Korean forms and applications

[Daniel Sullivan]

Obviously there are some that believe that Taekwondo and thus it forms/poomsae have no connection with karate and thus the historical basis I and others purport cannot be true - despite what we say or what evidence we give. Okay, so don't accept what we say (mine through much research) but how about the word of one of the most influential men in kukki TKD: Chong Woo Lee?

I have yet to see anyone say that taekwondo has no connection with karate, in this or any recent thread. What we are saying is that taekwondo (Kukkiwon anyway) isn't a karate ryu and that teaching methodologies differ.

As for techniques being 'karate techniques' they're just techniques. There are stylistic differences, but every unarmed fighting system addresses strikes and defenses, be it west or east, Japanese or Korean.

There is no question that taekwondo is related to karate, just as karate is related to something else, probably Chinese.

 

[Jaeimseu]

It isn't really a question of the applications being considered irrelevant, but of how they are taught. KKW taekwondo instruction generally does not use bunkai to teach the applications of various techniques, but instructors teach technique and application separately.

It isn't that you cannot pull applications from the forms, because you can. A technique is a technique, regardless of who's forms it is found in. But the Taegeuk pumsae simply are not designed with that in mind.

It isn't that people don't think that they're related, but that the forms are not broken down to draw out applications; techniques are taught separately from forms. It really is a matter of teaching methodology rather than relevance or relation between technique and application.

This is the part that I still can't quite wrap my mind around. To me, it still seems less efficient to try to teach the application of practical techniques from forms than just teaching the techniques themselves, especially if you're teaching from a "self-defense" perspective. It seems like a much simpler task to me to just design a self defense curriculum based around the concepts and techniques. I don't know why you would need a form at all to do this. Someone mentioned before that the form gave a simple way to draw out hundreds of drills, but then you've still got hundreds of drills, plus a form.

In addition to this, I don't know any beginning students who have any need to dissect a form in this manner. Why wouldn't you just teach them effective self defense techniques directly, instead of complicating things with movements rom forms that could have multiple uses. How does using a form make your instruction better or more effective? I can understand that for some people it might make forms training more interesting, but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?

Finally, it was mentioned that teaching forms this way can add something to the curriculum, but can it not also have the opposite effect? Using forms would limit you to the movements contained in the forms (if we are sticking to the ruleabout not changing the movements), which means there is a high probability that it would be necessary to go outside the forms anyway, which again seems to be overcomplicating things.

If the goal is to efficiently and effectively teach something, especially if the focus of your instruction is narrowed to something like self defense, I think that in this day and age there has got to be a better way to do it.

And I'd like to reiterate that I am not knocking those who choose to teach this stuff, it just seems to me there are better ways...

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In addition to this, I don't know any beginning students who have any need to dissect a form in this manner. Why wouldn't you just teach them effective self defense techniques directly, instead of complicating things with movements rom forms that could have multiple uses. How does using a form make your instruction better or more effective? I can understand that for some people it might make forms training more interesting, but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?

Forms are used to teach a variety of techniques in concert; ap seogi>arae makki>dwit jireugi, turn to face north, ap kubi>arae makki, dwit jireugi, for example. Movement, transition from one stance to the next, attacking and defending in different stances, etc. The form traces the line of Keon, the first of the pal gwe.

Forms allow the instructor to see the student perform a variety of techniques in concert and evaluate the technical execution of those techniques. Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Depends on who you ask.

Forms also provide students with a way to practice on their own that, for some, is more engaging and enjoyable than just doing reps of techniques.

In Kukki taekwondo, and certainly in hapkido, forms are not used to transmit the self defense curriculum.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

This is the part that I still can't quite wrap my mind around. To me, it still seems less efficient to try to teach the application of practical techniques from forms than just teaching the techniques themselves, especially if you're teaching from a "self-defense" perspective. It seems like a much simpler task to me to just design a self defense curriculum based around the concepts and techniques. I don't know why you would need a form at all to do this. Someone mentioned before that the form gave a simple way to draw out hundreds of drills, but then you've still got hundreds of drills, plus a form.

