Korean forms and applications

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

Wow. We agree 100%. That hasn't happened in over a year. Today is a good day.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Wow. We agree 100%. That hasn't happened in over a year. Today is a good day.

:cheers:

 

[StuartA]

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

Sure, I hear ya and its good that people think that way. I think it was more in response to such things from some posters such as:

"We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here."

"That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms. Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective is the principle which runs through both taekwondo and hapkido, which is, we do with our feet what others do with their hands."

- trying to imply that the Karate roots have/had no effect on Poomsae, when clearly they do/did!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

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.

maybe.. but my reference to that was into response to whoever said "Poomsae are designed that way, with applications in mind" - so if thats the case.. why are there "some" at all!

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.

Yes, you are right - it has a lot to do with teaching methodolgy - those that don't know or never learned them, tend to stick with the P/K/B 'standard apps' (if any) taught - those with more open minds change their methodology. Don't get me wrong, I was brought up exactly the same - this block is for this etc. etc. so I can see exactly where some folks are coming from, even if I disagree with their stance nowadays!

I agree with that.

Its a pertinant point right?

Stuart

 

[Earl Weiss]

but if all you're interested in is self defense, then again, why do you need the forms in the first place?

...

You don't need to learn forms for self defese, nor do you need to learn a "Martial Art" (notice the quotation marks) for self defense.

 

[StuartA]

That's not what I said you said either.

Sorry :-(

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.

That doesnt mean a thing sorry. My instructors a 7th degree.. he wasnt taught them either - does it mean they CANNOT be there - nope! Gen Choi's books do not have the same applications I teach.. does it mean they CANNOT be there - nope! So if your instructors a 6th degree, mines a 7th degree, the creators of both the Ch'ang hon forms and the KKW poomsae NEVER taught such 'alternative' applications.. how can they not be correct? Are they wrong? Well.. no, they are not wrong and they are not correct either - because, when they learnt forms they wernt privvy to such info.. and when they formulated new ones, they based them on what they knew, not what they didnt know. Why is that? Because 'realistic' Bunkai wasnt transferd from okinawa to Japan.. the Shotokan in japan was the 'dumbed down' school system and all that follwed used that as a template!

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.

No.. the exact opposite. They arev very much linked IMO!

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.

Well.. when someone states "These are poomsae... they are Kata and the rules don't apply" - its a sort of denial of the source IMO. Sure... TKD the art is different in many aspects, but the Tuls, Poomsae etc still were built on the same premise of the kata! thats all im saying!

Yeah, we've argued this one too here. Not all karate is the same. Not all karate is Shotokan.

Sure.. except what we now know as TKD, in the main followed on from Shotokan AFAIA.

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.

Not many TBH, as the 'main' styles were many offshoots of Shotokan. I know there are soem styles that kept bunkai, but they are not related to TKD AFAIA.

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.

Apologies for that.. i didnt mean to be rude.. I was simply saying that for some of us, we invest alot of time and effort into this research, so its not a 'fun game' for us, but of some importance. I dont know you background and history, but I do find a lot of TKD'er dismiss things "Just because it wasnt there to begin with" without looking further into the facts of it all and why people feel this way now!

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?

Yes and no. Its the korean term for Bunkai, but in korean means less: it means something simple like to 'take apart and dismantle' or similar and doesnt exactly edify what 'Bunkai' means to japanase. I use the term 'hae Sul' for research, which means 'Indepth analysis' - but when teaching applications, no matter which type, once known, the term is 'boon hae'.

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.

Okay.. thats cool. Yes you could... its simply those that say you shouldnt I disagree with!

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.

Yes it is.. as disgussed already. As it in in Shotokan as well etc.

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

What "philosophical level"! Please explain it to me? That said, I will say its funny how similar they are built in relation to kata no?!

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.

It was the 'milage' bit i didnt get. Yes ACCORDING to the founders, you are correct... because they knew no different.. again, its besides the point IMO.. they inadvertantly included the fact 'they could be used' even if they didnt know it at the time! Just how it is!

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).

Well yes/no. You POV is that they don't contain apps, but you can find them if you want. My POV is that the very way they were constructed means they do contain this info and just cos the KKW says they don't, doesnt make that fact any different! If my mum tells me not to drive the car on the driveway, its still a car!!

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.

Sure... people see forms that way these days.. again, it doesnt change the facts. denying the exsistance of the facts, doesnt change it either. Just cos someone says NO.. again, it doesnt change the facts! Though I agree, people can practice Poomsae for whatever they want nowadays, but again, it doesnt change the fact of their evolution into Poomsae's!

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.

No, its not silly.. because its true IMO - real facts support it. People just need to learn this side is all. problem is, most clubs won't/don't teach it!

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

I didnt say you did.. i was just making a point (again)!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

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.

