was necessary to get application from the forms, then arts like boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and BJJ would all suck. (Hint: they don't)

You say they don't use forms, and in a way you're right - they don't have things they call forms.

But, they have drills and combinations.

Go into a boxing gym and pounds to pennies there will be people doing something like "jab, cross, hook" against mitts, a bag or the air. Some of them will be doing it slowly to work on position (at which point it won't look like the application).

The amount of times that specific combination arises in a match are tiny, yet it's still practiced often.

Short form 1?


BJJ, there's going to be people doing the same sort of thing, working on techniques, breaking them down into components, doing them slower than normal to get the the feel for position - I'll warrant there's even a bit of solo work somewhere in there.

Not a codified form, but even a simple move can be broken into parts which can be taken in isolation.

And in all of those there's going to be other stuff added to make the application work - probably called something like 'entry' or 'setup'.





It's true in other sports too - tennis players work on their serve all the time. That's a 3-5 move form being practiced. They'll often do it slowly with exaggerated movements too (at least they do at my local tennis club).

Then to that, in real time, they'll add things like assessment of wind and surface conditions which may cause them to modify their technique, and how to move following the serve to reach the return - a serve in isolation is somewhat like a punch in a form, by itself it doesn't mean much.

Golf - I've seen players be filmed and analyse the footage in slow motion to find tiny details they can improve on, which they isolate and work.

I don't think you're likely to find anyone in any of those areas who will say they never practice - they might categorically state they never practice forms, but that's simply a matter of interpretation.


In that context, application without forms is just "have at it, see who wins"

Why should the tkd forms be any different? You're using exaggerated movements to practice, upon which you can add setup and situational modification. You have multiple combinations and techniques bundled together so that you can adapt them to a situation and transition from almost any one to almost any other. Expecting an application to look exactly identical to a full form is quite frankly a bit silly.


Now, that said, there is actually a situation that I really can't see is actually the case that is sanctioned and propagated by the governing organisation, but it may happen - that of forms just being a demonstration dance and competitive sparring being entirely disconnected, all the while having no concern toward any sort of connection between the two.

I may have asked before, but I can't remember - do you not have set sparring drills? The "you do x and I counter with y" kind of things?

If you do, surely you can see the connection to moves in the forms (attacks, blocks and counters)?

 

[pdg]

What I actually found is that I enjoyed the forms more once I got over trying to find an application. Because instead of constantly thinking "why am I doing X, Y, or Z?" I'm just doing the form

Now this part in particular, I actually agree with that.

When teaching/learning patterns, often there will be an example simple application given - "this is to block a punch/kick" or "this is attack to this area" - which is a visualisation aid.

So when someone has a high block that's too low, you can say something like "that's to block a punch coming at your face, your block is too low".

I can't see much value in teaching someone a pattern with the sort of thing like "move left arm outward and stop it here" - maybe that really is how you've been taught though.

But, concentrating too hard on that single application isn't great either, it's a starting point for that move.

I never go through performing a pattern thinking "I'm doing X because Y".

What I do find happens a lot however is that I'll use a move, or a transition, from a pattern in free sparring without thinking about it until afterwards. Because of doing it in the pattern it's become part of my catalogue of body movements and while it may not be exactly as the description would suggest, it's the same move.

For example, I wouldn't be there thinking "here comes a fist, I'll do move 19 from the fifth pattern".

After the fact, especially if it's filmed, I'll identify that's actually what it was though.

 

[skribs]

Short quote for reasons...



You say they don't use forms, and in a way you're right - they don't have things they call forms.

But, they have drills and combinations.

Go into a boxing gym and pounds to pennies there will be people doing something like "jab, cross, hook" against mitts, a bag or the air. Some of them will be doing it slowly to work on position (at which point it won't look like the application).

The amount of times that specific combination arises in a match are tiny, yet it's still practiced often.

Short form 1?


BJJ, there's going to be people doing the same sort of thing, working on techniques, breaking them down into components, doing them slower than normal to get the the feel for position - I'll warrant there's even a bit of solo work somewhere in there.

Not a codified form, but even a simple move can be broken into parts which can be taken in isolation.

And in all of those there's going to be other stuff added to make the application work - probably called something like 'entry' or 'setup'.





It's true in other sports too - tennis players work on their serve all the time. That's a 3-5 move form being practiced. They'll often do it slowly with exaggerated movements too (at least they do at my local tennis club).