Valid question. Forms were created for a variety of reasons. Some to preserve the principles of the system. In that light, it may be fair to say; Applications led to the creation of a form to catalog the application which led to a method of passing these applications down to generations to come. Perhaps this method was developed to disguise techniques if the society didn't approve of martial training. Perhaps to 'hide' the applications from other schools/arts. I've heard it put many ways.

In the modern era, one doesn't need forms and indeed many fine systems don't use them at all. However, for arts that do use them, well...I often find the practitioners of the art using forms for more of a class-filler than anything else i.e. learn a form/take a test/get a belt. They may not have the best understanding of what it is they are actually doing, depending on the school art. This isn't necessarily limited to a specific art. Providing several applications for a movement sequence, imo, helps them get a better appreciation for the art and the form. It gives it more purpose, again imo. And it then isn't necessary to have a hundred drills as one needs only the form for reference.

Just some thought.

 

[StuartA]

It isn't really a question of the applications being considered irrelevant, but of how they are taught. KKW taekwondo instruction generally does not use bunkai to teach the applications of various techniques, but instructors teach technique and application separately.

Could this not be a 'hand me down' thing as well... applications wernt taught in Karate kata either (not in Japan anyway and not the ones we are discussing)... most ITF clubs don't physically teach applications - they (like amny schools) simply say 'this is to block a punch', not teach it directly - maybe if they did, they would realise it doenst work as well as they are led to believe!

It isn't that you cannot pull applications from the forms, because you can. A technique is a technique, regardless of who's forms it is found in. But the Taegeuk pumsae simply are not designed with that in mind.

As I have said all along - you cannot purposely choose to include or exclude something you dont know about to begin with - so I'm sure they 'wernt' "designed with that in mind" - for sure. But is also does beg the question that, if that is so, why does the KKW website show forms applications online then? Or did (Havnt looked for quite a while)!!! And this is irrelevant of whether they are good or bad.. the fact is they still showed them!

It isn't that people don't think that they're related, but that the forms are not broken down to draw out applications; techniques are taught separately from forms. It really is a matter of teaching methodology rather than relevance or relation between technique and application.

And this is one of my 'other' points about using realistic applications - students spend an inordanate amount of time practicing forms - so at the very least, learning a few beneficial applications to what they are practicing over and over, makes that practice much more benifical in the overall grand scheme of things - just an extra benefit IMO.

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

I have yet to see anyone say that taekwondo has no connection with karate, in this or any recent thread.

What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!

Stuart

 

[Jaeimseu]

Forms are used to teach a variety of techniques in concert; ap seogi>arae makki>dwit jireugi, turn to face north, ap kubi>arae makki, dwit jireugi, for example. Movement, transition from one stance to the next, attacking and defending in different stances, etc. The form traces the line of Keon, the first of the pal gwe.

Forms allow the instructor to see the student perform a variety of techniques in concert and evaluate the technical execution of those techniques. Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Depends on who you ask.

Forms also provide students with a way to practice on their own that, for some, is more engaging and enjoyable than just doing reps of techniques.

In Kukki taekwondo, and certainly in hapkido, forms are not used to transmit the self defense curriculum.

When I ask the question "Why do you need the forms?" I'm referring only to the segment of instructors who say they teach only for self defense. I teach poomse for many reasons, as well,including the ones you mentioned. I think forms are useful also to get the student moving their various body parts in concert with one another. Learning to move the ams, legs, shoulders, and hips together in poomse makes doing similar things in kicking techniques easier, in my opinion. For example, counter rotation of the shoulders and arms with the hips and pivot foot when doing a round kick.

So I'm not arguing that forms have no purpose, just that I don't see why they are a big benefit for teaching self defense.

 

[StuartA]

This is the part that I still can't quite wrap my mind around. To me, it still seems less efficient to try to teach the application of practical techniques from forms than just teaching the techniques themselves, especially if you're teaching from a "self-defense" perspective. It seems like a much simpler task to me to just design a self defense curriculum based around the concepts and techniques. I don't know why you would need a form at all to do this. Someone mentioned before that the form gave a simple way to draw out hundreds of drills, but then you've still got hundreds of drills, plus a form.