I agree, mostly, with this.. forms/patterns/poomsae can be , in this day and age, a tool for whatever purpose you want them to be. My only point is that to deny their 'linkage' or that they can have a better use (SD wise) than was originally knew/understood.. is to do them, and training them a disservice!

Stuart

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You don't need to learn forms for self defese, nor do you need to learn a "Martial Art" (notice the quotation marks) for self defense.

Very true. All one would really need is something like Fairbairn/Applegat/Sykes/O'Neill WWII combatives. Simple, brutal and effective.

 

[Gnarlie]

Right, just need to break up the flow for a moment, sorry. For those of you that have the time and the inclination, here are a collection of Youtube vids that show applications that fit both Shotokan and KKW TKD Poomsae. I've collected these over a number of months investigating the relationship between the 2 arts. Enjoy. If anything's not clear, let me know.

Those of you familiar with the Taegeuk Poomsae and the KKW Yudanja Poomsae will recognise applications for Jebipoom Mokchigi from Taegeuk Sa Jang, The final backfist and return to Joonbi from Taegeuk O Jang, Keumgang Makki, Uppercut, Side Punch from Taebaek, and Low Block Punch from Taegeuk Il Jang in this Shorin-Ryu bunkai collection:

Some further thoughts on Keumgang Makki from Taebaek can be seen in the following bunkai collection from Shotokan, Heian Nidan. Also in this clip is an application for the side kick / side fist from Taegeuk O Jang. If the height of the side kick is dropped to attack the rear leg kneecap or modified as a snap kick to the groin, the side fist distance is right for the head. Also in the clip are the opening moves of Sa Jang, twin knife hand block, covered spear hand thrust, as a twin wrist grab release:

Here at 1:40 is an interesting application for double scissor block from Taegeuk Chil Jang, which also appears in the Shotokan Kata, Jion. With this technique, a lot of how you can apply it depends on the angle you take to the attack. I’ve also seen this convert to a chicken wing lock on the second scissor (I think from Stuart who’s posting here!), a technique which requires less deviation from the Poomsae:

In Shotokan’s Heian Godan at 4:50 in this video, you’ll recognise the side backfist/target crescent kick/target elbow strike combination. I favour the crescent kick replaced with a leg sweep, which brings the back of the opponents head down perfectly to the height of the target elbow. Nobody says we have to kick high for SD. A target elbow to the back of the head also lends itself joyously easily to replacing with or following up with a rear naked choke:

1:25 this time for Shotokan’s Heian Yodan illustrating an application that’s fairly easily adapted to Taegeuk Chil Jang’s wedging block / knee strike / twin upset combination:

Although my favourite application for that sequence is using the wedging block between the punch and the neck, knee risking to solar plexus, which causes the opponent to bend forward. Then using the twin upset and low X block as a collar grab (the forward motion of the upset representing the reach under the opponent’s chest) and sliding lapel strangle (bringing the hands holding the dobok collar up to the back of the prone opponent’s neck and pressing down to cut of the blood supply). Works well, and I’ve never liked X blocks as blocks . Here’s the Gi Choke I’m referring to:

Vince Morris covers the cat stance twin knife hand from Pal Jang:

Shotokan’s Kanku Dai, illustrating a possible application for the turn / High Middle Block / Punch combination from Taegeuk Yuk Jang. See 5:04:

Recurring ‘side kick with side hammer blow’ followed by target elbow strike from O Jang, Tae Baek, Pyong Won. Side hammer blow possibly = held wrist of opponent, meaning that the target elbow strike could be to the elbow of the opponent as a joint break or elbow control to ground. The target hand never opens, as it is holding the grab, but the grip of this hand changes in a similar way. See Heian Yodan, 1:00 for a demonstration:

This side hammer blow can also be interpreted as a blocking action to the opponent’s punch, simultaneous with a side kick to the ribs, followed by a scoot in, target elbow to the same area. See Shotokan’s Kanku-dai 3:12, where this motion is used twice in succession quite effectively, once inside the arm and once outside, with a low side kick and target elbow to the back of the head. Vicious:

At 2:30 in the same video, we can see a possible application for Koryo’s Spear hand groin strike followed by pulling back to short stance low block. Groin strike, chamber hand is blocking to the outside of the attacker’s punch. After the strike, the striking hand is moved to the outside of the attacker’s lead leg for a throw, lifting the leg whilst the other arm performs the low block action across the opponent’s neck.
Keum Gang’s back spinning Large Hinges. A method to practice the stepping and wrist turning actions required for a gooseneck wristlock (for example from a collar grab) with an elbow control to ground. This would be based around a wrist grab. See Heian Godan, 1:00

By the way, I'm not saying these ARE the applications, I'm saying they COULD BE. Even when you want them to be, it takes a lot of work to make some of them viable as SD.

 

[Earl Weiss]

So perhaps it is a question of "Degree' how "big" is "big".