Then to that, in real time, they'll add things like assessment of wind and surface conditions which may cause them to modify their technique, and how to move following the serve to reach the return - a serve in isolation is somewhat like a punch in a form, by itself it doesn't mean much.

Golf - I've seen players be filmed and analyse the footage in slow motion to find tiny details they can improve on, which they isolate and work.

I don't think you're likely to find anyone in any of those areas who will say they never practice - they might categorically state they never practice forms, but that's simply a matter of interpretation.


In that context, application without forms is just "have at it, see who wins"

Why should the tkd forms be any different? You're using exaggerated movements to practice, upon which you can add setup and situational modification. You have multiple combinations and techniques bundled together so that you can adapt them to a situation and transition from almost any one to almost any other. Expecting an application to look exactly identical to a full form is quite frankly a bit silly.


Now, that said, there is actually a situation that I really can't see is actually the case that is sanctioned and propagated by the governing organisation, but it may happen - that of forms just being a demonstration dance and competitive sparring being entirely disconnected, all the while having no concern toward any sort of connection between the two.

I may have asked before, but I can't remember - do you not have set sparring drills? The "you do x and I counter with y" kind of things?

If you do, surely you can see the connection to moves in the forms (attacks, blocks and counters)?

Here's the difference - what you drill when your punching pads or rolling with a partner is the same technique you would use in a live situation. What you do in a TKD form, especially the more complicated the techniques in the form, is not what you would do in a live situation.

Using Keumgang as an example, I can't see a situation in which the crane stance and diamond low block, or the horse stance and double mountain block would be used as they are done in the form. Looking at the double mountain block in particular, I even asked the question here (in this thread) - can it be used exactly as done in the form, without any modification. The answer was "yes." When I asked how, I got no response.

A boxer isn't going to have one type of jab they use for punching pads and another type of jab they use for sparring. They're not going to duck one way when a pad comes towards them in a drill, and a different way when a punch is coming at them in the ring. Now they may have to aim higher or lower, and they may modify the jab to fit the situation. But the jab they train or drill is going to be the jab they fight with.

Similarly, a golfer is going to drill by hitting the ball, so that they can hit the ball better. They aren't going to drill to hit the ball over and over and over again in the driving range, and then use a completely different swing on the fairway. They may adjust for distance or to hook or slice the ball, but they've drilled on how to do that, too.

Going from the KKW forms to the application is more like learning to swing a baseball bat or hit a hockey puck, and then using the principles there to go and golf. There are similar principles in terms of grip and energy transfer, but they are completely separate techniques. Coming back to Keumgang and the double mountain block, it's a move that looks strong, but has no practical purpose as done. Unlike a punch combo on pads, which will be executed just as it was performed on the pads.

 

[pdg]

Similarly, a golfer is going to drill by hitting the ball, so that they can hit the ball better.

Actually, that's not strictly true.

It's very very common that a golfer will drill their swing without a ball in sight, likewise a putt.

Same with a tennisser as well - they'll often practice a serve, or a backhand, or a type of step, without a ball.

Also often, the practice they do does look different to how they go and apply it if the applied version is analysed in slow-mo side by side.

And look very closely at a boxer against a pad and against an opponent - there are often differences in technique that only come to light in application, which are sometimes then worked on with further practice.

Using Keumgang as an example, I can't see a situation in which the crane stance and diamond low block, or the horse stance and double mountain block would be used as they are done in the form. Looking at the double mountain block in particular, I even asked the question here (in this thread) - can it be used exactly as done in the form, without any modification. The answer was "yes." When I asked how, I got no response.

Firstly, I'd have to look up what those moves are, because if they're present in my curriculum (highly likely) then they'll have different names.

Thing is though, why the insistence on the application being exactly as done in the form?

Stances for instance - in a form (and a pattern) they're treated like a pose, you assume it and freeze for a variable time for that snapshot. You can't apply it like that, a stance is a transitory thing - it happens and is gone, but there's value and importance in understanding how to get into and out of them.

Doing a technique in that stance doesn't mean you can only do those things in combination - it's commonly practiced that we'll do a bending stance (apparently pretty much what you call a crane stance) in conjunction with a block that is held. You'd never use it exactly like that though because it's a preparatory position that is moved fluidly through in application.


To be completely honest, I'm coming to think that what you actually want is something that doesn't exist - in any art.

 

[pdg]

To be completely honest, I'm coming to think that what you actually want is something that doesn't exist - in any art.

Sorry, maybe that should be "what you actually wantED"?