I kind of feel a similar thing - that is that as forms are taught anyway... you have to do them for advancement, gradings, competition etc. Why not make them more than the sum of their parts... though Im sure a SD section would still be needed, by utilising something you already do - depending on what applications and how much you teach - then the SD element would be less and thus training time would be more prodctive overall and thus, more benficial to the student!

In addition to this, I don't know any beginning students who have any need to dissect a form in this manner. Why wouldn't you just teach them effective self defense techniques directly, instead of complicating things with movements rom forms that could have multiple uses. How does using a form make your instruction better or more effective? I can understand that for some people it might make forms training more interesting, but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?

I actually feel studying and /or breaking down of forms (Hae Sul/Boon Hae) to be the domain of BB's who have much more time on their hands. For beginners, showing them an realsitic appliaction as part of their form makes sense... as it kills two birds with one stone! Its not all about self-defence TBH.. or that teaching forms is the better way of teaching SD techniques - just making something we all do (forms), more productive all round! If anyone in TKD wanted just pure self-defence, I would question why they remained in TKD and do not train with a pure self defence instructor anyway! I'm not sure if Im getting my point across, but in essence, its the marrying of the two - SD technqiues and forms - for the benefit of Taekwondo!

Finally, it was mentioned that teaching forms this way can add something to the curriculum, but can it not also have the opposite effect? Using forms would limit you to the movements contained in the forms (if we are sticking to the ruleabout not changing the movements), which means there is a high probability that it would be necessary to go outside the forms anyway, which again seems to be overcomplicating things.

Not sure I really understand you here - but you have a) teaching forms as a solo exercise with no thought towards anythng else but perfromance b) teaching forms with the basic apps c) teaching forms with more realstic apps - in all of these 3... we are doing something we all do anyway - practicing forms... its just as you move from a to b to c - they ultimatly become more of a constructive exercise.

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

When I ask the question "Why do you need the forms?" I'm referring only to the segment of instructors who say they teach only for self defense.

I think there is a misunderstanding here - I support realistic applications to forms.. but I don't jjust teach them for SD... students have to leanr them to a decent solo standard for grading, comps etc. even for pure technqiue... having realsitic applications just makes a great addition and their practice ultimatly more beneficial.

Stuart

 

[Jaeimseu]

I kind of feel a similar thing - that is that as forms are taught anyway... you have to do them for advancement, gradings, competition etc. Why not make them more than the sum of their parts... though Im sure a SD section would still be needed, by utilising something you already do - depending on what applications and how much you teach - then the SD element would be less and thus training time would be more prodctive overall and thus, more benficial to the student!



I actually feel studying and /or breaking down of forms (Hae Sul/Boon Hae) to be the domain of BB's who have much more time on their hands. For beginners, showing them an realsitic appliaction as part of their form makes sense... as it kills two birds with one stone! Its not all about self-defence TBH.. or that teaching forms is the better way of teaching SD techniques - just making something we all do (forms), more productive all round! If anyone in TKD wanted just pure self-defence, I would question why they remained in TKD and do not train with a pure self defence instructor anyway! I'm not sure if Im getting my point across, but in essence, its the marrying of the two - SD technqiues and forms - for the benefit of Taekwondo!



Not sure I really understand you here - but you have a) teaching forms as a solo exercise with no thought towards anythng else but perfromance b) teaching forms with the basic apps c) teaching forms with more realstic apps - in all of these 3... we are doing something we all do anyway - practicing forms... its just as you move from a to b to c - they ultimatly become more of a constructive exercise.

Stuart

If the goal is to efficiently and effectively teach something, especially if the focus of your instruction is narrowed to something like self defense, I think that in this day and age there has got to be a better way to do it.

And I'd like to reiterate that I am not knocking those who choose to teach this stuff, it just seems to me there are better ways...

[/QUOTE]
I just want to make clear that I'm not arguing against forms. I practice and teach poomse, too. I think there are many justifiable reasons to practice poomse in a typical taekwondo program. I'm only talking about the use of forms in schools where people say that the primary or only purpose for training is self defense.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!