Is speedbag work a "Big" benefit for boxers? How about jump rope? Shadowboxing? Running?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Analogy time.

Person abandoned as an 3 year old who can talk but has not yet learned the alphabet on an island as the sole human . (Survived a plane crash parents died in and raised by apes. )

When he is 10 a box washes ashore. Inside is a box of alphabet cereal and a magazine. He finds the arrangement of letters in the magazine interesting and he arranges letters from the box of cereal to match.

When he's rescued the rescuers find the cereal arrangements and are amazed that the prson taught himslef to spell words.
The person says "Those are not words because that was not what I intended". This makes sense because?

 

[andyjeffries]

Analogy time.

Person abandoned as an 3 year old who can talk but has not yet learned the alphabet on an island as the sole human . (Survived a plane crash parents died in and raised by apes. )

When he is 10 a box washes ashore. Inside is a box of alphabet cereal and a magazine. He finds the arrangement of letters in the magazine interesting and he arranges letters from the box of cereal to match.

When he's rescued the rescuers find the cereal arrangements and are amazed that the prson taught himslef to spell words.
The person says "Those are not words because that was not what I intended". This makes sense because?

A slightly better analogy would be a book rather than a magazine, magazines are more visual and would give more clues to the original intended meaning.

If you replace magazine with a book in your analogy it fits the debate from a Kukki-Taekwondoin point of view.

That way, the arrangement of letters may mean something else to him as he just saw an arrangement of letters copied it and gave it a meaning that he liked; so "drive" to us means a verb to move a mechanical object, to him it may mean a fish. Same arrangement of letters, his choice of meaning with no hidden meaning (in his language) to the other meaning.

We have sets of movements, they may have other meanings in other languages (arts) but in Kukkiwon Taekwondo they are our choice of meaning

I'm interested in applications for other arts and their forms in the same was as I'm interested in the etymology of words in other languages (Looking for a Mr Kim in Seoul is a very good book about Korean expressions and meanings). I just don't want to infer that the same meanings apply in Kukki-Taekwondo just because the same arrangement of letters exists in other languages.

 

[Gnarlie]

The word 'Gift' in German means 'poison' in English. I am able to understand, appreciate the meaning of, and gain benefit from using the word 'gift' in both languages. Knowing that one word serves me equally well in both. It's still the same word, it just carries 2 meanings for me.

And I've even managed to avoid accidentally poisoning the mother in law when trying to give her a present. Or vice versa.

Gnarlie

 

[dancingalone]

A
When he's rescued the rescuers find the cereal arrangements and are amazed that the prson taught himslef to spell words.
The person says "Those are not words because that was not what I intended". This makes sense because?

Because different systems and organizations get to choose what they prefer to practice or emphasize. It doesn't have to get any more complex than that.

I mean we could make all sorts of criticisms about why each style does or doesn't do something: like what is up with those useless deep stances in Shotokan or why does ITF has that ugly sinewave or why does Goju have the crazy breathing, etc.

To people from the outside with different perspectives none of those things make sense. From the inside, maybe it does. Food for thought?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Sure, I hear ya and its good that people think that way. I think it was more in response to such things from some posters such as:

"We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here."

"That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms. Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective is the principle which runs through both taekwondo and hapkido, which is, we do with our feet what others do with their hands."

- trying to imply that the Karate roots have/had no effect on Poomsae, when clearly they do/did!

Stuart

That actually isn't what he was implying, and since the thread is titled "Korean forms," it is not limited to pumsae. What he was implying was that pumsae are not karate kata and are not designed with hidden or layered applications in mind the way that karate kata are. There was also questioning the OP's experience with Korean forms from the same poster, but I'm not going to get into that either.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

maybe.. but my reference to that was into response to whoever said "Poomsae are designed that way, with applications in mind" - so if thats the case.. why are there "some" at all!

I think you meant to say "pumsae are not designed that way"

And this:

Yes, you are right - it has a lot to do with teaching methodolgy -

Does not correlate to this:

those that don't know or never learned them, tend to stick with the P/K/B 'standard apps' (if any) taught - those with more open minds change their methodology. Don't get me wrong, I was brought up exactly the same - this block is for this etc. etc. so I can see exactly where some folks are coming from, even if I disagree with their stance nowadays!

Not teaching applications as part of the forms does not imply a lack of knowledge of applications. Could be that they liked how it was done in hapkido, aikido, and judo better; applications taught as applications rather than as part of a form.

 

[dancingalone]

Well.. when someone states "These are poomsae... they are Kata and the rules don't apply" - its a sort of denial of the source IMO. Sure... TKD the art is different in many aspects, but the Tuls, Poomsae etc still were built on the same premise of the kata! thats all im saying!