Stuart

Not getting into this Stuart. I was referring to this discussion and other recent threads here.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As I have said all along - you cannot purposely choose to include or exclude something you dont know about to begin with - so I'm sure they 'wernt' "designed with that in mind" - for sure. But is also does beg the question that, if that is so, why does the KKW website show forms applications online then? Or did (Havnt looked for quite a while)!!! And this is irrelevant of whether they are good or bad.. the fact is they still showed them!

Some of the forms do have applications that go beyond what is visually presented (little grabs, pulls, etc.), though you don't see much in the way of that until around sajang, and even then, it is minimal. Taegeuk chil jang has applications that aren't hidden but which make more sense if practiced with a partner.

In designing the teaching methodology, I don't think that it is a question of not knowing the applications, but I do think that a conscious choice was made to teach applications separately from the forms.

And this is one of my 'other' points about using realistic applications - students spend an inordanate amount of time practicing forms - so at the very least, learning a few beneficial applications to what they are practicing over and over, makes that practice much more benifical in the overall grand scheme of things - just an extra benefit IMO.

I agree with that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

When I ask the question "Why do you need the forms?" I'm referring only to the segment of instructors who say they teach only for self defense. I teach poomse for many reasons, as well,including the ones you mentioned. I think forms are useful also to get the student moving their various body parts in concert with one another. Learning to move the ams, legs, shoulders, and hips together in poomse makes doing similar things in kicking techniques easier, in my opinion. For example, counter rotation of the shoulders and arms with the hips and pivot foot when doing a round kick.

So I'm not arguing that forms have no purpose,

I knew you weren't. Sorry if it seemed that I was implying that, as that wasn't my intent.

just that I don't see why they are a big benefit for teaching self defense.

They aren't. Bunkai from kata is a teaching methodology that some people like very much. I don't see anything wrong with using it as a means of teaching self defense. Not having any rank of consequence in karate, I have no comment or perspective as to the real world effectiveness of that kind of training, and I suspect that it has more to do with who is instructing than with the specific teaching method.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I just want to make clear that I'm not arguing against forms. I practice and teach poomse, too. I think there are many justifiable reasons to practice poomse in a typical taekwondo program. I'm only talking about the use of forms in schools where people say that the primary or only purpose for training is self defense.

Speaking only for myself, looking at the forms from the point of view of in-depth applications really opened up a whole new world. Now it's no secret I'm a SD guy. But when I started looking at these applications I found a whole new treasure-trove of SD applications. Some I already knew without the benefit of forms, and some I learned as a result of the forms. I've always been of the opinion that if you go to a seminar, as an example, and learn only one new thing, or one way of doing something you already do better then it was well spent time and worth the effort. Plus, I love history and things associate with it. To me, it is like looking into the thought processes of these people in a by-gone era. I really think that kind of stuff is cool as well as practical.

 

[Gnarlie]

I just want to make clear that I'm not arguing against forms. I practice and teach poomse, too. I think there are many justifiable reasons to practice poomse in a typical taekwondo program. I'm only talking about the use of forms in schools where people say that the primary or only purpose for training is self defense.[/QUOTE]

In schools where the focus is self defence, the practice of patterns brings all the same benefits as it does anywhere else, balance, co-ordination, the opportunity to develop feeling for the movement without a resistant opponent etc. Most importantly they serve as a lovely mnemonic for remembering techniques and principles, which can then be practiced as isolated drills or applied live.

But the school I train at isn't like that. I practice patterns for many reasons apart from SD too. I really do believe they hold SD teaching value though. I've certainly learned a lot from conversations like this, which wouldn't happen if patterns weren't so ambiguous and enigmatic.

One of the most important skills that the application approach to patterns teaches IMO is analytical free thought. The ability to improvise and develop ideas based on the principles and techniques demonstrated in patterns makes for some pretty solid martial foundations, and encourages less focus on technique in favour of principle.

I like to approach patterns from every angle available to me. The only thing I rule out is ruling things out.

Gnarlie

 

[miguksaram]

What about every KKW book ever released? The 2000 year old history thing!

Stuart

While this is correct in many of the formal released books on TKD, I believe Daniel was stating that there has not been any deniability of the connection here on MT.

 

[dancingalone]

I
I never said they dont have bunkai (boon Hae).. they do.. they show the same applications as the karate applications do ie. block a punch etc. Which was part of my point and pasrt of what you have just said above!

That's not what I said you said either. OK, let me reword. As I understand it, there's really not an official KKW position on bunkai or the existence of them one way or another within the poomsae. We do have second hand testimony that one of the chief architects of the Taegeuk forms believes other things should be practiced first, before one starts looking for alternative applications in them. Also, I have what was directly related to me by my current TKD teacher. Coming from a karate background, I'm very much interested in alternative form applications, but I have been told that as he understands it, there is no bunkai in the poomsae. None that were taught to him, a 6th dan. None really either if you peruse any of the KKW learning materials such as their books and DVDs.

I
I didnt (and neither did any one else I think) say its a 'basic' component. My posts were simply on the subject of those that say.. they wernt there at the beginning, when created so they cannot be there at all! Plus the KKW taekwondo poomsae have not connection to karate kata!

If you are stating that the poomsae have no connection to karate kata, that would be refreshing. Most believe there's some linkage though there is debate over how much meaning that has when speaking about studying and practicing poomsae.

Though by reading the rest of your post, I think you actually mean to say there is a link there.

I
I dont have to.. I posted that to show the Karate connection that some seem to deny exsists!

No one here has denied a connection that I can see. It would be rather foolish to do so given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. But a nuanced perspective wouldn't be that TKD = karate either (not saying you are arguing that, Stuart). Rather I think it reasonable to say that TKD is an evolving martial art with ties to karate, and the way in which it is trained can be similar or different depending on the aspect of TKD we are referring to.

I
Actually, seeking out 'realsitic applications' isnt really a Karate persepctive, as for nearly 100 years they did exactly the same and never looked into more than the P/K/B applications

Yeah, we've argued this one too here. Not all karate is the same. Not all karate is Shotokan. There are surely people from a variety of styles who learned and trained 'bunkai' overseas, whether it was called bunkai then or not, and brought them to the west. I assert not all form applications are reverse engineered nor are created in the last 20 years as a result of the recent interest in bunkai.

I never said you couldnt call it a 'fun game'... I simply said for those that study this side, its not a game... it can be fun though

Actually you said "Sure.. but its also not a 'fun game' - this kind of research is based on sound historical reasoning and sure, if you don't like it, thats fine.. but it cannot be dismissed with just a "GM So & So said no" type of mentality."

I did take a little umbrage at that remark, considering my training background in a martial art that honestly is far more steeped in kata applications than TKD. So when I call it a game, certainly my perspective about the Taegeuk lacking bunkai is formed from a lot more than hearing that some GM said something.

By the way, about the usage of the word 'boonhae'. Where did this term come from? Is it simply a translation of 'bunkai' to Korean or has this word even been used before by people involved in the development of taekwondo?

Where have I told anyone that the way they do things are wrong? I simply express my opinion on the connection and building blocks of all forms, which include the KKW poomsae. And nor is it about trying to force people to 'translate their methods'.. its simply information and evidence that points in the direction that they (the poomsae) hold more than is/was known... its not telling anyone they HAVE to go this route... simply saying that you can't deny it exsists is all!

We're talking across each other to an extent. If you read my clarification above, it's clear why I say there's no bunkai in KKW forms. You're sticking to your perspective about karate/gong fu, which is fair enough and really leaves us with no disagreement. Yeah, you could look at the poomsae in that way.

As it is in ITF too.. and even with decent Boon Hae it can be as well.. but that doesnt change any of the facts. Perhaps if better hosinsul techniques were found in the patterns earlier on, hosinsul would of used them!

Well, I just take that as further evidence that taking TKD forms and using them to study SD would be a recent movement. Which is fine and all.

Again... this is because, when created they wernt really capable of that IMO... if they knew then what we know now, it may have been a whole different ball game. But that can change IF people want it to.. again thats up to them, as the poomsae certainly contain all the right tools from what Ive seen! What are the poomsae meant to teach then btw?