Puunui has talked many times about the relationship between karate and TKD. I wouldn't say that he denies karate as one of the sources of KKW TKD, rather he speaks a lot about the 'pioneers' and how they set up to create something different over time that was intended to represent Korean ethos and culture.

Sure.. except what we now know as TKD, in the main followed on from Shotokan AFAIA.

Not many TBH, as the 'main' styles were many offshoots of Shotokan. I know there are soem styles that kept bunkai, but they are not related to TKD AFAIA.

Actually when I made the initial reference here that you responded to, I was referring to karate styles not TKD styles. I would argue that bunkai has never been a meaningful part of ANY TKD system, thought obviously that is changing. TKD bunkai is new, arguably reverse engineered for the most part. That differs in some respects from certain karate styles which is the point I was making above.

Apologies for that.. i didnt mean to be rude.. I was simply saying that for some of us, we invest alot of time and effort into this research, so its not a 'fun game' for us, but of some importance. I dont know you background and history, but I do find a lot of TKD'er dismiss things "Just because it wasnt there to begin with" without looking further into the facts of it all and why people feel this way now!

We're cool. I was being a little sensitive myself.

Yes and no. Its the korean term for Bunkai, but in korean means less: it means something simple like to 'take apart and dismantle' or similar and doesnt exactly edify what 'Bunkai' means to japanase. I use the term 'hae Sul' for research, which means 'Indepth analysis' - but when teaching applications, no matter which type, once known, the term is 'boon hae'.

To your knowledge does anyone at the KKW or in any of the other larger organizations use this term? I ask because if they do, it can be a sign that bunkai or 'boon hae' may actually become part of the official book, so to speak.

What "philosophical level"! Please explain it to me? That said, I will say its funny how similar they are built in relation to kata no?!

Just because two things are similar or that they come from similar roots does not mean they must evolve along the same paths. If I have a brother and our parents are teachers, does my brother must become a teacher if I choose to follow our parents' path? Of course not. It's like that with kata and poomsae.

As for the philosophy behind the KKW poomsae, I'm not really the one to ask about such things. This thread is a decent starting place http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/29244-So-what-exactly-IS-a-Taeguek-anyway, and there is quite a bit of writing about it on MT from people much more knowledgeable about it if you are curious enough to search for it.

Yes ACCORDING to the founders, you are correct... because they knew no different.. again, its besides the point IMO.. they inadvertantly included the fact 'they could be used' even if they didnt know it at the time! Just how it is!

Well yes/no. You POV is that they don't contain apps, but you can find them if you want. My POV is that the very way they were constructed means they do contain this info and just cos the KKW says they don't, doesnt make that fact any different! If my mum tells me not to drive the car on the driveway, its still a car!!

Sure... people see forms that way these days.. again, it doesnt change the facts. denying the exsistance of the facts, doesnt change it either. Just cos someone says NO.. again, it doesnt change the facts! Though I agree, people can practice Poomsae for whatever they want nowadays, but again, it doesnt change the fact of their evolution into Poomsae's!

No, its not silly.. because its true IMO - real facts support it. People just need to learn this side is all. problem is, most clubs won't/don't teach it!

I have nothing more to say on this particular line that I haven't already.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Just because two things are similar or that they come from similar roots does not mean they must evolve along the same paths. If I have a brother and our parents are teachers, does my brother must become a teacher if I choose to follow our parents' path? Of course not. It's like that with kata and poomsae.

I'd say that this pretty much hits the heart of the matter.

 

[StuartA]

That actually isn't what he was implying, and since the thread is titled "Korean forms," it is not limited to pumsae. What he was implying was that pumsae are not karate kata and are not designed with hidden or layered applications in mind the way that karate kata are. There was also questioning the OP's experience with Korean forms from the same poster, but I'm not going to get into that either.

1. Thats how it comes across to me - hey, I just read what was written after all!
2. We have already discussed that they 'wernt designed' with that in mind - as they couldn't of been due to the circumstances at the time. But again, that doesnt change the facts.
3. I feel that questioning the OP experience of Korean forms is simply a way to say "hay, you don't know diddly" - and is actually kind of poor IMO. I have nearly 25 years experince of Korean forms and have researched them most in-depth - yet people still disagree with me (which is fine, as it creates discussion) - IMO.. one doesnt even need an inate knowledge of the forms to make the opinion that they contain more - they just have to read and open thier ears and mind to whats offered!

Stuart

 

[StuartA]

I think you meant to say "pumsae are not designed that way"

yes... typo.. sorry.

And this:


Does not correlate to this:

Not teaching applications as part of the forms does not imply a lack of knowledge of applications. Could be that they liked how it was done in hapkido, aikido, and judo better; applications taught as applications rather than as part of a form.

Actually I think it does, and one cannot teach something a) they did niot know about to begin with or b) Now know about, but refuse to acknowledge because it may make them look bad! I guess your quote could be c).. but i doubt it! JMHO.

Stuart