As I understand it, basics and movement, both solo and in combination. There's a certain philosophical level of meaning too.

Not even sure what you mean by this!

I think it was clear enough. I'll quote myself "The poomsae are not meant to teach SD within KKW TKD. Your mileage may vary when talking about other forms of TKD or other arts altogether."

Umm, so that means the forms in KKW TKD are not meant to teach self-defense. But this could be different if you are talking about other types of TKD or other martial arts.

See, we do agree on something - I feel the same about Gen Choi's books etc. And your right, why should we expect to see more realistic examples - we wont on a bigger level, cos those up top dont wat to do or acknowledge this stuff - but it still doent make it NOT there! Like I said, research shows that this area is there and exsists for those that want it!

As far a patterns/poomsae go - it wasnt there sure.. because you cannot add soemthing or not add something that you don't know about! As i have said already!

Then you're really arguing about nothing (with me anyway). I don't have a problem with any of that, other than the semantic that KKW poomsae do not contain bunkai which does not clash at all with that idea that you can't add something that you don't practice (or as you word it, don't know about).

Yes it does, because its more than a few spots and its intrinsic to the way the patterns and poomsae were built!

Not at all. If you don't practice the forms with an intent to break it up and development actually fighting skills using discrete parts of the form, you're simply not practicing bunkai at all. It doesn't matter how similar your form is to Itosu's. If you use forms primarily for aerobics or for 'art', you're doing something else entirely.

Stuart, you personally might be able to link your hyung practice to good fighting sequences. Not all do. And for those people, it's silly to say the brutal ideas from Okinawan kata are present in their forms.

On your first part - yes, of course, it does take someone to bring them out, as the P/K/B method is too ingrained and now we have new knowledge, but again, it wasnt knowledge that was there when the creators created them!

Yeah, again I didn't say the highlighted part either. Who are you arguing with?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If you are stating that the poomsae have no connection to karate kata, that would be refreshing. Most believe there's some linkage though there is debate over how much meaning that has when speaking about studying and practicing poomsae.

I think that there is linkage in the sense that the pumsae creators were versed in karate, and certainly the rank structure, use of belts, and the idea of having multiple kata (as opposed to a single long form or just teaching techniques with no forms at all) was all influenced by karate.

On the other hand, I do not think that the pumsae are "reworked" or whatever other term one wishes to use karate kata, though I do think that there is a good deal of shared technical content.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think that there is linkage in the sense that the pumsae creators were versed in karate, and certainly the rank structure, use of belts, and the idea of having multiple kata (as opposed to a single long form or just teaching techniques with no forms at all) was all influenced by karate.

On the other hand, I do not think that the pumsae are "reworked" or whatever other term one wishes to use karate kata, though I do think that there is a good deal of shared technical content.

I think there is a certain amount of contention/tension over the term 'reworked'. I've used that term and perhaps I could/should have come up with a better term to illustrate my point(s). So allow me to back that term down, instead, I like your phrase 'shared technical content'. It is appropriate and covers what I mean better. Kata and pumsae share much as far as actual movement sequences are concerned.

 

[dancingalone]

On the other hand, I do not think that the pumsae are "reworked" or whatever other term one wishes to use karate kata, though I do think that there is a good deal of shared technical content.

I think the point about them being reworked or not is too single-minded. People try to connect TKD forms with karate kata in that way because they see it as evidence that the Korean forms should follow a certain model or be used in a specific fashion. I've been guilty of this in the past. But it is a false syllogism.

People can take the same form and use it for tournaments, for exercise, for 'art', for bunkai training, for whatever really. Or they could have a number of goals, some at cross purposes with each other! Really, if we accept that taekwondo-in are diverse and that they train for a multitude of reasons, the idea that TKD forms MUST retain some link back to one of its roots is easily seen as nonsensical.

I could tell a student at a competing dojang that this movement in Taegeuk 1 is similar to this movement in Pinan Nidan. So what? It means nothing to him if he doesn't have the contextual training for the idea to make a difference.